How does the Comcast Decision Effect the 'Net

I’m suprised no one has posted this here yet.

Yesterday, a federal appeals court struck down the FCC’s authority to mandate a “neutral” internet. Discuss.

…some conservative Republicans philosophically oppose giving the agency more power, on the grounds that Internet providers should be able to decide what services they offer and at what price.

Sounds kind of like China… except it’s the companies with the power to limit access and the government - as of right now - can’t do anything about it.

We’ll have to wait and see if providers take advantage of their power to limit certain types of traffic and whether that added cost will be put on the content provider or the end user. IMO it makes sense if they give priority based on applications on the users end (make BitTorrent slower if they need to, keep web browsing and video where it is, and speed up online gaming - or not - I’m sure all those WOW and X-Box Live addicts have something to say about it lol).

This is kind of the opposite side of the data cap tests by Turner Cable and [URL=“http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2329170,00.asp”]Comcast.

I think that if they do try the “fast lane/slow lane” stuff like they mention in the article (discrimination against competitors sites) there will be a huge outlash from both the public and the affected providers; it would be simpler and more practical to increase broadband costs across the board or go back to a stricter method of charging by the amount of data transferred (though nobody likes paying more for something they already have).

I agree we should go with charging per amount of bandwidth used, it seems rather unfair that some people who use lower levels of bandwidth should have their connections cramped because they suddenly feel the need to visit YouTube. In the UK people who use tonnes of bandwidth by the truckload tend to get their traffic shaped to lower the bandwidth available or there’s solid caps involved (such as a fixed amount per month), the problem with the USA is they have spent so long saying everyone gets unlimited traffic, they think manipulating the stream is a better option than telling their customers they have fixed limits (to which backlashes would occur). I’ll say one thing though… if my ISP started traffic shaping or going against net neutrality, I would campaign everyone I know using it to move to a different provider (and I can see this as a likely occurrence everywhere). The ISP’s should mandate restrictions on the amount of traffic they can handle rather than going behind the end users back and using communist China’s philosophy of “freeze now, ask questions later”. :slight_smile:

Which, IMHO, is very deceptive. Wouldn’t it be considered a bait-and-switch?

If one ISP does something that people don’t like then they can all switch to a different ISP. If several ISPs do the same then that is collusion which is probably illegal in most free market countries.

In some areas outside the big cities and major suburbs, there’s only one ISP available, so there’s not much of a choice.

Seriously?

So if many companies do the same thing it is collusion and probably illegal?

So if many banks charge you service fees that is collusion and probably illegal or if many real estate firms charge you to take photos of your home that is collusion and probably illegal?

collude - conspire: act in unison or agreement and in secret towards a deceitful or illegal purpose;

The mere act of multiple companies doing something does not make something collusion, by any stretch of even the most paranoid mind.

So why is the Australian Government constantly considering taking the petrol companies to court due to their always changing the price at the pump to the same value at the same time regardless of how much fuel the individual stations have and how much they paid for it

Oh I forgot - they are a Government so by definition they are super paranoid. They definitely shouldn’t be allowed to consider the interest of the general community over that of big business.