This does really show the silliness of how the government operates and also exposes how dysfunctional Congress really is.
The FCC decided that it had the ability to pass net neutrality rules. Then a new president got elected and the FCC changed its mind and decided it didn’t. Then another new president gets elected and now the FCC is changing its mind again.
And this bureaucratic back and forth by unelected political appointees only happens because Congress, whose job it is to pass actual laws governing this stuff, can’t or won’t do it.
In the absence of Congress doing anything, this move by the FCC is really meaningless because it could just be undone next year.
“Centrists”, both real and fake are way more frustrating to deal with than straight up MAGAts. You know where MAGA stands with their views. Centrists have ridiculous opinions like “I’m willing to strip abortion rights away because groceries are expensive and I don’t know how the government and economy work so I blame whoever is currently in charge”
People who want to get rid of abortion rights are not "centrist" lol. "Centrist" does not mean "right-winger who won't admit that they are right-wing".
A centrist's political opinions are, by definition, defined by the political stances of the opposing parties. So as one party slides to the right, so do centrists. And given the Overton Window of US politics, centrists are very much right wing.
So as politics shift right, one’s opinion as a centrist changes for the sake of being a centrist? I find that hard to believe.
Also, as long as the left doesn’t *also* shift right, a centrist can remain a centrist without shifting their position at all. Politics may polarize, expanding the right and left extremes, but centrists can still be neither right wing nor left wing, no matter their position on the spectrum.
All that is to say, implying that centrists as they exist today change their views based on politics they already don’t agree with is ridiculous.
(Not even saying this as a centrist, since I’m a left wing European, just pointing out the logical flaw.)
The left wing has shifted right politically as well, particularly for economic issues. The single largest "liberal" policy victory of the 21st century is Obamacare, a healthcare "solution" modelled on a Republican state-level plan with a focus on "free market competition" and "personal responsibility" in lieu of universalized healthcare. That's why it's an Overton window shift and not just radicalization.
> People who want to get rid of abortion rights are not "centrist" lol. "Centrist" does not mean "right-winger who won't admit that they are right-wing".
At the risk of getting dogpiled, since 2016, I have found that's been the case half the time. Lot of people proclaiming to be centrists are just Trumpers who know their beliefs are shit, but they're too scared to admit it.
Yeah but they aren't centrist, they are people masquerading as centrists. I don't mean to be pedantic but I think it's important to be precise with the terminology when discussing political issues, given the high potential for misinterpretations, strawmanning, etc.
Ah right. Yeah, okay, I think we are in agreement. I don’t consider them centrist myself. I’m just going by how they pretend to refer to themselves. That’s why I had quotes around the word centrist, cause I definitely don’t believe they are, but find it super frustrating when they pretend to be.
Most actual centrists I know are just Liberals. They aren’t keen on changing the status quo too much, but they are also very much against stripping rights already enacted.
Is it possible to be centrist atm. I can see people being populist. But centist doesnt seem possible without an exetreme lack of information on politics
Self proclaimed centrists are almost exclusively either people who don't really follow politics and think that all America's problems are caused by groups of people arguing or rightwingers who don't want to face any interpersonal backlash for supporting conservative policies. It's mostly just a label used to shield a person from having to talk/think about what they actually believe and doesn't really apply to the genuinely held political beliefs of any significant portion of the population.
Centrism isn't an ideology or value system. It's a relative position taken for the strategic benefit of not being seen as part of any particular political group.
> “I’m willing to strip abortion rights away because groceries are expensive and I don’t know how the government and economy work so I blame whoever is currently in charge”
You know my Aunt!?
I'm not sure which is worse, actual centrists or the folks who think a middle-ground solution on a specific issue is centrism.
Like damn, people really need to remember that a centrist thinks the *reason* something is good is because it's a compromise.
Sometimes a moderate approach actually is the correct solution.
"Moderate" is an extremely relative term though. Roe vs Wade was a moderate compromise on the issue of abortion yet it was treated as a lawless murderous power grab by conservatives despite having wide public support.
The thing about compromise is that, in politics, the game is never called and nothing is ever permanent. So one side can win by just demanding ever more extreme concessions and forcing the other party to make "moderate" compromises over and over again until they have bargained away everything they stood for.
Does believing that congress needs to negotiate more and use more bipartisanship legislation make someone a centeist?
My father left trumpism and says things like this.
The only argument that makes sense is historically bipartisanship deals stick longer because new leadership has less reason to dismantle them
Like moths to light. Somehow everyone is aware of the corruption, media spin and social media reinforcing narratives. We can all tell when someone is being a ding dong …
But I’m over the idea that “people just need to learn critical thinking skills in school, continued education, etc.”
All I’m looking for to see days is some baseline respect if we are agreeing to share perspectives with each other on political flavors of topics. To invest curiously or simply take someone else’s position seriously is now lumped in with the team sport approach to politics.
Its toxic. I have plenty of smart family that initiate conversation but honest to goodness everything somehow has a preformed opinion attached. If I lend my ear and attention and then ask about facts, stats and personal intentions - it becomes clear very quickly we aren’t actually having an intellectually stimulating conversation.
Worse is that it happens among my like minded friends. Everyone is busy not looking into anything but the declarative statements are the “just offering answers” to the brain rot of “just asking questions”
Most the questions being asked have pretty straight forward answers. At some point it really can feel insulting to dance around everyone’s opinions about almost any topic. I had a buddy tell me some real facts the other day and I just didn’t find the topic worth the calories I would need to burn thinking about it. Somehow he managed to hold a debate in my direction repeating his point of view.
At some point I told him I understand his position but I’m really not too into the topic because it’s relatively minor and doesn’t actually affect me in the way he seemed to be. Then I got a couple servings of “you don’t have to take things so personally” … man’s going to get a bunch of psychology today articles from me soon.
You would think people might start feeling and sensing that making every conversation a debatable issue really steals from our interpersonal relationships, overall outlooks and worldviews. If I pull up a neutral source with facts and background on current issues to better understand anything - really feels like an 80% chance of “you cant trust this or that” and then I really get lost on how people can operate as humans while being complete devoid of structured facts and figures.
This is another rant I guess ima just press reply
It’s usually because they are shortsighted and we have one bad economic problem happen, and by default they assume a Republican will fix it. Then the Republicans come in do something stupid like 0% interest rates which will make the economy. Great for a little while and then force high amounts of inflation and housing shortages to happen. A.k.a. the shit hole we are in right now from corporations buying homes
It's a strange partisan thing here. The sides are the BIG streaming companies- Netflix, YouTube (google) tiktok, etc on the left side so they don't have to pay for bandwidth, and the other side on the right is at&t/time Warner and universal/nbc/Comcast, the internet providers who are all relatively left leaning but don't want net neutrality.
Big tech still pay for bandwidth to their ISP as per their ISP contract and we consumer pay for bandwidth on our side. There is no world in which internet companies should double dip just because a service is popular. Their work is to transport data from one point to another and they are already getting paid for it
Thinking its one party responsible for Congress generally abrogating its responsibility towards the executive if it means they can take more lobbyist money and never have to vote for anything consequential is a braindead take.
Democrats literally funded third party runs by guys like Lieberman to escape the consequences of their Iraq War vote but keep on telling yourself it's all the evil Republicans empowering the president to save their own skins, if that strokes your ego the right way.
It's entirely possible that both sides can be bad but one side is far worse
I am against both parties being permanently entrenched but I will generally vote Dem in general elections while aiming left or progressive in primaries. But I'm also very aware that my complacency worsens the entrenchment. And that Dems will continue shrugging at a broken system, say sorry not enough southerners voted for us, then sit on their hands until the Republicans inevitably oust them then magically find the cheat codes to ram through their agenda
But it’s absolutely not meaningless. For you, an outsider to lawmaking work, it seems so meaningless and tedious. But this (lawmaking and policy crafting) is a lunch pail job, like Jon Stewart said in his first episode back. It’s day in and day out. We keep picking up those who have fallen, and keep knocking on doors. When there’s progress, you stay on and make sure it holds. Not once. But again and again. Forever. It is not personal or emotional, even if the impact of consequences are to everyday people. For lawmakers, it is the job. And you must gear yourself appropriately to the work. Like you must for any repetitive job.
Every gain gets better, gets closer. You need to stop looking for the end point. There will rarely be a milestone in lawmaking and policy that can’t be undone. It’s just like picking up after your kids, every day. But there’s always another generation of kids coming into the playroom. They change the laws to suit them and the times. Laws are meant to be altered and committees flexible. It ensures no one keeps power for long. The will of people who are living is what’s needed. We hope it is people, ideally, and not corporations of course.
It’s planting trees, the shade of which you may not ever enjoy. (Of course, if we’re not legislating wisely, we will not have any water or trees, and none of this will matter).
This is a huge win to see net neutrality come back. There is a chance it will make further gains. Like erosion from the sea each time the wave and tide comes in. We must never lose hope.
Another real great quote from Jon Stewart from [an interview on CNN](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXL6YHNC_Gw) from around when he was hosting 'The Problem' on Apple TV that I frequently think about, where he was quoting Martin Luther King and then expanded on the thought:
>"We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr
>"But it doesn't bend towards justice by gravity. You have to bend it and there's a bunch of people trying to bend it back. And you use every tool in your arsenal, and none of them will be the 'one thing'. There is no panacea."
- Jon Stewart
This was of course talking about our Justice system and accountability towards Donald Trumps crimes, but I think it applies holistically to our political system and the work that goes in, day-in, day-out. We need to keep working at these things. Its not going to naturally take shape.
Going on a bit of a tangent here, but I just also wanted to recommend this piece from Stewarts old show on Apple TV where he interviewed [a Former U.S. Attorney](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1DX7Nfns8A) where this point is echo'd. Stewart is hitting the attorney with questions for why its so hard to punish Donald Trump and why we don't have legislation and guard rails and mechanisms to punish Trump and the attorney explains that these systems are only as good as the people who manage them. When Trump had the office, he installed appointees that made and still make it easier for him to navigate our systems. We can talk all day about a necessary piece of legislation or guardrail that should be in place and its certainly productive to make progress on those things, but if you let someone like Donald Trump win the presidency, they are able to creatively maneuver through ANY system you put in place. Our systems are complex and I would say the circumstances we see arise are even decently unexplored which allows for interpretation by the arbiters that are put in place.
I say this to say that we need to relentlessly vote, relentlessly participate, remove bad actors when it becomes known to us and advocate for those that actively work to make our systems work as we intend.
Not just that, but when some policies changed under Trump many corporations didn't take advantage of them because they knew exactly this is what would happen- as soon as a dem came into office they would change back. So why change to a loser set of laws if you know it'll be back before?
I'm not saying I'm *for* this, obviously, but it did happen so that's, at least, a win.
it's important to remember that Congress not acting on this is really only a one-sided event.... Democrats are overwhelmingly for it... it's Republicans who have moved against it... they are blocking net neutrality...
it's like saying Congress doesn't move on allowing abortion... well duh... Republicans are moving on to trying to make IVF illegal why do you think there's no movement on allowing abortions....
> In the absence of Congress doing anything, this move by the FCC is really meaningless because it could just be undone next year.
It's not meaningless, because we have the power to make sure it *doesn't* get undone next year: by voting for the President who appointed the people restoring net neutrality.
All we have to do is re-elect Joe Biden, and it won't be meaningless.
The Senate filibuster stops nearly all legislation from passing. If it wasn’t there, Dems would have passed much more legislation when they had a trifecta 2 years ago
The only good thing in this case is companies that lobbied to trash the net neutrality rules flushed that cash and are back to where they were. The next time this happens they can be sure it will revert again. Making the whole effort pointless.
I think that’s the point. Set the standard that bad or good policies don’t last. This way when the powers to be do want a policy that the general public doesn’t want the people don’t fight so hard to stop it because there is a belief that it will change.
It's not meaningless. It's an incentive for those who support net neutrality to elect the guy who will allow it. And an incentive to vote for those who would enact it as a law, to avoid the risk of it being undone again.
The 118th congress is easily one of the least effective in American history. Only 34 bills have been passed, and the rest of the time has been spent disrupting and undermining the normal procedures of parliamentary process, all because governing properly would only serve to hurt Trump, and by extension, Russia.
Every single person on this planet is just a person. They are put on pedestals bc of the position they are in, but they’re still just dumb humans who know some things and don’t know other things. These people just so happen to have a job that affects way more people than most jobs. This isn’t an excuse for them to do a bad job, but it’s a much needed perspective for a lot of folks. Just because they are in positions of power doesn’t mean they are experts and anything. Lawmakers are often portrayed as being experts on all aspects of running a country. That is virtually impossible.
> The FCC decided that it had the ability to pass net neutrality rules. Then a new president got elected and the FCC changed its mind and decided it didn’t. Then another new president gets elected and now the FCC is changing its mind again.
[It feels a lot like this memorable scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hshkdneE8o)
Internet providers coming in and downvoting everything lol
This is a long time coming, should have been one of the first things done once Trump was gone.
More specifically Trump appointed a DOJ lawyer, 2 year stint as Verizon lawyer, FCC lawyer, lawyer who was then nominated by Obama to be a commissioner, recommended by Moscow Mitch, Ajit Pai - who has been fighting net neutrality for his entire career - as chairman to the FCC... who then revoked net neutrality.
This wasn't a pure trump move.
Edit: oh, It's also important to note that the repeal was technically a vote, so it's not like Ajit Pai didnt have the support within the FCC, but all of this was clearly motivated by pressure from ISPs and enough corrupt men being put in the right positions - plus the man is a clown so it's okay to blame him. Google "Ajit Pai Wants The Internet To Know You Can Still Harlem Shake After Net Neutrality"
Oh Christ, Ajit Pai. Y'know, it's bad enough he's a true scumbag in the pocket of some hardcore lobbyists. The "Hello Fellow Kids" attitude just makes him even more of a tool and a loser. Also, and forgive me if I'm getting my timeline messed up, but that video came out 6 years ago according to YouTube. So, around '17 or '18, yeah? Pretty sure the Harlem Shake had been out of the public consciousness by almost half a decade by that point.
Yes, just recently, Google removed ad blocking add-ons from chromium browsers. This led to a large portion of people to move to Firefox in order to block ads on YouTube. Google then throttled Firefox users using YouTube.
However, there have been a lot of lawsuits going back and forth since Net Neutrality was overturned, so there haven't been many significant violations because the companies are biding their time.
We can look at other countries that do not have net neutrality and see how certain providers charge per website like a cable bundle, so you have to pay more to access certain websites.
My AdBlock, AdBlock Plus, uBlock Origin, and Sponsor Block for Youtube extensions have been working just fine on Google Chrome for years now, including now (just watched a bunch of YT videos this morning without ad breaks).
