FCC's Martin: No Net Neutrality Laws Needed But is bad press and a wrist-slap enough to keep ISPs honest? FCC boss Kevin Martin spoke before Congress today in a hearing on network neutrality, with the primary topic of conversation being Comcast's throttling of BitTorrent traffic. Martin repeated his belief that new laws weren't necessary to maintain neutral networks. However, with Comcast all but promising a lawsuit should the FCC punish them, Democratic Senators continue to wonder if tougher standards are necessary.  Consumers must be fully informed about the exact nature of the service they are purchasing and any potential limitations associated with that service. -FCC Boss Kevin Martin |
For now, Martin insists he has it all under control. A lot depends on how Comcast follows through on their promise to employ "protocol agnostic" traffic management by the end of the year. Martin's statement (pdf) before Congress showed his primary focus remains on carriers being transparent with their customers about traffic management: Consumers must be fully informed about the exact nature of the service they are purchasing and any potential limitations associated with that service. For example, has the consumer been informed that certain applications used to watch video will not work properly when there is high congestion? If the FCC acts against Comcast, it will likely be in the form of a small fine for the cable giant's failure to come clean about their network limitations. Since coming under investigation by the FCC, Comcast is doing everything in its power to derail any serious new laws, in the last few weeks promising to stop targeting BitTorent (which they're still doing), promoting their embrace of P4P technology (which accelerates non-pirated P2P), and proposing a " P2P bill of rights" (a generally empty gesture aimed at protecting their right to at least block pirated P2P transfers). Thus far, most of this is empty posturing aimed at dodging regulation and countering bad press. Comcast technically is doing nothing different than they were when this debate began -- but you'll notice a general theme developing: they are trying to get approval to throttle P2P traffic if it's pirated (the not so secret growth engine of this industry). Martin even made the distinction in today's statement before Congress: The Commission should consider whether the network management practices are intended to distinguish between legal and illegal activity. The Commission’s network principles only recognize and protect user’s access to legal content. The sharing of illegal content, such as child pornography or content that does not have the appropriate copyright, is not protected by our principles. Similarly, applications that are intended to harm the network are not protected. While piracy filters don't work well yet and can often be bested by encryption -- it's not hard to envision a future where ISPs throttle only the transfer of unauthorized copyrighted content. As for throttling legitimate competing content, whether bad press and small FCC fines are enough to keep ISPs on their best behavior remains to be seen.
|
  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | But is bad press and a wrist-slap enough to keep ISPs honest Hell no. Money and power vs. a little 'bad press' (which spin doctors can fix) and the slap on the wrist is nothing compared to savings.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
| | | That Settles it Then Kevie says no NN laws are needed, therefore it must be true!  | |
|  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | I triple guarantee you, US forces are not in Baghdad! And the wolves promised not to eat the sheep, honest! | |
| wtansillNcc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA | Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
Nothing to see here -- move along like good little sheep. | |
|  |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Pay no attention  | |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Martin sez "Feel free to pillage, loot and burn. Have fun."
Expect the tollbooths on the Internet to go up fast.
"It's OUR network, and we'll enslave ensure our consumers are exploited protected how we see fit!" (Protected from competition and 3rd Party Content services, that is...)
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|  jhboricuaExMod 2000-01
join:2000-06-06
Minneapolis, MN | ahhh, the good old tired child pornography scare The sharing of illegal content, such as child pornography or content that does not have the appropriate copyright, is not protected by our principles. I can see it soon, if you support net neutrality, you are a pedophile.
Would someone please think of the children!!! | |
| |  GKC
join:2008-03-07
Toronto, ON | Re: ahhh, the good old tired child pornography scare The FCC must fully regulate Comcast, as our Canadian counter-part, CRTC, must fully regulate Bell Canada. Without full regulation, ISPs will dictate what subscriber's can and cannot do on the net. Net Neutrality allows everyone's voice to be hear. Without NN we are held prisoners by our ISPs. Our ISPs have absolutely no right to dictate what their subscriber's can and cannot do on the internet. The internet is free and open to everyone and we must all work to ensure it stays that way.
ISPs charge their subscriber's outrageous fees, set severe bandwidth limitations, and then have the nerve to tell their subscriber's what they can and cannot do on the internet!! ISP have become nothing more than money-grabber's.
The time is now, people, to fight the good fight to ensure that the internet remains a free and open source for everyone and we must not accept nothing less. | |
| | | | We need a corollary to Godwin's Law concerning child pornography:
The more negatively that a company or government backed law/rule impacts customers, the more likely it will be framed as an effort to fight child pornography and/or terrorism.
You can call that Levine's Corollary to Godwin's Law. 
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com | |
|
bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA |  Build your own network if you're unhappy...
| |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Entitlement my ass. I pay them good money for internet service.... Just because they are a monopoly or duopoly and know we can't readily escape their clutches I don't like being told that we will obey and be mindless little slavesumers and will only be allowed to access and pay for their services because they will block the rest (Oh, I mean 'Manage the network'.)
Screw that. Manage their stock options is more like it.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... You pay them good money for what they promise you, not for what you want. There is no monopoly -- that's just entitlement mentality talking about. You can escape anytime you want: Do without. | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... said by bicker:You pay them good money for what they promise you, They keep changing the rules. The put in a clause saying "We can do whatever we want."
Than later on, they add in throttling, shaping, blocking, filtering, Caps, overage charges, etc etc. Oh they know you'll be pissed, but they know as long as the other choice (be it DSL or cable) does it too that you are screwed.
