Repeal of Net Neutrality

>>59562538
Net neutrality is cancer.

File: 57D63D4C-9131-4D45-AF70-8808AB8C7878-2846-000003FF9E064948.jpg (298KB, 1113x688px)

298KB, 1113x688px

Dont be afraid to tell them that if this doesnt pass, their reelection wont go very well
>>59562567
Ok eurofag. Keep believing in your botnet, stupid goyim.

>>59562538
Well for one thing I live in a blue state, so my representative and both my senators are Democrats who oppose this stuff anyway.

For another, the long-term solution to this is more competition among ISPs (which neither Democrats nor Republicans are very keen on, though for different reasons) and ubiquitous encryption that causes consumer-facing ISPs to see nothing but encrypted gibberish in the first place, so they don't know what you're doing or, ideally, even what service you're connected to.

>>59562595
>muh made up doomsday scenario that no ISP will actually go for in reality
You don't seem to have an understanding of basic business principles.

>>59562538
As much as I do think NN is a good idea, why for all the years that we had ISPs did they never do this despite it being a possibility? We don't really need NN, and especially not if we deregulate enough so that municipalities can start expanding.

>>59562706
Net neutrality would gut ISPs' ability to do QoS and other important routing optimizations and ruin the network quality for everyone. Communism at it's finest.

File: nastyman.png (240KB, 978x992px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 978x992px

>the bill title means what it actually implemets

thank you for being so naive and stupid democrat nigger cattle

>>59562731
Typical /pol/-tier retard. They'll constantly complain how bad NN is but never actually support solutions that would fix what NN is trying to fix anyway

>>59562764
Reminds me of the idiots here when there were news articles on "Right to repair" laws. People here are quick to fall for clickbait.

>>59562627

You seem to forget that most of the USA has only 1, maybe 2 ISP options. It wouldn't be hard for Comcast/Time Warner to get away with something along those lines, especially when the cost of setting up a new ISP is astronomical.

ISPs have long since been exempt from most market forces or regulation that would prevent these kinds of abuses.

>>59562798
Then why haven't they done so before when there weren't net neutrality laws?

File: giphy[1].gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>59562798
http://broadbandnow.com/All-Providers

>>59562779
Net neutrality is a solution without a problem. You even have to make up stupid scenarios like
>>59562595 to scare uninfirmed people into supporting it without actually specifying what it actually does.

>>59562538
>Comparing a constitutional right to protecting the transmission of data through a public resource

That's fucking retarded.

That's like expecting privacy while talking to someone in a crowded room. Your expectation of privacy on the internet should be minimal. If you want privacy, make sure all of your transfers are encrypted in some way or don't expect them to be private. It's that simple.

>>59562779
>pol complaining about not having net neutrality

is that why sharia blue doesn't even bother posting about it anymore and now spams on /g/?

>>59562819
t. kid whos never had his own house or had to pay for his own internet
99% of the time a town will only have 1-2 ISPs, and its usually Cuckcast or Time Warner/AT&T depending on where you live

>>59562819
Where the fuck do you live that you have more than one choice?
Please tell me it's in the US.

The net was doing fine before net neutrality legislation.

Trump and Pajeet want to bring 1gbps to your home, so be grateful.

>>59562918
suburb of Houston

>>59562880
So what law is there to prevent ISPs from doing that?

>>59562917
>>59562918
And if they have such a strong monopoly why haven't they raised prices for $1000 a month for a 1GB data cap?

>>59562893
this isn't about privacy but about throttling. Https takes care of the most reasonable portion of privacy

>>59562918
Not him, but the tri-state here on the east coast has a good amount of choices. But yeah, most people in general are fucked when it comes to regional monopoly. I always feel grateful that the cable companies here grovel to poach each other's customers.

>>59562936
Where is the law preventing ISPs from charging $1000 a month?

>>59562942
Because they want people to actually pay for overages.
Money ain't a thing if you're juicing it from people who don't have what you demand.

>>59562798
>netflix gets throttled or blocked
>netflix starts an isp
>disney shit get's blocked
>disney starts an isp
>twitch gets blocked
>amazon starts an isp
>youtube gets blocked
>google expands their isp

Honestly, if you are an isp company, you don't want to rock the boat. Every major company has a local monopoly. A cartel only works if they stay out of each other's way. Just like the major airlines staying out of each other's hub cities.

If comcast start's pushing NBC shit, the domino effect will be a price war among isps. Google has shown what it can do to profits when it enters a market.

sorry I don't download cheese pizza

>>59562538
Because what you think is net neutrality was just called that to make idiots happy. What it really was, was decades of Google lobbying paying off.

This is the future you chose by being pro Trump.

>>59562731
Yup, mediocrity for everyone, the famous communist race to the bottom. Central planning never works.

>>59562990
Why only get money from people who use a lot when you can get money from everyone?

>>59562595
>$8 a month VPNs
>$5 a month for amazon
yeah, no. The chairman of the FCC has said that if this kind of thing becomes a systematic problem. I don't trust him, but if this kind of thing actually starts happening and he doesn't fix it, he will probably get memed out of politics.

>>59562764
This 1000%. I love how the dems calls something a name and their useful idiots eat it up. Democrat net neutrality is nothing at what most would consider net neutrality. What it is, is the Google and friends lobby asking to bankrupt the ISPs so they can take that end of the business over as well and have no restriction to data ownership. Google is a fucking cancer to freedom and the internet. They are essentially an arm of the democrat party and as such the deep state DC establishment. If anything we should be aiming to shut them down.

>>59563036
They already do that with the fees they charge.
$80 for 25Mbit
The overages are handsomely supplementary.

>>59562992
This is the correct response

>>59562538
while i'm pro-netneutrality this whole concept goes against the working principles of the Internet. It would be way expensive to enforce for ISPs.

This whole concept cracks because of tunneling and p2p. Do expect zero-rating and more contracts between larger content providers and ISPs. The bill against net neutrality is a huge win for networks like akamai and amazon.

