So how bad is internet going to be and how much is it going to

>>58123928
they do what they've always been doing, only they don't have to hide it now

>>58123949
What even can we do internet friend.

>>58123928
Threaten to destroy their precious Internet Exchange Points across the country until they bend their knees to the people. Access points in cities will be destoyed and Internet outage will be affected nationwide as people become restless for open Internet muahahaha.

Basically it goes back to how it was 2000-2010. Remember when Comcast was throttling torrent traffic and no one could do anything about it because there were no rules that said they couldn't do that? Well prepare to go back to that.

>>58123928
Nice source, faggot

Who fucking cares

>>58128842
Do you live under a rock?

>>58128876
Yes. Now spoonfeed me the exact laws or proposed regulation that states:
>- Introduce data caps.
>- Funnel traffic to their own/affiliate networks (if you watch NBC's streaming service instead of Netflix it won't count against your arbitrarily low data cap!).
>- Slow down their competitor's access (Netflix, Amazon, etc...)

>>58125888
Oh no illegal activity will be difficult again oh the horror! Oh the humanity!

>>58128985
BitTorrent protocol has completely legitimate purposes and it's impossible to discern whether it's being used legitimately or not based solely on the protocol. Applying blanket rules to it makes as much sense as it would for HTTP(S).

Misinfo shill fuck off.

New anon to the thread, here:

>>58125888
This is fearmongering but not that far off from. No - Comcast will not discriminate speeds based on protocol since their massive class action and subsequent settlement pre-net neutrality. However, fast lanes (e.g: artificial congestion) may return.

>>58128946
>introduce data caps
The data caps would continue unabated if the FCC is Republican led, as they're not going to police a business practice that has proven profitable. I personally feel its the equivalent to limiting the hours of television one may watch - there is virtually no capacity problem, even under load. In this regard, /pol/ would approve of the practice, /g/ would likely not.

>>58128946
>nbc's service won't count
Zero rating has been gaining traction as anticompetitive. In my view it is - when an organization like NBCUniversal has vertically integrated so fucking hard that they can bring competitors to their knees. Their humanitarian offers to bring minority channels to their network don't mean shit but good PR.

>slow down access
Again, paying for a direct line, versus forcing competitors to go around a hub of transit providers to get to the customers, would cause artifical congestion and un-needed latency. It essentially would force the hand, sooner of later, of competitors of the ISP to pay for a direct line: Netflix did.

>>58128985
BitTorrent is not illegal. Comcast continues to block specific ports from usage due to their specific association with botnet activity, but would likely not block BT ever. One could be sharing Linux distributions and still run over the cap.

>>58129044
So no source, then? Im just going to assume this is fear mongering and pearl clutching until I see something concrete.

File: butwhy.gif (4MB, 581x327px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 581x327px

>>58129111
So you just assume people in political power are going to make good decisions until proven otherwise?

>>58129161
Nice strawman. Why do you assume I disagree with anything proposed in this thread? From everything I've seen, its just another LARPing faggot.