The Federal Communications Commission voted 3–2 to impose net neutrality rules today, restoring the common-carrier regulatory framework enforced during the Obama era and then abandoned while Trump was president.

The rules prohibit Internet service providers from blocking and throttling lawful content and ban paid prioritization.

“Consumers have made clear to us they do not want their broadband provider cutting sweetheart deals, with fast lanes for some services and slow lanes for others,” FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said at today’s meeting.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    183
    ·
    6 months ago

    They do, however, allow data caps.

    These new rules are not the same as the old ones and there’s definitely a handful of things that the big companies wanted that they indeed got.

      • scoobford@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        75
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        No reason they should exist in any day and age.

        Companies do not pay per packet. Paying more for more bandwidth or lower latency kind of makes sense because theoretically they may be prioritizing your traffic when the network is under too much load. But sending 16 petabytes costs exactly the same as 1kb in a month, assuming your connection is fast enough to handle 16 petabytes in a month.

        • Trollception@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          True companies do not pay per packet but they do pay for the bandwidth. The more users that use more bandwidth consistently means the ISP needs to invest more money on throughput/links. If you have 100 users and they use 1 mbps on average you can get away with a 100mpbs link. If you have 5 users using 50mpbs on average now you need a gig link. So technically it’s not free but yeah bandwidth caps suck big time. My suggestion would be to pick a place to live near a city with a municipal broadband option.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            The problem ISPs ask to pay BOTH for bandwidth and for packets. Which is double payment.

            • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Kind of. They’re asking you to pay for maximum possible bandwidth but make no claims about how long you can use that max bandwidth. Packets are only a convenient way to measure a percentage of max bandwidth use over time.

              • Emma_Gold_Man@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                6 months ago

                The way this works in the server world is “95th percentile” billing. They track your bandwidth usage over the course of the month (probably in 5 minute intervals), strike off the 5% highest peaks, and your bill for the month is based on the highest usage remaining.

                That’s considerably more honest than charging you based solely on the highest usage you could theoretically use at any time point in a 24 hour period (which is how ISPs define the “max bandwidth”) and then charging you again or cutting off your service if you use more than a certain amount they won’t even put in writing.

              • uis@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                “You maybe will be able to use advertised bandwidth. As long as we want. Or maybe not.”

          • scoobford@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            We were supposed to build one here, but AT&T basically owns our city government lol.

            They announced the project wouldn’t be moving forward because they wouldn’t/couldn’t use imminent domain to lay fiber in peoples yards. They’ve used it to build 3 stadiums in the past 20 years, and knock down entire neighborhoods in the process. Literally bulldozed multiple square miles of city.

            I fucking hate it here. We gave the stadium owners a bunch of money this week to renovate their stadium for some reason.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          it probably means that they would have to upgrade their little bunny hopping network technology that has about 300ms latency end to end, because god forbid you roll out a simple technology and have an easy time maintaining it.

          Which is probably why they do it.

          • III@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            6 months ago

            Upgrade infrastructure?! No, no. That money needs to go to shareholders. There’s no way millions of people need decent internet speeds more than shareholders need their 12th yacht.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              you mean to tell me that rolling out fiber is cheap and that servicing it end to end is also cheap and that the latency and speeds it provides keeps customers happy meaning we have to spend less time dealing with them?

              That’s cool, call me when i care.

              sincerely, your local ISP.

        • LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          6 months ago

          Right but if everyone sends 16 petabtyes a month the internet would collapse. Data caps do absolutely work to reduce bandwidth on a network scale. Bandwidth is measured in mbps. Limit the Mb and you reduce the necessary bandwidth.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            but if everyone sent 16PB a month they would have some bomb ass connections as well, and i would sure hope as hell that it would hold up.

            I dont even want to calculate how fast a connection would need to be for that to be a datacap.

          • uis@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            For context 16 petabytes per month is about(slightly more than) 6 gigabytes per second. Also internet was designed during times when computers were super expensive and 100% utilization was norm.

          • scoobford@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            You already buy “up to” a certain speed. When the network is congested, you just deal with it.

            Trying to make people budget their internet usage is stupid and pointless.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        6 months ago

        I have a 186GB 5G monthly limit on my 10€ mobile subscription, then (supposedly) it drops to 4G speed. I’m ok with those kind of limits because they are not there to milk people.

        • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          I checked the carriers around here and all of them unsurprisingly offer the same thing. 50GB 5G for 50€ that drop to roughly 2G speeds once the limit is reached.

          Almost 20x the cost of your subscription.

        • Jarix@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Meanwhile in canada i have a plan from 2012 that was an unlimited plan they that geta throttled after 5gigs (it has been since upped to 20gigs now)

          If its throttled its throttled to less than 200kbps and is basically useless

    • oken735@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Source? Didn’t see anything in the article about it, and I did a quick search and couldn’t find anything that says they would be allowed to impose data caps given the verbiage in the rules

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        My source is the document the FCC presented as their new net neutrality rules, which can be found here:

        https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401676A1.pdf

        Page 317-318, Section 534-535 “Application to Data Caps”

        Section 534 discusses the professor who suggests data caps should be banned, and section 535 discusses how the commission disagrees and how data caps will remain.

        1. We agree with Professor Jordan that the Commission can evaluate data caps under the general conduct standard. We do not at this time, however, make any blanket determinations regarding the use of data caps based on the record before us. The record demonstrates that while BIAS providers can implement data caps in ways that harm consumers or the open Internet, particularly when not deployed primarily as a means to manage congestion, data caps can also be deployed as a means to manage congestion or to offer lower-cost broadband services to consumers who use less broadband. As such, we conclude that it is appropriate to proceed incrementally with respect to data caps, and we will evaluate individual data cap practices under the general conduct standard based on the facts of each individual case, and take action as necessary.

        Also, you get an upvote for asking for a source. Cheers.

        • oken735@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          Thank you! Crazy no news article caught this. Appreciate you taking the time to read the first party document