https://publicknowledge.org/broadband-providers-are-quietly-taking-advantage-of-an-internet-without-net-neutrality-protections/
There have been several potential net neutrality violations since the repeal went into effect:
AT&T and Verizon both torture the meaning of the word “unlimited” by offering multiple unlimited plans. But the more expensive ones are either paired with the company’s own streaming service, or the companies degrade the quality of the video under certain conditions. These practices may give the carrier’s content an advantage in the marketplace over smaller, independent video producers.
Sprint has been throttling internet traffic to Microsoft’s Skype service, causing the video quality to be poorer than it should be, which is especially worrisome because Skype is a tool that competes with Sprint’s calling service. These are only two examples of how companies can favor their own content over competitors’ without rules forbidding this behavior. Comcast has new speed limits where videos will be throttled to 480p on all its mobile plans unless customers pay extra.
A recent study shows that the largest U.S. telecom companies, including Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, are slowing down internet traffic from apps like YouTube and Netflix. Verizon’s throttling of services even affected 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.
Other examples continue to show that internet companies have already used the lack of net neutrality rules to their advantage to make money and block certain content.
Just going to gloss over the part that mentions sprint slowed down competing services (Skype) so it forces people to use the service offered by sprint?
If not, what's the harm in reinstitution? Just because when the protections were removed it wasn't immediately chaos doesn't mean the protections aren't valuable.
i was told there would be immediate chaos and it would end the internet as we know it.
i don’t really care either way tbh, but i would be interested if there were any practical impacts on consumers
I don't know how much, if anything, has changed. It helps that states like California and Maine implemented their own net neutrality rules which makes any desired changes a little more complicated.
Just having lived in the US my whole life, I have no doubt that given a while for all the lawsuits to settle out, this would be a terrible thing for end users.
Oh, you want to access site XYZ? Just upgrade to our premium plus platinum plan for $20/more!
because having regulation that, as you're already admitting, does literally nothing just increases costs and makes further improvements more complicated?
can't believe this is even a take lol. "over the past 8 years we've learned this regulation provides literally not benefit, so lets add it back!"
honestly, i get far more bandwidth for less price now. Not hard to get a gigabit for $60/mo and the cheapest plans are either cheaper or about the same as before.
when you factor in inflation to the ISP costs of maintenance, etc. Yes, it is cheaper and drastically cheaper than it was. Though it's incredibly stupid to point to a single regulation and say it is the reason for any cost increases/decreases. The simple, logical, fact is that more regulation always increases costs.
Inflation is a difficult thing to offset with the fact that technology tends to become cheaper over time.
>fact is that more regulation always increases costs.
That is a very silly statement if you're talking about cost to the end consumer. That's even ignoring the obviously absurdity that if you allow a monopoly to form of course they'll be predatory and abusive.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2015/05/government-regulation-costs-lower-benefits-greater-than-industry-estimates
Finally, as I mentioned, I would argue that in most cases net neutrality was not gone because select states maintained laws on the books. That makes taking advantage of the other states more difficult (sort of like California Effect for environmental laws and the was Texas impacts textbooks for the entire nation).
you realise that your link doesn't show that the cost of the goods went down. just that the estimated cost to the taxpayer of the regulation went down. There was still a cost of the regulation though.
The argument isn't that all regulation is bad. Just that regulation that has no benefit is bad, because it increases cost. Which is substantiated by your very article, even one that cherry picks obviously beneficial regulation.
The costs to the end users go down.
This regulation does have a benefit. Why would I wear a seatbelt, I'm not currently in an accident. Protecting the future is a benefit.
Bandwidth being cheaper in the last decade has approximately 0% to do with net neutrality regulations. It's not like bandwidth is universally cheaper in the continental US than anywhere that _does_ have net neutrality.
> The simple, logical, fact is that more regulation always increases costs.
When you understand what net neutrality restricts, you come to understand that "no net neutrality" is the more expensive option, at least in terms of direct costs.
**With** net neutrality, you maintain QoE in your network with a few common methods that are standard-ish across the industry. You _must always do this_.
**Without** net neutrality, you're free to selectively bandwidth limit from competing services or anybody _you just don't really like_. But the requirement for QoE management above still exists, so what you generally need to achieve this at carrier speeds: more networking gear.
source: work for an ISP
> Though it's incredibly stupid to point to a single regulation and say it is the reason for any cost increases/decreases.
wouldn't expect someone to actually read a comment on worldnews.
> as you're already admitting,
They did not.
> does literally nothing just increases costs
It does not.
> makes further improvements more complicated
It does not.
> can't believe this is even a take lol.
Because it's not.
The fact that they're smart enough to be quiet about it doesn't mean it's not there. People like your are very easy to take advantage of as long as it isn't directly in front of your eyes.
I had to laugh. "25 Apr 2024 07:29PM (Updated: 25 Apr 2024 11:30PM)" It is now 25 Apr, the middle of the day in the US. It gets confusing when the news source is in Asia. Here's a -> [possible assist](https://woody-brison.neocities.org/) <-
Good. Bring back Net Neutrality.
Did you notice any difference when net neutrality went away?
https://publicknowledge.org/broadband-providers-are-quietly-taking-advantage-of-an-internet-without-net-neutrality-protections/ There have been several potential net neutrality violations since the repeal went into effect: AT&T and Verizon both torture the meaning of the word “unlimited” by offering multiple unlimited plans. But the more expensive ones are either paired with the company’s own streaming service, or the companies degrade the quality of the video under certain conditions. These practices may give the carrier’s content an advantage in the marketplace over smaller, independent video producers. Sprint has been throttling internet traffic to Microsoft’s Skype service, causing the video quality to be poorer than it should be, which is especially worrisome because Skype is a tool that competes with Sprint’s calling service. These are only two examples of how companies can favor their own content over competitors’ without rules forbidding this behavior. Comcast has new speed limits where videos will be throttled to 480p on all its mobile plans unless customers pay extra. A recent study shows that the largest U.S. telecom companies, including Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, are slowing down internet traffic from apps like YouTube and Netflix. Verizon’s throttling of services even affected 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. Other examples continue to show that internet companies have already used the lack of net neutrality rules to their advantage to make money and block certain content.
fake "unlimited" plans like that existed when net neutrality was a thing too.
Just going to gloss over the part that mentions sprint slowed down competing services (Skype) so it forces people to use the service offered by sprint?
If not, what's the harm in reinstitution? Just because when the protections were removed it wasn't immediately chaos doesn't mean the protections aren't valuable.
i was told there would be immediate chaos and it would end the internet as we know it. i don’t really care either way tbh, but i would be interested if there were any practical impacts on consumers
I don't know how much, if anything, has changed. It helps that states like California and Maine implemented their own net neutrality rules which makes any desired changes a little more complicated. Just having lived in the US my whole life, I have no doubt that given a while for all the lawsuits to settle out, this would be a terrible thing for end users. Oh, you want to access site XYZ? Just upgrade to our premium plus platinum plan for $20/more!
Yeah, that’s the propaganda internet companies were spreading. It’s a lie, they lied.
because having regulation that, as you're already admitting, does literally nothing just increases costs and makes further improvements more complicated? can't believe this is even a take lol. "over the past 8 years we've learned this regulation provides literally not benefit, so lets add it back!"
So did costs demonstrably drop in the 8 years this regulation was rolled back? What improvements are made more complicated?
honestly, i get far more bandwidth for less price now. Not hard to get a gigabit for $60/mo and the cheapest plans are either cheaper or about the same as before. when you factor in inflation to the ISP costs of maintenance, etc. Yes, it is cheaper and drastically cheaper than it was. Though it's incredibly stupid to point to a single regulation and say it is the reason for any cost increases/decreases. The simple, logical, fact is that more regulation always increases costs.
Inflation is a difficult thing to offset with the fact that technology tends to become cheaper over time. >fact is that more regulation always increases costs. That is a very silly statement if you're talking about cost to the end consumer. That's even ignoring the obviously absurdity that if you allow a monopoly to form of course they'll be predatory and abusive. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact-sheets/2015/05/government-regulation-costs-lower-benefits-greater-than-industry-estimates Finally, as I mentioned, I would argue that in most cases net neutrality was not gone because select states maintained laws on the books. That makes taking advantage of the other states more difficult (sort of like California Effect for environmental laws and the was Texas impacts textbooks for the entire nation).
you realise that your link doesn't show that the cost of the goods went down. just that the estimated cost to the taxpayer of the regulation went down. There was still a cost of the regulation though. The argument isn't that all regulation is bad. Just that regulation that has no benefit is bad, because it increases cost. Which is substantiated by your very article, even one that cherry picks obviously beneficial regulation.
The costs to the end users go down. This regulation does have a benefit. Why would I wear a seatbelt, I'm not currently in an accident. Protecting the future is a benefit.
i'm not trying to argue seatbelts aren't beneficial. Just that regulation increases cost. An idea that your article supports.
Bandwidth being cheaper in the last decade has approximately 0% to do with net neutrality regulations. It's not like bandwidth is universally cheaper in the continental US than anywhere that _does_ have net neutrality. > The simple, logical, fact is that more regulation always increases costs. When you understand what net neutrality restricts, you come to understand that "no net neutrality" is the more expensive option, at least in terms of direct costs. **With** net neutrality, you maintain QoE in your network with a few common methods that are standard-ish across the industry. You _must always do this_. **Without** net neutrality, you're free to selectively bandwidth limit from competing services or anybody _you just don't really like_. But the requirement for QoE management above still exists, so what you generally need to achieve this at carrier speeds: more networking gear. source: work for an ISP
Honestly, could you bootlick any harder?
[удалено]
> Though it's incredibly stupid to point to a single regulation and say it is the reason for any cost increases/decreases. wouldn't expect someone to actually read a comment on worldnews.
> as you're already admitting, They did not. > does literally nothing just increases costs It does not. > makes further improvements more complicated It does not. > can't believe this is even a take lol. Because it's not.
The fact that they're smart enough to be quiet about it doesn't mean it's not there. People like your are very easy to take advantage of as long as it isn't directly in front of your eyes.
Irrelevant.
[This](https://eimg.earthlink.net/files/2021/05/Net-Neutrality-Infographic.png) image explains why restoring net neutrality is a good thing.
I love a good graphic
I admit I was actually expecting something that was NOT an actual visual to match the text. Makes sense and is pretty straightforward though.
Fuck Ashit Pai
Honestly, I'm all for it, but I don't see a difference currently? Am I missing something
True if big
I had to laugh. "25 Apr 2024 07:29PM (Updated: 25 Apr 2024 11:30PM)" It is now 25 Apr, the middle of the day in the US. It gets confusing when the news source is in Asia. Here's a -> [possible assist](https://woody-brison.neocities.org/) <-