| Net Neutrality If we are going to have a net neutrality law, it needs to work both ways. If ISPs can't throttle or block services, services shouldn't be allowed to make exclusive contracts with ISPs or grant special access to their partners... Netflix... ESPN.... |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | Be careful what you wish for Industry already agreed to Net Neutrality terms several years ago - and yet, everyone here still complains.
Change the rules, and you can expect that industry will comply, again. But you may not like what that looks like.
NN is trying to "force" outcomes, rather than letting the market beat itself up to deliver a better product, and we will all be worse off for it. |
|
|
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to silbaco
Re: Net Neutrality said by silbaco:If we are going to have a net neutrality law, it needs to work both ways. If ISPs can't throttle or block services, services shouldn't be allowed to make exclusive contracts with ISPs or grant special access to their partners... Netflix... ESPN....
I think you make a good point. A net neutrality bill can't just target ISPs, it has to make Hollywood play by the same rules too.
--
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·CenturyLink
| reply to silbaco
Al Gore is going to call Representative Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) has just filled the atmosphere with large amounts of hot (greenhouse gas) air. Some press, additions to her war chest, and a photo with a smile that would make even a Jiggalo run for the hills. 
--
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's.
- Mark Twain in Eruption |
|
| reply to elray
Re: Be careful what you wish for You are so full of crap.
First the industry agrees because they dont think they are enforceable and they have been trying to skirt the line of what they agreed to from day 1. Which is typical - Set the bar so the majority is happy and then desensitize them slowly while you move the bar lower and lower. Typical politics.
Net neutrality doesn't force anything other than telling the ISP's to do their simple job of being a dumb pipe (because that is truly 100% what they are) and taking a packet and passing a packet regardless of where that packet came from and where it is going as quickly as they can. |
|
 IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon Broadban..
| Its going to take an activist judge to do the trick AT&T used to have a monopoly on the telephone until US District Court judge Harold Greene ordered the Bell divestiture.
Maybe another federal judge will get fed up with his ISP and order Comcast and Time Warner to split their content from distribution where in such a setup, Comcast and Time Warner would maintain the lines/infrastructure and customer premises equipment (last mile portion) but the content and ISP business would be a third party company (like local and long distance after the Bell divestiture).
Previous case law supports the separation of content providers from distribution (like a 1948 US Supreme Court ruling that separated the movie studios from the theater business).
In my opinion, the Bell divestiture led to the dirt cheap prices that we pay for phone service. If Bell System remained intact, we'd be paying an arm and a leg for local and long distance today even though it costs them next to nothing to provide, similar to the way broadband providers are behaving today.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner. They are much better than broadcast TV.
I have not and will not cut the cord. |
|
| Why wait? Why not just introduce a bill clearly defining the authority to FCC for this thus causing the case to get dismissed and no more tax payer money being wasted trying to answer the question? |
|
| reply to IowaCowboy
Re: Its going to take an activist judge to do the trick I would agree with that split 100%.
You want to be a content company, be a content company.
You want to provide a network, be an ISP company.
And the 2 shall never meet. |
|
| reply to Skippy25
Re: Why wait? Because it is the US Government. They want to look like they are doing something, not actually have to do something. That would take work and that apparently wasn't in the job requirements. |
|
| reply to IowaCowboy
Re: Its going to take an activist judge to do the trick said by IowaCowboy:Maybe another federal judge will get fed up with his ISP and order Comcast and Time Warner to split their content from distribution..... where in such a setup, Comcast and Time Warner would maintain the lines/infrastructure and customer premises equipment (last mile portion) but the content and ISP business would be a third party company (like local and long distance after the Bell divestiture).
Previous case law supports the separation of content providers from distribution (like a 1948 US Supreme Court ruling that separated the movie studios from the theater business).
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., et. al
»supreme.justia.com/us/334/131/ |
|
bigboy
join:2000-12-04
Palo Alto, CA Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
| Unintended consequences There are always unintended consequences for these sorts of rules (or any rules) that distort the market.
If you really want net neutrality, then let the market run and pay per packet. That aligns incentives between the ISP and customer. If a customer wants lots of bandwidth, the ISP will be happy to charge for it and you better believe they won't slow it down.
