3 ms·
While this is a practice that is harmful to consumers, it has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. These kind of pissing contests have been going on for decades.
by xienze 8y ago
While this is a practice that is harmful to consumers, it has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. These kind of pissing contests have been going on for decades.
- inscionent 8y agoNot sure why the GP was flagged. Seems unnecessary.
- jonathankoren 8y agoGab.
- jonathankoren 8y agoExactly. Paid television subscriptions (i.e. cable television) is not the Internet, and has always been regulated differently. Even under Net Neutrality, it would get an expedition as bing a specialized service.
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoIt has a whole lot to do with net neutrality when an IP-based video streaming service is being blocked by an ISP. This isn't an ordinary cable carriage dispute. If they were blocking YouTube Red, Hulu, and Netflix would you claim that has nothing to do with NN either?
- dragonwriter 8y ago> It has a whole lot to do with net neutrality when an IP-based video streaming service is being blocked by an ISP. No, it doesn't, because it isn't being blocked for the ISP’s customers, except incidentally in that some SlingTV customers are probably using it over AT&T internet. > This isn't an ordinary cable carriage dispute. Yes, it is. Or, at least, it's special only because the content provider is also competing multichannel video distribution platform operator by way of its U-Verse cable, DirecTV satellite, and DirecTV Now OTT services; their ISP business is basically irrelevant to the issue. > If they were blocking YouTube Red, Hulu, and Netflix would you claim that has nothing to do with NN either? If they were blocking any of those to their own ISP customers as such, it would have something to do net neutrality. But that's not the issue.