One of the more parroted talking points against Net Neutrality has been verbalized this way: It's a solution in search of a problem. Rather snide, really, if you think about it, and is a remark that usually accompanies a brush off to concerns of gatekeeper abuses.
As if to ask: "Would we do that to you?"
Maybe it's because incumbent telecom providers have lost every Net Neutrality argument that they've even forsaken the general appearance of "good behavior" for fear of proving the opposition's points for them.
It's hard to tell what motivation AT&T and Verizon would have for that. There could be many: they've quit arguing and have commenced to doing while they still can; they feel they've buried the argument, have won the government, and are therefore immune; or whoever makes and enforces policies isn't communicating very well the spin-doctors trying sell a much different story.
Who knows? But it wasn't long ago that the "solution in search of a problem" was relegated to isolated incidents in Canada and Net Neutrality proponents had only fear they could point to. (That wasn't entirely true, just reviewing – concerned citizens had at least the words from the horse's mouth to go on…)
Just after AT&T's Pearl Jam fiasco, where a nice proof of concept was exhibited at the expense of Eddie Vedder's right to speak, Verizon blames "a dusty policy" for
I hope Ben doesn't go through AT&T for Internet or mobile phone service. According to the company's latest Terms of Service, they can
Sort of seems that way. And sort of seems like they don't care if it's obvious anymore or not.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!