Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 23rd Jun 2011 22:47 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 478428
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-06-29
You're right, there shouldn't be a comparison between what's going on in the Netherlands and what is going on here in the States, which is why I didn't mention the Netherlands (I know, the parent article did). And network neutrality should never be about "policing" the 'net. However...
That's exactly what they are proposing! One of the provisions of this deal is what I described above, that they would limit access to 200 arbitrary sites, out of the literally billions of web sites in existence. That is such an extreme example of anti-neutrality that it boggles the mind. If you use recent figures for legitimate websites in existence (~2.024B) that comes out to an accused (not convicted!) infringing party being able to see only 0.00000098% of the Web. Not to mention, "the Web" is not the entirety of the Internet, and if the subject is restricted to just those 200 web sites he obviously is also restricted from all of the non-WWW content.
That is why I feel this is a slap in the face to network neutrality in the U.S. Regardless of the lame excuse they came up with regarding IP protection, it's still wrong and highly anti-consumer.