Technology

59111 readers

3735 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1527

FCC restores net neutrality rules that ban blocking and throttling in 3-2 vote (arstechnica.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

158 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 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.