Policy like this opens the flood gates for ISPs to prioritize their bandwidth to select content providers. And by "select" I mean, "the ones who pay said ISP an incentive donation." Frankly, I think that kind of business should be illegal - right along with the lobbyists. It's on the new administration's shoulders now.. Where's our net neutrality!?
This is great. Now people who need bandwidth for time-sensitive activities like gaming (clutch) or streaming Netflix aren't completely impeded by neighbors downloading gigs and gigs of Windows 7 or pirated movies. If just adding more bandwidth is prohibitively expensive, this is the best solution. Everybody's worried about the day that Google pays Cox to slow down Yahoo - let's wait until that day arrives to start bitching about it.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Sure, traffic they deem important gets first dibs. Then, website & content providers that pay Cox money get first dibs.
We voted net neutrality into the Whitehouse, now's the time for them to start taking action.
Well said.
Policy like this opens the flood gates for ISPs to prioritize their bandwidth to select content providers. And by "select" I mean, "the ones who pay said ISP an incentive donation." Frankly, I think that kind of business should be illegal - right along with the lobbyists.
It's on the new administration's shoulders now.. Where's our net neutrality!?
This is great. Now people who need bandwidth for time-sensitive activities like gaming (clutch) or streaming Netflix aren't completely impeded by neighbors downloading gigs and gigs of Windows 7 or pirated movies. If just adding more bandwidth is prohibitively expensive, this is the best solution. Everybody's worried about the day that Google pays Cox to slow down Yahoo - let's wait until that day arrives to start bitching about it.