3 ms·
I'm not sure I see a difference between your position and the position of the person you're replying. What you're saying is basically how I translated zem's com
by smtddr 13y ago
I'm not sure I see a difference between your position and the position of the person you're replying. What you're saying is basically how I translated zem's comment in my mind. When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs(or are friends of the owners) altering QoS for different sites/services. Or maybe I'm projecting my own thoughts onto zem's comment.
- macspoofing 13y ago>When he said "rich", I assumed the rich people who own the ISPs Your interpretation is ... strange. The big telecoms are publicly owned. So those "rich people who own the ISPs" are shareholders? I'm pretty sure zem referred to "rich" and "poor" consumers of internet services. Not telecoms, not corporations.
- zem 13y agoactually, i was referring to producers - consumers are mostly affected by net neutrality due to what they do and do not get access to (as gated by the isps). however, with net neutrality thrown out of the door netflix can afford to pay for "up bandwidth", but e.g. a small competitor would be pushed out of the market.