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."
Oracle and Cisco want to sell hardware and services to the ISP's to manage their traffic prioritization
Yeah... whoever wins, we lose.
#DeleteFacebook
I own Sisco stock. Bad investment.
It's finally getting to where I can sell it for a gain equal to my savings account.
I only own a little. It was part of my learning experience in the land of investing.
At least I won't lose money on it, after 15 years.
Sisco is crap.
Oracle is trying to preserve a day gone by. Rather than doing something new, they're sticking to the old business model
Sell your Oracle stock NOW!
>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 without the ads, lots of the websites which are the reasons why people pay an ISP won't exist. Once there isn't enough content for people to want to use the internet anymore, they'll stop requiring your service as an ISP.
Let us, the engineers, technologists, and supporters of the Internet remember this, and use this knowledge when choosing network and database vendors.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
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?
To put it another way:
End-users pay for their access. They should have the right to control what goes in and out of their personal connection.
ISPs are paid to transfer data, and should no right to decide how that data is moved, other than dealing with technical realities of limited bandwidth (e.g. QoS).
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?
I don't know if you're a shill or simply uninformed, but you seem to be repeating the erroneous line that network neutrality prevents QoS. It is completely acceptable under network neutrality, for example, to put SIP traffic in queues with shorter or more deterministic latency. It's even permitted to charge the customer more for doing this. What is not permitted is only putting SIP traffic to the ISP's own VoIP service in a low-latency queue and putting everyone else's SIP traffic in a normal queue. It is not permitted to charge Microsoft money to prioritise Skype traffic, at the expense of other VoIP traffic. It is not permitted to penalise Netflix traffic unless Netflix pays extra to reach your customers. Which one of these do you think would be in the consumers' interest?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Because it's cheap, extremely profitable, and you ARE in the bandwidth business. If you don't want to be in the bandwidth business become a content provider. Oh wait, you are a content provider and no one wants it in the format you deliver it except for people over 70. Yeah, I am looking at you bundled cable TV with the super slow, super inefficient, space heater, cable box that changes channels slower than midgets running the 100-yard dash.
It's like asking, why would the electric company want to build out their network so we can all plug in electric cars?
It's because that is your business. You sell kilowatt hours.
If you don't want to be an INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER, notice that last word PROVIDER, then get out and go back to selling your (sic) innovative content cable TV and VOIP service.
Cable, you had your shot, you blew it. Now you're just a dumb pipe. Innovate or die, but don't stand in the way of others innovating just because your network is conveniently bigger and you have lobbied for states to pass laws to keep your monopoly going. Ala, the no municipal broadband laws and taking federal FCC grants to build out your network for FREE, then trying to upcharge.
Nothing stifles innovation like laws, supported by Verizon/Comcast/Time Warner/ATT etc., preventing communities from building their OWN infrastructure for what should be a public utility. But, yes, it does stifle their profits, which they want to equate with innovation. Its not. Communities building a telecom network operated for the common good.. new there's innovation.
And before that, a contractor to CISCO - trust me, whatever side these companies are on, on any issue, is never the side that you should support. These companies evil incorporated.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Consumers benefit from prioritising traffic based on TYPE. They are HARMED by prioritizing it based on SOURCE. Consumers are doubly harmed when the ISPs can sell higher prioritization to sources that can afford it (since that automatically creates the incentive for ISPs to deprioritize everything else to gridlock levels).
Only the latter is prohibited by net neutrality.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *