FCC explicitly prohibits fast lanes, closing possible net neutrality loophole
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
This is great news. Lots of advocacy went into it and I’m grateful for it.
I’d like to see it codified into law so it isn’t easy to tamper with again.
If your fines all cap out before 100 million dollars, its just the cost of doing business for them. If youre unwilling to suspend or revoke a license, then your threats of enforcement are toothless.
taxes for these agencies are four billion dollars a year. 100 million isnt even half a percent of that. Its a rounding error at best and they can afford to eat that fee until the last star falls from the heavens.
Government needs to be an adversary to big business, not its puppet. An idea that's not likely to take root in the USA, whose political philosophy is oriented around toxic individualism (and racism).
People have. The problem with FCC not fulfilling it's mandate - it's still here.
Our challenge: We have voted-in inept lawmakers for generations. They've allowed regulatory capture to become the norm. In a lot of ways we're in the 1910s again.
Citation please on the available fines capping out before $100M?
I think the record fine the FCC has assessed is $100M against AT&T for violating the open internet transparency rule by throttling “unlimited data” customers in 2015, but as I recall that wasn't at (and obviously not beyond) the cap on their authority in that case.
It's a recurring scheme by wireless carriers. Two examples off the top of my head are Zero Rating by major US carriers and AT&T's paid priority.
Being able to get better latency on a few percent of your bandwidth would be useful for gaming.
Competition gives us that in the best possible way. However, telecom lobbyists have successfully manipulated lawmakers/regulators to lock out competition.
Me, before competition: Last year ago I had 1 choice of ISP. I could pay $119/mo for 40Mb upload with 40ms latency to the IX.
Last fall, a fiber provider trenched lines here.
This year I have a choice of 8 fiber ISPs. I can pay $59/mo for 1Gb upload with 4ms latency to the IX. I can pay $79/mo for 2Gb or $199 for 8Gb.
A lot more of the US could have this choice if lawmakers didn't allow telecoms to write laws and decide regulation (after funding elections).
In many cases, taxpayers even paid for modern networks which the ISPs never delivered (generally w/o consequences).
Granted, I’m graciously giving companies the presumption that paying more actually means faster, not “pay more or get slower service.”