June 12, 2018

Wait: What?

So I went to our effervescent and wise hosts dev-blog, which became a tech news aggregator in my absence and noted this story, which, in turn, contained this peculiar sequence of letters.

The objective of the net neutrality rules has been primarily to stop discrimination from internet service providers (ISPs) against both large and small websites based on the type of content they serve. This is how the term "net neutrality” was coined --


If that was the raison d'être then I guess that whole net neutrality thing didn't do any  good anyway

So what's the problem?

Posted by: The Brickmuppet at 04:22 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 2 kb.

1 What pissed me off about Net Neutrality was how many pundits, (I'm looking at YOU Glen Back) spread FUD by pretending what it was REALLY about was some kind of internet Fairness Doctrine, totally obfuscating the threat.  

Posted by: Mauser at Tue Jun 12 17:29:41 2018 (Ix1l6)

2 Unfortunately the problem wasn't the pundits, the problem was the terminology of net neutrality was hijacked by different groups to advance  different agendas.  I counted at least 3 major (and a number of minor) variations, though I would not at all be surprised to have missed some.
1. Original net Neutrality which would have been as described above, no priority/degradation of service based on additional pay to the last mile providers. 2. 'Netflix' Net Neutrality, which was an attempt to force last mile providers to provide inexpensive co-location facilities at their central offices, which would have significantly reduced the costs of certain content providers in the peering agreements.  This was the first case I knew of to high jack Net Neutrality, but far from the last. 3. 'Fairness Doctrine' Net Neutrality.  While this wasn't an immediate outcome of the FCC grab for power, the way they expanded the existing definitions in the relevant laws to support this let a huge amount open to interpretation/abuse regarding who would get the protections and what those protections would entail.  This really needed to go through some cycles of debate first in order to be fully fleshed out and the appropriate safeguards created.
Personally I've come to the conclusion that rather than creating a new regulatory regime, we should instead create a 'common carrier duty' tot he end consumer similar to fiduciary duty.  If they prioritize/degrade services based on origin (ie so that VOIP  and similar can be prioritized) without the end-consumer's written consent, then they would be subject to a class-action suit.  

Posted by: StargazerA5 at Tue Jun 12 21:13:44 2018 (FuETf)

3 What StargazerA5 said.  The "Net Neutrality" debate is SO fubar'd at this point that you can't discuss it rationally with most people, and any proposed regulations or legislation almost certainly have nothing to do with actual, effectual "net neutrality".  Not that it's stopping anyone.

Posted by: Ben at Wed Jun 13 21:44:29 2018 (4TRZx)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What colour is a green orange?

34kb generated in CPU 0.0167, elapsed 0.3764 seconds.
71 queries taking 0.3667 seconds, 361 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.