The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: lm@mcvoy.com (Larry McVoy)
Subject: [TUHS] net neutrality
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 11:36:57 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171211193657.GI26887@mcvoy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171211192328.AA20B18C08C@mercury.lcs.mit.edu>

On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 02:23:28PM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> This whole 'net neutrality' campaign drives me completely crazy.
> 
> If all people wanted was a rule saying 'ISPs can't give third parties _worse_
> service, or - more importantly - deny service altogether, unless those parties
> pay up' (i.e. what would amount to targeted extortion), I'd be _all for_ a
> rule like that.
> 
> But the 'net neutrality' aficionados (most of whom, I'm fairly sure, are not
> aware of/thinking about these details) are all signing up for a much more
> expansive rule, one that says 'no ISP can offer anyone _better_ service for
> paying more money' - which is quite different. My problems with this latter
> form are two-fold.

So that's not at all the case.  Go look at the history, various ISPs like
Verizon, Comcast, etc, have done stuff like block bittorrent, skype, etc,
anything that they decided wasn't in their interest.

The problem is I paid for the bits.  Bits is bits.  I paid for a rate, 
that's what they got paid for, why should they get to charge a second
time for the same bits?  That's exactly what they want to do.  You 
pay them, you pay netflix, you've paid for the carrier, you've paid
for the content, oh, you want it to actually stream?  Too bad, Netflix
didn't pay their extortion so your movie watching sucks.

Don't believe me?  OK, how about this?

https://np.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/7i595b/will_the_repeal_of_net_neutrality_actually_help/dqwzn1g/


  reply	other threads:[~2017-12-11 19:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-12-11 19:23 [TUHS] V7 Addendem [ really lawyers and AT&T consent decree ] Noel Chiappa
2017-12-11 19:36 ` Larry McVoy [this message]
2017-12-11 19:48   ` [TUHS] net neutrality Clem Cole
2017-12-12 16:04 ` [TUHS] V7 Addendem [ really lawyers and AT&T consent decree ] Random832
2017-12-12 16:52   ` [TUHS] [ really net neutrality - don't you folks believe in subject lines? ] Jon Steinhart
2017-12-11 20:10 [TUHS] net neutrality Noel Chiappa
2017-12-11 20:13 ` Larry McVoy
2017-12-11 20:13 Noel Chiappa
2017-12-11 20:14 ` Larry McVoy
2017-12-11 20:18   ` Warren Toomey
2017-12-11 20:27 Noel Chiappa
2017-12-11 21:09 ` ron minnich

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20171211193657.GI26887@mcvoy.com \
    --to=lm@mcvoy.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).