Huge win for Net Neutrality

[PhreeZone 15]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703961104575226583645448758.html

FCC chairman basically issued a statement that he is going to evoke some older rules meant to regulate phone companies to make sure that the net stays neutral for bandwidth for all providers. This is a huge win for consumers since now ATT or other broadband carriers can't slowdown traffic from other companies sites to make the other applications slower then their own. Carriers are going to make a valid case that this makes further investments into their networks less profitable but Net Neutral is best for all consumers.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[likearock 1]

This forum should have a FB "Like" button for posts like this.

[PhreeZone 15]

The ONLY argument that I have seen that makes me lean slightly towards the Telcoms on this is that they are now looking at future upgrades that are going to cost hundreds of millions if not billions to do things like Fiber to the curb to every house and high speed to all the rural areas and outside the monthly consumer subscription fees they are not able to pass the cost back to the company that uses more bandwidth then other companies so its less incentive for them to press forward with major upgrades. Fiber is still a huge cost and not many people that have it as an option are jumping to it over other choices like cable due to the higher cost so unless the market for Video on Demand, Streaming media and things like that pick up then there are no major upgrades until this happens.

My feelings are still on the side of the consumer on this and I'm 100% for net neutrality.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[Gawain 0]

Quote

The ONLY argument that I have seen that makes me lean slightly towards the Telcoms on this is that they are now looking at future upgrades that are going to cost hundreds of millions if not billions to do things like Fiber to the curb to every house and high speed to all the rural areas and outside the monthly consumer subscription fees they are not able to pass the cost back to the company that uses more bandwidth then other companies so its less incentive for them to press forward with major upgrades. Fiber is still a huge cost and not many people that have it as an option are jumping to it over other choices like cable due to the higher cost so unless the market for Video on Demand, Streaming media and things like that pick up then there are no major upgrades until this happens.

My feelings are still on the side of the consumer on this and I'm 100% for net neutrality.

That's because those that back it (Google, Amazon, et al) that have petabytes of data they want to cram through the system don't have to pay the $50,000 per mile to lay fiber, or the $500,000 per stack of network gear, plus blades, plus air-conditioning, plus the real-estate involved to manage the data centers that make the internet run.

Trying to get the internet providers to apply the same rules as applies to POTS and other legacy facility services is like using a repair manual for a 1940 Ford sedan on a Formula 1 racing engine.

This is what will happen: by "forcing" neutrality, the investors that back the companies that provide the infrastructure by which ALL ISPs use to provide service (not even content), will see diminished return forecasts for expanding the infrastructure because the increased overhead forced by regulation. They will opt to not invest. That means deployment of new services will slow, or stop. Slowed or stopped activity will require less people. Thus, less jobs.

The telcos will fight this and I believe they will win. The FCC, by mandating neutrality, by dictating what must be allowed on the net, can, by default can then dictate what cannot be carried. It oversteps their bounds.

If you don't like how your provider manages your internet connection, you have choices. Don't like cable? Get DSL. Too far from the CO for DSL? Get satellite. What a physical line? Get a frac-T1. What to spend less? Get dial-up or ISDN. Don't want the local telco/cable provider at all? Use wireless. There are no shortages of options for the consumer.

This initiative by the FCC has nothing to do with consumerism.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhreeZone 15]

Not even close to how things will play out is my prediction. The Tier 3 backbone providers still have a long way to go until they have started to run out of bandwidth for customers (resellers) to sell. Take the transoceanic undersea cables as an example. A lot of the bandwidth on those is not currently being used, its being bought in reserve for spikes on the Tier1 and Tier 2 users so that all carriers will still have high speed. Despite the lines being used only at 30% bandwidth capabilities there are still companies that see large amounts of profit in installing all new undersea high speed lines to supplement the existing lines. Universities and businesses are craving higher and higher speed connections for things like video conferencing, audio, computer research and hundreds of other uses and they are willing to pay for it.

