JokerCPoC
join:2005-11-21
Yermo, CA | I'll wait to make a real comment after this is over
I'll wait to make a real comment after this is over, Hopefully the FCC won't blow It like the FTC did.
--
(26.04GHz crunching for SETI with the PC Perspective Killer Frogs) |
|
pv8man999
@sbcglobal.net | I have a feeling that we won't see much happen, the FCC just feels they need to blow smoke in public to make it appear they are doing their jobs. |
|
roc5955
Premium
join:2005-11-26
Rosendale, NY
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by pv8man999 :
I have a feeling that we won't see much happen, the FCC just feels they need to blow smoke in public to make it appear they are doing their jobs.
Especially with the gang in the FCC right now. They will either do nothing, or side with big business, because, after all, this is the best country big business can buy.
--
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T Southwest
| said by roc5955  :Especially with the gang in the FCC right now. They will either do nothing, or side with big business, because, after all, this is the best country big business can buy. Aren't Vuze, Google, and all the other companies jumping on the network neutrality bandwagon businesses too?
I can't help but see this as a simple business-to-business dispute. The "new businesses" are trying to get the government to tie down the "old businesses" and just provide them dumb pipe services so that they can make all they new money on the Internet. All in the name of "freedom", "fairness", etc. etc. etc. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to roc5955
said by roc5955 :Especially with the gang in the FCC right now. They will either do nothing, or side with big business, because, after all, this is the best country big business can buy. Or they'll just punt the way the FTC did...reasonable network management indeed. Could they get anymore vague? |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :said by roc5955 :Especially with the gang in the FCC right now. They will either do nothing, or side with big business, because, after all, this is the best country big business can buy. Aren't Vuze, Google, and all the other companies jumping on the network neutrality bandwagon businesses too? I can't help but see this as a simple business-to-business dispute. The "new businesses" are trying to get the government to tie down the "old businesses" and just provide them dumb pipe services so that they can make all they new money on the Internet. All in the name of "freedom", "fairness", etc. etc. etc. Well, yup, it is all about a "business-to-business dispute" that is unfortunately going to do irreparable harm to the internet, internet commerce, internet users, distributors and consumers of information.
However, the issue is not "new businesses" tying down "old businesses". The issue is the prevention of the violation of the basic tenets of the internet, i.e., protocol and provider neutrality and free flow of information. The "old businesses" wish to be gatekeepers and purveyors of content, as well as providers of connection services, and they want to charge both the "new businesses" and their customers for access to the internet, and then charge them again for delivery and receipt of information, while at the same time decrementing the quality of "new businesses" services/content in favor of the "old businesses" competing services/content. All of which you already know, but choose to conveniently ignore in favor of your position in support of incumbent infrastructure owners, who ought to be prohibited from doing anything other than providing the very best provider neutral internet connection service possible, banning their participation in the market for proprietary content and content delivery on anything but a "dumb pipe" basis.
If this were an issue of "free market" capitalism, the FCC would be enforcing the network neutrality generating competition envisioned in the Telecom Act of 1996, which, of course they are not, because Telco "owns" the FCC. |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| OK ross, let's compare what we just said.
Me:
quote:
I can't help but see this as a simple business-to-business dispute. The "new businesses" are trying to get the government to tie down the "old businesses" and just provide them dumb pipe services so that they can make all they new money on the Internet. All in the name of "freedom", "fairness", etc. etc. etc.
You:
quote:
incumbent infrastructure owners, who ought to be prohibited from doing anything other than providing the very best provider neutral internet connection service possible, banning their participation in the market for proprietary content and content delivery on anything but a "dumb pipe" basis.
I think we're saying exactly the same thing. I just said it in a more neutral statement-of-fact way. Network neutrality is about content/delivery companies trying to get the government to force the pipe/infrastructure companies to be "dumb pipes".
The difference is you are mixing up the statement of the situation with your POV on who's right. You assert:
quote:
The issue is the prevention of the violation of the basic tenets of the internet, i.e., protocol and provider neutrality and free flow of information.
I'm wondering, when did those get to be "basic tenets"? I mean, obviously, from a technology point of view, the Internet is all about supporting multiple protocols on top of IP, and standards for interoperability of those protocols, and everything's just a packet. But, from a business point of view, I'm not so sure. |
|
SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| reply to ross
said by ross :Well, yup, it is all about a "business-to-business dispute" that is unfortunately going to do irreparable harm to the internet, internet commerce, internet users, distributors and consumers of information. However, the issue is not "new businesses" tying down "old businesses". The issue is the prevention of the violation of the basic tenets of the internet, i.e., protocol and provider neutrality and free flow of information. The "old businesses" wish to be gatekeepers and purveyors of content, as well as providers of connection services, and they want to charge both the "new businesses" and their customers for access to the internet, and then charge them again for delivery and receipt of information, while at the same time decrementing the quality of "new businesses" services/content in favor of the "old businesses" competing services/content. All of which you already know, but choose to conveniently ignore in favor of your position in support of incumbent infrastructure owners, who ought to be prohibited from doing anything other than providing the very best provider neutral internet connection service possible, banning their participation in the market for proprietary content and content delivery on anything but a "dumb pipe" basis.If this were an issue of "free market" capitalism, the FCC would be enforcing the network neutrality generating competition envisioned in the Telecom Act of 1996, which, of course they are not, because Telco "owns" the FCC. Outstanding analysis. |
|
RadioDoc
Sortofadog
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
Chicago, IL | reply to ross
Yup. Comcast should be prohibited from producing any of the content which flows through their systems just like the TV networks were for years.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
Yauch
join:2005-06-24 | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Yes, it would be absolutely awful to see those pesky "innovators" reaping all the rewards. Better to install a few government approved protection fees into the mix to make sure their services don't just "disappear" someday. |
|
Yauch
join:2005-06-24
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
said by MyDogHsFleas :Network neutrality is about content/delivery companies trying to get the government to force the pipe/infrastructure companies to be "dumb pipes". I realize that the post you are responding to says this exactly, but I have yet to hear Google, Amazon or any of the large NN proponents even insinuate this is their intent. There's a vast difference between forcing them to abandon all content creation, and forcing their delivery divisions to act independently of their content divisions. |
|
