• Th4tGuyII@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    It’s great that the FCC can get back to doing it’s job properly now that its chair isn’t an industry plant

  • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    8 months ago

    How about regulating those fucking prices? I now pay the same price for 300Mbps that I used to pay for 1gbps

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Nah, go the other way: deregulate competition.

      Prices stay high because ISPs are able to block competition with stupid compliance laws (e.g. obstacles to run cable, obstacles to register, and lawsuits galore). In my area, prices are pretty reasonable, because we actually have decent competition. We have:

      • DSL
      • Cable
      • local ISP - based on failed old muni fiber rollout (stupid state laws)
      • radios - works well for some people
      • 5G-based services
      • upcoming muni fiber project

      The muni fiber project is doing a lot of work here, but our local ISP is pretty decent as well, with speeds from 20/10 to 1000/500, from $40 to $125, taxes included in price (5 tiers total; only had two crappy tiers before muni fiber project announced). Cable prices are also reasonable because they need to compete with the local muni ISP, but they hide fees and whatnot, so I don’t bother with them.

      • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        As someone thats lived through numerous industry deregulations, it never works out in favor of the consumer.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s a pretty broad brush you got there.

          Basically what happened was, cable companies made a deal with cities to essentially get a monopoly on Internet infrastructure, and they keep lobbying for additional barriers to block entry for new competitors. So if a new telecom tries to come in, they’ll lock them up in lawsuits to encourage them to go away. Here’s an example in Nashville. Generally they’ll lobby for newcomers to have to ask them for help or permission, then drag their feet to waste the other company’s time and money.

          So eliminating those types of regulations could help new ISPs compete in new markets. There should obviously be some regulations, but they need to be reasonable and relevant, like they need to fix any roads they dig up, get permission from the city to run cable on existing conduit, etc.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The US government on Thursday banned internet service providers (ISPs) from meddling in the speeds their customers receive when browsing the web and downloading files, restoring tough rules rescinded during the Trump administration and setting the stage for a major legal battle with the broadband industry.

    The net neutrality regulations adopted Thursday by the Federal Communications Commission prohibit providers such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from selectively speeding up, slowing down or blocking users’ internet traffic.

    The latest rules show how, with a 3-2 Democratic majority, the FCC is moving to reassert its authority over an industry that powers the modern digital economy, touching everything from education to health care and enabling advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence.

    The vote marks the latest twist in a years-long battle between regulators on the one hand, who say consumer protections are needed to ensure all websites are treated equally, and ISPs on the other who describe the rules as heavy-handed government intervention.

    Whether it is throttling content, junk or hidden fees, arbitrary pricing, deceptive advertising or unreliable service, broadband providers have proven over the years that without proper oversight, they will not hesitate to use their power to increase profits at the expense of consumers.”

    In past legal battles over net neutrality, courts have deferred to the FCC, ruling that it has wide latitude to regulate ISPs as it sees fit using the authority it derives from the agency’s congressional charter, the Communications Act of 1934.


    The original article contains 861 words, the summary contains 242 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • blarth@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      It will be enforced through the app stores, I imagine. You raise a good point, though, that people will still be able to access TikTok through mobile web.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        Could be the beginning of a nationwide firewall type system like they have in China. I feel like most current methods of blocking an app could be pretty easily circumvented.

        Beyond the government sniffing every packet and blocking TikTok-related ones, I’m not sure how else they could effectively block the app.

        And that’s a very bad path to start down.

      • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t doubt that TikTok would eventually post an apk on its website after being banned from app stores, so app should be a non-issue too.