3 ms·
Wow. These arguments seem absurd. The retiring baby boomers are watching tons of TV now (more free time), and the internet mostly confuses them (my parents and
by narrowrail 12y ago
Wow. These arguments seem absurd. The retiring baby boomers are watching tons of TV now (more free time), and the internet mostly confuses them (my parents and their friends). The cable companies and media companies are happy to oblige people's resistance to change, and the technology to enable simple consumption of video via IP has not been allowed to flourish (see the lawsuit of streaming OTA signals; which is even more bandwidth traditional media takes up). Roku is about the best a non-technical person could hope for, and there is lots of room for improvement there, esp. around live content consumption (e.g. sports).
- nemothekid 12y agoThe poster left out the second half of the argument which had a really good point - the main point being despite the whole net neutrality debate being relatively old, ISP's response to Netflix, YouTube, and Twitch have been to invest & build rather than create fast lanes (which have been feared since before the time of Netflix). That said, given the history of this issue it might be a bad idea to make classify internet access as title II because they problems we believe are going to happen, just haven't happened yet.
- narrowrail 12y agoI actually don't care for the idea of giving the government or a for-profit duopoly any more power. I'm not sure if the solution entails member-owned co-ops, employee-owned co-ops, or what. In view of current trends (as I see them), something needs to change. The two options purposed don't seem like they're the only possible ones.