Stop enshitification 3 years ago!
FCC to vote to restore net neutrality rules, reversing Trump By David Shepardson April 2, 20243:51 PM PDTUpdated 4 hours ago People look at data on their mobiles as internet wire cables on switch hub are shown in background People look at data on their mobiles as background with internet wire cables on switch hub is projected in this picture
WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission will vote to reinstate landmark net neutrality rules and assume new regulatory oversight of broadband internet that was rescinded under former President Donald Trump, the agency’s chair said.
The FCC told advocates on Tuesday of the plan to vote on the final rule at its April 25 meeting.
The commission voted 3-2 in October on the proposal to reinstate open internet rules adopted in 2015 and re-establish the commission’s authority over broadband internet.
Net neutrality refers to the principle that internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.
FCC Chair Jessica Rosenworcel confirmed the planned commission vote in an interview with Reuters. “The pandemic made clear that broadband is an essential service, that every one of us - no matter who we are or where we live - needs it to have a fair shot at success in the digital age,” she said.
An essential service requires oversight and in this case we are just putting back in place the rules that have already been court-approved that ensures that broadband access is fast, open and fair." Reinstating the rules has been a priority for President Joe Biden, who signed a July 2021 executive order encouraging the FCC to reinstate net neutrality rules adopted under Democratic President Barack Obama. Democrats were stymied for nearly three years because they did not take majority control of the five-member FCC until October.
Under Trump, the FCC had argued the net neutrality rules were unnecessary, blocked innovation and resulted in a decline in network investment by internet service providers, a contention disputed by Democrats.
Rosenworcel has said the reclassification would give the FCC important new national security tools. The agency said in its initial proposal that rules could give it “more robust authority to require more entities to remove and replace” equipment and services from Chinese companies like Huawei (HWT.UL) and ZTE (000063.SZ)
Republican FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr opposed the move, saying that since 2017 “broadband speeds in the U.S. have increased, prices are down (and) competition has intensified.” He argued the plan would result in “government control of the internet.”
Despite the 2017 repeal, a dozen states now have net neutrality laws or regulations in place. Industry groups abandoned legal challenges to those state requirements in May 2022.
Sick of YouTube’s shit? Heres this open source alternative, awesome!
Buffer, buffer, buffer… ISP says, lulz, no neutrality, throttled bitch!
Try a VPN. They’re all largely shit for a different reason. We sold out freedom out of fear of the WMD’s
Do you have any proof that it’s ISP throttled and not just a slower service (lacking in YouTube’s billions of dollars of infrastructure investments)
it doesn’t matter whether you have proof or not, the very fact that it can be done, and was repealed, is enough to suggest that it would like to be exploited to some degree.
Not currently, no. But, that’s a large part of what net neutrality insured. That ISP’s weren’t allowed to create fast lanes for companies that paid, and throttle those that don’t. It’s one of the most talked about aspects of net neutrality. You think they’ve all been allowed to do it now for the past three years, and just haven’t?
Isp’s legally sell you bandwidth they don’t have. You think they don’t throttle things legitimate and illegitimate alike? I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
And if you expect the same level of performance and service, regardless of your ISP, from a bootleg YouTube spin-off with no viable revenue stream that’s probably hosted in a different country, versus a multi-billion-dollar video platform with servers around the globe, I have a new flavor of cool aid you might want to try.
I asked if OP had proof because its pretty easy to test if your ISP is throttling, just try and load the website through a VPN - if it’s faster through a VPN, your ISP may be to blame. If not, it’s probably just an underfunded platform with too much demand, or just high ping because it’s too far from your home location.
Bad methodology. If it loads the same in both. That could just as easily mean that they are throttling both. And they are known for throttling known VPNs sometimes. A VPN only means it restricts their ability to view what is inside your traffic. Not their ability to shape or block the traffic.
There is very little reason for videos to constantly buffer on something like peer tube these days regardless of how low spec the hosting hardware is. Even if it is popular. The distributed Network would make up for that. But it would also look a lot like torrenting behavior which a lot of ISPs block or clamp down on. Ironic right? Who’da thunk. Generally, when I’ve watched things on peer tube, even from Eastern European servers across the Atlantic. After a short bit of pre-buffering, it usually plays smoothly straight through start to finish even on Wi-Fi.
I mean sure you could try hosting it on a 10 megabit connection or slower. That might cause excessive buffering at least to start with until it gets distributed to other nodes. Or you could try hosting something so ridiculously high bit rate that it’s wasteful. And would saturate even up to 100 megabit connection. But that likely would not be common. On either end.
Btw. Your flavor-aid pitcher is empty. But thanks, no thanks for the offer.