The only businesses that would profit from internet regulation are the huge government businesses, AT&T, Verizon, and all the other incumbent ("government") telcos.
EVERYONE else would lose. Trust me, I've seen lots of regulations in lots of countries and all regulation, from "prevent child porn" right up till "kill anyone who criticizes stoning women" internet regulation (the last one translates to tracking dissidents if you're wondering) and they ALL benefit big telcos, and destroy small and normal business' internet presence.
Those are of course the "unintended" victims (except, of course, to the politicians part of the incumbent telcos), but they're the biggest victims by far.
*ahem* the modern left works hard to keep them strong. And ever stronger.
There, fixed that for ya. Your argument only makes sense if the "modern left" would keep companies out of government. But obviously it does the reverse : create more and tighter links between government and companies. This used to be called something between fascism and communism, depending on how strong the links are "on average".
This results, for obvious reasons, not in less power for corporations, but in more power for corporations. You'd think history, or the present day, would make that absolutely crystal-clear to everyone, but apparently this is not the case.
Are you truly this deluded about the effects of policies like eating up GM or buying up a few banks ? This leads to less power for the people, and more centralized in wall street and washington.
Let's take a few issues, check the opinion of "the world" on the subject (1 person = 1 vote), and see what happens :
1) creationism versus evolution : creationism, definitely, and absolutely no choice in the matter for anyone, in fact I think a majority of people worldwide are in favor of physical punishment for believing in evolution 2) freedom versus oppressive government : oppressive government, again definitely. You might argue that they won't agree on exactly how to oppress others, but then again, see points 1 and 3 for a few points of agreement 3) habeas corpus : definitely not possible (neither muslims, nor chinese want this, that's 2 billion votes right there) 4) freedom to be an atheist, just having the opinion : again, you're definitely not getting the votes for this 5) honest scientific research : no way, for obvious reasons (ie. it disagrees with my political/religious views)
Are you starting to see the problem ?
What you're proposing sounds good, but it is more than simply an abomination.
Yeah, having your vote counted in government, where your vote's (theoretically) upper-limit effect is 1 in 300 million.
Getting a 1 in 300 million vote in a corporation is VERY cheap indeed. So cheap it's probably doable to get such a vote in every corporation. That's because it doesn't mean squat.
Even on voting grounds corporations beat governments. Much cheaper, much easier to get more votes. Even in an entity like AT&T and such.
... and exactly how is this not a failure of the ideology itself ? Communism leads to genocide, when practiced by humans. This much is more than proven.
An ideology simply does not exist outside of the human mind. And all human minds have used the communist ideology in the same way. It's like a program, bug-free in theory (even if communism the principle isn't exactly bug-free in theory at all), but doesn't run for some reason on any computer system.
It is not the computer system that is a failure, it is the program.
(besides "replacing the system" means genocide, even if it's a telling fact that all communist governments have indeed engaged in genocide).
The only reasonable regulation would be regulation that makes sure everyone has at least a few non-cartelled alternatives for connecting to the internet.
But, company "regulation" affects a few million at most, govt. regulation affects everyone. So, unless you have a way to make the government refuse to touch the controls (Think of the children !), let's PLEASE stick to corporate control of the internet.
Why ? Little bandwidth is infinitely better than none at all.
Okay... to get meaningful bandwidth, you need backbone links with 1 billion * 1 megabit (not that anything less than gigabit satisfies most slashdotters)... that comes to... 1 petabit per second wireless routers... (the global internet is actually close to being able to route that much data, in case you're wondering)
Where did you buy those again ?
Not that many slashdotters will be happy with "just" 1 megabit per person.
Let's not pretend this is about "a certain amount of regulation", that would be beyond stupid. Here's the list of countries that wants to takeover control of the internet :
India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia
Is it any wonder they choose to hide behind the "UN" name ?
<Saudi Govt.> "Hey UN, we want to regulate the internet" <UN> Of course, you promise to be good rulers ? <Saudi Govt.> Of course <Saudi police> Okay, okay... stopping now... it was fun <Saudi Govt.> Who said you could stop stoning that guy who said something remotely resembling mumbling and possibly understood to be an insult to our let's-stone-women-dead-if-2-guys-don't-like-em religion ?
