news.com.com — The head of the Federal Trade Commission on Monday expressed sharp skepticism toward proposed laws that would levy extensive Net neutrality regulations on broadband providers. Majoras said extensive Net neutrality legislation currently pending in the U.S. Senate is unnecessary because there has been no demonstrated harm to consumers.
Aug 21, 2006 View in Crawl 4
hmtksteveAug 22, 2006
Let's just split the Telcos down the wholesale/retail line.Make it cut and dry:If "Big Telecom Company A" owns the "tubes" then they can only wholesale sell those "tubes" to "Not quite so big Telecom Companies 1-999" so that those companies can do retail re-selling of those "tubes"...That will kill any need for Net Neutrality.The whole purpose of Net Neutrality is to stop "Big Telecom" from offering services over the "tubes" they already own. It's not about throttling and cutting access to websites. It's about the "Big Telecoms" having an "unfair advantage" over start-ups because they already own the infrastructure to deliver their next generation Internet products.
hmtksteveAug 22, 2006
@sbrownBeing able to pay more money has always guaranteed a better class of service. How is that a problem? Do you want to have to pay $2.00 for a glass of water at a restaurant and then look over at the next table and see someone else only paying 10 cents for the same thing?
Closed AccountAug 22, 2006
Hey FTC chief, why don't you come suck my c**k, and when you are done with that, my assh**e needs licked you mother f**ker!
hmtksteveAug 22, 2006
No, No, No!!!It's not about AT&T/Verizon/Comcast wanting Google to pay them for access to their broadband customers. It's about AT&T/Verizon/Comcast wanting to be able to throw up a "higher quality" tier on the Internet so that they can provide "better" and more "reliable" services then you currently get from existing web companies.For example:If you watch a video on Google's video service you are at the whim of the Internet as to how well your packets make it from Google's servers to you. AT&T/Verizon/Comcast want to be able to offer a service where you get your video from the Internet but the packets are gauranteed to arrive in a timely fashion. The problem is that the existing video providors (Google in this example) want to get this "better" system at no additional cost OR ban this "better" system entirely.To make another bad analogy: Your gas station currently sells multiple octane levels of gasoline. Many cars will run on the cheap stuff but high-performance cars need the super high-octane fuel. Net Neutrality is akin to telling the service station they can sell the super gas but they have to sell it at the same price as the economy blend. At the same time you would have an automaker sitting on the sidelines knowing that the high-grade fuel will make their car run better (though it is not needed) and yelling that the gas station HAS to provide the fuel for everyone at no additional charge or not offer it at all. Then you have the high performance car company saying, WTF??? If there is no high-grade fuel no one can use our cars!!! The big snag here is that the same company that owns the gas station also owns the high performance car company that needs the high-grade fuel...This is why we need split the gas station from the high performance car company!Ergo we should split the Telecom infrastructure side from the retail side.
triplehelixAug 22, 2006
this is why we need more networks like this one. built by citizens, free to use, focused on Net Neutrality and free from corporate influence. if these networks catch on, and offer neutrality, the big ISP's will be forced to do the same, regardless of what congress does or doesn't do, or risk losing customers:<a class="user" href="http://digg.com/tech_news/Wind_and_Solar_FREE_WIFI_independent_from_corporate_control">http://digg.com/tech_news/Wind_and_Solar_FREE_WIFI_independent_from_corporate_control</a>
geekeeAug 22, 2006
"That's like saying: "We've always had war, disease, and famine, why mess with it?""Ahh, no it isn't. But that the kind of stupidity I'd expect from a socialist.
bitbytebitAug 22, 2006
@4bitNone of us are, or rather should be, yet. Cable and DSL aren't 'providers' they're types of service. Comcast, AOL, Charter... etc... are providers, though they may provide a type the same type of service.Pull your head out of your ass and get off your highhorse (wow picture that one)I bet he knew that 'DSL and Cable' arn't providers, but thanks for enlightening those of us who didn't ..hmm no one?