Comcast on Net Neutrality: Apocalyptic GobbledygookVP and lobbyist David Cohen speaks out ( old news - 10:31AM Thursday Aug 17 2006) tags: competition · cable · net-neutralityComcast VP and lobbyist David Cohen penned an editorial this week proclaiming that concerns over net-neutrality were chicken-little in scope. His primary argument seems to be that because incumbents have yet to degrade or block services, there's no need for legislation. Cohen proclaims that cable can't afford to block or degrade access to content & services, or they'd take a hit in their competition with DSL: "In reality, the cable-broadband business is intensely rivalrous with DSL, and we expect the rivalry to intensify as we face increasing competition from wireless and satellite broadband, fiber to the home, and even broadband over power lines. Will the tens of millions of customers still on dial-up make the switch to us if we block access to content, prevent use of an application, or preclude the attachment of devices? We think not." He also includes this concern: "Similarly, a child-friendly-content zone that packages parent-approved bandwidth-intensive games with educational tools and learning communities could also be vetoed by Internet companies that demand the right to hog the same amount of bandwidth, at no cost to them, for their own parochial designs." WebProNews counters Cohen, noting that he ignores the ample traffic shaping already occurring, while questioning the competitive broadband Utopia Cohen describes. The piece also doubts Cohen's sudden concern for child safety, since Comcast is one of the nation's largest purveyors of porn.
Related:- Tax Incumbents for Accessing Google
- Is BitTorrent Throttling a Network Neutrality Violation?
- Telco Sock Puppet Wants Comcast Investigated
- NY Attorney General Investigating Comcast
- FCC Considering Another Neutrality Hearing?
- What Net Neutrality? UK ISP Defends Throttling
- Comcast Gets Investigated While Cox Gets Free Pass
- Comcast Prepared To Spend Big On HD
|
 Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Yet again this moron ignores the fact that EVERY ISP pays for ALL their bandwidth and implies they want bandwidth for free. | |
| Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. Point 1: If you're never going to do it, then why do you care if there is legislation?
Point 2: Oh, so you are going to do it, but just for things you think are "moral". Do we want Comcast to be the informational judge/jury/executioner on morality? I think not.
This guy must need two straws to drink. | |
|  | | | | LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE | Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. Oh, I don't know what's best for me and my family, Comcast does!
No, apparently the Bush and his cronies at the FCC do. | |
| | | 
TK Junk Mail
Golf season has returned - hurrah
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
| said by pb5k  :Thread is over, Ahrenl wins.  Sorry, NGOwner makes a better argument and is the wisest course of action: »Re: I believe everything he says..
Cohen's best points:
Nevertheless, net neutrality proponents are again in full-throated attack mode, marching a new parade of horribles down the boulevard of the hypothetical. But the two grievances they cite are really phantoms: One reported claim of content-blocking by a telephone company was promptly snuffed out by the FCC last year. In the other, Cox was accused of mendaciously blocking access to online advertising competitor Craigslist when, in fact, third-party software -- soon fixed by its manufacturer -- was the real culprit.
And once we start down this windy regulatory road, why exempt from coverage Google's dominant position in Internet searches, eBay's dominant position in online auctions, Amazon's dominant position in online retailing of books and other products, or (again) Microsoft's dominant position in computer operating systems and in Internet browsers? Getting more government regulation never solved anything, only made it worse.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
| | | | 
pb5k
more cowbell
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Tempe, AZ
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. said by TK Junk Mail :Getting more government regulation never solved anything, only made it worse. Hardly. Clean air regulation (especially in California) has made quality of life better for many people. Clean water regulation is good too. I for one, prefer not to have arsenic and chromium in my water like they do in China. Here is the result of free-market deregulation in its extreme. It's not something I would care to see here.
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt | |
| | | | | 
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. said by pb5k :said by TK Junk Mail :Getting more government regulation never solved anything, only made it worse. Hardly. Clean air regulation (especially in California) has made quality of life better for many people. That is comparing apples to oranges. We all own the air we all don't own a business network. | |
| | | | | |
pb5k
more cowbell
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Tempe, AZ
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. Actually I was responding to TK's very general statement that all government regulation is inherently bad. That is simply not true and I chose two of many examples to highlight that.
The internet is certainly a more complex issue. And while I agree the internet has a large business component it is also utilized for educational, government and military functions as well.
