The web is based on open standards; that’s what made it universally accessible.
How does limiting access based on how you access the web benefit anyone?
It doesn’t, but that isn’t their point. They’re simply pointing out that existing net neutrality laws in the US usually only apply to ISPs and telcos, not internet businesses.
Nobody is defending the practice, they’re just differentiating it from what we’ve previously referred to as “net neutrality,” which is 100% entirely about how ISPs process internet traffic, and not about the services being used within that traffic.
Unless I missed the memo, and “net neutrality” means something different now.
Since Google is both the service provider for the client browser and also provides last-mile internet services; they would fit the definition of a supposed neutral ISP but also neutral for applications and services further up the OSI stack.
Net neutrality is not just a service provider concept but has been viewed this way in the cases service providers have tried to game the system. It also encompasses the concept of an open internet; the neutrality of data is data and presentation, or lack of to the client is defined by open standards, not the desires of any one party.
Where did I say it did? The fact that it’s not a net neutrality issue doesn’t mean it’s not an issue. Net neutrality is just a specific thing that isn’t this.
Imagine a business making some smoothies with water provided by the utility company. The business decides to sell less appetizing smoothies to certain organizations. Are you saying that that’s a “water utility neutrality” issue?
The web is based on open standards; that’s what made it universally accessible. How does limiting access based on how you access the web benefit anyone?
It doesn’t, but that isn’t their point. They’re simply pointing out that existing net neutrality laws in the US usually only apply to ISPs and telcos, not internet businesses.
Nobody is defending the practice, they’re just differentiating it from what we’ve previously referred to as “net neutrality,” which is 100% entirely about how ISPs process internet traffic, and not about the services being used within that traffic.
Unless I missed the memo, and “net neutrality” means something different now.
Since Google is both the service provider for the client browser and also provides last-mile internet services; they would fit the definition of a supposed neutral ISP but also neutral for applications and services further up the OSI stack.
Net neutrality is not just a service provider concept but has been viewed this way in the cases service providers have tried to game the system. It also encompasses the concept of an open internet; the neutrality of data is data and presentation, or lack of to the client is defined by open standards, not the desires of any one party.
Where did I say it did? The fact that it’s not a net neutrality issue doesn’t mean it’s not an issue. Net neutrality is just a specific thing that isn’t this.
Imagine a business making some smoothies with water provided by the utility company. The business decides to sell less appetizing smoothies to certain organizations. Are you saying that that’s a “water utility neutrality” issue?