Again? Congress still messing with net neutrality

>>58596406
>>>/reddit/

>>58596432
the donald? Great idea.

>>58596340
Welcome to 4chan you cucking nigger loving kike faggot. kek

This isn't Reddit. We get to have a little more "net neutrality" round these parts boy.

No one is going to change because of your sjw feels. This is a place that still has a hint of freedom.

>>58596437
nice job putting words in my mouth, faggot

>>58596340

You need to back

>>58596549
Ok, That is all good and well, but what about the priority bits in the ipv6 header? does that violate net neutrality as you described it? Is there a good non shilled article describing the comcast/netfilx mess?

>>58596438
???

Funny, about two years ago /g/ called anyone against net neutrality a kike and now they're against it? What gives?

>>58596592
Their god is against it so /pol-- I mean /g/ is against it.

>>58596585
The story begins back in March, when the strictly legal debate over the FCC’s limited authority over broadband ISPs first turned toxic with inflammatory statements from Netflix CEO Reed Hastings on the company’s blog.

The 2010 rules, even if reinstated, were too “weak,” Hastings wrote. “A stronger form of net neutrality is required,” he insisted, to “prevent ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix” and other dominant content providers. To protect the Internet, he wrote, the FCC must force ISPS to provide Netflix “sufficient access to their network without charge.”

At the time, Netflix was concluding a series of agreements with leading ISPS to directly interconnect Netflix’s proprietary content delivery technology with their networks, as other large content providers had long done. Before that, and to keep up with rapid growth, Netflix has been paying third-party transit providers including Cogent and Level 3 and general purpose content delivery networks, which are provided by companies such as Akamai and Limelight.

Hastings, dissatisfied with the negotiations, urged the FCC to redefine net neutrality, transforming it from a set of last-mile consumer protections to detailed government control of connections at the Internet’s back-end. Rather than pay the transit providers, Netflix wanted to connect directly to the ISPs and do so “without charge.”

And Hastings demanded that the FCC make such arrangements a matter of federal law.

>>58596602
Well fuck me if California fucked things up. Maybe it was due to heavy tax increases, you ever stop to think about that!? Has anything gone right in Cali since the 1960s? Might as well use Detroit and how fucked up they are for a call for net neutrality.

Eh, I'm in favor of nationalized water supply and state electricity companies, but in technology, this would probably be an end to modernization

Net neutrality is extremely important, and the way it used to be until now and hopefully will be in the future after this is optimal. Making corporations operate under conditions that ensure the customers actually benefit and are guaranteed to not get screwed over while still allowing innovation is just as it should be.

Also, being rather conservative myself, it's painful to suddenly see so many other conservatives, who until a few months ago probably neither knew nor cared about net neutrality come out of the woodwork to tell us that it is bad because their corporate shill of choice told them so. Then they also pretend that net neutrality hasn't existed until now and would be a terrible thing if introduced to scare even more people away. Yes, yes, comcast knows what's good for you and when government does something, even when they're listening to public outrage for once, it's ALWAYS bad, didn't you know?

File: 1452398609941.jpg (129KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 960x960px

>>58596406
It's already happening though, anon.

Most people don't know what net neutrality is, and the special breed of retards who just heard a senior GOP'er call it "Obamacare for the internet", aren't going to catch a speeding ticket on their way to library to get all the facts before accepting it as truth. You don't seem to appreciate just how retards the people who vote for these retards are.

>>58597011
House Speaker John Boehner statement:

>It’s disappointing, but not surprising, that the Obama administration continues to disregard the people’s will and push for more mandates on our economy. An open, vibrant Internet is essential to a growing economy, and net neutrality is a textbook example of the kind of Washington regulations that destroy innovation and entrepreneurship. Federal bureaucrats should not be in the business of regulating the Internet – not now, not ever. In the new Congress, Republicans will continue our efforts to stop this misguided scheme to regulate the Internet, and we’ll work to encourage private-sector job creation, starting with many of the House-passed jobs bills that the outgoing Senate majority ignored.

What's the big deal with net neutrality?

So you don't want ISPs (which already have a monopoly due to government interest) to give popular sites (like Netflix or Facebook) better speeds?

Why? It only benefits the consumers at the end of the day. I have T Mobile and I love that I can use popular streaming services without worry.
But you net neutrality cucks hate it. Why?

>>58597045
Mostly for the same reason you can't just install wi-fi hotspots and repeaters in every room to get perfect reception. The wi-fi spectrum allocation is limited and you'll run into a lot of radio interference.

If you want mesh network topology done right you'll still have to do a lot of wired connections. Plus there's also the issue of adoption. We can't even get most people onto an open instant messaging protocol or reseed torrents, how do you expect them to participate in a mesh where sharing and openness is fundamental to the network health?

It's probably a better short-term idea to stand up for net neutrality and lobby for ISPs to be defined as common carriers. At least while we can figure out how to make this shit feasible.

>>58597045
If services like netflix and facebook are given better speeds by ISPs that pay more for it, it'll be impossible for any competing service to startup. You'll get jew'd over because they can.

>>58597085
>pay for more bandwidth
>get more bandwidth
>literally hitler!@!@!@!

>>58597155
>>You cant escape it.
Verizon just made a silly mistake though. They said that their networks were in fact not congested even though their entire argument against net neutrality is that services like netflix are causing their networks to get congested and they need to have the right to throttle them. This could get interesting if netflix chooses to peruse the cause in court.

>>58597172
Are you a bot?

>>58597085
Not true.

I stop using Spotify despite it getting free data because it lacked a lot of music I enjoy.

Net neutrality is a meme, literally nothing will change on the world wide web (web browsing), this will only change things like streaming services like netkikes and jewlu for example.

