> but from an engineering perspective it's absolutely nuts.
Net Neutrality regulations would seem to only prohibit unnecessarily complex network infrastructure, and require you to instead stick with the simpler, saner configurations that aren't discriminatory or punitive. So what exactly do you find to be "absolutely nuts" about Net Neutrality from an engineering perspective?
They had tried to push through the same thing a few years earlier but it earned the name "Internet kill switch."
Net Neutrality is just the same thing with better PR. Government enforcement of net neutrality inherently includes an internet kill switch.
So I'm not OP but that's what's nuts: You can't build a "net neutrality" enforcement mechanism without inherently giving the government a whole lot of power over the internet.
> Government enforcement of net neutrality inherently includes an internet kill switch.
> You can't build a "net neutrality" enforcement mechanism without inherently giving the government a whole lot of power over the internet.
In other markets, it is not considered a government overreach for there to be regulations and enforcement mechanisms preventing extortion and anti-competitive practices. How do you justify characterizing the same kind of consumer protections applied to the internet as "a whole lot of power"? Do you use terms like "kill switch" to describe every situation where the government can get an injunction to stop a business from doing something bad?
Or are you saying that the the internet should be a special exception to the otherwise-ordinary government powers to regulate commerce?
Hypothetical extortion and anti-competitive practices. As plenty in this topic pointed out, it was repealed and nobody really noticed. The arguments for it basically boil down to "ISPs are bad and this will hurt them."
It's a completely absurd argument. The government is taking someone to the dance. The dance is the consumer losing rights and power on the most important communication medium ever. And people on the internet are really, really passionate about how the government should take Google and not Comcast. How terrible it would be if Comcast went to the dance!
I generally agree with speeders getting tickets. But a camera system that gives everyone a ticket every time they speed is a different thing. Automating government power is something you do carefully and only with very good reason. And yes, I would call something like that a speeding kill switch, an over-application of ordinary powers the government already has through automation.
Was it in the same way as Obamacare “earned the name” “Obama’s death panels”? It says more about who gave the name than whatever they are trying to describe.
Net Neutrality regulations would seem to only prohibit unnecessarily complex network infrastructure, and require you to instead stick with the simpler, saner configurations that aren't discriminatory or punitive. So what exactly do you find to be "absolutely nuts" about Net Neutrality from an engineering perspective?