Tania Derveaux the sizzling candidate for Senate in the 2007 Belgian general election, who created the parody attack over the political issue of other political parties “to provide jobs” by advertising, she will provide “blowjobs”(Read more at Wikipedia) has again rocked the world by declaring “I will make love with every virgin who defends the Internet.” One may call it madness, I say it’s brilliant.
Her website ““Don’t Stay Virgin”says—

“I’m using sex in a positive way to spread awareness. The reason why only virgins can apply is because I don’t want to make this promise to such a large amount of people that I’ll have to turn some down.
Net neutrality is paramount to safeguard free speech and innovation on the Internet. With only one arguably negative side-effect: an unusual amount of today’s Internet users are virgin. That’s a problem I intend to solve. In history, man has always waged war for freedom. Now it’s time to obtain our freedom with love.
Sex is all over the net and yet it’s still a big taboo for many. Using sex to spread awareness will be yet another big step to sexual freedom. This is just another great example of what’s possible thanks to net neutrality.”


Basically, the topic of net neutrality is all rubbish and anti-mind.

Net Neutrality is like price control mechanism. If you invented a new device say iPhone(production cost $100), and govt makes a law that you cannot sell it for more than $120 to people, then technically it sounds good that now you cannot force people to charge more money, but considering the part that you can only create 1000 sets per year, there is high unavailability of the gadget. Yes iPhone is in your reach, the small man, but there is no availability unless you are highly lucky.

On the other hand if you are allowed to charge any amount of money, you will of course put them for auctions, first people who really need it and can pay a lot for it will buy, your phones will be sold for $10,000, and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs will buy them, soon with that much windfall profits you will be expanding your production, making 10,000 sets a year thereby bringing down the price to $500 per set, being able to sell it to more and more people. Then to 100,000 sets a year now being sold for only $120 per set.

Therefore price control harms people.

Some bloggers or personal site publishers may find Net-Neutrality in their favour but actually it is not so.
The point is, prices should NOT remain equal, rich guy must be allowed to pay more and get better services.

You being a blogger might sympathize to a Net Neutral stance, but the truth is that having a preferential delivery mechanism benefits everyone. Why do you think your blog(which is a non-profit opinion column) must get same priority as a real time stock quotes to a trader? The ping back time(time it takes for a packet to reach from source to destination) is so inconsistent that you cannot device your technology relying on a consistent ping time.

For example if a doctor in Europe wants to operate on a patient in Africa on a robotic machine, he cannot rely on Internet for the data transmission, because some people in Middle East wanted to read your blog, or watch nude chicks online.
Net Neutrality is not desirable, profit making traffic should always get more priority over non-profit making traffic. And don’t forget that overall bandwidth prices will be cheap.

Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and other big players demand net neutrality. They argues that telecom service providers cannot dictate the phone users whom they can call, similarly, network dictators should not dictate what people should do online. It is true.
The electricity providers can charge the electricity users, but can the electricity providers charge the manufacturers of CD-players? Plug any CD player to electricity irrespective of its brand manufacturer, and it will play. So how can a broadband provider demand google, yahoo, MSN or even a common man’s personal site or blog to pay them?
This is nothing but the job of Google, MSN’s marketing team. When all the big companies support a viewpoint, you gotta get a funny feeling in your gut. Without net neutrality Google and Yahoo’s profits massively come down. There won’t be a single monolithic web service dominating the web, rather a tri-state company might start paying the tri-state ISPs more to have its data delivered to tri-state customers at a faster rate. The big companies will be the biggest losers in such a situations, but overall customers will benefit a lot.

This example is inaccurate, electricity provider charging the CD player owner is not the same as ISPs discriminating against the data. Look at it this way, whose property a website is using? The ISP’s. So the ISP has a complete property right on his bandwidth. The data as far its on the website is owned by the website. As it moves to the ISP’s wires, its owned by the ISP, and once it reaches the user, its owned by the user. Just as you have a right to allocate any amount of RAM on your computer to load any webpage, ISP has a right to allocate any priority on data on its lines, just as website host every right on what data it wants to store on his server.
Telecom companies CAN discriminate, and they DO, discriminate. Anyone who calls internationally knows it. If you buy a cheaper calling card to India from US, you will get poorer quality(they have limited bandwidth, so if they divide it among more people you will get cheap tariff but poor quality, if they divide it among less people you will get dearer tariff, but better quality.

Its your choice how you wanna use it, and in fact its really good for people. For example if I wanna call my dad and talk some serious issue, then use a expensive card(which gives me 10 cents per min), if I wanna talk to my mom while cooking and taking recipes use a cheap card(3 cents per min). That’s the most efficient allocation of my resources.

(original discussion here)