Sorry guys, even if the end result is commendable, this is literally just FUD. If there's to be any hope of better politics, we need to reject this BS.
Sorry guys, even if the end result is commendable, this is literally just FUD. If there's to be any hope of better politics, we need to reject this BS.
See:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121564856618241033.html?mod=...
http://adamnoah.com/comcast-admits-to-blocking-vonage/
http://www.wired.com/2006/03/comcast_throttling_vonage_users...
http://gigaom.com/2008/07/09/did-comcast-just-admit-to-vonag...
Unfortunately, a bookmark from 2012 for a full research text had died, but I've found a brief press release here: http://berec.europa.eu/doc/2012/TMI_press_release.pdf
I can't say throttling/blocking is completely universally bad - for example, we (I work for an ISP, too) had to drop uTP traffic when uTorrent just rolled that protocol, because due to high-PPS low-size packets it put quite a heavy strain on routers, so everyone had worsened network experience. Even though that was somehow controversial decision I still think that that blocking brought more good than evil (we didn't block classic BitTorrent protocol by any means, just uTP) so there should be some rare and sane exceptions from Net Neutrality rules, but nonetheless... the point is, that happens on broadband, too. Just less often.
VoIP has been eating telcos long distance revenue lunch since Vonage came out 10 years ago. Why do you think it's "fairly logical to assume" that they're only just now getting around to to talking about what they might do about that?
Indeed, Comcast did try to throw its weight around in 2009. I'm not sure what came of if, but blocking competing VoIP evidently wasn't it.
The net neutrality crime in the Netflix debacle was trying to charge Netflix for access, not refusing to upgrade the peering point (since all traffic is equally/neutrally affected by the congestion).