The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

Mon Apr 28 03:07:55 UTC 2014

>Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue
with their crappy last mile

If you think prices for residential broadband are bad now if you passed a
law that says all content providers big and small must have settlement free
access to the Internet paid for by residential subscribers what do you
think it would do to the price of broadband?

On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> wrote:

> On 04/27/2014 05:05 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Beyond that, there’s a more subtle argument also going on about whether
>> $EYEBALL_PROVIDER can provide favorable network access to $CONTENT_A and
>> less favorable network access to $CONTENT_B as a method for encouraging
>> subscribers to select $CONTENT_A over $CONTENT_B by affecting the relative
>> performance. This becomes much stickier when you face the reality that in
>> many places, $EYEBALL_PROVIDER has an effective monopoly as the only player
>> choosing to offer services at a useful level of bandwidth/etc. (If that).
>>
>
>
> Isn't this all predicated that our crappy last mile providers continue
> with their crappy last mile
> service that is shameful for a supposed first world country?
>
> Cue up Randy on why this is all such a painful joke.
>
> Mike
>