3 ms·
You said "Why would someone like Comcast who fought tooth and nail against FCC net neutrality rules, suddenly be so interested in passing a law that "solidifies
by ikeboy 9y ago
You said "Why would someone like Comcast who fought tooth and nail against FCC net neutrality rules, suddenly be so interested in passing a law that "solidifies" and "permanently preserves" it?"
You seem to be ignoring the obvious response, which is that they're fine with NN regulations as long as it doesn't come with the overhead of Title II.
- shmerl 9y agoPoint is, they are pretending they are pro-net neutrality, while in essence they are completely against it. It's their usual smokescreen tactic, to fool those who would fall for such weasel talk. Saying they are fine with NN regulation, but only when it's actually not doing anything to protect NN, is fallacy. So let's be clear - they are simply lying through their teeth.
- ikeboy 9y agoYou keep on saying some version of this but aren't giving any reason to actually believe this. What would you expect to see differently in a world in which they wanted Congress to pass clear NN rules?
- shmerl 9y ago> What would you expect to see differently in a world in which they wanted Congress to pass clear NN rules? They should stop lying and admit they are simply against net neutrality to begin with. But I don't expect them to, naturally, since they are professional lairs. Anyway, my point was that the public should be aware about this sneaky attack on net neutrality, veiled as "support" for it.
- ikeboy 9y agoYou aren't answering the question. You've given zero reason to think they're lying except asserting it over and over.
- shmerl 9y agoI see no question here. What point are you trying to make? Are you defending Comcast's attack on NN veiled as support for it (through pushing a law that redefines NN as something that does nothing to actually protect NN), or you are trying to explain that we should have expected it? If the later, it's the same thing I'm saying.
- ikeboy 9y agoYou're asserting something without offering any evidence for it - I would like you to explain why people should believe you.
- shmerl 9y agoComcast opposed NN before. What other evidence do you need? They never hid the fact. They violated it multiple times, from BitTorrent throttling, to data caps, zero rating and interconnection shenanigans, and they clearly benefit from not letting strong NN protections be in place. So when they suddenly come out in support of something they call NN, if you don't see foul play, then you simply didn't pay any attention.
- ikeboy 9y agoYou mention 4 things, but only one is a NN violation and it was from a decade ago.
- shmerl 9y agoAll of these are NN violations, or related to it. The goal of Comcast in violating NN is not just abstract violation of it, their goal is harming competition, and giving themselves an unfair advantage. The core of the problem is that besides owning the physical network, they are also media company. So their direct competitors are video services for instance. Comcast try to raise the price of those services for users (and thus pushing them to use Comcast's own ones instead), by combining usage of data caps (which have no technical need and are purely fleecing / anti-competitive tool) in combination with zero rating, i.e. excluding their own services from data caps. Users have to pay extra to avoid data caps. That basically taxes users who prefer their competitors. Another method they use is interconnection starvation. That simply degrades the quality of competing services, again pushing users to use Comcast's ones. NN is relevant here (in addition to regular anti-trust of course), because Comcast are giving preferential treatment to their own traffic, while punishing competitors with data caps and bad interconnection. So, we established that Comcast clearly violate principles of NN, and can't be interested in the least in codifying proper NN law.