On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Aaron Toponce <[email protected]> borrowed from Wikipedia:
"...no restrictions on content..." Okay, so we've got free speech... "...sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached..." Free market, got it... "...that the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access." And fair business practices. So if I'm reading this correctly, "net neutrality" is the antithesis of communism; it's capitalist. It's the sort of freedom that the founding fathers meant to protect. It's so American as to be consitutional (at least as are as the first amendment is concerned). Of course, this isn't about freedom. Never was. It's about Comcast's bottom line. Honestly, I don't think they give a flying leap about what kind of content is being sucked through the pipes. They're just trying to keep traffic light, so that they can look like they really are offering "high speed" Internet access, to the customers who use little more than Facebook and Hotmail. It's much cheaper to just knock out power users than to use subscriber money to build an infrastructure that will adequately handle what their users are paying for. But in their defense, they have a lot of other things to pay for too. With a company the size of Comcast, you have a lot of buildings, employees and even vehicles to pay for. Those mansions, butlers and limos won't pay for themselves, you know. I think when it comes down to it, people arguing about "net neutrality" actually helps Comcast. It detracts from the real issue, like providing shoddy service at high prices, and blaming things like BitTorrent for it. -- Joseph http://blog.josephhall.com/ /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
