Gee whiz, why would any network have an issue with this ? After all just about everyone continues to buys Cisco gear. Gear from a router company that decided to compete against it's own customer base. Cisco did when it invested heavily and took stock in one of it's customers, Cogent. Cogent the largest network responsible (for the most part) of lowering the overall bandwidth prices, because it could now afford too. Networks today continue to feed Cisco money (buying their gear) despite the anti-competitive nature of that deal which kindled all this. Still to this day, Cisco fuels Cogent's (anti-competitive) low bandwidth pricing. By handing Cisco dollars, from that day forward, we voted for fewer ISPs & Backbones in the future. Suck in your gut, because, it's to late to cry about it now. This concern is over a decade late. That's how we got to this point. "Cause and Effect - and the Blinders we put on". How can that be fixed ? More government regulations ? Bob Evans CTO
Anyone afraid what will happen when companies which have monopolies can charge content providers or guarantee packet loss?
In a normal "free market", if two companies with a mutual consumer have a tiff, the consumer decides which to support. Where I live, I have one broadband provider. If they get upset with, say, a streaming provider, I cannot choose another BB company because I like the streaming company. I MUST pick another streaming company, as that is the only thing I can "choose".
How is this good for the consumer? How is this good for the market?
-- TTFN, patrick
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/04/23/the-fcc-is-planni...
Composed on a virtual keyboard, please forgive typos.