The US government aims to restore sweeping regulations for high-speed internet providers, such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, reviving “net neutrality” rules for the broadband industry – and an ongoing debate about the internet’s future.
    • n2burns@lemmy.ca
      30·
      1 year ago

      With Anna Gomez confirmed to the FCC effective yesterday, the Democratic commissioners now have a majority and can push through policies like this. Of course, it could be overturned by future Commissioners too.

      • robsuto@lemmy.mlEnglish
        182·
        1 year ago

        We really can’t rely on things like net neutrality to flip flop every new administration (assuming the high likelihood of each new administration appointing their own commissioner).

        We would need legislation to solidify net neutrality.

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          10·
          1 year ago

          While it would be much better if net neutrality was legislated, this flip-flop isn’t a complete loss.

          1. Even if this change is only temporary, it still improves things for that time.
          2. Businesses don’t like having to change back and forth based on Federal policy. Even if congress can’t pass net neutrality, many businesses will give up if they have to adjust every 4-8 years.
  • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
    391·
    1 year ago

    How about instead of establishing this via the regulatory process we have Congress actually pass law that enshrines fundamental rights online? Don’t get me wrong, I’ll take whatever, but as we’ve seen rule making can change these things based on who the President has selected to seat on the committee and if they seat just the right person, boom, all those rights are now gone again.

    Bringing back NN via the regulatory process is a step, but as has been demonstrated, even long standing precedent before the courts is NOT an indicator of any long standing policy of the United States. That the only means by which any of us can have any kind of long standing right is via legislation (for the simple fact that usually there’s too much confusion to entirely undo anything once passed, but even then every so often the cards come up in just the right combination) and Constitutional Amendment.

    That’s it. That about covers all the means by which the US has long standing position on anything. Which that’s pretty shitty because having a “direction” is slightly important for a nation, but that is where we are now. So great, glad to hear the FCC wants to implement rule making to add regulation that gives us “Net Neutrality”, but that’s going to last all the way up till some former Verizon lawyer becomes chairman of the FCC (Ajit Pai), who will unsurprisingly, dismantle all regulatory process of the FCC. And round and round we go.

  • krolden@lemmy.ml
    20·
    1 year ago

    Maybe they should have made the previous $42 billion given to the telecoms contingent on this being enforced.

  • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    98·
    1 year ago

    That would require the US government to do something that actually helps the people in the US at the cost of corporate profit so they definitely won’t do this

    • theparadox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      1 year ago

      There have been historic instances of corps going against the spirit if not the rule of net neutrality if we have ever really had such a thing in the US

      The most open move I recall was made by cell carriers that also owned media companies -AT&T? They would use their cell service to punish or hinder usage of non-owned media. They’d limit the resolution of or throttle the speed of competitors services to their customers. Ex. watch our content at 1080p, but competitors are limited to 480p. That or they would “zero-rate” (not count usage against your data limit) their own services. Ex. watching our content doesn’t count against you 1GB limit, but watching our competition’s does.

      I don’t know if it still happens though. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t just more subtle now.

    • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
      101·
      1 year ago

      I hate the culture of downvoting for simple questions that might seem obvious. If you’re lurking and reading this, stop doing that.

      My understanding is that no ISP makes it public that they block a large number of sites despite the fact that they are currently technically allowed to do so, but there are a number of isolated incidents of small and short-term access issues that may charitably be mistakes, and also throttling on a site-by-site basis does definitely exist and is employed by a number of ISPs. This regulation does more preventing a backslide into corporate rule and less uplifting our current conditions.

  • UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world
    11·
    1 year ago

    After what they’re trying in Europe we neehttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/12/eus-digital-identity-framework-endangers-browser-securityd net neutrality