.webp?h=10 "Cat Ears (wig) - ~~nya ^-^")
https://old.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1hs202q/us_appeals_court_blocks_biden_administration/
https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/1hs20j9/us_appeals_court_blocks_biden_administration/
NEW
— Brendan Carr (@BrendanCarrFCC) January 2, 2025
An appellate court just struck down President Biden’s partisan plan to expand government control of the Internet through Title II “net neutrality” rules, citing Loper Bright.
While the work to unwind the Biden Admin’s regulatory overreach will continue, this is a good win. https://t.co/AWhuZecsnr
BREAKING: The 6th Circuit Court just ruled to permanently BLOCK Joe Biden's plan to expand the government's control of the Internet using net neutrality rules.
— George (@BehizyTweets) January 2, 2025
The judges ruled that the FCC no longer has the power to make up rules out of thin air due to SCOTUS's overturn of the… pic.twitter.com/R5MBPbNF53
Today is a great day for American consumers and the rule of law. As I argued in my amicus brief in support of the petitioners, the FCC’s resurrection of so-called net neutrality was a regulatory power grab that violated the plain meaning of the Communications Act.
— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 2, 2025
I applaud…
For a decade, I’ve argued that so-called “net neutrality” regulations are unlawful (not to mention pointless). Today, the Sixth Circuit held exactly that. You can read the court’s excellent opinion here: https://t.co/3za2KOk7ou
— Ajit Pai (@AjitPai) January 2, 2025
It’s time for regulators and activists to give up… https://t.co/HzEnKUDpal pic.twitter.com/QbFgLEViUQ
Orange Site:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42578237
BlueSky:
Breaking News: An appeals court struck down federal net neutrality rules, ending a nearly two-decade effort to regulate internet providers like utilities.
— The New York Times (@nytimes.com) 2025-01-02T20:22:52.930Z
this trumplican ruling killing net neutrality doesn't just kill net neutrality, it delivers the final killing blow to any sort of coherent federal consumer broadband protection (corporate press outlets will skip over that last bit)
— Karl Bode (@karlbode.com) 2025-01-02T20:14:23.082Z
The Sixth Circuit just invalidated FCC's net neutrality rules, arguing that it was inconsistent with the "best reading" of the statute per Loper Bright. The court's dismissal of the FCC's reading of the statute as "not the best" is hilariously abstruse metaphysical BS:
— Dan Walters (@profdanwalters.bsky.social) 2025-01-02T18:21:21.639Z
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit struck down the FCC’s “net neutrality” rules governing internet service providers, in an early policy win for Republicans seeking to reverse Biden-era industry regulation.
— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost.com) 2025-01-02T20:18:25.173Z
https://lemmy.world/post/23817963?scrollToComments=true
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Net neutrality is bad because it creates dumb incentives, specifically by banning zero-rating (sending data at no cost to the standard party on the hook).
For example, ad data sent to a phone should obviously be zero-rated under any sane system because the alternative -- what we have today -- is the viewer of the ad paying the majority of the delivery cost. So, when ad data delivery is nearly free to advertisers, of course we get the cesspool of ad-supported stuff online.
It also means there's very little incentive for most apps to optimize their data usage. There'd be a lot more incentive if apps had zero-rated data for the phone owner because the app or site owner paid.
It's not even a risk to competition as long as zero-rating is available to apps and sites on non-discriminatory terms.
BTW, zero-rating is common in Europe, the precious place that supposedly sees U.S. Democrats as "right wing."
!neolibs
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
My unlimited data plan costs like two netflix subscriptions. I don't need a discount on rates, they can just charge the marketers too and stack paper
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Two Netflix subscriptions is really substantial monthly cash compared to wholesale rates for the data you use, and zero-rating hasn't resulted in the kind of "stacking paper" you suggest in other countries; that kind of argument is really Reddit-tier slippery slope BS.
This flexibility for who pays is already becoming more common in the form of systems like S3's "downloader pays" model that you can use for some buckets.
I'm only saying that it's r-slurred for the government to mandate that units of bandwidth get paid in a particular way, especially when the main party that can actually optimize bandwidth use isn't on the hook for most costs today, which misaligns incentives.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I pay about half that just for the privilege of being connected to the power grid. Telcos deserve more
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
this is the most r-slurred shit I have read on this site, and I dont want to enact the labour to refute this because hes too far gone !codecels
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No, you genuinely don't understand incentives or unintended consequences. Net neutrality would've been an r-slured waste for everyone involved.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I can't wait for a world where I have to make an agreement with every ISP on earth just to make my website accessible
This is a great idea and you definitely shouldn't rope 
@syscoshill
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's not how it works, and this discussion shows over and over how you folks have never worked on sizable contracts with ISPs and CDNs.
A site owner already buys bandwidth from "every ISP" via aggregated peering relationships that their datacenter, cloud, or CDN maintains. An app pays for aggregated transit relationships for SMS when it sends messages using a service like Twilio. The sender of a text/call pays in Europe and much of the globe.
You're just insulated from these relationships and, in a mountain of ignorance, assume they don't exist and that it's some kind of dunk to suggest my idea is to set them up. Do you think a customer makes a relationship with every dairy they buy milk from at the supermarket?
Also, your concept of how markets handle these aggregated needs is absolutely pathetic, most simply because I'm only calling to not ban a form of voluntary business relationship. If you think no one will want it, then you're even dumber for calling to ban it.
!neolibs
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Thank you for noticing. I also have never worked for Micro$oft or Pol Pot
you don't pay to call people in some places?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
In the US, the only charge to the caller has been for long-distance or international. A toll-free (1-8XX) number is free to he caller for even long-distance. I'll leave out classic 1-900 numbers. Long distance is no longer a common charge across the US.
US phones have never paid extra to call mobile phones, though, and we've never had different number patterns for mobile vs. landline. This is a huge contrast versus European norms.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
i can't wait for a world where i need to pay a vpn to access the full internet
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
The above was typed by someone who has no idea how network protocols work.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Seems just a argument for some sort of QoS
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Zero-rating is just how usage gets billed. This is a question of economics, not protocols after that point. Phone networks have, in many parts of the world, operated on a "caller pays" system, so it's not even novel to bill different units of usage in different directions.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
ISPs can absolutely discriminate based on host. What are you talking about??
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Are you
?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context