So is the only reason politicians are against net neutrality

>>58327275
You've already made up your mind, you're not going to change your opinion based on what anyone anywhere says.

>>58327292
Every single place that mentions net neutrality on the internet is overwhelmingly pro, including /g/, so it would be interesting to find contrary views coming from people who are familiar with and are experts on technology.

The only thing that I can think of is having a hands-off approach to the internet and letting it run itself basically instead of having the government involved. Politicians may think that this will lessen government spending on the internet.

I would guess, though, that these politicians probably have vested interests in big corporations that would be benefited by removing net neutrality, like if they have a lot of stock invested in Comcast or some other shit.

net neutrality is a meme

>>58327275
Never had a problem with NN until they undated the rules for it then suddenly it was the trendy issue to support . NN only benefits internet giants like Netflix and Hulu. And it only will encourage and empower the current ruling monopoly that is the cable industry.

Im really sick of these reddit fags spreading their current form of cancer to this site.

>>58327275
Essentially "governments should be as hands off as possible, corporations should be able to do what they want, let the free market reign"

>>58327674
>NN [...] benefits [corporations]

You have it backward.

>>58327700
Except governments have already distorted this market, arguably unavoidably. Government-owned rights-of-way are essential for networks, and government, especially local government, has a vested interest in connecting it's community to the Internet.

Say "get the government out of it" at this point, is essentially an argument to privatize all the profits and saddle the taxpayers with all the liabilities.

>>58327674
provide justification for all of your points

hard mode: do not use the words meme, reddit, trendy, hipster, liberal, or any other ad-hominems or pejoratives for "people i don't like". You must also refrain from assuming any individuals' or group's motivations.

So basically, no matter whether NN exists and the Govt schlong us, or if NN fails and the ISPs schlong us, we're never going back to the Wild West days of the past?

>>58327720
yeah no shit that's why it's a bad idea.

The question was "why do people argue against it" not "is the argument against it valid.

The entire argument against it rests on libertarian lines which requires ignorance of the entire history of the infrastructure that created the modern world wide web

Business just want the government out of the way because they found a new way to make money.

This has nothing to do with consumers, businesses just want to make more money - even if it means fucking you over under the guise of 'providing better service"

Unfortunately, money doesn't care about ethics or anti-competitive actions so consumers will likely lose out.


>Let consumers decide the winners and losers NOT businesses with deep pockets

>>58327821
Furthermore maybe, just maybe, that's why all politicians who are saying fuck nn have a list of telecommunication company lobbyists a mile long

>>58327836
Except that last line is impossible.

What, are you going to vote on what websites get the highest speeds? Otherwise companies have all the control and will just say "who pays me more" to corporations, which in turn allows them to mark down the prices to their services so much that any "you get everything!" service can't compete, and after they fail they can hike the price up and up and up because what the fuck are you gonna do to stop them?

>>58327900
whats your point exactly ? seems like you're agreeing with me.

>>58327900
Auch, the real solution is "You have to treat all data equally, now fucking update your infrastructure like every other goddamn country so that bandwidth isn't a problem."

>>58327944
In essence I am, just elaborating a bit on why the consumer cannot win by laying out the methodology of how anti-ethical behavior would occur since OP doesn't seem knowledgeable on the subject in general.

>>58327701
Except I don't. Show how this has and will effect me personally. Never had a problem with isp throttling, never had a site censored. Only netflix is getting off easy. I have to pay a tax on my gas, the more I drive, the more I pay. Netflix just gets to ride for free. Fuck them and their jew programming. And fuck you for sucking corporate cock and trying to pass it off as some populist movement.
And next I assume you will tell me isp will charge for what sites you visit, and you will have to pay more for different types of content. And you will also tell me Trump is literally hitler and is planning on how to kill mexicans, rape women, and gas trannies. You libshits are all the same, all screaming how the sky is falling around you. No one believes your hyperbole anymore, the schtick is over.

>>58327275

You exp[lain to me how the retarded picture you posted actually happens.

Also tell me why Netflix charges more money for HD content (bandwidth doesn't cost money right?).

Also tell me why Netflix does NOT allow Chinese boxes to use Netflix in HD even though you have a paid account.

Why is Netflix allowed to pull this bullshit but no ISP's?

>>58327275
I used to think I knew where I stood on net neutrality but now I don't know anymore.

If we are calling net neutrality the neutral treatment of packets no matter where they come from or where they are going then I have a real hard time being in favor of that.

I am however not in favor of your picture either. There is a common statistic quoted by ISPs they say 5% to 10% of the users make up 90% of all bandwidth used. When you are providing a service based on the assumption that never will you have 100% of your customers on downloading the same content at the same time then net neutrality becomes a knife to the heart of the business. I find it extremely problematic that ISPs are putting some content ahead of other content in speed throttling because it benefits their own interests. However if you have one website say netflix, becoming over half of your daily traffic for your users, why should you let them have full pipe access when maybe 8mbps is enough for most streaming and it won't put at risk the rest of your network.

At this point you say i don't know what I'm talking about and you're right, but I also know that 1024GB per month bandwidth is not a problem for the overwhelming majority of ISP costumers, they will probably never even hit the 50GB mark on a monthly basis.