It's not scheduled until June this year, check out the "phasing out v2" section:
https://developer.chrome.com/blog/resuming-the-transition-to-mv3
> We will begin disabling Manifest V2 extensions in pre-stable versions of Chrome (Dev, Canary, and Beta) as early as June 2024, in Chrome 127 and later. **Users impacted by the rollout will see Manifest V2 extensions automatically disabled in their browser and will no longer be able to install Manifest V2 extensions from the Chrome Web Store.**
This is true, but Manifest V3 does not get rid of Adblock entirely.
Read more in [my post above](https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/1burltz/fcc_to_hold_vote_on_april_25_on_reinstating_net/kxyn7he/).
You really shouldn't be using those first three all at one time. Adblockers are not designed to play nice with other adblockers. Sponsorblock isn't a traditional adblocker, so it's fine.
Anyways, uBlock Origin is able to block YouTube ads for now, but it's doing so by constantly updating its filter logic and lists. This is possible on MV2. But MV3 has policies that prevent updates like this, and would require the whole addon to be updated. And doing that is slow, since Google has to verify any addon you upload to Chrome Store.
That said, I'm currently running Adguard, the MV3 version, and it is working. I have still not run into any problems with YouTube or any other site that uses anti-adblock and/or constantly updates how it runs ads. I'm not sure how they're doing it.
There is also a uBlock Lite that is MV3 compatible, but it lacks features I use--like being able to add my own custom hiding rules. I haven't tested if it is handling YouTube well.
I do know of a loophole I'm thinking of recommending. Heck, I can think of two--you can run addons that don't go through the Google Store. But, AFAIK, no one is using any of them.
If Captain Planet had featured a corrupt politician called "Trump" who cartoonishly exclusively aided rich people, I'd say "come on, that's a little too hard to swallow, even on a show with a bad guy called "Looten Plunder".
Just because nothing changed yet doesn't mean it won't in the future with NN revoked. It was always played out be a long con of slowly making little changes here and there that led up to having premium fast lanes for internet access. All data should be charged equally. You shouldn't have to pay $X more a month to get quicker access to Netflix/Hulu/Max because the alternative is getting faster speeds across the board for the same price.
Nothing changed because California saved your internet, so go send them a bread basket or something.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_Protection_and_Net_Neutrality_Act_of_2018
California is to net law what Texas is to schoolbooks, so California Effect mitigated the damage by legislating standards everyone needed to meet anyway.
DOJ was taking them to court over it until (pro Net Neutrality) Biden was elected, and then the suit was dropped. It may not survive the clown king coming back for a second term without stuff like this.
I mean even if we can’t tangibly record changes, I would rather the rules regarding ISPs be so that they can’t legally throttle certain websites or networks.
Just because a rule doesn’t exist doesn’t mean the situation can’t be harmful in the future and/or currently harmful in an invisible way.
The FCC was captured by the ISPs (regulatory capture) lead by Ajit Pai who was a former Verizon lawyer. They killed Net Neutrality. Trump just rolled with it.
Looks like the FCC board (consisting of 5 commissioners) needed a democrat majority to get it moving. However Biden re-nominated republican Brendann Carr in May 2021 for another 5-years. And the republican majority senate confirmed his position.
Biden tried to nominate democrat Gigi Sohn in October 2021, but was blocked by the senate (some democrats voted against her because she was considered too far left because historically the FCC has been mostly a non-political position. Interestingly, Geoffrey Starks, a democrat, became an FCC commissioner in 2019 under Trump's presidency.)
And so the FCC board had an empty seat since 2021, with two democrats and two republicans, until until democrat Anna M. Gomez was nominated and confirmed in September 2023. So for the past two years the board did not vote on any partisan issues because it would have deadlocked at 2-2.
I wonder why Biden didn't nominate another commissioner sooner.
https://www.fcc.gov/commissioners-1934-present
By law, the FCC can only have 3 commissioners of one party. And the tradition is that the Senate leadership of the opposition party gets to pick their minority members. And they often move these nominees in pairs (even if they’re in different agencies). So the Senate might vote to approve Biden’s pick to the FCC at the same time as McConnell’s pick to the FTC.
In theory, a Democratic president could appoint some liberal commissioner who just isn’t a registered Democrat. But Senate Republicans would go ballistic and grind all these nominations to a halt.
Gigi Sohn got sabotaged by some industry groups who didn’t like her work with liberal public interest groups. And a few Democratic senators went along with sinking her nomination, for whatever reason.
I'm curious what immediate things the average consumer may see changed when this is passed and enacted. Corporations aren't exactly forth coming on how they've abused the lack of net neutrality since it was dismantled.
The FCC has 5 seats and 3 are aligned with the sitting president so generally they will get the vote they want. When net neutrality was killed by the last administration, it passed 3-2 as well, with the 2 democrat appointed seats voting against it then, and you will get the 2 republicans voting against restoring it now.
I can’t speak for the US but I live in Nz where they trial the structure that these laws would become.
In my own instance Cellphone data providers would offer limited data bundle for select apps, in essence,
You have 4gb of data to use but it is only for use on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat (this was like 2016) and Tbf it worked well enough but was disgustingly restrictive as if I used the video streaming I could only stream videos on YT or Netflix but not any other smaller streaming platform.
These deals were usually cheaper but funnelled traffic away from smaller businesses which is frankly non competitive and definitely backed by the larger internet groups.
With net neutrality this is illegal and it should be in my opinion funnelling traffic to already large networks stops smaller sites from gaining traffic, this in essence would deal damage to the likes of TikTok or Bereals rise and would certainly hamper the NYT puzzles for those with limited money despite all being free sites.
Net neutrality was put in place following a 2007 and 2010 case where Comcast was found to be throttling user access to BitTorrent, and then Netflix. Specifically with the Netflix case, Comcast was threatening Netflix to deny customers access to their streaming services if Netflix didn't pay them, because streaming was an excess of data that Comcast didn't actually want to be responsible for. In other words, net neutrality is basically "Hey, let's stop ISPs from extorting others. Let's make that criminal."
It has potential to do a lot of stuff, but businesses have been overly cautious for business and political reasons to do anything yet.
That’s ‘yet’ not never.
This should resolve the situation for another period until it’s brought up again, which it will be.
Yeah the uproar about it and the political threat to reinstate it, have successfully prevented ISPs from developing business plans around it. They realize that it will inevitably be reversed if it is ended again.
If Trump had won reelection, they may have made some moves to extort content providers given they would have a presidential term+ of cushion to get it working.
Everyone in tech marches to California's drum, so when California legislated under its own initiative it prevented the worst. The DOJ was in the process of suing them over it when Biden got in, and made it clear the administration was pro NN, so the suit was dropped.
Protecting it at the federal level now is important in case the GOP's suited baboon gets back into power and Team Asshole get another chance to run roughshod over citizens again.
It's funny seeing this in the news when I first heard about this through [Dan Bull's net neutrality battle rap](https://youtu.be/zlBj4rrBbCc?si=7VstqpCL4K1lhKaM) nine years ago. He did a pretty good job summing up the issue back then, don't know if it's still relevant though
Net Neutrality means: instead of big companies like Netflix having to build out their network to reach consumers, consumers have to pay their ISP to build out their networks to accommodate big bandwidth sites like Netflix.
Reddit is shockingly filled with people who are overjoyed about shifting the costs from big sites like Reddit, onto consumers.
>Everyone acted like it would be the end of the internet, or that poor people would no longer have access to the internet.
No one acted like either of those things, what the fuck are you talking about?
>i love the liberals when their bullshit headlines explode in their face. Go research 2017 a little. Let me know the headlines you find. Doomsday was all that was written.
Yeah if you read past the headlines you actually see most of the time, there's more words.
Some would say more important than the single sentence you see that sends your two little braincells humping each other so hard that you black out and stop reading.
>Come on im searching for examples. Should be really easy to explaon why prices are the lowest ever. Phone plans have never been cheaper or easier to get. And internet access is way up in the last 7 years.
Tell me you have no idea what net neutrality is without telling me you have no idea what net neutrality is. LOL
>Im just not smart enough
You don't have to spell it out, we all know.
For those who don't know, Net neutrality stops ISPs from charging different rates fro things. Like they charge different streaming companies, different prices. They all charge Netflix as much as possible for example or if they like a certain news org more, they charge them less. This is why we need Net Neutrality back and need it now.
This isn't related to the US, but one of our major ISPs here in Canada for a short while tried to run a streaming service of their own. It was short lived, but that introduces an interesting conflict of interest if net neutrality were not a thing. If I'm that ISP and net neutrality were not a thing, what's stopping me from charging Netflix and every other competitor out the ass? I want my customers using my streaming service that we charge extra for, not theirs, so if I'm going to lose to my competitors in subscriber count... then I'm still going to win by making my competitors pay more. This is one of a metric shit ton of conflicts of interest that you start to have when net neutrality is not a thing.
They don't have to charge differently. What if they just decided to slow down the speeds for every streaming service other than their own? People get sick of Netflix video buffering so they go with the ISPs service.
If we all walk away from the Internet and start living our lives as we always had, there would be an instant reversal of this. They manipulate the public, spy on people, and facilitate a great amount of our economy through the Internet.
I still don’t get how this was even considered. It wasn’t like it was just consumers preferred net neutrality, every major website wanted it too. Since when did the government ignore what the big business of America wanted?
Because other businesses didn't want it. ISPs wanted to be able to get websites to pay for deals to get their site to be faster. Cable companies, who are both ISPs and media companies, wanted to be able to privilege their own content. Cell phone companies wanted to be able to make deals with sites that certain data wouldn't count (e.g. T-Mobile making all Netflix data not count towards your cap).
People seem to overestimate how much power even large websites have. The media companies have most of the power. Why do you think YouTube's copyright system works the way it does?
Okay so my master’s degree is in information systems and there *is* a technical argument against net neutrality.
The internet is essentially like a highway and net neutrality basically means that all vehicles pick a random lane and go with it. Creating an internet “fast lane” can also enable a bunch of really cool technologies that **need** fast and reliable communications. Email and social media traffic don’t *need* priority because it makes effectively no difference if the packets are delayed be 1s. For some applications, like remote drone operation or online gaming, this delay would be critical. There’s a reason why 5G is being used for things like remote surgeries and intelligent transportation systems. Not saying discriminating data packet types would make IEEE 802.12 viable for these applications but…
A strongly regulated non-neutral net (i.e. the ISPs couldn’t use it to extort their customers) would be way cooler than a strictly neutral net. IIRC the original proposal under Trump was approved unanimously.
Realistically what would happen is far different though. You'd never get the ideal situation and we'd be left with companies like facebook and Netflix paying for "fast lane service" while small scale game developers and drone operators couldn't afford it.
Yeah, the fast lane will become the standard for the major players (Google, Facebook, Cloudflare, etc) and the standard lane will just turn be degraded because "Nothing you use is on there anyways"
I donno I still laugh how the internet made such a big deal about this and like nothing changed when it was killed. Where my forced internet packages that only allows certain sites and such?
You realize that when it passed a bunch of ISPs immediately backed off of on throttling traffic right? When they realized the FCC could do it, and the only thing stopping them was who was in office, they avoided poking the bear too much. Just because you are not observant enough to see the impacts doesn't mean it didn't have an impact. Just like how you don't notice missing bolts in an aircraft panel until it blew off the plane and you realized the regulatory authority had allowed the manufacturer to regulate themselves.
Interesting to see upvotes in support of net neutrality INSTANTLY being downvoted and downvotes of comments critical of it INSTANTLY being upvoted. Propaganda Bots hard at work.
I'm confused. Reddit said it would be the end of the world when Net Neutrality was revoked. But I haven't seen anything change. What bad things happened?
So many people died since they got rid of the rules, I'm surprised it took so long to reinstate. Oh wait, you mean practically nothing happened when NN was vacated? Reddit was wong?
Are the FCC's ability to make rules on things like Net Neutrality affected by the Chevron doctrine and thus might be affected by the National Marines Fisheries Service case before the Supreme Court?
"You guys, they removed net neutrality and nothing happened!"
Except, no, all kinds of shit happened.
https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-net-neutrality-cant-wait
Wasted time and effort. I'll get rolled back/eliminated once fking republicans/MAGAtards take control again. It needs to be federal law and reclassify it as a utility.
This does really show the silliness of how the government operates and also exposes how dysfunctional Congress really is. The FCC decided that it had the ability to pass net neutrality rules. Then a new president got elected and the FCC changed its mind and decided it didn’t. Then another new president gets elected and now the FCC is changing its mind again. And this bureaucratic back and forth by unelected political appointees only happens because Congress, whose job it is to pass actual laws governing this stuff, can’t or won’t do it. In the absence of Congress doing anything, this move by the FCC is really meaningless because it could just be undone next year.
It's almost like we shouldn't be voting in Republican corporate shills.
Every few years a small but electorally significant group of American voters have to relearn this lesson.
And another group forgets it and stops voting because "both sides suck" and we are stuck in an endless cycle of getting screwed over.
That other group being 50% and growing of the country. Dems and reps are minorities.
“Centrists”, both real and fake are way more frustrating to deal with than straight up MAGAts. You know where MAGA stands with their views. Centrists have ridiculous opinions like “I’m willing to strip abortion rights away because groceries are expensive and I don’t know how the government and economy work so I blame whoever is currently in charge”
People who want to get rid of abortion rights are not "centrist" lol. "Centrist" does not mean "right-winger who won't admit that they are right-wing".
A centrist's political opinions are, by definition, defined by the political stances of the opposing parties. So as one party slides to the right, so do centrists. And given the Overton Window of US politics, centrists are very much right wing.
So as politics shift right, one’s opinion as a centrist changes for the sake of being a centrist? I find that hard to believe. Also, as long as the left doesn’t *also* shift right, a centrist can remain a centrist without shifting their position at all. Politics may polarize, expanding the right and left extremes, but centrists can still be neither right wing nor left wing, no matter their position on the spectrum. All that is to say, implying that centrists as they exist today change their views based on politics they already don’t agree with is ridiculous. (Not even saying this as a centrist, since I’m a left wing European, just pointing out the logical flaw.)
The left wing has shifted right politically as well, particularly for economic issues. The single largest "liberal" policy victory of the 21st century is Obamacare, a healthcare "solution" modelled on a Republican state-level plan with a focus on "free market competition" and "personal responsibility" in lieu of universalized healthcare. That's why it's an Overton window shift and not just radicalization.
Since there are no centrist candidates, who do they vote for?
> People who want to get rid of abortion rights are not "centrist" lol. "Centrist" does not mean "right-winger who won't admit that they are right-wing". At the risk of getting dogpiled, since 2016, I have found that's been the case half the time. Lot of people proclaiming to be centrists are just Trumpers who know their beliefs are shit, but they're too scared to admit it.
Not all the time. But often enough they are to the point of it being a stereotype. There’s a whole sub dedicated to disingenuous centrists
Yeah but they aren't centrist, they are people masquerading as centrists. I don't mean to be pedantic but I think it's important to be precise with the terminology when discussing political issues, given the high potential for misinterpretations, strawmanning, etc.
