2 ms·

Is your argument that substantial speed increases are not innovation, or that the original arguments for Net Neutrality were totally incorrect? Because NN camp

• toiletfuneral 6y ago
  It’s also really good to have monopolies that can sue to ban municipal broadband. Like you, I fucking love Comcast and want them to have as much power as possible
• wtallis 6y ago
  > In fact, this is the EFF's prime argument for Net Neutrality. [1] As far as I can see, your link does not support your assertion. I think you're completely mischaracterizing the primary argument for Net Neutrality. I have never seen anyone assert that without Net Neutrality, speeds would go down or stagnate in general. I have only seen proponents claim that without Net Neutrality, speeds would be selectively reduced or left stagnant. And the burden of proof is very much on you to demonstrate that lifting Net Neutrality regulations is responsible for speeds increasing, and not other factors such as pressure from Google Fiber and declining costs for DOCSIS 3.0 equipment and advances in WiFi that made it possible for most consumers to actually use download speeds in excess of 100Mbps. (Also, we should assess the health of the ISP market a bit more carefully. Increasing download speeds don't tell the whole story. How have the major incumbent ISPs done at increasing upload speeds in recent years. How prevalent are data caps, and are they increasing from year to year?)