When the rules were still active, net neutrality did not apply to coffee shops, airlines, etc.

> 52. Finally, we decline to apply our rules directly to coffee shops, bookstores, airlines, and other entities when they acquire Internet service from a broadband provider to enable their patrons to access the Internet from their establishments (we refer to these entities as “premise operators”). These services are typically offered by the premise operator as an ancillary benefit to patrons ... Although broadband providers that offer such services are subject to open Internet rules, we note that addressing traffic unwanted by a premise operator is a legitimate network management purpose. [0]

It seems like a reasonable distinction: if you're letting someone else use your Internet connection, it's your prerogative to block things that you don't want on your network.

- [0] https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-10-201A1.pdf (page 31)

In the US (I believe) Net Neutrality basically died. Even before that, it was allowed to zero-rate categories of apps (like messaging). That might be coming back now that the FCC has 5 commissioners again and can reinstate Net Neutrality.

However, even with reasonably strict neutrality, this is still possible. Many mobile carriers zero-rated streaming services here, but unlike your operators they'd do it for any streaming service. It was pretty easy for any streaming provider to sign up. They'd basically give the operator the IP ranges they'd be streaming from and the operator would just zero-rate data to those IP ranges (and they'd usually apply bandwidth throttling to around 1.5Mbps so that you'd only get 480-720p video). The key is simply not discriminating between providers within a category.

This is the situation where net neutrality falls over because there's very often more demand, even at 1.5Mbps for a stream, than an airplane's link can provide.

On an airplane in particular, you can set the limit lower for everything, and that doesn't violate neutrality.

So many people seem to think that Net Neutrality disallowed _any_ kind of network management, when it simply disallowed service provider level preference. You can, under net neutrality, throttle _all_ video content, if you want to, you just can't only throttle YouTube and not Netflix (for example.

Airlines, coffee shops and similar entities providing Internet as an ancillary service were not subject to these rules when they were in effect.

The rules primarily target ISPs selling directly to customers.

It also fails for mobile data and large crowds. Try checking your email at a concert.

I always enable my 5G when I get into big crowds and it usually fixes that problem, assuming service is available.

I usually keep it off otherwise though because average bandwidth tends to be better on LTE in my experience.

Other people have suggested it's done by limiting the size of the data transmitted to make the connection only useful to text messages, possibly resetting the connection regularly. If so, it would in fact comply with both the principles of net neutrality and any laws I know of. You could create matsemann's text service as long as it also used small amounts of data it guessed could only be used for text.

Is net neutrality even law anymore? T-Mobile has had Binge on for a long time, which zero-rates certain video streaming services. And part of that was even under the old net neutrality laws.

Binge On doesn't fall under strict net neutrality, but they are at least publicly open to all lawful and licensed content audio/video providers, and the technical requirements are not very high. I don't know what the actual onboarding process is like, but they've got a lot of providers signed up...

https://www.t-mobile.com/tv-streaming/binge-on/apps-list.htm... doesn't list all that many providers if we're talking about all video streaming services worldwide. I notice a large one under the gaming category missing, Twitch.

I think they've got to be licensed for US customers, or T-Mobile USA isn't going to include them. Twitch does seem to be a notable missing provider; Amazon video is on the program though, so maybe there's some technical or product thing on Twitch's side.

Even US-only. Broadcast networks category is especially slim. They've anticipated this kind of scrutiny and claim no money is exchanged, but idk. Someone should try adding a random obscure service.

No, but the now Democratic majority at the FCC is currently actively trying to bring it back.

Net neutrality is the law in California, but T-Mobile says Binge On is ok because any video streaming service can participate for free. It sounds reasonable to me and apparently the California regulators are fine with it.

I'm fine with it, but that also clearly violates net neutrality, so it doesn't seem to be the law here.

Here's the California law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Internet_Consumer_P.... T-Mobile Binge On is zero-rating. T-Mobile's claim is that they aren't getting paid for it, and that any video provider can participate, so they aren't only zero-rating "some content in a category". It sounds like that second part isn't true, so they are probably violating the law but nobody is being harmed so nobody has sued.

I agree that allowing any form of zero-rating is not full net neutrality because it isn't treating all packets the same, but I don't think it's fair to say that therefore there is no net neutrality in California. It's a very strong and effective law and gets like 95% of the way to full "dumb pipe" net neutrality.

Some states implemented their own versions of net neutrality.

Gotta disable in-flight messaging while flying over certain states ;)