Personally, consumers should not just take this crap. They *need* to raise holy hell about it, because the companies sure aren't going to act in their best interests just out of the goodness of their hearts. It's quite simple, either we have real competition, and many choices, OR WE NEED HEAVY REGULATION. Period. Right now we get the WORST of both worlds: Almost total deregulation, hands-off attitude, AND a lack of competition. This is the perfect recipe for abuse, and that's what's happening.... Abuse.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... If you don't like the terms and conditions, then don't patronize them. Find a better supplier. If there aren't any, than ACCEPT what they're offering is the best any supplier is willing to provide you.
Consumers have the ultimate control: Don't purchase the service. That'll communicate your dissatisfaction better than anything else you can possibly do or say. It is THE manner in which consumers affect the market.
More competition will come from there being a GREATER profit motive, not a LESSER profit motive.
Heavy regulation is the liberals solution to everything. | |
| | | | | |
approval from:
wtansill 
| Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... "what they're offering is the best any supplier is willing to provide you."
You completely ignore the effects of market power and the way that such conditions can lock out competitors. There can be enormous barriers to entry for new businesses. This has nothing to do with what a supplier is willing to do and everything to do with whether one has any chance of overcoming the advantages that previous entrants have in the market. | |
| | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Barriers to entry don't constitute any obligation owed to you. There are multiple suppliers in areas where sufficient profit motive is offered. So the blame for a lack of suppliers of the specific type of Internet service you want, high-speed Internet, rests squarely on CONSUMERS resisting those offerings at the price they're being offered at. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... People have no alternative options because competition is blocked. You argument really holds no water, you just seem to like telling people they have a childish "give me now" mentality when that isn't even the case.
We either need more regulation or the government needs to piss off and let other companies move in to compete when and how they please. No more slapping Verizon's hand for offering special deals to customer's who have initiated a port out request. No blocking of new competition. No more regulating what a company can charge. Telco's can't just drop their pricing at will to compete with cable.
All people are asking for is a little pro-consumer regulation because one company is given a monopoly in an specific area and there is no alternate provider because of it.
The blame is not on the consumers. The problem is regulation and the local government pushing away competition. Your argument might have a point, if it wasn't for the fact that the reason competition doesn't move in has to do with government and regulation. Verizon can't just waltz into a town and start laying fiber.
Either competition needs to stop getting cock blocked, or the government needs to go one step further with regulation. | |
| | | | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Competition is not blocked. That's a cop-out business-haters use to distort the issue. Competition is what it is, and it is what it is because that's how much profit there is in offering competing services.
You call it "pro-consumer regulation" but what it really is is Big Brother interfering with business. And look at the REALITY... thirty years and counting of a pro-business perspective in this country and there are still people like you who refuse to acknowledge it. Even the Democrats are pro-business now. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | "Barriers to entry don't constitute any obligation owed to you."
I don't know why you are accusing me of making such an argument. That isn't my argument.
"There are multiple suppliers in areas where sufficient profit motive is offered"
Again you ignore the way things like network effects and first mover advantage drastically alters the economic calculations for those wishing to enter the market after the first mover is established and impose a quite different set of costs on those trying to compete with the dominant player.
Is "sufficient profit" something that is probable or even possible or is it something absurd?
Of course any barriers can be overcome by an extreme enough set of circumstances(such as if everyone was willing to pay a million dollars a month for an internet connection) but that doesn't mean such things will happen with any set of probable real world parameters. | |
|
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by bicker:Heavy regulation is the liberals solution to everything. Riding roughshod over the public good and consumers and granted unregulated monopolies all in the interests of GREED and MONEY seem to be the conservatives answer to everything... and what does it get us... crashing economy, out of control energy prices, wars, pollution, corruption, scandal, and the downfall of our nation. Yeah yeah, I know, I should just fork over my money and shut up.... but I'm not going to. Screw that. You can't have it both ways... Either allow open competition, or face regulation....
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Blah blah blah. Another "I want give me" perspective. Yet you probably have no qualms about exploiting whatever benefits a healthy economy affords YOU, like JOBS. | |
| | | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... said by bicker:Blah blah blah. Another "I want give me" perspective. Yet you probably have no qualms about exploiting whatever benefits a healthy economy affords YOU, like JOBS. Ya, we should be so lucky to have have a JOB. I know, we should work for free in thanks to the mighty company for employing us, and providing us the benefits of the "healthy economy."
Do you really believe the stuff you shovel?
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
|
| | | | | | | And Laisez-Faire capitalism is the staunch conservative's answer to everything. One look at the unrestrained nonsense caused by the repeal of Glass-Steagall showed how well that works out. We've been given the rewards of the *exact* same crap that caused the Great Depression.
You can't create wealth by selling bags of risk that are comprised of a mixture of mortgage securities written to people who are not likely to pay it back and damned certain not to pay it back. Yet that's exactly what happened and the economy takes another shot in the back because of unrestrained highly leveraged speculation -- things that were hard to do before 2000 because of the risks to everyone else who has to swim in the same pool.
Of course, the solution to this problem is to just let the market sort it out. But the government stepped in and has been guaranteeing these securities -- a decidedly LIBERAL thing to do for a bunch of people who should lose their investments just the same way that people are losing their homes. But you don't talk much about that, do you -- since socialistic assistance is fine as long as it benefits the wealthy.
Back on topic, these services are less and less discretionary and more utility. "Doing without" is, in many cases, becoming harder and harder just as "doing without" was harder and harder as electricity, telephone and natural gas lines made their way into consumer homes. If Comcast can't provide unfettered access, they need to be regulated. Period. And that goes for every other ISP.
Would you tolerate AT&T knocking the volume down on a call you placed through a third-party long distance carrier? I doubt "Well sir, it's our wires, we can do what we want" would be an acceptable answer if you complained. Yet that's exactly the power you're granting to Comcast. It's their pipes, don't like it, don't use them. That's not an acceptable situation because it's no longer just a "service". It's a utility used for online banking, education, communication and entertainment. | |
| | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... You are the first person in this thread to make any valid points, but even then, you're just raising matters for which reasonable people disagree, and both sides can claim that they're "right" and the other side is "wrong".
I don't talk about government guaranteeing securities because I believe it is WRONG.
If you really believe that this should be a utility, consider how much you'll pay in taxes to have the government acquire the assets via eminent domain. If you're not willing to pay that amount, then any kind of mid-range solution to the issue, such as regulation, is just a selfish grab for someone else's assets.
Let it happen to your assets and see how much YOU like it.
Your third-party long distance carriers example is irrelevant. That's not what is happening here. There aren't competing HSI services running on the cable. | |
|
| | | |  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by KrK:Personally, consumers should not just take this crap. They *need* to raise holy hell about it, because the companies sure aren't going to act in their best interests just out of the goodness of their hearts. Then take your business elsewhere. You don't need the government to be your nanny. Or do you?
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... said by Romney2012:Then take your business elsewhere. Ok I had DSL. I took my business elsewhere, to Cable. Next? Wireless? Not available? Satellite? Not feasible or economical. Other option, "Do without?" Yeah, ok. Nope. Bring on the Government. Real competition, or regulation. Enough of this non-competition unregulated BS.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... cable and dsl companies normally sublease their network to other companies..
Bell Canada here subleases to several other companies, I'm currently using Acanac, which is bell sympatico but without bell's restrictions (port 25 being blocked, and whatever else)
Apparently rogers canada does the same (cable) | |
|
| | | | | | | Even Adam Smith said that Capitalism requires regulation to mitigate the baser instinct of men and their greed. Adam Smith. You know, The Big Kahuna of Capitalism? Surely, you have heard of him?
Besides, look around, like at the mortgage market and petroleum prices and their effects on the economy at large: deregulation really worked out swimmingly there, didn't it? Deregulation like the repeal of The Glass-Steagall Act, wherein the taxpayers are picking up the tab for the "unintended effects" and the complete lack of regulation on the hedge funds and credit markets..
Man, always lots of doctrine and a paucity of factual information from the dereg crowd.
Now, where do you get those neat "epic fail" pictures? | |
| | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... said by TScheisskopf:Now, where do you get those neat "epic fail" pictures? De-regulation and allowing the Big Players to "Self-Govern"...
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | | |  LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | said by TScheisskopf:Man, always lots of doctrine and a paucity of factual information from the dereg crowd. Man, there's always a lot of cherry-picking from the government-cures-all crowd.
The 1700s concept of regulation was where the state acts as a traffic cop making sure the rules are enforced. 21st Century regulation is government dictating the shape of the market.
Adam Smith's view of regulation was in the negative sense, i.e., we have only the obligation not to encumber people in their pursuits.
It's quite a twist of logic to pick out his use of the term and say it means that governments need to direct every last aspect of the marketplace (and if you say you're not advocating that, then we agree: there is a point where there is too much government action).
The other logical fallacy of yours is the Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You have said that if we hadn't repealed Glass-Stegal then there would be no recession. Of course we can't prove a negative.
It's simply not fair to lay every perceived bad occurrence at the feet of deregulation. As with most economic problems, we find the hand of government. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, whose provisions were strengthened during the Clinton administration, is a federal law that mandates lenders to offer credit throughout their entire market and discourages them from restricting their credit services to high-income markets, a practice known as redlining. In other words, the Community Reinvestment Act encourages banks and thrifts to make loans to riskier customers. But of course they were not allowed to charge a higher rate to offset the risk.
The apostles of big government and those who argue for freedom have an impasse. While the pro-regulators say we need to prevent any and all economic downturns, the free market person recognizes that markets correct and that risky/bad decisions have negative consequences and through the reward and punishment machinations of the marketplace, the best outcome is reached over time.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... I would love to point out that I have been following this very closely. Thoughts for you to remember about Smith:
"When the regulation is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable — but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters." - Adam Smith
The distinguished American economist John Kenneth Galbraith said about "The Wealth of Nations:" “It is much celebrated by the ministry of the righteous right, few of whom have read it." (Source: Sherrod Brown, The Globalist)
And as far as putting forward the trope that the bad loans that were written were somehow the fault of the people in potentially redlined districts, that is risable. The sins of the very-less-than-optimally-regulated(and even criminal) mortgage industry, in league with a credit derivatives market run amok and crazed caused the collection of situations we now face and there is a direct cause and effect relationship to the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Hell, even that noted barotone in the Red Army Chorus, Hank Paulson, admits that much more regulation is needed. I would add that I don't know where you got this idea that the victims are in fact at fault, because that is what the redlining argument intimates, but I would cast a very baleful eye at such transparent sophistry, were I you. It's one thing to redline, another to invest in inner cities and minority communities and what we are now reaping the fruits of has nothing at all to do with either.
And yes, markets correct. Depressions and recessions are market corrections writ all too large. Andrew Mellon, when asked what a depression is, stated "It is when money returns to its rightful owners". Surely, the same can be said of recessions. If we are really lucky, that is all we are in the early days of experiencing, a recession. But I find it hard to believe that anyone other than a doctrinaire corporate lickspittle could look at the lay of the land and say "Hey! I know EXACTLY what will fix things! Less regulation and more Laffer Curve!".
I mean, even Laffer admits he might have gotten things a bit wrong. I hope such honesty is the start of a trend. | |
|
| | | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Were an a lose-lose situation here. I just don't see how some regulatory board is a panacea. After all, don't you command-and-control people hate the FCC right about now? It's not as if some group of government planners are not susceptible to corruption and greed just the same as corporate profiteers.
While I don't like Comcast throttling content, it's worse to have a government agent with the power of the police dictating the marketplace.
Friedrich Hayek points out in his essay The Meaning of Competition , “Enthusiasm for perfect competition in theory and the support of monopoly in practice are indeed surprisingly often found to live together.” (emphasis added). The reason for this is that people get so caught-up in trying to make everything “competitive” that they end up distorting the market by excessive regulation, which drives high-cost producers out and discourages would-be competitors from entering (not to mention discouraging innovation because of limiting profits).
Regulation makes people beholden to a politically connected commission (evil lobbying), favors large corporations because they can handle the increased compliance costs, and leads us down the road to serfdom. Whatever good the aims of regulation are, it always ends up maintaining the power of the planners themselves. A society that cedes its development to an organized commission will always be limited by what the minds of the planners can grasp.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. | |
| | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Actually, I'm not a big fan of heavy handed regulation either.
Personally, I'm a fan of open competition and consumer choice.... However, in industries such as these, with such high barriers to entry, there needs to be government leadership to either 1) Allow competition to break into the market (Such as the 1996 Communication Act was doing before it was attacked, rolled back, and finally killed) or 2) Keeping a watchful eye on the incumbents to make sure they don't get out of hand.
We've got neither ATM.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | said by LegoPower77:While I don't like Comcast throttling content, it's worse to have a government agent with the power of the police dictating the marketplace. 100% correct. People here seem to want everything their way and so are pushing for things that will make THEIR OWN options WORSE. Too many simply don't understand the negative impact such regulation has on business, and how THEY will lose as a result. | |
| | | | | | | | "Were an a lose-lose situation here. I just don't see how some regulatory board is a panacea."
I agree.
It isn't meant to be a panacea. It's meant to provide some counterbalancing force to try to slow the process of things getting worse.
Where I disagree is in the belief that regulation is always worse than the problem it tries to cure.
It's important for anyone who wants to understand the net neutrality issue to understand that no one started out wanting net neutrality regulation. It has never been anyone's ideal solution to anything. Net neutrality is a rear guard action to mitigate against the results of trends that some have been warning against for years, namely that as competition diminished, we abandoned the TA96 framework, and the old regulatory regime(such as common carriage) was dismantled, that the de facto neutrality of the net would be under assault as power was consolidated(over 95% of small business and residential broadband access is controlled by two companies in any given location, the area's telco and cableco).
As a result we now have essentially oligopoly with neither the restraints that would be imposed by a competitive market nor the restraints that were previously imposed by government. This is indeed a mess that it will be very difficult for us to extract ourselves from.
I think we have to weigh the risks of unintended consequences from regulation against the fact that if we impose no boundaries the behavior of these companies is likely to get worse. Frankly companies are much like children testing the boundaries to see how much they will be allowed to get by with. They try something and look up to see if society is going to do anything about it. If society doesn't do anything about it they try something more. If there is no robust competition to reign them in and the society shows no interest in setting limits then what is the likely result going to be?
Net neutrality isn't a fix for anything. I do think, however, it will slow down the ill intentioned and may allow us to avoid the worst consequences of the problems we have brought on ourselves. Hopefully in the meanwhile we will develop other effective longer term solutions. | |
| | | | | | | LegoPower77AbecedarianPremium
join:2002-08-03
Midlothian, VA | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Fair enough, with qualifications, of course.
The history of regulation shows that firms lobbied for it when competition reduced their profits. In 1897 the National Electric Light Assn. began lobbying for regulation and for "fair profit" price controls by the various states only after upstart firms had started taking some of their market share.
The same scenario for the telephone industry. Actually, the first states to adopt regulation were the ones that had low profits and high output. The effects of these regulations were to increase price and reduce output.
Another effect of regulation, in every case it seems, is that a company seeking to enter a market has to first get a license from the state. And therein could be the reason for our monopolies/duopolies—in my area, Comcast has exclusive rights. Why?
In a market with no artificial barriers to entry, the "monopoly" firm always always has to guard against upstart competitors seeking a part of the monopoly profit (which is why you'd never see $200/month broadband at this time).
And the natural barriers—the high start-up costs—can be mitigated by the speculative/futures markets. (Perhaps not a panacea, but something to consider.)
Again, it should be stated that the incumbents benefit from heavy regulation because they have the economies of scale to overcome the increased compliance costs.
The problem with price controls is that they create the wrong incentives for the firm. Government pricing is based on historical prices, not the current technology.
If an industry is unregulated, when there are rapid technological advances, the old facilities become obsolete before their historical cost is fully depreciated. Firms abandon obsolete facilities sooner than if there had been no advancement.
But under a planned regime, the older facilities are protected by the averaging of their cost with the cheaper newer facilities into the rate structure. This has two effects that are exactly the opposite of what advocates of regulation say they want.
First, since the older facilities are not abandoned and their cost is averaged with the newer ones, the price does not go down as quickly as it would if the old facility were abandoned altogether (assuming the new technology makes the product cheaper).
Second, because the bargain for the licensee is they're given a government-secured market, firms are more willing to try risky new technologies because they are less sensitive to cost overruns; and since the consumer is made to pay for it anyway. . .
Firms operating under regulation are less motivated to control costs than they would be in a competitive market and they do not abandon their older, inefficient facilities as readily.
The point of all of this is that it's better to live with a temporary monopoly, subject to free entry, then to have Leviathan with threat of force limiting our choices and stifling innovation.
--
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."—James Madison
It's right, it's free. | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| said by bicker:You pay them good money for what they promise you, not for what you want. There is no monopoly -- that's just entitlement mentality talking about. You can escape anytime you want: Do without. Yeah, do without.
There's your choice for the economic future of the USA. Go back to the Stone-age and do without modern technology. Better idea: Regulate the industry. If it won't accept regulation, seize it and nationalize it.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
3 edits | said by bicker:You pay them good money for what they promise you, not for what you want. There is no monopoly -- that's just entitlement mentality talking about. You can escape anytime you want: Do without. These days, the Internet is a NECESSITY! It should be regulated, just like any other public utility.
Don't believe me? How about this:
Many govt. agencies (including the FCC) REQUIRE filngs to be done electronically. You CAN'T file using snail mail any more!
The IRS 'encourages' you to file your taxes electronically. How long before THEY require electronic filing?
Many employers REQUIRE you to apply for jobs online.
Many local govt. agencies have made it harder to do things without the Internet. Registering to vote or renew your driver's license for example.
We PAY for Interent service. We pay MORE then many other countries for slower service then they offer! In other words, You're being screwed! How come that doesn't upset you? How come you even DEFEND it? Are you a masochist? | |
| | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... said by qworster:In other words, You're being screwed! How come that doesn't upset you? How come you even DEFEND it? Are you a masochist? I suspect he's more on the side of the SCREWER then the side of the SCREWEE if you get my drift.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | There are dozens of ways to get "the Internet". We're talking about high-speed Internet, and there are even several ways to get that these days too... IF YOU'RE WILLING TO PAY FOR THEM. Your unwillingness to pay does not constitute anything other than what it is.
I defend it because I'm an American. How come you ATTACK it? | |
| | | | | | Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Yeah..
Satellite: Too slow on uploads and latency makes it useless for VOIP.
T-1 Cheapest I can find is 380.00 a month for 1500/1500 service.
Wireless: Yes, there are several wireless providers in LA. The cheapest one is over 100 dollars a month and offers 1500/384 service.
Dial up: Maybe. With all the throttling going on, it might end up being FASTER then cable or DSL!
You sound like you believe that broadband should only be available to the elite that can afford it. BULL$HIT!
Broadband should be available to EVERYONE...and in many countries it is!
If you're an American and so concerned about your country, then consider this: The USA is quickly becoming a third world country technology/Internet wise, and attitudes like yours only make it happen worse and faster! | |
|
| | | | | Not having a communications business is always an alternative to having a communications business. Therefore the government has no power to burden business. You can always escape regulation; stop doing business. If you don't like the regulatory environment become a janitor.
I have just proven that business is entirely free and unencumbered, no matter what the regulatory situation. | |
| | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Your statements are un-American, asdfdfdfdfdf. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Are we trying to get at truth or are we trying to be pro-american? The two things aren't always the same.
It's interesting that you feel that way because my statements are nothing more than a restatement of your own claims above, namely that one is always free and empowered because one always has the choice of nothing as a substitute for something.
| |
| | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA
2 edits | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Oh my gosh, the entitlement mentality just continues to get piled on, higher and higher. "Give me. Give me. Give me. Take from them." Despicable. I've never seen a thicker display of self-absorbed liberalism. Incredible.
No one is adding anything of value to this thread any more -- just saying the same things over and over again in different ways, as if it makes a difference. So many of you are just too caught up in your perspectives to recognize the reality. Nuf Sed. | |
|
| | | | | "Entitlement Mentality"??!! How much do you get paid to post tripe like this? You have to be getting paid, because no sane person would post something like this without a paycheck coming to assuage the humiliation and ignominy of attaching one's name such a post.
You are goddamned right I feel "entitled" to what I pay for, and I intend to keep doing so until I draw my final breath.
Man, the things the half-baked children of Ayn Rand will attempt around here. The mind boggles. | |
| | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... I don't get paid anything to post. I do it for leisure. It is interesting to see so many selfish people posting their "I want give me" diatribes, and hopefully my posting will give someone among you the push towards a true American perspective. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Yours is no "true American perspective" by any metric other than those passed back and forth in the dark fever swamps of Internet discourse.
You evince no special wisdom or knowledge here. In fact, you evince an ignorance that is impressive. We are paying for the service. Thus, we have a voice.
And don't trot out that trope about "Well, go to another provider". Over the last 8 years, this administration has gutted the parts of the telecom deregulation act that would have allowed true competition and most areas of the US have to deal with natural monopolies and no choice save one.
Sir, one gets the impression you know very little of which you speak, except for a few shopworn and tired phrases. | |
| | | | | | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... Your personal attacks "evince" no special wisdom or knowledge either. Your message here provides nothing of value. It is just another denial of the reality that I've outlined. | |
|
| | | Go take your cheap stupid argument somewhere else.
This network which you claim is theirs was built, upgraded, and improved on the backs of the public. They were, and still for the most part are, built in a monopolistic nature. The use of public rights of way, major barriers of entry, and the many many tax incentives to continue their business is the only thing that allows them to function as they do. | |
| | |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| Dan8888
join:2007-08-21
Wilmington, DE | Most of the nation have had these companies lobby to make sure that there are laws in place that prevents newcomers from attempting to build a network. Also, a good deal of the funding for building the current internet came from the government, however many of these funds were used for other things rather than being invested into their networks. | |
| | | bicker
join:2007-05-10
Burlington, MA | Re: Build your own network if you're unhappy... What a cop-out Dan. Meanwhile, despite what you've said, other companies have built networks where there was sufficient profit motive to do so.
Folks need to stop blaming others for things that they're not owed... like THIS. | |
|
Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
4 edits | The FCC is the REASON WHY there is no competition!! The FCC (under Powell) virtually ELIMINATED INTERNET COMPETITION!
