Net neutrality involves very different things for different people. Congress could write a bill that does all kind of things that mean the complete opposite to what you think NN means...and call it the NN bill.
As far as paying more if we 'use' more by downloading more...right now tv is almost all digital, it comes across as a signal to most homes just as the internet...I believe at least. Why is it I can leave my tv on 24/7 if I want, but if I use my internet 24/7 they turn me off? One thing specifically I think should be made clear by providers when you get access to the internet is a clear line of 'too much'. How much can I download before you charge me more? Before you turn me off? Give me a number. Are you going to implement packet shaping? When? Why? What packets will be affected? On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Steve at Verizon <stevet...@verizon.net>wrote: > b_s-wilk wrote: > >> >> This is screaming for an update of the definition of telecommunications. >> With more people using VOIP and cellular services, of course >> telecommunications include cable services. It needs to be revised in the >> FCC's code. >> > > That was my point exactly, except that I would say it the other way around, > that telecommunications is a subset of broadband. Back when, > telecommunications was the telephone. As an end user, you weren't concerned > with competing with other users (unless you were on a party line<g>) > > I still don't understand all that net neutrality involves. Certainly, I > don't think a network provider should discriminate on the sources of content > i.e. selling the right to MS to give preference to Bing searches over Google > (or vice versa), but I do believe that network providers could charge by > volume of usage, i.e. packets per month. This assumes that broadband is not > a limitless facility and that higher users should pay more. I am a bit > sympathetic (but only a bit) with Comcast who built their broadband networks > to provide THEIR TV programming and then have to provide everybody else's TV > programming as well (Hulu, Netflix, etc), but, as you point out, they are > also now trying to get into every one else's business. > > So I agree, that if there is to be regulation, Congress should come up with > new standards and not let the FCC have to wrestle with it, especially as > folks complain when it has either a liberal or conservative bias. > > > > ************************************************************************* > ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** > ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** > ************************************************************************* > ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
