171–180 of 250 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To show the improvements in speeds, all that ISPs has to do is provide full/unthrottled speed for speed test websites such as fast.com and speedtest.net.
...which they're now allowed to do, without net neutrality.
The system seems broken when states representing more than 50% of the population have to sue in court to try to change something like this. Instead with that much backing it should be done through the legislative branch. I'm concerned about the growing use of courts to try to decide policies because our legislative bodies can't work together and instead just try to force one sided issues through or block each other.…
I haven’t noticed any change in my Internet connectivity since so-called net neutrality regulations were rolled back. That said, the fears of a single party dictating what you can and can’t see on the Internet are not just clear, they’re present. How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones? Or say anything about shadow bans on Twitter, Facebook, and Google search results based on organizational caprici…
> How many net neutrality supporters stood up for Alex Jones? Are ISPs refusing to peer with Alex Jones? If not, this has nothing to do with net neutrality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electricity, water, cable, and phone are all "natural" monopolies because of the significant amount of infrastructure they require. Having private companies lay their own competing water mains would be an absolute clusterfuck. Facebook is, at the end of the day, a website that happens to be popular right now. It's not even close to being a public utility. Anybody can enter the space and create a competing service. Gi…
> I'll be surprised if it's still around in 10 years. I agree that facebook the site, in its current form, is unlikely to exist in 10 years. I highly doubt that facebook the company is going anywhere in that time frame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, electric companies already do charge higher rates at different times when demand is higher.
I've seen electric companies bill like that to reflect the realities of power generation and usage, but it's applied equally to all consumers of electricity at the time of day. Using 1000w of electricity with a 1950's toaster cost the same as using 1000w of electricity with a 2018 microwave. And hopefully it would cost the same to use 1000w of electricity to power your home server hosting a website that criticizes th…
Yea, I think this is the most important thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is very much a case of checks and balances. This article is a little misleading because it only quotes those filing suit saying that they don't like the FCC's actions. The actual suit filed ( https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/nn_govt_petitioners_br... ) has actual legal arguments. First, they argue the process by which the rule was passed was in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Second, they ar…
You seem to think "checks and balances" means "we have so many ways to get what I want through and it's ok to use any of them in any ways as long as at the end what I want is getting done". It's not the case. "Checks and balances" does not mean "if legislature doesn't get us the result I want, we should try courts next". It means each branch of the government has its role, and for the courts it's upholding the existi…
The alleged APA violation isn't a matter of not filling out the right forms, it's that their whole ruling was based on faulty logic. Basically the APA specifies that agencies have to make their rulings based on existing evidence and provide evidence-based reasoning for their decisions. The agency gets a decent amount of leeway on that reasoning, as long as it is not "arbitrary and capricious," which is a legal standard. The filing claims they did act arbitrarily and capriciously. For example, part of the FCC's change was made on the grounds that BIAS providers have voluntarily committed to not throttling customers and there is little evidence that they have ever done so, which completely ignores the fact that the reason they historically have not throttled people is because it was illegal, and thus was not voluntary. Again, you can read the filing for more information about their argument, it starts on page 35 in the PDF.
The argument that the rule exceeds the FCC's authority is based on the fact that the FCC recently disavowed have Title II authority over broadband. Title II authority gave the FCC the ability to preempt state and local laws. The new ruling is based on Title I authority, which can only allow the FCC to preempt state and local laws if the authority is rooted in some other statutorily mandated responsibility, which the FCC does not have. The actual argument is pretty technical, but that's the gist of it.
For anyone in a place with options, My suggestion is simply switching to a Net Neutrality proponent. Ditching my comcast today in favor of Sonic fiber. Cheaper, supports net neutrality, and waaayyy faster :)
A big part of the point is that almost nobody has any options. If there were room for real competition in the space, regulation might not be necessary. Part of the barrier of entry is inherent: building infrastructure is hard. But part of it has been artificially constructed by the existing players through lobbying: https://www.wired.com/2016/09/utility-poles-important-future...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the bottom of your Wikipedia article there is a more relevant case: "While the Marsh holding at first appears somewhat narrow and inapplicable to the present day due to the disappearance of company towns from the United States, it was raised in the somewhat high-profile 1996 cyberlaw case, Cyber Promotions v. America Online, 948 F. Supp. 436, 442 (E.D. Pa. 1996). Cyber Promotions wished to send out "mass email adv…
> A more relevant case So are we deliberately conflating spam with political discourse now? Seriously?
The AOL case is more relevant because it involves a private internet company and data crossing it's privately held servers, much like Twitter today.
The Marsh case involves a company acting like a government, then trying to stifle free speech. Twitter never acted like a government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the amount of effort and traction you'd get from trying to launch your own auction site to compete with eBay would be about equal to getting a couple shovels and burying some cat5 around your neighborhood to compete with comcast
You aren't allowed to bury cat5 in your neighborhood without government approval, and they'd tell you to just lease time off Comcast lines. What will you connect your cat5 cable to?