124 Comments

• Digg
• Bury

With any luck, more regulation in the telecommunications industry will make it work as well as roads, healthcare, schools, banks, airlines, etc., etc., etc. We should be so lucky.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

bluebonics: if you look at my other posts, it simply comes down to economics. The internet is not free. Someone has to pay for it. Bringing 30-100M service to a household is not cheap. Building it cost billions of dollars. Business will not invest in something they do not feel they will get a return on in an adequate enough time to keep their shareholders and board of directors happy. This is a fact of life, if you think it shouldn't be, that is nice but is has and will be as long as money runs the world. It may suck, but you have to live in reality. I have no problem with the concepts of Net Neutrality. And shaping traffic to down for competitors over yours just for the point of providing a worse service has and is being investigated by the SEC. I have worked for telco's and ISPs, and I have designed for lots of the networks out there today, that is why I know what it costs and the fact that it has to be completely revamped every 5-7 years which costs a lot of money. The current net neutrality wishes out there want all traffic on an even playing field. You can't have that and have a stable infrastructure, unless you had endless amounts of bandwidth, which cost a boatload of money. Most networks I have worked on run NxOC192s and are moving to NxOC768s in the backbone and as soon as you put them in they are saturated. There is no way to financially stay ahead of the curve and prevent congestion. In times of congestion certain traffic has to be prioritized. It is unfair and illegal, in my opinion to pick competitors traffics during non-congestion times and degrade their services. If thats how the net neutrality laws were being written I would have no problem with that. The problem is that I have a problem with Net Neutrality, it is the current bills are being written to vaguely and not well thought out. They are a knee jerk reaction to a problem that either doesn't exist for most people today or have happened and has been taken care of already.What will end up happening if the current bills go into law, is that we will either pay alot more money or get crappy service, because that is the reality of the financial end of compliance. And I hate my cable service now, but the honest truth is, at least it works 98% of the time, and congestion and packet loss problems are solved within a reasonable amount of time.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

Just what people in positions like mine like to listen to. Mass people messaging me; clearly 90% are bulls**tting and clueless and no idea how politics works. This is a waste of time.

• Reply

• Digg
• Bury

"For instance, any citizen regardless of income could access the internet without restriction and cross reference what ever they wanted, they could double check wikipedia articles, they could shop where they wanted. But here in the US, a low income house would be directed to Verizon tunes, or Verizonipedia. because Verizon blocked certain sites from their 'tier' whatever the f**k that means."You're speaking in the past tense about a possible future problem. If that were the case, then wouldn't said low income family switch to a service provider who doesn't do that to them? There is competition in most areas as far as providers go, and in cases where there weren't, there soon would be with situations like that. Personally, if I'm in the business, and I see a market where my competitor is lamented, I'm going to move right in and take their unhappy customers.I know that net neutrality sounds good, and that everybody's favorite companies are in favor of it, but follow the logic behind it and you will see that it's restrictive and unnecessary. Additionally, it will only place us behind the curve for innovation as it will cut profit margins and decrease the incentive for building faster networks. If the telco's can charge companies like Google for all of the used bandwidth then they can pass that money (partially, they are in it for the money) on to the consumers in the form of savings on your bill. Right now your monthly bill is paying for Google's bandwidth. Why shouldn't Google have a hand in that?

• Reply