Telecom Companies Argue For Specialized Services In E.U. Net Neutrality Law

[Guest]

ISPs make a case for specialized services in E.U. net neutrality law.

Telecom Companies Argue For Specialized Services In E.U. Net Neutrality Law : Read more

 

[falchard]

O.O the writer of this article must be uneducated to think that the recent FCC rules does what he says it does.

 

[alidan]

O.O the writer of this article must be uneducated to think that the recent FCC rules does what he says it does.

google and other tech companies backed the fcc decision, and if it did screw the internet over, it wouldn't be in their best interest... do you think some of the richest people in the country, some of the most powerful corporations would knowingly screw themselves over? the fact that so many internet providers hated this makes me like it just because they have been bending us over the table for YEARS, its finally time someone/something did it to them.

 

[virtualban]

Net neutrality laws protect the consumer, and are here to stay, because the 99% say so.
But, if the bandwidth is limited, like mobile... well, there may be a point. No excuse (or bribe) for anything else, though.

 

[d_kuhn]

We've all heard the ISP cry about how NN will stifle creativity... but the only creativity it's going to stifle is their creative ways of getting more money out of customers (us). Of course they don't like the fact that they can no longer hide the true cost of their service by charging us directly and also charging the folks providing us services so they pass those charges to us INDIRECTLY. "Woe am I" they say... "Netflix is using all our bandwidth", so their solution - instead of just telling users their rates are going up (because network utilization is increasing) is to charge Netflix more and let them charge us. Personally... I'd rather know who really has their hands in my wallet.

 

[derekullo]

Hmm ... so

"Torrent Car"

 

[falchard]

Yes the biggest corps and richest people would screw themselves over in order to pass net neutrality.
Cumbersome regulations only hurt the top companies a little. They bar entry of new competitors who have a more difficult time navigating the regulations. The bigger companies also find ways to speed through the regulatory process like what Google did in Austion and Kansas City.

 

[toadhammer]

Gah! We need more technically savvy people in power, or informing those in power. If I were dictator, possibly upper-age limits or qualification exams on politicians.

This is what Class Of Service and Quality Of Service is for...marking low priority packets that can be dropped during congestion (voice, video) so that high priority packets (please-don't-crash-or-crush car packets) can get through. And that whole QoS infrastructure is already in place and must be in place, regardless of who is paying what.

 

[d_kuhn]

Net Neutrality doesn't need to bar entry into the ISP market... the high barriers to entry of a highly capital intensive business combined with ISP lobbying to block competition have done that already and NN can't possibly make that anything other than better (by preventing ISP's from pushing anti-competitive legislation like blocking municipal services). They want to act like monopolies, now they can be treated as such.

 

[d_kuhn]

Toadhammer QoS is source agnostic... so it's not what the ISP's were doing (which is to take two sources of the same data (Netflix streaming video and Verizon's own streaming service for instance) and provide higher data rates to theirs (or the one that pays more). QoS still makes as much sense as it ever did... but monetizing the delivery performance is what has been shut down... thank dog.

 

[toadhammer]

Toadhammer QoS is source agnostic... so it's not what the ISP's were doing (which is to take two sources of the same data (Netflix streaming video and Verizon's own streaming service for instance) and provide higher data rates to theirs (or the one that pays more). QoS still makes as much sense as it ever did... but monetizing the delivery performance is what has been shut down... thank dog.

Understood. I was more criticizing the thinking that there had to be money and special arrangements involved for self-driving cars to get the packet delivery guarantee it supposedly needs.

 

[falchard]

Net Neutrality doesn't need to bar entry into the ISP market... the high barriers to entry of a highly capital intensive business combined with ISP lobbying to block competition have done that already and NN can't possibly make that anything other than better (by preventing ISP's from pushing anti-competitive legislation like blocking municipal services). They want to act like monopolies, now they can be treated as such.

The bill that was passed does not do that. That's just the spin the press gave it. The bill simply invokes Title 2 on Data Carriers. We already know what Title 2 regulation is, and it does not prevent anti-competitive legislation. Cities are still capable of charging high right of way rates to prevent startups from putting down line. Like I said, the barrier for ISPs is not the infrastructure, its the individual municipalities. Just like Google wanted to move into Austin, there are a number of new companies wanting to offer data only service via a variety of new or existing technology.