> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:37:13 -0600, "NOPE9" said: >> I just presume that any new government powers are bad. >> I don't understand what the act is supposed to accomplish.... > > > The Markey/Pickering bill is designed to set policy and limits as to how > much the internet providers can mess with your traffic. It also appears > that Congressman Markey actually uses the internet. Wikipedia has a > couple of articles about it, look for "network neutrality". > > Cheers, > > Bob I think a large part of the problem is that the FCC has decided that Internet Service Providers are "Information Services" instead of common carrier type "Communications Services." An Information Service is like a publisher who may determine what it wants to publish. A common carrier must carry all traffic indiscriminately. AT&T has suggested they should charge Google since so much of the traffic AT&T carries is Google traffic. Of course, it is AT&T customers who are requesting that traffic, so it appears those are the people who should be charged (Google is paying for their end of the "circuit"). I think the ISPs are trying to avoid tiered pricing where they charge by bits transferred so they can stay price competitive. So, they're looking for money elsewhere. That may include providing better speed on services that pay them (partnerships with content providers). It may also include blocking or slowing down competing services (VoIP or Internet Television). I think ISPs should be common carriers and charge for the bits transferred. As it is now, low usage customers are being overcharged. High usage customers are either being undercharged or disconnected when they pass some undisclosed number of bits per month. Harold -- FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising opportunities available! -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist