[sparkscoffee] Re: Is it fair?
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "sblumen123@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 22:13:15 -0400 (EDT)
Scotty
Tongue in cheek post.
Comrade B
-----Original Message-----
From: Dry Turtles <dryturtles@xxxxxxxxx>
To: sparkscoffee <sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, May 12, 2014 9:51 am
Subject: [sparkscoffee] Re: Is it fair?
We must rid ourselves of Socialism in all areas and that includes the Internet.
Those who are willing to pay big bucks for faster
speed should get it. Put those who don't want to spend $200 bucks a month back
on the slow lane, this way it will encourage
them to get off their lazy butts and find a better job or a second job if need
be.
In thinking about this Water delivery should also be UN-Socialized too. Pay
more and receive better water pressure. The bottom
tier get 20 Lbs pressure and the top tier get 60 Lbs.
Proud supporter of the 1%.
Scotty
On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Dry Turtles <dryturtles@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:
