[deleted]
ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law
71–80 of 329 posts
Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law
#72The link doesn't go anywhere FYI. What are people here even commenting on?
As IMcD23 commented, the real link is here: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/04/isps-cant-find-a... It would be nice if the mods/dang would update the link.
I'm not sure who has the power to edit titles / links, I've had weird (incorrect) edits to them as well
One time one of my post's titles was changed from "end-to-end encryption" to "end-to-encryption encryption"
Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies can be held accountable in court for words used in their marketing.
I think you're just angry at ISPs (I don't blame you, they're usually monopolies or oligopolies which engage in dirty behavior.) But given the state of the market, I don't know a _single_ ISP or customer that would confuse DIA for regular bandwidth. Buying DIA involves getting a quote from the ISP and going back-and-forth with an operator over how to connect. And the fine print for most ISPs explains what "unlimited…
>> I don't know a _single_ ISP or customer that would confuse DIA for regular bandwidth
I mean, How could they? I'm an IT professional, read a fair bit, and know a random smattering of networking terms from MPLS to T1 to DSL to SMTP to FTP, setup my own VLANs and Access Points at home, but I didn't know what "DIA" is. Saying that "ISP customer would not confuse DIA for regular bandwidth" seems like an incongruous sentence.
>>And the fine print for most ISPs explains what "unlimited bandwidth" generally means.
Be that as it may be, I pay some amount of money for some amount of service, whether spelled out clearly or heinously. I agree that narrative "Netflix is pushing data onto poor helpless ISPs" is disingenuous at best, and double-dipping by any definition.
Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't support this, but I can try to steel man this position. Largely it comes with the idea that use = cost, and that infrastructure has limited capacity and is therefore zeroish sum. For example, a common idea is that we should tax trucks more than other cars because they cause a large amount of damage to our roads. Following that logic, the companies that encourage users to consume more bandwidth should be charg…
There are reasonable arguments to be made for allowing infrastructure providers to limit the ability of bad actors to consume extreme amounts of resources before they tragedy-of-the-commons the whole shebang for everyone else. But any such system has to acknowledge that qualifying as infrastructure means that society relies on it to function, which means that demand for the infrastructure is, at the low end, inelasti…
> There are reasonable arguments to be made for allowing infrastructure providers to limit the ability of bad actors to consume extreme amounts of resources before they tragedy-of-the-commons the whole shebang for everyone else.
Except the "bad actors" are the ISP's customer. It's they who are asking for the bits to be sent. It's the ISP job to deliver the bits their customers requested.
The streaming services are not dumping bits on to the network like a chemical plant polluting a river. The streaming services are sending bits that the ISP's customers requested.
The streaming services are paying for their Internet connection, and ISP's customers are paying for their Internet connection, and it is the job of the ISP to connect the two.
If you can't currently handle the traffic:
* reduce the service that you offer, or
* build a better network.
The ISPs need to do their damn job.
Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
The solution for that is already in place – charge for bandwidth. If users pay $30 for 100 Mpbs or $60 for 500 Mpbs etc., and on top of it there are caps on total data consumed, where does the idea of further segmenting and prioritizing traffic even come from?
Because they want to sell you 3Tb of bandwidth but you only use 2Gb, and they want you to pay extra for that 2Gb to not be slow - despite that you already paid for it to be a set speed. There's no growth left selling bandwidth. So they need to get growth by being anti-consumer.
No post body was provided.
Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law
#76> California's net neutrality law is similar to the federal rules repealed under former FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. California prohibits ISPs from blocking or throttling lawful traffic. It also prohibits requiring fees from websites or online services to deliver or prioritize their traffic to consumers, bans paid data cap exemptions (so-called "zero-rating"), and says that ISPs may not attempt to evade net neutrality prot…
[deleted]
Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law
#77https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/04/isps-cant-find-a... <-- correct link
Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law
#78The link here appears to be broken. Here is the correct one, fyi @dang https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/04/isps-cant-find-a...
@dang doesn't actually do anything to get Dang's attention. You can write the mods using the footer Contact link to ask them to fix the link, though.
[deleted]
Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
The primary beneficiaries of this are basically Netflix and Google, no? My understanding is most of these policies have always been targeted at the large streaming services that are putting the most burden on the networks and who often already have special interconnect agreements. The claims that these policies would be aimed at small businesses seem largely to have not been realistic. The whole situation with lying…
> My understanding is most of these policies have always been targeted at the large streaming services that are putting the most burden on the networks and who often already have special interconnect agreements. "large streaming services that are putting the most burden on the networks"? That is completely non-sensical. It is not streaming services that are creating a burden, it is the ISP's customers . The ISP's cus…
But we (the ISPs) made assumptions about aggregate consumer bandwidth requirements back in the early 2000s and now they're cutting into shareholder value! Would someone please, PLEASE, think of the shareholders?!
Re: ISPs can’t find any judges who will block California net neutrality law
#80The whole net neutrality saga just exposed the deep regulatory capture between ISPs and the FCC (the Republican Commissioners at least). Pai's argument for repealing net neutrality was that it wasn't a Federal government concern. That was originally what prompted California to institute these rules. But suddenly it wasn't a state issue either. Weird . The US has some of the most expensive Internet access in the world…
[flagged]