Big Corp buys "Fast Lanes" [sic] from FCC & NYT, Net Neurtality (Neutrality, too) loses
Trigger Warning: Strong language here describing a strong stench on the Internet and those who (now) control it.
This FCC-ruled-against-Net-Neutrality story hit the news yesterday, and I'm surprised it's not already mentioned here. Today I see this excellent blogpost on just exactly how this situation sucks:
http://www.marco.org/2014/04/24/fast-lanes-are-bullshit
He links to and quotes yesterday's NY Times article which he strongly and deservedly criticizes as biased, and (at the end) a much better New Yorker article on the same topic that quotes President Obama promising to keep Net Neutrality:
https://plus.google.com/114600403373706855890/posts/ZmVYqvEiZbE
Trigger Warning: Strong language here describing a strong stench on the Internet and those who (now) control it.
This FCC-ruled-against-Net-Neutrality story hit the news yesterday, and I'm surprised it's not already mentioned here. Today I see this excellent blogpost on just exactly how this situation sucks:
http://www.marco.org/2014/04/24/fast-lanes-are-bullshit
He links to and quotes yesterday's NY Times article which he strongly and deservedly criticizes as biased, and (at the end) a much better New Yorker article on the same topic that quotes President Obama promising to keep Net Neutrality:
There's only one way to guarantee a free Internet, or at least that the more local parts of it are free, and that's for consumers to own and operate their own portions of it. I discuss this with relevant links to resources (some are "far out" but others are implementable today) here:Only a fool would believe that the ISPs would actually create any new capacity, higher speeds, or consumer value in this process, leaving their existing service untouched. Yet that’s exactly the future you’re suggesting by using the “building fast lanes” metaphor.
https://plus.google.com/114600403373706855890/posts/ZmVYqvEiZbE
Last edited: