<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Question Number One</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.evehrlich.net/2010/02/question-number-one/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.evehrlich.net/2010/02/question-number-one/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 25 Jul 2010 13:28:53 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JSJ219</title>
		<link>http://www.evehrlich.net/2010/02/question-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>JSJ219</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 22:06:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.evehrlich.net/?p=310#comment-53</guid>
		<description>In all its efforts to get more Americans to use broadband more freely and to experience the benefits of super fast, high-quality Internet service, the government is actually on the verge of getting it all wrong.  We can’t afford to adopt policies that could slow down broadband roll-out or adoption; and we certainly can’t jeopardize the success of our country’s greatest prospect for economic growth and opportunity.  The problems created by this whole net neutrality debate are made more apparent by the fact that there seems to be a fundamental confusion about what net neutrality even means.  That fact alone should signal to the government and net neutrality supporters that more outreach needs to be conducted to educated the American public about what this topic even means. There is too much at stake to get this wrong, and we’re heading in a very dangerous course if we allow our government to impose this type of regulation on the Internet.  It will totally change things as we know them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In all its efforts to get more Americans to use broadband more freely and to experience the benefits of super fast, high-quality Internet service, the government is actually on the verge of getting it all wrong.  We can’t afford to adopt policies that could slow down broadband roll-out or adoption; and we certainly can’t jeopardize the success of our country’s greatest prospect for economic growth and opportunity.  The problems created by this whole net neutrality debate are made more apparent by the fact that there seems to be a fundamental confusion about what net neutrality even means.  That fact alone should signal to the government and net neutrality supporters that more outreach needs to be conducted to educated the American public about what this topic even means. There is too much at stake to get this wrong, and we’re heading in a very dangerous course if we allow our government to impose this type of regulation on the Internet.  It will totally change things as we know them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred</title>
		<link>http://www.evehrlich.net/2010/02/question-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 18:49:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.evehrlich.net/?p=310#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Number one question? Hah. either the lobbyists stuffed the ballot box or Google, which is lobbying for network neutrality, just falsely claimed that the question was number one. What&#039;s scary is that Obama seemed to be  taken in by the ruse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Number one question? Hah. either the lobbyists stuffed the ballot box or Google, which is lobbying for network neutrality, just falsely claimed that the question was number one. What&#8217;s scary is that Obama seemed to be  taken in by the ruse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Darby</title>
		<link>http://www.evehrlich.net/2010/02/question-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Darby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:45:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.evehrlich.net/?p=310#comment-49</guid>
		<description>Hope your third theory is correct.  Also, I like the notion of contrasting &quot;neutrality&quot; and &quot;universality&quot;, which is a nice rhetorical, short hand statement of the negative impact of NN rules in network investment.  Enjoyed the piece.  larry darby</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hope your third theory is correct.  Also, I like the notion of contrasting &#8220;neutrality&#8221; and &#8220;universality&#8221;, which is a nice rhetorical, short hand statement of the negative impact of NN rules in network investment.  Enjoyed the piece.  larry darby</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
