3 ms·

This rule is so easy to bypass. All it means is that ISPs can't "offer" fast lanes anymore - as in premium access for certain companies, for which they would ch

This rule is so easy to bypass. All it means is that ISPs can't "offer" fast lanes anymore - as in premium access for certain companies, for which they would charge extra. However, under this rule, they can still do what they're already doing: slowing down everyone's Internet, and then charging websites money to "get it back to normal". This way they didn't create a "fast lane". It's the same "normal lane" - for which they now charge extra money, unless you want them to slow you down. Like this: http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/ http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious... Wheeler is either a fool, or playing ignorant, if he doesn't realize this.

asn0 12y ago
Or, he's brilliant – by playing along with the cableco's game, he's making the fight public, which also puts the heat on the cableco's, and gives the FCC the political capital to push back on the cableco's.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> However, under this rule, they can still do what they're already doing: slowing down everyone's Internet, and then charging websites money to "get it back to normal". It would be fairly hard to construct either the actual text of the proposal itself or Wheeler's statements of the FCC's intent in applying it to find any rule under which a "fast lane" would not be "commercially reasonable", but intentionally reducing the quality of service for normal use and paying to bypass that reduction would be "commercially reasonable". In fact, its hard to see how the latter is not exactly the same as the former.