4 ms·

This doesn't even make sense. So, if the kids in the back are playing games and the providers pay more to have access than the cars networked safety feature -

by nemo44x 12y ago

This doesn't even make sense. So, if the kids in the back are playing games and the providers pay more to have access than the cars networked safety feature - we're in a worse off place. Also, I'm not so sure there are any issues with capacity and more is being added daily. Capacity for networked devices is not like making capacity for ambulances (not his analogy but essentially his point) and firetrucks. The second a government or any entity starts to decide what is first class, second class and n-class information and thus priority, the internet goes from a place of equality and freedom to a fascist place controlled by those who have dominion.

woah 12y ago
Whatever the upside or downside of net neutrality may be, the fact is that net neutrality laws are specifically and only about regulating the choices made by routing software. You are claiming that the government not regulating routing software on an extremely fine grained level is somehow "facism". You are as ridiculous as the politician in this article. In fact, net neutrality favors large monopolistic ISPs, while possibly making them slightly easier to bear. It forces information transmission to be a commodity, ensuring that only large monopolistic commodity providers can survive. It makes it impossible for any newcomers to take market share with innovation by making innovation illegal. Locally based networks providing fast access to their subscribers and filling in the slow times with other traffic? Illegal. Decentralized mesh networks allowing people to "mine" cryptocurrency with a transmitter on their roof? Illegal. Those are just two of the business models made illegal by net neutrality. I'm sure there are many more that I can't think of right now.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  You've been busy watching the telco lobby propaganda, then. I'll grant that it's a powerful and emotional, if utterly false, argument that they put forth.
- rakoo 12y ago
  I think you got it backwards -- net neutrality is about making sure anyone can create a new protocol and be hooked to an ISP to serve their content through the Internet. > Locally based networks providing fast access to their subscribers and filling in the slow times with other traffic? Illegal. As an ISP subscriber, why would I want something other than what I decided on ? > Decentralized mesh networks allowing people to "mine" cryptocurrency with a transmitter on their roof? Illegal. I don't see what's illegal here. If you have a transmitter on your roof you are your own ISP. It is perfectly fine to not allow a kind of traffic if you're your own ISP.

by nemo44x 12y ago

woah 12y ago

Whatever the upside or downside of net neutrality may be, the fact is that net neutrality laws are specifically and only about regulating the choices made by routing software. You are claiming that the government not regulating routing software on an extremely fine grained level is somehow "facism". You are as ridiculous as the politician in this article. In fact, net neutrality favors large monopolistic ISPs, while possibly making them slightly easier to bear. It forces information transmission to be a commodity, ensuring that only large monopolistic commodity providers can survive. It makes it impossible for any newcomers to take market share with innovation by making innovation illegal. Locally based networks providing fast access to their subscribers and filling in the slow times with other traffic? Illegal. Decentralized mesh networks allowing people to "mine" cryptocurrency with a transmitter on their roof? Illegal. Those are just two of the business models made illegal by net neutrality. I'm sure there are many more that I can't think of right now.

madaxe_again 12y ago
You've been busy watching the telco lobby propaganda, then. I'll grant that it's a powerful and emotional, if utterly false, argument that they put forth.
rakoo 12y ago
I think you got it backwards -- net neutrality is about making sure anyone can create a new protocol and be hooked to an ISP to serve their content through the Internet. > Locally based networks providing fast access to their subscribers and filling in the slow times with other traffic? Illegal. As an ISP subscriber, why would I want something other than what I decided on ? > Decentralized mesh networks allowing people to "mine" cryptocurrency with a transmitter on their roof? Illegal. I don't see what's illegal here. If you have a transmitter on your roof you are your own ISP. It is perfectly fine to not allow a kind of traffic if you're your own ISP.