Re: [MLUG] Oh, no...

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tue, 9 May 2006, Phillip Kelchen wrote:

> Well, I think the Net neutrality debate just hit a little closer to 
> home:
>
> http://news.com.com/Smaller+cable+firms+take+aim+at+Net+neutrality+fans/2100-1028_3-6069873.html?tag=nefd.top

I'm not clear on the meaning of "net neutrality."  Does it mean that 
internet provider companies can't charge more for some services than for 
others?  If so, I'm all for it.  If it means that they can't have 
bandwidth charges, I'm against it.

> From the article:

   "I think what the phone industry's saying and what we're saying is
   we've made an investment, and I don't think the government should be
   coming and telling us how we can work that infrastructure, simple as
   that," Commisso said during a panel discussion about issues faced by
   companies like his, adding, "Why don't they go and tell the oil
   companies what they should charge for their damn gas?"

I'm not sure what the gov't is doing, but I'll just say that cable 
companies have laid a lot of line on gov't property and they have had 
gov't supported monopolies in many places.  Also, they are in the 
information delivery business and our gov't has a constitution to uphold, 
so we cannot allow service providers to alter web content in a way that 
might be disrupting free speech.

So what is going on with this?

Mike

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members