dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery


how-to block ads

Search Topic:
share rss forum feed
« Content & CarriersThe real crime »
This is a sub-selection from Wait and See

Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Stepford, CA

1 edit
reply to openbox9

Re: Wait and See

said by openbox9:

When I said "potential" issue, I was referring to one that hasn't come to pass. There's a lot of hype on both sides of the fence on what will/won't be done in regards to "net neutrality" (the term in and of itself has many meanings and is vague at best). The real bluff is that ISPs to date, haven't double-dipped and haven't prioritized their traffic over other providers' traffic in an anti-competitive nature (except for a couple of rare occasions that have been corrected). So what exactly would you propose be regulated that is NEEDED right here and now?
Do you even understand what is at stake in NN debate? I seriously doubt it b/c it. But nm, I'm not going to participate in a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Move along now...Go back to watching Fox News.
The Toll


Intelligent response. I do understand the net neutrality debate. The point is that you can debate all day, the reality is that there's nothing requiring legislation because no "mischievous" action has been taken by the providers. So my question still stands...what needs to be regulated?


Cockeysville, MD

1 recommendation

Yeah I mean it's not like ISP are:

providing nebulous service under unstated terms... oh wait

throttling traffic in whatever way seems fit to them... oh wait

are basically a geographically oriented monopoly/duopoly... oh wait

intent on squeezing as much money out of customers as possible without regard to making broadband available to the masses as any real UTILITY should be... oh wait

always seeking financial aid for infrastructure buildouts that they then turn around and cry pauper when any kind of open system legislation is attempted... oh wait

have continuously lobbied against communities setting up their own systems that fulfill net neutrality requirement based on nonsensical and outright fraudulent claims... oh wait

Shall I continue?