4 ms·

The government does regulate what ISPs can host. In this case, the local government is trying to regulate what the port can host.

• AmericanChopper 8y ago
  Should cities where fiber cables land be able to regulate what packets pass through them?
  • fiter 8y ago
    Your original statement was that ISPs should not get to ban. I noted that ISPs might not get to ban, but governments do get to ban. You are now asking me if governments should get to ban. I believe I already said that they do get to ban. If your point is that you believe specifically cities should not be able to ban, then maybe that should be the case. I'd like to hear your argument, though.
    • AmericanChopper 8y ago
      You're actually replying to a different person. But in any case, giving local government the power to arbitrarily deny access to national infrastructure is a terrible idea, and it would allow local government to override any national foreign trade strategies, amongst other things. There's lots of major exchange points on the west coast, should the cities where they're located have a say on what packets they handle? Do you think your requests should be dropped if the City of San Jose doesn't want to serve them for you? Because that's no different than this.
      • mikeash 8y ago
        Oakland owns this “national infrastructure” so it doesn’t seem at all like San Jose dropping my requests, unless they own the network.
        • AmericanChopper 8y ago
          This point is entirely contrived. California owns all of the interstates within it's borders, are they also "national infrastructure"? Do you think California should be able to dictate what goods can and cannot be transported on them? Numerous private companies own the fiber cables and exchanges that deliver internet across the country, are they "national infrastructure" too? In this case a local council is trying to control what goods can and cannot be imported out of America, something which it does not and should not have the power to do. Edit: in case it’s not clear, your “unless they own the network” remark is an assertion that Net Neitrality should not exist in any form.
          • mikeash 8y ago
            “Edit: in case it’s not clear, your “unless they own the network” remark is an assertion that Net Neitrality should not exist in any form.” Excuse me? I was describing what would be needed for your comparison to make sense. There’s no sensible path from that to “Net Neutrality should not exist in any form.”
            • AmericanChopper 8y ago
              Lots of different parties own the internet infrastructure, same as the roads, ports, utilities... Should any of those parties have the right to dictate what packets can traverse their networks, and what cannot. Should a state or municipality decide what good can be transported on the roads they 'own'? The comparison is perfectly sound. You simply don't want to address it, or respond to your ludicrous implication that international ports are not part of our national infrastructure.
              • mikeash 8y ago
                You seem determined to read way more into my comments than I actually wrote, so I’ll leave you to it.
                • AmericanChopper 8y ago