Broadband providers file lawsuits against FCC to crush net neutrality rules

[Puiu]

Profits are FOR the people. Regulation is not. If you can't understand that simple concept, then you shouldn't be included in the conversation, because once it gets more advanced you won't be able to keep up. Once you regulate and legislate things, it gets worse. Always.

Pfff hahahaha. Spoken like a true republican who doesn't care about human lives.

Regulations are not bad, they have a job "regulating" the market so that consumers are protected and businesses have access to a true free market, not one controlled by a single corporation. It's how the whole world works and the US is no exception.

There are examples of regulation that went too far, but this is not one of them.

In the end you haven't addressed anything of what I said previously and just went the "hurr durr, all regulations are bad" route. You didn't take into account existing laws (which I gave examples), the behavior of the companies that operate in this market (which you already know) and the needs of the people (which were made clear time and time again).

Next thing you'll tell me is that universal healthcare is communism, like I've seen other republicans say

 

[Endymio]

Regulations are not bad, they have a job "regulating" the market so that consumers are protected

Yet you still can't name the "problem" these regulations are protecting against. In the entire history of the Internet, no consumer has been forced to pay more to access certain website -- and every website consumers have been barred entirely from accessing has been the result of government action, not ISPs.

Next thing you'll tell me is that universal healthcare is communism, like I've seen other republicans say

If you understood the words you're using, you wouldn't even challenge that statement. But I'll go further: when a person is forced to work to benefit another, that's slavery. And that's what universal healthcare is. You don't have a "right" to force doctors, nurses, and medical companies to care for you.

 

[Puiu]

There are always big players. It is NOT an oligarchy. An oligarchy will come only when regulations sufficiently restrict competitive innovation. That is always to the benefit of the big players who can afford it and influence politicians. A good example are utilities. Prior to utility regulation, these so-called "natural monopolies" were actually numerous and competitive, particularly along geographical margins. They were turned into de jure permanent nonopolies (with competition made illegal) by the very same type of regulation the FCC wants to use to impose their "net neutrality".

Ahh what?
Quick reminder: coming from the Greek word oligarkhes, meaning “few governing,” an oligarchy is any power structure controlled by a small number of people called oligarchs.

An oligarchy is when a few control the market. Like in this case, where a few ISPs control the market in the US. The net neutrality rules have absolutely nothing to do with the regulations that you mentioned, it's just about restricting anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices.

Broadly, net neutrality mandates that ISPs provide equal access to all lawful content, no matter the source. The common carrier reclassification allows the FCC to enforce this and it also prohibits ISPs from blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of online content.

Which part of equal access no matter the source do you not agree with? Usually republicans are the first to scream "free speech"... but I guess it stops when profits are a bigger concern than actual humans.

 

[Puiu]

Yet you still can't name the "problem" these regulations are protecting against. In the entire history of the Internet, no consumer has been forced to pay more to access certain website -- and every website consumers have been barred entirely from accessing has been the result of government action, not ISPs.


If you understood the words you're using, you wouldn't even challenge that statement. But I'll go further: when a person is forced to work to benefit another, that's slavery. And that's what universal healthcare is. You don't have a "right" to force doctors, nurses, and medical companies to care for you.

" In the entire history of the Internet, no consumer has been forced to pay more to access certain website"

wrong. here's a long list of why you are wrong:

Net Neutrality Violations: A History of Abuse

Here's what happens when cable and phone companies are left to their own devices.

www.freepress.net

Here's a few quick examples:
1. AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
2. VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots.

"But I'll go further: when a person is forced to work to benefit another, that's slavery. And that's what universal healthcare is. "
wrong. you are literally insulting the entire world and society as a concept. universal healthcare is about the freedom it gives, not any "slavery"... I mean wtf is wrong with you dude? are you a slave for paying "forced" taxes that fund the police and firefighters? do you not feel more free to know that the police is there for you? do you prefer to pay 10x more for the same pill that anybody in the world can buy for cheap or get for free when needed?

you don't seem to understand just how criminal the current healthcare system is. it's cheaper to go to a luxury hotel across the world than to spend a few days in the hospital. it's pathetic to defend such practices...

 

[m3tavision]

Utterly false. The "early backbone" was the long-haul copper cable laid by (pre-breakup) AT&T ... and paid for by them. Early WANS like Bitnet, UUNET, etc utilized leased-line services provided by AT&T.

What's even more absurd is that, even if your statement was true, that "early backbone" of antiquated copper cable has now been 100% replaced. The longhaul fiber network and residential PON networks built within the last 30 years have been done with private funding.


You claimed this would be "nearly free", and furthermore implied that, once "hooked up", those neighborhoods would magically be part of the Internet at large, with zero additional effort or expense.

No city in the US -- then or now -- ever provided such service 'nearly free'. And in fact the exact opposite was true. Pricing in those city- and county-mandated monopolies was so high that voters eventually rebelled, and forced the deregulation that today allows most of the nation at least a certain degree of choice.

NO, that is not my claim, that is what you are claiming I said.
I implied that once a City is hooked up for nearly free/small cost (that community can do by passing a mileage), they can... THEN offer internet to their residents much cheaper cost than Comcast, because their operating cost are much less.

This is true^ and has happens all ovr the Country for small towns and cities who outmaneuvered the State politicians and lobbyists.
(here: https://broadbandnow.com/report/municipal-broadband-roadblocks)


The mere fact you don't know this or have never spoken to anyone who lives in a township that has done this, is remarkable.


Secondly,
After losing billions of dollars for a succession of owners over nearly two decades--first Southern Pacific, then GTE and now United Telecom--US Sprint astounded the industry last December (1988) by winning a 10-year contract worth $10 billion to provide a new telephone system for much of the federal government. Then the company reported its first quarterly profit in April, following that with its first quarter in which revenue exceeded $1 billion. (bruce keppel, 1989)

Sprint's Fiber Optic lines^ were paid for, by the Federal Government. And nearly every form of internet infrastructure was paid for, helped or involved Government funds/grants.


Lastly, look at what you are saying... that ONLY business can provide internet and not local municipalities/cities/towns. The internet is a Utility and should be governed like one. Period.!

 

[bclaymiles]

Secondly,
After losing billions of dollars for a succession of owners over nearly two decades--first Southern Pacific, then GTE and now United Telecom--US Sprint astounded the industry last December (1988) by winning a 10-year contract worth $10 billion to provide a new telephone system for much of the federal government. Then the company reported its first quarterly profit in April, following that with its first quarter in which revenue exceeded $1 billion. (bruce keppel, 1989)

Sprint's Fiber Optic lines^ were paid for, by the Federal Government. And nearly every form of internet infrastructure was paid for, helped or involved Government funds/grants.

That was the FTS 2000 telecommunication procurement for the federal government. It was jointly built and maintained by ATT and Sprint. It was never connected to, nor part of, the internet, it was a closed government-only network primarily for voice services - you'll note the line in what you quoted "A new telephone system". Yes, eventually they could do some advanced things like "color video conferencing" (lol) which back then meant scheduling with the telco days/weeks in advance so they could schedule and commit more bandwidth to both endpoints for that time period. Sprint and ATT had to build dedicated crossover exchanges in various parts of the country so that traffic on the ATT portion could talk to the Sprint portion, and vice versa, because it was not part of the overall telecommunications network. The telcos added capacity to their existing infrastructure to accomodate the additional (primarily voice) traffic. It was not internet infrastructure.

The backbone was built by the telcos, for voice, then gradually they figured out that they could carry more voice calls by digitizing and compressing them, then multiplexing them over the same line. Once digitized, it became apparent that a lot more than just voices could be carried over it. All of the backbone was built by the telcos, on their dime; the government purchased some access from the telcos in the early days.

