Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Sep 2009 19:16 UTC
Internet & Networking Julius Genachowski, Chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, today laid out plans to enforce net neutrality upon the internet. While the FCC is a US-only entity, fact of the matter is that "control" over the internet lies within the US, so whatever the FCC decides, it will affect the rest of the world.
Thread beginning with comment 385342
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Excellent news.
by dindin on Mon 21st Sep 2009 21:28 UTC in reply to "Excellent news."
dindin
Member since:
2006-03-29

The whole net neutrality debate has me very interested. Basically, I don't think ISPs should be allow to dictate at what speeds I'm allow to watch an online movie, or download a torrent or even just surf the web. Frankly, I consider ISPs like any other utility company. If my electricity provider where to start regulating my power consumption for me, I quickly change company but if they all started doing it, I wouldn't have much choice, would I? Thanks to the FCC, Europe will take these concerns of mine for more seriously than before.


Those who consume more pay more. I don't download that much torrent files or view long duration video's on the web. So I hope my bill goes down and people who hog the network pay more. That would make more sense. Just like for Electricity.

IMHO - This is going to go to court and am not sure if the FCC could prevail. They sold a large chunck of bandwidth for $$$$ and explicitly stated that much of it will not be subject to such regulation. I guess many of the carriers will be asking for a refund.

Edited 2009-09-21 21:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Excellent news.
by tyrione on Mon 21st Sep 2009 23:04 in reply to "RE: Excellent news."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"The whole net neutrality debate has me very interested. Basically, I don't think ISPs should be allow to dictate at what speeds I'm allow to watch an online movie, or download a torrent or even just surf the web. Frankly, I consider ISPs like any other utility company. If my electricity provider where to start regulating my power consumption for me, I quickly change company but if they all started doing it, I wouldn't have much choice, would I? Thanks to the FCC, Europe will take these concerns of mine for more seriously than before.


Those who consume more pay more. I don't download that much torrent files or view long duration video's on the web. So I hope my bill goes down and people who hog the network pay more. That would make more sense. Just like for Electricity.

IMHO - This is going to go to court and am not sure if the FCC could prevail. They sold a large chunck of bandwidth for $$$$ and explicitly stated that much of it will not be subject to such regulation. I guess many of the carriers will be asking for a refund.
"

I'll buy into that pay as you go when all the Telcos in the US [hardlines and Wireless] pay back the hundreds of Billions in Loans outstanding, first.

We don't even have to discuss the hundreds of Billions in US Subsidies right?

Edited 2009-09-21 23:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Excellent news.
by BigDaddy on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 12:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent news."
BigDaddy Member since:
2006-08-10

You're damn right. I had to mod you up because you said it just like I was thinking it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Excellent news.
by SReilly on Mon 21st Sep 2009 23:10 in reply to "RE: Excellent news."
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Those who consume more pay more. I don't download that much torrent files or view long duration video's on the web. So I hope my bill goes down and people who hog the network pay more. That would make more sense. Just like for Electricity.

I see where you're coming from and I agree with your sentiment, as far as saving money for you is concerned, but I'm paying for a flat rate internet connection. That basically means I have a no size limit download agreement with my ISP. Network "quality of service" is not something I agreed on when I signed the contract, yet I notice more and more that my connection is severely faster for the first 15 to 30 seconds, then the QoS kicks in and my downloads drop. The amount they drop by depends on the time of day but they always drop. That in itself is already bad enough. For my ISP to start dictating at what speed I use various applications is intolerable.

IMHO - This is going to go to court and am not sure if the FCC could prevail. They sold a large chunck of bandwidth for $$$$ and explicitly stated that much of it will not be subject to such regulation. I guess many of the carriers will be asking for a refund.

Yeah, I doubt they are going down without a fight. The problem is the FCC had their heads up their ass when they let that particular Genie out of the bottle. To suddenly do a 180 is going to cost them in more than just money.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Excellent news.
by wirespot on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 06:53 in reply to "RE[2]: Excellent news."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Network "quality of service" is not something I agreed on when I signed the contract,[...]


Are you sure? Because AFAIK all ISPs put a clause that describes quality of service in their contracts. It's usually mandated by law. Now, it may not be in any terms you'd recognize. It's probably something like "these services comply with class X as defined by Whoever". And when you look it up you discover that "class X" means the crappiest possible kind of connection there is, and you're basically paying for wishful thinking.

If they didn't have any such clause in their contracts then yeah, you'd be entitled to get on their case entirely on the merits of their advertising. You can probably still do that, in countries which have strong consumer protection laws and enforcing state-mandated bodies which act in their interest at no cost for them. Which is the case for many EU countries.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Excellent news.
by corbintechboy on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 07:47 in reply to "RE: Excellent news."
corbintechboy Member since:
2006-05-02

Those who consume more pay more. I don't download that much torrent files or view long duration video's on the web. So I hope my bill goes down and people who hog the network pay more. That would make more sense. Just like for Electricity.

IMHO - This is going to go to court and am not sure if the FCC could prevail. They sold a large chunck of bandwidth for $$$$ and explicitly stated that much of it will not be subject to such regulation. I guess many of the carriers will be asking for a refund.


You people trip me out!

So I suppose you don't use any programs on your computer that are of download nature? Because the very people that may offer you a free program have to upload it somewhere! So that person that gives you a product (with nothing in return) should pay a higher bill then you because you don't use torrents and this happens to be a great way to spread FOSS software (like Linux)?

I don't share in your excitement my friend!

On a side note, liked the article! Seems as if something may be done for the consumer here (what a rarity).

Reply Parent Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Your ISP probably provides different plans based on how much per month one may download and what maximum speed it may run at. Select a plan closer to your needs, don't suggest everyone buy the highest plan available then expect the fee to be adjusted because they didn't use all of there allotted transfer rate.

Reply Parent Score: 2