And then the Saudi police continued stoning... both the original victim and the police agent who brought up the "not evil" practice, of course
<UN> Of course we will take the internet away from those "evil" free-speech Americans. Provided, of course, you don't take that suitcase full of money home...
So please, don't be an idiot. This is about killing whatever freedom exists on the internet, please don't think it's about anything else. And of course, similar criticism applies to the rest of these states.
Alternatively, it could be that "the established powers" are the way they are for... a reason. And that details like due process and rule of law are actually a good thing. And yes, even the wars (the ones by America) in the middle east... are a good thing (or at least better than the alternatives, esp. better than the vigilante "justice" (mob justice is what it is, at best) that is represented here, by wikileaks itself, by the "anonymous" script-kiddies, and the russian criminals).
But don't let me detract you from thinking your specific personal version of revolution would make things so much better.
Certain powers in the USA have already been suggesting invading Iran. If you knew that the USA was planning a war against your country, and that getting nuclear weapons would prevent such a war, wouldn't you be working very hard to get them?
Such an invasion would, of course, be an improvement for the lives of Iranians, in addition to a good thing for the rest of the world as well.
Except, of course, for the movie itself. Never mind the ending. All humans would immediately choose the side of the evil autopilot and cooperate with him to do wally in, in order to avoid work.
Much like people do these sorts of things in real life. Like the "tolerance" we have for the racist muslim states that produce oil, or even for the racist religion itself. Not being "tolerant" of this would mean a fight and might mean losing access to oil. Just like the last people who "needed more tolerance" (in case you're confused, that'd be the nazis, whom also claimed the only reason one could oppose nazism was racism, and hatred for the poor).
Exactly. The problem isn't politicians expecting 100% safety. It's VOTERS expecting, and demanding 100% safety. For a politician, saying "we'll prevent 99% of attacks" is suicide.
The problem isn't politicians, or management, it's us.
(of course we all know how > 99% of terror attacks could be prevented easily, however that would violate "freedom of 'religion'" (of course, of the 2 ideologies currently using terrorism, one is barely a religion, just that everyone calls it such, and one isn't a religion at all))
So you create a situation with the express purpose of causing thousands of companies to be unable to do business...
Come on, this is sabotage. If it was done by accident, sure you might have a (weak) point, but not if done on purpose.
And frankly even if done by accident. Suppose you work in construction, and you park, accidentally, a truck in front of an company's exit. None of the company's trucks get to leave, leading to dozens of missed deliveries, thousands of dollars in late fees, and tens of thousands in missed orders and cancelled orders... do you think it's just okay to do that ?
The basic principle in western law is simple : you break it, you pay for it.
More concretely : ANY act that fulfills these 3 conditions results in payment of damages and/or punishment
a) that act must break A law (even if it's jaywalking) b) there must be damages to another party (incidentally yes, this means that one gets to break the law, CIVIL law, as long as no-one (else) gets hurt, or more generally, as long as no-one complains) c) there must be A causal connection between the damages suffered and the act comitted (and no, it doesn't have to be the primary or only cause of the damages)
So let's check :
a) definitely, ddossing is against the law. And even if it isn't, it fits the definition of sabotage. So it's against the law b) damages : thousands of people could not process payments, so a lot of companies are going to have to pay for repeat deliveries, and a lot of companies missed orders. Additionally, mastercard will have to pay a number of businesses damages for failure to provide the agreed service c) the causal connection is obvious.
So this was definitely an act deserving (according to American law, which will be identical, on this point, to just about any other law) of punishment, and gives mastercard and others the right to extract damages from the individuals responsible. Additionally, whatever punishment is specified in the applicable law(s) for ddossing and/or sabotage can be applied to the perpetrators.
the current temperature, according to that graph, is higher than seen in the past 450,000 years. Surely that won't have an effect on the changes that come? If CO2 of 280ppm produces an ice age which plummets average temperatures by 6 degrees, what catastrophic drop will we see from CO2 of 370 (and rising...)?
Oh so now global warming causes ice ages. You really have a one-track mind, don't you ? Any chance you have an explanation that extends beyond why you were right all along about today's situation ? There are quite a few ice ages, so let's try to find explanations that fit all of them, not just the (currently hypothetical) one that's about to start, okay ?
Of course, such arguments will not be all that useful for "WE MUST ACT NOW" screams. Boo-hoo. Chances are, imho, that we can't change what's happening (and definitely not by "saving energy", that's beyond stupid). So why are we trying these idiocies ?
And do you know statistics ? You must realize that the right side of the graph was collected differently from the left side, right ? The left side comes from a few kilometers under the ice, the right side comes from satellite measurements.
So the left side of the graph has been crushed, and the effect that has on the data is perfectly well known : it averages the values out a bit.
You *might* be right, that today we're seeing more extreme values than in the past, but there's no valid way to draw that conclusion. So you're very wrong indeed. We don't know what the upper limit (of co2, temperature) was that far back, we just know the average over, say 50-100 years and how it changed. If you take the average over the last 50 years, we're comfortably under the peak before the last ice age, today's temperatures are, in that graph, nothing special.
The next point "there's no evidence it drops in 10 years". Okay, technically correct, however it drops almost completely in less than 1 standard deviation of the approximation, meaning it drops in less than 1 (statistically sane) time unit. So it drops in a time unit that's most definitely less than 100 years, but we don't know how much less (though, again, probably a LOT less than 100 years).
Yes, there's a tiny event that mostly correlates with the start of ice ages (even though this started happening long before ice ages started).
But there are many such events, obviously. Our position in the galaxy also has lots of special properties that occur once every 100000 years and thus mostly correlate (there's a few alignments of planets and even stars that happen to synchronize I believe).
So the answer "milankovitch cycles", barring new evidence, is about as good an explanation for ice ages as "the last 20 digits on my atomic clock are always 789215789235682348902348908231 when an ice age occurs".
You know, we don't actually know *what* causes ice ages (and no it's not the gulfstream)... the long-term graphs seem to indicate pretty strongly that one is indeed coming :
I mean the graph has jumped 10 degrees downward 10 times like clockwork every 100000-110000 years or so. Seems logical that it will in fact jump again, doesn't it ? Last time it jumped was about 108000 years ago. So it's pretty much bound to jump again. And I repeat, we do *not* know what causes this, and the temperature drops like a stone (weather apparently goes from normal to ice age conditions, meaning permafrost in the northern sahara, and a *very* white Christmas in southern Mexico, while Florida becomes an ice sheet, just to give an idea how extreme this is, in less than 10 years). That's 10 years, triggered by some unknown event, after which America less inhabitable than Greenland. Even the deserts of the middle east will be cold conditions, and harsh winters, at best.
Of course the error margin on these data are like 500-1000 years, which is a lot of time. But while we don't know why or how, *something* is going to trigger an ice age, pretty soon now. But that's "pretty soon" in "very likely in the next 2000 years"...
Comcast gives level3 around 500 gigabits of free transit.
-and-
Level3 gives comcast about 350 gigabits of free transit.
These are guesses based on what's seen at 1 IX, multiplied by how many contact points they have (and since I'm neither comcast or level3, I can't really see any more than that, should be somewhat accurate though)
The idea is that since they provide eachother services of "about" equal value, neither party pays (much) to the other. However, comcast's been having to provide more and more service compared to level3. Obviously at some point they would start charging, so I really don't see what you got your knickers in a knot over.
Incidentally, level3 refuses to peer with us. If people like you got their way suing people would be the only way to do business on the internet.
Right... could it be that one checks slashdot not like a caffeine addict that's just been informed of a defect in his pacemaker, but once a day (or not even that) ?
Why am I even responding to your bullshit ? Do you think personal insults improve your argument ?
Oh and the actual cause of the dispute is that level3 demanded comcast install 20 extra 10G links to them in their network. And Comcast, rightly, said "pay us for it, like anyone else". That is the "network neutrality violation" you talk about, and yet another reason you're a total buffoon.
Slashdot Mirror
The only businesses that would profit from internet regulation are the huge government businesses, AT&T, Verizon, and all the other incumbent ("government") telcos.
EVERYONE else would lose. Trust me, I've seen lots of regulations in lots of countries and all regulation, from "prevent child porn" right up till "kill anyone who criticizes stoning women" internet regulation (the last one translates to tracking dissidents if you're wondering) and they ALL benefit big telcos, and destroy small and normal business' internet presence.
Those are of course the "unintended" victims (except, of course, to the politicians part of the incumbent telcos), but they're the biggest victims by far.
