This is not net neutrality, all network traffic is not treated equally.
Ofcom seems to have invented their own definition of net neutrality and placed it on that website, but calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. This is tiered access.
It doesn't meet a perfect theoretical definition of net neutrality, but it's a set of defined legal limits on the extent to which providers can treat different kinds of traffic differently.
Net neutrality is not theoretical, it is literally the default setting.
Any deviation from that default requires special effort be taken to identify network traffic and treat it differently, and as soon as you have made that effort you cannot truthfully claim to have net neutrality. The UK does not prohibit net neutrality but it does not require it either (according to the comment I replied to which I have not verified).
I guess to me this seems a bit like saying that free markets are the default setting. We’re not in some kind of perfect state of nature. We’re in a complex interconnected society where virtually everything of any importance is regulated to some extent. What you’re saying seems like saying “as soon as you impose one regulation you no longer have a free market”.
This non sequitur strains my ability to assume good faith on your part. We're not talking about markets, we're talking about a utility.
Does your water company bill you differently depending on what you use the water for? Your gas company? Electric? This is not a complicated concept to understand, please make an effort.
What would be the model of a country with stronger net neutrality laws? I think EU regulations are now a touch stronger than UK regulations due to post-Brexit divergence, but by world standards, the UK has strong net neutrality protections.
The only reason I haven't canceled my Plex is because I bought a lifetime pass a decade ago so I literally can't. :/ I almost wish I hadn't specifically so I could cancel it and send that signal.
But yes Plex is quite enshittified now. Would definitely start with Jellyfin or something else these days.
If you are in a casual agreement with a friend and don't keep up your end then it's immoral.
If you have a contract that specifies expectations and consequences, then it's just a business deal.
The (predatory) school loan business works from contracts and they are obligated to keep up their side only as much as you are yours.
The real immorality is not accepting the consequences embedded in the contract to which you both agree to, it is that the United States has such a business in the first place.
Well actually second place I guess. When the student loan business started it was not predatory. But it got horribly abused, by the borrowers who would declare bankruptcy gaming that system, schools who raised rates because they knew loans were available, and the lenders who astroTurfed children into believing that it was a good bargain to exchange $200,000 at high interest for a Art History degree
The psychological burden comes from the endless harassment and attempted scamming from the lenders. They don't just accept your IDR and let you quietly pay $60/mo forever. It's 20 years of endless threatening calls, "urgent notices," surprise debits that must be fought. They'll delay or outright "lose" your annual recertification paperwork every year, reverting you to to some outrageously high "default" plan.
Plus the threat that a hostile administration might come in and change who qualifies for IDR at any point, which just happened and is causing a massive spike in defaults.
There's been a wave of legislation[1] introduced in the US to legalize so-called "balcony solar," small grid-tied solar systems that plug into a regular household outlet with zero permitting or interconnect requirements. This is already common in Europe, it's mildly complicated by our split-phase system but not much.
The reason for the high burden today is people have developed an inflated sense of how much the kWh they generate is worth. They install massive systems on their roofs to try to "cancel out" their power bill by exporting their entire daily power consumption over the course of a few sunny hours, which (when all their neighbors do the same) ends up being a costly burden for grid operators who then pass the costs on to users without panels. Smaller systems focused on immediate, local consumption rather than export are much better for the grid which is why they have support.
"Costly burden" is an incredible statement. The utilities get what is effectively free electricity generation. Remember every solar customer still pays the grid connection fee, which goes to maintain the grid.
They love to market a "green energy" plan where they pay you 3c for your exported power and charge somebody miles away 25c for it!
It's a true statement and a real problem. These wildcat megawatt-scale generation facilities built on top of suburban neighborhoods produce an un-curtail-able midday oversupply of electricity driving energy prices into the negative.
The power has to go somewhere, SoCal grid operators have to pay real money to neighboring grids to accept the energy being generated while also paying the homeowner who generated it. No grid connection fee comes close to covering this, it's paid for by increasing rates for everyone else. Net metering was a stupid deal cooked up by politicians who are incapable of systems thinking, or simply decided appealing to suburban voters was more important than grid stability.
It's getting better[1] but still a problem, and the solutions being pursued are: discourage export in favor of onsite storage (done by NEM 3.0) and encourage smaller solar installs (balcony solar).
Ofcom seems to have invented their own definition of net neutrality and placed it on that website, but calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. This is tiered access.
reply