They did so by GUTTING the Communications Act of 1996-but not until AFTER making sure that the "big boys" got to glutton themselves at the trough! THEN when it came time for the little guys to have their meal, the FCC snatched the Act away from them!
I don't know about you, but here where I live-in the center of Hollywood, we have basically TWO choices for Internet-Time Warner Cable or AT&T DSL. Yes, I have an independent retailer for my DSL, but when it comes to their speeds, wire repair, etc., they are held hostage by AT&T. In fact, I have to have AT&T phone service to even GET Internet service from anyone else but AT&T! This means that AT&T has their finger in the pie in every case! Indeed, even though I live exactly one street mile from the Gower Street phone office, my AT&T phone line is in such disrepair that I only qualify for the (slower) 3 mbit service-instead of the 6 mbit I should qualify for at this distance! Why? Because AT&T is stockpiling all the GOOD lines for when their U-Verse service comes here!
The bottom line is this-the FCC has so limited Internet competition that in the Country's second largest city we have only TWO choices-cable or telco. NOW they want to insure that the TWO providers can treat their customers any way they want and the customer has no recourse! If they feel like it, they can throttle my service to pre-dialup speeds. If they want they can make certain sites unavailable to me. They can degrade my Vonage traffic. They can make p2p usage impossible. AND they can do all this with the full blessing of the FCC!
This FCC has to be the most anti consumer govt. agency out there! All they want to do is insure that THEY have big fat jobs waiting when their terms are over! Don't believe me? Look where Powell wound up! | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: The FCC is the REASON WHY there is no competition!! I'd add something, but that sums it up pretty darn well.... | |
| | | | I watched the hearing and Larry Lessig said that in the not so small city where he lives, San Francisco, he has one choice of broadband provider - comcast.
Just like me in the Maryland suburbs of Washington DC, the nation's capitol. | |
|
 powerhogStinkin' up the jointPremium
join:2000-12-14
Owasso, OK | It's almost here, we just don't realize it yet... When Comcast gains approval of their "legal" P2P 'acceleration' (aka "illegal" P2P throttling), the two-tiered Internet will have arrived. For a small fee, I'm sure you can have your content "approved" by Comcast and they will not throttle it (as much) as those who do not have their content approved.
And the worst part is that people will think that "we" have won the NN war. Afterall, who would dare support "illegal" activities... especially child porn! When the truth is that the major ISPs have won exactly what they wanted- a two-tiered Internet. | |
|  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
4 edits | COMCAST is Regulating the Net Hey, you "the only good regulation is no regulation" folks are missing the point. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE COMCAST IS REGULATING THE NET.
This argument is about whether or not the FCC should stop this behavior by enforcing a principle of non-discrimination that led to and throughout the growth of the Internet.
Comcast agreed to abide by this principle in 2005 and 2006.
This isn't just about Comcast managing its network -- we pay them to manage the network, to ensure that we get the subscription that we pay for.
This IS about managing by making value judgments about which data will get to the Internet, and which will get null-routed ... 24/7 ... based on protocol signatures alone ... in secret ... and in a network-abusive way. That's VERY different.
I don't want any kind of regulation, but for that to work, we have to have sufficient competition. Look at "dial up" -- no "network neutrality" rules, and hundreds or thousands of choices. In fact, non-neutral ISPs advertise their filtering as a FEATURE! Now that's awesome, and it's the way Broadband should be -- but isn't.
We have to deal with that reality, and deal with network discrimination with narrow - but necessary - regulation.
The Internet survived before Sandvine -- a technology so undeniably reasonable and necessary, Comcast had to keep it a secret. The Internet will survive long after it's ruled to be the scourge that it is!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| |  espaethDigital PlumberPremium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
kudos:2
 ·Clear Wireless
| Re: COMCAST is Regulating the Net It's interesting that in Martin's statement he calls out the Madison River complaint where the FCC intervened in a LEC's blocking of RTP traffic. In that case there was absolute clear-cut anti-competitive behavior: the LEC used control of its network to prevent a competitor from selling dialtone.
I don't really see anti-competitive behavior is in this case that would warrant FCC enforcement or further regulation. How does Comcast benefit from managing P2P traffic on their network? I've only seen a few arguments made, and I'm not sure how valid they really are:
Argument #1: They are trying to stop competition to their video services by interfering with BitTorrent
If that were the case the interference should be more widespread. For me personally, in the last week I watched a few clips from the Daily Show and South Park online without any interference, and even watched a movie via Netflix' download service without any issues. In talking with friends and coworkers there are a wide array of other video options that are not being interfered with in any way, including: DirecTV VoD over the Internet, Hulu content, Vongo movie downloads, or Tivo video downloads. If the goal was to maintain a complete monopoly over video entertainment certainly some content not delivered via P2P should be impact.
Argument #2: Comcast wants to interfere with subscriber's rights to free speech
Personally I think this argument is "crying wolf" just because of the sheer absurdity of it. I really think George Ou should have made a bigger deal about the King James Bible example at the hearing.
Distributing content via P2P is only good for users with clients capable of accessing that P2P network. This already limits the scope of your distribution because the number of platforms with a client for a P2P network like BitTorrent is smaller than the number of platforms with http access.
If you were to put the King James Bible up on your web space that Comcast provides, it would be indexed by all of the major search engines for easy access, and would be available to read by every cell phone, PDA, computer, modern game console, and smart kitchen appliance with a built-in web browser. The net result is a distribution of the *IDENTICAL* content, in the same format that it would be transmitted via P2P, being made available to a much larger population of potential end users.
