If Ajit Pai were still in charge, he'd say "Woof woof! The telcos can do anything they want!," and the Verizon CEO who owns him would pat him on the head and give him a Milk-Bone.
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
43 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
34894 readers
1003 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Until he personally lost service for a couple hours
Why is the FCC asking this question instead of already correcting the issue?
In short, the Administrative Procedure Act. It sets out the procedures that have to be followed before policy decisions get made. If the FCC doesn't follow the APA's procedures exactly, that gives the industry grounds to sue. Even if the industry eventually looses, it would still mean a stay on the new policies during which they would continue to exploit consumers.
The APA isn't a bad thing, since it forces federal agencies to be deliberate in making policy decisions that could have far reaching consequences. That said, it does make the government even slower to react to situations that often change quickly. But it has tripped up this administration and previous administrations when they have tried to make hasty decisions, including Trump with his "Muslim ban".
Question, what the fuck was the "Muslim ban" I've never heard of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769
It was never law, which is why it was so easily reversed.
Is this where the last Net Neutrality request for comments window failed miserably? Like, the FCC did the process, but they let it be provably sabotaged by the industry and went ahead anyways...
Part of the reason they "went ahead anyways" was painfully obviously because of the FCC chair at the time, Ajit Pai, who had previously been Associate General Counsel at Verizon. They even made a "comedy" video of him being asked to be a toady by Verizon.
This is because in the US, for it to be considered bribery or quid-pro-quo, you basically have to write a check and in the notes section put "This is a Bribe" otherwise it's just considered "business" and it's totally okay for you to make "comedy" videos mocking the people wanting an end to corruption.
I wish informative answers like yours would get the upvotes they deserve. You have my upvote.
EDIT: Okay yeah, several hours later now it's heavily upvoted. Thanks Lemmings, for giving me faith in comments sections again.
Thanks! And it is getting upvotes, with you being the first. After all, I only wrote it a few minutes ago.
I'm not scrubbing my account on Reddit partially because some of the comments are like the one above. Sure, much of what I wrote is of limited value. But if there is a historian going back through Internet history and using a language processing model to analyze comments, I think my voice is worth leaving there.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Isn't there still a vacancy on the FCC? Wouldn't that also affect any new designations?
Yes, there is. At present, most actions that are taken by the board are consensus actions that won't hit a Democrat-Republican deadlock. Once a chairperson is confirmed, they can start tackling the more contentious stuff that will have 3-2 decisions. Biden's previous nominee was scuttled after some attention to some mildly spicy tweets that were critical of Fox. He nominated a replacement a month ago and her nomination will likely go smoother.
They are asking ISPs to lay out their best justification so that they can decide whether it's valid or not. Judging by their wording, they want a good explanation. It's good to gain understanding of something before we gut it and who better to ask for the 'best argument for' than those who enforce it?
Because they have no intention of correcting it. They’re either doing this to keep up the charade of consumer protection, or gearing up to enshrine the practice in regulation.
Because fuck you, pay me, that’s why.
— Comcast, probably.
It will always make me happy that no matter how hard they try to make Xfinity happen, everyone remembers their real, ugly face before the facelift, and that ugly face is Comcast.^1
"Stop trying to make ~~fetch~~ Xfinity happen! It's not going to happen!"
Hey Comcast's service improved in my area once google Fiber got installed.
Just goes to show you that companies are fine with you complaining as much as you want, just NEVER let there be an alternative.
Lack of healthy competition. It's plain to see from the other side of the ocean where I live... Is it maybe one of those things you can only see from afar?
Nah, we see it too. Those of us whose eyes are open, anyway.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Would be wonderful if the FCC did their fucking job for once and banned data caps. Companies like Mediacom abuse the fuck out of them
What's going to stop the forms being filled out by industry-controlled bots this time? Last time the FCC took public comment, anti-net-neutrality comments were being made under the names of dead people and people who would later claim they never participated in making comments to the FCC.
Otherwise, it's going to be the same dumb shitshow as last time.
The same dumb shitshow as last time is probably the goal.
It did a great job of discrediting opening anything for public comment thenceforth. Which I really think was the long-term goal.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Oh fuck off FCC, you know exactly why and intentionally don't address it.
It’s the same reason my complex can force me to pay $100 for Xfinity while my neighbor pays $30 for the exact same service (because they’re in a house).
$$$ and because the ISPs don't get charged for unethical and blantly illegal activities...
The real question should be why is the internet not a public utility yet..? Huh FCC/CRTC...?
@Atemu. Money. Same reason they don't really wanna disclose all the little fees.
I mean, if you ask why a company is doing xyz the answer is pretty much universally money.
Short answer? Because they can.
Because MONEY and lack of choice in some markets.... easy.
Because of corporate greed and a ridiculous lack of meaningful regulation.
Because there is money to be made!
The FCC still doesn’t have a leader. Biden nominated one but couldn’t get congress to approve one so they’ve sort of been stuck and unable to do anything.
The FCC is split evenly by Repubs and Dems, with the Commissioner being the tie breaker, nominated by the presiding president
Get money out of as many facets of life as we can!! Free energy for the people! We are the energy!
It's ridiculous I have to pay Xfinity $110/mo for my speed and unlimited bandwidth
Over here, I'm getting the Cox... last bill was $99 a month, now my "promo period" expired, and it is the full $170 a month thanks to "unlimited". It's pretty gross, but it is the only plan that gives the "amazing" 30 mbps up. :|
EDIT: This is for home internet, 1000 down/30 up, unlimited data
That’s crazy! I’m paying 18 EUR a month for unlimited 1000 mbps download and 1000 mbps upload and I thought my bill was high. 😲
Oh. You were talking about mobile data. That’s still extremely expensive.
Sadly, I’m not talking about mobile data. This is coax modem landline internet… for that price… they only get away with it because I don’t have a choice, and I need it to be able to work.
God damn. In Austria I'm paying 35€ for 250/250, and am still looking over to the Romanians with longing eyes. Data caps are only on mobile - which is still questionable in my eyes.
Data caps on mobile makes more sense to me, simply because mobile data is so much more expensive.
Is it?
To me it seems it's cheaper to build an antenna to serve 100-1000s of users than to dig and install cables to all of them.
It depends on what you're trying to do. If you're just trying to reach them and don't care about bandwidth, wireless is the way to go. It's why more developed countries lagged behind developing countries on the transition to wireless phones. But when you're trying to deploy shear amounts of bandwidth, nothing beats fiber. It's incredibly fast, has low latency, and doesn't get interference.
And I suppose I should say that I think unlimited is a bad idea in general. I favor paying for what I use. People who use expensive infrastructure sparingly should pay less than people use it a lot.
GREED. That has always been the answer.
The infrastructure over which that data travels isn't free. If you have a resource and it has any kind of scarcity, you want to tie consumption to the cost of producing more of it.
You can reduce the transaction cost -- reduce hassle for users using Internet service -- by not having a cap for them to worry about, but then you decouple the costs of consumption.
Soft caps, like throttling, are one way to help reduce transaction costs while still having some connection between consumption and price.
But point is, if one user is using a lot more of the infrastructure than any other is, you probably want to have that reflected in some way, else you're dumping Heavy User's costs on Light User.
view more: next ›