What additional overhead? There is no changes to how things will occur in the future then how they occur today. This is preventing issues from arising by saying all packets are equal and you are not allowed to shape packets from a certain host to have a higher or lower priority level then any other site. Implementing tier delivery policies is nothing be additional resources on the telco's site to administer, bill, sell, etc.

Net Neutrality is preventing companies from being place into basically a blackmail situation where the Telcos is able to tell Google/Amazon/Hulu/Netflix/Skype/etc that unless they pay X amount a given day/week/month/gig/terra then packets that contain their content or from their host that travel over that carriers lines will be altered with a lower priority and will only be delivered after every other packet is delivered for each frame. For businesses this will now make them have to pay the money to make sure that all of their investments in IP phones, video conference and even cloud based solutions will continue to be at a high enough delivery rate to ensure the applications still work. This is just another way to get money out of all parties since if Amazon has to pay more money to keep their VOD able to stay working on all the major carriers then the cost is just passed back to the consumer and then all consumers lose.

Ultimately the fight is not going to be over the end point lines but the core connections and the FCC will have the courts on their side when its ruled that the carriers are not allowed to control or shape the packets as they relate to source or content since this is no different then the old phone carriers putting calls onto poor quality lines if its destination was on another carriers physical lines.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 2,436]

> The FCC, by mandating neutrality, by dictating what must be allowed on
>the net, can, by default can then dictate what cannot be carried.

Well, in that case, the First Amendment, by dictating what speech and religious expression must be allowed, by default dictates what kinds of free speech and religion cannot be allowed.

The Second Amendment, by dictating what rights Americans have with respect to bearing arms, dictates what weapons they cannot carry.

The Tenth Amendment, by dictating what rights are reserved to states, dictates that the Federal Government really has those rights.

And to think that so many people thought that the Constitution ensured those rights instead of dictating their absence.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Not even close to how things will play out is my prediction. The Tier 3 backbone providers still have a long way to go until they have started to run out of bandwidth for customers (resellers) to sell. Take the transoceanic undersea cables as an example. A lot of the bandwidth on those is not currently being used, its being bought in reserve for spikes on the Tier1 and Tier 2 users so that all carriers will still have high speed. Despite the lines being used only at 30% bandwidth capabilities there are still companies that see large amounts of profit in installing all new undersea high speed lines to supplement the existing lines. Universities and businesses are craving higher and higher speed connections for things like video conferencing, audio, computer research and hundreds of other uses and they are willing to pay for it.

What additional overhead? There is no changes to how things will occur in the future then how they occur today. This is preventing issues from arising by saying all packets are equal and you are not allowed to shape packets from a certain host to have a higher or lower priority level then any other site. Implementing tier delivery policies is nothing be additional resources on the telco's site to administer, bill, sell, etc.

Net Neutrality is preventing companies from being place into basically a blackmail situation where the Telcos is able to tell Google/Amazon/Hulu/Netflix/Skype/etc that unless they pay X amount a given day/week/month/gig/terra then packets that contain their content or from their host that travel over that carriers lines will be altered with a lower priority and will only be delivered after every other packet is delivered for each frame. For businesses this will now make them have to pay the money to make sure that all of their investments in IP phones, video conference and even cloud based solutions will continue to be at a high enough delivery rate to ensure the applications still work. This is just another way to get money out of all parties since if Amazon has to pay more money to keep their VOD able to stay working on all the major carriers then the cost is just passed back to the consumer and then all consumers lose.

Ultimately the fight is not going to be over the end point lines but the core connections and the FCC will have the courts on their side when its ruled that the carriers are not allowed to control or shape the packets as they relate to source or content since this is no different then the old phone carriers putting calls onto poor quality lines if its destination was on another carriers physical lines.

You were just citing about the consumer end. Tier 1 and Tier 2 providers don't even reach the last mile, let alone consumers.

