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
38 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
34551 readers
92 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
$$$ 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...?
Yep. Democrats should run making it a utility.
Oh fuck off FCC, you know exactly why and intentionally don't address it.
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.
load more comments
(12 replies)
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.
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
Because MONEY and lack of choice in some markets.... easy.
Short answer? Because they can.
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).
This is a rhetorical question right?
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. :|
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.
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.
Because of corporate greed and a ridiculous lack of meaningful regulation.
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)
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
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?
load more comments
(2 replies)
Interesting…me too 🤔
GREED. That has always been the answer.
Because there is money to be made!
view more: next ›