x
kq4ym 12/11/2017 | 1:12:42 PM
Re: Yeah... It's only natural that most folks would publicy state policies that seem to be politically correct or at least toe the line of the corporate policy, thus companies can generally say object "only the right of government to regulate their business," while playing the line that they want to be fair to the consumers and customers, things will most likely change when rules change in their favor.
Joe Stanganelli 11/30/2017 | 10:47:41 PM
Re: Who's paying? The end-customer is paying regardless.

Without "net neutrality" regulations, the customer is paying one way or the other as operators do whatever they want to squeeze nickels AND potentially paying higher costs to video providers like Netflix -- who would have to cover higher costs potentially being surcharged to them for their high-bandwidth video content.

With Title II or other "net neutrality" regulations, the customer is paying higher costs to subsidize your neighborhood torrenting fiends on top of paying the operators' actual compliance/regulatory costs that are passed directly on to the customer as a matter of course. (Indeed, the FCC is completely funded by these fees instead of by tax dollars.)

I'm at peace with this fact that I'm going to get hosed somehow in some way. I'm way more concerned about privacy issues before the FCC and FTC than I am about net neutrality.
Joe Stanganelli 11/30/2017 | 10:40:29 PM
um Respectfully: Huh?

> In 2017, Comcast's language has softened somewhat with the company stating, "We will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content." Comcast has also promoted tweets that instead of reiterating the bright line rules of the Open Internet Order -- which say no blocking, no throttling and no paid prioritization -- say "We won't block. We won't throttle. We'll be transparent."


It's a big part of my job to be completely distrustful of language. And I just don't see the "parsing" here. I think way to much is being read into this.

Moreover, "paid prioritization" is a term of art that may only be immediately understood by people who follow these issues closely.  "We will not block, throttle, or discriminate against lawful content" is basic and straightforward. It means what it says and says what it means. If I were doing Comcast's marketing, I wouldn't necessarily go out of my way to phrase tweets with "paid prioritization" either because it's essentially legalese.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not sure I necessarily believe what they're saying, but I don't think they're dancing around the topic with creative language. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
DataArch34459 11/30/2017 | 12:51:21 PM
More Hype than Fact How does Comcast get blamed for owning or having control over the whole Internet? The connection could be traversing any number of IXCs or long haul carriers. Not to mention an oversubscribed content supplier's servers. And who is NOT using VPN these days? Then add in business customer SLA's, paid guaranteed bandwidth rate, and maximum burst rate capabilities. And then add in: ATM and MPLS QoS classifications = prioritizing one kind of traffic/connection over others. It's been around. It's still here.

Killing Net Neutrality means ISPs can oversubscribe their networks and then offer a premium upcharge for a higher QoS to anyone that complains.
L.A.Halvorsen 11/30/2017 | 4:53:18 AM
Oh no...! One of the greatest things (in my point of view) has been equal rights, and with this movement these rights are threatened!

I really hope the government stops this!
brooks7 11/29/2017 | 7:55:56 PM
Re: Who's paying?  

So since streaming video doesn't require prioritiziation....example proof is the world we actually live in...., can we stop with the video provider can't deliver service argument?

 

seven

 
Phil_Britt 11/29/2017 | 6:54:34 PM
Re: Yeah... You're right -- Comcast already treats customers with impunity, the new ruling will only heighten this -- like the old Lily Tomlin skit: "We don't care, we don't have to. We're the phone company (change phone company to Comcast)."

 
KBode 11/29/2017 | 5:49:57 PM
Re: Who's paying? "I think up till now we all assumed that it would be content companies paying for prioritization, but with the bandwidth demands for applications that require low latency, such as AR/VR, high-end gaming, etc., I think there's no doubt that some end users would gladly pay to have downstream and upstream content prioritized. Does that count as "paid prioritization," or is that just serving the end customer?"

Net neutrality rules generally carve out large holes for prioritization of all stripes (medical services, etc.) The problem in "anti-competitive paid prioritization" is when deeper pocketed companies (say Comcast's NBC Universal) can afford to pay for priorization or lower latency and better routing than, say a small startup, non-profit, or educational institution.

That creates a market where you can buy yourself an unfair advantage, which is what folks are quite justly concerned with. With very little regulatory oversight and little last-mile competition, there's every indication a company like Comcast plans to take full advantage. 
KBode 11/29/2017 | 5:46:59 PM
Yeah... This Ars additional piece is fairly telling:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-deleted-net-neutrality-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

Anybody that doesn't think Comcast intends to take full anti-competitive advantage of apathetic regulators and limited competition is fooling themselves. Full stop. 
marjsdad 11/29/2017 | 2:19:22 PM
Who's paying? I think up till now we all assumed that it would be content companies paying for prioritization, but with the bandwidth demands for applications that require low latency, such as AR/VR, high-end gaming, etc., I think there's no doubt that some end users would gladly pay to have downstream and upstream content prioritized. Does that count as "paid prioritization," or is that just serving the end customer?
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE