10 ms·

I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the

I'm fully in support of net neutrality, but I'm somewhat surprised they're restoring it, as I have not really heard a peep about it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!). So, I would be beyond shocked if this was an election year issue of substance. What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? Has the lack of net neutrality caused issues that I just have not heard about?

notatoad 3y ago
>What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? there's usually some principled people in the government, and every now an then when an issue is obscure enough they can manage to get something done without the other side caring too much. what's the impetus for blocking this?
- dantheman 3y ago
  it's not needed, the fcc doesnt have the authority, keeping the government away from internet is a good thing
  - polygamous_bat 3y ago
    > keeping the government away from internet is a good thing See, I would have agreed more with this if most of our internet infrastructures were not controlled by three megacorps with more power than many small to medium sized economies in the world. As it stands, the only valid option is to fight fire with fire.
    - barney54 3y ago
      And what has happened after the Trump FCC un-wound the previous net neutrality rules? Did the internet go to hell?
      - Dou8Le 3y ago
        No, likely in anticipation of the rules being changed back. Better question for you. Why did ISPs attempt to fake support for repealing Net Neutrality [0][1], as well as spend money lobbying Congress? You'll note in that article that there were also fake comments in support of Net Neutrality, apparently mostly generated by one individual, but many, many fake comments against it from ISPs that even used real people's identities [2]. These aren't the actions a company takes if they don't have incentive. [0] https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-issues-report-detailing-millions-fake-comments-revealing https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comments-to-the-federal-communications-commission-about-net-neutrality-contain-many-inaccuracies-and-duplicates/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comme... [2] https://mashable.com/article/fake-net-neutrality-comment-fcc https://mashable.com/article/fake-net-neutrality-comment-fcc
      - kelnos 3y ago
        No, because California and 12 other states, as well as quite a few local governments, passed their own net neutrality laws. The larger, national ISPs were pretty hamstrung: they couldn't really follow the NN laws in the places where they existed, but then impose non-neutral terms in the places where they didn't, without running into lots of trouble. A federal rule is good, though, to harmonize things, even if the state/local laws were more or less already doing the job.
    - JacobThreeThree 3y ago
      If anti competitive corporations are the problem, why not pursue these monopolistic companies using the existing anti-trust laws? Why does there need to be a new law with the FCC involved?
  - LastTrain 3y ago
    In some libertarian dream the FCC lacks authority...
    - komali2 3y ago
      The American libertarian dream confuses me because unlike libertarians abroad (where it's a synonym with "anarchist") they stop with political authority, and seem to have no issue with corporate authority. The ISP business in the USA is very clearly an oligopoly with the top players colluding. Not sure how a rugged individual is supposed to fight back against that.
      - int_19h 3y ago
        The usual claim in right libertarian circles is that monopolies only arise because they can bribe the government into passing laws that enable them to exist.
        pseudalopex 3y ago
        Or everyone is happy with the monopoly.
        int_19h 3y ago
        Yep, the Peter Thiel school of thought. But people like that tend to not stay libertarian in any meaningful sense for long; to quote Thiel himself, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible". That's how you get neo-reactionaries, basically.
        mindslight 3y ago
        You only get neo-reactionaries out of people that define their freedom as including their abilities to coerce others, and then get frustrated that said "freedom" is being impinged. They think they're morally right because they've defined away the coercion. Personally, around the time the whole Unqualified Reservations / NRx thing was starting up, I considered myself a libertarian with more rightist sympathies. Reading UR and its classification of left versus right is actually what pushed me back into seeing that my philosophy is more aligned with the left. Axiomatic framing and fundamentalism simply doesn't work (cf Gödel). Systems need to be judged on their effective results regardless of their implementations' terminology.
  - EasyMark 3y ago
    Is keeping the government away from roads a good thing? From helping poor people with basic necessities of life? Keeping children out of workhouses?
    - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
      Where did anyone say that?
      - kelnos 3y ago
        I think the point the person you're replying to was trying to make is that the line drawn between things the government should have a hand in vs. things they should leave alone is fairly arbitrary, and is a matter of opinion. So saying the government should be kept away from the internet is just one place to draw the line, and it's perhaps interesting to know of other places where someone might draw that line, in order to get a baseline, and determine if it's even worth trying to have a productive discussion with them about government regulation.
        4RealFreedom 3y ago
        The way you positioned the argument is helpful and conducive to a conversation. Just throwing out scenarios and expecting me to derive meaning isn't productive.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Ah yes, keeping the US government away from the thing they created in the first place. That's seems workable, sure.
    - SamPatt 3y ago
      The internet was explicitly privatized and deregulated in 1995 by the Clinton Administration. It has flourished under private sector control without net neutrality. A 30 year track record of success, yet people are still clambering to have it back under government control.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
andygeorge 3y ago
> lack of net neutrality caused issues given it's all still just regional ISP monopolies, there is decided _not_ a lack of issues
throwup238 3y ago
> What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? Has the lack of net neutrality caused issues that I just have not heard about? The rule was always going to get reversed eventually. Several major factions within the Democratic party are strong supporters of net neutrality and they've become increasingly more powerful over the last two decades, at the expense of its detractors like the media conglomerates and ISPs. It only took this long because of the Administrative Procedure Act [1] which regulates how agencies make rules. They can't just flip flop the second a new political party gains power because of judicial review - they have to follow a process (though they probably also timed this for an election year). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act
gwbas1c 3y ago
> nothing about the internet changed since then I had an extended outage and could not contact my ISP. They kept sending me to a bot, and I had no idea if anyone actually knew about the outage or was doing anything to fix it.
- callalex 3y ago
  That has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.
  - EGG_CREAM 3y ago
    If you read the article, it does have to do with the ruling. Part of regulating ISPs as a utility is that they can regulate/enforce rules on how ISPs handle outages.
RRWagner 3y ago
I was one of the "peeps" testifying to the California Assembly committee that promptly made Net Neutrality a CA thing even if not yet Federal.
- romwell 3y ago
  Which is why most consumers didn't notice. CA making something a rule makes it a very strong incentive to follow it nationwide.
Cody-99 3y ago
>So, I would be beyond shocked if this was an election year issue of substance. Because it isn't an election year issue. This has been in the works since at least 2022.https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-a-comeback-again-in-2022/ https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-... The rule making process takes time! >From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!). ... What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? Has the lack of net neutrality caused issues that I just have not heard about? IMO it seems likely ISPs knew the rules were likely to come back so they avoided most of the practices that would generate outrage (throttling streaming and other popular services unless you pay an additional fee). I have no doubt if they could get away with it they would haha. Many providers did roll out zero rating programs. As for why this is important just because ISPs aren't currently doing it on a large scale doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to prohibit it. We already know what happens in the long run when ISPs are allowed to double dip https://restofworld.org/2024/south-korea-twitch-exit-problems-stream/ https://restofworld.org/2024/south-korea-twitch-exit-problem...
- pseudalopex 3y ago
  > IMO it seems likely ISPs knew the rules were likely to come back so they avoided most of the practices that would generate outrage (throttling streaming and other popular services unless you pay an additional fee). And several states passed their own laws.
  - rixthefox 3y ago
    [flagged]
- tivert 3y ago
  > The rule making process takes time! No, it doesn't take this much time. It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. IIRC, there's been a flurry of rule-making just now because they are running up against a Congressional Review Act deadline.
callalex 3y ago
What changed for me is that my home internet provider (Comcast) implemented an overly-burdensome impossible data cap that I can only get rid of if I agree to use their router with deep packet inspection, ad injection, and more.
- julienb_sea 3y ago
  Fwiw you can set their router to bridge mode and use your own. It is probably still doing some traffic analysis but certainly no ad injection. This is what I do to get unlimited data without paying their exorbitant standalone fee.
  - thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
    This is a completely out of reach solution for most people.
    - callalex 3y ago
      If configuring a router into bridge mode is too burdensome of a step, then Comcast is actually providing that person a service by forcibly managing equipment for them at that point. If only the stalking component of it could be made illegal with proper privacy laws instead of piecemeal app bans.
      - LastTrain 3y ago
        What a weird way to think about it. I often wonder why I have to take those brain-dead ethics courses at work, then someone like you comes along and reminds me. Comcast can only fully take advantage of people who don't have the technical skills to not get fucked, that is what is happening.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      I doubt it's out of reach for someone who already wants to use their own equipment, like the person upthread who brought up this topic.
  - 3y ago
BikiniPrince 3y ago
I believe they are only restoring it to enact “security” aka more spying. I would like to see what the actual text of these policies are. The administration has its tentacles into too many tech companies already.
- nobody9999 3y ago
  >I would like to see what the actual text of these policies are. They aren't a secret: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf
feoren 3y ago
[flagged]
- thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
