> True net neutrality is getting the government out of dictating how the internet – and companies who provide access – should work. Leave that up to the people to decide with their wallet.
If we're re-defining 'network neutrality' such that any networking policy defined by a private corporation qualifies as neutral, does the term have any useful purpose at all?
> True net neutrality is getting the government out of dictating how the internet – and companies who provide access – should work. Leave that up to the people to decide with their wallet.
Which is fine, if consumers actually have a choice. Where this doesn't work is more often in cable where many consumers have few, if more than one option at all.
8 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 34.4 ms ] threadIf we're re-defining 'network neutrality' such that any networking policy defined by a private corporation qualifies as neutral, does the term have any useful purpose at all?
> True net neutrality is getting the government out of dictating how the internet – and companies who provide access – should work. Leave that up to the people to decide with their wallet.
Which is fine, if consumers actually have a choice. Where this doesn't work is more often in cable where many consumers have few, if more than one option at all.
Still, more regulation to fix the problems caused by regulation in the first place? No thanks.
"True net neutrality is getting the government out of dictating how the internet – and companies who provide access – should work."
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
Seriously though, I'd much rather be accused of being pro market than pro government meddling.
If you want the government to avoid intervening at all, that's something else altogether. Net apathy? Net noninterventionism? Net libertarianism?
“True free speech rights is getting the constitution out of dictating whether the government should censor.”