[sparkscoffee] Is it fair?
- From: Dry Turtles <dryturtles@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 06:38:56 -0700
The changes in the verbiage associated with the Net Neutrality were merely
a gloss over in an attempt to satisfy naysayers of the proposal. The pay
for speed portion of the proposal is still in there, but FCC Chairman Tom
Wheeler says that the agency won't allow companies to abuse it.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the new language by FCC Chairman Tom
Wheeler to be circulated as early as Monday is an attempt to address
criticism of his proposal unveiled last month that would ban broadband
providers from blocking or slowing down websites but allow them to strike
deals in which content companies could pay them for faster delivery of Web
content to customers.
The plan has drawn criticism from a wide range of players in the technology
world, including Google Inc., Netflix Inc. and dozens of prominent tech
investors, who say that such deals will inherently segregate the Internet
into fast and slow lanes.
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, according to an agency
official.
TechCrunch notes that this is the same stuff as before, written down with a
different color pen. Wheeler has made comments before that indicated he
won’t allow for the Internet to become bifurcated to the disadvantage of
those who don’t pay. But if advantage is for sale, how can that not be the
case?
If I pay for an advantage, and you deem is fair, is it? In my opinion,
there is no way it can be, money spent is always given first slot.
Above is comment found on forum.
Scotty
Other related posts:
