3 ms·
What I don't get is how DNS blocking and other DPI is legal while IP blocking isn't. Sure, you can make and argument that the ISP-provided DNS is a service they
by franga2000 3y ago
What I don't get is how DNS blocking and other DPI is legal while IP blocking isn't. Sure, you can make and argument that the ISP-provided DNS is a service they provide so you can compel them to not resolve certain addresses, but inspecting and modifying other DNS packets on the network seems no different to inspecting and modifying HTTP packets to inject crap or throttle streaming - the exact things net neutrality was meant to protect against.
- toyg 3y agoRead the article or the sentence - the difference with DNS is that it's not as likely to result in blocking innocent third-parties. Services don't typically share DNS names, whereas IPs are typically shared or reused constantly.
- franga2000 3y agoI did, but that still doesn't explain how that relates to net neutrality. I guess the court might have used the likelihood of false positives as the factor that decides whether net neutrality or copyright law pervails in a given situation, but this isn't mentioned in the article.
- toyg 3y agoI think it makes more sense if you consider the Directive is about "universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and service", rather than "net neutrality" (which is a very ISP-oriented term).