So, did anything bad whatsoever happen? I'm not talking about something that would justify people absolutely losing their fucking minds back then, were there at least some minor annoyances or something, anything at all?

Nope, I like going to the normie subs and sorting by top all time and the top post is an obviously boosted by reddit pro NN post and then reading the comments about how the end of the internet is here.

The r-slurs on this site were acting like we were in the middle of the fucking h*locaust when all this was going down. You would've thought it was one of the worst atrocities in human history the way they were screeching.

But no, nothing ever happened.

Gonna miss the “IF YOU’RE NOT FREAKING OUT YOU’RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION” spam

Nope. I was right in the middle of the drama when it happened, and the way people were acting, you would have thought we would have to enter passwords on every fucking website we visited, that traffic would be blocked or rerouted seemingly out of nowhere, and the NSA would hax your computer to look at your porno stash in the night and you would wake up to a completely wiped hard drive.

Yes. Losing net neutrality killed roughly 3 billion people, only being eclipsed in death toll by the swearing in of judge barett

The real drama was the astroturf campaign he seemingly enabled:

https://www.wired.com/story/isps-funded-85-million-fake-comments-opposing-net-neutrality/

I think the real drama is 100k+ upvoted posts on this website about how the FCC is going to take the internet away, while 3 years we're still here and average bandwidth across the US is up like 25 percent since then.

Talk about some drama queens.

Those posts are still the top post on a lot of subs

Definitely organic...

Totally

Every single state subreddit will have the top 2 posts being their senator opposing NN.

Net neutrality should be protected.

And there have been examples;

https://www.freepress.net/our-response/expert-analysis/explainers/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

1

https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2019/02/13/isps-are-violating-the-old-net-neutrality-rules/

You might not notice it yet, but you can be sure there have been violations and will be future violations.

For example:

AT&T is openly advertising that cellular customers can stream the company’s DirecTV Now product without it counting against monthly data caps. Meanwhile, all of the competing video services like Sling TV, Paystation Vue, YouTube TV, Netflix or Amazon Prime count against AT&T data caps – and video can quickly kill a monthly data plan download allotment. AT&T’s behavior is almost a pure textbook example of why net neutrality rules were put into place – to stop ISPs from putting competitor’s products at an automatic disadvantage. AT&T is the biggest cellular provider in the country and this creates a huge advantage for DirecTV Now. All of the major cellular carriers are doing something similar in allowing some video to not count against the monthly data cap, but AT&T is the only one pushing their own video product.

Or:

In November a large study of 100,000 cellphone users by Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts showed that Sprint was throttling Skype. This is not something that the carrier announced, but it’s a clear case of pushing web traffic to the ‘Internet slow lane’. We can only speculate why Sprint would do this, but regardless of their motivation, this is clearly a violation of net neutrality.

Or:

This same study showed numerous incidents where all of the major cellular carriers throttled video services at times. YouTube was the number one target of throttling, followed by Netflix, Amazon Prime, and the NBC Sports app. This throttling wasn’t as widespread as Sprint’s throttling of Skype, but the carriers must have algorithms in their network that throttles specific video traffic when cell sites get busy. In contrast to the big carriers, the smaller independent cellular carrier C.Spire had almost no instances of differentiation among video streams.

This all sounds like bandwidth management to me. If you're managing a network you're going to have a lot of upset customers if their downloads and file transfers are failing, dropping a packet or two on a video or VoIP call ain't no thing, but it can kill your downloads.

If you dont throttle one service at peak hours, like video or VoIP, then everything is going to suffer.

AT&T is openly advertising that cellular customers can stream the company’s DirecTV Now product without it counting against monthly data caps. Meanwhile, all of the competing video services like Sling TV, Paystation Vue, YouTube TV, Netflix or Amazon Prime count against AT&T data caps

This all sounds like bandwidth management to me

Lmao. I know pizza likes to 💨💨💨♿ but he isn't wrong here.

He's wrong, didn't think I'd need to make a point about this one because it's pretty ridiculous, but I guess I do.

That'd be like the government banning free inner network calls, like a VZ customer to VZ customer. Treating every phone call over the air the same.

Its your own infrastructure and you should be able to use it to your company's benefit. Lot's if mobile carriers out there, don't like it switch.

I see this as a anti NN selling point.

Exactly, isn’t it apparently good when a private company can do what they want? This was established earlier

Not sure why you're butting in here.

Its your own infrastructure and you should be able to use it to your company's benefit

Only if governments are going to use the same eminent domain to let me build out my own network. Along with the massive amount of subsidies they got.

That'd be like the government banning free inner network calls, like a VZ customer to VZ customer.

But isn't it bad when I get free things? I like to be fleeced and findommed, please take my last shirt daddy faceless corporation 💲😍💲

likes to 💨💨💨♿

Fart on cripples? based

Lmao..

That's what I thought.

There's legit nothing to discuss here, there's a reason ISPs don't like net neutrality, you'll learn that one day.

You're the kind of person that runs around talking about how corporations will regulate themselves, my time is better spent reading a book than trying to convince a true believer that 2+2 does indeed = 4.

I'm well aware why. You have content providers pushing 4k videos across your network at 15 to 25 MB/s a pop, at the same time you have sla's you need to meet with your commerical clients.

Your pipe is only so big, if you want dedicated bandwidth you can pay the premium for it that commercial customers pay. That's just the way it works.

Shit like this is why America has dog shit/expensive internet in most of the country tbh.

I wouldn't call 86mb/s average dogshit. It's pretty easy for smaller and more ubran countries to have faster internet than the US just because of geogrpahical constraints.

https://www.speedtest.net/insights/blog/announcing-us-market-report-q2-2020/

The US isn't even top 10 for average speeds with higher costs in many cases:

https://decisiondata.org/news/analysis-us-falls-out-of-top-10-average-internet-speeds/

The numbers get even worse when you start looking at truly high-speed internet availability.

I'd guess the US will be in an even worse position over the next 20 years unless fiber availability increases at a faster pace.

The rural thing has been an excuse for a very long time, but it doesn't actually hold much water these days. The US could have better internet, even in rural areas.

Wow, I'm surprised we're that high. Look at the size of those countries ahead of us.

If you'd adjust that taking into account the size of America were number one by a long shot.

Lmao come on man.

This size argument stopped being that convincing around the early 2000s. At this point it's ISPs not wanting to invest in better internet.

You're comparing us to other much smaller countries. Counties equal are size are below us are behind.

It's not very cost effective for an ISP to lay fiber in the country, you can't fault them for not doing it when farmer John is fine with his current 5mb/s connection.

Starlight will fix the problems in the country inshallah.

Jesus Christ are you unironically shilling starlink now.

I am. The problem is internet in the country, starlink is saying they'll fix that.

Starlink is also dog-shit. Tech grifters are out of control.

Legit that fucking rat declares something, over-promises and under-delivers and the entire garbage tech media industry covers it up and shills for him.

So SATCOM is not the way to go for internet in the middle of nowhere?

Your solution is running fiber lines 4 miles down a gravel road so farmer John can beat his pud in 4k UHD.

My solution is to expand broadband infrastructure or give the money back.

Starlink is expanding broadband access.

Look at Google maps of anywhere in the country, imagine all the work and costs it would be have POP's, repeaters, laying the actual cable itself and then dealing with hicks putting a backhoe in the wrong spot.

It's a ridiculous undertaking. Cross-linked SATCOM is the soultion.

Given the already dramatically slower speeds than promised, the spotty coverage etc, I'd prefer the 200 billion dollars back or the broadband network expanded.

The network isn't entirely online, the more time data spends on the ground the lower the throughput is going to be.

Really curious about this $200 billion number, care to elaborate.

The telecoms yoinked over 200 billion dollars to expand broadband and never did.

There are books on this:

http://irregulators.org/bookofbrokenpromises/

The author of these books used to float around reddit commenting on it, here's him from a thread:

I've been tracking the telco deployments of fiber optics since 1991 when they were announced as something called the Information Superhighway. The plan was to have America be the first fiber optic country -- and each phone company went to their state commissions and legislatures and got tax breaks and rate increases to fund these 'utility' network upgrades that were supposed to replace the existing copper wires with fiber optics -- starting in 1992. And it was all a con. As a former senior telecom analyst (and the telcos my clients) i realized that they had submitted fraudulent cost models, and fabricated the deployment plans. The first book, 1998, laid out some of the history "The Unauthorized Bio" with foreword by Dr. Bob Metcalfe (co-inventor of Ethernet networking). I then released "$200 Billion Broadband Scandal" in 2005, which gave the details as by then more than 1/2 of America should have been completed -- but wasn't. And the mergers to make the companies larger were also supposed to bring broadband-- but didn't. I updated the book in 2015 "The Book of Broken Promises $400 Billion broadband Scandal and Free the Net", but realized that there were other scams along side this -- like manipulating the accounting.

We paid about 9 times for upgrades to fiber for home or schools and we got nothing to show for it -- about $4000-7000 per household (though it varies by state and telco). By 2017 it's over 1/2 trillion.

Finally, I note. These are not "ISPs"; they are state utility telecommunications companies that were able to take over the other businesses (like ISPs) thanks to the FCC under Mike Powell, now the head of the cable association. They got away with it because they could create a fake history that reporters and politicians kept repeating. No state has ever done a full audit of the monies collected in the name of broadband; no state ever went back and reduced rates or held the companies accountable. And no company ever 'outed' the other companies-- i.e., Verizon NJ never said that AT&T California didn't do the upgrades. --that's because they all did it, more or less. I do note that Verizon at least rolled out some fiber. AT&T pulled a bait and switch and deployed U-Verse over the aging copper wires (with a 'fiber node' within 1/2 mile from the location).

Broadband has definitely been expanded

Not to anywhere near what was agreed on.

What was agreed on? We're averaging triple the speed of broadband right now.

I copy pasted the point:

I've been tracking the telco deployments of fiber optics since 1991 when they were announced as something called the Information Superhighway. The plan was to have America be the first fiber optic country -- and each phone company went to their state commissions and legislatures and got tax breaks and rate increases to fund these 'utility' network upgrades that were supposed to replace the existing copper wires with fiber optics -- starting in 1992. And it was all a con. As a former senior telecom analyst (and the telcos my clients) i realized that they had submitted fraudulent cost models, and fabricated the deployment plans. The first book, 1998, laid out some of the history "The Unauthorized Bio" with foreword by Dr. Bob Metcalfe (co-inventor of Ethernet networking). I then released "$200 Billion Broadband Scandal" in 2005, which gave the details as by then more than 1/2 of America should have been completed -- but wasn't. And the mergers to make the companies larger were also supposed to bring broadband-- but didn't. I updated the book in 2015 "The Book of Broken Promises $400 Billion broadband Scandal and Free the Net", but realized that there were other scams along side this -- like manipulating the accounting.

We paid about 9 times for upgrades to fiber for home or schools and we got nothing to show for it -- about $4000-7000 per household (though it varies by state and telco). By 2017 it's over 1/2 trillion.

Finally, I note. These are not "ISPs"; they are state utility telecommunications companies that were able to take over the other businesses (like ISPs) thanks to the FCC under Mike Powell, now the head of the cable association. They got away with it because they could create a fake history that reporters and politicians kept repeating. No state has ever done a full audit of the monies collected in the name of broadband; no state ever went back and reduced rates or held the companies accountable. And no company ever 'outed' the other companies-- i.e., Verizon NJ never said that AT&T California didn't do the upgrades. --that's because they all did it, more or less. I do note that Verizon at least rolled out some fiber. AT&T pulled a bait and switch and deployed U-Verse over the aging copper wires (with a 'fiber node' within 1/2 mile from the location).

I can't find anywhere where congress appropriated $400 billion worth of funds for broadband access.

The author is a doomer, read the facts, American is doing pretty good all things considered.

https://broadbandnow.com/research/broadband-2020

He's not a doomer lmao, tax rates were cut and grants were handed out.

Yes he is.

I'm telling you this is something i am well versed in due to playing online games at a competitive level and seeing what other people are on.

Japan is over 60% fiber, so is Korea.

The US is 7%.

A much smaller country rolled out fiber faster than us. That makes a lot of sense.

Last mile fiber is really not needed for the overwhelming majority of customers. So that's not a good metric.

I'm driving all around Iowa this week for work, any food recs?

If you're near CR you get yourself a big ass tenderloin here.

https://www.joensys.com/

Did you get into such a sneeding frenzy that you forgot net neutrality was the argument

Explain why starlink is shit

Dramatically slower speeds than promised, outages, spotty quality in general.

https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-starlink-slow-internet-speeds/

This study is one thing, but it also lines up with reported speeds from various users.

Starlink opposed by ISP groups

Gee I wonder why.

The network is still very new with new satellite launches being planned which will greatly improve coverage and speeds

Lmao I hate ISPs, but they're completely right.

Musk chronically over-promises and under-delivers, there's no reason to think this will be difference.

His timelines are too ambition but he does eventually deliver

starlink is saying they'll fix that.

I know this is r drama dude but taking that as gospel is suppppppper r-slurred in a argument centering around whether or not corporate isps keep their promises

That's why I said "is saying," instead of "they will."

That's not taking anything as gospel.

Technically speaking, if their constellation and network functions, they could easily deliver broadband (25 MB/s), nation wide.

Because there's no demand for it, no one needs 5G despite all the reeing. Once broadband became the standard no one had to wait 10 minutes to load a 5 mb image.

There's a ton of demand, so I'm not sure what you're on about.

I have never met anyone who complains about internet speed that wasn't running 15 different apps at the same time.

[removed]

Violations? Oh my God this is what reddit was panicking about. How have we not noticed that the internet is over as we know it?

Not reading this, anything that leads to the destruction of regular people using the Internet is a good thing

I'm not reading all that. I'm happy for you, or sorry that happened. Whichever applies.

One of the rare times Pizza shouldn't be downvoted smh. We can still make fun of histrionic redditards while recognizing repealing NN was a bad decision.

I remember everyone losing their minds and yet nothing has changed all these years later. Typical R*ddit users.

Imagine causing thousands and thousands of threads of pure, unadulterated seethe, and making nearly everyone on plebbit and twatter go ape shit. And after months of activist agitation and thousands of death threats, he still ended up BTFOing them, and ultimately proving them wrong.

To this day, his mention cause entire threads of nothing but rslurs simply cursing his name.

Godspeed, King.

Lmao he really is the god of seethe.

The CCP does this too, where they live rent free in the heads of every redditoid despite most people of 🦇 liking them.

[removed]

[removed]

Linking to subreddits is not allowed.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Redditors will believe anything. Even if they arent wrong.