Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 5:29am

   
   

   I don't see the problem with broad directives, that act like a compass, more or less like the first amendment, that it is broad and serve to direct decisions.
   
   What I do have a problem is when government start to legislate specifics. That would be bad.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   fogbugzd, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 6:29am

   
   

   Government regulation

   >>What I do have a problem is when government start to legislate specifics. That would be bad.

   
   

   
   In a free market system I would agree. However, the broadband market in the US is much more of an oligopoly and even a full monopoly in many areas. More government regulation is required the further you move from a free market system, which is one of many reasons that oligopoly and monopolies are bad.

   
   

   If we had real competition in the broadband market we would not even be discussing net neutrality.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   Ian L, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 8:27am

   
   

   A Tale of Two Networks

   WHen you're using a pre-WiMAX network with low capacity, you have to manage traffic. With an actual WiMAX network with TONS of spectrum, that's not the case.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Todd G, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 11:06am

   
   

   WiMAX is open

   WiMAX in general is designed to be open in the first place; but Clear isn't completely telling the truth here. They block many ports on their WiMAX network including inbound port 80 and 25 (maybe outbound as well).

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Chris, Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 3:06pm

   
   

   Blocking ports

   Some port blocking makes good sense. Port 25 is one of those "security" issues as would most inbound traffic.
   
   The FCC said appropriate network management is allowed but it should be open and documented and most importantly defensible.
   
   No one is selling server services. You get dynamic IP addresses...you should not expect to have server services running. There is no reason to have port 25 open as it is an insecure protocol used primarily by end users to send spam after their computers have been pwned.
   
   SMTP can run encrypted on other ports.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Derek Kerton (profile), Sep 23rd, 2009 @ 11:50pm

   
   

   Re: A Tale of Two Networks

   ...And when you have that 4G OFDM network advantage, but your much bigger (VZW, ATT) competition needs to cram all their data through a 3G pipe that is bursting at the joints...well, then you'd be even more in favor of net neutrality. It plays into your competitive advantage.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   Paul Kapustka, Sep 28th, 2009 @ 11:35pm

   
   

   Old vs. new Clearwire

   Since I was the one who wrote those stories you linked to, perhaps nobody better than me to point out that Clearwire is a much different company now -- mainly one with boatloads more spectrum and more financial heft thanks to the merger with Sprint's WiMAX assets and the backing of Google, Comcast, etc. Google especially is an important partner when it comes to net neutrality -- no doubt Goog's $500 million came with some pointed observations that it wouldn't do to have Google invest in a service provider who still thought blocking VoIP was a good idea. If you're looking for when Clearwire turned its net neutrality ship around, that would have been the when.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Dave McMullen, Jan 31st, 2010 @ 6:12pm

   
   

   "Government legislating specifics"

   With Clearwater accepting "Stimulus" money (tax money from us) they give up the ability to run their own company. Remember GM? CEO was fired.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment