Can you imagine the world where there are special lanes on the highways for only one (and expensive) brand of cars, while all the others share other lanes and suffer from the traffic?
Can you imagine the world where the airports would have a separate runway to service one particular airline, while all the others stand in line waiting for their turn on another one?
So how come you can imagine a world where one content provider gets much larger share of your internet connection bandwidth? Why is it OK for internet service providers to decide which traffic you should get, and which you should not?
Although in that story Comcast was found by the FCC to treat its customers unfairly, the court ruled that FCC has no saying. Apparently, there’s no law preventing an infrastructure monopolist from telling you what you can and cannot do on your computer. The new rules discussed today won’t solve this problem. In fact, they’re making it worse.
The new rules may allow internet service providers to act as policemen. In fact, it may provide legal basis to that same unfairness that the FCC itself talked about two years ago. Neutrality? Nowhere to see.
Will it be approved? Let’s wait and see. I hope not, it’s not good for us, the consumers. Law enforcement is not the service providers’ role. Being the prosecutor, judge and the hanger, all in one, is no-one’s role. Certainly not for a commercial service provider.
Your Little Advisor.