3 ms·
There's no planet on which you can lump those three together. One provides access to the internet, one provides a service on top of it. ISPs can and should be
by tw04 9y ago
There's no planet on which you can lump those three together. One provides access to the internet, one provides a service on top of it.
ISPs can and should be regulated... in fact they should pass a law... maybe call it net neutrality.
That is where we should draw the line, beginning and end of story. If google deems a site offensive and doesn't want to return it in search listings, I'll find another search engine. I don't use facebook and couldn't care less what they do or don't display. If it's vital to you, pick a different social network.
ISPs on the other hand are a utility and should be treated as such. The DOT doesn't get to tell me which stores I can visit before I pull onto the highway. My ISP shouldn't have any right to tell me which websites I can visit either.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> That is where we should draw the line Domain registrars look more like utilities, e.g. ISPs, than applications, e.g. Google.
- CydeWeys 9y agoThere are hundreds (thousands?) of registrars you can choose to do business with. Meanwhile, there's only one power company that's run lines to your house, only one water company running pipes, and you have a choice of 2-3 ISPs if you're lucky. Those are utilities. A random business service provider with hundreds of choices available on a competitive free market is not a utility.
- dragonwriter 9y agoA key argument for ISPs being treated as utilities (which is, itself, a controversial idea) is that they tend to be local monopolies or oligopolies. This is not the case with domain registrars, a field in which there are many available alternatives selling an interchangeable commodity product.