The FCC is planning new net neutrality rules. And they could enshrine pay-for-play. - The Washington Post

Mon Apr 28 01:03:59 UTC 2014

Well, that's a metaphorical use of "fast lane" which is fine but I
think the PR spin by CNBC was to actually give listeners the
impression that they'd get faster service (e.g., on streaming video)
now that this nasty FCC rule was out of the way.

On April 27, 2014 at 14:07 bedard.phil at gmail.com (Phil Bedard) wrote:
 > The "Fast Lane" perhaps starts as not counting traffic against metered
 > byte caps, similar to what ATT did on their mobile network.  If the
 > content/service provider is willing to pay the provider, then the users
 > may not pay overage fees or get nasty letters anymore when they exceed
 > data caps.  The second and more contentious part of it is using QoS to
 > guarantee the content/service provider's traffic is delivered, at the
 > expense of traffic from those who aren't paying.  So if Netflix decides to
 > pay and Amazon Prime doesn't, well Netflix will make it to your house and
 > Prime might not.  Right now everyone's traffic gets dropped equally. :)
 > (Well more Netflix because there is a lot more of it).
 > 
 > 
 > -Phil (all opinions are my personal opinions)
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > On 4/27/14, 1:44 PM, "Barry Shein" <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
 > 
 > >
 > >What are any of you talking about? Have you even bothered to read for
 > >example the wikipedia article on "monopoly" or are you so solipsistic
 > >that you just make up the entire universe in your head? Do you also
 > >pontificate on quantum physics and neurosurgery when the urge strikes
 > >you???
 > >
 > >Sorry but this discussion is so, uneducated, usage of terms which are
 > >not as they are defined in the English or any other language, etc.
 > >
 > ><BOLD>
 > >
 > >But what do you think about the FCC's efforts in regard to "net
 > >neutrality"?
 > >
 > ></BOLD>
 > >
 > >Do you agree with CNBC's assessment that the internet has a "fast
 > >lane" and up until now FCC regulations prevented consumers and content
 > >providers from using it under the guise of "net neutrality".
 > >
 > >Do you believe there's anything at stake here for you beyond just
 > >nattering about your own personal and peculiar notion of what a
 > >"monopoly" is? Does that really matter to any of this?
 > >
 > >I almost believe that this entire flame war on the definition of
 > >monopoly is being fanned by sockpuppets whose job it is to make sure
 > >no one here talks about net neutrality in any effective or at least
 > >meaningful way.
 > >
 > >  http://www.cnbc.com/id/101607254
 > >
 > >  F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround,
 > >  Plans to Allow Fast Lane
 > >
 > >  The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that
 > >  allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through
 > >  which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a
 > >  content company is willing to pay for it, according to people
 > >  briefed on the proposals.
 > >
 > >  ...
 > >
 > >Would someone please define this "fast lane" for me? That would be a
 > >really good start. Preferably the managers of that fast lane because
 > >they surely must be on this list...no?
 > >
 > >
 > >P.S. CNBC is owned by Comcast (or more specifically NBC Universal,
 > >which is owned by Comcast.)
 > >
 > >-- 
 > >        -Barry Shein
 > >
 > >The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           |
 > >http://www.TheWorld.com
 > >Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR,
 > >Canada
 > >Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*
 > 

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*