Matt Berlin on 6 Dec 2010 15:26:07 -0800

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] the current Net Neutrality fad

So - being FOR net-neutrality can be interpreted as being a proponent of the illegality of a person/persons regulating the flow of data based upon source, destination, and content.  Or does the issue revolve more around what TelComs can charge for varying types of data transfer?

Matthew Berlin

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Ernest Natiello <> wrote:

Sorry for my previous subject.  Oversight.

> The start of this conversation was in re: the current Net Neutrality
> fad and various factions to get the FCC to begin enforcing it. I'm
> saying the current proposals for Net Neutrality conflate many issues
> into a single, wave-able banner whose advocates blithely ignore the
> issues of freedom, private property and proper role of government
> raised by these flawed NetNeut proposals.

> --
> -Doug

We can "choose" to believe that the competition offered is adequate to offer a choice between net-neutrality and pay-by-site access.  I don't think it is.

Maybe we'll "choose" that the government will do the right thing, which, historically, is also on the less-likely side.

The box has been opened.  We will get screwed.  Our only "choice" is in the "how".

I personally would rather not get screwed out of my money, especially since it seems to be so fleeting these days, and I find myself depleted from defending what little I have.


Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --

Philadelphia Linux Users Group         --
Announcements -
General Discussion  --