5 ms·

I'll admit, this one surprised me. I didn't expect the new admin to support it.

• zavi 8y ago
  Why not? Seems like a common sense rule.
  • pornel 8y ago
    Exactly.
  • ikiris 8y ago
    It really isn't. It gives competitors ability to take you down at whim with no control. The right compromise is forced time horizons which are reasonable, and parallel execution, with significant penalties. Natural monopolies are a huge problem that does need regulation, but this goes to far for me to be comfortable with, and I worked at independent ISPs for like 10 years.
• ur-whale 8y ago
  The new admin has a libertarian streak. They don't like unnecessary regulation in general and that's a good thing. Of course, when that means giving the Comcasts of the world headaches, HW cheers, but when that means good riddance to net neutrality (or rather letting states decide), everyone here screams bloody murder. If that isn't double standards ...
  • skj 8y ago
    No, that isn't double standards. Why would you think it is? Do you think the rule can only be either "regulations are good" or "regulations are bad"? It's not. The idea of regulations is neither good nor bad - you have to consider them on a case-by-case basis. You especially have to consider the results.
    • ur-whale 8y ago
      I didn't say all regulation was bad. I said "unecessary". I both cases I quoted, I believe we're dealing with unnecessary regulations.
      • skj 8y ago
        Unnecessary regulations are, by definition, bad, since they have cost without benefit. We're not arguing the semantics of the word here - I think it is clear that the people you refer to think net neutrality regulation is both necessary and good.