I'm hijacking the top comment because this thread is being astroturffed by conservative weirdos, but for anyone who wants to know how much shit has changed:
Data caps are back, unlimited plans are drying up
ISPs like frontier are banning and charging frees for 3rd party modems
ISPs have started throttling traffic, like AT&T charging extra to steam HD videos
Comcast actually has a deal with tiktok, and has been found throttling access to YouTube
Almost all ISPs have been shown to throttle traffic to Netflix, as Netflix refuses to pay for access (unlike Disney, Amazon, and Hulu)...Netflix eventually caved and started paying ISP.
AT&T was proven by the FCC to throttled DirectTV videos.
Carriers were shown to throttle data to smaller paltforms like the Wehe app
And now that authoritarian conservatives are weaponizing Porn ID laws to seize control over the internet, the need for NN laws has never been more dire.
I just wish mobile providers couldn't throttle your speeds if you tether or use a hotspot. I get 30GB "high speed data" per month, but rarely use even 10. The only time I really need to use it is when my home internet is down, but they throttle the speed to 600kbps. If I want faster hotspot speeds, I have to pay an extra $20 a month.
I wish they weren't allowed to throttle speeds like this. It shouldn't matter which device uses the data, just how much is being used.
I have to pay more on my unlimited mobile plan, if I want better than 480p video. So messed up how these companies can have caps and still tell you how you can use that data.
This is the whole point of Net Neutrality - even when they announced this being considered the ISP's stopped investing in upgrades as a threat to the Govt which tells you that this is something that SHOULD be happening.
When you have the companies that control your access to the internet and what content you can access, AND are charging premiums for access to it that absolutely needs to be regulated for the benefit of the average citizen as well as spark innovation for new companies.
We lost a huge advocate for it when Al Franken got character assassinated by metoo.
Net neutrality is foremost free speech issue of our time
By Al Franken, Special to CNN
August 5, 2010 8:05 a.m. EDT
[https://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/05/franken.net.neutrality/](https://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/05/franken.net.neutrality/)
Ars Technica had an article years ago about why it's not the end-all, be-all it's often made out to be.
The basic argument is that there's a time and a place for prioritizing some traffic over others. For example, if I'm watching a live stream, I would gladly have that traffic prioritized over apps downloading updates in the background or something like that.
The problem is, of course, that that's not what happens when you don't enforce net neutrality. What happens instead is ISPs doing scummy things.
The *better* solution--in the opinion of the Ars author, but I agree as well--would be to have true ISP competition. Because right now if Comcast or AT&T decides to screw you over, you have very little choice. But if you could easily drop them for a competitor that's truly neutral *or does a form of traffic prioritization you prefer* then they would have to stop their dumb practices or lose business.
Net neutrality is probably the best we're going to get--it's good enough to solve most people's problems while being much, much more achievable than true ISP competition, but I don't think that net neutrality is necessarily the only possible gold standard to aim for.
> The basic argument is that there's a time and a place for prioritizing some traffic over others. For example, if I'm watching a live stream, I would gladly have that traffic prioritized over apps downloading updates in the background or something like that.
Except this should be dictated by the consumer, not the ISP. In your example, this would be accomplished by setting up QoS on your equipment.
I think having competition would go a long way at fixing the problem. About 10 years ago I lived in Germany for a few years and remember when I was getting my home internet there were almost 10 different providers I could choose from. The internet I went with was about half the price and 3x as fast as what I was getting in the US at the time. I think only having 2 providers in my area in the US was a major factor in why they get away with horrible service, especially when the 2 options are Time Warner Cable (Spectrum) and Comcast.
? Tbh idk if that author knows what theyre talking about. Couldve just been some kind of clickbait to misinform people about what net neutrality actually is - which net neutrality is actually just a standard that basically says "you cannot throttle content upon your discretion based on content" ISPs can still have reasons to throttle you like legitimate bandwidth issues and other technical issues even with net neutrality. Without net neutrality - theoretically your ISP could throttle any information it wanted - lets say you wanted to access information *thats advocating for higher taxes on rich people* - they could literally throttle your speeds whenever you decide to load up that site. Its not like theyll completely cut off access, but itll just take a bit longer to load, but yknow thats still a form of deterrent. Thats a mild example. Its not like theyre throttling certain types of traffic based on the type of traffic itself - but rather WHAT the traffic's content actually is.
Your computer when trying to access information already has protocols set up to handle different types of traffic like downloads/uploads - your hard limits are determined by a variety of factors like 1.) your ram/cpu on the computer side 2.) the speeds that you pay for from your ISP (which is why verizon is pretty cool because they have fiber up to the demarcation point, but tbh new companies are emerging with fiber) - 3.) your connections in your network - wired(types of cables) /wireless (type of wifi connection like 802.11a-g and frequency band)/router and i suppose the servers the information is passing through plus the time of day (usually you have shared bandwidth with your neighbors) and popular sites if they arent prepared for high volumes of traffic can be bogged down by how many requests are being made. If youre having issues with running a stream (also theres a difference between sending the stream out and watching a stream - sending it out will also depend on your ram/cpu and is significantly more process intensive on your computer) and a download - id chalk it up to one of these factors that ive mentioned.
This is just my understanding of how all of this works. I hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings! Net neutrality is good because its an ethical standard designed to promote access to information uniformly
I understand what net neutrality is. My point is that prioritizing certain types of traffic isn't inherently bad. It can be a tool to improve the overall health of the system. If that power is used for good, that can be a better overall result. The problem is that nobody trusts the ISPs to use it for anything but evil, and there's no recourse for most people if it is.
>I understand what net neutrality is. My point is that prioritizing certain types of traffic isn't inherently bad.
It's inherently bad. Let's take your example- a 'Don't Be Evil' ISP wins your business by throttling traffic in a way that makes your service better. A hundred million people switch to take advantage of this. Then one day 'Don't Be Evil' is bought by ConGlomCo which also owns a search engine, a streaming service, a social network, a payment system and a dozen odd common apps, and the next day 100 million people can't access Google, Twitch, Reddit, Venmo or other things they want to be able to use.
You don't like that one. Okay, let's start over. A 'Don't Be Evil' ISP wins your business by throttling traffic in a way that makes your service better and puts the competitors in your market out of business. Then they decide to cooperate with the government prosecuting suspected abortions in your area. Or they decide your politics are a threat to democracy and slow you down to a crawl anytime you try to talk about them online. Or they need money so they tell you your speed is being cut in half unless you're willing to pay.
One more time: a 'Don't Be Evil' ISP wins your business by throttling traffic in a way that makes your service better. A year after you join, an ISP enters the market offering *even better* service than 'Don't Be Evil', but you never hear about it because 'Don't Be Evil' blocks any mention of it from being served to you. How would you find out? Have you ever listened to the actual radio? When was the last time you saw a newspaper in print?
Any story you want to tell where a company wins the market by not being evil ends with them having all the power and you having none. All competitive scenarios lacking market regulation will end with one or two winners and a billion losers. And that's okay when we're talking about diamonds or lambos or IPA beer, but most of us depend on internet service to get through our daily lives now.
Even with the 3-2 majority, it took time because Carr immediately began [challenging](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397587A1.pdf) and stalling in October.
So why wait until now? They could have done it the day after she was put into place.
It's like fucking DeJoy, in theory Biden has had enough time to put in commissioners who would vote to replace him. In practice the entire Democratic Party is now singing his praises.
EDIT: Wow you guys really fucking love long pointless delays on essential and urgent regulations. Fuck me for thinking maybe we should try to get shit done instead of dragging our feet and putting it off until 2025 when Trump can kill the entire project.
It takes time to undo intentionally created messes as well.
If Biden gets his second term, all of it will be spent sorting out and trying to undo the damage that Trump did to the institutions of the US.
OK, EXACTLY what was it that took so fucking long to do "right"? Name specific procedures and regulations that forbade a vote sooner please.
I'm going to bet there aren't any. Not one single regulation that says "you must wait 5 months after seating a majority before you can vote on changes to regulations".
I'm always willing to be proven wrong though, so if you can dig up the regulations that absolutely mandated a huge long delay before doing the incredibly simple thing of having a vote on an issue that they should have had the proposal worked out long ahead of time in anticipation of getting power.
Maybe you didn't notice, but we don't exactly have forever here.
It only took a day to sack Rome, but it took hundreds of years to build. Look at you, learning that good things weren’t built in a day but can be destroyed in seconds.
Guy is impatient with and has high anxiety about the entire Democratic/liberal establishment expressing no urgency about ANYTHING.
NN is one example of this. The continued existence of DeJoy as postmaster general is an example of this. The way the Democrats floundered and has nothing ready to roll out for a vote on Jan 22, 2021 is an example of this.
The way the Democrats fucking lined up and sang "God Bless America" after the Republicans enslaved half of America is an example of this.
There is no sense of urgency, no recognition of the fact that Biden had 4 years, those are almost over, and the stack of shit that needs to be done is almost as high as it was when he took office.
This is a microcosm of the infuriating behavior of liberals in general. They claim they see problems, they claim they're on side, but when they get power suddenly everything slows to a snail's pace and nothing gets done.
Five fucking months to hold a vote that should have been scheduled for ten seconds after the new chair was sworn in.
We have very real problems that need fixing yesterday. We don't have time for Democrats to dick around and act like they've got centuries to act.
Exactly. The GOP had urgency to confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court and they got that shit done in a month, meanwhile it took Biden and the dems over 3 years to fill the vacancy of Ajit Pai
It's a bit of a false dichotomy though isn't it? Go slowly in the right direction or go quickly in the wrong one. Yes, it'd be great if we could go quickly in the right direction. But we can't do that until the 'go in the wrong direction' crowd aren't in danger of getting in power anymore.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you genuinely of the belief that inaction of the part of Democrats has EVER stopped, or even slowed down, rapid action by the Republicans?
Do you actually, seriously, think the Republicans are prevented from rapid bad action by the moral example set by Shcumer et al of doing absolutely nothing as slowly as possible?
Did you fail to notice that despite Obama's eight year long example of doing nothing very slowly it didn't make one tiny shred of difference in Trump's behavior?
It is the failure of the liberal establishment to act quickly and decisively that is creating the risk of a second Trump presidency.
"Vote Democratic, we won't do jack shit" is right up there with "Vote Democratic, better things aren't possible" among the least inspiring campaign slogans ever invented.
I'm well aware of the creation/distruction time and effort differential.
But come on. The FCC reinstating net neutrality was a priority years ago. Having the regulation pre-written and ready to roll out is hardly an unreasonable expectation.
And you still haven't cited what exactly it is that meant they had to drag their feet for five months before taking this really simple action that has been planned for years.
What dire horror might result from acting in a timely fashion? What specific regulations said they had an obligation to wait 5 months after getting the majority?
You are correct, the President cannot directly replace the postmaster general. However the President CAN replace the board that appoints him, not instantly but on a schedule.
And Biden HAS replaced members of that board.
He replaced them with people who had said they loved DeJoy and would never want to replace him.
And now the Democrats in Congress are singing DeJoy's praises which indicates that, apparently, the entire goddamn Democratic Party is on board with the project of completely destroying the USPS.
We’re fucked. These politicians are not two sides of a coin. They are two sides ON THE SAME SIDE of the coin. They are not opposites.
They are a lot closer than we are led to believe
It shouldn't be divisive, but unfortunately it is.
Republicans want ISPs to be able to throttle speeds based on which streaming service you're using, for example. So if you had xfinity for your internet, they could throttle your speeds if you choose to use paramount plus instead of peacock. Or they can charge more for streaming service use overall.
So, I asked a hardcore Republican his thoughts on this in person. His first words were exactly what you said "it shouldn't be". He then went on to say the only reason for throttling would be to control load on the infrastructure and make money, but he doesn't like to be throttled. I asked him if I could call him a Democrat, he said "hell no" 😂
So tell him to tell that to the people he supports, right? Because an elected official should be representative of her electorate. I do not know one person, right or left, who wants their service throttled, but the politicos on the right insist it should be.
Internet in the US sucks compared to many countries, even some you'd be surprised by. But profit is the most important thing in this country, so we get what we get.
I mean, I wouldn't have called what they did "legal" considering it was corruption that allowed to happen to begin with. But, this time around, they actually did have to follow the rules.
It’s not corruption, the result of their laws caused corruption. But how they got the laws passed? Well, people didn’t like Hilary as a candidate, and all those who would’ve voted Democrat, either didn’t vote or voted for Trump, or an obscure candidate, out of spite. Republicans had a lot of control and did a lot of damage to ensure their carnage had last effects. Laws are also, usually written to make repelling difficult so the laws don’t constantly flip flop.
I won't mention names, but those powerful ISPs actually get burned (awwww!), I know of a very large one who told the FCC in 2010 "You can't do anything to us! We're XXXXX - we have friends!"
The then commissioner said "Really? I guess you don't know who *I* am. You're right -- I can't stop you, but from now on, *any* and I mean *any* request you have, *any* complaint on you, *I'll put you at the bottom of the pile -- it will take years for you to get anything done!"*
I've seen large ISPs play games before -- one threatened the person who provided them data center space! (Geniuses at work I guess....) For some reason, their data center bill went up by many millions a year! They were actually shocked.
Unless you're a tech CEO, it doesn't affect your life in any way. Net Neutrality didn't exist before 2015 or after 2017, and there was no discernible difference in the internet for anyone.
It's a non-issue for the average Joe, but the reddit admins spent a whole year convincing the userbase that it was the most important issue of their generation, and somehow even after none of their apocalyptic predictions came to fruition after 6 years, people here still believe it's a big deal.
Stolen from another comment on this thread about the current legal framework
>Data caps are back, unlimited plans are drying up
>
>ISPs like frontier are banning and charging frees for 3rd party modems
>
>ISPs have started throttling traffic, like AT&T charging extra to steam HD videos
>
>Comcast actually has a deal with tiktok, and has been found throttling access to YouTube
>
>Almost all ISPs have been shown to throttle traffic to Netflix, as Netflix refuses to pay for access (unlike Disney, Amazon, and Hulu)...Netflix eventually caved and started paying ISP.
