New York looks at California, drafts net neutrality legislation New York has introduced net neutrality legislation copied directly from California in an effort to bypass a federal effort to kill America's net neutrality. On Wednesday, leading Democratic New York senator Brad Hoylman hailed a "bicoastal effort" between the two states, and in particular San Francisco senator Scott Wiener, to …
Net neutrality does not apply to something like that, which is very similar to giving you a discount for bundling multiple services. If that was a violation of net neutrality then charging you more for a faster connection also would be.
Net neutrality is concerned with fairness/"neutrality" of bandwidth allocation for given services/sites, not the total amount of bandwidth for all services for a particular customer.
"Net neutrality does not apply to something like that, which is very similar to giving you a discount for bundling multiple services. If that was a violation of net neutrality then charging you more for a faster connection also would be."
Not necessarily. At least charging more for a faster connection is germane to the access. Requiring the purchase of an unrelated service (Why do you need cable TV?) could be seen as another matter altogether.
They don't "require" the purchase of an unrelated service, they give you a perk for doing so - no different than "buy one X get one Y free" type promotions that have been going on in the world of physical goods forever. Or bundling of landline phone services like voicemail, call forwarding, caller ID etc. into one bundle that costs much less than buying each service individually.
Trying to extend net neutrality to such ridiculous proportions is exactly the worries being pushed by those who are against it - and I'd be forced to join their side if people were dumb enough to try to take it that far.
ONLY if it's possible to get the speedup separately at a price. If bundling cable is the ONLY way to get a speedup, then that's not fair. That's exploiting a captive market and closer to being paid your wages in scrip that can ONLY be used in the company store (a practice which I recall was banned in the past).
Still not a violation of net neutrality. You could make a good argument it is monopoly abuse since they are the only broadband option for a chunk of their customers.
Not that anyone would notice the difference between 250 Mbps and 400/1000 Mbps. There isn't a use case for that much bandwidth for home use.
Net neutrality really is an enormous mess over here, but at least it's not alone. Everything I can think of is a huge mess right now
Education: Huge Mess. Environment: Huge Mess. Healthcare: Huge Mess. Justice System: Huge mess, and the list goes on
My entire country and it's government has degenerated into one enormous ClusterF**k
"If it's such a fustercluck, though, why isn't anyone LEAVING?"
Most of us with half a brain saw this coming as a result of George III (aka G. W. Bush) and left while the getting was good.
The US has been going down the tubes since the Nixon campaign (first to really target white supremacists as a base). Reagan accelerated the decline (destroying union power, tax cuts for the rich, tax hikes for the poor), as did the Bushes (more tax cuts for the rich and tax cuts for the poor), and now so-called "president" Trump has pushed the pedal to the metal...
(To be fair, Clinton was also a problem, allowing the gutting of welfare under his watch.)
BTW: I'm old enough to remember Nixon, and voted against Reagan twice because I could see how bad for the country he was. If you weren't there, and can't see how what they did harmed the country, you aren't qualified to wax poetic about their brilliance.
Neutrality doesn't belong at the federal *or* state level. It belongs at the central office level. Equal access to last mile networks would eliminate the cable and phone company monopolies. If a provider isn't "neutral" enough for you, you select another.
Two words: UNBUNDLED ELEMENTS. When last mile DSL was offered as an unbundled element, there was a wonderful diversity of carriers. We need the modern FTTH and DOCSIS plants offered as unbundled elements as well.
End of discussion.
Ignatius:
Up here in Canuckistan, we have LLU. Thank ${DEITY}. And we have quite a number of quietly successful, effective competitors to the "Big Three" in the ISP/Cable/Wireless world.
And we *still* have the idiots trying to do preferential service for internal services and 'carrier transit fee' type billing for internet services. (well, that's what they'd like to call the fee addons at one carrier)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
