151–160 of 423 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a poll of the general population. It's overwhelming. https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-am...
I don't want the general population making what boils down to technical decisions about how the internet works. The name "net neutrality" is also very leading. If you know nothing about the subject it sounds quite appealing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're a dope if you don't vote. It's impolite to mention this, but it is not a political problem, but a Republican problem. A Democratic administration's FCC enacted Net Neutrality, a Republican one is attempting to dismantle it. Vote for Democrats at every level of government, in every election possible. This will change some day, but today the Republican party has lost its mind and morals. To be clear, I'm not cal…
What a delightfully simplistic view of politics. You know about the Blue Dogs, right?
Sorry I'm not buying into the panic. Between wide scale TLS deployment and larger swaths of bandwidth available, I'd rather see free market solutions so these regulatory powers can't be abused. Net neutrality only matters if your ISP can decrypt your traffic and there is a limited share of bandwidth available.
TLS doesn't hide destination IP addresses
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's clear from how the comment is written. I just realized the presumption embedded in the original question, "Considering both distributional effects and changes in efficiency, it is a good idea to let companies that send video or other content to consumers pay more to Internet service providers for the right to send that traffic using faster or higher quality service." It assumes companies paying I…
It is asking whether paid prioritization should be allowed. Companies usually pay some ISP to send them traffic, maybe not the same ISP as the last mile but "paying more" does seem appropriate wording.
Yes, but they're assuming that some payment is already the norm when it is not. It's like the punchline to the apocryphal story that goes like, "Madam, we've already determined you're a whore, now we're just dickering over the price."
The subject at hand has nothing to do with how much companies pay their own ISPs, of course they pay more for using more. This is about whether those companies should also have to pay my ISP if I want to access their content without that content being treated unequally by my ISP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> China has net neutrality. China most definitely does not. Even if they did, it'd be unenforced. State-run tech services would get preferential treatment. Actually, that's how it works now. > I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers. The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to conte…
> The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to content they don't own. ISPs are communications services and rightly monitored by the Federal Communications Commission. ISPs are communications services just like trucks are communications services because they carry mail and shipments. No. The internet is far more complicated than postage, and the FCC is not equipped to handle it. > China most definitely does not. Ev…
Believe it or not, that's exactly its congressional mandate!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tl;dr we didn’t have NN but we didn’t need it and now we do because. The FTC and FCC can still enforce anticompetitive regulations. This is so much FUD.
I don't understand how you read my comment, and came to the exact opposite conclusion to what I was saying. What I literally just said was that we have had NN for the last 20 years. The exact legal definition for how the FCC enforces NN changed 2 years ago, but the fact that they continued enforcing NN did not. If Ajit Pai gets his way with this vote, the FCC will no longer be allowed to enforce NN. This would be the…
Nationalize the internet. I'm not kidding. We paid for it in the first place, and if it's such a critical piece of economic infrastructure that market intervention needs to be mitigated, the solution is to nationalize it. How? Take the municipal broadband idea, and scale it up. It's not really hard. Net neutrality only privileges one set of multi-billion-dollar corporations over another set of multi-billion-dollar co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> China has net neutrality. China most definitely does not. Even if they did, it'd be unenforced. State-run tech services would get preferential treatment. Actually, that's how it works now. > I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers. The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to conte…
> The FTC won't stop ISPs from slowing access to content they don't own. ISPs are communications services and rightly monitored by the Federal Communications Commission. ISPs are communications services just like trucks are communications services because they carry mail and shipments. No. The internet is far more complicated than postage, and the FCC is not equipped to handle it. > China most definitely does not. Ev…
This already happened. Comcast was injecting forged RST packets into BitTorrent connections - and after lying about it for a while they were stopped by the FCC, who cited network neutrality rules in their decision.
This is how China "blocking" web site from most of the world other than China. When many sites are blocked out right, many more are accessible but painfully slow. On the other hand, if you go to any major Chinese site, it would be lightning fast. By doing this, those foreign sites are rendered almost useless.
China has net neutrality. You are quite naive if you think NN is a solution to censorship. Browse eff.org for more than a few minutes to see that NN doesn't even scratch the surface of underlying issues. I don't want NN because then everyone will think the internet is just fine, when NN is a joke of a solution that doesn't even cover anything more than the FTC already covers.
The FTC covers nothing in this domain, and there is recent appellate case law which suggests that they could not act in it without significant change to the statutes governing their authority.