🚀 go-pugleaf

On 8/6/2010 10:00 AM, John Navas wrote:
> The FCC has called off negotiations with major Internet industry players
> to arrive at a compromise for net neutrality. The meetings were an
> attempt to come to an amicable agreement over net neutrality rules and
> dodge political pressure over FCC jurisdiction and authority--but asking
> the fox how to protect the henhouse is generally unwise.
>
> Reports of a secret deal between Verizon and Google for preferential
> treatment of Google traffic  on Verizon's networks may have been a
> catalyst to the breakdown of negotiations. But, whether that is true or
> not, the end of the negotiations is great for the future of the
> Internet. The FCC is supposed to provide guidance and oversight of these
> Internet industry stakeholders--not the other way around.
>
> MORE:
> <http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/202726/end_of_net_neutrality_negotiations_good_news_for_internet.html>

      I don't think we can ever have true net neutrality as long 
as the major ISPs have control over their networks. They have 
deep pockets and elections cost money. So until we get rid of 
private campaign financing and private ownership of ISPs and 
their internet backbones, we're gonna have problems. The only 
real way is for constituents to let their congressional 
representation know how they feel about it.

John

"AT&T: Wireless networks 'different'"

AT&T's vice president of federal regulatory, Joan Marsh, in a posting on
the company's public policy blog argued that the finite and shared
resources that power wireless service and the exploding growth of
wireless traffic place it in a different situation from traditional
wired broadband services. 

MORE:
<http://www.marketwatch.com/story/att-wireless-networks-different-2010-08-14>