3 ms·
I mean great. I don't really want the things it's trying to ban, so good? But this is sorta like plastic straw bans: 0.0000000001% actual impact, all while mak
by exabrial 3y ago
I mean great. I don't really want the things it's trying to ban, so good?
But this is sorta like plastic straw bans: 0.0000000001% actual impact, all while making HUGE headlines, while doing absolutely zero to solve root systemic issues: Entrenched Local Monopolies by telco providers.
So yeah, good, glad my Nebula won't be slower than my YouTubes, while all along I just wanted to ditch the assholes in the first place and use a different ISP.
- tentacleuno 3y ago> glad my Nebula won't be slower than my YouTubes To be fair, wouldn't this still be the case? Google peer with many ISPs, and have a lot of server / networking prowess, so the YouTube experience is normally pretty good across the board. Nebula, on the other hand, is a fairly new player from my understanding.
- mdasen 3y agoYes, YouTube might have better CDN solutions, but ISPs can't unfairly discriminate against Nebula. Nebula is a new player, but presumably they're using CDNs with good reach. The point isn't that Google can't build a better CDN. The point is that we don't want ISPs creating a situation where they've inked a deal with Google to prevent good performance from YouTube competitors. We don't want a situation where "YouTube is the exclusive 4K video provider on ISP-X."
- tentacleuno 3y ago> The point isn't that Google can't build a better CDN. The point is that we don't want ISPs creating a situation where they've inked a deal with Google to prevent good performance from YouTube competitors. We don't want a situation where "YouTube is the exclusive 4K video provider on ISP-X." Definitely not, and I would never advocate for that -- I was perhaps being slightly pedantic in the above comment :-)
- lolinder 3y agoNebula fares just fine on my internet at 1080p and 2x speed.