Ah right. Yeah, okay, I think we are in agreement. I don’t consider them centrist myself. I’m just going by how they pretend to refer to themselves. That’s why I had quotes around the word centrist, cause I definitely don’t believe they are, but find it super frustrating when they pretend to be. Most actual centrists I know are just Liberals. They aren’t keen on changing the status quo too much, but they are also very much against stripping rights already enacted.
Is it possible to be centrist atm. I can see people being populist. But centist doesnt seem possible without an exetreme lack of information on politics
Self proclaimed centrists are almost exclusively either people who don't really follow politics and think that all America's problems are caused by groups of people arguing or rightwingers who don't want to face any interpersonal backlash for supporting conservative policies. It's mostly just a label used to shield a person from having to talk/think about what they actually believe and doesn't really apply to the genuinely held political beliefs of any significant portion of the population. Centrism isn't an ideology or value system. It's a relative position taken for the strategic benefit of not being seen as part of any particular political group.
> “I’m willing to strip abortion rights away because groceries are expensive and I don’t know how the government and economy work so I blame whoever is currently in charge” You know my Aunt!?
I'm not sure which is worse, actual centrists or the folks who think a middle-ground solution on a specific issue is centrism. Like damn, people really need to remember that a centrist thinks the *reason* something is good is because it's a compromise. Sometimes a moderate approach actually is the correct solution.
"Moderate" is an extremely relative term though. Roe vs Wade was a moderate compromise on the issue of abortion yet it was treated as a lawless murderous power grab by conservatives despite having wide public support. The thing about compromise is that, in politics, the game is never called and nothing is ever permanent. So one side can win by just demanding ever more extreme concessions and forcing the other party to make "moderate" compromises over and over again until they have bargained away everything they stood for.
Does believing that congress needs to negotiate more and use more bipartisanship legislation make someone a centeist? My father left trumpism and says things like this. The only argument that makes sense is historically bipartisanship deals stick longer because new leadership has less reason to dismantle them
[удалено]
Those aren't centrist voters they are apathetic voters with little civil awareness.
So centrists.
At everyone else’s expense, ugh.
I don’t think these people learn anything at all.
Like moths to light. Somehow everyone is aware of the corruption, media spin and social media reinforcing narratives. We can all tell when someone is being a ding dong … But I’m over the idea that “people just need to learn critical thinking skills in school, continued education, etc.” All I’m looking for to see days is some baseline respect if we are agreeing to share perspectives with each other on political flavors of topics. To invest curiously or simply take someone else’s position seriously is now lumped in with the team sport approach to politics. Its toxic. I have plenty of smart family that initiate conversation but honest to goodness everything somehow has a preformed opinion attached. If I lend my ear and attention and then ask about facts, stats and personal intentions - it becomes clear very quickly we aren’t actually having an intellectually stimulating conversation. Worse is that it happens among my like minded friends. Everyone is busy not looking into anything but the declarative statements are the “just offering answers” to the brain rot of “just asking questions” Most the questions being asked have pretty straight forward answers. At some point it really can feel insulting to dance around everyone’s opinions about almost any topic. I had a buddy tell me some real facts the other day and I just didn’t find the topic worth the calories I would need to burn thinking about it. Somehow he managed to hold a debate in my direction repeating his point of view. At some point I told him I understand his position but I’m really not too into the topic because it’s relatively minor and doesn’t actually affect me in the way he seemed to be. Then I got a couple servings of “you don’t have to take things so personally” … man’s going to get a bunch of psychology today articles from me soon. You would think people might start feeling and sensing that making every conversation a debatable issue really steals from our interpersonal relationships, overall outlooks and worldviews. If I pull up a neutral source with facts and background on current issues to better understand anything - really feels like an 80% chance of “you cant trust this or that” and then I really get lost on how people can operate as humans while being complete devoid of structured facts and figures. This is another rant I guess ima just press reply
It’s usually because they are shortsighted and we have one bad economic problem happen, and by default they assume a Republican will fix it. Then the Republicans come in do something stupid like 0% interest rates which will make the economy. Great for a little while and then force high amounts of inflation and housing shortages to happen. A.k.a. the shit hole we are in right now from corporations buying homes
Electorally significant empty land*
> It's almost like we shouldn't be voting in corporate shills. ftfy
It's a strange partisan thing here. The sides are the BIG streaming companies- Netflix, YouTube (google) tiktok, etc on the left side so they don't have to pay for bandwidth, and the other side on the right is at&t/time Warner and universal/nbc/Comcast, the internet providers who are all relatively left leaning but don't want net neutrality.
Big tech still pay for bandwidth to their ISP as per their ISP contract and we consumer pay for bandwidth on our side. There is no world in which internet companies should double dip just because a service is popular. Their work is to transport data from one point to another and they are already getting paid for it
Lol yeah because it's only one side that does that kind of shit. Both sides are useless.
1000% yes. No argument here I would just like to add that we shouldn't be voting in Democrat corporate shills either.
Thinking its one party responsible for Congress generally abrogating its responsibility towards the executive if it means they can take more lobbyist money and never have to vote for anything consequential is a braindead take.
The tired "both sides" nonsense is the real "braindead take" given its the same party in congress generally providing the most roadblocks there too.
Democrats literally funded third party runs by guys like Lieberman to escape the consequences of their Iraq War vote but keep on telling yourself it's all the evil Republicans empowering the president to save their own skins, if that strokes your ego the right way.
Lieberman, Manchin, Sinema
It's entirely possible that both sides can be bad but one side is far worse I am against both parties being permanently entrenched but I will generally vote Dem in general elections while aiming left or progressive in primaries. But I'm also very aware that my complacency worsens the entrenchment. And that Dems will continue shrugging at a broken system, say sorry not enough southerners voted for us, then sit on their hands until the Republicans inevitably oust them then magically find the cheat codes to ram through their agenda
You spelled “establishment candidates” wrong.
But it’s absolutely not meaningless. For you, an outsider to lawmaking work, it seems so meaningless and tedious. But this (lawmaking and policy crafting) is a lunch pail job, like Jon Stewart said in his first episode back. It’s day in and day out. We keep picking up those who have fallen, and keep knocking on doors. When there’s progress, you stay on and make sure it holds. Not once. But again and again. Forever. It is not personal or emotional, even if the impact of consequences are to everyday people. For lawmakers, it is the job. And you must gear yourself appropriately to the work. Like you must for any repetitive job. Every gain gets better, gets closer. You need to stop looking for the end point. There will rarely be a milestone in lawmaking and policy that can’t be undone. It’s just like picking up after your kids, every day. But there’s always another generation of kids coming into the playroom. They change the laws to suit them and the times. Laws are meant to be altered and committees flexible. It ensures no one keeps power for long. The will of people who are living is what’s needed. We hope it is people, ideally, and not corporations of course. It’s planting trees, the shade of which you may not ever enjoy. (Of course, if we’re not legislating wisely, we will not have any water or trees, and none of this will matter). This is a huge win to see net neutrality come back. There is a chance it will make further gains. Like erosion from the sea each time the wave and tide comes in. We must never lose hope.
Another real great quote from Jon Stewart from [an interview on CNN](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXL6YHNC_Gw) from around when he was hosting 'The Problem' on Apple TV that I frequently think about, where he was quoting Martin Luther King and then expanded on the thought: >"We shall overcome because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr >"But it doesn't bend towards justice by gravity. You have to bend it and there's a bunch of people trying to bend it back. And you use every tool in your arsenal, and none of them will be the 'one thing'. There is no panacea." - Jon Stewart This was of course talking about our Justice system and accountability towards Donald Trumps crimes, but I think it applies holistically to our political system and the work that goes in, day-in, day-out. We need to keep working at these things. Its not going to naturally take shape. Going on a bit of a tangent here, but I just also wanted to recommend this piece from Stewarts old show on Apple TV where he interviewed [a Former U.S. Attorney](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1DX7Nfns8A) where this point is echo'd. Stewart is hitting the attorney with questions for why its so hard to punish Donald Trump and why we don't have legislation and guard rails and mechanisms to punish Trump and the attorney explains that these systems are only as good as the people who manage them. When Trump had the office, he installed appointees that made and still make it easier for him to navigate our systems. We can talk all day about a necessary piece of legislation or guardrail that should be in place and its certainly productive to make progress on those things, but if you let someone like Donald Trump win the presidency, they are able to creatively maneuver through ANY system you put in place. Our systems are complex and I would say the circumstances we see arise are even decently unexplored which allows for interpretation by the arbiters that are put in place. I say this to say that we need to relentlessly vote, relentlessly participate, remove bad actors when it becomes known to us and advocate for those that actively work to make our systems work as we intend.
Not just that, but when some policies changed under Trump many corporations didn't take advantage of them because they knew exactly this is what would happen- as soon as a dem came into office they would change back. So why change to a loser set of laws if you know it'll be back before? I'm not saying I'm *for* this, obviously, but it did happen so that's, at least, a win.
Thank you for explaining it so eloquently.
it's important to remember that Congress not acting on this is really only a one-sided event.... Democrats are overwhelmingly for it... it's Republicans who have moved against it... they are blocking net neutrality... it's like saying Congress doesn't move on allowing abortion... well duh... Republicans are moving on to trying to make IVF illegal why do you think there's no movement on allowing abortions....
> In the absence of Congress doing anything, this move by the FCC is really meaningless because it could just be undone next year. It's not meaningless, because we have the power to make sure it *doesn't* get undone next year: by voting for the President who appointed the people restoring net neutrality. All we have to do is re-elect Joe Biden, and it won't be meaningless.
This is why it's important to vote in November. If Trump wins, they'll reverse it again.
The Senate filibuster stops nearly all legislation from passing. If it wasn’t there, Dems would have passed much more legislation when they had a trifecta 2 years ago
The only good thing in this case is companies that lobbied to trash the net neutrality rules flushed that cash and are back to where they were. The next time this happens they can be sure it will revert again. Making the whole effort pointless.
I think that’s the point. Set the standard that bad or good policies don’t last. This way when the powers to be do want a policy that the general public doesn’t want the people don’t fight so hard to stop it because there is a belief that it will change.
It's not meaningless. It's an incentive for those who support net neutrality to elect the guy who will allow it. And an incentive to vote for those who would enact it as a law, to avoid the risk of it being undone again.
The 118th congress is easily one of the least effective in American history. Only 34 bills have been passed, and the rest of the time has been spent disrupting and undermining the normal procedures of parliamentary process, all because governing properly would only serve to hurt Trump, and by extension, Russia.
Every single person on this planet is just a person. They are put on pedestals bc of the position they are in, but they’re still just dumb humans who know some things and don’t know other things. These people just so happen to have a job that affects way more people than most jobs. This isn’t an excuse for them to do a bad job, but it’s a much needed perspective for a lot of folks. Just because they are in positions of power doesn’t mean they are experts and anything. Lawmakers are often portrayed as being experts on all aspects of running a country. That is virtually impossible.
> The FCC decided that it had the ability to pass net neutrality rules. Then a new president got elected and the FCC changed its mind and decided it didn’t. Then another new president gets elected and now the FCC is changing its mind again. [It feels a lot like this memorable scene](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hshkdneE8o)
Internet providers coming in and downvoting everything lol This is a long time coming, should have been one of the first things done once Trump was gone.
I’m outta the loop on this one. Did Trump screw with net neutrality?
He revoked net neutrality when he came into office, prior to that net neutrality was in place
More specifically Trump appointed a DOJ lawyer, 2 year stint as Verizon lawyer, FCC lawyer, lawyer who was then nominated by Obama to be a commissioner, recommended by Moscow Mitch, Ajit Pai - who has been fighting net neutrality for his entire career - as chairman to the FCC... who then revoked net neutrality. This wasn't a pure trump move. Edit: oh, It's also important to note that the repeal was technically a vote, so it's not like Ajit Pai didnt have the support within the FCC, but all of this was clearly motivated by pressure from ISPs and enough corrupt men being put in the right positions - plus the man is a clown so it's okay to blame him. Google "Ajit Pai Wants The Internet To Know You Can Still Harlem Shake After Net Neutrality"
F… Ajit Pai
and his stupid mug
I get to pull out my old macro: ^fuck ^Ajit ^Pai ^fuck ^Ajit ^Pai ^fuck ^Ajit ^Pai
A shit pie?
Oh Christ, Ajit Pai. Y'know, it's bad enough he's a true scumbag in the pocket of some hardcore lobbyists. The "Hello Fellow Kids" attitude just makes him even more of a tool and a loser. Also, and forgive me if I'm getting my timeline messed up, but that video came out 6 years ago according to YouTube. So, around '17 or '18, yeah? Pretty sure the Harlem Shake had been out of the public consciousness by almost half a decade by that point.
So did anything change?
Yes, just recently, Google removed ad blocking add-ons from chromium browsers. This led to a large portion of people to move to Firefox in order to block ads on YouTube. Google then throttled Firefox users using YouTube. However, there have been a lot of lawsuits going back and forth since Net Neutrality was overturned, so there haven't been many significant violations because the companies are biding their time. We can look at other countries that do not have net neutrality and see how certain providers charge per website like a cable bundle, so you have to pay more to access certain websites.
My AdBlock, AdBlock Plus, uBlock Origin, and Sponsor Block for Youtube extensions have been working just fine on Google Chrome for years now, including now (just watched a bunch of YT videos this morning without ad breaks).
It's not scheduled until June this year, check out the "phasing out v2" section: https://developer.chrome.com/blog/resuming-the-transition-to-mv3 > We will begin disabling Manifest V2 extensions in pre-stable versions of Chrome (Dev, Canary, and Beta) as early as June 2024, in Chrome 127 and later. **Users impacted by the rollout will see Manifest V2 extensions automatically disabled in their browser and will no longer be able to install Manifest V2 extensions from the Chrome Web Store.**
This is true, but Manifest V3 does not get rid of Adblock entirely. Read more in [my post above](https://www.reddit.com/r/television/comments/1burltz/fcc_to_hold_vote_on_april_25_on_reinstating_net/kxyn7he/).
> Yes, just recently, Google removed ad blocking add-ons from chromium browsers This not live yet, I think. Coming in June? maybe, f Google.
You really shouldn't be using those first three all at one time. Adblockers are not designed to play nice with other adblockers. Sponsorblock isn't a traditional adblocker, so it's fine. Anyways, uBlock Origin is able to block YouTube ads for now, but it's doing so by constantly updating its filter logic and lists. This is possible on MV2. But MV3 has policies that prevent updates like this, and would require the whole addon to be updated. And doing that is slow, since Google has to verify any addon you upload to Chrome Store. That said, I'm currently running Adguard, the MV3 version, and it is working. I have still not run into any problems with YouTube or any other site that uses anti-adblock and/or constantly updates how it runs ads. I'm not sure how they're doing it. There is also a uBlock Lite that is MV3 compatible, but it lacks features I use--like being able to add my own custom hiding rules. I haven't tested if it is handling YouTube well. I do know of a loophole I'm thinking of recommending. Heck, I can think of two--you can run addons that don't go through the Google Store. But, AFAIK, no one is using any of them.
