I saw this quoted on Gab
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jdixon Jul 12, 2017 10:25 PM EDT |
Being anti-netneutrality means siding with huge unaccountable ISPs that charge you money and spy on you can cooperate with the feds. Being pro-netneutrality means siding with huge unaccountable dotcoms that sell you as a product and spy on you and cooperate with the feds. Sounds about right. |
| mbaehrlxer Jul 13, 2017 3:30 AM EDT |
we depend on the ISPs for the internet to function. we can sidestep the dotcoms and use alternative services which also depend on the ISPs for their service to be available. or put differently, ISPs as a whole have a monopoly on internet access. dotcoms, no matter how much they capture the market can not force me to use their service. we can provice alternatives for dotcoms, but we can't (easily) provide alternatives for internet access. therefore it is more important to ensure that ISPs power is limited. greetings, eMBee. |
| penguinist Jul 13, 2017 3:55 AM EDT |
Excellent point eMBee. |
| gus3 Jul 13, 2017 2:13 PM EDT |
Did Bell Telephone have these issues in their early days? Something tells me they didn't. There seems to be very little discussion of "common carrier" status. ISP's want the immunity that goes with it, but not the responsibilities. The main responsibility of a common carrier, is to offer a service without prejudice regarding the customer's purpose. That is to say, the phone company is obliged to let their subscribers use the phone lines, even when a subscriber is using it to transmit a criminal threat. So, would non-prejudice applied to ISP's correspond to net neutrality? |
| jdixon Jul 13, 2017 2:52 PM EDT |
> ISP's want the immunity that goes with it, but not the responsibilities. Yep. So how do we force them to accept the responsibilities? Normally that would be handled by the courts, but they've become pretty much useless against large corporations. > So, would non-prejudice applied to ISP's correspond to net neutrality? Pretty much, yes. |
| BernardSwiss Jul 14, 2017 12:10 AM EDT |
gus3 wrote:There seems to be very little discussion of "common carrier" status. ISP's want the immunity that goes with it, but not the responsibilities. The main responsibility of a common carrier, is to offer a service without prejudice regarding the customer's purpose. Which is, of course, why the ISPs went to such effort to be classified as (non common carrier status) "Data Services" instead of as (subject to common carrier regulations) "Telecommunications" companies... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!