Internet providers

>>59561025
Yes. Too bad nobody does that, because:
>Laying cables is very expensive and time-consuming
>Incumbent operators won't let you sell service on their infrastructure, since there's no law that says they have to
>State and local governments, which control the permitting process for cable-laying, are often really chummy with the incumbent operators, and will gladly pile on a bunch of red tape to anyone coming to town to compete with them

>>59561025
Too many retards that pay for internet right now.

As long as every isp agrees to not being neutral then we're kinda fucked.

>>59561025
That image is absolutely retarded.

>>59561119
/thread

>>59561176
some would say this whole website is retarded.
but ya it is dumb i just wanted to have something to put there.

>>59561119
To that, also add the fact that the total market is small. Most people are cavalier about privacy, and even more people are too lazy to switch telecoms providers. Look how much mobile-phone companies get away with charging in this country. They know that most people don't bother to shop around - or only bother once, and then stick with their choice through price hikes.

Why not just use a VPN?

>>59561323
VPNs still have to go through a ISP at some point and you still have to give your money to the summy ISPs

>>59561390
scummy fucking fat fingers

>>59561390
It's probably the best solution at this point. The malicious parties are the last-mile consumer-facing ISPs. But the stuff they want to do depends on either being able to read the traffic (to inject ads, for instance) or on being able to collect metadata on it (track which IPs you connect to to profile your web browsing).

Use a VPN and you still have to worry about the VPN provider's trustworthiness. But because the VPN service is selling themselves on the basis of privacy, they actually have an incentive to provide it. The ISP gets business because people have no choice. The VPN provider can be easily switched for another one if it looks like they're being shady.

>>59561390
At only a few dollars a month, VPN services aren't very expensive. Besides, most countries require ISPs to keep logs for a certain amount of time which would foil your plans of creating a non-logging ISP. VPN providers however aren't ISPs so they don't have to follow the same laws and regulations.

>>59561025
>pay fedex more for faster shipping
Wtf now I'm a #hillshill

>>59561119
I remember thinking in the early fucking 90s that the US gov should lay a fiber optic network to homes/businesses across the country.

Would never happen because "muh socialism!" but with the right fiber it would still have room to grow. And with the right laws any provider could serve any customer and competition would be God tier because nobody would own the foundation.

I feel similarly about electricity. Gov should maintain transmission lines and I should be able to buy power from anyone. That would shut the greens up to because they could pay more for "muh solar!" without pushing it on me.

File: long_night_out.jpg (56KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 600x800px

ITT:

Journalists who have NO IDEA how the internet works.

>>59561527
yes but it doesn't really change anything if you are still paying comcast to get to your VPN Comcast and other ISPs can block your access as much as they can grant it.

If an ISP doesn't want you to use a VPN they can prevent you from doing that.

ITT: We don't care about you, we just care about your money and your financial choices
>shit that no one is realizing: the thread

File: 1361908395376.jpg (54KB, 200x273px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 200x273px

>>59561119
>Laying cables is very expensive and time-consuming
I don't know how relevant it is, but in Israel there's a seperation between the ISPs "infrastructure company". A single partly-government-owned and heavily regulated company lays out physical cables and connects data centers to individual homes and businesses, while private ISPs are simply charged with operating these data centers and managing DNS/IP/whatever stuff. Technically there is an additional (even two) privately-owned infrastructure company, but it's really unpopular and uses the same lines as cable TV rather than dedicated internet/phone lines.
Is it not how it works in America/other countries?

Werks on my machine

>>59561543
>trumptard makes false equivalencies in order to justify his Retard in Chief gutting and turning the internet into a shithole

Trumptards everyone

>>59562066
Wtf fuck Fedex!

>>59562022
There's been proposals for that kind of system, but its not what we have now. All the lines are privately owned and operated.

Now for the big backbone providers this generally works fine. Where it enables abuses is in the consumer-facing ISPs. ("consumer" including businesses that aren't tech/IT companies, also) Since they're both the service provider and the owner of the lines, they can keep competitors out by saying "Nah, we won't lease lines to you. You want to offer internet service here, you'll need to lay your own cable!"

