Ardit20

15 ms·

91.
by Ardit20 16y ago
"nor enforceable by federal prosecutors" It is not the prosecution who would enforce it. It is civil law. I would take the ISP to court if they discriminate against me, not the prosecution. Art. 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights
92.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Yup, it should be illegal if other traffic suffers as a result of it.
93.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Why would the law be complex? You only need one simple line of law stating: We find this principle to be self evident, that all internet traffic is to be treated as equal. That is it. No complex case law, no little print, no arcane law lang
94.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Gee you guys are weird I get -4 for asking what something is and he gets +5 for saying what it is never mind that if I did not ask a lot of people would have been completely lost
95.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Did you just make it up? Or is that dujmiu
96.
by Ardit20 16y ago
What's a twss?
97.
by Ardit20 16y ago
I think reputation matters a lot. If you rubbish your customers and only look at your bottom line, they will slowly start leaving.
98.
by Ardit20 16y ago
It is quite a strong claim. You could at least provide some authority which reports of Apple wanting to sign an agreement with Verizon.
99.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Are you saying that IPwatchadog are defaming Google? Because if they are lying, it would lower the reputation of google in the eyes of right thinking men, thus it would be defamation.
100.
by Ardit20 16y ago
I am slightly confused. What is he saying? The compromise was wrong? Is it a sort of apology without being an apology? Or is he talking about something which has no relation to the net-neutrality debate, in which case, what on earth is he t
101.
White House "Speaks" on Google-Verizon Pact(huffingtonpost.com)
1 points by Ardit20 16y ago|0 comments
102.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Perhaps you are missing the point. If I pay for more bandwith and you do not then we will access every website at the same speed. You might access all sites slower than I do, but the sites you access, are all accessed at the same speed. So
103.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Then Maybe you should have asked: How have you managed failure, or something like that.
104.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Maybe switching to Mac would be a better comparison.
105.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Didn't. Aren't they becoming capitalists also?
106.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Well the compromise is hardly reasonable. Still, you can not answer a question with a question. Why should there be any compromise? Verizon's goal and that of the public contradict each other fundamentally. The public votes in the politicia
107.
by Ardit20 16y ago
So? The fact that they are monopolies calls for a tougher line and no compromise absolutely. Are people so scared of these guys that they are basically going to corrupt all the politicians? I mean, if they lobby, google has more than enough
108.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Why should there be any compromise with the telecos?
109.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Its about pressure. If Google is stupid enough to make people even contemplate about alternatives, then they would be going on a slippery slope as it is not too difficult to switch, to vote with your legs as it were. Sure Microsoft may be b
110.
by Ardit20 16y ago
To be more careful with privacy. I am sure Google would not want to be prevented to provide a service - personally I think a great service - of viewing the streets of Korea.
111.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Stop telling me what to do!
112.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Well its on BBC news. I am sure it adds pressure on Google and probably sends them a clear signal.
113.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Yes, everyone shares the bandwidth. Google has loads of money so it can buy loads of bandwidth but the next google might not so the next google won't come to be. Why is it so bad to simply not have net prioritization at all. I mean, I can a
114.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Lol I was hardly thinking of taxes and I am not American so I do not care much about that aspect, but it would cost more in taxes as the FCC would need to become a much larger entity. I simply think that all of it kind of sounds like a comp
115.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Well to just provide one example, Verizon would only have to pay $2,000,000 if they knowingly violate the statue. No criminal sanctions. They can thereafter continue to violate it and just pay another two million. It is a bit of a business
116.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Well yes it is not a misleading statement strictly. The statement is true, but it is presented in a misleading way as the one you chose is hardly representative of the general market. I am not saying that the market is or is not highly comp
117.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Because it smacks of second class citizens all over it.
118.
by Ardit20 16y ago
"meaningful harm" - meaningful? Is this a statue we talking about? Is there such a thing as meaningless harm? Is for example meaningful harm to prioritise slightly someone else's traffic. How slight does it have to be. Would it depend on ci
119.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Non-Discrimination Requirement : In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes mean
120.
by Ardit20 16y ago
Why only product pages?

More ›