<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:go='http://ns.gigaom.com/'
xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: FCC&#039;s Net Neutrality Push to Boldly Go Where Congress Has Failed Thrice Before</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:10:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Flame On: FCC Launches Its Net Neutrality Web Site</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224435</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Flame On: FCC Launches Its Net Neutrality Web Site]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:29:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] in the game (or an opinion) can comment on the plans to codify six principles that would ensure ISPs can&#8217;t block or favor certain types of traffic on wired or wireless networks. As it considers how to implement these so-called net neutrality rules (it will launch the formal [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in the game (or an opinion) can comment on the plans to codify six principles that would ensure ISPs can&#8217;t block or favor certain types of traffic on wired or wireless networks. As it considers how to implement these so-called net neutrality rules (it will launch the formal [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224434</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:28:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224434</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My main point is that consumer choice is not a reality when it comes to broandband internet access, and that claiming that consumer choice is a valid balance for carriers manipulating the network is simply not true.

However, network neutrality rules could be a balance for the lack of choice consumers currently have. I can easily foresee all carriers in a market giving and enforcing  preference to their &#039;monetized content&#039; partners.

How exactly does allowing a carrier to regulate content (which is what &#039;network preferencing&#039; boils down to) do anything but harm competition among content providers?

If BigContentCo can buy enough network preference, how does SmallStartupLLC compete?  The only competition is in the bidding war for each carriers network preference level. Great for the carriers, not good for new content providers, not good for the end-users (aka consumers).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My main point is that consumer choice is not a reality when it comes to broandband internet access, and that claiming that consumer choice is a valid balance for carriers manipulating the network is simply not true.</p>
<p>However, network neutrality rules could be a balance for the lack of choice consumers currently have. I can easily foresee all carriers in a market giving and enforcing  preference to their &#8216;monetized content&#8217; partners.</p>
<p>How exactly does allowing a carrier to regulate content (which is what &#8216;network preferencing&#8217; boils down to) do anything but harm competition among content providers?</p>
<p>If BigContentCo can buy enough network preference, how does SmallStartupLLC compete?  The only competition is in the bidding war for each carriers network preference level. Great for the carriers, not good for new content providers, not good for the end-users (aka consumers).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brock</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224433</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brock]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:57:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is an important issue and it&#039;s good to see that the new Chairman has moved to put Net Neutrality on the front burner of communications policy. His vision of an open Internet that preserves the &quot;freedom to innovate without permission&quot; is one that our organization, the Center for Democracy &amp; Technology, shares; it&#039;s an idea we believe all Internet users and innovators should vigorously support.  The move today to expand the FCC&#039;s Internet principles to include the issues of nondiscrimination and transparency are two areas that the agency&#039;s original principles have overlooked for too long.

Ideally, today&#039;s news would prompt Congress to take up the matter too.  For a long time we&#039;ve said that FCC activity on Internet neutrality would benefit from clear congressional guidance, authorization, and limits, so that the FCC&#039;s task and regulatory authority are not open-ended.  You can read more about our thoughts on this by looking the more inclusive comments we submitted to the FCC on its overall Broadband Plan.  http://www.cdt.org/speech/20090608_broadband_comments.pdf]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an important issue and it&#8217;s good to see that the new Chairman has moved to put Net Neutrality on the front burner of communications policy. His vision of an open Internet that preserves the &#8220;freedom to innovate without permission&#8221; is one that our organization, the Center for Democracy &amp; Technology, shares; it&#8217;s an idea we believe all Internet users and innovators should vigorously support.  The move today to expand the FCC&#8217;s Internet principles to include the issues of nondiscrimination and transparency are two areas that the agency&#8217;s original principles have overlooked for too long.</p>
<p>Ideally, today&#8217;s news would prompt Congress to take up the matter too.  For a long time we&#8217;ve said that FCC activity on Internet neutrality would benefit from clear congressional guidance, authorization, and limits, so that the FCC&#8217;s task and regulatory authority are not open-ended.  You can read more about our thoughts on this by looking the more inclusive comments we submitted to the FCC on its overall Broadband Plan.  <a href="http://www.cdt.org/speech/20090608_broadband_comments.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.cdt.org/speech/20090608_broadband_comments.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: What to Expect From the New Net Neutrality Rules</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224432</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[What to Expect From the New Net Neutrality Rules]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:10:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224432</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] the announcement of two new broad policy statements, and the effort to apply all of the broadband policy statements to wired and wireless networks, the FCC hopes to do three things: create a bullet-proof set of rules [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the announcement of two new broad policy statements, and the effort to apply all of the broadband policy statements to wired and wireless networks, the FCC hopes to do three things: create a bullet-proof set of rules [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224431</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224431</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Paul - So what&#039;s your argument?  More competition?  Is that the point of government&#039;s net neutrality legislation?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul &#8211; So what&#8217;s your argument?  More competition?  Is that the point of government&#8217;s net neutrality legislation?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224430</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:22:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Horse-Puckey!

