4 ms·

To state the obvious, this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality. Also, the belief that there would be "competitors in the user's area

To state the obvious, this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality. Also, the belief that there would be "competitors in the user's area that don't play stupid games" that offer comparable services (eg, within a factor of 5x bandwidth-per-dollar value) seems to be a misunderstanding of the utility/monopoly/duopoly economics in play in many regions of the USA.

guelo 9y ago
Network neutrality means that the network transit is neutral, endpoints such as Google are free to do as they wish. For example Google already blocks youtube videos based on ip address geo region. But I agree that it wouldn't work because the ISP monopolies are more entrenched than the web service monopolies.
raverbashing 9y ago
Of course it is If ISPs don't see the point in it then they can't complain when other don't follow it (and they get the shaft)
baq 9y ago
> To state the obvious, this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality. the culture employs special circumstances when the situation exceeds the moral capacity of contact. or to put it differently, sometimes outside forces are so strong that you either let your ethics... be flexible for while or just disappear in the annals of history. whether OP's particular action would be effective is a different question - bing, ddg or baidu would gladly jump at the opportunity if this wasn't coordinated.
- ZainRiz 9y ago
  Therin lie dragons That's how you start thinking it's okay to drop napalm and nuclear bombs on cities since "it'll end the war faster"
  - baq 9y ago
    yes. i've never said i think it's fine, it's just (to me) obvious that it's how some people think and how the world works due to the fact some of those people were given power to rule, or took it themselves.
  - thehardsphere 9y ago
    But that is OK if it does end the war faster, where "end the war faster" is understood to mean "millions fewer people will die"
  - civilitty 9y ago
    I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare net neutrality to a total war, regardless of the comparison made. Anyone who doesn't subscribe absolutely to radical honesty or to a morality handed down by an all powerful being has to make these kinds of decisions in their personal life all the time and rarely do those decisions have as much impact as net neutrality. Large companies are made up of people and they shouldn't get a pass when they stand by and watch as when the very foundations of their industries are destroyed by extreme rent seeking just because they have shareholders to answer to, most of whom are in a far better position than the employees of the companies to jump ship when their investments don't behave like they'd like them to.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
mabbo 9y ago
> this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality Exactly the point I'm trying to make. If Google turns around and says "Fine, you don't like net neutrality? Let me show you how this works both ways". The ISPs do not make the product, they sell the access to the product. If the product goes away, then they aren't selling anything at all- and their customers will stop paying them.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  You talk like customers actually have a choice in ISP...
  - erwinkle 9y ago
    Yep, most places I've lived, I've only ever had 1 option (unless I want to pay for satellite internet lol)
  - drcube 9y ago
    There's always a choice. Suppose your ISP started charging you $10,000 per month for the service you have now? Would you pay it? Could you? No, you'd probably just go without home service, or rely on your cellular data plan, or get dialup, or just take an internet sabbatical until the ISP cleaned up their act. For some people, their tolerance for bullshit is less than others. For those people, perhaps charging a dollar extra for YouTube access is enough. It only takes a fairly small percentage of customers to put a lot of pressure on service providers. Monopoly or not.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwaway2048 9y ago
      The idea that people should be willing to go without Internet, and if they don't they clearly don't care enough is self defeating and silly.
    - sushid 9y ago

guelo 9y ago

Network neutrality means that the network transit is neutral, endpoints such as Google are free to do as they wish. For example Google already blocks youtube videos based on ip address geo region. But I agree that it wouldn't work because the ISP monopolies are more entrenched than the web service monopolies.

raverbashing 9y ago

Of course it is If ISPs don't see the point in it then they can't complain when other don't follow it (and they get the shaft)

baq 9y ago

> To state the obvious, this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality. the culture employs special circumstances when the situation exceeds the moral capacity of contact. or to put it differently, sometimes outside forces are so strong that you either let your ethics... be flexible for while or just disappear in the annals of history. whether OP's particular action would be effective is a different question - bing, ddg or baidu would gladly jump at the opportunity if this wasn't coordinated.

ZainRiz 9y ago
Therin lie dragons That's how you start thinking it's okay to drop napalm and nuclear bombs on cities since "it'll end the war faster"
- baq 9y ago
  yes. i've never said i think it's fine, it's just (to me) obvious that it's how some people think and how the world works due to the fact some of those people were given power to rule, or took it themselves.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  But that is OK if it does end the war faster, where "end the war faster" is understood to mean "millions fewer people will die"
- civilitty 9y ago
  I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare net neutrality to a total war, regardless of the comparison made. Anyone who doesn't subscribe absolutely to radical honesty or to a morality handed down by an all powerful being has to make these kinds of decisions in their personal life all the time and rarely do those decisions have as much impact as net neutrality. Large companies are made up of people and they shouldn't get a pass when they stand by and watch as when the very foundations of their industries are destroyed by extreme rent seeking just because they have shareholders to answer to, most of whom are in a far better position than the employees of the companies to jump ship when their investments don't behave like they'd like them to.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

mabbo 9y ago

> this proposal is antithetical to the concept of network neutrality Exactly the point I'm trying to make. If Google turns around and says "Fine, you don't like net neutrality? Let me show you how this works both ways". The ISPs do not make the product, they sell the access to the product. If the product goes away, then they aren't selling anything at all- and their customers will stop paying them.

ucaetano 9y ago
You talk like customers actually have a choice in ISP...
- erwinkle 9y ago
  Yep, most places I've lived, I've only ever had 1 option (unless I want to pay for satellite internet lol)
- drcube 9y ago
  There's always a choice. Suppose your ISP started charging you $10,000 per month for the service you have now? Would you pay it? Could you? No, you'd probably just go without home service, or rely on your cellular data plan, or get dialup, or just take an internet sabbatical until the ISP cleaned up their act. For some people, their tolerance for bullshit is less than others. For those people, perhaps charging a dollar extra for YouTube access is enough. It only takes a fairly small percentage of customers to put a lot of pressure on service providers. Monopoly or not.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway2048 9y ago
    The idea that people should be willing to go without Internet, and if they don't they clearly don't care enough is self defeating and silly.
  - sushid 9y ago