FCC votes to regulat the net

[sanityjones]

Whatever that (eventually) means.

www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/21/fcc-poised-pass-network-neutrality-rules/

[traelin0]

It means that something working perfectly OK in the free market will have to suffer with an overreaching govt. What else is new. hasn't found an industry he doesn't want to nationalize.

[zipity]

Actually if I read it correctly this is designed to keep the internet open as it has always been and prevent the Verizons, AT&Ts and Comcasts of the world from f*ing it up. This regulation will prevent providers from forcing you to use one of their apps instead of the app of your choice. For example, without this regulation a company like Verizon could refuse to allow it's subscribers to use Skype and instead force them to use a Verizon skype-like product. It also prevents them from restricting the performance of open apps (like Skype or Google Maps) while enhancing the performance of their own applications.
Personally, I think the correct move would be to split some of these companies up and seperate internet access from the devices and applications. There's no reason why I should have to buy data service from Verizon when all I want is a wi-fi enabled phone that can access the web over my comcast connection, a free library/restuarant wi-fi or an AT&T mi-fi connection. I should be able to get the device directly from the device manufacturer, get apps from the software provider and get internet access from an ISP. Having to buy all three from one company is stupid. (man I'm going to die without spell check)

[traelin0]

What I've read is that it socializes bandwidth, such that someone who needs more BW to stream a movie, while another person is surfing static HTML, will both be mandated by the FCC to have the same amount of BW simultaneously. So BB companies can no longer "lend" their pipes in a typical manner. Put anything good in the hands of govt. and they'll find a way to screw it up. Royally.

[zipity]

"What I've read is that it socializes bandwidth, such that someone who needs more BW to stream a movie, while another person is surfing static HTML, will both be mandated by the FCC to have the same amount of BW simultaneously."

Assuming that the two people in your example have paid for the same size pipe, they should get the same amount of bandwidth. If the person wanting to stream video wants better performance they should pay for a bigger pipe. I would think that would be preferable to both paying for the same pipe and the provider deciding that one customer's app deserves better performance than the other customer's. That's why I thing devices, apps and the network should be kept as 3 separate entities.

[traelin0]

Dec 21, 2010 23:30:07 GMT -5 zipity said:

Assuming that the two people in your example have paid for the same size pipe, they should get the same amount of bandwidth. If the person wanting to stream video wants better performance they should pay for a bigger pipe. I would think that would be preferable to both paying for the same pipe and the provider deciding that one customer's app deserves better performance than the other customer's. That's why I thing devices, apps and the network should be kept as 3 separate entities.

There are limits to subscriptions. That's why when you get BB, they say the service can be "up to X" down. You're not guaranteed that maximum "X" down because then the Internet's performance would suffer. The markets utilize as efficiently as possible the current bandwidths to maximize performance, such that someone viewing static content won't hog the pipe away when they don't need it. The govt. is taking away the market efficiency and they don't even know it. As if America didn't have enough problems as it is with laying more FTTC. This is just another reason to forget investing in America or its infrastructure.

And we're not even beginning to address the fact that the Executive branch is now regulating beyond its mandates. Congress is becoming more and more irrelevant.

[zipity]

"That's why when you get BB, they say the service can be "up to X" down. You're not guaranteed that maximum "X" down because then the Internet's performance would suffer."

