The Net Neutrality Fight Will Soon Return, And The Bickering Will Be As Stupid As Ever
from the here-we-go-again dept
I know people are bored to death after years of infighting over net neutrality. But the FCC’s attempts to impose something vaguely resembling oversight upon a bunch of shitty regional telecom monopolies that have bludgeoned U.S. broadband into uncompetitive rubble still matters, no matter how tired the press and public might be of the debate, or what telecom industry lobbyists might say.
Last September the Biden FCC announced it was planning to restore net neutrality rules stripped away during the Trump administration amidst a lot of bullshit and fraud. It, of course, didn’t take long for the telecom industry, with GOP allies in lockstep, to whine to the FCC in writing about how imposing baseline oversight of giant telecom monopolies is “unlawful”:
“This proposal is unlawful. Regulation of broadband is undoubtedly a major question of economic and political significance. Under the major questions doctrine, articulated in West Virginia v. EPA, an agency must wait for Congressional authorization before acting. In other words, if broadband needs to be regulated as a utility, that is a decision for Congress to make, not the FCC. Congress has not spoken on this issue.”
The courts have already ruled several times that the FCC is currently well within its right to impose (and strip away) net neutrality rules within its authority embedded in the Communications Act, it just has to do a reasonably solid job justifying the decision with, you know, data.
But telecoms (just like every other industry looking to lobotomize what’s left of federal corporate oversight), are really hopeful that the looming Supreme Court Chevron deference ruling curtails regulators from doing much of anything beyond what’s deemed acceptable by corrupt judges with lifetime appointments and a Congress too corrupt to pass any new reforms (you saw what happened when people recommended Congress pass a net neutrality or broadband privacy law: jack shit).
As a refresher: net neutrality as I define it is an often murky attempt to prevent giant telecom monopolies from abusing their internet gatekeeping power to unfairly rip off consumers or disadvantage competitors, especially competitors that compete with an ISP’s own services.
While there’s often a lot of misinformed chatter about how “net neutrality must not matter because the internet didn’t explode upon repeal,” that ignores that a major reason big ISPs didn’t misbehave is because numerous big states rushed in to pass state-level laws they don’t want to violate.
Even if you think net neutrality rules are stupid, cheering for their demise of FCC authority is counterproductive and stupid, given the lack of competition and regulatory oversight (the preferred outcome for AT&T and Comcast) is directly and documentably responsible for high broadband prices, spotty access, slow speeds, and some of the worst customer service ever conceived by man.
If there has to be new net neutrality rules, cable giants like Comcast and Charter are already hard at work lobbying to shape what those rules will look like, ensuring that pretty much anything they choose to do on their networks falls well outside of the FCC’s oversight umbrella.
Big telecoms don’t want the FCC to ban usage caps (a technically unnecessary price-gouging restriction designed exclusively to goose revenues). They don’t want the FCC to ban “reasonable network management” (the term “reasonable” giving broad latitude to do pretty much whatever). They don’t want the FCC to prohibit “zero rating” (a form of paid preference that Mozilla and EU regulators have long criticized as telecoms playing field tilting, often under the guise of helping low income Americans).
Importantly, they also want to make sure the rules pre-empt any tougher state net neutrality rules like those passed in California and Washington state. And, of course, they want the FCC to “forbear” telecoms from any of the parts of Title II classification that would allow the FCC to engage in things like “rate regulation” (which, even under Democratic control, has long been deemed “radical” and off the table, but is routinely trotted out by the GOP and telecoms as a sort of scary bogeyman, even if it never happens).
At this point, I tend to think that if this FCC passes net neutrality rules, they’ll be so filled with loopholes as to be largely useless outside of egregious stuff telecoms never wanted to do anyway (like the outright blocking of websites). And if new rules are passed, I strongly doubt they’ll be enforced with any consistency by an FCC that’s generally timid when it comes to standing up to industry giants.
But in a few weeks or months, as the debate starts to rekindle, you’ll see all kinds of missives seeded in the press by industry about how these net neutrality rules are akin to a “socialist takeover of the internet.” They’ll, once again, be framed as unreasonably radical, even if the loophole-filled rules don’t actually accomplish much and will never be enforced with any meaningful zeal.
The FCC has never done a particularly good job holding companies like AT&T and Comcast accountable. And as the rightward-lurching Supreme Court steadily chips away at regulatory independence, I highly doubt that’s going to change anytime soon. The FCC is struggling to even map broadband or get Comcast to stop ripping consumers off with bullshit fees, much less tackle market failure.
It’s why I tend to think that as the net neutrality fight returns to telecom policy conversation (deemed passé and irrelevant in the era of big tech debates), it remains important to keep the focus centered on market failure caused by regional monopolization and muted competition, resulting in the spotty, expensive, and slow broadband networks Americans have come to know and love so dearly.
With sagging regulatory authority coming up fast in the rear view mirror courtesy of the Supreme Court, it’s going to be more important than ever to carefully pick battles and focus very specifically on the foundational problems that matter. And when it comes to broadband, it’s unchecked monopoly power.
Filed Under: broadband, competition, fcc, high speed internet, net neutrality, telecom, title ii, usage caps, zero rating
Comments on “The Net Neutrality Fight Will Soon Return, And The Bickering Will Be As Stupid As Ever”
Which is exactly what they did by creating the FCC. Your attempt at a bullshit argument has been rejected. Please restate and try again.
Re:
Create an agency with no authority, but use it for a punching bag .. brilliant!
It must be an election year because the bullshit is getting deep.
Re:
While I agree with you, you failed to mention the toothless entity that the FCC is now, thanks to….congress.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
It really shouldn't, you lost
You were wrong. point blank. “Net neutrality” is just an excuse for more government interference in the internet which is almost never a good idea.
You lost and nothing changed. If it “returns”, it’s only cuz you can’t give it up.
Re:
So.. You want isps under less restrictions than websites…
Re: Re:
Some have assumed it is simply an attempt to kill the internet.
The oligarchs said the internet was a novelty that would go away, so now they have to prove they were right thirty some years ago. It may be too late as the cat has escaped the bag and the oligarch mouth pieces are really getting scratched up trying to put it back in.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah… how are they going to get their word out?
Re: Re: Re:2
Violence.
The Republican backers apparently don’t see Jan 6 asx an issue…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
You seem to be getting that confused with the “fiery but mostly peaceful” BLM riots. Y’know, the ones that killed like 3 dozen people and caused ~$4B in damages.
Re: Re: Re:4
hey clown
Re: Re: Re:4
Nope.
Violently disrupting the political transfer of power is way worse than rioting, and has more far-reaching effects on democracy. And both are bad.
You insurrectionist scum will never care because you’ve already sold your souls to Ruasia.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Except that didn’t happen.
Regardless, you said “violence”. It wasn’t tho, BLM riots were.
Your fan fiction isn’t an argument.
Re: Re: Re:6
oh look a jan 6 denier your just like a holocaust denier
Re: Re: Re:6
“you said “violence”. It wasn’t tho”
idk, some people in the videos look awful violent to me.
Rage filled propagandized fools attempted to construct a gallows, there were weapons stashed, police were battered to the point of death …..
but it was not violent, thank god for that
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Lol, none of that happened.
Turns out your fan fiction is not prosecutable.
Re: Re: Re:6
People were shot, Matty. That’s violence whether you want it to be or not.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
YES. Well, one person, not “people”. BY A COP. Not a protestor. And he should be prosecuted but never will be.
Are you trying to pretend a cop being violent makes the protest violent? SUPER HOT TAKE.
Re: Re: Re:8
Well, in terms of the protestors being violent:
But sure, keep pretending that January 6th wasn’t violent.
Re: Re: Re:9
My gawd, have you seen ANY riot involving antifa?
I’m not saying that stuff is OK, but it is waaaaaaaayyyy less severe than what happened during the BLM riots.
Give it up. (I actually think you may be realizing these two things don’t compare well)
Re: Re: Re:10
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re: Re:10
So? Your claim was that Jan 6 wasn’t violent, not that it “wasn’t as violent as other riots”.
But deflecting when you’re proven to be lying is your go-to move.
Re: Re: Re:11
CAN YOU READ?!? Someone else said it was violent, I said it wasn’t nearly as violent as the BLM riots.
So yes I directly said that. Jesus wept. Just scroll UP. Fuuuk you’re dumb.
Re: Re: Re:12
Evidently your memory is as bad as Biden’s and Trump’s and your reading comprehension has vanished.
Scroll up yourself. Someone else said that Jan 6 was violent, then you literally replied “it wasn’t tho”. You only changed your argument when you were proven wrong.
It’s hilarious how you try to gaslight us when there’s a written record of your dumbfuckery.
Re: Re: Re:10
And what relevance has that to do with you explicitly denying there were any violence Jan 6? Do you think you can escape the fact that you lied?
So not only are you stupid as fuck, you are also a consummate liar. It’s safe to assume that anything you say is a lie.
Re: Re: Re:6
It was a statement of fact.
Want another? “Hang Mike Pence” is also a violation of 1A, that 1A you so dearly pretend to love.
THREATENING TO HANG A SITTING POLITICIAN IS A CRIME, INSURRECTIONIST SCUM.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Lol, you mean “exception to” not “violation of”, and only if it’s a specific credible threat, actually.
Not usually, actually. Mostly cuz it is rarely a credible threat. It is almost always protected speech.
Re: Re: Re:4
Actually, it was the LEOs sent to keep the protests peaceful that turned them into riots and ended up killing over three dozen people, but racist shitheads like you are often ignorant of the facts you don’t like.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Interesting. See, this is funny:
Paul Krugman, the left’s favorite (and nearly always hilariously wrong) economist said that in nineteen ninety-eight The internet was already well underway by then. Amazon was 4 years old.
Re: Re: Re:2
matt the always wrong lowlife right winger
Re: Re:
Republicans/US conservatives: The government telling internet service providers to treat everyone equally is tyranny, a government takeover of the internet!
Also republicans/US conservatives: Online platforms treating everyone equally is a heinous attack on the first amendment, they must be prohibited from exercising their first amendment rights by removing content and/or users from their property just because they want nothing to do with the content/users in question and want to keep advertisers and users happy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I would prefer free market competition sort things out in all cases. The typical ISP duopoly we see is the result of regulatory capture to start with.
I also think social media should be perfectly free to do whatever ideological censorship they wish. But if they exert editorial control it’s their content and they lose 230 protections (which yes, contrary to what MM tells you, is how it works). That should strongly incentivise them to have a light touch and clear-cut, unambiguous rules. Also, btw, any “Guidance” from the gov absolutely is 1a violation (also contrary to what MM will claim)(which is a problem for the gov, not the SM platform).
Basically there should just be a lot less gov involvement, top to bottom. I am in fact quite consistent on this.
Re: Re: Re:2
The free market is how you get entities like The Umbrella Corporation from Resident Evil.
Try again.
Re: Re: Re:3
Umbrella Corp? You mean Pfizer and Big Pharma, Nintendo, the entirety of the American music AND movie industries…
Besides,the free market also gave us the exodus of advertisers from ElonMuskLandia, I mean the site formerly known as Twitter.
So Matthew is an even bigger hypocrite then he seems to portray himself as.
Re: Re: Re:2
So you haven’t read 47 USC §230 yet? It’s amazing how you can tell us what the law says without actually having read it, are you a psychic perhaps? Do you also do astrological readings? Horoscopes?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Are you the same idiot who claims 230 defines “user”? Telling me to read it?
Hilarious.
Re: Re: Re:4
your funny clown who got made stupid by a spammer imagine falling for it idiot
Re: Re: Re:4
Here you go, the cure for your ignorance, if you wish to take it.
Re: Re: Re:4
That still isn’t how it works no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
Re: Re: Re:2
Your challenge: Define ‘censorship’ in a way that aligns with reality. Go!
Re: Re: Re:2
Actually, no. If actual editorial control (i.e., not moderation) is exerted, then the website cannot rely on Section 230 protections in relation to that content, but if a user posts a comment and the website gets sued over it, then Section 230 kicks in as usual. To be clear, a website does not lose Section 230 protections just because they may publish an article that can be sued over on grounds of defamation, for example.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Moderation certainly can become editorial control, it depends upon how it’s applied. Anyway, you seem to be conflating a few things. Section 230 would not apply to whatever they exerted editorial control over, it would still apply to things they did not. It’s not all or nothing. Traditionally this would be the articles vs the comments. THe thorny bits is that SM very much could be argued to exterting editorial control over what amounts to “comments” (what should be 3rd party content) by say banning all comments arguing against mandatory vaccination or something like that. That’s a pretty clear editorial position. (in every sense)
Re: Re: Re:4
your not a clown your the entire circus
Re: Re: Re:4
Moderation of published content is not editorial control, deciding what is to be published is editorial control. I know you struggle to grok such basic concepts because your head’s too far up your own ass for things to get through to you, but you could at least put in some effort.
