But why don’t they want it?
How many of them have studied the issues, even counted them? And how many simply adopted the position of somebody they “trusted” without even wondering if they should?
I can’t remember how many times I’ve seen you write about the people lost in “Trump Derangement Syndrome” bubbles, kept there by repeated doses of “Deep State”/establishment propaganda. People who trust the “unanimous finding of 17 Intelligence Agencies” as authorities.
Remember that the same massive accumulation of propaganda forces was solid in opposition to Mr. Trump, spewing lies such as his “openly bragging about assaulting women against their will” (based on a private “locker room”-type brag about willing women), or that he “mocked a reporter’s disability” (based on dishonest pictures of justified mockery that had no resemblance to the disability in question and was also applied to many non-disabled targets),
Despite this massive dishonest opposition, he won. We can only guess how much stronger his victory would have been if the entire mainstream media had remained “objective” and most Republicans had supported their party’s candidate, but certainly somewhat.
With that victory, it was President Trump and those he appointed who have the mandate to govern. Given that most (probably) of the “overwhelming majority of Americans” haven’t bothered to look into the issues, and certainly wouldn’t have the technical knowledge to understand them if they did, why should they be consulted rather than the experts appointed by those they elected? Especially since, as noted above, corporate supporters of both sides have been spewing propaganda to distract from the actual issues?
Personally, having studied the issues and understanding the logical infrastructure of the Internet (e.g. TCP/IP), I think “last mile” consumer internet access should ideally be completely transparent to content and source.
But I completely share the Republican skepticism in the ability of government regulation to achieve this, especially regulations imposed under Obama/Democrat control. Given that Mr. Trump campaigned with the commitment to reduce bureaucratic and regulatory interference with business activity and competition, this is a logical outcome of the decision by voters to vote for him, or stay home out of disgust rather than vote for Horrible Hillary.
Until Obama and his (pseudo-)socialist goons interfered, the FCC was probably one of the best, or anyway least bad, of regulatory bureaucracies. They have (for at least a few decades) taken seriously their mandate to foster competition, and use regulations primarily to create a common infrastructure for that competition.
Given our general ignorance of the detailed outcomes of either option, it is quite plausible that competition in “last mile” internet provision, with the traditional “light touch” FCC regulation, will do a better job of fostering good internet access for everybody.
See, for instance, the discussion by Scott Adams starting at about 13:36 right below. (Scott certainly isn’t technical, but he studied economics so has some familiarity with the role of competition.)
Elections have outcomes, and this is one of them.