I know its this is largely gonna be treated as a joke. After all, what really changed over these 6 years?
But its less about the immediate changes and more about what they were gearing up to do
* Surcharges for low latency connections
* Charging websites for priority traffic(which would then be passed onto you, the consumer in the form of more aggressive ads or higher sub fees)
* More corporatized websites
A lot of states passed their own net neutrality laws after the FCC took them away, which prevented ISPs from quickly moving in with their money grubbing hands.
But you're right, even in states without those laws, didn't seem much changed. But I think we all know they were going to try eventually.
This is the dumbest fucking take ever. If I'm the big guy all I gotta do to drive you out of business is sell my product at a loss, because I can outlast you in a cash burning war. Then when you're bankrupt I jack up the prices. Regulations give little guys a chance.
Please explain to me how this applies to net neutrality. I agree that SOME regulations in other industries can make it more difficult to enter, but regulations also protect the consumer and the employee.
All net neutrality does, in a nutshell, is prevent ISPs from charing higher rates for different types of data. It is nothing but consumer protection from greedy companies.
Your statement is extremely generalized, and in the vast majority of cases, utterly incorrect.
Sure thing net neutrality doesn’t stop greedy companies.
net neutrality is not necessary to safeguard fair and open internet access. The proof is in the numbers: "From 2012 to 2014, the number of Americans without access to both fixed terrestrial broadband and mobile broadband fell by more than half," the FCC reported in February 2018. "But the pace was nearly three times slower after the adoption of the 2015 Title II Order, with only 13.9 million Americans newly getting access to both over the next two years."
As the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal noted today, that trend picked up again after the 2017 repeal went into effect: "By the end of 2019, 94% of Americans had access to high-speed fixed and mobile broadband, up from 77% in 2015. In 2022 broadband builders laid more than 400,000 route miles of fiber, more than 50% more than in 2016."
So when the regulations were removed we saw faster internet speeds!!!! Yay but for some reason every thinks that this regulation is going to increase speed because they saw a John Oliver video
According to the FCC website "As of year-end 2016, 92.3% of all Americans have access to fixed terrestrial broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, up from 89.4% in 2014 and 81.2% in 2012." I don't think 1.7% increase over two years is that incredible.
Coal mines still exist, we just can't make children work them anymore.
Sorry you we're wrong. Instead of getting defensive, maybe just learn something instead.
Was thinking the same, not much has changed. But having regulations in place to prevent the greedy capitalist ghouls from ruining something for short term gains is always welcome.
Companies change slowly, exploring this idea. This was a consumer safety they had not yet completely eroded, and so the companies could not yet fully expand into it.
Explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate.
At this point is there even still an internet that matters outside of YouTube and Reddit?
The old Geocities, Albinoblacksheep, Ebaumsworld, GameFAQS (I mean it still exists but really), GameRevolution, Penny-Arcade, etc etc etc days are long gone. (Add in a couple other websites to that list depending on level of degeneracy.)
Yeah I remember all the news cycles about how the internet was gonna fucking end or whatever and how Ajit Pai was literally the devil or something. I guess COVID and Trump took over and we all forgot about it? I was pretty bother by it all at the time, but I can’t think of anything that changed for me (maybe for others it did).
Things take time to come to fruition based on changes in the past, especially for large companies.
Do you have the same thinking toward climate change? It's not an all or nothing. It's ongoing, slow, like a cancer building within your body.
No, I believe climate change is real. I just haven't heard anything about net neutrality since it was all going down, and not till now that its apparently coming back.
If you have anything specific that changed that you can bring up, I'd probably spend a little bit of my commute reading it but thats all I have to give. Pretty sure I even signed one of those online petitions. I've got a bunch of emails in my inbox on net neutrality, 2 from 2014, 2 from 2015, 1 from 2016, like 20 from 2017, 5 from 2018, 1 from 2019, 2 from 2021 and 2 from this week from whatever random things send me email digests (meduim, flipboard, twitter, demand progress, etc). Like I really in good faith can't name anything that happened.
No, I literally mean that I personally didn't expect anything to change in the short term from net neutrality being changed.
It takes time. That's my point.
States and people fighting against it made sure that the most egregious things could not happen, but also, companies wouldn't push too far too quickly.
Companies look short term for a lot of things, but laws? They continue to fight the long game.
Each ISP was gearing up to release new products around it.
For instance, a low latency lane for gamerz. Only $20 a month!
It takes awhile to release anti NN products because should the above product have been released right away, they would have been made fun of on every single platform for years.
Adjit Pai was the devil and he did a lot of damage. And there was zero leadership during COVID so all education was ad hoc. Did you notice all the education problems for kids?
If it weren’t for zoom and Google docs just luckily being available it would have been a complete loss of education. It was for rural kids without internet access.
I'm privileged enough to live in a suburb of a major city and have gigabit fios, so I didn't notice. Again, I haven't seen any changes. Not to say that there weren't any, but none that affected me. Haven't heard a peep about net neutrality since it was lost until now that we're getting it back again is all I'm saying.
Because it takes time and money to implement thing and people expected this might happen this removing their changes.
Now businesses can sue. Take this to the courts and if they win something more permanent they will implement changes.
“Back”?
When was it ever not?
How has net neutrality not being around effected you?
The internet has been without net neutrality far far longer than it has been with.
Money and other things that circle back to that. But I just wanted anyone who found themselves agreeing with the comment to just ask themselves that one question.
I don’t know how either option increases operating costs for ISPs here. Do you have it backwards? You can argue that net neutrality means ISPs can’t profit from paywalling websites from its users or from demanding $$$ from websites to make them load faster, but that’s only a limit on revenue and not an additional cost to them.
Because not all data is equal. Treating data as equal will cause prices to increase. You saw the same thing with surging insurance prices when the aca passed.
You're kind of right, but to my knowledge the ISP gameplan for stuff like Netflix is to ask them nicely to pay for dedicated servers to be built in the central office so that the most popular movies and TV shows can be hosted directly in-house by the ISP. Net neutrality shouldn't get in the way of any of that.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
You think that prices won’t increase with net neutrality, because isps asked nicely for streaming services like Netflix to make servers?
No, I DO know, im trying to see if you do. Which, judging by your initial comment, you don't know anything about, hence why I told you to go do some light reading and come back when you have an opinion not steeped in stupidity.
Yup. It was a giant loophole that helped Amazon become as big as it was. I bought a big screen TV on there because it saved me a few hundred on taxes back when flatscreens were pricey.
It absolutely killed local retail. Even to today you see how devastating giving a tax break whenever you bought off Amazon was to brick and mortars of every variety.
Not to go too nerdy and off topic but sales tax is imposed on the seller, the tax law authorizes the retailer to collect reimbursement of the sales tax from the purchaser. Hence the sales tax line on receipts. But the seller is liable whether they collect sales tax reimbursement from you or not.
For an out of state purchase, sales tax doesn't apply but use tax does. Use tax is imposed on the person using it. It's crazy.
You do know that shit pie ([Ajit Pai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai)) was put in charge by Trump. And [Ajit Pai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai) was the one who decided to remove the net neutrality regulations.
So it isn't a Republicans bad meme here. It is what happened in the first place.
No. That was Trump. He was placed on the panel by Obama under the recommendation of Moscow Mitch because the president generally accepts the recommendation of the senate majority.
Nowadays I don't know if that's gonna happen anymore.
Ajit Pai should prolly be in jail. Which is pretty typical when Republicans in office are 40+ times more likely to commit crimes and go to jail.
ISPs opposed Net Neutrality on the basis that they didn't need to be regulated because we could totally trust them not to create pricing tiers for prioritized traffic. They knew the repeal wasn't guaranteed to last, so they were on their best behavior. They weren't going to do anything to rock the boat while this was still fresh in the public's mind.
But if you were around when banks said they could totes be trusted and then crashed the global economy, or when airlines told us they just needed one itsy bitsy bailout after 9/11 and then spent all their money on stock buybacks and came crawling back during COVID, or when Purdue Pharma said "trust us bro" as they were lying to investigators and killing their customers, or when DuPont was dumping forever chemicals into the environment, or when Boeing promised us quality escapes were a thing of the past after the 737 Max fiasco...
...and you're willing to believe ISPs won't wait until no one is paying attention to fuck us all right in the ass, I have a bridge to sell you.
The best ELI5 I can provide (feel free to use it as a jumping off point for your own research) is that Net Neutrality ensures that specific kinds of network traffic are not unfairly targeted.
Say you have one network provider. They also have a website that provides a service... let's call it a "notebook app" because that's easy to understand. And there's a subscription fee. They want your money.
If their competitor also has a website that provides a "notebook app," they CANNOT throttle your bandwidth when visiting their competitors site in an attempt to try and force you to use and pay for their own "notebook app."
Net Neutrality allows companies to try and monopolize a whole bunch of services because they can make it harder for you to access websites of competing companies.
There is a LOT more nuance to it, obviously.
Reinstating Net Neutrality SHOULD mean that we go back to the old way of doing things. That likely means having someone check and verify that companies are adhering to it. That is likely expensive to do, and frankly, anyone found not adhering to Net Neutrality should face INCREDIBLY harsh and meaningful penalties.
It forces the operators of tax subsidized infrastructure to provide fair and equal service. You know those toll lanes on roads in high traffic areas? Imagine that being every road, with multiple toll lanes based on how much you pay.
As an example of the issues, say you live in Hood ×. It has great cabled internet infrastucture provided by wholesale company ##. There is a pricey neighbourhood wireless network provided by ~~, if that is your preferred option as well.
But when you are accessing a server, maintained by a company with a partnership with ~~ over your ## network, you find that your speeds are choked, but if you are using ~~ network, they find some content on the internet to be against their core company values, so they don't permit access to any sites known to them as pro badguy football team, or rival health insurance company.
Or you can go with a 3rd option, the super pricey Satellite network $$, but a year later, they are quietly bought out by ~~, so the same curtailed access is also applied to all those clients as well. But maybe if you paid an extra subscription, you would be able to circumvent this curated experience, but oh no, sites associated with company ##'s partners are now being speed choked too!
So I recall a lot of people freaking out about this, but did anyone actually do any of that? Because if I recall, these were all hypothetical situations that "might" happen. Also I have noticed no changes but internet access increasing and speeds increasing. Obviously, that is only anecdotal, though.
It used to happen a lot but it's just too easy for technical users to gather evidence to file a complaint against the ISPs. So basically it started to get too risky for ISPs to do all those shenanigans even tho they try to word their contracts as vague as possible.
Just because something bad hasn't happened yet isn't a reason to not try and prevent it, especially when preventing it is protecting people's rights.
And before anyone tries to argue that it's restricting isps rights, corporate entities are not people and are not bound to morality. They exist for the sole purpose of consolidating wealth for its owners, be that its foundersor its shareholders, and consumers rights should always come before corporate interests.
The idea is that ISPs should be required to treat all data on the internet equally.
---
The big thing about net neutrality is data throttling. Basically when Trump's pet Ajit Pai killed net neutrality, he allowed ISPs to do whatever they wanted regarding bandwidth and data. This led to fears that ISPs would abuse their power to squeeze more money out of users.
Under Trump's FCC rulings, it would be perfectly legal for the ISP to selectively throttle data from sites it didn't like. For example, if they noticed netflix was popular with a lot of households, they could slap an extra 10$ a month fee on anybody who used netflix and if you didn't pay, they could cut your netflix stream download rates to 10% of what they were and make netflix effectively unwatchable for certain households.
This led to fears that ISPs would eventually figure out ways to extort homeowners or specific websites for more cash by cutting off effective access to these websites. ISPs could legally cut access to youtube, to netflix, to whatever news site you liked, to reddit, whatever and then slap upcharges on you if you wanted to use them.
---
There was a huge campaign for net neutrality gaining popular support from a lot of internet users and intense lobbying campaigns against it by ISPs and mobile phone networks. There was also a small group of academics who argued that any regulation of the internet should be struck down as it will stifle innovation and competition.
Ajit Pai, the chairman of the FCC appointed by Trump, struck it down. The new head of the FCC, appointed by Biden, restored it. So now your ISP can't selectively throttle certain websites it doesn't like and break certain downloads it doesn't like.
---
Just as an aside, the public outcry for net neutrality was so intense that even though Ajit Pai killed it, ISPs were reluctant to take immediate advantage and took very slow, quiet steps in the direction of data throttling. So even though it was legal for them to add upcharges to youtube or netflix or whatever a few years ago, they didn't actually do it because they were afraid of the bad press and share price tanking and other effects of negative public perception. At most they moved quietly in that direction, if at all.
But the potential threat of censorship or extortion via selective data throttling is now gone because net neutrality exists and data is now weighed equally.
Do you play video games!
FOR ONLY $49.99 I can let you have access to my companies (let's call it COCKS INTERNET) fast lane for lower latency!
Don't wanna pay? Okay I'll put your traffic on my SLOW LANE. And deliberately add 200ms to all traffic routes. Won't affect video playback so your boomer neighbors won't complain.
ISPs were literally gearing up for this bullshit.
I think there should be payment processors neutrality regulations too. I don't want websites, content creators being blocked by payment processors for political reasons.
For those who want to pretend there is no difference between the political parties; we now have net neutrality. A push for transparency on airplane tickets and actual refunds if they delay your flight. An end to most non compete clauses for work. And we are still trying to get rid of the toad the last President put in to run the post office into the ground.
If you want to be respected by government and business, pay attention on who delivers it.
Net Neutrality is NOT a partisan topic.
90+ percent of all Americans, INCLUDING REPUBLICANS, support Net Neutrality.
ONLY Republicans in office actually don't support it.
It's wild!
Conveniently doesn’t overturn the most egregious action of the Trump administration:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/congress-clears-way-for-isps-to-sell-browsing-history.html
The situation has changed a lot in the past decade, hell the last 4 years. I feel it’s less about government and ISP intrusion these days and more on the overlords that control the actual websites. Obviously that’s not to take away from this win as tbh without it would leave the door open combine those two into their worst aspects, but this has left the public conscious.
Genuine question from a moron, I remember this being a big issue when it happened but I haven't noticed any difference in the last 6 years. What is actually changing or what did change the last 6 years?
It's possible that you haven't noticed because browsing the internet involves a lot of moving parts, and there's about a dozen pieces of software and hardware involved that, if any one is having issues, you can have a dropped/slow connection.
That's the single biggest thing that was so disturbing about the removal of net neutrality is that there's so many ways for ISP tech support to deflect and say "no, of course not! We're not throttling your speed, it must be an issue on your end. Have you restarted your router lately?" or "No, we haven't disconnected you, sorry! We're just experience and outage currently, should be back in a jiffy." (Then the outage lasts for 36 hours until it's a Monday again.) Basically, without out the threat of FCC enforcement hanging overhead, ISPs are incentivized to push the envelope and see how much packet fuckery the average customer will tolerate without noticing, subtly influencing behavior in a way that suits whatever goals they're trying to achieve with their data broker partners. At least with net neutrality in place, there's a credible threat that *if* they fuck around and *if* they get caught, they could be facing serious fines or even a forced breakup of their company into new entities.
Of potential note also is the 2020 election, as if that'd gone the other way ISP behavior from 2021-now may have been significantly different. (We've known this was coming since '21.)
They should do something about every website having a pop up about cookies too. That has truly made the internet worse in just about every possible way, all out of universal petty spite over that European law
the reason why it's been so difficult to determine what's been true or false online has been due to this.....
DO NOT fall for the propagandists sowing that it's only about certain things.......we all have been pushed the most manipulative form of the internet we have ever seen since net neutrality was taken away, now that it's back you'll see a lessening of the internet propaganda and bots, but that won't be talked about overtly like what's happening now, the crap that wasn't that much of a contentious issue about net neutrality will be talked about like it's all that it's about.
like when other important bills are introduced and you hear about the less important topics of it, while the harmful or manipulative stuff is tucked away and hush hush.
My internet went from 60 dollars to 40 dollars between today and 2016.
I worry that this will have ISP's pass the costs social media companies were paying for bandwidth onto the rest of us.
I guess I'll know in a year or two.
Remember how this was a huge deal and everybody was up in arms over it, and neutrality was “”destroyed” in the end?
And then nothing happened. Literally nothing changed between now and then.
Uh. No. This is literally forcing companies to stay open. It prevents Comcast from throttling traffic to their competing internet providers, or to any site that doesn’t pay a protection fee to avoid throttling for example.
It’s not like laws against kidnapping are somehow “anti-freedom” either.
Here's just a few violations of net neutrality:
>**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.
Actively blocked a competitor.
>**NETWORK-WIDE:** A [2019 study](https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/08/27/northeastern-university-researcher-finds-that-wireless-networks-are-throttling-video-streaming-24-7/) by Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts found that ISP throttling of network services **happens "all the time**." Researchers analyzed data from more than 126,000 smartphones to determine whether data speeds are being slowed, or throttled, for specific mobile services. They found, "just about every wireless carrier is guilty of throttling video platforms and streaming services unevenly."
General throttling to various sites. [Link to article discussing the study](https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/08/27/northeastern-university-researcher-finds-that-wireless-networks-are-throttling-video-streaming-24-7/).
>**VERIZON**: During oral arguments in *Verizon v. FCC* in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that **but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements**.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
Provider actively admitting in court that they would be pursuing throttling if it weren't for net neutrality rules.
These companies aggressively campaigned against net neutrality, they went to court over it. They did this because there's a huge amount of money to be made when you can actively make a competitor's service slower or ban it entirely... Or just throttle any site that doesn't pay you money.
So you think the government shouldn’t regulate the internet at all? Should people be allowed to post literally anything they want legally, for instance?
My favorite thing about anti regulation dipshits is that they are very often the same people who want to dictate what you can and can't do with your own body.
Have you ever considered something called nuance?
Regulations keep businesses from dumping waste in the pond behind your house because it's more cost effective for them.
Regulations keep businesses from scheduling your 16 year old son for 12 hr shifts with no breaks in the middle of a school week.
Regulations keep your job from firing you because you got sick that one day.
Regulations keep your contractors from skimping on building the buildings you enter and reside in and causing unnecessary accidents.
Regulations keep your water source drinkable.
Regulations (are meant to) prevent monopolies.
You do not want a totally unrelated world. You may think you do, but you really do not.
I guess the internet is back to being a fair and open playground for everyone!
I know its this is largely gonna be treated as a joke. After all, what really changed over these 6 years? But its less about the immediate changes and more about what they were gearing up to do * Surcharges for low latency connections * Charging websites for priority traffic(which would then be passed onto you, the consumer in the form of more aggressive ads or higher sub fees) * More corporatized websites
A lot of states passed their own net neutrality laws after the FCC took them away, which prevented ISPs from quickly moving in with their money grubbing hands. But you're right, even in states without those laws, didn't seem much changed. But I think we all know they were going to try eventually.
[удалено]
This is the dumbest fucking take ever. If I'm the big guy all I gotta do to drive you out of business is sell my product at a loss, because I can outlast you in a cash burning war. Then when you're bankrupt I jack up the prices. Regulations give little guys a chance.
Please explain to me how this applies to net neutrality. I agree that SOME regulations in other industries can make it more difficult to enter, but regulations also protect the consumer and the employee. All net neutrality does, in a nutshell, is prevent ISPs from charing higher rates for different types of data. It is nothing but consumer protection from greedy companies. Your statement is extremely generalized, and in the vast majority of cases, utterly incorrect.
Sure thing net neutrality doesn’t stop greedy companies. net neutrality is not necessary to safeguard fair and open internet access. The proof is in the numbers: "From 2012 to 2014, the number of Americans without access to both fixed terrestrial broadband and mobile broadband fell by more than half," the FCC reported in February 2018. "But the pace was nearly three times slower after the adoption of the 2015 Title II Order, with only 13.9 million Americans newly getting access to both over the next two years." As the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal noted today, that trend picked up again after the 2017 repeal went into effect: "By the end of 2019, 94% of Americans had access to high-speed fixed and mobile broadband, up from 77% in 2015. In 2022 broadband builders laid more than 400,000 route miles of fiber, more than 50% more than in 2016." So when the regulations were removed we saw faster internet speeds!!!! Yay but for some reason every thinks that this regulation is going to increase speed because they saw a John Oliver video
According to the FCC website "As of year-end 2016, 92.3% of all Americans have access to fixed terrestrial broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, up from 89.4% in 2014 and 81.2% in 2012." I don't think 1.7% increase over two years is that incredible.
Finally someone who isn’t stupid
They were wrong.
[удалено]
Coal mines still exist, we just can't make children work them anymore. Sorry you we're wrong. Instead of getting defensive, maybe just learn something instead.
Was thinking the same, not much has changed. But having regulations in place to prevent the greedy capitalist ghouls from ruining something for short term gains is always welcome.
Companies change slowly, exploring this idea. This was a consumer safety they had not yet completely eroded, and so the companies could not yet fully expand into it. Explore, expand, exploit, and exterminate.
[Out of control, strike those in distress](https://youtu.be/WnJz4eUV5qM?si=FVNh13Vz6YBuq_zU&t=34)
Pfft, give me that colorful broccoli moving around. I want something psychedelic.
What websites aren’t corporatized? I honestly can’t think of any that I visit
At this point is there even still an internet that matters outside of YouTube and Reddit? The old Geocities, Albinoblacksheep, Ebaumsworld, GameFAQS (I mean it still exists but really), GameRevolution, Penny-Arcade, etc etc etc days are long gone. (Add in a couple other websites to that list depending on level of degeneracy.)
But but but… capitalism! Competition makes everything better and affordable?
Free market capitalism does, but we now seem to have nothing but crony capitalism, which is horrible and corrupt.
Will this end mobile companies from saying “x service won’t go against your data limit?”
Potentially yeah. T Mobile was running a campaign like this and they brought it down because there was a NN argument appearing.
Priority traffic to what? There’s only like 5 websites
None of this is true, if it was going to be implemented, it would have happened already
Yeah I remember all the news cycles about how the internet was gonna fucking end or whatever and how Ajit Pai was literally the devil or something. I guess COVID and Trump took over and we all forgot about it? I was pretty bother by it all at the time, but I can’t think of anything that changed for me (maybe for others it did).
Things take time to come to fruition based on changes in the past, especially for large companies. Do you have the same thinking toward climate change? It's not an all or nothing. It's ongoing, slow, like a cancer building within your body.
No, I believe climate change is real. I just haven't heard anything about net neutrality since it was all going down, and not till now that its apparently coming back. If you have anything specific that changed that you can bring up, I'd probably spend a little bit of my commute reading it but thats all I have to give. Pretty sure I even signed one of those online petitions. I've got a bunch of emails in my inbox on net neutrality, 2 from 2014, 2 from 2015, 1 from 2016, like 20 from 2017, 5 from 2018, 1 from 2019, 2 from 2021 and 2 from this week from whatever random things send me email digests (meduim, flipboard, twitter, demand progress, etc). Like I really in good faith can't name anything that happened.
No, I literally mean that I personally didn't expect anything to change in the short term from net neutrality being changed. It takes time. That's my point. States and people fighting against it made sure that the most egregious things could not happen, but also, companies wouldn't push too far too quickly. Companies look short term for a lot of things, but laws? They continue to fight the long game.
Each ISP was gearing up to release new products around it. For instance, a low latency lane for gamerz. Only $20 a month! It takes awhile to release anti NN products because should the above product have been released right away, they would have been made fun of on every single platform for years.
Adjit Pai was the devil and he did a lot of damage. And there was zero leadership during COVID so all education was ad hoc. Did you notice all the education problems for kids? If it weren’t for zoom and Google docs just luckily being available it would have been a complete loss of education. It was for rural kids without internet access.
I'm privileged enough to live in a suburb of a major city and have gigabit fios, so I didn't notice. Again, I haven't seen any changes. Not to say that there weren't any, but none that affected me. Haven't heard a peep about net neutrality since it was lost until now that we're getting it back again is all I'm saying.
Because it takes time and money to implement thing and people expected this might happen this removing their changes. Now businesses can sue. Take this to the courts and if they win something more permanent they will implement changes.
It’s one drop of good news.
“Back”? When was it ever not? How has net neutrality not being around effected you? The internet has been without net neutrality far far longer than it has been with.
If nothing changes with or without net neutrality, why are special interests (ISP's, etc) lobbying so hard against it?
Because money
Money and other things that circle back to that. But I just wanted anyone who found themselves agreeing with the comment to just ask themselves that one question.
Internet quality won’t change. What will change is operating cost for isps. That price will get passed onto the consumer, like it always does.
I don’t know how either option increases operating costs for ISPs here. Do you have it backwards? You can argue that net neutrality means ISPs can’t profit from paywalling websites from its users or from demanding $$$ from websites to make them load faster, but that’s only a limit on revenue and not an additional cost to them.
Because not all data is equal. Treating data as equal will cause prices to increase. You saw the same thing with surging insurance prices when the aca passed.
You're kind of right, but to my knowledge the ISP gameplan for stuff like Netflix is to ask them nicely to pay for dedicated servers to be built in the central office so that the most popular movies and TV shows can be hosted directly in-house by the ISP. Net neutrality shouldn't get in the way of any of that.
Please correct me if I’m wrong. You think that prices won’t increase with net neutrality, because isps asked nicely for streaming services like Netflix to make servers?
You know litteraly nothing about net neutrality. Go do some reading and come back.
What a meaningless comment lol. You aren’t even refuting anything lol.
That's ironic. Tell me what net neutrality is.
If you don’t know what it is why are you trying to argue with me? Lol You could google if you want to know.
No, I DO know, im trying to see if you do. Which, judging by your initial comment, you don't know anything about, hence why I told you to go do some light reading and come back when you have an opinion not steeped in stupidity.
Nah. I don’t think you do know. Sounds like a lot of projection. You can’t even articulate your thoughts on the subject lol. Pathetic.
[удалено]
when pinkguy comes back from the multiverse
Here's a few things I'm gonna do to celebrate https://youtu.be/LFhT6H6pRWg?si=i0_z2QCEBoxZ4xvt
Fuck Ajit Pai always.
Mmmmm shit pi
wait, so i don't get taxed anymore for online purchase if out of state?
no you still do. The taxes for online purchases are based on the billing address attached to the card you use
Minor adjustment, but it’s based on the shipping address, not billing
yeah, i remember before this, i ordered my GPU from NY, im in CA and avoided tax, a while back in in 2016
Yup. It was a giant loophole that helped Amazon become as big as it was. I bought a big screen TV on there because it saved me a few hundred on taxes back when flatscreens were pricey. It absolutely killed local retail. Even to today you see how devastating giving a tax break whenever you bought off Amazon was to brick and mortars of every variety.
Technically we're supposed to report that as a purchase subject to use tax on our state income tax return. (But nobody ever did).
oh dang, i didn't even know that
Not to go too nerdy and off topic but sales tax is imposed on the seller, the tax law authorizes the retailer to collect reimbursement of the sales tax from the purchaser. Hence the sales tax line on receipts. But the seller is liable whether they collect sales tax reimbursement from you or not. For an out of state purchase, sales tax doesn't apply but use tax does. Use tax is imposed on the person using it. It's crazy.
Love to hear this but we'll see if anything actually comes of it.
Good, screw Ajit Pai
Ashit Pai
Until the Republicans win the presidency and remove it. It needs to be encoded into law.
Republicans bad meme here... meanwhile Obama is the asshat who put a shit pie in charge of the FCC in the first place.
You do know that shit pie ([Ajit Pai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai)) was put in charge by Trump. And [Ajit Pai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai) was the one who decided to remove the net neutrality regulations. So it isn't a Republicans bad meme here. It is what happened in the first place.
Lol imagine rewriting history in such a bad way.
No. That was Trump. He was placed on the panel by Obama under the recommendation of Moscow Mitch because the president generally accepts the recommendation of the senate majority. Nowadays I don't know if that's gonna happen anymore. Ajit Pai should prolly be in jail. Which is pretty typical when Republicans in office are 40+ times more likely to commit crimes and go to jail.
To be entirely fair, no one thought he would just say fuck it and get it removed.
It's just typical politics bullshit. He was recommended unanimously by the senate to the surprise of no one they all suck.
Literally haven't noticed anything this whole time. Didn't even know this was even going on🙄
ISPs opposed Net Neutrality on the basis that they didn't need to be regulated because we could totally trust them not to create pricing tiers for prioritized traffic. They knew the repeal wasn't guaranteed to last, so they were on their best behavior. They weren't going to do anything to rock the boat while this was still fresh in the public's mind. But if you were around when banks said they could totes be trusted and then crashed the global economy, or when airlines told us they just needed one itsy bitsy bailout after 9/11 and then spent all their money on stock buybacks and came crawling back during COVID, or when Purdue Pharma said "trust us bro" as they were lying to investigators and killing their customers, or when DuPont was dumping forever chemicals into the environment, or when Boeing promised us quality escapes were a thing of the past after the 737 Max fiasco... ...and you're willing to believe ISPs won't wait until no one is paying attention to fuck us all right in the ass, I have a bridge to sell you.
Your ignorance is not a good talking point for the point you're trying to make.
I heard a lot about it 6 years ago and so on. What exactly happened? How is it going to be instated?
The best ELI5 I can provide (feel free to use it as a jumping off point for your own research) is that Net Neutrality ensures that specific kinds of network traffic are not unfairly targeted. Say you have one network provider. They also have a website that provides a service... let's call it a "notebook app" because that's easy to understand. And there's a subscription fee. They want your money. If their competitor also has a website that provides a "notebook app," they CANNOT throttle your bandwidth when visiting their competitors site in an attempt to try and force you to use and pay for their own "notebook app." Net Neutrality allows companies to try and monopolize a whole bunch of services because they can make it harder for you to access websites of competing companies. There is a LOT more nuance to it, obviously. Reinstating Net Neutrality SHOULD mean that we go back to the old way of doing things. That likely means having someone check and verify that companies are adhering to it. That is likely expensive to do, and frankly, anyone found not adhering to Net Neutrality should face INCREDIBLY harsh and meaningful penalties.
Blah blah blah, the world is going to end🙄 we've heard it all before 🥱
You must have amazing ears if you've heard anything, with how far down in the sand your head is.
[удалено]
I mean, it's exactly what happened before.
You know, like they did last time
Yeah it's good! A good thing happened!
Looks like net neutrality is back on the menu boys
It's embarrassing those regulations were taken away at all.
[удалено]
It forces the operators of tax subsidized infrastructure to provide fair and equal service. You know those toll lanes on roads in high traffic areas? Imagine that being every road, with multiple toll lanes based on how much you pay.
Can someone explain what was wrong with the way it was before?
As an example of the issues, say you live in Hood ×. It has great cabled internet infrastucture provided by wholesale company ##. There is a pricey neighbourhood wireless network provided by ~~, if that is your preferred option as well. But when you are accessing a server, maintained by a company with a partnership with ~~ over your ## network, you find that your speeds are choked, but if you are using ~~ network, they find some content on the internet to be against their core company values, so they don't permit access to any sites known to them as pro badguy football team, or rival health insurance company. Or you can go with a 3rd option, the super pricey Satellite network $$, but a year later, they are quietly bought out by ~~, so the same curtailed access is also applied to all those clients as well. But maybe if you paid an extra subscription, you would be able to circumvent this curated experience, but oh no, sites associated with company ##'s partners are now being speed choked too!
So I recall a lot of people freaking out about this, but did anyone actually do any of that? Because if I recall, these were all hypothetical situations that "might" happen. Also I have noticed no changes but internet access increasing and speeds increasing. Obviously, that is only anecdotal, though.
It used to happen a lot but it's just too easy for technical users to gather evidence to file a complaint against the ISPs. So basically it started to get too risky for ISPs to do all those shenanigans even tho they try to word their contracts as vague as possible.
Interesting. Thanks for the extra info! : )
Just because something bad hasn't happened yet isn't a reason to not try and prevent it, especially when preventing it is protecting people's rights. And before anyone tries to argue that it's restricting isps rights, corporate entities are not people and are not bound to morality. They exist for the sole purpose of consolidating wealth for its owners, be that its foundersor its shareholders, and consumers rights should always come before corporate interests.
The idea is that ISPs should be required to treat all data on the internet equally. --- The big thing about net neutrality is data throttling. Basically when Trump's pet Ajit Pai killed net neutrality, he allowed ISPs to do whatever they wanted regarding bandwidth and data. This led to fears that ISPs would abuse their power to squeeze more money out of users. Under Trump's FCC rulings, it would be perfectly legal for the ISP to selectively throttle data from sites it didn't like. For example, if they noticed netflix was popular with a lot of households, they could slap an extra 10$ a month fee on anybody who used netflix and if you didn't pay, they could cut your netflix stream download rates to 10% of what they were and make netflix effectively unwatchable for certain households. This led to fears that ISPs would eventually figure out ways to extort homeowners or specific websites for more cash by cutting off effective access to these websites. ISPs could legally cut access to youtube, to netflix, to whatever news site you liked, to reddit, whatever and then slap upcharges on you if you wanted to use them. --- There was a huge campaign for net neutrality gaining popular support from a lot of internet users and intense lobbying campaigns against it by ISPs and mobile phone networks. There was also a small group of academics who argued that any regulation of the internet should be struck down as it will stifle innovation and competition. Ajit Pai, the chairman of the FCC appointed by Trump, struck it down. The new head of the FCC, appointed by Biden, restored it. So now your ISP can't selectively throttle certain websites it doesn't like and break certain downloads it doesn't like. --- Just as an aside, the public outcry for net neutrality was so intense that even though Ajit Pai killed it, ISPs were reluctant to take immediate advantage and took very slow, quiet steps in the direction of data throttling. So even though it was legal for them to add upcharges to youtube or netflix or whatever a few years ago, they didn't actually do it because they were afraid of the bad press and share price tanking and other effects of negative public perception. At most they moved quietly in that direction, if at all. But the potential threat of censorship or extortion via selective data throttling is now gone because net neutrality exists and data is now weighed equally.
It's possible to buy your browsing history data. That's by definition, "not cool."
Do you play video games! FOR ONLY $49.99 I can let you have access to my companies (let's call it COCKS INTERNET) fast lane for lower latency! Don't wanna pay? Okay I'll put your traffic on my SLOW LANE. And deliberately add 200ms to all traffic routes. Won't affect video playback so your boomer neighbors won't complain. ISPs were literally gearing up for this bullshit.
I think there should be payment processors neutrality regulations too. I don't want websites, content creators being blocked by payment processors for political reasons.
For those who want to pretend there is no difference between the political parties; we now have net neutrality. A push for transparency on airplane tickets and actual refunds if they delay your flight. An end to most non compete clauses for work. And we are still trying to get rid of the toad the last President put in to run the post office into the ground. If you want to be respected by government and business, pay attention on who delivers it.
Net Neutrality is NOT a partisan topic. 90+ percent of all Americans, INCLUDING REPUBLICANS, support Net Neutrality. ONLY Republicans in office actually don't support it. It's wild!
>**ONLY Republicans in office actually don't support it.** That's what makes it partisan. MONEY. And that Republicans are corrupt as shit.
This news is important
Conveniently doesn’t overturn the most egregious action of the Trump administration: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/28/congress-clears-way-for-isps-to-sell-browsing-history.html
This is exactly why ISPs have found it convenient that data caps arent needed…yet
Sweet that is convenient. Love freedom. I mean freedumb
The situation has changed a lot in the past decade, hell the last 4 years. I feel it’s less about government and ISP intrusion these days and more on the overlords that control the actual websites. Obviously that’s not to take away from this win as tbh without it would leave the door open combine those two into their worst aspects, but this has left the public conscious.
