Re: net neutrality - explained in a humourous way

On 01 July 2014 4:56:15 PM SAST, Simeon Miteff <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>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?

Nope.... that's not even close to what I said - please don't put words in my mouth. 
《Snip》

>
>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).

Most times the I've had a government step in to help me, I've ended up worse off.

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.

Goverment taking rights away from a group is exactly that.

Having seen what government interference in the telecommunications market place has done for me (aka via telkom) in the past, I would rather they stay away.

You're welcome to a different opinion.

--Calvin
>
>> 
>>   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

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

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