It was a reply to your "but the soviet union wasn't communism at all" post.
*ahem* the modern left works hard to keep them strong. And ever stronger.
There, fixed that for ya. Your argument only makes sense if the "modern left" would keep companies out of government. But obviously it does the reverse : create more and tighter links between government and companies. This used to be called something between fascism and communism, depending on how strong the links are "on average".
This results, for obvious reasons, not in less power for corporations, but in more power for corporations. You'd think history, or the present day, would make that absolutely crystal-clear to everyone, but apparently this is not the case.
Are you truly this deluded about the effects of policies like eating up GM or buying up a few banks ? This leads to less power for the people, and more centralized in wall street and washington.
An interesting case study ? Of what ? Utter failure ?
There does not exist a protocol that can do this (and some proofs are DAMN close to a "this can't be done" proof).
Then you're post is completely off-topic here.
Let's take a few issues, check the opinion of "the world" on the subject (1 person = 1 vote), and see what happens :
1) creationism versus evolution : creationism, definitely, and absolutely no choice in the matter for anyone, in fact I think a majority of people worldwide are in favor of physical punishment for believing in evolution
2) freedom versus oppressive government : oppressive government, again definitely. You might argue that they won't agree on exactly how to oppress others, but then again, see points 1 and 3 for a few points of agreement
3) habeas corpus : definitely not possible (neither muslims, nor chinese want this, that's 2 billion votes right there)
4) freedom to be an atheist, just having the opinion : again, you're definitely not getting the votes for this
5) honest scientific research : no way, for obvious reasons (ie. it disagrees with my political/religious views)
Are you starting to see the problem ?
What you're proposing sounds good, but it is more than simply an abomination.
So you mean in Nazi Germany one should simply see events as an opportunity to get a well-paid job at the SS ?
Yeah, having your vote counted in government, where your vote's (theoretically) upper-limit effect is 1 in 300 million.
Getting a 1 in 300 million vote in a corporation is VERY cheap indeed. So cheap it's probably doable to get such a vote in every corporation. That's because it doesn't mean squat.
Even on voting grounds corporations beat governments. Much cheaper, much easier to get more votes. Even in an entity like AT&T and such.
... and exactly how is this not a failure of the ideology itself ? Communism leads to genocide, when practiced by humans. This much is more than proven.
An ideology simply does not exist outside of the human mind. And all human minds have used the communist ideology in the same way. It's like a program, bug-free in theory (even if communism the principle isn't exactly bug-free in theory at all), but doesn't run for some reason on any computer system.
It is not the computer system that is a failure, it is the program.
(besides "replacing the system" means genocide, even if it's a telling fact that all communist governments have indeed engaged in genocide).
Let's not forget that in this case, "entities B-Z" are Saudi Arabia, China, India and South Africa.
I mean how exactly is this a question ? Are we seriously going to assume that any of those 4 are interested in increasing internet freedom ?
The only reasonable regulation would be regulation that makes sure everyone has at least a few non-cartelled alternatives for connecting to the internet.
But, company "regulation" affects a few million at most, govt. regulation affects everyone. So, unless you have a way to make the government refuse to touch the controls (Think of the children !), let's PLEASE stick to corporate control of the internet.
Why ? Little bandwidth is infinitely better than none at all.
Okay ... to get meaningful bandwidth, you need backbone links with 1 billion * 1 megabit (not that anything less than gigabit satisfies most slashdotters) ... that comes to ... 1 petabit per second wireless routers ... (the global internet is actually close to being able to route that much data, in case you're wondering)
Where did you buy those again ?
Not that many slashdotters will be happy with "just" 1 megabit per person.
Let's not pretend this is about "a certain amount of regulation", that would be beyond stupid. Here's the list of countries that wants to takeover control of the internet :
India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia
Is it any wonder they choose to hide behind the "UN" name ?
<Saudi Govt.> "Hey UN, we want to regulate the internet" ... stopping now ... it was fun
<UN> Of course, you promise to be good rulers ?
<Saudi Govt.> Of course
<Saudi police> Okay, okay
<Saudi Govt.> Who said you could stop stoning that guy who said something remotely resembling mumbling and possibly understood to be an insult to our let's-stone-women-dead-if-2-guys-don't-like-em religion ?
