4 ms·

"You have to take the initiative to use what they provide in a way that does what you need." The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others c

"You have to take the initiative to use what they provide in a way that does what you need." The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide to you. That includes the ability to give you what they need you to use instead of what you need. So, you can't just use what they provide for your needs. The main article showed the ISP's and mediums before them repeatedly did this. There's no reason to trust they won't do it again as they're already scheming on us. The Comcast cap was a recent example I personally had to fight where they were faking my data usage counting up bandwidth when the computers weren't on and wifi was unplugged. Nah, open, decentralized, and bazaar is the best model for the Internet because that's what gave us all the great things that the Prodigies, Compuserves, MA Bell's, etc didn't.

austincheney 10y ago
> The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide to you. That is not completely accurate. They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. Some of the major ISPs do own ad networks and so can prioritize advertising distribution in a way that others down stream cannot. They can also irregularly throttle access to content using criteria of their choosing, which isn't completely censorship but is absolutely the slippery slope. Net neutrality is beneficial and important, but the ISPs aren't the ones you should be most fearful of in these regards.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  " They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. " They are if they determine what content you can get. They've already reduced that in the past just to save bandwidth costs. Then there's the content side. So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. A key middleman who might help you out or harm you instead of being impartial.
  - austincheney 10y ago
    > They are if they determine what content you can get. Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality. > So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. No it does not. They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. You don't get to use effect to qualify the causality in your argument. This is a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      > Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality. Blocking -- not throttling or prioritization -- was the issue in the original net neutrality action (the Comcast BitTorrent blocking case) and the threat of ISPs blocking unwelcome content and applications has always been one of the core focuses of FCC net neutrality policy while they were pursuing it.
      - austincheney 10y ago
        I think you are talking about this: https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/ https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/ The word "blocking" is used in the article by the plaintiff, but the actual issue at hand was throttling that the plaintiff perceived as blocked traffic. Even then the lawsuit wasn't about throttling either, but fraudulent advertising.
        dragonwriter 10y ago
        Blocking was an issue in the discussion, and its been an express concern (and directly, and separately from throttling and prioritization, been addressed in regulation) in each iteration of the FCC's Open Internet rules, which have all addressed both blocking of lawful content and blocking of lawful applications. The idea that the ability of the ISPs to censor has not previously been an issue in the neutrality debate is utterly wrong; its been a central concern identified and addressed in each public draft and issued version of the FCC's net neutrality rules.

austincheney 10y ago

> The end of net neutrality means they control what they or others can provide to you. That is not completely accurate. They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. Some of the major ISPs do own ad networks and so can prioritize advertising distribution in a way that others down stream cannot. They can also irregularly throttle access to content using criteria of their choosing, which isn't completely censorship but is absolutely the slippery slope. Net neutrality is beneficial and important, but the ISPs aren't the ones you should be most fearful of in these regards.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
" They are not content provides or censors... at least not directly. " They are if they determine what content you can get. They've already reduced that in the past just to save bandwidth costs. Then there's the content side. So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. A key middleman who might help you out or harm you instead of being impartial.
- austincheney 10y ago
  > They are if they determine what content you can get. Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality. > So, direct or indirect, it's equivalent in the sense that letting them have control over what you can receive makes them the content provider or censor in practice. No it does not. They are still merely the distributor no matter how directly they censor you. You don't get to use effect to qualify the causality in your argument. This is a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Throttling and prioritization aside, this is not an argument I have heard anyone make with regard to net neutrality. Blocking -- not throttling or prioritization -- was the issue in the original net neutrality action (the Comcast BitTorrent blocking case) and the threat of ISPs blocking unwelcome content and applications has always been one of the core focuses of FCC net neutrality policy while they were pursuing it.
    - austincheney 10y ago
      I think you are talking about this: https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/ https://www.wired.com/2007/11/comcast-sued-ov/ The word "blocking" is used in the article by the plaintiff, but the actual issue at hand was throttling that the plaintiff perceived as blocked traffic. Even then the lawsuit wasn't about throttling either, but fraudulent advertising.
      - dragonwriter 10y ago
        Blocking was an issue in the discussion, and its been an express concern (and directly, and separately from throttling and prioritization, been addressed in regulation) in each iteration of the FCC's Open Internet rules, which have all addressed both blocking of lawful content and blocking of lawful applications. The idea that the ability of the ISPs to censor has not previously been an issue in the neutrality debate is utterly wrong; its been a central concern identified and addressed in each public draft and issued version of the FCC's net neutrality rules.