GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

NKYKev · 02-04-2006, 11:06 AM

I guess a little more background information is necessary. Last year, the US Supreme Court, in the Brand X case, held that cable broadband companies do not have to share their networks with other companies, as the FCC had classified them as unregulated information services - not content providers. After the decision came down, the FCC then passed regulations that put DSL providers in the same situation. Thus, after a one year transitional period, the ability of ISPs like earthlink and aol to offer broadband dsl service through other companies infrastructure, for example, will be gone, and most ISPs will probably be priced out of the market if they can't find other ways to offer service or make deals with the telephone/cable companies. Here is an article from CNET which explains this in more detail. Thus, because they will no longer have to share their lines with other companies, the cable/dsl companies like Verizon and Comcast will have no impediments towards other price plans, etc., unless the FTC steps in. This is what the lobbying of Congress and the FTC is about - they want explicit laws and rulings permitting it before they do it.

As for the white papers that are being distributed, the main company that is pushing charging more for types of Internet traffic, monitoring data packets, throttling off undesired traffic, etc., is Cisco Systems - the company that provides the routers, etc., that handle most of the traffic on the Internet. They understand that, with the need to provide access to other companies out of the way, the broadband providers can now charge far more for their services, and they want to make more money from it as well. You can read the papers themselves from this site as well as other articles discussing what is going on in this field. Even large companies like Amazonare discussing this threat, yet people here are talking about tin foil hats?

As for cable/dsl companies cutting off undesired traffic, check out some articles about Rogers cable service in Canada. They have cut off access to Usenet because of supposed child pornography concerns, throttled bittorrent traffic, and are raising prices. Think cable companies here in the US won't do much the same as soon as they lobby the Congress and FTC for explicit laws and regs on the matter?

I do have a question to the members of this board. How many of you live in communities that you are sure would not pass local ordinances requiring that access to adult traffic through the cable lines be removed by the cable company in order to provide that town with service - just as one example? A lot of communities only have one cable company and one company that provides local phone service. Even if you live in a place that won't pass such an ordinance - how many customers do you think you might lose if they cut off/throttle traffic? Yes, satellite/wireless providers are a possibility, if they escape regulation, and things always change - but this could still be a very serious hit, in a lot of ways.

02-04-2006, 11:06 AM
NKYKev Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 283	I guess a little more background information is necessary. Last year, the US Supreme Court, in the Brand X case, held that cable broadband companies do not have to share their networks with other companies, as the FCC had classified them as unregulated information services - not content providers. After the decision came down, the FCC then passed regulations that put DSL providers in the same situation. Thus, after a one year transitional period, the ability of ISPs like earthlink and aol to offer broadband dsl service through other companies infrastructure, for example, will be gone, and most ISPs will probably be priced out of the market if they can't find other ways to offer service or make deals with the telephone/cable companies. Here is an article from CNET which explains this in more detail. Thus, because they will no longer have to share their lines with other companies, the cable/dsl companies like Verizon and Comcast will have no impediments towards other price plans, etc., unless the FTC steps in. This is what the lobbying of Congress and the FTC is about - they want explicit laws and rulings permitting it before they do it. As for the white papers that are being distributed, the main company that is pushing charging more for types of Internet traffic, monitoring data packets, throttling off undesired traffic, etc., is Cisco Systems - the company that provides the routers, etc., that handle most of the traffic on the Internet. They understand that, with the need to provide access to other companies out of the way, the broadband providers can now charge far more for their services, and they want to make more money from it as well. You can read the papers themselves from this site as well as other articles discussing what is going on in this field. Even large companies like Amazonare discussing this threat, yet people here are talking about tin foil hats? As for cable/dsl companies cutting off undesired traffic, check out some articles about Rogers cable service in Canada. They have cut off access to Usenet because of supposed child pornography concerns, throttled bittorrent traffic, and are raising prices. Think cable companies here in the US won't do much the same as soon as they lobby the Congress and FTC for explicit laws and regs on the matter? I do have a question to the members of this board. How many of you live in communities that you are sure would not pass local ordinances requiring that access to adult traffic through the cable lines be removed by the cable company in order to provide that town with service - just as one example? A lot of communities only have one cable company and one company that provides local phone service. Even if you live in a place that won't pass such an ordinance - how many customers do you think you might lose if they cut off/throttle traffic? Yes, satellite/wireless providers are a possibility, if they escape regulation, and things always change - but this could still be a very serious hit, in a lot of ways.