<?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: FCC will propose net neutrality rules</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2009/09/19/fcc-will-propose-net-neutrality-rules/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2009/09/19/fcc-will-propose-net-neutrality-rules/</link>
	<description>Top Technology news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:40:13 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: JohnJ</title>
		<link>http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2009/09/19/fcc-will-propose-net-neutrality-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-212264</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnJ</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.blorge.com/?p=20100#comment-212264</guid>
		<description>Daniel, a bandwidth cap is not related to net neutrality.  The cap you&#039;re a victim of applies to all forms of net traffic - web, email, ftp, p2p, etc.  What NN is attempting to address are things like Comcast &amp; AT&amp;T blocking of P2P traffic, blocking the ability to have a personal email or web server at home (that uses standard ports), and rate-throttling bandwidth intense tasks like video streaming so as to be near useless, P2P, perhaps downloading Windows updates or Linux ISOs, etc.  

It also relates to, as mentioned in the article, putting more bandwidth towards their own services v. competitive services.  Example: Comcast allowing Comcast Sportsnet traffic to run at full speed while rate-limiting ESPN traffic to, say, 20% as much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daniel, a bandwidth cap is not related to net neutrality.  The cap you&#8217;re a victim of applies to all forms of net traffic &#8211; web, email, ftp, p2p, etc.  What NN is attempting to address are things like Comcast &amp; AT&amp;T blocking of P2P traffic, blocking the ability to have a personal email or web server at home (that uses standard ports), and rate-throttling bandwidth intense tasks like video streaming so as to be near useless, P2P, perhaps downloading Windows updates or Linux ISOs, etc.  </p>
<p>It also relates to, as mentioned in the article, putting more bandwidth towards their own services v. competitive services.  Example: Comcast allowing Comcast Sportsnet traffic to run at full speed while rate-limiting ESPN traffic to, say, 20% as much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel Looney</title>
		<link>http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2009/09/19/fcc-will-propose-net-neutrality-rules/comment-page-1/#comment-212034</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Looney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2009 12:55:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.blorge.com/?p=20100#comment-212034</guid>
		<description>I have hughesnet and this has always been a problem 200 megabit a day limit and it you go over you can check your email for a day I&#039;m sick of it and in my area it&#039;s out only option for broadband</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have hughesnet and this has always been a problem 200 megabit a day limit and it you go over you can check your email for a day I&#8217;m sick of it and in my area it&#8217;s out only option for broadband</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

