So, the debate over Net Neutrality is pretty one sided. I've

>>58575815
NN is shady as fuck. Anyone who says otherwise is an idealog.

>>58575839
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks it's a little fishy. It seems like NN folks want so much security in their freedom... that they're willing to give up said freedom.

Of course, like I mentioned, I'm not sure. Considering this thread as an opportunity to learn and debate.

>>58575815
1) The government wouldn't need to install monitors, literally just have a way to report violations.
2) See above
3) Your grandma could pay for lower speed internet, say 3mbps while the /g/ user pays for a gigabit.
4) The whole point of NN is to stop ISP from prioritizing certain traffic over other traffic.

>>58575815
>Wouldn't the US government need to install more hardware and software to 'monitor' and 'control' the bandwidth speeds and usage? Isn't that really fucking dangerous?
Does the US government need cameras in your home to enforce laws against rape and murder?

>Seems it's awfully one sides.
The debate is one sided because the anti NN side never brings facts or sources to any discussion.

>>58575815
>One, doesn't NN mean that the government has far more control over the internet, i.e., the exact opposite of what NN folks want?
NN just gives the fcc to set standards over the Internet, like what constitutes broadband speeds or what isp are and aren't allowed to do with your private data

>>58576505
This

>4chan is now against net neutrality because trump is

I fucking hate this website. Remember when everyone on the internet was 100% for it, and there were campaigns for it?

>>58576960
Nobody is, retards are anti-nn because they think that it's some kind of government Obama care of the Internet because they don't know how it works

File: pol newfags.png (75KB, 1229x417px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1229x417px

>>58576960
>>58577010

daily reminder

>>58577034
What the fuck was operation payback?

>>58577034
Why don't you go back to 2003 to show when 4chan started as a baseline?

>>58577034
God I hate /pol/

>>58577061
You forgot about /v/eddit too

>>58575815
>Three, if everyone is charged the same for the same internet speed and access, how is that fair? If my grandma who uses the internet once a week to print a crossword puzzle is charged the same price as, say, a /g/ user who is torrenting a metric ton of anime porn every other day, isn't that unfair? Because the NN wants to treat the internet as a public utility...

Treating the internet as a utility might imply a lot of things but it does not necessarily mean everyone pays the same rate. Electricity is a utility and it's metered, people who use a lot pay more than people who use very little. Internet is not metered. People who use a lot and people who use a little pay the same flat rate to start and then the ISPs *might* charge an additional rate on top of that if you go over a monthly allotment. If internet was metered everyone would probably pay less overall because bandwidth is fairly inexpensive.

Net-neutrality is literally, all traffic on the internet gets equal priority regardless of origin. It has nothing to do with consumer plans.
It's about facebook and youtube get the same treatment as some random dude's video sever.
We currently have NN, and companies want to get rid of it, and go back to how shit was with AOL.

>>58577122
>wanting to go back to the AOL age
Fuck that, fuck paying 5 cents a minute to be on the Internet that shit was gay as fuck

>>58577034
>gamergate

Nobody came to this site for gamergate. The icloud leaks happened at the same time. Label your shit better.

>>58575815
>One, doesn't NN mean that the government has far more control over the internet, i.e., the exact opposite of what NN folks want? Wouldn't the US government need to install more hardware and software to 'monitor' and 'control' the bandwidth speeds and usage? Isn't that really fucking dangerous?
>Two, wouldn't the government control of the internet effectively end the free market dynamic of online trade/shopping? With government and politicians effectively in control of selling of goods and services (even MORE than now...), isn't that, you know, really fucking dangerous?

I believe the FCC relied on complaints from customers and companies to determine when to mediate disputes. The FCC wouldn't just oversee everything.

>>58577034
Those stats are old. Currently traffic is sitting at 220M connections per month, not the ~140M it was when that picture started going around.

>One, doesn't NN mean that the government has far more control over the internet, i.e., the exact opposite of what NN folks want?
That's not what NN supports want. NN support has never been about advocating for less government influence. The core tenet of NN is, indeed, the addition of government regulation.

>Two, wouldn't the government control of the internet effectively end the free market dynamic of online trade/shopping?
NN does not affect the sale of goods or services over the internet at all, just the sale of access to the internet.

>If my grandma who uses the internet once a week to print a crossword puzzle is charged the same price as, say, a /g/ user who is torrenting a metric ton of anime porn every other day, isn't that unfair?
Your grandmother would be charged a common rate, not a common amount. Your anime porn would still cost you a lot of money.

>Finally, the government already allows discrimination in traffic. The point of NN is to change what is allowed by government policy.

>>58577034
I miss the days when phone posting wasn't a thing.

>>58576960
I don't know, maybe after years of NN and no appreciable change whatsoever to the internet , maybe peoples view has evolved on the issue? Maybe the hype didn't meet reality?

>>58577122
Literally not a problem before NN was dictated a few short years ago, now its suddenly a problem?

>>58577336
Yes, the content of shit dramatically rises with the type of keyboard used.

>>58577363
>and no appreciable change whatsoever to the internet
BECUSE THAT WAS THE POINT OF NET NEUTRALITY.
Jesus fucking Christ people are uninformed.
>>58577384
>now its suddenly a problem?
Yes, because now ISPs have been abusing it. In an ideal world, you wouldn't need laws on NN, just as you shouldn't need to have laws against theft but as it turns out the law is necessary.

>>58577363
Yeah, you're right. Now that Ajit Pajeet will try repeal NN and other consumer protection laws we can have true progress. Ma Bell, welcome back.

>>58577488
What the fuck do Indians have to do with NN going away? Do you just like putting as many memes into a sentence as possible, you illiterate nigger?

>>58577363
>I don't know, maybe after years of NN
It's only been in effect for less than two years.

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet


>Have quasi-net neutrality under 2010 open internet order
>Verizon takes FCC to court
>Courts ruled that Verizon(and other ISPs) do not count as a communications service because of an earlier deal which reclassified them as information services
>Court actually recommends reclassifying ISPs under title II to remedy the situation
>FCC debates about how to BS their way through this *without* reclassifying them
>John OIiver compares Tom Wheeler to a dingo tasked with babysitting an infant
>Millions of people send complaints to the FCC telling them to reclassify ISPs
>Tom Wheeler apparently becomes a supporter of title II classification giving the US net neutrality

>>58577507
You don't know who Ajit Pai is? Why are you even in this thread if you don't know the latest Trump memes?
>nigger
Fuck off.

>>58577429
It wasn't a problem pre, and it won't be a problem post. A solution in search of a problem.
>>58577429
Your analogy is shit. Unconvinced.

>>58577549
Keeping up with politics is the most normalfag thing I could think of. NN is important, but I don't let it be the only thing I care about.
>>nigger
>Fuck off.
You're giving /pol/ more reasons to think they're being fursecuted.

>>58577069

Same thing at this point.

>>58577034
How much worse can it get at this point?

File: Obama's Legacy.png (416KB, 844x499px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 844x499px

Net neutrality is the least of my fucking concerns...

I wanna know why the fuck I'm paying for Obamacare, social security, medicare, pensions that will all be bankrupt in a decade or two...

Millinals are literally being raped by the Boomers and GenX er's

>>58578532
This a technology board
>>>/pol/

>>58578532
>I wanna know why the fuck I'm paying for Obamacare, social security, medicare, pensions that will all be bankrupt in a decade or two...

Well, the good thing is Obamacare might be bankrupt in a few years. So, you got that going for ya.

>>58578532
>Millinals are literally being raped by the Boomers and GenX er's

THANKS OBAMA!

File: 1484867123084.jpg (41KB, 508x524px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 508x524px

>>58576960
>>58577034
>>58577061
>ITT reddit jumps on any opportunity to whine about /pol/

>>58577558
>It wasn't a problem pre, and it won't be a problem post
Did you miss the bit where Verizon was actually trying to abuse the lack of laws?

>>58575815

Net Neutrality seems really suspicious to me because of who supports it:

For:
-Google (Spyware/Porn Aggregator)
-Twitter (Bix Nood Mufugga WORDLSTARR)
-Micro$oft (Spyware)
-Amazon (Probably their TV division)
-Netflix (Cuck porn or something)

Against:
-Broadcom (Hardware)
-IBM (Hardware/Software)
-Cisco (telecom)

Sounds like entertainment companies are getting too comfortable having their 4k streaming of dumb TV subsidized by companies that use the internet to do actual work, and now they're scared that they are going to have to pay market rate for the enormous bandwidth that they use.

File: You have to go back.png (17KB, 200x94px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x94px

>>58578876
reddit is /pol/, my dumb frogposting friend

File: 1483927899665.png (43KB, 237x330px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 237x330px

>>58578876
>Complaining about the cancerous mobilefags that are killing 4chan is whining about /pol/.

>>58577429
jesus christ I feel your frustration bro, people on /g/ are fucking stupid

>>58575815

take it to the containment board

>One, doesn't NN mean that the government has far more control over the internet
Yes. The FCC would have greater authority than it currently exercises. I believe it technically has the authority now however.

>Wouldn't the US government need to install more hardware and software to 'monitor' and 'control' the bandwidth speeds and usage
What? That's now how net neutrality works, even the meme versions of it.

>Two, wouldn't the government control of the internet effectively end the free market dynamic of online trade/shopping?
There is no free market dynamic. Many areas have government mandated monopolies. It gets even worse at local levels where municipalities have been sued to prevent them from creating their own ISPs. It's practically impossible for any new ISPs to form either thanks to ordinances that got pushed into law by big name ISPs with the sole purpose of killing potential competition.

>Three, if everyone is charged the same for the same internet speed and access, how is that fair?
That isn't net neutrality in any sense of the term. No one wants that for obvious reasons.

>>58576505
/thread

>>58577429
No you dense fuck, NN will hurt us.

>The report(Zero Rating), issued in the last days of the Obama administration, took issue with the way companies like AT&T and Verizon exempted their own video services from wireless data caps, effectively making them cheaper to stream on phones and tablets than rival services such as Netflix.

You see, Verizon was giving you free shit, and NN is going to fuck it all up where you have to pay full price for everything. It's shady as fuck, and FUCK more government

>>58581205
Net Neutrality is not a NEW thing, it was here from the BEGINNING.

Like the American constitution.
Maybe people get it now.

People thoght of Net Neutrality as a way to empower everyone in the same way.

Like how every person has exactly one vote, when he votes for a candidate, no mater what ethnicity or skin color.

Imagine a futuristic world, where people travel with tubes (like in Futurama) and all the tubes to Walmart are much faster.

File: IMG_0122.png (27KB, 994x573px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 994x573px

>>58581417

Not just that. Imagine that Wal-mart owns the tubes, and due to their influence, not only are the tubes to Wal-mart intentionally made faster, the tubes to Target are intentionally made *slower*.

That's what happens when net neutrality isn't enforced. Seriously. Comcast was choking the life out of Netflix streams in an effort to wring more money out of them, and speeds went right back up as soon as an agreement was reached. It was shameless, and it single-handedly demonstrates why you retards are wrong and NN is an essential part of a viable internet.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

>>58581205
>Stopping companies with near monopolies from abusing their positions is bad
You are in no position to call anyone dense. If you don't see the problem with the example you yourself brought up then I don't know what can be said to you.

>>58581739
They let their subscribers have free stuff. What's the problem with giving a product you own away? Tell me why that's fucking bad.
I can choose from multiple vendors if I want cell service also, fuckface.

>>58581481
Do you think you are convincing anyone here of anything?

>>58581481
You are a liberal SJW numale cuck shill.

>>58582500

Funny, I didn't see the word "incorrect" in there anywhere!

>>58582239

I'd like to hope so, considering it's the straight truth.

>>58582180

What's going on is that Verizon is providing a service that competes with other, similar services. Users are given a fixed amount of data, and while those other services are counted against that amount, Verizon's services are not. That is an anticompetitive tactic, and is arguably illegal.

And you mention cell service, but wired ISPs do this too, and, at most, you're probably going to have two relatively respectable choices. If you have a choice between Comcast and AT&T in your area, good luck choosing the "ethical" one.

File: dana.png (750KB, 810x860px) Image search: [Google]

750KB, 810x860px

>>58575815
If you oppose Net Neutrality this is what your internet will look like:

Comcast owns Hulu, which is a rival of Netflix. Comcast throttles Netflix traffic down on its network, and gives Hulu a fast lane.

How is this good for the consumers is any way shape or form?

You might say well people can just leave Comcast. Yeah right, in many areas of the country Comcast has a significant hold on the market if not a monopoly. In some towns they've even lobbied to make competition illegal, and I'm too lazy right now to look up the articles from last year.

Honestly I feel like I'm living in a dystopian novel with the amount of misinformation about net neutrality. Nobody understands it outside of the tech industry, and the politicians just regurgitate lines that are fed to them by ISP lobbyists.

This misinformation is happening in real life right now and it's fucking crazy.

tl;dr
If you're a citizen, Net Neutrality is a *good* thing.

>>58582677

I'd also like to add to this that Verizon and other ISPs spend obscene amounts of money lobbying the government to let them keep zero-rating their own services. They're not doing that because they love their customers, they're doing it because they think that corralling users into their little services ghetto is going to bring that money back to them.

I reiterate: the fact that they spend this kind of money keeping zero-rating legal indicates that bribery is the only reason it's legal at all.

File: 1430165469051.jpg (616KB, 1000x793px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 1000x793px

/g/ please don't be anti-net neutrality just because Trump is against it.

let's remind ourselves of the consequences of getting rid of net neutrality. It would be literally impossible to run a streaming site like Twitch or Youtube without paying for a subscription to it.

>>58584765
Who cares, not everyone here is murrifat.

>>58575815
net neutrality just means isp doesn't throttle your connection depending on which host you request and then makes you pay more for faster nigerian pottery web forum access

The only problem with Net Neutrality is that it prevents companies like T-Mobile from doing those offers where certain uses of the internet don't count toward your bill (i.e. unlimited music streaming.)

>>58576505
Actually, nn exists to subsidise high bandwidth consumers at the expense of low bandwidth consumers.
So really Google and Netflix get bigger profit margins.

>>58580462
The funny thing is that all the companies you listed that are for it won't really suffer at all without net neutrality because they would be able to pay whatever fee to get their traffic prioritized anyways. It's smaller net based companies and startups that would suffer the most.

>>58576505
>The whole point of NN is to stop ISP from prioritizing certain traffic over other traffic.
Which mean net neutrality is against free market
>literally just have a way to report violations.
and for more goverment intervention

>>58585432
Well the "free" market is allowing ISPs to fuck everyone in the ass so much the government has to step in.

>>58585432
>Which mean net neutrality is against free market
It means regulating the free market, yes. And unless you're a libertarian "muh invisible hand" shitter you'll realize that at least some regulation is always needed to avoid that corporations fuck over the little guys like you and me.

>>58575815
net neutrality can only exist with an objective state in an internal corporate network.
we're all fucked

>>58575815
Can't tell if low-quality bait, retarded, or paid shill. Congratulations.

>>58582677
>That is an anticompetitive tactic, and is arguably illegal.
I-is it? How so?

I see it as verizon offering a promotion on their internet services.
Like if ford usually sells ford brand motor oil for some amount but decides that everyone who buys a car in the next year gets 5 years worth of free motor oil.

>>58585432
>Which mean net neutrality is against free market
There's not enough competition for it to be free in the first place. A monopoly/duopoly is not "the free market."

>>58585048
>The only problem with Net Neutrality is that it prevents companies like T-Mobile from doing those offers where certain uses of the internet don't count toward your bill (i.e. unlimited music streaming.)
This. I have no problem with an ISP giving you free use of their service if you're accessing another one of their services. It's literally their hardware they can give free access to whomever they choose. Throttling competitors or people who don't pay extortion money on the other hand is not okay, and these are two completely separate issues.

>>58586249
A corporation owns the road in front of your house. They get to set the tolls.
The owner happens to also own a Ford dealer.ship He sets the toll at $10 if you drive a Ford and $1000 if you don't. You don't have a choice of another road since there's only one. Is this a promotion, or is he now using his monopoly over the road business to regulate what car you can and cannot drive?

>>58586318
>I have no problem with an ISP giving you free use of their service if you're accessing another one of their services
There's no such thing as free. The cost is paid by someone else. They may be subsidizing their costs by upping your bill. They may be charging other content providers more. They're using their position to unfairly promote their content service over other competing services, when they should all be on an even playing field.

>>58586333
>The owner happens to also own a Ford dealer.ship He sets the toll at $10 if you drive a Ford and $1000 if you don't. You don't have a choice of another road since there's only one. Is this a promotion, or is he now using his monopoly over the road business to regulate what car you can and cannot drive?
I don't really see how this is an accurate analogy.

First, ISPs are not actually charging you any more money if you use netflex or whatever. You're not actually forced to pay any exorbitant amount to do what you want, no matter what that is.
If they were saying "hey buy a subscription to <x> or your internet is $1000 a month" you might have a point, but they're not.

>>58586366
>They're using their position to unfairly promote their content service over other competing services, when they should all be on an even playing field.
Erm.. W-why senpai? Are companies not allowed to offer consumers incentives to use their services over a competitor?

Unless unfair, extortionate behaviour is taking place I don't give a shit.

>>58586367
>First, ISPs are not actually charging you any more money if you use netflex or whatever.
This is about them charging Netflix more. About them throttling your Netflix. About them capping your Netflix bandwidth.
If there's no net neutrality they can do whatever they want to content that competes with theirs to force you to choose theirs over anyone else's.

>>58586384
>This is about them charging Netflix more. About them throttling your Netflix.
As I said, I'm against this. But if they own some competitor and they don't count your usage with said competitor toward your limit that's their prerogative and I literally couldn't care less. They're not unfairly hampering netflix in that case, but rather leveraging their position as an ISP to make their other service more appealing. There is a distinction I feel.
In one case they're hampering your ability to use netflix. In another they're encouraging you to use their alternative to netflix. One is okay business practice, the other is not.

>>58586377
They're in a position to penalize others. Others have to pay their "road tax." Them upping that tax to then incentivize their service over those others is the same damn thing as the government taxing a company out of business.

Wait what you murricans have data caps? Holy shit burgers you are hella backwards.

>>58586404
Net neutrality is literally, "You cannot hamper."

>>58575815
>I understand literally nothing about what net neutrality means or how it works

Kill yourself retard.

>>58586429
As I've said, ISPs shouldn't be extorting competing services for money or throttling them or anything like that, BUT if they want to give you free access to something, anything at all, that is entirely their choice.

Look I'm not from the US (inb4 opinion discarded) but here some of the mobile providers don't count facebook usage toward your data cap for the month. I don't see this as anticompetitive or something that should be stopped, personally, but as companies trying to sweeten the deal for their customers.

File: 1484047885413.jpg (84KB, 1200x1185px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1200x1185px

tfw not American

>>58582180
>They let their subscribers subsidise their other services

FTFY.

File: 1480757171507.jpg (92KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1280x720px

>>58586484
Feels good man.

>>58586459
They can't give you something for free without charging someone else more.

>>58586523
>They can't give you something for free without charging someone else more.
That's actually not true, they could expect it will increase sales or make advertising easier and thus less expensive.
You're not very /biz/ are you?

>>58586523
They most certainly can, at their own expense.

>>58586540
>at their own expense
Where do they get the money to spend? Charging others.
They don't have money trees you fucking moron.

>>58586565
Most businesses have a profit margin they can dig into to offer promotions, specials, deals, whatever
That they tend to factor these things into their pricing doesn't discount the fact that they could finance them at their expense.

>>58586565
No, they get more money by gaining bigger userbase you dumb moron.

>>58586581
They can't offer it for free without charging someone else.

>>58586647
>You have a house
>You let someone live in that house, for free, out of the kindness of your heart
>you: W-what? You- You can't just give something away for free without charging -someone- for it. This is an outrage!

>>58586660
You work to put money into your house. ISPs have to pay their workers. Guess where they get the money from? CHARGING OTHERS.

>>58586660
You have literally never heard of the saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch"

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.

>>58586678
>You work to put money into your house. ISPs have to pay their workers. Guess where they get the money from? CHARGING OTHERS.
Data usage actually costs ISPs not-that-much and as long as you aren't fucking up their bandwidth they can pretty much give you more for free and not even notice the cost.

>>58586694
There's no such thing as a free lunch.

>>58586704
It's like with electricity. Power plants generally produce a bit more energy than gets used by the grid for fairly obvious reasons, such that slight variations in usage at a certain time don't actually cost them any money.

Much like how earth hour doesn't save any electricity because lol the power plants didn't just scale back their production for that hour.

The cost of internet is mainly in installing and maintaining the infrastructure, and a little extra use doesn't really add to those costs.

>>58586736
You seem to be under the impression that there's such a thing as a free lunch.
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
If ISPs could give away content for free we wouldn't have ISPs, the internet would just run itself.

>>58586766
What's this, denial?

>>58586769
>hey guis, the internet is really free!
Then why do we pay for it?

>>58586766
>There's no such thing as a free lunch.
I get it, you're a retard, no need to keep repeating yourself.
The cost structure of ISPs is static; it doesn't change based on how much you download. Their network has a [unit time] capacity and anything not used is just wasted.

>>58586784
And charging others for that full upkeep means there's no such thing as a free lunch.

>>58586781
So, denial. Deal with it, burger.

>>58586805
>And charging others for that full upkeep means there's no such thing as a free lunch.
But everyone is still paying the same amount. They're not actually saying "oh you use netflix so your bill is $10 more this month".

>>58577010
Actually, we got Obama Internet. So yes, Obama Phones but with the Internet instead.

>>58586830
There's no such thing as a free lunch.

>>58586835
Well if we're just going to repeat asinine phrases at each other endlessly I'd like mine to be "Not an argument"

Not an argument.

>>58586853
>there is such a thing as a free lunch
Violating the first law of thermodynamics isn't an argument.

>>58586867
Money is not heat, nor energy, else the fed couldn't exist friendo.

>>58586884
Everything is energy you fucktard.

File: Makise.Kurisu.full.657035.jpg (149KB, 850x924px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 850x924px

>>58581481
That graph is a lie. It was Cogent that throttled Netflix, their own business partner. They testified in Congress that they did it. So that chart was the biggest lie of that year and the reason I became an anti-NN champion.

>>58586889
Okay senpai but I don't see how that is pertinent to the discussion at hand.

>>58586904
ISPs don't magically grow money on money trees.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. That's the first law of thermodynamics.

>>58575872
>NN folks want so much security in their freedom... that they're willing to give up said freedom.
How?

>>58586922
>There's no such thing as a free lunch. That's the first law of thermodynamics.
Actually the first law of thermodynamics is that the total energy in an isolated system is a constant.
>ISPs don't magically grow money on money trees.
Nobody is suggesting that ISPs can operate totally for free, without charging anyone for anything. But nearly every business could improve their products or services without increasing prices if they wanted. Not that they'd really want to, but that doesn't mean they can't.

File: 1484532428578.jpg (61KB, 362x178px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 362x178px

>>58586893
I didn't even know this till now, what the fuck, man. And it seems they don't even give a shit about what they did to this day.

>>58586971
A free lunch would add energy. So guess what?
There's no such thing as a free lunch.

>But nearly every business could improve their products or services without increasing prices if they wanted

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

>>58587014
But there's free autism.

>>58587014
>A free lunch would add energy. So guess what?
Actually there's another interpretation: every lunch is a free lunch, since by definition no energy is ever consumed.

>>But nearly every business could improve their products or services without increasing prices if they wanted
>There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Yeah you could say that the company loses profits and thus that the shareholders paid for it, but that doesn't make it impossible.
>being this retarded

>>58587020
If you'd stop being an idiot claiming that ISPs have money trees I wouldn't have to keep repeating that they don't.

>>58587032
Second law of thermodynamics.

>>58587034
Take your pills.

>>58587042
Pay me.
You seem to think there's such a thing as a free lunch, so why don't you collect some of those up and give me a nice fat paycheck?

>>58587039
The first and second laws of thermodynamics actually pose an interesting conundrum for how the universe got to exist.
There are resolutions to this paradox that leaves every lunch being a free lunch though.

>>58587051
Ктo-нибyдь yeбитe этoмy пoeхaвшeмy.

>>58586893
If it actually happened, the graph isnt a lie. Youre just saying that a different backend ISP is to blame? How does that affect his argument?

>>58587007
It is just one in a long-line of lies you were fed during the Obama Administration. I can't live long enough for them to declassify all the bullshit that went on but hopefully Trump will tell us soon, after he signs some more Executive Orders.

>>58587073
It was done on purpose to save money in the long-run. Its called "collusion" in business, or you might kbow it as "conspiracy" designed to commit fraud. It wasn't Comcast and the entire premise is a lie, used to pass regulatory change.

>>58575815
You said a lot of "wont this happen, wont that happen?"

The answer is no those bad things wont happen. If you dont understand why then please just remember that we already have net neutrality, right now!

Some of those things you said actually need net neutrality to disappear before they happen. Sadly, they might start to occur over the next four years.

comcast shills please leave

>>58587114
You don't get to call everyone who disagrees with you and has the facts to back it up names and still be taken seriously. You have nothing and soon Trump will take from you even more, so that you will have a negative quanity of things. Enjoy!

>>58587167
>facts
kek

Here's a fact for you:
Your shitty American internet will get even worse once you obese fucks get jew'd into ditching net neutrality. Enjoy!

Don't say no one warned you.

File: lol.png (1MB, 2500x2560px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2500x2560px

>>58587682

We have far better internet than Yuroclaps. That's for sure, backed up by facts.

Yruotards are the ones with
"Net-Neutrality", yet they have no problem censoring "hate-speech", piracy, and "fake news".

>>58587738
Oh, it actually is denial stage.

>>58584765
A majority of /g/ is pro NN. Most anti NN are /pol/ crossboarders who must agree with everything Trump does

>>58587738
>10/50 states have their shit together

oh wow you sure showed me

>>58587838
>A majority of /g/ is pro NN.

Wrong.

/g/ and /pol/ are anti-leftist

SJW's and Hillary fans are all pro NN

>>58587887
Example of a /pol/ crossboarder

>>58580665
>>58580610
/g/ techies android fagging for phablets caused mobile faggotry

>>58584765
>/g/ please don't be anti-net neutrality just because Trump is against it.
The real reason to be against it is because Hillary is for it. If she says something is good, you KNOW it's a communist plot.

>>58587883
No surprise that the tiny as fuck states (DC isn't even a state) are at the top.

>>58587883
Yea and the majority of libcucks live in those states. hell I do so i caould care less. if republican states don't want it then you should probably fuck off

>>58587738

Alright, so I went to check source on this, but it's reg-walled, so I didn't pursue it further. That said, I see a few potential issues with this rendition of the data:

1) When considering 'average connection speed' in the US, does that figure include dialup users? Does it include people who have no internet access at all? Does it only include users who meet the current United States federal definition of 'broadband'? More information is needed to consider this credible support for your assertion that American internet is better.

2) Pricing. Average prices are completely absent from this chart. It shows us that Belgium's internet speeds are ~1Mbps slower on average, but, for all we know, Belgians could be paying 10% of American rates for those speeds. We'd never know one way or the other from this data.

3) Usage caps. Having faster internet than some of these other countries is less practical if you have data caps that prevent you from effectively utilizing that speed. Again, more information is needed to paint a complete picture.

4) Geographical area. Note that the 10th US state to be featured on the chart (Pennsylvania) is already approaching the average figure given for the United States, and that all of the states in the top 10 are on the east coast. Also note that California and Washington State aren't included, despite being the home of Apple/Google/Silicon Valley and Microsoft respectively, and that the big difference between these two states and the east coast states in the top 10 is geographical size. Given those things, what do you think these statistics indicate about the quality of broadband outside of the US' most densely-populated (and profitable!) urban areas?

>>58587983
>Usage caps. Having faster internet than some of these other countries is less practical if you have data caps that prevent you from effectively utilizing that speed.
Wait wait, what is this, 2005?

>>58587994
Sadly, parts of America still have data caps.

>>58588003
What the actual fuck slavlands have no datacaps since forever.

>>58588003

If you read the fine print, most of them do.

>>58575815
I'm suspicious of the government's purity of motives in anything like this, but there are large pieces of NN that I'm unequivocally in favor of:

> no ISP-determined filtering/censorship
> no "Zero Rating"
> no ISP-determined QoS

I.e., ISPs can't double-jew you on both general bandwidth costs and also the only semi-affordable content gateway, nor can they just blacklist shit arbitrarily.

There is a real need for prioritization/QoS for real-time telephony/televideo, but it needs to be controlled at the client end and only enforced in the ISP's network. I.e., each network device has a maximum unguaranteed bandwidth and a smaller guaranteed one, and can have the ISP allocate portions of the guaranteed inbound bandwidth to individual sockets, etc.

>>58587994
The 250Mbit package I can get at my home (Canada) comes with a 200GB allowance.

Luckily my ISP isn't retarded and you can go to unlimited for 5-10 dollars depending on the speed tier.

Still cheap as fuck overall too which is nice.

Verizon is based so I don't care. refuse to give out ip's to copyright trolls. have solid service assuming you don't get a black. they do try to jew retards with increased upload speeds, but if you're smart they are fantastic. so this whole NN is shite doesn't mean jack shit. things have been fine here for 13 years. Ain't gunna change

>>58588039
It's slowly getting cheaper here in Canada, granted you stay the fuck away from Rogers or Bell unless you jump on some amazing under the table deals.

>>58588015
Americans love getting fucked by corporate dick. I still don't understand it

>>58588039
>Still cheap as fuck overall too which is nice.
How cheap?

>>58588053

You know Verizon is an ad network that leverages their status as a carrier to datamine you, right? Why do you think they bought Yahoo?

>>58588067
Burgerlands are so backwards. I pay 7 burgers for gigabit fiber.

>>58588069
The 250/20 unlimited package comes to about $100 including taxes.

That's $100 in CAD remember

File: [GS] Sabagebu! - 05 (BDRip 1080p 10bit FLAC) [49B85857].mkv_snapshot_19.31_[2015.09.20_21.08.33].jpg (109KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1920x1080px

>>58588035
>>58588067
why is none of what you guys are saying happening or has ever happened. you act like corps are retarded or something. the consumer never lets shit like that happen.
>>58588081
that sounds full tinfoil conspiritard. this is where the ant-corporatists argument falls appart. with no sources or evidence

>>58588100
>100 leafburgers for 250mbit with throttled upload
The fuck.

File: 1361114919275.gif (1023KB, 265x260px) Image search: [Google]

1023KB, 265x260px

>>58575815
Net neutrality is vital to ensure an open marketplace on the internet. Without it, every ISP will start charging for "full speed" access, and only those huge companies that have already made it (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook) will be able to pay. Immediately we get a lack of start-ups because none of them can afford to give their customers fast access to their servers. Research shows that people are far less likely to revisit slow websites.

Also, yes ISPs already filter traffic but that is based on the TYPE of traffic, not the SOURCE or DESTINATION of the traffic. The latter breaks net neutrality, the former is just a form of Quality of Service (i.e. video and audio needs to be real-time, downloads do not - even home routers implement basic forms of this).

tldr; Net neutrality is necessary to ensure a free and open internet and has nothing to do with the government monitoring or controlling bandwidth.

>>58588067
It's the american dream meme that makes them delusional 2bh

>>58588069
Personally I've had a 100d/10u/unlim cap plan for about 5 years now, $50 (not in toronto lol). Unfortunately due to my area, I can't upgrade to faster for the same price.

If you live in Toronto near certain condos, you get unlim, gig down, gig up for $100.

>>58588100
You should hit up rogers.
>250 mbps Unlimited Internet $74.99/month

File: file.png (142KB, 1225x572px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1225x572px

>>58588108
>why is none of what you guys are saying happening or has ever happened
The consumers are willingly letting this shit happen. Are you denying data caps in the US?

>>58588108
>the consumer never lets shit like that happen.
Friendly reminder American "consumers" were totally OK with blaming someone for suing Mcdonalds for burning her legs.
But w/e~~~

>>58588130
>Personally I've had a 100d/10u/unlim cap plan for about 5 years now, $50
That's still a fucking ripoff by my standards. Feels good to be a slav.

>>58588108
wow an anime where characters' bodies aren't ayy lmao

>>58577363
Net neutrality is what we have now, nothing was meant to change you moron.

>>58588152
Which country in particular?

File: no.jpg (26KB, 500x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x450px

>>58588130
>You should hit up rogers.
>250 mbps Unlimited Internet $74.99/month

Except it's $98+tax (~$111) where I am.
Also, it's Rogers therefore >mfw

>>58588132

No, but why are you assuming there's data caps for everyone?

Also, are you denying there's no data caps in Europe?

>>58588108

http://www.webpagefx.com/blog/internet/verizon-buys-yahoo-position-become-third-largest-ad-network/

>Once the acquisition is final, Verizon has the potential to outpace Microsoft, becoming the third largest advertising network, behind Google and Facebook.

http://gizmodo.com/be-afraid-verizon-s-supercookies-to-merge-with-aols-ad-1735131177

>Verizon is merging its cellphone tracking supercookie with AOL’s ad tracking network to match users’ online habits with their offline details.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/4/3727960/verizon-selects-targeted-advertising

>Verizon Wireless has announced that it is launching a marketing initiative that will send customers advertisements based on what activities they perform on its network. The new Verizon Selects program uses location data, as well as both browser and app usage, to help target users with coupons or promotions tailored to their particular interests. Subscribers will then get relevant offers via email, text message, standard mail, or through online and mobile advertisements.

Verizon is an ad network, you idiot.

>>58588111
problem?

>>58588165
Have a wild guess.

>>58588172
I mean, at the end of the day the infrastructure tends to be Bell/Rogers by chance anyways.

Also the deal I posted you have to get by emailing a rogers rep from redflagdeals and then they start the official process. The Rogers website is actually fucking shit when it comes to displaying deals.

>>58588181
Yes.

>>58588173
What the fuck are you even talking about? My original post was talking about people in America taking corporate dick by accepting data caps. Obviously people in Europe don't have them, that's why I'm astounded that people in America would let the corporations fuck them with data caps.

>>58588198
jealousy does that

>>58588182
So do you live near major cities? If so, that explains it.

>>58588182
Pičkaland

>>58588207
Not when i pay 7 burgers for gigabit fiber lane.

File: 1484862888902.jpg (78KB, 724x738px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 724x738px

>>58588195
>offering a better price if you jew yourself to some representative who'll fuck it up within hours
>still rogers
nah thanks

>>58588200
>Obviously people in Europe don't have them,

Wrong. There's data caps in Germany, Italy, France (Britbongs too)... Crap ton of other countries.

They also censor hate speech websites and piracy websites. Why do you like taking government mandated censorship up the ass?

>>58588219
Just trying to help you out familia, but suit yourself~

>>58588210
I live in shithole.

>>58588108
Zero Rating absolutely exists you retard.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating
> Verizon's FreeBee Data program which allows its own customers to access certain content, like ESPN and its video streaming service, for free along with any other relevant app access and the data will not count against their monthly caps.

It's essentially a pay-for-play scheme with the additional twist of also serving their own content.

It's only really been around for a year, but please, learn to keep up with the news.

File: 1481547669187.jpg (39KB, 477x479px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 477x479px

>>58588212
>neglecting to mention your total monthly wage is probably 100 burgers

>>58588225
Name me one place in any of those countries where metered internet is the only option. That is the difference between American internet and fist world internet

File: [HorribleSubs] Ai-Mai-Mi - Surgical Friends - 02 [720p]-00-00-09.634.png (507KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 1280x720px

>>58588132
I can ssay this for a fact we had comcast for years. the instant verizon layed their cable 96% of the 500 homes in my neighborhood grabbed on and have never let go. the issue is Comcast gains a monopoly in places and pulls shit like this. what we need is better competition between isp's and to break up turner and comcast
>>58588146
the mcdonalds issue was actually very serious the woman was incredibly elderly and had 3rd degree burns on her vagina and like 40% of both her legs. mcdonalds went about the case horribly when they should have settled
>>58588180
>http://www.webpagefx.com/blog/internet/verizon-buys-yahoo-position-become-third-largest-ad-network/
cool so Verizon has expanded their portfolio that fails to answer how they are a datamining ad network abusing their wired internet service
>http://gizmodo.com/be-afraid-verizon-s-supercookies-to-merge-with-aols-ad-1735131177
I don't see how this has anything to do with wired isp's
>http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/4/3727960/verizon-selects-targeted-advertising
this is also mobileshit

you seem to be overreacting to something that currently every major mobilephone carrier is doing. but this has nothing to do with net neutrality????

>>58588239
It's actually eleven hundred burgers.

File: raw.gif (397KB, 498x278px) Image search: [Google]

397KB, 498x278px

>>58588239

>>58588238
Verizon doesn't even offer metered plans where I live. no one buys them

>>58588239

I'd rather have dial-up then live in whatever shit hole he's from and is afraid to say.

I don't even think he even has gigabit internet. Post a speed test with a link.

>>58588248

I never said it had anything to do with net neutrality. I simply object to being accused of conspiracy theorism over allegations that Verizon datamines the shit out of its users, accompanied by further accusations of having no sources to back that up.

>>58588248
>the mcdonalds issue was actually very serious
Yes it was. It was incredibly disappointing that so many people fell into the McDonalds trap by blaming the elderly woman. That's just what all this corporatism does to people.

File: stop.png (81KB, 297x326px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 297x326px

>>58588255
>literal poverty

>>58588266
are you talking about wireless or DSL/fiber?

if the former, I don't believe you.

File: goldface.png (572KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 600x580px

>>58588295
>projecting this hard

File: 1484943961136.jpg (88KB, 1214x403px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 1214x403px

>>58577034
>>58577225

>>58588247

Pretty much any rural area in any of those countries.

Also I've already proved we have better internet than Yuroclaps: >>58587738

File: _87340040_adele_laughing_g_976.jpg (53KB, 976x549px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 976x549px

>>58588255
>can barely afford a 1 bed apartment here in the middle of nowhere

>>58588297
well this entire thread is about net neutrality. I don't think mobile networks really fall under this issue as much
>>58588287
then why did you sperg out at me with a conspiracy theory the instant I stated that verizon would be unaffected by net neutrality with regards to wired.

File: keksimus.jpg (20KB, 200x211px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 200x211px

>>58588305
>getting paid a wage so low that it would be illegal where I live

it's ok matey...enjoy your third world wage and standard of living. we all know you'd throw your own family off the top of a building if it meant you'd get a visa to come to Canada or even the US

>>58588316

You haven't proven that at all. See >>58587983. You're basically showing us a photograph of a circle and claiming that it's definitely a ball.

File: 1456280249912.jpg (51KB, 500x338px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x338px

tfw /g/ turns into a political shit flinging board like /pol/ except it's leftism instead of facism

>>58588328
>projections

>>58585108
hurr offering lots of content is bad durr
>>58586426
underrated comment
>>58587059
no not really. CTC.

>>58588345

Please. Point to what you consider 'leftism' in this thread. Go on, I'll wait. I could use a laugh in these dark times.

>>58588345
Nah. It's more /int/ than /pol/.

File: aehl9hqtn5px.png (2MB, 1164x741px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1164x741px

>>58588346
>living pretty much a dream
>earning wages you can only imagine
>apparently projection

>>58588383
>projecting THIS hard

>>58588324
wireless networks were explicitly exempted from NN, to the loss of the general consumer.

the most notable example with cable/DSL fuckery is probably Comcast trying to hamstring Netflix by charging them a blackmail fee to get any sort of near-customer port access.

traditionally bandwidth is bought/sold on the basis of outbound traffic on publicly visible access points, so ISPs trying to charge for inbound traffic is shady and threatens to disturb the natural balance of things if it goes on long enough.

File: 6a017d3f6e48be970c017d40e3450d970c-800wi.png (314KB, 632x466px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 632x466px

>>58588346
>>58588396
btw phambizzle, stating 'projecting' does nothing to mask your jealousy

>>58588356
uninvolved thirdparty here. does your sassayness count????

>>58588341

I have.

That speed data shows the average of all connections. And it applies the same standards with Yurotards as well.

Now you prove to me that you even have gigabit internet. So far you haven't

Then prove to me that there's gigabit internet access for your whole shitty country. I can prove to you that there's gigabit access for an entire flyover US state.

>>58588423

Amusing, but no. I want to see what this anon considers 'leftism', because the United States hasn't been further left than center-right in decades.

File: 1484626702696.jpg (39KB, 512x340px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 512x340px

>>58588396
lets just say most of us wouldn't even get out of bed for $1100 a month

>>58588398
Well I have horrible memories of comcast so hopefully the consumer can take care of that. trump doesn't seem to be a fan of them or time warner.

>>58588441
>>58588412
>burgers are still projecting this hard

>>58588441
honestly you'd get way more by claiming aspergers and getting on some social assistance LOL
I have no idea how others can live off less desu

File: rt.jpg (18KB, 550x309px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 550x309px

>>58588356
tfw fags don't realize their political cancer threads are killing this board

>>58588460
Net Neutrality is crucial to technology and this board, so this thread has a right to exist. Do all those threads with donald trumps image need to exist? Nope. So go bicker with them.

>>58588478
>Net Neutrality is crucial to technology and this board
Unless you're not american.

>>58588460
it has gotten pretty bad the shear number of anti-trump bait threads that are stiring about is getting a bit much. hope the mods start fixing it soon and get it over to the correct board.

>>58588429

I'm Murican, nigga. And you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Can you show me a credible statement that the data rendered 'shows the average of all connections', or am I just supposed to take your word for it? And, as I said before, these speed measurements don't take into account pricing relative to service, don't take into account usage caps, and have their average dragged WAY the fuck up by the densely-populated east coast states.

Your argument is bad (and so is your attempt at data science), and you should feel bad.

>>58588488
No countries operate in isolation anymore retard. They are constantly looking to other countries to inform their decisions. If NN actually takes off in "america", you can bet your fucking ass it will spread like wildfire globally. Through trade negotiations too.

