Comments on: Mike D for Net Neutrality http://boingboing.net/2012/02/15/mike-d-for-net-neutrality.html Brain candy for Happy Mutants Wed, 22 May 2013 17:42:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Jake Peavy http://boingboing.net/2012/02/15/mike-d-for-net-neutrality.html#comment-1349283 Jake Peavy Sat, 18 Feb 2012 05:21:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=144177#comment-1349283 Mike D/with the master plan Mike D/with the master plan

]]> By: Donald Petersen http://boingboing.net/2012/02/15/mike-d-for-net-neutrality.html#comment-1348042 Donald Petersen Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:25:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=144177#comment-1348042 What are his feelings about net anonymity? "Is your name Michael Diamond?"  "No, mine's Clarence." What are his feelings about net anonymity?

“Is your name Michael Diamond?”  ”No, mine’s Clarence.”

]]> By: Jay Pasquantonio http://boingboing.net/2012/02/15/mike-d-for-net-neutrality.html#comment-1347890 Jay Pasquantonio Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:18:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=144177#comment-1347890 Nah, that's Sabotage. Nah, that’s Sabotage.

]]> By: Martijn http://boingboing.net/2012/02/15/mike-d-for-net-neutrality.html#comment-1347767 Martijn Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:55:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=144177#comment-1347767 So he's part owner of the Ma Bell that's got the ill communication? So he’s part owner of the Ma Bell that’s got the ill communication?

]]> By: Gulliver http://boingboing.net/2012/02/15/mike-d-for-net-neutrality.html#comment-1347706 Gulliver Thu, 16 Feb 2012 06:44:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=144177#comment-1347706 Except for the part where telco infrastructure was subsidized by governments federal, state and municipal, operate in many locations as regional monopolies, and use public commons in the form of bandwidth for wireless and rights-of-way for wired. I have no problem with pricing by the bandwidth because that represents a real cost of doing business. But when it comes to corporations using routing restrictions as a means to coerce customers into not doing business with their competitors, not accessing sites and services critical or simply unflattering of them, and/or not accessing sites and services unaligned with the political outlook of the telco providers' current controlling interests, that I have a big effing problem with. Moreover, it's bad business to alienate the customer base even if you are a government-protected monopoly built with pork-barrel expenditures from sweetheart contracts awarded through opaque bidding practices. So, while what I know of Mike D inclines me to believe his motives are as much for freedom of expression as to protect his investments, it's flat-out wrong to say that net-neutrality runs counter to a pure profit motive. A company that adopts net-neutrality principles now can avoid the PR shit-storm later. Also, it’s just plain stupid for anyone to get involved in promoting net-censorship for political ends because once that genie is uncorked, it <i>will</i> be used against you. Except for the part where telco infrastructure was subsidized by governments federal, state and municipal, operate in many locations as regional monopolies, and use public commons in the form of bandwidth for wireless and rights-of-way for wired.

I have no problem with pricing by the bandwidth because that represents a real cost of doing business. But when it comes to corporations using routing restrictions as a means to coerce customers into not doing business with their competitors, not accessing sites and services critical or simply unflattering of them, and/or not accessing sites and services unaligned with the political outlook of the telco providers’ current controlling interests, that I have a big effing problem with.

Moreover, it’s bad business to alienate the customer base even if you are a government-protected monopoly built with pork-barrel expenditures from sweetheart contracts awarded through opaque bidding practices. So, while what I know of Mike D inclines me to believe his motives are as much for freedom of expression as to protect his investments, it’s flat-out wrong to say that net-neutrality runs counter to a pure profit motive. A company that adopts net-neutrality principles now can avoid the PR shit-storm later.

Also, it’s just plain stupid for anyone to get involved in promoting net-censorship for political ends because once that genie is uncorked, it will be used against you.

]]> By: Dan mcgovern http://boingboing.net/2012/02/15/mike-d-for-net-neutrality.html#comment-1347675 Dan mcgovern Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:04:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=144177#comment-1347675 If you want to advocate for Net Neutrality within a company, go for it.  My problem is government-backed Net Neutrality.  I can chose to not use AT&T quite easily.  Expatriation is a much greater burden to avoid a policy I do not like.   If you want to advocate for Net Neutrality within a company, go for it.  My problem is government-backed Net Neutrality.  I can chose to not use AT&T quite easily.  Expatriation is a much greater burden to avoid a policy I do not like.  

]]> By: Guest http://boingboing.net/2012/02/15/mike-d-for-net-neutrality.html#comment-1347622 Guest Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:42:00 +0000 http://boingboing.net/?p=144177#comment-1347622 Oh sure Mike D, go ahead and do an end run against blind loyalty to the pure profit motive that is ascribed to all shareholders to explain the indecent actions of corporate citizens. You just do that. please. Oh sure Mike D, go ahead and do an end run against blind loyalty to the pure profit motive that is ascribed to all shareholders to explain the indecent actions of corporate citizens. You just do that.

please.

]]>