In article telecom25.151.1@telecom-digest.org, Patrick Townson at
ptownson@cableone.net wrote on 4/20/06 19:37:
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: 'Network Neutrality', the concept that
> everyone on the net should be given equal use of network facilities
> is a very interesting concept. At first glance, I would say I agree
> with it, yet the telcos, notably AT&T (SBC by its other name) and
> the larger ISPs (America OnLine for example) seem to be fighting it
> for various reasons. The editorial comment which follows comes from
> the Move On people, who, IMO were dreadfully off-base in their
> comments last week (and again today as a passing comment in this
> latest piece) also seem to favor network neutrality. Quite some time
> ago, I suggest that (again, IMO) the ICANN people, given their
> druthers, would tend to favor 'large corporations' rather than the
> small, everyday internet user. I would appreciate _your_ thoughts on
> this topic of Network Neutrality, as it has come to be known. First,
> here are the thoughts of the Move On people, then I will print
> responses in the days to come from readers. PAT]
Though as you say Network Neutrality is a good itea, without the large
companies, the internet would still be as it was in the begining, just for
the Collages and the govenment. The cost of building and maintaining the
inferstructure costs millions of dollars and someone has to pay for it, we
the users do so the companies that do business also should pay their fair
share. I know the companies that pay me to build the network have to get
paid in order to pay me, without that I would not be working and would not
have the money to use the net. This is not Nerver Land anymore, as much as
I miss the old net, this one gives more.
The only Good Spammer is a dead one!! Have you hunted one down today?
(c) 2006 I Kill Spammers, Inc. A Rot in Hell Company
Steven Lichter (shlichter@sbcglobal.net)