The whole net-neutral thing is supposedly about consumers right? Here's how it will play out. Example: Verizon Communications offers fiber to the premises in several major markets. With this service consumers get bandwidth of 15-50Mbps, plus digital dial tone, and video/cable on demand with virtually no latency. 50 miles away where VZ may still be the ILEC, but it's farmland, VZ will not be provisioning cable due to costs. DSL is available in some areas, but distance hinders bandwidth to 756kbps. POTS and cable are separate services. If VZ is forced to treat all data equally, the result will be that VZ will throttle back the FiOS customers because they will not provision services to enhance customers who live in the back country. FiOS customers will unsubscribe and use lower cost services, causing VZ to lose revenues, you know the rest of the story.

Meanwhile, Google, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Apple, et al, pay to ensure that there is plenty of bandwidth and throughput available to access their services and content. Naturally, a combination of dedicated circuits, SONET rings carrying OC-3/12/48/192 etc type capacity. Those services are on 99.999% of the time and have significant service level agreements. All of these services are available to those who are able to pay for it (like you cited). Given those conditions, there is no problem for "clusters" of activity like a campus (business or school or housing development).

Back to the consumer. You were saying the Tier 3 provider (last mile) has plenty of bandwidth. Bandwidth isn't the only issue. There's throughput. There's distance to the facilities. There are physical considerations as well. DSL service ability begins to fade greatly past 3000 feet from the CO. Over a mile and most telcos don't even bother. Where the service is robust, the DSLAMs have limited ports to handle the consumer demand, but the natural ratio is between 10:1 and 15:1. The bandwidth is consistent, but throughput is not. Cable is another story. Distance is less of an issue, bandwidth is a problem though because for all the subscribers, they share one big pipe. Bandwidth is not consistent, but throughput is. This is why Comcast now has that "powerboost" feature (which oddly came out before the courts slapped down the FCC on this very issue a month ago).

As for overhead, it depends on the standards being used. Packets by their very nature are sized or not whether it's Frame Relay or ATM... The whole net neutrality thing was sold initially as a way to ultimately get broadband to everyone. This is indeed about the last mile, and also dictating how the carriers, provider treat data.

The courts have already ruled against the FCC once on this, less than a month ago. The courts will see that you cannot compare packet of data to frequency channels of voice. Packets of data can co-exist on common networks. Voice cannot since it exists in a closed circuit. Data does not. Their very nature is different. Core connections aren't the problem...as you said, there is plenty of capacity in the "cloud".

I guarantee you this. If telcos are forced to file tariffs to each state regulator for each type of service like they do traditional telephony, there will be a halt in advanced services deployment outside of traditional MSAs.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[likearock 1]

Quote

The telcos will fight this and I believe they will win. The FCC, by mandating neutrality, by dictating what must be allowed on the net, can, by default can then dictate what cannot be carried. It oversteps their bounds.

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

The telcos will fight this and I believe they will win. The FCC, by mandating neutrality, by dictating what must be allowed on the net, can, by default can then dictate what cannot be carried. It oversteps their bounds.

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible.

Never underestimate the complete lack of linear thought coming out of Washington DC. Applying 1930s era tariff requirements to 21st century data transport standards is the first indicator of this.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rushmc 18]

First step toward government regulation of the net

they see money and power
Nothing more, nothing less

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

The telcos will fight this and I believe they will win. The FCC, by mandating neutrality, by dictating what must be allowed on the net, can, by default can then dictate what cannot be carried. It oversteps their bounds.

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible.

Never underestimate the complete lack of linear thought coming out of Washington DC. Applying 1930s era tariff requirements to 21st century data transport standards is the first indicator of this.

You still haven't explained how net neutrality will lead to controlling content. If anything, allowing the telcos to configure packet priorities allows them to under-prioritize any content they want to suppress.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The telcos will fight this and I believe they will win. The FCC, by mandating neutrality, by dictating what must be allowed on the net, can, by default can then dictate what cannot be carried. It oversteps their bounds.

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible.

Never underestimate the complete lack of linear thought coming out of Washington DC. Applying 1930s era tariff requirements to 21st century data transport standards is the first indicator of this.

