Print 41 comment(s) - last by rbuszka.. on May 23 at 11:13 AM

Reclassification, the route preferred by net neutrality backers, to be also examined

In a 3-2 vote along party lines, the trio of Democratic commissioners moved forward to discuss a set of proposed net neutrality rules this Thursday. This setup a public screening period of four months, in which the public sector -- including citizens and corporate interests on all sides of the issue -- can express their concerns to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  Congress will then go ahead in drafting a final rule and voting on whether to adopt it.
I. FCC Narrowly Decides to Advance Discussion of Controversial Net Neutrality Rules Draft
One of the most contentious debates is whether internet connections should be regulated to be "dumb pipes".  Under such rules service providers would not necessarily be banned from metered connections or data caps, but they would be banned from any sort of data discrimination, prioritizing data from some sources over others.  Internet service providers (ISPs), meanwhile, want to be free to charge fees -- both from websites that provide content such as videos, news, and photos, as well as from consumers who access that content.
internet cables
Net neutrality is a crucial challenge face the U.S. internet services market.
[Image Source: VentureBurn]

The ISPs argue this is the definition of a "free market at work".  But critics contend that in many regions there is a monopoly on service.  Furthermore, they point to telecoms efforts to prevent competition at a regional scale by paying off politicians to put legal procedures in place to stymie new development such as independent providers and municipal Wi-Fi.  
Such efforts have been highly effective in preserving regional monopolies in some regions.  Critics also point to seemingly collusive deals between potential competitors like Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ).
The new net neutrality rules are a bit odd in that they permit ISPs to accept money for "reasonable" content promotion partnerships, so long as that deal is between two parties that do not share ownership.  The proposal's author -- lobbyist-turned-FCC Chairman Thomas ("Tom") Wheeler -- claims this is about allowing companies like Google Inc. (GOOG) to pay extra to make their services fast, not about allowing companies like Comcast to act in such a way as to make the speed of those who don't pay slow.

Tom Wheeler at conference
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler listens to comments at a press conference to announce his success at pushing his net neutrality plan to the discussion phase. [Image Source: Getty Images]
However, where things get dangerously ambiguous is when it comes to deciding how slow average connections have to be in order to make things "unfair".  So far the FCC has failed to put forth such a clear set of guidelines.  Further the proposal does not make it clear what to do if an ISP promotes content from providers co-owned by its largest institutional shareholders.
For those reasons the proposal was blasted by net neutrality activists.  The proposal has also been opposed by a number of top internet and software firms, including many of the tech industry's top players in Congressional lobbying.  Google (#3 in lobbying), Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) (#4), Facebook, Inc. (FB) (#5),, Inc. (AMZN) (#11) all oppose the proposal.
II. Commissioner Rosenworcel Surprises With Support
Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn -- a Democrat-appointed commissioner -- was largely expected to side with Mr. Wheeler, in defiance of net neutrality activists and their corporate allies.  But the support of the younger Democratic commissioner, Jessica Rosenworcel, was more of a surprise.

Jessica Rosenworcel
FCC Comissioner Jessica Rosenworcel (D) [Image Source: Politico]

At a Chief Officers of State Library Agencies meeting on May 7, she stated [PDF]:

I have real concerns about FCC Chairman Wheeler’s proposal on network neutrality—which is before the agency right now.  While I recognize the urgency to move ahead and develop rules with dispatch, I think the greater urgency comes in giving the American public opportunity to speak right now, before we head down this road.

I believe that rushing headlong into a rulemaking next week fails to respect the public response to his proposal... Some big things are before the FCC right now. They affect the future of technology— and the future of libraries.

Ostensibly she voted to move the proposal ahead given that at this stage it's just a solicitation of public comment.  It's unclear whether the review process was lengthened at all, as she suggested.
But one clear bone to the plan's critics is that the feedback period will also request comments on the alternative scheme favored by most net neutrality critics -- reclassification.  That proposal would involve reclassifying broadband ISPs and possibly wireless (data) service providers (WSPs) as "common carriers".  
The FCC had initially put ISPs and WSPs in a separate class to try to avoid stifling the growth of such businesses.  But with deployment now ubiquitous, a serious question emerges of why landline telephone firms have to play by one set of rules and regulations, while internet companies face a more ambiguous rule-free state.
Reclassification is a route that judges with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit suggested was the only valid route to legal net neutrality rules.  The court concluded that regulating ISPs and WSPs under their current classification would be illegal and discriminatory, as while the FCC does have Congressional authorization under the The Communications Act of 1934 [PDF] and Telecommunications Act of 1996 (see: 47 U.S.C. § 151) to...

(2) to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by Federal or State regulation; only has the right to do so with common carriers, as the FCC's regulatory powers, by law, appear to be restricted to common carriers.
III. Without Reclassification, Current Rules May be Doomed, no Matter What the Concessions Added
Whether the current proposal could survive depends on whether the divided Democratic coalition in Congress could come behind it and apply political pressure to Commissioner Rosenworcel to pass it.  Alternatively, those who support it among Congressional Democrats could try to reach out to allies on the right and sell them on the proposal's concessions in terms of allowing fast lanes.
In some ways it's surprising that there's not more support from net neutrality critics (e.g. those backed by ISP money), given the level of concessions in the proposed rules.  However, ISPs have largely opined that they would rather see no rules at all, and feel that even the weakened version of the net neutrality was too much.  This sentiment is echoed in the vote of the two Republican commissioners who opposed seeking public comment on the draft.

Tom Wheeler
Despite the small victory of convincing his fellow Democratic commissioners to discuss his plan, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will face a tougher challenge convincing them to accept the controversial scheme. [Image Source: Reuters]

There seems to be solidarity currently in the message of ISPs and their Republican supporters in Congress to Chairman Wheeler -- we told you to kill net neutrality, not maim it.
Either way, it should be interesting how this evolves over the next few months.
With net neutrality already rejected twice by the courts over the classification issue, it seems almost suicidal from a regulatory perspective to float another set of rules without reclassification.  But that's currently Chairman Wheeler's chief proposed course of action.  To defend that approach -- even with the concessions he's tossing to ISPs -- he'll need to act as a serious salesman and beat off angry net neutrality supporters.

Sources: FCC [1], [2; PDF], Reuters

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Jeffk464 on 5/16/2014 4:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
Proof again that we have the best congress money can buy.

RE: plutocracy
By Jeffk464 on 5/16/2014 5:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
The solution is to break the cable companies monopoly on internet access. Much like the phone companies with DSL cable companies should be forced to allow competitors to use the copper to people's houses.

RE: plutocracy
By KCjoker on 5/16/2014 6:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
Who paid to install all those lines to people's houses? If a company wants access they can spend the money and install it.

RE: plutocracy
By BladeVenom on 5/16/2014 6:29:26 PM , Rating: 2
The homeowners through the phone bills. There's an easement on the land; their should also be an easement on the cables.

RE: plutocracy
By Solandri on 5/17/2014 12:47:17 AM , Rating: 3
That's actually the problem right now. The government controls who can lay down cable in the easements, and most local governments have given that right to only one company. Turning the cables themselves into easements won't help if the government is already granting a monopoly on the cables. The government will just do the same and grant a monopoly on who can provide service over those cables.

If there were no easements, this wouldn't be a problem. Anybody could lay down their own cables and provide service, and there would be plenty of competition (though the telephone poles would probably be a mess). The current situation came about due to government regulation. They were entrusted to manage the easements for the public good, but instead they managed it to maximize government revenue by selling off sole access to the highest bidder.

RE: plutocracy
By voronwe on 5/21/2014 11:25:51 AM , Rating: 2
You have some very basic misconceptions about how easements work or what they are. For one thing, most easements are not granted exclusively, as you assert, and you've failed to understand the article.

A monopoly on the cables themselves is the status quo. By reclassifying ISPs (including cable companies) as common carriers, the government is taking away that monopoly status. Naturally, the holders of those monopolies are fighting tooth and nail to keep them.

You assert that there should be no easements, and government regulation is the problem. If there were no easements, where would companies lay cable? Easements are created by statute to provide right of way. Without them, there would be no telecommunications, electricity, water or natural gas delivery.

Monopolies almost always come about due to lack of regulation, not because of it. The only time when monopolies are granted due to regulation is when governments deliberately grant them in order to get a service they desire, and these deliberate monopolies are usually heavily regulated. In this case, the telecoms have managed to subvert the regulatory process, and we now have unregulated monopolies.

Unregulated monopolies are a bad thing.

RE: plutocracy
By Etsp on 5/16/2014 11:34:23 PM , Rating: 2
Not right now they can't. Government says so.

RE: plutocracy
By Alexvrb on 5/16/2014 10:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Now that is a much better idea than net neutrality! Certain areas have opened up the cables for multiple providers, and it has worked out very well. As you pointed out, we've been doing that for years with DSL successfully. The problem is that DSL just doesn't cut it anymore. I have FiOS and it's great - I wish it was more widely available.

Anyway, providers should have to pay a fee to whoever owns the lines, so it's not like they'd be using their lines and equipment for free.

RE: plutocracy
By Ammohunt on 5/19/2014 1:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
I have 12MB/832k ADSL2 and it meets my needs splendidly. The only thing i would change is the upload bandwidth 12Mb/12Mb would be perfect.

RE: plutocracy
By voronwe on 5/21/2014 11:32:16 AM , Rating: 2
We can't open up the cables for multiple providers without reclassifying monopoly ISPs as common carriers.

Even if we do open up the cables for multiple providers, large companies would retain their monopoly status in most markets. Without net neutrality, the companies can destroy their competition by raising prices for them.

Comcast and Time-Warner have the most to gain by abolishing net neutrality, because they own content providers. By raising prices for Netflix, or Amazon, or Google, or Yahoo, or (insert content provider), they can control their competitors' profits.

RE: plutocracy
By retrospooty on 5/16/2014 6:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
Just saw this today. From last week sometime, but it fits. Lewis Black is still awesome.

RE: plutocracy
By Jeffk464 on 5/16/2014 7:31:52 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, thats pretty good

RE: plutocracy
By Reclaimer77 on 5/16/2014 7:12:10 PM , Rating: 1
You read the part where the courts, NOT Congress or some nefarious corporate entity, is what's standing in the way here right?

RE: plutocracy
By voronwe on 5/21/2014 11:38:59 AM , Rating: 2
You read the part where the courts told the FCC that their net neutrality regulations wouldn't work without reclassifying ISPs as common carriers, right?

Telecoms and cable companies don't want to go back to having to give up their monopoly status. By definition, their monopoly status as telecommunications companies makes them common carriers, but they're fighting tooth and nail not to have that status codified by law. Right now, they are essentially unregulated.

RE: plutocracy
By Darksurf on 5/16/2014 11:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
This is CRAP. What happened to the proposal to the FCC over net neutrality from Mozilla?! It didn't require ANY REAL RECLASSIFICATION?! Why is everyone pretending it doesn't exist? So they can have an excuse to kill off net neutrality?!

This is what needs to happen.

Uh, Dems want it dead also
By TheJian on 5/17/2014 3:35:01 AM , Rating: 2
"There seems to be solidarity currently in the message of ISPs and their Republican supporters in Congress to Chairman Wheeler -- we told you to kill net neutrality, not maim it."

Umm, dems took more in bribes than republicans. They're both evil but on this, the dems have MANY getting a LOT of cash, while reps have ONE getting above 30K and their next person getting money is below 6K IIRC. Dems have a bunch between 6K and 35K. Again, republicans have ONE getting over 6K.

Both sides want net neutrality dead. Only the citizens and competition wants it alive.

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By Reclaimer77 on 5/17/2014 8:14:32 AM , Rating: 2

Welcome to Daily Tech, where 'evil' Republicans and "the plutocracy" are out to usher in the apocalypse.

Meanwhile Obama and the Democrats are made of Teflon. Nothing is their fault, they're never responsible for anything.

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By cruisin3style on 5/18/2014 8:13:13 AM , Rating: 1
You realize that by saying most mainstream media is left leaning, which a lot of conservatives seem to think and openly say, you inherently are saying that those media outlets are wrong whereas Fox News for instance is, forgive the wording, right.

Either way, whether how I describe conservatives' views is accurate or not, the current situation in American politics right now is that "we know best" while the other party is either "out of touch with the American people" or is just flat out wrong. A situation you helped to create with your well informed but largely biased posts on sites like this one. I would think you often share your thoughts with people you know in real life as well as on the web.

I've heard people say Congress is hurting America not helping, because one party is trying to pass legislation and the other party is trying to revoke it. It creates uncertainty when the economy doesn't need that kind of crap. I'm not sure how you fix that problem, since each party has its own ideology, but I do know that we can do better. A lot better.

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By retrospooty on 5/19/2014 11:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yup... The old "lob the grenade over the fence" mentality isnt helping anything in the US. Both sides need to stop the "It's all their fault" nonsense. The problems in this country arent the reps or dems, it's the reps and dems.

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2014 12:42:35 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry but if you don't think the vast majority of all media outlets are left leaning, if not outright radical Liberals, you just aren't paying attention.

He would have had a good point if he was willing to admit the reality of the situation.

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By retrospooty on 5/19/2014 2:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
"I'm sorry but if you don't think the vast majority of all media outlets are left leaning, if not outright radical Liberals, you just aren't paying attention."

No, I don't think that. MSNBC, yes. CNN? No, CNN is just a ridiculous joke period. The rest? No, most are pretty fair. Maybe you think that because to you 99% of the USA are "radical liberals". LOL.

Dood, you and I are cool. I like and respect you, and agree with most of what you believe (especially in business/financial/free market conversations) but lets be honest here... To you, Ronald Reagan is an outright radical Liberal. You are so far to the right you cant even have a sensible debate with someone in the middle on the subject of politics. You are alot like either side in congress, "Its all their fault, and zero mine and I simply will not engage in an open and honest debate about how to fix it because it ALL YOUR FAULT" is all I hear when I read what you type.

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2014 3:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
To you, Ronald Reagan is an outright radical Liberal.

/facepalm Okay, troll on buddy.

Notice how nearly every single news, newspaper, and magazine outlet publicly back the Democrat party candidate every single election? But noooooo, there's NO Left-leaning bias in the media. Conspiracy theory!

You are so far to the right you cant even have a sensible debate with someone in the middle on the subject of politics.

I have had LOTS of sensible debates, just..come on.

Whatever I'm not going to legitimize these childish attacks by defending myself. Having beliefs, taking stands, and being informed are NOT crimes and I will not apologize for my convictions. Certainly not to someone who was so "unbiased", he voted for Obama.

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By retrospooty on 5/19/2014 3:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
" Okay, troll on buddy"

Come on now man, Reagan had a string of record deficits of over $250 Billion, and back in the 80's that was alot more money than it is today. In fact, the modern era of "deficit spending" all started under Reagan. Not just a fiscal liberal, but a policy implementing, trendsetting one at that. You know it's true.

"Notice how nearly every single news, newspaper, and magazine outlet publicly back the Democrat party candidate every single election?"

No... Honestly, I don't notice that. AS a matter of fact, most of what I hear on the news is just reporting hte facts... They mostly show an inept congress with each sid e blaming the other, neither getting anything useful done other than feeding their own special interests... Both sides. What in the hell news do you watch that even gives you that impression?

"Whatever I'm not going to legitimize these childish attacks by defending myself. Having beliefs, taking stands, and being informed are NOT crimes and I will not apologize for my convictions."

It wasn't meant as an attack.. just food for thought. The "lobbing the grenade" comment and the "all your fault" comment. Every political debate with you starts and ends with blaming liberals for everything with zero "debate" at all. Like I said, I am in the middle and you get PO'd at me being not right enough constantly. I did vote for Obama in 08 (not 12).... Stupid me and 57% of voters, because he turned out really bad. You were right. I have admitted that a dozen times over to you. One vote doesn't define me, sorry. I am registered independent and will probably stay that way the rest of my life... I was actually a registered libertarian in CA in the early 90's when I turned 18. That probably surprises you, but it's true. Lyndon LaRouche was a bit too nutty for me, so I went indy later on.

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By retrospooty on 5/19/2014 3:50:56 PM , Rating: 2
/Edit LaRouche and the other nutjobs on each side kept me from wanting to go D or R so I went indy later on.

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/2014 4:47:28 PM , Rating: 1
Reagan was handed the WORST economy since the Great Depression, and turned it into the greatest peacetime expansion of the American economy and job growth in our entire history.

You sound just like Mint with this silly Liberal "Reagan started deficit spending" revisionist history nonsense. Just come on with that. It's not factual or fair in it's usage.

But that's not why I called you a troll. Saying I would call a Reagan a Liberal was pure troll bait, just come on.

