FCC Outlines Plan For Network Neutrality Two new principles, plus expansion to cover wireless sector... Last Friday the FCC leaked news to the press that today they'd be unveiling their plans for network neutrality. Today new FCC boss Julius Genachowski spoke at the Brookings Institution about the new plan. As expected the early plan is vague, given the rule making process doesn't officially begin until next month when the rule-making process begins, but the goal is to take the FCC's existing network neutrality policy statement and codify them into hard rules -- strengthening them to challenges from ISP lawyers. As it stands, the FCC's policy statement simply encourages that ISPs engage solely in "reasonable" network management, while protecting the consumer's right to access the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice. It also suggests that consumers should have the right to attach any non-harmful devices to the network they see fit. But what's reasonable isn't defined and the guidelines themselves aren't law, and may not even be enforceable in court. The nebulous wording and shaky legal foundation of these principles opened the door to legal assault from the likes of Comcast, which is currently suing the FCC over their crackdown during the Comcast upstream P2P throttling fiasco. The FCC's new rules will not only clarify much of this murky terminology, but Genachowski suggests these rules will be expanded to cover the wireless sector. In Genachowski's speech (which you can read in its entirety here), he acknowledges he also wants to add new fifth and sixth principles. The fifth focuses on preventing ISPs from discriminating against specific content or applications, while the sixth will focus on requiring that ISPs be completely transparent about their network management practices. Transparency has been particularly problematic in an age of invisible caps and sophisticated throttling hardware. Of course rule specifics will be hashed out in October. "I will soon circulate to my fellow Commissioners proposed rules prepared by Commission staff embodying the principles I've discussed, and I will ask for their support in issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking," says the new boss. "I will ensure that the rulemaking process will be fair, transparent, fact-based, and data-driven," he says, adding that "anyone will be able to participate in this process, and I hope everyone will." While anyone and everyone will participate, you can expect lobbyists for AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to continue to get the best seats. Be mindful that lobbyists will likely work very hard to make these principles as weak as possible so they can only be used in the most egregious instances of foul play. This is a perfect opportunity for telecom lobbyists to pre-empt tougher federal laws, that not coincidentally picked up steam in Congress last week. Also be aware that when lobbyists see discussions of "transparency," their immediate thought is that it's a perfect opportunity to push harder for low usage caps and high per-byte overages. Mega-carriers believe that as long as they're facing expectations of honesty when it comes to network management, they might as well use the opportunity to their advantage in almost vindictive fashion. Expect the industry's continued dream of shifting from flat-rate pricing to metered billing to play a starring role as the rules get hashed out.
|
 |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | Karl?
Karl,
What is your opinion on this? You are usually very pragmatic and a little pessimistic about whether the FCC will really enact anything to protect consumers. Do you think this will actually have a backbone behind it, or is it just political posturing in the guise of consumer interests? | |
|  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 1 edit | Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet said by Matt3:Do you think this will actually have a backbone behind it, or is it just political posturing in the guise of consumer interests?
I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree. We will find out later if they actually make something public.
But as shown in this news story, the FCC will get plenty of opposition from industry and from some in Congress. I'd bet that the wireless companies will lobby hardest against this. »news.yahoo.com/s/nf/20090921/bs_nf/69053 -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|  |  |  |  |  |  DrModemPremium join:2006-10-19 USA kudos:1 Reviews:
·exede by ViaSat
| said by Linklist:I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree. I'm shocked I tell you, absolutely SHOCKED!  | |
|  |  |  | | said by Linklist:I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree. YOU LIE!!! | |
|  |  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet said by viperlmw:said by Linklist:I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree. YOU LIE!!! I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or if you find something inaccurate with what I said? Care to elaborate? -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|  |  |  |  |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet said by Linklist:said by viperlmw:said by Linklist:I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree. YOU LIE!!! I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or if you find something inaccurate with what I said? Care to elaborate? I think he's referring to Joe Wilson.  | |
|  |  |  |  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:6 | said by Linklist:said by viperlmw:said by Linklist:I find it interesting that the 2 Dem FCC commissioners gave a big back slap to Genachowski in their statements. But the 2 Repub commissioners haven't commented yet. It seems to indicate they don't agree. YOU LIE!!! I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or if you find something inaccurate with what I said? Care to elaborate? I'm hoping it was a joke based on the Joe Wilson rudeness.
