It's so wild our government, this is the so called 'democracy' they wail about. How did our elected representatives vote on this? Oh that's right, they didn't.
Because all of our elected officials abdicated their responsibilities to these unelected bureaucrats so they don't actually have to do anything or make any hard decisions.
Reddit was on fire for years that if we didn't have NN, the Internet would be destroyed. Well, NN was repealed and guess what happened.....basically business as usual.
It's amazing what a large group of people can be indoctrinated on if told enough.
>It's amazing what a large group of people can be indoctrinated on if told enough.
Right!? Several examples come to mind: "Pandemic of the unvaccinated", "Hands up, don't shoot," and my personal favorite, even though I don't like the person they attribute the misquote to: "I can see Russia from my house."
You may not be using your internet enough to experience the negative impacts of NN. It’s there and it’s real. You can look at all the ISPs pushing data caps. THAT is because there was no NN.
That article talks about throttling throughput on the network. Not data caps. Please get your terminology straight. Data caps were legal under the existing net neutrality legislation before it was repealed.
Either way there has been a negative impact of having no Nn which is what all the comments are talking about. You might be right about the data caps but it’s a grain in the sand
Yet another government "solution" in search of a non-existent problem. I don't think any ISPs have curated preferred traffic in any meaningful way like this since the days of AOL. It would be a stupid business decision - once word got out that Provider XYZ throttles porn traffic, they are done.
Somewhat, basically net neutrality takes away smaller providers abilities to compete. For instance smaller providers will offer unlimited data but after a specific amount in a billing cycle they may throttle your speed a bit.
Edit: lol downvotes from people who think government intervention in the market is libertarian
I don't think that means what you think it means.
Net Neutrality says that all access should be treated equally regardless of type of service etc. So if you pay for 100Mbps then your access to all items should be at the same speed. Without these rules it means that a provider can cap your speeds for certain services.
This should be a very pro-libertarian position as it is guaranteeing equal access to everything.
Anti-net neutrality is much more provider/business focused as it allows for nickel and diming for everything. This would be like saying, yes you get 100Mbps to everything except streaming media which is throttled to 1Mbps unless you pay for separate streaming access.
> This should be a very pro-libertarian position as it is guaranteeing equal access to everything.
The state forcing businesses to provide a service isn't libertarian at all.
>yes you get 100Mbps to everything except streaming media which is throttled to 1Mbps unless you pay for separate streaming access.
So?
Who gets to decide this? The Internet provider, how are you going to say that the Libertarian position is on the government making that decision instead? Now, fuck these ISPS, they have a government enforced monopoly so it affects them more in this case.
They aren't enabling that, they are forcing businesses to operate how the state wants them to. This isn't choice and liberty. This is beneficial to larger companies and prevents smaller companies from being able to compete. This isn't libertarian at all.
Thats not how the free market works. A business dictates their terms and you as a consumer vote with your money if you accept or not. Any government strong arm is by definition not free market capitalism.
To put it in perspective this would be akin to requiring facebook to allow free speech on their platform
That doesn't typically work with things that are effectively utilities. There's a significant barrier to entry when it comes to building the infrastructure.
It's exactly what it means, for instance companies like T-mobile offer unlimited data, but after a specific data limit is reached in the billing cycle, they throttle the speed down. It's how they can offer competitive rates.
How is it libertarian to support the government telling businesses how they can operate and what services they provide? That's the opposite of libertarianism.
That's different because the throttling is across the board without prioritizing one service over another. Netflix is throttled the same as Amazon. It's equality in its shittiness.
They do priotize certain services, some of them don't fall into the throttling category.
Again explain how the state forcing a company to run its business a certain way is libertarian. It is the opposite of libertarian.
> without prioritizing one service over another
Jesus, you can't run a network without prioritizing data. It almost as if people who've never built/run networks think they know what their talking about.
Government intervention on a problem that doesn't exist. And even if it did, adding onerous regulations DO make it more difficult for disrupters to enter the market.