>>58597201
Paying by bandwidth is great and would be neutral.

What the issue is is that some packets cost more than other packets just because of what's contained in them, where they're going etc. Net neutrality is about all packets being treated the same, not about bandwidth.

>>58597213
The FCC wants to make it so ISP's can completely block any websites they want and charge you for individual websites you've visited. This will be bad for everyone everywhere! Just imagine trying to explain to your parents why there's a fee for all that dragon dildo porn you love so much, /g/

You can still make your voice heard right now. Make a short, sound, and reasonable argument to the FCC as to why Net Neutrality is necessary! Just fill out the form by clicking "Proceedings 14-28" at the top of the page

http://www.fcc.gov/comments

>>58597213
All packets contain the same amount of data though. Its just that some applications send more packets than others, or in the case of streaming use UDP lmao.

I just don't get net neutrality. You want the government to regulate the internet. Why?

>>58597236
Are you a bot? Will you ever respond to me?

>>58597240
>your hardware becomes obsolete in three years

lolwut

Cloud is going to be killed by the death of net neutrality

ISPs are going to start charging for that shit, and cloud prices will go up

>>58597248
You should have had that sentiment BEFORE net neutrality went down the drain. Now it is much harder to do something about it. Fucking faggots saying "oh, it just means that companies are allowed to pay for faster service, they won't slow down sites or try keeping you from connecting to them". Fucking Americans can't think with all the fat hogging the oxygen.

Aw fuck me. Last time I read about this they said it was a plan for the distant future. Now data caps are just around the corner. Fuck you Cuntcast. It's bad enough they fuck net neutrality and now there are caps.

Prepare your asshole /g/. Another few years and the internet will be a larger itunes store

>>58597347
AMD:
never supported SOPA
never lobbied against net neutrality
contributes to GCC, has never contributed any performance optimizations that would cripple code on other X86 chips
never bribed OEMs to create what is effectively a monopoly
never paid off reviewers to publish phony benches to make their CPUs look better than they really were
never got censured by the US government as well as the EU for unethical business practices
never worked hand in hand with the MPAA to create new forms of DRM
created Mantle to push both OpenGL and D3D forward in performance and low level optimization
created the HSA foundation to push forward compute languages and codify a system for programmability across all logic in a system with data coherency at its core
created AMD64, the 64bit extension to X86 used by every modern X86 processor
has created countless other standards and freely contributed them to the computing world


They're the only CPU vendor worthy of my business, despite being crippled by a decade of poor management.

It's not net neutrality the FCC approved internet slow lanes. It still has a few more trials to go through but in all likeliness it's probably going to pass at some point

>>58597559

Ajit Pai was appointed by Obama: FACT

Tom Wheeler said he was a fan of 0 rating: FACT

Comcast/Universal merger happened under Obama: FACT

>>58597579
Net neutrality ensures that ISPs will treat all traffic as the same. If it's dead, that means ISPs can throttle traffic that competes with their services (i.e. Comcast throttling Netflix so people will buy their cable package). Alternatively, they can also make the content provider pay more for their traffic so that they get a cut of their profit (like what Comcast is currently doing to Netflix). It's a bad thing for everyone but the cable companies if Net Neutrality is not enforced.

>>58597482
AMD:
makes shit hardware

just want to make this shit real for you

if net neutrality is killed, expect 4chan to run a LOT MORE ADS

actually

EXPECT EVERY SINGLE SITE TO RUN A LOT MORE ADS, INCLUDING GOOGLE/FACEBOOK

the ISPs are going to charge to deliver faster internet to the domains, so of course they need to recoup these charges at some point, so that means selling ads or charging for use

net neutrality dies = more expensive web browsing

>>58597041
we're fucked, aren't we

>>58597761
>what is adblock
Let the normies bear the weight of the ads. I remember installing adblock on my sister's computer because I was using it for a night and she asked "is that even legal" and apparently changed it back for some reason.

>>58597045
Net neutrality isn't holding back speeds, American ISPs are - intentionally. What they'd rather do is charge you extra for that speed when they could easily give it to you for free. Net neutrality prevents them from doing that right now, but because the US government doesn't regulate "the last mile" ISPs have effective monopolies on most consumers so they get away with poor and unreliable service.

Do you understand how T Mobile's "Binge" streaming works? They rate limit the quality of everything you stream to 420p - not just the stuff you "binge" but everything you watch on your phone at all times.

Basically no other developed countries in the world have these kind of predatory ISP practices because they're REGULATED by the GOVERNMENT so that the companies have to be fair to the consumer.

>Obama instituted net neutrality
>nothing happened

>Trump removes net neutrality
>nothing happens

>>58596340
That's from 7 months ago, before Trump was elected. Now that Ajit Pai is FCC chairman, net neutrality is toast without congress having to lift a finger.

>>58597045

>So you don't want ISPs (which already have a monopoly due to government interest) to give popular sites (like Netflix or Facebook) better speeds?
No.

Why? It only benefits the consumers at the end of the day. I have T Mobile and I love that I can use popular streaming services without worry.
But you net neutrality cucks hate it. Why?
Because it's a pay-to-win game.

Here's a scenario for you:
Your ISP makes a deal with <popular service(s)> to streamline their content (first and foremost, if they can so easily streamline this content, they can streamline basically any content and should be offering you better service overall, but let's ignore that for now). A new <competing service> is a rising star, offering excellent deals to users at lower cost, but unfortunately they can't afford the "streamline" tax at your ISP, or your ISP refuses to pay ball to keep <popular service> on top because they now have a financial interest in <popular service>'s success. <competing service> therefore runs like shit on your network, <competing service> loses because pay-to-win, and therefore you lose because you got the shittier deal.

>>58597603
>bot