4 ms·

Link to letter: http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf Can anyone spot any big names

by stdgy 12y ago

Link to letter: http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf Can anyone spot any big names that are absent, other than Apple?

Igglyboo 12y ago
Oracle? Also, IBM, Intel, Nvidia, and pretty much any of the major hardware companies.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nknighthb 12y ago
Adobe, Valve, game companies in general, Akamai, Salesforce. By all rights, Cisco, Juniper, Foundry, etc. should be on there, since neutrality means more business for them, but they can't piss off their biggest customers. It's an impressive list, but there are a lot more big names in American tech than that.
- nness 12y ago
  I would imagine that an absence of neutrality is still well within Cisco's interests — its an opportunity to design and sell a whole new class of products and services specifically around throttling and limiting traffic.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    Not necessarily. The current brand of neutrality violation seems to be an ISP allowing its peering connection(s) with transit providers to languish while charging large content providers like Netflix a fee to get a separate uncongested connection to their customers. That doesn't require a lick of packet inspection hardware and it involves the ISP buying less Cisco gear because they no longer need to carry packets from all the smaller content providers who wouldn't/couldn't pay and either went bankrupt or saw less usage as a result of the degraded performance.
- breischl 12y ago
  Seems like Akamai stands to gain from an un-neutral net. They provide a possible way to minimize the effects of congestion.
  - nknighthb 12y ago
    Akamai stands to be either acquired by or crushed under the boot of the oligopoly. They're a big fat target. The ISPs will squeeze them for ridiculous fees, or just plain cut them off, while pushing content providers toward their own CDN offerings. AT&T has been offering CDN services for a while, and Verizon already bought EdgeCast. It's not going to end there.
nness 12y ago
We should not be quick to assume that the absence of a company from the list means they agree with Wheeler's plan.
- stdgy 12y ago
  That is a good point. Though, given the looming deadline, I would like to see announcements from companies explaining their positions.
- curveship 12y ago
  True, but it's also worth noting that there were rumors a month ago that Apple is trying to broker an anti-net-neutrality deal with Comcast whereby Apple traffic will get priority treatment: http://www.tuaw.com/2014/03/24/apple-comcast-and-net-neutrality/ http://www.tuaw.com/2014/03/24/apple-comcast-and-net-neutral... .
  - gress 12y ago
    In the same way that Netflix did?

by stdgy 12y ago

Link to letter: http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf Can anyone spot any big names that are absent, other than Apple?

Igglyboo 12y ago

Oracle? Also, IBM, Intel, Nvidia, and pretty much any of the major hardware companies.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nknighthb 12y ago

Adobe, Valve, game companies in general, Akamai, Salesforce. By all rights, Cisco, Juniper, Foundry, etc. should be on there, since neutrality means more business for them, but they can't piss off their biggest customers. It's an impressive list, but there are a lot more big names in American tech than that.

nness 12y ago
I would imagine that an absence of neutrality is still well within Cisco's interests — its an opportunity to design and sell a whole new class of products and services specifically around throttling and limiting traffic.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  Not necessarily. The current brand of neutrality violation seems to be an ISP allowing its peering connection(s) with transit providers to languish while charging large content providers like Netflix a fee to get a separate uncongested connection to their customers. That doesn't require a lick of packet inspection hardware and it involves the ISP buying less Cisco gear because they no longer need to carry packets from all the smaller content providers who wouldn't/couldn't pay and either went bankrupt or saw less usage as a result of the degraded performance.
breischl 12y ago
Seems like Akamai stands to gain from an un-neutral net. They provide a possible way to minimize the effects of congestion.
- nknighthb 12y ago
  Akamai stands to be either acquired by or crushed under the boot of the oligopoly. They're a big fat target. The ISPs will squeeze them for ridiculous fees, or just plain cut them off, while pushing content providers toward their own CDN offerings. AT&T has been offering CDN services for a while, and Verizon already bought EdgeCast. It's not going to end there.

nness 12y ago

We should not be quick to assume that the absence of a company from the list means they agree with Wheeler's plan.

stdgy 12y ago
That is a good point. Though, given the looming deadline, I would like to see announcements from companies explaining their positions.
curveship 12y ago
True, but it's also worth noting that there were rumors a month ago that Apple is trying to broker an anti-net-neutrality deal with Comcast whereby Apple traffic will get priority treatment: http://www.tuaw.com/2014/03/24/apple-comcast-and-net-neutrality/ http://www.tuaw.com/2014/03/24/apple-comcast-and-net-neutral... .
- gress 12y ago
  In the same way that Netflix did?