this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
629 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59217 readers
2726 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
629
Cable lobby vows “years of litigation” to avoid bans on blocking and throttling (arstechnica.com)
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 260 points 7 months ago (9 children)

The NCTA has repeatedly stated over the years that net neutrality rules aren't needed because ISPs already follow net neutrality principles. "Internet service providers have always delivered open, unrestricted Internet service. Consumers enjoy the web content and applications of their choosing without any blocking, throttling, or interference," the group said.

Lmao, really? The audacity of these cunts.

[–] [email protected] 188 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Wow. Talk about professional gaslighting. Not enough people are aware that the Obama-era FTC enacted the policy because AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon were all caught throttling Netflix and prioritizing their own competing services.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

Thanks Obama

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago

And tethering. Verizon was basically forced to stop blocking tethering apps by the FCC. My complaint was one of the ones which started the enforcement.

[–] [email protected] 105 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Maybe if they didn't sell people more bandwidth than they could provide they wouldn't have to throttle people below the service they paid for to work for everyone.

I would, in theory, be all for allowing companies to prioritize latency to services and protocols that benefit from it. Except they oversell the absolute shit out of their service, and can't be trusted to give you what you pay for if they don't like your traffic.

Failing to provide the full bandwidth they advertised for even one percent of a given month should result in fines that massively exceed what they charged for that month. Selling shit you don't have is not acceptable.

[–] [email protected] 89 points 7 months ago

Oh good, if that is all true, you wont have to change anything to be compliant with new laws and should have no issue with them.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago

Money has no shame. Businesses only have reactionary shame in relation to possible loss of money.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago

It's funny because wireless ISPs literally advertise that they throttle video to certain resolutions unless you buy a higher tier.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

ROFL! Order today and you can get unlimited bandwidth for YouTube and Netflix specifically!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

That's incredible.