3 ms·
> It subjects the internet to content regulation at the whims of the FCC. I'm curious about your understanding of the title II neutrality regulation -- I don't
by outsidetheparty 9y ago
> It subjects the internet to content regulation at the whims of the FCC.
I'm curious about your understanding of the title II neutrality regulation -- I don't see a clear line from "all packets must be treated equally" (which is what common carrier means) to "subjects the internet to content regulation at the whims of the FCC" (I'm not clear what you even mean by "content regulation", or what it has to do with common carrier.)
- marcoperaza 9y agoIt turns out that is AT&T’s interpretation of the law, one that doesn’t seem to be accepted by anyone else, so I retract that claim. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/att-claims-common-carrier-rules-would-ruin-the-whole-internet/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/att-claims-commo...
- outsidetheparty 9y agoThank you for following up, it's good to know the source of that claim. Why do you feel that "What the FCC previously did in declaring ISPs to be common carriers is unacceptable"? To me it seems the obvious, common sense solution: I want my ISP to deliver the packets of data I request; I don't want them to have any incentive to interfere with or modify those requests. Just like I want my phone company to deliver my phone calls, without any incentive to interfere with or modify those calls. Common carrier rules do exactly that, cleanly and simply, as demonstrated by decades of successful precedent in a nearly-parallel industry.