Net Neutrality Is Marxist?
joseph at thatworks.com
Fri Apr 9 20:50:59 MDT 2010
On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Aaron Toponce
<aaron.toponce at gmail.com> 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.
More information about the PLUG