My comments here may be a bit premature but I don’t think so. Watching carefully crafted statements with intention words that are misleading. Hey, I have been watching Congressional committees do it for many years.
So the Wall Street Journal has the early clue of wording that could be dangerous for those that support Net Neutrality:
“FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler is expected to reveal the new proposal as early as Monday, the Journal reported. The rules revision is an apparent attempt to quell concern that broadband providers will be allowed to degrade traffic speeds to some sites while allowing other sites to strike deals that assure preferential delivery of their web content to customers.”
The highlighted bold print above is key to how this will be worded.
And no, nobody would “degrade traffic” under any circumstance, it just won’t be upgraded. So this trick set of words could allow ISP’s to keep the same level of service for everyone while improving the speeds of a few that are willing to pay for that speed. Nobody will be DEGRADED. But don’t expect those speeds to increase as fast as those that are paying for it.
So, the change in wording does not change a thing unless you just want to believe that. And if you do, keep in mind how hard it will be to change that to what it should read in the first place.
If I am wrong, then why don’t we just have a Net Neutrality Rule now because the trick writing is sure to destroy any future for such a concept.