NY Times And Washington Post Describe Yesterday's Net Neutrality Vote In Diametrically Opposite Ways
from the because...-reporting dept
As we noted, yesterday’s FCC vote concerning the NPRM on “open internet” rules was really just the start of the process. A lot of people seem confused by this — and part of the problem is really the FCC. Tom Wheeler keeps insisting that the rules are designed to protect net neutrality and the open internet, but as lots of people keep pointing out, the rulemaking he’s proposing would likely do the opposite. Because of that, you get a ton of confusion, perhaps best shown by a simple comparison, put together by Drew Oden on Twitter of the summary from both the NY Times and the Washington Post about what happened:
The Federal Communications Commission voted 3-2 on Thursday to move forward with a set of proposed rules aimed at guaranteeing an open Internet prohibiting high-speed Internet service providers from blocking or discriminating against legal content flowing through their pipes.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post’s version was:
The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday voted in favor of advancing a proposal that could dramatically reshape the way consumers experience the Internet, opening the possibility of Internet service providers charging Web sites for higher-quality delivery of their content to American consumers.”
And you wonder why so many people are confused about what’s going on? Of course, that’s what happens when this stage of the process is really just about opening up the floor to comments, prior to the final rulemaking likely to happen later this year. But the bizarre thing is that both of the descriptions may be accurate, even as they appear to disagree fundamentally. Wheeler appears to be sincere in hoping that these rules would guarantee an open internet, but the reality may reshape how consumers use the internet by more clearly enabling such discrimination.
Welcome to the mess that is a fight over net neutrality.