FCC

Ok, some of you tech types...What does this mean to any of us?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40768809...h_and_gadgets/

If the government is getting involved, the internet will get worse

For the moment the only really significant piece is that the broadband companies cannot favor themselves or companies that pay them for preferred access. In other words AT&T cannot provide better speed and throughput for their traffic or for a company like Google that is willing to pay them for better speed and throughput.

The rules give companies that provide wireless broadband much more leeway on what they can and cannot do. A few years down the line this is likely to be more of an issue and it will be interesting to see if the rules are strong enough to ensure net-neutrality (see first paragraph)

Who are the winners? losers? At this point we don't really know. Depending on a politicians or interest-groups political bent you will read many different things. Truth is I don't think anyone really knows how it shakes out.

PJ makes an interesting point as well. It is the first time the government has gotten involved in the internet since DARPA relinquished control over it a couple of decades ago. Not sure that is a good thing although my personal opinion is that net neutrality is important.

Hope this helps.

The FCC will be replacing market decisions with political ones. I've never seen that turn out well.

Bottom line, we have another chunk of the economy that will be paying more attention to what Washington wants than what their customer want. Enjoy the recession, this won't help.

Part of the problem is figuring out who is the customer. You and I pay for broadband access, should our providers be able to decide how fast we get downloads from specific sites? Or, the content provider is the customer, should Yahoo be able to pay for faster throughput? And so forth.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, PJ.

There was no issue. Its just another fucking DC power grab.

DG, they are both customers.

DG, they are both customers. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I agree.

So lets now go from there. Should you and I get the same access to any site we want to see or should sites be able to pay so we see some of them faster and thereby tilting things in their favor?

Yeah, companies like AT&T have the money to squash companies like John Doe Internet Provider. I think leveling that playing field may be good. We had a monopoly in Ma Bell at one time. Competition is probably better. Just sayin'.

In a nutshell...it means no NFL video to your cell phone unless your cell phone is on the Verizon network. Does anything else really matter???

Ok...serious answer.... It means broadband providers can't throttle-down connection speeds for content traffic that doesn't pay them to receive priority treatment UNLESS they specifically tell you that's what they are doing. For example, if Comcast has a deal with YouTube and you use Comcast to get on the Internet at home, Comcast can't deliberately slow down your access to EskimoPie UNLESS they notice you. Ok...that's not the GREATEST example but it's the first one that popped into my head...

On a wireless network...different ball game. They can play quality-of-service games (QOS) more readily...

I agree.

So lets now go from there. Should you and I get the same access to any site we want to see or should sites be able to pay so we see some of them faster and thereby tilting things in their favor? Originally Posted by discreetgent

The market should be free to try different pricing arrangements. Without interference from mandarins in Washington.

The market should be free to try different pricing arrangements. Without interference from mandarins in Washington. Originally Posted by pjorourke

That in principle sounds great. But, the way things are currently set up there is fairly limited competition at the top level trunk lines. Basically there are 3 major providers that control the entire US market. They are not all strong in the same areas of the country so some places may have 2 trunk providers, some just 1. There is also fairly limited competition at the level of providing households with connectivity. Basically it boils down to one of the large cable companies or the phone companies.

If you take the approach that a monopoly is acceptable then your statement is completely accurate, but if monopoly IS an issue then this situation tends to it.

Without interference from mandarins in Washington. Originally Posted by pjorourke

So, the Chinese have already taken over DC??

When internet providers tried to charge per gigabyte downloaded there was serious push-back from consumers. Now sites are paying for priority arrangements. It will work or there will be push-back as well. Like PJ said, the free market will work it out. The internet actually works and is a great example of an unregulated sector of our economy that has changed lives and lifestyle; innovated and thrived without government interference. Why mess up a good thing?

That in principle sounds great. But, the way things are currently set up there is fairly limited competition at the top level trunk lines. Basically there are 3 major providers that control the entire US market. They are not all strong in the same areas of the country so some places may have 2 trunk providers, some just 1. There is also fairly limited competition at the level of providing households with connectivity. Basically it boils down to one of the large cable companies or the phone companies.

If you take the approach that a monopoly is acceptable then your statement is completely accurate, but if monopoly IS an issue then this situation tends to it. Originally Posted by discreetgent

DG, I think the FCC (or better Congress) should be eliminating barriers to entry, not creating new hoops for companies to jump through.

Where I live, we used to be stuck with a shitty off-brand phone company (that has been sold/changed names 3 times). Their DSL service sucked (still does). Cable company laid fiber -- much better, but not perfect. We recently got Wimax service (Clear). That will make them better. Sadly, monopolies don't disappear overnight, but with market innovation they can. Governments created the monopolies to begin with. Clean up your old mess before you start a new one.

So, the Chinese have already taken over DC?? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

man·da·rin (mnd-rn)n.1. A member of any of the nine ranks of high public officials in the Chinese Empire.
2. A high government official or bureaucrat.
3. A member of an elite group, especially a person having influence or high status in intellectual or cultural circles.
4. Mandarin The official national standard spoken language of China, which is based on the principal dialect spoken in and around Beijing. Also called Guoyu, Putonghua.
5. A mandarin orange.

adj.1. Of, relating to, or resembling a mandarin.
2. Marked by elaborate and refined language or literary style.

Are you taking lessons from SR Only? I was going for definition #2