3 ms·

I admittedly took a liberty with "eastern bloc". Aside from that, where did I do her wrong?

twblalock 9y ago
Her point is that the true threat to net neutrality is large content providers and social networks, e.g. Google and Facebooks, not ISPs. That means net neutrality regulations aren’t going to solve the real problem, and also that solving the real problem is not straightforward because regulating content providers for neutrality is far more problematic than preventing ISPs from favoring some traffic over other traffic. Problematic enough that maybe governments could not do it well or fairly, and that such regulation might do more harm than good in the end.
- jstewartmobile 9y ago
  Repealing ISP rules = good. Making new rules for tech companies = bad. Doing something = hard. Inaction. We've had laws, OLD laws, regulating things that are far more subjective than bandwidth (which is quantifiable), or even "free speech", yet civilization continues to hobble along...
- gregmac 9y ago
  That is entirely redefining what net neutrality actually is, then arguing that because it's not 100% effective at solving the redefined problem, we shouldn't do it at all. Net neutrality is mostly about last mile. If your town has five restaurants but one has signed contracts so it's the only one that serves your favorite type of beer, you can argue that it's unfair and beer regulation is necessary, but that's an entirely different problem than if a cop stands at the end of your driveway and physically prevents you from leaving if you are even thinking of going to one of the other restaurants. Or maybe worse, only allows you to go to one of the other restaurants. It's not a stretch to say once the cop is there, they can also regulate what other stores you go to, what products you bring into your house, what delivery companies are allowed, or what type of car you can drive. Net neutrality mainly prevents that cop from standing there. It doesn't attempt to solve all possible ways your freedoms can be restricted, but it does try to tackle a pretty damn invasive and wide reaching one you otherwise can't do much about.

Her point is that the true threat to net neutrality is large content providers and social networks, e.g. Google and Facebooks, not ISPs. That means net neutrality regulations aren’t going to solve the real problem, and also that solving the real problem is not straightforward because regulating content providers for neutrality is far more problematic than preventing ISPs from favoring some traffic over other traffic. Problematic enough that maybe governments could not do it well or fairly, and that such regulation might do more harm than good in the end.

jstewartmobile 9y ago
Repealing ISP rules = good. Making new rules for tech companies = bad. Doing something = hard. Inaction. We've had laws, OLD laws, regulating things that are far more subjective than bandwidth (which is quantifiable), or even "free speech", yet civilization continues to hobble along...
gregmac 9y ago
That is entirely redefining what net neutrality actually is, then arguing that because it's not 100% effective at solving the redefined problem, we shouldn't do it at all. Net neutrality is mostly about last mile. If your town has five restaurants but one has signed contracts so it's the only one that serves your favorite type of beer, you can argue that it's unfair and beer regulation is necessary, but that's an entirely different problem than if a cop stands at the end of your driveway and physically prevents you from leaving if you are even thinking of going to one of the other restaurants. Or maybe worse, only allows you to go to one of the other restaurants. It's not a stretch to say once the cop is there, they can also regulate what other stores you go to, what products you bring into your house, what delivery companies are allowed, or what type of car you can drive. Net neutrality mainly prevents that cop from standing there. It doesn't attempt to solve all possible ways your freedoms can be restricted, but it does try to tackle a pretty damn invasive and wide reaching one you otherwise can't do much about.