On 11/30/2014 01:12 PM, Jens Best wrote:
First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate" the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that quite an coincidence? ;)
At least for me, it is not: I have always been opposed to statements of the form "All X is good/bad" because such statements are always, by definition, overly simplistic and unrealistic.
"Net neutrality" sounds like a good idea at first glance because it superficially resembles the ill-defined and subtle desirable objective of "prevent the oligarchies that owns the communication media from effectively controlling and/or affecting what can be accessed/done in order to further their interests at the detriment of people".
"Net neutrality" as currently defined is an alluring concept because - as Westerners - we percieve its putative effect as "make everything uniformly inexpensive to level the playing field for users and content providers". /We/ don't care that Wikipedia is as expensive to use as Facebook because the cost to either is marginally neglectable.
-- Marc