On the one hand, the subdomain hijacking is one abuse of many possible ones that could be legislated away through proper Net Neutrality laws. On the other hand, from an engineering perspective, assuming the existence of a bandwidth oversupply inside the network for all time is unreasonable; and depending on end-to-end applications to manage all network traffic, instead of the network itself, can produce completely different types of abuse from content providers. The fact is, proponents of Net Neutrality seem to be trying to make it a law that networks should always be able to handle our biggest communications just like our smallest ones, and an infinite number of both–or, when it hits the wall, allow the bigger communications, the denser voices, to drown out the lighter voices AND themselves.

There doesn’t seem to be a good answer here. Network neutrality? Google gets to google-bomb Comcast into submission with server farms that require their own hydroelectric dams; Microsoft, Yahoo, Skype, and Vonage continue to make Cox and AT&T their prison b**ch. No network neutrality? Verizon and AT&T get to sell our eyeballs to the highest bidder, regardless of our needs and preferences, without a strong enough competitive market to give us credible alternate choices. Thus negating our ability to vote for Net Neutrality with our wallets instead of our government.

Seems like we’re heading towards a problem regardless of which way we vote. So, in the interim, I’m voting for what keeps my Youtube and Skype accounts cheaper longer–Yes for Net Neutrality!

We need a better answer than any current legislation is really offering, IMHO. (And a more competitive marketplace for data services too…)

Np sooner does this country produce something good for its people than corporate interests try to seize it for its own use. These businessmen have no business controlling the internet. That goes for government, too!Stop them now!

Regards