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 :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
NeenekoAh, that old straw man. That is one of the ironies about the discussion, the whole point is showing how good people can still have problems with sexism and not realize it.09/17/2014 - 9:11pm
Andrew EisenYes, there have been a handful of op-eds suggesting that the term “gamer” has become tainted (two that I know of) but that’s the opinion of only a few. I've seen an equal number from those who disagree.09/17/2014 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenExcept, you haven't provided a single example of a site that’s actually calling gamers a "collective of Sexist White Bigoted Basement Dwelling Manchildren."09/17/2014 - 8:55pm
TechnogeekIf you want to make the stereotype of gamers less painful, try calling people out when they do bad shit rather than handwave it away as "not all gamers". Even if it is a few bad apples, that'll still more than enough to spoil the barrel.09/17/2014 - 8:53pm
quiknkoldI'm not going to Sell Gamergate anymore. It can sell itself. But I will sell the integrity of the Gamer. That we are still good people, who create and donate to charitys, Who engage with those around us and just want to have a good time.09/17/2014 - 7:35pm
quiknkoldpeople should not be harrassed and punished for the actions of a few. I've always welcomed and accepted everybody who wanted to join in. Who wanted to make them, or play them. I love good strong female protagonists, and want more.09/17/2014 - 7:35pm
quiknkoldOne of the tennants of Gamergate is to stand up against Harrassment. That Gamers arent like those assholes. We can argue for days if the Sexism or Antifeminism or corruption is there or not, But the one thing I believe in and wear on my sleave is that09/17/2014 - 7:35pm
quiknkoldBut there were these websites, attacking me and people like me, for the actions of a few. and then others joined in on Twitter and other places. there was a hashtag that said "explain in 4 words a gamer" and it made me sick.09/17/2014 - 7:35pm
quiknkoldManchildren who are awful people and that the Identity of the Gamer should die. This hurt me personally. I've always identified as a Gamer. Even in my childhood years, I was a Gamer. All my friends are Gamers. Its one of the core parts of my identity.09/17/2014 - 7:34pm
quiknkoldUltimately, With the whole Gamergate thing, I jumped on it due to the harassment. A small number of assholes harrass Anita and Zoe, and then all the publications lumped together Gamers as this collective of Sexist White Bigoted Basement Dwelling09/17/2014 - 7:34pm
quiknkoldEZacharyKnight : Lemme ask you a question. We have people who cling to walls, people who fire lasers from their eyes, people who can shapeshift....and yet fabric needs to be upheld to RL physics?09/17/2014 - 6:54pm
james_fudgebody paint?09/17/2014 - 5:33pm
E. Zachary Knightquiknkold, I stand corrected on the buttcrack thing. Still, I know of no fabric that actually does that.09/17/2014 - 5:05pm
Andrew EisenSo... it's unethical to discuss the ethics surrounding public interest vs. personal privacy?09/17/2014 - 4:45pm
prh99The source for the game was just released not long ago, it's at https://github.com/keendreams/keen09/17/2014 - 4:43pm
prh99An Indiegogo champagin bought the rights to the early 90's game Keen Dreams to make it open source and release it on GOG etc. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/let-s-get-keen-dreams-re-released-legally09/17/2014 - 4:42pm
james_fudgeAlso http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite09/17/2014 - 4:29pm
Andrew EisenI read the Kotaku story. Nowhere does it say anything close to "Gamers are white bigoted sexist losers." It's commenting specifically on the crap being slung at people discussing gender issues in games. So, what's the problem?09/17/2014 - 4:06pm
Andrew EisenYeah, I can imagine Spiderwoman posed like in your second link.09/17/2014 - 4:00pm
Andrew EisenThat's not the same pose. Spiderman (who is wearing an actual outfit rather than body paint) is crouched low to the ground. Kinda like a spider! Spiderwoman has her butt up in the air like she's waiting to be mounted.09/17/2014 - 3:59pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician