FCC's Baker Wonders Why Neutrality Plan Isn't Public We wonder why consumers aren't the ones writing it... The FCC vote on their new neutrality rules is coming December 21, and nobody (other than we assume the wealthiest stakeholders) know what the rules contain, outside of a general understanding that they echo previous, paper thin proposals by Henry Waxman, Verizon and Google -- making a point to exclude wireless. Yesterday we noted how there have been unheeded calls for the rules to be leaked. At least one FCC Commissioner agrees, Meredith Attwell Baker urging the FCC to at least unveil the rules for a brief public comment period, something that would make sense given all the FCC's talk about transparency: "If this agency is to operate in the most transparent and inclusive manner, we should proactively put out a copy of our draft Net Neutrality rules for comment today. The comment cycle can be short, but putting some sunshine on what we are doing would inform our process." She said that would be a way for the chairman to fulfill his pledge of openness and transparency. Of course the Republican Baker will likely vote strictly along party lines against the vote, but she still has a point -- even if it might be a disingenuous one made during a game of political chess. As we noted yesterday, the question shouldn't be whether or not consumers can now view a neutrality proposal after it was hashed out in private meetings (predominately with only the largest, wealthiest carriers), it should be: why weren't consumers absolutely integral in crafting it? AT&T has met with the FCC half a dozen times in the course of three weeks and likely knows precisely what's in this plan -- do you?
|
 rmdir
join:2003-03-13
Chicago, IL | Bill If WikiLeaks doesn't publish it, we'll never see until it's passed. The FCC will probably be given blank papers to sign, with the details to be filled in by the Telcos later. | |
|  | | | Re: Bill and this is why it would be great top have a wikileaks thing that leaks the stuff from these greedbag corporations.
and we all would love to have some FCC transparency so bring on the LEAKS. | |
| | |  james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | Re: Bill Yeah, it's too bad some idiot there ruined everything by pushing his own personal agenda. | |
|
 Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit |  Why weren't consumers absolutely integral in crafting plan?
quote:
Why weren't consumers absolutely integral in crafting a net neutrality plan?
That is a good question. And a good follow on one is who represents consumers before the FCC or any other government agency?
Some, including many here, would say that organizations like Free Press, EFF, Consumers Union, U.S. PIRG, Public Knowledge, etc. speak for the consumer. And I would agree that Consumers Union & U.S. PIRG may indeed represent consumers interests to some degree.
But the biggest noises on the subject of net neutrality are from Free Press & EFF, who IMHO don't represent consumers at all. They represent content providers &/or left wing malcontents whose interests are mostly just anti-ISP and not pro-consumer.
So, it would be interesting to see who has been lobbying the FCC on behalf of consumers on the subject of net neutrality. Was it Consumers Union & PIRG, or has it only been Free Press & EFF? | |
| |  tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5
 ·Fairpoint Commun..
 ·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Why weren't consumers absolutely integral in crafting plan? said by Romney2012: And a good follow on one is who represents consumers before the FCC or any other government agency?
That is a huge problem with modern day governance. I have no problem with companies pleading their case or even to a degree helping to author legislation. After all they have the technical expertise.
On the other hand democracies need to foster the common good. The primary goal of all Legislation should be advancement of the common good. Public good trumps specific business interests. Capitalism is a tool, not a goal in and of itself. The problem is the will of citizens gets drown out by business interests. This happens for two reasons.
Capitalism is the best way we have yet found to efficiently utilize labor and capital to achieve a particular goal. It should come as no surprise that business interests are extremely effective in lobbying their cause.
On the other hand we have the needs and desires of the general population. Citizens are not organized around a common goal so are at a significant disadvantage making their voice heard. Exacerbating that problem is the terrible way we fund campaigns. US politicians serve two masters. On the one hand they have to appeal to the electorate while raising vast sums of money to fund their campaign. Most people devote a rather small portion of their time to politics. Companies on the other hand have virtually unlimited money and a strong vested interest in controlling the legislative agenda.
It should no come as a surprise to anyone that corporate interest dominate what government does and that citizens get the short end of the deal.
/tom | |
| | |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | Re: Why weren't consumers absolutely integral in crafting plan? I don't believe companies should be pleading anything. The fact that corporations are given the same rights that a person has, without any of the responsibilities makes me ill. It is the fundemental flaw in our democracy, and until the public realizes this, all the campaign financing laws and consumer protection in the world will not prevent this corruption. | |
| | | | tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Why weren't consumers absolutely integral in crafting plan? said by SLD:I don't believe companies should be pleading anything. The fact that corporations are given the same rights that a person has, without any of the responsibilities makes me ill.
No disagreement from me on that point. The 100-year old Supreme Court decision equating the legal fiction of corporate person-hood equal to actual human citizenship has been a disaster on a par with the Dred Scott decision.
That being said in most cases the bulk of technical expertise resides within the private sphere. It is foolish not to listen to what they have to say.
/tom | |
|
| | | | said by tschmidt:The primary goal of all Legislation should be advancement of the common good.
I disagree. the primary goal of legislation should be to secure our freedoms, protect the country, and promote economic prosperity. i dont see how net neutrality does any...
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png | |
| | | | tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
1 edit | Re: Why weren't consumers absolutely integral in crafting plan? said by Somnambul33t:i dont see how net neutrality does any... The underlying goal of Network Neutrality is pretty simple.
As the Internet becomes ever more important to participation in all aspects of a person's life the on-ramp that connects individuals to the Internet should be transparent.
My ISP should not be able to restrict access to legal sites, should not be able to preferentially enhance performance to companies they have a relationship with or degrade it to ones they do not. That does not preclude ISPs from offering value add services like QoS traffic shaping but the controls need to be in the hands of the customer.
I often use the example of railroads at the turn of the last century. They used discriminatory pricing to favor some companies and hurt others. The difference in prices were small but being a highly competitive business even small changes in cost dramatically affected the companies involved.
/tom | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why weren't consumers absolutely integral in crafting plan? said by tschmidt:said by Somnambul33t:i dont see how net neutrality does any... The underlying goal of Network Neutrality is pretty simple. As the Internet becomes ever more important to participation in all aspects of a person's life the on-ramp that connects individuals to the Internet should be transparent. My ISP should not be able to restrict access to legal sites, should not be able to preferentially enhance performance to companies they have a relationship with or degrade it to ones they do not. That does not preclude ISPs from offering value add services like QoS traffic shaping but the controls need to be in the hands of the customer. I often use the example of railroads at the turn of the last century. They used discriminatory pricing to favor some companies and hurt others. The difference in prices were small but being a highly competitive business even small changes in cost dramatically affected the companies involved. /tom Is any of this actually happening with the Internet/ISPs in America? I havent seen it, but maybe im just delusional.
And why shouldnt an ISP offer better performance with a company/service with which they are partnering? It's their prerogative and i dont see the harm in this at all. If the comcast deal goes through, you're saying they should be banned from increasing the performance of their network, customer bandwidth, and even removing the usage caps for hulu.com, in which they would inherit a partial ownership/stake? why the hell not?
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png | |
| | | | | | tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Why weren't consumers absolutely integral in crafting plan? said by Somnambul33t: And why shouldnt an ISP offer better performance with a company/service with which they are partnering? If first mile access was truly competitive I would agree. But unfortunately for most of us we live in a world of monopoly or at best duopoly providers. Therefore it is impossible to vote with your wallet.
Really boils down to how much impact do you want private companies to exert in influencing what citizens access?
said by Somnambul33t: If the comcast deal goes through, you're saying they should be banned from increasing the performance of their network, Don't remember where I said Comcast could not improve their network. What I did say was that an ISP cannot strike business deals that enhance access to partners and discriminate against competitors.
If they want to do this as a value add service over and above basic carriage and do not cross subsidize one with other other that is fine. The value add services business is competitive, whereas first-mile access is not.
Seems to me Comcast is already doing this by keeping the TATA pipe maxed out to put pressure on CDNs (not just L3) and other transit carrier to "encourage" them to peer with Comcast.
/tom | |
|
| | | Easy... The answer is easy:
"Welcome to the United States of Amercia... land of corporate greed!"
That rhymes with "the free" right? :/
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| |  n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: Easy... said by jimbo2150:The answer is easy:
"Welcome to the United States of Amercia... land of corporate greed!"
That rhymes with "the free" right? :/
Find me a country where there is no corruption. I would love to know of one. Some are worse than others (Afghanistan anyone?) but sadly it is a fact of life, and I suspect a biological trait of living species in general in order to get ahead on this planet. I'll watch a seagull find something to eat only to have another one swoop in and steal it. No different for humans except we supposedly have rules in place to prevent it.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: Easy... the difference is that our rules seem to flex with dollar amounts.
If I steal your car I go to prison.
If Its am rich and famous who does the same crime they get 90 days community service
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | | | | Re: Easy... said by Kearnstd:the difference is that our rules seem to flex with dollar amounts.
