[governance] Net neutrality: Definitions

[Paul Lehto]

Everybody is paying for internet access (or the person whose computer
they are using has paid), so I don't see the usefulness of the
discussion about not paying.  The best analogy to fit the *general*
facts here that I can think of is this one:

Everybody is paying highway taxes.  However, large commercial vehicles
(in the USA) often have signs saying "This vehicle pays $1,592 [or
similar amount] in annual road and highway taxes." I am certain I
don't pay anywhere near that amount in highway taxes, the commercial
truckers pay much more..

Does this mean the commercial truck can  travel faster than me if it's
made a deal like Google/Verizon, and get other unequal treatment and
preferences when it comes to traffic laws?

The net neutrality debate has a core component that asserts, to
continue the metaphor above, that people and commercial outfits should
"pay their way" but they cannot pay for discriminatory privileges such
as a different speed limit.

A bar or tavern operator is free to set prices at 25 Euros or 25 USD
per drink, but can't charge a  higher price to net neutrality
advocates compared to commercial interests.  Nor may the tavern staff
INTENTIONALLY act to slow down service to one class in order to
benefit another.  They might sometimes do so in fact, we could
suppose, on account of their hopes for tips and such, but if pressed
on the matter they'd just say they were "slammed" and claim it was all
time impossibility or at worst negligence. The Google Verizon style
contract is one of the highest forms of intentional behavior there can
be, since it is certain to be so highly-lawyered and thought through.
---------------

Also, in the USA the laws that reach the private sector do so most
strongly in the areas regarding equality.  Slavery could never have
been abolished if the 13th amendment didn't reach the private sector,
segregated private clubs would still be legal, and workplace
discrimination against employees (including taverns) the government
would be powerless to legislate on. But clearly those laws all exist
and are well settled law.



Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 8/17/10, Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:08:07AM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com)
> wro
>> On 08/17/2010 01:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
>>
>> >In particular, if you are doing business, you do *not*
>> >have the right to discriminate arbitrarily against selected
>> >clients in Finland
>>
>> I had not heard about that in Finland.  But is it really as you
>> suggest it is?
>
> Note the word "arbitrarily".
> I didn't mean to suggest there are no valid reasons for
> discrimination, let alone that money wouldn't be one.
-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-2334
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t