What we need is the end of local monopolies in the USA, making non compete agreements illegal would be a great way to foster competition, and net neutrality would literally resolve itself when you have competiton on the field.

>>58327965
If you want to see what the world would look like without NN go to a university campus where the block P2P downloading to prevent piracy, which at the same time prevents you from getting software from companies that distribute their software via torrent because its a fuckton safer than a static download link that can get hijacked.

And why do you think netflix doesn't pay for the bandwidth they use? The whole reason certain types of DDoS attacks work is because smaller sites have limited bandwidth because that shit costs money.

Without NN, netflix wouldn't be paying more, YOU WOULD for using netflix. Or since you're such a counterculture conservative (hah fucking hah) sites you visit like breitbart and etc. would be throttled because they don't pay the isps enough or cowtow to their ideology.

>>58328017
>What we need is the end of local monopolies in the USA, making non compete agreements illegal would be a great way to foster competition,

I don't get this meme.

There are plenty of states and cities with no said anti-competitive laws, yet none of them are thriving gigabit internet cities like you redditors claim would happen.

>>58328017
Yeah this right here. I thought NN was cool and would bring me faster internet or something when it passed. NN is a red hearing designed to confuse the general public on the much, much bigger problem of ISP monopoly.

>>58328042
Like I said before, I use more services, I should be responsible for the increased cost associated. And I secretly believe you would enjoy censorship of things you don't agree with, breitbart included. Its in your nature as a liberal. In the 20th century, fascism and authoritarian tyranny will come from the left.

>>58328047
>There are plenty of states and cities with no said anti-competitive laws

I can't speak for other states, where I live there are three cable companies operating and one phone company, within the city limits you only have a single cable company the other two aren't allowed in the city, they offer outside the city limits much faster and much cheaper internet service where the phone company can't even go because they don't have the infrastructure. In the city you have basically the same prices if you go with either the cable or the phone option.

The thing about infrastructure is that it only makes sense at scale, it may not make sense to put that kind of investment of money and time if the outcome isn't profitable. The only way your outcome would be profitable is if there isn't even the remote chance that anyone could make your entire infrastructure paperweight because they knew the mayor and outbid you by a blowjob. In basic terms, the business of internet providers needs to become a free market and leave it alone for a while, if it doesn't work after say... 10 years. Then I would move for cities and states to create their own networks much like the water and sewage networks that they already operate.

I don't find that regulating internet providers like utilities would benefit the consumer, if anything it would only benefit the company if we can take electric companies as a great example of this.

>>58328102
#1 why? It doesn't cost the isp a cent more to show you breitbart or cnn or netflix. It's all about the amount of data you're using and I can be refreshing breitbart all day long just as easily as I can watch netflix all day long.

#2 I voted for trump you pussy. Get off Richard Spencer and Rush fucking Limbaugh's cock

>>58328142
>>58328102
Do any of you know if "professional"/business ISPs have limited bandwidth limits?

>>58328017
>If we are calling net neutrality the neutral treatment of packets no matter where they come from or where they are going then I have a real hard time being in favor of that.

Why the fuck not?? That's exactly what we should want.

I don't give a fuck what sites you go to, and you shouldn't give a fuck what sites I go to.

The only thing that matters is the amount of data and if ISPs are having a problem with users using too much data because they love netflix then maybe they should FUCKING UPDATE THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE SO IT ISN'T AN INTERNATIONAL JOKE ANYMORE

>>58328102
The 20th century was 100 years ago fucking moron.

>>58328047
I could possibly fall for your bait if I didn't know netfucks was responsible for delivering a majority of Internet traffic. And that they went through the added expense of installing servers in ISP locations to better serve the huge load they place on the infrastructure. Every time I go to Netflix, its all jew programming. Holocaust documentaries, tranny promotion, race mixing. Its disruptive programming designed to indoctrinate and brain wash the masses.

On Tmobile some video and music sites don't count against your data cap. Part of the reason I stay with them. I know things could be better, but I have a feeling if they introduced legislation they would tell just Tmobile they can't do that and lose that benefit without gaining anything.

>>58328180
>Why the fuck not?? That's exactly what we should want.
I agree with you. The why not is very simple, it would be nearly impossible to do from a technical point of view. I know very little about networks but I have one at home and when you have a router and many devices on your internet at home, and several people using them, you very easily and instantly understand why its not possible.

In short, the neutral treatment of all packets regardless or origin and destination, is not fair.

HTTP should have priority over anything else, I wouldn't want HTTP to have the same right to the pipe as torrent traffic, and I seriously doubt you would either.

When you start thinking in those terms, you realise net neutrality would be unfair to everyone else, a single user could generate more than his fair share of network traffic overwhelming the majority of users use of simple websites.

Even all things being equal in infrastructure and investments by the part of ISPs at the end of the day, net neutrality benefits leechers and network hogs. Not the average end user, and what is good for the end user is good for all of us.

>>58328183
Ohh I made a typo, now all my arguments are invalid! Teehee!
>>58328180
Netflux had to do just that. ISPs said fuck off if you wont help with your enormous bandwidth requirements. Nardflix gave in and started installing local servers they owned personally. They also had to pay more. Now my nutflicks is $11 instead of $8 a month. Boo-hoo.

>>58328017
>If we are calling net neutrality the neutral treatment of packets no matter where they come from or where they are going then I have a real hard time being in favor of that.
>Goes on to make an argument that has nothing to do with his thesis.

Net neutrality doesn't prevent ISPs from throttling after a GB/month limit is hit, it only prevents them from throttling sites selectively.

>People are actually stupid enough to think ISPs will use whitelist access "tiered internet"

>>58328247 this is my reply to that >>58328284

>>58328247
If I pay my ISP for 10mbps downstream unlimited service, I should be able to use it as I wish. If they can't keep up with my demand or they've oversubscribed their network, that is their own issue.

>>58328305
Except it's not. Your arguments are based on fundamental misunderstandings of what's possible under net neutrality laws.

>>58328291
No, thats really happening. Reddit had a chart on what would happen if NN failed. You have to buy "social media" packages if you post on Facebook and such. Im really scared when Trump takes over.

>>58328247
This is rich. I cannot believe you support this kind of mindset.

It doesn't matter if it benefits x people out of all the average users, it's up to them to use what they paid for, thus, it's their problem if they make little use of the network, because, in that case, it'd be better to rent a slower connection.

>>58328247
>is not fair
Disagree, and I do not believe you have stated any reasons why it is not fair.
>HTTP should have priority over anything else
Why. There is literally no reason for this to be true.
>A single user could generate more than his fair share of network traffic

This only matters if you literally live in a house with other people sharing the wifi plan you paid for. Otherwise so long as they don't hit the (let's use my wifi cap for example) 1 tb per month, it doesn't matter. If they hit that, they have to pay extra. Like, you literally pay to be able to use x amount of data per month, why do you want corporations limiting your ability to use the amount of data you paid for???

>>58328334
Then explain it to me, I see things the way I see them, tell me what am I overlooking.

>>58328312
>If I pay my ISP for 10mbps downstream unlimited service, I should be able to use it as I wish. If they can't keep up with my demand or they've oversubscribed their network, that is their own issue.
That is a reasonable argument, the only thing is, no network every gives you that implicit guarantee that you say you have, in order for you to have that sort of guarantee from your service provider you'd be paying hundreds of dollars more for the service..

>>58328334
Its not even a law. Just a regulation passed by non-elected officials with no accountability. They weren't elected by a majority of voters, therefore their decisions should not be respected.
#notmybureaucrat
#notmypresident

>>58328388
Not the quoted but
>That is a reasonable argument, the only thing is, no network every gives you that implicit guarantee that you say you have, in order for you to have that sort of guarantee from your service provider you'd be paying hundreds of dollars more for the service..

Yeah, so you buy like 1tb of data and then they charge you $10 for like 50gb more if you go over. This has nothing to do with net neutrality.

When you buy a service plan you pay $x/month to use yGB/TB of data at up to Z speed. Why the fuck should it matter what data you're downloading at z speed?

>>58328388
I already explained it to you:

Net neutrality doesn't prevent ISPs from throttling after a GB/month limit is hit, it only prevents them from throttling sites selectively.

*IF* what you describe is an issue, and note I say IF, because it's definitely not a sure thing (responsible ISPs don't oversubscribe their networks), then all the ISP has to do is say "we'll cut off your service or throttle all your traffic after 25GB per month". That's completely legit under net neutrality rules.

File: 1482430246906.jpg (25KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 413x395px

>>58328336
Yeah? Where's that happening? Are the Death Squads already out rounding up the gays too?

Have you considered looking everywhere else in the world that doesnt have "net neutrality" laws? Do you see any of them doing this retarded shit?
No, because it's insane and not cost efficient. The worst you'll see is bandwidth caps which aren't tied to NN anyways. Don't be a fucking retard.

>>58327275
>are there legitimate arguments to be made against it?

Telcos can make tons more dough if they start charging premium for bandwidth on a per-site basis.

For the people who run telcos, this is a good argument against net neutrality. It is also a good argument for politicians, senators, and presidents, because they get lots of dosh for doing stuff that telcos like.

>>58328367
> it's up to them to use what they paid for
what you pay for is access to the network up to certain speeds with almost no guarantees on quality of service, that is what you and I and everybody else other than mission critical institutions like banks and hospitals pay for.

at the end of the day, home internet is almost a party line or a planet fitness, they are not counting on all their costumers using all the resources provided to them at the same time. of course they could improve and invest, but that would simply mean we'd all pay more not less.

>>58328429
>it only prevents them from throttling sites selectively.
Do we have proof that this is going on? I would assume that should be a basic aspect of providing the service and if it is not it should be codified into law, but what you're saying isn't the equal access of packets its more equal treatment of websites.

>responsible ISPs don't oversubscribe their networks
Then I have yet to meet a responsible ISP, I worked as CSR for a telecom, this is very common.

I think the issue of traffic bandwitdh is the issue behind the fear of net neutrality, they wouldn't try to control what websites you use because they feel it hurts their other sales (like cable or whatever), the most logic answer is they're doing it in order to conserve resources like bandwidth in order to maintain network integrity.

