One-para summary: Tim Berners-Lee, in mid-2006, arguing for network neutrality, pointing out that it isn't the same thing as "you shouldn't be able to pay more for better internet service" and that regulation is not always a bad thing (e.g., a market economy wouldn't work so well if there weren't laws against forging currency).
(His one-sentence summary of the network neutrality principle: if A and B both pay for access to the net with at least a certain quality of service, then they should be able to communicate with at least that quality of service.)
I know it's vogue to summarize articles in comments, though I'm not sure why, but this is ridiculous. His article is 11 short paragraphs - each one shorter than one of your two paragraphs. It fits on a single page even if you have a small screen and a narrow web browser. Why is a summary at all necessary?
So you rewrite the article and summarize it for the people who wanted to see commentary before content? If the commentary is summary, it starts to become a joke.
I understand it for Steve Yegge articles, but this? Christ, some people must be very, very lazy.
rms is right, vaksel wrong: the point is that most people read the comments first, and depending on what they see there may not even read the original article (there was a discussion of this not so long ago).
Yes, this article is short, but I think the HN title is actively misleading. I'd never have guessed from the title that it had anything to do with network neutrality; would you?
(His one-sentence summary of the network neutrality principle: if A and B both pay for access to the net with at least a certain quality of service, then they should be able to communicate with at least that quality of service.)