It's lipstick on a pig really. The whole premise of paying for faster content delivery needs to be shelved. Because we all know once the initial language is approved and the laws are changed, the door is open to push more legislation without requiring a vote as it can be under the guise of the existing legislation.
We need to keep the pressure up and oppose this at all costs. I want to see the likes of Mozilla, Google, Microsoft and others take this further and use their connections, their captive audiences and money to stop this. I'm really concerned this is actually going to happen and it's frightening. Because once the US does this, so too will other countries (like my own Australia) thanks to agreements like the TPP.
It looks like the only change is that the FCC is promising to keep the ISPs in check so ISPs don't abuse their proposed ability to charge companies for access to their customers. No thanks; I'd much prefer actual ISP regulation over empty promises.
> In the new draft, Mr. Wheeler is sticking to the same basic approach but will include language that would make clear that the FCC will scrutinize the deals to make sure that the broadband providers don't unfairly put nonpaying companies' content at a disadvantage
Granted this is a non-quote from a source, so maybe that's the muddle. But muddled it is. If Comcast/Verizon are allowed to demand that some companies pay, then they're paying for... what? More bandwidth than companies who don't pay. It seems like the weasel word here is "unfair".
Look, Comcast/Verizon are already getting paid by consumers to deliver whatever data their consumers request. It's not as if Netflix is pushing the stuff unsolicited, like spam. So, how about Comcast/Verizon just do what the fsck they're already being paid to do?
Just as I suspected. Promising to slap their hand will do nothing. We did the same thing with the telecommunications act in the 1990s in order to enforce competition in the ISP space, and the entrenched telcos laughed it off. I guess Wheeler is expecting that history won't repeat? I refuse to believe he is this naive, he knows enforcement won't go anywhere, but he thinks everyone else believes this so his agenda can be pushed.
Instead, we should pass a law that prohibits regulators who have a conflict of interest. People like Wheeler should never be allowed as FCC chairs. That he's attempting to pass regulations that refer to his own scrutiny and evaluation of fairness is a huge red flag.
I think net neutrality is one of those things that the average laymen has to be explained and doesn't intuitively understand what is in their own best interest.
If Time Warner claims that net neutrality gives them slower more expensive internet, then they really don't have the expertise to conclude otherwise. And that's a problem.
I think that the big players need to plaster ads on things like the google homepage which try to explain the concepts in simple-simple terms and why having it doesn't mean "slower and pricier internet" and additionally, that any complaints they may have about expensive slow internet is nearly 100% due to too-little and not too-much regulation of the companies which they pay for this so-called service.
This is one area where techies for public interest can fight back with words.
I explain it to friends and family this way:
Neutrality means the ISP delivers whatever you request on a best-effort basis (explanation of best-effort here). Non-neutrality means the ISP gets to auction off your ability to connect to sites/services you want to connect to. In other words, you look at site A and it's fast because A paid the ISP; but site B is slow because they paid less.
And this is wrong because (a) you pay your ISP for connectivity to everywhere, for your own purposes, but you have no say in what they make slow or fast based on side deals. (b) you and the site you're connecting to both have already paid for your respective connections, but without neutrality the sites have to pay more again to avoid artificial slowdowns.
10 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 31.3 ms ] thread1. http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/11/fcc-said-to-tweak-proposed-...
It's lipstick on a pig really. The whole premise of paying for faster content delivery needs to be shelved. Because we all know once the initial language is approved and the laws are changed, the door is open to push more legislation without requiring a vote as it can be under the guise of the existing legislation.
We need to keep the pressure up and oppose this at all costs. I want to see the likes of Mozilla, Google, Microsoft and others take this further and use their connections, their captive audiences and money to stop this. I'm really concerned this is actually going to happen and it's frightening. Because once the US does this, so too will other countries (like my own Australia) thanks to agreements like the TPP.
Granted this is a non-quote from a source, so maybe that's the muddle. But muddled it is. If Comcast/Verizon are allowed to demand that some companies pay, then they're paying for... what? More bandwidth than companies who don't pay. It seems like the weasel word here is "unfair".
Look, Comcast/Verizon are already getting paid by consumers to deliver whatever data their consumers request. It's not as if Netflix is pushing the stuff unsolicited, like spam. So, how about Comcast/Verizon just do what the fsck they're already being paid to do?
If Time Warner claims that net neutrality gives them slower more expensive internet, then they really don't have the expertise to conclude otherwise. And that's a problem.
As a result, the polls which are conducted show that the public doesn't want net neutrality. see http://heartland.org/policy-documents/majority-public-oppose... and http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2006/09/7772/
I think that the big players need to plaster ads on things like the google homepage which try to explain the concepts in simple-simple terms and why having it doesn't mean "slower and pricier internet" and additionally, that any complaints they may have about expensive slow internet is nearly 100% due to too-little and not too-much regulation of the companies which they pay for this so-called service.
I explain it to friends and family this way:
Neutrality means the ISP delivers whatever you request on a best-effort basis (explanation of best-effort here). Non-neutrality means the ISP gets to auction off your ability to connect to sites/services you want to connect to. In other words, you look at site A and it's fast because A paid the ISP; but site B is slow because they paid less.
And this is wrong because (a) you pay your ISP for connectivity to everywhere, for your own purposes, but you have no say in what they make slow or fast based on side deals. (b) you and the site you're connecting to both have already paid for your respective connections, but without neutrality the sites have to pay more again to avoid artificial slowdowns.