5 ms·

Granted, Google is getting worse but a quick search will outline the reason: "Net Neutrality policies are a national standard by which we ensure that broadband

Granted, Google is getting worse but a quick search will outline the reason: "Net Neutrality policies are a national standard by which we ensure that broadband internet service is treated as an essential service. It prohibits internet service providers from blocking, throttling, or engaging in paid prioritization of lawful content. By classifying broadband service as a “telecommunications” service under Title II of the law, the FCC restores its oversight of internet service outages, national security threats in broadband networks, and consumer protection and regains key tools to promote broadband deployment." I am admittedly not educated about Sri Lanka, but here in the US, companies fuck people over regularly. And as such, it's often important to even the playing the field. If you want to create your own search engine, but Google decides to partner with every major ISP in the country and pay to throttle your site you'd probably find the whole "Why do we need net neutrality" arugment pretty convincing. It's hard for me ot understand the position that we should just let these enormous companies do whatever they want and either you're a paid shill commenting on posts like this or just honestly don't have a clue.

bandrami 2y ago
Hold on, that isn't really an accurate description is it? I'm originally from the US, and carriers have always been able to block or throttle customers for basically any reason. That's not a net neutrality question. Net neutrality is about where (to use an American example) Netflix can run fiber directly to Comcast in return for Comcast not metering their customers' Netflix traffic.
- swores 2y ago
  It's also about throttling - Net Neutrality doesn't mean ISPs can't ever throttle users, it means they can't do it differently depending what the users are accessing, either everything is throttled or nothing is.
  - bandrami 2y ago
    Wait even under net neutrality ISPs can absolutely throttle nodes based on what people are accessing; that's the basis of QoS, and it's entirely legal to provide QoS guarantees. What net neutrality forbids is preferentially running backbone traffic. But like Comcast has always been able to throttle tor or Gnutella.
    - mexicocitinluez 2y ago
      No idea what Tor and Gnutella have to do with throttling by Google as it's a totally different issues that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You're comparing apples to oranges.
      - bandrami 2y ago
        Google isn't an ISP (except I guess in Mountain View)
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  That's more because in the USA, net neutrality was very short lived ? It's not like ISPs cannot block/throttle customers at all, but what they are allowed to do is heavily regulated under net neutrality.
  - bandrami 2y ago
    But I really feel like the discourse here is ignoring the provider side. What net neutrality has meant is that Facebook is not allowed to subsidize data for its users. Like I said here in Sri Lanka I buy a data package for my phone and the data limits don't include Meta properties at all because Meta subsidizes our data packages, which is (or was until today) illegal in the US
    - BlueTemplar 2y ago
      Right, but this being such a bare minimum is why it's probably not mentioned as much ?
      - bandrami 2y ago
        I don't know that it's the "bare minimum"? Zuck wanted to loft a dirigible over India and beam free 4G service to it from the masses that was limited to Meta properties, Wikipedia, and government sites, and meter for the rest of the traffic. The plan was rejected notionally on net neutrality grounds (substantively on Indian nationalist grounds, but let's leave that aside for now). What's wrong with Zuck doing that?
- 542354234235 2y ago
  Using home electricity as an analogy, “electric neutrality” means that I pay for how much electricity I use, regardless of what I use it for. My electric company can’t come in and charge me one rate for the electricity my washer and dryer use, and another for what my TV and computer use. They can’t make a deal with LG to give a “discount” to anyone with an LG refrigerator on the electricity used by it (that everyone else would absorb the cost of). They can’t “throttle” my car charger if they decide I’ve been using it “too much”. Having that allows me much greater freedom of choice, not only in the brands I choose, but in the overall way I live my life at home. Net neutrality is the same thing. I don’t want to be constrained on what search engine isn’t blocked, or which streaming service isn’t throttled, or what service made a deal to get priority over something else I might want to use. If I have 500 mbps speed, I want 500 mbps, regardless whether I’m using it for Meta, Youtube, or farmersonly. If I have a data cap, I get to decide what to use it for.
  - bandrami 2y ago
    So, what is the downside of (e.g.) of Samsung being able to subsidize the part of your power bill that pays for a Samsung refrigerator? (Obvs realistically that is harder to meter than data, but give me some rope here.)
    - 542354234235 2y ago
      > Having that allows me much greater freedom of choice, not only in the brands I choose, but in the overall way I live my life at home. It would be one more way for already large and powerful companies to monopolize things and squeeze out competition. Having neutral electricity means that no company, industry, or type of product is able to constrain or manipulate my freedom of choice through the universal and ubiquitous electrical service. it isn't a situation where I feel I would be blocked from using electricity for certain thing, like running a home server. It is that I understand all too well that I am not immune to that manipulation, and over time, I would be steered and constrained and I would be worse off. Regulating the energy efficiency of devices sold has actually saved me, and everyone money. And it does it with the goal of helping consumers, not in giving one company another lever to increase it’s profits. That is what I want, regulation that maximized consumer choice, while improving the products and services they receive.
- mexicocitinluez 2y ago
  It's THE description of what it is, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
  - bandrami 2y ago
    It's A description, specifically an inaccurate one. ISPs can and do throttle content for multiple reasons all the time. What net neutrality forbade was content providers paying the Tier 1s for their customers' traffic.

bandrami 2y ago

Hold on, that isn't really an accurate description is it? I'm originally from the US, and carriers have always been able to block or throttle customers for basically any reason. That's not a net neutrality question. Net neutrality is about where (to use an American example) Netflix can run fiber directly to Comcast in return for Comcast not metering their customers' Netflix traffic.

swores 2y ago
It's also about throttling - Net Neutrality doesn't mean ISPs can't ever throttle users, it means they can't do it differently depending what the users are accessing, either everything is throttled or nothing is.
- bandrami 2y ago
  Wait even under net neutrality ISPs can absolutely throttle nodes based on what people are accessing; that's the basis of QoS, and it's entirely legal to provide QoS guarantees. What net neutrality forbids is preferentially running backbone traffic. But like Comcast has always been able to throttle tor or Gnutella.
  - mexicocitinluez 2y ago
    No idea what Tor and Gnutella have to do with throttling by Google as it's a totally different issues that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You're comparing apples to oranges.
    - bandrami 2y ago
      Google isn't an ISP (except I guess in Mountain View)
BlueTemplar 2y ago
That's more because in the USA, net neutrality was very short lived ? It's not like ISPs cannot block/throttle customers at all, but what they are allowed to do is heavily regulated under net neutrality.
- bandrami 2y ago
  But I really feel like the discourse here is ignoring the provider side. What net neutrality has meant is that Facebook is not allowed to subsidize data for its users. Like I said here in Sri Lanka I buy a data package for my phone and the data limits don't include Meta properties at all because Meta subsidizes our data packages, which is (or was until today) illegal in the US
  - BlueTemplar 2y ago
    Right, but this being such a bare minimum is why it's probably not mentioned as much ?
    - bandrami 2y ago
      I don't know that it's the "bare minimum"? Zuck wanted to loft a dirigible over India and beam free 4G service to it from the masses that was limited to Meta properties, Wikipedia, and government sites, and meter for the rest of the traffic. The plan was rejected notionally on net neutrality grounds (substantively on Indian nationalist grounds, but let's leave that aside for now). What's wrong with Zuck doing that?
542354234235 2y ago
Using home electricity as an analogy, “electric neutrality” means that I pay for how much electricity I use, regardless of what I use it for. My electric company can’t come in and charge me one rate for the electricity my washer and dryer use, and another for what my TV and computer use. They can’t make a deal with LG to give a “discount” to anyone with an LG refrigerator on the electricity used by it (that everyone else would absorb the cost of). They can’t “throttle” my car charger if they decide I’ve been using it “too much”. Having that allows me much greater freedom of choice, not only in the brands I choose, but in the overall way I live my life at home. Net neutrality is the same thing. I don’t want to be constrained on what search engine isn’t blocked, or which streaming service isn’t throttled, or what service made a deal to get priority over something else I might want to use. If I have 500 mbps speed, I want 500 mbps, regardless whether I’m using it for Meta, Youtube, or farmersonly. If I have a data cap, I get to decide what to use it for.
- bandrami 2y ago
  So, what is the downside of (e.g.) of Samsung being able to subsidize the part of your power bill that pays for a Samsung refrigerator? (Obvs realistically that is harder to meter than data, but give me some rope here.)
  - 542354234235 2y ago
    > Having that allows me much greater freedom of choice, not only in the brands I choose, but in the overall way I live my life at home. It would be one more way for already large and powerful companies to monopolize things and squeeze out competition. Having neutral electricity means that no company, industry, or type of product is able to constrain or manipulate my freedom of choice through the universal and ubiquitous electrical service. it isn't a situation where I feel I would be blocked from using electricity for certain thing, like running a home server. It is that I understand all too well that I am not immune to that manipulation, and over time, I would be steered and constrained and I would be worse off. Regulating the energy efficiency of devices sold has actually saved me, and everyone money. And it does it with the goal of helping consumers, not in giving one company another lever to increase it’s profits. That is what I want, regulation that maximized consumer choice, while improving the products and services they receive.
mexicocitinluez 2y ago
It's THE description of what it is, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
- bandrami 2y ago
  It's A description, specifically an inaccurate one. ISPs can and do throttle content for multiple reasons all the time. What net neutrality forbade was content providers paying the Tier 1s for their customers' traffic.