Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Shea Tisdale" <shea AT sheatisdale.com>]

Depending on which definition you look at, I could see some arguments that
the two are slightly different, but the core of Net Neutrality is the
principle that the users should be in control of the content they have
access to, and not broadband carriers.  

In this case, a large broadband carrier, AT&T, censored a portion of a
concert because it contained political speech.  Now, they were also the
sponsors of the netcast and that probably gives them some "rights", but I
think that the fact that the sole provider of the netcast, unilaterally and
without announcement or explanation, decided to censor part of the show
because it contained political speech is where censorship and net neutrality
meet.

That's my take.  Here is Pearl Jam's take:
http://www.pearljam.com/news/index.php?what=News

And here is another take:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/





-----Original Message-----
From: internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Steven
Champeon
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 9:50 PM
To: internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [internetworkers] AT&T is evil, reason number 53462

on Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 08:07:03PM -0400, Shea Tisdale wrote:
> I'm surprised no one has brought up AT&T's censorship of Pearl Jam and the
> obvious implications it has to the whole Net Neutrality arguments going
on.

Censorship has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Discuss.

-- 
hesketh.com/inc. v: +1(919)834-2552 f: +1(919)834-2553 w:
http://hesketh.com/
antispam news, solutions for sendmail, exim, postfix:
http://enemieslist.com/
---
Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list
To unsubscribe visit
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers