5 ms·
I've made this argument before (and it does make some sense), but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter.
by sjm-lbm 8y ago
I've made this argument before (and it does make some sense), but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y agoA court might.
- robomc 8y agobut they'd just call themselves a "networking communications service provider" or something, or call themselves nothing, and people will still just use them.
- dzhiurgis 8y agoYou can call yourself whatever you want, but these are the regulations.
- theandrewbailey 8y agoIn the US, the internet is hardly regulated at all. ISPs can legally get away with anything.
- adictator 8y agoNothing stopping any of us from filing a class action suit against such "internet" service providers.
- bb88 8y ago> but I also doubt that enough people will understand this nuance for it to really matter. Certainly that's the first step. There's options for the second step. But advertising seems like it would be the most powerful. "Why use us over AT&T? Because you're not getting the Internet. You're getting what AT&T decides you should look at." "We don't block Netflix or Hulu or a whole host of other streaming services, unlike AT&T"
- rrix2 8y agoWho's advertising this when AT&T has a legal monopoly or duopoly in your town?
- bb88 8y agoThe arguments for anti-net-neutrality has basically come down to "let the free market sort it out." I don't agree with that, but if we can't have net neutrality, at least define to the customers what the "internet" means. And in that case, the town just lost it's internet. What makes you think the residents won't remember this come election day?
- icebraining 8y agoExcept they haven't, really. They can still turn on their phone and login onto Facebook and watch stuff on YouTube. Someone telling them they no longer have Internet will just sound silly.
- zentiggr 8y agoOh god I really hate that that sounds so accurate in so many cases. How do we provide a kiddie day care service level for people who won't or don't want to care, and a full service level for the rest of us? Or do I owe the Internet an apology?
- topranks 8y agoThe problem with the "let the market decide" is that there is no free market for Internet access in the US! In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. So there is no "market" to normalise things. You simply cannot vote with your feet. In Europe, where the regulatory framework is different, people would just switch ISPs if one started acting in bad faith.
- bb88 8y ago>In most areas there is effectively a government imposed monopoly on who can provide you access. And that government is elected by the people, right? Which means they could make this an election issue and vote candidates that don't support monopolies, right? I don't understand what part of my statement you're arguing with.
- raquo 8y agoMaybe not-really-ISPs should be made ineligible for certain privileges / rights given to real ISPs. Like not-really-doctors can't do everything that real doctors can (grasping for a better analogy).
- ForHackernews 8y agoOther entities could punish them by revoking peering agreements. Or if CloudFlare wanted to play hardball, they could deny access to their CDN from AT&T IP ranges. That would be punishing AT&T customers further, but it would get their attention quickly and they'd complain to their ISP.
- colechristensen 8y agoIt would also be punishing CloudFlare customers quite a lot. Taking a moral stand is honorable, but using your customers to do it isn't.