jc100
join:2002-04-10
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Yep
But let's face it lobbying dollars speak louder than common sense. This man can spout until he's blue in the face. The problem is he doesn't have money greasing the wills as much as the ISPS who would rather not have to be subject to such a legislation. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Well.. the day the internet becomes a public resource, then I'd be happy to stand on the side of the public standing up for it.
Here's where my problem is..
The FCC thinks they are going to make any change? They think they're going to make it open and free as a bird? ANY network has to be managed. It will be hard for anyone to mandate a wide open network and maintain today's pretty easy going use. (It will never be an anything goes internet)
Now.. keeping in mind the FCC may be interested in a neutral internet.. let's ask the question, what would the internet be like if the GOVERNMENT operated it?
We already know what happens when city or county governments (see L.A.) have their stay at home mom politicians making rules.. they start to regulate the very content.. ie: no porn, after all, the internet is for porn, right?
The fact remains that the last mile ISP is a corporate owned piece of property.. I laugh when I hear about these "public hearings" taking place.
If the internet was run by the government, how far do you think internet freedoms or "network neutrality" would last before the network became so crippled that dial up modems would be the preferred method of connection? |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
 ·Cruzio Internet
| It's not so much a change, as to be put back the way it was before Comcast opened the can-o-worms.
The FCC has stated it is committed to the 4 rules of Network Neutrality, which does not stop any network from reasonable network management.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by gaforces  :It's not so much a change, as to be put back the way it was before Comcast opened the can-o-worms. The FCC has stated it is committed to the 4 rules of Network Neutrality, which does not stop any network from reasonable network management. The problem is that the FCC refuses to define what is "reasonable network management" when they allow it. Unless/Until that definition is made, their rules are just a smoke screen for doing nothing about any actions that can be portrayed as violating Network Neutrality (something that they have also failed to define in their Rules). |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
edit:
February 23rd, @07:40PM
| I guess they might have a year to debate it 
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
| reply to fiberguy
And all that corporate property sits on public land. That's why the public gets a say, and always will. ANYONE can make money being the only, or one of two (with a complicit compeitor) game in town in the last mile business. These companies are allowed to use public land to make billions, and are thus subject to regulation. That's a risk to the business model that they (and anyone who profits off public resources) have to live with. |
|
rawgerz
In Debt we trust
Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to fiberguy
I'm all in favor of a QOS system.
i.e.
VOIP
HTTP
FTP
P2P
It might not save bandwidth or generate money but it wouldn't hurt anyone really.
--
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. |
|
hottboiinnc
Kyle
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | reply to RARPSL
How can one violate Network Neutrality when there isnt such a thing? |
|
viperlmw
Premium
join:2005-01-25
·Qwest.net
| reply to rawgerz
said by rawgerz :I'm all in favor of a QOS system. i.e. VOIP HTTP FTP P2P It might not save bandwidth or generate money but it wouldn't hurt anyone really. Better watch out. I tried to discuss positive aspects of QOS here a couple years ago, and got some pretty vehement negative responses. |
|
whiteyonenh
join:2004-08-09
Keene, NH
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by viperlmw :said by rawgerz :I'm all in favor of a QOS system. i.e. VOIP HTTP FTP P2P It might not save bandwidth or generate money but it wouldn't hurt anyone really. Better watch out. I tried to discuss positive aspects of QOS here a couple years ago, and got some pretty vehement negative responses. I have no problems with QoS, in fact I use it on my home network, makes it alot easier than trying to get everyone to cooperate with the limited bandwidth.
If it were managed in that order and it wasn't restricted down to a specific amount, just by putting them in that order on priority, I don't see a real issue with it.
If VOIP isn't using all the bandwidth, HTTP gets it.
If HTTP isn't using all the bandwidth, FTP gets it.
If FTP isn't using all the bandwidth, P2P gets it, etc.
As long as it's reasonable and not completely outlandish like what Comcast does with Sandvine, it should be unnoticeable to the general user, and also to most advanced users. |
|
