Anna Gomez confirmation means “FCC can act swiftly to restore net neutrality.”

  • @cyd@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -14
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Here’s a contrarian hot take. The net neutrality fight is one of those uniquely American issues that simply should not matter, like school shooter drills, complicated tax filings, and tipping. The Wikipedia page on net neutrality in the United States is about as long as War and Peace, yet in most other countries “net neutrality” is not even enshrined as a distinct legal concept and they do just fine.

    In the US, net neutrality has not been a general requirement for ISPs since the issue first surfaced over a decade ago, and efforts to enshrine net neutrality into federal law have failed. The dystopia of a balkanized Internet floated by net neutrality campaigners (e.g. ISPs charging people extra to access Netflix) has not come to pass. Yet it’s a live issue because (i) Americans are paranoid about corporations screwing them over, (ii) American corporations have a long history of screwing them over, and (iii) Americans of all camps love waging long and complicated legal battles against each other.

    What’s really needed is not net neutrality, but a more competitive ISP market. What the net neutrality fears are really about is ISPs having power over consumers. If only one ISP serves your area, they can screw you over by forcing you to shell out more money to access Netflix or whatever. But government efforts are ultimately better spent increasing market competitiveness, such as setting up “shared fiber” requirements. If there are a bunch of ISPs all competing against each other, “net neutrality” will fall naturally into place simply because none of them want to piss off their customers.

    • @raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      201 year ago

      The dystopia of a balkanized Internet floated by net neutrality campaigners (e.g. ISPs charging people extra to access Netflix) has not come to pass.

      You may be unaware, but that dystopia already exists today: Mobile service providers (= ISPs for their customers) are selling e.g. WhatsApp traffic quotas separately from other internet traffic. You’ll buy a package, and you’ll get X GB traffic, but Y GB WhatsApp traffic separately, with Y sometimes even being > X.

      Meaning in effect that people have to pay more to access the non WhatsApp-Internet, which means “ISP charging people extra to access Netflix” (among other services). It encourages people who have little money to stay in their WhatsApp filter bubble.

      • @cyd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -13
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        In a competitive market, bundling/unbundling is good, not bad. It’s a way for consumers to get a better deal. For example, if a tiny minority of users take up a huge chunk of internet traffic through their use of WhatsApp, bundling WhatsApp separately allows the majority of non-power-users to pay less. If you don’t like it, just jump to the other providers.

        It’s under conditions of market power that bundling/unbundling becomes problematic. When your ISP is a monopoly, they can impose bundles on you not because it’s a good way to offer consumer choice, but because it’s a way to stealthily increase prices.

        • @stewie3128@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          All data is data. Charge by the byte with a 2% profit (not even sure hot to fogure that), or just leave it as unlimited, as it should be.

          • @cyd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 year ago

            Food is food, so why doesn’t McDonald’s charge you by the Happy Meal, instead of allowing you to buy burgers, fries, and drinks separately?

        • @raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          I think you missed my point, being that the absence of net neutrality by legislation has brought us exactly what those promoting such legislation have warned about.

        • R0cket_M00se
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          When your ISP is a monopoly

          Well look at that, they all are. Next.

    • @KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      This is like when Europeans or people in other countries say, “racism isn’t a problem here, it’s a ‘uniquely American’ problem.” Not because racism doesn’t exist in these other countries, but because these other countries aren’t actually talking about racism and often don’t care about it.

      • @cyd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        It’s more like saying European schools are not well prepared for school shootings. Indeed they aren’t, and this is in principle a problem, but they’ve settled the issue at a deeper level.

    • @Primate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      That’s not really true. Emerging internet markets are right to be worried about this too. For example India codified net neutrality just a few years ago.

      While more competition in ISPs would prevent this being needed, having the backing of a law is a good fallback.