Network neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services
The FCC will meet on October 19th to vote on proposing Title II reclassification that would support accompanying net neutrality protections
I just hope nothing “extra” gets tacked on…
For anyone who was confused by what “vote to propose” means:
If the FCC issues the notice as expected on October 19th, the next steps would be a public comment phase followed by issuance of a final rule. This process could result in a final rule restoring net neutrality requirements around spring of 2024.
I will post Fuck Ajit Pai every time I see news about net neutrality until it’s fucking back.
F U C K
A J I T
P A I
Strong and brave 👏👏👏👏
Well you’re weak and cowardly
Let em know keyboard warrior 👏 👏 👏
Thanks
Fuck Ajit Pai!
That dude was such a fucking cunt
Ajit creamPai
Ajit creamPai
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Ajit creamPai
I mean fuck Ajit Pai and all, but that is a very efficient mug and it doesn’t deserve hate for being associated with the grim reaper of digital freedom.
We need to end unjustified hatred of big mugs now.
I use a big mug but Pai’s mug is both unreasonable and hideous.
here's the biggest mug I own
It’s hard to tell how big Eeyore is from that photo.
you need a banana for scale
Ajiit creamPai
Glory to you and your coffee mug.
Tea mug, but I accept your praise.
Ajit creamPai is just a puppet of the corporations, he’s a dick that’s corrupt and rubbing the fact that he’s corrupt in your face, but he’s just the most visible festering boil on the whole ugly face of our government.
I agree 100%, but I’d rather live without net neutrality than see that nickname catch on
#CreamPai #NetNeutrality
Spread it on mastodon
Fuck yeah spread it
I missed the word “post” on the first read through and was rather concerned about your method of protest.
What would you all say if I started an ISP that offered $3 a month for service only to a handful of websites? That would be prohibited under Net Neutrality, yet I could see something like that being useful to plenty of people, like my grandparents who use the Internet only to send emails and check their local news.
How would such a thing be financially viable? Once the ability to connect to any website exists, the physical cost to access everything else is essential nothing.
I don’t like it. If someone only wanted Facebook but then considered fact checking something they read, they wouldn’t be able to.
And any link that came up, like to a patient portal from your doctor, might not be supported
Websites arent just one domain, they use all different kinds of CDN’s and external content. If you only whitelist certain domains then virtually all sites you whitelist would be broken anyways.
The internet is healing…Don’t look over there, it’s already necrotic…
We just need to cut that part off. Sorry Facebook, Amazon, Google, et al.
It will be interesting to see how reddit reacts to this because they were ALL IN on net neutrality back in the day, I was even part of their filing with the FCC, but their recent turn against API features goes patently against the whole notion of Net Neutrality.
Good chunk of the people who give a hoot about this, have already migrated from Reddit, so hard to say, who knows though? Guess we’ll see
That has literally nothing to do with net neutrality.
All net neutrality means is that at the ISP level all traffic is treated the same and the ISP cannot step in and do shit like, for example, block all traffic coming from a VPN server. Or block all torrent packets. Or block all ENCRYPTED packets. Or slowly deliver Facebook packets because Twitter paid them to do so.
All traffic is treated equally, regardless of content.
What an individual website does with its own API is not even in this conversation.
In other words Net Neutrality is about stalling the further enshitification of everything.
Shutting down their API is the direct anti-competitive action which goes against net neutrality. It stifles innovation.
Not sure if that holds
They’re not stopping competition, they’re gatekeeping access to their system
Competition is allowed still, for example, the site were using right now to communicate this very conversation
They are stopping competition. They didn’t want superior 3rd party apps competing with their super shitty app just before a proposed IPO.
Reddit is not a fucking ISP, now are they?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
Learn before you make yourself look like an idiot.
And, if you argue that an ISP shouldn’t be engaging in anti-competitive networking while at the same time (or in this case, a couple of years later) doing the same thing, that’s a huge problem.
And make no mistake, what they did WAS anti-competitive. They wanted to shut down the 3rd party apps that put a magnifying glass on all the problems with the official reddit app just before a proposed IPO.
The difference is that reddit has no obligation to anyone to provide an API. Not every company has a public API. You have no guarantee to the right to see reddit content. it’s theirs. I don’t like that but it’s the reality. They weren’t obligated to build an API and they aren’t obligated to maintain one especially not for free. I would argue it’s in their best interest to do so but they don’t have to and that’s where we are.
Net neutrality deals with the network though including the part reddit lives at.The things that every person does (or did) have a right to connect with if they choose to. The means for connection all together.
The difference is that reddit has no legal obligation to anyone to provide an API.
FTFY
That argument is similar to the whole “platform N taking down content violates the 1st amendment” argument. It’s a non sequitur.
I’ll see if I can make it more sense for you:
If you argue that the pathways that make up the internet should not be artifically restricted or gated as a means of shutting down competition, while at the same time turning around and shutting down your own public pathways, that’s a huge problem.
Setting aside for the moment the fact that net neutrality has to do with IP traffic (layer 3, network) and not API availability (layer 7, application) –
Reddit’s API is not a “public pathway.” It is a private gateway into the reddit environment. They can charge whatever they like for it, because it is a part of their application.
The way they went about changing to their current fee model was undeniably shitty, and yeah, they’re trying to prop up ahead of IPO. None of that has anything to do with net neutrality. You’re wrong on this one, time to let it go.
Reddit’s API is not a “public pathway.” It is a private gateway into the reddit environment. They can charge whatever they like for it, because it is a part of their application.
Not saying that you are wrong, legally, and not to relitigate the whole thing again, but if you offer a public facing API and then you later on just withdraw it (or its functionality) altogether, that’s something a business should not do to its customer base ever, for ethical and social contract reasons.
The Internet is not just defined by legal systems, it started with ethical social contract systems. More nebulous than legal, yes, but still, Society does follow them and expects companies to do so as well.
There’s a world of difference between the road itself and the people who own the cars.
That’s great but can we stop rubberbanding our rights in and out of existence?
To do that the current party in favor of removing rights needs to be kept out of power long enough that they conclude that removing rights is an electoral loser and changes their ideology accordingly.
I’m not going to hold my breath.
Even if that happened they still wouldn’t learn or they’d just lie and then do it anyway.
hopefully at least when ISPs and companies see that it’ll just be back and forth, and that things like “fast lanes” can’t be relied upon in business planning there just won’t be a market for it, or at least the fuckery will be significantly diminished because it’s not reliable long-term
I’m not sure long term viability is a huge concern for them as long as they can make a dollar today.
that’s true, but this would require time and money to implement, market, etc, and would almost certainly require big b2b contracts to be signed
ISP’s are also the same companies that market and sell fast lanes(i.e. 5G), and they have bigger bribing/lobbying pockets than everyone on Lemmy and reddit combined. They ain’t changing shit and will throw money at it to make sure their business models don’t change (hint - look at the supreme court).
New technology is not fast lanes like you are implying though. It’s functionally different equipment. Running services is relatively cheap but expanding them and installing new technology like 5G requires a lot more physical equipment due to 5Gs lower range. So it does indeed cost more. Atleast initially and most likely continuously as it requires more physical equipment. So more failures innately.
I’m aware 5G is new hardware and infrastructure, but my point is ISPs And service carriers are one and the same, and there are multiple business models that throttle speeds (ie premium 4G service vs deprioritized cheaper 4G service), fast lanes in 5G, whatever other QCI stuff the carriers are doing - all stuff they don’t want to change and my point was they will spend money fighting it in court vs willingly changing anything
deleted by creator
It enables low latency fast speed connections to large amounts of devices. Its drawback is that it has a shorter wavelength reducing its range.
https://www.emfexplained.info/site/misc/image/Fullsize/11248.png
This shows integration with the 4G towers.
“The shorter wavelength means 5G can carry a lot of data much faster than 4G, but it also means a much shorter range. 4G wavelengths have a range of about 10 miles. 5G wavelengths have a range of about 1,000 feet, not even 2% of 4G’s range. So to ensure a reliable 5G signal, there needs to be a lot of 5G cell towers and antennas everywhere. We’re talking on every lamppost, traffic light, etc. because even trees can block 5G signals.” https://www.businessinsider.com/5g-high-speed-internet-cellular-network-issues-switch-2019-4
Have to click description to see the transcript.
deleted by creator
milimeter wave 5g is way different than the 5G talked bout here.
Elaborate?
deleted by creator
You can run 5G on any band you want
as aStonedSanata mentioned, different tech isn’t what we’re talking about: fibre shouldn’t be limited to the speeds of, say ADSL or cable to keep things neutral
what we’re talking about here is, for example, netflix paying your ISP to prioritise traffic to their service over other services… this causes an enormous disadvantage to new startups, because they likely can’t afford to pay a similar fee or even enter into complex agreements with every carrier! in which case, netflix has a better service not because they’re better: just because they’re incumbent
of course these kind of things happen all over the place, but it’s the exact failure of capitalist systems that governments should seek to patch with regulations (like net neutrality) because it’s not good for consumers, the economy, or innovation… which are all the very things that capitalism is meant to promote!
Along with busting monopolies. Which the Biden admin is actually trying to tackle.
Nope, deformation is the only way to make sure we stay plastic
Can someone tldr what’s net neutrality?
Can someone tldr what’s net neutrality?
Simplified, your ISP cannot favor one company over another when delivering their website content to your computer. All data must be delivered equally.
Sounds like a big win for the consumers.
Internet infrastructure companies have to treat all traffic equally.
For example, without net neutrality, Comcast could elect to throttle any streaming services that they didn’t own / co-own. So great speeds for Peacock and Hulu, but was a Max, Netflix, AppleTV, etc all get throttled unless you pay up.
tldr: net neutrality means everything that uses an internet connection is treated equally. EX: cox communications offers a “fast lane” for gamers on their networks, but if all connections were treated neutrally, everything would be as fast as possible by default without the need for an upgraded service plan.
That’s actually kinda backwards.
User speeds can still be tiered under net neutrality. But the same cap must be applied to all data.
So they can’t slow down a user’s Twitch connection versus their connection to YouTube live streaming. It all has to be treated the same.
A good example was when T-Mobile had 2 gig data plans, but uncapped Netflix usage. So YouTube, Prime Video, etc were at a huge disadvantage to Netflix for those phone users.
oh I see. thank you
Thanks
deleted by creator
My internet is run by my coop power company, just a reminder that all the major ISPs took billions and promised fiber and then royalty fucked us, so now my internet is run by a rural power company.
Call your power company and find out if they’re installing fiber. Support this move as it weakens Comcast and AT&T’s death grip.
Net Neutrality has been taken away before and it can be taken away again. Just get with a coop. I’ve torrented literal terabytes without even an email telling me not to .
A coop near us is rolling out 1Gb fiber up/down to rural homes. Considering most of them could only get DSL or use 4G/3G internet, it is amazing. I have to wait to see if they come in town for their rollout, as they have to pay another power company to use their power poles. Everyone I know is switching to the coop as it is cheaper, more stable, and unlimited.
This is a better idea than Net Neutrality. Stop begging government to fix things for you when you and your neighbors can just fix it yourself.
The thing is though public utilities are supposed to be implemented and paid for by the tax payers of the area. Suggesting that the government shouldn’t be doing what we pay tax money for doesn’t make sense. That would be like saying , “oh, I know your taxes pay for your government to upkeep the roads, but stop bothering them about it and you and your neighbours band together to fix that sink hole, and those potholes, and reline that crosswalk”.
Plus these ISP’s took government money to provide and upgrade infrastructure and then didn’t do that and faced basically no consequences.