But w/e, stay ignorant~~~

>>58588498
>attempting to discredit a collection of data because it doesn't fit his viewpoint
*giggles*

>>58585432
it's not a free market when ISP has monopoly over high speed internet, see spectrum TWC buyout ruling on data caps

File: loonie.jpg (49KB, 665x443px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 665x443px

>>58588449
>implying I'm even paid in burgers
i'm paid in glorious loons

even a minimum wage ultra pleb would get like 1700 of them and yet here you are thinking 1100 ameri-versions is something to write about

>>58588035
>> no "Zero Rating"
Why, faggot?

>>58588524
You still displayed burger-level intelligence. Sad!

>>58588478
I could have the same discussion on /pol/ as this thread right here. And it's not DJT fans starting all the threads with his picture on them you ignorant fool. And the only thing crucial is your need to shove your opinions into other's face. It's only semi-tech related and 95% political shilling. If it were technical, you would be talking about the details, not the policy. I don't know why you think you are even convincing one person. No one really gives a shit because it won't affect us, and YOU can't do anything other than scream at strangers on a meme board on a meme site. Impotent rage.

>>58588542
Which country do you live in then? Let us see how advanced it is

>>58588515

Data exists in context, you mongoloid. Verizon could promise me 4-gigabit mobile data access, but throttle it to 768k after 2 MB of usage. That doesn't mean that Verizon offers 4-gigabit mobile data access, though they could probably legally claim it at that point.

External factors matter. What you've presented is the data equivalent of a soundbite, which I suppose is to be expected, given the quality of the discourse in this day and age.

>>58575815
>One, doesn't NN mean that the government has far more control over the internet,

No, You fucking idiot.

>>58588549
Take a wild guess.

File: hah.jpg (11KB, 476x356px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 476x356px

>>58588557
>Verizon could promise me 4-gigabit mobile data access, but throttle it to 768k after 2 MB of usage.

That's probably exactly what they'd do desu

>>58588100
>The 250/20 unlimited package comes to about $100 including taxes.
Jelly I pay that much for 10/1 capped at 500gb

>>58588524
Should I remind the board of the current exchange rate? That's something you should apologize for.

>>58588568
And someone, somewhere will be okay with this.

File: 1472174240593.jpg (5KB, 184x220px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 184x220px

>>58588564
>he doesn't want to say directly because of complete shame

>>58588587
Ye.

>>58588557
>wahh why does anyone collect any data that isn't highly specific and favourable to my viewpoint!!!

>>58588583
I'm paid in CAD and buy stuff in CAD so the USD exchange isn't too big of a deal.

>inb4 plebs thinking stuff has got 30% more expensive in the past few years

>>58588546
>literal angst
Can you fuck off back to /pol/? Thanks.

>>58588638
1 bit, many sizes, no changing bits or drills
Clean nearly perfect holes
Quick work without effort
They dont catch nearly as much as twist bits

Unless im working with thick metal theyre my go to, with an automatic center punch youre flying. Big holes in thin metal is all theyre really good for.

I wish i discovered them at 17 instead of 23.

>>58588585
i'm ok with it because phone posters are cancer. read a book.

>>58588152
>That's still a fucking ripoff by my standards. Feels good to be a slav.
>Yes you can build your fibre highway between China/korea/japan and western Europe through our country if you hook us up with sweet net also
Gee slav, I wonder why it is so cheap. Fucking retard.

>>58588498
>Can you show me a credible statement that the data rendered 'shows the average of all connections'

Yes it's the average speed of all wired connections. Same thing with Europe.

>pricing relative to service, don't take into account usage caps, and have their average dragged WAY the fuck up by the densely-populated east coast states.

How would they even have most of that information? They just measure the speed data. Pricing relative to service? Then I would also have to measure pricing relative to income. Bandwidth caps? Also a non-factor. Most don't have any, and the ones that do, 99% of customers wouldn't exceed.10 East coast average drags the rest of the country up (40 states)? You need to learn some basic math.

>>58588630
Don't bother, he's just a monkey raging at anything he can to possibly discredit others now that his entire scam has been pointed out.

>>58588630
you're right you're just making 30% less and things are 5-10% more expensive

>>58588658
>everything I buy is a Canadian made good from Canadian raw materials

no

>>58588620

Are you admitting that inclusion of the aforementioned factors in the dataset would favorably illustrate my argument? Because all I'm arguing for is a more holistic consideration of the landscape, instead of this juvenile "HURRRR WE FASTA" shit. I'm literally only arguing for additional objective facts relevant to the data, and which would explain the data in meaningful ways.

File: jhY1y89z.jpg (157KB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1252x1252px

>>58588670
>you're just making 30% less

which would matter if I was paid in CAD but lived in the US. but I don't.

go to amazon
search beer kit

you can make small batches at a time, there's no requirement about having to use 5 gallon containers....but a space that can fit a 5 gallon bucket would be ample sufficient

more important is that you can maintain the right temperature

>>58588696
>trying to argue with murrican

Hi all,

We patched our web server and since then SSL has been removed from HTTP and I want to know how to enable it again, im guessing its done in IIS? but I dont know much about it and I cant find a guide on it...

So please reply in dummy talk

>>58588670
Canadians suck ass

Net Neutrality is Obamacare of the Internet. Basically it entails that everyone has to have the same internet speed, and it's likely to be very slow, like 3 megabit. It is socialism. If someone wants to pay for priority service, let them.

>>58588794
>this is what happens when america stops investing in education

>>58588794

That's not true, you raging idiot. It only means that service providers can't prioritize traffic from certain sources over others, which, yes, *is* something they've done in the past, *for profit*, and not for network congestion reasons.

>retarded /pol/ crossboarders shilling anti-NN on /g/ because their memelord wills it.
I can't wait for him to disappoint you tools by squirming out of his many retarded band-aid tier promises and """solutions"""

>>58588816
>>58588824
you guys don't know how infrastructure works. kys

File: standardradium.jpg (85KB, 648x1138px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 648x1138px

>>58575815
Pic related, brought to you by the free market. What are you, an actual literal lolbertarian?

Dumbest shit I've seen in a while.

Net neutrality stop ISPs from favouring some content over others when it comes to speed and price. Say for example that a plan from your ISP costs $50 a month, which gets you 100Mbit speeds. Now, the ISP also has their own streaming service. With net neutrality, the ISP must deliver equal service of 100Mbit whether you're accessing their own service, or Netflix or whatever. Without net neutrality, they can offer their own service at 100Mbit, and access to other services at 10Mbit. To 'unlock' the 'higher speeds' (the same speeds that you would be paying less for with NN) you'd need to shell out for a better plan.

The government isn't monitoring your traffic, they're watching ISPs to ensure that they're not delivering unequal service.

>>58588858
you sound upset and brainwashed friendo

>>58588858

/g/ has never been in favor of any leftist legislation

>>58588858
It's only because you keep spamming your NN crap. People will keep spamming the opposite opinion just to piss you off personally and keep the (you)'s coming.

>>58588863
This is why scientists shouldn't be trusted. Literally the religious elite of our era.

>>58588794
Ah, yes, Godwin's law, the rule that says if you want an answer to your question, it's faster to post something flagrantly wrong instead.

I don't have your answer, but I admire your strategy.

>>58588872
Why waste time using sweeping national prohibitions like this when you can punish at the local level where these things actually happen. are you truly educated on the issue?

>>58588896
you sound really pretentious my dude

C-can we all just take a moment to laugh at Australia's shitty internet situation?
>privatize the whole country's telecommunications such that it's all owned by one company
>everyone now gets to pay monopoly prices for the infrastructure they already paid for with taxes
>company, since it's raking in so much cash thinks it might roll out a fibre network
>realises it'd have to lease access to other providers to avoid antitrust issues
>decides not to roll out fibre because it's already making the most money and has no need to offer better service if everyone else would get access too
>government finally steps in and plans to roll out gigabit internet to ~90% of the country
>party loses government and the other party decides to gimp it to 100mbps because """costs""" are too high
All of my REEEs

>>58588907
Force of habit from being forced to be around people who are really beneath me my whole life

>>58586367
The only difference between his analogy and your analogy would be him wording it as "The road toll is $1000, I just offer a discount if you're using Ford." Or in your case "Your internet is $1000 a month, but we offer a special if you also subscribe to <x>"

See literally the "It's not internet slow lanes, it's internet fast lanes" argument.

>>58588913
thankfully america has anti trust and a president who hates TW Comcast monopoly deal unlike the dems who urged that monopoly on

>>58588913
Keep in mind that the Libs and Telstra have been sucking each others' dicks since Telstra gained monopoly, so it's no wonder that we have a shit NBN

>>58588922
So why do you come here?

