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

["Andrew C. Oliver" <acoliver AT buni.org>]

Network non-neutrality would be a great way to facilitate censorship 
though..  I'm SURE "the man" will use "reasonable and 
non-discriminatory" pricing to meet the public with speech that he 
doesn't like...of course you'll need to negotiate the terms under a "Non 
Disclosure Agreement"...

Steven Champeon wrote:
> Well, apparently, you're not the only one who thinks net neutrality and
> the AT&T/Pearl Jam "censorship" nonsense is related:
>
>  
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070817-fcc-commissioner-pearl-jam-censorship-linked-to-net-neutrality-fight.html
>
>   "In the interview, Copps followed other network neutrality supporters
>    in seizing on the incident as a prime example of the need for
>    government regulation of companies like AT&T, in order to prevent
>    them from censoring political speech on the larger Internet. This is
>    in spite of the fact that from a purely technical standpoint, AT&T's
>    censorship of Vedder on its own webcast, which is technically content
>    that AT&T "owns" and is responsible for, has little apparent
>    connection to network neutrality. After all, not even the most ardent
>    net neutrality proponent would suggest that a company shouldn't be
>    able to censor its own streaming webcasts—content that it funded and
>    that it owns."
>
> But I still maintain that confusing the two - censorship and network
> neutrality - is dangerous. To do so simply obscures the real issues that
> lay behind the slogan.


--
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email,
Calendaring (including freebusy),
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease
of installation/administration.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature