Court Discards Verizon, MetroPCS Neutrality Challenge

Your so-called neutrality will only result in higher rates - the very same "punitive pricing models" that Karl seems to think you'll prevent.

So you've succeeded in prohibiting MetroPCS from offering a lower-cost walled-garden product. Congratulations.

if the higher rate is the market rate, then so be it.

The market rate will be UBB.

Enjoy.

They want to go to UBB doesn't matter if there's neutrality or not, so your argument is void.

Nope.

MetroPCS, et al, do not want UBB.

When Cellco can discriminate on the types of uses and the priority the traffic, it has much greater opportunity to offer uncapped use.

Wow. The future of UBB has nothing to do with neutrality. Not that UBB is good, but a lack of net neutrality has FAR worse consequences than UBB. Who cares how fast your pipe is if you can only use the speed for what the ISP says you can.

Sute it does.

CableTelco wants to sell you flat rate, so you'll pay a regular premium rate to avoid meter anxiety, but that "flat usage" has to fall within a predictable statistical range. Thus, "unlimited does not mean unreasonable".

CableTelco also wants to keep cord-cutters and very-low-volume users paying a monthly minimum. So they will sell us a low-end UBB package.

When you force "neutrality", you force them to make everything UBB, and you probably allow them to bring back the very "punitive" (inverted) rate schedule Karl incessantly rants about while it no longer exists.

I totally disagree with that and fail to even see the connection here. How is neutrality forcing UBB?

NN removes the ISP's right to manage traffic flows by type / usage / class / time of day. So they don't have the ability to throttle the P2P traffic that runs 24x7, even if it could easily afford to idled at peak demand hours when it bogs down the common "pipe" and causes your Netflix not to stream.

Without traffic prioritization, the only tool left to curtail abuse is UBB - its not perfect, but it WILL limit those who routinely saturate capacity.

Thanks for posting an actual logical response (rare on these news boards). I see what you're saying, and suppose I went wrong on assuming NN was only referring to restricting the main content providers (which is what I believe it's really aimed at, and also what I'm afraid of) as opposed to all types of traffic (p2p, etc.).

Wireless already IS UBB!

Actually, it is groups that lobby for Google in Washington - such as Public Knowledge, Free Press, Media Access Project, Future of Music Foundation, and New America Foundation - which want to venue shop when the FCC's illegal regulations are challenged.

Google's lobbyists are pushing for "network neutrality" regulations because they favor Google (in fact, they were pretty much written by Google) and are designed to entrench its monopolies. They were disappointed when it looked as if Verizon and MetroPCS might get the case heard in the same court that had previously considered the limits of the FCC's authority as it related to the Internet... even though that's obviously the best court to hear it, because it is up on the subject and the outcome would be consistent with its other rulings.

This I predict: The FCC will tip off Google's lobbyists as to exactly when it will publish the regulations in the Federal Register, while leaving Verizon and MetroPCS in the dark. This because it wants Google to pick the venue.