• Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What’s going to stop the forms being filled out by industry-controlled bots this time?[1] Last time the FCC took public comment, anti-net-neutrality comments were being made under the names of dead people and people who would later claim they never participated in making comments to the FCC.

    Otherwise, it’s going to be the same dumb shitshow as last time.


    1. https://www.vice.com/en/article/43a5kg/80-percent-net-neutrality-comments-bots-astroturfing ↩︎

  • ArugulaZ@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    If Ajit Pai were still in charge, he’d say “Woof woof! The telcos can do anything they want!,” and the Verizon CEO who owns him would pat him on the head and give him a Milk-Bone.

  • psycrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Would be wonderful if the FCC did their fucking job for once and banned data caps. Companies like Mediacom abuse the fuck out of them

    • underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because they have no intention of correcting it. They’re either doing this to keep up the charade of consumer protection, or gearing up to enshrine the practice in regulation.

    • pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      In short, the Administrative Procedure Act. It sets out the procedures that have to be followed before policy decisions get made. If the FCC doesn’t follow the APA’s procedures exactly, that gives the industry grounds to sue,. Even if the industry eventually looses, it would still mean a stay on the new policies during which they would continue to exploit consumers.

      The APA isn’t a bad thing, but since it forces federal agencies to be deliberate in making policy decisions that could have far reaching consequences. That said, it does make the government even slower to react to situations that often change quickly. But it has tripped up this administration and previous administrations when they have tried to make hasty decisions, including Trump with his “Muslim ban”.

      • plz1@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is this where the last Net Neutrality request for comments window failed miserably? Like, the FCC did the process, but they let it be provably sabotaged by the industry and went ahead anyways…

        • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Part of the reason they “went ahead anyways” was painfully obviously because of the FCC chair at the time, Ajit Pai, who had previously been Associate General Counsel at Verizon. They even made a “comedy” video of him being asked to be a toady by Verizon.

          This is because in the US, for it to be considered bribery or quid-pro-quo, you basically have to write a check and in the notes section put “This is a Bribe” otherwise it’s just considered “business” and it’s totally okay for you to make “comedy” videos mocking the people wanting an end to corruption.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. That saga was the reverse happening. The Obama administration had already gone through the whole procedure to implement net neutrality rules. Ajit Pai under the Trump administration then came in and started the procedure anew to reverse net neutrality. In that sense it “succeeded” in that Pai’s rules were put into place. There was a legal challenge on the basis of the FCC not considering certain factors. This is where being thorough is incredibly important. If even a single spot is missed, implementation can be drawn out even further.

          • underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I want to point out that Pai did not “come in” during the Trump admin. He killed net neutrality during it, sure, but he was appointed by Obama and held the office long before Trump showed up. It’s really disingenuous to try and portray it as a result of one republican president, it was a team effort.

            • pingveno@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              he was appointed by Obama and held the office long before Trump showed up

              That was by requirement. The FCC board requires that no more than 3 commissioners come from the same party. In practice, that means 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and 1 of the president’s party. Pai was appointed to the Republican slot but was in the minority during the Obama administration. Trump moved him into the role as chair and nominated another Republican, making him both chair and part of the majority.

              • underisk@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                He may have been required to appoint someone outside his party but he wasn’t required to appoint Mitch McConnell’s recommendation and obvious telecom shill Ajit Pai. Was it possible for him to appoint a member of a third party or is that also against all these awfully convenient rules that get in the way of those poor Democrats accomplishing anything approaching positive change? Could the current FCC go back and reverse the changes that the Democrats definitely didn’t actually want or is that also against the rules?

                • pingveno@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Required, no. But anyone the Republicans put forward is just going to be shill for big business anyway.

                  I’m not sure how a third party would work. I suspect playing fast and loose with the intentions of the bill (2-2 major party split plus a chairperson matching the president) would just get the confirmation blocked.

      • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I wish informative answers like yours would get the upvotes they deserve. You have my upvote.

        EDIT: Okay yeah, several hours later now it’s heavily upvoted. Thanks Lemmings, for giving me faith in comments sections again.

        • pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks! And it is getting upvotes, with you being the first. After all, I only wrote it a few minutes ago.

          I’m not scrubbing my account on Reddit partially because some of the comments are like the one above. Sure, much of what I wrote is of limited value. But if there is a historian going back through Internet history and using a language processing model to analyze comments, I think my voice is worth leaving there.

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Indeed, I’ve been very ambivalent about the idea of everyone deleting all their histories to hurt reddit.

            Sure, it hurts reddit in the short-term, but in the long-term it is hurting overall internet history.

            • pingveno@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Honestly, I don’t think it does much of anything to Reddit, short or long term. It does far more to destroy Internet history.

    • Clairvoidance@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They are asking ISPs to lay out their best justification so that they can decide whether it’s valid or not. Judging by their wording, they want a good explanation. It’s good to gain understanding of something before we gut it and who better to ask for the ‘best argument for’ than those who enforce it?

  • Schwarz@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s ridiculous I have to pay Xfinity $110/mo for my speed and unlimited bandwidth

    • BluePhoenix01@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Over here, I’m getting the Cox… last bill was $99 a month, now my “promo period” expired, and it is the full $170 a month thanks to “unlimited”. It’s pretty gross, but it is the only plan that gives the “amazing” 30 mbps up. :|

      EDIT: This is for home internet, 1000 down/30 up, unlimited data

      • 0jcis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s crazy! I’m paying 18 EUR a month for unlimited 1000 mbps download and 1000 mbps upload and I thought my bill was high. 😲

        Oh. You were talking about mobile data. That’s still extremely expensive.

        • BluePhoenix01@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sadly, I’m not talking about mobile data. This is coax modem landline internet… for that price… they only get away with it because I don’t have a choice, and I need it to be able to work.

    • 0xD@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      God damn. In Austria I’m paying 35€ for 250/250, and am still looking over to the Romanians with longing eyes. Data caps are only on mobile - which is still questionable in my eyes.

      • Nick@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I pay $99 for 300/5 unlimited. I don’t mind it, but would much rather have 100/100 for that price.

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Data caps on mobile makes more sense to me, simply because mobile data is so much more expensive.

        • Krik@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Is it?

          To me it seems it’s cheaper to build an antenna to serve 100-1000s of users than to dig and install cables to all of them.

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It depends on what you’re trying to do. If you’re just trying to reach them and don’t care about bandwidth, wireless is the way to go. It’s why more developed countries lagged behind developing countries on the transition to wireless phones. But when you’re trying to deploy shear amounts of bandwidth, nothing beats fiber. It’s incredibly fast, has low latency, and doesn’t get interference.

            And I suppose I should say that I think unlimited is a bad idea in general. I favor paying for what I use. People who use expensive infrastructure sparingly should pay less than people use it a lot.

  • ericthered926@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s the same reason my complex can force me to pay $100 for Xfinity while my neighbor pays $30 for the exact same service (because they’re in a house).