3 ms·

The Net Neutrality rules that were repealed wouldn't have stopped Verizon from doing this. The biggest problem with NN is that hardly anyone even understands th

The Net Neutrality rules that were repealed wouldn't have stopped Verizon from doing this. The biggest problem with NN is that hardly anyone even understands the issue.

thomastjeffery 8y ago
The article glossed over details while mentioning that related rules that have been removed would have allowed for recourse in this situation. The point the article is trying to make is that this stems from a shift in policy that clearly favors Verizon.
- thaumasiotes 8y ago
  ...no? The article is quite detailed about what recourse it thinks should have been available, but wasn't: > former FCC lawyer Gigi Sohn stated the FCC’s elimination of net neutrality rules also eliminated the first responders’ ability to complain to the FCC. If the rules had still been intact, the department could have complained that Verizon was unreasonably interfering with its ability to use broadband under the “general conduct rule,” Sohn noted. This is not a compelling argument. If there's one problem these guys aren't suffering from, it's an inability to complain about what happened.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    They are referring to a basis for formal complaint of rulebreaking which is adjudicatable in a venue with the power to issue compulsory rulings. Yeah, they can complain now, but that's under a radically different sense of “complain”; an argument based on conflating the two embodies the fallacy of equivocation.
- pitaj 8y ago
  > related rules that have been removed would have allowed for recourse in this situation. The related rules allow for formal complaints alleging that rules were broken. That's not recourse, as even under previous NN rules, data threshold throttling was perfectly fine. Recourse would be if they could complain and there was an actual rule broken that Verizon could be punished for.
mindslight 8y ago
The basic concept of Net Neutrality is quite easy to understand - an "ISP" should be in the business of transporting opaque bits, period. It's generally extremely lucrative for them to attempt to infer the purpose of a communication, and then attempt to put the customer over a barrel to extract value based on it [0]. Hence how this recent topic ties in - "Awfully big fire you're fighting there - it'd be a shame if it got even bigger because you didn't pay us more money". [0] in fact this was the historic model of the phone and cable companies, which technology moved past - cf. "Ma Bell has you by the calls".

The Net Neutrality rules that were repealed wouldn't have stopped Verizon from doing this. The biggest problem with NN is that hardly anyone even understands the issue.

thomastjeffery 8y ago

The article glossed over details while mentioning that related rules that have been removed would have allowed for recourse in this situation. The point the article is trying to make is that this stems from a shift in policy that clearly favors Verizon.

thaumasiotes 8y ago
...no? The article is quite detailed about what recourse it thinks should have been available, but wasn't: > former FCC lawyer Gigi Sohn stated the FCC’s elimination of net neutrality rules also eliminated the first responders’ ability to complain to the FCC. If the rules had still been intact, the department could have complained that Verizon was unreasonably interfering with its ability to use broadband under the “general conduct rule,” Sohn noted. This is not a compelling argument. If there's one problem these guys aren't suffering from, it's an inability to complain about what happened.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  They are referring to a basis for formal complaint of rulebreaking which is adjudicatable in a venue with the power to issue compulsory rulings. Yeah, they can complain now, but that's under a radically different sense of “complain”; an argument based on conflating the two embodies the fallacy of equivocation.
pitaj 8y ago
> related rules that have been removed would have allowed for recourse in this situation. The related rules allow for formal complaints alleging that rules were broken. That's not recourse, as even under previous NN rules, data threshold throttling was perfectly fine. Recourse would be if they could complain and there was an actual rule broken that Verizon could be punished for.

mindslight 8y ago

The basic concept of Net Neutrality is quite easy to understand - an "ISP" should be in the business of transporting opaque bits, period. It's generally extremely lucrative for them to attempt to infer the purpose of a communication, and then attempt to put the customer over a barrel to extract value based on it [0]. Hence how this recent topic ties in - "Awfully big fire you're fighting there - it'd be a shame if it got even bigger because you didn't pay us more money". [0] in fact this was the historic model of the phone and cable companies, which technology moved past - cf. "Ma Bell has you by the calls".