  Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | Yep, same old FCC Why bother with the important things, when you can just focus on the money grab stuff? | |
|
 |  RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY |  Re: Yep, same old FCC
| |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  FCC waited for election results & now knows to tread lightly
push for consumer neutrality protections died a quiet death
FCC's other major goal, to increase FCC authority by partially reclassifying ISPs as common carriers, also appears nowhere on the FCC's fall radar. The FCC was waiting for the mid-term election results to see how much congressional backing they would get for their agenda. Seeing as how they will now get little to no support from Congress, they have dialed back their goals. | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: FCC waited for election results & now knows to tread lightly Although I suspect that the FCC was waiting to see how much push it would get from Congress opposed to how much support it would gain. | |
|
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | said by Linklist:push for consumer neutrality protections died a quiet death
FCC's other major goal, to increase FCC authority by partially reclassifying ISPs as common carriers, also appears nowhere on the FCC's fall radar. The FCC was waiting for the mid-term election results to see how much congressional backing they would get for their agenda. Seeing as how they will now get little to no support from Congress, they have dialed back their goals. Amazing how that works.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
 DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA | Except for taking away free HDTV for millions of poor people and videophiles, this is a do-nothing meeting. | |
|
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Except for taking away free HDTV How so? Even if the FCC manages to reallocate a portion of spectrum currently designated for broadcast TV, a sufficient portion of spectrum remains for broadcasters. Also, FWIW broadcast TV isn't just for millions of poor people and videophiles  | |
|
| |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Re: Except for taking away free HDTV said by openbox9:How so? Even if the FCC manages to reallocate a portion of spectrum currently designated for broadcast TV, a sufficient portion of spectrum remains for broadcasters. Also, FWIW broadcast TV isn't just for millions of poor people and videophiles If they take away everything from 31-51 there won't be much left. Especially when in mnay areas 14-20 are used for other purposes. Channels 21-30 is "plenty"? Especially when you have markets less than 100 miles apart. Talk about interferrence issues. | |
|
| | Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | As long as low VHF is nearly useless for digital TV and Land Mobile has priority over broadcast TV for channels 14-20, there is no spare UHF spectrum in the TV Band until a second digital transition to MPEG 4 or better compression is made. It will cost over $5 Billion to convert the TV stations and more than that (well over $10 Billion total) to help out consumers so soon after the first transition. If the proponents of taking TV Band spectrum away are right about the value of the spectrum then they should be more than willing to pay the entire cost of such a second digital broadcast TV transition. | |
|
LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 | 11/30 mtg will be about battle with OTA broadcasters | |
|
GHz
join:2002-01-02
Needham, MA | How to win at the FCC Follow these steps for a successful career with the FCC:
1. Threaten the incumbent carriers with Net Neutrality.
2. Carriers bribe FCC and Congress to make the problem go away.
3. FCC neuters proposed legislation, then sweeps the whole issue under the carpet.
Rinse and repeat as necessary. Great way to make a living, eh?
-G | |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | I find it quite funny to see these right-wing blogs that go biserk of Net Neutrality stating how it is a government takeover, etc....
99% of them couldn't go into substance whatsoever why they disagree with it BUT DAMMIT! IT IS EVIL! | |
|
| pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: I find it quite funny to see these right-wing said by Van:blogs that go biserk of Net Neutrality stating how it is a government takeover, etc.... 99% of them couldn't go into substance whatsoever why they disagree with it BUT DAMMIT! IT IS EVIL! I still would like to know where the problem is that "Net 'Neutrality'" supposedly solves.
The one instance in which an ISP blocked access to a VOIP provider was punished by a swift fine from the FCC under existing law.
It seems most people who are pushing for "Net 'Neutrality'" are those who complain about routine traffic management that should be done by any ISP. The government should have no place in telling an ISP how to manage its privately-owned network.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. | |
|
| | | | Re: I find it quite funny to see these right-wing Part of Network Neutrality is about keeping those instances, like the one you loosely refer to, from becoming acceptable practices. Blocking or degrading competing services has absolutely nothing to do with "routine traffic management" and everything to do with leaving you, the consumer, with less choice and crippled access to the Internet. The small number of "instances" has long been kept such a small number because until the Comcast case, the United States' telecoms were under the impression that the FCC could actually enforce openness principles. | |
|
| |
1 edit | It's all about throttling. I would like my ISP to be a common carrier and leave my dumb pipe alone.
Government should be involved only where there is preferential treatment for certain traffic, and not others, and any anti-competitive behavior like that, such as favoring a telco's video or phone offering by not throttling it while throttling other protocols like P2P or VOIP that an internet user may choose to use that is in competition with other branches of their ISPs business.
I don't care about bundles or ARPU when I can cut the cord and get many services online.
ISPs are not the police, nor are they supposed to enforce copyright infringement.
Traffic management that's designed to reduce bona fide congestion: if that's done equitably it can be the ISP's choice.
History tells us otherwise: with the power of Sandvine and Ellacoya type boxes, ISPs think they can run roughshod over the principles of net neutrality because this power goes straight to their imaginations of how they can squeeze a buck unfairly. And Sandvine of course sales pitches them on how they can perpetrate this unfairness instead of keeping it simple.
Higher throughputs with better prices will be what people will gravitate to, and those would be the ISPs that have minimal network management and have maximum investment in hardware to ensure that the network is not oversubscribed. | |
|
| | net neutrality Maybe they're just too NEUTRAL on the idea to even have a discussion! | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Charter
| Problem.... The Republicans are now 'in control'. And they're all for corporations and making sure those corporations make plenty of money. Quality, competition and the such are out the window for at least another two years and don't expect anything that could be remotely construed as 'regulations'.
For the next two years net neutrality is dead. | |
|
| tkb8
join:2006-05-10
Carnation, WA | Re: Problem.... LOL... you are mistaken. Both the Senate and President are still Dimocrats. This is still Obama's show, but he wont be allowed to destroy the country now. | |
|
| | C'mon people ... are you all so naive ??? C'mon people ... are you all so naive ??? This is a total TROJAN HORSE... They don't care about file sharing sites, those legal issues have already been settled. This piece of legislation is a blatant means to shut down all web sites and blogs that may be in any way critical to POTUS and his Democratic minions. For example, for the thousands (millions?) of web sites and blogs that may incorporate an "unlicensed" photo or illustration of Barack Obama to drive home an editorial message, they would ALL be GUILTY and subject to the indiscriminate and arbitrary ability to pull the plugs on those sites ! These power mongering thugs should in no way be allowed to have such universal and far reaching editorial power in their control. NO WAY, NO HOW ! | |
|
|
|