If I steal your car I go to prison.
If Its am rich and famous who does the same crime they get 90 days community service
you dont think the "rich" in combodia or soviet russia or china get the same treatment?
in america, often times these celebrities or wealthy folks promise to support charities that help prevent their actions, like a drunk driver promising financial contributions and/or being a spokesman for MADD. Does this sometimes get them reduced sentences? sure, but their celebrity and wealth may help more people than they harmed. not saying it's always "fair" but at least put it in perspective.
--
»valid.canardpc.com/cache/screens···7860.png | |
| | | | | | | Re: Easy... said by Somnambul33t:Does this sometimes get them reduced sentences? sure, but their celebrity and wealth may help more people than they harmed. [citation needed] | |
|
| | mjayp99
join:2008-11-11
Las Vegas, NV | So we should be passive about corruption because it exists in other countries as well? "Oh well, at least we aren't as bad as Afghanistan"? | |
|
| | | you mean:
The United Corporations of America
In Greed We Trust
yup, greed is their god. | |
|
 ropeguruPremium
join:2001-01-25
Mechanicsville, VA | So... What difference would public comments make? The FCC is so entrenched in the pockets of the corporations that no public comment is going to change their mind. Also given the fact they are appointed by politicians, there will never be a FCC that is there for the people. | |
|  R4M0NBrazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA | Watch out for "Net Neutrality" There are at least 3 different definitions of net neutrality and two of those (the government's and the corporation's) are nowhere near what many people think of "net neutrality".
Government: Views on the net should be neutral. If you spouse one point of view, we will mandate that you make available a differing point of view. We also reserve the right to decide what infringes on our politically-skewed view of net neutrality and to take steps to correct what we (or our lobbyists) perceive as infringement. That's net neutrality.
Corporations: All companies making use of the net should pay to use the net. Google/Youtube/Netflix should pay for using out pipes and we should be able to charge extra for those who put more content available for consumers. That's net neutrality.
Common sense: The government and Telecoms should keep their hands out of who should or should not make content available to consumers and let the consumer choose what they what to see on the internet. ISPs should make money on providing a link to the content and being a common carrier of data and the government should just sit on the corner, please, and don't screw it up worse than it already is. That's net neutrality. | |
| | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Watch out for "Net Neutrality" said by R4M0N:Common sense: ...
The problem with common-sense arguments is that nothing is truly common, and the devils are in the details. Not all internet traffic is equally important. Some of the most passionate believers in so-called "neutrality" use QoS to give priority to their VoIP and games, throttling their file transfers.
Why shouldn't my ISP be allowed to do the same thing? Or, to charge more to those who need the equivalent of a dedicated T1 connection?
If we're paying shared prices for a shared experience, that involves network management, capacity planning, etc. So-called "neutrality" supporters will splinter, some saying that's ok. Just don't prefer one content provider over another. But, they can't define precisely where the lines should be drawn -- while at odds with their more passionate brethren.
I think the real problem is that there's little competition in the ISP space. They built their business using public airwaves or rights of way (to avoid negotiating property rights with each property owner along the way, which would be necessary without the help of society). Then they expect to be left to operate as "just a free-market business." There is very little competitive force which would keep an ISP from going too far managing their network.
To me, the solution isn't some nebulous "neutrality" requirements (which seem to boil down to "I want more stuff for less."). I think ISPs (or the pipes they operate through) should be placed under the same oversight as public utilities. That would provide for more open consideration of their network management practices, rate setting, capital investment, executive compensation, profits, etc. Whether those things are in the public's interest -- the public whose rights of way and airwaves are used to create a decidedly non-market condition. | |
| | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Watch out for "Net Neutrality" said by amigo_boy:Some of the most passionate believers in so-called "neutrality" use QoS to give priority to their VoIP and games, throttling their file transfers. True
said by amigo_boy:Why shouldn't my ISP be allowed to do the same thing? After all of this discussion, do you really not know the answer to this question?
Because the net is multi-purpose. What's important to me is not important to you, and vice-versa. So everyone needs to get their fair shot at both amount and priority.
It's not the ISP's job to inspect our traffic and unilaterally make those decisions for us. When they do, they encourage us to encrypt our traffic or embed it into some preferred protocol. An arms race is thus encouraged by that kind of misbehavior.
