> Clearly, you have (well, unless you are using "heard" very literally, in which case perhaps you haven't, but who cares then?), if you've read the article or t

> Clearly, you have (well, unless you are using "heard" very literally, in which case perhaps you haven't, but who cares then?), if you've read the article or the comment you are responding to. And I'm sure you've heard it more than that, too. You're absolutely correct, I wasn't using it extremely literally, or even semi-literally. I meant that I hadn't heard anybody suggest this BEFORE I read the article that suggested it. Glad you pointed that out. > You've just chosen to disregard those arguments. That's quite an assumption that you've made. But I suppose we arguing on the internet, and that's the MO... assume that the people you're arguing with are both stupid AND intentionally misleading. But, to set the record straight, I truly had not heard anybody (before this article) suggest that the rules that Comcast did and does have in effect about not operating a mail or web server be removed due to Net Neutrality. I know plenty of people thing that rule is bullshit, but they never linked the two concepts where I read or heard it. All discussion of Net Neutrality that I was aware of (again, before this article, do I really have to keep pointing this out every time, because it really seemed obvious to me when I made that original statement, but I suppose it was confusing enough the first time, so I'll keep clarifying it) revolved around bittorrent or the preferential treatment that ISPs were giving their "approved" (i.e. pay-for-performance) services (and, the discriminatory degrading of services from those who refused to pay). It was the double-dipping that was publicized, the fact that they have 'tiered' services for personal and business purposes seemed reasonable... To be fair, I am heavily biased against relying on Comcast for anything, so I guess it had never dawned on me that someone would attempt to run a server on anything that Comcast provides... personal OR business class. But I'm a block away from being able to have DSL, so I'm stuck with Comcast. I also want to point out that my reading of the quote you provide does not suggest flip-flopping. I'm neither ignorant of nor ignoring the quote, but I take it to mean that "An ISP[...] shall not block ACCESS TO lawful content [...]". Certainly this is an understandable interpretation, especially considering the events that lead up to the net neutrality debates in the first place.