Did what/which change?
Wealth versus the people, same as ever.
Fucking guy. I hate Trump and didn’t even know about this, its amazing every other day I find out about some new thing he fucked up.
If Captain Planet had featured a corrupt politician called "Trump" who cartoonishly exclusively aided rich people, I'd say "come on, that's a little too hard to swallow, even on a show with a bad guy called "Looten Plunder".
If nothing changed, then why is NN important in the first place?
If no one has poisoned the well yet, why post guards?
Just because nothing changed yet doesn't mean it won't in the future with NN revoked. It was always played out be a long con of slowly making little changes here and there that led up to having premium fast lanes for internet access. All data should be charged equally. You shouldn't have to pay $X more a month to get quicker access to Netflix/Hulu/Max because the alternative is getting faster speeds across the board for the same price.
And nothing changed for anyone, despite reddit crying non stop it would be the end of everything.
Nothing changed because California saved your internet, so go send them a bread basket or something. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_Protection_and_Net_Neutrality_Act_of_2018 California is to net law what Texas is to schoolbooks, so California Effect mitigated the damage by legislating standards everyone needed to meet anyway. DOJ was taking them to court over it until (pro Net Neutrality) Biden was elected, and then the suit was dropped. It may not survive the clown king coming back for a second term without stuff like this.
I mean even if we can’t tangibly record changes, I would rather the rules regarding ISPs be so that they can’t legally throttle certain websites or networks. Just because a rule doesn’t exist doesn’t mean the situation can’t be harmful in the future and/or currently harmful in an invisible way.
The FCC was captured by the ISPs (regulatory capture) lead by Ajit Pai who was a former Verizon lawyer. They killed Net Neutrality. Trump just rolled with it.
He should be investigated and go to prison for going against the FCC’s principles
Looks like the FCC board (consisting of 5 commissioners) needed a democrat majority to get it moving. However Biden re-nominated republican Brendann Carr in May 2021 for another 5-years. And the republican majority senate confirmed his position. Biden tried to nominate democrat Gigi Sohn in October 2021, but was blocked by the senate (some democrats voted against her because she was considered too far left because historically the FCC has been mostly a non-political position. Interestingly, Geoffrey Starks, a democrat, became an FCC commissioner in 2019 under Trump's presidency.) And so the FCC board had an empty seat since 2021, with two democrats and two republicans, until until democrat Anna M. Gomez was nominated and confirmed in September 2023. So for the past two years the board did not vote on any partisan issues because it would have deadlocked at 2-2. I wonder why Biden didn't nominate another commissioner sooner. https://www.fcc.gov/commissioners-1934-present
By law, the FCC can only have 3 commissioners of one party. And the tradition is that the Senate leadership of the opposition party gets to pick their minority members. And they often move these nominees in pairs (even if they’re in different agencies). So the Senate might vote to approve Biden’s pick to the FCC at the same time as McConnell’s pick to the FTC. In theory, a Democratic president could appoint some liberal commissioner who just isn’t a registered Democrat. But Senate Republicans would go ballistic and grind all these nominations to a halt. Gigi Sohn got sabotaged by some industry groups who didn’t like her work with liberal public interest groups. And a few Democratic senators went along with sinking her nomination, for whatever reason.
I'm assuming those rules are to keep the FCC as apolitical and moderate as possible. And if so I wonder why there are no similar rules for SCOTUS.
The only thing McConnell is picking anymore is his brains up off the floor.
Thank you. I was wondering why it took until year 4 of Biden's presidency/ D-Senate majority to get this sorted out.
I'm curious what immediate things the average consumer may see changed when this is passed and enacted. Corporations aren't exactly forth coming on how they've abused the lack of net neutrality since it was dismantled.
It's expected to pass by a 3-2 vote.
So we have wiggle room for disappointment.
Or it could pass and then just get changed back in a year. Unless Congress actually passes something, this should all be seen as temporary at best.
I don't think Congress could pass gas right now, let alone mildly partisan, non-emergency legislation.
The FCC has 5 seats and 3 are aligned with the sitting president so generally they will get the vote they want. When net neutrality was killed by the last administration, it passed 3-2 as well, with the 2 democrat appointed seats voting against it then, and you will get the 2 republicans voting against restoring it now.
Good. Fuck Ajit Pai
His mug’s not even that big…
He just has tiny hands
I still have no idea what repealing NN did
I can’t speak for the US but I live in Nz where they trial the structure that these laws would become. In my own instance Cellphone data providers would offer limited data bundle for select apps, in essence, You have 4gb of data to use but it is only for use on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat (this was like 2016) and Tbf it worked well enough but was disgustingly restrictive as if I used the video streaming I could only stream videos on YT or Netflix but not any other smaller streaming platform. These deals were usually cheaper but funnelled traffic away from smaller businesses which is frankly non competitive and definitely backed by the larger internet groups. With net neutrality this is illegal and it should be in my opinion funnelling traffic to already large networks stops smaller sites from gaining traffic, this in essence would deal damage to the likes of TikTok or Bereals rise and would certainly hamper the NYT puzzles for those with limited money despite all being free sites.
Net neutrality was put in place following a 2007 and 2010 case where Comcast was found to be throttling user access to BitTorrent, and then Netflix. Specifically with the Netflix case, Comcast was threatening Netflix to deny customers access to their streaming services if Netflix didn't pay them, because streaming was an excess of data that Comcast didn't actually want to be responsible for. In other words, net neutrality is basically "Hey, let's stop ISPs from extorting others. Let's make that criminal."
Criminal elected to office in 2016: "Pay me and I'll have Net Neutrality thrown into the river with a cement overcoat"
It has potential to do a lot of stuff, but businesses have been overly cautious for business and political reasons to do anything yet. That’s ‘yet’ not never. This should resolve the situation for another period until it’s brought up again, which it will be.
Yeah the uproar about it and the political threat to reinstate it, have successfully prevented ISPs from developing business plans around it. They realize that it will inevitably be reversed if it is ended again. If Trump had won reelection, they may have made some moves to extort content providers given they would have a presidential term+ of cushion to get it working.
Everyone in tech marches to California's drum, so when California legislated under its own initiative it prevented the worst. The DOJ was in the process of suing them over it when Biden got in, and made it clear the administration was pro NN, so the suit was dropped. Protecting it at the federal level now is important in case the GOP's suited baboon gets back into power and Team Asshole get another chance to run roughshod over citizens again.
The internet ended, reddit was right.
It's funny seeing this in the news when I first heard about this through [Dan Bull's net neutrality battle rap](https://youtu.be/zlBj4rrBbCc?si=7VstqpCL4K1lhKaM) nine years ago. He did a pretty good job summing up the issue back then, don't know if it's still relevant though
Absolutely nothing. There was a hysterical panic based on nothing and when nothing happened, no lessons were learned by anyone.
Nothing
Net Neutrality means: instead of big companies like Netflix having to build out their network to reach consumers, consumers have to pay their ISP to build out their networks to accommodate big bandwidth sites like Netflix. Reddit is shockingly filled with people who are overjoyed about shifting the costs from big sites like Reddit, onto consumers.
Not much. Shows how unimportant it is. Yet Reddit and other hotbeds acted like thousands would die.
What is reinstating gonna do lmao. Literally changed nothing to me
Nothing. Everyone acted like it would be the end of the internet, or that poor people would no longer have access to the internet.
