| GOOD ! Good, the more this gets nailed in the ground in the states, the better for Canada to do the same.. if we don't then we will look pretty stupid ... and Bell will be the enemy..
Oh wait, they already are... |
|
 ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 | Go Robb! I am very glad to see that Robb will be speaking at the meeting today. It just goes to show the power that BBR and it's members have. |
|
 PhoenixDown-- Wants FIOSPremium
join:2003-06-08
Fresh Meadows, NY
kudos:1 | Good luck today Robb... you've done an outstanding job and we all owe you a round of beers. Hope you have a very high tolerance! |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | Ho Hum!! Just FCC's Martin beating a dead horse This is a meeting that wasn't needed. It is just Martin continuing his anti-Comcast vendetta. Martin has already lost the backing of Congress and his ability to change anything based on the meeting is nil.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
 LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Neutral about neutrality This is one of those issues where can really see the other side's point. I really don't like Comcast's TCP RST deal.
That said, I don't think it's necessarily illicit for them to try to optimize their network. It's not as if they or we can wave a magic wand and have unlimited capacity and it can be argued that rabid P2Pers are free-riding.
It is extremely disconcerting to me to have to have a government solution because the more regulation, the less innovation. And all the so-called corruption of corporations just gets shifted to, or encouraged by, the corruption of the politicians and regulators.
There is no panacea.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. |
|
| reply to PhoenixDown
Re: Go Robb! said by PhoenixDown:Good luck today Robb... you've done an outstanding job and we all owe you a round of beers. Hope you have a very high tolerance! Yeah, great guy. Hope it goes well for him and gives us a nice report of what went on later in the forums. |
|
 koitsuPremium,MVM
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
kudos:19 | reply to ptrowski
said by ptrowski:I am very glad to see that Robb will be speaking at the meeting today. It just goes to show the power that BBR and it's members have. Agreed. Go Robb!
Also, I hope someone puts up a video of the hearing after it's over.  I'd be there myself, but I work graveyard shift... |
|
| reply to Linklist
Re: Ho Hum!! Just FCC's Martin beating a dead horse only you would be against a public debate highlighting the issues on both sides.
Do you not admit that there are at least 2 sides to this debate? |
|
| Seatwarmer I can't wait to see what was said at this meeting, should be very interesting. Thanks For going to speak Robb |
|
 HFB1217The WizardPremium,ExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-26
Camelot
kudos:2 | No lack of an explanation for Comcast It is the sheer arrogance of Comcast and the lack of respect for their customers shown by the non-attendance.
--
****aka The WIZARD **** A Founding member Seti BBR Team Starfire**** |
|
ptrowskiGot Helix?Premium
join:2005-03-14
Putnam, CT
kudos:4 Reviews:
 ·VOIPo
| reply to koitsu
Re: Go Robb! said by koitsu:said by ptrowski:I am very glad to see that Robb will be speaking at the meeting today. It just goes to show the power that BBR and it's members have. Agreed. Go Robb! Also, I hope someone puts up a video of the hearing after it's over. I'd be there myself, but I work graveyard shift... Pansy! Suck it up and go.  |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | reply to backness
Re: Ho Hum!! Just FCC's Martin beating a dead horse said by backness:only you would be against a public debate highlighting the issues on both sides. And only you would think this meeting will result in both sides being HEARD. This hearing is just another of Martin's PR efforts against cable - nothing more.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
| reply to LegoPower77
Re: Neutral about neutrality you might be correct if Comcast and others were being honest about why they are disrupting the services they advertise. Why don't they just admit that they do not want to spend anymore money to upgrade capacity and the only way that they can get more HD channels is to go after the Internet users who take full advantage of "unlimited" usage. It is so stupid to boost speed to 30mbps and higher if you are going to inhibit the people who will use every bit of that speed. If we could just get a straight up ISP that does not want to offer every service under the sun through the lines, give us an INTERNET only company, i.e. No phone or tv. |
|
|
|
| Another nail in the coffin for the small ISP? If the FCC outlaws traffic shaping of torrent traffic and others like it who will it really hurt? It's not going to hurt the mega huge billion dollar ISPs in the long run. It will hurt the remaining small ISPs and wISPs that can't afford to just throw more money at more bandwidth. |
|
 espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
·Vitelity VOIP
1 edit | said by battleop:If the FCC outlaws traffic shaping of torrent traffic and others like it who will it really hurt? Everybody who likes having SPAM filtered out of their email inbox and having Denial of Service mitigation.