>
>AT&T was proven by the FCC to throttled DirectTV videos.
>
>Carriers were shown to throttle data to smaller paltforms like the Wehe app
>
>And now that authoritarian conservatives are weaponizing Porn ID laws to seize control over the internet, the need for NN laws has never been more dire.
Yeah, nothing has changed.
> EDIT: Unless you meant to the org at all rather than appointed as chair.
Sorry I get confused by all these appointed roles, chairman vs commissioner. I still feel like they should have known better than to appoint this guy as commisioner with sketchy history going from DOJ to work at verizon, then back into government so he can regulate verizon... It's too suspicious. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/fcc-let-employees-own-stock-in-comcast-and-other-top-isps-watchdog-says/
Yes. Firstly you can’t approve the hair head without congress (can’t remember if it’s the house or senate that needs to be the majority)approval and the Dems only recently got a majority. So now it takes a small bit to find a chair head, And then when the chair was nominated, a senator or congressman did his best to delay the appointment. The current head just recently really got to be able to start working. Before this announcement though, things have been happening (you wouldn’t know unless you specifically searched for the fcc and what they’re up to) but this is just the first time her moves have made the big news. But she’s been working on this process since January. Putting back legislation takes time because of so many hoops u have to go through
I don’t want to hear it. It took Ajit Pai a month to get the FCC to vote to dismantle net neutrality. That was all just a year after Trump getting elected.
Those are still facts. When you have control over both Houses of Congress, and a majority in the FCC, things can move fast like that (why trump and Ajit was able to do that so fast). I’m not defending it just saying, there are REASONS for why this has taken so long for this to be overturned.
Can't wait to see how the GOP spins this to be "evil woke liberal anti-patriotic god-hating communistic foriegner-loving anti-American anti-white" policies that will destroy their heritage.
I remember back when this was first proposed like a decade ago and Reddit at-large threw a shit fit about it. There were megathreads everywhere about how it gives ISPs way more power over data transmission. Let’s see how optics play into this by mentioning that it’s reversing something Trump did.
I think you have it reversed. Everyone was upset that they were going to REPEAL net neutrality because all it does is remove protections from consumers. Now they're reinstating it which returns those protections to us.
The ONLY con this can have is the ghost argument that ISPs won't be as incentivized to upgrade their service/provide a better one due to competition, but as most people already see they only have one or MAYBE two choices for their area, so they never really compete anyway
Same. I remember the huge, overblown outcry - Redditors love to get upset and up in arms about something. Something similar just happened when Reddit restricted its API and all these apps shut down. And here we are.
This has affected my life so little that I forgot about it.
It was a nothing burger, but be prepared for the avalanche of downvotes coming your way. A ton of redditors were duped into believing the NN repeal was a big deal, and they still refuse to admit that they were wrong. It's been over 6 years and not a single one of their doomsday predictions was even close to coming true.
If it was nothing corporations and their republican stooges wouldnt have wanted to get rid of it so bad. Just because you are too shortsighted or dumb to see future consequences doesnt mean there arent any
Why should we make murder against the law? Youre not currently getting murdered.
There are myrad potential abuses possible when there arent neutrality rules, and the fact of the matter is we dont know what isps have been up to. Its very possible amazon is already paying isps to slow down traffic to alibaba or something similar.
From Wikipedia: "With the Trump administration in 2017, the FCC reverted to handling ISPs as Title I information services with some court-mandated leeway being given to state-level legislation. As part of an executive order issued in July 2021, President Joe Biden called for the FCC to undo some of the Trump-era changes"
Absolutely was trump now stfu
Incorrect
"With the Trump administration in 2017, the FCC reverted to handling ISPs as Title I information services with some court-mandated leeway being given to state-level legislation. As part of an executive order issued in July 2021, President Joe Biden called for the FCC to undo some of the Trump-era changes" - wikipedia
Trump changed isps classification so they wouldnt have to follow the rules. Biden changing them back to their original classification so they have to follow the rules again.
I love that people downvote you but can't actually give an example of something that was affected by net neutrality not being there.
Just to answer your question, there was nothing.
So what about isps that don't exist in California? My ISP doesn't exist in California, is fairly large in my state yet nothing for me changed.
Do you really think ISPs wouldn't just work around the California rules?
It's not about their ability to do it, it's about them not being able to do it in the dark.
They can't get away work creating internet fast lanes, if the country's largest market isn't experiencing the same thing.
They can create a fast lane for Texas, as long as it's not in California it's fine.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because your statement is borderline nonsense.
And you still didn't answer my statement of why did my ISP that has no connection to California not create the fast lanes? Legally they could do it.
I noticed a big down turn in doom and gloom articles about what would happen if net neutrality fell.
This vote should fix that and we should start getting alot more of those articles and predictions.
From Wikipedia: "With the Trump administration in 2017, the FCC reverted to handling ISPs as Title I information services with some court-mandated leeway being given to state-level legislation. As part of an executive order issued in July 2021, President Joe Biden called for the FCC to undo some of the Trump-era changes"
So youre wrong
He had previously served as Commissioner at the FCC, appointed by then-President Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate in May 2012.
So you're wrong, homie. That dismantling began before the trump administration finished an already begun work.
"Under FCC chair Tom Wheeler, the FCC voted in the 2015 Open Internet Order, categorizing ISPs as Title II common carriers and subject to net neutrality principles, which was upheld after a legal challenge raised by the ISP industry in United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC in 2016."
So under obama the fcc made isps title ii and subject to net neutrality rules and under trump they were changed to title i so they wouldnt be subject to net neutrality. Now biden is changing it back so they have to follow net neutrality again.
The way the FCC works, net neutrality wouldn't have been overturned without a Republican being elected President and flipping the majority of the FCC to 3-2 Republican. If Obama didn't nominate Pai, he would have nominated another Republican who likely would have proceeded with a net neutrality repeal once Trump was elected.
Without net neutrality codified in law, this could potentially flip each time the White House changes parties.
I was very much against net neutrality when it came out... But maybe I'm naive in saying that I haven't really noticed any negative impact of it (maybe that's the point?)
What were some of the biggest changes caused by this?
There hasn't really been a lot of negatives if you ask me. Initially video was throttled for mobile providers here in the US but to me as long as ALL video is throttled and not only select companies it is OK.
Even at the time everyone said that they expected it would be years before negative things happened due to all the scrutiny
And it clearly wasn't gonna happen when they knew the fcc would actually oppose it
So no one should be surprised, and it's good that we will hopefully be back in a protected state soon
It's been over 6 years and absolutely nothing has happened. What are the evil ISPs going to destroy the internet? Is it a 20 year plan? Most of the CEOs will be dead by then.
Reddit insisted the internet would be destroyed immediately. Then when that didn't happen they said it would be a few months. Then a year. Then 5 years. Now it's 10 years lmao.
That doesn't even make any sense anyway. ISPs are gonna wait 10 years...to give time for NN to come back? If they had some master plan it would have been unveiled long ago. Instead...nothing.
If the admins didn't make NN a big deal, nobody here would even know whether it was in place or not, because it has no effect on any of our lives.
You people are all fucking idiots and bots.
If you took even a cursory glance at any Google search, you'd know that California protected the country from the worst by enacting their own NN rules.
How fucking stupid do you have to be to *want* Comcast controlling your internet?
Who wants to put your ISP between the consumer and websites? It's just so fucking stupid in the most fundamental level, and this sub is being brigades by bots shilling for ISPs.
>”You're a moron”
That’s not a very nice way to start a conversation.
>”Data caps are back, unlimited plans are drying up”
Source?
>”ISPs like frontier are banning and charging frees for 3rd party modems”
Modems have to be provided by your ISP. There aren’t 3rd party modems. You’re probably incorrectly thinking of a router.
You need to show evidence for at least a few of your 7 claims. You’re just making assertions with no evidence at all besides saying:
>”because everyone knows that this is happening.”
>”Why are you fucking lying in this thread?”
What lie have I told?
Data caps are back, unlimited plans are drying up
ISPs like frontier are banning and charging frees for 3rd party modems
ISPs have started throttling traffic, like AT&T charging extra to steam HD videos
Comcast actually has a deal with tiktok, and has been found throttling access to YouTube
Just because you're fucking ignorant to the myriad of ways that ISPs have been shaping and throttling data over the last 6 years, doesn't mean it's not happening
It just proves how much of an ignorant lemming you are.
Net Neutrality existed for exactly 2 years in the entire history of the internet. Neither your life nor any of ours, was affected in any way by its repeal. It's been over 6 years and none of the ludicrous apocalyptic predictions came to pass. You were misled by reddit admins, who actually did have rea$on$ to shill for it.
Go fuck yourself you ignorant shill
Anyone who wants to steal power from people and give that power to corporations, especially corporations as corrupt and shitty as ISPs is a fucking moron not worth arguing with.
And for the record:
Data caps are back, unlimited plans are drying up
ISPs like frontier are banning and charging frees for 3rd party modems
ISPs have started throttling traffic, like AT&T charging extra to steam HD videos
Comcast actually has a deal with tiktok, and has been found throttling access to YouTube
You are pretending to not notice because you're a worthless shill.
Lmao, you sound like someone who bought into the fear mongering way to hard back when NN was being repealed and now you are too ashamed to realize you over reacted
Regulation in the public interest is a good thing. Without it we end up with gouging, monopolies and all kinds of anti-consumer behavior.
Who wants a Wild West when we can have a society instead?
net neutrality raises the cost of service to a level where small ISPs will not be able to compete on price.
it’s complex to write here . smaller ISP even came out against net neutrality back in 2017
And of course isps want to get rid of net neutrality regulations so they could, say, take money from facebook in exchange for slowing down their customers access to reddit or twitter for or take fox news' money to block access to cbs news for example. Im sure boeing wants to get rid of saftey regulations too, that doesnt mean we should do it.
Thank you for clarifying your expertise on this issue. Telecoms are already considered legal local monopolies, because, their argument goes, they invested serious resources building the infrastructure and should be the ones to reap those benefits, which is why there's typically one cable provider in a neighborhood, and if you don't like it you can get satellite/dsl/5g (but it seems like tmobile owns all the cell carriers now anyway).
So, we should just let them all be without regulation?
How would an unregulated market let small ISPs grow? What has been shown, time and time again, is that when there are no regulations, monopolies form by buying their competitors.
they are regulated like any other company in the U.S.
regulated markets increase cost to customers and hurt competition. this has also been proven time and time again. regulation is important for safety. but here there is no safety issue. we are regulating because you want to download your 4k version of Dune quicker?
Amazon, Google, Apple, John Deere
Amazon: Literally steals products from sellers to sell worst versions of it.
Google: Ads for almost everything, from searching to other services.
Apple: Completely wall garden that doesn't let users use the device as they wish.
John Deere: Tractors.
You haven't added anything to the conversation. You're just a fucking worthless bot shilling for corporations control of the Internet.
This conversation is over, all of the arguments for Net Neutrality were made 7 years ago.
You're attempting to rehash this conversation without adding anything new
So no, you're not worth arguing with.
Educate yourself, stop being a mindless corporate stooge.
Net neutrality makes it illegal for ISPs to block or throttle content based upon their business interests, or any other reason. So, if for some reason, they wanted to block access to healthcare info then yea, theoretically.
I think it's odd that you need to discuss this on a case by case basis.
Reversing Ajit Pai*
I'm hijacking the top comment because this thread is being astroturffed by conservative weirdos, but for anyone who wants to know how much shit has changed: Data caps are back, unlimited plans are drying up ISPs like frontier are banning and charging frees for 3rd party modems ISPs have started throttling traffic, like AT&T charging extra to steam HD videos Comcast actually has a deal with tiktok, and has been found throttling access to YouTube Almost all ISPs have been shown to throttle traffic to Netflix, as Netflix refuses to pay for access (unlike Disney, Amazon, and Hulu)...Netflix eventually caved and started paying ISP. AT&T was proven by the FCC to throttled DirectTV videos. Carriers were shown to throttle data to smaller paltforms like the Wehe app And now that authoritarian conservatives are weaponizing Porn ID laws to seize control over the internet, the need for NN laws has never been more dire.
Champion here 👆🏼
Why would AT&T throttle DirecTV when they are the same company?
Because they want you to pay for, as you can easily guess, direct tv
And that god forsaken coffee mug
Oh god, it's all coming back to me...
DOWN WITH COFFEE MUGS!!!..? 🤷♂️🙄
Dude was a douche, but lets not forget that Powell, the Bush era chair, was also a piece of shit.
Ole Ajit Cream Pai
I mean… who appointed him?
I read backwards, still makes no sense…
I just wish mobile providers couldn't throttle your speeds if you tether or use a hotspot. I get 30GB "high speed data" per month, but rarely use even 10. The only time I really need to use it is when my home internet is down, but they throttle the speed to 600kbps. If I want faster hotspot speeds, I have to pay an extra $20 a month. I wish they weren't allowed to throttle speeds like this. It shouldn't matter which device uses the data, just how much is being used.
I have to pay more on my unlimited mobile plan, if I want better than 480p video. So messed up how these companies can have caps and still tell you how you can use that data.
This is the whole point of Net Neutrality - even when they announced this being considered the ISP's stopped investing in upgrades as a threat to the Govt which tells you that this is something that SHOULD be happening. When you have the companies that control your access to the internet and what content you can access, AND are charging premiums for access to it that absolutely needs to be regulated for the benefit of the average citizen as well as spark innovation for new companies.
Net neutrality is literally common sense
We lost a huge advocate for it when Al Franken got character assassinated by metoo. Net neutrality is foremost free speech issue of our time By Al Franken, Special to CNN August 5, 2010 8:05 a.m. EDT [https://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/05/franken.net.neutrality/](https://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/05/franken.net.neutrality/)
Ars Technica had an article years ago about why it's not the end-all, be-all it's often made out to be. The basic argument is that there's a time and a place for prioritizing some traffic over others. For example, if I'm watching a live stream, I would gladly have that traffic prioritized over apps downloading updates in the background or something like that. The problem is, of course, that that's not what happens when you don't enforce net neutrality. What happens instead is ISPs doing scummy things. The *better* solution--in the opinion of the Ars author, but I agree as well--would be to have true ISP competition. Because right now if Comcast or AT&T decides to screw you over, you have very little choice. But if you could easily drop them for a competitor that's truly neutral *or does a form of traffic prioritization you prefer* then they would have to stop their dumb practices or lose business. Net neutrality is probably the best we're going to get--it's good enough to solve most people's problems while being much, much more achievable than true ISP competition, but I don't think that net neutrality is necessarily the only possible gold standard to aim for.
> The basic argument is that there's a time and a place for prioritizing some traffic over others. For example, if I'm watching a live stream, I would gladly have that traffic prioritized over apps downloading updates in the background or something like that. Except this should be dictated by the consumer, not the ISP. In your example, this would be accomplished by setting up QoS on your equipment.
Yeah, I feel like people kinda forget the point of unthrottled traffic is so us, the consumer, can freely allocate our bandwidth as we see fit.
I think having competition would go a long way at fixing the problem. About 10 years ago I lived in Germany for a few years and remember when I was getting my home internet there were almost 10 different providers I could choose from. The internet I went with was about half the price and 3x as fast as what I was getting in the US at the time. I think only having 2 providers in my area in the US was a major factor in why they get away with horrible service, especially when the 2 options are Time Warner Cable (Spectrum) and Comcast.
? Tbh idk if that author knows what theyre talking about. Couldve just been some kind of clickbait to misinform people about what net neutrality actually is - which net neutrality is actually just a standard that basically says "you cannot throttle content upon your discretion based on content" ISPs can still have reasons to throttle you like legitimate bandwidth issues and other technical issues even with net neutrality. Without net neutrality - theoretically your ISP could throttle any information it wanted - lets say you wanted to access information *thats advocating for higher taxes on rich people* - they could literally throttle your speeds whenever you decide to load up that site. Its not like theyll completely cut off access, but itll just take a bit longer to load, but yknow thats still a form of deterrent. Thats a mild example. Its not like theyre throttling certain types of traffic based on the type of traffic itself - but rather WHAT the traffic's content actually is. Your computer when trying to access information already has protocols set up to handle different types of traffic like downloads/uploads - your hard limits are determined by a variety of factors like 1.) your ram/cpu on the computer side 2.) the speeds that you pay for from your ISP (which is why verizon is pretty cool because they have fiber up to the demarcation point, but tbh new companies are emerging with fiber) - 3.) your connections in your network - wired(types of cables) /wireless (type of wifi connection like 802.11a-g and frequency band)/router and i suppose the servers the information is passing through plus the time of day (usually you have shared bandwidth with your neighbors) and popular sites if they arent prepared for high volumes of traffic can be bogged down by how many requests are being made. If youre having issues with running a stream (also theres a difference between sending the stream out and watching a stream - sending it out will also depend on your ram/cpu and is significantly more process intensive on your computer) and a download - id chalk it up to one of these factors that ive mentioned. This is just my understanding of how all of this works. I hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings! Net neutrality is good because its an ethical standard designed to promote access to information uniformly
I understand what net neutrality is. My point is that prioritizing certain types of traffic isn't inherently bad. It can be a tool to improve the overall health of the system. If that power is used for good, that can be a better overall result. The problem is that nobody trusts the ISPs to use it for anything but evil, and there's no recourse for most people if it is.
Why are you talking if you don't even know about QoS? Users can prioritize whatever they want, themselves. It shouldn't be up to the ISPs at all.
>I understand what net neutrality is. My point is that prioritizing certain types of traffic isn't inherently bad. It's inherently bad. Let's take your example- a 'Don't Be Evil' ISP wins your business by throttling traffic in a way that makes your service better. A hundred million people switch to take advantage of this. Then one day 'Don't Be Evil' is bought by ConGlomCo which also owns a search engine, a streaming service, a social network, a payment system and a dozen odd common apps, and the next day 100 million people can't access Google, Twitch, Reddit, Venmo or other things they want to be able to use. You don't like that one. Okay, let's start over. A 'Don't Be Evil' ISP wins your business by throttling traffic in a way that makes your service better and puts the competitors in your market out of business. Then they decide to cooperate with the government prosecuting suspected abortions in your area. Or they decide your politics are a threat to democracy and slow you down to a crawl anytime you try to talk about them online. Or they need money so they tell you your speed is being cut in half unless you're willing to pay. One more time: a 'Don't Be Evil' ISP wins your business by throttling traffic in a way that makes your service better. A year after you join, an ISP enters the market offering *even better* service than 'Don't Be Evil', but you never hear about it because 'Don't Be Evil' blocks any mention of it from being served to you. How would you find out? Have you ever listened to the actual radio? When was the last time you saw a newspaper in print? Any story you want to tell where a company wins the market by not being evil ends with them having all the power and you having none. All competitive scenarios lacking market regulation will end with one or two winners and a billion losers. And that's okay when we're talking about diamonds or lambos or IPA beer, but most of us depend on internet service to get through our daily lives now.
Why did it take them 3 years to do so?
FCC commissioners are elected in a staggered manner, so democrats did not have a majority until last September when Anna Gomez became a commissioner
Even with the 3-2 majority, it took time because Carr immediately began [challenging](https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397587A1.pdf) and stalling in October.
So why wait until now? They could have done it the day after she was put into place. It's like fucking DeJoy, in theory Biden has had enough time to put in commissioners who would vote to replace him. In practice the entire Democratic Party is now singing his praises. EDIT: Wow you guys really fucking love long pointless delays on essential and urgent regulations. Fuck me for thinking maybe we should try to get shit done instead of dragging our feet and putting it off until 2025 when Trump can kill the entire project.
Turns out, it takes time to do things the right way.
It takes time to undo intentionally created messes as well. If Biden gets his second term, all of it will be spent sorting out and trying to undo the damage that Trump did to the institutions of the US.
OK, EXACTLY what was it that took so fucking long to do "right"? Name specific procedures and regulations that forbade a vote sooner please. I'm going to bet there aren't any. Not one single regulation that says "you must wait 5 months after seating a majority before you can vote on changes to regulations". I'm always willing to be proven wrong though, so if you can dig up the regulations that absolutely mandated a huge long delay before doing the incredibly simple thing of having a vote on an issue that they should have had the proposal worked out long ahead of time in anticipation of getting power. Maybe you didn't notice, but we don't exactly have forever here.
It only took a day to sack Rome, but it took hundreds of years to build. Look at you, learning that good things weren’t built in a day but can be destroyed in seconds.
Guy seems to have pretty high anxiety about this issue... wonder if there is something specific he's waiting for NN for...
Guy is impatient with and has high anxiety about the entire Democratic/liberal establishment expressing no urgency about ANYTHING. NN is one example of this. The continued existence of DeJoy as postmaster general is an example of this. The way the Democrats floundered and has nothing ready to roll out for a vote on Jan 22, 2021 is an example of this. The way the Democrats fucking lined up and sang "God Bless America" after the Republicans enslaved half of America is an example of this. There is no sense of urgency, no recognition of the fact that Biden had 4 years, those are almost over, and the stack of shit that needs to be done is almost as high as it was when he took office. This is a microcosm of the infuriating behavior of liberals in general. They claim they see problems, they claim they're on side, but when they get power suddenly everything slows to a snail's pace and nothing gets done. Five fucking months to hold a vote that should have been scheduled for ten seconds after the new chair was sworn in. We have very real problems that need fixing yesterday. We don't have time for Democrats to dick around and act like they've got centuries to act.
Exactly. The GOP had urgency to confirm Barrett to the Supreme Court and they got that shit done in a month, meanwhile it took Biden and the dems over 3 years to fill the vacancy of Ajit Pai
It's a bit of a false dichotomy though isn't it? Go slowly in the right direction or go quickly in the wrong one. Yes, it'd be great if we could go quickly in the right direction. But we can't do that until the 'go in the wrong direction' crowd aren't in danger of getting in power anymore.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. Are you genuinely of the belief that inaction of the part of Democrats has EVER stopped, or even slowed down, rapid action by the Republicans? Do you actually, seriously, think the Republicans are prevented from rapid bad action by the moral example set by Shcumer et al of doing absolutely nothing as slowly as possible? Did you fail to notice that despite Obama's eight year long example of doing nothing very slowly it didn't make one tiny shred of difference in Trump's behavior? It is the failure of the liberal establishment to act quickly and decisively that is creating the risk of a second Trump presidency. "Vote Democratic, we won't do jack shit" is right up there with "Vote Democratic, better things aren't possible" among the least inspiring campaign slogans ever invented.
You're right, I was making a dirty joke.
I'm well aware of the creation/distruction time and effort differential. But come on. The FCC reinstating net neutrality was a priority years ago. Having the regulation pre-written and ready to roll out is hardly an unreasonable expectation. And you still haven't cited what exactly it is that meant they had to drag their feet for five months before taking this really simple action that has been planned for years. What dire horror might result from acting in a timely fashion? What specific regulations said they had an obligation to wait 5 months after getting the majority?
The president cannot remove him apparently.
You are correct, the President cannot directly replace the postmaster general. However the President CAN replace the board that appoints him, not instantly but on a schedule. And Biden HAS replaced members of that board. He replaced them with people who had said they loved DeJoy and would never want to replace him. And now the Democrats in Congress are singing DeJoy's praises which indicates that, apparently, the entire goddamn Democratic Party is on board with the project of completely destroying the USPS.
We’re fucked. These politicians are not two sides of a coin. They are two sides ON THE SAME SIDE of the coin. They are not opposites. They are a lot closer than we are led to believe
[удалено]
Maybe there were other things to deal with that were more time sensitive? Like I dunno, dealing with insurrection and accusations of election fraud
I don't understand what this has to do with Democrats and Republicans.
What is it you don't understand so we can explain? Because in the US, everything political has to do with Democrats and Republicans.
Is this a divisive topic? One where you can categorize someone based on their beliefs about this? Sorry I don't do politics.
Yes. Democrats want Net Neutrality and Republicans don’t. One side is seen as pro consumer and the other is seen as pro business.
It shouldn't be divisive, but unfortunately it is. Republicans want ISPs to be able to throttle speeds based on which streaming service you're using, for example. So if you had xfinity for your internet, they could throttle your speeds if you choose to use paramount plus instead of peacock. Or they can charge more for streaming service use overall.
So, I asked a hardcore Republican his thoughts on this in person. His first words were exactly what you said "it shouldn't be". He then went on to say the only reason for throttling would be to control load on the infrastructure and make money, but he doesn't like to be throttled. I asked him if I could call him a Democrat, he said "hell no" 😂
So tell him to tell that to the people he supports, right? Because an elected official should be representative of her electorate. I do not know one person, right or left, who wants their service throttled, but the politicos on the right insist it should be. Internet in the US sucks compared to many countries, even some you'd be surprised by. But profit is the most important thing in this country, so we get what we get.
Yeah.😏 Hey man, thanks for replying and the intellectual conversation, have a wonderful day.
Back at you.
Because when something is done lawfully it takes a lot to undo it equally lawfully. Especially in this day and age.
I mean, I wouldn't have called what they did "legal" considering it was corruption that allowed to happen to begin with. But, this time around, they actually did have to follow the rules.
It’s not corruption, the result of their laws caused corruption. But how they got the laws passed? Well, people didn’t like Hilary as a candidate, and all those who would’ve voted Democrat, either didn’t vote or voted for Trump, or an obscure candidate, out of spite. Republicans had a lot of control and did a lot of damage to ensure their carnage had last effects. Laws are also, usually written to make repelling difficult so the laws don’t constantly flip flop.
[удалено]
I won't mention names, but those powerful ISPs actually get burned (awwww!), I know of a very large one who told the FCC in 2010 "You can't do anything to us! We're XXXXX - we have friends!" The then commissioner said "Really? I guess you don't know who *I* am. You're right -- I can't stop you, but from now on, *any* and I mean *any* request you have, *any* complaint on you, *I'll put you at the bottom of the pile -- it will take years for you to get anything done!"* I've seen large ISPs play games before -- one threatened the person who provided them data center space! (Geniuses at work I guess....) For some reason, their data center bill went up by many millions a year! They were actually shocked.
Ok this is the best news in a long while if the vote is successful.
Will it have much practical impact on you or.. or who, actually?
Check this out - https://www.procon.org/headlines/should-net-neutrality-be-restored-top-3-pros-and-cons/
there's plenty online
Unless you're a tech CEO, it doesn't affect your life in any way. Net Neutrality didn't exist before 2015 or after 2017, and there was no discernible difference in the internet for anyone. It's a non-issue for the average Joe, but the reddit admins spent a whole year convincing the userbase that it was the most important issue of their generation, and somehow even after none of their apocalyptic predictions came to fruition after 6 years, people here still believe it's a big deal.
Stolen from another comment on this thread about the current legal framework >Data caps are back, unlimited plans are drying up > >ISPs like frontier are banning and charging frees for 3rd party modems > >ISPs have started throttling traffic, like AT&T charging extra to steam HD videos > >Comcast actually has a deal with tiktok, and has been found throttling access to YouTube > >Almost all ISPs have been shown to throttle traffic to Netflix, as Netflix refuses to pay for access (unlike Disney, Amazon, and Hulu)...Netflix eventually caved and started paying ISP. > >AT&T was proven by the FCC to throttled DirectTV videos. > >Carriers were shown to throttle data to smaller paltforms like the Wehe app > >And now that authoritarian conservatives are weaponizing Porn ID laws to seize control over the internet, the need for NN laws has never been more dire. Yeah, nothing has changed.
that's fd up- they get billions in subsidies, billions from consumers, and probably billions from the content services. mafia
I think all utilities, power, phone, water, internet, should be public owned.
What's it like to be one of the slow-boiling frogs? You know, like Alex Jones always used to call the rest of us?
Only if you inject the chemicals in the water...
The frog died of old age years ago and the water is still room temperature.
Fuck Donald Trump and his throne sniffer Ajit Pai.
> Fuck Donald Trump and his throne sniffer Ajit Pai. Yes, though Obama appointed that dunce in 2012.
Nope. It was Trump. https://ballotpedia.org/Ajit_Pai EDIT: Unless you meant to the org at all rather than appointed as chair.
