With the issue of "net neutrality" being as large as it is made to seem, it is alarming to me that this is the first I've heard of it. It seems as though it is an important issue, regardless of whether or not is was nothing more than a coupe de grace conspired by Whitaker. And yet, what the actual meaning of new neutrality is has managed to escape me, as there is not really a solid definition (at least that I could find, and that seemed at least semi-reputable). Even so, I was so alarmed after watching the video clip outlining the isue that I immediatly copied and pasted the text to embed it in my personal blog. As far as Whitaker's comments regarding the use of his pipelines, I didn't see that as too big of an issue, other than the way in which he implies the "internet pipelines" are his to regulate. It never occured to me that companies such as Google should get free access to the internet, it is not a recent thing, that a higher bandwidth server costs more than the similar product utilizing a smaller bandwidth. Even if all of this makes a few rich people even richer, I still don't have a problem, but the second that the internt itself, the way in which it functions and the freedoms in which I have been able to enjoy ever since they were there to enjoy, becomes threatened, that is when I start to have a problem. The thing is, at this point in time (and if this is the direction that this is going) it is too difficult to tell whether this is nothing more than a myth. Better to address the issue now, even if it may be a myth, than to wait until it is too late to do anything about it.
With people reacting the way they are to the Digg issues now, I can't see the integrity of the internet being comprimised.