So, we've gone from the claim that "We the People are the ones who laid the pipe down (UUNET) and ISPs just connect "local people" to it" which is false, to "The early backbone of the internet was laid down with government grants" which is false, to "The United States Government paid for ALL of the backbone pipe" which is false and absurd, to now what amounts to 'some government funds were used to pay for private government access to telco infrastructure that was never connected to the internet so therefore the government built all of the internet infrastructure'.

That's like me saying that because I took a ride in an Uber, therefore I built the car.

Lastly, look at what you are saying... that ONLY business can provide internet and not local municipalities/cities/towns. The internet is a Utility and should be governed like one. Period.!

Do you pay a special fee to your ISP to visit netflix.com? To visit any particular kind of content? Can you direct me to anyone that does? No, not past transgressions by the telcos/internet providers that were rapidly quashed, I'm talking about NOW, you know, during the interval of the last seven years and currently ongoing that there has NOT been net neutrality mandated by the FCC.

 

[Endymio]

NO, that is not my claim, that is what you are claiming I said.
I implied that once a City is hooked up for nearly free/small cost.. THEN offer internet to their residents much cheaper cost than Comcast ...This is true^ and has happens all ovr the Country for small towns and cities who outmaneuvered the State politicians and lobbyists.

Your original claim was very different. But since you're moving the goalposts, let's discuss your new assertion. From your own link, 34 states in the US have no barriers whatsoever to cities offering their own Internet service -- and most of the 16 remaining states don't bar it outright, but simply require that such cities offer a "level playing field" -- not granting special tax breaks, right-of-way, or other anti-competitive tactics.

Even with that wide open field, out of the 110,000 towns and cities in the US, only 331 of them offer Internet service. And of those, more than half of them charge more than I pay Comcast for an equivalent service tier. None are "nearly free" like you claim, and there are only a tiny handful who charge significantly less -- and of those, at least two are indirectly subsidized by taxpayers, meaning the costs are still there, but hidden. The others almost certainly are subsidized as well, but don't publicly disclose that information.

 

[Puiu]

That was the FTS 2000 telecommunication procurement for the federal government. It was jointly built and maintained by ATT and Sprint. It was never connected to, nor part of, the internet, it was a closed government-only network primarily for voice services - you'll note the line in what you quoted "A new telephone system". Yes, eventually they could do some advanced things like "color video conferencing" (lol) which back then meant scheduling with the telco days/weeks in advance so they could schedule and commit more bandwidth to both endpoints for that time period. Sprint and ATT had to build dedicated crossover exchanges in various parts of the country so that traffic on the ATT portion could talk to the Sprint portion, and vice versa, because it was not part of the overall telecommunications network. The telcos added capacity to their existing infrastructure to accomodate the additional (primarily voice) traffic. It was not internet infrastructure.

The backbone was built by the telcos, for voice, then gradually they figured out that they could carry more voice calls by digitizing and compressing them, then multiplexing them over the same line. Once digitized, it became apparent that a lot more than just voices could be carried over it. All of the backbone was built by the telcos, on their dime; the government purchased some access from the telcos in the early days.

So, we've gone from the claim that "We the People are the ones who laid the pipe down (UUNET) and ISPs just connect "local people" to it" which is false, to "The early backbone of the internet was laid down with government grants" which is false, to "The United States Government paid for ALL of the backbone pipe" which is false and absurd, to now what amounts to 'some government funds were used to pay for private government access to telco infrastructure that was never connected to the internet so therefore the government built all of the internet infrastructure'.

That's like me saying that because I took a ride in an Uber, therefore I built the car.



Do you pay a special fee to your ISP to visit netflix.com? To visit any particular kind of content? Can you direct me to anyone that does? No, not past transgressions by the telcos/internet providers that were rapidly quashed, I'm talking about NOW, you know, during the interval of the last seven years and currently ongoing that there has NOT been net neutrality mandated by the FCC.

"Do you pay a special fee to your ISP to visit netflix.com? To visit any particular kind of content?" - yes, you did pay an ISP for certain access for a while (things like tethering tax where they blocked free apps to promote their own paid services, google wallet ban, etc), and you would have paid for netflix too if net neutrality rules were not enforced initially.

I don't get it. what's with the lack of short or long term memory from those that are against net neutrality. The only "reasonable" argument I've heard is that this will affect the bottom line of ISPs... well duh, most pro-consumer legislation does, but that's not the point.

reasonable as in, it has any basis in reality.

 

[Endymio]

"Do you pay a special fee to your ISP to visit netflix.com? To visit any particular kind of content?" - yes, you did pay an ISP for certain access for a while (things like tethering tax where they blocked free apps to promote their own paid services, google wallet ban, etc), and you would have paid for netflix too if net neutrality rules were not enforced initially.

As usual, you're wrong One company -- Verizon -- briefly asked Google to remove 11 free apps which allowed customers to attach non-Verizon wireless devices. This was already a prohibited practice, and Verizon was fined and barred from doing this long before net neutrality came into force. The two have exactly zero to do with each other.

As for the absurd idea that Net Neutrality "stopped us from having to pay for Netflix", Netflix began streaming in 2007, 17 years ago. Net Neutrality was in effect only from 2015 to 2017, and yet no one on God's green earth -- either before or after that brief period -- ever attempted to do such a thing.

Stop spreading misinformation.

 

[bclaymiles]

"Do you pay a special fee to your ISP to visit netflix.com? To visit any particular kind of content?" - yes, you did pay an ISP for certain access for a while (things like tethering tax where they blocked free apps to promote their own paid services, google wallet ban, etc), and you would have paid for netflix too if net neutrality rules were not enforced initially.

I don't get it. what's with the lack of short or long term memory from those that are against net neutrality. The only "reasonable" argument I've heard is that this will affect the bottom line of ISPs... well duh, most pro-consumer legislation does, but that's not the point.

reasonable as in, it has any basis in reality.

"Do you pay" and "Did you pay" - do you understand how tense works in grammar? Did you not understand that I was asking about NOW (you know - when I wrote "no, not past transgressions" and "I'm talking about NOW")?

Do you understand the difference between asking for actual contemporaneous evidence and presentment of a bunch of hypotheticals?

Do you understand the difference between asking if you pay a special fee for any particular kind of content (net neutrality) and blocking apps (just being arseholes without charging a fee)?

Do you understand the difference between claiming that 'you would have paid for netflix too if net neutrality rules were not enforced initially' and today, with no net neutrality, and the fact that you do not pay a fee to access netflix?

Since I know the answers to the above questions, I'll just ask a straighforward question:

Today - while we have no net neutrality rules in place - do you - Puiu - pay an extra fee to your ISP for access to certain types of content?

Should be an easy yes or no.

 

[Puiu]

"Do you pay" and "Did you pay" - do you understand how tense works in grammar? Did you not understand that I was asking about NOW (you know - when I wrote "no, not past transgressions" and "I'm talking about NOW")?

Do you understand the difference between asking for actual contemporaneous evidence and presentment of a bunch of hypotheticals?

Do you understand the difference between asking if you pay a special fee for any particular kind of content (net neutrality) and blocking apps (just being arseholes without charging a fee)?

Do you understand the difference between claiming that 'you would have paid for netflix too if net neutrality rules were not enforced initially' and today, with no net neutrality, and the fact that you do not pay a fee to access netflix?

Since I know the answers to the above questions, I'll just ask a straighforward question:

Today - while we have no net neutrality rules in place - do you - Puiu - pay an extra fee to your ISP for access to certain types of content?

Should be an easy yes or no.

"Did you not understand that I was asking about NOW" - the link I gave in a previous comment has studies done in past few years. Read them.

Without net neutrality you have companies like COX Communications selling "fast lanes" to gamers.

The simple fact that you know of so many abuses and still are against net neutrality simply goes against common sense. Do you have a vested interest in ISPs? (like stocks or something else?)

The simple fact that you are against something 86% of americans supported when it was removed makes zero sense.