>>58588922
So where your parents hillbilly's or just black or something my kid?

>>58588913
Plot twist: it's actually a massive international conspiracy to keep the australian shitposters off 4chan.

File: 1411943361404.jpg (17KB, 292x320px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 292x320px

>>58588794

File: 1458516027006.png (54KB, 454x439px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 454x439px

>>58588976

>>58588931
With such a thin line you really think the monopolistic ISPs wouldn't try to fuck you more than they already do? What's to stop them from calling their slow lane the "regular" lane and the regular lane the "ultra fast" lane then charge you out the asshole for it?

>>58588931
that's a complete false equivalency though. internet doesn't work like a car at all

>>58588248
>the woman was incredibly elderly and had 3rd degree burns on her vagina and like 40% of both her legs
How fucking hot can water get? I literally don't understand

Hi First post

I apologize if this has been asked in the past.

Can my employer control "everything" on my phone (company owns the phone iPhone 5s.)

I can retrieve my work emails through the exchange server on the phone and agreed they could remotely wipe the phone if they deemed necessary.

My question is that when I am not on their server (I.e sitting in the office on THEIR WIFI network) can they see what I browse elsewhere? Example, I am at home on MY paid for wifi through the cable company at my house, can the track the web browser traffic while I am at home? And no , I'm not concerned about racy sites, just job searching but on my current employees phone, but doing it on my personal wifi.

Make sense ?

>>58588989
> What's to stop them from calling their slow lane the "regular" lane and the regular lane the "ultra fast" lane then charge you out the asshole for it?

That's literally what happens without net neutrality.

>>58586893
>Cogent made a backroom deal with Comcast against their own business partner to get Netflix to pay up so I became a retard that hates the open internet!
FTFY

>>58589004
Yes, they can control everything on the p hone if it's a work-assigned phone. It's not yours, it's just being lent to you.

As for being able to see traffic...depends on what kind of monitoring they have; if it stores the history / etc. to a local place on the phone then syncs once it gets into the office...sure it's possible. Or even through cell data.

Best thing would be to not use your work phone for anything but work, and use your personal devices for personal browsing (including alternate employment).

>>58589001
McDonalds keeps their coffee at like 190 degrees

water will cause first degree burns in 1 second at 156 degrees.

worse yet she couldn't get her pants off to stop the burning

File: c8e781842f54691216622cdcfb92d7bf.jpg (30KB, 376x384px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 376x384px

>>58588890
(You)

>>58575815
One: We're not asking the government to police the content of the internet, just regulate what we are being charged for the amount of bits we consume, no additional hardware required and nobody has to see the content of what is transferred, that's kind of the point.

Two: That doesn't make sense at all, net neutrality has nothing to do with trade that occurs over the internet.

Three: If your grandma is using 500mb a month she should be charged for that 500mb, not the content of what was transferred. A typical g user who plows through 0.5tb of data should be charged for those bits too. The net is neutral, it doesn't care if your grandma is streaming horse porn or if the g user is performing open heart surgery remotely over the internet.

Finally: Prioritising traffic by urgency is part of how the internet works and is baked into its protocols. Prioritising the traffic that you receive based on how much the sending company paid your bum-fuck ISP is not. You should be charged for the bits, not their content.

What I'm concerned about is if ISP's are allowed to demand tariffs from producers, now that the line between ISP and producer has been blurred; Why the fuck would two ISP's peer? Most of the peering arrangements are so informal as to not even be written down, if ISP's start squabbling over peering agreements, the fabric of the internet could literally be torn to bits.

>>58589034
it is true though. climate scientists get caught lying all the time. I'm sure they probably have a meteorologist pedo protection ring. you will see the truth soon my friendo they are the priestly caste

>>58589031
Thank you for the response!

Is there anyway to tell if they have that tech on my specific phone? Again, I just dint want then access to the browser (looking for jobs) or my personal email (responding to said searches.

I can tell you that it states a VPn is " not connected and also the phone cane straight from Verizon to my desk. No one else has ever touched it.

Thanks!

>>58589032
>McDonalds keeps their coffee at like 190 degrees
I wasn't aware making bad coffee was a criminal offence

>all coffee must henceforth be at most lukewarm lest some dribbling retard thinks it's a good idea to bathe in it clothed

>>58589008
I'm aware, but just trying to get to the people who are still uninformed/on the fence about NN. Those already committed to being anti-NN because of some cult of personality can't be helped.

>>58589049
Your company orders the phones to specs offered by the supplier. if there's a master phone or they are setup to sync to the network at your office, then when you get in range you're borked. If this software is in place, you'll never find it. I'll bet real money it is.
Seems a bit ungrateful to look for another job on your current employer's phone. You're headed for trouble, trust me. I'd fire you if you worked for me.

>>58588699
Did we break you?

>>58589053
Interrestingly that's the argument McDonalds used basically. Our coffee must be hot to be good But it was retarded you never do that to an old lady in front of a jury. Especially when you were trying to make and example to stop these kinds of burn cases and grandma had only asked for enough money to pay her medical bills

>>58589048
You've already memed Donald Trump into the White House, surely we are past the point where we should not be doing this any longer

>>58589053
Have you seen the pictures?
Why do you think she won the case?

>>58589058
Yeah it's stupid. People literally need to Google it and take off le premium tinfoil hat

>>58589083
>Why do you think she won the case?
Clappers love frivolous lawsuits?

I mean I've burned my tongue on one of their shitty over-hot coffees before because I assumed it was a sane temperature but that situation is easy-remedied by not buying their coffee again.

What's irritating is that posting chocolate cuties doesn't happen anymore since the /pol/ faggots started shitposting their Trump shit.

>>58589113
are you a cute boy?

>>58589110
>I mean I've burned my tongue on one of their shitty over-hot coffees before because I assumed it was a sane temperature but that situation is easy-remedied by not buying their coffee again.
I should note that this happened when I was still a teen; it was the first and last time I bought a coffee from mcdonalds lol.
That this woman didn't know mcdonalds' coffee is hot as fuck borders on unbelievable :(

>>58589113
Trump also wants to bring back COAL. I have no idea how he's going to bring back a dying industry that was killed by the free market but you can reasonably assume the government is going to get involved in the industry in some way, most likely through subsidies. Basically coal companies are gonna go on welfare

>>58589053
when you sell cups by the millions it's inevitable that accidents will happen

it's completely idiotic to keep that shit at third degree burn levels

dumb edgy cunt

>>58585432
>I just learned about the libertarian party in my politics class :^)))))))

>>58589133
>it's completely idiotic to keep that shit at third degree burn levels
And yet something like this happened first in what year?

Maybe we should limit cars to a brisk walking pace too because, well, crashes at high speed can kill you.

>>58577034
Could you imagine how better this site would be if posting from mobile wasn't allowed?
T. Posting from phone. I'd gladly sacrifice portable shitposting over site quality.

>>58589131
If by welfare you mean reducing the endless sea of red tape they have to wade through, then possibly.

>>58589125
http://www.gruberlawgroup.com/the-mcdonalds-hot-coffee-case-distortion-reform/

You'd have to be an idiot to support fucking Mcdonalds of all corporate giants

>>58589147
Most manufacturing jobs are killed by better automation and organization replacing the need for more workers. Those jobs are never coming back unless business owners suffer some sort of Luddite movement and stop using unfeeling uncomplaining machines that don't ever sue you when they break and make more than weak and pathetic humans. Trump is at most going to mildly alleviate the problem for a year or so, than it will continue on as normal. Perhaps instead of wasting time on fucking with Mexico or China we should be redistributing the wealth and providing basic income for our nation's people?

http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/china-automation-jobs/

>>58589141
>And yet something like this happened first in what year?
no, it's the first occurrence to lead to a lawsuit. stupid zero-thought assumption you're making.

>Maybe we should limit cars to a brisk walking pace too because, well, crashes at high speed can kill you.
you don't need a permit to buy coffee you stupid motherfucker. and regulations are being added every year to make cars safer and less likely to cause injury or death.

jesus fuck how does your brain work?

>>58589147
Liberals don't understand that Coal and Oil are the only real energy sources (Nuclear is non-existant because it's dangerous, Solar/Wind generals fuck all), it's best to improve what we have than putting our eggs in a basket of failed tech.

>>58589157
>Stella Liebeck
Sounds like a greedy jew to me. Looks like one, too.

>>58589167
Not just that. Imagine that Wal-mart owns the tubes, and due to their influence, not only are the tubes to Wal-mart intentionally made faster, the tubes to Target are intentionally made *slower*.

