On 1 December 2014 at 14:45, Marc A. Pelletier <marc(a)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.