People buy generic pyrantel pamoate with PTSD may also be more likely to have feelings buy arcoxia sale of irritation at any given time than those without the cheap zoloft on internet condition. There are several different types of mitral valve disease, information no viagra prescription buy cheap including mitral regurgitation (MR), mitral stenosis (MS), and mitral valve buy tizanidine prolapse (MVP). However, there are two vaccines that can protect cheap gentamicin eye drops infants against rotavirus, which is one type of virus that order retin-a no prescription causes stomach flu. Having an abortion can be an emotionally buy cheap clonidine challenging experience, and people may want to seek support from purchase norvasc online close friends in the days and weeks after the procedure. serevent no prescription How often someone needs colorectal cancer screening depends on their fda approved estrace risk of developing the disease. Additionally, women are more likely to.

Last week’s Wall Street Journal Story claiming that Google was pulling a double-cross on its pro-Network-Neutrality posture has spawned a series of imitators. Today the Boston Herald voices its editorial opinion that Google has been caught in red-handed hypocrisy, and therefore the whole Net Neutrality idea ought to be abandoned. Let the unregulated free market work its wonders and all will be well.

In fact Google explained itself quite well on the morning the WSJ story appeared. Net Neutrality is the principle that the Internet should treat all packets should be treated equally, not favoring those with a particular source or destination. What Google was proposing is called edge caching, locating its servers at points in the network where they can reduce Internet traffic to deliver the same content. It’s not a new idea — lots of companies make a nice living doing it.

Here is some of the Herald’s analogizing:

The FCC should repeal its neutrality policies. The historical accident that telephone companies were organized to connect calls in the order received should not prevent high-value Internet services from being paid for and provided separately from other services. Telephone companies early on leased private lines for exclusive use of customers willing to pay extra. Telegraph companies also leased private lines and charged for telegrams on the public wires at various rates.

But telecomm law has to do with much more than that. The telcos can’t disconnect the service of all Republicans on the eve of an election in order to make it harder for them to get the vote out. And as we say in Blown to Bits, Western Union actually was subject to neutrality legislation, after it colluded with one of the “wire services” to filter the news for political purposes. Those are better analogies for what neutrality means.

In other Google news, Warner Brothers has started to pull its videos off YouTube after failing to reach agreement on contract terms. No more Madonna or Red Hot Chili Peppers on YouTube? We’ll see who gets hurt more. It sounds like a foolish move on the part of an increasingly desperate music industry, unable to staunch the bleeding of bits and of dollars.

This entry was posted on Sunday, December 21st, 2008 at 3:22 pm and is filed under Censorship and free speech. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.