Be Excellent To Each Other

Via the Google public policy blog:

Blah blah net neutrality good, etc, but then you get to this bit:
And then this:That's some grade-A bullshit there.

Can you translate into thicky speak?

Yeah, I can't work out what that's supposed to be saying. Something Evil Overlord bad I assume.

“The Internet is equal, but we want to deliver some sites more quickly than others for a fee.”

Ish, from what I gather.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality

It's the theory that ISPs should not be allowed to pick and choose who's traffic they prioritise or carry. Imagine if Vodafone didn't let you look at O2.co.uk, or Orange ADSL blocked Skype, or they all dropped iPlayer, or they started charging me extra to make a Minecraft server accessible.

Sounds like good business sense to me. I honestly can't see the difference between that and the day-1 DLC you were defending.

And anyway, unless all ISPs switch to this system, the ones who don't do it will hoover up the customers.

Is this related to the Google DNS servers then? I've been using them since they were mentioned on here.

It is good business sense in the small scale -- although it's not great for Google's rep and makes their famous "don't be evil" tagline look like crap.

The market can easily sort out the DLC thing, as you don't have to buy it; it's mostly an attempt to game the second hand pricing, one which could succeed with little harm to consumers. However if net neutrality is overturned it'd be a very rare ISP that still offered it -- it's too hard to explain to average consumers to make it a sales feature you can charge for -- and that's a bad blow for future innovations. It's tiny startups with new ideas that get hurt by this, but they are the lifeblood of innovation in IT.

My belief in free markets only goes so far; regulation is still required. Computer games are not, in the grand scheme of things, important, whereas computer software innovation has generated untold billions and employed millions over the last few decades.

Kissyfur that the most wrongo thing you've ever said.

I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm saying Gaywood's being a bit inconsistent.

I was anti-day 1 DLC, for the record, and I really don't see this as being different in concept. "Corporations make you pay more for what you get now by being devious cocks" isn't anything new, and is still shitty.

Oh, I'm anti-day 1 DLC too. Gaywood's wrong about all heaps off stuff. But trying to convince him he should feel the same about Net Neutrality helps no one. What about the next time he's all over the internet? it's not worth the risk. :p

And regardless, computer games for consumption and the single most important mechanism for the communication of ideas isn't really comparable.

Heh - good point, well made.


Well, qualitatively it is, in this respect. You can't be all in favour of companies being allowed to do and charge what they like with their own products and services for one thing and not another - it's logically inconsistent. And logical inconsistencies make baby Jesus cry.

I see you both have me on ignore then. Cunts.

I'm amazed Gaywood hasn't come back to argue the point.

I still think the market will act against this - unless all ISPs simultaneously do it, which strikes me as unlikely.

In that I'm agreeing with you?

The world is, necessarily, made up largely of logical inconsistencies. They are what makes the sportsman compete, the wise man drink and the idiot find religion.

I remember the pre-AOL days of the internet, as such I remember the point of it and I think we need net neutrality to ensure it retains the original point: A giant pan-humanity mind-meld for all time, with gaming and tits. All for one simple, affordable monthly payment.