3 ms·

It didn't exist for long, it isn't needed and is just another way for the government to get more control of the internet. Let's wait till there is a problem be

It didn't exist for long, it isn't needed and is just another way for the government to get more control of the internet. Let's wait till there is a problem before we try to fix it.

ulkesh 6y ago
There are numerous problems. Comcast packet shaping in the late aughts. Zero-rated services. Lack of competition. Regional monopolies. High prices due to monopolies. Data caps. Downgraded service due to going over data caps. But I suppose none of that matters when it may involve the government having to step in and actually protect consumers -- and protect what has become a basic human right. I do wonder if the AT&T breakup in 1983 would actually occur in this current ignorant political climate, had it been offset by 40 years in the future.
- imwillofficial 6y ago
  None of which are fixed
DistractionRect 6y ago
Legislation is notoriously slow, and the companies that'd profit would (and did) lobby against fixing it. It's almost always cheaper to prevent a problem than treat it after it festers. What is the problem with net neutrality//regulation? What did repealing it fix? The shift to WFH has highlighted how essential internet access in the modern world - it should be regulated like all other essential utilities.
d110af5ccf 6y ago
> it isn't needed A baseless claim. Others already provided counterexamples. Without net neutrality, things could deteriorate extremely quickly if the changes appeared likely to be profitable. > is just another way for the government to get more control of the internet This statement doesn't even make sense. These aren't KYC regulations or building permits we're talking about here. They just make it illegal to charge for preferential treatment. We've had common carrier laws since forever. The fact that ISPs are exempt is an aberration.
kergonath 6y ago
> it isn't needed and is just another way for the government to get more control of the internet How is the government asserting control by saying that no discrimination is allowed? On the contrary, it’s giving control to the users.
mindslight 6y ago
For most residential users, Comcast and Time Warner are de facto government. It's fallacious to invoke some hypothetically distinct threat of "government control" when that control is already here and deploying DPI gear.

It didn't exist for long, it isn't needed and is just another way for the government to get more control of the internet. Let's wait till there is a problem before we try to fix it.

ulkesh 6y ago

There are numerous problems. Comcast packet shaping in the late aughts. Zero-rated services. Lack of competition. Regional monopolies. High prices due to monopolies. Data caps. Downgraded service due to going over data caps. But I suppose none of that matters when it may involve the government having to step in and actually protect consumers -- and protect what has become a basic human right. I do wonder if the AT&T breakup in 1983 would actually occur in this current ignorant political climate, had it been offset by 40 years in the future.

imwillofficial 6y ago
None of which are fixed

DistractionRect 6y ago

Legislation is notoriously slow, and the companies that'd profit would (and did) lobby against fixing it. It's almost always cheaper to prevent a problem than treat it after it festers. What is the problem with net neutrality//regulation? What did repealing it fix? The shift to WFH has highlighted how essential internet access in the modern world - it should be regulated like all other essential utilities.

d110af5ccf 6y ago

> it isn't needed A baseless claim. Others already provided counterexamples. Without net neutrality, things could deteriorate extremely quickly if the changes appeared likely to be profitable. > is just another way for the government to get more control of the internet This statement doesn't even make sense. These aren't KYC regulations or building permits we're talking about here. They just make it illegal to charge for preferential treatment. We've had common carrier laws since forever. The fact that ISPs are exempt is an aberration.

kergonath 6y ago

> it isn't needed and is just another way for the government to get more control of the internet How is the government asserting control by saying that no discrimination is allowed? On the contrary, it’s giving control to the users.

mindslight 6y ago

For most residential users, Comcast and Time Warner are de facto government. It's fallacious to invoke some hypothetically distinct threat of "government control" when that control is already here and deploying DPI gear.