4 ms·
Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access" because at that point you're providing access to your public network,
by JediWing 10y ago
Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access" because at that point you're providing access to your public network, not access to the Internet as a whole.
The issue is ISPs, who by definition are supposed to provide Internet access. Throttling and filtering for profit are not compatible with the Internet as we know it.
- rsync 10y ago"Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access"" No, I should have been more clear - I mean an Internet connected network that is open to the (paying, presumably) public. Again, we know lots of ways you can't do that because of common carrier laws and public rights of way ... and even human decency ... but if I conjure the thing up out of thin air and there's nobody twisting your arm, I should be able to run that thing. And then throttle your speeds to xyz.com in favor of abc.com. Or whatever.
- cyphar 10y ago> "Sure, "some kind of public network", but then it can't be advertised as "Internet access"" > No, I should have been more clear - I mean an Internet connected network that is open to the (paying, presumably) public. Again, you couldn't advertise it as "internet access" because you're not giving people equal access to the internet. > but if I conjure the thing up out of thin air and there's nobody twisting your arm, I should be able to run that thing. The problem is if you're the only carrier in an area, or if the majority of carriers make this sort of decision. "You can just pick someone else" doesn't work if someone doesn't have another option.
- woah 10y agoDo the net neutrality laws say anything about "Internet access"?