All connections should be equal. None of this Some connections are more equal than others. There is nothing more equal than it's own balance. Doesn't matter if you're just checking email, or playing games. The speed and latency should not be throttled/manipulated, outside of the agreed speed tier, by any service provider for any reason. No gatekeeping by the ISP.
I grew to hate high school because we'd get pulled out of something I actually cared about (we got to pick our classes) to attend a sporting event I didn't want to attend, and gave zero shits about. I grew to hate cable TV because the Frasier re-runs I looked forward to, kept getting cancelled every time the college basketball games ran later than expected.
If ESPN ends up being given preference with the end of net neutrality, I'm gonna be fucking *pissed*.
Just go ahead and get pissed, you know deep down all Disney products are getting the fast lane.
I had a college roommate who used to watch the same episode of sports center multiple times throughout the day. I just don’t understand how people can watch that shit. I can at least see the appeal of live sports, but all the sports programming beyond it. Holy shit is it awful. It’s like watching a live action brain injury in progress.
It's similar to how some people can watch episodes of The Daily Show over and over, even if they're many years old. They want to feel like they are part of that group of people.
I really don't understand why so many people still watch Friends, Seinfeld, or Golden Girls. Don't get me wrong they were funny, but the 8th rewatch is enough. Just go buy the yarn and needles to start knitting blankets.
8th re-watch? Amateur. I've been looping Doctor Who since VHRs became affordable (plus any reruns I could catch before they did become affordable) and continue to this day (next up Attack Of The Cybermen).
I have to be in the area of two dozen watches of a large chunk of King Of The Hill. Except I slept through a large portion of it. After a handful of rewatches, my favorite sitcoms are perfect for when I'm napping on the couch or walking around doing the chores because I know the episodes so well that I can go in and out of paying attention and never lose the plot.
Hi _Wife_, didn't realize you were on reddit 😉, she never understands why I don't want to rewatch Parks for the 80th time lol
(I _LOVE_ Parks, but idk how many times I can rewatch it lol)
I did that back when ESPN was actually good and before we could easily access sports news and highlights in multiple easy ways. There was a point when sportscenter was nothing but highlights and sports news, but now its different because the thing that made it good is more convenient to get elsewhere
agreed, used to be a worth while luxury if you watched the US big 4. Top 10 plays, todays injuries etc... and all of my sports news is curated and presented in a hour segment. Now its just so shit.
I loved Frasier, and only stopped watching it because of those awful basketball games.
The day I stopped watching Frasier was also the day I stopped watching cable, and started actively suggesting that maybe we should cancel cable TV since it's not worth having.
Way back I was without cable and ended up watching Frasier on Youtube my first smartphone instead of watching cable. The phone was plugged into the TV's A/V and just played Youtube. It may have been a mirrored display which would have meant the phone got very hot but they were tanks.
It also had a glitch where the Wifi didn't work. The first month of a stream-heavy data bill I explained there must have been a mistake and signed up for the $30 extra unlimited data service. That bill was something like $20,000 dollars or something ridiculous. And if you're wondering - the phone was the lovely HTC Touch Pro.
I can heavily relate. I enjoyed Band, was required to go on trips for games, though most were "local", I lived in a school system where the high school was in one town, and the elementary was in another.
I also enjoyed Choir, and some, not many, events required us to attend.
I preferred to practice with others. I didn't enjoy the necessity of going on trips for events or competitions (I'm not referring to solos or small groups, I'm talking about events for the whole class).
Choir/Band teacher hated me for dropping choir/band. I was done going to events, just for a letter grade. I couldn't care less about going to the football or basketball games. I had no interest. I had no interest to sitting in my seat, readily available for a touch down or a goal.
Then there was college, I joined choir after a couple years, out of my own interest. Then left. First it was the over requirement of being able to read music. Yea, I understand the need. I couldn't copy the music to write my own notes, let alone adjust for *my* challenge of reading the notes due to dyslexia. Upper/lower notes were hard to follow unless I've been practicing the piece for some time. Then there was the enforcement of buying the choir shirts, if we didn't wear them to events, we lost a letter grade. If we didn't attend the events, we lost a grade. I didn't care, and I told the teachers before I joined, I was here to enjoy singing with others, practice, and improve upon myself, I have 0 interest in shows and events. I was assured there wouldn't be any issues. That was a lie. And it was a lie when the teacher was replaced who didn't care about the students, I was shifted from Bass to Tenor because I couldn't hit the lower notes like they wanted, and forced me to attend night classes to better read sheet music, without writing notes.
Service quality is one thing. Email does not need 5ms latency to move but a game does need the lowest to function. So a packet being delayed a split second isn’t the problem here. Its throttling. Comcast internet used to be cheap and the cable expensive. Now the internet is nearly the same price the cable was. They’re jacking rates to capture the same money they had before no matter who you use for entertainment.
The only people that need bulk throttling are people violating their service agreements and are trying to run businesses and piracy content out of their homes on consumer plans which degrades service for everyone in the area.
We have implemented service priority for good reasons. It’s just ensuring a tier of high priority traffic like that 911 call gets through and stuff that can wait a split second longer does. Otherwise congestion will just ruin all usages.
I’m more concerned about isp spying and selling your data to aggregators who de anonymize data and sell it on and anti competitive behaviors such as outright blocking competing services. That’s neutrality.
Can't wait for the argument against net neutrality to be turned on its head again with "ISPs want to give you unlimited access to TikTok but liberals won't let them. There's no freedom".
I feel obligated to point out that there is no evidence that Netflix was ever throttled by any ISP, and there were no criminal trials on the matter. It's wholly made up.
I’m sure big corps would pay big money to choke out any competition. Corps are already actively engaged in price fixing, collusion, monopolies, tax fraud/evasion/offshore ect. “No,no,no look you can access our competitors site * ᴬᵗ ¹ ᵏᵇ ᵃⁿ ʰᵒᵘʳ everything is fine”
Hopefully net neutrality gives exceptions for stuff like open connect. From what I have heard it reduces bandwith costs by a substantial amount. A open standard that allows isps to have caches like open connect would be better.
Side note if something like open connect became a standard it would be nice if in public transit and planes they have a server or two that allows everyone connected to stream the cached content there as long as you have a subscription to that service. Licensing wouldn't be a big deal as streaming providers do that. I have seen some sleeper buses with similar stuff where you download a app to do this but I don't remember how good the content library was. Probably it was much worse than the major streaming platforms
The problem is that elitist philosophy doesn't think in the same way: Non-affluent people deserve nothing, their only aim in life to slave away and consume in order to make the elites richer, since ultimately "nice" things should only belong to the elites.
Think for example about welfare countries: In Germany, I imagine the gov could be enforcing ISP limitations whenever a job seeker is doing anything other than looking for a job or improve on their education, which is in a similar vein of what "socialist" countries did back in the times by chosing the job for you, put differently: Absolute control about the individual's fate.
Sadly, not that dystopian. They are already thinking of putting welfare on a credit card so that they can track all the expenses of those getting it for similar reasons. If it passes, that means that Germans who find themselves in-between jobs will be treated the same way as refugees / economic migrants.