Let the ISPs carry more and more traffic. Please build more, we love it. But keep your nose out of the stream.
said by amigo_boy:Or, to charge more to those who need the equivalent of a dedicated T1 connection? They can do this.
said by amigo_boy:If we're paying shared prices for a shared experience, that involves network management, capacity planning, etc. So-called "neutrality" supporters will splinter, some saying that's ok. Just don't prefer one content provider over another. But, they can't define precisely where the lines should be drawn -- while at odds with their more passionate brethren. Actually, we'd all prefer no prioritization at the end of the day. Some of us believe that voice providers or TV providers should be able to prioritize their primary service while carrying data as a ride-along service. However, I think that data is king these days and no prioritization is required if the capacity/subscriber ratio is well managed.
said by amigo_boy:I think the real problem is that there's little competition in the ISP space. They built their business using public airwaves or rights of way (to avoid negotiating property rights with each property owner along the way, which would be necessary without the help of society). Then they expect to be left to operate as "just a free-market business." There is very little competitive force which would keep an ISP from going too far managing their network. Exactly. That's why we need a few guidelines or guard-rails, not volumes of regulation.
said by amigo_boy:To me, the solution isn't some nebulous "neutrality" requirements (which seem to boil down to "I want more stuff for less."). Oh, it does not. Read the four 2005 principles or the six 2009 principles and tell me where it says "I want more for less!"
said by amigo_boy: I think ISPs (or the pipes they operate through) should be placed under the same oversight as public utilities. That would provide for more open consideration of their network management practices, rate setting, capital investment, executive compensation, profits, etc. Whether those things are in the public's interest -- the public whose rights of way and airwaves are used to create a decidedly non-market condition.
Man, oh man, How can you be so off base and yet arrive at such a good conclusion. I agree with you.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Watch out for "Net Neutrality" said by funchords:It's not the ISP's job to inspect our traffic and unilaterally make those decisions for us.
That's the nature of a shared service. You want a dedicated pipe at a shared-service price. The common theme of the no-caps, no-management, no-charge-to-content-producers is "I want more stuff."
Everybody does. I want a lower price for my shared service -- which ain't gonna happen if my ISP has to provide the equivalent of a dedicated T1 line to every customer just because some people think a billion people should be able to do the equivalent of pick up the phone at the same time and get a dial tone.
It's a shared service. And it's priced as such. | |
| | | | | WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Re: Watch out for "Net Neutrality" What is the problem with offering QoS to say Netflix to transverse a ISP network for a price paid by the customer or the content provider to reduce buffering in the middle of the movie as long a company X is not blocked in any other way or excluded.
I use to pay to use the toll road out of Miami instead of I-95 because the roadbed was better and for some reason the drivers were more sane. It was not to speed because I saw more cops on the toll road then when I used I-95. My guess was I-95 had more The Rules Don't Apply to Me drivers. You also had to drive in the left hand lanes because the right hand lane was like driving on a dirt road.
That is what you get when everything is equal. The other side with strict Net Neutrality is that startup business that could be the next google if they could get priority or QoS throughput like VoIP needs to work will.
I am not for allowing exclusion but if you want better service then you should be allowed to buy or offer it.
If Net Neutrality makes ISPs dump pipe then you will get dumb pipes with fewer upgrades over time. | |
| | | | | | tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Watch out for "Net Neutrality" said by WhatNow:What is the problem with offering QoS to say Netflix to transverse a ISP network for a price paid by the customer or the content provider to reduce buffering in the middle of the movie as long a company X is not blocked in any other way or excluded. Shouldn't the decision about which providers get preferential treatment be in the hands of the customer?
The issue is not as black and white as wholesale blocking of content it is much more subtle. It is all about the level of congestion and dropped packets. This is the same discriminator pricing model used by the railroads a century ago. They charged different prices depending on who the shipper was. Since that part of the business is highly competitive even minor differences in pricing has a profound effect on determining winners and losers.
I think a better solution is to have the ISP implement QOS but leave packet prioritization in the hands of the customer. That way everyone wins. The ISP gets to sell a value add service and the customer gets to determine how much, if any, traffic to pay for expedited service. This would work along the lines of shipping real goods. You pay extra for expedited deliver but the Post Office, FedEx, UPS, et al does not get to discriminate against the ultimate destination.
The QoS debate raises interesting questions. As bandwidth costs fall the cost of implementing and managing QoS can exceed the cost of adding capacity. QoS only comes into pay if demand exceeds capacity. If the pipe is not congested none of the packets experience queuing delay. This is another reason the core business of an ISP should be common carriage - transparent bit deliver. If the various components are not separate profit centers the ISP has a great deal of incentive to compromise one part of the business to enhance another.
