“Principles”. Part of the problem is that the definition of neutrality is very ad hoc and untestable. Like pornography, we know it when we see it.
(Side note, obviously Reed is not unbiased from a financial perspective.)
I understand the instinct. But the fact that it took weeks for anyone to call this non-neutral is evidence that after arguing this for x years, we still don’t have a testable definition.
(Side note, obviously Reed is not unbiased from a financial perspective.)
I understand the instinct. But the fact that it took weeks for anyone to call this non-neutral is evidence that after arguing this for x years, we still don’t have a testable definition.
Yes, this move by Comcast is non-neutral. It was non-neutral when Facebook offered something similar over mobile: http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/18/facebook-launches-0-faceboo...
CDNs? Not neutral.
The problem is that caps are reasonable (even if we prefer otherwise). And offering bits for free is hard to argue against, for the consumer.
So if two reasonable acts constitute a violation of net neutrality, what does that say about our definition?