No 'net neutrality'...

[greall]

Your thoughts:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36193558/ns/technology_and_science-security/

Greg

[BW]

I remember when Net neutrality used to relate specifically to nondiscrimination based on the source and destination, nothing else. Folks championed that because they didn't want the established big players (like m$) exerting control over the common infrastructure.

Now, apparently the definition of net neurtality is extended to mean not just source/destination, but also the method of transport which I personally see as a separate issue. I'm not say it is more or less important, just a separate issue.

---
with that said, let me quote an post forom the slashdot by "pavon (30274) (http://slashdot.org/%7Epavon)" rather than typing something myelf. pavon has a 5 digit registration number, so you know he is hardcore


The FCC are not the communication dictators of the US. They don't get to do whatever they want just because they think it is good idea. They have been granted specific powers to regulate specific aspects related to communication, and that is it.


In this case they had sanctioned Comcast for violating the FCC's Internet Policy Statement. The statement itself states that it is not legally binding, just a set of guidelines. In court, the FCC could not point to a single statute that gave them the power to regulate the internet in this manner. They were blatantly operating out of their granted powers and the judge ruled accordingly.pretty cut and dry.

[lexbarker]

Wait till Internet2 comes into effect and you will see more "Net Neutrality."