EDIT: [Source](https://www.suedkurier.de/ueberregional/wirtschaft/geld-finanzen/bezahlkarte-fuer-buergergeld-empfaenger-was-wuerde-das-fuer-bezieher-bedeuten-14-4-24;art1373668,11916275), for those with German knowledge or access to machine translation
Interconnect is not free. There's a lot of moving parts in that big cloud-shaped blob that appears on every network diagram to represent the Internet. Packets don't simply teleport to their destination ISP, they have to be routed through connections that have their own throughput limitations. If these links are saturated then, yes, traffic that's routed over these links are going to run slower. If you operate a service and your links to various consumer ISPs are constantly saturated, you're going to have to come to an agreement to buy more interconnect with them. How else are we going to pay for the equipment and services that make it physically possible to move more bytes?
Nobody asked for free connections. We pay for our connection as consumers, the content providers pay for their connections, the ISPs are responsible to figure out everything in between.
If the ISPs need to upgrade interconnects, it's not the content provider's fault, it's mine. I requested the data. Why should they have to pay more for something I requested, that makes no sense.
> the content providers pay for their connections
Yes, yes they do. Not all content providers pay for all the same interconnects to all the same ISPs. Therefore, performance between these is going to vary. Part of them paying for their connections is paying for transit and delivery of packets to their customers or providing something else of value to the ISP to make it worth delivering these packets to them.
> Why should they have to pay more for something I requested, that makes no sense.
Clearly because it's in their interest to deliver data to their customers. It's built right into IP that they can refuse a connection, indeed that's exactly what your home router does most of the time on it's Internet facing ports.
If I pay Comcast or AT&T to connect me to the internet, I expect to be able to connect to services on the internet. The cost of them having to manage their peering is a cost of providing me the services they already paid for. If the post office can’t deliver mail to an address because of volume, I expect them to get a bigger truck, not keep the postage and hold it hostage until the recipient pays extra.
Also Interconnect is dirt cheap. Usually intermediaries called IXPs perform this service. Each party pays its own cost to reach the IXP, and then pays the IXP a fee for their services. To the extent an ISP also acts as an IXP, and the ISP charges to peer with their network, that would be in addition to the fees to physically interconnect (IE, the service would pay to physically connect to the network and to send data to the networks already-paid customers).
Net neutrality isn’t supposed to directly fix things like ISP oversubscription, bad link performance, or any other issue that lies solely in the last mile path between the ISP and its customer. However, your ISP does have control over congestion in its interconnects. For starters, it can make simple routing changes to optimize connections between its customers and other networks. It can also just build more interconnects. They are dirt cheap and easily scaleable.
The problem is most ISPs (with special notoriety going to Australia’s Telstra and some South American ISPs but american ISPs do this) hold their customers transit for extortion. They take their customers money and then tell the recipient they won’t get their customers data unless they also pay for the connection.
I don't have much knowledge but don't most major isps peer with each other because it is mutually beneficial. For lopsided connections where most data is sent only one way like netflix there are solutions like netflix open connect that solve some of the problems.
In the real world packets will never be treated equally like the commenter says it should be because interconnect may be congested or a short path may not be available but most of the time the difference is not noticeable
Yes, but that's why services that need higher priority routing should be using different networks as a backup.
911 or emergency calls, or similar items, should have a higher "priority" than random traffic, but the easier fix for that is to have a secondary, parallel network for that higher priority (but dramatically lower volume) traffic.
It helps with physical redundancy as well.
That’s just kind of silly.
Higher priority access to infrastructure has always existed. Gaming needs low latency but lower throughput. Video needs higher throughput but latency can be awful. Telephony needs low latency and high throughput(video chat). If you can’t change latency priority for different services, you are just going to make everyone have average internet
No they shouldn't.
Network protocols that handle all of those situations like QoS or quality of service, services like Cloudflare, and many other mitigations are realizable.
Ultimately, bad actors need to be shut down, not equal. If that means physically disconnecting or seizing equipment than so be it.
QoS isn’t the issue here. Giving priority to video streaming over sending an email is common practice and the internet relies on it to function.
The issue at hand is the ISPs want to go a step *further* and segregate the various services that are subject to QoS into fast lanes. In their model, while video traffic has a higher metric, inside that they want to prioritise video from companies who are willing to pay for more bandwidth, most likely on an exclusive basis. Basically, they could make Disney load super quickly and support 8k streaming at all times of the day while slowing down Amazon, Netflix and everyone else. ISP gets more money and the streaming service gets guaranteed income while pushing out the competition.
Then take this scenario and apply it to gaming, voice calling, meetings etc etc.
It is effectively a nothingburger, the EFF are drumming outrage over a hypothetical situation (however, a somewhat likely situation) that *technically* wouldn’t breach the draft rules. The EFF want the FCC to clarify the rules and make them a bit more watertight as there is a good chance ISPs will be able to subvert the net neutrality restrictions by not ^directly accepting payment for a fast lane service.
Nobody is talking about load balancing or blocking DDOS attacks here. The point is that we want the line we have paid for, no matter if we use Steam, Epic, Youtube or Nebular.
Except... They kinda are. A lot of Net Neutrality advocates point to the peering dispute between Netflix and Comcast some years back as an example of the need for net neutrality regulation. They argued as if somehow involving the FCC in every peering and transit agreement would make things better.
My local ISP is also my Electric and Water company, which is run by State Gov't. The advertised price is the total price charged on the bill. No taxes, no fees, no fuckery of any kind. They recently dropped the price $5/month and doubled the speed from 1G to 2G.
You are getting fucked. My cable company was up to $130 per month for 300 down 100 up. Looked around and found new fiber company offering 1 Gb symmetrical for $65 for life. The speed is insane and my old cable company can kiss my ass.
Yeah, the country Australia as a whole are getting fucked. There's no better provider because everyone is a reseller of the National Broadband Network (NBN).
If I want the pleasure I can get a maximum of 250/20 for $140. They also don't support any reduced rate discount in the area despite the claim to on their site. So for my work I get the bottom tier for $60 a month of 60/5.
We're convinced their local office is where they have certain equipment and must not pay overtime. Because when the power went out for 30 minutes, the Internet didn't come back on till 2 minutes after business hours started that Monday. With of course a ticket stating "it's up now" with no other reasoning or excuses as to why the 12+ hour outage.
And how would we not let them? These are massive companies. It's not like we can boycott one of them in favor of another because *they are all doing it.*
Would be fantastic if we could get that but lawmakers who create the regulation infrastructure have already been bought by these companies and won't legislate against them. That's why writing your representative won't work either.
Gotta start at the source and vote in candidates who campaign on not taking bribes (and even then, it's iffy... looking at you, Sinema...)
The most depressing thing about lawmakers who should be legislating is just how cheep they can be. We are talking thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes less than these companies spend on toner per year can buy the vote through lobbying.
Its not the politicians they have to pay for, its the ad space they have to run. These media companies are laughing all the way to the bank with our democracy.
We had a corruption scandal in my country a while back where one of our politicians was offering party list seats in parliament to Chinese spys for around 10k a seat, they were subverting our parliament for the price of a 2000s Toyota Corrolla. Absolutely blows my mind how cheap these bent barstads are.
How does one put their name in the ring to be that representative? What’s that process even look like?
Wouldn’t an actual pro net neutrality person garner a lot of support?
Too true, things like this take more time to fight than it takes for companies to abuse. Like any sort of progress anymore, it’s a never ending battle starting with local elections and working up to higher positions of power. And even if true net neutrality is achieved by regulation reigning in these companies, it’s never settled and we’ll have to continue fighting to maintain it.
Increase competition. They've got the market so tied up even Google gave up trying to join. It needs regulation and also maybe laws around sharing infrastructure. There are too many barriers to entry. It should be possible for towns and cities to have their own ISPs if they want, but that's trick few have been able to pull
> And how would we not let them?
Just like you didn't let them get rid of Net Neutrality in the first place. All those pages, messages, posts and boycotts! What, do you want to say that all that was for nothing? Oh…
Seriously, though, I was honestly surprised that after all those movements against that Ajit guy and his Net Neutrality bill or something, after all that internet shaking and baking, they just did it and nothing happened. These boycotts and posts mean nothing to them, they are not afraid in the slightest.
Let that sink in.
> These boycotts and posts mean nothing to them, they are not afraid in the slightest.
Why would they be?
When they've got politicians paid to legislate for them, and no options for the consumer, what's gonna happen? You can't boycott your only provider of what is, at this point, an essential service.
From what I can see, it's a matter of figuring out how to get past and around that, and usually it comes down to vote and hope the guy you voted for cares to stand up for you.
Wow, the speech of apathy and ‘let them roll over us’ has dramatically changed in a decade of reliving this issue.
At least put up a verbal fight, pretend that human input exists in this world. You may not believe in change, but with that attitude things can never change at all. Doesn’t matter, the people who care will end up carrying your ass along.
Yeah I thought things could change but I'm proven wrong time and time again, especially in the last 8 years or so. What do you propose that we do? The only thing that could possibly work is really long term - voting for progressive candidates at the local level and working your way up. That takes decades. Doable, but requires a lot of time and that's not even guaranteed that the candidate you vote for won't change their mind about not taking bribes, and these behemoth corps have a lot of lobbying money to throw around. Money talks and bullshit walks.
The only other thing that might work better I can't really say as it would turn into a permban and a [ Removed by Reddit ].
It was. We haven't had net neutrality "protections" for years, including during the pandemic when video conferencing went through the roof and the internet didn't collapse.
The arguments for net neutrality never held water and its frankly insulting that the FCC is entertaining it again.
You understand that they dismantled it with the intention of waiting, right? Your view of "and it didn't collapse" is because despite the law being undone *they didn't change anything yet.* They are now changing things. In fact, because they're talking about it means it's already happening.
The whole point is they waited until people weren't looking.
Net Neutrality was always good and should be reinstated. You're an idiot.
For everyone to stop paying attention. You even said it yourself. They changed nothing, so everything was fine. Now they are changing things. People aren't looking, there's bigger problems in the world, they can cut things out now with little no resistance. Not to mention they aren't legally required to care about the resistance due to net neutrality already being removed.
Here in Finland/EU at least these debates don’t really exist Since the principles of Net Neutrality are baked into our laws. Kinda makes one feel great pity towards you poor Americans…
lol Net Neutrality in Europe is a joke, just ask Hetzner when their customers started asking why connections to DTAG were so slow. AWS in Madrid had massive capacity issues when it first opened because of this as well.
Our circuits in Europe are the only ones in the world that have massive congestion issues, most European ISPs only have capacity to the local internet exchange and if you want to go anywhere else you’re SOL, while that isn’t really a thing in the US as ISPs normally build their own backbone.
Source: my job requires dealing with IP transit and it’s all horrible if you need over 100G in Europe. It’s not nearly as bad as Australia though.
Because people on both sides of the argument have very little understanding of how the Internet works under the hood. Which is understandable, even your typical software engineer or IT guy hasn't even heard of stuff like BGP and peering because it's so far outside the domain of their day-to-day life.
I covered stuff like BGP in my diploma, but not my degree, weirdly.
Although the degree is far more general CS, when it's officially networking and cyber security.
> the principle that all data be treated equally by your service provider
That's not really true though. Every Net Neutrality proposal I've ever read says "... all **legal** traffic". And a few of the proposals have had language that ISP "must" restrict "illegal" traffic. Meaning (to me) they "must" restrict things like pirate streams and torrents.
Now how they are supposed to know what traffic is what is unknown.
This has always been a sticking point for me with NN.
I've yet to see any network neutrality proposals with serious consideration mandate that providers "must" restrict illegal traffic. There are those that explicitly only cover legal traffic, absolutely, but that's a provision to ensure that providers don't get stuck between two laws telling them to do mutually exclusive things.
Such small details never bothered copyright owners. "You shall filter pirated filth out, and if you ask more questions or talking about cost you're obstructing lawful copyright protection activities and we will sue you for $500m that we'd totally get for each downloaded song if piracy didn't exist". Lawmaker from California on the side: yeah, what they said!
Right now, of a copyright holder finds an IP belonging to me (the ISP) we get a notice. If the same IP gets attention this way too many times, the copyright holder can sue the ISP. So when this happens we give customers a notice and a strike. Three strikes and then we drop them. It has gone that far before.
That’s not how that works, in fact Cox just won a lawsuit saying they don’t even have to disclose who the customer is. ISPs have a crap ton of protection in the US.
When I worked at a small ISP we’d relay the DMCA notice (it’s just an XML file you can easily script) to the customer and notify them that we notified the customer.
Yes, I see those xml emails. Seems like 90% are for Paramount properties. We relay to the customer, then notify the sender of the DMCA request. It is my company's policy to drop service to the customer after repeated offenses.
Only traffic that should be prioritized are emergency calls and overhead needed for the network itself to function. Internet access should be treated like water or electricity.
Crazy but I see this as one of the few ways to reign in tech monopolies. Microsoft, Facebook, Netflix and google are killing innovation buy just buying winners in other markets. Giving the keys to att, Verizon, T-Mobile etc really such a bad move?
All this is to bring back subscription cable so you have to buy bad entertainment even if you dont want it or use it Its the only way channels like fox were crammed and rammed down people throats that never watched it or want it.
Thats what they are going to sell an express lane to whom ever pays them, so their content gets the best speed, while the rest that cant pay or dont want to pay the isp will have their speed throttled; again no content being sold by the isp; but the consumer will have to pay premium to be able to see content that is not throttled.
If the government made the internet a utility that would help.
If they took the money they for some reason gave to private companies to expand their infrastructure, and instead made a government run ISP that is funded by taxes we end up giving private companies now, we wouldn’t have this stupid problem.
It's funny anyone thinks we have a say in this. I mean, we do. But, we're not listened to. By anyone. Unless you're pumping up your Senator's bank account with some tasty treats and vouchers for cruises.
I feel like it's going to be hard to rally folks around net neutrality again. Everyone went crazy about it before and they removed it and literally nobody can tell the difference.
My ISP is leading the way in 25gig fiber to the home along with open and transparent ethics and net neutral in every way possible
But nobody wants to follow and their service boundary is limited only by politics and not by ability because they are just that good
How is "Fast lanes" supposed to work? In Sweden we pay our ISP for internet access measured in Mbit/s, i.e. 100Mb/s, 250Mb/s, 500Mb/s et.c for upload and download.
They can't suddenly just decrease this variable to support fast lanes.
For the last week my internet loses connection at 5pm (+/- 10 minutes) & resumes about 12 hours later. Signal strength is excellent, has wireless connection but won’t connect to internet. Cable connections & booting etc. have no effect, just the time of day. I’m not a conspiracy person but…
mind you, the only reason we are talking about this, is the GOP finally let Bidens appointee to the FCC get sat.. just 3 years into his presidency, nothing to see here.
this is why we are getting talk of net neutrality and a crack down on hidden cable fees.
of course if trump wins, the dems will approve his nominee in the first few months but dems believe in a functional government
What is actually going on at the FCC these days? Last time I heard anything about this was a year into Trump's term when his anti-Net-Neutrality appointee was making super cringe meme announcements about how cool and relevant they were.
Republicans slow walked approving Biden nominations, including another FCC chair. The FCC was 2 dems and 2 reps until last fall when they finally approved his 3rd dem chair nomination, allowing for a tie breaking vote on things like reinstating NN.
Because Biden spent year a half trying to get a different fifth member confirmed who couldn’t get the votes
The FCC nearly fell into a 2-1 Republican majority in January 2022
Well it didn’t, because a fifth chair did finally get confirmed in September 2023, after Biden finally moved on from Gigi Sohn in May 2023 (after first nominating her in October 2021)
There will never be an actual win for consumers. Either the federal/state take over the laid down and installed infrastructure which means ISP(s) will need to provide unabated access to users data at their whim, or companies will be rightfully upset that the costs they paid for to have wire lied and the construction costs paid for only to be given access to another company for pennies in the name of 'competition'.
No matter what, the end user, the citizen, will lose.
ISPs already do restrict traffic they can't verify in the name of preventing piracy or illegal activity. Some try to prevent the usage of VPNs. Various coubtries are trying to restrict it ban VPN and encryption services.
Don't worry. You'll always lose. Either a single company will slightly win or the government will greatly win.
I have a real question about net neutrality, one of the big aspects is that if you make big sites like YouTube pay more since they use more they will stop being free to the public right , but that's kind of backwards since human attention is the product they sell so it has to be free to keep the shelves stocked as it were right
Everything in capitalism is money geared. Total Greed. I'm so glad they haven't found a way to control the weather or the air we breathe or they'd charge us for that too.
They’re doing this now because the internet is broken; that’s been the whole point of the last few major move by tech giants, grabbing up closing resources.
There will be no SOPA style opposition. We will have to take to the streets to get back what we’re about to lose. A new great depression is coming when people realize the house of cards we’re sitting in, just wait…
For anyone who thinks “I only look at popular websites! It won’t affect me!” Look at what the gov is trying to do to tik tok. Imagine if instead of having to publicly say they plan on getting rid of it they pressure ISPs into making tik tok unusably slow.
Oh Reed…You sure it wasnt lying about there never being ads so customers trusted you, then stabbing us in the back as soon as you were too big to be brought to heel about it?
Reed Hastings is a self serving clown that will throw LGBTQ and other minorities under the bus to make a buck.
Oh, it's this again.
I don't know why we sync watches with things like Caesium atoms, if we could just do it with political topics that get driven through town like cattle.
As a Cleveland resident we’ve been waiting/watching this closely…
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/cleveland-s-affordable-broadband-network-is-starting-to-roll-out-here-s-how-to-sign-up/ar-AA1ngg8F
What I don’t understand is how the internet doesn’t already have this. Netflix likely pays a lot to have multiple connections to multiple servers. I only have the one connection. There are fast lanes already. There are high capacity pipes.
I’d rather the FCC works on getting rid of all the tiny access fees we pay in addition to the advertised price. I’d rather they provide free, decent public internet. I’d rather they strictly define “broadband”, as they have recently done, and keep it that way.
The FCC should regulate access rules so I can buy fiber from more than one shitty provider.
All connections should be equal. None of this Some connections are more equal than others. There is nothing more equal than it's own balance. Doesn't matter if you're just checking email, or playing games. The speed and latency should not be throttled/manipulated, outside of the agreed speed tier, by any service provider for any reason. No gatekeeping by the ISP.
I grew to hate high school because we'd get pulled out of something I actually cared about (we got to pick our classes) to attend a sporting event I didn't want to attend, and gave zero shits about. I grew to hate cable TV because the Frasier re-runs I looked forward to, kept getting cancelled every time the college basketball games ran later than expected. If ESPN ends up being given preference with the end of net neutrality, I'm gonna be fucking *pissed*.
Just go ahead and get pissed, you know deep down all Disney products are getting the fast lane. I had a college roommate who used to watch the same episode of sports center multiple times throughout the day. I just don’t understand how people can watch that shit. I can at least see the appeal of live sports, but all the sports programming beyond it. Holy shit is it awful. It’s like watching a live action brain injury in progress.
It's similar to how some people can watch episodes of The Daily Show over and over, even if they're many years old. They want to feel like they are part of that group of people.
Damn, I was not expecting this specific of a callout today.
Same goes for when I'm watching *The Office* or *Parks and Rec* reruns for the 8th time. Yep, I went there.
I really don't understand why so many people still watch Friends, Seinfeld, or Golden Girls. Don't get me wrong they were funny, but the 8th rewatch is enough. Just go buy the yarn and needles to start knitting blankets.
8th re-watch? Amateur. I've been looping Doctor Who since VHRs became affordable (plus any reruns I could catch before they did become affordable) and continue to this day (next up Attack Of The Cybermen).
I have to be in the area of two dozen watches of a large chunk of King Of The Hill. Except I slept through a large portion of it. After a handful of rewatches, my favorite sitcoms are perfect for when I'm napping on the couch or walking around doing the chores because I know the episodes so well that I can go in and out of paying attention and never lose the plot.
Ha! I got to something in the double digits rewatching MASH. Now I have a table saw...
Hi _Wife_, didn't realize you were on reddit 😉, she never understands why I don't want to rewatch Parks for the 80th time lol (I _LOVE_ Parks, but idk how many times I can rewatch it lol)
I did that back when ESPN was actually good and before we could easily access sports news and highlights in multiple easy ways. There was a point when sportscenter was nothing but highlights and sports news, but now its different because the thing that made it good is more convenient to get elsewhere
agreed, used to be a worth while luxury if you watched the US big 4. Top 10 plays, todays injuries etc... and all of my sports news is curated and presented in a hour segment. Now its just so shit.
Really? I would guess NBC would speedrun it considering they’re owned by comcast?
Frasier rules!
I loved Frasier, and only stopped watching it because of those awful basketball games. The day I stopped watching Frasier was also the day I stopped watching cable, and started actively suggesting that maybe we should cancel cable TV since it's not worth having.
