3 ms·
You're complicating the issue: 1) I pay for the dumb pipe to give me all the internet fluid I care to pay for, regardless of its makeup. 2) I pay either one o
by dclowd9901 13y ago
You're complicating the issue:
1) I pay for the dumb pipe to give me all the internet fluid I care to pay for, regardless of its makeup.
2) I pay either one of or both of the content provider and service for the content.
All of these pieces have to work together. The internet is nothing without content, and the content is ungettable without the internet. A Mutually-assured destruction relationship between these three elements should be quite sufficient.
- rayiner 13y ago> I pay for the dumb pipe to give me all the internet fluid I care to pay for, regardless of its makeup. You're assuming that broadband networks should be a dumb pipe to begin with. Why can't Verizon just decide to get out of the "dumb pipe" business, and say that they won't sell you a dumb pipe, but a pipe with whatever restrictions they want to impose?
- dragonwriter 13y ago> You're assuming that broadband networks should be a dumb pipe to begin with. Why can't Verizon just decide to get out of the "dumb pipe" business, and say that they won't sell you a dumb pipe, but a pipe with whatever restrictions they want to impose? Why couldn't AT&T do that when they provided pre-internet landline telephone service?
- rayiner 13y agoBecause AT&T was a regulated monopoly, with all of the benefits that come from being a regulated monopoly (guaranteed rates of return, etc). The net neutrality proposals today amount to imposing obligations on carriers as if they are a regulated monopoly without giving them all the benefits of being a regulated monopoly.