As Julius Genachowski was speaking today, I was smirking to myself how funny it would be if Richard Bennett, George Ou, Brett Glass, or someone of that ilk were to suddenly blurt out, "You Lie!" (None of them were actually in the room, and I kinda doubt two of those three guys would have been so rude as to really do that, but that's still something that kinda crossed my mind.) -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  4 edits | Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet Robb, I knew I could count on you to think of me. How sweet.
Let's just say, discreetly, in Swiftian terms, that the Chairman said some things that were not so.
And probably without realizing that they were not so. I hope to visit with him and his staff to correct these things, which were doubtless told to him and his staff by mendacious DC lobbyists such as yourself and the groups for which you work.
Which are, in turn, all funded by Google. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  | | said by funchords:I'm hoping it was a joke based on the Joe Wilson rudeness. I really thought he would get that. | |
|
 |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 1 edit | said by Linklist:But as shown in this news story, the FCC will get plenty of opposition from industry and from some in Congress. I'd bet that the wireless companies will lobby hardest against this. Senate Republicans move to block FCC "open internet" rules with amendment to an appropriations bill:
»www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/···-438469/
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced an amendment that would deny the FCC any funds for developing or implementing new Internet regulations.
Co-sponsoring the amendment were Republican Sens. John Ensign, Sam Brownback, David Vitter, Jim DeMint and John Thune. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|  |  |  |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA kudos:6 | Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet said by Linklist:Senate Republicans move to block FCC "open internet" rules with amendment to an appropriations bill: » www.eweek.com/c/a/Government-IT/···-438469/Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced an amendment that would deny the FCC any funds for developing or implementing new Internet regulations.
Co-sponsoring the amendment were Republican Sens. John Ensign, Sam Brownback, David Vitter, Jim DeMint and John Thune. A minority-proposed amendment doesn't mean much. It's sure getting a lot of press, though. -- Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL Test your Broadband connection today! -- »measurementlab.net/ | |
|  |  |  |  |  1 edit | Re: Repub FCC commissioners have not commented yet said by funchords:A minority-proposed amendment doesn't mean much. It's sure getting a lot of press, though. That's because they're right. Congress just recently reprimanded the FCC and insisted that it not be a loose cannon. Yet, today, the new Chairman -- while claiming that the new FCC would be data-driven and would not jump to conclusions -- stated without investigation several false conclusions (e.g. that there was no competition among providers) as the basis for a drive to regulate the Internet.
What's more, while the Chairman claims in his speech that there will be a public, open process, the proposed rules are being drafted behind closed doors, without public input or even the input of all of the Commissioners.
Since the FCC's powers are delegated by Congress, it has every right to stop such a farce before it gets going. | |
|
 |  |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 | Update on Senate block of FCC net neutrality initiative »voices.washingtonpost.com/postte···ith.html
"While we are still generally opposed to net neutrality regulations, we have decided to hold off on the amendment because [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] approached us and we are beginning a dialogue," said a staff member on the committee.
An official at the FCC confirmed that Genachowski, who on Monday introduced a proposal for net neutrality rules, called Republican members who criticized his move, saying it could hurt the businesses of network operators. The call was intended to begin a conversation about the proposal that would prevent Internet service providers from blocking Web content and services.
Rebecca Arbogast, head of technology policy research at Stifel Nicholas, had said the move was a standard vehicle for Congress to block what regulatory agencies were trying to achieve in the executive branch or in a regulatory agency. The Senate Republican's got what they wanted - Genachowski having to listen to them. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|  |  |  |  |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | Re: Update on Senate block of FCC net neutrality initiative I hope they have something to say, or he won't be listening for very long. | |
|
 |  |  LinklistPremium join:2002-03-03 Longport, NJ kudos:5 1 edit | Mostly they don't like it, but say the FCC should go forward SLOWLY and not just rubber stamp what Genachowski wants. And at the end they say the FCC is hypocritical when they admit the "4 principles" were unenforceable, but are nonetheless defending them in court against Comcast.
»hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/a···74A1.pdf
Curiously, todays speech appears to admit that the Commission did not have enforceable rules at the time of last years Comcast/BitTorrent decision while the Commission simultaneously files its appellate brief defending that decision. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
 |  Host: Time Warner Intern.. PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech
| Re: Karl? Karl,
What is your opinion on this? You are usually very pragmatic and a little pessimistic about whether the FCC will really enact anything to protect consumers. Do you think this will actually have a backbone behind it, or is it just political posturing in the guise of consumer interests? I'd have to wait for the actual rules to fully chime in. I will say AT&T and Verizon are still very much in the driver's seat when it comes to both parties of this government, and anybody really expecting tough, pro-consumer rules will be disappointed. I'd expect fairly weak guidelines that do give the FCC a little more legal power for blatant instances of ISP shenanigans (cutting off a competing VoIP carrier), but I think the real push, driven by lobbyists, will be about pre-empting tougher Congressional laws while using "transparency" to help push the idea of metered billing on consumers. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Karl? let put on an addendum karl; any pro consumer aspects put forth by the FCC will end up being litigated far past this administrations shelf-life in hopes of a new more "business friendly" administration. What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys! -- BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! | |
|  |  |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: Karl? said by S_engineer:What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys! That would only serve to make the lawyers' jobs extremely easy after any rule enactment. Let the engineers do what they do best....engineer. They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy. | |
|  |  |  |  |  Matt3All noise, no signal.Premium join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC kudos:12 | Re: Karl? said by openbox9:said by S_engineer:What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys! That would only serve to make the lawyers' jobs extremely easy after any rule enactment. Let the engineers do what they do best....engineer. They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy. How about we compromise? Let the engineers write the rules, but let the lawyers add their legalese? | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: Karl? That's kind of what I wrote. The engineers get a technical voice, but the lawyers make the rules legally defensible. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Karl? Originally, the FCC was a mish mash of great thinkers, great engineers, lawyers, Doctors and just SMART, ACCOMPLISHED PEOPLE. Now it's solely lobbyists and lawyers stopping by on their way between think tank or K-Street employment. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: Karl? I know the history, and I'm not disputing it. I support a good "mish mash" of thinkers, engineers, lawyers, PhD types, and "smart, accomplished people". As I'm sure you're well cognizant of, we most likely won't see that again as long as politics reign and money talks. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Karl? You are correct sir! Other reforms need to happen first. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  tubbynetreminds me of the danse russePremium,MVM join:2008-01-16 Chandler, AZ kudos:1 | Re: Karl? said by Karl Bode:You are correct sir! Other reforms need to happen first. mandatory chlorine in the gene pool?

q. -- "...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..." | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | said by Karl Bode:Originally, the FCC was a mish mash of great thinkers, great engineers, lawyers, Doctors and just SMART, ACCOMPLISHED PEOPLE. Now it's solely lobbyists and lawyers stopping by on their way between think tank or K-Street employment. And that's why it's proposing to regulate the Internet. Google spends a lot of money on K Street nowadays, and some folks seem to want to cash in. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  1 edit | said by openbox9:That's kind of what I wrote. The engineers get a technical voice, but the lawyers make the rules legally defensible. Not the way I read it here... I got more of a "everything's fine, please move along.... Nothing to see" vibe from what you said... | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: Karl? I left out the part about ensuring the lawyers make rules defensible, but I stated that the engineers should definitely have a voice. How did you discern "everything is fine here, nothing to see"?said by openbox9:They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | | Re: Karl? said by openbox9:I left out the part about ensuring the lawyers make rules defensible, but I stated that the engineers should definitely have a voice. How did you discern "everything is fine here, nothing to see"? said by openbox9:They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy. That's currently how things seem to be drafted, so that's all that I meant. I think the layers and marketing department give more input on these matters than the engineering department. No slam on attorneys and marketing people intended... | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  mdrift join:2003-08-15 Spokane, WA | said by openbox9:That's kind of what I wrote. The engineers get a technical voice, but the lawyers make the rules legally defensible. As an Engineer we don't get squat. The Business Suits dictate, so please spare me on letting the Engineers design and implement. The leash is very short. | |
|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  openbox9Premium join:2004-01-26 japan kudos:2 | Re: Karl? This is about the way the FCC "should" function to draft rules and policy, not how it may or may not be operating currently. I have an engineering background too, so I believe I have a decent understanding of how things tend to work. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  | | said by Matt3:said by openbox9:said by S_engineer:What he should do is outsource this policy framework to network engineers rather than attorneys! That would only serve to make the lawyers' jobs extremely easy after any rule enactment. Let the engineers do what they do best....engineer. They very well should have a voice in the matter, but they shouldn't be responsible for drafting policy. How about we compromise? Let the engineers write the rules, but let the lawyers add their legalese? Bingo! This is the way to go! | |
|
 |  |  fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium join:2005-05-20 kudos:3 | Quote: Cable industry gets confused over First Amendment right... "The cable industry's chief lobbying organization, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA), believes that violating network neutrality is their First Amendment right."
