| It is good that Comcast is challenging the FCC. Regulatory agencies often overreach, as the FCC did in the Janet Jackson kerfluffle. Kevin Martin wanted to take a swipe at the cable companies so as to get in good with the Bells (for whom he now works as a very highly paid attorney), so he prodded the FCC to exceed its legal authority and deliver a firm slap to Comcast. Alas, because his ruling would set a terrible precedent and allow the camel's nose of regulation into the Internet tent, it had to be challenged. Bully for Comcast! The court will define the limits of the FCC's jurisdiction, and we'll all be the better for it. |
|
 FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | i vote for dumb pipe. instead of slowing down or otherwise tampering with customers internet connections they should be expanding their network to handle the demand. |
|
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN | I 2nd that.
No interference of peoples packets...unless they are malicious packets that are designed to do intentional harm to the network.
They will still be PLENTY profitable without the ability to slowly rape their customers to please their stock holders.
usual opposition's response -
"but comcast paid for their network to be built, and if you don't like it, you can build your own ISP or change providers"
My response to that response -
"Yeah that would be good and fine if the existing powerful ISP's didn't lobby against any small independent ISP's from growing, thus preventing TRUE free market capitalism by committing a variety of Anti-Competitive things,
Or AT&T for controlling the rates of bandwidth by overestimating the true cost of the bandwidth.
There are a lot of factors to include. |
|
FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | thing is, the ISP never is the one to pay for the network. in the end they just pass that cost on to the customers. |
|
|
|
| reply to SuperWISP
Time for your medication super. |
|
| reply to SuperWISP
Good comments. I agree, regulatory agencies do often overreach. I can agree on that point. |
|
| reply to FBGuy
said by FBGuy:i vote for dumb pipe. Our ISP offers "dumb pipes." But they necessarily cost more per megabit per second than "smart pipes," because they cost us more to provide. You are always free to vote with your wallet with regard to what kind of service you would like, but there is no free lunch. |
|
FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 | please don't use cliche's they are so f*ing tacky. plus that made no sense.
are you referring to "business class" service? |
|
| said by FBGuy:please don't use cliche's they are so f*ing tacky. plus that made no sense. Oh, you mean like, "dumb pipe?" Or "end-to-end?" |
|
1 edit | reply to SuperWISP
It would be better if the network could actually handle what people want to use it for, instead of the network being throttled to un-usable speeds. |
|
FBGuyyippee ki yayPremium
join:2005-03-19 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·T-Mobile US
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to SuperWISP
said by SuperWISP:said by FBGuy:please don't use cliche's they are so f*ing tacky. plus that made no sense. Oh, you mean like, "dumb pipe?" Or "end-to-end?" dump pipe isn't a cliche. its exactly what they need to be. provide internet access and don't try any funny business with my packets. |
|
