Our content licensing agreement with AAP stipulates that the material must be taken down 30 days from the date of publication. Therefore this particular story, having exceeded that time frame, has expired. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Our content licensing agreement with AAP stipulates that the material must be taken down 30 days from the date of publication. Therefore this particular story, having exceeded that time frame, has expired. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Google Chrome OS demonstration
Vice President of Product Marketing Sundar Pichai gives a virtual tour of Google's new operating system, Chrom… Watch it now
Malcolm Turnbull's ghost twitterer
At the Sydney Media140 conference several weeks ago, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull admitted he doesn't pe… Watch it now
Surf the Net like it's 1991 with Gopher
The old Gopher protocol is not dead. In fact, it even has Twitter! Here's how to access it.… Watch it now
Having problems with complex data center? Simplify your data center now.
Sick of broken tender sites
Cyberwar: What is it good for?
Is wholesale-only backhaul just a pipedream?
What makes you click?
Tell us for a chance to win a $1,000 GAME gift voucher.
Click here for more.
Optus Deal
Broadband + home phone + PlayStation®3 in a single package price!
Click here for more!
Best Laptops
Check out the best laptops here!
Click here for more.
It is unfortunate that articles like this one use "web" and "Internet" as if they are interchangeable - they are not. I assume that the intended scope is "Internet" and not just "web" (HTML) traffic. It is doubly unfortunate that the article (and the FCC) act as if bandwidth is the only relevant parameter in characterizing Internet traffic. Some applications, like telephony (VOIP) require miniscule bandwidth but are very sensitive to delay. The same is true for video conferencing, though here the bandwidth requirement is larger, while still quite modest. If ISP's are required to treat all packets equally voice quality suffers as congestion rises. It makes sense to give some applications priority over others, but on the face of it the FCC wants to outlaw such "discrimination". The silly part of it is that giving priority to low bandwidth apps makes no discernible difference to the bandwidth-hogging delay-insensitive apps. One would hope that some sense and intelligence would be applied, but I am fearful that it won't happen.(I realize that there is a whole other agenda about giving priority to some applications/services etc for commercial gain, but legislation to stop that form of discrimination should not be so blunt that it degrades the ability of the Internet to provide legitimate services.)