I wouldn't like it - what customer would like to have metered bandwidth? But really, if you want net neutrality, this is really the only solution. |
|
westdc
join:2009-01-25
Amissville, VA
kudos:1 | Another example for THE need FOR term limits!!! |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to Transmaster
Re: Al Gore is going to call said by Transmaster:and a photo with a smile that would make even a Jiggalo run for the hills. Someone owes me a new cup of coffee and keyboard... LOL  |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to IowaCowboy
Re: Its going to take an activist judge to do the trick I like what you have to say, but unfortunately have little faith in such a thing happening.
Judges, just as politicians, can be bought and bribed. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it happens every day in our court system. It's just a matter of NBC/Comcast/Dark Side of the Force or some other unholy conglomeration of ISP and content provider throwing a few million bucks into an account in the Cayman Islands to make any semblance of fairness of impartiality disappear in a verdict.
I'd consider putting more faith in a jury trial, except that I'm well aware of how woefully inept some juries can be at discerning truth or even deciphering a logical argument. They're not made up of people who exactly technical geniuses - and I can easily see some people on them thinking that coupling content providers with delivery services would actually be beneficial to consumers. (We all know that Comcast et al has a number of puppet lawyers who will spout that drivel.) |
|
IowaCowboyWant to go back to IowaPremium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon Broadban..
| said by Androidian:I like what you have to say, but unfortunately have little faith in such a thing happening.
Judges, just as politicians, can be bought and bribed. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it happens every day in our court system. It's just a matter of NBC/Comcast/Dark Side of the Force or some other unholy conglomeration of ISP and content provider throwing a few million bucks into an account in the Cayman Islands to make any semblance of fairness of impartiality disappear in a verdict.
I'd consider putting more faith in a jury trial, except that I'm well aware of how woefully inept some juries can be at discerning truth or even deciphering a logical argument. They're not made up of people who exactly technical geniuses - and I can easily see some people on them thinking that coupling content providers with delivery services would actually be beneficial to consumers. (We all know that Comcast et al has a number of puppet lawyers who will spout that drivel.)
For such a thing to happen, the plaintiff (the consumers) would have to go venue shopping to file a lawsuit for such a thing to happen. Several states (such as Massachusetts and California) have plenty of activist judges at both the state and federal level. I am not going to go into detail on some of their work (as I do not intend on this being a political discussion) but I am basically saying is I know there are judges in these states that are capable of taking on big corporations.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner. They are much better than broadcast TV.
I have not and will not cut the cord. |
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to bigboy
Re: Unintended consequences I could see and actually support this pricing model, if it were created and maintained in a competitive market with little barrier to entry for new ISPs.
If ISP services were placed into a truly competitive market similar to that theorized by Adam Smith (one with a large number of competitors, homogeneous product, and little or no barrier to entry for new competitors) I think we would all benefit. Look at another article here on DSLR to see how Google's ISP services are now causing Time Warner to offer faster services without caps while simultaneously lowering prices as an example.
What we truly need to move forward in this country is competition - strong competition - for ISP services. I'm not sure how we foster it, but we as a nation should set a goal of having no fewer than 3 to 4 high speed (50/10 or faster, none of this satellite or DSL garbage) ISPs covering every locality of 1,000 or more people. Only then can we start considering ourselves to have a relatively well-wired nation.
Perhaps it is time for many communities to start considering development of municipal broadband as an alternative - those lines could then be rented directly to citizens (at cost) or leased to ISPs for bundling and reselling (at a profit, perhaps offsetting some of the cost charged to citizens). I know this has been discussed before on DSLR, and might be worth further investigation another time. |
|
| reply to westdc
Re: Another On who, congress?
Let me let you on a little secret...... Every representative has term limits, they can be elected for as little 1 term if that is what we want.
The problem is that we the people are idiots and keep electing the same morons into office and then allow them to lobby the congress when they are not in office any more. |
|
elray
join:2000-12-16
Santa Monica, CA | reply to Skippy25
Re: Be careful what you wish for Net Neutrality has consequences. You won't like them. |
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:7 | Eschoo So are we saying that Rep. Eshoo eschews the lack of net neutrality?
In all seriousness though, her opponent(s) for the 2014 elections all just received sizable donations from various cable, phone, and wireless companies... |
|