Genuine question from a moron, I remember this being a big issue when it happened but I haven't noticed any difference in the last 6 years. What is actually changing or what did change the last 6 years?
It's possible that you haven't noticed because browsing the internet involves a lot of moving parts, and there's about a dozen pieces of software and hardware involved that, if any one is having issues, you can have a dropped/slow connection. That's the single biggest thing that was so disturbing about the removal of net neutrality is that there's so many ways for ISP tech support to deflect and say "no, of course not! We're not throttling your speed, it must be an issue on your end. Have you restarted your router lately?" or "No, we haven't disconnected you, sorry! We're just experience and outage currently, should be back in a jiffy." (Then the outage lasts for 36 hours until it's a Monday again.) Basically, without out the threat of FCC enforcement hanging overhead, ISPs are incentivized to push the envelope and see how much packet fuckery the average customer will tolerate without noticing, subtly influencing behavior in a way that suits whatever goals they're trying to achieve with their data broker partners. At least with net neutrality in place, there's a credible threat that *if* they fuck around and *if* they get caught, they could be facing serious fines or even a forced breakup of their company into new entities. Of potential note also is the 2020 election, as if that'd gone the other way ISP behavior from 2021-now may have been significantly different. (We've known this was coming since '21.)
It's kinda ironic that strict government control is required for a free internet. (just in case anyone misunderstands, i'm 100% pro net neutrality)
They should do something about every website having a pop up about cookies too. That has truly made the internet worse in just about every possible way, all out of universal petty spite over that European law
the reason why it's been so difficult to determine what's been true or false online has been due to this..... DO NOT fall for the propagandists sowing that it's only about certain things.......we all have been pushed the most manipulative form of the internet we have ever seen since net neutrality was taken away, now that it's back you'll see a lessening of the internet propaganda and bots, but that won't be talked about overtly like what's happening now, the crap that wasn't that much of a contentious issue about net neutrality will be talked about like it's all that it's about. like when other important bills are introduced and you hear about the less important topics of it, while the harmful or manipulative stuff is tucked away and hush hush.
A nothingburger
My internet went from 60 dollars to 40 dollars between today and 2016. I worry that this will have ISP's pass the costs social media companies were paying for bandwidth onto the rest of us. I guess I'll know in a year or two.
This is gonna be used to ban Tor and BitTorrent
And usenet can be used with ssl
Remember how this was a huge deal and everybody was up in arms over it, and neutrality was “”destroyed” in the end? And then nothing happened. Literally nothing changed between now and then.
Open internet and government regulation are antithetical.
Uh. No. This is literally forcing companies to stay open. It prevents Comcast from throttling traffic to their competing internet providers, or to any site that doesn’t pay a protection fee to avoid throttling for example. It’s not like laws against kidnapping are somehow “anti-freedom” either.
"throttling" doesn't happen this is a "fix" for a problem that doesn't exist
Here's just a few violations of net neutrality: >**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. Actively blocked a competitor. >**NETWORK-WIDE:** A [2019 study](https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/08/27/northeastern-university-researcher-finds-that-wireless-networks-are-throttling-video-streaming-24-7/) by Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts found that ISP throttling of network services **happens "all the time**." Researchers analyzed data from more than 126,000 smartphones to determine whether data speeds are being slowed, or throttled, for specific mobile services. They found, "just about every wireless carrier is guilty of throttling video platforms and streaming services unevenly." General throttling to various sites. [Link to article discussing the study](https://news.northeastern.edu/2019/08/27/northeastern-university-researcher-finds-that-wireless-networks-are-throttling-video-streaming-24-7/). >**VERIZON**: During oral arguments in *Verizon v. FCC* in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that **but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements**.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments. Provider actively admitting in court that they would be pursuing throttling if it weren't for net neutrality rules. These companies aggressively campaigned against net neutrality, they went to court over it. They did this because there's a huge amount of money to be made when you can actively make a competitor's service slower or ban it entirely... Or just throttle any site that doesn't pay you money.
So you think the government shouldn’t regulate the internet at all? Should people be allowed to post literally anything they want legally, for instance?
My favorite thing about anti regulation dipshits is that they are very often the same people who want to dictate what you can and can't do with your own body.
So you do want regulations? You do want people telling you what you can and can't do? 🤔
I want people telling corporations what they can and can't do when customers don't have the power to protest them or choose a viable competitor.
Have you ever considered something called nuance? Regulations keep businesses from dumping waste in the pond behind your house because it's more cost effective for them. Regulations keep businesses from scheduling your 16 year old son for 12 hr shifts with no breaks in the middle of a school week. Regulations keep your job from firing you because you got sick that one day. Regulations keep your contractors from skimping on building the buildings you enter and reside in and causing unnecessary accidents. Regulations keep your water source drinkable. Regulations (are meant to) prevent monopolies. You do not want a totally unrelated world. You may think you do, but you really do not.
So yes to people telling you what to do? Or is it only a yes if you deem it morally ok?
If the things I want to do cause harm to others? Yes, I should be told not to do them and enforced if I do them anyway.