>>59561558
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/dig-once-bill-would-lower-cost-of-fiber.html

File: 8be.jpg (523KB, 1200x659px) Image search: [Google]

523KB, 1200x659px

tfw 1Gbps symmetrical for ~$65/month
from an ISP running its own backbone and stating the following on their website

>Init7 strives to achieve a monopoly-free and liberal internet that is there for users and service providers to use without restriction.
>We support the development of open-source software, we campaign for net neutrality and operate an open peering policy.

and all that because our townsmen decided in a democratic referendum to give a $600mio credit to the city's utility company
to establish a local fiber net in cooperation with the country's largest ISP, obliging them to connect every household with not just one but four fibers
which can be used by small independent ISPs to provide their service

File: 1484730730376.jpg (50KB, 393x331px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 393x331px

>>59563934
>You will NEVER be Swiss

Anyone know if Trump has signed the bill or is planning to?

File: tfw crying.jpg (63KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 633x758px

>>59563934
>liberal internet
>haha libcucks with your great internet connection and fair prices are just jealous of our based g-d emperor Trump who will bring back coal mining jobs while you guys have to rely on shit like (((solar)))

>>59563934

Fuck.

>>59561025
That's impossible, about the best you could hope for is a p2p mesh of some sort but even then it would be a community effort

I can't wait for this. Everyone thinks ISPs will offer internet packages like cable TV packages, but that's not it at all. Think ISPs strong-arming companies running popular websites, "Pay our fee and our customers will be able to access your site."

>>59565061
Websites already pay fees you fucking retard. Do you not know how the internet works?

>>59565066
Shouldn't you be in bed already, little child?

>>59561025
Like I would even have the choice

>>59565078
Resorting to name calling when it's pointed out that you don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the pricing model of data transfer?

>>59565097
He pointed out nothing. And you are too oblivious to understand. Let me re-iterate. Facebook pays for bandwidth for the servers hosting their website and public facing applications.

Without Net Neutrality, residential ISPs all over the world will tell Facebook their customers can't access their website unless they get some love too. Do you understand now?

>>59565177
No they fucking wouldn't. That would be bad for business. That's why that never happened before.

>>59565198
>>59565189
>>59565172
>tumblr

>>59565203
>The ISPs will implement data caps limiting the amount of data you can use.

>No they fucking wouldn't. That would be bad for business. That's why that never happened before.

>>59565172
>>59565189
>>59565198
>>59565216
Do these people even know what Net Neutrality is or do they just automatically think it's bad because it's a regulation?

>>59565236
It's paid propaganda aimed at Republicans. You didn't think it was going to be smart, did you?

>>59565232
What the fuck are you talking about? Data caps have been a part of broadband plans since forever ago.

>>59565236
Pretty sure they don't like it be cause of the government regulation.

If the poster of the images could explain the deeper meaning I think that would go further to clarifying the issues they are attempting to raise.

I just want rules that say
>no blocking
>no throttling

That's all I want. The FCC was asking for trouble when they slammed down hard with a ton of rules.

>>59565250
he's talking about zero rating.

it's basically the new "pay us goy" scam.

>>59565250
When I first purchased my internet plan there was no caps, I could use as much as I wanted.

When caps started I was told it would not touch traditional landline data, only cell data.

Now I have a 300 GB cap.

>>59565236
They know exactly what it is, but 'choose' (ie are paid) to deliberately mislead people that don't.

>>59565259
what about spammers, botnets, DDoS, etc?
no blocking, no throttling?

regulation is more complex than that.

the real thing that should be illegal is fake markets and data caps.

>>59565275
Nice anecdotal evidence. This is an article from 2011.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/04/how-internet-users-are-disciplined-around-the-world/

>>59565203
>ISPs all over the world making easy money off of wealthy corporations like Facebook and Google

Yeah that'll never happen.

>>59565383
Why haven't they already done so then?

>>59565390
Because of Net Neutrality.

>>59565310
Yes and? I was told not to fear data caps and it stung me, now you're telling me not to fear "fast lanes". Why should I believe you?

MAGA, Make America Great Again. I'm not seeing that here nor with the recent broadband privacy resolution.

>>59565396
Which specific laws?

>>59561176
I disagree, to the layman who has no understanding of the internet other than network congestion = slow speeds it's not a terrible comparison. This is clearly not aimed at techs.

>>59565453
The image is a very poor analogy. "Fast lanes" would be something like Google and Netflix building roads separate from the "slow lanes" instead of encroaching on the "slow lanes" like the misinformed artist of the cartoon.

