It didn't exist for long, it isn't needed and is just another way for the government to get more control of the internet. Let's wait till there is a problem before we try to fix it.
There are numerous problems. Comcast packet shaping in the late aughts. Zero-rated services. Lack of competition. Regional monopolies. High prices due to monopolies. Data caps. Downgraded service due to going over data caps.
But I suppose none of that matters when it may involve the government having to step in and actually protect consumers -- and protect what has become a basic human right. I do wonder if the AT&T breakup in 1983 would actually occur in this current ignorant political climate, had it been offset by 40 years in the future.
Legislation is notoriously slow, and the companies that'd profit would (and did) lobby against fixing it. It's almost always cheaper to prevent a problem than treat it after it festers.
What is the problem with net neutrality//regulation? What did repealing it fix? The shift to WFH has highlighted how essential internet access in the modern world - it should be regulated like all other essential utilities.
For most residential users, Comcast and Time Warner are de facto government. It's fallacious to invoke some hypothetically distinct threat of "government control" when that control is already here and deploying DPI gear.
A baseless claim. Others already provided counterexamples. Without net neutrality, things could deteriorate extremely quickly if the changes appeared likely to be profitable.
> is just another way for the government to get more control of the internet
This statement doesn't even make sense. These aren't KYC regulations or building permits we're talking about here. They just make it illegal to charge for preferential treatment. We've had common carrier laws since forever. The fact that ISPs are exempt is an aberration.
>>> It hasn't been that long. Big companies are smart enough to move slowly
The implication is that ISPs are intentionally slowing the adoption of exploitative policies in order to avoid drawing negative attention while politically vulnerable.
Not at all. Extending the benefit of the doubt is essential to society functioning well. Assuming the worst without clear cause just escalates things needlessly and poisons relationships.
That doesn't mean you have to be a sucker though. It's quite clear in context that ISPs would love to abuse a lack of net neutrality if they could get away with it. There's literally a video from years ago of an AT&T executive talking about it.
Perhaps, but every time I see that tired saying trotted out, the context is in groups that have not earned, or worse, have a history of malice that does not justify the benefit of the doubt
Seriously, all I said was that - they know better than to rip the bandaid off at once. People would be irate if everything they wanted was magically made manifest.
That's just common sense. Net-neutrality - from the many other comments has already been enacting incrementally small but bad changes for internet/broadband/streaming platforms and esp. in terms of monopolistic control.
It's similar to how 24/7 media took over propagandazing and polarizing the country - all media from Fox to CNN. It started with repealing the Fairness Doctrine which required all viewpoints to be expressed.
Then came the Telecommunications Act which was supposed to open the market to more and new radio station ownership; instead, it created an opportunity for a media monopoly.
You saw American media go from hundreds of owners to 6 or 7 companies owning 99% of media via radio, tv, etc.
At least with more diversity of ownership there wasn't the ability for CEO's to completely control a narrative whether it's Turner, Murdoch, Comcast, Sinclair Broadcasting, etc.
It took 25 years for media to bring us to this point, it wasn't an overnight thing. Laws become reality, companies pick at the edges to see what they can get away with, they pick some more, eventually they take as much as they can get away with and control their foothold.
I don't see how this is conspiracy, it's just facts about capitalism.
