wired.com— A federal appeals court gave notice Friday it likely would reject the Federal Communications Commission?s authority to sanction Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer applications.
Jan 8, 2010View in Crawl 4
"You can say the ISPs should upgrade their networks, but any new bandwidth will just get taken up by assh**es who think it's fine to upload 24/7."If ISPs can't handle some customers uploading and downloading huge amounts, then maybe they should stop offering "unlimited" data plans unless they are actually able to handle the subsequent increases in usage.
This is why we have the FCC. The companies own the networks, but they don't own the frequencies outright. They still have to follow rules (supposedly).
You started off so well .....Yes, ISPs are artificially generated by the government. Which causes a problem. To which you propose a government regulation. Which will cause another problemRinse and repeat.Why cover up the original problem? Why treat the symptom and not the cause? Why not remove the grant of monopoly? Then, as you so eloquently pointed out, the problem goes away by itself. Even better, you have less government sucking up less money.
I cringe every time someone uses the term "free market" because it's just a brainwashing tool that leads people to believe that when left to the simple forces of competition, businesses will regulate themselves or face losing customers. Just because competition exists, it doesn't mean that they won't try to screw you.
ISPs who have a network over the public ways are public utilities that serve a public purpose; their duty is a public duty, and the trust they serve is a public one; they are the very essence of the term 'common carrier'. Network-owning ISPs should have simple rules: you route all data, or you route none. You serve everyone equally, or you serve no one.Can the electric company determine whom it will deign to serve? No. Should it be allowed to? No. Should the water department choose who has the privilege of recieving running water? No. Should an ISP that has a public network over the public ways choose whom it wants to serve or the quality of the service that they receive, for other than bona-fide technical reasons? Apparently, yes, according to this court. Should it be allowed to? No. A simple legislative enactment will solve this problem by giving the FCC the statutory authority to regulate network-owning ISPs.You treat all data equally, or you don't get the privilege from the public of using the public ways to lay wires to carry that data. Build your own streets, and put your telephone poles on your own streets, then you can have a walled garden to your liking.Otherwise, when you build a network on public property, don't complain when the public wants you to treat all traffic that passes over that public network equally.
it doesn't mean they'll survive as a business either, genius. Our goal shouldn't be to keep them from trying. It should be to keep them from succeeding! Without any customers left they can TRY all they want.I cringe every time someone describes what we have as a free market. I cringe even more when they acknowledge that it's only partly free, yet still automatically attribute its "faults" to the degree to which it IS free instead of the degree to which it ISN'T.
Jordan117Jan 9, 2010
"You can say the ISPs should upgrade their networks, but any new bandwidth will just get taken up by assh**es who think it's fine to upload 24/7."If ISPs can't handle some customers uploading and downloading huge amounts, then maybe they should stop offering "unlimited" data plans unless they are actually able to handle the subsequent increases in usage.
glefistusJan 9, 2010
Adverted for 1mbps at around the same price with Shaw. Then again, Canadians get ripped on utilities.
theonlywizdumJan 9, 2010
This is why we have the FCC. The companies own the networks, but they don't own the frequencies outright. They still have to follow rules (supposedly).
ineedanapJan 9, 2010
hmm.. I think there is a term for that.. What was it now?
norman619Jan 9, 2010
The FCC shouldn't even exist. The frequencies? LOL!!!!! You are adorable.
jeffiekJan 9, 2010
You started off so well .....Yes, ISPs are artificially generated by the government. Which causes a problem. To which you propose a government regulation. Which will cause another problemRinse and repeat.Why cover up the original problem? Why treat the symptom and not the cause? Why not remove the grant of monopoly? Then, as you so eloquently pointed out, the problem goes away by itself. Even better, you have less government sucking up less money.
drunkenkiteJan 9, 2010
I'm not worried considering how SLOW comcast moves.
greevarJan 9, 2010
I cringe every time someone uses the term "free market" because it's just a brainwashing tool that leads people to believe that when left to the simple forces of competition, businesses will regulate themselves or face losing customers. Just because competition exists, it doesn't mean that they won't try to screw you.
Closed AccountJan 9, 2010
ISPs who have a network over the public ways are public utilities that serve a public purpose; their duty is a public duty, and the trust they serve is a public one; they are the very essence of the term 'common carrier'. Network-owning ISPs should have simple rules: you route all data, or you route none. You serve everyone equally, or you serve no one.Can the electric company determine whom it will deign to serve? No. Should it be allowed to? No. Should the water department choose who has the privilege of recieving running water? No. Should an ISP that has a public network over the public ways choose whom it wants to serve or the quality of the service that they receive, for other than bona-fide technical reasons? Apparently, yes, according to this court. Should it be allowed to? No. A simple legislative enactment will solve this problem by giving the FCC the statutory authority to regulate network-owning ISPs.You treat all data equally, or you don't get the privilege from the public of using the public ways to lay wires to carry that data. Build your own streets, and put your telephone poles on your own streets, then you can have a walled garden to your liking.Otherwise, when you build a network on public property, don't complain when the public wants you to treat all traffic that passes over that public network equally.
frozenfurybladeJan 9, 2010
Oboshoe is right. Constitutionally, the FCC has no right to regulate Net Neutrality.
fofe510Jan 10, 2010
Really? You guys couldn't tell that rebrad was being sarcastic? Really?
milflyboyFeb 11, 2010
it doesn't mean they'll survive as a business either, genius. Our goal shouldn't be to keep them from trying. It should be to keep them from succeeding! Without any customers left they can TRY all they want.I cringe every time someone describes what we have as a free market. I cringe even more when they acknowledge that it's only partly free, yet still automatically attribute its "faults" to the degree to which it IS free instead of the degree to which it ISN'T.