Do we need net neutrality ? I didn't even know it was gone. My internet is the same as ever
[deleted]
FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel
81–90 of 302 posts
Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have gotten it, but with services not websites. Mobile providers will sell you an "Unlimited" data plan that throttles everything after 25GB a month. Streaming Spotify and Apple Music won't count against that soft data cap. Streaming other music services will count against it. Video streaming over YouTube, Netflix, etc is capped at 480p levels. If you pay an additional monthly fee, you get upgraded to "Unlimited P…
Mobile providers are a different beast because there’s a limit on radio spectrum. Throttling is necessary.
Hello, Finland here. I have a true unlimited phone plan. Unlimited texts, unlimited calls, 200Mbit/s of bandwidth with unlimited data. 27€ per month. Yes, the bandwidth is capped, but getting 200 megs is possible most of the time, it's really more of an exception to not get the full speed. Sometimes some cells can become congested, but that's really rare.
Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this worse than the pre-NN system where they would just throttle everything after 25GB/month with no exceptions?
1) Yes. 2) We're not in the NN system as it was repealed so the implicit idea in your post that the current system is from NN is false. 3) We wouldn't need NN though if we actually had anti-trust enforcement; zero-rating is a monopolistic practice. It's akin to having preferential treatment on rail lines so consumers can't get other's goods as easily.
>1) Yes.
well i guess everybody is entitled to their own opinion but i personally prefer the one that lets me use more data even though ideally i would be able to use more data for any online service and not just some of them.
>We're not in the NN system as it was repealed so the implicit idea in your post that the current system is from NN is false.
I definitely did not say the "current system" is from NN, and neither did the OP i was replying to.
"pre-NN" system is having a datacap where any additional bandwidth usage beyond that datacap is throttled or outright denied.
"current system" is having a datacap but certain services are not counted towards that datacap, and all other services are throttled or outright denied once the datacap is exceeded.
>We wouldn't need NN though if we actually had anti-trust enforcement; zero-rating is a monopolistic practice. It's akin to having preferential treatment on rail lines so consumers can't get other's goods as easily.
rail lines are not equivalent to ISP zero-rating.
Datacaps are a policy adopted by ISPs of treating bandwidth as a consumable resource when it is in fact not a consumable resource. Datacaps are idiotic and arbitrary[1] but they predate the FCC's decision to repeal net neutrality by at least half a decade.
Offering an exception to a datacap for a given service would be akin to the train being able to carry additional cargo beyond its capacity with no increased fuel consumption or inertia but only for a specific class of cargo.
[1] if ISPs actually cared about their stated goal of reducing network congestion then they would weight traffic based on overall network congestion so that consumers are incentivized to download more data during non-peak hours but i digress.
Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like many government regulations, it has a great name, "Net Neutrality," which, when it is actually implemented, will do much more than make the 'Net neutral. Maybe, at first, it will have something to do with "you can't throttle Web services," but it will morph into "you MUST throttle this particular Web service, it spreads disinformation, which makes the Net less neutral." It is what always happens. It is more reli…
What? How would regulation that “you must not throttle” lead to regulation for “you just throttle”? That makes no sense.
[deleted]
Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it never happened no harm in making sure it doesn’t happen either.
Sure, but the argument kind of loses merit, no? I remember the entire collective internet having site wide shutdowns, urging users to write to congress, etc. It was an extensive campaign that looped in many non technical folks to a very technical topic. You can only cry wolf like that a few times. If a similar campaign were to launch again, I’m almost certain it would fail to get the same mainstream support, especial…
No it doesn’t lose merit because the fight isn’t over. It’s not like all major ISPs are going to immediately ramp up to 11; even if they wanted to make that blunder while people are still clearly educated about the issue and paying attention, negotiating payments for services exempt from traffic shaping is a long b2b sales cycle that has only started. They are going to slowly boil the frog after watching the others get away with more in their region.
Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel
#86If you believed the scare tactics at the time, losing net neutrality literally threatened the end of the internet as we know it. But my internet has worked the same before, during, and after net neutrality. I really don't get what all the fuss is about. However, if you really do believe this is a civilization defining piece of regulation, Why leave it to the FCC? It seems like people on both sides are happy to leave…
The argument is not that the internet would suddenly die, it’s that it would get chopped up and rebundled a-La cable tv. And we’re seeing isps give preferential treatment to services that pay them, just not instantly and only that because it’s been only 2 years (edit: comment below points out it’s been 5), business sales cycles are long and they aren’t stupid enough to immediately turn the heat up to 11 while the frog is still paying attention.
Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel
#87I’m pro net neutrality AFAIK. BUT We owe it to ourselves to go and look at all the fearmongering they were putting out about ending net neutrality and figuring out why it didn’t come to pass. And hopefully learning from that for future policy debates.
It’s only been a few years. I don’t think we owe our selves to call all experiments at such a short time frame. People are acting like this is some chemical reaction they should be able to observe in an afternoon instead of something slow and pernicious like large American businesses when they know they are being watched.
Edit: also several states have net neutrality laws on the books, so if you are typing this from California it’s no wonder you aren’t seeing the end of the world: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/californias-net-neutralit...
Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel
#88A lot of people in these comments are making the case that removing net neutrality didn’t do much harm, so why bother bringing it back. Let me make the counterclaim. The argument against net neutrality is that it might stifle innovation. Well, we had net neutrality for many years and innovation didn’t seem all that stifled. Hence, what’s the harm in bringing it back?
Because we should have strong priors disfavoring regulation, and this is a stalking horse for yet more internet regulation.
Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel
#89If you believed the scare tactics at the time, losing net neutrality literally threatened the end of the internet as we know it. But my internet has worked the same before, during, and after net neutrality. I really don't get what all the fuss is about. However, if you really do believe this is a civilization defining piece of regulation, Why leave it to the FCC? It seems like people on both sides are happy to leave…
Why did the mega providers so desperately want net neutrality to die? Why did so many lobbyists work to kill it?
"I really don't get what all the fuss is about."
This is a bit like the Y2K bug. There was a huge amount of noise and fear-mongering, and millions of developers spent an enormous amount of time fixing code and preparing systems. Y2K came and suddenly everyone is sure it was all just drama for nothing. What was the fuss about?
The massive amount of "scare tactics" made it a mainstream conversation. The images of tiered internet were spread far and wide and it put everyone on alert. We can't A:B universes, but I suspect that if net neutrality was quietly axed and no one noticed or cared, we would absolutely have had services very much like the worst-case images imagined.
Re: FCC aims to reinstate net neutrality after us Democrats gain control of panel
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
The sky was supposed to fall if net neutrality were abrogated, and IME, that hasn't happened. The only change I (and people I know) witnessed was throttling once broad data limits were exceeded, which IIRC wasn't what was at stake, and which I for one didn't object to, i.e., that people would have to pay for what they use. In short, I have not seen bandwidth or pricing weaponized at all to target specific businesses…
The sky was supposed to fall if net neutrality were abrogated, and IME, that hasn't happened. ISPs aren't run by complete idiots. They knew this current switch back was a likely possibility. If they had rushed to implement service tiers, it would have given even more ammunition to the net neutrality debate. Now they can say "See we had a chance for a few years to do it and didn't, so we need to pass laws to make sure…
And how long do you expect your timeline to playout on? It's been more than 6 years now, and we're talking about corporations that regularly have difficulty seeing beyond next quarter, and have absolutely no qualms pissing off the entire world if it means another buck. Why wouldn't they have rushed to enact the new laws immediately under an FCC political establishment that would have been favorable to such?
It seems to me that simple market economics offers a compelling alternative. The more they screw the customer, the more room there is for new or existing competitor, be that something like Starlink or one of the many micro-ISPs being able to grow a bit. You need to create some economic model where these tiers are both profitable and don't expose you to a reasonable fear of competition. That seems quite difficult to do.