6 ms·
What about the "what is in a name" path? What if, instead of regulating what ISPs can do with their network, there were a movement (read, "lawsuits") (using so
by nooneelse 16y ago
What about the "what is in a name" path?
What if, instead of regulating what ISPs can do with their network, there were a movement (read, "lawsuits") (using some new or perhaps just existing law) to stop anything past some previously normal level of traffic management from being called "internet service". So a teleco could give preference to their own, or affiliate, traffic, but that could not be referred to by them, or sold to customers, as "the internet". The position here is this: the term "the internet" has come to mean, through intent and common use, something that does not include, by definition, those kind of practices. Thus, selling a package with those practices and calling it internet service is deceit.
If I sold a "car" to someone and, when they went to pick up their new car, they found what anyone besides my team of salesmen would call a golf cart, that wouldn't be legal. Same idea.
I'm sure I'm being naïve, how?
- delinka 16y agoThis is a good path to consider. It's not "food" if it doesn't contain the right amount of edible/digestible ingredients. It's not "octane X" if it hasn't been refined in the right method. That car isn't "safe" unless it adheres to regulatory guidelines. It's not "Internet access" if it doesn't allow me to access resources on the Internet at my leisure and at the "broadband" speed advertised. (OK, I know that my 6Mbps connection doesn't get me 6Mbps all the way from Netflix, but you can see my point.)
- CamperBob 16y agoOne concern is that 99% percent of users wouldn't care if they got Internet service or "Value-Added Broadband (tm)" from their local cable monopoly, especially if the latter cost $0.01 less per month. Net neutrality strikes me as one of those cases where those who are aware of the stakes have to adopt a paternalistic attitude toward consumer protection.
- sigil 16y agoSounds like an elegant solution. Similar to a recent suggestion on the whole Honeycomb thing (open the code, but assert control of the Android trademark). http://monogatari.doukut.su/2011/04/openness-and-reputation.html http://monogatari.doukut.su/2011/04/openness-and-reputation....