5 ms·

> "Packet level" is a technical distinction, not an important one. It is a very important discussion, it should never happen and ISPs want to do it to have the

> "Packet level" is a technical distinction, not an important one. It is a very important discussion, it should never happen and ISPs want to do it to have the ability to slow you down and throttle you. NN prevents packet level bias. Even if you still want to beat the Google is a monopoly drum, I don't totally disagree that some of their tactics are that level, this is just a distraction from NN and local ISP monopolies using Google is a false equivalency to ISPs that are your entry to the internet, before Google can even get to you. You are literally off topic at this point, this isn't a thread on Google monopoly level tactics, this is about NN which Google would be market leader with or without. Google issues for another day, today is ISP local monopolies which you continually distract from almost as if you are purposefully doing it. If you aren't being paid by the ISPs you should at this point. If you had 0 or 1, 25Mbps-100Mbps option in your area is that sufficient? Google obsession aside, do you think there is ANY local monopoly issue regarding ISPs? Current ISP talking points on ISP monopolies are to distract to Google, Facebook, Amazon etc just as the WSJ has been doing. You've joined the club in distracting from the real issue, NN, unrelated to whether Google is a monopoly. You go and call out Google for lobbying, they have to the way ISPs and Comcast/AT&T etc buy off legislature. You seem to like the companies that buy off legislature and provide NO innovative benefits to them running the web today, at least with Google/Amazon/etc there are benefits not degradation of service like the ISPs of today.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Again, packet level bias isn't a big deal when there's a company that controls the whole freaking Internet. There's no "distraction" with Google, Google is the problem, and they're distracting you by saying "Look at these little companies who aren't that big a deal. They're evil! Focus on them!" Everything you are pitching is right out of their guidebook, Google has funded every net neutrality supporting organization out there today, and is behind every single move you see to defend it. Ask yourself why.
- drawkbox 9y ago
  If you had 0 or 1, 25Mbps-100Mbps option in your area is that sufficient? Google obsession aside, could care less about what they do in regards to NN really though I am glad that they and most companies and people in the country support NN, the ISPs matter on this policy. ISPs/broadband/telcos/providers really are the ONLY ones that don't want it, ask yourself WHY they want it removed so badly...against most people's demands. They say it changes nothing, I don't want SLOW lanes, unless they are massively increasing infrastructure they will be SLOWING you down and INSPECTING packets. This is anti-internet behavior. If Google was actually using their monopoly about it they would crush NN because they will be top in mind share either way. When Netflix, who was affected by NN, stopped supporting NN for a while people flipped. Same with Google, people would be pissed if Google didn't support NN, this comes from PEOPLE's demands [1][2]. Why all the ISP love? You got some massive trust in them to both mostly have a monopoly control and to be able to control traffic (including speeds/data caps) AND have all your private info for every single connection you make. Do you think there is ANY local monopoly issue regarding ISPs? Do you think ISP competition is good enough in the US? Do you see the difference in the level of control ISPs have over ALL your traffic while Google has to have you USE them? I have acknowledged some issues with Google but you have yet to acknowledge anything regarding ISP abuse and questions regarding broadband availability where ISPs are failing the US (Google Fiber was an awesome competitive boost we needed), nor that most people want NN [1][2]. Yes, your Google obsession is a distraction from the main NN point, the only people that want NN are ISPs/broadband/telcos/providers. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-americans-political-parties-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-am... [2] https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/29/strong-support-net-neutrality-rules-fcc-considers-repeal/ https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/29/strong-support-net-neu...

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Again, packet level bias isn't a big deal when there's a company that controls the whole freaking Internet. There's no "distraction" with Google, Google is the problem, and they're distracting you by saying "Look at these little companies who aren't that big a deal. They're evil! Focus on them!" Everything you are pitching is right out of their guidebook, Google has funded every net neutrality supporting organization out there today, and is behind every single move you see to defend it. Ask yourself why.

drawkbox 9y ago
If you had 0 or 1, 25Mbps-100Mbps option in your area is that sufficient? Google obsession aside, could care less about what they do in regards to NN really though I am glad that they and most companies and people in the country support NN, the ISPs matter on this policy. ISPs/broadband/telcos/providers really are the ONLY ones that don't want it, ask yourself WHY they want it removed so badly...against most people's demands. They say it changes nothing, I don't want SLOW lanes, unless they are massively increasing infrastructure they will be SLOWING you down and INSPECTING packets. This is anti-internet behavior. If Google was actually using their monopoly about it they would crush NN because they will be top in mind share either way. When Netflix, who was affected by NN, stopped supporting NN for a while people flipped. Same with Google, people would be pissed if Google didn't support NN, this comes from PEOPLE's demands [1][2]. Why all the ISP love? You got some massive trust in them to both mostly have a monopoly control and to be able to control traffic (including speeds/data caps) AND have all your private info for every single connection you make. Do you think there is ANY local monopoly issue regarding ISPs? Do you think ISP competition is good enough in the US? Do you see the difference in the level of control ISPs have over ALL your traffic while Google has to have you USE them? I have acknowledged some issues with Google but you have yet to acknowledge anything regarding ISP abuse and questions regarding broadband availability where ISPs are failing the US (Google Fiber was an awesome competitive boost we needed), nor that most people want NN [1][2]. Yes, your Google obsession is a distraction from the main NN point, the only people that want NN are ISPs/broadband/telcos/providers. [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-americans-political-parties-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-am... [2] https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/29/strong-support-net-neutrality-rules-fcc-considers-repeal/ https://morningconsult.com/2017/11/29/strong-support-net-neu...