920
Fuck that sell-out Ajit Pai.
And Trump who appointed him, and the Republicans who blocked voting in his replacement.
He was actually appointed by Obama.
Source https://www.fcc.gov/biography-former-chairman-ajit-pai
Trump made him chairman
Yeah but Trump made him chairman
Fuck him and his stupid ass Reese’s mug.
I’d… I’d eat ass Reese’s
We need a floodgate for ass resees eating.
Ashit Pai*
A shit pie ?
more like Ajit POO
I have nothing to really add but I just want to say fuck Ajit Pai... Oooooo that felt good.
I'm sick of this back and forth can kicking. We need a fucking law.
What about a new article in the constitution?
I guess most will find this completely overkill but access to free information should be a right everybody has and no party should be able to remove that.
I understand amending the constitution of any country should be done very carefully but keeping century old constitutions is completely dumb imo. Some articles are still relevant today others are not or would seriously benefit in being updated.
Yes! I've been arguing that we need a sort of "digital bill of rights" for years now
A few more election cycles and boomers will finally be outnumbered.
The January 6 crowd was a lot younger than boomer age...
Yeah but not by much, the only young people there, were that weirdo Q Shaman guy
If we can fix some gerrymanders it'll go a long way also
Like the shitshow that is the maps in WI, which will head to the (now) liberal controlled state Supreme Court.
And we need to demolish lobbying. The things we could accomplish if those useless and sleazy detriments to society were all put out of their jobs permanently.
Takes 60 votes in the US Senate to beat the filibuster. Republicans will not provide the 9 votes needed.
Make
Internet
A
Federally
Protected
Utility
You sons of bitches
We'll have to get rid of some conservatives in congress first. Conservatives (and some neo-liberals) rake in legal bribes from ISP's and are also champing at the bit to control all forms of communication.
Conservatism is a plague of oppression and corruption.
I’m really glad this is being done, I just hope that it has teeth. It’s going to be very annoying when the next regime from across the aisle tries to repeal the rules again. I assume there’s not an easy way to make these rules permanent. I’m happy to be wrong about that though.
There would be if we had a government focused on consumer protections. Instead we have a House too busy kicking itself in the dick to make laws, and even if they did, the laws would probably PREVENT the FCC from making Net Neutrality rules.
In all seriousness, what has having these laws repealed done? I'm asking because I don't know.
The rules have never really been in affect, all the things that folks warned would happen without net neutrality hasn't happened.
My Verizon plan explicitly limits YouTube video to 1080p. If I paid for a lower plan, it would limit me to 720p.
I have no option to go beyond 1080p, even if I’m on the fastest possible connection.
Of course, if I were to turn on a VPN, I can suddenly stream at any quality my connection can handle.
This is a real world example of what you claim hasn’t happened. And you can verify it yourself by looking at their available plans.
Is that a mobile plan? Mobile sas exempt from NN rules I believe so it wouldn't matter.
It has though. Traffic shaping is common, especially on mobile networks where video streams and VPN traffic will get deprioritized and throttled to force lower resolution playback for certain services. Many mobile ISPs are actually pretty open that they do this. In other cases this stuff is done quietly enough that you don't really notice it is happening. Mobile operators get away with it because people are almost trained to expect mobile networks to be flaky.
Mobile I believe is exempt anyways. Traffic shaping is a necessity from a network admin perspective. If you allow mobile networks to not have QOS restrictions then there could be times where you wouldn't be able to make a phone call because everyone around you is streaming 8k videos.
Yet
all the things that folks warned would happen without net neutrality hasn't happened.
I don't think that's fair at all. Since we have never really had NN, then I would ask you to define what it is first. If you say that NN prevents ISPs from provisioning off websites in bundles then I would say, you're not wrong but I massively dispute your definition of NN.
It is supposed to protect a free and open internet. I think I can safely state that. I think we can agree to that as a basis. And I can think of dozens of things that are going on right now that only serve to disarm and control users in order to strip-mine them of as much value as possible. If ISPs were utilities then you would have access to their financial reports, you could see their service reports, you would be able to know how they have and plan to allocate resources, and you would have at least transparency if not influence in decisions they choose to make that affect the cost of service. Imagine if they would have to apply for a tariff audit just to get approved to raise rates?
Are you truly arguing that this hypothetical alternate dimension is somehow imperceivably different than our own?
Net neutrality was never intended to turn ISPs into public utilities. Its purpose was to turn them into "common carriers," which means they must treat all traffic equally.
You're not wrong, but your distinction is meaningless since common carriers in the US are often regulated by the same governing rules and very often the same governing bodies as public utilities.
I do not believe that is correct.
That gives a better, more thorough explanation of what the FCC is aiming to do. While public utilities are governed by regulations much like a common carrier is, it won't result in what you were stating in your original comment (i.e. the same level of internal transparency that public utilities must comply with).
That's more or less because I'm healing the rules for such a controversial decision, that no one wants to take that publicity for being the first to violate them. However we know that the rule isn't there eventually someone's going to take that bite, they're going to get Flack for it, and then everyone else is just going to do it and it will just be accepted as normal.
I'm a gamer this is basically what happened with horse armor, and now microtransactions are basically expected
That's what I've been told, so I don't get why they're pushing it
load more comments
(1 replies)
Couldn't they have done it earlier ? instead of waiting until the elections ?
No. The Republicans have stalled confirming a replacement until just now. Up until now the committee has been dead locked with 2 Democrats and two Republicans.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel today announced plans to restore net neutrality rules similar to those that were adopted during the Obama era and then repealed by the FCC when Donald Trump was president.
Rosenworcel announced her plans in a speech today, one day after the FCC gained a 3-2 Democratic majority with the swearing-in of Commissioner Anna Gomez.
Similar to the previous rules, FCC officials said they don't plan to impose rate regulation or "unbundling" requirements that would force broadband providers to share networks with other companies.
In a fact sheet, the FCC said the proposal would "establish basic rules for Internet Service Providers that prevent them from blocking legal content, throttling your speeds, and creating fast lanes that favor those who can pay for access."
California enforces net neutrality rules that mirror what the FCC adopted in 2015 and beat industry attempts to get the state law overturned.
Rosenworcel said that because FCC authority is generally centered on phone systems instead of broadband, the commission often needs "duct tape and baling wire" to provide legal justification for its rules.
The original article contains 843 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Remember that absolutely fucking stupid ad Ajit made about using the net? Awful.
Literally can't live without the internet these days. It needs to be a protected utility like any other.
The article mentions CA still enforcing net neutrality rules. How does that work? Eventually you have to hop outside the state for many services.. are those backbones required to abide by those rules or can they still throttle as a result being out of state?
I firmly believe in all data being treated equally for the record and I hope this gets fixed. ISPs were kind of slow on throttling but it's becoming more and more obvious in the last couple years in my experience.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
920 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59099 readers
2746 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS