563
submitted 11 months ago by Xatolos@reddthat.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Sanctus@lemmy.world 313 points 11 months ago

ISPs need to fucken die. Internet should be provided as a social service.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 168 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

We already paid for the god damn infrastructure ourselves and the invention of the Internet itself through our tax dollars. Why the hell do ISPs get to profit from it infinitely with almost no meaningful regulation to protect you and me (who, again, already paid for this shit several times over).

Fun fact: ISPs have received almost half a TRILLION dollars in kickbacks funded by taxpayer dollars on top of everything else. Regulatory capture is a real problem.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 90 points 11 months ago

Also, they took billions of government dollars, promising to build out infrastructure, and then....just didn't. With zero consequences.

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 47 points 11 months ago

Not just billions, hundreds of billions.

[-] mhague@lemmy.world 41 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

And because corporations aren't people, here's the CEOs that ran things during 2014:

Hans Vestberg (b 1965) Verizon

Randall Lynn Stephenson (b 1960) AT&T

Glen F Post (b 1952) CenturyLink

We let these people act with impunity in our society but it doesn't need to be this way. Look at how Elon, who thrives on attention, flips out over being tracked and heckled. They stole hundreds of billions from us but we don't even act like it.

[-] SexualPolytope@lemmy.sdf.org 39 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

In a rich man’s house there is no place to spit but his face.
-Diogenes

One of the greatest quotes of all time.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 13 points 11 months ago

If only there was some tool available to the government to hold these companies accountable to an agreement. Like some way to document what needs to be done in exchange for the money and be able to receive the money back if that isn't performed. Oh well.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

That's rank communism and I'm going to report this because our poor mistreated billionaires shouldn't have to read it from their mother ship Yacht!

(Can I have free Internet now please Daddy?)

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 54 points 11 months ago

its a base requirement, like water. it should be regulated as such. zero profit motive, ubiquitous access.

[-] teft@lemmy.world 64 points 11 months ago

Don’t compare it to water. Nestle will want a cut.

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 24 points 11 months ago

And they will fucking kill you and your whole village if they don't get it

[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 16 points 11 months ago

Let's add healthcare to this list

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

Throw it on the pile of "things Americans will never get socialized."

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 13 points 11 months ago

Internet is not a base requirement like water. Without food, water, shelter, you die. Without internet and electricity you are left behind, you don’t die. It should be regulated like electricity

[-] Neato@ttrpg.network 25 points 11 months ago

Internet is not a base requirement like water. Without food, water, shelter, you die. Without internet and electricity you are left behind, you don’t die. It should be regulated like electricity

Yes because being homeless and without power will definitely ensure you can stay alive. This whole argument doesn't make sense. Electricity doesn't need to be regulated like water because for the most part, there can't be tainted electricity. But you can still get your water cut off just like power so clearly the government doesn't ensure you have ready access to it.

Oh and shelter is a base requirement but we still let people die in the streets. And for those people we aren't supplying them with water: they can drink from what few public fountains exist in parks...if the cops don't beat them for "loitering".

No, internet should be a requirement to be provided to everyone like we regulate water and electricity and (used to) telephone service.

[-] blackbelt352@lemmy.world 14 points 11 months ago

If I don't have internet, I can't do my job, therefore I can't get money I need to spend on food, water and shelter, which I need to live.

[-] JoShmoe@ani.social 11 points 11 months ago

Adding to this, we aren’t being charged separately for using the bathroom, livingroom, or garage. The internet should not be divided as such.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago

Given what I was paying last summer for electricity in Rhode Island, I am not sure I can endorse your sentiment

[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 8 points 11 months ago

No thanks, power companies get away with an absolutely insane amount of bullshit. They should absolutely be more strictly regulated and held accountable.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 4 points 10 months ago

You can survive without running water. You can survive without Internet.

Lack of Internet will make survival harder, just like lack of running water (if not to the same degree)

Keep in mind, if you fall behind too far people will kick you out of your house, disrupt any attempts to make a shelter, significantly increases rates of death for a variety of causes

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] billbasher@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months ago

In my town it is a city utility like electricity and water. Gigabit fiber up/down for $70 with net neutrality

[-] Xanis@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I loved it when my local giant ISP kept pushing broadband connections, saying they couldn't possibly deal with costs associated with Fiber. Then they begged money from the Government to install infrastructure. Queue absolutely no work in my area. Fast forward a few years, a new ISP rolls in with Fiber and like magic my ISP was suddenly able to provide similar services.

[-] Arsonistic@lemmy.ml 16 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

As they exist right now, definitely. But making Internet a govermentally run service is also likely to turn out bad. The best method so far, based on what other countries are doing, seems to be public infrastructure, that any ISP can then sell service through. This prevents monopolies and creates competition in the market, which tends to result in better service for the users.

Edit: public as in anybody can use it to provide service, not as in governmentally managed. Just to force a separation to prevent monopolies.

[-] jorp@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

What do we need ISPs competing on if the infrastructure is run by the government? They can't increase speeds, they can't increase service availability, they'll just be getting a profit margin on top of what the government is charging them to use the communications infrastructure. I'd rather just pay the government the pre-profit amount

[-] Wirlocke 5 points 10 months ago

The infrastructure would be things like fiber cable wired to each house.

But in this scenario, the ISPs would be manning the servers that your connection is routed through. So they'd still have massive influence on the speed and data.

If the government owned the servers, they could block and track down anything against state interest.

Not saying they can't do that anyways, but at least the third party makes the process more difficult, less seamless, and gives the chance of new competitors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

So make the internet into a state service for ISPs? It might not be worse but it could be much better.

Imagine if they did this for water pipes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

They’re welcome to compete with the government utility. But I want a government utility isp. One I get a say in as a voter, not merely as a customer

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Good luck convincing the taxpayers of that fact. It should be regulated and made available as such, but made to run for free by government agencies...I think that will piss absolutely everybody off for a number of reasons.

[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 8 points 11 months ago

Pretty well every case I've read of municipal owned fiber nets has been a grand success, barring interference by the local carriers. Let the city own the infra and the carriers compete for access. Of course you get the whinging about 'muh free market/choice' but that's the case for any public works really.

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

The free market cannot solve this because of the requirements for infrastructure both with up front costs and in needing to have easement access on very specific stretches of land. It completely breaks the assumptions economists make to be able to imagine the free market works.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago

Way different than a federally funded ISP. Note the comment OP is making.

[-] ShellMonkey@lemmy.socdojo.com 6 points 11 months ago

Not so far off, providing infrastructure locally then leaves a lot of the major transit to backbone carriers to make the interconnects. Those providers are largely transparent to the end users. Now nationalizing carriers like that would be a hefty lift, but if we can take the local service out of the ISPs hands it would let the municipal hosts negotiate those peering arrangements in bulk. How many towns are well equipped to handle that might be another matter though.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 66 points 11 months ago

"Waaaaaah! I can't rip people off as much!"

-ISPs

[-] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months ago
[-] Reverendender@sh.itjust.works 10 points 11 months ago

I cannot upvote this enough

[-] fluxion@lemmy.world 35 points 11 months ago

How many times do we need to fight these assholes?

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 25 points 11 months ago

The fight against assholery is unending.

[-] ulkesh@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago

As many times until Congress grows a spine and finally codifies ISPs as being a dumb pipe into law.

Until then, greed will continue.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] IHeartBadCode@kbin.run 34 points 11 months ago

This court is absolutely raring to go on major questions. In the past, when Congress left things wide open, the High Court usually gave deference to the agency to handle the details. Examples are things like:

  • Congress: "Protect endangered animals" - Executive: "I've created a list of what I think is endangered."
  • Congress: "Build a highway between Chicago and the Mexican border in Texas" - Executive: "I've come up with a way to string already existing roads and upgrade them to create this road."
  • Congress: "Ensure that companies pay the full cost of environmental damage" - Executive: "I'll will bill them for CO₂ released into the air"

Congress doesn't list in massive detail every single possible permutation that's possible in law. That would create thousand page laws. But as EPA vs WV has shown us, the Supreme Court wants incredible detail. So we get the over 300 pages of new law that indicate six gases, fifteen different levels of municipality, and over ten thousand different industries plus all the various ways those three things interact with each other, to address what was "missing" from the original grant of authority for the EPA.

And the thing is, Republicans will bemoan these large tomes of text, saying "how can we know what's in it?" That's them breaks. If the Supreme Court say "a government agency can not do XYZ because it doesn't say XYZ in the law" then that means we have to be very detailed about what's in the law. That's how we get thousands of pages per law. That's kind of the reason why prior Courts didn't harp on this stuff. The President changes every four to eight years, regulation can change at that rate too. Law change very infrequently. So that whole EPA vs WV result, CO₂ regulation was something that basically bounced every time we swapped parties, NOW it's in law and it's going to be there for decades.

The ISPs are getting ready to shoot themselves in the foot here. Because if NN is enshrined in law, NN is here to stay. As long as it's a regulatory process, it can change President to President. But push come to shove, if Congress really wants to, they can enshrine Net Neutrality into law. And it only took the Democratically led Congress in 2021, three weeks after the SCOTUS case to pass the new 300+ page law giving the EPA those new powers explicitly.

That's the thing, the Republicans in the 118th Congress have shown they can not get anything done. They've pass 64 laws so far, most of them are renaming Post Offices and reupping funding to VA hospitals. They've spent almost 65% of the time in committee investigating various impeachment hearings. It's so weird how they've had a majority in the House, could have worked on budget related things, and they've barely talked about the impending tax increase that's coming once the tax cut act of 2017 runs out next year. They literally had planned to run on that sole thing back in 2017, that's why they set it up to expire during an election year, and not a peep from them this year on it.

Meanwhile the Democrats in the 117th Congress passed 362 laws, with bangers like the CHIPs act, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the whole turn about is fair play with the whole EPA vs WV case. Because they took the majority they had and got things done.

So ISPs better hope Republicans can keep the mayhem up forever, because if Democrats do get into power in the House/Senate/and President. This whole stunt with the Supreme Court they're pulling could massively backfire on them. Because if NN gets into law, well then it's way harder to undo that.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 3 points 11 months ago

High Court usually gave deference to the agency to handle the details

I believe this is "Chevron Deference?"

The thing Goursich (and I believe previously his mother) wants absolutely dead. :/

[-] 01189998819991197253@infosec.pub 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

There's a city in Tennessee USA (Chattanooga, I think) whose government started offering fiber internet as a utility. It would be interesting to study them as a case study, and see if it would a viable solution elsewhere.

[-] evranch@lemmy.ca 26 points 10 months ago

Look at Saskatchewan, Canada. We're the only province with a public telecom, SaskTel.

Most people in the cities and even larger towns have fiber, and our cell plans are significantly cheaper than anywhere else in Canada despite being a rural province with a large coverage area to population ratio.

We also have decent electricity rates considering we have no hydro, and the cheapest natural gas in Canada. Thanks to SaskPower and SaskEnergy.

Public utilities are the only way to do it, I'm always shocked to see people defend privatization in any way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

We have the next best thing here from municipal internet. A local ISP started up and offered to lay fiber in any neighborhood where 40% or more of the population agreeing to sign up.

I know Spectrum is desperate for people in this neighborhood to return because I get a lot of mailings and never see a Spectrum truck anymore, but the cost is about the same, the speed is massively higher (we're talking max 15 mbps to max 50 mbps on my line and you can pay for a faster speed) and it's so much more reliable.

[-] bitchkat@lemmy.world 20 points 10 months ago

Fuck you comcast. I'm sure they are one of the instigators.

[-] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

If you are a CEO of a major company your address should be where anyone can see it.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 11 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


As expected, broadband industry lobby groups have sued the Federal Communications Commission in an attempt to nullify net neutrality rules that prohibit blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization.

The industry lost a similar case during the Obama era, but is hoping to win this time because of the Supreme Court's evolving approach on whether federal agencies can decide "major questions" without explicit instructions from Congress.

"By reclassifying broadband under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, the Commission asserts the power to set prices, dictate terms and conditions, require or prohibit investment or divestment, and more.

The FCC's net neutrality order reclassified broadband as telecommunications, which makes Internet service subject to common-carrier regulations under Title II.

Despite the industry's claim that classification is a major question that can only be decided by Congress, a federal appeals court ruled in previous cases that the FCC has authority to classify broadband as either a telecommunications or information service.

"There's no 'unheralded power' that we're purporting to discover in the annals of an old, dusty statute—we've been classifying communications services one way or the other for decades, and the 1996 [Telecommunications] Act expressly codified our ability to continue that practice."


The original article contains 765 words, the summary contains 197 words. Saved 74%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago
[-] bitwolf@lemmy.one 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Someone got so fed up in my town they started their own ISP but I'm too far so I'm getting ripped off by Cablevision

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
563 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

69545 readers
3473 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS