3 ms·

Because it kept them under the FCC's thumb as common carriers, forcing them into inefficiencies to comply with regulations. There's a ton of stuff I want the go

Because it kept them under the FCC's thumb as common carriers, forcing them into inefficiencies to comply with regulations. There's a ton of stuff I want the govt. more involved with on the internet: data privacy, clamping down on CSAM, section 230 issues... forcing ISPs to take a total hands off approach to every traffic source on their pipes? That wasn't one of them. NN harmed ISPs' incentive to innovate. I have since gotten faster speeds at cheaper prices. What would the NN crowd say if they had gotten their way, something vague about evil corporations and their profits?

BeFlatXIII 3y ago
Which specific inefficiencies would they be forced into as common carriers? Would they be ones I'd notice as a customer, or merely vague "reduced incentive to innovate"?
enragedcacti 3y ago
> I have since gotten faster speeds at cheaper prices. What would the NN crowd say if they had gotten their way Probably nothing because you would still get faster speeds at cheaper prices just like you had for the decades prior even though the regulatory environment was more strict. Without supporting evidence you might as well be claiming that the rooster crowing causes the sun to rise.
hedora 3y ago
Isn't the US still dead last among developed countries at "faster speeds at cheaper prices"? Places with common carrier setups do much better on average, as do US ISP's that focus on building out networks instead of spying on users and regulating traffic content.
op00to 3y ago
> forcing ISPs to take a total hands off approach to every traffic source on their pipes? That wasn't one of them. Verizon FIOS back in like 2014-2018 was in a constant pissing match with Netflix over who would pay for peering. Netflix wanted to pay for their half, and have Verizon pay for their half. Verizon wanted Netflix to pay not only the real costs of both sides, but a huge fee to offset "excess traffic". When Netflix (and Google, etc) decided to not pay, multi-megabyte speeds dropped to a few kilobytes a second. Hopping on a VPN to route the traffic around Verizon got speeds back to normal. ISPs should be forced to peer with whoever wants to pay for peering.
triceratops 3y ago
> forcing ISPs to take a total hands off approach to every traffic source on their pipes This is just another name for the "Section 230" issues you claim to care about.

BeFlatXIII 3y ago

Which specific inefficiencies would they be forced into as common carriers? Would they be ones I'd notice as a customer, or merely vague "reduced incentive to innovate"?

enragedcacti 3y ago

> I have since gotten faster speeds at cheaper prices. What would the NN crowd say if they had gotten their way Probably nothing because you would still get faster speeds at cheaper prices just like you had for the decades prior even though the regulatory environment was more strict. Without supporting evidence you might as well be claiming that the rooster crowing causes the sun to rise.

hedora 3y ago

Isn't the US still dead last among developed countries at "faster speeds at cheaper prices"? Places with common carrier setups do much better on average, as do US ISP's that focus on building out networks instead of spying on users and regulating traffic content.

op00to 3y ago

> forcing ISPs to take a total hands off approach to every traffic source on their pipes? That wasn't one of them. Verizon FIOS back in like 2014-2018 was in a constant pissing match with Netflix over who would pay for peering. Netflix wanted to pay for their half, and have Verizon pay for their half. Verizon wanted Netflix to pay not only the real costs of both sides, but a huge fee to offset "excess traffic". When Netflix (and Google, etc) decided to not pay, multi-megabyte speeds dropped to a few kilobytes a second. Hopping on a VPN to route the traffic around Verizon got speeds back to normal. ISPs should be forced to peer with whoever wants to pay for peering.

triceratops 3y ago

> forcing ISPs to take a total hands off approach to every traffic source on their pipes This is just another name for the "Section 230" issues you claim to care about.