>>58327965
lol so you think netflix does not pay for bandwidth?? you have some weird reality when a content provider can just hook up their equipment to the network and deliver it to you for free (hint: it doesn't, netflix pays already to their datacenters and their ISPs for that bandwidth and you pay your ISP for the bandwidth on your end)

>>58328429
>then all the ISP has to do is say "we'll cut off your service or throttle all your traffic after 25GB per month". That's completely legit under net neutrality rules

My dad actually got "that" letter, three times, they threatened to blacklist him where he couldn't get broadband at all nationwide

>>58328529
Yeah I know that and made two posts regarding this. It only helps them in the end if NN is upheld. They just won't have to pay as much now as 3 years ago.

>>58328505
You've already lost this argument please don't prolong the agony. I worked for an ISP.

The entire reason for ISPs to be against network neutrality is so that they can double-dip, charging Internet services like Netflix for 'premium' access to their customer base.

And yes, it is already happening: T-mobile gives 'free data' for users of certain music and video sites. (t-mobile binge on). This is a direct violation of the principles of network neutrality.

>>58328336
>source: Reddit
The fear mongering surrounding NN is hilarious.

This argument has once again fallen victim to /pol/tard arguments.

The bottom line is that "the internet" is just cables. If we were talking about roads for example, the old argument of user pays makes sense, that's why governments use toll roads for example. The people deriving benefit are the ones who pay. Why should I pay taxes for a road that I don't use. I'm not saying this is right, I'm just using it as an example.
A national cable network on the other hand is so overwhelming expensive to install that even a giant like Google struggles to meet the cost.
The federal government should be interested in preventing monopolies, I think Americans call it anti trust or something.
Basically the argument is often confused between the infrastructure and the monopoly.

' i don't pay $x a month so that punk kids can fuck up my internet speed with their torrents '

' i own the cables and network that punk kids use so i can do whatever the fuck i want with it. '

>>58328569
>And yes, it is already happening: T-mobile gives 'free data' for users of certain music and video sites. (t-mobile binge on). This is a direct violation of the principles of network neutrality.

Not according to FCC chairman Wheeler who liked the idea of 0 rating. GG libtard.

>>58328609
Matter of degrees I guess. Conceptually, if the network is neutral, there is no '0 rating'.

>>58328593
You pay a tax on every gallon of gas you buy. Doesn't matter if you burn it on public roads or a very small number of toll roads.

>>58328569
Yeah this is why the nbc comcast merger is a horrible idea. "Hey anon, that 1tb of data we agreed on in the contract is up. But dont worry, now you can watch our program about gay jewish fathers, and the recovering heroin addict single mothers that help them navigate parenthood! Isint that great?"

>>58328569
>You've already lost this argument please
and here i thought we were just talking, can't we talk without someone getting adversarial? jesus christ dude.


>The entire reason for ISPs to be against network neutrality is so that they can double-dip, charging Internet services like Netflix for 'premium' access to their customer base.


Everytime i hear that argument I get the feeling that this is an american centric, it suggests extreme disregard for the costumer, in the EU country I'm from we had a major monopoly in all of telecomunications, the way we solved it was to give the FCC equivalent the power to reign in the monopoly company when competition was introduced until it reached the point where the monopoly had lost 50% of market share, from 100%. The whole issue of net neutrality could be solved with competition. That is my opinion you got yours, this isn't a fucking win or lose situation, none of us have any actual power here.

Bell Canada tried that shit here, offering free TV streaming or something along those lines (providing you are a bell tv sub) to mobile devices.

The CRTC struck that down pretty quick.

>>58328658
Yes but you don't pay a tax every time you enter your own driveway with a load of groceries.
>H-h-hey anon, that's a lot of stuff you got there. Sorry but I'm going to have to tax you on that.

>>58328715
You're actively misleading people here with your bullshit. Read at least one factual article before you post if you expect to not be taken on in an 'adversarial' manner.

It's a pretty damn difficult issue to regulate when you have infrastructure partially held by the government and partially by private industry. The American way is shitty but it's definitely not as shitty as it COULD be.

>>58328715
The way I understand it, you have multiple ISPs to choose from. For whatever reason, America isn't wired that way. If your building is wired for comcast, you get comcast because fuck you. Even if you have multiple isp choices . I slightly agree that competition would largely solve the NN because Im a capitalists at heart, but I also realize infrastructure costs are different over here.

>>58328748
Its a stupid argument. My driveway is private property I payed for, and the easement to the road was payed for by tax money. I realize all analogies break down if you take them far enough, but please try harder.

>>58328782
I think the reason is that the government didn't want to pay for infrastructure to connect all the rural places and cities that are so far away from each other. So the first ISP that pays for it and deals with all the bureaucratic nightmare bullshit that is right-of-way regulations, obviously wants a monopoly.

>>58328424
Yeah I don't understand the Netflix/ISP debate. Netflix has to pay more oney because the ISP's users are choosing to use Netfflix on THEIR bandwidth that THEY paid for? What? So if everyone started streaming 4k porn videos from Pornhub, Pornhub has to pay more? Customers should be able to use their bandwidth any way they wish.

But I kind of understand the other side of the argument as well. If Netflix is buying 80% of the ISP's capacity and the rest of America's companies have to fight over the remaining 20%, is that fair? I'm not sure. If ISPs had infinite network capacity then buying more to use more would work. But with a limited capacity the ISP has to say no to somebody.

>>58328767
What are you even talking about?