Um, Karl, I know that you put some of your own take on these stories, but I seriously do not see how you're even treading on the first amendment issue in regards to the so-called net neutrality.
Right off the bat, I don't like anything being controlled when it comes to the internet.. they're pipes, and that's it. I also believe they DO have a right to meter their internet now that its evolving into more than just web pages as it was when things really started in the late 90's. With that said...
The 1st amendment is not a law of the land when it comes to how rules/laws are made in day to day life.. the freedom of speech is that of to the government.. There is no 1st amendment protection when it comes to business against consumer. There is, however, regulation that the government can impost on the people which is in the power of the government to exercise. If they want NN rules to be in place, damn it, put them in.. If the people want to sit back and not put pressure on their elected officials as the businesses do through lobbies, then we as people have no one to blame but ourselves.
The people can change things by speaking up LOUDLY and making it an up and front issue.. they can not re-elect these people again for violating the trust of the people that elected them (and they, as was said, need to stop clinging to guns and religion when they go to the polls - that was a valid point. People focus on the major issues and vote accordingly and as long as guns, religion, abortion, and other entitlements are on the line, that's how they vote)
The people need to wake up in this country or get what they're forced into.. But, I still don't see how this is a First Amendment Right. | |
|
 mix join:2002-03-19 Utica, MI | This will usher in a new era of usage caps I am all for net neutrality. But this will only embolden ISPs and wireless phone companies to create new and smaller usage caps to prevent file traders from overwhelming their networks. It is also the perfect excuse to raise/add fees to squeeze extra dollars out of customers. This will be the next big fight. ISP's trying to one up each other on who offers the higher usage cap until we eventually go back to truly unlimited broadband usage circa 10 years ago. Any smart ISP or wireless phone provider should be looking for ways to massively increase their available bandwidth right now. | |
|  |  See 18 replies to this post | |
 w0go.O join:2001-08-30 Springfield, OR 2 edits | no one owns the internet The internet is an public massive web of connected PCs and networks, and no one should have the right to limit or block someone elses traffic. This isn't a private network owned by some company where they can pick and choose and manage in precise detail. If they want to be apart of the Internet as we know it, all traffic should be equal and allowed and no ISP should be able to limit, block, modify, etc anything that is being sent over it. If they want to do that then they can create their own private network, that's not what the internet is. | |
|  |  See 12 replies to this post | |
 | | Looking at the old "policy" "protecting the consumer's right to access the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice."
Consumer's RIGHT? I don't recall unrestricted connection to the internet as a Constitutional right.
No problem...I can set up a $200 per month tier for anyone that wants that kind of connectivity, or have in my contract/TOS what MY rules are. If you don't like MY rules, don't use MY service.
"It also suggests that consumers should have the right to attach any non-harmful devices to the network they see fit."
As the consumer sees fit? Non-harmful?
Since when does the clueless consumer have the right to determine what is and isn't fit to connect to my wireless network?
If I have a 802.11n network, a consumer can connect to it with a 802.11b device. Will it cause harm? No, not for the consumer. Will it cause harm to the rest of my 802.11n network and all my other users? Yes. so I suppose I can prohibit that kind of radio as it would be a harmful device.
Let suppose I require a firewall or router behind each CPE (may it be a stand alone router or the CPE's built in router), should I allow a consumer to connected any CPE they want? No, because it would be considered a harmful device. | |
|  |  See 25 replies to this post | |
 w0go.O join:2001-08-30 Springfield, OR | Internet should be treated as public utility/service Full regulation and definition of requirements for someone to sell and market access to it. Shouldn't be any different than power/phone/water. | |
|  |  See 17 replies to this post | |
 | | Wireless rules Rob Topolski asked 2 good questions to Verizon around the aspect of their claims that wireless should be exempt from net-neutrality. The two claims are:
•"Spectrum is shared" Not a valid argument as all Internet traffic is shared
•"They have areas of unexpected bandwidth because of no fixed endpoints" Also a fuzzy response. You know when there is going to be a football game or event and bring in portable towers. Wireline networks have similar issues around snow days or general Internet events.
