this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023

686 points (99.7% liked)

News

23638 readers

3378 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

686

FCC moves forward with its plan to restore Obama-era net neutrality protections (www.engadget.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/news

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Federal Communications Commission has voted to move forward with a plan to restore Obama-era net neutrality protections. The rules could be re-established as soon as next spring, but the FCC's effort could face legal challenges.

top 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 63 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

"On the other hand, critics say that net neutrality rules are unnecessary. "Since the FCC’s 2017 decision to return the Internet to the same successful and bipartisan regulatory framework under which it thrived for decades, broadband speeds in the U.S. have increased, prices are down, competition has intensified, and record-breaking new broadband builds have brought millions of Americans across the digital divide," Brendan Carr, the senior Republican on the FCC, said in a statement. "The Internet is not broken and the FCC does not need Title II to fix it. I would encourage the agency to reverse course and focus on the important issues that Congress has authorized the FCC to advance."

Lol if prices are down, why does my bill keep arbitrarily increasing? ~~And I'm pretty sure more companies are consolidating (Spectrum acquired Charter not long ago), so competition my ass.~~

Edit: turns out Charter rebranded as Spectrum, my bad

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

(Spectrum acquired Charter not long ago)

Spectrum is actually Charter's trade name; they acquired Bright House and Time Warner not long ago.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Ah that's right, oops. Edited my post, thanks.

[–] QuarterSwede 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You’re not wrong though. Mine just went up $15/month with CenturyLink’s rebrand as Quantum. That’s with me on their best service, month-to-month fiber.

[–] Yewb 43 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Ajit pai can go fuck himself

[–] finkrat 10 points 1 year ago

Corporate traitor ass-clown, glad he's out

[–] notannpc 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

With a cactus.

[–] BlackPenguins 2 points 1 year ago

And no lube.

[–] mechoman444 6 points 1 year ago

Twice.

In one day

[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is no fiber to the curb, and DSL rolled out in the US starting in the late 1990s.

Since then we have cable internet added to the mix.

US broadband speeds are like the US minimum wage.

[–] TheHottub 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why does the article have to say "Obama-era"? Net neutrality is just net neutral and we don't need to add extra labels to create a headline. Annoying.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because we had net neutrality under Obama. And there’s lots of people who don’t know that. I’ve seen numerous posts back on Reddit and recently on lemmy saying corporate dems will never enact NN. When they did, and they are again. I’m glad the article mentions it. Because those history revisionists “both sides” groups are loud and prominent.

[–] TheHottub -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember it well. We just don't need to add to the already polarized political atmosphere by making it Obama-era thing. I was then and still am a huge proponent of net neutrality.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We do need to add to the polarity. 100%. Dems are not like republicans. And republicans are not like dems. It needs to be pointed out and made clear.

It’s the moderates who said “polarity” was “tearing us apart” during the civil right movement.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago

Fuckin’ finally, jesus tapdancing christ

[–] notannpc 18 points 1 year ago

I love that it was proven a vast majority of the public comments in favor of removing net neutrality laws were fake. But instead of just reverting the law back as a result of this discovery we get to fucking hope it doesn’t happen again while we try to apply the same fucking rules.

[–] repungnant_canary 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Does someone know what's on the photo?

[–] Jerkingass 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is the back side of a network patch panel punched down with wiring that has no strain relief.

[–] QuarterSwede 6 points 1 year ago

Great alt text summary.

[–] chili1553 14 points 1 year ago

I believe it's a series of tubes

[+] PP_BOY_ -58 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Cannot wait for this to amount to nothing over the next 12 months and seeing all the ~~bots~~ very real people hail it was a win for >!union busting!< Biden come next November

[–] [email protected] 43 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I’m not sure why you’re upset about restoring net neutrality but go off I guess

[–] Kiernian 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m not sure why you’re upset about restoring net neutrality but go off I guess

Because there's a non-zero chance that the service providers will pull the same kinds of stunts that some police departments did in the wake of all of the post-George-Floyd ideas we had about "reform".

The providers will most likely throw a tantrum at the increased regulation and we will get everything from "weaponized incompetence" to "malicious compliance" along with a petulant toddler level of foot-dragging. They will then probably claim that everything that's going wrong with their services is now due to these new choking, stifling, innovation-killing regulations that are none of those things in actuality and then they'll do their level best to lobby things back to their current state at the very least and more likely an even worse state for the consumer.

I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T restore net neutrality to the state it was in, I'm just saying that the providers are probably going to be big babies about it and pass the pain on to the customer.

AT&T, Comcast, Charter, Cox, Verizon, CenturyLink, and T-Mobile have basically invisibly colluded themselves into one big ma bell lookalike by one or more of them setting "market pricing" and waiting for the others to follow suit because "profits".

Why be competitive when you too can rake in record profits by silently agreeing to the rip-off?

The least we can do is limit their ability to pull stunts like marginalizing content they don't get make extra money off of prioritizing.

I can get why someone might not be excited about this because it's going to suck for consumers in the short run and it's really not going to solve the problem at hand, it's just going to do a tiny bit to keep it from progressing even farther into "enshittification" territory as the providers keep moving the pot towards boiling.

Until we remove the ability for corporations to buy legislation, though, the problem will continue.

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

This is a classic “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” situation and you’re framing it as if I am against all the things you are calling for.

[–] Kiernian 1 points 1 year ago

you’re framing it as if I am against all the things you are calling for

No, and if it came off that way, I apologize. I'm just saying I can see why some people would think this isn't going to be particularly effective in the short term. It's hard to show enthusiasm for a move like this when setting it up in the first place saw things getting repealed and left us where we are now.

Good is absolutely a step in the right direction and we should be taking it in the hopes of getting closer to perfect.

[–] MasterBlaster 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So you're all in on the ever increasing cost of internet service, then? You are pleased that getting more than 25 mbits requires an extra $30 per month and gigabit rates are well past $150?

Damn. You be you, but I'd rather not be fleeced while they also strip me of my privacy rights.

Thankfully we actually got a competitor here recently and went from $90 for 25mbits up, 5 down to $68 for 1gig up/down.

Yes, that is how bad it is in America. 3 years ago that $90 was $60, after I knocked it down from $90 by dropping my data rate and ditching their minimal cable plan that mostly had shopping channels on it and HBO Max, only viewable on my phone, and I never managed to get it to work.

Their rates consistently go up by up to 10% per year with zero improvements.

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

I pay like 120 for 2gbit unlimited bandwidth.

[–] RedditRefugeeTom 4 points 1 year ago

I'm jealous. I pay $155/month for two internet services: Old Faithful (10Mb/s DDL, reliable) and New Internet (up to 100Mb/s down (usually only 50Mb/s down due to trees), but flaky thanks to older wireless tech at the tower). I keep the old DSL wh3n the new wireless one flakes out. It's better in Winter (no leaves). They have a new tower they've been building and finishing up for well.after a year now, which supposedly has better tech on it. Just waiting to get swit he'd over to that one...then I belive I'll be actually getting up to 100Mb/s for $135/mo. I hate internet in America.

[–] PP_BOY_ -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Net neutrality is a bandaid on a bullet wound at this point. Actually, that's not entirely accurate, it's more like a bandaid on a migraine.

The internet and internet access needs to be nationalized, this isn't 1995, there's no reason the internet should be controlled by a handful of corporations, and no amount of FCC regulation can fix the problems that causes.

[–] ngdev 4 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, the tired, old "perfect being the enemy of good", so let's just let it all go to shit since we can't get it perfect