Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tech101 who wrote (31778)	10/21/2009 4:26:48 AM
From: tech101	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Top tech firms back net-neutrality rules Letter comes as FCC prepares to vote By Cecilia Kang Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, October 20, 2009 A number of Silicon Valley titans and early technologists of the Web on Monday urged the Federal Communications Commission to move forward with new rules to prevent Internet providers from favoring one application over another. The support came as debate over the rules reached a fevered pitch, just days before the FCC is scheduled to vote on whether to begin the rule-making process. A draft of the proposal continues to be tweaked ahead of the vote Thursday, adjusting language to clarify the agency's approach to "reasonable network management," a FCC official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Monday. That section of the proposed rules is being closely watched by telecommunications carriers, particularly wireless network operators, who say they need flexibility to manage traffic to avoid data bottlenecks. The official said the rule-making proposal will include questions intended to draw comments from the public and companies. For instance, commissioners are reworking questions about how carriers will deal with managed services such as telemedicine applications or premium video services over shared broadband facilities, and whether such offerings should fall under new rules. In advance of Thursday's meeting, 24 executives of Internet content and telecom service companies, including Google, XO Communications, Twitter and Facebook, said in a letter that without a strong anti-discrimination policy, companies like theirs may not get a fair shot on the Internet because carriers could decide to block them from ever reaching consumers. More: washingtonpost.com

To: tech101 who wrote (31778)	10/21/2009 9:11:03 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 46821

Government Push to Open Networks? Yeah, right. let them give us the Telecom Act of 1996 again.

To: tech101 who wrote (31778)	10/21/2009 9:26:36 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Good find, tech101. Thanks. About a week ago I received an unusual email from Pandora notifying me that my monthly allotment of time (40 hours of music) was about to expire. Would I kindly opt for all I could listen to for the remainder of the month for only 99 cents. I turned off the station I was listening to, figuring that I'd consume whatever time was left on my account when I really needed that "fix" that I sometimes need to get me through a boring day. I've not returned to it since, although I have in the meantime begun using other sources -- other free sites, even YouTube where it's possible to create play lists, etc. -- and another free site, Wolfgang's Vault, finding reasons to continue using those sites that I'd not fully appreciated or even paid much attention to in the past. Analyzing my own behavior, in retrospect, I don't think it was due to the cost. In fact I can state unequivocally that it most certainly was not due to the cost. It was merely my first knee-jerk reaction, and I've not given any more consideration to the matter since that day. I think it's telling of how instituting the wrong kind of program might affect Internet usage going forward. Heck, it might even force some of us to begin living normal lives in the real world again. As for the proposition of modifying pricing structures itself, as I've stated here in the past, I would not be opposed in principle to peak-shaving those 5% of users who account for 95% of resource drainage. Where I have a problem, however, is with human nature, since I sense that first mile providers would become sloppy greedy and continue to target the top 5% of users on a moving window basis going forward. Thoughts? FAC ------