omerome wrote:Boarder Patrol wrote:Damn, how are we ever going to go back to the internet of pre-2015? Did it even exist back then?
You mean the time when ISPs were pulling dirty tactics like these:From 2007-2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s Open Internet Order, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow it to continue its anti-consumer practices.
From 2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
Source: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/net-blocking-a-problem-in_b_5695997.html
Or how about when the FCC put a stop to Comcast secretly degrading peer-to-peer applications?Last year, some broadband subscribers complained to the FCC that Comcast was
blocking and delaying their Internet traffic. Our investigation, and the findings of several
widely respected engineers, confirmed the complaints. Comcast was delaying
subscribers’ downloads and blocking their uploads. It was doing so 24/7, regardless of
the amount of congestion on the network or how small the file might be. Even worse,
Comcast was hiding that fact by making effected users think there was a problem with
their Internet connection or the application.
Source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A2.pdf
Back in 2010, the FCC took a step to preserve the internet a free platform for "innovation, investment, job creation, economic growth, competition, and free expression." They believed in three rules:Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network
management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their
broadband services;
No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications,
services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful
websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony
services; and
No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably
discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic
Source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1_Rcd.pdf
They did this in part because ISPs like Verizon were constantly taking them to court as they wanted more control on how to give access to their customers. This why Net Neutrality going away is a BAD thing because now we're likely to see these same problems come back once again since that the repeal would make them legal.
Many people do not even have a choice of an ISP because of limited options in their area. So if Comcast, for example, wants to create a "pay lane" where you have to pay extra for more bandwidth and you don't, well then, you're SOL.
All you're citing are examples of private business choosing not to service customers ("customers" in this case being other corporations like, as you cited, Google and Apple, not "the little man" like some of you guys seem to be implying) that they believe will hurt their profits, or charging more to do so. Price is determined by input costs, of course they'll charge more when they believe providing a specific service will cost them more money. It's why kids get cheaper seats on airplanes and why it's more expensive to insure your car after you have a car accident. It is anticipated that providing that service will cost the provider a certain amount and their price reflects it. Also, demanding that everyone receive "equal" access doesn't mean that those with less will get more, it means those with more will get less. If they had the capacity to provide better service they would be using it now, because if they don't a competitor will. Bringing people down to "equality" for the sake of it doesn't help anyone.
"ISPs like Verizon ... wanted more control on how to give access to their customers."
Well...of course they are. They're Verizon's customers! They're the provider. They determine the services they provide and at what cost.
RIP mags
