On Wednesday 23 September 2009 20:04:24 Kenneth Burgener wrote: > Is there a critical point about Net Neutrality I am missing? Please > educate me if I am incorrect.
My issue with Net Neutrality is that it is an attempt to legislate the Internet, something that has, effectively, not been done very well, and for good reason: The Internet is, for all intents and purposes, designed to not be governed. Sure, it sucks that Comcast has blocked certain kinds of traffic. But, people have choices. If you don't like the way Comcast operates, use a different ISP. I haven't used Comcast as an ISP for about 5-6 years because they had frequent outages in my area and every time I called about it, they refused to acknowledge it was their problem for up to 12 hours. During that time, they would have me reboot my hardware, replace my network equipment, etc. It was very frustrating and as soon as DSL was available in my neighborhood, I got out of that situation. Now, someone is bound to say, "Oh! But what about poor little Sally Muckenfutch who only has access to Comcast and nothing else?!" Yeah, that sucks, but if Comcast sucks that bad, I'm sure other people like Sally are mad too. Sally and a few of her neighbors can get together and set up a local ISP. The point is, these companies that don't provide what their customers want should get the message from their customers. They should have to deal directly with the people their service policies directly affect. All Net Neutrality legislation does is give companies like Comcast an excuse to raise their rates across the board and blame their woes on the government. Those are my thoughts on the issue. -- [email protected] is Doran L. "Fozz" Barton "You could use the lavoratory please." -- Sign outside a restroom in Japan /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