/tom | |
| | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Watch out for "Net Neutrality" said by tschmidt:The QoS debate raises interesting questions. As bandwidth costs fall the cost of implementing and managing QoS can exceed the cost of adding capacity.
That leads back to my belief that it's a tiny vocal minority who complain about the ISP managing traffic. It's not profitable for ISPs to cater to them when 99% of the customer base is satisfied with the limitations of a shared service, at shared prices.
Which then gets back to how we'll never know how this model might be improved if there were competing ISPs. We don't know how an ISP offering discounted off-peak bandwidth might pull away customers who, while not clamoring for it now in the current duo/monopoly might patronize creative pricing out of principle. | |
|
| | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by amigo_boy:said by funchords:It's not the ISP's job to inspect our traffic and unilaterally make those decisions for us.
That's the nature of a shared service. No, it's not. The processing power required to do it on ISP-scales is only a recent development. The Internet grew up quite nicely without it.
said by amigo_boy:You want a dedicated pipe at a shared-service price. The common theme of the no-caps, no-management, no-charge-to-content-producers is "I want more stuff." Just being repetitive is not making an argument, and I've already answered this one and you've failed to respond to my question: what's in the principles that means "I want more?"
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Cape Cod, MA -- KE1MO
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords | |
|
|  coldmoonPremium
join:2002-02-04
Broadway, NC
·Windstream
| said by R4M0N:Common sense:
The most neutral idea is one where the pricing is based solely on use with a per byte charge similar to electrical service. This would allow the consumer to dictate what is important and what is not through their wallets rather than waiting for the FCC or the Government to define and regulate the transactions or the Telcos to get their fantasies realized.
And yes, Tittle II would make the process simpler, more certain, and users would be able to predict their expenses in advance. It would also open up competition and work to force efficiencies on the providers up and down the chain that work to reduce costs and provide more relevant and profitable services.
JMHO
Mike
--
Returnil - 21st Century body armor for your PC | |
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Watch out for "Net Neutrality" said by coldmoon:The most neutral idea is one where the pricing is based solely on use with a per byte charge similar to electrical service. This would allow the consumer to dictate what is important and what is not through their wallets ...
I agree. However, it seems like there are two other variables. Not just the amount of bandwidth consumed (either max speed, or aggregate over the month), but 1) the priority of the bandwidth and 2) whether bandwidth is consumed peak or non-peak.
Those two aren't easy to express to consumers as a choice. I might want my VoiP traffic to be super high priority, while my torrent download of Ubuntu's latest release could be trickle (or, conducted at night).
With a shared service, I don't see any way to escape the need for traffic shaping to provide for what most customers need. Nobody's going to get exactly what they would get if they paid for their own, private, dedicated T1. But, cost/benefit, it's good enough.
IMO, the risk is that the ISP may not shape traffic with the interests of the customer in mind. They might not give a nighttime discount because they stand to earn more from overages.
In the absence of competing ISPs, where ISP "B" could be motivated to conduct business more in the interest of the customers from ISP "A," we're never going to get far.
That's why I think the only solution is to place ISPs (or their pipes) under local oversight like water, sewer, electricity is. Without competition, that's the only way to ensure the ISP is doing things both cost effectively, and in the interest of the community (the common user of the shared service). | |
|
| tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| said by R4M0N:Common sense: The government and Telecoms should keep their hands out of who should or should not make content available to consumers and let the consumer choose what they what to see on the internet.
I would agree with your sentiment if first-mile access was a competitive market. Unfortunately it is not, for most of us it is a monopoly or at best a duopoly. Voting with your wallet is not a viable option, I wish it were. That would make things much easier.
The goal of network neutrality is pretty simple. Traffic shaping should be in the hands of the customer not the ISP. First-mile providers should not be able to strike business deals that advantage some content or connections and disadvantage others.
Broadband service should be under the rubric of common-carriage, much like the old phone system. As long a certain technical rules are observed the carrier is not allowed to discriminate who the customer connects to or the quality of the connection. One should not forget the lessons of the early telephone system. The large players used their dominance to force other phone companies to play by their rules or force them out of business by refusing to carry traffic between networks. The central issue has not changed in a hundred years.
Above and beyond that first-mile providers ought to be able to offer whatever value add services they want as long as there is no cross subsidy between the two. Customers that want one-stop shopping ought to be able to do that. Other customers that prefer to mix and match services ought to be able to do that.
