Net Neutrality was a mistake

>>59176957
You idiot

The legislators told me net neutrality was for my freedom even though nobody besides them has ever read it and won't be able to until they're accept it.

You're not anti-freedom are you?

Dumb.fuck.
Data limits are imposed by the ISPs themselves.
Data is free once the cost to maintain infrastructure are met - through your monthly payment plan. We see this evidently in countries like S Korea, Japan, and even fucking Romania. None of those countries have data caps imposed by ISPs - hence no need for 'zero rating'. In addition, zero rating only 'favors' certain companies who could pay for premium rates- like Facebook, and Google. While sites like your oh so favorite 4chan gets charged for the cap; I don't see how this can create competition. The repeal of Net Neutrality rules would allow ISPs to hide informations about pricing and network speed, so have fun with your 100$ monthly plan and 1kb speed to 4chan but 100mb to facebook. Atleast Ajit promised rural internet right, so they get to enjoy the same annoying shit that we all now have to face.

>>59178690
Have fun with your $1000 monthly plan with 1kb site to every website because that's allowed under net neutrality.

Net neutrality is a classic case of trying to fix what isn't broken. None of all the fear-mongering bullshit that net neutrality proponents have been claiming is just around the corner has happened. ISPs are still happily serving the entire internet in a totally neutral way without any legislation required without any signs of change.

>>59178706
And thats how I know you don't know what net neutrality is, or how the internet works

>>59178744
Net netraulity is about treating all data equal. It is perfectly fine to make all data equally slow.

>>59178737
Its not trying to fix what isnt broken. Its to prevent people from breaking it in the first place. Because its only recently that they repealed it, its too early to say that they wont break it though.

Net neutrality is really stupid, the problem is there is no competition with ISPs in NA

>>59178751
And if an ISP treats all your data equally slow, you can always switch to another ISP. Thats the essence of the free market - switch to competitors for better service. You can do that because ISPs are required to provide price and speed info - and they damn well are required to be truthful info. Now with Net Neutrality repealed you are doing the equivalent of shopping in the sark - buying internet plans and hope that they don't screw you over.

>>59178813
You can always switch to another ISP that doesn't throttle 4chan :^)

>>59178781
That is a good point you made. I agree with you on that. But if I get raped no matter what I do, I'd rather get raped once rather than twice.

>>59178813
>some people try an ISP
>everyone says its shit
>everyone switches to a different isp
that's why they won't just screw you over, as long as there's competition
companies tell the truth because that's how you get customers, not just because they're forced to by the government

>>59178822
And if they all decide to throttle 4chan?

>>59178849
And if they all decide to charge $1000 a month and throttle everything?

>>59178774
But nobody is breaking, nor will they ever. The economic downsides of being non-neutral already are incentive enough.

>>59178839
Companies know that telling the truth doesn't get customers - why do you think the FDA require food products to have nutrition labels and ingredient lists. It's because claiming that you food is healthy for your body when it's loaded crap gets peoples attention. And please don't say the customer should've know better - finding out whether or not something is nutrition requires incredibly difficult expertise and knowledge that none of you - certainly me - has.

I don't understand. Didn't large parts of the US used to have unlimited plans? What went wrong?

>>59178911
Smartphones became more popular, and people started using them to stream video instead of just checking email.

>>59178878
But they are breaking. Zero rating is evidence of ISPs trying to indirectly throttle certain websites with data caps while skirting Net Neutrality rules. The investigations are to amend Net Neutrality so this loophole cannot exist.

>>59178922
That may be true for cellphone networks but torrents used to be massively popular back when unlimited plans were still common and used a shitload of bandwidth/data.

>>59178930
VoLTE must be absolutely evil too then right?

>>59178951
I don't know what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that I would think VoLTE is against net neutrality because it carries more data than voice, which must mean voice is being selectively throttled? Can you clarify?

>>59179060
VoLTE calls do not count against your data caps.

File: Foucault.jpg (32KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x500px

>>59176957

The "free market" is the reason the US is plagued by duopolies who have cornered the telecoms market. The industry was "dergulated" back in the late 1990s.

The free market promotes competition. In a competition there are winners and losers. We're currently living in an environment where the winners of the competition have cornered the market. Their economies of scale keep competitors out of the market entirely.

This is the "free market" in action.

Countries that have State ownership of infrastructure have better, cheaper, internet than the US.

Fact.

>>59179120
Why stop at infrastructure? Everything should be owned by the State!

>>59176957
>be me
>be an ISP
>get free taxpayer money to build network infraestructure
>still charge more than Europeans or South American ISPs
>impose data caps
>monitor and sell user's data habits to advertising companies
>throttle users that take "too much" data
>try to create a """free""" unlimited plan that will, in reality, only offer connectivity to our advertisement overlords and their websites (Facebook, Google, etc.)
>bribe, I mean, lobby to abolish laws forbidding this
>our consumers are so retarded they're actually defending all this shit

Between this and their fucked up college and medical systems, do 'murricans love to get cucked or what?

>>59179149

>"Reductio Ad Absurdum" fallacy.

Try again.

>>59179149
There's no need to be so condescending. Most industries should be privatized but it makes sense for things such as roads and hospitals to be public goods.

>>59179081
The problem with zero rating is that all other service but a select few count against data caps. The problem isn't that VoLTE are not counted against the data cap, but rather why then would a 4chan post count towards the data cap. VoLTE isn't evil on its own, but the ISP's practice of throttling all other traffic is.

>>59179179
Because you arealso paying for the service to make phone calls. The method of transmission should be irrelevant to the cost structure.

>>59179176

Indeed.

There is only one shortest route between two points. If someone owns that route they have a monopoly.

Most "free market" types fail to understand this.

>>59176957
Someone give me a quick rundown of this loli

>>59179202
If they have a monopoly why would they lease their infrastrucutre out to MNVOs?

>>59179200
I'm not arguing that VoLTE should be abolished,nor am I arguing that VoLTE should count against the data cap, if I understand you correctly. I'm arguing for the fact that if VoLTE does not count against the data cap, then neither should all other traffic. The destination you're transmitting to should not affect your cost structure.

>>59179296
Then you are saying there should be no data caps, which is an issue compeltely separate from net neutrality.

>>59179202
>muh series of tubes

Also...
https://archive.fo/afG5p

>>59179306
I just simply mustake the argument you're trying to make. Can you please clarify your argument again?

>>59178853
Time to make my own provider.

Net neutrality is just socialism on the internet domain. As always, the proponent will call upon "EQUALITY" as the reason. In reality, it is a way for government to put it filthy hand on private businesses and control them.

Net neutrality is no different than universal healthcare. The government says "healthcare is a human right" and ignore the facts that medicine costs money to make and force insurance companies and hospitals to give different treatment option at different price which resulted in clusterfucks as always.

>>59179371
> Net neutrality is no different than universal healthcare
Actually, a free internet for everyone is no different than universal healthcare.

>>59179371
Nice false flag.

File: dude naw.jpg (113KB, 1000x624px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1000x624px

>>59179412
>false flag

>>59178878
Except when a site contains critique of the corporatized state.
Burying such thought has already been in effect passively for some time, but now it can be overt.

>>59179166
You left out the part about never actually using the taxpayers money to build infrastructure and just pocketing it all.

>>59179371
Hasn't universal healthcare been overwhelmingly successful wherever it is in place?

>>59178813
Unless you live in or near a city, only one ISP is available.

File: The_Itchy_&_Scratchy_&_Poochie_Show_29.JPG.jpg (75KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 512x384px

>>59179166
People who don't see this are either willfully blind (everything Trump does is great maga) or confused by industry shills.

They've been fucking us hard for years and now they want to ram another dick up our asses. They'll get their way too, now that they have Jeet Pa in charge.

>>59178706
Have fun with your $1000 pr website monthly plan with 1kb site to every website because that's allowed without net neutrality.

>>59178813
>And if an ISP treats all your data equally slow, you can always switch to another ISP.

I'll just move. Brilliant.

Seeing very few people here who actually understand this issue. The rest of you will learn soon enough.

>>59180746
>Australian minister in charge of fucking up the NBN rollout so some areas get FTTN and other third-rate technologies
>"if connectivity was so vital to you why did you buy a house where there was no broadband available?"

>>59178839
>companies tell the truth because that's how you get customers, not just because they're forced to by the government

Thanks, LOLed hard. Obviously you've never had to deal with a telecom company.

There are studies sometimes about telecom billing errors - more than 80% of the "errors" are in the favor of the company. Lying makes a lot of money. Honesty, not so much.

>>59178922
So why not just limit 3g/4g data and keep home connections unlimited?

>>59178878
>But nobody is breaking, nor will they ever. The economic downsides of being non-neutral already are incentive enough.

I bet my house they will. There are obvious incentives. Some of them are not even "evil" profiteering ones.

