Debate at this week's CTIA shindig has apparently been about efficient spectrum use, but is the FCC just bribing the network operators to accept net neutrality without a fight? CTIA, the industry body running the San Diego, California, event, has laid its cards on the table - it reckons that mobile telecommunications needs …
"Qualcomm has been at CTIA telling everyone that net neutrality means lower-end subscribers subsidizing the few who make use of excessive bandwidth, "
Only if they continue with the limited - unlimited crap. Charge a fair price for the bandwidth used and there is no problem.
"not to mention making it impossible for operators to offer priority for, say, VoIP traffic or streaming services."
Priority like now? By banning it?
Crap, I thought this was a poll
You neglected to add the part about where the FCC turns off the neutrality fogger after giving their friends our spectrum in exchange for seven figure jobs (eight if talking dollars) when they leave the FCC.
[x] E. Yes to All of the above
Net Neutrality is a vague term
and therefor hard to stand by in argument, but I do have to say, regardless of what your definition of it is, the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the carriers, and I for one welcome it swinging back towards consumers.
Those who believe that "net neutrality" means that every data packet is treated equally are simply foolish. To claim that streaming video should be given the same priority as FTP is rubbish. "Net neutrality" ought to be about network access, not network behavior. How data is slung from Point A to Point B matters, and all traffic is not created equally. I'm certain that I'm fighting an uphill battle here, but someone has to point out that certain applications depend on consistent data feeds, while others are designed to be interrupted.
Your dictionary seems to be incorrect.
The last time I checked, Bill, this is the definition of "compromise," not "bribe."
Selling _MY_ spectrum to the greedy telcos.
Just about the worst idea the FCC ever had was to SELL spectrum to the highest bidder.
Just like the air we breathe, spectrum belongs to the people. By retaining control, the FCC could force net neutrality and more efficient use.
"The highest bidder" often merely wants to keep spectrum out of the reach of competition.
This attitude upsets me.
The attitude that net neutrality means no prioritization and low-bandwidth users subsidizing high-bandwidth users is just plain wrong. Nothing in the basic tenants of net neutrality says you can't charge by the megabyte, nor does it say you can't pay more for higher priority megabytes. It just says that the carrier can't charge based on the kind of traffic. If I for some silly reason want my http traffic to be high priority, I can pay for it to be high priority. If I don't care about a bad voip connection, I can refuse to pay for higher priority for it. If I want to download huge amounts of... something, I should be willing to pay for the bandwidth, but carriers shouldn't be allowed to care about what exactly it is I'm downloading. That's my business.
My vision of net neutrality is: get rid of flat-rate plans entirely. They just result in a tragedy of the commons scenario. Pay entirely by the byte, with different rates for different priority levels. Let each carrier publish those rates and see what happens. The vast majority of customers win, honest carriers (if there is such a thing) win, and no one stops anyone from developing new and innovative web services and protocols.
When nobles rule, neuvo-feudalism thrives
Welcome to the wacked out world of current U.S. politics where the corruption of both parties by special interests is so advanced that logical category errors (e.g., neutrality swaps for bandwidth) have become the rule and not the exception. They keep pretending that nobody notices or cares.
Phone bandwidth? How about the broadband bandwidth for home and business that they've been promising for 15 years? Here, in the heart of San Diego - hardly a backwater, the supposed "representative" FCC has allowed local monopoies to prevail to the extent that $70/month gets you cable modem speed (but, highly variable) with horrible reliability, $30/month buys DSL at trickle down speed and horrible reliability, satellite (too slow to mention) at hundreds/mo, or, if you want high reliability with DSL, at a mere 1-2 Mb/sec, it costs $300/mo.
No, anytime the FCC gets involved, it's as a servant to, and not as regulator of, the new barons of the communications industry who are, in turn, the subjects of the new lords of the multinational corporations - with all the attendant problems of power run amok. To paraphrase J. Bovard (without endorsing his libertarian bent), American democracy has degenerated into a Republican wolf, a Democratic wolf, and a public sheep voting on what to have for diner.
Whatever OFcrum and FCC plan will not be anymore than what is dictated by those with the most money decide is best. I think there will be a dropping off of the need for spectrum as citizens start to realize that this whole computer in a phone business is nothing more than a child's toy and the habits of young people need to be addressed toward the goal of limiting the need for this.
Just another toy to make us dependent on "big brother" and the utility blocks. Keep your computer at home unless your job requires it.
- Product round-up Coming clean: Ten cordless vacuum cleaners
- Product round-up Too 4K-ing expensive? Five full HD laptops for work and play
- Review We have a winner! Fresh Linux Mint 17.1 – hands down the best
- 'Regin': The 'New Stuxnet' spook-grade SOFTWARE WEAPON described
- Worstall @ the Weekend BIG FAT Lies: Porky Pies about obesity