Feds OK Fee for Priority Web Traffic

Of course they will. It's not like they have delayed and robbed us of fiber.

The agency said providing different levels of service is common, efficient and could satisfy consumers. As an example, it cited that the U.S. Postal Service charges customers different guarantees and speeds for package delivery, ranging from bulk mail to overnight delivery.

This is the kind of BS that allows this to happen. Comparisons that have nothing to do with each other mixed with millions of dollars in lobbying. data packets don't require a jet vs a truck. Data packets don't require extra work force and that is what really justifies the post office charging more because more manpower is needed. This country has so much unused fiber that it is ridiculous to consider limitations when the only REAL limitation is that we have these tiny pipes called DSL and cable that we need to go through and the providers are certainly making their money off that.

However, the agency said it will continue to monitor and enforce any anticompetitive conduct to ensure a competitive broadband marketplace.

BS. Lies.

What content? What users? What a load of crap!!

I happen to know of a new ISP coming out that will be offering DSL service and is being started by people who have made it their mission in life to push fiber, iptv and voip. Actually one of the partners I know very well and his real mission in life is to destroy the telecoms.

I would love to give the name of this company but I don't want to be accused of spam.

You just answered your own question

I assume you mean because Justice Dept. under the Bush administration has become more or less an arm of the Executive rather than an independant branch of government? Yeah, it was more of a rhetorical question.

Funny. I had a bad feeling a while back that THIS is where things would lead. Lets bow our heads and pray. Death to the telecoms!

Here's an idea of what could happen...

When you go to amazon.com to buy a book, it will work wonderfully. Lot's of graphics, page/chapter examples, etc.

When you go to www.mylocalbookstore.com, it'll be slow, they have to cut down on the content to make up for the lack of bandwidth.

When you go to blockbuster to download a movie, no problem. At mylocalvideostore.com, it takes forever.

So where do you go for books and video? What happens to mylocalbookstore/mylocalvideostore?

How 'bout when you're on the net reading news. NYT is great, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. all great. Newsvine... not so great.

Neutrality hasn't hampered any development of or on the Internet yet. Why would it now?

This is a general question, not necessarily for you Kevin, but I wonder what the Internet through put and average bandwidth has been over the last 10 years or so. It seems that there hasn't been much of an increase. I wonder if these fees might encourage 1 giga-bit Internet access from our homes to video stores and the like. I've been waiting for that for years.

ComSen,

The Internet has pushed technology and technology has pushed the Internet. We all started out on dial-up lines because that was the only wire coming into our homes. Cable was a one-way street until the cable cos figured out how to make it otherwise and started offering access. This pushed the tel cos to come up with DSL. It's all about the pipe lines. Granted, you could have gotten "high-speed" 256k frame-relay years ago - if you were willing to pay for the line-drop to your house.

It takes infrastructure to offer 1 giga-bit access and it just ain't there. Fiber will help but it has to get dropped to your house before it does you any good.

The reason Verizon is so busy dropping fiber is because they're getting their butts kicked by cable when it comes to Internet access. DSL sucks in today's world and they have nothing better to offer (i.e. competition works).

When you say that "It seems that there hasn't been much of an increase", 10 years ago you weren't downloading audio, video, complete DVDs, operating system updates, etc. And a single web page was 10-30k, not 100-300k that it is now. I can remember leaving a 30gb download running at the end of the day at work and hoping it would be done by morning. It certainly has gotten better we just keep pushing more through it. You can also factor in the number of users online now as opposed to 10 years ago.

What it comes down to now is that these companies want another source of revenue to pay for their R&D. Granted, it can't be cheep for Verizon to drop fiber all over the country but the alternative is to get out of the market. Fiber not only gives them a leg up in the Internet market but also opens up the TV/entertainment market. If they want it, they need to do it.

Imagine if Google, as a basement start-up, couldn't get equal access like Yahoo had. They would have never taken off.

3) Neutrality hasn't hampered any development of or on the Internet yet. Why would it now?

No, net neutrality has definitely not been in any way a factor in the slow progress of internet in America. The real cause has been the telecoms who many years back were able to raise their prices under the false promises of upgrading networks and moving towards fiber. This was starting back in the 70's I believe and later the claim was that fiber was too expensive to maintain and repair. Fiber is much cheaper to install and maintain then they would have you believe.

Cable TV and Internet (DSL and Cable) are the most overpriced garbage and most likely the current lines have been paid for over and over again by now.

It seems that there hasn't been much of an increase. I wonder if these fees might encourage 1 giga-bit Internet access from our homes to video stores and the like. I've been waiting for that for years.

ComSen, you will get what you have been waiting for soon. Well maybe not the 1 gig, 100mbit is more likely but both would require fiber. There are non-evil companies working towards this. As for the video that is closer then you think. There is a company working on set-top boxes that a friend of mine has been talking with. They have tested 780p over as little as 1 mbit with crisp video quality. Very impressive compression considering 1080p uncompressed requires 20mbit down.

Cable was a one-way street until the cable cos figured out how to make it otherwise and started offering access. This pushed the tel cos to come up with DSL.

Neither cable of dsl were born out of an inability to lay fiber. It was false information that made it seem like such an impossible task to lay fiber to the home but had they begun that from the start more than 90% of homes would have fiber in this country 10 years ago. DSL and Cable would have never been born. What happened instead is that as people started getting broadband the evil telecoms found that they could make more money by prolonging fiber. Once fiber is layed down anyone can offer you internet access. A small company like my buddy has could pump out 100mbit per second to you simply because he has the bandwidth to share. And with all the private peering that he does the cost of providing that bandwidth just gets lower and lower so potentially a tripple play package of internet, iptv and voip could ALL be packaged at $40 per month. Instead of $100 for cable TV, $30+ for voip and $50-$60 for internet. That is robbery!