said by FFH:And with that statement you become one of those perverting the whole idea of net neutrality from its original meaning - an ISP discriminating against 3rd party companies to give preference to their own products.
If that's true, then I don't care.
A lot of people that don't know much about how the Internet was designed have tried to define Network Neutrality based upon their ideas of who might exploit the Internet and how (such as Yoogle paying an ISP to delay or degrade Gahoo's traffic).
But the root idea that the network neutrality principles are about is preserving the Internet's history of non-discrimination.
said by FFH:Your definition of net neutrality tries to say an ISP has no right to manage its network at all, except by endlessly expanding capacity to satisfy the needs of the most rapacious users.
For God's sake,
Comcast has a right to manage its network. It also has a responsibility to follow the standards and practices that have evolved the Internet to this point.
Managing the network doesn't mean delaying, degrading, or denying access to people who are acting legally and within the confines of their service agreements.
If someone is exceeding their service agreement, then
Comcast has a right to manage its network. Shut them off.
If Comcast's technology cannot handle so many users, then
Comcast has a right to manage its network. Stop selling subscriptions.
If Comcast is unwilling to upgrade their network as fast as user demands indicate that they should, then
Comcast has a right to manage its network. Create lower tiers.
No - what has happened instead is that Comcast has mis-managed its network in order to fudge the perception of the actual bandwidth subscribers have access to in a competition with lower-priced DSL and more-capable FIOS.Comcast, with 14 million HSI subscribers under it, is trying to create an Internet where there is a penalty for people to use or innovate with high-bandwidth applications. And while there's always been a limit to a subscriber's bandwidth, Comcast is trying to create a second limit.
And while they're conducting this so-called trial of these non-disclosed thresholds, how can innovators on the other side of the globe be expected to test against them?
What kind of trial is this? They haven't disclosed anything useful to people that need to be conducting tests during this trial. The one expectation that they have set -- "it'll be like a very fast DSL line" they can't possibly guarantee based on the prioritization scheme that they've been describing up to this point!
They ought to stop this nonsense now.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