I don't particularly like the notion of the internet being regulated by the same people who think it's a series of tubes (although there are some people in congress smarter than that guy); But neither do I want corporations (whose only legal obligation is to shareholders) to regulate my usage either. 
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt | |
| | | | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. said by pb5k :military functions as well. The DoD has their own private internet, they can't afford to have their internets held up by sticky tubes. | |
| | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
edit:
August 17th, @11:12AM
| said by Ahrenl :Point 1: If you're never going to do it, then why do you care if there is legislation? Because 99% of the time legislation ends up reaching farther than it's stated purpose.
For instance, Comcast dedicates bandwidth on their cable to their services (ie: video, digital phone, and I believe their VOIP option, all have their own dedicated channels to use over coax). Legislation could leave them ripe for the picking to any lawyer looking for a class action suit, not to mention politicians angered by comcast.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
| | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. Fortunately the entire discussion is framed around the internet service pipe. (or tube if you like  ) If Verizon and AT&T would like to setup a separate service just for hospitals, and separate service for games, then more power to them.
No one is saying they can't charge THEIR customers more. We're saying, we don't want you filtering our data with hidden fee structures. If they want to start a FREE service which they charge content providers to access, then that would be fine as well. You don't get it both ways. Especially when you're a monopoly for a service that our economy depends on. | |
| | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
edit:
August 17th, @12:33PM
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. said by Ahrenl :Fortunately the entire discussion is framed around the internet service pipe. Unfortunately that's not the entire discussion. Where is the line drawn? What constitutes being non-net-neutral?
Is it just charging content providers for higher QOS? Is limiting the speeds of end users based on how much they pay a month? Is it limiting free access of data by limiting internet access to a single channel while giving your own services dedicated channels?
The bottom line is that there is no way to target what is net neutral without either making the definition to broad (thus it encompasses charging customers more for higher speeds), or making the definition too narrow and thus ineffective (so a cable company could just put infrastructure in place to make it so preferred content has a wide channel while general internet gets squeezed thru a narrow pipe).
You can be sure as hell that legislators are going to choose the broad option if for no other reason then it allows them more control.
--edit--
just FYI, yes i know that the CC guy is making these announcements because he's worried about his companies bottom line, thus I could care less what he or any other CEO says about things like this. But the idea that if they don't intend to do it they have nothing to fear from legislation is as ridiculous applied to this as it is applied to people who are concerned by wiretapping.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
| | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. It's not as hard as you make it out to be. I pay my monthly fee to have access to a dumb pipe. That's what net-neutrality applies to.
If they'd like to offer their own services on dedicated channels, that's fine and dandy, maybe someone will pay for that too. It's the choice of the dumb pipe that they need to maintain, because there is no competitor I can go to, to get it. If they want to try and sell me a narrow pipe, they'll lose all the extra revenue I'm willing to pay to have a fat pipe, as I won't be subscribing to their dedicated additionals.
If you think the future livelihood of our economy doesn't depend on 2/3's of it having unfettered access to the internet, well, you'd be wrong.
There are plenty of examples of good legislation, it's just the bad ones effect life to a greater degree (because of the damage they can cause) and seem to be more plentiful. When it comes to the importance of freedom of information however, it is absolutely worth the small chance that it gets royally screwed. At this point, if something isn't done, the incumbents have made it ABUNDANTLY clear what their intentions are. | |
| | | | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. said by Ahrenl :It's not as hard as you make it out to be. I pay my monthly fee to have access to a dumb pipe. That's what net-neutrality applies to. Oh does it? So if a company narrows that pipe to almost nothing but gives you another pipe to their "associates" which has the same effect as lowering qos for non "associate" sites, your ok with that; that company would still be net neutral.
said by Ahrenl :If they want to try and sell me a narrow pipe, they'll lose all the extra revenue I'm willing to pay to have a fat pipe, as I won't be subscribing to their dedicated additionals. If you can just jump ship then why do you need legislation? Another provider will step in and offer unfettered access (which ironically is what the Comcast guy just proposed)
said by Ahrenl :If you think the future livelihood of our economy doesn't depend on 2/3's of it having unfettered access to the internet, well, you'd be wrong. Implying that without regulation those people won't have unfettered access is speculation.
