4 ms·

I'm pro-net neutrality and I'm against dishonest marketing, but I think overall it's important to take the higher ground and remain intellectually honest. Doing

by sambe 9y ago

I'm pro-net neutrality and I'm against dishonest marketing, but I think overall it's important to take the higher ground and remain intellectually honest. Doing otherwise results in a mud-slinging contest. Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers. That is undeniable. There many cases where we restrict freedoms for the greater good, but I don't like to pretend we are not doing so in those cases. I'd also add that freedom is not the right to demand other people give you something you want. I wouldn't say that I've lost my freedoms if there are no good ISPs left after the regulatory change. Everyone involved can still either choose an existing provider or set up their own. We have monopoly/anti-trust laws when that ceases to be the case. Of course, this may not be the efficient path to a world that a huge majority of people want - which is why I slightly side with net neutrality.

marcosdumay 9y ago
> Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers. Then go ahead and call it "corporate freedom". The network isn't getting any more free without neutrality.
- em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
  An ISP doesn't necessarily have to be a corporate entity. It could be a municipality (e.g. city of Chattanooga) or hypothetically owned by residents directly.
  - loup-vaillant 9y ago
    > An ISP doesn't necessarily have to be a corporate entity. In practice, they are. There are exception, but they remain exceptions.
  - marcosdumay 9y ago
    Is any of those interested on the end of neutrality?
loup-vaillant 9y ago
> Everyone involved can still either choose an existing provider or set up their own. As in, for real, in practice? I seriously doubt it, the hurdles are huge, and most deals favours gigantic corporations (bulk often being cheaper than detail). Try to get a peering agreement with some big provider. Most wouldn't even talk to you if you're not big enough.

by sambe 9y ago

marcosdumay 9y ago

> Existing regulations are a restriction on the freedom of service providers. Then go ahead and call it "corporate freedom". The network isn't getting any more free without neutrality.

em3rgent0rdr 9y ago
An ISP doesn't necessarily have to be a corporate entity. It could be a municipality (e.g. city of Chattanooga) or hypothetically owned by residents directly.
- loup-vaillant 9y ago
  > An ISP doesn't necessarily have to be a corporate entity. In practice, they are. There are exception, but they remain exceptions.
- marcosdumay 9y ago
  Is any of those interested on the end of neutrality?

loup-vaillant 9y ago

> Everyone involved can still either choose an existing provider or set up their own. As in, for real, in practice? I seriously doubt it, the hurdles are huge, and most deals favours gigantic corporations (bulk often being cheaper than detail). Try to get a peering agreement with some big provider. Most wouldn't even talk to you if you're not big enough.