userlander
Banned - aka walrus1 - aka vidranger1 - aka iggy-starnuts
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Posts
- 1,745
- Likes
- 12
I don't really think this is about network neutrality as much as it is outright Chinese-style censorship, is it? I thought net neutrality (or UN-neutrality really) would be more like AT&T reducing the bandwidth of 4-chan (or whomever) practically to zero unless they paid big fees to get the major pipelines. That would ensure that the ISP (in this case AT&T) gets to host its content front and center, and any other corporate content from paid subscribers also gets the bandwidth, while the little guy goes under before you can say www.
Either way, it's completely lame. These self-appointed "guardians" of our lives and what content we have access to are way out of line. Move to china if you want to censor people, AT&T.
Either way, it's completely lame. These self-appointed "guardians" of our lives and what content we have access to are way out of line. Move to china if you want to censor people, AT&T.