said by Ahrenl :There are plenty of examples of good legislation Ok, so you name one. (no one else, let Ahrenl prove he's not just blowing smoke)
said by Ahrenl :it's just the bad ones effect life to a greater degree (because of the damage they can cause) and seem to be more plentiful. When it comes to the importance of freedom of information however, it is absolutely worth the small chance that it gets royally screwed. So when it comes to freedom of information your willing to throw it all on the line and give the politicians, that don't understand the situation (the tubes you alluded to), the reigns; and that even with their ignorance of the situation they'll somehow write good regulation on the issue. Perhaps afterwards they can step outside and give marine one a tune up since they're so good at fixing things they obviously don't understand.
said by Ahrenl :At this point, if something isn't done, the incumbents have made it ABUNDANTLY clear what their intentions are. Oh really? I seem to remember it being ABUNDANTLY clear that they were floundering after the backlash when they first announced their idea.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
| | | | | | | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. Oh really? I seem to remember it being ABUNDANTLY clear that they were floundering after the backlash when they first announced their idea. Well maybe that's your problem. Selective memory. They've reinforced this point many times after their initial announcement.
So when it comes to freedom of information your willing to throw it all on the line and give the politicians, that don't understand the situation (the tubes you alluded to), the reigns; and that even with their ignorance of the situation they'll somehow write good regulation on the issue. Perhaps afterwards they can step outside and give marine one a tune up since they're so good at fixing things they obviously don't understand.
I'm willing to give it any chance rather than no chance, which is what we're left with. Believe it or not, some congressmen actually write legislation for a living, as opposed to tuning up airplanes [sarcasm] good analogy as usual [/sarcasm].
Ok, so you name one. (no one else, let Ahrenl prove he's not just blowing smoke) You don't want anyone else naming them because it would be too easy? Because you recognize that they exist? Saying "everything" is "always" "anything" is inherently incorrect "always". :P Example: Signed Yesterday, Pension reform, and tax cuts for the poor, and small business's. A Great piece of legislation, which is why there was no bickering over it. (except when they tried to add the removal of the estate tax, which isn't even supported by the ultra rich)
Implying that without regulation those people won't have unfettered access is speculation. How is that an argument against it? When talking about the future it's all speculation. This isn't a court of law.. you answer only implies that you have no way of refuting the assertion.
If you can just jump ship then why do you need legislation? Another provider will step in and offer unfettered access (which ironically is what the Comcast guy just proposed) I said I wouldn't pay them as much, I can't jump ship, as there's no other boat in the water. The legislation is needed to ensure that tiny sliver of free flowing information stays intact.
Oh does it? So if a company narrows that pipe to almost nothing but gives you another pipe to their "associates" which has the same effect as lowering qos for non "associate" sites, your ok with that; that company would still be net neutral. As long as the bandwidth allocation to the pipes are separate, they can do whatever they want. That's what I want the legislation to enforce. If they think that's the best business plan, then so be it. | |
| | | | | | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. said by Ahrenl :Implying that without regulation those people won't have unfettered access is speculation. How is that an argument against it? When talking about the future it's all speculation. This isn't a court of law.. you answer only implies that you have no way of refuting the assertion. said by Ahrenl :I'm willing to give it any chance rather than no chance, which is what we're left with. So what you're saying is that you're just scare-mongering?
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
| | | | | 
LilYoda
Feline with squirel personality disorder
Premium
join:2004-09-02
Mountains
| said by Combat Chuck :But the idea that if they don't intend to do it they have nothing to fear from legislation is as ridiculous applied to this as it is applied to people who are concerned by wiretapping. Good point.
--
"the two most abundant things in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity." (Harlan Ellison) | |
| | | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. said by LilYoda :said by Combat Chuck :But the idea that if they don't intend to do it they have nothing to fear from legislation is as ridiculous applied to this as it is applied to people who are concerned by wiretapping. Good point. What ever the point is it went over my head. What does wiretapping have to do with net-neutrality? | |
| | | | | | |
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Verona, PA
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. as said by Ahrenl
quote:
Point 1: If you're never going to do it, then why do you care if there is legislation?
The whole idea that you aren't doing anything wrong so you have nothing to worry about.
--
Early to rise, early to bed;
Makes a man healthy but socially dead. | |
| | | | | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. said by Combat Chuck :as said by Ahrenl quote:
Point 1: If you're never going to do it, then why do you care if there is legislation?
The whole idea that you aren't doing anything wrong so you have nothing to worry about. So if you are doing nothing wrong they can look in your bead room window? Masturbating wile hugging your Care Bare is not wrong, let them watch. | |
| | | | | | | | | backness
join:2005-07-08
K2P OW2
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. doesn't that limit access to companies with a billion dollars to good speeds on the net? What about small and medium sized businesses (which are the heart and soul of America and out number large corps by a large margin) your solution leaves them having to pay extortion to the already rich for their services | |
| | | | | |
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Two mouth holes. Guess where the other one is.. said by backness :doesn't that limit access to companies with a billion dollars to good speeds on the net? What about small and medium sized businesses (which are the heart and soul of America and out number large corps by a large margin) your solution leaves them having to pay extortion to the already rich for their services You have what I said backwards. You can post your dancing hamsters and have net-neutrality. Once you make a billion dollars a year posting your dancing hamsters you have to pay the pipe provider. | |
| chemaupr
join:2005-06-06
Alexandria, VA
edit:
August 17th, @10:00AM
| Internet a la Cable services is on its way~!!! child-friendly-content zone that packages $5
soport tier $5
science and resarch $5 ($2 if you fax your student ID)
basic internet will include google, msn, yahoo, ebay, cnn and we will trow in for free mysapce... | |
| bamabrad
join:2006-01-27
Port Orange, FL
| I believe everything he says.. NOT! Traffic shaping for entertainment traffic-don't really care for the pipe provider doing that. The adaptation of the computer into society is much more accelerated than electricity or automobiles were-laws and legislation were more able to keep up. IP is becoming and will be THE delivery mode of most information and knowledge. Knowledge is power and should not be shaped,altered, or throttled in any way. Something this important should be considered an utility,being protected and distributed as such. | |
| | | | NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
 ·LINGO
edit:
August 17th, @10:51AM
| I do believe Cohen is on the right track. I believe he is telling it like it is. I believe he is absolutely correct when he says quote:
the wholly speculative nature of this problem is why so many refer to it as a "solution in search of a problem."
Don't legislate until there is a bona-fide problem. Proactive legislation is not a panacea for this issue, whether you believe it to be real or not ... proactive legislation is an invitation to unintended consequences and collateral damage. Let things develop on their own under a watchful eye.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
| | | 
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: I believe everything he says.. Not legislating would imply, necessarily, that current "net neutrality" will persist, contrary to what they're lobbying for. | |
| | | 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs:
·Embarq
| said by NGOwner :I do believe Cohen is on the right track. I believe he is telling it like it is. I believe he is absolutely correct when he says quote:
the wholly speculative nature of this problem is why so many refer to it as a "solution in search of a problem."
Don't legislate until there is a bona-fide problem. Proactive legislation is not a panacea for this issue, whether you believe it to be real or not ... proactive legislation is an invitation to unintended consequences and collateral damage. Let things develop on their own under a watchful eye.[NG]Owner I am not one to like laws on the internet. There are some thing that's should naturally transfer over such as copyrights/patents, child pornography laws, etc. This is one area that I do want Uncle Sam to step and and say No. The viability of the internet as an open communication for information and ideas has to be safeguarded. Once someone else's information and ideas gets priority over others it will be a downward spiral.
There are two sides to this coin, is net-neutrality laws fixing a problem that doesn't exist, or is it nipping a problem in the bud? I see it as the latter. You don't wait for food to spoil before you decide to refrigerate it.
This is all about ISPs want to be able to charge content providers for priority on the network. The hope is to create a priority war amongst the large domains like Google, Ebay, myspace, etc. Under the current system all packets are routed equally and fairly, and we all get our content timely. Once one company gets it in their head to purchase priority then the other companies will have to follow suite or get left behind. Now they will all have to shell out money to have what they all used to have. Meanwhile the rest of us are left with our websites getting the shaft. This is why even companies like Google, the very companies this is suppose to help, are against it. They don't want to shell out big money for what everyone is getting already.
The way the companies are selling this is basically by lying. One was even saying a gaming company, like WOW, could pay to have players bandwidth uncapped. That has nothing to do with network neutrality, and there probably will be no system to having users bandwidth uncapped on demand.
They are also saying that packets will receive the same priority as they always have, and all websites will continue to load just as well. If this was true then there would be no incentive for web-site providers to purchase network priority from companies like AT&T and it would all be quite mute.
So, I see it as putting the food in the fridge before it spoils, not waiting for it to spoil and then refrigerating it.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter
»www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad
»maxolasersquad.com/
»maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide
»myspace.com/mlsquad | |
| | | | NGOwner
join:2000-11-21
Leawood, KS
·LINGO
edit:
August 17th, @11:43AM
| Re: I believe everything he says.. Sage points Maxo. As an FYI, the validity of my argument rests on the following:
As I see it as long as the data pipe is not overloaded to begin with, prioritization is useless. It doesn't make a difference which packet is prioritized as there is capacity for both FIFO-wise on the pipe. Prioritization only comes into vogue when there is contention for a single timeslice on the pipe by two packets.
Furthermore, the pipe to the home must work tomorrow as well as it does today, with appropriate improvements in throughput (similar to what we've seen over the past decade). Degradation or stagnation of what we have today is NOT factored into any of my arguments.
I still don't like the idea of proactively legislating. If it becomes an issue, undo it. Otherwise let the markets decide.
[NG]Owner
--
It is impossible to create an idiot-proof product. Humanity is simply too adept at churning out better idiots. | |
| | | | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | Re: I believe everything he says.. I get your point. Though I sit far to the left I am weary of will-nilly government legislation, especially when it comes to the internet. I think this one issue is a place where I'm willing to part and say let's do it. | |
| noblepaladin
join:2006-08-02
Malden, MA
| Competition? If they limit access, "they'd take a hit in their competition with DSL"?
You mean like how if they offer very low speeds for ridiculously high prices compared to all other countries, even though the United States suppose to be much more advanced. We need true competition. Many places are limited to Cable or DSL, not both. My home has Verizon DSL and Comcast Cable, but they target different markets (Verizon has that cheap 768k/128k plan for people who just browse, Comcast has faster speeds for very high prices for more regular users). Notice that places that have FIOS get their Cable speeds doubled, and prices greatly reduces when customers threaten to leave. Now that is competition at work. | |
|
tsu
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Ugh. Won't somebody think of the children [other than the parents]? | |
| | 
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17
| Re: Ugh. said by tsu :Won't somebody think of the children [other than the parents]? Gotta love the simpsons | |
| 
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
| Wait a second...thats not what ol' Bri said. "the cable-broadband business is intensely rivalrous with DSL"
You mean that Brian Roberts was wrong when he said DSL was no threat to cable? Really? The Hyundai is threatening to undo the Beemer? I thought Comcast had nothing to fear from those silly telcos?
What has this world come to?
Man, what a bunch of double-speaking corporate crap...
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
sago
join:2001-12-19
| not quite there yet talk about broadband over power lines.
OK, here's the deal. People with dial-up WILL tend to switch to companies like Comcast, because they have no other choice. I'm not going to sit here and say that Comcast is a monopoly, but on the other hand, there isn't really a whole lot of "choice" in many areas still -- you've got cable broadband, DSL (if you can get it), Verizon's fiber (if you're in the area), and of course things like T1's and satellite broadband.
Cable internet is turning into the best solution for those who can get it. So if your signal levels degrade when "digital voice" or voip phone service gets priority packets, what then? When "family friendly broadband games" (whatever those are) get priority over your incomplete shopping cart at your favorite online retailer what happens then?
Well... it "shouldn't" happen. There's "something wrong" with the network -- we're "working on it".
The article is simply not realistic. This is simply not the way things are. The greatest threat is probably an overloaded network, with revenue-generating broadband content being given priority, and the internet itself simply not working as well.
OTOH, net neutrality legislation may very well turn into a huge amount of red tape -- and that would not be good either.
So I would say that net neutrality is a very good thing, and that we should support it. I'm just not sure that our government is capable of crafting a law without creating miles of red tape that creates problems.
The question in my mind is whether or not the red tape is really worth it. But generally speaking, with companies like Comcast, if they do give priority to "family friendly broadband games", chances are your TV channels and other services won't work as well or at all in any neighborhood where there are problems with the network - and there are neighborhoods that are like that from time to time as problems show up and are fixed over time.
Is it worth the red tape? Otherwise, net neutrality is a good idea. Are our lawmakers capable of crafting a law that reflects the concept? That's another question. | |
|
batterup
I Can Not Tell A Lie.
Premium
join:2003-02-06
Netcong, NJ
clubs: | Something that does not exsist get so much attention. Who is behind this net-neutrality push? It must be special interests that are doing a preemptive strike. These special interests must have plans for things they know will cause problems on the last mile. | |
| | | |
|
|