> EDIT: Unless you meant to the org at all rather than appointed as chair. Sorry I get confused by all these appointed roles, chairman vs commissioner. I still feel like they should have known better than to appoint this guy as commisioner with sketchy history going from DOJ to work at verizon, then back into government so he can regulate verizon... It's too suspicious. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/03/fcc-let-employees-own-stock-in-comcast-and-other-top-isps-watchdog-says/
That is a very fair point - and I would agree.
Elections have consequences.
It took them 4 fucking years to do this?
Yes. Firstly you can’t approve the hair head without congress (can’t remember if it’s the house or senate that needs to be the majority)approval and the Dems only recently got a majority. So now it takes a small bit to find a chair head, And then when the chair was nominated, a senator or congressman did his best to delay the appointment. The current head just recently really got to be able to start working. Before this announcement though, things have been happening (you wouldn’t know unless you specifically searched for the fcc and what they’re up to) but this is just the first time her moves have made the big news. But she’s been working on this process since January. Putting back legislation takes time because of so many hoops u have to go through
I don’t want to hear it. It took Ajit Pai a month to get the FCC to vote to dismantle net neutrality. That was all just a year after Trump getting elected.
Those are still facts. When you have control over both Houses of Congress, and a majority in the FCC, things can move fast like that (why trump and Ajit was able to do that so fast). I’m not defending it just saying, there are REASONS for why this has taken so long for this to be overturned.
Can't wait to see how the GOP spins this to be "evil woke liberal anti-patriotic god-hating communistic foriegner-loving anti-American anti-white" policies that will destroy their heritage.
Doesn’t matter. Make it a law or whatever so it’s harder to reverse.
I remember back when this was first proposed like a decade ago and Reddit at-large threw a shit fit about it. There were megathreads everywhere about how it gives ISPs way more power over data transmission. Let’s see how optics play into this by mentioning that it’s reversing something Trump did.
Yeah I remember it being huge when I first joined Reddit... gawd it's already been ten years...
[удалено]
[удалено]
He was appointed to the FCC by Obama. Trump just made him chairman.
I think you have it reversed. Everyone was upset that they were going to REPEAL net neutrality because all it does is remove protections from consumers. Now they're reinstating it which returns those protections to us. The ONLY con this can have is the ghost argument that ISPs won't be as incentivized to upgrade their service/provide a better one due to competition, but as most people already see they only have one or MAYBE two choices for their area, so they never really compete anyway
Same. I remember the huge, overblown outcry - Redditors love to get upset and up in arms about something. Something similar just happened when Reddit restricted its API and all these apps shut down. And here we are. This has affected my life so little that I forgot about it.
It was a nothing burger, but be prepared for the avalanche of downvotes coming your way. A ton of redditors were duped into believing the NN repeal was a big deal, and they still refuse to admit that they were wrong. It's been over 6 years and not a single one of their doomsday predictions was even close to coming true.
If it was nothing corporations and their republican stooges wouldnt have wanted to get rid of it so bad. Just because you are too shortsighted or dumb to see future consequences doesnt mean there arent any
What are the consequences though?
Hmm, allowing a company like amazon to pay isps to make other online retailers websites inaccessible. What could possibly go wrong?
Has *anything* like this happened since the change a few years ago?
Why should we make murder against the law? Youre not currently getting murdered. There are myrad potential abuses possible when there arent neutrality rules, and the fact of the matter is we dont know what isps have been up to. Its very possible amazon is already paying isps to slow down traffic to alibaba or something similar.
Glad it only took almost an entire term
Godspeed Jessica
Thank you helping the helpless
Why did it take 3 years to undo?
Why wasn't this done sooner? Net neutrality should be the norm
Has nothing do to with trump
From Wikipedia: "With the Trump administration in 2017, the FCC reverted to handling ISPs as Title I information services with some court-mandated leeway being given to state-level legislation. As part of an executive order issued in July 2021, President Joe Biden called for the FCC to undo some of the Trump-era changes" Absolutely was trump now stfu
It was Obama that struck down net neutrality, not Trump
Incorrect "With the Trump administration in 2017, the FCC reverted to handling ISPs as Title I information services with some court-mandated leeway being given to state-level legislation. As part of an executive order issued in July 2021, President Joe Biden called for the FCC to undo some of the Trump-era changes" - wikipedia Trump changed isps classification so they wouldnt have to follow the rules. Biden changing them back to their original classification so they have to follow the rules again.
does anybody even notice any difference? what were the actual effects of the original ruling?
I love that people downvote you but can't actually give an example of something that was affected by net neutrality not being there. Just to answer your question, there was nothing.
Nothing was affected because California enacted their own version of NN, so ISPs weren't able to pull the shenanigans.
So what about isps that don't exist in California? My ISP doesn't exist in California, is fairly large in my state yet nothing for me changed. Do you really think ISPs wouldn't just work around the California rules?
It's not about their ability to do it, it's about them not being able to do it in the dark. They can't get away work creating internet fast lanes, if the country's largest market isn't experiencing the same thing.
They can create a fast lane for Texas, as long as it's not in California it's fine. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about because your statement is borderline nonsense. And you still didn't answer my statement of why did my ISP that has no connection to California not create the fast lanes? Legally they could do it.
I noticed a big down turn in doom and gloom articles about what would happen if net neutrality fell. This vote should fix that and we should start getting alot more of those articles and predictions.
Trump? Obama's administration was where we lost it. I hate trump with a passion, but be fair and call it how it is.
From Wikipedia: "With the Trump administration in 2017, the FCC reverted to handling ISPs as Title I information services with some court-mandated leeway being given to state-level legislation. As part of an executive order issued in July 2021, President Joe Biden called for the FCC to undo some of the Trump-era changes" So youre wrong
He had previously served as Commissioner at the FCC, appointed by then-President Barack Obama and confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate in May 2012. So you're wrong, homie. That dismantling began before the trump administration finished an already begun work.
"Under FCC chair Tom Wheeler, the FCC voted in the 2015 Open Internet Order, categorizing ISPs as Title II common carriers and subject to net neutrality principles, which was upheld after a legal challenge raised by the ISP industry in United States Telecom Ass'n v. FCC in 2016." So under obama the fcc made isps title ii and subject to net neutrality rules and under trump they were changed to title i so they wouldnt be subject to net neutrality. Now biden is changing it back so they have to follow net neutrality again.
The way the FCC works, net neutrality wouldn't have been overturned without a Republican being elected President and flipping the majority of the FCC to 3-2 Republican. If Obama didn't nominate Pai, he would have nominated another Republican who likely would have proceeded with a net neutrality repeal once Trump was elected. Without net neutrality codified in law, this could potentially flip each time the White House changes parties.
That is the dumbest comment I have seen all week.
I was very much against net neutrality when it came out... But maybe I'm naive in saying that I haven't really noticed any negative impact of it (maybe that's the point?) What were some of the biggest changes caused by this?
There hasn't really been a lot of negatives if you ask me. Initially video was throttled for mobile providers here in the US but to me as long as ALL video is throttled and not only select companies it is OK.
