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.
Papa MidnightSpeculation from PC Gamer. Don't hold your breath. http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/07/21/microsoft-job-listing-says-nice-things-about-pc-gaming-isnt-clear-if-it-means-them/07/21/2014 - 5:58pm
MaskedPixelanteI dunno, it's probably Vevo powertripping.07/21/2014 - 5:52pm
Andrew EisenMP - Makes you wonder what the intention behind the removal was. Stop the RickRolls? Yeah, like removing that one video is going to make a difference.07/21/2014 - 3:27pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.billboard.com/articles/business/digital-and-mobile/6165313/youtube-blocks-original-rickroll-video Moment of silence, the original Rickroll video has been blocked in many regions.07/20/2014 - 3:53pm
PHX CorpUseless DLC news: Killzone Fart Pack http://ps4daily.com/2014/07/killzone-fart-dlc/07/20/2014 - 12:56pm
MaskedPixelantehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU1mK2ig_GU They did their research beforehand.07/19/2014 - 4:41pm
Sleaker@james_fudge - are you sure the FCC can pick and choose? the general rules I read as passed in the act don't really indicate that, but I didn't read through the entirety.07/19/2014 - 4:19pm
MaskedPixelanteOf course, Saban's entire point hinges on them not knowing what the tokusatsu genre is.07/19/2014 - 1:57pm
lomdrLink to where you saw this, Sora-chan?07/19/2014 - 1:50pm
MaskedPixelanteThis is just... confusing to me... They're not being sued, but it looks like extortion, but maybe now the devs can make demands of Saban? I dunno...07/19/2014 - 1:47pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/07/18/chroma-squad-dev-agrees-to-royalty-split-ultimatum-from-power-ra/07/19/2014 - 1:43pm
Sora-ChanSo apparently, Towns is updating again. Not sure what that means, since last we heard it got abandoned.07/19/2014 - 5:42am
Matthew Wilsonthe 10c is based of the fact that it only cost them 2c a gig to send data around to start with, and that does include infrastructure07/18/2014 - 5:24pm
Matthew Wilsonhere is the thing the average user does not use enough bandwidth to justify usage based billing at most they would be allowed to charge 10c a gig. the avrage user would need to use around 600 gigs a piece.07/18/2014 - 5:23pm
james_fudgeThe FCC can apply what rules it sees fit and ignore rules that make no sense under Title II.07/18/2014 - 4:57pm
Sleaker@MW - ahhh thanks for the info. I still don't see how Title II or reclassifying would benefit industry or do what people are asking the FCC to do.07/18/2014 - 2:43pm
Matthew Wilsonif they do, they would than be subject to the utility commission for price approval. the short answer is no because it would bring even more regulations.07/18/2014 - 1:50pm
SleakerIf Internet gets rebranded as a Title II do you think cable companies will start charging per-usage similar to every other utility?07/18/2014 - 12:57pm
MaskedPixelanteI guess 'recommiting to classic style JRPGs like the upcoming Bravely Second' is coming later, now is the time for microtransactions at a level that would make EA say "guys, take it easy on the paywall".07/18/2014 - 10:39am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/07/17/final-fantasy-record-keeper-relives-the-series-battles-for-mobi/ Square is really, really, REALLY hoping you all forgot that Final Fantasy: All The Bravest was a thing...07/18/2014 - 10:36am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician