how-to block ads
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Congress to consider a net neutrality law in January
Karl speaks and Congress acts:
»AT&T Thinks Network Neutrality Fight Is OverA new Congressional push for neutrality laws will certainly revamp the obnoxious PR battle waged by both sides And with that as a lead-in, the congresscritter from N.Dakota has a bill he wants to introduce in January:
»tech.yahoo.com/news/nm/20081113/···utrality
Sen. Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, believes a law is essential to prevent telephone and cable companies from discriminating against Internet content, even though regulators have taken actions to enforce free Web principles, a top Dorgan aide said on Thursday.
"We feel that legislation is definitely necessary," said Frannie Wellings, telecom counsel to Dorgan, speaking at a University of Nebraska law school event on changes in telecom law after the election of Democrat Barack Obama.
Dorgan has been influential on the issue, and will be among the highest ranking Democrats on the Senate's Commerce Committee when it reconvenes in January.
The net neutrality fight pits Internet service providers (ISPs) like AT&T against content companies like Google Inc and Microsoft Corp.
The ISPs, which also include Verizon Communications Inc. and cable company Comcast Corp, say they need to manage the ever-growing traffic on their networks without government interference.
Content companies say the ISPs hold too power much to block or slow down traffic requiring more bandwidth, such as movie downloads, or certain content altogether.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
mrvid
join:2007-06-19
Levittown, NY
4 edits | Net neutrality shouldn't mean ISP's cant offer exclusive pipes
I think ISP's should be able to offer faster exclusive pipes to priority customers as long as they can show that those customers data does not slow down the current standard pipe offered to all now.
For example, suppose I was an ISP and I offer a 50GB pipe between many providers and 1000's of customers, then Google says, I will pay you 1 billion for 5 years to give me an exclusive 10GB pipe. Google is not reducing the quality of their connections, their asking for a private faster pipe that would, separately, be faster.
I think that while Net Neutrality is being addressed it should also be added that carriers would have a right to offer faster connections as long as they are shown not to comprimise the speed of current offerings over the net. | |
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Net neutrality shouldn't mean ISP's cant offer exclusive pip
Neutrality isn't about ISPs offering faster or even exclusive pipes to end users (be they consumers or companies).
It's about shenanigans and double-dipping. Imagine if Comcast said to Blizzard, "you must pay us if you want to be able to connect to us." Now, Blizzard's ISP is AT&T. They're already paying AT&T. Comcast has millions of users paying them, millions who would be quite angry if Blizzard rightfully refused to pay, and Comcast cut them off. Unfortunately for Comcast users, they'd have no idea what Comcast had done (well, for a while, anyway). Now this is a bit extreme, and Comcast would have to deal with many angry customers. But what if ALL the big ISPs did this? Blizzard would have no choice but to pay up. Now imagine this happening to a smaller company, one that couldn't afford to pay two, three, four times for internet access.
That is what net neutrality seeks to prevent.
--
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon profitable cause... | |
-
|
