To A Republican we know: On net neutrality I was gonna fuck with you by sending this as just another example of rude Repug but it really does get to something that rates higher (much) than terrorism on my list of concerns. External threats have a way of presenting themselves in such a way that they get handled. This is something that we'll do to ourselves without even knowing.

I don't think "net neutrality" (another bumper sticker phrase) really encompasses the full scope of what's happening or the scope of the danger. As technology advances, unrestricted access to the knowledge (and some non-wisdom) of the people will be the only defense (with a nod to you, short of guns and bombs) against government: Think about what they are doing with that technology. And I trust the telco's less than the government.

But the real fear, and we get to resurrect a whole lotta Marxist paranoia here, is the collusion of the big dogs. The telco's and ISP's do it here just as Yahoo and Cisco are doin' it for the counterrevolutionaries in China.

"Net neutrality" is another case of goofy fucks (see hippie motherfuckers) really screwin' up important issues. You see, this guy Kneuer makes a valid point when he says market forces (driving technology) could resolve these issues of "neutrality". These bandwidth eatin' Meta-Google-My-Tube-You-Yahoo mofo's don't appreciate the economic disruption a truly open, neutral net would require. Or the insidious nature of governmental solutions to a Gordian Knot.

What is not being resolved is the issue of government sanctioned throttles on the flow of information. A truly neutral net would require economic disruption (if you're paying by the bit or byte, who's payin' for the ad's?) that neither the telco's or government are anxious to see. They will cooperate for their mutual benefit on this matter: And others (see counterrevolutionaries above).  ¶ 6/24/2007 11:54:00 AM