WSJ: ISP Victory on Net Neutrality

December 2, 2010 -

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski spoke Wednesday, offering a roadmap to net neutrality rules and regulations that he and other commissioners will discuss and inevitably vote on at the FCC's December 21 meeting. One of the things that many journalists noted was that the Chairman seemed to have backpedaled on many key points. Besides excluding wireless carriers from the equation, Genachowski mentioned "usage-based pricing."

Naturally, companies such as Comcast, Time Warner and AT&T see some of the concessions the FCC has made in its latest proposal as a strong victory for their side. Genachowski's support for pay-as-you-go pricing is a victory for these companies because it declares that broadband providers have the power to charge users for bandwidth they consume.

This should be especially troubling for anyone that enjoys watching movies through Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and Wii. A typical streamed movie uses up 4 GB of bandwidth. Naturally, if a company forces you to use a data plan, then you will be less likely to use services like Netflix, Hulu, and more because it is just not economical. Of course, you can always watch those movies on Pay-Per-View...

The Wall Street Journal Blog offers a good overview of why what the FCC wants to do later this month is not a victory for consumers.


Comments

Re: WSJ: ISP Victory on Net Neutrality

Jesus, how can people misunderstand NN so profoundly? The basic principles of network neutrality is that ALL data gets treated the same. An ISP like Comcast could charge you for all data over 250gb a month, or disconnect you, but they couldn't charge you extra for just one type of data, i.e. only video data. They also couldn't disallow lawful content on their networks, i.e. no more throttling bit torrent. Anyway, I'll take what I can get at this point, as these companies abuse their position, as is sure to happen, we'll see more regulation, although I am not hopeful. We need forced line sharing in this country.

Re: WSJ: ISP Victory on Net Neutrality

This is not Net Neutrality, is IPS forcing a tier-based pricing. 

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: WSJ: ISP Victory on Net Neutrality

This is exactly what net neutrality was intended to prevent and now it's standing on our doorstep!

This is what will happen once this new measure is passed.

dvice.com/archives/2009/10/net-neutrality.php

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: WSJ: ISP Victory on Net Neutrality

The United States of America: By the corporations, for the corporations.

Re: WSJ: ISP Victory on Net Neutrality

Oh, editor note.. the 4GB quotes was not bandwidth, it was total transfer.  Bandwidth is how much you can transfer at a time (bytes/second), which is a differnt type of cap.

Re: WSJ: ISP Victory on Net Neutrality

I will have to read more before really commenting on this comprimise.. but charging one's own customers based off usage I have no issue about.... though I am displeased that wireless providers would be exempted since we went though this already with wired connections decades ago with all the same basic arguments....  wireless providers are raking in piles of money while producing an inferrior service when compared to other countries.... they do not need more special protection, they need to be forced to compete.

Re: WSJ: ISP Victory on Net Neutrality

Okay, that is not what Net Neutrality is about.  We charge people for water and electricity based on how much they use too.  That makes sense.  What we're talking about here is making sure that they don't throttle your connection based on the type of traffic or the source/destination of said traffic.  Basically, you get the connection that you paid for, whatever you use it for.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
IronPatriotAndrew, that is hardly my point. Not only is Gamergate's ethics charge against Sarkeesian a lie, but ethics charges against ALL its original targets were lies. Right?08/04/2015 - 1:09am
ZippyDSMleenormal publishers anyway. Witht hat said my main book project has a narrator less native style, a type of exposition. I dunno if I am goign to change it or not dose not seem to flow as well as the one I finished.08/04/2015 - 1:06am
ZippyDSMleeMattsworkname: I still do not grasp grammar and proper literature level grammar is beyond me, not to mention its a questionable game of tag with publishers so I will just self publish, since my writing style is simpsltic it dose not fit into the norms of08/04/2015 - 1:05am
IronPatriotCongrats, Zippy08/04/2015 - 1:04am
Andrew EisenI believe if Chris was actually interested in arguing the subject matter, he would have looked at the more fully formed argument linked to by Sarkeesian in the same series of Tweets he's focusing on rather than the tweets themselves.08/04/2015 - 1:02am
MattsworknameZippie:: Got a publisher yet? or you doing the "online publishing thing"08/04/2015 - 12:59am
MattsworknameAndrew: Yep, though thankfully its not as common as it was when GG started. hopefully as time goes on, it'll just fade away entriely08/04/2015 - 12:58am
ZippyDSMleeGot one of my "books" (such as it is) finished, 17k words, here is the first chapter. http://zippydsmlee.tumblr.com/post/123483609450/chronicles-of-the-lord-of-power-lost-and08/04/2015 - 12:56am
Andrew EisenPeople decided to hate her before she said anything and to this day are desperately search for something, anything to justify that decision.08/04/2015 - 12:56am
MattsworknameExactly andrw anita had teh ire of some people in the movment and as a result she got dragged into the mess . Not fair, not pleasent, but thats all there to it. Moving on08/04/2015 - 12:55am
Andrew EisenHow did she piss off a large group? By announcing the intention to produce a series of videos examining the representation of females in video games if enough people were interested in the project to donate $6k. That horrible monster!08/04/2015 - 12:54am
Mattsworknamethe whole thing exploded. The ethics targerts were actually stuff like polygon, kotaku, Gamesutra, Leagh alexander, Etc etc. Anita was just an extra name they could throw on the pile08/04/2015 - 12:52am
Andrew EisenSarkeesian isn't a journalist. If GamerGate is SOLELY about ethics in games journalism it shouldn't have any interest in her. Point made. Move on.08/04/2015 - 12:47am
MattsworknameIP: Cause she got caught in a larger issue by pissing off a large group. As andrew and I have discussed in the past, the issues at hand with her videos are more about content and context then ethics, she just got pulled into the larger fight about it when08/04/2015 - 12:47am
MattsworknameI find it hard to dispute his points andrew, though you are right ,his points are often focused on VERY specific statements and concerns, of that you are correct08/04/2015 - 12:45am
Andrew EisenOh well. At least it was only seven and a half minutes.08/04/2015 - 12:45am
IronPatriotMattswork, if Gamergate is actually about ethics in journalism, why is Sarkeesian a major gamergate target?08/04/2015 - 12:45am
Andrew EisenI watched Chris's video. It's pretty lousy. He has a serious problem with strawman arguments, taking things out of context and arguing pieces of an argument in turn rather than the overarching point.08/04/2015 - 12:44am
MattsworknameGot it andrew08/04/2015 - 12:43am
Andrew EisenI deleted the other one too. Abbreviating the f-word does not make it okay.08/04/2015 - 12:43am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician