New FCC Boss: We'll Defend Net Neutrality > Defending Net Neutrality

Defending Net Neutrality

reply to funchords
Rob, I generally agree with you and I am not completely disagreeing with you on your statement "We need policy that allows network management,..". However, I would state that they have all the network management they need available to them right now. They can easily manage this very small group of people abusing their network (their own words) individually without attempting to shape the internet by blocking protocols or by affecting the entire user base by impeding their ability to use the connection they purchased. In reality what they really want is a way to manage monetization, not the utilization, of the network.

Who are they, or even any of us, to say what protocols, applications, or content is too much or more important than another to someone else? Real time video / voice may be important to one, where as real time gaming or web surfing may be important to another. It is not their or our decision to make for anyone else. They are a dumb pipe and the sooner they realize that and stop trying to be gatekeepers to appease the stock jockeys, the better off everyone will be.

If their network or a node can't handle the use of the users, regardless of what the use is, then they need to do one of the below things to "manage it", all of which are available to them now and require no laws or government intervention.

1.) Expand the network or node bandwidth capacity
2.) Reduce the # of users on the node or network
3.) Reduce the user's provisioned speed to something that the network or node can actually support when a large % of the users are utilizing it.
4.) Individuals that saturate the network or a node should be dealt with individually with even a termination of service if need be. By saturate, I mean use a large % of network utilization for a long period of time. This does not mean downloading xGB as a person can do that easily without ever using more than a very small % of the network/node bandwidth. In essences, it doesn't matter if I just downloaded the entire internet to my iPod if I never used more than 3% of the bandwidth available. But it does matter if I just did the same thing using 97% of the network resources for 28 days of the month.

Problem is they don't want to do any of those things. The first, cost money, the second reduces revenue, the third hurts their marketing efforts, and the forth gives them a black eye. They dug this hole. Let them climb out of it and let their short term stock jockeys suffer the consequences of their greed.

reply to funchords
Robb, I'm now watching you on video from the FCC headquarters, where you have just stated that you work for Google's lobbying groups in DC (Free Press, Public Knowledge, and the New America Foundation). It seems to me that your anti-ISP and anti-innovation stance is motivated by your connections with these groups, which are being paid by Google to promote laws and regulations that would help Google and cripple its current or potential competitors.

ISPs are not "picking winners and losers;" they're rationing expensive bandwidth so as to provide the most satisfying experience for the greatest number of their customers at a reasonable cost. Our customers want us to do this, and we will continue to do it for them despite your attempts to destroy us via unwarranted and unneeded regulation.

Wow, the extent of your pro-ISP/anti-consumer bias is shocking.
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox...

reply to SuperWISP
Google, google, google, google, google, google, google, ...

... anything else that you have to say, Brett?

Robb Topolski
(not sponsored by Google)

reply to sivran

So the rationing of bandwidth is a consumer interest, huh? Tell me, who specifically designates what a "satisfying experience" is?

The current rationing will only get worse as online video content becomes more prevelant. Failure to upgrade the oversold networks is the main problem.
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils!

reply to S_engineer