This “by type vs by content” argument is a little bit inaccurate. Packets arrive with headers that identify the source, so the ISPs do not even have to do deep packet inspection to throttle specific content, they just have to look at where the packets are coming from, which is fairly shallow inspection. If they want to throttle Netflix, all they have to do is see that the packet is coming from Netflix – it is of little importance to them whether the content is streaming video data or a video listing menu table, because throttling either of those serves their endgame.
Did you even look at the timelines and backstories of NN, or are you just going to continue to remain ignorant of the facts?
Hmmmmmm, that does sweeten the pot a little.
It’d be nice, though quite unexpected, for the people in favour of the decision to admit that it’s largely an experiment, that they have no real idea of what the results are likely to be - no doubt there will be some positives and some negatives, but the overall result is impossible to predict.
Perhaps you could list some of the positives?
It’s not inconceivable to me that this could drive investment and innovation in wireless internet services.
That’s about it, off the top of my head. I’m still leaving “slow motion train wreck” on the table.
Fair enough.
Those in favor of NN aren’t doing themselves any good by the “sky is falling” arguments: How will I apply for a job, get a university degree, pay my bills, and yes, watch television/listen to the radio/play my games, now that the rule has been repealed.
Bricker already addressed that.
Alberta’s natural gas deregulation drama might provide a map to this new territory, though.
And those that argue against NN don’t do themselves any favors by focusing on these strawmen and ignoring the real concerns brought by those in this thread.
As an aside, the Internet market in the US is a lot like health care in the US. More expensive than other countries, with less favorable service levels. Other countries have proven track records of providing fast and modern Internet access at reasonable, even cheap prices, by way of comparison. Yet here we are, refusing to learn from other countries.
scratches head hmmm… I wonder why that is…
Well I suppose if the ISPs pinky swear that they won’t control user content, or be bad, that should be good enough for any reasonable consumer.
Nope. I argue that the rules applied in response to the perceived abuses were ridiculously broad in scope, far more intrusive than was required to address the issues that spawned the rulemaking.
What country specifically are you picturing?
That’s absurd.
The FCC is a captured regulator. Those in charge of the FCC currently do not even believe that the FCC should be involved in abuses by telecommunications companies. They want to hand those responsibilities over to the FTC, who do not have the departments, manpower, or expertise to handle such a thing. It’s a deliberate attempt to sabotage any regulator’s ability to respond to the abuses of telecom companies.
This is by design. This is the whole fucking point of what they’re doing. Verizon and Comcast and AT&T aren’t paying millions to buy senators so that they can make a marginal reduction in latency through QoS, they’re doing it so they can block competitors and start charging for internet services a la carte cable TV packages. The idea that the FCC is doing this for the consumer, and therefore, if it opens the system up to telecom abuse, they’ll fix that is absurd. It’s magical thinking on your part to dismiss the real world consequences of what you advocate. I don’t believe that your position on that issue is sincerely held, because I don’t think you’re so blind as to see what’s going on as benevolent or consumer-focused.
So let me again ask you directly, do you think that these changes in internet regulation will more likely than not be bad for the consumer?
Except that more than one poster in this thread brought up all of those things as a “concern” about the loss of NN.
But as of this vote by the FCC, there are no rules preventing any of those abuses, right?
How likely do you think, given the current political climate, that more narrowly tailored regulations will be adopted to prevent the specific abuses we’ve already seen can occur absent net neutrality?
Your response doesn’t show an understanding of the difference between bandwidth and latency and completely misses the point of the analogy.
They could route latency critical data like games and phone calls quicker than other data.
They could offer discounted high speed plans with tight restrictions on streaming bandwidth
They could offer privacy services where identifying data you send is randomized so sites couldn’t track you
They could offer an adblock service where they drop ad related packets
They could offer scam protection services where known fraudulent sites are blocked
Like how Amazon has started their own delivery service to ensure the timeliness their customers demand. There’s pros and cons to these sorts of vertically integrated company. Take Android/iOS that come with a lot of their own apps. It’s good because these apps are tightly integrated with the OS and work really well. It’s bad because good luck competing with them.
That’s either a disingenuous or haphazard reply you’ve offered here, because that wasn’t the argument which I was responding to you about. In case you’ve forgotten:
So yeah, still… :dubious: