<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Internet Citizens Must Fight to Maintain Net Neutrality</title>
	<link>http://www.jeremymaddock.com/2006/04/internet-citizens-must-fight-to-maintain-net-neutrality/</link>
	<description>Journal of a Successful Internet Entrepreneur</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 05 Feb 2012 02:16:07 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Counter-Amendment Seeks to Ridicule Net Neutrality Legislation &#187; Jeremy Maddock</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremymaddock.com/2006/04/internet-citizens-must-fight-to-maintain-net-neutrality/#comment-39</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:54:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jeremymaddock.com/2006/04/internet-citizens-must-fight-to-maintain-net-neutrality/#comment-39</guid>
					<description>[...] In a deliberate mockery of net neutrality, U.S. House Representative, Charles Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas, has proposed that the principle be applied not only to Internet Service Providers, but also to the internet itself. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] In a deliberate mockery of net neutrality, U.S. House Representative, Charles Gonzalez, a Democrat from Texas, has proposed that the principle be applied not only to Internet Service Providers, but also to the internet itself. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Congress Passes IPTV Franchising Bill, But Ignores Net Neutrality &#187; Telecommunications Industry News</title>
		<link>http://www.jeremymaddock.com/2006/04/internet-citizens-must-fight-to-maintain-net-neutrality/#comment-34</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 03:12:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.jeremymaddock.com/2006/04/internet-citizens-must-fight-to-maintain-net-neutrality/#comment-34</guid>
					<description>[...] The bill did not, however, include a provision to protect the principal of net neutrality, and stop telecom providers from creating a paid “fast lane” for preferential internet traffic. Without such a restriction, consumer advocates worry that ISPs could demand payment from high traffic websites, and effectively drive competitors, including VoIP providers and internet video companies out of business. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] The bill did not, however, include a provision to protect the principal of net neutrality, and stop telecom providers from creating a paid “fast lane” for preferential internet traffic. Without such a restriction, consumer advocates worry that ISPs could demand payment from high traffic websites, and effectively drive competitors, including VoIP providers and internet video companies out of business. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

