3 ms·

I wish they'd stop calling it a "fast lane"--it's the slow lane for anyone who doesn't want to pay up. Somewhere a cable industry Frank Luntz-alike probably foc

I wish they'd stop calling it a "fast lane"--it's the slow lane for anyone who doesn't want to pay up. Somewhere a cable industry Frank Luntz-alike probably focus grouped the term and now everyone in the media is using it.

dattaway 12y ago
That's how reading their positions becomes easy. They coin a weasel word term and dance with it. I prefer the langauge EFF is using, which appears fairly reasonable.
ColinDabritz 12y ago
The slow lane/fast lane propaganda is the small fight, they can have it. It's not about the speed, it's about equal access. The ISP discrimination and censorship lanes are the real problem.
- mratzloff 12y ago
  Sure. But phraseology shapes the debate, as is evident from "death tax", "health care rationing", "government takeover of health care", etc.
  - ColinDabritz 12y ago
    Exactly, my point is that the slow/fast phraseology is the wrong phrasing fight altogether. Whenever someone counters "fast lane" with "slow lane" they are promoting the premise that the issue is 'just' about the speed of the connections. While I care about connection speed, it's not the critical issue at the core of net neutrality. The issue is that the ISPs can choose discriminatory speeds based on any criteria they like, including censorship. And because they are known monopoly abusers, this is an especially critical issue. slow/fast ignores it entirely. It's possible this is deliberate strategy on their part, instead of just a simple marketing attempt. I propose we take the phraseology debate to them, and use phrases like "ISP discrimination lane".
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
The highway was just fine as is, until Netflix decided that it wanted to race. They insisted (through their proxy, Level 3) that Comcast shoulder the expense of building a new racing lane. How is that Comcast's problem? Comcast can't ask its subscribers to pay for that either, the subscribers have already been brainwashed into thinking that such a thing is unwholesome.

dattaway 12y ago

That's how reading their positions becomes easy. They coin a weasel word term and dance with it. I prefer the langauge EFF is using, which appears fairly reasonable.

ColinDabritz 12y ago

The slow lane/fast lane propaganda is the small fight, they can have it. It's not about the speed, it's about equal access. The ISP discrimination and censorship lanes are the real problem.

mratzloff 12y ago
Sure. But phraseology shapes the debate, as is evident from "death tax", "health care rationing", "government takeover of health care", etc.
- ColinDabritz 12y ago
  Exactly, my point is that the slow/fast phraseology is the wrong phrasing fight altogether. Whenever someone counters "fast lane" with "slow lane" they are promoting the premise that the issue is 'just' about the speed of the connections. While I care about connection speed, it's not the critical issue at the core of net neutrality. The issue is that the ISPs can choose discriminatory speeds based on any criteria they like, including censorship. And because they are known monopoly abusers, this is an especially critical issue. slow/fast ignores it entirely. It's possible this is deliberate strategy on their part, instead of just a simple marketing attempt. I propose we take the phraseology debate to them, and use phrases like "ISP discrimination lane".

NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago

The highway was just fine as is, until Netflix decided that it wanted to race. They insisted (through their proxy, Level 3) that Comcast shoulder the expense of building a new racing lane. How is that Comcast's problem? Comcast can't ask its subscribers to pay for that either, the subscribers have already been brainwashed into thinking that such a thing is unwholesome.