"Responding to waves of criticism, Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Tom Wheeler is revising his net neutrality rule proposals to
include a ban on certain types of 'fast lanes' for content companies
that are willing to pay Internet service providers for the upgrade," Roger Yu reports for USA Today. "The
revision, which seeks comments from the agency's other commissioners,
will be circulated today as they get ready to vote Thursday on the
proposals."
Last week, several major companies, including Amazon, LinkedIn, Facebook and Netflix, as well as more than 100 smaller start-ups, asked the FCC to abandon its plan to let Internet providers charge the companies for faster access to customers.
The revision "doesn't entirely ban Internet fast lanes and will leave room for some deals, including public-interest cases like a health-care company sending electrocardiography results," Yu writes. "But unlike his initial proposal last month, Wheeler is seeking to specifically ban certain types of fast lanes, including prioritization given by ISPs to their subsidiaries that make and stream content, according to an FCC official who wasn't authorized talk about the revisions publicly before the vote. The FCC would retain powers to review any prioritization deals that may pose public harm."
Not everyone is happy with the revision. "It looks like the regulators are trying to address some of the concerns, but the reported changes don't fix the basic problems," Consumers Union policy counsel Delara Derakhshani told Yu. "We're still looking at the very real possibility of a 'pay-to-play' market. That's not net neutrality. We still believe the best option for achieving net neutrality and protecting consumers is reclassifying Internet service as a telecommunications service." (Read more)
"But why should you, as someone who just wants to use the web to surf or watch programming, care whether companies like Netflix and Hulu have to pay companies like Comcast and Verizon to ensure smooth feeds?" David Carr writes in a column for The New York Times. "Well, even though consumers won’t be charged directly for the faster service, we all know where those fee increases will end up landing. I just received a notice from Netflix that the price of a new membership is rising $1, to $8.99. It’s still small money and a bargain at that, but as its costs and that of other companies go up, what had been a cheap alternative for lots of programming could start to become costly."
"Google, Facebook, Twitter and the like offer you an endless array of useful products, many of them at a cost of absolutely nothing," Carr writes. "By contrast, cable companies, which provide most of the broadband, supply an endless array of entertainment, but at a very dear price that is not going to endear them to anyone. Add in the fact that broadband providers are the ones we call when the web isn’t working — have you ever contacted Netflix when your movie was endlessly buffering? — and you can see how they get the blame for everything and credit for nothing."
Last week, several major companies, including Amazon, LinkedIn, Facebook and Netflix, as well as more than 100 smaller start-ups, asked the FCC to abandon its plan to let Internet providers charge the companies for faster access to customers.
The revision "doesn't entirely ban Internet fast lanes and will leave room for some deals, including public-interest cases like a health-care company sending electrocardiography results," Yu writes. "But unlike his initial proposal last month, Wheeler is seeking to specifically ban certain types of fast lanes, including prioritization given by ISPs to their subsidiaries that make and stream content, according to an FCC official who wasn't authorized talk about the revisions publicly before the vote. The FCC would retain powers to review any prioritization deals that may pose public harm."
Not everyone is happy with the revision. "It looks like the regulators are trying to address some of the concerns, but the reported changes don't fix the basic problems," Consumers Union policy counsel Delara Derakhshani told Yu. "We're still looking at the very real possibility of a 'pay-to-play' market. That's not net neutrality. We still believe the best option for achieving net neutrality and protecting consumers is reclassifying Internet service as a telecommunications service." (Read more)
"But why should you, as someone who just wants to use the web to surf or watch programming, care whether companies like Netflix and Hulu have to pay companies like Comcast and Verizon to ensure smooth feeds?" David Carr writes in a column for The New York Times. "Well, even though consumers won’t be charged directly for the faster service, we all know where those fee increases will end up landing. I just received a notice from Netflix that the price of a new membership is rising $1, to $8.99. It’s still small money and a bargain at that, but as its costs and that of other companies go up, what had been a cheap alternative for lots of programming could start to become costly."
"Google, Facebook, Twitter and the like offer you an endless array of useful products, many of them at a cost of absolutely nothing," Carr writes. "By contrast, cable companies, which provide most of the broadband, supply an endless array of entertainment, but at a very dear price that is not going to endear them to anyone. Add in the fact that broadband providers are the ones we call when the web isn’t working — have you ever contacted Netflix when your movie was endlessly buffering? — and you can see how they get the blame for everything and credit for nothing."
"The
public has an expectation that the web will work like other utilities:
When people turn on a light switch, the room lights up, and when they
twist a faucet handle, water comes out. People expect the same of the
Internet — always on, always working," Carr writes. "We
don’t want two Internets — a good one and a bad. We want the money and
investment to flow toward a single infrastructure that works rapidly and
efficiently, as it does in so many other countries. Given
the mounting opposition, the FCC commissioners would be well advised
to delay any changes this Thursday." (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment