9 ms·

.org is getting sold, all data plans have transfer caps, google is not even showing urls to mobile users anymore, yes things are going to hell.

Alupis 7y ago
I'm all for net neutrality, but 2 of the 3 things you listed were never going to be "protected" by net neutrality laws. Which highlights the problem with what Net Neutrality morphed into - it became something that meant everything and anything - not just "dumb pipes" like it originated as. Ask 3 different people what Net Neutrality means and you'll get 3 different answers. How do you legislate that and make everyone happy?
- duckMuppet 7y ago
  Exactly. This highlights the foolishness of "net neutrality", which is really just code for "my team should regulate the internet".
  - happytoexplain 7y ago
    It always seemed somewhat opposite to me - that opposition to net neutrality consists of a non-negligible percent of people acting only against something perceived to be liberal.
    - yspeak 7y ago
      The opposition comes from those who know and understand the free market and trust it to more justly and efficiently allocate and grow bandwidth resources better than an army of bueracrats trying to master plan technology infrastructure with century old regulations. Net neutrality is disingenuously named and intentionally misleading. There is no potato nuetrality - no one expects a grocer to sell 12 potatoes for the price of 6. Likewise, no one should expect video providers to pay the same for bandwidth as bloggers. All content providers and customers should pay for the bandwidth they use. Use a lot, pay a lot. Use a little pay a little. Bandwidth hogs (e.g., video providers like Netflix and YouTube) and their customers should not be subsidized by heavy handed, onerous, and cumbersome regulations that spread the cost of their bandwidth use on all users. Netflix, YouTube, etc. should not be subsidized by mind numbing regulations that are difficult to administer, difficult to interpret and comply with, invite litigation and divorce price from cost. Put the cost on, and adjust the price as appropriate, to the actual use. The result is more efficient pricing, better bandwidth allocation, and more transparency without the need for government interference, lawyers, and decades worth of litigation. Much better internet piping and bandwidth allocation will result.
- jayess 7y ago
  I don’t think any of those things have anything to do with net neutrality.
- bashinator 7y ago
  I'm not positive that this is an example, but it seems like it must be. Watching Netflix through Comcast's Xfinity box does not count against your data cap. Watching the same Netflix on the same TV over the same pipe using a computer instead, does.
  - JaRail 7y ago
    Data exemptions are absolutely an example of a net neutrality violation. Similar things, like exempting partnered streaming music services from mobile data plans, have been shot down in Canada.
  - acd10j 7y ago
    Yes, It is definitely a Net Neutrality violation, This type of zero rated discriminatory plans are illegal in some countries like in India.
bathtub365 7y ago
The .org sale was attempted but has been stalled: https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2020/02/19/dot_org_sale_isoc_advice/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2020/02/19/dot_org_sale_is...
anonsivalley652 7y ago
Mostly correct, essentially all new plans have transfer caps. I still have a vintage Verizon data plan that's bonafide unlimited. Data overage is gotcha-capitalism robbery.
- afiori 7y ago
  What I never properly understood is whether these caps appear anywhere on your contracts, if they don't then net neutrality should[1] not be necessary and if they do then it should not apply. [0] I guess I am wrong in believing this should is respected
  - crooked-v 7y ago
    Contracts with ISPs are whatever the ISP wants them to be at any time, because the US court system allows one-sided non-negotiable contracts that include "we can change this contract at any time" clauses. Also, if you want to sue over the changes in the contract... you can't, because the US court system allows those one-sided non-negotiable contracts to include "you can never sue us for anything and instead are required to go to arbitration with an arbitrator of our choosing" clauses.
    - gnicholas 7y ago
      The fundamental problem here isn't how contracts work in the US — it's that in many places there is effectively zero competition for wired broadband services. If there were meaningful competition, then consumers would have somewhere to turn. It doesn't matter what the contract says if you don't have any meaningful alternatives for service.
      - afiori 7y ago
        > It doesn't matter what the contract says if you don't have any meaningful alternatives for service. This is conditional on resources or on the possibility of a class action. In practice I agree that this condition is almost never satisfied.

Alupis 7y ago

I'm all for net neutrality, but 2 of the 3 things you listed were never going to be "protected" by net neutrality laws. Which highlights the problem with what Net Neutrality morphed into - it became something that meant everything and anything - not just "dumb pipes" like it originated as. Ask 3 different people what Net Neutrality means and you'll get 3 different answers. How do you legislate that and make everyone happy?

duckMuppet 7y ago
Exactly. This highlights the foolishness of "net neutrality", which is really just code for "my team should regulate the internet".
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  It always seemed somewhat opposite to me - that opposition to net neutrality consists of a non-negligible percent of people acting only against something perceived to be liberal.
  - yspeak 7y ago
    The opposition comes from those who know and understand the free market and trust it to more justly and efficiently allocate and grow bandwidth resources better than an army of bueracrats trying to master plan technology infrastructure with century old regulations. Net neutrality is disingenuously named and intentionally misleading. There is no potato nuetrality - no one expects a grocer to sell 12 potatoes for the price of 6. Likewise, no one should expect video providers to pay the same for bandwidth as bloggers. All content providers and customers should pay for the bandwidth they use. Use a lot, pay a lot. Use a little pay a little. Bandwidth hogs (e.g., video providers like Netflix and YouTube) and their customers should not be subsidized by heavy handed, onerous, and cumbersome regulations that spread the cost of their bandwidth use on all users. Netflix, YouTube, etc. should not be subsidized by mind numbing regulations that are difficult to administer, difficult to interpret and comply with, invite litigation and divorce price from cost. Put the cost on, and adjust the price as appropriate, to the actual use. The result is more efficient pricing, better bandwidth allocation, and more transparency without the need for government interference, lawyers, and decades worth of litigation. Much better internet piping and bandwidth allocation will result.
jayess 7y ago
I don’t think any of those things have anything to do with net neutrality.
bashinator 7y ago
I'm not positive that this is an example, but it seems like it must be. Watching Netflix through Comcast's Xfinity box does not count against your data cap. Watching the same Netflix on the same TV over the same pipe using a computer instead, does.
- JaRail 7y ago
  Data exemptions are absolutely an example of a net neutrality violation. Similar things, like exempting partnered streaming music services from mobile data plans, have been shot down in Canada.
- acd10j 7y ago
  Yes, It is definitely a Net Neutrality violation, This type of zero rated discriminatory plans are illegal in some countries like in India.

bathtub365 7y ago

The .org sale was attempted but has been stalled: https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2020/02/19/dot_org_sale_isoc_advice/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2020/02/19/dot_org_sale_is...

anonsivalley652 7y ago

Mostly correct, essentially all new plans have transfer caps. I still have a vintage Verizon data plan that's bonafide unlimited. Data overage is gotcha-capitalism robbery.

afiori 7y ago
What I never properly understood is whether these caps appear anywhere on your contracts, if they don't then net neutrality should[1] not be necessary and if they do then it should not apply. [0] I guess I am wrong in believing this should is respected
- crooked-v 7y ago
  Contracts with ISPs are whatever the ISP wants them to be at any time, because the US court system allows one-sided non-negotiable contracts that include "we can change this contract at any time" clauses. Also, if you want to sue over the changes in the contract... you can't, because the US court system allows those one-sided non-negotiable contracts to include "you can never sue us for anything and instead are required to go to arbitration with an arbitrator of our choosing" clauses.
  - gnicholas 7y ago
    The fundamental problem here isn't how contracts work in the US — it's that in many places there is effectively zero competition for wired broadband services. If there were meaningful competition, then consumers would have somewhere to turn. It doesn't matter what the contract says if you don't have any meaningful alternatives for service.
    - afiori 7y ago
      > It doesn't matter what the contract says if you don't have any meaningful alternatives for service. This is conditional on resources or on the possibility of a class action. In practice I agree that this condition is almost never satisfied.