If I plan in advance which city to live in, I can actually have a choice between 3 carriers;
Cable, DSL, and Fiber.

It doesn&#039;t really matter what the branding is, those are my three carriers. In some cases, even those three are really only two; AT&amp;T fiber vs AT&amp;T DSL is still only one carrier.

Better yet, ask this question:
If I subscribe to &#039;BetterDSL Inc&#039;, and they are using &#039;BigPhoneCo&#039; copper, does my BetterDSL access still get &#039;managed&#039; by BigPhoneCo&#039;s &#039;All your video are belong to us&#039; network?

Every time I hear the argument that a customer could simply switch carriers, I assume the argument comes from one of two places: Anti-network nuetrality, or the Twilight Zone(c).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Horse-Puckey!</p>
<p>If I plan in advance which city to live in, I can actually have a choice between 3 carriers;<br />
Cable, DSL, and Fiber.</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t really matter what the branding is, those are my three carriers. In some cases, even those three are really only two; AT&amp;T fiber vs AT&amp;T DSL is still only one carrier.</p>
<p>Better yet, ask this question:<br />
If I subscribe to &#8216;BetterDSL Inc&#8217;, and they are using &#8216;BigPhoneCo&#8217; copper, does my BetterDSL access still get &#8216;managed&#8217; by BigPhoneCo&#8217;s &#8216;All your video are belong to us&#8217; network?</p>
<p>Every time I hear the argument that a customer could simply switch carriers, I assume the argument comes from one of two places: Anti-network nuetrality, or the Twilight Zone(c).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FCC Outlines Its Net Neutrality Proposal</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224429</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[FCC Outlines Its Net Neutrality Proposal]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:03:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224429</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] against traffic traversing their networks based on the type of traffic or the application. We speculated on Friday that he would outline formal net neutrality principles today to augment the informal ones adopted back in 2005. The agency also unveiled a web site [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] against traffic traversing their networks based on the type of traffic or the application. We speculated on Friday that he would outline formal net neutrality principles today to augment the informal ones adopted back in 2005. The agency also unveiled a web site [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224428</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:17:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is a solution in search of a problem.  If carriers offer a substandard internet experience, users can switch to a different service.  If customers are complaining about their service, or feel they are somehow getting shafted, that&#039;s one thing...but churning through legislative cycles in case something might happen?  Seems like a waste of time and energy when competition can address it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a solution in search of a problem.  If carriers offer a substandard internet experience, users can switch to a different service.  If customers are complaining about their service, or feel they are somehow getting shafted, that&#8217;s one thing&#8230;but churning through legislative cycles in case something might happen?  Seems like a waste of time and energy when competition can address it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Net Neutrality: día de materializar las promesas : Blogografia</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224427</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Net Neutrality: día de materializar las promesas : Blogografia]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:00:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224427</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] denunciar a la FCC por no contar con el soporte legislativo para ejercer tal control. Se espera que el lunes se anuncien las medidas que darán el necesario empujón a dicho soporte legislativo, y que estas no solo sean claras e inequívocas, sino que se extiendan además de manera expresa a [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] denunciar a la FCC por no contar con el soporte legislativo para ejercer tal control. Se espera que el lunes se anuncien las medidas que darán el necesario empujón a dicho soporte legislativo, y que estas no solo sean claras e inequívocas, sino que se extiendan además de manera expresa a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Net Neutrality: día de materializar las promesas &#187; El Blog de Enrique Dans</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224426</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Net Neutrality: día de materializar las promesas &#187; El Blog de Enrique Dans]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224426</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] denunciar a la FCC por no contar con el soporte legislativo para ejercer tal control. Se espera que el lunes se anuncien las medidas que darán el necesario empujón a dicho soporte legislativo, y que estas no solo sean claras e inequívocas, sino que se extiendan además de manera expresa a [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] denunciar a la FCC por no contar con el soporte legislativo para ejercer tal control. Se espera que el lunes se anuncien las medidas que darán el necesario empujón a dicho soporte legislativo, y que estas no solo sean claras e inequívocas, sino que se extiendan además de manera expresa a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Antony</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224425</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Antony]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224425</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I got one...

ISP moguls Neutrality]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I got one&#8230;</p>
<p>ISP moguls Neutrality</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Will this make ESPN 360a available to all?</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224424</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Will this make ESPN 360a available to all?]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:29:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...]    FCC&#8217;s Net Neutrality Push to Boldly Go Where Congress Has Failed Thrice Before If the FCC gets their way with Net Neutrality, will everyone get [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]    FCC&#8217;s Net Neutrality Push to Boldly Go Where Congress Has Failed Thrice Before If the FCC gets their way with Net Neutrality, will everyone get [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kevin Walsh</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224423</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kevin Walsh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:51:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224423</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Congress succeeds in pushing this through, I have a list of follow-up business models that would benefit from neutrality:

Search Neutrality. Currently, if you pay Google more your ad appears higher on the list of search results. This is unfair and discriminates against the little guy.

Coffee Neutrality. With Starbucks on every street corner, the playing field for caffeine pushers is hardly level. We can fix this.

Airplane Seat Neutrality. It defies the basic rules of fairness that people paying more should get bigger seats near the front of the plane. Let’s put a stop to this practice.

Baseball Neutrality. Why should the Yankees get all the good ball players? Let’s put a stop to team payroll practices that only serve to keep the Cubs from winning a world series.

I’m sure the readers can come up with more…]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If Congress succeeds in pushing this through, I have a list of follow-up business models that would benefit from neutrality:</p>
<p>Search Neutrality. Currently, if you pay Google more your ad appears higher on the list of search results. This is unfair and discriminates against the little guy.</p>
<p>Coffee Neutrality. With Starbucks on every street corner, the playing field for caffeine pushers is hardly level. We can fix this.</p>
<p>Airplane Seat Neutrality. It defies the basic rules of fairness that people paying more should get bigger seats near the front of the plane. Let’s put a stop to this practice.</p>
<p>Baseball Neutrality. Why should the Yankees get all the good ball players? Let’s put a stop to team payroll practices that only serve to keep the Cubs from winning a world series.</p>
<p>I’m sure the readers can come up with more…</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sam</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224422</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:17:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think the government should not interfere with the neutrality of those networks. They will only complicate matters when such matters can be handled by these networks as their handlers see fit.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the government should not interfere with the neutrality of those networks. They will only complicate matters when such matters can be handled by these networks as their handlers see fit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay</title>
		<link>http://gigaom.com/2009/09/18/fccs-net-neutrality-push-to-boldly-go-where-congress-has-failed-thrice-before/#comment-224421</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jay]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:20:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gigaom.com/?p=70343#comment-224421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This may sound like a simplistic question, but does this really mean that all packets would be treated equally? That the carriers would not be able to prioritize video/VoIP traffic over email? Or is it just to protect network traffic from a source other than the operator (e.g. BitTorrent over AT&amp;T&#039;s network)?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This may sound like a simplistic question, but does this really mean that all packets would be treated equally? That the carriers would not be able to prioritize video/VoIP traffic over email? Or is it just to protect network traffic from a source other than the operator (e.g. BitTorrent over AT&amp;T&#8217;s network)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

