this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
499 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

34781 readers
393 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 66 points 1 year ago (1 children)

$$$ and because the ISPs don't get charged for unethical and blantly illegal activities...

The real question should be why is the internet not a public utility yet..? Huh FCC/CRTC...?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yep. Democrats should run making it a utility.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean hell, they could follow through with their promises for bringing back net neutrality.

They introduced a bill in 2022, but nothing much has happened with it since then. Probably because it would fail to pass the Republican dominated House of Representatives.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If Ajit Pai were still in charge, he'd say "Woof woof! The telcos can do anything they want!," and the Verizon CEO who owns him would pat him on the head and give him a Milk-Bone.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Until he personally lost service for a couple hours

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Why is the FCC asking this question instead of already correcting the issue?

[–] [email protected] 71 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)

In short, the Administrative Procedure Act. It sets out the procedures that have to be followed before policy decisions get made. If the FCC doesn't follow the APA's procedures exactly, that gives the industry grounds to sue. Even if the industry eventually looses, it would still mean a stay on the new policies during which they would continue to exploit consumers.

The APA isn't a bad thing, since it forces federal agencies to be deliberate in making policy decisions that could have far reaching consequences. That said, it does make the government even slower to react to situations that often change quickly. But it has tripped up this administration and previous administrations when they have tried to make hasty decisions, including Trump with his "Muslim ban".

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I wish informative answers like yours would get the upvotes they deserve. You have my upvote.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 year ago

Because they have no intention of correcting it. They’re either doing this to keep up the charade of consumer protection, or gearing up to enshrine the practice in regulation.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They are asking ISPs to lay out their best justification so that they can decide whether it's valid or not. Judging by their wording, they want a good explanation. It's good to gain understanding of something before we gut it and who better to ask for the 'best argument for' than those who enforce it?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

What's going to stop the forms being filled out by industry-controlled bots this time?^1 Last time the FCC took public comment, anti-net-neutrality comments were being made under the names of dead people and people who would later claim they never participated in making comments to the FCC.

Otherwise, it's going to be the same dumb shitshow as last time.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The same dumb shitshow as last time is probably the goal.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

It did a great job of discrediting opening anything for public comment thenceforth. Which I really think was the long-term goal.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I used to work in utilities. Electric, not telecom so different set of regulators. What they would do is yank you into and office and tell you something to the effect of: "[Name of Regulatory Body] is considering [issue]. You should really consider going on the public comment section of their website and voicing your [support/opposition depending on corporate stance] for it. It's not mandatory but you should really consider doing that. It's very important to our company."

It wasn't "mandatory" but they would repeatedly hound you until you either did it or told them to fuck off, at which point you would be branded a "troublemaker" and they would find ways to punish you.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] psycrow 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would be wonderful if the FCC did their fucking job for once and banned data caps. Companies like Mediacom abuse the fuck out of them

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because fuck you, pay me, that’s why.

— Comcast, probably.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It will always make me happy that no matter how hard they try to make Xfinity happen, everyone remembers their real, ugly face before the facelift, and that ugly face is Comcast.^1

"Stop trying to make ~~fetch~~ Xfinity happen! It's not going to happen!"

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago

Because of corporate greed and a ridiculous lack of meaningful regulation.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's ridiculous I have to pay Xfinity $110/mo for my speed and unlimited bandwidth

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

God damn. In Austria I'm paying 35€ for 250/250, and am still looking over to the Romanians with longing eyes. Data caps are only on mobile - which is still questionable in my eyes.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Over here, I'm getting the Cox... last bill was $99 a month, now my "promo period" expired, and it is the full $170 a month thanks to "unlimited". It's pretty gross, but it is the only plan that gives the "amazing" 30 mbps up. :|

EDIT: This is for home internet, 1000 down/30 up, unlimited data

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

I know the FCC thinks they’re helping, but don’t let them F’ this up too.

[–] bemenaker 15 points 1 year ago

GREED. That has always been the answer.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Lack of healthy competition. It's plain to see from the other side of the ocean where I live... Is it maybe one of those things you can only see from afar?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Nah, we see it too. Those of us whose eyes are open, anyway.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

€20 every 28 days on a PAYG sim for unlimited 5g in Ireland, it's just boggling to see what folks in the US and Canada pay

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

This is a rhetorical question right?

[–] MiddleWeigh 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Get money out of as many facets of life as we can!! Free energy for the people! We are the energy!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dystop 11 points 1 year ago

Short answer? Because they can.

[–] faltuuser 10 points 1 year ago

Because there is money to be made!

[–] BigTrout75 8 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

@Atemu. Money. Same reason they don't really wanna disclose all the little fees.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

I mean, if you ask why a company is doing xyz the answer is pretty much universally money.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh fuck off FCC, you know exactly why and intentionally don't address it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

OH SAY CAN YOU SEE

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s the same reason my complex can force me to pay $100 for Xfinity while my neighbor pays $30 for the exact same service (because they’re in a house).

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago
[–] Sallen 4 points 1 year ago

I don't know if it's the same but here in France, fiber connection data is always unlimited but never (one exception) unlimited concerning data over 4G/5G.

I think it's a good thing in France because mobile connections are not expensive at all and people could use it as their main home connection.

The point is that mobile connections use more power and have a way higher carbon footprint so it's nice to prevent people from doing this.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Interesting…me too 🤔

load more comments
view more: next ›