tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post8656803242134414154..comments2024-01-16T05:48:33.523-05:00Comments on Errata Security: No Downloads Barred: Net Neutrality Fight Steps Into the Ring (Again), FCC Proposals Facing a First Amendment TKODavid Maynorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09921229607193067441noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-80671490900355019412009-10-05T11:57:03.204-04:002009-10-05T11:57:03.204-04:00I highlight the dangerous of Net Neutrality regula...I highlight the dangerous of Net Neutrality regulation here.<br />http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/09/hr3458-a-dangerous-experiment-in-internet-regulation/Georgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10128704008699660671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-77015258911680106592009-09-28T02:41:42.531-04:002009-09-28T02:41:42.531-04:00So how does the Net Neutrality proposal deal with ...So how does the Net Neutrality proposal deal with prioritizing VoIP over non-realtime data (perhaps even dropping packets if the bandwidth doesn't allow more)? Strictly speaking, this is not neutral treatment of traffic, but I believe that realtime applications can't work without it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-43305973328183653742009-09-25T10:44:31.541-04:002009-09-25T10:44:31.541-04:00There's actually a great piece in the WSJ argu...There's actually a <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574429030182627044.html" rel="nofollow">great piece in the WSJ </a>arguing that Google isn't exactly an innocent bystander in this whole net neutrality debate which segues into a few things; notably that while Google pretends to be against internet gate keeping, it does some questionable gate keeping of its own:<br /><br />1. Google picks winners and losers online through a search algorithm that no one can see and that constantly changes,<br /><br />2. Google discriminates in favor of corporate partners (through sponsored search results) and their own value-add services (by making YouTube videos, Google Maps results and other products prevalent in its search results), and<br /><br />3. Google discriminates against protected political speech (countless examples here and abroad).<br /><br />So the FCC has an important question to ask: as it considers revamping the rules of the online road, should it look at anticompetitve behavior among dominant Internet firms? The DOJ certainly seems to think so. And if the FCC believes antitrust law is sufficient to protect against misbehaving content/applications providers, is it not sufficient to curb bad behavior from ISPs?Simon Owenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11093539993032782156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37798047.post-32332792938684467412009-09-25T10:16:10.200-04:002009-09-25T10:16:10.200-04:00You make some interesting arguments. At the same t...You make some interesting arguments. At the same time, the FCC proposal seeks to prevent companies like Comcast from being the gatekeepers to the internet. Yeah, Comcase argues bandwidth and if bandwith was really the issue, then this post has plenty of merit. However, the real issue is that Comcast doesn't want (innovative) companies like Youtube or Netflix stealing their customers<-- this is the real issue. Maybe the middle ground is that a company can be given an excemption if they can show bona fide proof that blocking certain traffic is the <i>only</i> way to address a bandwidth problem. Otherwise, unlimited ability to pick and choose content should not be the default.<br /><br />Thoughts?Dondi Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10068308280375051064noreply@blogger.com