this post was submitted on 27 Sep 2023
1072 points (99.1% liked)
Technology
59577 readers
2928 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think that's fair at all. Since we have never really had NN, then I would ask you to define what it is first. If you say that NN prevents ISPs from provisioning off websites in bundles then I would say, you're not wrong but I massively dispute your definition of NN.
It is supposed to protect a free and open internet. I think I can safely state that. I think we can agree to that as a basis. And I can think of dozens of things that are going on right now that only serve to disarm and control users in order to strip-mine them of as much value as possible. If ISPs were utilities then you would have access to their financial reports, you could see their service reports, you would be able to know how they have and plan to allocate resources, and you would have at least transparency if not influence in decisions they choose to make that affect the cost of service. Imagine if they would have to apply for a tariff audit just to get approved to raise rates?
Are you truly arguing that this hypothetical alternate dimension is somehow imperceivably different than our own?
Net neutrality was never intended to turn ISPs into public utilities. Its purpose was to turn them into "common carriers," which means they must treat all traffic equally.
You're not wrong, but your distinction is meaningless since common carriers in the US are often regulated by the same governing rules and very often the same governing bodies as public utilities.
I do not believe that is correct.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/regulating-internet-service-providers-as-common-carriers-will-not-satisfy-net-neutrality-advocates/
That gives a better, more thorough explanation of what the FCC is aiming to do. While public utilities are governed by regulations much like a common carrier is, it won't result in what you were stating in your original comment (i.e. the same level of internal transparency that public utilities must comply with).