No... Honestly, I don't notice that.

Most people don't notice Liberal media bias, so I'm not going to slam you for that. But that doesn't mean it's not there.

Here's one example: Why did the recent mass school stabbing get VERY little media coverage? You probably didn't even know about it. When someone brings a gun to school and shoots it up, talking heads speak for WEEKS on end about it. Especially about how guns are at fault, America has a destructive "gun culture" etc etc.

Answer: Because school stabbings don't push the Liberal gun control agenda.

Compare Obama's media coverage to Bush's. I mean come on, you can't tell me that Obama isn't treated with kids gloves in the mainstream press. If Bush took a piss and dribbled a little on the toilet seat, it was a MAJOR controversy.

AS a matter of fact, most of what I hear on the news is just reporting hte facts...

Ahhahaha. Seriously?

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By retrospooty on 5/19/2014 5:00:27 PM , Rating: 1
"But that's not why I called you a troll. Saying I would call a Reagan a Liberal was pure troll bait, just come on."

LOL, I know, but you see my point? To you, everyone even close to the middle and middle/right is a liberal.

"Because school stabbings don't push the Liberal gun control agenda"

See, this is where you lose me... I just dont see that "liberal gun control agenda" moving the news... I am "pro gun". I think the left attacking the 2nd amendment is ridiculously misguided at best, retarded at worst (I know, that doesn't sound too liberal of me does it?). Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and if there were zero guns, people would just find another way to kill. Look at Oklahoma, or the Boston bombings, or the school stabbing. If someone wants to cause harm in a free society, they will likely be able to do some damage before being caught, with or without guns. I just don't see some vast media conspiracy against it. They do sensationalize stories for ratings, which is a different shame on them.

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By voronwe on 5/21/2014 12:03:14 PM , Rating: 2
The Ronald Reagan you revere never existed.

I think you're too young to remember the phrase "voodoo economics". Suffice it to say that the Tea Party would never allow Reagan to be elected today.

RE: Uh, Dems want it dead also
By voronwe on 5/21/2014 11:54:25 AM , Rating: 2

Given that your assertion defies the numbers I've read, which indicate that most donations have gone to Republicans, please cite your source.

By tayb on 5/16/2014 5:43:28 PM , Rating: 5
Stop calling the non-throttled lane the fast lane. There is only a throttled lane and a normal lane. There is no fast lane.

What the ISPs are trying to do is say that sites should pay extra to receive exactly what they receive today, which is normal access. They want to turn the internet into a fucking a la carte cable TV subscription service. Pay extra to get normal access to these websites and the rest are throttled. Pay more for a premium package and get unthrottled access to more sites.

Call it what is is. It is throttling. It's not fast lane slow lane. Normal lane and throttled lane. The fast lane bullshit is propaganda from the ISP scumbags.

By ComputerJuice on 5/16/2014 6:34:18 PM , Rating: 2

What I might be OK with is if the ISP's would have to provide truly improved access.

Example: Currently I pay $135 for comcasts 50mb down 10mb up (gotta love a monopoly). If a content provider paid for this improved access they could offer to charge me an extra fee, paying Comcast for this, and comcast would provide say 70mb down.

Unfortunately all this going to end up being is: I pay comcast $135, Comcast charges the content provider (who intern raises my subscription fee), then Charges me extra not be throttled and adds a cap they can charge me for if I go over while providing no tool to check or verify my usage. Locally Comcast gets subsidies from the government via my taxes. Wonderful... Comcast has figured out how to effectively quintuple dip.

By w8gaming on 5/17/2014 2:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
The ISPs should be compared against the bandwidth providers in other countries. Last I check South Korea has almost no throttling policy in place, and they have one of the highest bandwidth in the world.

By inperfectdarkness on 5/17/2014 5:45:39 AM , Rating: 2
And THAT'S what's so ironic about it. We can't get ala-carte TV programming in our wildest dreams...yet these VERY SAME EXACT COMPANIES are trying to push an ala-carte system onto internet users. OVER MY DEAD BODY.

ISP/cable company speaks with forked tongue.

