3 ms·
How would you propose that packets be prioritized? I don't like the idea of the government telling me what packets should be prioritized. And saying that they
by pneill 9y ago
How would you propose that packets be prioritized? I don't like the idea of the government telling me what packets should be prioritized. And saying that they all need to be treated the same is equally as bad.
But the real issue here is that the need for net neutrality is a symptom and not the root disease.
The disease that needs to be solved is a complete lack of competition in the ISP market. Service providers could differentiate themselves by QoS.
You wouldn't need a net neutrality law if you had competition.
- so33 9y ago>You wouldn't need a net neutrality law if you had competition I don’t buy this argument because you not only need competition, you need a market with perfect information. Net neutrality buzzes on in the sidelines. I would wager that the majority of customers would not care if their ISP limited certain types of packets and would not attempt to switch ISPs (that is, if they even can switch).
- _justinfunk 9y agoIf a majority of customers wouldn't even care if this happened, then why is it the internet doomsday? Seems like you can't have both sides of the argument. Unless I'm missing your point.
- lovehashbrowns 9y agoThis isn't something as basic as "the right to bear arms." There's a lot of information and this is a fairly dull subject, so the ISPs rely on that to gain support for this. So you can have net neutrality be removed, and nobody care that it was removed, but still be in a much worse position than before. Similarly, the PATRIOT act was passed, and "nobody" cared. That doesn't mean that nothing changed.