<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Net Neutrality, Robber Barons and a &#8220;Free&#8221; Internet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pcmech.com/article/net-neutrality-robber-barons-and-a-free-internet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pcmech.com/article/net-neutrality-robber-barons-and-a-free-internet/</link>
	<description>Helping Normal People Get Their Geek On</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:43:08 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Janport</title>
		<link>http://www.pcmech.com/article/net-neutrality-robber-barons-and-a-free-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-14079</link>
		<dc:creator>Janport</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:22:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pcmech.com/?p=6425#comment-14079</guid>
		<description>The argument that traffic shaping inhibits free speech and democracy can go both ways. Sure, if an ISP is preventing users from accessing certain specific sites, and especially if they&#039;re paid to do it, free speech is at risk. On the other hand, there are some ISPs that really do need to implement shaping in order to provide reliable service to ALL of their customers. If a handful of users are slowing the network for everyone else, then that can be as detrimental as an ISP blocking sites. I&#039;m against DPI, but behavior-based shaping like what &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.netequalizer.com&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;netequalizer&lt;/a&gt; does seems like a reasonable compromise. Everyone gets equal access to the bandwidth. That sounds more democratic to me than having to fight a few heavy users for bandwidth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The argument that traffic shaping inhibits free speech and democracy can go both ways. Sure, if an ISP is preventing users from accessing certain specific sites, and especially if they&#8217;re paid to do it, free speech is at risk. On the other hand, there are some ISPs that really do need to implement shaping in order to provide reliable service to ALL of their customers. If a handful of users are slowing the network for everyone else, then that can be as detrimental as an ISP blocking sites. I&#8217;m against DPI, but behavior-based shaping like what <a href="http://www.netequalizer.com" rel="nofollow">netequalizer</a> does seems like a reasonable compromise. Everyone gets equal access to the bandwidth. That sounds more democratic to me than having to fight a few heavy users for bandwidth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JS</title>
		<link>http://www.pcmech.com/article/net-neutrality-robber-barons-and-a-free-internet/comment-page-1/#comment-11142</link>
		<dc:creator>JS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:27:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pcmech.com/?p=6425#comment-11142</guid>
		<description>This is a big issue, I joined www.savetheinternet.com and I am spreading the word through myspace and facebook, but  unless we take a day and go out to the streets hand out information and really let the public or get media attention start kissing the net goodbye...   

p.s. Would be nice to see hackers unite what would congress do than?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a big issue, I joined <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.savetheinternet.com</a> and I am spreading the word through myspace and facebook, but  unless we take a day and go out to the streets hand out information and really let the public or get media attention start kissing the net goodbye&#8230;   </p>
<p>p.s. Would be nice to see hackers unite what would congress do than?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
