Did anything actually happen when it was repealed? I was pretty upset when it happened, especially when that awful "you can still use the internet" video was made. But I have to admit, I have experienced exactly 0 of the negatives that I was worried about at the time.
I'm sure a lot of the companies who might have benefitted from abusing it were persuaded to wait by various public pressure campaigns. It's always easier to push stuff in slowly once attention was elsewhere.
The predictions that came from the alarmists turned out to be false - which makes me think there is an ulterior motive behind NN we are not being told about.
I'm not sure you can infer that because the worst predictions of alarmists didn't immediately happen, there is no danger in not having network neutrality.
Assuming an ulterior motive is unnecessary, the stated motive seems good enough, they don't want a network to freeze out their services in order to promote their own.
NN doesn't prevent a carrier from offering a plan with Unlimited* data where the asterisk means "up to 25GB at maximum speed, lowered to 128/64 Kbps after exceeding the limit, until the end of billing period".
It would prevent the carrier from not counting certain traffic in the data usage or not limiting the speed of some traffic after the data limit is reached.
From what I remember, the crux of the matter was that the change of regulation would give more negotiating power to ISPs when it came to common infrastructures they shared with large cloud providers (Google and co).
The status quo was highly advantageous to said cloud providers, which is why they lobbied so hard against net neutrality changes. And since people on the internet get really vocal about perceived threats to the internet, the lobbying went viral.
Advocating for the neutrality of internet infrastructure providers, while rallying against the neutrality of internet communication platforms (1), is pretty inconsistent.
19 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 56.8 ms ] threadBut to answer your question - yes. AT&T zero-rated their own streaming service: https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/17/22336872/hbo-max-data-cap...
(Zero-rating doesn't mean "free". It means "You're paying for it whether you use it or not. Competitors cost double.")
Assuming an ulterior motive is unnecessary, the stated motive seems good enough, they don't want a network to freeze out their services in order to promote their own.
I even read something about how "people will literally die without NN". That kind of rhetoric should be a signal.
NN doesn't prevent a carrier from offering a plan with Unlimited* data where the asterisk means "up to 25GB at maximum speed, lowered to 128/64 Kbps after exceeding the limit, until the end of billing period".
It would prevent the carrier from not counting certain traffic in the data usage or not limiting the speed of some traffic after the data limit is reached.
The status quo was highly advantageous to said cloud providers, which is why they lobbied so hard against net neutrality changes. And since people on the internet get really vocal about perceived threats to the internet, the lobbying went viral.
1: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-than-d...
One is arguing for a public utility that just pushes arbitrary and unceognizable bits down a fiber line.
The other is about requiring engineers to support actual tangible information of things they do not support.
Please don't conflate these two.
Why do you want to force them to support the Daily Stormer?