Breaking News
News & Analysis

In split vote, FCC approves Net neutrality rules

12/21/2010 07:22 PM EST
16 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
LarryM99
User Rank
CEO
re: In split vote, FCC approves Net neutrality rules
LarryM99   12/26/2010 12:55:39 AM
NO RATINGS
Right now in most areas of the U.S. there is a choice of one telephone company and one cable company. The telephone companies are a regulated monopoly, while the cable companies usually have negotiated territories which are effectively monopolies. This wasn't much of a problem when they were unsophisticated as far as access control, but increasingly they are exerting control. Case in point: Comcast keeps it's non-peered links running at full capacity, while peered links can have excess capacity. Netflix has to fight for bandwidth while an internal streamed video feed runs unconstricted. These are not theoretical issues. We are already seeing them today, and they are affecting our choices of content sources. Larry M.

rfindley
User Rank
Rookie
re: In split vote, FCC approves Net neutrality rules
rfindley   12/25/2010 8:59:17 PM
NO RATINGS
I really don't see the need for regulation right now. The few services providers that have started pulling sneaky tricks are being repudiated by the consumer market, and they begin to lose market share. I also don't see where the monopoly is. "mono" means "one", yet I see multiple ISPs competing in normal market fashion in most areas. And last, what's wrong with a company making huge profits? No one is forcing us to buy internet, yet we all seem to vote our approval of current prices by buying internet service. I agree with an earlier poster that this regulation is a solution in search of a problem.

Warren3
User Rank
CEO
re: In split vote, FCC approves Net neutrality rules
Warren3   12/24/2010 1:58:33 AM
NO RATINGS
And what's your thinking when that gets turned upside down? Like when the ISP provides a QOS committment for its service(s) but effectively charges MORE, with lowered-QOS, for the same or "similar" service by someone on the outside.

Warren3
User Rank
CEO
re: In split vote, FCC approves Net neutrality rules
Warren3   12/24/2010 1:54:30 AM
NO RATINGS
True that, Larry.

LarryM99
User Rank
CEO
re: In split vote, FCC approves Net neutrality rules
LarryM99   12/23/2010 6:23:13 PM
NO RATINGS
The FCC ruling is all about the politics of scarcity. The ISPs convinced them that they had to control traffic to keep things orderly, when in reality what they should be doing is building bigger pipes. Internet access as a business is already insanely profitable for the ISPs and they are making serious political moves to ensure their de facto monopoly position without submitting to the regulation that controls de jure monopolies. Larry M.

docdivakar
User Rank
Manager
re: In split vote, FCC approves Net neutrality rules
docdivakar   12/22/2010 8:24:25 PM
NO RATINGS
@rick.merritt: there are many countries that are already using the so called called "paid prioritization" where carriers can charge tiered fees based on various levels of service. India is one of them where the broadband billing is structured on the Gb of data one downloads per month and the carriers so far seem to be practicing net-neutrality. But this will definitely change when the number of users go up (less than 5% of population so far) with increasing connectivity. Dr. MP Divakar

Mark Wehrmeister
User Rank
Rookie
re: In split vote, FCC approves Net neutrality rules
Mark Wehrmeister   12/22/2010 8:08:18 PM
NO RATINGS
Quality of Service prioritization is essential for certain time-sensitive types of traffic. Since prioritizing that traffic limits the bandwidth available for other traffic, it makes sense that the content providers of that traffic should pay higher fees, all else being equal.

DrQuine
User Rank
CEO
re: In split vote, FCC approves Net neutrality rules
DrQuine   12/22/2010 4:52:06 PM
NO RATINGS
It would seem that the most basic protection ought to be that the treatment of packets and communication pricing should not discriminate based upon whether the content came from the vendor's partner or a competitor. Netflix, AT&T, Verizon, CNN, Blockbuster, and YouTube video should receive equal priority. However, we've already got precedent in favor of discriminatory pricing since "in network" calls calls are often free. How does one promote open communication while also allowing innovative service pricing? We've been spoiled by the freedom of the Internet.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
re: In split vote, FCC approves Net neutrality rules
rick merritt   12/21/2010 11:37:40 PM
NO RATINGS
@Duane and @Frank. The FCC press release just out said the difference is because wireless broadband "is an earlier-stage platform than fixed broadband," there's more competition in wireless and "existing mobile networks present operational constraints that fixed broadband networks do not typically encounter." Makes sense to me

Duane Benson
User Rank
Blogger
re: In split vote, FCC approves Net neutrality rules
Duane Benson   12/21/2010 10:24:48 PM
NO RATINGS
Is the difference between the handling of wireless and wired due to wireless having a strong lobby, all with a similar agenda, while the wired providers are still too fragmented to present a common voice? It seems like that wireless exemption is designed to allow each wireless carrier to keep their own semi-walled gardens which just makes life for consumers more difficult.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
5 comments
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.