Timeline for Net Neutrality and Stack Overflow / Stack Exchange
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 27, 2020 at 11:45 | history | edited | Mecki | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Fixed spelling, grammar and typos
|
| Jul 13, 2017 at 2:28 | comment | added | MolbOrg | "If we'd forbid to sell anything that can be abused, all stores would be empty." - fixed it for you | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 13:31 | comment | added | Servy | So to then say that we can revoke these new regulations because the ISPs can be trusted to self-police, is demonstrably false. We know they can't, because even though they had been for quite some time, they choose to stop keeping the net neutral. They are also the ones who have been fighting to remove these regulations; if they were so interested in following these same policies anyway, by convention, why would they feel the need to fight them. The only real reason to be so concerned with repealing them is because *they want to continue the abusive behaviors that they had been doing. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 13:28 | comment | added | Servy | You are correct that for a long time the net was neutral by convention rather than by regulation. Providers choose to be neutral rather than being legally required to. There was indeed a change to make that convention into a legal requirement. But that legal change didn't come out of nowhere. It didn't just happen out of fear of what might happen. What changed was the ISPs who had started breaking the convention and violating net neutrality. Since the convention was being broken, and they could no longer be trusted to self-police, they forced regulations onto themselves. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 12:12 | comment | added | T. Sar | Net Neutrality is what protects users against this form of abuse. Without it, this type of "abuse" would be perfectly legal. ISPs would be authorized to charge differently for whatever thing you chose to use. That's the big deal, and that is what people who oppose it aren't grasping. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 12:06 | comment | added | Mecki | @T.Sar You are confusing use with abuse. Charging extra for Gmail access would just be abuse. It would also be abuse in a net without any neutrality as it clearly is blackmailing customers and that is always abuse, in every system and in every country. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 11:21 | comment | added | T. Sar | Eh. Brazil uses a very, very broken system for ISP providers - probably one of the worst in the world - and we can work nicely with Net Neutrality without issues, since the Marco Civil of the Internet. Sure, we had some hiccups, but without Net Neutrality we would have been stuck with ISPs taxing a few extra dollars for Gmail Access. Or a whole ten bucks extra for Youtube. Without this thing, some services that are now changing the way we consume media (like Netflix) wouldn't be viable. | |
| Jul 12, 2017 at 10:29 | history | answered | Mecki | CC BY-SA 3.0 |