  Yeah also the non compete stuff is absolutely fantastic even if it only affects those with middle class income. Shits happening again and I'm here for it. Constant gridlock in passing laws is terrible.
- thegrim33 3y ago
  Your first post in this thread containing partisan flamebait getting flagged into destruction wasn't enough for you? You toned down the cultish political speech about 30% but posted effectively the same comment again. Your posts do not create useful discourse, they just create political flame wars with echo chamber 1 fighting echo chamber 2. [Edit] Looking through your history you seem to often make similar political posts making biased, (in my opinion hate-based), partisan assertions and having people reply to you telling you this. There's Reddit/Twitter/etc for you to do this sort of thing.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    As someone who was fortunate enough to see their previous comment, it sure wasn't wrong, though it sure was inconvenient for the Temporarily Embarrassed Billionaires here who are happy to sleepwalk the rest of us into fascism if it means making another buck. As for rooting through their comment history, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, my friend. So far yours is "cars good", "California bad", "won't someone think of the poor companies (unironically)", "public transit bad", "everyone does propaganda so it's okay when Russia does it". Is this comment hate-based, in your opinion?
  - feoren 3y ago
    There's wrong, and then there's "not appropriate for the site". I accept that I do veer into the "not appropriate for this site" category sometimes, and I understand and accept why I get flagged when I do so. But getting flagged is not evidence of being wrong. (And, as much as I wish I were wrong, I am unfortunately not.) I also disagree that it's not useful discourse -- ignoring the problem certainly isn't useful either. But I wouldn't post about it in Club Penguin and I understand if people don't want me to post about it in HN. It's a tricky line, because the article under discussion is inherently political. It's one thing to get flagged for off-topic in a tech thread, but it's harder for me to know where the line is when everyone else in the discussion is also talking politics.
bko 3y ago
The proponents of net neutrality thought without it ISPs would just arbitrarily block data and require bribes from data providers to even serve up their data. In reality, no net neutrality would mean things like Netflix not counting as data on your mobile plan through some kind of sponsorship, or free basic internet like Wikipedia and news at a lower cost. I don't support legislation that bans something undertaken voluntarily unless it proves to be very harmful and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation.
- Barrin92 3y ago
  > and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation. Given that large states like California and New York passed independent net neutrality laws and there were continuing legal battles in almost half of all US states I don't think you can draw many conclusions. ISP behavior very likely never changed because they knew they were just one decision away from having to comply. Sort of proven by this very decision we're commenting on.
  - bko 3y ago
    Here is something I found. Seems like "unfair" since they're favoring their videos but as a user its okay by me since I get something for free and preventing them from not counting their content doesn't mean they'll necessarily just drop their data cap. If ISPs just behave because it's always just a ruling away, then I'm fine with that status quo. I don't want unintended consequences from invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/verizons-mobile-video-wont-count-against-data-caps-but-netflix-will/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/veriz...
    - acdha 3y ago
      > invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us What specific legal principle do you think would lead to this? Network neutrality is the polar opposite of that - it’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have restaurant health codes because the government could start requiring us to eat peas.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aprilnya 3y ago
I have a friend in Texas who had some issues because of net neutrality being gone (huge throttling on some sites)
spamizbad 3y ago
ISPs predicted this would happen and didn't want to have to revert back everything.
mastre_ 3y ago
This reminds me when I got a “survey” email from ERCOT, the entity that oversees Texas’ “deregulated” energy provider racket. I was ready to lay into them hard, but starting with the second or third questions, it was clear that all they were concerned about was to _sell_ new products — ZERO interest in hearing feedback of how terrible the system for end users, they just want to sell some sort of outage insurance product (“would you pay $5 to be protected from a 30 minute or less outage one time?”). I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t a less than noble ulterior motive behind this push, although I’m hoping for the best. Sounds like the main reason it may actually make sense to bring it back from their PoV is because ISPs have to deal with individual state laws.
- tacocataco 3y ago
  > I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t a less than noble ulterior motive behind this push "Oh your power is out? Guess you should have purchased a ElektriciT+ subscription! YOUR FAULT!"
mgiampapa 3y ago
Because California saved it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_Protection_and_Net_Neutrality_Act_of_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P... If any of the companies that wanted to exploit the lack of FCC enforced net neutrality did business with California they would have had a big problem.
- eftychis 3y ago
  This can't be stated enough. They could not get away with it. Otherwise, they would. There is little to no competition in the segment. And that must change.
- nashashmi 3y ago
  the neutrality rule would be applying to ISPs. Those would be local to California. Outside of California, we would see the effects of no net neutrality
  - acdha 3y ago
    Yes, but the big ISPs would have a much harder time explaining the difference. Imagine them going into court or Congress having to explain why they needed to shakedown Netflix in NYC but not LA or explain why it suddenly became cost-prohibitive to run a network when you cross the border into Oregon or Arizona.
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      Without NN, under what charge would they be going to court?
      - acdha 3y ago
        Challenges to a state or local law, any kind of unfair competition or price gouging suit brought by consumers, any sort of anti-competitive behavior suit brought by one of the companies they try to double-charge or compete with?
  - 3y ago
advael 3y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if your experience hadn't changed: Net neutrality rules were gutted at the same time as the internet has been largely consolidated, so major players paying for "fast lanes" and the ISPs throttling other kinds of traffic is, statistically, likely to have gone mostly unnoticed by you as an end user. If you have internet use cases beyond that which is endorsed by corporate tech, you will likely have noticed a stark difference. I've found that things like SSH tunnels have been less reliable, that there is noticeable slowdown when I find myself on a smaller website (Like those maintained by a shrinking minority of local vendors and artists who don't do everything on instagram). The most obnoxious thing about shady degradations of infrastructure in the name of profit is that these changes are often made in a way that's hard to specifically pinpoint, and by entities that make it somewhere between infuriating and futile to address any kind of complaint to.
sabarn01 3y ago
This should be a reminder that almost all dire consequences from any government action are overblown. I also think the net neutrality was an important thing 15 years ago for how the internet worked then it has little practical value now.
dmix 3y ago
> it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then I got downvoted heavily years ago on HN for predicting this when it was making the rounds There is almost no evidence of a tiered model either working or being legitimately attempted, even globally in places without these rules. The only evidence I was ever given was some tiny Portugese mobile network entirely serving the lowest end of the market, and even that barely made a dent in the local market. I want a free internet as much as anyone but people like to fear monger scenarios they invent in their heads, and pointing at vaguely defined wealthy people conspiring to do so behind the scenes, even when theres little evidence it was ever a plausible market nor technically coherent scenario. But I guess people fear that sort of chaos where every detail isn't in a neat box clearly defined by the government, even if it means finite regulatory time/resources gets redirected from pre-existing tangible issues like privacy and spam.
- dadjoker 3y ago
  This rule does, however, effectively regulate the prices that broadband providers charge consumers, as it disallows high-volume customers from being charged a higher periodic rate than lower-volume consumers. If that's not regulating prices, it's not at all clear what might be. Just like Obamacare, another gift from the left that has worked out so well...
  - int_19h 3y ago
    It does not disallow charging consumers for traffic used. But why should they be able to charge for it twice?
areoform 3y ago
It feels like everyone has short memories. Net neutrality abuse did indeed happen, a few notable incidents, — Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile slowed down YouTube + Netflix traffic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-and-netflix-throttled-by-carriers-research-finds https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-a... — Verizon throttles so much that the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s ability to provide emergency services during the California wildfires. "The fire department experienced slowed down speeds on their devices and had to sign up for a new, expensive plan before speeds were restored." https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttle... — CenturyLink blocked content to insert their ads, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/centurylink-blocks-internet-access-falsely-claims-state-law-required-it/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/centurylink-bloc... Claiming that nothing happened is false. A lot did happen. A lot of people have been fighting very hard to preserve internet access and the internet has been degraded.
- lupusreal 3y ago
  From that firefighter article: > Even when net neutrality rules were in place, all major carriers imposed some form of throttling on unlimited plans when customers used more than a certain amount of data. They argued that it was allowed under the rules' exception for "reasonable network management." But while such throttling is generally applied only during times of network congestion, the Santa Clara Fire Department says it was throttled at all times once the device in question went over a 25GB monthly threshold. > Even if Verizon's throttling didn't technically violate the no-throttling rule, Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision to deregulate the broadband industry eliminated that complaint option and also limited consumers' rights to sue Internet providers over unjust or unreasonable behavior. Soft caps for "unlimited" plans and content-neutral QoS don't seem like net neutrality violations as I understand it. If they started slowing down one internet service while allowing another on the same plan to run at full speed, that would be another story.
- nonethewiser 3y ago

notatoad 3y ago

>What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? there's usually some principled people in the government, and every now an then when an issue is obscure enough they can manage to get something done without the other side caring too much. what's the impetus for blocking this?

dantheman 3y ago
it's not needed, the fcc doesnt have the authority, keeping the government away from internet is a good thing
- polygamous_bat 3y ago
  > keeping the government away from internet is a good thing See, I would have agreed more with this if most of our internet infrastructures were not controlled by three megacorps with more power than many small to medium sized economies in the world. As it stands, the only valid option is to fight fire with fire.
  - barney54 3y ago
    And what has happened after the Trump FCC un-wound the previous net neutrality rules? Did the internet go to hell?
    - Dou8Le 3y ago
      No, likely in anticipation of the rules being changed back. Better question for you. Why did ISPs attempt to fake support for repealing Net Neutrality [0][1], as well as spend money lobbying Congress? You'll note in that article that there were also fake comments in support of Net Neutrality, apparently mostly generated by one individual, but many, many fake comments against it from ISPs that even used real people's identities [2]. These aren't the actions a company takes if they don't have incentive. [0] https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-issues-report-detailing-millions-fake-comments-revealing https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2021/attorney-general-james-... [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comments-to-the-federal-communications-commission-about-net-neutrality-contain-many-inaccuracies-and-duplicates/ https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2017/11/29/public-comme... [2] https://mashable.com/article/fake-net-neutrality-comment-fcc https://mashable.com/article/fake-net-neutrality-comment-fcc
    - kelnos 3y ago
      No, because California and 12 other states, as well as quite a few local governments, passed their own net neutrality laws. The larger, national ISPs were pretty hamstrung: they couldn't really follow the NN laws in the places where they existed, but then impose non-neutral terms in the places where they didn't, without running into lots of trouble. A federal rule is good, though, to harmonize things, even if the state/local laws were more or less already doing the job.
  - JacobThreeThree 3y ago
    If anti competitive corporations are the problem, why not pursue these monopolistic companies using the existing anti-trust laws? Why does there need to be a new law with the FCC involved?
- LastTrain 3y ago
  In some libertarian dream the FCC lacks authority...
  - komali2 3y ago
    The American libertarian dream confuses me because unlike libertarians abroad (where it's a synonym with "anarchist") they stop with political authority, and seem to have no issue with corporate authority. The ISP business in the USA is very clearly an oligopoly with the top players colluding. Not sure how a rugged individual is supposed to fight back against that.
    - int_19h 3y ago
      The usual claim in right libertarian circles is that monopolies only arise because they can bribe the government into passing laws that enable them to exist.
      - pseudalopex 3y ago
        Or everyone is happy with the monopoly.
        int_19h 3y ago
        Yep, the Peter Thiel school of thought. But people like that tend to not stay libertarian in any meaningful sense for long; to quote Thiel himself, "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible". That's how you get neo-reactionaries, basically.
        mindslight 3y ago
        You only get neo-reactionaries out of people that define their freedom as including their abilities to coerce others, and then get frustrated that said "freedom" is being impinged. They think they're morally right because they've defined away the coercion. Personally, around the time the whole Unqualified Reservations / NRx thing was starting up, I considered myself a libertarian with more rightist sympathies. Reading UR and its classification of left versus right is actually what pushed me back into seeing that my philosophy is more aligned with the left. Axiomatic framing and fundamentalism simply doesn't work (cf Gödel). Systems need to be judged on their effective results regardless of their implementations' terminology.
- EasyMark 3y ago
  Is keeping the government away from roads a good thing? From helping poor people with basic necessities of life? Keeping children out of workhouses?
  - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
    Where did anyone say that?
    - kelnos 3y ago
      I think the point the person you're replying to was trying to make is that the line drawn between things the government should have a hand in vs. things they should leave alone is fairly arbitrary, and is a matter of opinion. So saying the government should be kept away from the internet is just one place to draw the line, and it's perhaps interesting to know of other places where someone might draw that line, in order to get a baseline, and determine if it's even worth trying to have a productive discussion with them about government regulation.
      - 4RealFreedom 3y ago
        The way you positioned the argument is helpful and conducive to a conversation. Just throwing out scenarios and expecting me to derive meaning isn't productive.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Ah yes, keeping the US government away from the thing they created in the first place. That's seems workable, sure.
  - SamPatt 3y ago
    The internet was explicitly privatized and deregulated in 1995 by the Clinton Administration. It has flourished under private sector control without net neutrality. A 30 year track record of success, yet people are still clambering to have it back under government control.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

andygeorge 3y ago

> lack of net neutrality caused issues given it's all still just regional ISP monopolies, there is decided _not_ a lack of issues

throwup238 3y ago

> What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? Has the lack of net neutrality caused issues that I just have not heard about? The rule was always going to get reversed eventually. Several major factions within the Democratic party are strong supporters of net neutrality and they've become increasingly more powerful over the last two decades, at the expense of its detractors like the media conglomerates and ISPs. It only took this long because of the Administrative Procedure Act [1] which regulates how agencies make rules. They can't just flip flop the second a new political party gains power because of judicial review - they have to follow a process (though they probably also timed this for an election year). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act

gwbas1c 3y ago

> nothing about the internet changed since then I had an extended outage and could not contact my ISP. They kept sending me to a bot, and I had no idea if anyone actually knew about the outage or was doing anything to fix it.

callalex 3y ago
That has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality.
- EGG_CREAM 3y ago
  If you read the article, it does have to do with the ruling. Part of regulating ISPs as a utility is that they can regulate/enforce rules on how ISPs handle outages.

RRWagner 3y ago

I was one of the "peeps" testifying to the California Assembly committee that promptly made Net Neutrality a CA thing even if not yet Federal.

romwell 3y ago
Which is why most consumers didn't notice. CA making something a rule makes it a very strong incentive to follow it nationwide.

Cody-99 3y ago

>So, I would be beyond shocked if this was an election year issue of substance. Because it isn't an election year issue. This has been in the works since at least 2022.https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-a-comeback-again-in-2022/ https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/net-neutrality-will-make-... The rule making process takes time! >From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then (my experience did not upgrade or downgrade). People stopped talking about it, there weren't major protests, news about it even largely disappeared from the front page of HN (!). ... What, then, is the impetus for restoring the net neutrality rules, given there is always some political cost to any action like this? Has the lack of net neutrality caused issues that I just have not heard about? IMO it seems likely ISPs knew the rules were likely to come back so they avoided most of the practices that would generate outrage (throttling streaming and other popular services unless you pay an additional fee). I have no doubt if they could get away with it they would haha. Many providers did roll out zero rating programs. As for why this is important just because ISPs aren't currently doing it on a large scale doesn't mean steps shouldn't be taken to prohibit it. We already know what happens in the long run when ISPs are allowed to double dip https://restofworld.org/2024/south-korea-twitch-exit-problems-stream/ https://restofworld.org/2024/south-korea-twitch-exit-problem...

pseudalopex 3y ago
> IMO it seems likely ISPs knew the rules were likely to come back so they avoided most of the practices that would generate outrage (throttling streaming and other popular services unless you pay an additional fee). And several states passed their own laws.
- rixthefox 3y ago
  [flagged]
tivert 3y ago
> The rule making process takes time! No, it doesn't take this much time. It's just that net neutrality wasn't a priority for the Biden administration, so they dragged their feet until the very last minute. IIRC, there's been a flurry of rule-making just now because they are running up against a Congressional Review Act deadline.

callalex 3y ago

What changed for me is that my home internet provider (Comcast) implemented an overly-burdensome impossible data cap that I can only get rid of if I agree to use their router with deep packet inspection, ad injection, and more.

julienb_sea 3y ago
Fwiw you can set their router to bridge mode and use your own. It is probably still doing some traffic analysis but certainly no ad injection. This is what I do to get unlimited data without paying their exorbitant standalone fee.
- thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
  This is a completely out of reach solution for most people.
  - callalex 3y ago
    If configuring a router into bridge mode is too burdensome of a step, then Comcast is actually providing that person a service by forcibly managing equipment for them at that point. If only the stalking component of it could be made illegal with proper privacy laws instead of piecemeal app bans.
    - LastTrain 3y ago
      What a weird way to think about it. I often wonder why I have to take those brain-dead ethics courses at work, then someone like you comes along and reminds me. Comcast can only fully take advantage of people who don't have the technical skills to not get fucked, that is what is happening.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    I doubt it's out of reach for someone who already wants to use their own equipment, like the person upthread who brought up this topic.
- 3y ago

BikiniPrince 3y ago

I believe they are only restoring it to enact “security” aka more spying. I would like to see what the actual text of these policies are. The administration has its tentacles into too many tech companies already.

