I found this useful in explaining net neutrality to the uninformed.

[Scuba]

[frazzled]

2. Actually, some state govts do provide faster lanes for some car companies' vehicles

For instance, CA. It used to be all hybrids who could get the stickers that allow them to use the HOV lanes even without multiple passengers, but that's been changing to electric cars.


http://arbis.arb.ca.gov/msprog/carpool/carpool.htm#vehicles

[sunnystarr]

4. That's not what the quote said.

It spoke to "certain car companies" making a deal so that only Their Cars would have access to the fast lane.

[frazzled]

6. Who knows what goes on with these deals between CA and

the cars on their "eligible" list. It's a real boon to get on that list: people will buy them if they think they can get a sticker that allows them to drive in the HOV lanes.

Frankly (and I know this is off topic, and btw, I'm for net neutrality): I think HOV lane regulations are crazy to begin with. We don't have them in Illinois, where I live ... but I've used them when we've traveled elsewhere, such as California. It's stupid that my husband and I get to drive in the lane just because, well, we happen to be going somewhere together and are married. It's not like we'd otherwise be using two cars (we don't even own two cars). We're not keeping an extra car from being on the highway.

I prefer the method where you have to register with the state as an actual unrelated carpool group, operational at the beginning and end of your work day. Moms taking their kids to soccer practice shouldn't be able to use that lane just because they've got an eight-year old in the back seat.

[earthside]

3. But we are starting to do that, too.

At least here in Colorado.

On US-36, (between Denver and Boulder) we are getting special lanes that you have to pay to get on (tolls) -- with the selling point that those lanes will be faster because there will be less congestion.

We are going to see tiered service more and more in this country as the plutocracy consolidates its power.

[onenote]

5. so if ISPs offered "fast lanes" to anyone who wanted to pay for them, there wouldn't be a problem?

That's what the example seems to suggest -- that the problem is that only some companies get offered the deal. In reality, plenty of highways offer fast lanes to anyone willing/able to pay for them.

Seems like a poor example.

[Indydem]

7. Well, the lines the data is carried on are not public.

So therefore, unlike a public road, owned and built by the tax paying public, a privately owned cable, fiber, or copper, are subject to the utilities that own them.

Not saying I agree with this bullshit they are doing, but the analogy is terrible.

[Enthusiast]

8. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Please! Wake the fuck up!