On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Rick Smith wrote:
OK, and while we're at it, why is "net neutral" good ? I admit
The terminology here is somewhat confusing. The term "net neutral" seems to be used to describe two unrelated ideologies (both of which are "bad", IMNSHO). One is the opposite view to what AT&T (and others) are trying to push through Congress to allow them to charge certain content providers for premium access to their (AT&T's) customers. The other is a "movement" by some to make it "bad" to do any shaping of any type of your network traffic. Both are "whacko" ideas, IMO.
I've ignored most of the discussions on it due to the fact that I'm NOT a supporter.
I've not followed the discussions here very much, but I would agree with your assessment of the situation.
-- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ Mikrotik Certified Consultant (http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html) -- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
