4 ms·
> it since it was repealed in the first place.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 p
by 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 it since it was repealed in the first place.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 agoThis 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 agoIt does not disallow charging consumers for traffic used. But why should they be able to charge for it twice?