Re: net neutrality - explained in a humourous way

On 01 Jul 2014, at 2:15 PM, Calvin Browne <[email protected]> wrote:
>   If you can't enter into a contract with your clients to, for example,
>   deliver neflix faster or slower than say google video, because of net
>   neutrality laws, then those rights have been expropriated.
>   --Calvin

You mean the right to interfere with service quality in order to extort money from content providers?

Did I miss something or are *any* of the providers concerned actually selling this to their customers as a service enhancement?

Yes - net neutrality limits provider's rights, but the flip-side is that it protects the consumer's right to choose their content provider (which is possible, because the service is neutral). IMHO that is especially appropriate when the provider has provider has market power and the consumer doesn't.

Comparing net neutrality to expropriation of private property rights seems melodramatic to me.

> 
>   On 24/06/2014 14:57, Roland Giesler wrote:
> 
>   On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Calvin Browne
>   [1]<[1][email protected]> wrote:
> 
>   And leaves out the bit where private property rights are expropriated.
> 
>   Please elaborate?
>   Roland


_______________________________________________
IOZ mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.internet.org.za/mailman/listinfo/ioz