And what part of the infrastructure is held by the government?? The USA has notoriously let private enterprise handle the infrastructure of communications all by themselves

>>58328014
>Also tell me why Netflix charges more money for HD content
costs more for them to license

>Also tell me why Netflix does NOT allow Chinese boxes to use Netflix in HD even though you have a paid account.
anti-piracy, bullshit DRM, etc etc

>>58327275
>So is the only reason politicians are against net neutrality cronyism and old people being old, or are there legitimate arguments to be made against it?
They're fucking retarded because they fail to realize that ISP's collude and meddle in every way they can to over charge you because they know you have absolutely NO choice on ISP's for most geographic regions. They also think that the Internet isn't important and that because they have good internet that means everyone does even though half this country still runs on fucking DSL from 20 years ago. They also fail to realize how BAD the US's infrastructure is when it comes to internet service to the point that we've fallen severely behind compared to other nations. Other nations are offering Fast Ethernet 100+mb/s and upwards of gigabit connections where the US can't fucking get by DSL?

The US government gave away grants in the early 90's to spread internet infrastructure everywhere. ISP's ate that shit up and sat on it while barely getting forward. By early 2000's we were already being passed up for most advanced infrastructures

>>58328854
The rights of way, and even some of the fiber optics are owned by the government.

>>58328822
>I think the reason is that the government didn't want to pay for infrastructure to connect all the rural places and cities that are so far away from each other. So the first ISP that pays for it and deals with all the bureaucratic nightmare bullshit that is right-of-way regulations, obviously wants a monopoly.

Problem is that isn't the way it works in the US. There is something called the Rural Utilities Commission, the US government literally pays the service providers to wire up rural america, the monopolies are contracts with local government not federal government. The RUC was set up in order to provide electricity and phone service to americans who lived out of cities, in exchange the government would be able to provide cheap or free phone services to extremely low income folks, AKA today as Obamaphone, even though this shit was done in the 50s or 60s.

>>58328827
>If Netflix is buying 80% of the ISP's capacity and the rest of America's companies have to fight over the remaining 20%, is that fair?
Thats not the way it works. Bandwidth isn't like a resource that needs to be rationed. It doesn't matter how much bandwidth you push through the pipe. You bought the pipe why are you being punished for using it? Its a dog shit excuse comcast tries to pull to charge you more for the SAME bandwidth. Gig for Gig netflix costs more to stream? why? because comcast wants to charge you for it to cash in on it rather than build infrastructure to handle it.

TWC does the same shit. They purposely put large amounts of people on one Hub and when 3pm rolls along every kid and their parents gets home from school and work and wants to use the internet and it slugs like shit. TWC refuses to fix their bottleneck and would rather blame consumers and say "you gotta share!"

>>58328893
That doesn't apply nationwide though does it?

>>58327965
>Show how this has and will effect me personally.
Net Neutrality gives the FCC the ability to regulate what definitions bandwidth was. Last year the FCC tried to increase the definition of Broadband from the measly 5mbps down/1 up to 15/5. ISP's fault hard and complained that it was somehow unfair to make them upgrade aging shit from the 90's and won

Removing net neutrality will harm general users all around by letting the ISP's dictate what you're charged for what websites you visit and how much bandwidth you use like its gasoline in a car even though thats not how bandwidth works at all

>>58328719
must be nice living in a 1st world country

>>58328932
Uhh.. do you think Comcast owns part of Main St, or owns the easement next to the freeway?

I can't really cite anything, but I would find that extremely surprising.

As for the fiber optics, I've seen quite a few government RFPs asking for fiber for a city (which would then be leased out to ISPs) I know first hand of one county where a public utility owns the only high speed fiber infrastructure. I can't say how wide-spread that is, but it definitely happens.

>>58328947
Yeah but that didn't happen before nn was a thing. Im not convinced that will happen afterward if it goes away. You have companies that right now with nn that dont give a fuck like >>58328913 says. They still do what they want, and netflicks still has to pay more.

Comcast charges its customers to stream netflix but doesn't charge them to stream comcast's own Xfinity streaming service. Its really ironic how much they complain about netflix "hogging all their resources" when they've blatantly price fixed between their own shit and netflix as a way to stifle innovation.

>>58329020
It also happens that some cities enacted laws preventing public owned utilities. Goes both ways, bro.

>>58329060
I don't think that disagrees with my initial statement, but that's interesting.

>>58329025
>Yeah but that didn't happen before nn was a thing.
Except it indirectly does now. Comcast charges netflix itself more money to stream the bandwidth unfairly biasing them purely because they're popular. Comcast is using it as an excuse to raise prices for no reason other than to make more money instead of allotting more infrastructure towards it.

Netflix pays more because comcast wants more money. Thats all. Like >>58328913
said, it doesn't matter how much shit you throw down that pipe you're being punished for using your pipe.

The Net Neutrality you know which was to prevent bias on which websites you were inadvertently allowed to go to isn't the Net Neutrality that was passed. The Net Neutrality that was passed allowed the FCC to set standards on the internet.

>>58329034
ummmmm, excuse me :)
comcast doesn't STREAM xfinity :))))
it's DELIVERING CONTENT using INTERNET PROTOCOLS through INTERNET INFRASTRUCTURE
it's completely different ;) :)

>>58327275
>So is the only reason politicians are against net neutrality cronyism

Except that's backwards, if you are for cronyism then you are for NN hence why all the big data hogs like FB/Google/Netflix/etc all support it because it gives them an unfair advantage against start ups.

