4 ms·
What a stupid point of view, because the entire point of net neutrality (title 2 or otherwise) is to ensure that it's possible for twitter et al to be overthrow
by gfodor 9y ago
What a stupid point of view, because the entire point of net neutrality (title 2 or otherwise) is to ensure that it's possible for twitter et al to be overthrown by an upstart who gets a level playing field wrt Internet traffic.
If Pai gets his way, ISPs will be in a great position to cement Twitter and Facebook's monopoly with preferential treatment and free subsidized internet plans.
I guess this shows the true plan: make the big ISPs happy, and solve the problem of "net neutrality" instead by adding more government regulation into the picture to regulate the market of internet applications. Truly the worst of both worlds.
- tonysdg 9y ago> If Pai gets his way, ISPs will be in a great position to cement Twitter and Facebook's monopoly with preferential treatment and free subsidized internet plans. IANAL, but I wonder if this would open the door for anti-trust lawsuits by a future administration.
- rhino369 9y agoNet Neutrality doesn't "ensure that it's possible for twitter et al to be overthrown by an upstart who gets a level playing field wrt Internet traffic." Twitter/FB/Google don't need ISP's to build barriers to entry, they already have networks effects. At best it takes away a rather unlikely method of reducing competition for twitter. IMO, its more likely the ISP's try to extort cash from the web monopolies than accept cash to quash their competitors. If Twitter really paid ISP's to block competitive services they'd get anti-trust sued into oblivion.
- binaryblitz 9y agoIt's not paying to block competitors... It forcing a company to pay for their users traffic to not be throttled by the ISP.
- gfodor 9y agoI'd argue it is a necessary but insufficient condition for net neutrality to exist for there to be any competition for high-bandwidth (or perhaps low-bandwidth) usage internet services.