You still haven't explained how net neutrality will lead to controlling content. If anything, allowing the telcos to configure packet priorities allows them to under-prioritize any content they want to suppress.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/05/06/fcc-officials-lay-out-third-way-of-regulation/?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575228503914251096.html?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality

Quote

The agency would require broadband providers to allow data to travel from the Internet to a subscriber's computer without meddling.

Understandable, and even arguably benevolent. The FCC, by madating, "You will not interfere with content" and piece-meal application of 70 year old regulations keeps the door open to do what those regulations do to voice: regulate prices, provisioning of services, which in turn, can affect what content gets carried. However the FCC has already been overruled by the courts for overreaching its authority with regards to a case with Comcast.

The consumer end of this issue where the rub is, and it's where the FCC is being completely ignorant - how data gets fed to the consumer. There are practical limitations to the technology at hand.

Quote

This gets a bit wonky, but the FCC Chairman is saying that they will regulate the transmission part of Internet lines to make sure that the data gets from the Internet to your computer without interference from the carrier.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/05/06/digits-live-show-new-push-to-regulate-internet-access/?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The telcos will fight this and I believe they will win. The FCC, by mandating neutrality, by dictating what must be allowed on the net, can, by default can then dictate what cannot be carried. It oversteps their bounds.

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible.

Never underestimate the complete lack of linear thought coming out of Washington DC. Applying 1930s era tariff requirements to 21st century data transport standards is the first indicator of this.

You still haven't explained how net neutrality will lead to controlling content. If anything, allowing the telcos to configure packet priorities allows them to under-prioritize any content they want to suppress.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/05/06/fcc-officials-lay-out-third-way-of-regulation/?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575228503914251096.html?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality

Quote

The agency would require broadband providers to allow data to travel from the Internet to a subscriber's computer without meddling.

Understandable, and even arguably benevolent. The FCC, by madating, "You will not interfere with content" and piece-meal application of 70 year old regulations keeps the door open to do what those regulations do to voice: regulate prices, provisioning of services, which in turn, can affect what content gets carried.

I don't see it. First of all, it doesn't necessarily follow that net neutrality means price regulation or provisioning. That may have happened in voice but there's no evidence that the neutrality part was the causal factor in the price regulation or provisioning part. From reading your articles, it sounds like the telcos are trying to push that logical leap in order to increase their bottom line.

As I said, it's very clear how the lack of neutrality could act as a back door to suppressing unwanted content. You just configure the packets for the undesired content at the lowest priority.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

The telcos will fight this and I believe they will win. The FCC, by mandating neutrality, by dictating what must be allowed on the net, can, by default can then dictate what cannot be carried. It oversteps their bounds.

Not sure I follow this argument. It seems to me they are regulating how content is transported on the net not what content is permissible.

Never underestimate the complete lack of linear thought coming out of Washington DC. Applying 1930s era tariff requirements to 21st century data transport standards is the first indicator of this.

You still haven't explained how net neutrality will lead to controlling content. If anything, allowing the telcos to configure packet priorities allows them to under-prioritize any content they want to suppress.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/05/06/fcc-officials-lay-out-third-way-of-regulation/?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575228503914251096.html?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality

Quote

The agency would require broadband providers to allow data to travel from the Internet to a subscriber's computer without meddling.

Understandable, and even arguably benevolent. The FCC, by madating, "You will not interfere with content" and piece-meal application of 70 year old regulations keeps the door open to do what those regulations do to voice: regulate prices, provisioning of services, which in turn, can affect what content gets carried.

I don't see it. First of all, it doesn't necessarily follow that net neutrality means price regulation or provisioning. That may have happened in voice but there's no evidence that the neutrality part was the causal factor in the price regulation or provisioning part. From reading your articles, it sounds like the telcos are trying to push that logical leap in order to increase their bottom line.

As I said, it's very clear how the lack of neutrality could act as a back door to suppressing unwanted content. You just configure the packets for the undesired content at the lowest priority.