I don't understand your obsession with the "NOW". When ISPs have a proven record of continued abuse, you focusing on just this particular moment is disingenuous at best. Regulations are a requirement if the market can't or refuses to self-regulate (it's the job of those you've voted for). The ISPs made a promise after Ajit Pai went against the wishes of the vast majority, a promise that they failed to keep. It's that simple.

 

[Puiu]

As usual, you're wrong One company -- Verizon -- briefly asked Google to remove 11 free apps which allowed customers to attach non-Verizon wireless devices. This was already a prohibited practice, and Verizon was fined and barred from doing this long before net neutrality came into force. The two have exactly zero to do with each other.

As for the absurd idea that Net Neutrality "stopped us from having to pay for Netflix", Netflix began streaming in 2007, 17 years ago. Net Neutrality was in effect only from 2015 to 2017, and yet no one on God's green earth -- either before or after that brief period -- ever attempted to do such a thing.

Stop spreading misinformation.

What I said is a fact that happened. It is a known fact that apps for tethering were removed, something google has admitted to doing at the request of ISP. Carriers also cut internet to those that used "free" tethering. The reason Verizon was fined is because it had a signed agreement when it bought the 4G mobile spectrum not to do that.

It's also a fact that many ISPs throttled/banned competition and promoted their own services. It's why in 2015 Net Neutrality rules were enforced. And the reason it took so long for the rules to be implemented is because ISPs too the FCC to court multiple times. Even during the 2010 debacle with tethering apps or in 2012 with the google wallet app, Verizon was suing the FCC to stop them from implementing net neutrality rules.

~Net Neutrality "stopped us from having to pay for Netflix"~ Yes, yes it did. It's one of biggest "loss" ISPs had to endure.

 

[Endymio]

Without net neutrality you have companies like COX Communications selling "fast lanes" to gamers.

Amazon charges more for faster delivery. Doordash charges more for faster delivery. The USPS charges more for faster delivery. Why shouldn't Cox be able to do the same?

With Net Neutrality, you have the worst of both worlds -- no freedom of choice for consumers. ISPs aren't allowed to offer low-latency services like this unless they charge everyone for them.

What I said is a fact that happened

What you said was two statements: one zero whatsoever to do with Net Neutrality, and the other never happened. Never ever.

The reason Verizon was fined is because it had a signed agreement when it bought the 4G mobile spectrum not to do that.

A "signed agreement" that relates in no way, shape, or form to Net Neutrality, and was banned long before even the concept of Net Neutrality came into existence. Do you honestly not understand how it therefore fails to support your argument in any manner whatsoever?

It's also a fact that many ISPs throttled/banned competition

Again you are spreading misinformation. No ISP ever "banned competition". Why do you persist in falsehoods?

 

[Puiu]

Amazon charges more for faster delivery. Doordash charges more for faster delivery. The USPS charges more for faster delivery. Why shouldn't Cox be able to do the same?

With Net Neutrality, you have the worst of both worlds -- no freedom of choice for consumers. ISPs aren't allowed to offer low-latency services like this unless they charge everyone for them.


What you said was two statements: one zero whatsoever to do with Net Neutrality, and the other never happened. Never ever.


A "signed agreement" that relates in no way, shape, or form to Net Neutrality, and was banned long before even the concept of Net Neutrality came into existence. Do you honestly not understand how it therefore fails to support your argument in any manner whatsoever?


Again you are spreading misinformation. No ISP ever "banned competition". Why do you persist in falsehoods?

you are making comparisons between two entirely different things, trying to infer something that makes no sense in this context.

"Amazon charges more for faster delivery. " - best to compare it to internet plans which you already pay for. and besides, anyway you try to slice it, paid prioritization is not a good thing.

"With Net Neutrality, you have the worst of both worlds -- no freedom of choice for consumers." - you just proved to everybody that you don't understand what net neutrality does. net neutrality is about protecting consumers from ISPs denying or paywalling things, aka it's giving you more options. exactly as the examples I've given you clearly show.

