Slashdot Mirror
FCC Commissioner Blasts Verizon On Net Neutrality
destinyland writes "FCC chairman Julius Genachowski says that net neutrality rules 'will happen,' promising the FCC 'will make sure that we get the rules right... to make sure that what we do maximizes innovation and investment across the ecosystem.' But the same week, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps announced that the public should not stand for deals 'that exchange Internet freedom for bloated profits,' mocking the tiered-data plans of the 'Verizon-Google gaggle' and accusing them of wanting 'gated communities for the affluent.' Speaking at a New Mexico hearing, the commissioner warned the audience against proposals that would 'vastly diminish' the Internet's importance, blasting 'special interests and gatekeepers and toll-booth collectors who will short-circuit what this great new technology can do for our country.' (The text of his speech is available as a PDF file at FCC.gov.) He concludes by acknowledging that 'you can't blame companies for seeking to protect their own interests. But you can blame policy-makers if we let them get away with it!'"
unhindered: when you get a packet, move it on when you can.
when you ask for 300GB/sec it won't be in one packet, so you ask for a packet and get a packet back. Over a 100GB/sec pipe, you can't ask for 300GB/sec so no hindrance in effect
Keep going? On what?
Net Neutrality is WHAT YOU HAD ALREADY. These laws, unlike most (because, probably, they don't serve commercial interests but the american people) had a sunset clause and the clause ended recently.
You know, all those companies and innovation and money and increased revenue you had in the 70's to 2000? Under Net Neutrality.
But COMPLAINTS about Net Neutrality? Now THERE'S a money-to-lawyers scheme...
You're being deliberately stupid - at least I hope it's deliberate. Because last time I looked an HTTP get or post was a helluva lot smaller than data stream that can be returned, so it's quite easy for a bunch of users to request more bandwidth than is available.
And of course now you'd have to define "when you can" in unambiguous terms.
Federal regulations over anything are a rat hole that always winds up thousands of pages long. Being trite with your childish "easy peasy" won't do you a damn bit of good in front of any judge.
God, you really ARE stupid, aren't you?
You have absolutely no idea how regulation works, do you? Your seemingly simplistic "as fast as the network allows" has to be DEFINED by a BUREAUCRACY in UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS.
Every single word has to be defined clearly, which leads to the near-infinite recursion that is the common result of government regulation.
And every step of the process has lawyers and lobbyists all over it, exercising their Constitutional right to "petition the government".
And you think* we wind up better off? Don't reply until you're relocated to a planet with a blue sky at least.
* - I use the word "think" guardedly, as there's no evidence yet that you do that
Yes! More big brother intervention and more nanny state is just what this country needs