And then the Saudi police continued stoning ... both the original victim and the police agent who brought up the "not evil" practice, of course
<UN> Of course we will take the internet away from those "evil" free-speech Americans. Provided, of course, you don't take that suitcase full of money home ...
So please, don't be an idiot. This is about killing whatever freedom exists on the internet, please don't think it's about anything else. And of course, similar criticism applies to the rest of these states.
Alternatively, it could be that "the established powers" are the way they are for ... a reason. And that details like due process and rule of law are actually a good thing. And yes, even the wars (the ones by America) in the middle east ... are a good thing (or at least better than the alternatives, esp. better than the vigilante "justice" (mob justice is what it is, at best) that is represented here, by wikileaks itself, by the "anonymous" script-kiddies, and the russian criminals).
But don't let me detract you from thinking your specific personal version of revolution would make things so much better.
Certain powers in the USA have already been suggesting invading Iran. If you knew that the USA was planning a war against your country, and that getting nuclear weapons would prevent such a war, wouldn't you be working very hard to get them?
Such an invasion would, of course, be an improvement for the lives of Iranians, in addition to a good thing for the rest of the world as well.
And, frankly, let's just say :
"whoever did this, THANKS"
2 more years without war.
Root cause *might* also be something trivial, like ... having been proven guilty of a crime.
the Wall-E scenario could easily come to pass
Except, of course, for the movie itself. Never mind the ending. All humans would immediately choose the side of the evil autopilot and cooperate with him to do wally in, in order to avoid work.
Much like people do these sorts of things in real life. Like the "tolerance" we have for the racist muslim states that produce oil, or even for the racist religion itself. Not being "tolerant" of this would mean a fight and might mean losing access to oil. Just like the last people who "needed more tolerance" (in case you're confused, that'd be the nazis, whom also claimed the only reason one could oppose nazism was racism, and hatred for the poor).
Exactly. The problem isn't politicians expecting 100% safety. It's VOTERS expecting, and demanding 100% safety. For a politician, saying "we'll prevent 99% of attacks" is suicide.
The problem isn't politicians, or management, it's us.
(of course we all know how > 99% of terror attacks could be prevented easily, however that would violate "freedom of 'religion'" (of course, of the 2 ideologies currently using terrorism, one is barely a religion, just that everyone calls it such, and one isn't a religion at all))
So you create a situation with the express purpose of causing thousands of companies to be unable to do business ...
Come on, this is sabotage. If it was done by accident, sure you might have a (weak) point, but not if done on purpose.
And frankly even if done by accident. Suppose you work in construction, and you park, accidentally, a truck in front of an company's exit. None of the company's trucks get to leave, leading to dozens of missed deliveries, thousands of dollars in late fees, and tens of thousands in missed orders and cancelled orders ... do you think it's just okay to do that ?
The basic principle in western law is simple : you break it, you pay for it.
More concretely : ANY act that fulfills these 3 conditions results in payment of damages and/or punishment
a) that act must break A law (even if it's jaywalking)
b) there must be damages to another party (incidentally yes, this means that one gets to break the law, CIVIL law, as long as no-one (else) gets hurt, or more generally, as long as no-one complains)
c) there must be A causal connection between the damages suffered and the act comitted (and no, it doesn't have to be the primary or only cause of the damages)
So let's check :
a) definitely, ddossing is against the law. And even if it isn't, it fits the definition of sabotage. So it's against the law
b) damages : thousands of people could not process payments, so a lot of companies are going to have to pay for repeat deliveries, and a lot of companies missed orders. Additionally, mastercard will have to pay a number of businesses damages for failure to provide the agreed service
c) the causal connection is obvious.
So this was definitely an act deserving (according to American law, which will be identical, on this point, to just about any other law) of punishment, and gives mastercard and others the right to extract damages from the individuals responsible. Additionally, whatever punishment is specified in the applicable law(s) for ddossing and/or sabotage can be applied to the perpetrators.
Now tell me, is that so unfair ?
the current temperature, according to that graph, is higher than seen in the past 450,000 years. Surely that won't have an effect on the changes that come? If CO2 of 280ppm produces an ice age which plummets average temperatures by 6 degrees, what catastrophic drop will we see from CO2 of 370 (and rising...)?