>>58328014
>You exp[lain to me how the retarded picture you posted actually happens.

This. How about you pro NN fags actually present an argument instead of baseless fear mongering.

>>58329025
I think its rather by charging the services more, Comcast is trying to snuff out netflix who will be forced to raise prices on you in hopes that you'll get fed up and go with comcast's virtually free streaming service that doesn't count towards your data cap

>>58327275
>I would actually pay less money per month with this model

I don't see the problem.

>>58329121
>data hogs

Holy shit, the internet is not a fucking limited resource like water or gasoline. Its not something stupid like "well you drove more miles you pay for more gasoline"

You bought a pipe it doesn't matter how much shit you stuff through that pipe. You bought a car it doesn't matter how many miles you drive with that car. Its like a dealership charging you extra for how many extra miles you put in which is dogshit

File: 8-inch-floppy.jpg (14KB, 430x319px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 430x319px

>>58329121
>I didn't read any of the thread, but here's my copy-paste from brietbart.

>>58329020
You're being extremely broad when you use the word government. City government and federal government is night and day difference in the amount of power they can exert of something as simple as putting up cables on posts or underground, sometimes local government have no power, other times they have it all. In my particular town the city doesn't own shit, the power company has the poles and all other utilities have agreements with the power company, the only power the city has is to keep the cable monopoly.

>fiber optics
we don't have such things here in these parts of rural america lol. you're lucky to still have copper in the morning because no one stole it.

>>58329145
I highly doubt that unless you're paying something retarded like $150/m for 2/1.

>>58329123
Corporations are just butthurt no one wants to give a kidney anymore to be able to afford cable. They are looking for new revenue streams, from customers and clients. They still get paid to pump commercials to eyeballs, even if people watch them on Xfinity or whatever. They probably would like a free-ish internet plan to give to consumers, like traditional OTA broadcasting, if they could "curate" the content perhaps. Google, facebook, all the big dicks are throwing around the idea of freeish internet for the masses.

>>58329187
what the hell is an 8 inch floppy?

>>58329298
yea, they were a thing before 3 inch floppies

>>58329187
>>58329298
just googled it, i wasnt aware of the 8" kind, never seen one before

>>58329298
muh dick

File: 8inch drive.jpg (952KB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

952KB, 3264x2448px

>>58329308
ive seen and used 5" and 3" i didnt know there was an 8". thats pretty fucking big

>>58329152
Its not a great analogy, i can see why it triggered you. But when one company-netflix is responsible for 80% of the traffic (cars on the road) you dont think they should pay up? Thats like one trucking company having 10k rigs on the road, and only saying well its just one company lololol we shouldnt have to pay because people order our goods, and if they didn't we wouldn't need to drive on the highway anyway.

>80% of traffic
You bought/leased a network connection, it doesn't matter how much data to stream back and forth through that connection. It doesn't cost more if you only stream a little data or a lot of data.

The Internet is not a limited resource like gasoline.

>>58329365
That's exactly what your mom said to me last night.

>>58329404
to which there would be two ways of fixing that problem. You either charge the heavy users more, or you let other people build new roads.

This is only a problem because someone came along and said there will only be one road deal with it.

>>58329448
but anon gasoline is a clean and renewable resource like Good Clean Coal

>>58329404
Ok lets use a more explicit example.

You buy an internet connection with Comcast for 100mb/s down and up just for simplicity sake.

It costs comcast the same amount of money whether you stream 10gb of data through it or 10,000gb of data through it. It doesn't matter how much data you cram into your 100mb/s connection. It only matters your bandwidth you're buying.

Comcast is erroneously charging netflix (and its customers indirectly) for merely streaming data that has nothing to do with the costs associated with them purely and only to make money.

So netflix being 80% of their traffic is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many people stream from netflix or how often either. So long as netflix has an adequate bandwidth to service all their customers theres NEVER a problem.

Heavy users don't cost any more money than light users. Comcast's datacaps are fucking stupid that way and they're only there to make more money. Its the most greediest, jewiest thing ever purely because they want money and aren't giving you any better service for it

>>58329555
>It costs comcast the same amount of money whether you stream 10gb of data through it or 10,000gb of data through it

Is this actually true? I've heard different versions of this, also heard that everyone pays the traffic they use to someone.

>Heavy users don't cost any more money than light users
This is something that none of us here will ever actually know for a fact.

How can ISPs stop net neutrality without violating the OSI 5/7 layer model? If it's using the IPv6 priority field, can't that be spoofed?

>>58329555
>>58329633
It's not true. The internet relies on statistical multiplexing. It costs them the same if one person does 10/10000 (that is, nothing) but not if the average user does.

>>58328814
You need to switch to decaf.

>>58329633
>This is something that none of us here will ever actually know for a fact.


It costs money to host bandwidth and distribute it. Its not like it costs "extra electricity" or somehow puts wear and tear to stream data constantly through a switch, a switch is designed to do that. Its not like the water utility where using more water costs more because the water is valuable. The little bits and bytes you stream aren't "valuable" in any sense of the word. Its just a signal and nothing becomes of it.

Thats why all this bullshit about datacaps is literally comcast wanting to make more money.

>>58327965
Your gas analogy is completely missing the mark. The equivalent non-NN comparison is that the gas will only let you go 30mph tops if you're heading toward the liquor store but you can go full speed driving toward the Disney Store™. The gas will have different performance based on the destination. I don't think you want that.

>>58327275
They're against net neutrality because they don't have a clue what the fuck net neutrality actually means.

An actual quote from our soon to be new president:
>New neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

>>58329689
Its not that simple.

The reason 4chan costs so much to host is for a few reasons. Storage and cloudfare. They have to pay for the bandwidth which costs so fucking much. 90k a month just to have cloudfare host and store all those archived files, prevent DDOS's and have users run the fuck out of the website hosting it all.

>>58329152
Well technically, if you lease a car, you only have so many miles a year you can drive. Then they can charge you. And in someways leasing a car is kinda like leasing a cable line. I dont own the cable, the network or anything. I just consume what comes out.
Im really tired of this analogy thing, it could go forever.

What I want to know is, how will NN affect things like bullshit data caps? Will it give me faster internet? A better connection?

>>58329701
Not long ago I got a seedbox for about $5 a month I could use 1TB of bandwidth and it occurred to me that it was more bandwidth than some people have at home for a ridiculously low price. I'd love to see a seedbox that would mail you the a HD after you got it full. Sort of like netflix for data.

>>58328913
Yeah, but what if Netflix starts buying to many pipes? What if they buy all the pipes? There is going to be some point where Comcast or whoever will have to either say no or raise the price for Netflix so that they stop buying all the pipes. It's tempting to say "It's not Netflix's problem Comcast should just build more pipes!", but it's not that simple. No only does Comcast have to jump through tons of hoops to expand their infrastructure, what if Netflix just suddenly dies tomorrow? Now Comcast has this huge expansion debt and a bunch of infrastructure to take care of with no one to use it.

Comcast shouldn't have taxed Netflix, they should have just refused to sell them any more bandwidth because they were taking up to much infrastructure. Of course I'm assuming that both companies are being reasonably fair.

>>58329701
What do you think happens if everyone in the UK turns on their kettle at the same time?

>>58329739
4chan is constantly utilising all of its bandwidth, an end user is modelled as using it in frequent bursts. If every user of a network doubles the time they spend using their full bandwidth, the bandwidth required for the network doubles too

>>58329701
I refuse to believe that. It definitely costs the ISP more to provide more data.

>>58329782
Sneakernet seedbox

>>58329804
>No only does Comcast have to jump through tons of hoops to expand their infrastructure, what if Netflix just suddenly dies tomorrow? Now Comcast has this huge expansion debt and a bunch of infrastructure to take care of with no one to use it.

well I guess consumers will just get tired of their shitty infrastructure that they refuse to upgrade because it's too hard :((((( and jump ship to the better, more competitive ISP

oh wait
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

>>58329804
>what if netflix buys too many connections
What the fuck? IF Netflix had that many customers the ISPs should rejoice, because that is a subset of the number of customers the ISP has. Let's just say in a hypothetical world, the ONLY thing on the Internet is Netflix, and users just pay their ISP because they want to watch Netflix. I mean, Netflix obviously would just buy the ISPs in this situation, but that's really the point. Netflix generates the demand. The ISPs only benefit.

>>58329633
I think its bullshit too, but Im too stupid to remember the details. Something about the hubs and switches and shit. International shit. Like not on a city or state level. The ISP pays for traffic on a petabyte level from someone else somewhere. I wish I wasn't stupid.

>>58329804
What you're saying is the same thing as >>58328448

The one thing everyone here is ignoring is the costumers, if we want to have a packet neutral access to a network, the only real solution I see is to have a public network provider.

>>58329751
>you only have so many miles a year you can drive
thats only because its apart of the agreement. The dealer wants to make sure you don't blow over miles so incase you turn the car in at the end the car's value is worth more where all those extra miles depreciates it worse

So yea "lease" is a bad example.

>>58329782
>1tb bandwidth

more like 1tb of data. Bandwidth is how "wide" your internet pipe is.

>>58329804
>Yeah, but what if Netflix starts buying to many pipes? What if they buy all the pipes?
Then comcast isn't making enough pipes because they don't wanna provide the bandwidth because they're fucking jews that makes billions a year to sit on their ass, rely on old ass copper from 20 years ago then charge you the mere privilege of using their shitty infrastructure.

>>58329814
>What do you think happens if everyone in the UK turns on their kettle at the same time?
Gas stoves (and electricity) are finite resources, the internet's "data streaming" isn't.

>4chan is constantly utilising all of its bandwidth, an end user is modelled as using it in frequent bursts. If every user of a network doubles the time they spend using their full bandwidth, the bandwidth required for the network doubles too

Yea and 4chan has to pay for the extra bandwidth they need or suffer huge bottlenecks like Moot had in fucking 2008, shit would drop all the time because there were too many users on at peak.

Google had no problem throwing up gigabit fiber anywhere they could put it up but because of all the city limitations and ISP meddling they got only a few cities to have gigabit ethernet.

>>58329833
Its not, the data isn't a resource like water, its not a resource at all that needs to be rationed. Its not inherently valuable at all.

>>58327275
I honestly wouldn't mind that picture if the packages gave you full access to the services.