You can still increase your service. Comcast has a variety of "up to X" subscriptions and if I really needed performance I'd switch to DSL (which does guarantee X down) where I'm not on a shared line but have direct fiber back to the provider. A lot of the current problem has nothing to do with the actual size of the Internet 'pipe' but is tied up in the theoretical size of the pipe. Meaning, to look good on the books during this economy, companies like Verizon have required data plans for devices they sell. One the one hand that makes their business look like it in substantial growth mode but on the other hand every data plan becomes a liability. Even though most cell phone users will never come close to pushing the performance of their device, Verizon has to have the ability to minimally support users should they all decide to browse and download at the same time. Cell phone browsing is good for checking a quick site when your on the road but not really usable for intense browsing sessions. Most of these data plans which are boosting Verizon's bottom line really aren't necessary for the consumers, consumers buy data plans because it's the only way to get the latest cell features. Most of these new cool phones support wi-fi and the majority of cell users would be better served by not having a provider data plan but instead using wi-fi at the office, airport, library, restaurant giving them free access to download email and browse. Of course it would hurt Verizon's bottom line. So I can agree that it would be better for the FCC to stay out of the Internet but it would also be better if providers policed themselves and didn't cause this issue. The real answer as I stated before is to break up the Verizons of the world separating the device, applications and pipe access.

[traelin0]

Dec 22, 2010 8:05:16 GMT -5 zipity said:

You can still increase your service. Comcast has a variety of "up to X" subscriptions and if I really needed performance I'd switch to DSL (which does guarantee X down) where I'm not on a shared line but have direct fiber back to the provider. A lot of the current problem has nothing to do with the actual size of the Internet 'pipe' but is tied up in the theoretical size of the pipe. Meaning, to look good on the books during this economy, companies like Verizon have required data plans for devices they sell. One the one hand that makes their business look like it in substantial growth mode but on the other hand every data plan becomes a liability. Even though most cell phone users will never come close to pushing the performance of their device, Verizon has to have the ability to minimally support users should they all decide to browse and download at the same time. Cell phone browsing is good for checking a quick site when your on the road but not really usable for intense browsing sessions. Most of these data plans which are boosting Verizon's bottom line really aren't necessary for the consumers, consumers buy data plans because it's the only way to get the latest cell features. Most of these new cool phones support wi-fi and the majority of cell users would be better served by not having a provider data plan but instead using wi-fi at the office, airport, library, restaurant giving them free access to download email and browse. Of course it would hurt Verizon's bottom line. So I can agree that it would be better for the FCC to stay out of the Internet but it would also be better if providers policed themselves and didn't cause this issue. The real answer as I stated before is to break up the Verizons of the world separating the device, applications and pipe access.

I can't increase my service anymore than it already is. Other than FIOS, our country is lacking good fiber as it is (outside of the really cool, preplanned FTTC communities, which are awesome but do nothing for existing communities), so Verizon if anything has been doing a bang-up job investing billions into much needed infrastructure. So net neutrality is going to increase the strain on the pipes that much more. And with DSL, like I said you run into the over-subscription issues on an already subpar connection.

IMHO you are underestimating how overly regulated the markets already are in this country. You can thank previous govt. regulation for that, which severely hampered competition in the telecom industry for a false belief that prices would be artificially controlled. The good news is that a lot of good stuff is coming down the pike in Asia and E Africa. Tanzania just ran an underwater cable to India and I have read that Dar es Salaam has better Internet than most major cities in America.

BTW while we're on the topic of corporate ISPs, guess who wrote the "net neutrality" for the FCC?

[sanityjones]

Corporations wrote it for the most part..............it's just another form of consolidation at taxpayer's and freedom's expense.

[The Virginian]

You can bet once the government gets its hands into it they will impose more and more restrictions. The government wants to control everything and eventually they will do just that if they are not stopped.

[mudflap81]

This is bad, very very bad. Not the rule, the FCC. They have zero jurisdiction over the internet. They're basically trying to do a good thing (and doing it wrong) so that people will just let them and once they get a single yes, they're off to the races.

If you want a law protecting net neutrality, it needs to go through both houses and be signed by the President. Of wait, there is one being floated around already, but it's stalled in both houses for the past two years (cough cough).

The big issue I see is that certain sites want to pay the ISP's to have their content delivered faster than other site. It's like CNN paying Comcast so that its website loads noticeably faster than Fox News in hopes that it will bring people to their site (only an example, I don't know if these companies are actually doing this).

They're doing good things for bad reasons. Well, technically they're doing good things wrong for bad reasons.