>>59562798
Yeah and then add in all of the wireless options that are fast becoming viable alternatives. Not to mention, this bill does fucking nothing for the number of isps. If anything it will reduce them because more regulation means higher barriers to entry.

Fucking democrats and their lack of common economic knowledge. Make becoming an ISP harder and you will not have more you will have less.

>>59563069
Why don't they just add what they would get from overages to everyone?

>>59562917
And how does raising the cost and regulation on ISPs increase the count? Once again most people believe the name of the bill with having no fucking clue what it means. There is nothing neutral about net neutrality.

>>59563094
That would make people angry, suddenly hiking prices.
Making them think they've done something over a limit puts them at fault.
Putting that limit on a perfect precipice like 300GB gives you head room for a few years and then as the internet expands it hits hard and your profits soar.
Now they have to pay up and stop using the service so vigorously.

>>59562942
No to mention wireless carriers are years at most away from competing on price and performance as well. There is no lack of competition in this field and it is getting more dynamic every day.

>>59563112
Doesn't help that democrats further muddy the water by saying shit like

Hurr we always had some form of network neutrality

>>59562992
Google, you mean the Google that is rapidly downsizing it's ISP aspirations and looking for buyers of it's existing networks? They didn't do shit to price except create an artificial drop, because they had no intention of being PROFITABLE. It was a loss leader and frankly for a company in their position should be considers monopolistic behavior.

>>59563129
Why does it matter how angry your customers are if you have a monopoly?

Kek. Anyone saying im a stupid liberal democrat, you are so so wrong. I voted for Trump in the election, and I am going to the rally tomorrow in Bolsa Chica beach

>>59562627
What's stopping them

>>59562764
Why don't you tell me what it actually does

>>59562538
without net neutrality we can enjoy paying 9.99 a month for the internet troll package to get access to 4chan.

>>59563170
<<<IF>>> other ISP throttle Youtube and Google TV, Google's ISP will spread like wildfire. IF, can't you read, nigger?

>>59562819
and how many of those are just re-sellers?

>>59562942
> $1000 a month for a 1GB data cap?
Then satellite internet would look better. $100 for 10GB cap.

>>59564591
The satellite internet ISPs would also raise their prices to $10000 a month.

>>59564591
Do you have any idea how business models work

>>59563188
They can still entirely drop service if they're being gouged.
There is a limit to people's willingness to pay.

An internet connection may be nearly essential these days but there are plenty of places to get it free.

>>59564511
Literally all of them.

>>59564917
Public places stop offering free internet since it costs so much.

>>59564911
what are you getting at?

>>59564833
Then there is 3G/4G cellphone internet, which is pretty expensive in the US but would be better than $10,000.

>>59564974
They also rose their prices.

>>59562992
This won't and will never happen due to ISP monopoly control on local governments that stifle competition

File: 1266525269452.jpg (35KB, 340x474px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 340x474px

>we need to give the FCC more power to stop corporate censorship
>but not deep state corporate companies those can be more invasive

.t turbo libtard retard

http://fortune.com/video/2016/11/15/government-internet-censorship-up/http://fortune.com/video/2016/11/15/government-internet-censorship-up/

>>59562992
>Google has shown what it can do to profits when it enters a market.
Except google CANT fucking get into the market

they were able to get into what? 3 places before they hit ISP roadblocks constantly suing and creating red tape making it impossible for new ISP's to start up

>>59562538
>implying your protests matter
Republican kelptokracy is in power. They're gonna milk the most out of this anyway.

>>59564939
There's this thing called bandwith control on each client, regardless of the OS, and I bet they're taking this measure soon enough, as bad at it feels.

>>59565123
Bandwidth is now expensive. Starbucks isn't going to let you use their bandwidth, they need it for business communications.

>>59565054
In other words, what you're saying is, Google took a shit on other companies abillity to create new ISP's in the USA?

>>59565139
What are they going to communicate besides their cashier boxes showing you ads?

The statistics of their consumer's coffee intakes?

>>59565161
Not much. They are on the cheapest plan and don't see the need to upgrade to a much more expensive one just so you can leech off of them.

>>59565148
No, it means google ran into severe roadblocks in trying to expand its businesses because ISP's purposely got in the way and tried to stop them using erroneous local legislation they lobbied to pass. Cockblocked google from getting new telephone lines and servicing so they could put in fiber.

Google's endeavor proved how stupidly hard and impossible it is for competition to arise due to colluding ISP empires

so does this new thing that's been passed mean my ISP will sell my internet history to silicon valley and i will never be able to get a job in the tech industry or not?

ENOUGH OF THIS BULLSHIT

We need to amend Net Neutrality to the constitution.

File: s30UJn6.gif (619KB, 500x330px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 500x330px

>>59565226
AT&T made it so you could pay to not to be spied on.

File: Honda History.png (4MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1920x1080px

>>59562992

This.

I noticed that all stock Japanese motorcycles are all electronically limited to reach 186mph (300kph). They don't say why, but riders know it's because they don't really want to compete with each other.

File: Pai.gif (84KB, 439x396px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 439x396px

>>59562992
>if you are an isp company, you don't want to rock the boat.
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/09/why-comcast-corporation-blocked-hbo-go-on-sony-cor.aspx

>>59565266
We need an independence war for the cyberspace.

>>59565358
>Comcast is NOT blocking HBO Go traffic since you can simply use a different device (Xbox, Roku 3, Amazong Fire TV, iPad, etc) to stream this content. Nor are they charging HBO more to allow that content to travel faster in their pipes (paid priortization), nor are they making sure any HBO streaming data is slower than other traffic (throttling). What they have done is not integrate their login service (which verifies if you've actually purchased HBO as part of your cable package) with a 3rd party provider (in this case Sony among others). The issue here is a "business decision" because Comcast can choose which partners it wants to provide customer data to, nothing in Net Nuetrality says that Comcast must share customer data (i.e. who has purchased what packages) with anyone who wants it.

>>59562538
>what is a VPN

I'm the lead engineer at a major ISP. We do not condone this shit. It's all misconception.
Fuck off.

File: C3TvP1IWIAMZhEY.jpg (45KB, 580x282px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 580x282px

>>59565420
>Comcast is NOT blocking HBO Go traffic since you can simply use a different device
Comcast blocked HBO traffic to the PS4 and PS3, using capital letters does not chance this silly.

>>59565469
change*

>>59565437
>business plan

>>59565182
KEK

Good one, considering you're probably the first one to piggy back a T1 on the first given chance.

>>59565484
in all fairness, video services who hog the vast majority of the bandwidth should pay up. then you'll have to pay an extra $.99 for Netflix boo-fucking-hoo

>>59565194
Okay, thanks for informing me better.

>>59565510
Netflix averages out at about 3.5Mbit @1080p. Youtube about the same. Meanwhile ISPs are selling way more than that.

>>59565469
Comcast the ISP is not blocking any traffic at all. Comcast the cable network was not providing credentials to confirm that a user has an HBO subscription to PS4s. If you had Comcast internet and HBO from DirecTV your HBO Go wiuld have worked fine. Are you simply incapable of reading?

>>59565532
>meanwhile it worked just fine on all other ISPs.

>>59565547
No it didn't. If you had AT&T for internet and Comcast for TV, HBO Go would not have worked either.

>>59565532
are you the fcc pajeet?

>>59565530
I'm talking about overall bandwidth used not throughput you dumb fuck

We need net neutrality you dumb kike loving retards otherwise Americw will literally be 3rd world.

>>59562538
Its funny how stormfags and trumpniggers are usually the ones supporting this anti net neutrality bullshit. It's like they don't know that the kikes are the ones who benefit from this.

>>59565618
yeah the Netflix kikes

>>59565618
>implying there aren't kikes at Google, Netflix, and Facebook

>>59565629
Quit using them you dumb retard and pay for your own email accounts. Rent a fucking movie or buy it off Amazon

File: 1489280885267.jpg (198KB, 1200x1195px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1200x1195px

>>59565576
Still does not help your argument. I think even twitch caps out at 3.5Mbit. And the US has an average connection of 12.6Mbit according to Akami.

Anyway, these ISPs usually just don't peer to places like Netflix or Youtube well enough to meet demand, giving users slower speeds (low quality encodes).

>>59565712
OVERALL DATA USED YOU FUCKING IDIOT

https://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usage-internet-traffic-1201507187/

this is from two years ago, Netflix alone probably account to close of half of the data use. but yeah, let's give them a free pass

File: Capture.png (188KB, 649x244px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 649x244px

>>59562538
>Why aren't you spamming the House of Representatives with calls and emails that this is horrible?
I've already done my part.

>>59565712
ISPs are selling connections on the assumption that they are not being saturated 100% of the time. If they were, then they would have to charge higher prices or lower the speed. They don't peer with Netflix and Youtube because peering only makes sense from a financial perspective if the data being transmitted across the network are balanced. Why should Comcast send Netflix's data down their lines for free just because they set up a server next to an interconnect?

Why the fuck isnt there some mp3 of hd content? Its 2017 some autist get on it

>>59565761
It costs pretty much nothing to have their lines 100% saturated or completely unused within an ISP's Infrastructure. Assuming they have not oversold to their customers, such as on remote DSLAMs. Cost comes from the peering, which Netflix offers free on- site peering.

https://openconnect.netflix.com/Open-Connect-Overview.pdf

>>59565834
>It costs pretty much nothing to have their lines 100% saturated or completely unused
What I mean is, it costs the same.

>>59565628
>>59565629
>implying i like any of those things

>>59565834
>Assuming they have not oversold to their customers
Bandwidth is always oversold. If it wasn't, it would be much more expensive.

>Netflix offers free on- site peering
That's just their PR bullshit sugarcoating why they should get peering for free when they shouldn't. It was the same when they pulled off a publicity stunt saying that Comcast was throttling them and then "charging" them to set up a direct interconnect, when that wasn't the case at all. They weren't being throttled by Comcast, but by their tier 1 ISP middleman, and they wanted to set up a free interconnect to Comcast to bypass paying a middleman and throwing a tantrum when Comcast wouldn't agree. Why should an entity like Netflix, whose traffic is heavily unbalanced, be allowed to set up an interconnect, and ask that ISPs deliver their packets to the last mile at no charge?

>>59565932
Because fuck you that's why

>>59565748
Your state is an absolute shithole. I know, I've lived there.

File: 1479008166511.png (426KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 900x900px

>>59565932
>Bandwidth is always oversold. If it wasn't, it would be much more expensive.
Apart from copper feed DSLAMs, I don't know what you mean. Cause usually ISPs have decent fiber backbones to connect their individual COs.

>That's just their PR bullshit sugarcoating why they should get peering for free when they shouldn't.
Proof? Cause they offer on site peering and provide the servers and power to run it.

File: bEpDh2p.jpg (27KB, 496x474px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 496x474px

>>59565932
>Why should an entity like Netflix, whose traffic is heavily unbalanced, be allowed to set up an interconnect, and ask that ISPs deliver their packets to the last mile at no charge?
Cause they don't have to pay to peer, and just peer off of netflix on site servers. Wonder how much 4chan should pay to your ISP.

>>59566008
Netflix is not in position to offer peering, they are not an ISP. What they are doing is saying, hey, let us put our servers next to you, and please deliver the packets our servers sends through your network, for free. Before, they were using middleman like Congent and Level 3 to connect to Comcast. Congent and Level 3 have peering arrangements with Comcast because the data sent is balanced on both sides, Comcast wants to send some data through Congent, and Congent wants to send some data through Comcast, and the amounts were roughly the same, so they made a deal to have settlement free peering. This is not the cast with what Netflix is trying to do.