nobody9999 3y ago
>I would like to see what the actual text of these policies are. They aren't a secret: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf

feoren 3y ago

[flagged]

thisgoesnowhere 3y ago
Yeah also the non compete stuff is absolutely fantastic even if it only affects those with middle class income. Shits happening again and I'm here for it. Constant gridlock in passing laws is terrible.
thegrim33 3y ago
Your first post in this thread containing partisan flamebait getting flagged into destruction wasn't enough for you? You toned down the cultish political speech about 30% but posted effectively the same comment again. Your posts do not create useful discourse, they just create political flame wars with echo chamber 1 fighting echo chamber 2. [Edit] Looking through your history you seem to often make similar political posts making biased, (in my opinion hate-based), partisan assertions and having people reply to you telling you this. There's Reddit/Twitter/etc for you to do this sort of thing.
- kibwen 3y ago
  As someone who was fortunate enough to see their previous comment, it sure wasn't wrong, though it sure was inconvenient for the Temporarily Embarrassed Billionaires here who are happy to sleepwalk the rest of us into fascism if it means making another buck. As for rooting through their comment history, those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, my friend. So far yours is "cars good", "California bad", "won't someone think of the poor companies (unironically)", "public transit bad", "everyone does propaganda so it's okay when Russia does it". Is this comment hate-based, in your opinion?
- feoren 3y ago
  There's wrong, and then there's "not appropriate for the site". I accept that I do veer into the "not appropriate for this site" category sometimes, and I understand and accept why I get flagged when I do so. But getting flagged is not evidence of being wrong. (And, as much as I wish I were wrong, I am unfortunately not.) I also disagree that it's not useful discourse -- ignoring the problem certainly isn't useful either. But I wouldn't post about it in Club Penguin and I understand if people don't want me to post about it in HN. It's a tricky line, because the article under discussion is inherently political. It's one thing to get flagged for off-topic in a tech thread, but it's harder for me to know where the line is when everyone else in the discussion is also talking politics.

bko 3y ago

The proponents of net neutrality thought without it ISPs would just arbitrarily block data and require bribes from data providers to even serve up their data. In reality, no net neutrality would mean things like Netflix not counting as data on your mobile plan through some kind of sponsorship, or free basic internet like Wikipedia and news at a lower cost. I don't support legislation that bans something undertaken voluntarily unless it proves to be very harmful and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation.

Barrin92 3y ago
> and the last few years have proven that we don't need this legislation. Given that large states like California and New York passed independent net neutrality laws and there were continuing legal battles in almost half of all US states I don't think you can draw many conclusions. ISP behavior very likely never changed because they knew they were just one decision away from having to comply. Sort of proven by this very decision we're commenting on.
- bko 3y ago
  Here is something I found. Seems like "unfair" since they're favoring their videos but as a user its okay by me since I get something for free and preventing them from not counting their content doesn't mean they'll necessarily just drop their data cap. If ISPs just behave because it's always just a ruling away, then I'm fine with that status quo. I don't want unintended consequences from invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/verizons-mobile-video-wont-count-against-data-caps-but-netflix-will/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/veriz...
  - acdha 3y ago
    > invasive legislation that could eventually be used to control what ISPs can show us What specific legal principle do you think would lead to this? Network neutrality is the polar opposite of that - it’s like arguing that we shouldn’t have restaurant health codes because the government could start requiring us to eat peas.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

aprilnya 3y ago

I have a friend in Texas who had some issues because of net neutrality being gone (huge throttling on some sites)

spamizbad 3y ago

ISPs predicted this would happen and didn't want to have to revert back everything.

mastre_ 3y ago

This reminds me when I got a “survey” email from ERCOT, the entity that oversees Texas’ “deregulated” energy provider racket. I was ready to lay into them hard, but starting with the second or third questions, it was clear that all they were concerned about was to _sell_ new products — ZERO interest in hearing feedback of how terrible the system for end users, they just want to sell some sort of outage insurance product (“would you pay $5 to be protected from a 30 minute or less outage one time?”). I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t a less than noble ulterior motive behind this push, although I’m hoping for the best. Sounds like the main reason it may actually make sense to bring it back from their PoV is because ISPs have to deal with individual state laws.

tacocataco 3y ago
> I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t a less than noble ulterior motive behind this push "Oh your power is out? Guess you should have purchased a ElektriciT+ subscription! YOUR FAULT!"

mgiampapa 3y ago

Because California saved it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_Protection_and_Net_Neutrality_Act_of_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P... If any of the companies that wanted to exploit the lack of FCC enforced net neutrality did business with California they would have had a big problem.

