3 ms·
it's an issue with similar consequences to net neutrality, but it's very much not the same issue. The network is one layer, the client is a different layer. L
by notatoad 9y ago
it's an issue with similar consequences to net neutrality, but it's very much not the same issue. The network is one layer, the client is a different layer. Let's not start forcing clients to conform to network rules, or vice versa.
additionally, the reason net neutrality is so important is because there is no consumer choice in the ISP market for many users. Even when one browser is dominant, there's a lot more choice among browser vendors, so pushing out regulation to them is less important.
But let's not muddy the waters of net neutrality by injecting separate issues into the debate. Yes, browsers should treat all traffic equally, but that isn't net neutrality.
- nasredin 9y agoI think the anti-net-neutrality people are running out of fresh, not yet discredited arguments. In OSI model IIRC: Application (software) is layer 7. Physical connection is layer 1. I am sure somebody will correct me.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoNot sure who you're claiming is anti Net Neutrality, but if that's levelled at me it's quite wrong. See my other comment in thread, but in short I don't think a user cares really that action is at a different level of the conceptual OSI model, they care if they can consume given media, if NN legislation shifts things so that the browser blocks the media from a particular server instead of that servers upstream ISP I don't think users are going to be applauding too much.
- brokensegue 9y agoThey should be applauding though. We can always fork Firefox if it's not acting in our best interest. We cannot fork Comcast.
- ankushnarula 9y agoSure we can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System
- brokensegue 9y agoWell "cant" v. "wont" is sometimes hard to distinguish. There's little practical differences here though.