[sparkscoffee] Re: Is it fair?
- From: "D.J.J. Ring, Jr." <n1ea@xxxxxxxx>
- To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 23:58:39 -0400
Scotty,
The problem is that Internet is paid for by mostly USA Government.
I say privatize the Internet.
In Europe you pay by data use and bandwidth.
I am all in favor of this.
Why should people who want to stream pornographic videos in high definition
diminish the speed of dial up users?
Right now, rural users who use dial up modems still if even for Direct TV
satellite uplink (downlink is by satellite ay high speed), many use dial up
both ways and because of the abundance of high data bandwidth users, their
downloads are very very slow, much slower than 15 years ago.
Let those who use bandwidth pay for it.
The FCC is just one possible solution.
Throttle down youtube, pornforyou, video streaming and have users pay extra
for access to high bandwidth sites.
It is called rationing so all can share limited resources.
73
David
On May 12, 2014 9:39 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:
