3 ms·
When I hear people talk about net neutrality, I think of ISPs inspecting and/or rate-limiting (or blocking) certain types of packets. I don't think that a simp
by lightcatcher 13y ago
When I hear people talk about net neutrality, I think of ISPs inspecting and/or rate-limiting (or blocking) certain types of packets.
I don't think that a simple declaration of rules (ie no servers) is as serious of a problem as silently blocking/throttling certain types of traffic.
- Zikes 13y agoAn incoming request to port 80 vs an outgoing request to port 80 is a certain type of traffic, if you ask me.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> When I hear people talk about net neutrality, I think of ISPs inspecting and/or rate-limiting (or blocking) certain types of packets. That's one way of violating net neutrality, but that's not the boundary of net neutrality. > I don't think that a simple declaration of rules (ie no servers) is as serious of a problem as silently blocking/throttling certain types of traffic. Well, no, silently blocking is both a neutrality problem and a transparency problem, the latter of which compounds the former by obscuring the nature and scope of it from the customer. Of course, Google's policy (which states a blanket "no servers" but is, per the statements of Google employees that some servers are okay, doesn't really mean that) also seems to have transparency problems on top of its neutrality problems.