Twitter | Search | |
Search Refresh
Phillip Berenbroick Apr 17
Clear lines being drawn here in paid prioritization hearing. explains everyone other than ISPs wants faster, better internet, oppose paid prioritization. & looking for discreet use cases to justify PP
Reply Retweet Like
Will Johnson Apr 17
TFW when and schedule meetings for the same time.
Reply Retweet Like
Jessica J. González Apr 17
We should encourage ISPS to build more capacity, not create artificial scarcity with paid prioritization. - at
Reply Retweet Like
Free Press Apr 17
In the words of , it's all about "money." We must protect .
Reply Retweet Like
Joshua Stager Apr 17
At this morning's hearing, likened internet fast lanes to the people in the audience who paid for "line sitters." This is a spectacularly bad argument for gutting .
Reply Retweet Like
Free Press Apr 17
Friendly reminder of the telecom industry's hefty campaign donations to legislators who oppose . Some members, have received over $1 million each since 1989.
Reply Retweet Like
Phillip Berenbroick Apr 17
explains that small biz overwhelmingly support strong protections and oppose paid prioritization online. Its why biz organization as diverse as supported keeping NN
Reply Retweet Like
Free Press Apr 17
Lots of talk at about first responders and health implications of paid prioritization. Fact is, first responders and care organizations would likely be unable to afford "paid" prioritization — and were already prioritized under the rules.
Reply Retweet Like
Joe Kane Apr 17
.: recognized that the Internet has an inherent bias against real time services. Prioritization can make networks more efficient.
Reply Retweet Like
Joe Kane Apr 17
Seems like advocates may have changed their tune on what kinds of prioritization 2015 Order allowed. Either way, there seems to be room for compromise saying it can be good when it's transparent and not anticompetitive. Why not legislate that?
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan Lee Apr 17
.: Aira Tech has an interesting case to make involving prioritization. Aira needs *upstream* priority access (<80miliseconds) & w/out prioritization they cldn't offer service. But no other user is foreclosed. "Not a zero sum game," says Shimkus.
Reply Retweet Like
EndCitizensUnited Apr 17
In case anyone following needs a reminder of the type of people is in bed with: "FCC chairman Ajit Pai's choice for broadband adviser arrested and charged with fraud"
Reply Retweet Like
Gigi Sohn Apr 17
witness Peter Rysavy also deep in the technological weeds on need 4 prioritization on networks. But again 2015 rules permits this. He's NOT talking about PAID prioritization.
Reply Retweet Like
Gigi Sohn Apr 17
. is using a lot of fancy technological words to describe REASONABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT. RNM is permitted by the 2015 rules.
Reply Retweet Like

Related searches

alex jones sued · @mattfwood
Joe Kane Apr 17
Peter Rysavy is right: prioritization isn't a zero-sum game.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan Lee Apr 17
"Prioritization is essential to 5G's promise to support specialized use cases," says Peter Rysavy . If every packet must be treating equally, the network experience for everyone will degrade.
Reply Retweet Like
Jonathan Lee Apr 17
Occasional priority mgmt, notes, will facilitate a cheaper path for many businesses away from "always on" priority of vastly more expensive telecom services.
Reply Retweet Like
Gigi Sohn Apr 17
Clear, concise & definitive, ' is kicking butt at this hearing on paid prioritization.
Reply Retweet Like
Brett Glass - Events Apr 17
Wood falsely claims that traffic settlements for ISPs are impractical. That's false. It works for telephone companies and would benefit users! But his big client Google, responsible for 30% of Internet traffic, doesn't want to pay its freight.
Reply Retweet Like
Dana Floberg Apr 17
Why has majority invited Twitter troll Richard Bennett to testify on paid prioritization at ? Bc it’s THAT hard to find real opposition to
Reply Retweet Like