I'll grant you that. However, what brought this whole new initiative on was a case where Comcast was throttling back the througput of some of its heaviest users. The nature of the technology of time made it a logical step, since cable internet connections are shared. The consumers complained. The FCC decided to sanction Comcast, who fought in court and won. During that time Comcast realized they could change the management protocol of their network and temporarily open up the pipe for the user that has a huge file to download (known as "speedboost"). This feature, to my knowledge, is available in their congested areas. However, this speedboost comes at the cost (however indiscernible) of other users on that cluster tied into the CO or where ever the cable company's gear is co-located (usually at a telco's CO).

I'll go back to Verizon as a prime example. VZ has invested billions in a product called FiOS. If you're in a major market where VZ is the telco and they offer this product, you're lucky. For about $100/month you have digital phone/1080-HD-tv/video-on-demand/5-15Mbps internet with microscopic latency. It's a fantastic product, brings fiber to the premises. It's also expensive as hell to operate for the company. How they manage that spoke of their network is going to be different from the less dense areas where FiOS is not offered, and instead it's DSL, or dial-up.

By the FCC saying that the data lines will be treated as voice, the carriers are going to have to offer minimum standards (because these are regulated at a state level) across all LATAs. Dial-tone is dial-tone everywhere. It's the same. A twisted pair works the same whether you're next door to the CO or on a farm 12 miles away. It's reliable, robust, and a common standard.

Internet is not. Data is not. Now the FCC is saying, you must treat all data the same, but "we won't regulate other data" like email, etc. By claiming to adopt only part of the code, they leave the door open to adopt all of the code, and therein lies the rub: basic telephony regulations mandate what services may or may not be offered, and how they are provisioned.

Using voice rules for data is not the way to approach the problem. In fact, since 2002, when such regulations on data were eased, there is more market penetration by broadband than ever before. So, the FCC's argument is not benevolent. It aims to get a foothold where it currently has not legal means to do so.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'll grant you that. However, what brought this whole new initiative on was a case where Comcast was throttling back the througput of some of its heaviest users. The nature of the technology of time made it a logical step, since cable internet connections are shared. The consumers complained. The FCC decided to sanction Comcast, who fought in court and won.

Comcast sold "unlimited" internet. But didn't actually want to supply it. That's your basic problem.

And changing providers isn't a trivial task, as inconvenient as changing cell phone carriers before number portability. I personally cannot afford any sort of downtime during a transition. I have a great reliance on my connectivity as part of my work. For that reason, I've been using Speakeasy since 2003, rather than the $20/month special this week.

When you look at the Directv versus Comcast fight over Versus TV, you see exactly why net neutrality is required. Comcast certainly will play dirty, and its customers will suffer in the process. If it were truly possible to switch, as simple as changing the channel, that would be fine. But that isn't the case, esp when it comes to cable which is a regulated monopoly due to the issues with running cable to every home.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

I'll grant you that. However, what brought this whole new initiative on was a case where Comcast was throttling back the througput of some of its heaviest users. The nature of the technology of time made it a logical step, since cable internet connections are shared. The consumers complained. The FCC decided to sanction Comcast, who fought in court and won.

Comcast sold "unlimited" internet. But didn't actually want to supply it. That's your basic problem.

And changing providers isn't a trivial task, as inconvenient as changing cell phone carriers before number portability. I personally cannot afford any sort of downtime during a transition. I have a great reliance on my connectivity as part of my work. For that reason, I've been using Speakeasy since 2003, rather than the $20/month special this week.

When you look at the Directv versus Comcast fight over Versus TV, you see exactly why net neutrality is required. Comcast certainly will play dirty, and its customers will suffer in the process. If it were truly possible to switch, as simple as changing the channel, that would be fine. But that isn't the case, esp when it comes to cable which is a regulated monopoly due to the issues with running cable to every home.

Doesn't matter. The consumer-centric motive for this net-neutrality is anything but consumer minded. Again, Cable and Telephone are not your only options. The Telecom Act of 1996 saw to that. There are numerous competitors. If connectivity is that important to you from a business standpoint, then you wouldn't unplug one until another was up and running anyway, so that's really a pretty weak argument.

My issue isn't with Comcast at all. It's their network. They should manage it without interference from people that know nothing about running a NOC, co-location or maintaining a data center.

Genachowski is a lawyer.
Copps is a politician.
McDowell is a lawyer, and has some telecom industry trade experience.
Clyburn is a politician.
Baker is a politician.

These are political appointments and with 100% lawyer/politician representation. McDowell has background with the numbering plan, but again, that's traditional telephony. With all the government is doing to "help" it still astounds me that people want this kind of interference. Ivan Seidenberg, the CEO of Verizon started as zone-tech on telephone poles at the old Ma-Bell. Randall Stephenson started at the old Southwestern Bell, and apparently his older brother is still a tech. LeRoy Carlson is the founder, and still CEO of TDS. Maggie Wilderotter, CEO of Frontier has a telco history going back to the old Cable Data.

These folks know the business, and if the telcos think this is a bad idea, why, oh why, would you want to trust five politicians over folks that have effectively these businesses pretty well. When was the last time you didn't have dial-tone? If you have a business grade dedicated internet circuit, when was the last time that went down? When the power goes out, you still have dial tone (telco provided). If these companies are grumbling about this, and even worse, if the investors are...do the math...it's a no brainer.

Besides, can you effectively tell me that your provider has denied you access to any information on the web, deliberately?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

These folks know the business, and if the telcos think this is a bad idea, why, oh why, would you want to trust five politicians over folks that have effectively these businesses pretty well.

I'm in the business, since before the NSFnet was retired. So are the other players on the neutrality side.

[likearock 1]

Quote

When you look at the Directv versus Comcast fight over Versus TV, you see exactly why net neutrality is required. Comcast certainly will play dirty, and its customers will suffer in the process.

Indeed. Those assholes are screwing with TCP in a way it was never intended to be used.

Quote

In November 2007, Comcast's severe limiting of torrent applications was again confirmed by a study conducted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in which public domain literature is distributed over peer-to-peer networks. Analysis of the EFF study finds "strong evidence that Comcast is using packet-forging to disrupt peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing on their network". The studies show that Comcast effectively prevents distribution of files over peer-to-peer networks by sending a RST packet under the guise of the end user, and denying the connection, which effectively blocks the user from seeding over BitTorrent. Legal controversy arises because instead of simple filtering, Comcast is sending RST packets to Comcast customers, pretending to be the host user at the other end of the BitTorrent connection. Comcast's BitTorrent throttling was revealed to be through a partnership with Sandvine, although Comcast's internal memos instruct employees to respond to the contrary.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

These folks know the business, and if the telcos think this is a bad idea, why, oh why, would you want to trust five politicians over folks that have effectively these businesses pretty well.

I'm in the business, since before the NSFnet was retired. So are the other players on the neutrality side.

I too, spent ten years in the industry, back when TELENET was around.

Net neutrality is shrouded in the idea of ensuring that all data be treated equally...regardless of intent or impact on the network or to other customers. In fact, this will turn into an agenda to bridge the "digital divide". "Broadband for all! And all for broadband!!"

Instead of incentives to bring that last mile solution to rural areas, or depressed areas...they're going to regulate it by "selectively" placing 70 year old rules?

What this will also ignore are the wireless last mile services in effect also. WiMAX and "metro-wifi" services that are not the same facility, yet will be expected to follow the same rules...

This whole thing is going to be tangle.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Gawain 0]

Wanted to revive the thread with some new reports from CNBC:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37779304

Like one quote in the piece, it's difficult to understand why the FCC continues to consider this option.

Content providers could just as easily adopt more efficient standards if bandwidth is a real issue (which it isn't, Tier 1 capacity is way underutilized). These regulations do nothing to fix the "last mile" which is where the bottleneck is.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!