Re: Re: Re:4
Which is exactly what I just said, dipshit. Way to make my argument for me, then show that you still don’t understand it. Are you sure your real name’s not Josh Hawley?
Re: Re: Re:4
It can’t not be editorial control. It doesn’t matter how it’s used: viewpoint-based, tone-based, topic-based, whatever, that’s all still editorial control.
Given that pretty much every decision made with regards to the publication of 3rd-party content on a platform accessible to many is necessarily an exertion of editorial control in some fashion, the distinction you make doesn’t actually exist in reality. And no, §230 still applies to whatever they exerted editorial control over. The exception is where they themselves helped to create that content or added something that would make it unlawful.
It’s also an editorial position to ban all swearing, to determine what is or isn’t harassment, to ban a topic entirely, to delete a single post from a user, or to ban a certain user for whatever reason. Even choosing not to moderate at all is itself an editorial position. If you are deciding whether to publish, refuse to publish, remove, keep, hide, edit, or put in some particular order, that is a reflection of one’s editorial position.
And yes, that scenario is absolutely immunized by §230. It’s not even remotely a gray area. Did they create or develop the content at issue? No. Did they make a decision as a publisher about whether and, if so, in what manner to publish that content, actively or passively? Yes. Is that decision connected to why one would hypothetically sue them over it? Yes. Those are pretty much the only requirements for §230 to apply to a provider or user of an interactive computer service, which SM services definitely are.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Bari Weiss, I’m not gonna read all your comment, you’re too autistic for most of your commentary to be relevant.
Sure, I agree with that. Let me rephrase: Section 230 excuses a very limited and specific form of editorial control without becoming the “publisher”. But not all editorial control.
Re: Re: Re:6
We understand that this is what you WANT it to say, but anyone with ANY intellectual honesty (or knowledge of the reality) would note that NOT A SINGLE COURT HAS EVER read the law that way.
Could that change? Sure.
But EVERY SINGLE COURT that has ruled on this issue disagrees with you.
Which you should at least be willing to admit.
If you were honest (lol) you could admit “this is how I read the law,” or “this is how I think the law should be interpreted.” But the fact that you PRETEND that courts HAVE already interpreted the law that way is where people make fun of you.
NOT A SINGLE COURT has agreed with you to date.
And that’s why people mock you for being foolish, Matthew.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
It is what it says. Many (not all) courts have wildy misinterpreted it.
Are you an expert on section 230 law? Can you give legal advice?
Re: Re: Re:8
How do you know if Bratty Matty is lying?
He said something.
Re: Re: Re:9
He still can’t give legal advice.
Crime in all 50 states for him to do so.
Re: Re: Re:10
You sure like to gaslight and move goal-posts, which is why you switched to talking about “legal advice” – which is something you do when you realize you fucked up.
If you think Mike is giving legal advice, then you are also giving legal advice by merely making your opinion known on laws and legal matters. If you think that is false, you are free to provide examples of Mike giving legal advice, I’ll wait.
You constantly confuse opinions with facts and call people liars or whatever. What you then fail to recognize is that you often in the very next sentence present your opinion as fact which is why people think you are a fucking clown.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes, right wingers like you are the cause.
Re: Re: Re:2
Lol.
So.. You realize that your definition of the first amendment makes the Florida and Texas laws censorship?
Re: Re: Re:2
“I would prefer free market competition sort things out in all cases. ”
Cool story bro.
There is no such thing as the free market. It is a model of some utopian fantasy land that can never exist anywhere other than your mind. It is a lazy person’s attempt at understanding economics, it assumes way too much about the marketplace, human consumption characteristics, and the future.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
sounds like some nonsense a commie who wants excuses to control others would say.
Re: Re: Re:4
sounds like a idiot who thinks there right
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
*they’re.
And yes, I do.
Re: Re: Re:6
You’re right as in Trump-aligned, not right as in correct.
For one thing, you thought that Trump would survive the Carroll suit. Now that keeps you up at night, don’t it Matty?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
The two tier justice system worries me GREATLY, not that lawsuit in particular. (I fully expect to get thrown out, also) Liberals have given up basically any pretense of the rule of law. This is how civil wars start.
