The type of traffic shaping you are thinking off can still be done under net nutrailty and was never an issue.
Comment on FCC explicitly prohibits fast lanes, closing possible net neutrality loophole
xenspidey@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Yay, spam email servers now have full speed. Spam away! You do realize prioritizing traffic is kind of the network norm right? NN was one of those, let’s fix a problem that doesn’t actually exist. You know that right?!?
xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
xenspidey@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
The things NN is trying to “solve” was never an issue either
Kraiden@kbin.run 1 month ago
Net neutrality is the status quo, it's not trying to "solve" anything
xenspidey@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
If it was the status quo then why have rules?
ShepherdPie@midwest.social 1 month ago
Then it shouldn’t be an issue to implement it then right?
xenspidey@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
But there’s never been an issue… Should Netflix pay more for their increased traffic… Yes, it’s not equal to my browsing.
AstralPath@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I’m enjoying watching you dig this massive pit for yourself. Lol
Silverseren@kbin.social 1 month ago
pats your head It's okay, I know reading comprehension is difficult for some people.
xenspidey@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
I know Lemmy is the wrong place for this, it’s just another hive mind like reddit. Actual reading is what got me to this point. So maybe it’s you that should do some unbiased reading.
AmbiguousProps@lemmy.today 1 month ago
Ah, the classic “hive mind” excuse. It’s always brought up when someone has nothing else to stand on (that someone is you, if it wasn’t clear).
exothermic@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Lemmy is a fine place for it, saying it’s a hive mind may have some truth, but it’s also a copout. Just back up controversial opinions with some sources.
You said you read things that “got you to this point.” What was it you read? I’d be interested in reading it.
themurphy@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Yeah. Must be something wrong with the place and not you. It’s called projection.
TheRealCharlesEames@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Bless your heart
xenspidey@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Bless your heart
Uranium3006@kbin.social 1 month ago
what a dumbass
baronvonj@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Network neutrality became policy after Comcast, Verizon, and ATT were all caught throttling Netflix while their own competing services were lagging behind in market share. It was a response to a real problem that was harming competitors and consumers.
mozz@mbin.grits.dev 1 month ago
I literally had this happen to me; it's why I don't use Verizon anymore. Youtube, too. There's a technical breakdown somewhere of precisely how they did it (roughly speaking, "accidentally" underprovisioning the exact exits from their network that would lead to Netflix's servers for no possible reason except to fuck with Netflix and degrade that service and only that service, which it accomplished very effectively.)
abhibeckert@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That’s fair, but personally I don’t think Net Neutrality was the right solution.
They should have been found guilty of anticompetitive behaviour and split up into multiple companies.
grue@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Net neutrality is just Common Carrier rules as applied to the Internet. It’s frankly a no-brainer.
Your proposal should definitely also have been done – allowing telecoms to also produce content at all is a massive conflict of interest and should never have been allowed in the first place – but it doesn’t obviate to also regulate the pure telecoms even after the breakup.
abhibeckert@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The thing is there are no pure telecoms anymore. There’s a company that maintains underground infrastructure and gets paid when that infrastructure is used, and is incentivised to upgrade the infrastructure because they make more money if it’s used more.
And there are thousand of companies that benefit from the infrastructure, and they can charge customers pretty much whatever they want… though it better not be an excessively high price because every ISP, even a tiny one with a single employee, can provide service nationwide at the same raw cost as a telco with tens of millions of customers.
The difference between what we have done, and net neutrality, is our system provides an open book profit motive to upgrade the network. Net Neutrality doesn’t do that.
Fundamentally there is a natural monopoly in that once every street in a suburb is connected, then why would anyone invest in digging up the footpath and gardens to run a second wired connection to every house? The original provider would have to provide awful service to justify that, and they can simply respond to a threat of a new network by improving service just enough (maybe only temporarily), for that new investor to run for the hills.