The VZ rep first thanked Rob for all his hard work last year pointing out the issues with VZ's chief competitor (Comcast). Then spun his response around why they should be able to violate the principals far more than Comcast ever did. | |
|  | | Great speech but is that all it is? "In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet."
Smart words coming from an articulate person and I want to believe but if one thing that history has shown us is that history repeats itself and a seemingly unlimited money supply can do anything it wants. If the Bells/Cable providers don't want something they will do whatever is necessary for their benefit (or in their words "the stock holders") and not for the consumer. Julius also makes me a bit nervous being he seems more like a lawyer by looking at his background than being the head of a very technical entity. I can only hope he has the right advisors and not a group of people with an agenda. We will see I guess. Hope for the best plan for the worst. | |
|  | | network neutrality I hope it goes threw and starts to punish companies for throttling and capping and charging overages for internet use. The FCC should put their foot up these types of company's ass . | |
|  |  | | Re: network neutrality It has nothing to do with throttling, capping, or charging overages for internet use as these things are, for the most part, network neutral. Want dedicated bandwidth? Pay for it. Think your provider is abusing monopoly power and their right of way? Complain about that and I might just back you up. | |
|  |  | | said by jchambers28:I hope it goes threw and starts to punish companies for throttling and capping and charging overages for internet use. I simply cannot understand your twisted logic.
* I am an ISP. * I have to buy my bandwidth from a higher tier provider. * You want me to give you all the bandwidth you want and want ME to pay for it.
Perhaps a simple analogy. I am a gas station owner and I buy gas in bulk from a fuel distributor. Now just because I sell gas, you want me to give you all the gas you want, even if it means I have to pay for it out of my own pocket.
It cost me...yes, I have to PAY for the bandwidth my customers use. I cap them at 30 GB per month, its in my contract. If you exceed 2 GB per 24-hours, I throttle your connection, its in my contract. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: network neutrality said by nevtxjustin:It cost me...yes, I have to PAY for the bandwidth my customers use. I cap them at 30 GB per month, its in my contract. If you exceed 2 GB per 24-hours, I throttle your connection, its in my contract. If you don't like it, don't sign the contract. This is a network neutral method of managing bandwidth. I don't see an issue with it as long as you are not granted a right of way which creates a monopoly in your service area. | |
|  |  |  |
 JKM join:2009-06-08 Seymour, MO 1 edit | The Real Problem All ISPs purchase their Internet bandwidth. They then resell it as a service on their infrastructure. What part of free enterprise do you not understand? Bandwidth costs many small ISPs $300.00 per MB, per month. When they are using 50MB per month they pay only $100.00 per MB, per month. Seldom do they pay less that $30-40.00 per MB, per month.
The real problem is not most of the ISPs. It is the lack of availability of competitively priced bandwidth. IMHO the real problem is the Middle Mile Infrastructure is far behind the Last Mile technology and ambitions. If they would get the bandwidth to the Last Mile Infrastructure, competition would fix the problem.
If a company selling you Internet service isn't profitable, they go out of business. How would you like to have to look for a provider two or three times a year because yours went out of business, due to bandwidth hogs. Or better yet, how would you like to buy your bandwidth from the wholesalers for say $1800.00 a month for a 18 Mb pipe because there is no ISP in your area.
Let's put the problem in the proper perspective. We have a small percentage of users who would use the majority of bandwidth if allowed. Middle Mile wholesale bandwidth is severely limited by the technology serving it. In order to stay in business and meet the needs of all customers, limits must be set until unlimited bandwidth is available at the wholesale level. -- Begin with the end in mind!
EDIT: Neutrality and bandwidth usage are in no way related. | |
|  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: The Real Problem So you're saying that if you had $30 per Mbit bandwidth you'd offer unlimited packages with no disallowed legal activities? Just asking.
Or, put another way, if two people had local traffic on your network, would you care how much bandwidth it took?
Or, put another way, would you allow for unlimited usage if you stated that the top 1% of users paid $X more per month than everyone else? Is the $X clearly stated and if so is it less than the customer could do on their own (by buying a T1)?
Comcast has a non-metered package. Starts at $60 around here. $90 gets you 22/5 unmetered. Granted, that's wireline but still...
Time Warner Cable also has a business class product that wasn't among the bunch to get metered awhile back in Beaumont. Starts at $100.
