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.
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.
said by ossito16: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.
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.
said by ossito16: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.
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.