You realize I don’t actually like Trump, very much? I want him to win now just to spite you tho.
Re: Re: Re:8
I’m genuinely interested to know who exactly you think are on those two tiers. I’m confident most here would see it as rich vs. poor or ‘elites’ vs the masses, but I think you’ll have a different take…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
In case you haven’t figured it out, I think most of you are complete morons.
But no, I was talking a little more specific and simple than that.
Re: Re: Re:10
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Yeah man, I think you guys are idiots, so…..
Re: Re: Re:10
oh no the idiot calling other’s idiots oh boi we are so scared
Re: Re: Re:10
There is less than zero evidence to support your claim.
Re: Re: Re:8
if you hate trump then why are you defending him then?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Do you REALLY not understand that someone can dislike someone (I didn’t say hate) and still recognize they’re being lied about or mistreated?
That you don’t understand that…well, I knew that, but it explains a lot. It explains a lot that you didn’t even try to hide it. Like you actually thought that was an OK thing to say. Amazing.
Re: Re: Re:10
your also a dumbass with a massive ego so your saying nonsense in my mouth and your also a low life sex pest that is on a sex offender list for revenge porn so if trump wins your the first one to go if your gonna vote him
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
“Go”? Go where?
The “tolerant left” everybody! I betcha have a “Hate has no home here” sign on front of your double wide.
Lol
Re: Re: Re:12
matt your obviously too stupid to understand that trump doesn’t give too fucks about you that you will die first
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:13
I’m not sure why YOU think that I think Trump cares about me, but die first to what?
PLease, please, try to make at least a LITTLE sense. It just makes it more fun to insult you.
Re: Re: Re:14
your not really insulting me in the slightest your getting trolled twice in a row 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Re: Re: Re:12
Actually, hate does have a home here. I hate you and everything you stand for, for example.
Re: Re: Re:12
I think you need a refresher on reading comprehension. I’m pretty sure they’re saying that Trump would quickly throw you under the bus if he wins.
Re: Re: Re:8
I’ve never seen someone so desperate to suck the cock of a guy he didn’t like.
But you scumbags were always closet gay child molesters to start with, so good job for staying on brand.
Re: Re: Re:4
“sounds like some nonsense a commie who wants excuses to control others would say.”
What a retort.
A commie might say things about the proletariat and comrade stuff, not what you responded to.
Those who espouse the control of everything would be the conservative, right wing type.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Then why are republicans always pushing deregulation?
Cope harder.
Re: Re: Re:6
“why are republicans always pushing deregulation”
gotta be kiddin me
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
I think that you have just realized your preconceptions are nonsense, and you’re big mad about it, so you’re just gonna just make exclamations instead.
I’m sure you could come up with a cherry picked edge case eventually — “Republicans want to ban porn!” (I don’t) but generally leftists want to regulate everything (claiming they know how it should work, or that they’re “solving” some inequality) and conservatives want a free market and you actually know that.
Re: Re: Re:8
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 your funny matt
Re: Re: Re:6
Because deregulation’s a method of giving control over people’s lives to corporations, who are even less morally qualified to have that level of control over people’s lives than a government, in exchange for personal profit in the form of generous “campaign donations” from said corporations.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Sigh.
No, just no, you stupid fuuckikng commie.
Re: Re: Re:8
said the stupid clown 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Re: Re: Re:6
Because the oligarchs who bought and paid for them want the control for themselves, duh.
Re: Re: Re:6
They claim to, but then they also push for a lot of regulations, like the various social media bills, abortion bans, anti-trans bills, anti-porn bills, anti-drug bills, etc.
Republicans just want to control different things from Democrats.
Re: Re: Re:2
If that is how it works, why hasn’t every single social media been sued out of existence at this point?
Reality itself doesn’t agree with you, Matty.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes, that’s pretty much why. But more specifically, section 230 was created as a direct response to the ruling in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., which one year earlier had said that moderation did make a provider responsible for the content.
And since anti-indecency laws are in the news again, it’s worth noting that 230 is the only section of the CDA that wasn’t stuck down in 1997 (“In order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve.”)
Re: Re: Re:2
First, if a site does “ideological censorship,” that IS editorial control. They’re deciding what is or isn’t allowed on their site. It’s impossible to “censor” while NOT exerting editorial control. Your implication that social media can censor but can’t exert editorial control and still maintain section 230 immunity doesn’t make any sense.
Second, regarding “if they exert editorial control it’s their content and they lose 230 protections,” I’m going to go straight to the source to show you just how completely wrong you are.
First we have Chris Cox on the House Floor (emphasis mine):
Second, Ron Wyden (again, emphasis mine):
So please, explain how the actions Cox and Wyden are talking about, actions that they are explicitly saying are protected under section 230, are not editorial control. Because they sound like editorial control. And the authors of the law are saying that’s protected.
It really shouldn’t be this hard to understand, you catastrophic moron.
Re: Re: Re:3
Strong in this one the projection is, hmm.
Re: Re: Re:3
That first source you quoted? The very court case that gave rise to Section 230. Who’s completely wrong, again?
Re: Re: Re:4
Um, yes. The Compuserve and Prodigy cases, which when combined created a disincentive to moderate, which Section 230 was created to overturn. What is it exactly that you think I’m wrong about?
Re:
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
In the real world, all it did was almost address some of the forms of blatant fraud from ISPs stealing customers’ money, and had no influence whatsoever on internet content.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
In the real world, it literally never existed.
Re: Re: Re:
in the real world your stupid
Re: Re: Re:
Only if by “never” you illiterately mean “existed since before the internet did” until a short period in the early 2000s and then was back until 2015 when Idjit Paid made defrauding customers again in 2015.
Re: Re: Re:2
No. Not even a little bit. You unedcuated fuuck.
Re: Re: Re:3
How do you know if Bratty Matty is lying?
He said something.
Re:
Net neutrality is the default natural state of the broadband market in every country with a effective competition, i.e. where customers can chose from multiple providers and easily change between them, and as a result providers don’t take every opportunity to fuck over their customers for a buck. NN regulations are not required in these countries.
NN regs are not “government interference in the internet”, they don’t affect The Internet at all. They are consumer protections against corporate abuse.
Re: Re:
But kind of bad ones. As you say, meaningful competition tends to solve this problem better. What you didn’t say was that in most areas where such competition exists, it was encouraged or forced by government policy—often requirements for third-party access.
The USA, bizarrely, went the other way. When DSL companies said it was unfair they had to share their lines and cable providers didn’t, the FCC decided nobody would have to share their lines (elsewhere, cable providers have to share too). And that’s where things have remained, with very little progress.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Yes, I agree, so reintroduce free market, you walnut.
There you are complete fuucking wrong. I assure you they will affect the internet a great deal AND there won’t be a free market, so just the worst of all worlds.
Re: Re: Re:
“reintroduce free market,”
Hello, I’d like you to meet something that does not exist.
Re: Re: Re:
Why don’t you explain to us how curbing the anti-consumer behaviors of monopolistic ISP’s is going to effect the entire worldwide network that is The Internet. Don’t just make wild claims, explain yourself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Oh, I’m sorry, you think the world renowned super efficient and unbiased federal government (not a thing, our government isn’t even that bad, it’s just not something governments do) is gonna wave a magic wand and remove all the inefficiencies?
What, are they gonna form a committee to declare where each packet should go?
No no, traffic for FPS games is de-prioritized, they’re too violent, 800 ping is fine. We need C-Span in 4k tho.
End to end encryption is banned btw. FBI doesn’t like it. VPNs too.
Get fffing real.
*Affect. And also we are obviously talking about the part of it (more often the “last mile”) that’s in the US, you actual idiot.
Look, the fact you can’t see the downsides AT ALL and yet are being dismissive just kinda makes it hard for me to take you seriously. Go back to defending holocaust deniers I guess.
Re: Re: Re:3
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
Re: Re: Re:3
Classic Bratty Matty. When someone asks you to explain your stance in detail, you deflect and insult.
Re: Re: Re:3
Strong in this one the projection is.
Re: Re: Re:3
So you admit you were lying that Net Neitrality affects the internet as not a single one of your hallucinations has anything at all to do with the short and simple Net Neutrality rules.
Re: Re: Re:4
Though not surprise you lack the capacity to comprehend net neutrality. Section 230 is just as short and you’ve been 100% wrong on that too.
Re:
No. You are desperately confused. In actually, “Net Neutrality” is merely a legal/political label for one of the foundational, fundamental, basic design specifications that the whole Internet was built on.
This label was invented because private actors wanted to discriminate, to leverage their position to control and extort unearned economic rent. “Net Neutrality” is essentially acknowledging that internet service providers are effectively “common carriers”, and therefore must ship all legitimate packets in a fair and equal manner, rather than be exploit their position as a “choke point” or “troll under the bridge”.
That’s why Verizon (for example) can’t charge either you or TechDirt an additional fee to deliver packets from TechDirt to your computer, on the bullshit excuse that those packets originated on (for example) Verizon’s portion of the network. That’s why Verizon can’t charge either you or the Wall Street Journal extra, to deliver WSJ pages to your computer, but let USA Today packets through at a lower price.
That’s why ITT can’t make a special deal with MSNBC to privilege MSNBC media packets over those of CNN, nor hamper those from Fox because Fox didn’t pay extra to expedite (or not hamper) theirs. That’s why Google Fiber can’t give New York Times packets slower or less reliable transport because Google doesn’t like how NYT covers Big Tech in their news coverage, and why Time Warner doesn’t give CNN privileged transport because they have a business relationship or common ownership. That’s why, for that matter, why your ISP can’t simply flat-out dump packets from Daily Caller (nor DailyKos), just because they don’t like them.
That’s why ISP’s can’t charge you an extra fee to “allow” you to connect to your bank or pay your bills online, nor to let you access more than one bank online. You can use PayPal simply and Venmo simply because PayPal and Venmo are on the internet, not because you pay extra for a “Premium” internet plan that includes PayPal and Vemo. Packets traveling between your computer/smartphone and Door Dash are equal to those to and from Uber Eats. Neither has to pay more to reach you, and your ISP can’t charge you more to let you access both of them, equally and without favoritism or interference.
That’s what “Net Neutrality” is about. It’s not some conspiracy-theory scheme to let the government interfere with the Internet; it’s a foundational design principle and framework that prevents interference with the Internet.
Believe me, you don’t want the alternative.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
No….that’s what you THINK it is. That’s what they’ll tell you it is when they pass it. And then the law and/or regulation (regulations really shouldn’t be substituting for laws, guys) gets used for all sorts of other horrible shit.
You stupid deluded moron.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
No….that’s what you THINK it is. That’s what they’ll tell you it is when they pass it. And then the law and/or regulation (regulations really shouldn’t be substituting for laws, guys) gets used for all sorts of other horrible shit.
You fuucking simpleton
Re: Re: Re:
That’s it. That’s Net Neutrality, quoted directly from the FCC’s Open Internet order.
No literate, mentally functioning human could possibly read any “horrible shit” in there, to claim “don’t fraudulently fuck with internet fraffic” somehow leads to fucking with internet traffic – the 100% opposite of Net Neutrality. Only an unthinking bot programmed by criminals to spread deliberate lies could ever claim otherwise. Hence, matty.
Re: Re: Re:
How do you know if Bratty Matty is lying?
He said something.
Re: Re: Re:
What actually happened in the real world:
There were no bad effects caised by net Neutrality from the beginning of the intermet any time before it was killed in the early 2000s due to “internet is Titpe I” corruption, than a lot bad happened without it in the following years, and then when NN was partially restored in 2015 nothing bad happened because of it. Because naturally there was no possibility of anything bad happening because the rules are so clear and explicitly narrow in scope that they’re only beyond the comprehension of those proven to have attoscopic intellects such as matty’s.
Re: Re: Re:
I thought you Republican chumplords wanted the government involved to kick all the gayness off the Internet?
Now you want less government involved?
This is how everyone knows you’re a Trumpsucking douchecannon.
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
Ah yes, the ‘that thing that’s already been found to be lawful in prior lawsuits is without doubt unlawful because we refuse to admit to already losing this argument’ gambit.
When the law is on your side, pound on the law.
When the facts are on your side, pound on the facts.
When neither the law or facts are on your side, lie through your teeth and merely repeat your lies louder when called on it.
Re:
And when that doesn’t work, the Republicans have one final solution: violence.
Re: Re:
and violence got some Republicans killed instead
Re:
Time for someone to pound on the ISPs. If they’re gonna make any change difficult, we may as well try for something actually significant; not just these half-assed “net neutrality” measures (“you can keep your monopoly, and high prices and terrible service, just with a few minor tweaks”).
To start, let’s say that no broadband network operator serving a million people or more can be an ISP; they can keep the network, or the customer accounts for accessing that network, but not both.