eftychis 3y ago
This can't be stated enough. They could not get away with it. Otherwise, they would. There is little to no competition in the segment. And that must change.
nashashmi 3y ago
the neutrality rule would be applying to ISPs. Those would be local to California. Outside of California, we would see the effects of no net neutrality
- acdha 3y ago
  Yes, but the big ISPs would have a much harder time explaining the difference. Imagine them going into court or Congress having to explain why they needed to shakedown Netflix in NYC but not LA or explain why it suddenly became cost-prohibitive to run a network when you cross the border into Oregon or Arizona.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Without NN, under what charge would they be going to court?
    - acdha 3y ago
      Challenges to a state or local law, any kind of unfair competition or price gouging suit brought by consumers, any sort of anti-competitive behavior suit brought by one of the companies they try to double-charge or compete with?
- 3y ago

advael 3y ago

I wouldn't be surprised if your experience hadn't changed: Net neutrality rules were gutted at the same time as the internet has been largely consolidated, so major players paying for "fast lanes" and the ISPs throttling other kinds of traffic is, statistically, likely to have gone mostly unnoticed by you as an end user. If you have internet use cases beyond that which is endorsed by corporate tech, you will likely have noticed a stark difference. I've found that things like SSH tunnels have been less reliable, that there is noticeable slowdown when I find myself on a smaller website (Like those maintained by a shrinking minority of local vendors and artists who don't do everything on instagram). The most obnoxious thing about shady degradations of infrastructure in the name of profit is that these changes are often made in a way that's hard to specifically pinpoint, and by entities that make it somewhere between infuriating and futile to address any kind of complaint to.

sabarn01 3y ago

This should be a reminder that almost all dire consequences from any government action are overblown. I also think the net neutrality was an important thing 15 years ago for how the internet worked then it has little practical value now.

dmix 3y ago

> it since it was repealed in the first place. From my perspective, nothing about the internet changed since then I got downvoted heavily years ago on HN for predicting this when it was making the rounds There is almost no evidence of a tiered model either working or being legitimately attempted, even globally in places without these rules. The only evidence I was ever given was some tiny Portugese mobile network entirely serving the lowest end of the market, and even that barely made a dent in the local market. I want a free internet as much as anyone but people like to fear monger scenarios they invent in their heads, and pointing at vaguely defined wealthy people conspiring to do so behind the scenes, even when theres little evidence it was ever a plausible market nor technically coherent scenario. But I guess people fear that sort of chaos where every detail isn't in a neat box clearly defined by the government, even if it means finite regulatory time/resources gets redirected from pre-existing tangible issues like privacy and spam.

dadjoker 3y ago
This rule does, however, effectively regulate the prices that broadband providers charge consumers, as it disallows high-volume customers from being charged a higher periodic rate than lower-volume consumers. If that's not regulating prices, it's not at all clear what might be. Just like Obamacare, another gift from the left that has worked out so well...
- int_19h 3y ago
  It does not disallow charging consumers for traffic used. But why should they be able to charge for it twice?

areoform 3y ago

It feels like everyone has short memories. Net neutrality abuse did indeed happen, a few notable incidents, — Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile slowed down YouTube + Netflix traffic. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-and-netflix-throttled-by-carriers-research-finds https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-a... — Verizon throttles so much that the Santa Clara County Fire Department’s ability to provide emergency services during the California wildfires. "The fire department experienced slowed down speeds on their devices and had to sign up for a new, expensive plan before speeds were restored." https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttle... — CenturyLink blocked content to insert their ads, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/centurylink-blocks-internet-access-falsely-claims-state-law-required-it/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/centurylink-bloc... Claiming that nothing happened is false. A lot did happen. A lot of people have been fighting very hard to preserve internet access and the internet has been degraded.

lupusreal 3y ago
From that firefighter article: > Even when net neutrality rules were in place, all major carriers imposed some form of throttling on unlimited plans when customers used more than a certain amount of data. They argued that it was allowed under the rules' exception for "reasonable network management." But while such throttling is generally applied only during times of network congestion, the Santa Clara Fire Department says it was throttled at all times once the device in question went over a 25GB monthly threshold. > Even if Verizon's throttling didn't technically violate the no-throttling rule, Santa Clara could have complained to the FCC under the now-removed net neutrality system, which allowed Internet users to file complaints about any unjust or unreasonable prices and practices. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's decision to deregulate the broadband industry eliminated that complaint option and also limited consumers' rights to sue Internet providers over unjust or unreasonable behavior. Soft caps for "unlimited" plans and content-neutral QoS don't seem like net neutrality violations as I understand it. If they started slowing down one internet service while allowing another on the same plan to run at full speed, that would be another story.
nonethewiser 3y ago