4 ms·

Throttling and peering (or not peering) are not the same thing. You said they were. You were/are wrong. This ruling upholds the FCC's prohibition on throttling

by dimino 10y ago

Throttling and peering (or not peering) are not the same thing. You said they were. You were/are wrong. This ruling upholds the FCC's prohibition on throttling content. If throttling and (not) peering are the same thing, then Comcast would be forced to peer with Netflix for free. They couldn't not do it. Therefore, you are arguing that Netflix will be able to peer with Comcast for free, even if you aren't actually saying those words. This is untrue. Netflix is not going to be able to peer with Comcast for free. You were and are wrong. No strawman, just you trying very hard not to be wrong.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago
Deja vu all over again.
- dimino 10y ago
  You ignored it the first time, figured you needed a refresher.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    The thing that amazes me is that the only part you have the potential to be right about is the part you think is the absurdity. I haven't intended to take a position on what the FCC rule actually does because it's 200 pages of legalese, which is enough to make "objectively wrong" an impossibility. There is enough there for some pedantic jackass to argue anything about anything and the only way to sort it out is another court opinion about specifically that thing. What I don't appreciate is you putting words in my mouth. What I've argued is that not peering is throttling, which it is, but not what the legal implications of that would be, which are open to interpretation. However, the argument you've made that if not peering is throttling then Comcast would have to do free peering is not at all ridiculous. It's just not a sure thing. The ISP would be able to argue that they will do peering just not for free, and then it flips into paid prioritization since prioritization is the opposite of throttling. That's more moving parts than I would prefer to see. Too many opportunities for the ISP to try to weasel out of it. It would be a lot simpler if the FCC would just say "last mile ISPs are required to do free peering with anyone" and avoid the whole mess. But it's a fair argument that could succeed, and if it did would fit entirely with the spirit of the rule. Which you seem to think makes that outcome some kind of an impossibility, but with reasoning no more substantial than "you're wrong" over and over again with no coherent justification.

by dimino 10y ago

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

Deja vu all over again.

dimino 10y ago
You ignored it the first time, figured you needed a refresher.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  The thing that amazes me is that the only part you have the potential to be right about is the part you think is the absurdity. I haven't intended to take a position on what the FCC rule actually does because it's 200 pages of legalese, which is enough to make "objectively wrong" an impossibility. There is enough there for some pedantic jackass to argue anything about anything and the only way to sort it out is another court opinion about specifically that thing. What I don't appreciate is you putting words in my mouth. What I've argued is that not peering is throttling, which it is, but not what the legal implications of that would be, which are open to interpretation. However, the argument you've made that if not peering is throttling then Comcast would have to do free peering is not at all ridiculous. It's just not a sure thing. The ISP would be able to argue that they will do peering just not for free, and then it flips into paid prioritization since prioritization is the opposite of throttling. That's more moving parts than I would prefer to see. Too many opportunities for the ISP to try to weasel out of it. It would be a lot simpler if the FCC would just say "last mile ISPs are required to do free peering with anyone" and avoid the whole mess. But it's a fair argument that could succeed, and if it did would fit entirely with the spirit of the rule. Which you seem to think makes that outcome some kind of an impossibility, but with reasoning no more substantial than "you're wrong" over and over again with no coherent justification.