FCC chairman says `open Internet' rules are vital

[pj200105]

For anyone that cares:

FCC chairman says `open Internet' rules are vital by AP: Yahoo! Tech

Hopefully that will mean the ***** at Verizon can't block things like nbc mobile.

[patches152]

Originally Posted by pj200105

For anyone that cares:

FCC chairman says `open Internet' rules are vital by AP: Yahoo! Tech

Hopefully that will mean the dicks at Verizon can't block things like nbc mobile.

verizon wireless doesn't block NBC mobile...NBC blocks non US based servers from accessing it...get your facts straight

but i agree, i hope this helps with RIM browsers getting access to domestic sites, or at least having them labeled per location of carrier or NPA/NXX, and not per physical location of servers, ya know?

[pj200105]

my bad, last i read on this everyone was in concencus that it was verizon. must have stopped reading at wrong time.

[jreacher]

You can bet on this: once "they" start monkeying with it, it will be ruined.

Mark my words.

[patches152]

Originally Posted by pj200105

my bad, last i read on this everyone was in concencus that it was verizon. must have stopped reading at wrong time.

it's all good, i was just in a mood to call someone out. nothing personal. was just your turn i guess, lol!

[SevereDeceit]

AT&T is scared about this, since they have so many Iphone users on their network, using so much bandwith, they slow their service down when needed to deal with the congestion. The FCC says no more of that, AT&T said their network cannot handle it, the FCC said, "Figure it out"

[kassdog]

Need to get more bandwidth because the fcc tells you to figure it out, there's an app for that.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[clonehappy]

Originally Posted by jreacher

You can bet on this: once "they" start monkeying with it, it will be ruined.

Mark my words.

If by "they" you are referring to ISPs (ATT, Verizon, Comcast), then yes, they do want to ruin the internet.

If by "they" you are referring to the FCC, I can only assume that you have no idea what you are talking about and are probably from a red state and believe that Obama was born in Kenya.

All the FCC has done is say that the internet must remain open for all peers to communicate with each other without discrimination by ISPs as to what traffic they will deliver to you and what traffic they will not. Basically saying that all packets are equal, and there is to be no slowing or dropping of ones they don't like.

You know, like it's always been.

[Frawg]

Whenever the Federal government mandates that a company must comply with rules imposed on them, begin to think about your how much it will cost the end user. I would be satisfied if the FCC simply underscores the freedom that exists in publishing via the internet and that the government will continue to keep stay clear of any regulations, whether or not they are perceived to be needed or helpful. Requiring ISPs to invest in the in the infrastructure required to permit any web site to be rendered could artificially raise costs to the consumer. The free market normally takes care of service providers that cannot provide content desired by consumers.

The FCC need only to steer clear of regulating content, particularly as it pertains to political opinions.

And, if an ISP cannot deliver the content buyers desire, they aren't likely to be successful in the long term anyways.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[jreacher]

Originally Posted by clonehappy

If by "they" you are referring to ISPs (ATT, Verizon, Comcast), then yes, they do want to ruin the internet.

If by "they" you are referring to the FCC, I can only assume that you have no idea what you are talking about and are probably from a red state and believe that Obama was born in Kenya.

All the FCC has done is say that the internet must remain open for all peers to communicate with each other without discrimination by ISPs as to what traffic they will deliver to you and what traffic they will not. Basically saying that all packets are equal, and there is to be no slowing or dropping of ones they don't like.

You know, like it's always been.

Aye, I am from a red state. But, here in red states, we have a good memory. For instance, I remember when the FCC FORCED ATT, and every other service provider to allow any service provider to "use" their pipes to get into peoples homes. Like Rythems Net Connection.

Basically, the government forced BellSouth, et al, to allow ANYONE with a ISP company to use their network. For a very very small fee.

So, what happened? BellSouth and it's like, just stopped their expansion until all these little small ISPs ( without pipes and wires ) to go out of business. They did, and the big pipelines started back expanding.

I am all for "equality". But, if you have just spent umteen billion dollars on FIOS, and some start up comes in and hogs ALL the bandwidth, and your customers start leaving because of this, and you go out of business....all in the name of equality...the guy with the expensive FIOS network goes out of business, all the businesses who relied on his service go out, the little start up goes out... but, hey, we are equal.?

By the way, there is very little "equlity". Most of the time, the people yelling about equality are those who want something for nothing...or at the expense of someone else.

jr

[SlcCorrado]

Originally Posted by jreacher

Aye, I am from a red state. But, here in red states, we have a good memory. For instance, I remember when the FCC FORCED ATT, and every other service provider to allow any service provider to "use" their pipes to get into peoples homes. Like Rythems Net Connection.

Basically, the government forced BellSouth, et al, to allow ANYONE with a ISP company to use their network. For a very very small fee.

So, what happened? BellSouth and it's like, just stopped their expansion until all these little small ISPs ( without pipes and wires ) to go out of business. They did, and the big pipelines started back expanding.

I am all for "equality". But, if you have just spent umteen billion dollars on FIOS, and some start up comes in and hogs ALL the bandwidth, and your customers start leaving because of this, and you go out of business....all in the name of equality...the guy with the expensive FIOS network goes out of business, all the businesses who relied on his service go out, the little start up goes out... but, hey, we are equal.?

By the way, there is very little "equlity". Most of the time, the people yelling about equality are those who want something for nothing...or at the expense of someone else.

jr

[clonehappy]

Originally Posted by jreacher

Aye, I am from a red state. But, here in red states, we have a good memory. For instance, I remember when the FCC FORCED ATT, and every other service provider to allow any service provider to "use" their pipes to get into peoples homes. Like Rythems Net Connection.

Basically, the government forced BellSouth, et al, to allow ANYONE with a ISP company to use their network. For a very very small fee.

So, what happened? BellSouth and it's like, just stopped their expansion until all these little small ISPs ( without pipes and wires ) to go out of business. They did, and the big pipelines started back expanding.

I am all for "equality". But, if you have just spent umteen billion dollars on FIOS, and some start up comes in and hogs ALL the bandwidth, and your customers start leaving because of this, and you go out of business....all in the name of equality...the guy with the expensive FIOS network goes out of business, all the businesses who relied on his service go out, the little start up goes out... but, hey, we are equal.?

By the way, there is very little "equlity". Most of the time, the people yelling about equality are those who want something for nothing...or at the expense of someone else.

jr

I have a pretty good memory, too. While I agree that the situation you described above was totally unfair to the ILECs, I believe it was intended to increase competition, even though it failed.

However, that situation is really nothing like the one we are facing today. This isn't about CLECs using telco copper on the cheap, it's about ISPs changing from selling you an internet connection where you can access any other host on the internet to selling you one where you can only connect to other hosts that they approve of. That is the real slippery slope here. Taken to its logical conclusion, you could see large conglomorates colluding to block access to the sites of political foes or their supporters, or to sites that may be critical of them or their industry?

Why would you disagree that your ISP should allow you to access any website or content on the internet that you desire? The person serving that content is paying the bills to their ISP to send out their content, and you are paying your bill to access it. If FIOS customers or AT&T 3G customers or Comcast customers are using inordinate amounts of bandwidth to use the services they desire on the internet, then that is an issue between the service provider and the customer. Not between the ISP and their peer ISPs.

See Peering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If an ISP's demand is exceeding its capacity, and they have no more money to upgrade their network, they then have three options:
1. Meter the bandwidth so that users who stream video all day pay more money than those who just access their Gmail.
2. Increase the rates for all customers and leave the bandwidth unmetered.
3. Leave their links saturated and wait for customers to leave, thereby easing the stress on their networks.

An internet connection has become the equivalent of a utility. You can't just arbitrarily deny access to hosts. That's what this is about.

What would you say if the phone company told you that your unlimited nights and weekends didn't apply to Moviephone, because lots of people were calling moviephone and it was costing them too much to connect those calls? Would you agree to them cutting that access? Moviephone is paying their phone bill and so are you, why should you be stopped from placing that call?

Or would one of the three options above make more sense?

[RamosDevil]

net neutrality is crucial to the survival of the internet as we know it. that is all i have to say

[pj200105]

Originally Posted by clonehappy

I have a pretty good memory, too. While I agree that the situation you described above was totally unfair to the ILECs, I believe it was intended to increase competition, even though it failed.

However, that situation is really nothing like the one we are facing today. This isn't about CLECs using telco copper on the cheap, it's about ISPs changing from selling you an internet connection where you can access any other host on the internet to selling you one where you can only connect to other hosts that they approve of. That is the real slippery slope here. Taken to its logical conclusion, you could see large conglomorates colluding to block access to the sites of political foes or their supporters, or to sites that may be critical of them or their industry?

Why would you disagree that your ISP should allow you to access any website or content on the internet that you desire? The person serving that content is paying the bills to their ISP to send out their content, and you are paying your bill to access it. If FIOS customers or AT&T 3G customers or Comcast customers are using inordinate amounts of bandwidth to use the services they desire on the internet, then that is an issue between the service provider and the customer. Not between the ISP and their peer ISPs.

See Peering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If an ISP's demand is exceeding its capacity, and they have no more money to upgrade their network, they then have three options:
1. Meter the bandwidth so that users who stream video all day pay more money than those who just access their Gmail.
2. Increase the rates for all customers and leave the bandwidth unmetered.
3. Leave their links saturated and wait for customers to leave, thereby easing the stress on their networks.

An internet connection has become the equivalent of a utility. You can't just arbitrarily deny access to hosts. That's what this is about.

What would you say if the phone company told you that your unlimited nights and weekends didn't apply to Moviephone, because lots of people were calling moviephone and it was costing them too much to connect those calls? Would you agree to them cutting that access? Moviephone is paying their phone bill and so are you, why should you be stopped from placing that call?

Or would one of the three options above make more sense?

I don't think that could have been said even better. Good 3 options too. Spoken like a true economist (no idea if you are one, but it sounds like it at least) Good job.

[pcgizmo]

Originally Posted by clonehappy

If by "they" "they" you are referring to the FCC, I can only assume that you have no idea what you are talking about and are probably from a red state and believe that Obama was born in Kenya.

You are surely a delusional blue stater that thinks more government is a good thing and that Obama is doing a good job.

If history has taught us anything, it's taught us that the government only makes things worse when it comes to telling private industry how to do things.