As a guiding principle I think the notion of network neutrality is pretty simple.
/tom | |
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Watch out for "Net Neutrality" said by tschmidt:Broadband service should be under the rubric of common-carriage, much like the old phone system. As long a certain technical rules are observed the carrier is not allowed to discriminate who the customer connects to or the quality of the connection.
But, if you're going to make that comparison, proposed revenue sharing is a lot like the old phone system, which still uses termination fees so that the caller's phone company pays the receiver's phone company to help support that infrastructure.
So-called "neutrality" advocates oppose such an arrangement for broadband (where Google would share its revenue which is generated largely risk-free on the backs of those who receive it). | |
| | | | tschmidtPremium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Fairpoint Commun..
·Hollis Hosting
| Re: Watch out for "Net Neutrality" said by amigo_boy:But, if you're going to make that comparison, proposed revenue sharing is a lot like the old phone system, which still uses termination fees so that the caller's phone company pays the receiver's phone company to help support that infrastructure. The peering arraignment used by transit carriers is not nearly as rigid as as the old phone model. I agree most residential ISPs are highly asymmetric so significantly more traffic flows into the first-mile network then flows out. Cost sharing is based on traffic flows not where the traffic originates or what type of traffic it is. On the other had first-mile ISPs have a lot of leverage with transits carriers since without them there is no traffic.
If the first-mile provider wants to sign a deal with one or more CDN's and offer that as part of a value add package that is fine as long as the two are fire-walled from one another.
Agree the devil is in the details but it does not seem like an insurmountable problem if there was the legislative will to do it.
/tom
| |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | I think most public companies know how much attention is being given to this situation
So, they will craft the future bills to be as strong as possible language wise yet have zero substance that actual puts their feet to the fire with consumer protections | |
| | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: I think most public companies know how said by Van:much attention is being given to this situation Do you honestly believe the public cares about, or even knows about, net neutrality? I don't. Corporations are lobbying for legislation and rules for the same reason that they always engage Congress and government entities...to improve their financial prospects. | |
| | | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: I think most public companies know how I think the public does care about the future of the internet
Now, I agree that MOST have no clue what net neutrality is so that specifically will not garner the most attention
But I believe the "tech community" is growing leaps and bounds the last 5 years and I think the public does care about someone accusing a big company of having the ability to do whatever they want, whenever they want
I have seen MANY Net Neutrality articles on CNN and every other public news source | |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| A joke.. Net Neutrality will never amount to anything. The Entertainment industry, wireless providers, and cablecos pay way enough money to keep any meaningful Net Neutrality proposal from ever being passed. They contribute millions under the table to Congress and the regulatory agencies to make sure that they get their way. Baker is just trying to show that he's thinking about people, when in reality he is more concerned about making sure he doesn't do anything to really jeopardize things he needs. | |
| | | | | Baker's point isn't disingenuous. Mr. Bode's is. Commissioner Baker has a principled and well reasoned opposition to regulation of the Net. It is inappropriate for Mr. Bode to attack her merely because she is standing up for consumers rather than for Google. | |
| jfkcpa
join:2000-08-24
Derby, CT | Net Neutrality It seems to me that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have commented on this issue, and that in their opinions this is an Executive Branch end-run on Congress' legislative authority. Something about a Czar; you know, those "Kitchen Cabinet" assistants POTUS has who are unconfirmed and therefore beyond the reach of Congress to keep the checks-and-balances built into the Constitution in play. Seems to me there have been a lot of things happening since POTUS was elected which "feel" funny. Those "community action" groups which acted like "mobs for hire" when all the fuss happened about Wall Street and AIG and GM/Chrysler executive bonuses and bailouts. Try reading Dinesh D'Souza's book on Obama. Scary stuff. | |
| ackman
join:2000-10-04
Acworth, GA | What? Are they nuts? Government by the people? Crazy. Who will stand up for the poor defenseless mega-corporations if the citizens are using democracy to ensure their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Don't corporations have the right to happiness? Oh the humanities... | |
|
| |
|
|
·
Money talks and lawmakers walk!
Given the fact that one lawmaker was shown on television, on the floor of the house, giving out campaign contribution checks from the oil industry, to his colleges and received no sanctions for his actions, what hope do ordinary citizens have in getting reasonable regulations put in place by any government agency. Once a company reaches a certain size, with their infinite financial resources they can afford to pay off anyone that might get in their way. In Florida they established government in the sunshine. In Washington it's government in the colon where it is nice, dark and smelly.
