Is this net neutrality compliant ?
Its a bit naive, because we technical people can switch willy-nilly from one browser to the next, to assume everyone can.
I don't think that's true.
It's not the currently spoken of Net Neutrality, but it's relevant to the neutral carriage of data over the internet. If browser companies pick and choose whose data to delay (or otherwise alter) then they have the power to bias the web - Firefox could always delay scripts from other companies than Google, for example, in order to preference their business associate. They presumably aren't informing users, or requiring users to enable the function.
In short it seems highly pertinent in the net neutrality debate, to me, despite perhaps not having reached problematic levels and despite not being the specific form of neutrality that has erstwhile been grabbing the headlines.
additionally, the reason net neutrality is so important is because there is no consumer choice in the ISP market for many users. Even when one browser is dominant, there's a lot more choice among browser vendors, so pushing out regulation to them is less important.
But let's not muddy the waters of net neutrality by injecting separate issues into the debate. Yes, browsers should treat all traffic equally, but that isn't net neutrality.
In OSI model IIRC:
Application (software) is layer 7.
Physical connection is layer 1.
I am sure somebody will correct me.
See my other comment in thread, but in short I don't think a user cares really that action is at a different level of the conceptual OSI model, they care if they can consume given media, if NN legislation shifts things so that the browser blocks the media from a particular server instead of that servers upstream ISP I don't think users are going to be applauding too much.
Does this pertain only to browsers, or is it to all applications/clients that have a connection to the internet? What about my XMPP clients, or my IRC clients? Do they have to follow net neutrality as well? On top of that, does a FOSS project like Firefox where the user defines what is in the packaged binary have to follow it?
Net neutrality or the law in general overreaching like that could jeopardize support, especially when it is not easy to find an answer to any of the questions I listed above.
Software freedom is important.
My opinion.
They are two separate, important issues, but confusing them serves no one.
Because of the possibility of such an equivalence it strikes me that the issues are not _separate_, though obviously not identical either. If Firefox blocked/throttled sites but allowed others [in the same category] for money, then Mozilla through my client would be enacting the same effects as net non-neutrality. They could charge for an add-on to remove all/some blocks, or charge the server endpoint company to remove the block just for them.
The point is that for a user the important endpoint is their sensory input, and that a browser manufacture can filter/throttle/block that consumption in the way that an ISP can.
Legislation could be written that would encompass preventing a browser manufacturer from covertly interfering in data transfer, whilst equally demanding ISPs carry data regardless of origin. Equally poorly drafted legislation targeting ISPs could impact browser makers ability to implement black-/grey-/white-listing of malware, etc..
Whilst we're focussing on such bias that can interfere in our web/internet consumption I think it's the perfect time to make sure we don't solve the problem in one place only to leave a gaping hole that allows the same corporations to enact the same controls.
This or some similar proposal could open up competitiveness and options in the browser space, which I think would go a long way toward solving some of these issues.