Follow TV Tropes
And he sunk his reelection chances this year, with a rival Democrat to Santiago in the 2018 District 53 general election, Kevin Jang, already using the opportunity to promote himself and pledging his support for Net Neutrality. When Kevin gets in (it's not a matter of "if" anymore with what Santiago did), we'll get real Net Neutrality in California.
edited 22nd Jun '18 1:50:44 PM by Wariolander
It sure has been silent here.
Yes. Because at this point we have to wait for the midterms until anything for net neutrality can be done.
Comcast starts throttling mobile video, will charge extra for HD streams:
The short version is that videos will be throttled to 480p (DVD quality) on all Comcast mobile plans unless you pay extra, while Comcast's "unlimited" plan will limit mobile hotspot speeds to 600kbps. Only customers who pay by the gigabyte will get full-speed tethering, but the cost would add up quickly as Comcast charges $12 for each gigabyte.
Comcast last year began selling mobile plans with data, voice, and texting. Comcast doesn't operate its own cellular network, so it resells Verizon Wireless service.
The new speed limits could help Comcast save money on the reselling fees it pays Verizon. In a statement to Ars, Comcast said it's making the changes "to help us maintain the low price point of Xfinity Mobile." While Comcast doesn't control the Verizon network and thus can't impose speed limits directly, Comcast told Ars that Verizon offers resellers an option to limit video resolution.
Comcast said that 480p "is consistent with standard unlimited plans across carriers," and that it's making the changes to bring Comcast's offerings in line with the rest of the industry. Verizon began throttling mobile video to 480p or 720p on smartphones last year; the system limits the amount of bandwidth available to anything identified as a video. Carriers argue that many consumers can't tell the difference between 480p and higher quality on smartphone screens.
Of course Comcast would jump on the act.
Because of fucking course Comcast would, and I don't even have them.
Apparently Verizon were doing the same thing even before Net Neutrality was repealed, so they probably would have done this anyway. And that's Mobile data being throttled, Mobile has always been tiered even with Net Neutrality, so this really has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
Edited by Wariolander on Jul 3rd 2018 at 12:01:59 PM
internet shouldn't even be tiered in the first place, mobile or not
More or less. If they start doing it to home/wired/static/whatever connections, then that's a change and a problem.
No kidding and I thought data caps and some cruddy satellite internet was bad.
Edited by Coleman on Jul 3rd 2018 at 5:26:53 AM
The California net neutrality bill appears to be back on track, albeit reworded to better withstand court challenges.
Any chances that traitorous DINO Santiago who neutered the original bill after it actually passed could pull off a similar stunt on this one?
Edited by MarqFJA on Jul 6th 2018 at 6:20:31 PM
Semi-crossing topics with the US politics thread: Trump's Supreme Court pick is a big net neutrality opponent (and also a privacy opponent). Could this provide ammunition against him?
It takes 50 Republicans to confirm him and the entire Republican Party is against net-neutrality, so no.
There are simply vastly more important issues that the judge will make desicions on that might sway votes, but no senator cares more about net neutrality than they do Roe, the possibility of Trump pardoning himself, Gerrymandering, Gay Marrige or similar.
I meant with the general public/public opinion. That said, the SC isn't decided on by popular vote, so yeah.
Most of the people who care passionately enough about net neutrality to care about a Supreme Court Justice’s opinion on it are either activists with a laundry list of complaints about the nominee, or people who make a big thing about not caring about Supreme Court nominees and feeling that they shouldn’t have people trying to scare them with Supreme Court stuff.
But the general public doesn't actually directly vote for the Supreme Court nominees, right?
Nope. The Senate does. The only way we as a people can affect judicial nominees is through the use of protests or calling your Senators.
And Mc Connell nuked the Supreme Court filibuster with the nomination of Gorsuch (meaning the Senate only needs a simple majority to confirm rather than the 60+ needed before), and the Senate will likely go 50-49 for unless we can flip a Republican Senator, two to be safe, if they decide to pull Mc Cain from his cancer treatment and then use Pence for his vice president tie breaker.
Any chance of appealing to their better natures and getting them to leave McCain where he is to get treatment?
I'm kidding around, they don't even have souls.
Pai and his cronies are looking at implimenting a scheme where you can't even get a complaint against a telecom looked at without a $225 fee first.
Per the Verge, Democratic Sens. Frank Pallone and Mike Doyle of the House Energy & Commerce Committee have penned a letter to Pai saying they are “deeply concerned” with the proposed rules change, which would allow the FCC to route free informal complaints directly to service providers’ customer service departments without being viewed by FCC staff. (The FCC says this is “streamlining” the process.) A separate, formal complaint system that is routed to FCC employees would remain in place, but it costs $225 to use.
Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Jul 11th 2018 at 5:53:44 AM
HOW IS THIS EVEN LEGAL?!
Because the system is broken after it got a Clown with a Big red nose into office.
Community Showcase More