• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« IOLTA Accounts May Lose FDIC Protection | Main | D.C. Judge Gives OK to $3.4B Cobell Settlement »

December 21, 2010


James J

Did I miss something? Both ends of the pipe, the consumer and the content provider both pay for bandwidth. We have the slowest and most expensive internet access amongst the major industrialized nations.

The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this ia a power grab that will enable censorship on the grandest scale imaginable. If all these rules that the providers want were in place, whats to prevent them from reducing the speed of Wikileaks traffic to dial-up speeds or make MSNBC unwatchable while Fox runs at full speed.

But the realist understands that this is just the greed of corporations. I already pay $176 a month for cable and internet access, 99% of which I dont want or need.

Save me from yet another home shopping network. Im sure they will never have their bandwidth reduced.

David Crow

I don't think government-sanctioned monopoly phone companies or cable companies should be allowed to leverage their power and position as monopolies in disputes in general and the internet in particular.

An example is Comcast's dispute with Level 3 Communications where Comcast is indeed trying to leverage its monopoly status in its dispute with Level 3.

Monopolies must be closely monitored by the appropriate government entities to prevent monopoly abuse.

David Crow

Larry Smith

James, I must be missing something.I'm positive service providers are already charging premium prices for faster speeds.

I think the issue is the advent of services like Netflix streaming video, 100,000 videos, downstream across a network designed for transactions and bursty data. Additional facilities (bandwidth)is inevitable. Follow the money. Who do you think is going to pay for those new facilities. Do you think the telephone and/or cable companies are going to volunteer to quadruple their facilities to support competitive video streaming services? All they have to do is stop building out to demand and the deck of cards comes tumbling down. IF I'm missing something here let me know.

Willie d'Whisk

The FCC needs to step up and stop letting monopoly powers run the show. There is not reason to allow private companies to place toll booths up on what is a public road.

Privatization and market based solutions at every turn are a lie. Roads and bridges do not work better when private companies collect rent on them.

These resources-- the copper and such have been paid off by THE PUBLIC for decades!

Netflix should not have to go bankrupt because cable companies can't offer compelling product/services.

I hate my slow cable remote-- and the price just goes one way, right?


Exactly what type of rules are the FCC trying to put into place. I had heard on a talk show earlier today that they wanted to regulate the speeds of Internet users, allowing providers to charge premium services for different speeds of Internet use.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad