4 ms·

NN is about preventing one competitor from getting an unfair advantage. So unless you view Wikimedia as having a competitor, or some future potential competitor

NN is about preventing one competitor from getting an unfair advantage. So unless you view Wikimedia as having a competitor, or some future potential competitor, this doesn't really violate any NN principles. In essence, if we're all OK with Wikimedia having a monopoly on what it is that Wikimedia does then there is no problem. Going back to the roots of the ICC(predecessor to the FCC) trains could carry USPS mail at different rates than other cargo. The USPS had a government sponsored monopoly on mail delivery. However, rate discrimination between similar cargo from different parties was prohibited. This is the basis for our concept of common carriers and NN.

woah 10y ago
NN is a pretty loosey-goosey principle that mostly just means "I don't like Comcast". There's also some partisan political football mixed in, and in the EFF's case, sizable donations from content providers like Google who want to preserve a strong bargaining position when buying bandwidth.
- popey456963 10y ago
  You realise there are other countries other than the US in the world, right? I know that the above comment gives an example in the US, but: > mostly just means "I don't like Comcast" Is totally _not_ the meaning of net neutrality.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Not merely "I don't like Comcast", though I (and a huge portion of their customers) really don't like Comcast. It is the very high potential, one might even say certainty, that if given the opportunity to hobble their competitors in the entertainment space and to give themselves a massive advantage, they will do so. The telcos and cable operators in the US have never been anything but monopoly or duopoly players. They don't know how to compete on any other field. If they are given the gun with which to shoot Netflix (for example) in the head (or demand ransoms that only major players can pay), they will likely pull the trigger the same day. So, no. It's not about disliking Comcast, it is about knowing with confidence that the internet will be harmed, maybe drastically, by giving Comcast (and a few others who play according the same rules) the ability to do so.
djrogers 10y ago
So your take is that NN regulation should include a test for existing competitors, potential future competitors, and the general agreeability for an entity to become a monopoly? Yeah, no way that could go wrong...

woah 10y ago

NN is a pretty loosey-goosey principle that mostly just means "I don't like Comcast". There's also some partisan political football mixed in, and in the EFF's case, sizable donations from content providers like Google who want to preserve a strong bargaining position when buying bandwidth.

popey456963 10y ago
You realise there are other countries other than the US in the world, right? I know that the above comment gives an example in the US, but: > mostly just means "I don't like Comcast" Is totally _not_ the meaning of net neutrality.
SwellJoe 10y ago
Not merely "I don't like Comcast", though I (and a huge portion of their customers) really don't like Comcast. It is the very high potential, one might even say certainty, that if given the opportunity to hobble their competitors in the entertainment space and to give themselves a massive advantage, they will do so. The telcos and cable operators in the US have never been anything but monopoly or duopoly players. They don't know how to compete on any other field. If they are given the gun with which to shoot Netflix (for example) in the head (or demand ransoms that only major players can pay), they will likely pull the trigger the same day. So, no. It's not about disliking Comcast, it is about knowing with confidence that the internet will be harmed, maybe drastically, by giving Comcast (and a few others who play according the same rules) the ability to do so.

djrogers 10y ago

So your take is that NN regulation should include a test for existing competitors, potential future competitors, and the general agreeability for an entity to become a monopoly? Yeah, no way that could go wrong...