Oh so now global warming causes ice ages. You really have a one-track mind, don't you ? Any chance you have an explanation that extends beyond why you were right all along about today's situation ? There are quite a few ice ages, so let's try to find explanations that fit all of them, not just the (currently hypothetical) one that's about to start, okay ?
Of course, such arguments will not be all that useful for "WE MUST ACT NOW" screams. Boo-hoo. Chances are, imho, that we can't change what's happening (and definitely not by "saving energy", that's beyond stupid). So why are we trying these idiocies ?
And do you know statistics ? You must realize that the right side of the graph was collected differently from the left side, right ? The left side comes from a few kilometers under the ice, the right side comes from satellite measurements.
So the left side of the graph has been crushed, and the effect that has on the data is perfectly well known : it averages the values out a bit.
You *might* be right, that today we're seeing more extreme values than in the past, but there's no valid way to draw that conclusion. So you're very wrong indeed. We don't know what the upper limit (of co2, temperature) was that far back, we just know the average over, say 50-100 years and how it changed. If you take the average over the last 50 years, we're comfortably under the peak before the last ice age, today's temperatures are, in that graph, nothing special.
The next point "there's no evidence it drops in 10 years". Okay, technically correct, however it drops almost completely in less than 1 standard deviation of the approximation, meaning it drops in less than 1 (statistically sane) time unit. So it drops in a time unit that's most definitely less than 100 years, but we don't know how much less (though, again, probably a LOT less than 100 years).
Except for the "problems", the start of ice ages being one of those thorny problems :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycles#100.2C000-year_problem
Yes, there's a tiny event that mostly correlates with the start of ice ages (even though this started happening long before ice ages started).
But there are many such events, obviously. Our position in the galaxy also has lots of special properties that occur once every 100000 years and thus mostly correlate (there's a few alignments of planets and even stars that happen to synchronize I believe).
So the answer "milankovitch cycles", barring new evidence, is about as good an explanation for ice ages as "the last 20 digits on my atomic clock are always 789215789235682348902348908231 when an ice age occurs".
You know, we don't actually know *what* causes ice ages (and no it's not the gulfstream) ... the long-term graphs seem to indicate pretty strongly that one is indeed coming :
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/globalchange/images/temp-001.gif (source http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/globalchange/climate_change.asp)
I mean the graph has jumped 10 degrees downward 10 times like clockwork every 100000-110000 years or so. Seems logical that it will in fact jump again, doesn't it ? Last time it jumped was about 108000 years ago. So it's pretty much bound to jump again. And I repeat, we do *not* know what causes this, and the temperature drops like a stone (weather apparently goes from normal to ice age conditions, meaning permafrost in the northern sahara, and a *very* white Christmas in southern Mexico, while Florida becomes an ice sheet, just to give an idea how extreme this is, in less than 10 years). That's 10 years, triggered by some unknown event, after which America less inhabitable than Greenland. Even the deserts of the middle east will be cold conditions, and harsh winters, at best.
Of course the error margin on these data are like 500-1000 years, which is a lot of time. But while we don't know why or how, *something* is going to trigger an ice age, pretty soon now. But that's "pretty soon" in "very likely in the next 2000 years" ...
Comcast gives level3 around 500 gigabits of free transit.
-and-
Level3 gives comcast about 350 gigabits of free transit.
These are guesses based on what's seen at 1 IX, multiplied by how many contact points they have (and since I'm neither comcast or level3, I can't really see any more than that, should be somewhat accurate though)
The idea is that since they provide eachother services of "about" equal value, neither party pays (much) to the other. However, comcast's been having to provide more and more service compared to level3. Obviously at some point they would start charging, so I really don't see what you got your knickers in a knot over.
Incidentally, level3 refuses to peer with us. If people like you got their way suing people would be the only way to do business on the internet.
Right ... could it be that one checks slashdot not like a caffeine addict that's just been informed of a defect in his pacemaker, but once a day (or not even that) ?
Why am I even responding to your bullshit ? Do you think personal insults improve your argument ?
The link summarizes things nicely http://blog.ioshints.info/2010/12/internet-peering-disputes-follow-money.html ...
Oh and the actual cause of the dispute is that level3 demanded comcast install 20 extra 10G links to them in their network. And Comcast, rightly, said "pay us for it, like anyone else". That is the "network neutrality violation" you talk about, and yet another reason you're a total buffoon.