Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the perhaps-things-are-more-complicated-than-they-appear dept.

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."

3 of 239 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Hinder development? Riiiiight.... by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll
    actually, it was the Clinton administrations wet dream that everyone no matter how poor should own their own house that is the root cause of the current situation. it wasn't a lack of regulation, but poorly implemented regulation allowing banks to loan to homeless jobless slobs while giving government backing to these bad loans.

    bush and co lacked the good sense to put an end to this house of cards, and poured petrol on it while playing with matches.

    And now we have hero Obama, plunging the USA into debt never seen before. what happens when china stops bailing you out?

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  2. Re:The inventor of the world wide web disagrees by eclectro · · Score: 0, Troll

    thanks to political corruption.

    And their popular enablers Limbaugh, Fox News et al.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  3. Re:"new regulations could hinder THE DEVELOPMENT.. by Eskarel · · Score: 1, Troll

    Caps work pretty well. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

    I live in Australia now, and I've got a 10 GB monthly cap on a 24mb connection. It costs me about $AU50, I could get substantially more for not much more, though I don't need it so I don't. If I go over my cap I get shaped(down to 256k as I recall), but not charged extra, but I don't generally do that.

    I know this idea sounds scary, but unlike nearly every ISP in the US, I get what I pay for. I get as much as my connection is capable of giving(obviously there's some attenuation with distance from the exchange and latency to US sites and all that).

    It works for me, and it works for the ISP because they get more money if they sell more capacity, and they're up front and neutral about it for the most part(there are occasional deals with certain providers that their traffic doesn't count towards your cap, but it doesn't affect service delivery in any way).

    The current system in the US does not work, and cannot work, because the only way to ISPs to increase revenue is to increase the number of subscribers on their current infrastructure which leads to the problems you currently have. If they increase capacity their subscribers will just use it all up and they won't make any more money. It's hard to give up totally uncapped bandwidth, but simple economics should show you that no for profit company can ever deliver on that promise in the long term. In the old days no one really used much so they could sell things they didn't think you'd use, but everyone uses it now.