Comments on: Vint Cerf calls for Internet speed limits

One of the fathers of the Internet, Vint Cerf, offers suggestions for controlling network congestion on broadband networks in the wake of the FCC's ruling against Comcast.

[bj1126]

Isn't this the sort of thing they were SUPPOSED to be doing all along? They over sold the bandwidth on their networks and now want us to pay more for it.

[atici]

*yawns* Why can't we let the free market reign than impose some arbitrary rules? After all, isn't that (i.e. limited laws/rules in communication) what makes internet so successful?

If some ISPs restrict their customers, the customer could move to a company that gives a better deal. I think capitalism and competition has always worked to the benefit of customers in USA. I doubt one can say the same for FCC or any govt regulatory organization.

[jamalystic]

At least somebody is now talking sense!! We are always quick to criticize the Carriers in the name of net neutrality. But most users don't know that net nuetrality has nothing good to offer them besides promoting the interest of internet big guns like Google, yahoo and microsoft: The Net Neutrality Fearmongers Are At It Again(http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=556&doc_id=160628&F_src=flftwo)

[rrod182]

How about instead of spending billions of dollars to blow up camels, our government really invests in the subsidies necessary to make this utility work. Every other developed nation has eclipsed us in the bandwidth available to the home.

It is not entirely the carriers faulty, what is their fault is the over subscription and bad service with respect to customer dissatisfaction.

This country is falling into a black hole, our Internet and wireless tech is becoming a joke as it struggles to compete with what even emerging nations have.

[gggg sssss]

Hang it up Vint. This is no longer 1957. We don't have TTY terminals any more. And don't want to type in Morse code ( THAT would reduce congestion wouldn't it?) We want full HD and we want it now, not after midnight. And get out of the way at Google. What is a Luddite doing at Google anyway, wishing for the olden days? Fibre to the desktop NOW..

[paulej]

I think we all would agree that bandwidth consumption will continue to grow, carriers ought to continue to invest in their networks to meet that ever-growing demand, and the cost per bit will continue to decrease. What makes this somewhat of a challenge is that the carriers have not always properly invested in infrastructure. What does AT&T have to offer me? It's really a joke in terms of utility. 1.5Mbps? That?s nothing anymore. Fortunately, my cable company provides 10Mbps down, but their uplink speed still leaves much to be desired.

But, as new homes are being built around my area, is AT&T installing fiber? No. Absolutely no investment for the future, yet they are making billions in profit. I think there is a problem here. It should be the responsibility of the carriers to plan for the long-term. The Internet truly is indispensable already and we will continue to have a growing dependence on it.

I agree with Vint that to manage cost versus profit, selling tiers of service is reasonable. However, I believe it is important to also say that 128Kbps is hardly an acceptable tier: we need to push carriers on this one. There is a whole world of applications which we simply cannot deploy today due to bandwidth limits. As bandwidth is more abundant and speeds increase, we will see new business opportunities and, in general, the Internet will be more useful to everyone. In turn, bandwidth requirements will increase and carriers should consider the constant network improvements a fact of life.