Don't disallow high usage. Just make it profitable, yet better than the competition that you'd have in that arena. If a user can get a $300 T1 you should be able to sell them 750GB worth of bandwidth on a 1.5+ Mbps connection for $250... | |
|  |  |  superdogI Need A DrinkPremium,MVM join:2001-07-13 Lebanon, PA | Re: The Real Problem said by iansltx:So you're saying that if you had $30 per Mbit bandwidth you'd offer unlimited packages with no disallowed legal activities? Just asking. As an ISP owner,I have no interest in defining "legal" activities. What one person considers moral, another may not. If I could offer a wide open internet, I would, and I do in 99% of my customers eyes. I MUST make $$ to stay in business, so unfortunately, P2P use stops that process from happening, so it gets blocked. It isn't that I am for OR against P2P applications and the content it provides. I am just against anything that kills my network and ruins the online experience for all of my normal users.
said by iansltx:Or, put another way, if two people had local traffic on your network, would you care how much bandwidth it took? Local traffic for most ISP's isn't an issue, as our networks can (In most cases) deliver a lot more bandwidth than our backbone to the internet provides
said by iansltx:Or, put another way, would you allow for unlimited usage if you stated that the top 1% of users paid $X more per month than everyone else? Is the $X clearly stated and if so is it less than the customer could do on their own (by buying a T1)? I will try answering your question like this:
In almost everything in life, there is always someone or something that dominates whatever subject it is related to. There is always a player who scores the most points, the most assists and just basically runs circles around everyone else on the playing field. Is this a good or bad thing?
There is always a person who takes advantage of every "free" situation they find themselves in. Perhaps you have been a victim of this person, as they were ahead of you in the buffet line at a wedding. The DJ announces that the caterer has run out of rolls, so please only take 1 per person, yet you watch this individual stuff 1 in each pocket and one on their plate. They just don't care about anyone else.
SUV's and large pickup trucks consume much more gasoline then a Honda Civic. That's OK though, as the person who is driving the SUV knew this when they bought it. They pay for this though, as they must buy a LOT more gas than the Civic owner. The example is that they are consuming a lot more fuel to do the same thing the Civic owner can do.
I could go on and on with examples of things in life that are fair and not so fair. In some cases, people choose their own demise and they pay for it. In other cases, people take things that are really not theirs and others pay for it. What it all boils down to is what is right?. It seems that answers for this question are hard to find?.
IMHO, if you consume it?, you should pay for it. I don't think that every person should pay all of the time. What I mean is this: I have customers who rarely use any bandwidth at all, and after watching their usage for a few months, I lower their costs to $10 a month, as their habits deserve a lower rate. I also have customers who, after being on my system, I see that their usage habits are above average, so I contact them and then raise their monthly rate slightly (From perhaps $22 a month to $27). I also have users who just CRUSH their connections. I simply call and discuss their situation, after which I then raise their rates accordingly. If they disagree with me on their habits?, I show them a graph of what they consumed for the month. If they still disagree, I simply lower their connection speed to make up the difference and keep things fair for all the others. (They agree to all of these things when signing up. I have them read the TOS right in front of me and then initial every page at the bottom. I do this on purpose so if they have any questions, they can be answered)
said by iansltx:Don't disallow high usage. Just make it profitable, yet better than the competition that you'd have in that arena. If a user can get a $300 T1 you should be able to sell them 750GB worth of bandwidth on a 1.5+ Mbps connection for $250... That's the idea behind my last paragraph above. Make $$ but be fair. My costs have been coming down in the last 3 years and I have been passing them on as best I can. -- »www.wavecrazy.net
| |
|  |  |  |  iansltx join:2007-02-19 Golden, CO kudos:2 Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
·RoadRunner Cable
·Comcast
| Re: The Real Problem Actually, what you're doing sounds absolutely fair. You're tailoring costs to consumption, lowering costs for some users (unheard of for the big guys) while raising costs for others. You're passing on lower bandwidth costs as time goes on as well. I have no quarrel with you.
Now if you were operating a wireline fiber network where bandwidth was 5% or less of your expenses per customer, I'd wonder why speed tiers wouldn't be enough to differentiate unmetered service, but you aren't. So everything sounds 100% legit. | |
|
 | | Yay Julius! It's time that the FCC acted like it had a backbone. The cell providers are a useful next target. I wrote a blog post about the cell companies' monopoly practices in text messaging, in light of google voice here:
»matthaber.com/b2evolution/blog5.···-texting (warning--naked people on blog too) | |
|
 | |
|
|