- cross-posted to:
- technology
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology
- technology@lemmy.world
Network neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services
The FCC will meet on October 19th to vote on proposing Title II reclassification that would support accompanying net neutrality protections
hopefully at least when ISPs and companies see that it’ll just be back and forth, and that things like “fast lanes” can’t be relied upon in business planning there just won’t be a market for it, or at least the fuckery will be significantly diminished because it’s not reliable long-term
ISP’s are also the same companies that market and sell fast lanes(i.e. 5G), and they have bigger bribing/lobbying pockets than everyone on Lemmy and reddit combined. They ain’t changing shit and will throw money at it to make sure their business models don’t change (hint - look at the supreme court).
as aStonedSanata mentioned, different tech isn’t what we’re talking about: fibre shouldn’t be limited to the speeds of, say ADSL or cable to keep things neutral
what we’re talking about here is, for example, netflix paying your ISP to prioritise traffic to their service over other services… this causes an enormous disadvantage to new startups, because they likely can’t afford to pay a similar fee or even enter into complex agreements with every carrier! in which case, netflix has a better service not because they’re better: just because they’re incumbent
of course these kind of things happen all over the place, but it’s the exact failure of capitalist systems that governments should seek to patch with regulations (like net neutrality) because it’s not good for consumers, the economy, or innovation… which are all the very things that capitalism is meant to promote!
Along with busting monopolies. Which the Biden admin is actually trying to tackle.
New technology is not fast lanes like you are implying though. It’s functionally different equipment. Running services is relatively cheap but expanding them and installing new technology like 5G requires a lot more physical equipment due to 5Gs lower range. So it does indeed cost more. Atleast initially and most likely continuously as it requires more physical equipment. So more failures innately.
I’m aware 5G is new hardware and infrastructure, but my point is ISPs And service carriers are one and the same, and there are multiple business models that throttle speeds (ie premium 4G service vs deprioritized cheaper 4G service), fast lanes in 5G, whatever other QCI stuff the carriers are doing - all stuff they don’t want to change and my point was they will spend money fighting it in court vs willingly changing anything
deleted by creator
It enables low latency fast speed connections to large amounts of devices. Its drawback is that it has a shorter wavelength reducing its range.
https://www.emfexplained.info/site/misc/image/Fullsize/11248.png
This shows integration with the 4G towers.
“The shorter wavelength means 5G can carry a lot of data much faster than 4G, but it also means a much shorter range. 4G wavelengths have a range of about 10 miles. 5G wavelengths have a range of about 1,000 feet, not even 2% of 4G’s range. So to ensure a reliable 5G signal, there needs to be a lot of 5G cell towers and antennas everywhere. We’re talking on every lamppost, traffic light, etc. because even trees can block 5G signals.” https://www.businessinsider.com/5g-high-speed-internet-cellular-network-issues-switch-2019-4
Have to click description to see the transcript.
deleted by creator
Elaborate?
deleted by creator
Ty
deleted by creator
You can run 5G on any band you want
I’m not sure long term viability is a huge concern for them as long as they can make a dollar today.
that’s true, but this would require time and money to implement, market, etc, and would almost certainly require big b2b contracts to be signed