4 ms·
Exactly. This highlights the foolishness of "net neutrality", which is really just code for "my team should regulate the internet".
by duckMuppet 7y ago
Exactly.
This highlights the foolishness of "net neutrality", which is really just code for "my team should regulate the internet".
- happytoexplain 7y agoIt always seemed somewhat opposite to me - that opposition to net neutrality consists of a non-negligible percent of people acting only against something perceived to be liberal.
- yspeak 7y agoThe opposition comes from those who know and understand the free market and trust it to more justly and efficiently allocate and grow bandwidth resources better than an army of bueracrats trying to master plan technology infrastructure with century old regulations. Net neutrality is disingenuously named and intentionally misleading. There is no potato nuetrality - no one expects a grocer to sell 12 potatoes for the price of 6. Likewise, no one should expect video providers to pay the same for bandwidth as bloggers. All content providers and customers should pay for the bandwidth they use. Use a lot, pay a lot. Use a little pay a little. Bandwidth hogs (e.g., video providers like Netflix and YouTube) and their customers should not be subsidized by heavy handed, onerous, and cumbersome regulations that spread the cost of their bandwidth use on all users. Netflix, YouTube, etc. should not be subsidized by mind numbing regulations that are difficult to administer, difficult to interpret and comply with, invite litigation and divorce price from cost. Put the cost on, and adjust the price as appropriate, to the actual use. The result is more efficient pricing, better bandwidth allocation, and more transparency without the need for government interference, lawyers, and decades worth of litigation. Much better internet piping and bandwidth allocation will result.