Skip to main content

View Diary: (UPDATE x3)So this is how Net Neutrality dies, under a Democratic President. (762 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Would you have made that argument in 1995? (8+ / 0-)

    Would you be fine with "fast lane" being 56k, and the "faster lane" being T3+?  I sure as hell wouldn't.  You're asking us to accept the same premise.  

    What this does is impede progress of the internet.  You could say we don't need faster internet, but you'd be just as wrong today as you would have been in 1995 when something like youtube or netflix was impossible.  

    The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

    by Beelzebud on Thu Apr 24, 2014 at 01:59:47 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  That is how it was in '95 (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      duhban, Aquarius40, sweatyb, AlexDrew

      I don't understand your argument.

      In '95 home connections were the 56k dialup.  But the school computers were all T lines and much faster.  I didn't demand that the school computers all slow down to 56k speeds to be "equal".

      From 98-2002 I did most of my web surfing at work on the T1 lines because my dial up modem sucked.  Again, I didn't demand that my company downgrade to modems to be fair with what I had at home.

      And as soon as I had the option of upgrading from modem to cable internet, I did so, and paid more for it.

      I'm not saying that we don't need faster internet, the exact opposite.  I'm asking why Netflix can't buy faster internet today, just like my college did in '95 and my work did in '98?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site