4 ms·

> and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation. Given that large states like California and New York passed independent net neutralit

> and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation. Given that large states like California and New York passed independent net neutrality laws and there were continuing legal battles in almost half of all US states I don't think you can draw many conclusions. ISP behavior very likely never changed because they knew they were just one decision away from having to comply. Sort of proven by this very decision we're commenting on.

bko 3y ago
Here is something I found. Seems like "unfair" since they're favoring their videos but as a user its okay by me since I get something for free and preventing them from not counting their content doesn't mean they'll necessarily just drop their data cap. If ISPs just behave because it's always just a ruling away, then I'm fine with that status quo. I don't want unintended consequences from invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/verizons-mobile-video-wont-count-against-data-caps-but-netflix-will/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/veriz...
- acdha 3y ago
  > invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us What specific legal principle do you think would lead to this? Network neutrality is the polar opposite of that - it’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have restaurant health codes because the government could start requiring us to eat peas.
  - bko 3y ago
    It's a precedent that government can tell ISPs and others what they can provide you. Once they have that in place, it's not a stretch to imagine them furthering that power for political purposes. Think about surveillance legislation after 9/11. None of it applied to domestic population originally
    - acdha 3y ago
      It’s the opposite of that - it’s saying companies cannot discriminate – but also that argument doesn’t make any sense because governments already do that and nothing in network neutrality legislation grants new powers. If they want to ban a political party’s website they’re passing new legislation (or ignoring laws) whether or not network neutrality laws exist.

bko 3y ago

Here is something I found. Seems like "unfair" since they're favoring their videos but as a user its okay by me since I get something for free and preventing them from not counting their content doesn't mean they'll necessarily just drop their data cap. If ISPs just behave because it's always just a ruling away, then I'm fine with that status quo. I don't want unintended consequences from invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/verizons-mobile-video-wont-count-against-data-caps-but-netflix-will/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/veriz...

acdha 3y ago
> invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us What specific legal principle do you think would lead to this? Network neutrality is the polar opposite of that - it’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have restaurant health codes because the government could start requiring us to eat peas.
- bko 3y ago
  It's a precedent that government can tell ISPs and others what they can provide you. Once they have that in place, it's not a stretch to imagine them furthering that power for political purposes. Think about surveillance legislation after 9/11. None of it applied to domestic population originally
  - acdha 3y ago
    It’s the opposite of that - it’s saying companies cannot discriminate – but also that argument doesn’t make any sense because governments already do that and nothing in network neutrality legislation grants new powers. If they want to ban a political party’s website they’re passing new legislation (or ignoring laws) whether or not network neutrality laws exist.