They want to make the internet an oligarchy.
By audioheaven on 5/17/2014 7:23:08 AM , Rating: 2
The ultra wealthy are again trying to change the rules to give themselves an un-level playing field. They already pay a lower tax rate, they choose their voters, they give themselves get out of jail free cards (think too big to prosecute, not affluenza), and now they want to slow down the free passage of information that doesn't support them.

RE: They want to make the internet an oligarchy.
By purerice on 5/17/2014 4:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
What lower tax rate? What "choosing voters"?

Sometimes people make income that is already taxed. Dividends are post-tax income returned to investors. "Capital gains" tax is a compromise on the double taxation statute. Otherwise, dividends should receive a 0% taxation.

Foreign earned income taxation. If I am an American firm doing business in India, as firms from all over the world do the only other firms to be taxed will be American firms who repatriate money. The US is the only industrialized nation that requires double taxation on foreign-taxed, repatriated income.

Tax loopholes. Funny, many "ultrarich" say, "we should have a flat tax with 0% loopholes. Rich will end up paying a lower top rate, but more tax overall due to the lack of loopholes."

It is the hateful and intolerant 99% crowd that wants to punish the wealthy for being wealthy that refuses to even consider a loophole-free flat tax.

I am probably in Romney's 47% group. I didn't vote for him either. However I aspire to perhaps be in the 1% group as everybody who doesn't have better dreams probably should aspire. The ultra rich need not be a bogeyman. Many of the libraries, schools, and hospitals we depend on were built by the ultra rich. Also the money the ultra rich leave in the bank is the very capital banks lend out to entrepreneurs to start their businesses. Take money away from the ultra rich and you will starve out business creation.

By Murst on 5/19/2014 12:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
Surely you would agree that there are problems with the tax code. Even in your view, where dividends are "post tax income" (something I would disagree with as I think all income should be taxed), does it really make sense for people who are investment managers to pay a 15% tax rate on managing the investments of other people (look up carried interest).

Sure, the majority of loopholes and tax breaks are actually targeted at the middle class, but you are acting like the wealthy are victims, which is just not the case. They have carved out their own loopholes (and yes, in certain situations, lower tax rates).

lobbyist-turned-FCC Chairman
By drlumen on 5/16/2014 4:43:16 PM , Rating: 2
What more need to be said? This is truly depressing. Even if he were a consumer advocate, which is clearly not the case, this is unacceptable in my mind.

By villageidiotintern on 5/16/2014 10:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
Entities doing business as an ISP should be forced, by rule of law, to divest all ownership in content whether by equity sale or spinoff. Period. An ISP is a dumb pipe, notwithstanding all protests by the entities themselves. This is self-evident and should be the law of the land.

By deltaend on 5/17/2014 1:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
There is an easy way to solve the monopoly issues and all of these Net Neutrality issues at the same time. Simply force all cable and phone companies (all telecommunication line companies of all kinds) to not be able to directly provide internet service. If they want to provide internet service down the lines that they have laid in the ground, they will have to lease access to those lines to a different division of their company at the same rates that they would provide access to other resellers. That way, the ISP (reseller) would be able to decide if they want to throttle their clients or not. A client would be able to pick from a variety of resellers and choose one that didn't throttle them. Of course, the reseller still has to pay for bandwidth from Comcast for the traffic sent down the cable line, but this will give end users complete control of what level of service they want to pay for while preventing 1 company from deciding everything for everyone.

The way to get Net Neutrality.
By stm1185 on 5/17/2014 11:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
The internet is just another road we travel on. As the government built train highways it should build out fiber, and not discriminate against the usage of the fiber in much the same way it does not discriminate against the usage of the highways.

It is stupid to expect a company to act against its interest to have net neutrality. So remove them from the equation.

Given Enough Time ...
By bitmover461 on 5/20/2014 1:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
... the Federal Government will screw up Internet access too. There is no reason for any of this. The Internet works well. ISP's make plenty of money. There is no compelling reason to change anything, other than ISP's salivating at a political means to even more money.

Net Neutrality - Not As It Seems
By rbuszka on 5/23/2014 11:13:27 AM , Rating: 2
As Adam Curry mentions on the No Agenda Show podcast together with John C. Dvorak, the only way to enforce true Net Neutrality or packet equality is for someone to know what every single packet contains, and this means that deep packet inspection is required - not just where it came from and where it is going, but what is inside. This is really just another gambit to put measures in place to spy on you even more.

"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki