<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8217;Net Neutrality&#8217; and Future Growth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com/index.php/2006/02/20/Net-Neutrality-and-Future-Growth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com/index.php/2006/02/20/Net-Neutrality-and-Future-Growth/</link>
	<description>LOCAL MEDIA WATCH. The Nexus of All Things Local</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2015 22:23:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.39</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe Hyde</title>
		<link>http://staging.blog.biakelsey.com/index.php/2006/02/20/Net-Neutrality-and-Future-Growth/comment-page-1/#comment-598</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joe Hyde]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-598</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is going to be a huge problem for all startups on the net. What I envision happening is the large backbone players (Verizon-MCI and AT&amp;T-SBC) will start prioritizing traffic that is hosted in their data centers. That is, they will prioritize traffic from the SERVER end, not the user end. That way, they can tell Congress that they aren&#146;t restricting the end-user who is &quot;paying&quot; for DSL/Cable access. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The other play that will find itself even more restrictive is in wireless handheld broadband. Things like Verizon EVDO are more controlled in bandwidth that straight-up &#146;net access for laptops and desktops. EVDO customers may get preferred content providers, for example.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All in all, this is the fault of telecom-friendly (and Republican&#042;) FCC policy that started when the FCC basically ruled the Telecom Act of 1996 out of existence (and the Supreme Court upheld it in the BRand X Internet cases). It has been coming. Buy VZ and T stock now! &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&#042; I am a Republican, but the Republican FCC policies are anti-entreprenuer, and this is one of the emerging problems of piss poor, pro-Bernie Ebbers FCC policy.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is going to be a huge problem for all startups on the net. What I envision happening is the large backbone players (Verizon-MCI and AT&amp;amp;T-SBC) will start prioritizing traffic that is hosted in their data centers. That is, they will prioritize traffic from the SERVER end, not the user end. That way, they can tell Congress that they aren&amp;#146;t restricting the end-user who is &amp;quot;paying&amp;quot; for DSL/Cable access. </p>
<p>The other play that will find itself even more restrictive is in wireless handheld broadband. Things like Verizon EVDO are more controlled in bandwidth that straight-up &amp;#146;net access for laptops and desktops. EVDO customers may get preferred content providers, for example.</p>
<p>All in all, this is the fault of telecom-friendly (and Republican&amp;#042;) FCC policy that started when the FCC basically ruled the Telecom Act of 1996 out of existence (and the Supreme Court upheld it in the BRand X Internet cases). It has been coming. Buy VZ and T stock now! </p>
<p>&amp;#042; I am a Republican, but the Republican FCC policies are anti-entreprenuer, and this is one of the emerging problems of piss poor, pro-Bernie Ebbers FCC policy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