ISPs mostly aren’t public utilities, so none of that applies to them. Taxes generally don’t go to them. They’re no more public utilities or tax funded than a company that would come to your house and cut your grass.
It is true that several times in the last few decades the government has handed ISPs some cash in exchange for doing specific things like expanding service to certain areas. It’s more than justified to be mad at them for not holding up their end. That doesn’t make them public utilities, though. The government deserves a bunch of blame for that, too, because it’s stupid and handed a bunch of private companies a bunch of money with no accountability mechanism. Of course they’re gonna take the money and run.
That’s why I’m saying stop trusting the government to fix things like this.
The government gave these companies money to build up and expand their infrastructure though. On more than one occasion. And we don’t have anything to show for it.
Co-ops are a good thingtm , I belong to several small co-ops, from electric, to telephone, to farm.
my power company is privately owned :(
I didn’t even know co-op power companies were common, it seems like an odd (but good) service to be provided by a co-op. I wonder if there’s any in the UK
They’re mostly in rural parts of the states where private (read: investor owned) utilities determined the region wouldn’t turn a large enough profit to expand there and the state’s public utility commission didn’t mandate their expansion
Ah I see, well it’s nice the circumstances existed for them to come about. It’s good having goods and services being provided by co-ops, for the workers especially but usually for the customers too.
Wait, Net Neutrality was removed?
Why do you think paid subscriptions with a tier I’ve been a thing, it was one of the first things Donald Trump did
One of the many things fucked during the Trump years. Easy to have lost it in all that noise.
Yeah, and the media is owned by comcast and AT&T.
Did you know that AT&T bought time warner?
And Disney bought Fox.
So of course none of the media outlet covered that happening…because they’re owned by the people who benefit from net neutrality being gone.
Sticky olde’ Ajit creamPai likes to get his special treatment from the telecom companies that paid bribes to get him into his position. I just hope that his replacement is as good as Tom Wheeler was.
Fuck Ajit Pai
deleted by creator
No thanks
He’s got a pretty big mug
Ajit creamPai
Ajit creamPai
Did companies ever actually do anything after net neutrality went away? I still think it’s a great thing to have but just genuinely curious if anything really happened cause I didn’t notice much.
It’s plausible that some of the websites you like run faster because ISPs aren’t throttling them, while throttling the competition.
My understanding is that they mostly haven’t, with a couple exceptions like a few ISPs offering to priorities to pings for gaming (as FeelThePower mentioned), throttle certain protocols (e.g. Torrenting), or refuse to carry traffic for certain sites (e.g. Kiwi Farms). All of this would be prevented under net neutrality.
As far as I’m aware though, an extremely overwhelmingly portion of traffic (like you’d have to do a lot of digging to find an example otherwise) already adheres to net neutrality since it’s pretty pointless for a company to spend resources and goodwill to mess with traffic.
I don’t think too much will change. It is nice in the sense it will prevent an ISP from doing things against specific sites, although like mentioned above most of the protections are theoretical ATM.
Did companies ever actually do anything after net neutrality went away? I still think it’s a great thing to have but just genuinely curious if anything really happened cause I didn’t notice much.
Well I doubt if companies would tell you “we are giving you a worse Internet experience so we can make more money”, voluntarily.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/08/15/twitter-x-links-delayed/
Idk if this is actually a net neutrality issue because they’re not an ISP but twitter absolutely added delays to links to websites that Musk doesn’t like.
Doesn’t apply; X isn’t an Internet Service Provider. They can screw over their users how they see fit.*
*Within bounds of law.
Edit: added clarification
Ajit Pai deserve as many middle fingers as this one.
Ajiit creamPai
Burning in hell would be better
Fuck a shit pie
I still remember him and his over-sized knock-off reese’s mug.
Waiting for the day someone bonks him in the head with that stupid thing
John Oliver’s was better.
Hey Ajit Pai, put this in your Reese’s shit cup and suck it
Ajiit creamPai
