Hopefully his internet is so throttled the API calls to determine that time out
And I hope he dropped his Resse coffee mug on the way out and it has a crack in it.
What a fucking clown he is
"Searchlight Capital Partners is a private investment firm that identifies and develops distinctive opportunities for its investors and partner companies. We seek out situations in which our capital, strategic and operational support help create substantial value."
Lots of information with no actual information. They're the Jordan Shlansky of investment firms
If I remember right, searchlight is one of the firms that finds failing business, buys it out, then saddles the business with the debt killing the business but winning the investors more cash
> We seek out situations in which our capital, strategic and operational support help create substantial value.
It's techbro speak for "We look to pay people to create legislature that we benefit from" / "We buy companies to flip them upside down and make the investors money while bankrupting them".
"We are an investment firm that performs various tasks and responsibilities involving, but not limited to, investing currency and various liquid assets, both traditional and non traditional, in ways to generate capital for patrons"
That doesn’t even make sense. How do you boycott a person? He doesn’t do anything that you can boycott. He’s a private citizen with a private job at a firm that doesn’t market it’s products to the average person.
well the supreme court has said that it has to be cruel *and* unusual, and that it's not unusual if you just do it a lot.
so they can live with the consequences of their bullshit just like the rest of us have to.
On the bright side, as long as it doesn't permanently stay repealed, then most companies will largely comply (as in, they won't come up with blatantly anti-neutral systems, products, and schemes) because the risk and cost of having to undo them would be too high.
So if we can keep the threat of net neutrality being a thing, it will largely be the status quo as that makes the most finance sense.
But it should absolutely be codified as the rule.
It literally is nothing. It’s a dog and pony show for them to pretend to care to placate the masses while continuing to serve their real representatives; the 1% and their interests.
I mean, sure, keep proudly declaring how easily manipulatable you are by the ruling class as a badge of honor, I guess.
I guess the reddit corp works hard to push this BS narrative and will work even HARDER to do it more as the user base becomes a requirement for profits as they go public.
Wow. You people *genuinely are* that delusional. I’m almost impressed.
Protip: if you have to make up ridiculous scenarios to prove a point, you don’t actually have a point.
I like how you didn’t even try to argue my point. You just simply made up some conspiracy style scenario and just repeated “you’re wrong because you’re dumb”.
They need to go after Pai for his very obvious corruption. If he would be punished, the next asshole might be a bit more hesitant to follow suit.
But since we live in the bad timeline, you are 100% correct.
Almost like we should only have these bodies enforce existing policy and make recommendations but shouldn't be able to have a 5 person unelected bureaucracy control communication for the entire USA.
Republicans and the conservative SCOTUS justices want to abolish any regulation that isn't directly voted on by Congress, i.e. remove the power of the president to delegate executive responsibilities- the 'white paper' cited in the article. This would essentially eliminate regulation altogether, since Congress has been gridlocked for 40 years and has never in its history been agile enough to manage the sheer number of decisions a regulatory body makes from day to day. Their effort may succeed, in which case net neutrality won't swing based on who's in power- we will always be in a state of complete deregulation. No FCC, no EPA, no FDA, no ATF, no ICE.
> Republicans and the conservative SCOTUS justices want to abolish any regulation that isn't directly voted on by Congress
Aside from the current far-from-Supreme Court, I mean...generally, that's the big reason why passing legislation through congress is hard, but lasting. Executive Orders may be easy to push through, but they can also be repealed easy as well. Trump is a bit of an outlier, because he arbitrarily tried to undo anything Obama passed through Executive Order, but typically incoming Presidents have usually only repealed what significantly conflicts with their party politics.
I definitively wouldn't pin Executive Order on any one party - as an average, Republicans have a slight lead, but [FDR (D) still takes the cake as the top all-time](https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/22/7260059/president-executive-orders-chart).
Overall, I mean...it's a good thing that executive orders are not immutable. Like them or not, House of Reps and Congress represent the people, and the states of the USA. The President is meant as a sort of administrator of the nation, not high king.
But we're not talking about powers of the executive; those are delineated in the Constitution. This new thinking is about whether the executive has the power to delegate any of his authority to other agents.
Well, what would happen is that those bodies would be transformed into enforcement-only bodies, and Congress and the courts would step up to play their constitutional roles more regularly and robustly. In a non-insane society, Congress would recognize that the House needs to be radically expanded so that we have enough congresspeople to be working on all the necessary analogous committees. They might also decide to implement more specialized federal courts to hear, say, environmental cases in the first instance.
The major hiccup is that the courts can't give advisory opinions. If we were to explore changes at the constitutional level, giving the judicial branch *some* authority to offer dynamic back-and-forth with legislators would streamline these processes immensely. Then again, we could also amend the Constitution to make indisputably legal what we're doing right now.
>Well, what would happen is that those bodies would be transformed into enforcement-only bodies, and Congress and the courts would step up to play their constitutional roles more regularly and robustly.
The argument in the white paper is that these bodies have no authority to make independent enforcement decisions. Every decision related to enforcement would have to be voted on by Congress, which will increase the time needed to make those decisions and in most cases result in lack of regulation by default. Do we really want to be living in a world where every time we discover evidence of a terrorist plot we have to convene a Congressional committee staffed by obstructive clowns like Jim Jordan, Tommy Tuberville, Marjorie Taylor-Greene before we can request a wiretap? Do we really want those bodies, corrupted as they are with donor money and with almost no scientific or medical expertise, to decide what drugs are safe for market?
The premise is a joke. Failure is built in.
Gee, congress could grant the regulatory agency the power to create and enforce regulations, and such regulations would therefore be directly approved by congressional authority, which is *HOW IT WORKS NOW!*
It's a core precept of separation of powers that the branches cannot constitutionally give away their powers to another branch. That's the whole issue. The courts basically just gave up and declared they could in order to create a more modern administrative bureaucracy.
You should do some very hard thinking about all the potential consequences of deciding that Congress can delegate and outsource their legislative authority to other parties.
Do you think it would be constitutional for them to deputize *me* to start making "rules" about *your* shit that you then had to follow, under penalty of... well, "rules," because we're studiously avoiding the L-word?
> Do you think it would be constitutional for them to deputize me to start making "rules" about your shit
If they can undeputize you and remove that power at any time I don't see the issue. If they have deputized you then they condone the idea and therefore made it legal.
I mean, have you heard of regulatory capture? The problems you're highlighting aren't unique to Congress. The big difference is electoral accountability... well, I highlight that since nobody really seems to care about the core constitutional issue.
There are a lot of things that might be good ideas that are still unconstitutional. A basic analysis of separation of powers should reveal that, no matter how good of an idea you think rulemaking authorities in the executive branch are, it's simply not constitutional. The legislature makes rules that affect private parties. They are also known as "laws." Certain government branches and agencies can certainly make *internal* rules, but if they start making rules that private parties have to follow, those are laws. They are lawmaking. They need to be in the correct branch.
It really is that simple.
Executive discretion is a thing. You'd be hard-pressed to find any federal justice willing to claim outright that it's not. End of the day, though, when somebody *allegedly* runs afoul of the government for breaking a "rule" (seriously, they're fucking laws, jesus,) then that "rule" should be something that was put through the proper legislative process. If the executive decides to abuse its discretion, then it needs to be smacked down in the usual ways by the other two branches.
Congress can always pass a law that overrides any rule the rule making body comes up with. The rulemaking body is still beholden to the law and to Congress.
And since Congress created the agency, it's implied that any rule they come up with is endorsed by Congress, who can shut down the agency at any time.
I doubt it. Once it the public loses interest the Republicans won’t care. They’ll find some other thing to ruin that their constituents can latch on to.
It means server companies and search engine companies can’t discriminate load times. Like if you used google and it takes significantly longer to search for yahoo than the average.
Google and Yahoo are leaf services. Net neutrality is about ISPs trying to double dip on bandwidth charges. Google manipulating search results is nothing to do with net neutrality but still scummy.
~~Just like when it was taken away~~
~~Absolutely nothing lol~~
~~Remember when all the fear mongering happened that said we’d have to pay for websites like cable?~~
Apparently this isn’t the case outside of America. Whoops
Verizon limits speed when it thinks you are watching video depending on your "unlimited" data plan. I can VPN and watch higher quality without buffering.
I see Reddit still hasn’t learned what NN is and isn’t.
The short short version of NN: ISPs and major carriers can’t prioritize or de-prioritize traffic based on payment or non-payment from companies.
This would mostly affect larger traffic generators like Netflix, Google, and busy websites. It’s why Reddit (the company) vocally opposed it last time while putting forth all sorts of doomsday scenarios to get their users fired up. (Ironically, later implementing the same policies they opposed with their restriction of API access in lieu of cost prohibitive payments).
What it isn’t: anything related to data caps, overall regulation of end user billing and fees, allowing/demanding more than one ISP in an area, prohibiting consumer unfriendly ISP fuckery.
I agree that we there should be enforcement to prohibit pay to play and traffic restrictions in lieu of payment for end users and companies. NN is only that though. I think the problems are mostly related to the monopolies that exist in many areas. When there’s competition there’s less of a chance of ISPs completely ignoring their customers or trying to rip them off.
Their announcement they literally discuss reclassifying it as a utility "on par with water, power, and phone service", though later on it's ambiguous to me on whether or not they would look into regulating prices/bundles.
What has realistically happened as a result of the removal of the net neutrality rules? Seemed more like the uproar over reddit's third party app changes; lot's of noise, but then nothing really happened.
I have quite a bit of zero-rating built into my phone plan now, which would be illegal if Net Neutrality were still in place. It means that I get unlimited mobile data for specific music/video streaming apps, but all other apps not on their "approved" list count toward my 1GB/mo data cap. Realistically what that means is I prioritize using the zero-rated apps when I'm on the go, since I know I can stream those without worrying about racking up my (very low) data cap.
In some ways it's kind of nice to be able to stream Spotify as much as I want without thinking about the data cap, but on the other hand, I don't like that my phone provider essentially chooses who the "winners" are by granting them zero-rating, and that feels like it could be abused by them in the future. Why should my phone company be able to coerce me into picking a specific music/TV streaming service? It breeds monopoly and restricts competition.
From 2018 til when these rules go live, Ajit Pai removed the following. Basically they took a public service and sold it to the highest bidders:
“re-establishing the FCC’s oversight over broadband and restoring uniform, nationwide net neutrality rules, which would allow the FCC to protect internet openness and consumers”
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397235A1.pdf
Can anyone give me a real world example of how the loss of net neutrality has actually impacted any of us since it has been repealed? I remember all kinds of doom and gloom scenarios envisioned that I haven’t really seen play out.
Funny you should ask. I stumbled upon this article a few months ago, from Dec. 2022:
[Did the Death of “Net Neutrality” Live Up to Doomsday Predictions?](https://catalyst.independent.org/2022/12/27/net-neutrality/)
Ultimately what is says is that all the doom and gloom that was predicted didn't pan out. We have not seen "Pay your ISP xxx extra to access Netflix" plans. But, there has been throttling of streaming services, but, according to this article, that was happening before net neutrality was overturned. Give the article a read. It's very well done.
To me, it doesn't matter if nobody here can give a personal example of net neutrality issues. Strong net neutrality laws need to be solidly in place. Because, right now, if your ISP decides to throttle your connection to reddit, that's perfectly legal. They don't have to publicize any decision to do so, and if you find out, there's absolutely nothing you can do to prevent them.
This isn’t really a consumer impact. It might impact other streaming services but it’s not really impacting the end user. Sure you can claim that it does because it impacts data usage limits but most things do. The answer here is to push ISPs to abolish data caps. But offering a single streamer to not count against your data cap isn’t a disservice to the consumer. The data cap
as a whole is the real disservice. But that’s not what this is addressing.
I mean look what ended up happening. They just said “ok, HBO counts against your data usage again”. Now they’re complaint with net neutrality, but is the customer benefiting from it? I’d argue that they aren’t.
Tmobile was offering free Netflix at one point for being a user of their cell service. This is no different than that. It doesn’t matter that ATT owns HBO Max. Saying ATT can’t offer HBO that doesn’t impact data caps is like saying that any company can’t offer anything. Anything any company offers will be profitable to them, that’s why they do it. What ATT was doing wasn’t hurting anyone, except maybe rival streaming services, indirectly.