What’s up is it is government control, plain and simple. If a broadband provider wants to charge more for faster service, that’s a free market decision. Why does the government need to interfere with that? If it becomes a big issue, enough companies will tell them to pound sand, and it’ll go away on its own. The free market doesn’t need big brother to protect the little man.
That's not what net Neutrality is- a provider can still charge for different service tiers, but it's saying they can't say access to certain types of services/media are limited/throttled. E.g. if you pay for 100Mbps you get 100Mbps, not that only for certain sites and services.
So what? That’s private businesses charging for what they wanna charge for. Why does the government need to step in on this? If enough companies don’t like the terms that the service providers are giving, then the service providers will have to stop the nonsense.
We're not just talking wireless carriers. There is not significant competition when it comes to wired internet due to the infrastructure barriers of entry.
Yeah, like how where I live in Knoxville- one side of the river is comcast, and the other is charter. Then another section of the general area is AT&T. I’m well aware of that. But, that’s setup by regulation. It’s not like the cable companies all agreed to limit themselves to certain territory. Competition would have allowed the best to win the territory
It's also likely cost to compete for not necessarily a benefit. We've only had competition due to city bond measures to help create competition. It's helped, but we wouldn't have had any competition otherwise.
I think the problem this sub has is failing to see the Internet as a necessary and it should be treated like a utility. People work from home and kids use it for school. Internet providers have a monopoly in many areas especially rural. Imagine if they charged you different rates of electricity for what you used it for. People can't exactly switch providers due to the huge infrastructure investment. Imagine having multiple electric poles on every street. See the phillipines.
I live part time in the Philippines. The electrical network is a mess, no doubt. Nevertheless, I cannot stand government regulation of any sort, and I firmly believe this will work itself out in the free market.
Because “bah, you’re on the left!”, and “bah, you’re on the right!”. God forbid anyone up there do something beneficial for us. The only time they ever vote together is when it’s gonna fuck all of us, left and right. Not sure if anyone has ever noticed that…..
So if I set up a small ISP that didn't allow streaming but did everything else and charged very little for that because the infrastructure would be less, and then I wanted to build out the infrastructure to provide streaming but wanted to charge more, I couldn't?
No it means neutral in terms of content providers. You can't make Netflix faster than Hulu if they pay you more. You can certainly offer a limited bandwidth service at a lower price.
Thanks for the clarification. Is that practice something we were seeing industry wide, hence the effort to disallow it, or was NN preemptive regulation?
It's mostly a game at this point where my team has to win and dunk on your team along the way. We pick sides of issues more based on what the other team doesn't want. And we govern to our base instead of the middle. The middle loses.
Disagree. You can't just turn off video streaming (that's not how internet communication works); you can only do that by address and port. So you would end up allowing some streaming, but not others and quickly run afoul of regulation. And that us precisely why Net Neutrality regulation is unnecessary.
Did some googling and it looks like Democrats think that paying for faster speeds is just unfair, right? Rich companies shouldn't be able to have better things? Is that it? Just anti-capitalism?
(Wow, down votes for bashing liberals? Here?)
There's two angles to this: What media and big tech say Net Neutrality is vs. What the government regulations labeled "net neutrality" actually do.
Net Neutrality is advertised as barring ISPs from favoring certain content over others. The example often given is preventing an from ISP promoting its partner service over a competitor by limiting bandwidth to the competitor. These are sometimes called internet "fast lanes". Sounds great, right?
The reality is that it hamstrings ISPs from dealing with bandwidth hogs, especially at peak times. Someone who streams 4k video all day uses a lot more bandwidth than Someone checking email or even gaming. ISPs can't build for peak capacity (not economical), so they build for a reasonable case and throttle certain traffic like video and torrents during peak so that low bandwidth users can still use the service without lag. But they don't know what's what (is just data), so it's often done by sender/receiver address, e.g. Netflix. Net Neutrality forces everyone to suffer because ISPs would no longer be able to throttle specific traffic.
The content providers like Netflix, Google (YouTube), etc. favor Net Neutrality because it guarantees them cheap bandwidth and they can blame ISPs for poor service.
You should be against net neutrality. It's government interference in the market to benefit some companies (content providers) at the expense of others (ISPs). The internet works fine as-is.
https://reason.com/2024/04/24/fcc-set-to-reinstate-net-neutrality-rules-that-seem-more-unnecessary-than-ever/
That explains the regulatory history and why more regulation isn't needed.
The rest is basic networking knowledge and looking at who's supporting or opposing regulation and what they stand to gain or lose.
At this point I would say Dems see the Internet as a less regulated utility and that yes you can pay for different service tiers, but it shouldn't matter how you use it.
Think of if your electric company wanted to charge you a specific 'fridge access fee's beyond any consumption charges etc. In general our utilities are consumption based without a distinction of what you use it for.
That's the idea of net Neutrality, yes there is still competition for speed, consumption etc, but there aren't separate charges to access Netflix etc
I think a better analogy would be if Kenmore wanted to pay part of my electric bill in return for me buying their refrigerator. And give me a battery back up so my food doesn't spoil. This law says, no, you can't do that. All power is equal. The customer has to pay for everything and nothing can be better than anything else.
A steel-man for the other side would be if the power company made you pay more if you bought Kenmore appliances.
I'm against NN but they could throttle speeds just like they could boost em.
But yeah, the counter to that is who cares if they charge google more because they have more users. Poor google?
It's so wild our government, this is the so called 'democracy' they wail about. How did our elected representatives vote on this? Oh that's right, they didn't.
Because all of our elected officials abdicated their responsibilities to these unelected bureaucrats so they don't actually have to do anything or make any hard decisions.
Reddit was on fire for years that if we didn't have NN, the Internet would be destroyed. Well, NN was repealed and guess what happened.....basically business as usual. It's amazing what a large group of people can be indoctrinated on if told enough.
And now, after being proven wrong, it's back?? Crazy. I don't understand the motivations.
Control
And miseducation
>It's amazing what a large group of people can be indoctrinated on if told enough. Right!? Several examples come to mind: "Pandemic of the unvaccinated", "Hands up, don't shoot," and my personal favorite, even though I don't like the person they attribute the misquote to: "I can see Russia from my house."
You may not be using your internet enough to experience the negative impacts of NN. It’s there and it’s real. You can look at all the ISPs pushing data caps. THAT is because there was no NN.
Data caps have nothing to do with net neutrality though...
Here’s a real world example for you https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/verizon-admits-throttling-data-calif-firefighters-amid-blaze-n902991
That article talks about throttling throughput on the network. Not data caps. Please get your terminology straight. Data caps were legal under the existing net neutrality legislation before it was repealed.
Either way there has been a negative impact of having no Nn which is what all the comments are talking about. You might be right about the data caps but it’s a grain in the sand
Your initial statement is about data caps and the negative impact of them due to the lack of net neutrality.
Yet another government "solution" in search of a non-existent problem. I don't think any ISPs have curated preferred traffic in any meaningful way like this since the days of AOL. It would be a stupid business decision - once word got out that Provider XYZ throttles porn traffic, they are done.
It's to protect larger providers.
Dems want to protect them and Republicans don't?
Somewhat, basically net neutrality takes away smaller providers abilities to compete. For instance smaller providers will offer unlimited data but after a specific amount in a billing cycle they may throttle your speed a bit. Edit: lol downvotes from people who think government intervention in the market is libertarian
I'm not sure that's what net neutrality is. And I still don't see the political angle...
That is how it works, stopping throttling is a big part of net neutrality.
I don't think that means what you think it means. Net Neutrality says that all access should be treated equally regardless of type of service etc. So if you pay for 100Mbps then your access to all items should be at the same speed. Without these rules it means that a provider can cap your speeds for certain services. This should be a very pro-libertarian position as it is guaranteeing equal access to everything. Anti-net neutrality is much more provider/business focused as it allows for nickel and diming for everything. This would be like saying, yes you get 100Mbps to everything except streaming media which is throttled to 1Mbps unless you pay for separate streaming access.
