I think it’s worth pointing out that the concept you’re describing doesn’t make any sense to begin with because the act of partitioning is already a violation of net neutrality in and of itself. If any part of the spectrum is prioritized, the neutrality is gone and there’s nothing left to be whittled. There’s no such thing as “half-neutral” or “partially neutral” or “neutral with exceptions” – anything less than completely 100% neutral is simply “not neutral.”
(I also think you know that and were doing a sort of reductio ad absurdem, so my intent was just to put a finer point on it.)
Remember when the cable companies tried shaking down Netflix?
This is net neutrality all over again.
Next they degrade service for anyone not paying for “positive discrimination“.
I believe it was mostly Verizon and Comcast, and they still do it to this day.
deleted by creator
Read the article. This is about taking shared spectrum and walling off a portion of it for the services that pay extra.
Once that’s allowed, the portion left for net neutrality can be whittled away.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the concept you’re describing doesn’t make any sense to begin with because the act of partitioning is already a violation of net neutrality in and of itself. If any part of the spectrum is prioritized, the neutrality is gone and there’s nothing left to be whittled. There’s no such thing as “half-neutral” or “partially neutral” or “neutral with exceptions” – anything less than completely 100% neutral is simply “not neutral.”
(I also think you know that and were doing a sort of reductio ad absurdem, so my intent was just to put a finer point on it.)