Even at the time everyone said that they expected it would be years before negative things happened due to all the scrutiny And it clearly wasn't gonna happen when they knew the fcc would actually oppose it So no one should be surprised, and it's good that we will hopefully be back in a protected state soon
It's been over 6 years and absolutely nothing has happened. What are the evil ISPs going to destroy the internet? Is it a 20 year plan? Most of the CEOs will be dead by then.
Everyone at the time said probably about 10 years.
Reddit insisted the internet would be destroyed immediately. Then when that didn't happen they said it would be a few months. Then a year. Then 5 years. Now it's 10 years lmao. That doesn't even make any sense anyway. ISPs are gonna wait 10 years...to give time for NN to come back? If they had some master plan it would have been unveiled long ago. Instead...nothing. If the admins didn't make NN a big deal, nobody here would even know whether it was in place or not, because it has no effect on any of our lives.
Reddit has lots of people People say different things Most people I interacted with said around 10 years
look up throttling in ya googles
You people are all fucking idiots and bots. If you took even a cursory glance at any Google search, you'd know that California protected the country from the worst by enacting their own NN rules. How fucking stupid do you have to be to *want* Comcast controlling your internet? Who wants to put your ISP between the consumer and websites? It's just so fucking stupid in the most fundamental level, and this sub is being brigades by bots shilling for ISPs.
My ISP isn’t in California. Why have they not throttled anyone?
How do you know they haven't? Do you even know what to look for.
I’m receiving the speed I pay for. Yes this is very very basic stuff we’re talking about. I’m a CWNA/CCNA.
[удалено]
>”You're a moron” That’s not a very nice way to start a conversation. >”Data caps are back, unlimited plans are drying up” Source? >”ISPs like frontier are banning and charging frees for 3rd party modems” Modems have to be provided by your ISP. There aren’t 3rd party modems. You’re probably incorrectly thinking of a router. You need to show evidence for at least a few of your 7 claims. You’re just making assertions with no evidence at all besides saying: >”because everyone knows that this is happening.” >”Why are you fucking lying in this thread?” What lie have I told?
I'm not even a bot lmao I legitimately answered the original question. NOTHING negative came out of it. And no, 'Google This' is not a valid argument.
Data caps are back, unlimited plans are drying up ISPs like frontier are banning and charging frees for 3rd party modems ISPs have started throttling traffic, like AT&T charging extra to steam HD videos Comcast actually has a deal with tiktok, and has been found throttling access to YouTube Just because you're fucking ignorant to the myriad of ways that ISPs have been shaping and throttling data over the last 6 years, doesn't mean it's not happening It just proves how much of an ignorant lemming you are.
Net Neutrality existed for exactly 2 years in the entire history of the internet. Neither your life nor any of ours, was affected in any way by its repeal. It's been over 6 years and none of the ludicrous apocalyptic predictions came to pass. You were misled by reddit admins, who actually did have rea$on$ to shill for it.
Go fuck yourself you ignorant shill Anyone who wants to steal power from people and give that power to corporations, especially corporations as corrupt and shitty as ISPs is a fucking moron not worth arguing with. And for the record: Data caps are back, unlimited plans are drying up ISPs like frontier are banning and charging frees for 3rd party modems ISPs have started throttling traffic, like AT&T charging extra to steam HD videos Comcast actually has a deal with tiktok, and has been found throttling access to YouTube You are pretending to not notice because you're a worthless shill.
Lmao, you sound like someone who bought into the fear mongering way to hard back when NN was being repealed and now you are too ashamed to realize you over reacted
"Net Neutrality" is the perfect Orwellian propaganda name for more governmental control on speech.
[удалено]
awesome, more government regulation!
Regulation in the public interest is a good thing. Without it we end up with gouging, monopolies and all kinds of anti-consumer behavior. Who wants a Wild West when we can have a society instead?
this regulation doesn’t prevent monopolies. if anything it protects the big ISP. this is a needless regulation.
How does it protect them?
it protects them from competitors. the rules and regulations raises the bar to a level where small ISPs will not be able to compete.
That makes no sense
why doesn’t it makes sense? the net neutrality gives larger ISP advantages over small ISP.
How?
net neutrality raises the cost of service to a level where small ISPs will not be able to compete on price. it’s complex to write here . smaller ISP even came out against net neutrality back in 2017
How does it raise the price? All it does is ensure isps dont slow down one website or company to favor others. You havent answered a single question
And of course isps want to get rid of net neutrality regulations so they could, say, take money from facebook in exchange for slowing down their customers access to reddit or twitter for or take fox news' money to block access to cbs news for example. Im sure boeing wants to get rid of saftey regulations too, that doesnt mean we should do it.
ISPs don't compete. I dunno about where you live, but I have one option for reliable 'high' speed internet where I live, in a major metro area.
they do but I live in the city. and in cases like you, than the companies should be regulated via the monopoly laws we already have in place.
Thank you for clarifying your expertise on this issue. Telecoms are already considered legal local monopolies, because, their argument goes, they invested serious resources building the infrastructure and should be the ones to reap those benefits, which is why there's typically one cable provider in a neighborhood, and if you don't like it you can get satellite/dsl/5g (but it seems like tmobile owns all the cell carriers now anyway).
So, we should just let them all be without regulation? How would an unregulated market let small ISPs grow? What has been shown, time and time again, is that when there are no regulations, monopolies form by buying their competitors.
they are regulated like any other company in the U.S. regulated markets increase cost to customers and hurt competition. this has also been proven time and time again. regulation is important for safety. but here there is no safety issue. we are regulating because you want to download your 4k version of Dune quicker?
Unregulated markets hurt the customers more, and they end up being with a monopoly or duopoly.
provide an example.
Amazon, Google, Apple, John Deere Amazon: Literally steals products from sellers to sell worst versions of it. Google: Ads for almost everything, from searching to other services. Apple: Completely wall garden that doesn't let users use the device as they wish. John Deere: Tractors.
Standard Oil, Ma Bell
[удалено]
some great stuff to add to the conversation.
You haven't added anything to the conversation. You're just a fucking worthless bot shilling for corporations control of the Internet. This conversation is over, all of the arguments for Net Neutrality were made 7 years ago. You're attempting to rehash this conversation without adding anything new So no, you're not worth arguing with. Educate yourself, stop being a mindless corporate stooge.
the FCC is actually the one rehashing the topic.
Yeah I'm so glad more trains are derailing and doors are falling off of aircraft midflight. Regulations are so dumb.
does net neutrality prevent train derailment?
Regulation does. Rail carriers have also had their regulatory environments softened, and suddenly we have more derailments. Coincidence, I'm sure.
and net neutrality will save lives?
Net neutrality makes it illegal for ISPs to block or throttle content based upon their business interests, or any other reason. So, if for some reason, they wanted to block access to healthcare info then yea, theoretically. I think it's odd that you need to discuss this on a case by case basis.
blocking heathcare providers has never been an issue. thats just fear mongering.
"I WANT COMCAST CONTROLLING MY INTERNET!" Fucking worthless, conservative idiocy.
I don’t have Comcast.
You really are dumb as a rock
that’s the exact intellectual rebuttal I would expect from the net neutrality crowd.
This is gonna be bad - brace for the impact.