4 ms·
I noticed that too. I'm also interested in what the definition of 'non-harmful' devices is. This seems like a possible loop hole to argue for restricted devices
by jrwoodruff 17y ago
I noticed that too. I'm also interested in what the definition of 'non-harmful' devices is. This seems like a possible loop hole to argue for restricted devices, as in "allowing live streaming video from 3G devices will harm the network."
I'm not positive, but I'd be willing to bet this is how cable providers are allowed to disable some functionality of set-top boxes...?
Overall I think it's a very good thing, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out as case law defines these guidelines.
- wmf 17y agoI think the device issue can be solved with a little trickery as well. AT&T could allow you to use any unlocked GSM phone on their network but just not advertise it so that virtually no one takes advantage of it. As for cable STBs, they don't even connect to the Internet and thus are exempt from net neutrality. And if you don't like your crippled Cisco/Moto cable box you can always buy a Moxi... for $800... that will be obsolete in a year.
- jrockway 17y agoAT&T could allow you to use any unlocked GSM phone on their network but just not advertise it so that virtually no one takes advantage of it. Untrue. Nobody takes advantage of it because it costs $100/year extra. (You pay the $200 subsidy on your "free phone" every 2 years as part of your monthly bill. If you bring your own phone, you pay for that "free phone" anyway.) Since most people don't like throwing away $200, most people use a subsidized phone.