Slashdot Mirror
Oracle And Cisco Both Support The FCC's Rollback Of Net Neutrality (thehill.com)
An anonymous reader quotes The Hill:
Oracle voiced support on Friday for FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's controversial plan to roll back the agency's net neutrality rules. In a letter addressed to the FCC, the company played up its "perspective as a Silicon Valley technology company," hammering the debate over the rules as a "highly political hyperbolic battle," that is "removed from technical, economic, and consumer reality"... Oracle wrote in their letter [PDF] that they believe Pai's plan to remove broadband providers from the FCC's regulatory jurisdiction "will eliminate unnecessary burdens on, and competitive imbalances for, ISPs [internet service providers] while enhancing the consumer experience and driving investment"... Other companies in support of Pai's plan, like AT&T and Verizon, have made the argument that the rules stifled investment in the telecommunications sector, specifically in broadband infrastructure.
Cisco has also argued that strict net neutrality laws on ISPs "restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs. Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers."
Cisco has also argued that strict net neutrality laws on ISPs "restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service, and deliver new features and services to meet evolving consumer needs. Cisco believes that allowing the development of differentiated broadband products, with different service and content offerings, will enhance the broadband market for consumers."
>Cisco has also argued that strict net neutrality laws on ISPs "restrict their ability to use innovative network management technology, provide appropriate levels of quality of service,
I don't know what "innovative network management technology" is except maybe some expensive Cisco hardware. But, QoS and net neutrality aren't incompatible. T-Mobile uses a variant where they will throttle your bandwidth after 30GB of data but only if the network is in heavy use where you are located. Which seems reasonable, unless they've changed the plan again.
It's fun, watching the scum self organize.
Hint: If you are ever on the same side of an issue as ATT, it's probably time to evaluate your life's choices to see where you went wrong.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Why do I, as an ISP, need to build out my network so that some Silicon Valley company can serve ads to my subscribers when the subscribers don't even want ads?
"Because the customers have already paid for their connection, and that Silicon Valley strawman has already paid for theirs. You're a dumb pipe. Carry the damn packets and stay in your lane."
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Even so, customers do not always realise this. For example: people loved the recent offer from a European telco, where music streamed from Spotify and a few others to mobile phones would not be counted towards the monthly data allowance. Even people using a music service not included in the offer didn't mind too much; they might be disappointed at missing out on a nice deal but nothing would change for the worse for them. That idea got shot down by Net Neutrality rules which pissed a lot of people off: "Thanks to this stupid rule (worse: thanks to "Brussels"), we now have to pay for music streaming again." Which is exactly why the telco made this offer in the first place despite net neutrality rules already in place, I suspect. Riling up the masses.
People seem to be buying the positive message from telcos about rescinding net neutrality rules, and it resonates especially well with the "we hate government intervention" crowd. "No more rules that forbid us from making you a great offer". "Less rules means a fertile ground for innovative business". They don't see or understand the negative aspects. For instance: I don't agree that investing in bandwidth is cheaper; telcos hate net neutrality because it forces them to do exactly that. It is far cheaper to not invest in bandwidth and instead prioritize traffic in such a way that the popular services still come through at a good speed, to the detriment of anything less popular. A few people might grumble but as long as Netflix and Facebook still perform well, the masses won't object. In fact they will probably blame poor performance on the shitty server of whatever service they are trying to access.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
while enhancing the consumer experience
I'm dying to know how consumers benefit when you sell their private information. Please elaborate on this. Are you counting on them all being sadomasochists?