 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to Skippy25
Re: The pipe said by Skippy25:I agree completely. However, to their "benefit" they are also in control of the medium for getting there. AOL did not have this luxury. So the AT&T's and Comcast of the world can place caps, restrictions, and premium content fees with little to no consumer recourse. AOL on the other hand lost out because of those things. NOTE: Overage charges will fall under the category of premium content fees. You definitely bring up two very valid points, but those points are central to what most would consider the net neutrality issue. While it seems caps and throttling may be here to stay, if the companies were to say, not count their VoD against the caps, but throttle and count a competitors service they would (will?) open themselves up to scrutiny by the FTC and FCC. With the current incoming Obama administration very pro net-neutrality and seemingly extremely pro-consumer, and Chairman "Telco-Lackey" Martin on his way out, they may not want to jump in that ring.
That is why we are seeing such a vocal movement toward "protocol agnostic" traffic shaping from folks like Comcast. As soon as Time Warner and AT&T roll out and institute their caps, the wording will be the same. |
| I agree completely and that is kind of my point.
AOL failed because the consumer had a choice to either deal with their "throttling" and "counting" or go to an ISP that gave you the whole internet for the same cost.
This current path will begin to make it a walled off internet like AOL. Sure you will still have access, but it is at their discretion and with any surcharges they apply. Toss in that they are pretty much shielded from consumers going to a competitor because in broadband there really is no competition to speak of. And if they are all doing it, there certainly is no incentive to go from one to another anyway. |
