7 ms·

The newest news says, that the first big carrier is looking for legal ways to get around this. So "abolish" might be a little to much promise. The news behind

The newest news says, that the first big carrier is looking for legal ways to get around this. So "abolish" might be a little to much promise. The news behind the news is, that the EU parliamentarians likely did sacrifice net-neutrality to get rid of the roaming charges (it is rumored, that many feared that when the whole package was not voted for fast, the roaming charges would also be dropped from agenda). So, very possible, in the end we get nothing of it at all!

kuschku 11y ago
Well, they didn’t sacrifice net neutrality. They created net neutrality, but ISPs can still zero-rate some sites. It’s intended to avoid the Netflix-Verizon issue, but it still allows for unfair competition, although the ECJ already mentioned they would consider that an antitrust violation. So we might end up with a fair result.
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  Some people, and also the inventor of the WWW, do not agree.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Yes. Zero-Rating is bad. But you can’t say they "banned" or gave a "heavy blow to" Net Neutrality. They created a very limited law, that provides some of the protections of Net Neutrality, but most importantly, it creates more competition between ISPs. But, as most of the other protections of Net Neutrality are anti-monopoly laws, the ECJ might end up ruling that, if one combines this law with antitrust laws, these protections are implied.
    - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
      To which extend Net Neutrality was damaged, is debatable -- and likely we will only see in the future what the net-result is. I can only see for now, that they left dangerous holes in the Net Neutrality case here, which the providers where longing for very much, because they want to use these holes to draw money from it.
MaximillianII 11y ago
Are you a native German speaker? Just asking because of your use of the comma - pardon the otherwise useless comment.
- PythonicAlpha 11y ago
  Yes

kuschku 11y ago

Well, they didn’t sacrifice net neutrality. They created net neutrality, but ISPs can still zero-rate some sites. It’s intended to avoid the Netflix-Verizon issue, but it still allows for unfair competition, although the ECJ already mentioned they would consider that an antitrust violation. So we might end up with a fair result.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago
Some people, and also the inventor of the WWW, do not agree.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Yes. Zero-Rating is bad. But you can’t say they "banned" or gave a "heavy blow to" Net Neutrality. They created a very limited law, that provides some of the protections of Net Neutrality, but most importantly, it creates more competition between ISPs. But, as most of the other protections of Net Neutrality are anti-monopoly laws, the ECJ might end up ruling that, if one combines this law with antitrust laws, these protections are implied.
  - PythonicAlpha 11y ago
    To which extend Net Neutrality was damaged, is debatable -- and likely we will only see in the future what the net-result is. I can only see for now, that they left dangerous holes in the Net Neutrality case here, which the providers where longing for very much, because they want to use these holes to draw money from it.

MaximillianII 11y ago

Are you a native German speaker? Just asking because of your use of the comma - pardon the otherwise useless comment.

PythonicAlpha 11y ago
Yes