3 ms·

If net neutrality isn't the thing protecting Americans from some kind of internet dystopia where data for each service is treated and billed differently, then w

If net neutrality isn't the thing protecting Americans from some kind of internet dystopia where data for each service is treated and billed differently, then what is? There must be some law preventing it, because knowing companies, they'll do the basest things they can get away with, and I'm sure they'd love to do this. This is what I mean, from Indonesia: https://www.traveltomtom.net/media/cached-resp-images/images/nieuwe_indeling/artikels/indonesia/best_indonesia_tourist_sim_card/telkomsel_indonesia_prepaid_sim_card_plans_2023_1200.webp?version=1a012a97344c0269cdde3c062b3752d4 https://www.traveltomtom.net/media/cached-resp-images/images...

wmf 3y ago
ISPs want to make as much money as possible but there are multiple ways to do that. Once ISPs discovered that "fast lanes" and similar ideas are bad PR they moved on to peering extortion. Unfortunately, activists haven't really adapted and are still mostly talking about QoS and protocol blocking.
- Buttons840 3y ago
  Ads are bad PR, raising prices are bad PR, yet we see plenty of both.
Spooky23 3y ago
They make money selling all sorts of stuff. Wireless was never neutral, but tech and the marginal competitive pressures kept it ok. My Spectrum connection is 40% more expensive and 0% faster than it was in 2013. My Wireless spend is 20% lower and 2-5x faster. Between the industry astroturfing and the splinterd advocacy, "net neutrality" is almost as meaningless as "fake news".
- falcrist 3y ago
  > Between the industry astroturfing and the splinterd advocacy, "net neutrality" is almost as meaningless as "fake news". I have to disagree with this. There's a very clear meaning, and the 2015 FCC rules for wired connections put it succinctly. No blocking or throttling of legal content, and no paid prioritization. The wikipedia article has more information, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
falcrist 3y ago
> some kind of internet dystopia where data for each service is treated and billed differently I feel like this particular topic (while important) distracts from a much more disturbing possibility: blocking or throttling legal content for political purposes. It has been pretty rare, but it's not unheard of. Given the number of companies that can block your access to a given site (DNS, ISP, backbone, webhost, etc), I think having some regulatory or statutory protections for online speech is in order. Net Neutrality (in it's 2015 FCC formulation among others) is basically that.

wmf 3y ago

ISPs want to make as much money as possible but there are multiple ways to do that. Once ISPs discovered that "fast lanes" and similar ideas are bad PR they moved on to peering extortion. Unfortunately, activists haven't really adapted and are still mostly talking about QoS and protocol blocking.

Buttons840 3y ago
Ads are bad PR, raising prices are bad PR, yet we see plenty of both.

Spooky23 3y ago

They make money selling all sorts of stuff. Wireless was never neutral, but tech and the marginal competitive pressures kept it ok. My Spectrum connection is 40% more expensive and 0% faster than it was in 2013. My Wireless spend is 20% lower and 2-5x faster. Between the industry astroturfing and the splinterd advocacy, "net neutrality" is almost as meaningless as "fake news".

falcrist 3y ago
> Between the industry astroturfing and the splinterd advocacy, "net neutrality" is almost as meaningless as "fake news". I have to disagree with this. There's a very clear meaning, and the 2015 FCC rules for wired connections put it succinctly. No blocking or throttling of legal content, and no paid prioritization. The wikipedia article has more information, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

falcrist 3y ago

> some kind of internet dystopia where data for each service is treated and billed differently I feel like this particular topic (while important) distracts from a much more disturbing possibility: blocking or throttling legal content for political purposes. It has been pretty rare, but it's not unheard of. Given the number of companies that can block your access to a given site (DNS, ISP, backbone, webhost, etc), I think having some regulatory or statutory protections for online speech is in order. Net Neutrality (in it's 2015 FCC formulation among others) is basically that.