The restriction isn't on the content; it's on the method of distribution. Whether you publish a file via a P2P network or on a web server, the content is 100% identical when the end user retrieves it.
Argument #3: They are doing this to avoid upgrading their network
For a company that's not upgrading their network, there's sure been a lot of money spent and a lot of noticeable changes made. In the last couple years they rolled out their own private fiber backbone, and over the last several months they've been converting all of their markets onto the ibone infrastructure which provides much more diverse route selection. For example, last summer the Minneapolis area went from only having ATT backbone connectivity to having Level(3) and Global Crossing added to the mix of possible carriers along with cross-country ibone route selection for some other carriers. (ie, Tiscali) The markets where Blast is being deployed continues to expand, and my own market here is one of the first DOCSIS 3.0 test markets with a 50/5 tier being tested.
Where I think the FCC did hit the nail right on the head is the statement that broadband providers like Comcast need to disclose their policies and methods around traffic management. The satellite broadband companies are already really good about publishing their Fair Access Policies today, and while more than a few users can argue they don't like the policies at least you can't say the company wasn't up front about how traffic was going managed on the network. | |
| | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
2 edits | Re: COMCAST is Regulating the Net said by espaeth:It's interesting that in Martin's statement he calls out the Madison River complaint where the FCC intervened in a LEC's blocking of RTP traffic. In that case there was absolute clear-cut anti-competitive behavior: the LEC used control of its network to prevent a competitor from selling dialtone. Yep.
said by espaeth:Argument #1: They are trying to stop competition to their video services by interfering with BitTorrentIf that were the case the interference should be more widespread. For me personally, in the last week I watched a few clips from the Daily Show and South Park online without any interference, and even watched a movie via Netflix' download service without any issues. Comcast is under incredible scrutiny now that they've been caught, so it's not clear what they would or wouldn't do.
said by espaeth:If the goal was to maintain a complete monopoly over video entertainment certainly some content not delivered via P2P should be impact. Argument #2: Comcast wants to interfere with subscriber's rights to free speechPersonally I think this argument is "crying wolf" just because of the sheer absurdity of it. Until Comcast decided to become all chummy with Pando, who basically is developing a scheme to play gatekeeper (and toll gate) with what content users can and cannot share -- and to win via technology rights that copyrightholders could not win via the law -- then I might have been pursuaded.
But P4P really is trying hard to keep users out of the loop, and the other DCIA working groups make it pretty clear that P4P is about control. If you don't have a preregistered bitprint, you'll have to get one.
Copyright protection is no excuse to prevent free speech. Now here is where Martin mystifies me. He's apparently hanging on to some hope for "ala carte" programming -- why, I don't know.
The Internet is the perfect ala carte carrier. Comcast hates for that to be true, so it (and many other ISPs that also deliver their own subscription content) creates a scarcity that force Internet users to keep their Cable TV subscriptions -- even though they're really not needed much, anymore.
Now I'm an old guy -- I'll keep Cable TV until I die. But kids today are perfectly happy to buy their TV by the episode. And if it's not made available to them cheaply and conveniently, then they've shown that they're not averse to figuring it out for themselves.
I really think George Ou should have made a bigger deal about the King James Bible example at the hearing.
If you were to put the King James Bible up on your web space that Comcast provides, it would be indexed by all of the major search engines for easy access, and would be available to read by every cell phone, PDA, computer, modern game console, and smart kitchen appliance with a built-in web browser. The net result is a distribution of the *IDENTICAL* content, in the same format that it would be transmitted via P2P, being made available to a much larger population of potential end users. That's fine, if I want it on my webspace (which Comcast also controls through odd restrictions on content, last time that I looked).
I have a friend who did a 2-hour documentary on the Church of Christ. It was extremely critical of church leaders and, although unrated, it clearly would be "X-Rated." If the church complained, I have no doubt that Comcast would pull the content off of PWP.
Distributing thousands of copies of that from his Personal Web Pages would present several problems, not limited to a high use of bandwidth by persistent connections and violations of several aspects of Comcast's Acceptable Use Policy (where they are the sole arbiter of acceptable).
Distributing content via P2P is only good for users with clients capable of accessing that P2P network. This already limits the scope of your distribution because the number of platforms with a client for a P2P network like BitTorrent is smaller than the number of platforms with http access. With thinking like that, we wouldn't have HTTP clients.
The restriction isn't on the content; it's on the method of distribution. Which Comcast is not allowed to restrict based on the FCC policy statement.
Whether you publish a file via a P2P network or on a web server, the content is 100% identical when the end user retrieves it. This is incorrect for the top several P2P protocols, all of which do a hash check to ensure the integrity of received data before marking that data as received. HTTP has no such protection, a failing that companies like "Fair Eagle" are now using.
Argument #3: They are doing this to avoid upgrading their network
For a company that's not upgrading their network, there's sure been a lot of money spent and a lot of noticeable changes made. In the last couple years they rolled out their own private fiber backbone, and over the last several months they've been converting all of their markets onto the ibone infrastructure which provides much more diverse route selection. Meanwhile, my 384 KB/s upload pipe got encroached by the addition of Comcast Digital Voice.
This reminds me of the music industry hanging on to their old CD model. Comcast might keep trying to wish that users won't want to upload anything, but they'll keep being wrong. Web 2.0 is here and it's about user participation. It's time to throw away the old assumptions and provide subscribers with choices that include more symmetric connections.
