On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Dana Spiegel wrote: > And here is where we have the astroturf statements. Network Neutrality > IS NOT regulation of the internet. It is a means of PRESERVING internet > freedom. > > This doublespeak is being promoted solely by telcos and their astroturf > organizations. Private individuals have not been concerned with > attacking Net Neutrality. However astroturf organizations have been able > to mis-represent Net Neutrality as government regulation. It is not. > The ONLY people who benefit from NOT having Net Neutrality are the > telcos and the cablecos. Private individuals and most business BENEFIT > from having Net Neutrality. Who said?
As an ISP, I am *against* any kind of net neutrality that would apply to my network. I don't want government to tell me what I can and what I cannot do with my customer's traffic. Yes, most likely, I will not touch any kind of packets, but if I choose to give higher priority on *my* IP network to PilosoftVOIP packets, I should have this choice. If your suggestion is that "Net Neutrality" should only apply to ILECs and cablecos - oh I'm all for it...But it kind of seems unfair, doesn't it? Not being a biggest fan of the incumbents, it does seem somewhat silly to hamstring them. The "right" thing of course would be to reverse the TRO and mandate ILECs to provide unmolested layer2 DSL transport to third-parties. But that battle seems to be lost. Possibly, the only condition when net neutrality makes (sort of) sense is that ILEC would have to choose between providing access to competitors like us, or to be bound by net neutrality provisions. -- Alex Pilosov | DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services President | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877-PILOSOFT x601 Pilosoft, Inc. | http://www.pilosoft.com -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