There's been broad statements made that traffic should not be interfered with in any way. I just hope that in the process of trying to correct the perceived ethical overreaches of some offending companies that they don't screw everyone in the process. There's some traffic I want an ISP to interfere with. |
|
| reply to Linklist
Re: Ho Hum!! Just FCC's Martin beating a dead horse said by Linklist:said by backness:only you would be against a public debate highlighting the issues on both sides. And only you would think this meeting will result in both sides being HEARD. This hearing is just another of Martin's PR efforts against cable - nothing more. Surpringly, I agree with you that Martin is a tool. Hardly ergonomically-designed, to boot. That said, there are substantive issues here, some of them dragged into the light by one of our own. The motivations of Martin can be questioned. The data, not so much.
The data trumps even Martin and his motivations.
I certainly hope that the discussion today goes into the "whys" as much as the "hows and whats" of this traffic shaping. Perhaps a few moments on Comcast, its pile o' cash that it is sitting on and its reluctance to invest that pile o' cash in upgrades of its core infrastructure to meet the bandwidth needs of its traffic, instead relying on silly parlor-trick boxes that degrade services, while couching their arguments for these silly parlor tricks, and the arguments of their designated shills, in facile and high-flown rhetoric that is designed to avoid the meat of the issue:
They are running out of pipes and they need to do a lot of node-splitting. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to ossito16
Re: Neutral about neutrality said by ossito16:Why don't they just admit that they do not want to spend anymore money to upgrade capacity and the only way that they can get more HD channels is to go after the Internet users who take full advantage of "unlimited" usage. Because that's not the case? For congestion on the local segment it's not like they can go to the bandwidth store, toss them a few bucks, and just keep adding incremental bandwidth everywhere. Comcast has been waiting on CableLabs to certify the DOCSIS 3.0 standard and now they're waiting for their equipment vendors to start having DOCSIS 3.0 hardware available for purchase. It's tricky to spend money to upgrade capacity when the product you want to deploy doesn't exist yet.
said by ossito16:If we could just get a straight up ISP that does not want to offer every service under the sun through the lines, give us an INTERNET only company, i.e. No phone or tv. You can get that today -- the reason you don't buy that service is that without bundling of multiple products the line charge itself is too expensive. TV services bring in a lot of money from all sides, and the money they get from advertisers helps to offset some of the access fees. The whole reason Verizon is deploying FiOS is to get into the video entertainment game; Internet services by themselves do not generate enough revenue to support the FiOS rollout costs. |
|
| I believe you meant to say that he "declined" the invitation. The headline kind of threw me off at first. Comcast can't deny anyone's invitation to a public hearing, even the invitation it received. |
|
espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Vitelity VOIP
| reply to backness
Re: Ho Hum!! Just FCC's Martin beating a dead horse said by backness:Do you not admit that there are at least 2 sides to this debate? Do you really think both sides will be equally represented? |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | reply to HFB1217
Re: No lack of an explanation for Comcast Tell me about it. As others have pointed out, there are good reasons for Comcast to be doing what it's doing. What really bothers me about their behavior is how they've first of all lied, then evaded the question, got caught with their pants down, and now seem to think that by co-opting a few P2P players, they can get away with it.
They've been their own worst enemy through this entire process. If they'd been open and explained exactly what the problem was and exactly what they were doing to fix it, this would never have turned into such a fiasco.
It's probably too late for them now, even if they are trying to be open about their practices (that may be what this so-called "bill of rights and responsibilities" is). They've pretty much annihilated whatever trust they had.
Over and over again we see "it's not the crime, it's the cover-up" and no-one ever seems to learn that lesson.
--
My opinions are my own. No-one else would want them! |
|
