FCC details plan to restore the net neutrality rules repealed by Ajit Pai::Democrats finally have 3-2 majority needed to regulate ISPs as common carriers.

    • Tetsuo@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      1 year ago

      What about a new article in the constitution?

      I guess most will find this completely overkill but access to free information should be a right everybody has and no party should be able to remove that.

      I understand amending the constitution of any country should be done very carefully but keeping century old constitutions is completely dumb imo. Some articles are still relevant today others are not or would seriously benefit in being updated.

      • Hoomod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        If we can fix some gerrymanders it’ll go a long way also

        Like the shitshow that is the maps in WI, which will head to the (now) liberal controlled state Supreme Court.

      • Misconduct@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        And we need to demolish lobbying. The things we could accomplish if those useless and sleazy detriments to society were all put out of their jobs permanently.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Takes 60 votes in the US Senate to beat the filibuster. Republicans will not provide the 9 votes needed.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      We’ll have to get rid of some conservatives in congress first. Conservatives (and some neo-liberals) rake in legal bribes from ISP’s and are also champing at the bit to control all forms of communication.

      Conservatism is a plague of oppression and corruption.

  • Amends1782@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    First positive political thing I’ve heard in a while. Fuck that guy. Fucking hate him

      • swordsmanluke@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I thought that got blocked - or at least, tied up in court. I know there are ongoing initiatives, but isn’t the only “big” one, the one that was repaying funds -stolen- from borrowers? Like, refunding overpayments?

        • omicron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The one-time loan forgiveness grant got shut down, yes. But Biden did manage to pass another way to handle student debt relief through the form of a revamped income repayment plan, with wayyyyy more forgiving terms than previous plans, to the point that you could essentially be forgiven of your student loans.

        • TrinityTek@lemmy.fdr8.us
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s my understanding as well. The current initiative is far more limited in scope, and pays back students who were defrauded by scam schools.

  • SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m really glad this is being done, I just hope that it has teeth. It’s going to be very annoying when the next regime from across the aisle tries to repeal the rules again. I assume there’s not an easy way to make these rules permanent. I’m happy to be wrong about that though.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There would be if we had a government focused on consumer protections. Instead we have a House too busy kicking itself in the dick to make laws, and even if they did, the laws would probably PREVENT the FCC from making Net Neutrality rules.

  • Uncaged_Jay@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In all seriousness, what has having these laws repealed done? I’m asking because I don’t know.

    • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      43
      ·
      1 year ago

      The rules have never really been in affect, all the things that folks warned would happen without net neutrality hasn’t happened.

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        ·
        1 year ago

        My Verizon plan explicitly limits YouTube video to 1080p. If I paid for a lower plan, it would limit me to 720p.

        I have no option to go beyond 1080p, even if I’m on the fastest possible connection.

        Of course, if I were to turn on a VPN, I can suddenly stream at any quality my connection can handle.

        This is a real world example of what you claim hasn’t happened. And you can verify it yourself by looking at their available plans.

        • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is that a mobile plan? Mobile sas exempt from NN rules I believe so it wouldn’t matter.

      • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It has though. Traffic shaping is common, especially on mobile networks where video streams and VPN traffic will get deprioritized and throttled to force lower resolution playback for certain services. Many mobile ISPs are actually pretty open that they do this. In other cases this stuff is done quietly enough that you don’t really notice it is happening. Mobile operators get away with it because people are almost trained to expect mobile networks to be flaky.

        • xenspidey@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Mobile I believe is exempt anyways. Traffic shaping is a necessity from a network admin perspective. If you allow mobile networks to not have QOS restrictions then there could be times where you wouldn’t be able to make a phone call because everyone around you is streaming 8k videos.

      • ZMonster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        all the things that folks warned would happen without net neutrality hasn’t happened.

        I don’t think that’s fair at all. Since we have never really had NN, then I would ask you to define what it is first. If you say that NN prevents ISPs from provisioning off websites in bundles then I would say, you’re not wrong but I massively dispute your definition of NN.

        It is supposed to protect a free and open internet. I think I can safely state that. I think we can agree to that as a basis. And I can think of dozens of things that are going on right now that only serve to disarm and control users in order to strip-mine them of as much value as possible. If ISPs were utilities then you would have access to their financial reports, you could see their service reports, you would be able to know how they have and plan to allocate resources, and you would have at least transparency if not influence in decisions they choose to make that affect the cost of service. Imagine if they would have to apply for a tariff audit just to get approved to raise rates?

