4 ms·

> UPS doesn't care if it is a Nike shirt or a Gucci shirt in a box, They just deliver the box where it is meant to go. Why should it be any different for an ISP

> UPS doesn't care if it is a Nike shirt or a Gucci shirt in a box, They just deliver the box where it is meant to go. Why should it be any different for an ISP? While I like NN there is a strict different between an ISP and UPS because of the digital/physical realm. When UPS delivers a Nike shirt they have to deliver that specific shirt to that specific person. An ISP needent deliver a specific shirt that originated from Nike Factory to that specific person; they can give a "locally" stored copied of the shirt. This means that the ISP could locally store say the top 4 million songs and so the expense of delivering those songs is practically zero while transporting a song from LA to NYC covers significantly more miles of fiber.

thfuran 3y ago
So what?
inetknght 3y ago
My privacy is my own. The ISP does not have a right whatsoever to determine whether it has content I want. The content that the ISP has is tainted specifically because it's not the exact content that I wanted. It's not the same bitrate, it's not the same quality, it's not the same lack-of-advertisements, and it's not the same guarantee of privacy.
alistairSH 3y ago
Amazon has distributed warehouses, when I order that Patagucci shirt, it could be any one of many from several warehouses.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
It's not particularly enlightening to point out that two things in an analogy are different – if they weren't, the analogy would be useless. "An apple is like an apple." Okay. An ISP that wishes to store a "local copy" of t-shirts or songs, in order to make more money, can store a Nike t-shirt just as easily as a Gucci t-shirt, and can store a Nikki Minaj song just as easily as a Gucci Mane song. Thus, nothing actually blocks the ISP from treating the two equally. Alternatively, the ISP can store nothing, and just be a basic ISP. Nobody is forcing them to store anything, much less do so preferentially depending on brand. And if they personally choose to, to make more money, it's their responsibility to make sure they don't differentiate between brands, because that violates net neutrality.

thfuran 3y ago

So what?

inetknght 3y ago

My privacy is my own. The ISP does not have a right whatsoever to determine whether it has content I want. The content that the ISP has is tainted specifically because it's not the exact content that I wanted. It's not the same bitrate, it's not the same quality, it's not the same lack-of-advertisements, and it's not the same guarantee of privacy.

alistairSH 3y ago

Amazon has distributed warehouses, when I order that Patagucci shirt, it could be any one of many from several warehouses.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

It's not particularly enlightening to point out that two things in an analogy are different – if they weren't, the analogy would be useless. "An apple is like an apple." Okay. An ISP that wishes to store a "local copy" of t-shirts or songs, in order to make more money, can store a Nike t-shirt just as easily as a Gucci t-shirt, and can store a Nikki Minaj song just as easily as a Gucci Mane song. Thus, nothing actually blocks the ISP from treating the two equally. Alternatively, the ISP can store nothing, and just be a basic ISP. Nobody is forcing them to store anything, much less do so preferentially depending on brand. And if they personally choose to, to make more money, it's their responsibility to make sure they don't differentiate between brands, because that violates net neutrality.