| > The FCC is actually not proposing to let ISPs create "slow lanes". It is proposing to allow ISPs to charge fees for better quality of service, not to degrade the service that's already provided. In fact the proposals quite specifically forbid this. That is a meaningless distinction. There is absolutely no difference between "creating a slow lane" and "charging for better quality of service, not to degrade the service already provided". Therefore, it doesn't matter if the FCC "specifically forbids this." If "fast lanes" are allowed at all, all lanes will be "slow lanes" by default. It doesn't matter if the FCC "forbids" slow lanes, since every lane is a slow lane already, so technically the FCC's rule wasn't broken. This is how it works today. Every lane is a slow lane on Comcast, by default, unless you pay them for a "fast lane". > "Fast/slow lanes hasn't happened yet" Yes, it has. Are you in the US? Have you ever attempted to load Netflix or YouTube on a Comcast or Verizon connection in the past year? There's slow lanes everywhere. The only difference is the prediction -- we predicted Comcast would make us pick between slow and fast lanes, like cable packages. (like http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/neutrality.jpg). Turns out they instead went to individual websites and CDN's and made them pick the slow/fast lanes. But it's the same problem. There's no coincidence Netflix suddenly works after paying an extortion fee to Comcast. Thats the number 1 example of the "fast lane" scenario playing out already. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/after-... |
