11–20 of 31 posts
If a company needs a lot of bandwidth don't they pay mre for it? Why would you charge me for wanting to use youtube? This is my very simplistic understanding of the current state of things.
Wait, isn't it a bit of a stretch saying that John Perry Barlow is against net neutrality by linking to the declaration of independence of cyberspace? I mean, that seems to advocate against government intervention on the internet, but not specifically net neutrality. Also, I'm pretty sure data caps and stuff like that would be squarely against the principle outlined in the declaration. Am I just being naive?
https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence
You get a Net Neutrality warning leads me to believe that it's a tiny bit off the mark.
EDIT: I re-read it today, and I think it could be mistaken as anti-NN, but is very much for a free and open internet. In the spirit of the document we'd like to believe we don't need meatspace government to define that, but in a practical sense we absolutely do.
I don't entirely understand the issue, but something tells me that it has little to do with having the best possible internet. If a company needs a lot of bandwidth don't they pay mre for it? Why would you charge me for wanting to use youtube? This is my very simplistic understanding of the current state of things.
Why should I have to pay my ISP and theirs for the connection not to suck? They pay transit providers for us, and peer with other networks to facilitate that job. Now they want a bigger slice of the pie.
How is this in any of the above names mentioned' interest? I feel I am missing something.
I mean, net neutrality is just a shitty duct tape solution to a bigger problem. If we treated ISPs as common carriers the way they do in the UK, we wouldn't need net neutrality.
Here are some companies who are "sitting this one out," when they were very actively pro-Net Neutrality 2006-2015. This is quite surprising:
• Google (not too surprising given Eric Schmidt's statement)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/technology/net-neutrality...
(It is noted in that article that Microsoft is pro-Net Neutrality but being fairly quiet about it. At least they have made a statement.)
Was also surprised to see Eric Schmidt on that page, though his argument was you should be able to discriminate voice vs video, but not Hulu vs Netflix, which makes some sense if you want to provide lower voice latency, but I think you don't want ISPs to be able to sell you voice and video separately.