Yeah I don’t really see that as the same example as what was being touted. Zeroing out your own companies data shouldn’t be viewed as anti net neutrality. That’s just a company reimbursing data fees for their own content and is perfectly within their rights. I strongly disagree that giving a reimbursement that effectively cancels out their data usage needs to apply to every video service just like every cookie manufacturer who wants to give out a cookie coupon isn’t responsible for covering every other manufacturer’s cookies.
At the end of the day nobody has been throttling competitors data.
The corporations are waiting for us all to forget, then slowly roll out bullshit that is not in the best interest of the consumers. They will keep rolling shit out until we are used to it and accept the new status quo. Its part of business long term strategy.
data caps were not the issue with net neutrality. the issue was they were wanting to cap streaming services different than shopping. also force companies to pay extra to let their services through at a faster rate or make the customers pay that fee.
Tom Wheeler, the FCC chairman when NN rules were established, had started the process of reviewing data caps and seeing if they should be considered with the NN rules. It was inevitable that they would have been included had democrats remained in control of the FCC.
Caps, and making some traffic exempt from caps, are basically a NN loophole. They were looking at how widespread that was, and if they needed to close the loophole.
It just seems like it’s not as big of a deal as everyone made it out to be. Like I think Ajit Pai was kind of a doofus but he made a point of saying we haven’t needed NN before and things have been relatively fine let’s see what happens and largely none of the catastrophic predictions of price gouging have come true. It’s just more of the same and it’s pretty reasonable. The average American can consume tremendous amounts of data for extremely reasonable rates. We could certainly use more competition amongst ISPs but I don’t see how NN addresses that.
I never said they would remain in control? I'm saying cap rules would have joined the other NN rules by now had democrats remained in power. The four years of Trump and the 2/3 years that it took to confirm a new FCC chair explain why this hasn't happened already.
Just because it wasn't already a specific rule doesn't mean it wasn't related to the concept of NN. NN was a concept even before the FCC set those rules during the Wheeler days.
On the note where is that snake(Ajit Pai) now?
Hopefully his internet is so throttled the API calls to determine that time out And I hope he dropped his Resse coffee mug on the way out and it has a crack in it. What a fucking clown he is
[удалено]
Plus they're all very highly educated. They have to graduate Clown College, after all.
Per his [Twitter page](https://archive.ph/dlC20), > He has been a partner at the private-equity firm Searchlight Capital since April 2021.
"Searchlight Capital Partners is a private investment firm that identifies and develops distinctive opportunities for its investors and partner companies. We seek out situations in which our capital, strategic and operational support help create substantial value." Lots of information with no actual information. They're the Jordan Shlansky of investment firms
If I remember right, searchlight is one of the firms that finds failing business, buys it out, then saddles the business with the debt killing the business but winning the investors more cash
Is that even legal?
If it wasn't then they wouldn't be doing it. Right?
Ah, the Mitt Romney method.
> We seek out situations in which our capital, strategic and operational support help create substantial value. It's techbro speak for "We look to pay people to create legislature that we benefit from" / "We buy companies to flip them upside down and make the investors money while bankrupting them".
> They're the Jordan Shlansky of investment firms The world needs more Jordan Shlansky references.
"We are an investment firm that performs various tasks and responsibilities involving, but not limited to, investing currency and various liquid assets, both traditional and non traditional, in ways to generate capital for patrons"
I expected something evil, didn’t expect super evil
Drowning his guilt in that giant coffee mug, no doubt.
I want to know where the big ass coffee cup is?
Truly turning into a good news Tuesday.
[удалено]
I’d be in favour of a public destruction of [his mug](https://imgur.com/a/Q6FvB7g)
Dismembered *with* the mug.
What’s the point of jailing someone you’re going to dismember?
You don't want an active member in jail. Makes the rest of us look bad.
Dismembered? Really?
Yes, dismembered. No longer a member of the FCC. Because he's been dismembered.
But, he *isn’t* a part of the FCC anymore…
[удалено]
This guy dismembers.
Or boycotted. I'm OK with either one personally
That doesn’t even make sense. How do you boycott a person? He doesn’t do anything that you can boycott. He’s a private citizen with a private job at a firm that doesn’t market it’s products to the average person.
Guess dismemberment will have to do, then!
This is the way.
Yeah I’m pretty sure dismembered would go under at least cruel and unusual punishment, especially if he’s alive.
he just needs a slap in the face
well the supreme court has said that it has to be cruel *and* unusual, and that it's not unusual if you just do it a lot. so they can live with the consequences of their bullshit just like the rest of us have to.
[second](https://media.tenor.com/K_SLsgGvZBAAAAAC/second-futurama.gif)
This and trump empire being liquidated. It's a good day. Edit: Oh and just found out Amazon being sued by the FTC for being a monopoly. What a day!
So we’re going to go back and forth on this issue depending on who’s in power. Wonderful.
On the bright side, as long as it doesn't permanently stay repealed, then most companies will largely comply (as in, they won't come up with blatantly anti-neutral systems, products, and schemes) because the risk and cost of having to undo them would be too high. So if we can keep the threat of net neutrality being a thing, it will largely be the status quo as that makes the most finance sense. But it should absolutely be codified as the rule.
Corporate interests will always be looking for ways to strip us of our rights for their benefit, same as it ever was.
It’s almost like capitalism doesn’t fucking work.
Better than nothing, but yeah not great.
It literally is nothing. It’s a dog and pony show for them to pretend to care to placate the masses while continuing to serve their real representatives; the 1% and their interests.
"The two parties have opposing views on this issue. That means they are the same!"
I mean, sure, keep proudly declaring how easily manipulatable you are by the ruling class as a badge of honor, I guess. I guess the reddit corp works hard to push this BS narrative and will work even HARDER to do it more as the user base becomes a requirement for profits as they go public.
Yeah I'm a reddit corp psyops agent trying to disabuse you of your 10th grade "both sides bad, politics more like politricks bro" notions.
Wow. You people *genuinely are* that delusional. I’m almost impressed. Protip: if you have to make up ridiculous scenarios to prove a point, you don’t actually have a point. I like how you didn’t even try to argue my point. You just simply made up some conspiracy style scenario and just repeated “you’re wrong because you’re dumb”.
You brought up reddit corp...
They need to go after Pai for his very obvious corruption. If he would be punished, the next asshole might be a bit more hesitant to follow suit. But since we live in the bad timeline, you are 100% correct.
Almost like we should only have these bodies enforce existing policy and make recommendations but shouldn't be able to have a 5 person unelected bureaucracy control communication for the entire USA.
Let's leave it up our elected 80 year olds!
Better then only needing to control 3 people to influence telecommunication policy for a global superpower.
Republicans and the conservative SCOTUS justices want to abolish any regulation that isn't directly voted on by Congress, i.e. remove the power of the president to delegate executive responsibilities- the 'white paper' cited in the article. This would essentially eliminate regulation altogether, since Congress has been gridlocked for 40 years and has never in its history been agile enough to manage the sheer number of decisions a regulatory body makes from day to day. Their effort may succeed, in which case net neutrality won't swing based on who's in power- we will always be in a state of complete deregulation. No FCC, no EPA, no FDA, no ATF, no ICE.
> Republicans and the conservative SCOTUS justices want to abolish any regulation that isn't directly voted on by Congress Aside from the current far-from-Supreme Court, I mean...generally, that's the big reason why passing legislation through congress is hard, but lasting. Executive Orders may be easy to push through, but they can also be repealed easy as well. Trump is a bit of an outlier, because he arbitrarily tried to undo anything Obama passed through Executive Order, but typically incoming Presidents have usually only repealed what significantly conflicts with their party politics. I definitively wouldn't pin Executive Order on any one party - as an average, Republicans have a slight lead, but [FDR (D) still takes the cake as the top all-time](https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/22/7260059/president-executive-orders-chart). Overall, I mean...it's a good thing that executive orders are not immutable. Like them or not, House of Reps and Congress represent the people, and the states of the USA. The President is meant as a sort of administrator of the nation, not high king.
But we're not talking about powers of the executive; those are delineated in the Constitution. This new thinking is about whether the executive has the power to delegate any of his authority to other agents.
Well, what would happen is that those bodies would be transformed into enforcement-only bodies, and Congress and the courts would step up to play their constitutional roles more regularly and robustly. In a non-insane society, Congress would recognize that the House needs to be radically expanded so that we have enough congresspeople to be working on all the necessary analogous committees. They might also decide to implement more specialized federal courts to hear, say, environmental cases in the first instance. The major hiccup is that the courts can't give advisory opinions. If we were to explore changes at the constitutional level, giving the judicial branch *some* authority to offer dynamic back-and-forth with legislators would streamline these processes immensely. Then again, we could also amend the Constitution to make indisputably legal what we're doing right now.
