News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger ro... by tracker1 on Sunday February 26, 2017 @01:40AM (#13736024)
I'm in favor of net neutrality.. but lets be serious.. there are users who are far more "using" of their bandwidth than others. And any given company should have every right to sell/filter as necessary those users. But as to what content they filter, imho that's a different story.

But the two get muddled quite a bit.. and what happened between Verizon and Netflix is an outright shame, but I can kind of see both sides regardless of where I stand personally. The trouble is where to draw the line, and what lines to draw from a legal standpoint.

Drawing only from what I got from the article, they're only requiring these companies to be more transparent to their customers, and I'm all for that. I think the 100k customer break was probably reasonable, but even the 250k break won't affect the really big players in the space.

My bigger fear is where individual states are legislating against local communities/cities offering broadband.

Re:FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger ro... by wtallis on Sunday February 26, 2017 @04:32AM (#13736445)
> And any given company should have every right to sell/filter as necessary those users.

You've been misled. Filtering isn't necessary. If a user is contributing to congestion on an oversubscribed line, you can drop some of their packets to reduce their usage to a fair share, without having to single out any specific types of traffic. ISPs don't have to be non-neutral in order to keep their service running. This is true at any scale, which is why having an exception for smaller ISPs is completely unjustified and is nothing but a foot in the door for those who would dismantle net neutrality entirely. Raising the pointless threshold is just a step toward that anti-consumer goal.

Re:FCC weakens net neutrality rule in a prelude to larger ro... by dragonwriter on Sunday February 26, 2017 @01:48AM (#13736036)
> there are users who are far more "using" of their bandwidth than others.

Neutrality doesn't prohibit charging for utilization.