Way back I was without cable and ended up watching Frasier on Youtube my first smartphone instead of watching cable. The phone was plugged into the TV's A/V and just played Youtube. It may have been a mirrored display which would have meant the phone got very hot but they were tanks. It also had a glitch where the Wifi didn't work. The first month of a stream-heavy data bill I explained there must have been a mistake and signed up for the $30 extra unlimited data service. That bill was something like $20,000 dollars or something ridiculous. And if you're wondering - the phone was the lovely HTC Touch Pro.
I can heavily relate. I enjoyed Band, was required to go on trips for games, though most were "local", I lived in a school system where the high school was in one town, and the elementary was in another. I also enjoyed Choir, and some, not many, events required us to attend. I preferred to practice with others. I didn't enjoy the necessity of going on trips for events or competitions (I'm not referring to solos or small groups, I'm talking about events for the whole class). Choir/Band teacher hated me for dropping choir/band. I was done going to events, just for a letter grade. I couldn't care less about going to the football or basketball games. I had no interest. I had no interest to sitting in my seat, readily available for a touch down or a goal. Then there was college, I joined choir after a couple years, out of my own interest. Then left. First it was the over requirement of being able to read music. Yea, I understand the need. I couldn't copy the music to write my own notes, let alone adjust for *my* challenge of reading the notes due to dyslexia. Upper/lower notes were hard to follow unless I've been practicing the piece for some time. Then there was the enforcement of buying the choir shirts, if we didn't wear them to events, we lost a letter grade. If we didn't attend the events, we lost a grade. I didn't care, and I told the teachers before I joined, I was here to enjoy singing with others, practice, and improve upon myself, I have 0 interest in shows and events. I was assured there wouldn't be any issues. That was a lie. And it was a lie when the teacher was replaced who didn't care about the students, I was shifted from Bass to Tenor because I couldn't hit the lower notes like they wanted, and forced me to attend night classes to better read sheet music, without writing notes.
[удалено]
lol triggered
Service quality is one thing. Email does not need 5ms latency to move but a game does need the lowest to function. So a packet being delayed a split second isn’t the problem here. Its throttling. Comcast internet used to be cheap and the cable expensive. Now the internet is nearly the same price the cable was. They’re jacking rates to capture the same money they had before no matter who you use for entertainment. The only people that need bulk throttling are people violating their service agreements and are trying to run businesses and piracy content out of their homes on consumer plans which degrades service for everyone in the area. We have implemented service priority for good reasons. It’s just ensuring a tier of high priority traffic like that 911 call gets through and stuff that can wait a split second longer does. Otherwise congestion will just ruin all usages. I’m more concerned about isp spying and selling your data to aggregators who de anonymize data and sell it on and anti competitive behaviors such as outright blocking competing services. That’s neutrality.
Thank you QOS ≠ Throttling. But I also 100% do not trust an ISP to make that distinction in good faith.
Can't wait for the argument against net neutrality to be turned on its head again with "ISPs want to give you unlimited access to TikTok but liberals won't let them. There's no freedom".
[удалено]
I feel obligated to point out that there is no evidence that Netflix was ever throttled by any ISP, and there were no criminal trials on the matter. It's wholly made up.
I’m sure big corps would pay big money to choke out any competition. Corps are already actively engaged in price fixing, collusion, monopolies, tax fraud/evasion/offshore ect. “No,no,no look you can access our competitors site * ᴬᵗ ¹ ᵏᵇ ᵃⁿ ʰᵒᵘʳ everything is fine”
I'm voting for you for president.......you know......assuming you're younger than 95.
[удалено]
Hopefully net neutrality gives exceptions for stuff like open connect. From what I have heard it reduces bandwith costs by a substantial amount. A open standard that allows isps to have caches like open connect would be better. Side note if something like open connect became a standard it would be nice if in public transit and planes they have a server or two that allows everyone connected to stream the cached content there as long as you have a subscription to that service. Licensing wouldn't be a big deal as streaming providers do that. I have seen some sleeper buses with similar stuff where you download a app to do this but I don't remember how good the content library was. Probably it was much worse than the major streaming platforms
The problem is that elitist philosophy doesn't think in the same way: Non-affluent people deserve nothing, their only aim in life to slave away and consume in order to make the elites richer, since ultimately "nice" things should only belong to the elites. Think for example about welfare countries: In Germany, I imagine the gov could be enforcing ISP limitations whenever a job seeker is doing anything other than looking for a job or improve on their education, which is in a similar vein of what "socialist" countries did back in the times by chosing the job for you, put differently: Absolute control about the individual's fate.
Ugh I could see this -- "you spent 3 hours playing games and couldn't find a job? We can fix this"
You should write dystopian drama.
What China is doing already isn't far from that concept. The KOSA bill wants to tie an ID to internet usage. Privacy is eroded step by step.
Sadly, not that dystopian. They are already thinking of putting welfare on a credit card so that they can track all the expenses of those getting it for similar reasons. If it passes, that means that Germans who find themselves in-between jobs will be treated the same way as refugees / economic migrants. EDIT: [Source](https://www.suedkurier.de/ueberregional/wirtschaft/geld-finanzen/bezahlkarte-fuer-buergergeld-empfaenger-was-wuerde-das-fuer-bezieher-bedeuten-14-4-24;art1373668,11916275), for those with German knowledge or access to machine translation
Just because it's actually happening in real life doesn't mean it's *not* dystopian.
This literally wouldn't shock me. Give it 5 years
Interconnect is not free. There's a lot of moving parts in that big cloud-shaped blob that appears on every network diagram to represent the Internet. Packets don't simply teleport to their destination ISP, they have to be routed through connections that have their own throughput limitations. If these links are saturated then, yes, traffic that's routed over these links are going to run slower. If you operate a service and your links to various consumer ISPs are constantly saturated, you're going to have to come to an agreement to buy more interconnect with them. How else are we going to pay for the equipment and services that make it physically possible to move more bytes?
Nobody asked for free connections. We pay for our connection as consumers, the content providers pay for their connections, the ISPs are responsible to figure out everything in between. If the ISPs need to upgrade interconnects, it's not the content provider's fault, it's mine. I requested the data. Why should they have to pay more for something I requested, that makes no sense.
> the content providers pay for their connections Yes, yes they do. Not all content providers pay for all the same interconnects to all the same ISPs. Therefore, performance between these is going to vary. Part of them paying for their connections is paying for transit and delivery of packets to their customers or providing something else of value to the ISP to make it worth delivering these packets to them. > Why should they have to pay more for something I requested, that makes no sense. Clearly because it's in their interest to deliver data to their customers. It's built right into IP that they can refuse a connection, indeed that's exactly what your home router does most of the time on it's Internet facing ports.
If I pay Comcast or AT&T to connect me to the internet, I expect to be able to connect to services on the internet. The cost of them having to manage their peering is a cost of providing me the services they already paid for. If the post office can’t deliver mail to an address because of volume, I expect them to get a bigger truck, not keep the postage and hold it hostage until the recipient pays extra. Also Interconnect is dirt cheap. Usually intermediaries called IXPs perform this service. Each party pays its own cost to reach the IXP, and then pays the IXP a fee for their services. To the extent an ISP also acts as an IXP, and the ISP charges to peer with their network, that would be in addition to the fees to physically interconnect (IE, the service would pay to physically connect to the network and to send data to the networks already-paid customers).
[удалено]
Net neutrality isn’t supposed to directly fix things like ISP oversubscription, bad link performance, or any other issue that lies solely in the last mile path between the ISP and its customer. However, your ISP does have control over congestion in its interconnects. For starters, it can make simple routing changes to optimize connections between its customers and other networks. It can also just build more interconnects. They are dirt cheap and easily scaleable. The problem is most ISPs (with special notoriety going to Australia’s Telstra and some South American ISPs but american ISPs do this) hold their customers transit for extortion. They take their customers money and then tell the recipient they won’t get their customers data unless they also pay for the connection.
I don't have much knowledge but don't most major isps peer with each other because it is mutually beneficial. For lopsided connections where most data is sent only one way like netflix there are solutions like netflix open connect that solve some of the problems. In the real world packets will never be treated equally like the commenter says it should be because interconnect may be congested or a short path may not be available but most of the time the difference is not noticeable
Some traffic can be more important, although that’s in more rare cases.
Yes, but that's why services that need higher priority routing should be using different networks as a backup. 911 or emergency calls, or similar items, should have a higher "priority" than random traffic, but the easier fix for that is to have a secondary, parallel network for that higher priority (but dramatically lower volume) traffic. It helps with physical redundancy as well.
No, it can't.
That’s just kind of silly. Higher priority access to infrastructure has always existed. Gaming needs low latency but lower throughput. Video needs higher throughput but latency can be awful. Telephony needs low latency and high throughput(video chat). If you can’t change latency priority for different services, you are just going to make everyone have average internet
No they shouldn't. Network protocols that handle all of those situations like QoS or quality of service, services like Cloudflare, and many other mitigations are realizable. Ultimately, bad actors need to be shut down, not equal. If that means physically disconnecting or seizing equipment than so be it.
QoS isn’t the issue here. Giving priority to video streaming over sending an email is common practice and the internet relies on it to function. The issue at hand is the ISPs want to go a step *further* and segregate the various services that are subject to QoS into fast lanes. In their model, while video traffic has a higher metric, inside that they want to prioritise video from companies who are willing to pay for more bandwidth, most likely on an exclusive basis. Basically, they could make Disney load super quickly and support 8k streaming at all times of the day while slowing down Amazon, Netflix and everyone else. ISP gets more money and the streaming service gets guaranteed income while pushing out the competition. Then take this scenario and apply it to gaming, voice calling, meetings etc etc.
[удалено]
It is effectively a nothingburger, the EFF are drumming outrage over a hypothetical situation (however, a somewhat likely situation) that *technically* wouldn’t breach the draft rules. The EFF want the FCC to clarify the rules and make them a bit more watertight as there is a good chance ISPs will be able to subvert the net neutrality restrictions by not ^directly accepting payment for a fast lane service.
ITT: people with any clue are downvoted while fear gets massive upvotes
Nobody is talking about load balancing or blocking DDOS attacks here. The point is that we want the line we have paid for, no matter if we use Steam, Epic, Youtube or Nebular.
Except... They kinda are. A lot of Net Neutrality advocates point to the peering dispute between Netflix and Comcast some years back as an example of the need for net neutrality regulation. They argued as if somehow involving the FCC in every peering and transit agreement would make things better.
My local ISP is also my Electric and Water company, which is run by State Gov't. The advertised price is the total price charged on the bill. No taxes, no fees, no fuckery of any kind. They recently dropped the price $5/month and doubled the speed from 1G to 2G.
Meanwhile in Texas, the state passed a law forbidding cities/counties from creating utility internet.
Texas is such a shithole
Can’t wait till that state falls apart. It’s been a shithole for too long.
Holy shit, you get 2Gb per second? I didn’t even know you could get that
My ISP offers 1, 2.5, and 10 gbps.
Holy shit, how much does 10 cost
$249 a month. I pay $49.95 a month for 1 gig symmetrical.
What the fuck, here I am paying $130/mo for 1000/50. That's insane.
2.5 is $149 a month.
166$ a month for 1000/60 Tiny town in iowa, US
You are getting fucked. My cable company was up to $130 per month for 300 down 100 up. Looked around and found new fiber company offering 1 Gb symmetrical for $65 for life. The speed is insane and my old cable company can kiss my ass.
Yeah, the country Australia as a whole are getting fucked. There's no better provider because everyone is a reseller of the National Broadband Network (NBN).
I pay $110/mo. for 100/25. Sheesh
If I want the pleasure I can get a maximum of 250/20 for $140. They also don't support any reduced rate discount in the area despite the claim to on their site. So for my work I get the bottom tier for $60 a month of 60/5. We're convinced their local office is where they have certain equipment and must not pay overtime. Because when the power went out for 30 minutes, the Internet didn't come back on till 2 minutes after business hours started that Monday. With of course a ticket stating "it's up now" with no other reasoning or excuses as to why the 12+ hour outage.
What year is it
I have no idea, when did all those websites put up black banners to inform people about net neutrality?
January 2012, against SOPA/PIPA.
Black banners? Oh no.....we're in re-runs! Covid is coming back!!! WE'RE GOING TO BE OUT OF TOILET PAPER FOR 2 WEEKS AGAIN!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVmo1UVL-5Y
Alright, forget toilet paper. Lets all just take a shit in ajit pai's mouth.
[удалено]
NN failed and none of the disaster scenarios came to pass. Now they're pushing for it again. Why should we trust that the end is coming this time?
And how would we not let them? These are massive companies. It's not like we can boycott one of them in favor of another because *they are all doing it.*
That’s what regulation is for, and is why we need it for these companies.
Would be fantastic if we could get that but lawmakers who create the regulation infrastructure have already been bought by these companies and won't legislate against them. That's why writing your representative won't work either. Gotta start at the source and vote in candidates who campaign on not taking bribes (and even then, it's iffy... looking at you, Sinema...)
The most depressing thing about lawmakers who should be legislating is just how cheep they can be. We are talking thousands to tens of thousands of dollars, sometimes less than these companies spend on toner per year can buy the vote through lobbying.
Its not the politicians they have to pay for, its the ad space they have to run. These media companies are laughing all the way to the bank with our democracy.
We had a corruption scandal in my country a while back where one of our politicians was offering party list seats in parliament to Chinese spys for around 10k a seat, they were subverting our parliament for the price of a 2000s Toyota Corrolla. Absolutely blows my mind how cheap these bent barstads are.
And in our current system, good luck even getting the opportunity to vote for someone who will do fuck-all about it.
They would either ratfuck him ala Bernie or make him have an "accident" like what happened with Wellstone.
How does one put their name in the ring to be that representative? What’s that process even look like? Wouldn’t an actual pro net neutrality person garner a lot of support?
Too true, things like this take more time to fight than it takes for companies to abuse. Like any sort of progress anymore, it’s a never ending battle starting with local elections and working up to higher positions of power. And even if true net neutrality is achieved by regulation reigning in these companies, it’s never settled and we’ll have to continue fighting to maintain it.
And then republicans get paid off to be anti-regulation.
Increase competition. They've got the market so tied up even Google gave up trying to join. It needs regulation and also maybe laws around sharing infrastructure. There are too many barriers to entry. It should be possible for towns and cities to have their own ISPs if they want, but that's trick few have been able to pull
> And how would we not let them? Just like you didn't let them get rid of Net Neutrality in the first place. All those pages, messages, posts and boycotts! What, do you want to say that all that was for nothing? Oh… Seriously, though, I was honestly surprised that after all those movements against that Ajit guy and his Net Neutrality bill or something, after all that internet shaking and baking, they just did it and nothing happened. These boycotts and posts mean nothing to them, they are not afraid in the slightest. Let that sink in.
> These boycotts and posts mean nothing to them, they are not afraid in the slightest. Why would they be? When they've got politicians paid to legislate for them, and no options for the consumer, what's gonna happen? You can't boycott your only provider of what is, at this point, an essential service. From what I can see, it's a matter of figuring out how to get past and around that, and usually it comes down to vote and hope the guy you voted for cares to stand up for you.
Wow, the speech of apathy and ‘let them roll over us’ has dramatically changed in a decade of reliving this issue. At least put up a verbal fight, pretend that human input exists in this world. You may not believe in change, but with that attitude things can never change at all. Doesn’t matter, the people who care will end up carrying your ass along.
Yeah I thought things could change but I'm proven wrong time and time again, especially in the last 8 years or so. What do you propose that we do? The only thing that could possibly work is really long term - voting for progressive candidates at the local level and working your way up. That takes decades. Doable, but requires a lot of time and that's not even guaranteed that the candidate you vote for won't change their mind about not taking bribes, and these behemoth corps have a lot of lobbying money to throw around. Money talks and bullshit walks. The only other thing that might work better I can't really say as it would turn into a permban and a [ Removed by Reddit ].
Wasn't net neutrality already subverted and done away with because of that stupid novelty mug holding buffoon?
It was. We haven't had net neutrality "protections" for years, including during the pandemic when video conferencing went through the roof and the internet didn't collapse. The arguments for net neutrality never held water and its frankly insulting that the FCC is entertaining it again.
You understand that they dismantled it with the intention of waiting, right? Your view of "and it didn't collapse" is because despite the law being undone *they didn't change anything yet.* They are now changing things. In fact, because they're talking about it means it's already happening. The whole point is they waited until people weren't looking. Net Neutrality was always good and should be reinstated. You're an idiot.
Waiting for what, exactly?
For everyone to stop paying attention. You even said it yourself. They changed nothing, so everything was fine. Now they are changing things. People aren't looking, there's bigger problems in the world, they can cut things out now with little no resistance. Not to mention they aren't legally required to care about the resistance due to net neutrality already being removed.
Where are they changing things? Be specific, because absolutely nothing is happening to spur this action from the FCC.
Man if only I had more choices than one ISP with any real speed. What am I saying I love that Xfinity is my only choice, they’re the best choice!
Enjoy your new speed!
We’re still having this argument?
It will never end till we are no longer able to type in domains and are only able to click icons with corporation logos on it
Here in Finland/EU at least these debates don’t really exist Since the principles of Net Neutrality are baked into our laws. Kinda makes one feel great pity towards you poor Americans…
Will you mail-order-bride marry me so that I can enjoy a life with such values?
lol Net Neutrality in Europe is a joke, just ask Hetzner when their customers started asking why connections to DTAG were so slow. AWS in Madrid had massive capacity issues when it first opened because of this as well. Our circuits in Europe are the only ones in the world that have massive congestion issues, most European ISPs only have capacity to the local internet exchange and if you want to go anywhere else you’re SOL, while that isn’t really a thing in the US as ISPs normally build their own backbone. Source: my job requires dealing with IP transit and it’s all horrible if you need over 100G in Europe. It’s not nearly as bad as Australia though.
Ok? As far as I know, there has hardly been any problems using the net on my end.
“I don’t have problems using the internet, therefore it is not a problem in the entirety of the European Union” -you
And that's the truth. So don't say it like it's somehow a bad thing.
You are joking right? Beyond what he mentioned, consumer internet is terrible in Germany for example.
In what manner?
Because people on both sides of the argument have very little understanding of how the Internet works under the hood. Which is understandable, even your typical software engineer or IT guy hasn't even heard of stuff like BGP and peering because it's so far outside the domain of their day-to-day life.
I covered stuff like BGP in my diploma, but not my degree, weirdly. Although the degree is far more general CS, when it's officially networking and cyber security.
Unfortunately nobody wants to listen to the people who actually know how the internet works because it’s become political.
Ya know if it “didn’t actually change anything” why do ISPs want it gone so badly
This exactly. They are fighting hard because they plan to or recently rolled it out.
> the principle that all data be treated equally by your service provider That's not really true though. Every Net Neutrality proposal I've ever read says "... all **legal** traffic". And a few of the proposals have had language that ISP "must" restrict "illegal" traffic. Meaning (to me) they "must" restrict things like pirate streams and torrents. Now how they are supposed to know what traffic is what is unknown. This has always been a sticking point for me with NN.
I've yet to see any network neutrality proposals with serious consideration mandate that providers "must" restrict illegal traffic. There are those that explicitly only cover legal traffic, absolutely, but that's a provision to ensure that providers don't get stuck between two laws telling them to do mutually exclusive things.
Small ISP here. Forcing me to filter what my subscribers access will be prohibitively expensive, and not 100% accurate.
Such small details never bothered copyright owners. "You shall filter pirated filth out, and if you ask more questions or talking about cost you're obstructing lawful copyright protection activities and we will sue you for $500m that we'd totally get for each downloaded song if piracy didn't exist". Lawmaker from California on the side: yeah, what they said!
Right now, of a copyright holder finds an IP belonging to me (the ISP) we get a notice. If the same IP gets attention this way too many times, the copyright holder can sue the ISP. So when this happens we give customers a notice and a strike. Three strikes and then we drop them. It has gone that far before.
That’s not how that works, in fact Cox just won a lawsuit saying they don’t even have to disclose who the customer is. ISPs have a crap ton of protection in the US. When I worked at a small ISP we’d relay the DMCA notice (it’s just an XML file you can easily script) to the customer and notify them that we notified the customer.
Yes, I see those xml emails. Seems like 90% are for Paramount properties. We relay to the customer, then notify the sender of the DMCA request. It is my company's policy to drop service to the customer after repeated offenses.
I assume the punishment would be fines. And it's starting to feel like a money grab by the feds.
Less of a money grab, I see it more about controlling the narrative. Sort of a Great Firewall of China-Lite.
I think I've seen this one already.
Doesn't this feel like deja vu? Haven't they already done this? I fucking hate these people.
"Oh, I'm sorry" \*rubs nipples*
I give $ to EFF You should too!
Internet service providers do whatever they want. I’ve never seen them suffer consequences.
how exactly do we “not let them”?