>>59566051
I don't think you understand how peering works. The traditional arrangement is that the one sending data has to pay. 4chan doesn't pay anything to my ISP, since they are already paying to Cloudflare, which has peering arrangements with my ISP.

>>59566108

Also tend to forget that ISPs design their internet around making the average customer, a consumer of the internet. By having completely unbalanced download/upload speeds.

The FCC has never had actual authority over ISPs
We never had net neutrality
Nothing went horribly wrong then, nothing will now.

>>59566306
That wasn't the case until recently when Netflix, Youtube, and other streaming services started becoming more popular. Even now, most bandwidth comes from business connections where the ratio is more balanced.

>>59562538
If you want to email them, go for it, but PLEASE CALL THEM. Fill their voicemail with autistic messages. Do it. The actually legally must listen to them.

File: image.jpg (349KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 640x1136px

He wants a free and open internet, I do see net neutrality as big government, but I do believe regulations such as this should be in place. So /g/, what is your solution and how will this overall effect our internet as it is today?

File: Captcha.png (361KB, 396x580px)

361KB, 396x580px

>>59566311
Asynchronous connections for consumers has been mostly the norm since moving away from 56k. For example, I have a 6:1 ratio connection.

>>59566389
Net neutrality has nothing to do with that.

File: image.jpg (340KB, 640x1136px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 640x1136px

I personally foresee that we end up going back to pre 2015 internet which was honestly a neutral place.

>>59566406
Meant to respond to >>59566329

>>59566430
Maximum speed is not the same as transport. I have a 5:1 seeding ratio despite my upload speed being 1/10 of my download speed. Comcast and other ISPs also have business connections who also send lots of upstream packets.

>>59566496
Don't think Netflix is really designed for business connections.

>>59566536
The point was that Netflix and other streaming services were not popular until recently. There is no precedent of settlement free peering for unbalanced connections because there wasn't such a big customer like Netflix in the past.

>>59562567
Fuck off and die

File: 1487125098998.jpg (50KB, 526x395px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 526x395px

>>59566565
Not sure what ISPs expected when doing 6:1 ratio internet connections, and then getting mad when the internet ratio is unbalanced for average connections.

>>59562538
I wish it were true. I'd recruit a motley crew of nerds to deploy a parallel network all over town.

>>59566684
Because those are PEAK speeds. You aren't constantly watching Netflix 24/7. You aren't constantly downloading a file and maxing your connection. Their networks were based on the assumption of equal transit, because that's how it was in the past before video streaming services became popular. They aren't getting mad at anyone. They have established contracts with peering connections that provide a settlement free interconnect up to a certain ratio. How is this so hard for you to understand?

File: 1457720827828.jpg (31KB, 554x443px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 554x443px

>"GOVERNMENT STAY OFF FROM MUH INTERNET CUZ YOUR EVIL!!!"
>"Mr. gubermint pls protect our internet from evil companoes :( pls dun pass law"

>>59565770
There is but they're stuck behind retarded copyright laws or under retards who do not know how to properly encode for max quality-min size

>>59566721
>Their networks were based on the assumption of equal transit,
That is not going to happen on a 6:1, what I'm saying is that they have encouraged this consumption of a data and discouraged data upload among average users. There is no equal trading of data among average users.

>>59566880
Except that's how it has been. How many fucking times do I have to repeat it to get it through your thick head? You do realize that Comcast services business customers on the same networks right?

>>59566924
I do, along with every other ISP that has consumer/business services. Which is just about every ISP out there.

>>59566924
>business customers
They are usually 1:1 while consumer internet is usually not 1:1 (6:1 for example). Which is my point.

>>59566948
And why are you confusing maximum download/upload speeds with the actual amount of data sent?

>>59566924
Yea those private WAN links are just flooded with non business traffic.

File: My Data.png (15KB, 739x427px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 739x427px

>>59566959
Don't think I'm confusing anything. The consumer side is pretty heavily built on downloading, and not uploading anything. Pic related, my usage.

>>59567000
Your usage for March of 2017, in which I assume you watched quite a lot of video.

File: 1490419491.png (35KB, 578x557px)

35KB, 578x557px

>>59567000
And here's the usage of my torrent client. How can my upload/download ratio be over 15 when my upload speeds are 1/10th of my download speeds? Really makes you think.

>>59563068
How do i get red pilled without being a Democrat about this?

>>59567023
I don't have Netflix and watch lo-res youtube. Along with someone else on the internet. More for video games.

>>59567078
You doing public torrent uploading?

>How can my upload/download ratio be over 15 when my upload speeds are 1/10th of my download speeds?
Cause you don't download much and just upload because, reasons.

143GB downloaded in 154days, come one bro.

File: Untitled.png (13KB, 492x429px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 492x429px

>>59567118
Do me.

>>59567118
So other people might have different usage patterns from you? Wow!

File: 4L_TdXUDHpo.jpg (183KB, 1600x835px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1600x835px

>>59567091
>>>/pol/

>>59567171
>/pol/
>actually giving red pills
pick one

File: 1485222805929.jpg (67KB, 640x625px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x625px

>>59567134
Gonna say that the average consumer has very similar patterns to >>59567000

Using torrent upload ratios on /g/ is not going to be the same as the average internet consumer in the US.

>>59567133
kek, nice, wish I had your connection

Because it makes no difference. Nobody in the government has any understanding on the internet and it's a joke that they're making decisions about it.

File: 4L_MDZPJC31.gif (3KB, 452x523px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 452x523px

>>59567189
so fast, schlomo

File: Capture.png (21KB, 1361x392px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1361x392px

>>59567192
It's 10Mbit.
uTorrent is just good.

>>59567192
Downloading large games through the internet has only recently became a thing, just like streaming videos. Before, ratios were fairly similar on both sides, and peering was free. It's ludicrous to think that this model would continue when Netflix is shoving data down ISP's lines at a 10:1 ratio.

>>59567220
>Downloading large games is a new thing
>Steam isn't over a decade old
>The services before it never existed
Gotcha.

>>59567238
Gee I didn't know that there were 50GB games on Steam in 2007.

>>59567256
Gee I didn't know that our standards for what constitutes 'large' in terms of filesize was static.

>>59565312
Except that isn't the reason why they are limited to 300 km/h. The reason they're limited is to stop people complaining about how dangerous they are and actually passing laws that would hurt their sales and possibly forcing lower than 300 km/h limit.

It's the same reason most cars are limited to 250 km/h. It's a number people are used to and manufacturers don't want to risk losing sales because of new regulations.

>>59567266
I don't even know why you keep going down this path. The peering requirements of ISPs can be found here.
https://www.peeringdb.com/
It's fairly obvious that something like Netflix does not meet those requirements.

>>59562538
>Basically youre arguing that there is no use for freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.

You are a moron on so many levels. The first amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT not private business. If you really want to protect your first amendment rights on the internet then you would want LESS government control of the internet and not more. Net Neutrality is a stupid normie meme.

File: 1479125138076.jpg (166KB, 611x613px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 611x613px

>>59567256
Pretty sure the size of games have increased at a similar rate as the internet speeds available to the average consumer.

And 50GB game is a bit much considering the only game I have that is that size would be ARK. And that game was 12GB to download since it was compressed, using something similar to ZIP (but I don't know what steam uses for compression so used ZIP for example)

File: OOK.jpg (15KB, 522x112px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 522x112px

How much should I be seeding?

Is there a compelling reason to get rid of net neutrality? There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with keeping the status quo with ISPs treating their connection as a "dumb pipe". Better than having the risk of something like >>59562595 happening.

>>59567510
ISPs don't treat their connections as dumb pipes. Millions of dollars of funding goes every year into optimizing their network through QoS and other delivery algorithms.

>The free market will solve everything! They won't abuse it because it would be bad for them!

That's what you said about banking regulations before the financial crisis of 2008, America is doomed to repeat its mistakes again and again

>>59567535
Without banking regulations people would be forced to investigate what their bank does and how they operate and not just blindly trust their bank because it's a bank.

Without regulations there would obviously be shit tier banks that would go under and people would lose their money. However there would also be good banks that have their shit in order.

It's another thread where anti-NN shills offer no solutions to the local monopoly problem.

>>59562706
Net neutrality is the easiest way to implement the internet. It was technologically infeasible to do anything else until now.

>>59567533
This tbqh, net neutrality would make skype and voicechat useless.

Net neutrality is a meme.

>>59562538
So is net neutrality good or bad? All these replies dont say anything informative.

>>59567880
/pol/ is against it. That should be all you need to know, because you either know /pol/ is a bunch of mindless lemmings following simplistic propaganda or you're one of them and only needed to hear the direction they were headed.

>>59567880
It's good in the sense that you can use your connection to do whatever you want with it. So you can't be charged extra to access fortunes or use torrents, unlike say cable TV, where you have to pay extra to see certain content. On the other hand since all traffic is to be treated equally, certain uses that require prioritization like voice service as >>59567876 mentions would have degraded quality. It's all in the implementation. The real problem is that local monopolies prevent effective competition, but no one is willing to address it.

>>59562731

Idiot.

You are the problem.

>>59562706
>As much as I do think NN is a good idea, why for all the years that we had ISPs did they never do this despite it being a possibility?

They tried. Legislation was passed to stop them.

>>59567880
>So is net neutrality good or bad?

Net Neutrality is the reason we have the interent today, and not subscription based content delivery system owned by a couple of media corporations.

Net Neutrality = good.

File: stallmans.jpg (6KB, 275x183px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 275x183px

>>59562538
USA USA USA
LAND OF THE FREE

File: 1454306039556.jpg (42KB, 940x611px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 940x611px

>>59568012
plz stop hurting my feelz

File: net-neutrality.png (67KB, 1550x1218px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1550x1218px

>>59562538
This image does a shitty job of illustrating the true fuckery of residential ISPs.

File: 1403002775945.gif (43KB, 550x400px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 550x400px

>>59568350
With Centurylink they have a TV service called Prism, which uses your DSL broadband to view cable TV. Basically when Prism is on, it shaves off like 10Mbit off your internet connection to transmit the video from your local central office. Pretty sure it does not count toward your internet usage even though it uses your DSL line.

>>59562567
you are cancer

File: 1457036279837.jpg (43KB, 473x603px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 473x603px

>>59562627
>>59562567
>>59562898
>>59562928
>>59562538
whats with all of the anti net neutrality shilling going on

unanimous opinion has been in favor of keeping it for obvious reasons for a long time

are there actual shills here or what is happening

File: 8b5e9c32f6dd3e286c6a9b29d933c52ddccad330.png (90KB, 258x245px)

90KB, 258x245px

>defending muh capitalism
>complaining about muh capitalism

>>59562538
You idiots. Maybe you should worry more about the fact that there's regulations that eliminate competition in the market, than be outraged by the fact that your government isn't telling your service provider what kind of services they are allowed to provide you.

> Have the government run the internet. It will be great.

>>59569278
Nope. You're just not very well read on the topic of Net Neutrality. What you're begging for is essentially the kind of taxi industry they have in places where Uber is illegal. You worry that businesses aren't going to give you the services you want, so you think the solution is for the government to step in and outlaw services you don't want.

>>59569306
name ONE business model that a major company has suggested doing that would be benefit customers that can't be done now due to net neutrality

pro tip you can't

>>59569281

I think you are confusing capitalism with free market lad.

>>59569339
I see that you're defending muh capitalism.

>>59569324
Internet for streaming only(or plans that are datacapped except for streaming). Lower prices for consumer, less overall bandwidth for the ISP.

>>59569351

haha you are such a tool.

