If abolishing net neutrality rules would do away with all the fraud, that would be a different story (letter)
To the editor: You would think by Mr. Spivak’s comments justifying an end to the rules governing net neutrality that it’s just common sense to oppose the special interests here like Microsoft and Google, who by their financial support have shown they are in favor of net neutrality because they make money when users access their services (“Dump net neutrality,” Ed Spivak, letter to the editor, Tuesday, June 5).
But, apparently, a different conversation is understood by some of our lawmakers. For example, Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. She understands the challenge to be control of network speeds by providers and how, if the 2015 ruling is lifted, those who wish to access the internet in order to provide their products and services may have to pay a premium to obtain load speeds for their sites that would enable them to compete with more established or richer players for whom paying a premium is not a problem.
This challenges, of course, these smaller players who might not be able to afford the premium rates. Thus, a barrier to innovation would have been erected instead of torn down, allowing the larger players to prosper at the expense of the smaller and less established. Now, if Mr. Spivak could convince me that abolishing net neutrality rules would do away with all the fraud, phishing and crime that occurs using the net, I might think he’s got something there.
Denver and Avon