Mozilla leads push for FCC to reinstate net neutrality(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Mozilla leads push for FCC to reinstate net neutrality
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/19/mozilla-leads-push-for-fcc-to-reinstate-net-neutrality.html
19 comments
Did anything actually happen when it was repealed? I was pretty upset when it happened, especially when that awful "you can still use the internet" video was made. But I have to admit, I have experienced exactly 0 of the negatives that I was worried about at the time.
I'm sure a lot of the companies who might have benefitted from abusing it were persuaded to wait by various public pressure campaigns. It's always easier to push stuff in slowly once attention was elsewhere.
Is there any desirable practice that net neutrality would forbid?
But to answer your question - yes. AT&T zero-rated their own streaming service: https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/17/22336872/hbo-max-data-cap...
(Zero-rating doesn't mean "free". It means "You're paying for it whether you use it or not. Competitors cost double.")
But to answer your question - yes. AT&T zero-rated their own streaming service: https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/17/22336872/hbo-max-data-cap...
(Zero-rating doesn't mean "free". It means "You're paying for it whether you use it or not. Competitors cost double.")
Did you think they’d change everything over night? These things take time.
Most states either passed laws creating NN state wide or threatened to do so, and probably would've taken action if an ISP over stepped.
Advocating for the neutrality of internet infrastructure providers, while rallying against the neutrality of internet communication platforms (1), is pretty inconsistent.
1: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
1: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
Exactly. How about Facebook neutrality? Or Twitter neutrality?
No, these two are completely different matters.
One is arguing for a public utility that just pushes arbitrary and unceognizable bits down a fiber line.
The other is about requiring engineers to support actual tangible information of things they do not support.
Please don't conflate these two.
One is arguing for a public utility that just pushes arbitrary and unceognizable bits down a fiber line.
The other is about requiring engineers to support actual tangible information of things they do not support.
Please don't conflate these two.
There are engineers who work at AT&T, Comcast, Spectrum, etc. The vast majority of them are good people (and not white nationalists).
Why do you want to force them to support the Daily Stormer?
Why do you want to force them to support the Daily Stormer?
The predictions that came from the alarmists turned out to be false - which makes me think there is an ulterior motive behind NN we are not being told about.
I'm not sure you can infer that because the worst predictions of alarmists didn't immediately happen, there is no danger in not having network neutrality.
Assuming an ulterior motive is unnecessary, the stated motive seems good enough, they don't want a network to freeze out their services in order to promote their own.
Assuming an ulterior motive is unnecessary, the stated motive seems good enough, they don't want a network to freeze out their services in order to promote their own.
Therr was a massive astro turf campaign on reddit regarding NN. Of course there is some motive behind it when money is being spent to lobby it.
I even read something about how "people will literally die without NN". That kind of rhetoric should be a signal.
I even read something about how "people will literally die without NN". That kind of rhetoric should be a signal.
Well there was:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttle...
Yes but that is unrelated to net neutrality.
NN doesn't prevent a carrier from offering a plan with Unlimited* data where the asterisk means "up to 25GB at maximum speed, lowered to 128/64 Kbps after exceeding the limit, until the end of billing period".
It would prevent the carrier from not counting certain traffic in the data usage or not limiting the speed of some traffic after the data limit is reached.
NN doesn't prevent a carrier from offering a plan with Unlimited* data where the asterisk means "up to 25GB at maximum speed, lowered to 128/64 Kbps after exceeding the limit, until the end of billing period".
It would prevent the carrier from not counting certain traffic in the data usage or not limiting the speed of some traffic after the data limit is reached.
From what I remember, the crux of the matter was that the change of regulation would give more negotiating power to ISPs when it came to common infrastructures they shared with large cloud providers (Google and co).
The status quo was highly advantageous to said cloud providers, which is why they lobbied so hard against net neutrality changes. And since people on the internet get really vocal about perceived threats to the internet, the lobbying went viral.
The status quo was highly advantageous to said cloud providers, which is why they lobbied so hard against net neutrality changes. And since people on the internet get really vocal about perceived threats to the internet, the lobbying went viral.
Mozilla isn't leading shit.
"ADT, Dropbox, Eventbrite, Reddit, Vimeo and Wikimedia joined Mozilla" suggests a kind of leadership.
I hope you're wrong, because if they put their name on this and fail, that's another strike in a long list of recent reds.
[deleted]