>>59569324
Big surprise! A proponent of Net Neutrality regulations is economically incompetent. You're missing the point entirely. No one is going to tell you in advance what kind of innovations might come in the future, just like no one told slave owners it would be fine because we would have farm equipment to pick cotton. That's the hidden cost of regulating the internet, it will never get better. Judging by what happens with all other industries that have the services they're allowed to offer tightly regulated, it will get much worse in the future.

One example: they can't optimize different portions or protocols of the internet because they're not allowed to treat traffic selectively.

>>59569393
So you're saying give up rights in good faith that cooperations will do something that they cannot do already? There is absolutely no reason for that

stop shilling on /g/

>>59569354
The counterargument can be said that they can raise the price of internet services and keep the current cost for streaming only because data is expensive and isps are losing money :^)

>>59565651
SHIT GET 56565

>>59563069
>$80 for 25Mbit
ahahah wtf, i've had 700mb/s down and 200 up for a while now. 40/month

So yeah you're right
>They already do that with the fees they charge.

>>59569412
>So you're saying give up rights
>I have right to internet
Why should you have the right to force businesses to provide you the very specific kind of internet experience you want?
>cooperations will do something that they cannot do already
Are you really going to use this argument? It's not like you can claim technology hasn't advanced massively during your life, in defense.

Goddamn, you are stupid. I look forward to the day you realize your internet services just got a lot more expensive, just like your health care did.

Free market will fix it

>>59562538
lol, even if it does happen, websites & people in general will most surely work-around the issue

>>59569554
gnuQoS when

>>59569324
How about the basic strategy of traffic shaping so network quality isn't complete fucking shit?

File: tmobil.jpg (50KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 400x400px

Yes service providers would never try to build fast lanes there is no proof that they have tried this in the past and it would be bad for there bottom line.

>>59569525
It's not funny anon. Some people genuinely believe that

File: deleat.jpg (25KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x300px

>>59571299
Delete this now!

>>59571299
>unlimited streaming of videos and music
Sounds great. Would not be possible under net neutrality. Even VoLTE would be illegal under net neutrality, forcing us to use ancient networks to make basic calls.

>>59565748
hey CT bro
>>59565963
you're not completely right but definitely not completely wrong either

>>59571299

delete this;

>>59571342
Being locked to their shitty service sure sounds great, right? And it shows bandwidth is not a problem.

File: Image1.png (14KB, 492x425px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 492x425px

>>59567133
weak

>>59571342
Yeah, all those features you have to pay extra for sure sound great.

What I want to know is what's in it for the people who want to keep their rates, and whatever they have to say about that, will they be willing to stand by it against rigorous experimentation.

>>59571391
Last time I checked TMobile didn't own Netflix, Hulu, Youtube, or any other streaming service. And I'm not locked to them at all, I can still use any other site. The beauty of how this works is through traffic prioritization, the uncapped streams have a lower priority than regular traffic and will not hurt regular traffic during congestion. If you want higher priority you can turn it off and have your Youtube stream count against your caps.

>>59571423
Because ISPs have never raised rates in the past right? And why do I have to pay extra for 50Mbps when I only need 11Mbps?

>>59562538
>Why aren't you spamming the House of Representatives with calls and emails that this is horrible?
Because it's fucking easy to fix, all you have to do is:
>use the Internet while you still can to get a free VPN
>tunnel to the VPN
>never need your ISP again

>>59571457
Capitalism is great!
Thanks to it, we have a service that should be available for free in all cases, available for free in some cases!
Dog bless our corporate overlords for giving us some of the freedom we should have!

>>59571468
It's not just a matter of raising rates, it's a matter of keeping the same rates but reducing the quality of the service--which is what we'll be looking at in the case of people who would prefer not to use the websites the ISPs would prefer we use. And if they think they can prove us wrong on that, and manage to get the go-ahead to try, they'd best be willing to take things to court against hundreds of thousands when they fail.

>>59571550
>should be available for free
Why don't you build a network yourself provide it for free then? I'm sure you'll get a lot of customers!

>>59571568
And what are examples of ISPs doing that? And don't mention data caps, that's perfectly fine under net neutrality.

>>59571602
There are none, because net neutrality hasn't been repealed. But knowing there would be if it were is a simple matter of knowing business.

>>59571624
It hasn't existed until 2012.

>>59571634
What are you talking about? It's existed since the industrial revolution.

>>59571643
Sure it has.

File: happyfrog.jpg (92KB, 400x388px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 400x388px

>you refuse to pay for your ISP for taiwanese finger trap enthusiast campfire circle access
>they refuse all connections from your home and phone
>finally free at the network level

>>59571660
Look at this guy everyone, he thinks business was invented in 2012.

>>59571701
Nice reading comprehension.

>>59571687
>reddit is included in standard plan
>you get shitposting withdrawals
>turn to reddit for entertainment

File: 20170302_223608.jpg (25KB, 201x170px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 201x170px

>>59571687
>get cheap taiwanese vpn with shit security
>hack it
>set it up to connect directly, without need for isp
>refuse to pay for isp
>they shut u down
>u can still into space
>winned

>>59571726
Says the guy who's allegedly old enough to have been through a history class and still thinks business was invented in 2012.

>>59571750
not him but i think he was talking about net neutrality not business. that net neutrality has existed since 2012.

>>59562538
I don't believe infographics anymore. As evil as ISPs are, I don't think they'll do this. Scare tactics makes me reconsider

File: dfrag_bully.webm (139KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 640x360px

>write to congress
>they call you back/email you back asking on clarification and verification of your identity
>they check my id and see my tax records and employment records
>they ask if being a neet is healthy or not and whether neets deserve to vote or have a voice in a working society

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>59571789
(ssh you're ruining the trollfest)

>>59571800
I fear this too not that they would confront me about it but that they would judge my opinion based on the lifestyle that I live. This is another reason privacy laws should exist. My opinion is just as valid as Chad fro down the road.

>>59567313
Phantasy Star Online 2 is 42GB or so

File: ak28V2N.jpg (12KB, 358x358px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 358x358px

>>59571800
>they ask if being a neet is healthy or not and whether neets deserve to vote or have a voice in a working society
>tell them no it is not healthy but if they are suggesting it is also preclusive of the moral right to vote then they are questioning the authority of the constitution and therefore have no place in congress

>>59571800
>they check my id and see my tax records and employment records
>they ask if being a neet is healthy or not and whether neets deserve to vote or have a voice in a working society
How can they tell you're a neet just from your tax and employment records? Wouldn't they also have to check your academic records? Otherwise at best they could tell you're a net.

That I just found!
When I say go,
Be ready to throw!
And GO!

>>59562538
wasn't some ISP throttling netflix traffic? pretty sure left side is false

>>59571852
>My opinion is just as valid as Chad
k e k

>>59562817
BTFO

To anyone in favor of repealing net neutrality: Picture this.
>comcast detects you're visiting youtube
>sends your data as requested, but bundles with it a few javascript packets to create obstructive and cpu-intensive ads about how superior on-demand is to youtube specifically
>the script uses ajax so they can make sure it's running and if it's not (i.e. you blocked it or smth) they cut you off
>the way the script constructs the request is messy and difficult to understand so you'd have to look up how to spoof it correctly
>if they find out you looked up how to spoof it they also cut you off

>>59572131
B-b-but muh infallible capitalism will create gazillion ISPs for you to flee to!

>>59572151
No capitalism go toward monopoly and fascism.

>>59571979
>30 year old
>no employment records for last 10 years
>no tax records for last 10 years

>>59572131
To anyone in favor of keeping net neutrality: Picture this.
>Comcast decides to raise your internet prices to $1000 a month for dial up speeds and a 1GB download limit

File: guu_laught_by_prozzaks.png (672KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 1280x1024px

>>59572183
>implying that would be worse

>>59572165
So you're saying that it's just """corporatism""" and free market is not at fault?
Whew, looks like I have a scapegoat and don't need to consider the fact that freer market doesn't make people freer, only corporations.

>>59572151

Are you dumb or just pretending? Either way i'm giggling at your statement

>>59572197
People are one of two things:
>corporations
>lazy
And lazy people don't deserve rights

>>59572183
Evil gubmint made them do it.
If not for obama, they wouldn't be forced to penny-pinch like that!
We need to repeal obamacare for internet so that Comcast can finally lower the prices!

>>59572197
>So you're saying that it's just """corporatism""" and free market is not at fault?
Capitalism is capitalism. It begins with free market and ends with monopoly.

>>59572220

Name me one none theoretical monopoly in this world.

>>59572220
"Monopoly" is actually desirable because it just means you're the smartest and hardest working. And therefore naturally you should have the most rights.

>>59572211
Yeah, anyone who isn't rich is at fault.
If they wanted to be happy, they would be born to rich parents and inherit wealth.

>>59572242

I know right stupid poor people why aren't they born rich!

>>59572241
Yes, and that's exactly what the Bolshevik will do. They will establish the proletariat monopoly.

>>59572217
No nobody would repeal it because the reddit inernet defense force convinced everyone that the ISPs are evil.

>>59572242
>Yeah, anyone who isn't rich is at fault.
YES! Yes, they are!
>If they wanted to be happy, they would be born to rich parents and inherit wealth.
First of all:
1) They're already happy. They're being served everything on a silver platter by hard working corporations. Any poor person who isn't happy is spoiled.
2) Inheritance is bullshit.

>>59569428
I would argue that charging more for less is a great way to get out competed.

I dislike the bill, but saying there can be zero benefit is wrong.

I REALLY hate the idea of turning the internet into channels.

QUICK EVERYBODY LAUGH AT THIS RETARD
QUICK EVERYBODY LAUGH AT THIS RETARD
QUICK EVERYBODY LAUGH AT THIS RETARD

>>59572332
>Any poor person who isn't happy is spoiled.

QUICK EVERYBODY LAUGH AT THIS RETARD

>>59572183
dunno if you know this mate but thats how american isps have been operating since the beginning

>>59569278
It's funny considering how many 4chan users would be put in jail if their porn folders were public.

>voting republican

>>59573297
If you're going to fuck yourself you might as well go all the way.

>>59569278
They're not shills, they're just children from /pol/.
They are against NN simply because Trump is. Nevermind that it is blatantly anti consumer, but just because the Trump administration is against it so are the babbies from r/t_d and /pol/.

File: cd1dd7700c1fa9e40260a5f4f006d8d0c4aceddabb9991c4ea6a7e37d80e9095-leftypol.jpg (1MB, 1321x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1321x1920px

All ISP should be nationalized

help

>>59573980
Only Democrats can help us now

>>59573665

Sorry.

Only SJW's, Leftists, Feminists etc are for NN and other regulations.

/g/ will always be for the free market.

>let's let media moguls turn the internet into TV
wew

At least I'll have lower latency on skype, right.

>>59574138

With Net Neutrality you're protecting the media moguls.

>>59574038
This

Why won't /g/ accept that we're /g/ now?

The only time we're not for free market is when Trump also isn't for free market.

>>59574154
I am pretty much fine with how the internet is right now.

How would the change benefit me, as a customer?

>>59562538
What do they do with small time services, like a 3rd party forum? Wouldn't this be only for major services? What if I funnel all my traffic through a vpn, and only pay for the vpn service?

>>59569287
fuck off free market worshiper. not all competition is good for fucks sake it can end up with a stupid amount of duplicated, wasted effort and when you bring that duplication into meatspace in the form of physical infrastructure that makes it even worse REEEEE GTFO

>>59562627
You don't understand internet in America. Look up Comcast and Netflix, They were trying to do this even without net neutrality.

So, as I understand me, the benefits of change to the customer are tertiary at best, and the only ones who would really benefit are the ISPs and such.