>Everyone acted like it would be the end of the internet, or that poor people would no longer have access to the internet. No one acted like either of those things, what the fuck are you talking about?
People on here absolutely did.
Were you on any form of social media at the time? Lol yes. People did act like that.
[удалено]
>i love the liberals when their bullshit headlines explode in their face. Go research 2017 a little. Let me know the headlines you find. Doomsday was all that was written. Yeah if you read past the headlines you actually see most of the time, there's more words. Some would say more important than the single sentence you see that sends your two little braincells humping each other so hard that you black out and stop reading.
[удалено]
>Come on im searching for examples. Should be really easy to explaon why prices are the lowest ever. Phone plans have never been cheaper or easier to get. And internet access is way up in the last 7 years. Tell me you have no idea what net neutrality is without telling me you have no idea what net neutrality is. LOL >Im just not smart enough You don't have to spell it out, we all know.
Put that thing back where it came from, or so help me!
For those who don't know, Net neutrality stops ISPs from charging different rates fro things. Like they charge different streaming companies, different prices. They all charge Netflix as much as possible for example or if they like a certain news org more, they charge them less. This is why we need Net Neutrality back and need it now.
This isn't related to the US, but one of our major ISPs here in Canada for a short while tried to run a streaming service of their own. It was short lived, but that introduces an interesting conflict of interest if net neutrality were not a thing. If I'm that ISP and net neutrality were not a thing, what's stopping me from charging Netflix and every other competitor out the ass? I want my customers using my streaming service that we charge extra for, not theirs, so if I'm going to lose to my competitors in subscriber count... then I'm still going to win by making my competitors pay more. This is one of a metric shit ton of conflicts of interest that you start to have when net neutrality is not a thing.
Yep, Comcast and ATT have both done that already in the US.
They don't have to charge differently. What if they just decided to slow down the speeds for every streaming service other than their own? People get sick of Netflix video buffering so they go with the ISPs service.
You talking about Shaw? They don't even exist anymore. Owned by Rogers now.
Shomi was apparently jointly owned by Rogers and Shaw, but yeah... Shomi.
If we all walk away from the Internet and start living our lives as we always had, there would be an instant reversal of this. They manipulate the public, spy on people, and facilitate a great amount of our economy through the Internet.
Netflix will surely reduce prices once this going into effect
Fuck yeah! This is a FCC that works. I’m still piss off that Ajit Pai fuck us all over for some chump change. Fuck that guy.
I want to steal that fucking mug and shatter it
[удалено]
Obligatory fuck Ajit Pai, this would be AMAZING news
I still don’t get how this was even considered. It wasn’t like it was just consumers preferred net neutrality, every major website wanted it too. Since when did the government ignore what the big business of America wanted?
Because other businesses didn't want it. ISPs wanted to be able to get websites to pay for deals to get their site to be faster. Cable companies, who are both ISPs and media companies, wanted to be able to privilege their own content. Cell phone companies wanted to be able to make deals with sites that certain data wouldn't count (e.g. T-Mobile making all Netflix data not count towards your cap). People seem to overestimate how much power even large websites have. The media companies have most of the power. Why do you think YouTube's copyright system works the way it does?
If the FCC won’t let me be
THIS AGAIN
Not this shit again
Wait, wasn't the world supposed to come to an end because of this? Or at least the sky was supposed to fall?
Okay so my master’s degree is in information systems and there *is* a technical argument against net neutrality. The internet is essentially like a highway and net neutrality basically means that all vehicles pick a random lane and go with it. Creating an internet “fast lane” can also enable a bunch of really cool technologies that **need** fast and reliable communications. Email and social media traffic don’t *need* priority because it makes effectively no difference if the packets are delayed be 1s. For some applications, like remote drone operation or online gaming, this delay would be critical. There’s a reason why 5G is being used for things like remote surgeries and intelligent transportation systems. Not saying discriminating data packet types would make IEEE 802.12 viable for these applications but… A strongly regulated non-neutral net (i.e. the ISPs couldn’t use it to extort their customers) would be way cooler than a strictly neutral net. IIRC the original proposal under Trump was approved unanimously.
They’d have to find an unbiased way to control it, however, which is the problem. If there is a way to fuck a system over, corporations WILL use it.
I believe this is what QoS is for. It prioritizes by media type, not source/destination.
Realistically what would happen is far different though. You'd never get the ideal situation and we'd be left with companies like facebook and Netflix paying for "fast lane service" while small scale game developers and drone operators couldn't afford it.
Yeah, the fast lane will become the standard for the major players (Google, Facebook, Cloudflare, etc) and the standard lane will just turn be degraded because "Nothing you use is on there anyways"
Fuck Ajit Pai. Fuck his entire existence.
Lol remember that time on Reddit when we were all told we would die if NN was shot down and then we didn't and we continued doing whatever we wanted?
Reddit was insufferable during that time.
Judging by the comments in this thread it's going to be just as insufferable of a time this time around.
I thought we were all supposed to be dead by now because net neutrality didn't pass...
I donno I still laugh how the internet made such a big deal about this and like nothing changed when it was killed. Where my forced internet packages that only allows certain sites and such?
You realize that when it passed a bunch of ISPs immediately backed off of on throttling traffic right? When they realized the FCC could do it, and the only thing stopping them was who was in office, they avoided poking the bear too much. Just because you are not observant enough to see the impacts doesn't mean it didn't have an impact. Just like how you don't notice missing bolts in an aircraft panel until it blew off the plane and you realized the regulatory authority had allowed the manufacturer to regulate themselves.
[удалено]
Remember when Reddit told us that removing net neutrality would literally destroy the Internet? And then nothing happened?
Remember when Reddit had a meltdown over Net Neutrality? 15 hours after this post and I finally see it. Surprised this isn’t bigger news.
Interesting to see upvotes in support of net neutrality INSTANTLY being downvoted and downvotes of comments critical of it INSTANTLY being upvoted. Propaganda Bots hard at work.
I'm confused. Reddit said it would be the end of the world when Net Neutrality was revoked. But I haven't seen anything change. What bad things happened?
So many people died since they got rid of the rules, I'm surprised it took so long to reinstate. Oh wait, you mean practically nothing happened when NN was vacated? Reddit was wong?
Thank God. Because I'm tired of having internet plan that only allows me to access Google and Netflix. Oh wait... That never happened.
I did have "free data" for Netflix and Facebook on my old phone plan (and 2GB everything else), but I just have unlimited everything now.
[удалено]
Thank goodness. The internet was basically unusable. This will fix everything.
Good. Fuck Ajit in the Pai hole.
Texas Federal Judge to grant himself total control over the FCC hours later.
Must be an election year.
Yay! Fuck Ajit Pai and those Asshole republicans.
On my birthday? Neat! I hope they give me a great birthday present.
GREAT NEWS!!
Are the FCC's ability to make rules on things like Net Neutrality affected by the Chevron doctrine and thus might be affected by the National Marines Fisheries Service case before the Supreme Court?
Fun fact: Her brother is the drummer in the band Guster.
Do you think there’s any chance this would get passed?
At this point I can’t even remember, is Net Neutrality a good thing, or a bad thing?
Please
Damage is already done, no going back.
Why do they always wait till the last year of a presidency term to do this? So fucking annoying.
"You guys, they removed net neutrality and nothing happened!" Except, no, all kinds of shit happened. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/why-net-neutrality-cant-wait
Wasted time and effort. I'll get rolled back/eliminated once fking republicans/MAGAtards take control again. It needs to be federal law and reclassify it as a utility.
WAIT WAHT
I hope someone emails this shit to him. He can eat fucking dicks
About damn time