On 1 December 2014 at 14:45, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
"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.
This makes me wonder if "yep, we sure do violate it, and here's precisely why" might be a good answer. Though I'd rather not hand Comcast any more sticks. (Compare the FSF's use of copyright assignment and the typical commercial user of copyright assignment.)
I note a vague similarity to Erik's essay on why -NC is harmful: that the idea of enforcing "noncommerciality" is pretty much a first world affectation and doesn't really do the job people using it want it to.
- d.