Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

Dev.SN ♥ developers

Reed Hastings' Case For Strong Net Neutrality

posted by janrinok on Friday March 21 2014, @08:52PM   Printer-friendly
from the play-fair-or-I'll-send-you-all-to-bed dept.

chromas writes:

"Reed Hastings of Netflix writes in his blog:

The essence of net neutrality is that ISPs such as AT&T and Comcast don't restrict, influence or otherwise meddle with the choices consumers make. The traditional form of net neutrality which was recently overturned by a Verizon lawsuit is important, but insufficient.

This weak net neutrality isn't enough to protect an open, competitive Internet; a stronger form of net neutrality is required. Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge.

Business Week and Forbes have articles with very slightly contrasted viewpoints."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Reed Hastings' Case For Strong Net Neutrality | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 1000 moderator points   | 15 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Solaarius on Friday March 21 2014, @10:31PM

    by Solaarius (127) on Friday March 21 2014, @10:31PM (#19570)

    I'm actually concerned about the deal Netflix did with Comcast. It's like negotiating with terrorists. Now every 2-bit ISP around the world is going to have their hand out for their piece of the Netflix pie.

    Further, other services are going to be throttled for no reason until they also pay up.

    It may have made sense to them in the short-term from a customer-service point of view, but I can only imagine that it's going to make his fight a longer one than necessary.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by tynin on Friday March 21 2014, @11:33PM

    by tynin (2013) on Friday March 21 2014, @11:33PM (#19592)

    It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
        To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
    "We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
        Unless you pay us cash to go away."

    And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
        And the people who ask it explain
    That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
        And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

    It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
        To puff and look important and to say: --
    "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
        We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

    And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
        But we've proved it again and again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
        You never get rid of the Dane.

    It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
        For fear they should succumb and go astray;
    So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
        You will find it better policy to say: --

    "We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
        No matter how trifling the cost;
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
        And the nation that pays it is lost!"

    -- Rudyard Kipling, Danegeld