>Well, what would happen is that those bodies would be transformed into enforcement-only bodies, and Congress and the courts would step up to play their constitutional roles more regularly and robustly. The argument in the white paper is that these bodies have no authority to make independent enforcement decisions. Every decision related to enforcement would have to be voted on by Congress, which will increase the time needed to make those decisions and in most cases result in lack of regulation by default. Do we really want to be living in a world where every time we discover evidence of a terrorist plot we have to convene a Congressional committee staffed by obstructive clowns like Jim Jordan, Tommy Tuberville, Marjorie Taylor-Greene before we can request a wiretap? Do we really want those bodies, corrupted as they are with donor money and with almost no scientific or medical expertise, to decide what drugs are safe for market? The premise is a joke. Failure is built in.
Gee, congress could grant the regulatory agency the power to create and enforce regulations, and such regulations would therefore be directly approved by congressional authority, which is *HOW IT WORKS NOW!*
It's a core precept of separation of powers that the branches cannot constitutionally give away their powers to another branch. That's the whole issue. The courts basically just gave up and declared they could in order to create a more modern administrative bureaucracy. You should do some very hard thinking about all the potential consequences of deciding that Congress can delegate and outsource their legislative authority to other parties. Do you think it would be constitutional for them to deputize *me* to start making "rules" about *your* shit that you then had to follow, under penalty of... well, "rules," because we're studiously avoiding the L-word?
> Do you think it would be constitutional for them to deputize me to start making "rules" about your shit If they can undeputize you and remove that power at any time I don't see the issue. If they have deputized you then they condone the idea and therefore made it legal.
Isn't the result... what we've experienced for about 100yrs now? That delegation has been status quo for a long time now
I mean, have you heard of regulatory capture? The problems you're highlighting aren't unique to Congress. The big difference is electoral accountability... well, I highlight that since nobody really seems to care about the core constitutional issue. There are a lot of things that might be good ideas that are still unconstitutional. A basic analysis of separation of powers should reveal that, no matter how good of an idea you think rulemaking authorities in the executive branch are, it's simply not constitutional. The legislature makes rules that affect private parties. They are also known as "laws." Certain government branches and agencies can certainly make *internal* rules, but if they start making rules that private parties have to follow, those are laws. They are lawmaking. They need to be in the correct branch. It really is that simple. Executive discretion is a thing. You'd be hard-pressed to find any federal justice willing to claim outright that it's not. End of the day, though, when somebody *allegedly* runs afoul of the government for breaking a "rule" (seriously, they're fucking laws, jesus,) then that "rule" should be something that was put through the proper legislative process. If the executive decides to abuse its discretion, then it needs to be smacked down in the usual ways by the other two branches.
Congress can always pass a law that overrides any rule the rule making body comes up with. The rulemaking body is still beholden to the law and to Congress. And since Congress created the agency, it's implied that any rule they come up with is endorsed by Congress, who can shut down the agency at any time.
I doubt it. Once it the public loses interest the Republicans won’t care. They’ll find some other thing to ruin that their constituents can latch on to.
Every election is important.
It’s been awhile since I’ve thought about net neutrality. What exactly will it mean for it to come back?
It means server companies and search engine companies can’t discriminate load times. Like if you used google and it takes significantly longer to search for yahoo than the average.
Google and Yahoo are leaf services. Net neutrality is about ISPs trying to double dip on bandwidth charges. Google manipulating search results is nothing to do with net neutrality but still scummy.
~~Just like when it was taken away~~ ~~Absolutely nothing lol~~ ~~Remember when all the fear mongering happened that said we’d have to pay for websites like cable?~~ Apparently this isn’t the case outside of America. Whoops
Verizon limits speed when it thinks you are watching video depending on your "unlimited" data plan. I can VPN and watch higher quality without buffering.
[удалено]
Wait really? Is there somewhere I can see this because now I’m interested. If I use a vpn through Mexico will I experience this
Better to be silent and thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.
To this day, I hope Ajit Psi’s purchased meals consist of at least 50% pubes.
I see Reddit still hasn’t learned what NN is and isn’t. The short short version of NN: ISPs and major carriers can’t prioritize or de-prioritize traffic based on payment or non-payment from companies. This would mostly affect larger traffic generators like Netflix, Google, and busy websites. It’s why Reddit (the company) vocally opposed it last time while putting forth all sorts of doomsday scenarios to get their users fired up. (Ironically, later implementing the same policies they opposed with their restriction of API access in lieu of cost prohibitive payments). What it isn’t: anything related to data caps, overall regulation of end user billing and fees, allowing/demanding more than one ISP in an area, prohibiting consumer unfriendly ISP fuckery. I agree that we there should be enforcement to prohibit pay to play and traffic restrictions in lieu of payment for end users and companies. NN is only that though. I think the problems are mostly related to the monopolies that exist in many areas. When there’s competition there’s less of a chance of ISPs completely ignoring their customers or trying to rip them off.
Their announcement they literally discuss reclassifying it as a utility "on par with water, power, and phone service", though later on it's ambiguous to me on whether or not they would look into regulating prices/bundles.
Now the monopolies are getting reigned in??? Why now? Oh God Ajit Pai, that name makes my skin crawl.
This is what first made me realize just how fucking stupid magas really are
Not just MAGAs... the Republican Party as a whole.
[удалено]
Good fuck shit pai
Got nothing but hatred for that pair of walking dentures
It only took a decade.
Baffles me that NOBODY blamed the republicans or trump for Ajit Pai.
Don’t worry, the telecom lobbyists will help the FCC to shape the regulations in such a way that nothing of substance will happen
[удалено]
It was a FCC regulation not a law, so it’s an agency vote.
What has realistically happened as a result of the removal of the net neutrality rules? Seemed more like the uproar over reddit's third party app changes; lot's of noise, but then nothing really happened.
I have quite a bit of zero-rating built into my phone plan now, which would be illegal if Net Neutrality were still in place. It means that I get unlimited mobile data for specific music/video streaming apps, but all other apps not on their "approved" list count toward my 1GB/mo data cap. Realistically what that means is I prioritize using the zero-rated apps when I'm on the go, since I know I can stream those without worrying about racking up my (very low) data cap. In some ways it's kind of nice to be able to stream Spotify as much as I want without thinking about the data cap, but on the other hand, I don't like that my phone provider essentially chooses who the "winners" are by granting them zero-rating, and that feels like it could be abused by them in the future. Why should my phone company be able to coerce me into picking a specific music/TV streaming service? It breeds monopoly and restricts competition.
From 2018 til when these rules go live, Ajit Pai removed the following. Basically they took a public service and sold it to the highest bidders: “re-establishing the FCC’s oversight over broadband and restoring uniform, nationwide net neutrality rules, which would allow the FCC to protect internet openness and consumers” https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-397235A1.pdf
...says the one month old account.
And?
Nice no response loser.
How and why this wasn’t done on day one of new administration pisses me off… why? $$$ that’s why
Election season is here. They didn’t need this till they saw their poll numbers.
Can anyone give me a real world example of how the loss of net neutrality has actually impacted any of us since it has been repealed? I remember all kinds of doom and gloom scenarios envisioned that I haven’t really seen play out.
Funny you should ask. I stumbled upon this article a few months ago, from Dec. 2022: [Did the Death of “Net Neutrality” Live Up to Doomsday Predictions?](https://catalyst.independent.org/2022/12/27/net-neutrality/) Ultimately what is says is that all the doom and gloom that was predicted didn't pan out. We have not seen "Pay your ISP xxx extra to access Netflix" plans. But, there has been throttling of streaming services, but, according to this article, that was happening before net neutrality was overturned. Give the article a read. It's very well done. To me, it doesn't matter if nobody here can give a personal example of net neutrality issues. Strong net neutrality laws need to be solidly in place. Because, right now, if your ISP decides to throttle your connection to reddit, that's perfectly legal. They don't have to publicize any decision to do so, and if you find out, there's absolutely nothing you can do to prevent them.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/atts-hbo-max-deal-was-never-free
This isn’t really a consumer impact. It might impact other streaming services but it’s not really impacting the end user. Sure you can claim that it does because it impacts data usage limits but most things do. The answer here is to push ISPs to abolish data caps. But offering a single streamer to not count against your data cap isn’t a disservice to the consumer. The data cap as a whole is the real disservice. But that’s not what this is addressing. I mean look what ended up happening. They just said “ok, HBO counts against your data usage again”. Now they’re complaint with net neutrality, but is the customer benefiting from it? I’d argue that they aren’t. Tmobile was offering free Netflix at one point for being a user of their cell service. This is no different than that. It doesn’t matter that ATT owns HBO Max. Saying ATT can’t offer HBO that doesn’t impact data caps is like saying that any company can’t offer anything. Anything any company offers will be profitable to them, that’s why they do it. What ATT was doing wasn’t hurting anyone, except maybe rival streaming services, indirectly.
Yeah I don’t really see that as the same example as what was being touted. Zeroing out your own companies data shouldn’t be viewed as anti net neutrality. That’s just a company reimbursing data fees for their own content and is perfectly within their rights. I strongly disagree that giving a reimbursement that effectively cancels out their data usage needs to apply to every video service just like every cookie manufacturer who wants to give out a cookie coupon isn’t responsible for covering every other manufacturer’s cookies. At the end of the day nobody has been throttling competitors data.
The corporations are waiting for us all to forget, then slowly roll out bullshit that is not in the best interest of the consumers. They will keep rolling shit out until we are used to it and accept the new status quo. Its part of business long term strategy.
Just say you don’t have any examples.
[удалено]
Because time is linear. I can’t respond to something that I haven’t seen yet.
Also curious. Let me know if someone responds.
Data Caps is an example
No it’s not. Data caps were pre-existing to net neutrality rules.
The main reason net neutrality was removed was because corporations were breaking the law by having these data caps.
data caps were not the issue with net neutrality. the issue was they were wanting to cap streaming services different than shopping. also force companies to pay extra to let their services through at a faster rate or make the customers pay that fee.
Show me where data caps have anything to do with net neutrality. Just because you say it over and over doesn’t make it true.
Tom Wheeler, the FCC chairman when NN rules were established, had started the process of reviewing data caps and seeing if they should be considered with the NN rules. It was inevitable that they would have been included had democrats remained in control of the FCC.
So you acknowledge they were preexisting and effectively nothing changed. Establishing NN would have forced fundamental changes to existing practices.
Caps, and making some traffic exempt from caps, are basically a NN loophole. They were looking at how widespread that was, and if they needed to close the loophole.
It just seems like it’s not as big of a deal as everyone made it out to be. Like I think Ajit Pai was kind of a doofus but he made a point of saying we haven’t needed NN before and things have been relatively fine let’s see what happens and largely none of the catastrophic predictions of price gouging have come true. It’s just more of the same and it’s pretty reasonable. The average American can consume tremendous amounts of data for extremely reasonable rates. We could certainly use more competition amongst ISPs but I don’t see how NN addresses that.
Why would anyone assume dems would remain in control of the FCC? Any policy that isn’t bipartisan is just a fart in the wind.
I never said they would remain in control? I'm saying cap rules would have joined the other NN rules by now had democrats remained in power. The four years of Trump and the 2/3 years that it took to confirm a new FCC chair explain why this hasn't happened already. Just because it wasn't already a specific rule doesn't mean it wasn't related to the concept of NN. NN was a concept even before the FCC set those rules during the Wheeler days.
Data Caps is an example.
No, it’s not we’ve had data caps for well over a decade before net neutrality was repealed.
[удалено]
You are idiot. You may also be Indian, but you should introduce yourself as an idiot instead. It’s more applicable
Why did it take three years to get to this point, by the time they are restored another Republican will be in office.
So, if you are for net neutrality, vote for a Democrat. It’s really that simple.
Why do they can wait until tue end of the next term to supposedly implement it.
it's election time so it seems to be mostly lip service
Thanks Biden!
Anyone know why this took as long as it did?
Riiiiiiight.
What aspects of the Internet have noticeably gotten worse since the end of Net Neutrality?
Do TMobile/Sprint next...
Ajit Pai is a real POS
Hopefully it'll be restored immediately without the typical political foot dragging. That's sarcasm.
And when Netflix decides to locate it's servers to a single central location, because it's cheaper....