Like the $10 packages giving you premium accounts on Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, etc.

>>58329892
Yea obviously they need more hubs and switches to serve more customers. But for ALL that money they rake in, they shouldn't have any issue providing enough bandwidth. Instead they sit on their shitty bottleneck and charge you more for it

>>58329907
The resource isn't the data, it's the bandwidth. A network can't take all of its users using their max advertised bandwidth at once, only the max bandwidth*probability it's being used at a given time

>>58329907
>Its not, the data isn't a resource like water, its not a resource at all that needs to be rationed. Its not inherently valuable at all.
You just repeated what you said before. I refuse to believe it.
>>58329933
>>58329933
>But for ALL that money they rake in, they shouldn't have any issue providing enough bandwidth
Do you know how stupid this sounds?

File: cable-company-employees-nipples-south-park.jpg (62KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 620x400px

>>58329933
>they sit on their bottleneck
great line. "They sit on their bottleneck, tweaking their nipples."

>>58329842
I wasn't familiar with that word, I need to look into it, surely there are "clubs" one could join and just share data.

>>58329956
The "pipe" is the bandwidth

it doesn't matter how much shit you cram through the pipe. Only that you pay for the pipe.

>a network can't give all its users all the bandwidth at once
you're right because the network can't serve all the customers. Only certain customers can use the max bandwidth

if Comcast has say 100 customers and it gives each customer a 1gb uplink. Do they have a 100gb uplink to distribute? probably not

>>58329979
>Do you know how stupid this sounds?
Its not stupid at all

Comcast providing a service to its customers at speeds that were common 20 years ago. Every other country is going faster and faster and the US is stuck on DSL and all the ISP's are just cashing in on it. Why provide better infrastructure to get faster speeds because theres no competition and they aren't incentivized to. They don't get anything better out of it so they just milk it!

>>58329933
>But for ALL that money they rake in, they shouldn't have any issue providing enough bandwidth.

But that isn't an argument for or against net neutrality, as much as I happen to agree with you on that point, you're simply criticizing capitalism.

>>58329984
The problem there is that the benefit of bandwidth that increases with data size is offset by the difficulty of deciding what data you want. Unless it's just something like 'every video on JAVlibrary'

I know there's a small market for pokemon games with every pokemon in the boxes because, while hacking is trivial, actually adding each individual pokemon (analogous to downloading) is time consuming unless you've done it already and can copy it.

>>58329979
>>But for ALL that money they rake in, they shouldn't have any issue providing enough bandwidth
>Do you know how stupid this sounds?
Its not stupid

I worked as a technician in the field. People sometimes call it the "Yellow bus syndrom" where kids come home from school and all jump on their computers and xbox's and eat up all the bandwidth. The system the community is under isn't able to maintain bandwidth of lots of people using it. People complain all the time "why does the internet get slow at 5pm?" to the point that many users can't use their internet because its too bogged down. Time Warner refuses to upgrade it to handle the load because that involves blowing money and the customers can't do anything about it because TWC is the only ISP in town for them

>>58330042
>as much as I happen to agree with you on that point, you're simply criticizing capitalism.
Its a flaw of capitalism. Well not exactly, capitalism revolves around competition. If there was real competition with ISP's they'd be innovating, getting faster, offering better prices left and right. But since there is little competition, theres little reason to up the customer's speeds. They'd rather keep their old shit, and charge you modern prices for it because they can.

File: librarian.jpg (429KB, 1728x3072px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1728x3072px

>>58330066
>Unless it's just something like 'every video on JAVlibrary'

That is probably what I'd use it for, I think I'm going the way of data hoarding, drives are so cheap I may end up becoming one of these autists like on pic related.

>>58330092
which is why I keep saying net neutrality would resolve itself with competition. and I may very well be wrong on this. other than the tmobile example, are there examples of shit like this in other countries?

>>58330172
Then the issue should be breaking up the monopolies but I'm afraid congress is too deluded and it'd take years to effectively replace them all in order to do so.

>>58330069
>Time Warner refuses to upgrade it to handle the load because that involves blowing money
Yes, it's called business. They need to make money. I do wish more people had access to different ISP options, but they get the same prices as the people who do have options. I use TWC and enjoy the price/performance.

>>58330294
just look at the good job they did with ATT and Microsoft. The US is very inefficient in breaking up monopolies.

>>58330391

What exact monopolies?

What companies and what do they hold a monopoly over? I don't think you understand what a monopoly is.

File: what is a monopoly.png (66KB, 1305x1308px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1305x1308px

>>58330457

>>58330525

From today you mong.

>>58330634
local or regional wide companies that are the sole provider of a service like electricity or phone service, they're to many to mention. just in my area you have American Electrical Power, three cable companies that don't compete with one another or anyone else. There's only one phone company. Everyone of those companies has a monopoly over the market that they serve, some either thru bribes (non compete agreements with town/county) or thru unproven collusion.

>>58327777
Quads of truth.

It's true. For the best historical equivalent look at the actual Wild West. It didn't start out "wild", at one point it was just a few farmers who helped each other out, when the masses found there are illicit ways to profit from this area, they overran it, leading to a shitshow essentially. This is where we stuns now. A wild place about to be tamed by the government for the safety of all. Unless it doesn't succeed for some reason.

>>58330457
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlEBGYD7LUo