this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2023
25 points (96.3% liked)

Technology

34832 readers
1 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HiddenLayer5@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Oh fuck off FCC, you know exactly why and intentionally don't address it.

[–] psycrow@lemmy.world 3 points 2 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

[–] astrsk@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Because fuck you, pay me, that’s why.

— Comcast, probably.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

It will always make me happy that no matter how hard they try to make Xfinity happen, everyone remembers their real, ugly face before the facelift, and that ugly face is Comcast.^1

"Stop trying to make ~~fetch~~ Xfinity happen! It's not going to happen!"

[–] Kerred@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Hey Comcast's service improved in my area once google Fiber got installed.

Just goes to show you that companies are fine with you complaining as much as you want, just NEVER let there be an alternative.

[–] JCreazy@midwest.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why is the FCC asking this question instead of already correcting the issue?

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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".

[–] slicedcheesegremlin@kbin.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Question, what the fuck was the "Muslim ban" I've never heard of this.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769

It was never law, which is why it was so easily reversed.

[–] yarr@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

Because MONEY and lack of choice in some markets.... easy.

[–] ArugulaZ@kbin.social 2 points 2 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.

[–] dingus@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

What's going to stop the forms being filled out by industry-controlled bots this time?^1 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.

[–] underisk@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

The same dumb shitshow as last time is probably the goal.

[–] Schwarz@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's ridiculous I have to pay Xfinity $110/mo for my speed and unlimited bandwidth

[–] BluePhoenix01@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Over here, I'm getting the Cox... last bill was $99 a month, now my "promo period" expired, and it is the full $170 a month thanks to "unlimited". It's pretty gross, but it is the only plan that gives the "amazing" 30 mbps up. :|

EDIT: This is for home internet, 1000 down/30 up, unlimited data

[–] 0jcis@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

That’s crazy! I’m paying 18 EUR a month for unlimited 1000 mbps download and 1000 mbps upload and I thought my bill was high. 😲

Oh. You were talking about mobile data. That’s still extremely expensive.

[–] 0xD@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

God damn. In Austria I'm paying 35€ for 250/250, and am still looking over to the Romanians with longing eyes. Data caps are only on mobile - which is still questionable in my eyes.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Data caps on mobile makes more sense to me, simply because mobile data is so much more expensive.

[–] fraenki@feddit.de 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is it?

To me it seems it's cheaper to build an antenna to serve 100-1000s of users than to dig and install cables to all of them.

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It depends on what you're trying to do. If you're just trying to reach them and don't care about bandwidth, wireless is the way to go. It's why more developed countries lagged behind developing countries on the transition to wireless phones. But when you're trying to deploy shear amounts of bandwidth, nothing beats fiber. It's incredibly fast, has low latency, and doesn't get interference.

And I suppose I should say that I think unlimited is a bad idea in general. I favor paying for what I use. People who use expensive infrastructure sparingly should pay less than people use it a lot.

[–] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

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

[–] ericthered926@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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).

[–] cocobean@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 years ago

Xfinity only charging $30? Where is this?

I'm in a house and the cheapest tier internet I can get is $55

[–] bemenaker@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

GREED. That has always been the answer.

[–] faltuuser@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Because there is money to be made!

[–] Tristar500@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

This is a rhetorical question right?

[–] Fiivemacs@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 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...?