"was banned long before even the concept of Net Neutrality came into existence" - completely wrong. it was banned for for 4G spectrum. ISPs could still do that (and they did) with other forms of internet (fixed, 3G, etc). thanks for allowing me to explain something you misunderstood.

No ISP ever "banned competition". yes they did. and I gave examples.

And I like how you went from "nothing bad will happen without NNN" to "what's wrong with fast lanes? amazon is doing too!". You just showed the world your real thoughts on this. in the end it's all about the profits. I knew from the way you were talking that money is your motivation for refusing NNN, not "consumer freedom". It's all about large corporation freedom and shareholders.

 

[Endymio]

"Amazon charges more for faster delivery. " - best to compare it to internet plans which you already pay for.

I pay for a 1 gig plan. Why should I not pay more for a 2 gig plan, or even a 1 gig plan that offers 2ms latency rather than 20? The entire concept of the free market -- and the prosperity of the Western World that resulted from it -- is due to this core concept: if you want more, you pay more.

"was banned long before even the concept of Net Neutrality came into existence" - completely wrong. it was banned for for 4G spectrum. ISPs could still do that (and they did) with other forms of internet (fixed...)

Wow, you're wrong on two counts here. (1) No ISP ever prohibited certain types of devices from being attached to a fixed Internet connection. (2) net neutrality doesn't ban them from doing so, if they so chose to do something so absurd.

No ISP ever "banned competition". yes they did. and I gave examples.

No you didn't. Your Verizxon example doesn't qualify -- Verizon wasn't banning ISP competition -- and the behavior you cited isn't even covered by net neutrality.

And I like how you went from "nothing bad will happen without NNN" to "what's wrong with fast lanes?

Because a consumer being allowed the choice of a fast lane is a good thing. Not bad. More choice, more competition always benefits the consumer.

 

[bclaymiles]

"Did you not understand that I was asking about NOW" - the link I gave in a previous comment has studies done in past few years. Read them.

Okay, got it: you don't understand what the word "NOW" means. And by the absence of an answer, you don't pay an extra charge for access to specific content. Just like everyone else. Even though there's no net neutrality now, nor at any time except for a roughly two year interval a decade ago (in the US, obviously, I'm not talking about other countries)

Without net neutrality you have companies like COX Communications selling "fast lanes" to gamers.

Source? Nevertheless, selling an enhanced service for a specific enhanced purpose is not the same as a blanket charge to reach certain content. I presume if one wanted that, they signed up for it; if people weren't prevented from gaming if they didn't sign up, that's called 'paying for an enhanced service beyond what other users are charged'. I'm a gamer but I'm shite at most of them because I'm old and have shite reflexes. If my ISP offered (magically) a service with half the latency overall, I'd expect to be charged for it. Even though it wouldn't improve my abilities.

The simple fact that you know of so many abuses and still are against net neutrality simply goes against common sense. Do you have a vested interest in ISPs? (like stocks or something else?)

Your source lists about a dozen 'abuses', not all of which qualify as net 'non neutrality'; most of them are just ISP's being arseholes, and the most recent is from nearly a decade ago; not NOW.

I have no vested interest. I pay a lot for my internet service w/comcast, but "a lot" is a relative thing. It's a bundle price, and there is no competitor at the speeds offered. I wish there was a competitor; I'm waiting for the independent ISP in my region - who was once competitor to the ISP I was a cofounder of - to roll fiber to my neighborhood. All I can do is be patient, because it costs a shiteload of money to pull new fiber to every neighborhood in every city in the region. That's worth thinking about - that previous competitor started offering dialup in 1993/94, same time my company did. We were eventually bought out so others ran the company. The competitor was able to stay independent, became a CLEC, and now puts down its own fiber - their own trenches, their own overheads; that costs millions and millions to do. It takes time to do so.

The simple fact that you are against something 86% of americans supported when it was removed makes zero sense.

Public support for not being double charged for access to certain things on the internet is the primary driver for ISP's not to fluck with their customers. The hue and cry the times they've tried to, they're forced to back down. That's the market at work. The FCC wants to have more control of internet content; we already know how they (the govt more broadly) interfered with freedom of speech during covid.

I don't understand your obsession with the "NOW". When ISPs have a proven record of continued abuse, you focusing on just this particular moment is disingenuous at best. Regulations are a requirement if the market can't or refuses to self-regulate (it's the job of those you've voted for). The ISPs made a promise after Ajit Pai went against the wishes of the vast majority, a promise that they failed to keep. It's that simple.

So, you're saying that you pay a fee to your ISP to watch netflix?

 

[Puiu]

Okay, got it: you don't understand what the word "NOW" means. And by the absence of an answer, you don't pay an extra charge for access to specific content. Just like everyone else. Even though there's no net neutrality now, nor at any time except for a roughly two year interval a decade ago (in the US, obviously, I'm not talking about other countries)



Source? Nevertheless, selling an enhanced service for a specific enhanced purpose is not the same as a blanket charge to reach certain content. I presume if one wanted that, they signed up for it; if people weren't prevented from gaming if they didn't sign up, that's called 'paying for an enhanced service beyond what other users are charged'. I'm a gamer but I'm shite at most of them because I'm old and have shite reflexes. If my ISP offered (magically) a service with half the latency overall, I'd expect to be charged for it. Even though it wouldn't improve my abilities.



Your source lists about a dozen 'abuses', not all of which qualify as net 'non neutrality'; most of them are just ISP's being arseholes, and the most recent is from nearly a decade ago; not NOW.

I have no vested interest. I pay a lot for my internet service w/comcast, but "a lot" is a relative thing. It's a bundle price, and there is no competitor at the speeds offered. I wish there was a competitor; I'm waiting for the independent ISP in my region - who was once competitor to the ISP I was a cofounder of - to roll fiber to my neighborhood. All I can do is be patient, because it costs a shiteload of money to pull new fiber to every neighborhood in every city in the region. That's worth thinking about - that previous competitor started offering dialup in 1993/94, same time my company did. We were eventually bought out so others ran the company. The competitor was able to stay independent, became a CLEC, and now puts down its own fiber - their own trenches, their own overheads; that costs millions and millions to do. It takes time to do so.




Public support for not being double charged for access to certain things on the internet is the primary driver for ISP's not to fluck with their customers. The hue and cry the times they've tried to, they're forced to back down. That's the market at work. The FCC wants to have more control of internet content; we already know how they (the govt more broadly) interfered with freedom of speech during covid.



So, you're saying that you pay a fee to your ISP to watch netflix?

"you don't understand what the word "NOW" means." oh I understand perfectly. you are the one obsessed with it when for legislation you only need a precedent that shows the inability of the market to self-regulate.

"most of them are just ISP's being arseholes" - yes, that usually what happens when they do anti-consumer things.

"the most recent is from nearly a decade ago" - the COX example was 2019, after NNN was removed. and the main reason why you have less recent examples is because after the FCC removed the NNN rules, they were reinstated at the state/local level. the FCC tried to preempt state and local laws that imposed net neutrality regulations, but failed. By October 3rd 2019, legislators in 29 states had introduced bills in response to the FCC's ruling.

"the FCC wants to have more control of internet content" - as per the publicly available rules. no, they don't. why even make such a statement when you know that it's not true and can easily be verified? NNN rules are about the freedom of content, not the other way around. it's literally why it exists. are you confused about something? and then you just made some weird random anti-government statement... you hate NNN just because you hate the government? is that it? that makes zero sense dude.

 

[Endymio]

the COX example was 2019, after NNN was removed

The Cox example allowed people the option to choose a higher level of service, for a higher fee. What rational person opposes this? Literally every other industry in the world does the same.

There are only two possible rationalizations for your thinking here. Either it's "I can't afford a Ferrari, therefore no one should have one." Or it's "I can't afford a Ferrari, so I want a law to force someone else to buy me one."

Which is it?