Probably a better way of enforcing network neutrality is to encrypt all communications (say, using IPSEC) to the point, where ISPs are *NOT ABLE* to tell content apart, and to use anonymity networks like TOR so ISPs are *NOT ABLE* to tell who is connecting to what. Time is ticking though. Software and users need to act fast to set a precedent of being untrackable and untraceable before ISPs set a precedent of inspecting and controlling all traffic.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 10:33, James Sissel jimsissel@yahoo.com wrote:
"For all their incessant bickering in the first two presidential debates over conflicts of interest and government regulation, PopMech columnist Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a vital issue directly related to both those topics: Net neutrality. John McCain and Barack Obama have stated elsewhere their opposing views on the issue, with McCain being opposed to Net neutrality and favoring light regulation of the Internet, while Obama is in favor of neutrality and seeks Government involvement. In any case, since there is no standard accepted definition of "network neutrality," until the candidates elaborate on their positions (which they both declined to do for this piece, nor anywhere else so far, for that matter), "both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication.""
And we should all know when the Government gets involved (for good or evil) the whole thing starts circling the drain. And just what is "light regulation"? Are both candidates clueless or just stupid? Which one is the lesser of 2 evils? _______________________________________________ Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug