4 ms·
Is AT&T trying to muddle the concept of an ISP as something that delivers content and an ISP as something that hosts content? That's all I can figure, here. Es
by chasing 12y ago
Is AT&T trying to muddle the concept of an ISP as something that delivers content and an ISP as something that hosts content? That's all I can figure, here.
Especially when writing about the ability to decline service to customers. I'm not sure how net neutrality relates to AT&T having freedom to pick and choose its customers. (Surely the folks that just want their content delivered -- Hacker News, for example -- don't consider themselves AT&T customers.)
- wtallis 12y agoIt looks like they're at least trying to muddle the concepts of an ISP and a search engine. But I found the complaint to be overall pretty hard to parse.
- aioprisan 12y agoExactly. And wouldn't this mean that all telephony services carried over the internet wouldn't fall under Title II, which defies common sense?
- rsingel 12y agoThey are. If they just deliver packets then they are clearly Title II. Last time the FCC did this (2004/5), the ISPs claimed that their homepages and email service and DNS made them not "telecommunications". Well, Gmail, OpenDNS, Google DNS and Facebook (new homepage), make those arguments less useful. So "caching" is the new DNS. Not sure how they'll deal with the rise of VPNs and HTTPS though. VPNs and non-cacheable are the most clear argument that people pay broadband ISPs just to deliver their packets.
- bsimpson 12y agoWouldn't that be wonderfully self-reinforcing? "We need to use sophisticated computers to switch our networks because we use deep packet inspection to accomplish Fuckery; therefore, we are an information service; therefore, you have to keep letting us use sophisticated computers in the name of Fuckery."