7 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2019
    1. What the tech bloggers and the left don’t like is that there are options and that there is a freedom in the marketplace and that people can choose superior service if they’re willing to pay for it,” conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said on his show in November 2017. “And if somebody’s willing to pay for superior service, the providers had better provide it."

      First, you don't know if the right do like the idea or not. I certianly don't like losing freedom on the Internet that for sure. What you are proposing is a state in what the Internet will form into a heirachy and destroy what has the internet became.

    2. A ban on paid prioritization, or prohibiting companies from providing "fast lanes" for higher-paying content producers, critics argue, "makes as much sense as telling FedEx that the company can offer two-day shipping but not overnight delivery,"

      This is strawman attack from the opposite sides. ISPs are different from package delivery services in many ways. The argument could go both way: If I spend more money on the food in McDonald, shouldn't I be allowed to skip the line and get my food faster? Considering they are both food delivering service after all? Doesn't paid prioritization also mean you would de-prioritized people that are not paid. It's all play on words. Maybe I can pay more money to get "prioritized" an "early" spot in college comparing to other students too?

    3. "In the two years after the FCC’s decision, broadband network investment dropped more than 5.6%—the first time a decline has happened outside of a recession," FCC chairman Ajit Pai wrote in the Wall Street Journal in November 2017. "If the [2015] rules are left in place, millions of Americans who are on the wrong side of the digital divide would have to wait years to get more broadband."

      The article above says this has been proven to be wrong

    4. "Prior to the FCC’s 2015 decision, consumers and innovators alike benefited from a free and open Internet because the FCC abided by a 20-year, bipartisan consensus that the government should not control or heavily regulate Internet access," FCC commissioner Brendan Carr maintained in a statement issued in November 2017. "The Internet flourished under this framework."

      The evidence pointed otherwise. Many occassions has happened that ISPs tried to throttle certain website like NetFlix, Google Wallet and many other things

    1. An easy solution would be for the school to change to an ISP that would agree not to filter traffic. Unfortunately, in many rural areas, there are often few choices for ISPs, creating a lack of competition. An FCC report from June 2017 found that about 75% of U.S. census block regions have zero choice in terms of high speed Internet/ broadband access (Brodkin, 2017). The FCC has claimed that market competition will provide a check on potential ISP abuse. “Given the extent of competition in Internet access supply,” the FCC’s (2017) new order states, “the protections regulating ISPs are not necessary” (p. 144). Despite the frequent claims of competition throughout the document, the statistics included by the FCC show that competition is not as widespread as it would like to claim.

    2. On December 14, 2017, FCC commissioners revoked Network Neutrality rules by a 3–2 vote. As a result, ISPs can now legally offer “tiered service” favoring some websites, services, and applications with faster connections, blocking others, or charging some conNet Neutrality Why It Matters to School Librarians Feature ARTICLE tent providers greater fees to connect to their customers (Fung, 2017). This is the “fast lane” and “slow lane” concept

    3. With that change, Internet service providers became “common carriers,” public utilities like phone companies that cannot charge different rates for carrying the same content

      This is how it supposed to be, internet provides information and different information should not be under different prices and barriers to accessed