4 ms·
"I'm sorry, but who said the current situation is network neutral?" Err, that's exactly the point. Net neutrality already doesn't exist in a lot of ways, the G
by nervechannel 16y ago
"I'm sorry, but who said the current situation is network neutral?"
Err, that's exactly the point. Net neutrality already doesn't exist in a lot of ways, the Google proposal is seen by some (e.g. TorrentFreak) as an attempt to regulate something that can already be arbitrarily done in an unregulated way.
You can't take away a freedom or right that doesn't already exist.
- alecco 16y agoAs I said in another comment, if my 3G/4G service provider sold me the service as "X GB per month" without clarifying it can't carry voice or competing services currently it's unlawful and other companies affected could sue them. Or a class action for deceitful advertising. Telcos want to have legal cover for that. That's new.
- spinchange 16y agoThey do clarify in the fine print of their terms and conditions which customers agree to if they're using the service. So, it's not unlawful just because you don't agree with it, because you've already agreed to it. There is nothing new here in the Google / Verizon proposal. They can't be both killing wireless net neutrality and seeking 'legal cover' for already doing it, especially when it didn't exist because the current status quo of 'packet discrimination' on those networks isn't illegal.