The FCC were backing(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?ref=business&_r=0) the new net neutrality rules. ISPs are to indiscriminately treat Internet traffics to the 'slow' and 'fast' lanes. They said could benefit for many big commercial giants like Netflix and Amazon.
Thomas Wheeler, the big man of FCC now denied(http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2014/04/the-end-of-net-neutrality.html) the net neutrality news. Obama once promised(http://www.cnet.com/news/obama-pledges-net-neutrality-laws-if-elected-president/), (like other promises he once said) would pass the total net neutrality principal, if he got elected.
Quote from the NewYorker article.
The new rule gives broadband providers what theyâve wanted for about a decade now: the right to speed up some traffic and degrade others. (With broadband, there is no such thing as accelerating some traffic without degrading other traffic.) We take it for granted that bloggers, start-ups, or nonprofits on an open Internet reach their audiences roughly the same way as everyone else. Now they wonât. Theyâll be behind in the queue, watching as companies that can pay tolls to the cable companies speed ahead. The motivation is not complicated. The broadband carriers want to make more money for doing what they already do. Never mind that American carriers already charge some of the worldâs highest prices, around sixty dollars or more per month for broadband, a service that costs less than five dollars to provide. To put it mildly, the cable and telephone companies donât need more money.
Bye, net neutrality. Hi, net discrimination. If censorship come so close to America, and get decided by a few people who think they represent for the rest of the country... then what's left for democracy?
So, you don't agree with the extortion of a media outlet for the purpose of giving more wealth to bloated corporate entities? I must say, that's a very liberal standpoint you've taken.
So, you don't agree with the extortion of a media outlet for the purpose of giving more wealth to bloated corporate entities? I must say, that's a very liberal standpoint you've taken.
When you frame it that way, I think there'd be unanimous disapproval between political lines. Strangely not everyone sees it that way, even though it's pretty apparent.
Strangely not everyone sees it that way, even though it's pretty apparent.
I should clarify here: if the proposal does what some people think it will do. And, let's be honest here, a lot of people freak out over issue that relate to the internet. Basically, this is the issue(http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/24/5647452/fcc-offers-vague-promises-to-keep-internet-open): "But here again, Wheeler carefully steps around a major aspect of the Journal's report, which claims that under the proposed rules, internet providers will be able to charge companies for speedier access to consumers. A so-called internet "fast lane" will allegedly be permitted so long as ISPs charge "commercially reasonable" rates. The big question is what the FCC considers to be reasonable. Right now, the commission doesn't have a final answer. "We don't know," a spokesperson said today. "We want to have a broad public debate. We want to know how people are affected in their daily life. We want to know how businesses are being affected. We want to know if innovation is being affected." Based on that statement, the FCC seems aware that this "ay for access" aspect could bring on some trouble. But the FCC won't eliminate the idea entirely. "After all, a prioritized connection for a heart monitor may be a good thing at home without harming anyone else." But even this positive example falls apart quickly because traffic prioritization for any service means some level of discrimination for everyone else." Another thing about the FCC a lot of people don't know about: the FCC can't make instate a rule without first opening it to public comment to debate it. After the debate period is closed it then goes to review where the public input is assessed, which may or may affect how the proposed rule will look going forward. When the May meeting occurs next month the objective is to merely discuss the open internet NPRM (notice of proposed rule making). This effectively means that the final text for the Wheeler rule won't be set until then, and any approved text is a long way away. Hopefully this quells some anxiety but you should absolutely let the FCC know how you feel about it, since they actually care about public input.
