• astrsk
    link
    fedilink
    102 years ago

    Because fuck you, pay me, that’s why.

    — Comcast, probably.

  • ArugulaZ
    link
    fedilink
    92 years ago

    If Ajit Pai were still in charge, he’d say “Woof woof! The telcos can do anything they want!,” and the Verizon CEO who owns him would pat him on the head and give him a Milk-Bone.

  • Hot Saucerman
    link
    fedilink
    62 years ago

    What’s going to stop the forms being filled out by industry-controlled bots this time? Last time the FCC took public comment, anti-net-neutrality comments were being made under the names of dead people and people who would later claim they never participated in making comments to the FCC.

    Otherwise, it’s going to be the same dumb shitshow as last time.

  • @gmg@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    62 years ago

    Lack of healthy competition. It’s plain to see from the other side of the ocean where I live… Is it maybe one of those things you can only see from afar?

    • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      In short, the Administrative Procedure Act. It sets out the procedures that have to be followed before policy decisions get made. If the FCC doesn’t follow the APA’s procedures exactly, that gives the industry grounds to sue. Even if the industry eventually looses, it would still mean a stay on the new policies during which they would continue to exploit consumers.

      The APA isn’t a bad thing, since it forces federal agencies to be deliberate in making policy decisions that could have far reaching consequences. That said, it does make the government even slower to react to situations that often change quickly. But it has tripped up this administration and previous administrations when they have tried to make hasty decisions, including Trump with his “Muslim ban”.

      • plz1
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        Is this where the last Net Neutrality request for comments window failed miserably? Like, the FCC did the process, but they let it be provably sabotaged by the industry and went ahead anyways…

        • Hot Saucerman
          link
          fedilink
          English
          2
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Part of the reason they “went ahead anyways” was painfully obviously because of the FCC chair at the time, Ajit Pai, who had previously been Associate General Counsel at Verizon. They even made a “comedy” video of him being asked to be a toady by Verizon.

          This is because in the US, for it to be considered bribery or quid-pro-quo, you basically have to write a check and in the notes section put “This is a Bribe” otherwise it’s just considered “business” and it’s totally okay for you to make “comedy” videos mocking the people wanting an end to corruption.

        • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          No. That saga was the reverse happening. The Obama administration had already gone through the whole procedure to implement net neutrality rules. Ajit Pai under the Trump administration then came in and started the procedure anew to reverse net neutrality. In that sense it “succeeded” in that Pai’s rules were put into place. There was a legal challenge on the basis of the FCC not considering certain factors. This is where being thorough is incredibly important. If even a single spot is missed, implementation can be drawn out even further.

          • @underisk@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            I want to point out that Pai did not “come in” during the Trump admin. He killed net neutrality during it, sure, but he was appointed by Obama and held the office long before Trump showed up. It’s really disingenuous to try and portray it as a result of one republican president, it was a team effort.

            • Hot Saucerman
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Democrats nearly always choosing Republicans for non-elected offices so they “don’t look partisan.” Republicans always choosing Republicans for non-elected positions because they don’t actually give a shit about looking partisan.

              This is part of why the FBI has always been run by Republicans. Not once have we had a Democrat in charge of the FBI.

              At least the FCC has a slightly better track record. Wheeler was a good FCC chairman.

              • @underisk@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                22 years ago

                The country would be a lot better off if the Democrats abandoned their devotion to “bipartisanship”. It’s a one way street that seems to only exist as a convenient roadblock to implementing any kind of positive reforms.

      • Hot Saucerman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        02 years ago

        I wish informative answers like yours would get the upvotes they deserve. You have my upvote.

        • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          Thanks! And it is getting upvotes, with you being the first. After all, I only wrote it a few minutes ago.

          I’m not scrubbing my account on Reddit partially because some of the comments are like the one above. Sure, much of what I wrote is of limited value. But if there is a historian going back through Internet history and using a language processing model to analyze comments, I think my voice is worth leaving there.

          • Hot Saucerman
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            Indeed, I’ve been very ambivalent about the idea of everyone deleting all their histories to hurt reddit.

            Sure, it hurts reddit in the short-term, but in the long-term it is hurting overall internet history.

            • @pingveno@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              22 years ago

              Honestly, I don’t think it does much of anything to Reddit, short or long term. It does far more to destroy Internet history.

    • @underisk@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      Because they have no intention of correcting it. They’re either doing this to keep up the charade of consumer protection, or gearing up to enshrine the practice in regulation.

    • Clairvoidance
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      They are asking ISPs to lay out their best justification so that they can decide whether it’s valid or not. Judging by their wording, they want a good explanation. It’s good to gain understanding of something before we gut it and who better to ask for the ‘best argument’ than those who enforce it?

  • FiveMacs
    link
    fedilink
    42 years ago

    $$$ and because the ISPs don’t get charged for unethical and blantly illegal activities…

    The real question should be why is the internet not a public utility yet…? Huh FCC/CRTC…?

      • Hot Saucerman
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I mean hell, they could follow through with their promises for bringing back net neutrality.

        They introduced a bill in 2022, but nothing much has happened with it since then. Probably because it would fail to pass the Republican dominated House of Representatives.

  • @psycrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    32 years ago

    Would be wonderful if the FCC did their fucking job for once and banned data caps. Companies like Mediacom abuse the fuck out of them

  • @ericthered926@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    22 years ago

    It’s the same reason my complex can force me to pay $100 for Xfinity while my neighbor pays $30 for the exact same service (because they’re in a house).

  • ppb1701
    link
    fedilink
    22 years ago

    @Atemu. Money. Same reason they don’t really wanna disclose all the little fees.

    • 0110010001100010
      link
      fedilink
      12 years ago

      I mean, if you ask why a company is doing xyz the answer is pretty much universally money.

  • _haha_oh_wow_
    link
    fedilink
    12 years ago

    Because of corporate greed and a ridiculous lack of meaningful regulation.