FCC Explains How Net Neutrality Will Be Protected Without Net Neutrality Rules (arstechnica.com) 246
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission is still on track to eliminate net neutrality rules this Thursday, but the commission said today that it has a new plan to protect consumers after the repeal. The FCC and Federal Trade Commission released a draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) describing how the agencies will work together to make sure ISPs keep their net neutrality promises. After the repeal, there won't be any rules preventing ISPs from blocking or throttling Internet traffic. ISPs will also be allowed to charge websites and online services for faster and more reliable network access. In short, ISPs will be free to do whatever they want -- unless they make specific promises to avoid engaging in specific types of anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior. When companies make promises and break them, the FTC can punish them for deceiving consumers. That's what FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and Acting FTC Chair Maureen Ohlhausen are counting on. "Instead of saddling the Internet with heavy-handed regulations, we will work together to take targeted action against bad actors," Pai said in a joint announcement with the FTC today.
From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and friend (Score:5, Funny)
CEO: So we can do whatever the hell we want, so long as we promise nothing? DO IT!
Re: From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and fr (Score:5, Insightful)
You are one dumb fuck.
Re:From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and fri (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure why you resent the people that have put forth years and years of effort
Because they received subsidies and exclusive use of public right-of-ways, and now they are trying to abuse their monopoly positions.
Try putting in your own connection to the internet and then come back and complain
I don't have a legal right-of-way to do that. The market can't fix the problem when there is no market.
Net Neutrality should not be necessary. It is needed because the government screwed up, and sold/leased/gave-away the right-of-ways to a single vendor in most areas. What they should have done is either build, or required the first vendor to build, a publicly owned conduit, such as a 12" PVC pipe, that any bonded company could later use to pull cable or fiber. This would have cost little extra, since the cost of the pipe is low compared to the cost of the trenching. But it would have drastically lowered the barriers to entry, and allow real competition. I would also make upgrades much easier.
FedEx, UPS, and the Postal Service don't each require their own set of roads. We should not expect every ISP to dig their own trenches.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The system in the UK is a lot better, but also a long way short of perfect.
BT are the monopoly (the government originally built the early phone network, then sold it off) but are heavily regulated. Any other company can lease space in the phone exchanges and street side cabinets and pull their own cable through their ducts.
ISPs then peer with BT at the edges of their network and provide outbound bandwidth.
As a result just at my house I can pick my own bandwidth provider on top of:
24Mbit ADSL to the exchange
Re:From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and fri (Score:5, Funny)
publicly owned conduit, such as a 12" PVC pipe, that any bonded company could later use to pull cable or fiber.
The provider would respond by using 11.5" cables.
Re:From the boardroom of Charter, Comcast, and fri (Score:5, Informative)
I live in the Netherlands and I can choose between at least ten providers for my glass fibre connection at home. And still we have net neutrality here because all providers are the same when it comes to earning money.
Re: (Score:3)
I meant to say that we still have net neutrality laws here. ;)
Thanks for that "Edit" button, Slashdot
Comcast has already promised (Score:2)
Comcast already have a page Saying what they will do for an open network.
Now they did also take out a part saying essentially "no paid upgrades". But that does not matter because they HAVE pledged in the page I linked to, "We do not block, slow down or discriminate against lawful content.".
That means if they offer a "Netflix Boost" package or something like it, none of your traffic will be slowed if you decide not to subscribe, or the FCC would come after them.
Re: (Score:3)
Slowed compared to _what_, precisely?
"We're killing all our packages >10mbps. No grandfathering." So Netflix for you works just as fast as any other site, but its still slower than the 100mbps line you can get now. But don't worry, if you pay an extra $2/mo you can get Netflix boosted to 100mbps speeds.
Even if they don't drop current packages and just stagnate them instead as technology improves, you're going to end up in a similar situation a decade from now when you theoretically have 1gbps to your
Re: (Score:2)
Other countries do it right, and run rings around your corrupt set up. They're laughing their asses off at you, and rightly so.
Enjoy your fucking slashdot bolt-on, trumpflake. lol.
So if they DON'T promise not to... they can? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So if they DON'T promise not to... they can? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you are missing something...
A briefcase full of cash.
Re:So if they DON'T promise not to... they can? (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a point to this nonsense: ISPs who aren't siding with Comcast, and promised they will not shit on their customers, get heavily punished the moment something goes bad even due to a random outage. On the other hand, ISPs who are fully evil have free reign.
It'll suck to live in the US...
Re: (Score:2)
Really? They used to promise they wouldn't deliver any more than so many baud (amount varied with the year). One year they were promising to not deliver more than 230 kilobaud. (I.e., "up to ...")
I never heard of anybody trying to hold them to their promise.
Re:So if they DON'T promise not to... they can? (Score:4, Insightful)
because corporations have never reneged on promises made to the government and/or consumers
because verizon, comcast, et al have never made promises, then slowly backpedaled when the time came to pay up
because none of these telecoms have ever put out feelers to see what they can get away with in regards to violating NN
because without competition and / or regulators corporations have every incentive to forgo revenue because of ethics, morals, or the public good
because these people have not bought and sold the FCC
because corporations would never act in a manner that 'kicks the ladder out' from underneath competition.
you can trust them, promise.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom is Slavery (Score:5, Insightful)
Ignorance is Strength
Useless... (Score:5, Insightful)
"We'll protect consumers! We'll stop Nestle if they put poison in their bottled water. But there's no need for heavy handed regulation; we'll only do it if they say their bottled water doesn't have poison in it."
Re: Useless... (Score:2)
Sounds like the perfect opportunity for me to gobble up market share by releasing my new line of poison free water.
Re: (Score:3)
Competition (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, right. The feds will hold the ISPs to their word. Then the invisible hand of the market will take care of everything.
It's like these assholes think the free market fairy can just wave her little magic wand and make anything work.
Except they don't think that. They know you have only 1-2 choices for ISP, and if both suddenly decide to provide shittier service, you're fucked. They even know that you know that. They're just testing to see if this makes it in above the pain threshold of the American voter, because everything that you can suffer, you will be made to suffer.
Re:Competition (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a great idea. No longer being common carriers, every local municipality and private landowner whose property their wires pass through should feel free to demand access payment, and cut the lines if they refuse. Fair is fair - free rights of way exist for regulated common carriers serving a public interest, not for unregulated for-profit corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
the power co's own the polls they should change more for there use.
Re: (Score:2)
We own the polls, but refuse to do anything about it!
Re: (Score:2)
'The visible hand of the market', lies in print. What I don't get, is they know no one believes them but they tell the lies anyhow, it seems to be the thing with the US government now. They know, they absolutely know, no one believes this shit, yet they tell the lies any how, why, just why. The only thing I get is they actually want to look stupid and corrupt and somehow in the most stupendously arrogant fashion, it thinks it makes it look powerful by publicly telling known lies, that are not challenge by c
Re: (Score:2)
they know we have zero power, we have not risen up with pitchforks yet and we likely will not. EVAR.
they laugh at us middle class folks. we truly have no one to speak for us. they know it, they know we know it and they don't care at all, anymore.
they have their power and they know we can't take it away.
so, given that, why even PRETEND that they are serving us?
they don't. they are giving us all the middle finger and daring us to fight them.
MAYBE come election day we can turn things around. but I don't e
Re: (Score:3)
MAYBE come election day we can turn things around. but I don't even have hope for that. I feel fully screwed by the powerbase that is installed. they used to at least act like they cared. now, they don't even try to do that, anymore.
I'd like to think you're right, but you've clearly got countless millions of mouth breathers all to happy to vote for whoever seems to be the biggest cunt. And next time around, well - that'll be old Donnie again won't it. lol.
Re: (Score:2)
every local municipality and private landowner whose property their wires pass through should feel free to demand access payment,
They already do. It's called a "franchise fee".
free rights of way exist
No, they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see the problem. You don't understand the difference between cable TV and Internet service.
That's rich. I'm the one who keeps pointing out the difference, and the fact that NO ISP IN THE US HAS A MONOPOLY. The telco does, cable TV used to but no longer, ISPs never.
This is one place where the difference is moot. The cable TV system and the telephone system both have franchises and pay franchise fees. The laws are clear on this, also: there are no exclusive franchises, and municipalities MUST accommodate additional franchise applicants. If you want to be an ISP and want to get a franchise agreemen
Re: (Score:2)
In exactly the same way bicycles provide competition to automobiles.
Re: (Score:3)
Just be aware that any existing competing ISP will sue [slashdot.org] you [slashdot.org] (or worse [slashdot.org]) if you try [theverge.com].
Re: (Score:2)
There is no functioning market in broadband ISPs.
Back when we all used modems to get on the internet, and anyone could set up shop with a bank of modems, and any customer could call any ISP they wanted, sure.
Let's compare and contrast that with today's broadband ISPs.
Broadband requires copper or fiber to each premises. Physical limitations prevent competitors, for the same reason you wouldn't have multiple electric utilities with multiple electric grids and multiple outlets in your house for each one. Then
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, you may as well boycott the roads. They'll be thrilled, because your boycott is obviously doomed, and the very few silly enough to try it will curtail their own mobility (/ability to participate in society/democracy), hurting rather than helping their cause.
The only nuclear option is in the polling place in the next election. Any elected representative who isn't fighting this is out of office.
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea's looking to help out with the Nuclear Option.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you get on Reddit and promote this? If you could convince Redditors to get off the Internet, that'd be great.
Re: (Score:2)
I've said it before but it always bears reiterating:
Any plan that starts with "we all" or "everybody should" is a non-starter. You will never get enough people to bother.. even the ones who actually care still mostly won't bother if it requires more than a few mouse clicks.
50% of Comcast's customers will not give up the internet. There's no point even discussing it because the chance of it happening is zero, even if it would theoretically work as you state.
Re: (Score:2)
Many jobs don't "require" either. Agriculture and animal husbandry are just two that come to my mind readily. Do they help? Yes, but they aren't required. Believe it or not, there was a time when there was no Internet and things still got done. Maybe a little harder. Maybe a little longer but it still got done.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. You can live as a minimum wage farmhand fapping goats for $7.50/hr but if you want to do better than that in the world you're going to need to get online. Otherwise the guy down the road who does things faster is going to beat you to the punch every time.
Just like you can get by without a vehicle (not even public transport) and walk everywhere, but it severely limits your opportunities.
And yes the odd lucky person does manage to find those opportunities and manages to make out well despite their lac
The problem is they're already in too much pain (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They're just testing to see if this makes it in above the pain threshold of the American voter, because everything that you can suffer, you will be made to suffer.
48% of the country will willing to destroy the internet in hopes that another Democrat won't be able to nominate a Supreme Court Judge. There is not pain threshold that will surpass that.
Re: (Score:2)
When the fairy of the free market is allowed to wave3 her little magic wand it do work.
But this fairy is tied down on some basement of AT&T and have no chance to escape.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the local governments that aren't allowing competition.
Sure. Because the big ISPs like Comcast and AT&T and Verizon lobby the living hell out of them, make huge contributions to electoral campaigns, therefore they OWN politicians, who then do their will. So we have what see here today.
Re: (Score:2)
So demand better politicians who can't be bought. Use whatever constitutionally protected methods you have at your disposal to tell the tyrants in government that the American people will not stand for this.
Or keep bitching on the internet and see how nothing ever, ever changes.
The solution to corrupt politicians isn't unelected officials doing an end run around the politicians. Because then all you get is corrupt unelected officials. Fix the problem at the source or die trying. Stand up for your rights and
Re: (Score:2)
Sure except that:
a) Such people have to run for office in the first place in order to vote for them.
b) You have to know ahead of time whether they're corrupt or not.
c) You also have to know ahead of time whether they're corruptable.
There's not much you can do about (a) except hope. (b) is probably a little easier to at least make an educated guess about, providing the candidate had much of any public life prior to running. (c) is something that the candidate themselves may not even realize until they're s
Re:Competition (Score:5, Informative)
It still stuns me when people say stuff like this. But then I remember, maybe they weren't here, and didn't see what happened.
The net has always been neutral. From time to time an ISP would try to test the boundaries, and then we would stop them:
2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. [cnet.com]
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services [eff.org] without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked [fortune.com] because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. [wired.com] (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet [businessinsider.com] because it competed with their bullshit. [searchengineland.com] edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace [savetheinternet.com]
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android [washingtonpost.com] because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime [freepress.net] unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place. [savetheinternet.com]
2015 was just the FCC formalizing what we've had since the internet was first invented. The Internet only exists because it was always neutral. This is about breaking the entire premise of the internet, after decades of it working properly.
You think you can have meaningful competition in "last mile" for internet, any more than you can have it for electricity? Hilarious. Someone's going to start up a new ISP, somehow get right of way to everyone's last mile? That's your competitive marketplace?
"Oh but the local governments." I can give you another list of all the cities and towns full of people who can't get decent service at all, from any ISP, and then when they try to build their own, the big ISPs sue and harass them to stop them from doing it...
Re: (Score:3)
As to your "1-2 choices" comment, that's a last mile issue. Net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with that.
It actually has a lot to do with net neutrality. If there was real competition, neutrality wouldn't even be a question; neutral ISPs would get customers and restrictive double-dipping ISPs would not.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. The Internet grew just fine from 1987 when I first got access to it until the new rules were passed in 2015.
This is a fallacious point.
Up until circa 2006, the majority of ISP industry understood that their customers pay them for access to the whole internet. And that their role was to ship those bytes to the customers as fast as possible.
Then, a particular moron in the US uttered the immortal phrase "the internet is a series of tubes", and all hell started breaking loose. Soon, we had customers finding themselves unable to use services on the links they paid for, including BitTorrent, Netflix, etc. From this poi
Re: (Score:2)
You always had net neutrality. There just wasn't a word for it because it wasn't even something worth questioning prior to the introduction of deep packet inspection and similar content-based discrimination technologies.
Tom Wheeler (who was also a corporate shill, remember!) brought in NN regulations because he saw the direction major ISPs were wanting to take things if left to their own devices. Their goals haven't changed.
I don't blame the ISPs. Its their job to suck up as much money as possible regard
Re: (Score:2)
Markets are amazing and wonderful. They just don't solve everything. You can't have a free market in police forces. Free market in judicial systems. Free market in electricity. Etc. Some things, it doesn't quite work.
The Internet, classic example, only exists because of DARPA - centrally controlled, big government research.
There were lots of telecoms that could have provided a network like it, but all of them were thinking about "how can I charge the most for the least" instead of "let me make something com
The internet wasn't being regulated.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The companies that give us access to the internet were being regulated....its completely different.....Regulating the internet is telling companies what services are and are not allowed on the internet (think China or Iran).....Regulating companies about how they are allowed to behave when giving people access to the internet prevents abuse of the people that use the internet.
Exit strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Online Games -> LAN Parties
Wikipedia -> Encyclopedia/Library
Netflix Streaming -> Netflix DVDs
Ordering pizza with an app -> Call for delivery
Pornhub -> Strip club
CNN news -> National Enquirer
How good are you with neutrinos? (Score:2)
If you can shrink this amazing technology [rochester.edu] down to about the size and cost of a microwave oven, and provide high data rates with low latency, I'd say the problem is solved. A breakthrough like that would permanently eliminate the ability of corporations and governments alike to interfere with Internet communication.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd still have Pai and have the same situation even if Trump is gone. He'd do the same thing because the president doesn't have control over the FCC and Pai.
I'm not defending anything. I'm just pointing something out.
I think Pai is evil and he's been paid off. He's a puppet and nothing he can do will change that opinion.
internet 1.5 (Score:2)
We just roll it back a bit to internet 1.5. Everyone simply turns off their wireless encryption and changes their SSID to linksys. Then just multiplex all the signals in range.
Linksys will once again be the biggest and freeist ISP in the world!
Re: (Score:2)
After the 2020 elections .. we'll likely not have a Republican in the Whitehouse anymore
LOL. Such fantasy. If Trump gets nailed by Mueller (or chokes on his KFC or otherwise is prematurely removed from office) and Pence takes over, then _maybe_ the dems will have a chance in 2020.
If Trump survives until the next election though, there's a very high chance he'll take it again. The dems just don't have the teeth to stop him right now. Bernie Sanders, Justice democrats and other progressives might have a chance but they're getting junk-kicked by their own party's infighting and there's a very
Re: (Score:3)
Also stop calling it mesh, its a buzzword at this point. Just WISP.
The problem US wired broadband is facing now is pains most of civilized world went through 10-15 years ago. Worst part is that FCC stance is just a spin on correct market shape - the desired endgame result. But they skimp over how you get there,
bad actors (Score:2)
Oh come on (Score:2)
Without some type of rules or regulations you haven't even defined what a "bad actor" is.
Another "Hide the Salami" Moment.... (Score:2)
It's like he's yelling "LOOK OVER THERE" to distract us while he shovels verizon cash into his duffel bag.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Idgit Poophead is gonna watch out for companies doing something they shouldn't and tell them they're bad
No, it's not even that good. He's going to look out for companies doing evil things to see if they told you they're doing evil things. If they did, then all is well.
Other side of the coin (Score:2)
For example when Comcast charges $5/mo for access to facebook, a competitor can give that access free
THEN, when Trump gets kicked out.. the n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it _IS_ possible that when ISP's start to charge for content, that others will use this opporunity to rebrand services which are free... as a bonus..
For example when Comcast charges $5/mo for access to facebook, a competitor can give that access free ... hence everyone changes to that ISP cause they are now offering a better service... and on that.. that company publicly stated that service is free.. they start charging for it, then the FCC has them by the balls...
Must be nice to live somewhere you actually have a choice of ISPs,
I have one "high speed" choice, and live too far away for DSL, and don't have any phone lines into my house for dialup services.
I may just drop a fiber line or microwave link to a neighbor and toss them $20 a month for using their connection.
Re: (Score:2)
For example when Comcast charges $5/mo for access to facebook, a competitor can give that access free
What competitor? This is the US. There is no effective competition.
Re:Other side of the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you live in a country where there is actually a competition between ISPs going on. For many US people, there is no competitor to switch to. The joke is that the country that prides itself to be the pinnacle of the capitalist economy has more ISP monopolies than even China.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats the idea. Say a service is deranking results. Removing content. Removing comments. Banning and reporting users.
Federal NN gives protection for existing bad services to keep having their censored service been passed on equally by every ISP for free.
With NN removed an ISP can support a new service offering a better service that its consumers wan
Re: (Score:3)
What ISPs? My options are Comcast or paying way more for a high latency satellite connection. There's no competition most places.
Good! (Score:2)
we will work together to take targeted action against bad actors
So he just promised to turn himself in then and will prosecute himself if he doesn't?
THeir just repeating themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what they've been saying from the beginning. The correct summary is "you have no protection."
All they're saying is that when your ISP decides to screw you, all they have to do is tell you they're doing it and they're home free.
That solves nothing at all. It might be useful if you had the ability to use a different ISP with better policies -- but the odds are overwhelming that you don't.
This article is pathetic even by NN standards (Score:2)
In short, ISPs will be free to do whatever they want -- unless they make specific promises to avoid engaging in specific types of anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior.
Reality check, folks: Do you really, REALLY believe the FTC can only investigate and punish anticompetitive behavior by a company if the company had promised not to be anticompetitive?
"But, but... some tech journalist at Ars Technica said so!"
It's been stunning to me throughout this NN debate to see how quickly and freely people simply abandon their critical thinking skills when someone who (at best) doesn't understand a whit about what they're writing about pens a purely inflammatory article like this.
Re: (Score:2)
There's only one promise that matters (Score:4, Insightful)
"We reserve the right to change the terms of service at any time, without notice."
And they will never, ever, ever break that rule.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How? Easy to explain in 3 simple words: (Score:2)
Not at all.
Keeping promises vs. following the rules? (Score:2)
In short, ISPs will be free to do whatever they want -- unless they make specific promises to avoid engaging in specific types of anti-competitive or anti-consumer behavior. When companies make promises and break them, the FTC can punish them for deceiving consumers.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and Acting FTC Chair Maureen Ohlhausen are counting on. "Instead of saddling the Internet with heavy-handed regulations, we will work together to take targeted action against bad actors," Pai said ...
If ISPs make promises to behave as the "heavy-handed" rules would specify and they can be punished for breaking either, then how are having rules more onerous than relying on promises? (Hint: They're not.) Of course, if the ISPs don't make specific (or any) promises - or any that benefit the consumer -- then they're not "bad actors" and punishing those will be difficult. Oh, wait ...
Seems like Verizon is getting their money's worth with Pai.
all i have to say is (Score:2)
Empty (Score:2)
Proposals to the effect of "We'll protect NN via these other mechanisms." just makes me think, "If you want NN rules, leave it alone?"
Empty. That's all this is. Typical politician speak, hot air, words without meaning, may as well read the ingredients on a cereal box aloud. Would have learned more.
Remember folks, FCC is bought and paid for now. The only hope for restoring NN is pressuring congress to pass a new law. So harass your congresscritters. Don't even bother with the FCC, redirect all that rag
So, let me get this straight? (Score:2)
Corporate punishments in this day and age (Score:4, Insightful)
are rarely comparable to the infraction.
* * * :|
For your crimes of deceiving customers and making a profit of $1.21 Billion dollars, we hereby fine you for $10 Million dollars and your promise to never do it again. You must, of course, pinky swear it and agree to undergo sensitivity training
* * *
Until he shows me otherwise, I have zero faith in the new head of the FCC. We can certainly hope it plays out like the Tom Wheeler era but, as we all know, lightning rarely strikes the same place twice.
Dear Mr. Pai: (Score:3)
In what way is telling ISPs to not screw around with the data packets transmitted across their network "heavy handed regulation"? Is it an especially onerous process for ISPs to not install special equipment and software that prioritizes network traffic?
(Jeebus, he is such an idiot.)
Just Don't Lie, Hey? (Score:2)
Laughable (Score:2)
The Judge in the Verizon case said they could do nothing unless the ISPs were classified under title ii. Wheeler's FCC reclassified them under title ii. Remove them from title ii and they can do nothing.
This new FCC guy is evil. He thinks he can propagandize his way out of the massive backlash.
120 million people said keep net neutrality. That represents the equivalent of every family in America.
The current chairman will remove them from title ii and put them under the FTC. The FTC says they have no pow
Full text [spoiler alert] (Score:2)
My sweet little tot. There's a light on this tree that won't light on one side. So I'm taking it home to my workshop...
Ooops, wrong villain. Carry on.
Complexity leades to fraud (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Make sure your DVD drive is working, and make sure nothing you use depends on continuous access to the internet. I may dust off my dial-up modem, just in case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who knows how evil they'd get though.
Considering that they rank fairly high on the evil scale right now, my prediction is "extremely".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure it's overpriced compared to the rest of the world, but is your internet price actually going up? I live in a Comcast-only area where they can do whatever they want, but they've held the price steady at $50/mo for 6Mbps for a very long time.
Ever been to those countries (Score:2)
Where there's 30 separate competing telephone and cable companies' wires running along the street strung to the same set of poles, wrapped around the 4 separate electricity companies' wires popping and sparking in the humidity? It's not a pretty sight. A ridiculous waste of resources is what it is. One simple law that tells wire providers not to discriminate traffic is a lot more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't tell whether you're an idiot or a troll.
You run your experiments on a test bed, or a small isolated chunk. If *that* works, *then* you scale up to a pilot program on a larger chunk. Only if that works do you roll it out everywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
So to sum it up, if your pockets are deep enough, you can ensure no competition will arise. Throw money at ISPs and ensure that they put you on the fast lane while your competitor will look like your modem just turned into a 33.6kbit.
Re: (Score:2)
BIG ISP SAYS: "Nice website you have there, be a shame if something was to happen to it"
Re: (Score:2)
The social media that removes comments, bans accounts, reports users. Social media products and services the ISP users might not all need or want.
Under NN the ISP is forced to support services for free that its users might not want to pay for.
The regulations keep social media services from having to pay for networks. A free network for services that push censorship and deranking.
With NN rules removed that ISP can foc