That's what happens when net neutrality isn't enforced. Seriously. Comcast was choking the life out of Netflix streams in an effort to wring more money out of them, and speeds went right back up as soon as an agreement was reached. It was shameless, and it single-handedly demonstrates why you retards are wrong and NN is an essential part of a viable internet.

http://knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

To say net neutrality gives government control over the content of the Internet is like being worried about laws against homicide because what if the government decides to kill everybody.

Government power and regulation is not a sliding scale, the context matters of what it regulates and how. One regulation is not necessarily begat another specific regulation.

Net neutrality is the exact opposite of government saying what content is permissible, it is prohibition of activity by ISPsthat can stifle access to certain websites. This coin does not have another side where it says that ISPs must stifle access to other websites.

Second this control has been the defacto regulation for most of the existence of the public Internet.

As to point three, this is only something that makes sense for an American but otherwise is not actually part of neutrality. You have no idea how underdeveloped our Internet infrastructure is and how inexcusable bandwidth charges are for a first world country.

Sure faster connection speeds can require more charges but it has to be faster connection speeds to the overall Internet. You can't do cable packages for getting faster speeds but only to certain websites.

And yes you can even limit charges based off only a certain amount of gigabytes per month, but then every single byte of data over the Internet has to be charged the same.

But it's 2017 and the idea of bandwidth limits is out right African.

>>58575815
All net neutrality does is make it illegal for service providers to prioritize traffic to a site, AND illegal to throttle traffic to a site.
The government does not need to constantly monitor everything. If the crime is committed and it is discovered through routine inspection, or through complaints by users of the ISP, then action can be taken. It is not difficult, once suspicion has been aroused, to test if an ISP is breaking laws around net neutrality.

The argument for net neutrality is about free market capitalism. Thing is, ISPs are often given a large amount of control over the market and even get tax breaks or incentives from cities for laying down lines to places that don't already have them. It would be one thing if we could have the choice of two ISPs - one that does allow prioritization of traffic but offers their service at a lower price (due to sponsorship) versus one that does not prioritize traffic but has a higher service cost. That is not the case in most places around the US. Most places do not have a choice between fiber-optic providers; so you're either stuck with a much slower conneciton all around, or you pay a ton more for a faster connection with the "cable" company. The cable companies - specifically Comcast - are lobbying the hardest to defeat net neutrality.

There will be some on the anti-net neutrality side which will say that things like heart-surgury video sessions should be prioritized over videogame streaming. Okay...but that would only be true if the other traffic was significantly slowing everything else down. There is not the case, so there is no need to prioritize anything. Connections are already fast enough and servers are not functioning at maximum capacity EVER. If there is a problem, it's likely due to other (usually local network or software) issues. There is no moral highground for anti-NN people, because there is no reason to do it other than monopolization of the internet.

Holy shit, the amount of people who are for "zero-rating" (which is a disguised form of anit-NN) simply because it's """free stuff!!!""" makes me sad

>Net Neutrality is anti-gate keeping.
>Providers desperately want gatekeeping, but they can't simply install a gate, users would complain about things not being let through the gate and being forced to walk around, this is the FCC right now.
>Providers instead decide to implement the gate, but instead of shutting the gate to certain things, they force everything to walk around, but keep the gate open for """special FREE content"
>FCC says no, this isn't allowed, there shouldn't be any gates in the first place
>Users eat it up because they're getting """"free stuff"""", complain against the FCC for getting rid of their """free stuff""" and become anti-NN
>Providers with congressional lobbying and misled popular support institute anti-NN
>Providers are free to shut the gate to things that they don't want to, but also build fences to let things they don't want to not even enter in the first place.

The reason this is so shitty is because we paid for these networks in the first place.

>government uses tax money to sponsor copper networks across the nation
>private networks get monopoly power over subsidized networks, make consumers pay hiked prices
>Since actual operation of the network isn't costly at all, say that higher prices are for "continued expanshun of the network" or some bullshit
>companies are beginning to roll out fiber networks due to increased demand for higher speeds (netflix) and pressure from outsiders like google fiber who have made it clear that they are not "playing by the rules"
>Corporations lobby against obama, google fiber dies since corporations already own exclusive rights to the network
>FCC is pro NN, meaning providers can't utilize their monopoly power through normal browsing, only on types of files transmitted (video, webpages, audio) and overall speed
>Providers are mad they can't gatekeep

>>58589167
Go die in a fire. Basic income is socialism extreme. Why work or get training for a good job when the government is giving you all you need?

Socialism; Punishing success, rewarding failure.

File: 1453590684680.png (62KB, 1870x189px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 1870x189px

>>58589181
>posting it again
Jesus christ the spambots/paid shills are out in force today.

>>58589131
Dumb shit like this is what got him elected. Instead investing in long term, sustainable sources of energy, hey, at least we got AMERICAN jobs and AMERICAN coal, just like how our AMERICAN grandpappies used do, then they can get some AMERICAN borne lung diseases because they had their healthcare repealed.

>>58589170

Coal and oil are shit-tier energy sources. Sure, they're energy-dense, but they're non-renewable (which means they'll get progressively more expensive as we continue to use them!), terrible for the environment, and literally toxic to us.

Nuclear is only dangerous if you're retarded (the Fukushima Daiichi plant kept their backup generators *in the fucking basement*), and solar/wind have crazy scalability, relatively low maintenance costs, and are making rapid efficiency gains.

You're either woefully misinformed or being deliberately disingenuous.

>>58589200
>thinks googling is hacking
>is somehow competent to hide exploits in open source projects

haha oh boy are you a dumb one

>>58588989
>What's to stop them from calling their slow lane the "regular" lane and the regular lane the "ultra fast" lane then charge you out the asshole for it?
That's what I said. Were you not reading?

>>58589199
this so much.

>want to start new music streaming service
>get capital
>hire people
>buy hardware
>develop software
>deploy service
>nobody buys it because ISPs have free Spotify or Apple Music
>free market completely and utterly subverted as a result
>but it's OK when it's not the gubmint that fucks everything up right

>>58589235
That sucks

This is why you should avoid Amazon tech, literally ad riddled and proprietary bloatware trash.

>Nuclear is non-existant because it's dangerous
This is a joke right, nuclear is non-existent because people think it's dangerous. They think this because of shitty construction and safety measures.

>Solar/Wind generals fuck all
Seems like you've never been to outback anywhere. it generates fuck all if the plants they're being built in are located urban areas.

>>58589220
We have enough Oil and Coal to last centuries at our current rate of energy consumption growth. Who said it was toxic? Bill Lie the Science Guy?

>>58588225
>Wrong. There's data caps in Germany, Italy, France (Britbongs too)... Crap ton of other countries.
I'm pretty sure none of those countries have data caps, not on wired connections at least, mobile data is metered in most countries

>>58589200
Apparently you never studied history. FDR's New Deal pulled us out of the Great Depression. It provided us with the infrastructure (specifically the highways, roads, tunnels, bridges, and dams) to continue to grow our economy.
Socialism works very well if applied correctly.
You are probably anti-communist, but communism and socialism are not the same thing.

>>58589209
Yeah, apparently no one realizes how bad things were. It's funny because Donald Trump is actually in a documentary called "The Men Who Built America". He actually is in the fucking documentary. In that documentary you see just how bad things get when you have little to no regulation and when workers are not properly represented.

File: 1a6.png (103KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 250x250px

Why aren't isp's lobbying super hard against net neutrality. I have never seen a pac or anything funded by them thjat isn't politically left. most of the major ISP's seem anti-republican currently because they prefer the anti-competitive nature of democratic restrictions

If I was a democrat in America I would be furious with the election.

More wanted Hillary (I know Amerilards have a different system of working it out and Trump won), and it was the people actually contributing to the economy who wanted Hillary.

>>58589249
yeah nuclear would actually be fine. but it's extremely hard to make people forget hindenburg/chernobyl tier events.

>>58589252
the entire fucking scientific consensus. except for a handful of sock puppets.

>>58589252

http://www.rmi.org/RFGraph-health_effects_from_US_power_plant_emissions

Has your argument seriously devolved into suggesting that coal and its byproducts are not poisonous to humans?

>>58589199
cont.

notice there was a big push for internet speeds right when google fiber came along?

Comcast would drastically reduce prices and magically increase speeds in cities where google fiber provided, but as soon as they said "we can't deal with the physical monopolies", isps are back at it again raping wallets.

Now that trump is in office and doesn't know jack shit about technology and is being pandered to by isp advisors who keep saying they "need NN in order to keep running the network and expanding" or some bullshit, we're definitely going to see some isps implementing restrictions on their services, just because they can

>>58589269
that sounds like a non sequitur. why do you hate people human rights?