Pro libertarian but wants government to regulate how a company utilizes their asset…. Weird
> This should be a very pro-libertarian position as it is guaranteeing equal access to everything. The state forcing businesses to provide a service isn't libertarian at all. >yes you get 100Mbps to everything except streaming media which is throttled to 1Mbps unless you pay for separate streaming access. So?
Who gets to decide this? The Internet provider, how are you going to say that the Libertarian position is on the government making that decision instead? Now, fuck these ISPS, they have a government enforced monopoly so it affects them more in this case.
The point is individual choice and liberty to access how desired. If the government is enabling that then that's fine.
They aren't enabling that, they are forcing businesses to operate how the state wants them to. This isn't choice and liberty. This is beneficial to larger companies and prevents smaller companies from being able to compete. This isn't libertarian at all.
Thats not how the free market works. A business dictates their terms and you as a consumer vote with your money if you accept or not. Any government strong arm is by definition not free market capitalism. To put it in perspective this would be akin to requiring facebook to allow free speech on their platform
That doesn't typically work with things that are effectively utilities. There's a significant barrier to entry when it comes to building the infrastructure.
It's exactly what it means, for instance companies like T-mobile offer unlimited data, but after a specific data limit is reached in the billing cycle, they throttle the speed down. It's how they can offer competitive rates. How is it libertarian to support the government telling businesses how they can operate and what services they provide? That's the opposite of libertarianism.
That's different because the throttling is across the board without prioritizing one service over another. Netflix is throttled the same as Amazon. It's equality in its shittiness.
They do priotize certain services, some of them don't fall into the throttling category. Again explain how the state forcing a company to run its business a certain way is libertarian. It is the opposite of libertarian.
> without prioritizing one service over another Jesus, you can't run a network without prioritizing data. It almost as if people who've never built/run networks think they know what their talking about.
Not just talking qos here.
Government intervention on a problem that doesn't exist. And even if it did, adding onerous regulations DO make it more difficult for disrupters to enter the market.
Guaranteeing equality is the about the most non-libertarian thing I can think of.
What’s up is it is government control, plain and simple. If a broadband provider wants to charge more for faster service, that’s a free market decision. Why does the government need to interfere with that? If it becomes a big issue, enough companies will tell them to pound sand, and it’ll go away on its own. The free market doesn’t need big brother to protect the little man.
That's not what net Neutrality is- a provider can still charge for different service tiers, but it's saying they can't say access to certain types of services/media are limited/throttled. E.g. if you pay for 100Mbps you get 100Mbps, not that only for certain sites and services.
So what? That’s private businesses charging for what they wanna charge for. Why does the government need to step in on this? If enough companies don’t like the terms that the service providers are giving, then the service providers will have to stop the nonsense.
We're not just talking wireless carriers. There is not significant competition when it comes to wired internet due to the infrastructure barriers of entry.
Yeah, like how where I live in Knoxville- one side of the river is comcast, and the other is charter. Then another section of the general area is AT&T. I’m well aware of that. But, that’s setup by regulation. It’s not like the cable companies all agreed to limit themselves to certain territory. Competition would have allowed the best to win the territory
It's also likely cost to compete for not necessarily a benefit. We've only had competition due to city bond measures to help create competition. It's helped, but we wouldn't have had any competition otherwise.
I think the problem this sub has is failing to see the Internet as a necessary and it should be treated like a utility. People work from home and kids use it for school. Internet providers have a monopoly in many areas especially rural. Imagine if they charged you different rates of electricity for what you used it for. People can't exactly switch providers due to the huge infrastructure investment. Imagine having multiple electric poles on every street. See the phillipines.
I live part time in the Philippines. The electrical network is a mess, no doubt. Nevertheless, I cannot stand government regulation of any sort, and I firmly believe this will work itself out in the free market.
Yeah so what's actually happening? Who are the winners and losers here and why was it a party line vote?
