FCC plan rejected request to ban what agency calls "positive" discrimination.
  • Brkdncr@lemmy.worldEnglish
    65·
    3 months ago

    “Why should we upgrade our tech when we can just artificially reduce capacity and charge more for priority access?”

  • _sideffect@lemmy.worldEnglish
    44·
    3 months ago

    Fuck these pricks.

    The network can handle everyone currently on it yet they cry like it’s causing them issues.

    Fucking liars.

      • Asafum@feddit.nlEnglish
        6·
        3 months ago

        When it’s mafia it’s extortion, when it’s ISPs it’s just “good business practices.”

    • V4sh3r@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      3 months ago

      Low latency matters a lot more than bandwidth in any game that isn’t turn based.

  • Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.worldEnglish
    29·
    3 months ago

    Data is data unless they can commodify it. Data is like a river that never ends. Doesn’t cost them Anything. We are subject to monopolies who charge above and beyond maintenance and massive profits while destroying competition

    • theit8514@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      3 months ago

      You seem to be misinformed on how the internet works. Nothing is “free”. ISPs have to buy equipment, pay for expensive physical connectivity (without disturbing existing infrastructure), and usually have to deal with constant, ever increasing bandwidth requirements.

      I’m all for a bit of net neutrality, but ISPs tend to get a lot of flak for policies like this, for seemingly no reason. For example, let’s say ISP A and Upstream B have a mutual bandwidth sharing policy (called Peering) where both sides benefit equally from the connectivity. ISP A determines that N is using all the bandwidth to Upstream B. ISP A has three options: N gets all the bandwidth to Upstream B (disturbing other traffic to/from that network), N has to be throttled to allow all traffic equally, or ISP A and Upstream B need to expand their network again (new equipment, new physical links) which will cost a lot of money. N doesn’t even pay ISP A or Upstream B, they just pay their ISP C. In the end, ISP A has to throttle N, and N is the one who had to expand/change their business model to deliver content to their customers. They had to go out and buy services from many upstream providers to even the load and designed a solution to install Caching boxes inside each ISP’s datacenter so their traffic could reach end users without going upstream.

      • kalleboo@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        That’s a good summary!

        IMO, the customers of A are paying A to access to the internet, including N. So A should charge their customers enough that they can pay for the equipment to deliver that.

        In a working market with many participants, customers can choose a cheaper ISP that has congested/throttled peering, or a more expensive ISP with gold-plated interconnects.

        The problem is that in the US, typically your choice of ISP is limited by geography. In many other places you have open fiber networks where the last mile is shared and then you can choose what ISP you want ontop of that, and the ISP is what determines how good your peering is.

        And installing caching boxes inside of ISPs is actually a really efficient solution (as well as peer-to-peer)

  • Obinice@lemmy.worldEnglish
    22·
    3 months ago

    Oof, they don’t have net neutrality over there eh?

    Gonna be bollocks for them until they can get that brought in. There’s an election coming up there right? Maybe they can vote for the party that pledges to bring in net neutrality laws, it’s about time they had them considering it’s 2024.

    I wish them the best of luck <3

    • Archr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      3 months ago

      Net neutrality being brought up as an election topic would be very unusual for our politics. Our two party system is very set on the topics that they like and don’t like to bring up.

      Of course the parties have negative incentive to do anything more than the bare minimum about these topics that they fight so hard to advertise. Otherwise, they might need to come up with new reasons for people to vote for them.

      • Beetschnapps@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        3 months ago

        Except that ignores how net neutrality only became a thing in the last 2 decades there’s only so many presidential admins in that period. So 5 elections vs 20 years to discuss a topic… it’s not weird that it comes up more outside of an election year. Feigning both sides/everything’s rigged bullshit is a mindless simplification.

        Still, I can’t tell if you’re choosing to ignore how Obama campaigned for it or how Biden and Harris campaigned way more for it, especially concerning reversing trumps FCC decisions.

        No reason to ignore the fact that Biden made it a priority in the first year or so of the admin.

        Acting like it’s rigged absolves republicans of their actions: “Net Neutrality Won’t Survive a Trump Presidency” and lumps good folks in with the worst.

        Net neutrality couldn’t happen while republicans block the commissioners for the job: https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/20/23800161/gigi-sohn-fcc-nomination-dark-money-campaign-net-neutrality-profile

        So why not blame it on the people who are actually documented as destroying net-neutrality and advocating against it. Why instead invent some all powerful Illuminati like cabal only to end up making it a both sides thing?

        Republican attacks over bs tweets are just one of the reasons we can’t have nice things. Another reason is because people like to imagine a rigged system pulling the strings to pretend there’s some order in the chaos. All it does is suck the support away from anyone trying to do the right thing.

  • almost1337@lemm.eeEnglish
    11·
    3 months ago

    Per the article, this looks to be limited to mobile internet and not traditional broadband. While I can understand the practicality of carving out unique bands of the wireless spectrum for specific uses, charging extra for it seems scummy.