In article ,
says...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
"BAR" wrote in message
. ..
In article ,
says...
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:10:48 -0400, Tosk wrote:
puleeeeaaseeee. He was and is a joke... Kinda' like calling the
pending
censorship doctrine, the "fairness" doctrine...
Fairness Doctrine or net neutrality? The Fairness Doctrine has been
dead
for quite a while. However, the FCC is now considering rules to
insure
net neutrality.
What is net neutrality? Did you forget that you entered into a contract
with your ISP? If you don't like what one offers you can excercise your
right to choose a different ISP. Or, you can negotiate with your ISP to
provide you with better quality service.
The ISP really isn't the issue. They're a dime a dozen. The issue is the
broadband providers. There are just a few of those. They're mostly
backbones, such as MCI, Spring, UUNET...
MCI no longer exists, see Verizon.
Sprin(g)t no longer exists, see AT&T.
UUNET no longer exists, see Verizon.
Besides UUNet never owned the long lines, the had modems at the POPs.
The misnomer of public and private traffic on the Internet blurs the
fact that it was all privately owned.
Try again.
Whatever... it's still the broadband providers not the ISP. Net neutrality
Did you agree to terms and conditions when you obtained your Internet
connection? You entered into a private contract, at least in the US for
now. If you don't like the terms and conditions then don't pay for the
service.
Access to the Internet is not a right.
Buy a newspaper or a magazine.