5 ms·
"Net Neutrality" in its final form did not solve or fix any problems with the Internet. The definition of "Net Neutrality" is poorly defined, too vague and does
by bobcallme 9y ago
"Net Neutrality" in its final form did not solve or fix any problems with the Internet. The definition of "Net Neutrality" is poorly defined, too vague and does not have any proposed legislation attached to "fix" things. Even when new rules were implemented, ISPs still throttled torrents and manipulated traffic. The only way to fix the Internet is to do so from a technical perspective, not by adding more regulations that ISPs won't obey (they work that into their business model). The "Internet" has never been free and has always been controlled by a handful of entities. The only fix for the Internet is if everyone actively participates in the Internet's infrastructure and we work to create technologies that thwart active threats from ISPs or that gives ISPs competition.
;TLDR I don't support Net Neutrality.
- bluetwo 9y agoOK. Does the current situation cause harm? Is there a good reason why it needs to change?
- pzone 9y agoISPs could provide higher fidelity for voice calls and streaming video by discriminating in favor of these packets.
- Tasboo 9y agoSo since it doesn't do everything you want you are totally against it?
- bobcallme 9y ago> "Net Neutrality" in its final form did not solve or fix any problems with the Internet. I'm against it because it as an idea has failed in both its proposal and implementation. If people are going to whine and rally for a "fix", they should at least propose an action that will actually fix things instead of complaining. Proposing new legislation (which I'm not fully in favor of) or expanding rules would be doing something.
- anth1988 9y agoClassic "implementation is imperfect so lets do nothing instead". Makes as little sense here as it ever does.
- mr_spothawk 9y agoI've mentioned a number of times before, but I'm actually advocating to my friends against their participation today for the reason that I believe, if the Evil ISP acts in a crumby way, that it will create demand for better service. And I think that's the only way to get to a Mesh Internet For The People, By The People. My position is that: We don't need big pipes (or millions of hours of television piped to us every month), we need the interfaces and hardware for connecting with each other.
- davidcbc 9y agoComcast is already despised by its customers. There is already demand for better service but most people don't have any other option. It is naive to think that the loss of net neutrality will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for Comcast.
- Toast_ 9y agoUnpopular opinion: I've never had a problem with Comcast and I loved the fact that they allowed users (in my experience) in the same residence cash in on promos. promo ends -> cancel plan -> new roommate signs on.
- DaemonKrog 9y agoI'm also of the same opinion. So, don't think you're alone here.
- zeratax 9y agoSome great blogposts about exactly this: https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/654-FC-Net-Neutrality.html https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/654-FC... https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/665-Oh-FCC.html https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/665-Oh...
- pcvarmint 9y agoNet Neutrality is an illusion, at best. It is similar to price controls, limiting the price a service can be offered at. Like price controls, it causes shortages by making the service too cheap for some users, increasing demand for them to use it even more, and making it too expensive for other users, who don't use it very much. Let's say you're a company like Netflix, and you and/or your customers use 30% of an ISP's bandwidth. Why shouldn't you and/or your customers pay more for using more bandwidth? If Net Neutrality forces everyone to pay the same, then the costs of the extra bandwidth used by some customers will have to be paid by other customers, raising everyone's prices. The idea of offering different levels of service at difference prices should be welcome, because it allows low-income people to afford the internet, and it ensures that enough resources are allocated for heavy-duty users. If Net Neutrality says that all internet services should be offered at the same bandwidth and same price, then it will raise the price for all customers, and it will make heavy users of the internet overuse it, making ISPs use throttling to avoid the inevitable overuse which occurs when prices are too low for some customers. (Think of the 1970s gas shortages when Nixon instituted price controls -- the result was that customers had to be "throttled" by only being allowed to buy gas on certain days based on their license plate number. If this "throttling" wasn't done, there would be worst gas shortages and empty tanks because the heavy users would use up all of the gas because their demand for it is more than the price-controlled price indicates.) As for blocking or throttling certain protocols/ports, this is wrong, but I think it's a symptom of other issues, such as security vulnerabilities, or overuse of a given level of service because it's priced too low. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYoOSHYXI3c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYoOSHYXI3c