Cisco, Motorola, and Other Companies Take Aim At Net Neutrality Rules

angry tapir writes "FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced last month that he would seek to develop formal rules prohibiting Internet service providers from selectively blocking or slowing Web content and applications. However, 44 companies — including Cisco Systems, Alcatel-Lucent, Corning, Ericsson, Motorola and Nokia — have sent a letter to the FCC saying new regulations could hinder the development of the Internet. A group of 18 Republican US senators have also sent a letter to Genachowski raising concerns about net neutrality regulations."

Comments

Re:What's the catch?

[yuriks]

I don't understand the position of the equipment makers in this objection

Selling traffic shaping solutions, presumably.

The inventor of the world wide web disagrees

[earthforce_1]

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1036_3-6075472.html

But he isn't a trusted expert on anything, right?

Re:The inventor of the world wide web disagrees

[joocemann]

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1036_3-6075472.html

But he isn't a trusted expert on anything, right?

Max Baucus is going to hold a private hearing to hear all the options available. The list of 3 trusted industry professionals is limited to representatives from: Comcast, SBC, and AT&T. They *are*, as we know, the most successful in the industry, of course only they should be trusted!

Sorry... I'm still P.O'd that 60-70% of Americans consistently poll to want Single Payer, yet it will not even be discussed or considered, thanks to political corruption.

Re:What's the catch?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I suspect that it comes down to margins.

In the (almost entirely hypothetical, at least at the retail level) neutral and highly competitive internet access market, demand for bandwidth is very high, because bandwidth is cheap and useful for almost anything. In the hypothetical non-neutral oligopolistic internet access market, demand for bandwidth is lower, because bandwidth is more expensive, and less useful(since uses contrary to the ISP's interests are throttled or blocked). However, in the first instance, ISP margins are razor thin, and ISPs demand heavily commodified network gear, distinguished largely by price and simple packet passing capacity. Network equipment vendors will have higher demand; but for lower margin products. In the second instance, ISP margins are substantially higher, and sophistication of network gear(along with continuous upgrades for playing cat-and-mouse with blocked applications) becomes a major competitive edge, which keeps bottom-feeding commodity gear away.

The first scenario means greater bulk of network hardware sales; but mostly bottom-feeding commodity packet passers to ISPs who are pinching their pennies until they bleed. The second scenario means selling less bulk switching capacity; but a lot more "integrated strategic traffic management solutions" and whatnot, to ISPs with real money.

Re:According to Slashdot

[APL bigot]

Wow! Take a deep breath. The OP was using sarcasm to make his point. Although I can understand your reaction, because of the flood of corporate BS, err... doublespeak, we have been subjected to for years.
Your points are valid, and we're not all dupes of the corporations and their bribed congress critters.

Perhaps it's time to press for a Bill of Responsibilities to accompany the Bill of Rights. Things like:
When the pursuit of profit conflicts with the good of the country, it will be considered treason.

I have other thoughts along this line, but I think this is enough to illustrate what I mean and what we the people need.