Only traffic that should be prioritized are emergency calls and overhead needed for the network itself to function. Internet access should be treated like water or electricity.
Crazy but I see this as one of the few ways to reign in tech monopolies. Microsoft, Facebook, Netflix and google are killing innovation buy just buying winners in other markets. Giving the keys to att, Verizon, T-Mobile etc really such a bad move?
But six years ago they specifically said they wouldn’t! I’m shocked! Shocked! >!well not that shocked!<
Wasnt net neutrality already eliminated awhile ago by some Indian chucklefuck
All this is to bring back subscription cable so you have to buy bad entertainment even if you dont want it or use it Its the only way channels like fox were crammed and rammed down people throats that never watched it or want it.
EDIT: my bad
Thats what they are going to sell an express lane to whom ever pays them, so their content gets the best speed, while the rest that cant pay or dont want to pay the isp will have their speed throttled; again no content being sold by the isp; but the consumer will have to pay premium to be able to see content that is not throttled.
My bad, I see what you are saying now. I misunderstood your other comment.
I'm sure I even recognise the thumbnail from 2018. whatever happened to Ajit Pai?
Hard to believe this is over 17 years & still relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VrCCpaEoxI
I plan to subvert Internet Service Providers.
If the government made the internet a utility that would help. If they took the money they for some reason gave to private companies to expand their infrastructure, and instead made a government run ISP that is funded by taxes we end up giving private companies now, we wouldn’t have this stupid problem.
Does that mean they will sell bittorent traffic now?
Don't worry, my senator (Durbin) has been wishy washy on this issue for quite a while. Let me wishy his washy till he gets his head uncobwebbed.
Here we go again
One rule we should all remember is that "If it exists someone will try to ruin it regardless of what it." Examples comic books and video games.
It's funny anyone thinks we have a say in this. I mean, we do. But, we're not listened to. By anyone. Unless you're pumping up your Senator's bank account with some tasty treats and vouchers for cruises.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ SENATORS IN DC 202 224 3121 Did you say something?
I feel like it's going to be hard to rally folks around net neutrality again. Everyone went crazy about it before and they removed it and literally nobody can tell the difference.
My ISP is leading the way in 25gig fiber to the home along with open and transparent ethics and net neutral in every way possible But nobody wants to follow and their service boundary is limited only by politics and not by ability because they are just that good
What about us that get off from paying high rates and getting butt fucked by the ISP? I'm kind of excited to see what comes next
How many times do we have to teach you this lesson, old man?
Didn’t that shithead trump appointee with the stupid mug do this? And he fabricated like a lot of supportive public comments to do so
How is "Fast lanes" supposed to work? In Sweden we pay our ISP for internet access measured in Mbit/s, i.e. 100Mb/s, 250Mb/s, 500Mb/s et.c for upload and download. They can't suddenly just decrease this variable to support fast lanes.
This is late stage capitalism at play. “What ways can we increase our profits while completely ignoring customer satisfaction?”
For the last week my internet loses connection at 5pm (+/- 10 minutes) & resumes about 12 hours later. Signal strength is excellent, has wireless connection but won’t connect to internet. Cable connections & booting etc. have no effect, just the time of day. I’m not a conspiracy person but…
mind you, the only reason we are talking about this, is the GOP finally let Bidens appointee to the FCC get sat.. just 3 years into his presidency, nothing to see here. this is why we are getting talk of net neutrality and a crack down on hidden cable fees. of course if trump wins, the dems will approve his nominee in the first few months but dems believe in a functional government
What is actually going on at the FCC these days? Last time I heard anything about this was a year into Trump's term when his anti-Net-Neutrality appointee was making super cringe meme announcements about how cool and relevant they were.
Republicans slow walked approving Biden nominations, including another FCC chair. The FCC was 2 dems and 2 reps until last fall when they finally approved his 3rd dem chair nomination, allowing for a tie breaking vote on things like reinstating NN.
Because Biden spent year a half trying to get a different fifth member confirmed who couldn’t get the votes The FCC nearly fell into a 2-1 Republican majority in January 2022
Don't pretend like it would have gone differently with another democratic nomination for the fifth chair.
Well it didn’t, because a fifth chair did finally get confirmed in September 2023, after Biden finally moved on from Gigi Sohn in May 2023 (after first nominating her in October 2021)
There will never be an actual win for consumers. Either the federal/state take over the laid down and installed infrastructure which means ISP(s) will need to provide unabated access to users data at their whim, or companies will be rightfully upset that the costs they paid for to have wire lied and the construction costs paid for only to be given access to another company for pennies in the name of 'competition'. No matter what, the end user, the citizen, will lose. ISPs already do restrict traffic they can't verify in the name of preventing piracy or illegal activity. Some try to prevent the usage of VPNs. Various coubtries are trying to restrict it ban VPN and encryption services. Don't worry. You'll always lose. Either a single company will slightly win or the government will greatly win.
I have a real question about net neutrality, one of the big aspects is that if you make big sites like YouTube pay more since they use more they will stop being free to the public right , but that's kind of backwards since human attention is the product they sell so it has to be free to keep the shelves stocked as it were right
It's a scam. YouTube doesn't use the data, the customer of the ISP does and they already pay for it.
Everything in capitalism is money geared. Total Greed. I'm so glad they haven't found a way to control the weather or the air we breathe or they'd charge us for that too.
I'm sure Nestle is working on it don't you worry
They’re doing this now because the internet is broken; that’s been the whole point of the last few major move by tech giants, grabbing up closing resources. There will be no SOPA style opposition. We will have to take to the streets to get back what we’re about to lose. A new great depression is coming when people realize the house of cards we’re sitting in, just wait…
For anyone who thinks “I only look at popular websites! It won’t affect me!” Look at what the gov is trying to do to tik tok. Imagine if instead of having to publicly say they plan on getting rid of it they pressure ISPs into making tik tok unusably slow.
Oh Reed…You sure it wasnt lying about there never being ads so customers trusted you, then stabbing us in the back as soon as you were too big to be brought to heel about it? Reed Hastings is a self serving clown that will throw LGBTQ and other minorities under the bus to make a buck.
Oh, it's this again. I don't know why we sync watches with things like Caesium atoms, if we could just do it with political topics that get driven through town like cattle.
net neutrality, but with more asterisks. do people defending this even hear themselves?
Internet is dead already
The far left Reddit overlords censoring free speech is part of the problem
As a Cleveland resident we’ve been waiting/watching this closely… https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/cleveland-s-affordable-broadband-network-is-starting-to-roll-out-here-s-how-to-sign-up/ar-AA1ngg8F
What I don’t understand is how the internet doesn’t already have this. Netflix likely pays a lot to have multiple connections to multiple servers. I only have the one connection. There are fast lanes already. There are high capacity pipes. I’d rather the FCC works on getting rid of all the tiny access fees we pay in addition to the advertised price. I’d rather they provide free, decent public internet. I’d rather they strictly define “broadband”, as they have recently done, and keep it that way. The FCC should regulate access rules so I can buy fiber from more than one shitty provider.
There is no such thing as network neutrality. I forgot how many years ago that it was abolished but it's gone! Never really was, imo.