>the updated language in the final order "clearly prohibits ISPs from limiting fast lanes to apps or categories of apps they select," leaving no question as to whether the practice is prohibited.
This is great news. Lots of advocacy went into it and I’m grateful for it.
I’d like to see it codified into law so it isn’t easy to tamper with again.
no one wants to hear this but the FCC is effectively a non-agency, a cheerleader for good things that align with an administrations priorities in an election year at best. Verizon, Charter, and ATT all represent more than 250 billion USD in revenue.
If your fines all cap out before 100 million dollars, its just the cost of doing business for them. If youre unwilling to suspend or revoke a license, then your threats of enforcement are toothless.
taxes for these agencies are four billion dollars a year. 100 million isnt even half a percent of that. Its a rounding error at best and they can afford to eat that fee until the last star falls from the heavens.
> If your fines all cap out before 100 million dollars,
Citation please on the available fines capping out before $100M?
I think the record fine the FCC has assessed is $100M against AT&T for violating the open internet transparency rule by throttling “unlimited data” customers in 2015, but as I recall that wasn't at (and obviously not beyond) the cap on their authority in that case.
Government needs to be an adversary to big business, not its puppet. An idea that's not likely to take root in the USA, whose political philosophy is oriented around toxic individualism (and racism).
People have. The problem with FCC not fulfilling it's mandate - it's still here.
Our challenge: We have voted-in inept lawmakers for generations. They've allowed regulatory capture to become the norm. In a lot of ways we're in the 1910s again.
> Or are you saying we should force the road builders to ensure the road has enough capacity to allow everyone to have a siren?
I don't know why you are trying to complicate the issue with a bad analogy. There is no reason for ISPs to be able to sell 'fast lanes' to consumers. There is no benefit to it at all and it directly impedes the service for everyone else.
>Bandwidth is limited. If you have have a surge of data and have to drop some, is it too crazy to think that the videoconference for an emergency responder should be the thing to not drop instead of the youtube video?
Sometimes bandwidth is limited. When it is truly limited latency goes up but it doesn't meant the ISP has to start blocking stuff. Anyways if an ISP is having bandwidth issues regularly they need to get that fixed and not try and gouge more money out of customers by offering 'fast lanes'.
Net neutrality doesn't mean ISPs can't do QoS. They just can't target specific applications or sources/destinations in an effort to pry more money out of customers.
You video conference example just makes no sense. Under net neutrality ISPs can still give priority to emergency responders and other critical government agencies. Go read your ISPs service agreement policy and state/federal laws if you don't believe me.
Commonly other drivers must stop for emergency vehicles. And how can you give certain vehicles priority without dedicating lanes or requiring other drivers to yield?
The rules expressly do not limit how providers address the needs of emergency communications. They allow speed limits and congestion management also.
>The rules expressly do not limit how providers address the needs of emergency communications.
Exactly. FCC has required emergency responders and other critical agencies to have priority for years. The new rules have zero impact on that. Anyone acting like these rules somehow inhibit emergency response is either at best wrong or at worse arguing in bad faith.
That’s great news. This wasn’t just a possible loophole but a certain one. There were numerous actual proposals from all major carriers for fast lanes that prioritized certain apps. This reminds me to also renew my donation to the EFF.
> Being able to get better latency on a few percent of your bandwidth would be useful for gaming.
Competition gives us that in the best possible way. However, telecom lobbyists have successfully manipulated lawmakers/regulators to lock out competition.
Me, before competition: Last year ago I had 1 choice of ISP. I could pay $119/mo for 40Mb upload with 40ms latency to the IX.
Last fall, a fiber provider trenched lines here.
This year I have a choice of 8 fiber ISPs. I can pay $59/mo for 1Gb upload with 4ms latency to the IX. I can pay $79/mo for 2Gb or $199 for 8Gb.
A lot more of the US could have this choice if lawmakers didn't allow telecoms to write laws and decide regulation (after funding elections).
In many cases, taxpayers even paid for modern networks which the ISPs never delivered (generally w/o consequences).
This is great news. Lots of advocacy went into it and I’m grateful for it.
I’d like to see it codified into law so it isn’t easy to tamper with again.
reply