E.g. lets say an ISP gets a consistently high volume of complaints about slow youtube. They have to decide, upgrade the network, or just prioritize that traffic on their existing network to reduce the complaints? Obviously they do the latter because its cheap. Sounds like a win win for everyone - except youtubes competitors.

>>59179120
This is the """"free market"""" in action. Not the actual Free Market.

>>59180866
But the thing is, the kinds of sites that would force them to consider these decisions usually already represent a disproportionate amount of the traffic, so I seriously don't think your random mom & pop site is going to be affected much. Unless they decide to just throttle everything but netflix & youtube to oblivion but people would complain if they did that and it would be transparent as fuck.

Only other thing they could do is do the opposite and slow down streaming services because they want to sell their own cable, but that means they have to go defend themselves in court from the inevitable lawsuits that those services will bring against them, so it probably wouldn't be worth it.

>>59180568
If you consider paying 70% of your income in taxes and still die while waiting to get treatment a success I guess it is a successful

>>59180915
>>>59180568
>and still die while waiting to get treatment

I always see this getting brought up as a reason against universal healthcare , got a source?

>>59179120
wow, you seem like a pretty smart dude. you should come with me for a helicopter ride some time

>>59180866
t. someone who doesn't understand how the internet works and doesn't realize ISPs already prioritize some sites over others through routing
I'm always amazed at how computer illiterate /g/ is

>>59180959
you'll only find sources for this from developing nations that don't lie about how many patients die waiting for treatement.
in first world countries this happens less often but the media doesn't cover it because it goes against the narrative, just like those German New Year Eve mass rape things that happened both in 2017 and 2016.
When the government control the statistics for something they are very unlikely to admit is a failure

>>59180914
>I seriously don't think your random mom & pop site is going to be affected much.

Only for as long as it stays a mom & pop site. The bigger it gets, the worse it hurts them. Which is the whole point.

Treating traffic differently based on the company harms competition. The degree to which it harms competition changes based on the particulars.

>>59179176
>Most industries should be privatized but it makes sense for things such as roads and hospitals to be public goods.
No, it doesn't. Roads should be privatized so they'll actually get maintained. Hospitals should be privatized so skilled people have incentive to work there for higher pay. The private sector is superior at allocating resources, no matter the industry.

>>59181039
And once they get big enough won't they have the resources to defend their rights in court if need be? ISPs know that too, they're not going to fuck people over that have the ability to retaliate.

>>59180978
Um, reread my post please. Adding new circuits and routes is exactly "upgrading the network". They HAVE to do that now. Thats what we want.

They wont have to do anymore under the new FCC though.

>>59181053
Theres no retaliation, though. Without net neutrality rules they're not violating anything.

>>59181113
The services being discriminated against would argue that it's anti-competitive. The burden would be on the ISPs to prove in court that it is not, which would be risky and costly for them.

>>59178813
In America you can't switch to a new ISP. Many only have 1 or 2 available and they don't even offer the same services.

That's why net neutrality matters, even if it is commie bullshit. So long as competition and the free market can't make home internet service better you need a regulation to prevent it from turning into horrible unusable garbage

>>59180883

There is no such thing as the free market. There is only the "free market".

>>59178706
EU fag here, I pay less than $10/month for 100 mbps up/down.

>>59179120
You just explained how the free market failed because the government halted competition

The governments role in economics is to allow for competition and prevent monopolies

The government failed

File: tmp_8679-1488185282586707771727.jpg (123KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 500x500px

Niggers, are you really this dumb or it's an undercover operation of forming of the public opinion how good it is without Net Neutrality?
That bullshit is even worse than China internet blocking, because Chinese say it straight that there are sites which they don't like. Here we have paywalls for sites THEY don't like and they call it "bettering the customer service".

>>59182215
>The governments role in economics is to allow for competition and prevent monopolies
If government participates in economy regulation, market ain't free.

File: 495a4b49f8388aaf665056c0bcdc12c3.jpg (26KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x400px

>>59178839
>everyone switches to a different ISP

i don't know about where you live but here in burgeria the ISPs divide up the areas so they don't have competition, which is why telecom companies are free to fuck every single one of their customers over

>>59182668
Vote with your mortgage. Move to a different town owned by a different ISP.

>>59182703
This is bait, right?

>>59179120
Except Japan's ISPs are really good and still privatized. Meanwhile government owned ISPs in Eastern Europe are shit....

>>59178813
Yeah! I can switch from Comcast to Time Warner! OH wait....

>>59176957
> But the truth is that consumers like getting something for free
>Our recent decision simply respected consumers’ preference.

Yet they demand the government to legislate in order to protect their copyrighted material.

That's ancap reasoning right there

>Boo, no want big gov!
>B-but except for the part that puts people that don't consume from us in jail!

>>59181799
Now compare the average income in your third world shithole with that of the U.S.

>>59183043
Actually, I should compare the cost of living and not the average income, but whatever, the average income in the US is like 2-3 times that of my coutry's.

>>59183088
So internet should still be cheap as fuck. You just have shitty ISPs and are somehow proud of it, on a fucking technology board of all places.

>>59183088
So ISPs pay their employees 2-3 times less.
Really makes you think...

>>59182497
Wrong

Free market does not mean what you think it means. Free market does not mean no regulation of competitors, it means free ability to enter trade. It means competition is the driving factor. Monopolies are not free markets.

>>59183125
So if ISPs paid their employees 2-3 times more money, it would cost the customer 100 times the money. Really gets the noggin joggin'.

>>59183332
I don't know what you are talking about. I pay $40 a month for 100 Mb/s and I'm considered to be in a bad area for ISPs.

>>59182215

The government DEREGULATED telecoms in the 1990s. It handed control to private companies, who went into competition with each other. Some companies won that competition, others lost - they went bust, or were bought out.

We now have the big winners left standing. Their size and the high barriers to market entry prevents little players from re-entering the market.

The big companies now call the shots.

This is the "free market" in action.

>>59183849
Wrong. Competing for government contracts is not "competition." Other ISPs can't use the infrastructure that different ISPs own. That's why in my area all cable internet is Time Warner and all DSL/Fiber is Verizon. They had to contract with the government to use/build their infrastructure, so there is no competition. This is the way it is across the entire nation.

>Their size prevents smaller players from entering the market
So it's not a free market

>>59184378
>So it's not a free market

Hence my use of quotation marks. The "free market" is a theoretical ideal, it does not exist in the real world. There are simply approximations, to greater and lesser degrees.

>Wrong. Competing for government contracts is not "competition."

You just contradicted yourself.

>ther ISPs can't use the infrastructure that different ISPs own.


In the rest of the World, most telecoms infrastructure is owned by the government and ALL competing companies are given equal access, This is why their internet is cheaper and faster.

File: 7d547f88f191d08c437675e63e99dd992b483905.jpg (234KB, 858x1200px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 858x1200px

Nationalize all ISP

>>59184602
It does exist in the real world though. The free market exists anywhere that there is no barriers to competition. The free market exists right now and has been flourishing on the social media front, for instance. No monopolies and no government barrier to enter the market = free market

I did not contradict myself; competition is for the consumer market place. A government contract exists outside of the market.

You are right about that being a smarter way to do it. That is actually more of a free market than what exists in America, where corporatism is what reigns supreme (private entity using government force to corner markets/manipulate prices in their benefit)

We're not arguing about anything other than you somehow believing that freedom failed when the fact of the matter is that freedom was never given a chance

>the 'free market' is a force of nature and not a construct of human society.

libertarians need to be gassed

>>59185978
But libertarians believe it is an artificially created environment that fosters economic growth and security

>>59185676
>>59185978
The black market and other political forces are also "free market" though. The market exists with or without libertarians, it's just financial and other pressures on economics.

If your corporate overlords are buying their way out of jail or something a revolution or threat thereof is a market force against them.

>>59176957
You voted for this /g/. Repubs are the party of anti-tech and anti-intellectualism.

gg faggots

>>59187920
>political parties
>politicians
>having ideals other than self serving consolidation of power

>>59182484
Lately this place has been really weird...

Net neutrality was always a lose-lose situation. Taking either side was just doomed to failure from shitty monopolies or the government.

>>59182484
>>59188046
It is because a guy trump appointed says net neutrality is bad therefore it must be bad. Because in the eyes of trump supporters, he can do no wrong.

>>59176957
Its not that net neutrality is at fault here, its that paiajit has the best interests of the ISP's at heart who DONT want you to have free unlimited access

>>59188152
>>59188124
its that a political office was ever deemed to have such authority

>>59187920
>Democrats
>Private servers with no security or encryption
>Pro tech
>Pro War/Interventionist
>Has failed America every time
>Even when Republicans spoke out against it Democrats doubled down
>Pro Intellectualism

Blame your local municipalities.