Where I think the FCC did hit the nail right on the head is the statement that broadband providers like Comcast need to disclose their policies and methods around traffic management. The satellite broadband companies are already really good about publishing their Fair Access Policies today, and while more than a few users can argue they don't like the policies at least you can't say the company wasn't up front about how traffic was going managed on the network. I agree. However, without sufficient competition (the lack of which is not Comcast's fault), disclosure isn't enough. I -AM- glad to see Comcast join the IETF (and, as a member of the cable industry, it wrote a record-setting sized check in doing so). Disclosure + visible commitment to Internet Standards and open development is a huge step in the right direction.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
| |
| | | | | "Argument #1: They are trying to stop competition... If that were the case the interference should be more widespread. For me personally, in the last week I watched a few clips from the Daily Show and South Park online without any interference"
The reason it isn't more widespread is because companies are testing to see how far they can go without having the government slap them down. The concern has never really been about something as obvious as overtly shutting down all connections. This would force even the most reluctant government to have no alternative but to respond. Instead the concern has always been about the subtle ways a company can play with network management to undermine competitors while maintaining plausible deniability.
You don't have to cut them off, you only have to slow them enough that their customers decide to give up on them.
This is a much more effective way to kill competition because there is no smoking gun and one can play innocent. | |
|
|  rolandeCertifiablePremium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Columbus, OH
Linksys
AT&T Midwest
| said by funchords:I don't want any kind of regulation, but for that to work, we have to have sufficient competition. Look at "dial up" -- no "network neutrality" rules, and hundreds or thousands of choices. In fact, non-neutral ISPs advertise their filtering as a FEATURE! Now that's awesome, and it's the way Broadband should be -- but isn't. We have to deal with that reality, and deal with network discrimination with narrow - but necessary - regulation. Amen brother. I couldn't have said it better myself. I am the last person that wants the Internet to be "regulated". It is a slippery slope. But in the current competitive or lack of true competitive marketplace for actual consumer broadband service, we can not afford to allow the providers to create their own little walled gardens like AOL did. I guess the extremely microscopic silver lining on that dark gray cloud is the fact that AOL realized this a little too late themselves and we have witnessed the decline of their dominance. The downside in this case is that there is not anywhere near the level of competition for consumer broadband service like there was for dial-up.
It will not be an easy decision for consumers to vote with their feet or wallets. Do I choose incumbent DSL provider limited to Yahoo services and content or do I choose the Cable provider limited to Google services? If I like Google services but loathe the congestion and latency on the Cable Provider's network, I am stuck between a rock and a hard place.
...and No not having broadband service is not an option in this day and age, especially for a large portion of the population that may work remotely on occasion or even full-time.
--
Ignorance is temporary...stupidity lasts forever!
»www.thewaystation.com/
»blog.thewaystation.com/ | |
|
| | Not Good My ISP is already redirecting DNS. I cant use my VPN with the DNS servers I pay for because some of our internal websites are not registered domain names. It just redirects to my providers search engine instead. I have to change to a root DNS server because it wont pass the redirect to our internal server. | |
| | rolandeCertifiablePremium,Mod
join:2002-05-24
Columbus, OH Host:
Linksys
AT&T Midwest
1 edit | Re: Not Good said by notuorbiz :
My ISP is already redirecting DNS. I cant use my VPN with the DNS servers I pay for because some of our internal websites are not registered domain names. It just redirects to my providers search engine instead. I have to change to a root DNS server because it wont pass the redirect to our internal server.
Not that what your ISP is doing is right with DNS but it sounds to me like the settings on your VPN setup are incorrect. When you establish the VPN settings the internal DNS servers over the tunnel should take precedence for your normal desktop DNS requests while the tunnel is established, unless you are allowing split tunneling. In that case it is a matter of DNS server priority and resorting the server list to make the internal DNS servers the primary and secondary and the ISP's last on the list.
--
Ignorance is temporary...stupidity lasts forever!
»www.thewaystation.com/
»blog.thewaystation.com/ | |
|
Reviews:
·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
4 edits | Now I suppose you'll all supoort Comcast's LIES! Even FCC Commissioner Martin admits that CoNcast is a lying sack of $**T!
Here:
»www.computerworld.com.au/index.p···40976740
It seems that they were blocking p2p programs ALL the time -not just when there was traffic congestion!
My brother got tired of Comcrap's lies (and slow speeds). FIOS went in yesterday and he returned his Comcrap converters today. Not only are his DTV pictures MUCH sharper, but his Internet flies (I believe he has 20/5)-and no throttling of torrents either!
Comcast had better watch out-their customers that have another choice are going to abandon them in droves unless they get with the plan! | |
| | | Most cable companies are monopolies I know, because my job is to help negotiate the utility monopoly agreements for the city in which I'm employed.
That is the reason that regulation may be required. This is not rocket science, although it is basic economic theory: when a market doesn't correctly price products due to negative or positive externalities, then regulation can help clear the market and achieve something closer to Pareto optimal outcomes.
The cable companies certainly artificially benefit from the monopolies they are granted when a municipality grants them a monopoly. There are good reasons why that is OK, though, since without the protection of a monopoly agreement, the build-out costs may never make sense from an ROI standpoint. However, when those companies use the power of their granted monopoly to then extract excess rents, and use their protected profits to lobby for legal changes to forever protect their monopoly status, then consumers (aka voters) get a bit testy.
The real issue is how to provide protection to allow the infrastructure to get built, but not allow for the monopoly to completely overwhelm the consumer.
There are no easy answers. The version that I personally like the most is to have the voters within a jurisdiction own the infrastructure and lease it to any and all service providers who are willing to pony up and pay the freight. Create the competition at layer 2-7 of the OSI model, not at layer 1, where the barrier to entry is the greatest.
Admittedly, the disadvantage is that it forces consumers who may never want any type of telecom access to pay for the infrastructure along with everyone else. | |
|
| |
|
|
