Tell me more x
, there is a new speed test available. Give it a try, leave feedback!
dslreports logo
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search Topic:
uniqs
17
share rss forum feed


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:44
reply to Rivand

Re: You got some right, some wrong

But here's where you're wrong: Wireless carriers that provide wireless broadband service have no choice but to implement some version of "per-byte" billing. "Unlimited" wireless bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is 100% out of the question, with or without "net neutrality" legislation, or the threat thereof. You guys are smart enough to know that spectrum is limited and wireless carriers cannot build fiber-served cell towers every 500 meters.
Yes, I agree to some degree about wireless networks. Most of this was written with terrestrial networks in mind. Per-byte billing is already fairly established with 3G service.

Keep in mind I'm not wholly against network management or even caps in some instances (wireless being a particularly good one). I do oppose metered billing and overages on terrestrial connections, though, and any and all limits need to be made perfectly clear to the consumer.


FFH5
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

1 edit
said by Karl Bode:

But here's where you're wrong: Wireless carriers that provide wireless broadband service have no choice but to implement some version of "per-byte" billing. "Unlimited" wireless bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee is 100% out of the question, with or without "net neutrality" legislation, or the threat thereof. You guys are smart enough to know that spectrum is limited and wireless carriers cannot build fiber-served cell towers every 500 meters.
Yes, I agree to some degree about wireless networks. Most of this was written with terrestrial networks in mind. Per-byte billing is already fairly established with 3G service.

Keep in mind I'm not wholly against network management or even caps in some instances (wireless being a particularly good one). I do oppose metered billing and overages on terrestrial connections, though, and any and all limits need to be made perfectly clear to the consumer.
But it looks like Genachowski and the FCC plan on forcing net neutrality on wireless as well. Though they do say MAYBE some adjustments would be needed for wireless.

The CTIA sees some real problems coming out of those new rules:
»news.yahoo.com/s/nf/2009 ··· nf/69172
What was once the battleground for wired service providers has been expanded to the flourishing wireless industry, and that spells bad news for large telecom and cable operators

As of now, these companies can restrict any device, application, service or content on their networks that competes with their own products, Zacks Investment Research explained in a research note. "The FCC recommendation will disallow this discriminatory practice on the part of wireless, wireline or cable operators from either blocking or slowing access to any video or phone services.

"As we have said before, we are concerned about the unintended consequences Internet regulation would have on consumers, considering that competition within the industry has spurred innovation, investment and growth for the U.S. economy," said Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice president of regulatory affairs for CTIA.

"From the carrier perspective, the FCC is reopening a discussion that had been closed as of the last spectrum action. Some of the spectrum was auctioned off with explicit Net-neutrality rules, and some was not. There were different prices for those different blocks of spectrum," Greengart said. "To now go back and say that government would potentially like the entire wireless industry to operate by different rules than the ones that were just implemented in the last bidding process, which wasn't that long ago, raises red flags for them."
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page



Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:44

1 recommendation

But it looks like Genachowski and the FCC plan on forcing net neutrality on wireless as well. Though thy do say MAYBE some adjustments would be needed for wireless.
Keep watching. I would guarantee by the time the rules get finished, they're pretty weak and only guard against the very worst sort of offenses.

Right now really, the only goal is to ensure the FCC has legal authority with those principles.


funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:6
said by Karl Bode:

I would guarantee by the time the rules get finished, they're pretty weak and only guard against the very worst sort of offenses.
Which is probably as it should be.

I actually like the 2005 Internet Policy Statement plus these two new rules plus applying them to all modes of Internet Access. But they should stay high level which balances real needs with the flexibility to keep up with something that moves as fast as the net.

This allow allows for compromises and experimenting. Satellite will have high latency, so the Reasonable Network Management practices needed there will be different than FTTH.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/


Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
kudos:44
Yeah I need to see the process and the final product. AT&T's pretty chipper about supporting them in e-mail PR exchanges to me, which is usually a warning sign that they might not mean squat.

But I guess if the FCC simply gets empowered it's a foundation to build on.


tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:9
Reviews:
·FirstLight Fiber
·Hollis Hosting
·G4 Communications
said by Karl Bode:

I guess if the FCC simply gets empowered it's a foundation to build on.
Even if it gets watered down it still sets the precedent that ISPs have and obligation provide a common good. The on-ramp to the Internet is too important to be left totally in the hands of private companies.

/tom