3 ms·
Yes, I don't like the no server rule much, but it's still not the same to me as violating net-neutrality, even if they both might have sane business rationales.
by spankalee 13y ago
Yes, I don't like the no server rule much, but it's still not the same to me as violating net-neutrality, even if they both might have sane business rationales.
I think Google is trying to differentiate between consuming a service and providing a service. If you're providing a service, which presumably will use more resources, that you should buy a different level of connectivity.
I don't see any discrimination of the types of content, services, or origins and especially the favoritism, extortion and bundling that I typically associate with net-neutrality.
- ChuckMcM 13y agoDon't get me wrong, I am agreeing with you that, "Google is trying to differentiate between consuming a service and providing a service." Where we disagree is that having that differentiation is compatible with the term 'net neutrality' :-) If you are familiar with the original debate, Verizon and friends defined net neutrality as "Anything we approve of you doing on our network." Many people, and I count myself among them, did not accept that as a valid definition. That Google would model itself in the same vein as the ISPs when it became an ISP is not particularly surprising. it is merely disappointing. From the Veridian Dynamics commercial on Lying. "Lying. It's always wrong. But sometimes companies have to say things that aren't 100% true. Is that wrong? No. When companies aren't truthful, it's not because we're bad. It's because we understand things that you don't. Veridian Dynamics. People lie. Companies protect their interests. It's different."