4 ms·
The phrasing of this question is absurd. The most reasonable interpretation is "should ISPs be allowed to charge more for higher speeds", which is already the c
by chimeracoder 8y ago
The phrasing of this question is absurd. The most reasonable interpretation is "should ISPs be allowed to charge more for higher speeds", which is already the case, and has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Honestly, it's actually phrased in a way that applies to CDNs as well, which again aren't controversial or really related to net neutrality.
Net neutrality doesn't mean ISPs can't change more for better service; it just means they can't differentiate their service based on the type or source of the data that they transmit.
- avisser 8y ago> The phrasing of this question is absurd. Agreed. The flip side question should also be asked - "Should ISPs be allowed to favor internet properties that subsidize user's traffic?" I'm not convinced the question they did ask gets at large internet properties using money to disadvantage smaller internet properties. The anti-competitive aspect w/rt web businesses is, to me, the prime concern. Innovation at ISPs is garbage and will continue to be garbage.