8 ms·
This serves as a good example of how net neutrality rules would impinge users’ rights and give big(ger) business an advantage. This is not a net-neutral move b
by mwsherman 14y ago
This serves as a good example of how net neutrality rules would impinge users’ rights and give big(ger) business an advantage.
This is not a net-neutral move by the Free.fr. Clearly some content is being treated differently than other content, based on source.
However, I think it’s up to users (and by extension, the services they purchase) to decide how to handle web content. Users might or might not like this particular move, who knows. But it’s up to them to keep using the ISP, or to change the setting in the router.
Under net neutrality law, should it exist, the ISP’s move would be illegal, no? Which means that Google uses regulation to ensure delivery of its product. Incumbency protection.
In fact, look for Google to posit exactly this net neutrality claim. My preference is that Free.fr and Google fight for your affections.
- mikeash 14y agoMy preference would be that my ISP not interfere with my traffic without my consent. It baffles me to find any other opinion expressed here.
- mpyne 14y agoYeah, I was going to complain that this is really something that the user needs to be able to disable or otherwise opt out of. As it stands there's content filtering going on outside of user control which isn't a good thing at all (seriously, there's probably less controls on free.fr than the local police station)
- mikeash 14y agoThe user can disable it, but screwing with the user's traffic shouldn't be the default in the first place.
- mwsherman 14y agoI don’t disagree. But even if this were entirely opt-in, but (say) promoted or made very easy by the ISP, the neutrality complaint would be the same.
- rtpg 14y agono, users ensure delivery by querying for the page. It's not like we are forced to open pages with google ads. Net neutrality means that all content fetching should be treated equally. I have no idea how that can be contorted into incumbency protection, since no one is advantaged by it. I don't pay for an ISP so that they decide to become a cable TV provider, deciding for me what I do and don't want. I pay for an ISP to allow me to go onto websites. They should act as disinterested as possible as to what I'm trying to get (apart from obvious load balancing things). Free wants to add a software layer ad blocking? Don't turn it on by default, that is the same thing as filtering for 90% of web users (at least). I hope you'll enjoy when they start throttling other things by default as well.
- mddw 14y agoIt's neutral : the filtering is at the router level, which belong to the user network.
- jeje-none 14y agonot in the the free.fr case: the router belongs to Free, and you can't use your own (only Free CPEs work on their network)
- mddw 14y agoOf course you can. Here are the instructions on the free website : http://www.free.fr/assistance/2253-avec-un-modem-adsl.html http://www.free.fr/assistance/2253-avec-un-modem-adsl.html