Well, looks like my stance is clear. I pursue my own interests.

File: 1460092241079.png (278KB, 680x572px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 680x572px

>>59569287
>someday I will own the boot that rests on my face right now
>you need to allow those who want to exploit you to exploit you, otherwise magical free market principles will not work and everything will turn to holodomor

>/g/ is for net neutrality
>/g/ is against net neutrality


?????

>>59574297

/g/ is anti-regulation. always hass been, always will be.

redditors are pro-regulation

>>59574323
I hear that if you stick your fingers in your ears and say it louder and louder, that will make it true!

Can the free market solve slavery?

>>59574323
Is there ever enough real time to pass and see full impacts of regulation, to make better decisions in regulation in the future, before the next set of regulation begins?

Is a constant cycle of changing things without giving enough time to generate evidence that change happened, so that one can use that as evidence to promote more regulation.

>>59572350
>is a great way to get out competed.
But there's no competition. Removing Net Neutrality before you break up monopolies is ass backwards

>>59562538
>charge extra to use certain services
It means other sites.
Who made this shit up?
It's stupid.

>>59574297
/g/ is very much for net neutrality, but there are some loud minority contrarians from /r/the_donald who skew the measurements.

>>59562817
Streaming wasnt a problem for them then. Now that cable is dying and people turn to the internet for News and Entertainment telecom has a reason to do this.

>>59562595
What the hell is this nightmare?

>>59574323
muh regulation is not an argument. Regulations arent inherently evil.

>>59574457
You mean that with net neutrality, it will not be possible for one large content provider to service many clients, decentralizing content creation, breaking up monopolies and fostering localized cultural development?

Like, people will stop watching hollywood jew flicks and disney movies and stuff.

Wow, that sounds horrible.

File: 1517438615348.png (35KB, 401x212px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 401x212px

>Sorry sir, 4chan is only available in the advanced social media pack which is 20$/month!
>You can still get the basic starter pack with facebook and reddit for 5$/month!
T-thanks Trump

File: enhanced-17159-1423068265-32.jpg (69KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 501x585px

>Ring ring, hello schlomo, this is chaim
>There is a netflix premiere of our movie coming out tomorrow, but another streaming service is streaming another movie in another genre. It would be terrible if they suddenly started having "bandwidth optimisation problems", he he
>Oh, that would be terrible indeed, don't forget to deposit fifty sheckels to my personal account
>*rub rub*

>>59574555
>bites the hand that feeds

File: shekel.jpg (49KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 400x400px

>>59562538

>Oy Goy Vey, there's a video about palestinian kids raped killed and used for (((illegal))) transplants.
>These are sensible topics and allegedly a DDOS attack can make video unavailable outside israhell.

...here some, Avi.

JEW ISP is gibin' FAKE NEWS a low rate.

As described in paragraph 6 comma 6 point 6
low rate urls will have big connection problems.

More @11:00 Tel Aviv times on FACEBOOK

FACEBOOK the only TRUSTED JEWS NEWS

Stay tuned, goym !!!

Comstastovitz does not condone racism. The website you are trying to access has been flagged as racist or otherwise offensive.

The unencrypted data you send and receive from this website will be logged.

The encrypted data will be dropped.

>>59563170
Not true. I work for a WISP and we are currently working with Google to provide 100MB connections to people who don't have wired access.

>>59574435
Yea were I live I can only choose to get fucked by att or get fucked by comcast, lots of competition there!

>people actually believe ISPs will extort individual websites instead of simply continuing to rape consumers with all-in-one packages and data cap overages

literally why.

>>59562933
I'm in a suburb of Houston and have 2 choices

>>59574804
>will extort
They are already doing so.
https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

>>59574804
bc in recent years internet is a little more than google + facebook + amazon

jew isp do want have a role with these other jews, while they do not really care about anything else (((MONETARYWISE)))

Americans deserve it desu.
This is the freemarket that your politicians believe in.

>>59574960
You just reminded me that I don't even live in america, why the fuck do I care lmao.

Let that place become a third world shithole

>>59562595
people who believe this shit forget how computers work

>>59574290
>i have a right to control other people's monetary interactions via the menace of violence and punishment executed by the state

File: 1476918506893.png (501KB, 511x601px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 511x601px

>>59575248
>it's slavery when I don't have the right to enslave!

>>59562595
Assuming this is how it would work $20 for what I actually use doesn't sound so bad.

>>59562731
The net is already neutral and hasn't affected QoS or optimization thus far, you fucktard

>>59575205

exactly

>be a theoretical website owner
>Comcast charges $5 extra to use my website
>block all Comcast end user traffic to my site unless they remove the fee

>>59562567
So is your personality, but you don't see anyone trying to cut you up.

>>59574038
>for regulation
>equivalent to SJW cancer

I guess you think anti-pedophile and anti-freedom of speech laws are bad too.

>>59575702
>anti-freedom of speech laws
>are bad

You mean pro freedom of speech laws?

>falling for the Net Neutrality mumbo jumbo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPIYxtjLFeI

>>59575726
No, lefties don't like freedom of speech, it's rude.

>>59569287
I bet you're pissed they passed regulation against putting rat poison in meat or requiring air bags.

>>59575777
So then wouldn't someone want to be pro-freedom of speech if they don't want to be anti-SJW cancer?

I honestly don't want to remember everyone's special itty bitty witty "pronouns".

File: 1490408223924.jpg (42KB, 520x390px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 520x390px

>>59575805
>anti-SJW cancer
>anti
>did it again

>>59575805
Nor should you. I don't ask random people on the street to respect me or refer to me as something specific. If I have you call someone "xer" I will gladly do that as long as they call me "master", no biggie.

>>59562567
fpbp

>>59562992
>let's just start an ISP!
Of course, it's so obvious.

In fact, I'm gonna start an ISP right now!

>>59571575
I did by paying taxes.
>he thinks these corps built thier networks with thier own money.

>>59574397
It did