WSJ: ISP Victory on Net Neutrality

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.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Shahab says:

    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.

  2. 0
    DorkmasterFlek says:

    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.

  3. 0
    Neeneko says:

    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.

  4. 0
    Neeneko says:

    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.

Leave a Reply