One of my biggest problems with the whole NN thing, is the fact that all the reasons people list for needing it aren't things that have ever really happened (or they were resolved one way or another without NN). It seems to me the best thing to do is get rid of the (apparently) pointless regulations and if real problems do show up, put some rules in place that specifically fix those problems.
The most common argument seems to be things like Netflix will get blocked unless you pay extra - but the fact is, no major ISP is going to do that unless they're suicidal. Even if they're in an area where they currently have a de-facto monopoly, if they start pulling stuff like that, that's going to be a huge opportunity for competition to come in. On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > https://blog.streamingmedia.com/2017/11/net-neutrality-is-a-sham.html >>> >> >> Nah, it falls down on its face pretty hard. >> >> Dan basically posits that it's all the fault of transit providers, >> completely ignoring the fact that the transit market is a competitive >> market whereas last mile providers have a termination monopoly. That's just >> silly. >> >> The article is also so full of straw men, it's almost like Dan is >> stocking up for a Guy Fawkes festival. >> >> Jared >> > > He points out that the public debate is entirely about ideology. Nobody > has real data, or those who have real data don't share it. I don't see > where he's blaming transit providers for anything. The transit provider > was an example of a technical point that most of the public is unaware of, > but which complicates the discussion. It's also an example of a way the > open internet order could be completely circumvented.....get your transit > provider to do your traffic shaping. They're not an ISP so they don't > count. > > Can you point out the straw man? > > I consider myself neutral on this topic. I'm willing to consider > arguments, but my problem is that nobody has coherent arguments. > >