        Are you truly arguing that this hypothetical alternate dimension is somehow imperceivably different than our own?

      • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s more or less because I’m healing the rules for such a controversial decision, that no one wants to take that publicity for being the first to violate them. However we know that the rule isn’t there eventually someone’s going to take that bite, they’re going to get Flack for it, and then everyone else is just going to do it and it will just be accepted as normal.

        I’m a gamer this is basically what happened with horse armor, and now microtransactions are basically expected

      • gsa5556@lemmy.basedcount.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Tbh, the only site that technically fell victim to the repeal of net neutrality is one that everyone fucking hates including me and wants taken down from the internet. All I will tell you is that it starts with a K and ends with an s.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel today announced plans to restore net neutrality rules similar to those that were adopted during the Obama era and then repealed by the FCC when Donald Trump was president.

    Rosenworcel announced her plans in a speech today, one day after the FCC gained a 3-2 Democratic majority with the swearing-in of Commissioner Anna Gomez.

    Similar to the previous rules, FCC officials said they don’t plan to impose rate regulation or “unbundling” requirements that would force broadband providers to share networks with other companies.

    In a fact sheet, the FCC said the proposal would “establish basic rules for Internet Service Providers that prevent them from blocking legal content, throttling your speeds, and creating fast lanes that favor those who can pay for access.”

    California enforces net neutrality rules that mirror what the FCC adopted in 2015 and beat industry attempts to get the state law overturned.

    Rosenworcel said that because FCC authority is generally centered on phone systems instead of broadband, the commission often needs “duct tape and baling wire” to provide legal justification for its rules.


    The original article contains 843 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Smacks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Literally can’t live without the internet these days. It needs to be a protected utility like any other.

  • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why did this not happen earlier? It seems there is some intentional delay for political purposes.

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      The 5th member was only just appointed earlier this month. So, they only just now have a majority. At least, that’s my understanding.

      • evatronic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Confirmed by the Senate. Republicans have been holding up the confirmation for quite some time. Biden nominated Anna Gomez in March of this year (link) and she was only confirmed by the Senate in early September.

        • ZeroCool@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Republicans actively working against the interests of the American people. Typical.

          • zephyreks@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            Isn’t it also an indication that the current government is unwilling to compromise? It’s not like the government not controlling the house is a new issue, but the lack of progress as a result of it seems to indicate that neither side is willing to make progress towards a shared middle ground.

            • zainitopia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Forgive me but, it honestly feels like you haven’t been paying enough attention to US politics if that’s how you feel

              • zephyreks@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s literally the role of the government, though.

                US politics is basically neither side compromising on the basis of ideology and saying it’s the other side’s fault.

                That’s a far more condemnable position when you’re the actual government than when you’re the opposition.

            • militaryintelligence@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Seems like they’re more interested in targeting LGBTQ people at the moment. They think about them a lot. A disturbing amount. Does that mean they’re … I mean, do they fantasize… nah can’t be

        • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks. The latest delays seem to be intentional from the republicans. But march 2023 seems like far too long since January 2021. Does anyone know what happened in 2021 and 2022? I would not be surprised if it’s because of republicans again but I don’t know.

            • 5BC2E7@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yea i looked it up and it does seem like they have been trying to make this happen all this time.

  • Cihta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    The article mentions CA still enforcing net neutrality rules. How does that work? Eventually you have to hop outside the state for many services… are those backbones required to abide by those rules or can they still throttle as a result being out of state?

    I firmly believe in all data being treated equally for the record and I hope this gets fixed. ISPs were kind of slow on throttling but it’s becoming more and more obvious in the last couple years in my experience.

  • erranto@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Couldn’t they have done it earlier ? instead of waiting until the elections ?

    • FurtiveFugitive@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      1 year ago

      No. The Republicans have stalled confirming a replacement until just now. Up until now the committee has been dead locked with 2 Democrats and two Republicans.

  • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Most internet companies are screwy specifically because the government helped them become regional monopolies in the first place. This will make internet more expensive and worse. What is this even trying to solve? You can get fast internet in middle of nowehere Montana with Starlink at $120/month right now.