/linked/2017/12/04/heer-net-neutrality

Comments

Paint the tires, ma!:
"Let's make a law to ban crime. That'll do the trick."

- Fearmongers.
2:11 am — Tuesday, 5 December 2017
Ero:
That was some horribly stilted prose.

Though as Trumpers would say, enjoy your cucked internet? Am I saying that right? Damned Poe's Law.
2:42 am — Tuesday, 5 December 2017
anonymous:
I'd love to hear these guys writing about the prospect of airline deregulation in the late 1970s.
9:40 am — Tuesday, 5 December 2017
anonymous:
This is some tasty CLAIM CHOWDER:

> Ben Thompson:

>> That, though, is the magic of the term “net neutrality”, the name — coined by the same Tim Wu whose tweet I embedded above — for those FCC rules that justified the original 2015 reclassification of ISPs to utility-like common carriers. Of course ISPs should be neutral — again, who could be against such a thing? What is missing in the ongoing debate, though, is the recognition that, ever since the demise of AOL, they have been. The FCC’s 2015 approach to net neutrality is solving problems as fake as the image in Wu’s tweet; unfortunately the costs are just as real as those in Congressman Khanna’s tweet, but massively more expensive.

> Thought-provoking piece — I find myself persuaded.

1:44 pm — Tuesday, 5 December 2017
Grubology 101:
@Ero Re.: stilted prose

Writing is not Heer's strong suit, that's for sure, but I do enjoy skimming his blog articles, as they bring to my attention articles/topics I might otherwise have missed. He's infinitely more productive and industrious than Gruber.
4:18 pm — Tuesday, 5 December 2017
Patrick Henry, the 2nd:
The problem is that its not competitive.

And can ISP's be trusted not to discriminate? Well they didn't when they could have, so its actually doubtful they will. And with a health market place, even less so.

>it still seems far more efficient to prevent it in the first place.

It may *seem* that way, but its not. It will not be efficient to regulate the ISPs, as that will just raise costs with little benefit.
6:18 pm — Tuesday, 5 December 2017
anonymous:
> And can ISP's be trusted not to discriminate? Well they didn't when they could have, so its actually doubtful they will. And with a health market place, even less so.

net neutrality rules came around because they were discriminating. there's no reason to think they won't go back to discriminating as soon as they can.

as soon as pai released his plan, comcast removed the language about not planning to offer paid prioritization. coincidence? yeah, probably.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-quietly-drops-promise-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/
8:18 pm — Tuesday, 5 December 2017
Grubology 101:
My slamming Grub's lack of 'industriousness' above seem to have triggered an avalanche of posts. He's definitely monitoring this forum.
1:22 am — Wednesday, 6 December 2017
anonymous:
@Grubology 101

Oh, it's all about you?
5:02 am — Wednesday, 6 December 2017
Ero:
Grubology 101:
> @Ero Re.: stilted prose
>
> Writing is not Heer's strong suit, that's for sure, but I do enjoy skimming his blog articles, as they bring to my attention articles/topics I might otherwise have missed. He's infinitely more productive and industrious than Gruber.

Cheers, I'll check him out then.
5:17 am — Wednesday, 6 December 2017
Grubology 101:
@anonymous (jk!)
4:28 pm — Wednesday, 6 December 2017
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, install the Safari extension!