re: FCC abandoned Net Neutrality regulations 1 year ago today

quote:

---

BigTech is worried about losing advertising dollars. Nothing more. The major advertising revenue generators support NN.

---

This was the key for me not to like it. Googles/FB/etc want their cake and eat it to. They need ATT/Verizon to support their product, but dont want to pay them to improve the infrastructure. So they get money in advertising at no minimal cost.

So NN told one group you cant charge the other based on "free internet" heart strings. Like there isnt a cost to the first group to maintain while they arent seeing nearly the revenue#s that the googles are getting.

quote:

---

People are so damn gullible Muh free market right

---

Yea, no.

quote:

---

AT&T throttled my Xbox and Steam downloads during Net Neutrality, but not before or after.

---

There wasn’t an internet before “net neutrality.”

Might have happened during the period where it is involved with Title 2.

But that is something else entirely, and something that Comcast singlehandly essentially forced to happen due to shitty lawyering.

quote:

---

This was the key for me not to like it. Googles/FB/etc want their cake and eat it to. They need ATT/Verizon to support their product, but dont want to pay them to improve the infrastructure. So they get money in advertising at no minimal cost.

So NN told one group you cant charge the other based on "free internet" heart strings. Like there isnt a cost to the first group to maintain while they arent seeing nearly the revenue#s that the googles are getting.

---

That’s not what it’s about though.

It’s about charging a surcharge on top of the agreed upon rate and provided service just because you can afford to/arbitrarily stifling traffic if you don’t pay.

It’s about saying that if you want 100mbs/s you have to pay x......but if you want that already paid for speed to YouTube you need to pay more.

It wasn’t demand for more infrastructure capacity from the providers. That’s already there in the form of dark fiber that was already paid for by federal government grants.

Before and after they were doing the inverse of the above example:

They would agree to a level of service and what it would cost.

But when major companies began to actually use what they paid for, it cut profit margins so they stifled the connections.

When they were sued for essentially false advertising bordering on breach of contract, a number of ISP’s defense was saying that they were utilities and therefore weren’t subject to general trade laws.

So the government partially placed them under the legal umbrella of utilities.

And now it’s was too restrictive.

Except it didn’t stop them from suing municipalities from generating their own public services to compete at a local level where their service was shitty.

THAT is trying to have their cake and eat it too.