File: 1471200398556.jpg (14KB, 305x390px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 305x390px

>tfw live in europe where we actually have market competition and freedoms

File: 1484554951198.jpg (12KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 320x320px

>>59565710
send help plz

File: image.jpg (5KB, 300x57px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 300x57px

>>59565731
just accept socialism (captcha wills it)

File: 1489376036939.jpg (69KB, 331x424px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 331x424px

>>59565710
>europe

>>59565189
the fuck is this cartoon, jesus

>>59561025
Americucks BTFO

File: uk.png (98KB, 920x576px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 920x576px

>$38 a month fibre

How do americucks feel about this image?

>>59565943
Is that half your entire monthly income?

>>59561176
t. retard expert

>>59565775
A dumbass republican who doesn't actually know what NN is drew that.

They're stupid though, so don't to be too harsh.

>>59561025
Do normies even use websites outside of Jewgle and Facekike?

>>59565957
I don't get the joke, sorry.

>>59565943
Autists on 4chan will just tunnel or masquerade TCP/IP over unthrottled traffic.

>>59565973
Google, Facebook, Youtube, Reddit, Twitch, Steam, Xbox Live, Playstation Network, Instagram, Kik, Whatsapp, FaceTime, Pinterest, eBay, Wordpress, Tumblr, Netflix, Pornhub, iTunes, BBC, Play Store etc.

File: Screenshot_2017-03-24-20-39-10-453_com.android.chrome.png (177KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1080x1920px

Internet is so shit these days I use it less and less and keep things more local.

I'm just glad I'm not being forced to pay $82/mo for the connection I have now because Shaw refused to let me go down from 25mbit to 15mbit because I used over 200gb per month. This ISP is a Shaw reseller and has no bandwidth cap at all, and is less than half the price. Fuck monopolies.

>>59566050
>high speed
>20mbps

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>59566074
It was worse when I was paying $82/mo for 25mbit and not allowed to pay less.

>>59565710
>be european
>internet goes out because a muslim exploded near the transformer

>>59566173
I'd be ok with that for decent internet.

>>59566173
>be american
>economy goes out because muslims crash into buildings

Funny thing is one of these scenarios actually happened. I wonder which one :)

>>59562022
This was going to happen in Australia but got turned on its head because POLITICS.

>>59561025
Net neutrality is utopia.

Here is how it works arround here. A company puts close to your house a cabinet with a link of 100mbps and starts selling up to 1mps connection through your region, you're one of the first to get a connection and everything works just fine on your 1mpbs. Then more and more people starts buying more and more conection, from all types of bandwidth, like 300kbps and 600kbps. So, it is time to beefy that cabinet or buy another one to support all that conections right? Nah, fuck you, they don't care, they will start to traffic shapping everyones internet so torrents and streaming uses ony 1/10th of the internet connection, and their instalations in the middle of those hundreds of connections are so bad that fucks up everyone signal, and when it rains connection goes down and there IS NOTHING they can do unless it stops raining and the cabinet gets dry to work on.

>>59565610
Wrong. ISPs plan to USE "slow lane" resources to "build" fast lanes for their customers. Thus making those resources unavailable for the "slow lane" and causing network congestion.

>>59566328
There are no "slow lanes" or "fast lanes" once the packets reach the ISP's network.

>>59566369
That's exactly what they plan to change.
It's their bandwidth, they control how it's used.

>use ISP to connect to free VPN in another country
>use the connection to set up a tunnel
>profit

>>59565172
>>59565189
>>59565198
>>59565216
>>59565231
When the hell did
>Regulate the providers
Become
>Regulate the users
In these people's minds?

>tumblr_*

>>59566585
>these poorly drawn cartoons made by some boomer "artist" from "bumsville telephonograph" sunday newspaper
>tumblr

honestly both sides of this are disingenuous.

net "neutrality" attempts to prevent isp's from doing things that they want to do but are anti consumer, while opening the door for the gov't to do things that are anti consumer and/or anti isp. Maybe the gov't will stay amicable and refrain from doing those things, maybe they won't. but to try to say that gov't is pure and good and isp's are all pure evil is just oversimplification for dolts.

and for those of you that want more convoluted regulation, this is exactly the reason that the gov't gets too involved in things. Keep laws simple so they aren't easily abused. congress never can do this, that's why 3000 page bills are always eventualy outed as the poorly written disasters that they are. what's stopping us from passing a tiny bill that says: no caps, no throttling, no censoring. that's it. very difficult to misconstrue, abuse, or ignore. make it too long and wordy, and that's when the bs creeps in. you can always add another 2 sentence bill if we come up with another good regulation.
keep it simple, stupid. but it never is.