This article submission is pure FUD, and very misleading.

The issue at hand is Level 3 currently have a peering agreement. They send each other traffic at a 1:1 ratio, more or less. Level 3 acquired Netflix as a customer. The traffic ratio will now change to 5:1 in Level 3's favor. Anytime traffic is that out of balance, a commercial (monetary) peering arrangement is made. This has nothing to do with neutrality, or video, or netflix, or anything else. This is simply Level 3 whipping up the childlike fear of no net neutrality in hopes to gain a better peering agreement. Very Shady on their part, and very silly for anyone who gobbles it up.

http://gigaom.com/2010/11/29/level-3-comcast-in-a-cat-fight-over-online-video/

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101129/17242612047/companies-come-out-woodwork-to-claim-comcast-is-violating-net-neutrality-exaggerations-abound.shtml

The temperature in my study at home really depends on how many servers I have powered on.

Once again, this farce is playing itself out and hardly anyone seems to have learned from history. Once the government is granted the authority to regulate the internet ISPs at the traffic level, it's all over.

Of course, at first it will be regulation to ensure a fair playing field. But now they have the authority. Next, it will be regulations to ensure a playing field the government wants. And in the end, the big corporations will influence the regulation by lobbying and hob-knobbing with the government to use the FCC to force smaller, innovative competitors out of business and cement their monopoly rule. They've already been doing this for years, on average, with telecoms and everything else. Oil, healthcare, you name it.

It's so sad that all of these super intelligent people on Slashdot are arguing for the FCC to be granted these powers, or for Congress to grant them this power when doing so will, according to history, bring about the exact situation everyone here seeks to avoid.

The ONLY solution to maximize internet freedom is no regulation at all.

Actually, you can open carry in more populated areas (ie, urban metropolitan areas) than you can concealed carry. For example, you can open carry in California. Additionally, open carry rarely requires a license, but concealed carry does.

See www.opencarry.org for more info.

No non-US source can operate successfully in the US. why? becasue the banks are regulated. All US banks are prohibited from doing business with anyone the US government or some unelected policy wonk says not to. If you cant' transfer money to this non-US entity via any american bank, how are you going to use them?

Everyone here is cyring for paypal to be regulated like a bank. That would change the problem, but would still be a problem nonetheless.

You should look into gunpal.net

That is not true. There is also gunpal.net

Gunpal.net was created specifically because of paypal draconian policies relating to anything firearms related. If you sell any product that is related to firearms in ANY way, paypal will not do business with you.

Gunpal is the solution.

Your assertions would be correct if they were happening in a system where all that has gone before had not gone. However, given the way corporations lobby government entities, the way contracts are handed out, etc, means that experts are NOT the ones deciding for the state in the first place.

His article wasn't that much of a troll, he emphasized the commonality of FOSS and libertarian thought. FOSS is truly an exemplary example of what kind of things would and can happen in a more libertarian society.

You're completely out of sync with what most libertarians believe. Many libertarians would abolish corporations completely, as the government does not have the power to grant any "rights" to a non person entity. Given that a libertarian would likely take the argument that far, the idea that they *want* corporate feudalism is just absurd on its face. Please stop espousing ideas that are so far from the truth.

As someone mentioned above, a lot of printer manufacturers and retailers are basically using the razor model now. Give the printer away and charge for the cartridges. In light of this, I recommend at least thinking about the following:

Troll through sites like slickdeals.net or fatwallet.com and look for awesome printer deals. Especially around Black Friday coming up, and frequently from Office Depot. A lot of times between the coupons you can buy from ebay for a few bucks, (like 100 off of 300) and some instant in store rebates, you can get a 300d dollar printer down to 50 bucks, or 100 bucks. I've even seen them get the price down to -50 where you get PAID to take the printer. Given that this brand new printer comes with toner (granted, not a full cartridge, but enough to justify this method), just use the printer till the toner runs out, throw it away or ebay it, and get yourself a new printer again. Rinse, repeat.

I mean, why not? If they are going to use that kind of a business model, it only makes sense to adjust the buying strategy to fit.

While I appreciate your sentiment, it sounds like you don't quite grasp the fundamentals of "rights" and where they come from. Rights are not "granted" to us. If a right can be granted, then it can be un-granted or taken away. Rights are innate and inalienable. You are born with them and you die with them. Only governments and corporations are granted limited rights. It sounds like you're a fellow proponent of freedom, so hopefully you'll take this seemingly technical but absolutely fundamental distinction/correction in a spirit of goodwill and further the message.