• deranger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    190
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The NCTA has repeatedly stated over the years that net neutrality rules aren’t needed because ISPs already follow net neutrality principles. “Internet service providers have always delivered open, unrestricted Internet service. Consumers enjoy the web content and applications of their choosing without any blocking, throttling, or interference,” the group said.

    Lmao, really? The audacity of these cunts.

  • daikiki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Eminent domain the final mile and be done with it. These companies have no business holding our national infrastructure hostage.

    • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Fuck yes. Especially since the government already paid for infrastructure anyway.

  • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    8 months ago

    Jessica Rosenworcel is a champ. She has been fighting this fight for years. The week Ajit Pai (Ashit Pie) ended net neutrality using falsified public comments, a group gathered in front of the FCC to protest the change. I went down there for a few hours and Jessica came to the window and waved to us.

    • hansl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Nah, just allow communities to build their local infrastructure. Trust me. You don’t need to threaten the status quo, just allow the market to compete.

      Every town where local fiber is available, Comcast and Spectrum suddenly have cheaper and more reliable service. It’s magical.

      • spikederailed@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I lived in Charlotte, NC when Google announced GFiber was coming. Instantly AT&T started running as much fiber as possible and Charter(spectrum) was trying to get people locked into cheaper 3 year contracts. Ultimately AT&T got fiber first so we went with them, and it was vastly better. Charter was getting 60% packet loss every night from oversold infrastructure they didn’t care to fix, as before the announcement the only competition was AT&T uverse in some parts of the city.

      • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I mean yeah that’s what monopolies do. They eliminate competition by either buying it out or lowering their prices/improving service to drive them out of business so they can then raise prices again. Just cause a small company can come in and make things better while they’re able to be around doesn’t mean we shouldn’t go after these monopolies and cut them down so they can’t have this power.

        • hansl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Municipal broadband is not a small company though. It’s a cooperative owned by residents.

          And in many states it’s actually illegal. Which makes no sense.

          • WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Probably companies like Comcast making sure there isn’t anything to disrupt their monopolies. Another reason to break them up so they can’t have that much power.

  • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Can’t wait until my liberal city finishes our city owned isp. You can’t trust business to be in control of essential services

    • ElectricAirship@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      8 months ago

      There was an academic paper put out a long time ago that basically argued for essential services like food, water, etc to be given non-profit status so corpo’s couldn’t do this sort of thing.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 months ago

      Mentioning “liberal” here is a bit stupid. I’ve seen many conservative areas have unmetered gig fiber.

      Hell… where I live now is very conservative and I have 8gb uncapped.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          No. I didn’t. Several of what I’m referencing is city owned. Oops don’t you look stupid now.

          Edit: Also you’re linking your politics to companies trustworthiness, as if either side is doing anything worth a damn against shitty companies. Speed is going to be a direct comparison of markets that would outline if those companies are shitty or not… No? In either case you’re being stupidly obtuse in linking these 2 topics.

          • Dark Arc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            It’s far more common for Democrat run municipalities to create municipal cable and for Republicans to outlaw (or propose outlawing) municipal cable state wide.

            It’s not even politicizing it’s a literal Republican talking point that the government should stay out of things and let free market competition sort these things out.

            The problem with that of course is that they’d rather take money from some regional monopolies than actually create a free market system with reasonable restrictions on it.

  • db2@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    A threat like that should disqualify them from even trying to do it.

  • friend_of_satan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    You hear that, law school students? Job security! Because lawyers are the ones who really win in situations like this.

  • ATDA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    8 months ago

    ‘We know we’re the bad guys so we’re going to announce our intentions like a comic book villain…’

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    These people forget that they have to exist physically alongside us “citizens”. Your layers of obfuscation won’t save your reputation forever. Eventually people will be so tired of everything be stacked against us we’ll just riot and take from these corpos.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    When companies protest against regulation while claiming that they already adhere to the same rules, then something is clearly off, and one better gets regulation through, because they plan to ditch that adherence as soon as the governmental regulations are off the table.