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

Thu Apr 24 14:59:52 UTC 2014

I think you and I disagree on the definition of "anti-competitive".

But that's fine. There is more than one problem to solve. I just figured the FCC thing was timely and operational.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

On Apr 24, 2014, at 10:53 , Bob Evans <bob at FiberInternetCenter.com> wrote:

>  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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 535 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20140424/d0c6f2fa/attachment.sig>