3 ms·

This is much ado about nothing. What's more evil: using compromise and negotiation as a means to move the situation incrementally in your desired direction, or

by Gormo 16y ago

This is much ado about nothing. What's more evil: using compromise and negotiation as a means to move the situation incrementally in your desired direction, or sacrificing practical success just to maintain an unyielding commitment to ideology?

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
roc 16y ago
In what way does the stated agreement move the situation incrementally forward? Google certainly claims that it's compromise to improve the current situation, but I don't see a single proposal that doesn't have gigantic exemptions, exceptions and loopholes.
- btilly 16y ago
  Having Verizon agree to the consumer protections are a move forward. They are the only telco to have so agreed, and several others have violated them.
  - roc 16y ago
    They've always agreed that the consumer needs to be protected. All the ISPs have. They've just disagreed with the FCC on: 1. how to protect them 2. who to protect them from 3. who decides what's good and bad. Their previous position was: 1. trust us with QoS 2. bad users/apps 3. the ISP itself Their new position is: 1. trust us with QoS 2. bad users/apps 3. a consortium of ISPs Which is worse, if anything. Previously they were pushing an edge-network QoS strategy position that could be countered by competition. Now they're pushing a position of de-facto collusion across the industry, to implement their brand of QoS end-to-end.
shadowfox 16y ago
That may not have a simple answer.
rickmb 16y ago
It surprises me how the meaning of the word "compromise" is being devalued. No net neutrality on wireless networks isn't a compromise. Net neutrality with some exceptions would be a compromise. Net neutrality with a ton of exceptions would be a compromise. Hell, total freedom for carriers with merely the verbal promise to make a bit of an effort towards net neutrality could still qualify as a "compromise". This proposal isn't a compromise. There's no "practical success" here. It's a complete and utter sell out. Having a "negotiation" about the terms of your surrender doesn't make it less of a surrender.

by Gormo 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

roc 16y ago

In what way does the stated agreement move the situation incrementally forward? Google certainly claims that it's compromise to improve the current situation, but I don't see a single proposal that doesn't have gigantic exemptions, exceptions and loopholes.

btilly 16y ago
Having Verizon agree to the consumer protections are a move forward. They are the only telco to have so agreed, and several others have violated them.
- roc 16y ago
  They've always agreed that the consumer needs to be protected. All the ISPs have. They've just disagreed with the FCC on: 1. how to protect them 2. who to protect them from 3. who decides what's good and bad. Their previous position was: 1. trust us with QoS 2. bad users/apps 3. the ISP itself Their new position is: 1. trust us with QoS 2. bad users/apps 3. a consortium of ISPs Which is worse, if anything. Previously they were pushing an edge-network QoS strategy position that could be countered by competition. Now they're pushing a position of de-facto collusion across the industry, to implement their brand of QoS end-to-end.

shadowfox 16y ago

That may not have a simple answer.

rickmb 16y ago

It surprises me how the meaning of the word "compromise" is being devalued. No net neutrality on wireless networks isn't a compromise. Net neutrality with some exceptions would be a compromise. Net neutrality with a ton of exceptions would be a compromise. Hell, total freedom for carriers with merely the verbal promise to make a bit of an effort towards net neutrality could still qualify as a "compromise". This proposal isn't a compromise. There's no "practical success" here. It's a complete and utter sell out. Having a "negotiation" about the terms of your surrender doesn't make it less of a surrender.