Yeah, I've seen parts of that but not all of it. It's sad that everything has to be reduced to a war of sound bits and "think of the children" arguments.
Net Neutrality is not a simple issue. Period. Solutions will not be simple. Period. There are good reasons to come up with a workable compromise. On the one hand, I work at a game company, and we'd sure like to have a way to allow our customers to work with their local ISP to be able to get a higher quality of service *IF* they're willing to pay for it. If gamers (or video downloaders) want a higher quality of service they should be able to get it. *BUT*, on the other hand, this shouldn't allow the combined content providers/carriers to abuse their carrier status to give a lower class (or more expensive) of service to their competitors. In the early days of telephone, AT&T customers couldn't call Bell System customers. The Gov't stepped in, merged then and created a monopoly. That was a good solution there, it *IS NOT* a good solution now. So, on the one hand, they (providers) should be able to provide (and people should be able to buy) a higher quality of service. On the other hand, they shouldn't be able to consign competitors or non-profits or anyone who won't pay the premium to a service ghetto. On the gripping hand, the whole issue of government intervention and control is extra scary too, and there's little the government can do that won't make the situation worse. So far, I'm seeing more rhetoric than analysis from all three sides of the issue. It is not a simple problem, and some cures could be worse than the disease. -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