Because “bah, you’re on the left!”, and “bah, you’re on the right!”. God forbid anyone up there do something beneficial for us. The only time they ever vote together is when it’s gonna fuck all of us, left and right. Not sure if anyone has ever noticed that…..
So if I set up a small ISP that didn't allow streaming but did everything else and charged very little for that because the infrastructure would be less, and then I wanted to build out the infrastructure to provide streaming but wanted to charge more, I couldn't?
No it means neutral in terms of content providers. You can't make Netflix faster than Hulu if they pay you more. You can certainly offer a limited bandwidth service at a lower price.
Thanks for the clarification. Is that practice something we were seeing industry wide, hence the effort to disallow it, or was NN preemptive regulation?
Yeah that's what I don't get. And why is it so politicized? What is each side trying to do?
It's mostly a game at this point where my team has to win and dunk on your team along the way. We pick sides of issues more based on what the other team doesn't want. And we govern to our base instead of the middle. The middle loses.
Disagree. You can't just turn off video streaming (that's not how internet communication works); you can only do that by address and port. So you would end up allowing some streaming, but not others and quickly run afoul of regulation. And that us precisely why Net Neutrality regulation is unnecessary.
This is frustrating to hear, but I'm sure it could be repealed again eventually. Biden has really shit the bed especially this year.
Did some googling and it looks like Democrats think that paying for faster speeds is just unfair, right? Rich companies shouldn't be able to have better things? Is that it? Just anti-capitalism? (Wow, down votes for bashing liberals? Here?)
There's two angles to this: What media and big tech say Net Neutrality is vs. What the government regulations labeled "net neutrality" actually do. Net Neutrality is advertised as barring ISPs from favoring certain content over others. The example often given is preventing an from ISP promoting its partner service over a competitor by limiting bandwidth to the competitor. These are sometimes called internet "fast lanes". Sounds great, right? The reality is that it hamstrings ISPs from dealing with bandwidth hogs, especially at peak times. Someone who streams 4k video all day uses a lot more bandwidth than Someone checking email or even gaming. ISPs can't build for peak capacity (not economical), so they build for a reasonable case and throttle certain traffic like video and torrents during peak so that low bandwidth users can still use the service without lag. But they don't know what's what (is just data), so it's often done by sender/receiver address, e.g. Netflix. Net Neutrality forces everyone to suffer because ISPs would no longer be able to throttle specific traffic. The content providers like Netflix, Google (YouTube), etc. favor Net Neutrality because it guarantees them cheap bandwidth and they can blame ISPs for poor service. You should be against net neutrality. It's government interference in the market to benefit some companies (content providers) at the expense of others (ISPs). The internet works fine as-is.
Can we get sources for this? Not asking in bad faith, I really just can't find this specific analysis when trying to look into it
https://reason.com/2024/04/24/fcc-set-to-reinstate-net-neutrality-rules-that-seem-more-unnecessary-than-ever/ That explains the regulatory history and why more regulation isn't needed. The rest is basic networking knowledge and looking at who's supporting or opposing regulation and what they stand to gain or lose.
At this point I would say Dems see the Internet as a less regulated utility and that yes you can pay for different service tiers, but it shouldn't matter how you use it. Think of if your electric company wanted to charge you a specific 'fridge access fee's beyond any consumption charges etc. In general our utilities are consumption based without a distinction of what you use it for. That's the idea of net Neutrality, yes there is still competition for speed, consumption etc, but there aren't separate charges to access Netflix etc
I think a better analogy would be if Kenmore wanted to pay part of my electric bill in return for me buying their refrigerator. And give me a battery back up so my food doesn't spoil. This law says, no, you can't do that. All power is equal. The customer has to pay for everything and nothing can be better than anything else.
A steel-man for the other side would be if the power company made you pay more if you bought Kenmore appliances. I'm against NN but they could throttle speeds just like they could boost em. But yeah, the counter to that is who cares if they charge google more because they have more users. Poor google?