On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:58 pm, Peter Carless wrote: > On 6/7/06, Brad Camroux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 09:23:37AM -0600, Neil Bower wrote: > > > Came across this article today: > > > > > > http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/62155/ > > > > > > It basically talking about a bill in the House of Representatives in > > > the states that would allow ISPs to charge more to businesses who want > > > to ensure a higher priority to 'net traffic. > > > > > > This would mean that anyone with the big bucks could buy higher > > > priority giving their sites better response time than joe blow's site. > > > > I haven't read the article yet, but I would think that kinda defeats the > > purpose of the internet, no? > > > > Brad > > Hi, > Last Friday evening on the PBS TV network the program NOW featured > an article on this subject. > http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/222/net-neutrality.html > I seems that the big telecom giants such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast > are opposed to "Net Neutrality". > Those in favour of "Net Neutrality" include companies such as Amazon, > Google, and Microsoft. > It seems that Microsoft does seem to be taking the right stand on at > least one issue >
Can you Imagine how much these companies stand to lose? If this happens, it's bad for everyone except the big telcos. MS can't afford to have windows update slow to a crawl. Amazon & Google have no business outside the internet. I can't believe the amount of dumb "benefits 1 person/group" ideas are actually being considered & implemented. The DRM thread on this list comes to mind. _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
