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

Thu Apr 24 14:53:49 UTC 2014

  Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ?

 After all just about everyone continues to buys Cisco gear. Gear from a
router company that decided to compete against it's own customer base.
Cisco did when it invested heavily and took stock in one of it's
customers, Cogent. Cogent the largest network responsible (for the most
part) of lowering the overall bandwidth prices, because it could now
afford too. Networks today continue to feed Cisco money (buying their
gear) despite the anti-competitive nature of that deal which kindled all
this. Still to this day, Cisco fuels Cogent's (anti-competitive) low
bandwidth pricing. By handing Cisco dollars, from that day forward, we
voted for fewer ISPs & Backbones in the future.

 Suck in your gut, because, it's to late to cry about it now. This concern
is over a decade late. That's how we got to this point. "Cause and Effect
- and the Blinders we put on".

How can that be fixed ? More government regulations ?

Bob Evans
CTO

> Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can
> charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?
>
> In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a
> tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one
> broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I
> cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I
> MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can
> "choose".
>
> How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
>
> --
> TTFN,
> patrick
>
> http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planning-new-net-neutrality-rules-and-they-could-enshrine-pay-for-play/
>
>
> Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.
>
>
>