Net Neutrality is ded

>>59703662
Fuck that jew loving zionist faggot. /pol/ is so deluded they think a jew lover like trump will bring about the final solution.

Previous thread:

>>59696266

>>59703662
>fortune.com

At least you've been ridiculed out of using CNN for your weak shilling

>>59703892
I guess videos of spicy saying so is fake news.

Haha FUCK TRMUPF

Us based Hilldogs knew who truly stood behind freedom and progress.

>>59703778
>jew loving
>has been slowly btfo of jews and isreali pm

You sure about that one ahmed?

>>59703662
Damn, fuck Drumpf! It's all his fault! Why are the rest of the Conservatives like Paul Ryan and friends not standing up to him?! I assume they're on my side anyway, because I've been busy blaming everything on the big orange lightning rod and not really paying attention to them...

net neutrality is basically a gimme dat for netflix users , it says ISPs can't charge companies like Netflix more for using all the bandwidth

>>59704244
That's wrong, we're not having this discussion again.

File: 1491151764.png (137KB, 1550x1402px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1550x1402px

>>59703662
>net neutrality fags think that this should be illegal

>>59704348
>physical mail is comparable to electronic communication

back to /pol/ you luddite

>>59704191
>Has jewish family members and is proud of it
>Had a rabbi at his inauguration
>Defends Israel and is against palestine
>Doesn't want a permanent ban on all immigrants and is a civic nationalists
Keep sucking that cock you deluded fuck. Trump is just another zionist, another 4-8 years of waiting for a pro white president.

File: 3432423.jpg (58KB, 630x456px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 630x456px

fortune.com is part of the LIBERAL MEDIA spinning its propaganda

The Obama administration was Installing MORE of the DEEP STATE through agency Regulations.

Thus SHUTTING DOWN opposing views, but Opening democrat Agenda outfits like FB and google to do whatever they want.

COMMON Pattern with democrats

File: burger wojak.jpg (15KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 225x224px

burger here all I really want is faster internet standards desu

1mbps internet should be illegal in our current year. Make 5mbps uncapped the universal standard.

File: 72e05c4b10c589bcc7441fff1d9047a1f842e999_hq.jpg (24KB, 549x414px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 549x414px

Repeal everything passed by the Marxist Obama administration! Everything!

>>59705059
Thank your corrupt politicians for ISPs cucking you with quasi monopolies

>There are people on 4chan right now that support Trump in dismantling net neutrality.

Please apply your critical thinking skills.

If Net Neutrality is disbanded, ISPs can throttle traffic that doesn't suit their business interests (Netflix, Opposing media, open forums, etc). They can completely control what information you get over the internet, whether it be by firewalling or throttling. Don't even pretend for a second that you have other alternative news and information sources that haven't been tainted by someone's business interest. The open internet as it is now provides the greatest chance of accessing all opinions and arguments. How the hell would people on an anonymous imageboard support the control of the internet by major corporations?

>>59704934
It's not even a good analogy. Which, lf course it's not as all Trump cock suckers are brain addled. What that is an analogy to is for speeds you pay for. If you or I would pay for 100Mbs, then of course we'll have faster speeds than the guy who pays for 50.

The only way that analogy works for Net Neutrality is if your startup company pays USPS for 3 day shipping. But Amazon also pays for 3 day shipping of their products. But they have way more money than you, so they get to pay extra to slow your deliveries down.

>>59705126
Net Neutrality is the worst thing for the Freedoms of the individual. Leftist fell for more obama lies and the government took more control of the free market from us.
Net Neutrality does not make things neutral, it castrated free market.
Its Like Communism where everyone is equally poor, if you Like Communism then you will love Net Neutrality.

>>59705126
Obama wiretapped Trump during the election campaign. Now the Dems are up in arms about privacy.

>>59705283
No he didn't

>>59705266
Here come the shills. What country do you hail from comrade?

>>59703662
>Net Neutrality is ded
Only in the US, just move to a first world country already like australia.

>>59705114
this. so this.

>>59705329

US is the only country with legit NN.

Yuroclaps and Ausfailia routinely block websites on the grounds of hate speech or piracy. We dont have censorship in the US.

>>59705283
That has no relevance to net neutrality. There also hasn't been any concrete evidence that proves that it happened. Please try again.

>>59705266
Have you even cracked open a history or economics book? Stop throwing around labels like a fucking moron. This has nothing to do with Economics. This is about whether or not ISPs are required to retain the privacy of the people and treat all traffic, regardless of destination, equally. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about if you think that net neutrality infringes on the rights of the consumer/individual.

>>59705392

With proof:

https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-and-other-pirate-sites-will-be-blocked-in-australia-161215/

>>59705392
>>59705411
Are you thinking a shitty block of torrenting sites that you can get around by switching DNS-server is worse than the IPS being able to sell your data?

>>59705408
Obama gave Google the internet to sell your privacy to the highest bidder. It has nothing to do with neutrality or internet access.

Net Neutrality is SOCIALISM! Why would you want that unless you are a cuck?

Net Neutrality policies ensure everyone has the same low speeds, and anyone who wants more can't because it's illegal to sell anything faster or with more data than what everyone else has...thus a neutral internet.

END Net Neutrality NOW! I don't want to go back to 28k because some socialist living with mommy and daddy can't afford gigabit.

>>59705504
No, he didn't. You give your information to Google by using any service with them. It is in their service agreements. That happened long before Obama was in office, and he also had absolutely no part in facilitating that. The difference between Google selling information and ISPs selling information is that most people don't have equal options to alternative ISPs that won't sell your data and provide the same level of service. Plenty of service alternatives exist if you don't want Google to spy on your information and emails.

There is a huge difference between ISPs and Web Service Corporations.

>>59705504
You are truly the biggest fucking retard on this site, consider leaving it.
Forever.

File: 67657657.jpg (45KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 480x360px

>>59705408
This isn't about isps trawling our info, this is about reversing Obamas fake "privacy" scam, which was as concerned about your privacy as Obamacare was concerned about your health. Let Trump undo the damage, let Bannon undo the administrative state.

Haha muricans

File: 1490396981003.jpg (91KB, 694x842px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 694x842px

>>59705283
>Thinking it's about what actually happened and not what the plebs think happened

The Democrats are in bed with the (((MSM))) so they are predominantly controlling the message.

The problem with this kindof legislation is it's creating law interested at provoking technology to exist which currently doesn't. There are two perspectives on net neutrality in that some believe it will ((empower)) consumers to buy access to specific domains (usual normie trash bundle) possibly they think this will lower the price to consumers although the causation here is tenuous..

The other perspective is that regulation of this kind of thing inherently hurts the consumer Because it gives less choice for example "gee this cloud storage I am offered really sucks I wish I could use another service/domain but I would have to pay my ISP more to offer me access to the open market of competitive cloud storage"

Basically I feel the cascade should run

Innovative unprecedented new technology --->>> law created to protect citizens from bad implementations of that tech ie inferior craftsmanship, toxic chemicals in the product, irradiating the consumer, etc

Not

Law created to shape technology that might exist and might serve the lobbyists ---->>> bastardized technology designed to maximize profitability

File: 1438451310615.jpg (3MB, 4000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x4000px

>>59705643
Dont worry, we'll ruin it for you too...

>>59705669
No, Zero, no...

>>59705669
4k by 4k blurry image of an ugly fat

Top choice!

>>59705662
>which currently doesn't
Your home router has QoS settings. Undoing neutrality makes it legal for ISPs to set them on their upstream routers or border gateways, to fuck you and content providers both out of a monthly subscription fee on top of what you pay for basic access in exchange for slightly looser QoS policies. It's horse shit and does nothing but pad ISP wallets at the expense of everyone who actually uses the Internet.

>>59705127
Amazon pays way less than you do for the same shipment you retard. For the price you pay for 3 day shipping they can get 1 day shipping.

>>59705531
That is not at all what net neutrality accomplishes. Net neutrality is about mandatory privacy mechanisms and restricting ISPs from censoring/throttling web services based on their business interests. There is no stipulation about what service level they have to provide, even though they have been provided with MILLIONS of dollars in subsidies to improve their infrastructure. The only way that ISPs will actually give a shit about improving their infrastructure and internet speeds for the consumer is if there is enough competition to do so or there are regulations in place that force them to do so.

File: 1491111194.png (135KB, 1569x1373px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1569x1373px

>Net neutrality fags think this should be illegal

>>59705778
Nothing to hide you stupid cuck, like a cuckold like you can do anything about it.

>>59705059

>5
>not 25 AT LEAST

>>59705016
Sanders was pro white and you kept being all spooked about him because muh commies.

>>59705818
>cuck
>cuckold
>cuck
>cuckold
>cuck
>cuckold >cuck
>cuckold >cuck
>cuckold >cuck
>cuckold >cuck
>cuckold
Fucking kill yourself

Hey liberals...

In the same way twitter/Facebook can censor And track because they are private, so can Comcast

If you don't like it then get a $7 vpn!

But don't whine about "net neutrality" when free speech disappeared under obama

>>59705753

Net neutrality was about regulating bandwidth inside isp's. The federal government should not be going there. They should not control bandwidth. The market should.

>>59705809
no

that's discrimination based on bandwidth, not source. net neutrality has no problem with that

>>59705946
That's discrimination based on destination.

>>59705778
What ever, libtard. I know what Net Neutrality is, not what Communist News Network says it is.

Comrade Drumpf will sell you down the river.
Conservatards will never learn.

>>59705625
This is about whether ISPs have the right to sell your information about your internet traffic and its contents, as well as whether they have the right to limit your access to various parts of the internet, including 4chan. Net neutrality is the position that ISPs should not be allowed to do either. You are eating the shit straight from the horse's ass here when you genuinely believe that Trump is seeking to afford the individual privacy rights from ISPs by striking down net neutrality. If you had read anything about what net neutrality actually is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality), you would realize that Trump is in favor of the large ISPs and maximizing their profits over the interests of the individual.

>>59705662
>Democrats are in bed with the mainstream media so they are controlling the message
I agree, but I will also say that Trump's primary information sources of Breitbart and Infowars are not even close to being acceptable candidates for fair & unbiased reporting. AP is where its at. Also, Dems control CNN & NBC just like the Reps control FOX.

>"gee this cloud storage I am offered really sucks I wish I could use another service/domain but I would have to pay my ISP more to offer me access to the open market of competitive cloud storage"
Enforcing net neutrality prevents exactly this. How the fuck are you not getting this? Read the Wikipedia link above.

>>59705955
no

read closer.

rates out to the internet are source agnostic

i don't care what people do in within their own private networks

>>59705958
>libtard
>Communist News Network
Are you parodying trump supporters?
Or, are you really THAT bad?

>>59705969
Except there is no private network between different AWS regions.

>>59705997
Um, that is what CNN stands for.

File: 02b.png (105KB, 1456x909px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1456x909px

>>59703662
He's gonna build a wall!! :---DDDD

>>59705809
Are you legitimately retarded?

This is a pricing list for traffic using Amazon Web Services, a VPS hosting service, not an ISP. Amazon Web Services hosts servers for people to set up things like websites. AWS is NOT an ISP. Please submit relevant evidence to your argument.

>>59705266
>Net Neutrality does not make things neutral, it castrated free market.
Stop spewing propaganda

All net neutrality does is make the ISP treat all traffic equally, similar to a utility like gas or electric. Your power company doesn't care what you use the power on.

It is extremely important for privacy

>>59705966
And where in that entire wikpedia article does it mention privacy at all, except for "Alok Bhardwaj, founder of Epic Privacy Browser"? You should at least read the stuff you cite.

>>59705753
If you have a 100mbit connection at home and it's mostly idle then you're not going to cap something at 1mbit just because it's possible.

A lot of NIX points have public graphs you can go look at. Most isp<->isp connections sit at 10% and peak around 40-50%.

If a big ISP can get away with charging 10x what they need to or charge you for something that easily could be free then they will. Just look at how telco's were charging for SMS messages, and a few still do.

>>59706005

and if the networks between them wanted to discriminate against or in favor of s3 traffic i'd be against that

i don't care how cloud infrastructure providers price bandwidth between their own services and neither does net neutrality

>>59705966
net neutrality is just the government tilting the playing field for their buddies at the expense of everyone else, and it is being undone. Thankfully.

>>59705864
A VPN doesn't prevent ISPs from logging where the traffic is going you moron. They can still log everything else. Free speech never disappeared. Stop using Obama as your scapegoat.

>>59704348
>sending electrons at the speed of light is the same as flying boxes around the world

>>59706039
But not all traffic is equal. I would say the traffic needed to run a business is more important than a manchild on 4chan posting liberal propaganda like you.

>>59706010

CNN is fake news. But as is most other mainstream news.

A good example of the mainstream fake news was this recent legislation over the "landmark" rules that were removed.

The headlines in mainstream fake news were something like ISP's will being to "spy" on you. Anyone with any tech knowledge knows that was 100% complete BS.

>>59706048
So if Comcast wanted to start an internet streaming service that is only served within their own network, at no charge and that does not count towards speed or transit caps, then you'll be ok with that?

>>59706075
>running an ISP is free

>>59706083
The business probably purchases more bandwidth, which is fine, but it should not be treated any differently than individuals

*Laughs in third world country* (India actually) a shitload (literally) of population using internet so the net administration is lenient asf, additionally the new optic fibre companies don't even reroute their DNS through the central cyber administration so no censor and high speeds atm

>>59706094
>we dont pay for internet

>>59706088
That would be fine and in their rights to do so. Maybe they could do better than netflix.

>>59706114
You pay for internet at a certain service level. If you want better service, you pay more for a more reliable business connection. Same if you want faster delivery, you pay more for priority shipping.

>>59706087
How can you tell the difference between fake news and real news?

>>59706037
Ok, so when people rent AWS servers to set up a website, they also have to set up a connection between their server and Comcast? Holy shit you are retarded.

>>59706039
>propaganda
Soros spent overy 65 mil to get it done , obama did it for him , Trump is undoing it. Let the ISP's do what they want. It'sall good for business when they are allowed to be creative.

>It is extremely important for privacy
There is no such thing as internet privacy. As soon as you're on line or through a cell tower, you're being monitored.

>>59706132
>>59706075

>>59706111
Pajeet my son, you must shit in street, not toilet

also do not use condom, they are too big for you

>>59706137
Fake News lie and push propaganda like CNN and MSNBC, especially Aljadzera and RT.

Real news is unbiased like Fox News.

>>59706088

that's fine as long as there's no discrimination against outside traffic based on source

so none of this "pay us $5 and we'll uncuck your youtube speeds" horseshit

>>59705966
>Also, Dems control CNN & NBC just like the Reps control FOX.
*The MSM is a tool of propaganda
Also, I agree that Breitbart is kinda shit. Your best off using Youtubers as a news source.

File: 11h8rt.jpg (241KB, 2186x1639px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 2186x1639px

>>59706137
fake news = things i don't agree with.
real news = things i agree with

>>59706088

Sure, why not. It'll probably be cheaper than paying for TV which I wouldn't mind.

Also it was Tom Wheeler, the guy who's supposedly for NN, that said he was a fan of 0 rating.

>>59706152
Why does business tier internet cost more than residential tier internet? Are all business owners just dumb goyim?

>>59706154
Go back to /pol/ cracker jack
Poo jokes are much appreciated there.

>>59706171
youtube and random news site that were created during the election cycle are the best source for real news

>>59706142
When you rent and connect to an AWS server, your traffic is first routed by your ISP, and then forwarded to Amazon. By default, any internet traffic you send is automatically through your ISP, even if you talk to a VPN. It's not that difficult to understand.

>>59706167
>>59706182
>>59706131
Every ISP now cuts there connection with the outside world. There is no internet anymore. There's the Comcast internet, there's the AT&T internet, there's the TWC internet, and none of them are connected to each other. If you are a subscriber to Comcast you can only use Comcast services.

>>59705904
>>59705904
w-what

NN doesn't control bandwidth, it just states that ISPs must treat all traffic equally. So if I wanted to access a site, they have to treat my traffic the same as someone else trying to access a different site.

>>59706210
So my AWS server will go down if the cables at my home get damaged?

>>59706218
Shit nigga, we start a new ISP.

>>59706166
>like Fox News.
Fox News loved hillary and is anti-trump.

>>59703662
TCP/IP over avian carriers when?

File: IMG_20170402_151853.jpg (102KB, 666x485px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 666x485px

>>59704220
Oh Really? This is what happens without net neutrality (see pic)

>>59706231
And the new ISP doesn't connect to anything so no one would subscribe to it.

>>59706218

nobody would ever pay for that kind of internet service

if ISPs want to lose all of their subscribers i guess that's fine by me, this market could use a big shakeup anyway

File: 1486035661910.jpg (150KB, 890x876px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 890x876px

>>59706239

>>59706250
It's their only choice, the ISPs have a monopoly :^)

>>59706185
Its a substantially bigger service provided, you fucking mong.
could this site be hosted from your basement?

>>59706253

it's no choice at all

if i couldn't go on the websites i wanted to i just wouldn't pay for the service anymore because at that point it would be a waste of money to me

>>59706224
Why should bandwidth be treated equally?

>>59703662
didn't /g/ say net neutrality was a scam a couple of years ago?

>>59706230
NO. YOUR AWS IS NOT AT UR HOME. IF SOMEONE FROM AWS DECIDES TO UNPLUG UR SERVER THEN ITLL GO DOWN

>>59706250
Yep, I guess some random Joe will invest billions of dollars to compete with the evil local ISP.

Many other countries have affordable Internet because they told the private companies to fuck off.

Thank god for dead net neutrality.

Net neutrality is a misnomer, it should instead be renamed as FCC power grab.

If you've done nothing wrong, then you've got nothing to worry about.

>>59706247

Wrong. NN wasn't even a thing until recently, and your stupid image never happened.

Once Trump repeals NN, your image still won't happen. I don't even think NN is actual law right now.

>>59706278
So when do I have to set up a connection from the AWS server I bought and Comcast so my server can serve users?

>>59706273
Imagine Netflix taking minutes to load but YouTube taking no time to load. That's would be a pain right? YouTube should load just as fast as netflix

>>59706275
Maybe you just read one bad post, at the time.

>>59706273
Because NN and it ensures that every website is on an equal playing field. Without NN ISPs could decide to throttle every site that doesn't pay them enough, essentially ensuring that the only players are established businesses.

>>59706298
What the fuck? NN is what we have right now u tard. Go to theopeninter.net

>>59706301
Then Youtube should pay for the same amount of bandwidth as Netflix instead of cheaping out.

>>59706282
the internet isn't a necessity of life. there is a limit to how much fuckery the market will tolerate before it will simply stop paying for and using the internet

if the internet is rendered virtually useless, nobody will pay for it.

>>59706307
>could
With Net Neutrality ISPs can randomly decide to shut down their service and no one gets internet access. Or they could quadruple prices for everyone because they feel like it.

>>59706273
Imagine if there were two competing services, but one of them is being throttled by the ISP so more people use the unthrottled service.

And the unthrottled service ends up being owned by the ISPs parent company.

>>59706042
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/115/sjres34/text

This is the bill in question. This bill specifically undoes the rule set out by the FCC in restricting ISPs from collecting and selling data about your internet traffic. Individual data privacy and Net neutrality are indeed two separate issues. This bill is what you were referencing I assume. Net neutrality is indeed irrelevant.

However, in that case, I still argue that the FCC should restrict ISPs from collecting and selling your data, since it only serves to erode the privacy of the individual, since there is usually no alternative privacy-friendly option available to the consumer to decide for themselves if they want to be monitored.

>>59706301
Netflix also hosts longer videos with better PQ/AQ, better than Blu-ray especially. Of course Netflix takes longer to load.

>>59706314
Oh no they both make sure they are fast so users can enjoy some videos, the ISP would be slowing one down and letting the other be faster. YOU have to pay (to the ISP) more if u want fast netflix

>>59706275
>hi I'm from /pol/, I've been here a week!
>I'm also 13

>>59706348
Why would ISPs go out of their way to do that? When has that ever happened?

>>59706335
Perfectly legal according to
>>59706167
>>59706182
>>59706131

>>59706343
That's not the fucking point. I meant taking longer than it should be.

File: when-someone-think-they-have-an-argument-but-its-not-2777133.png (54KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x534px

>>59706358
try harder, shill

>>>59706348 (You)
>Why would ISPs go out of their way to do that?
They want more money
>When has that ever happened?
It hasn't happened, but it will happen if we get rid of net neutrality, which is why ISPs are pushing to get rid of net neutrality

>>59706379
That is the point. Longer better quality video streams take longer to load, especially if they are the highest quality possible

>>59706298
>>59706298
Read up, ya fucking retard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/09/09/220685669/net-neutrality-in-court-heres-what-you-need-to-know

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/235985-fccs-net-neutrality-decision-corrects-telecom-act-mistakes

NN has been a thing your entire underage life, it was only when Verizon took the FCC to court that it briefly went away. The FCC quickly reclassified ISPs as utilities to reinstate NN.

>>59706299
I will draw this in text:

Your computer -> ISP -> AWS Server -> Other ISPs -> other users and customers

Without an ISP, you cannot access the internet without using/hijacking someone else's connection.

>>59706404
how is he a shill?

File: 1491070332026.jpg (422KB, 990x2280px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 990x2280px

>>59706340
>However, in that case, I still argue that the FCC should restrict ISPs from collecting and selling your data, since it only serves to erode the privacy of the individual, since there is usually no alternative privacy-friendly option available to the consumer to decide for themselves if they want to be monitored.

Ah, but it's OK when non-ISP's do this. Why didn't libtards care about user privacy until a week ago?

https://www.quora.com/Is-Net-Neutrality-a-good-idea-or-a-bad-idea
>Net neutrality as a concept is good, it's about fairness. Net neutrality as a practice is problematic. It's more political than it is technical.
net neutrality sure is in (((someone)))'s interest

>>59706416
Nigger see this:

>>59706413

>>59706429
And who is this Other ISP, since apparently it isn't Amazon?

>>59706316
>the internet isn't a necessity of life
Enjoy having a job or functioning in 2017 without the Internet.

>>59706435
Yea, it's in the interests of bernouts and other Communists

>>59706328
>With Net Neutrality ISPs
*Without

File: 34534.jpg (191KB, 1600x1150px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1600x1150px

>all these Soros shrill defending net neutrality and google/fakebook propaganda

>>59706451
well according to the hypothetical I wouldn't have access to the services I need anyway

so why pay for it?

>>59706421


>As things are now, the Federal Communications Commission regulates net neutrality by "policing" an open Internet. The current rules, passed in 2010

>passed in 2010

>>59706413
Why would this happen? The CEO at Comcast is friends with the CEO at Youtube but not with the CEO of Netflix, so he throws away potentially millions of dollars of revenue to give Youtube cheaper rates?

>>59706434
So I'm now forced to use Snapchat? I have to use my ISP since it's the only one in my area.

>>59706275
/g/ was huge for net neutrality two years ago. Anyone who was against it was a kike and/or ISP shill.

>>59706465
And with. Where in the net neutrality rules does it state that ISPs can't shut down or raise prices to whatever they feel like?

>>59706494
t. kike ISP shill

>>59706489

You're not forced to use your cable company. You also use the telco or the many mobile providers.

Try again.

>>59706434
I never said that non-ISPs are OK to collect and sell data.

I personally believe that collecting and selling consumer data is ethically wrong and violates a person's inherent right to privacy. The person should only have their data used for the purposes of providing them the content that they are knowingly asking for, not the content they might want (see Google reading emails and giving that information to retailers).

I believe that ISPs AND non-ISPs should be restricted. However, the rule does not specifically say "non-ISPs are free to collect data about the consumer". It still leaves the door open in the future. It just closes the "ISPs should not collect and sell your data" door.

>>59706494
Then we realized that NN was Socialist, and socialists are faggots to the nth degree.

I'm fine with net neutrality going away, if ISPs are forced to disclose which websites they will throttle, and by how much. If one is paying X amount for Y amount of speed/data cap, then they should have the right to know when the ISP goes out of their way to NOT deliver that speed/data cap.
Imagine if you were buying a car with a certain advertised 0-60 time and top speed. The car's internal sensors/computer, however, is programmed to make the car run slower if you don't use Shell gasoline. The manufacturer doesn't disclose this, and you are basically forced to use Shell gasoline. If the customer knows up front what they're actually paying for and signs a contract stating as such, then IMO that's fine.

>>59706506
t. kike ISP shill

>everything trump does is bad
nice meme

>>59706513
Right I get that, but saying /g/ wasn't for NN 2-3 years ago would be a lie.

>>59706473
Is this what /g/ has become? Or is this weekend /g/, where all the /pol/kids are home from school.

>>59706510
>implying mobile internet is comparable to wired

what the fuck is this, kenya?

>>59706529
>everything trump does is good
ice meme

How do we stop ISPs from throttling or giving 404 error for any site they don't approve of now?

>>59706524
Stop pretending throttling is going to be a thing

>>59706477
>what is the telecommunications act of 1996

>>59706142
>not getting it

>>59706536
this is true, there are so many cars i can choose from just like there are so many ISP's i can choose from.

>>59704348

but that's how it actually is right now

You get priced by QUANTITY and not CONTENT

Sending a 1kg Laptop and 1kg of dirt costs the same when sent through mail

and so should 1Mb or Netflix and 1Mb of any other website

Without net neutrality they can charge you money/slow your connection for specific websites


and if that happened with mailing it would be like this:

>Shipping 1Kg of dirt: $5
>Shipping 1Kg of Documents: $30
>Shipping 1Kg of Electronics: $100

>>59706567

Which is not Net Neutrality. You illiterate mongoloid.

>>59706564
I hope it'll be a thing for Liberal websites. Liberalism is dying, the democratic party is imploding...they just need this final hit.

>>59706448
Other. Fucking. ISPs.

They're connecting to your AWS Webserver, in this case. Amazon is not an ISP.

>>59706593
If I am shipping dirt, then it probably doesn't need to get there faster, so I can use the slow and cheap shipping method. If I am shipping documents, they are probably important, so I will pay extra to get it there faster. With net neutrality, all data is treated equal, so you cannot pay different amounts for different tiers of service.

>>59703662
When will you faggots learn that it's not Trump, not Hillary and not Obama? It's the people pulling the strings behind them. This shit is going down no matter who you """elect""". Open your fucking eyes already.

>>59706616
Ok, which ISP is my AWS server connected to? Comcast? Verizon? AT&T?

>>59705059
Dude I live in Spain. 300 is the norm here. What the fuck, you are supposed to be dreamland.

>>>/pol/

>>59706615
>democratic party is imploding
its just a puppet, the master would just introduce a new one to accompany his other puppets counterpart.

>>59706626
You missed the point of the persons argument, you are literally retarded.

>>59706659
Net neutrality is treating all data equally. There are no separate tiers of service under it.

>>59706448
Comcast, Time Warner, Spectrum (formerly Brighthouse Networks), and AT&T are all examples of ISPs. Say you and someone else in your city have different ISPs. If you set up an AWS server and that guy wanted to access it, he would go through his ISP to access it. If you want to access it, you have to go through your ISP. They route your request for the website through their infrastructure and out to the destination like AWS.

>>59706652
>ISPs are not technology
Go back to your iphone thread, adults are talking.

>>59705059
Who's going to pay for it? ISPs are already being choked to death by the FCC and liberal policies now. They can't afford to upgrade their infrastructure now.

File: 1491162221.png (236KB, 1237x1640px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 1237x1640px

>>59706648
Stop posting bullshit.

>>59706648

300 is not the norm, maybe some major cities, but the rest of the country is shit.

>>59706648
>dreamland
that was a meme to attract unwashed hordes.
We should of taken the "fuck off, we're full" stance 100+ years ago.

>>59706626
That's a terrible analogy. Postal services charge by size, weight, and how fast you want the item shipped.
What the ISPs are trying to do is more like a postal service shipping a bottle of Coke slower than a bottle of Pepsi with the exact same weight and dimensions because Coke didn't give them money. Also they take your money for the shipment without telling you anything about this policy.

>>59706669
So you're saying that there's a line from Comcast, Time Warner, Spectrum, AT&T, and every other ISP in the world, directly plugged into the AWS server that I am renting? And AWS pays for all these lines?

>>59706668
Why should all data be treated equally when it's not equal? Some kid watching Pewdipie on JewTube isn't as important as a business needing to update documents over the internet.

>>59706724
I'm not saying it should. That's the definition.

>>59706739
Thats the fallacy of NN.

>>59706718
That's not the point. My scenario would be illegal under net neutrality. All data is treated equally.

File: 6184806686.png (20KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 350x200px

>>59706676
>>59706690
>>59706698
>being this butthurt because you live in a shit "free" country

lel
Keep those (you)s coming lads. 300 is the norm among young people and those who actually care to look for it. Most mom and pop households just don't care and have the standard 20 at most, but either Vodafone/Ono or Movistar are available virtually anywhere that is not a shithole (and I live in a small town btw).

It's not the best price though.

>>59706754
>faster than 98% of ES
>"the norm"
Yeah and I can get gigabit internet from AT&T here too, I'm just not retarded enough to pay for it when I don't need it.

File: speed.png (33KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x135px

>>59706754

Every single cable company in the US (Comcast/TWC/Cox/Optimum) etc all have upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0... That's not really impressive.

I could get 300mbit but it's not worth it over 200mbits.

>>59706674
>implying global telecomuncation conglomerates are destitute and struggling for money.

comcast and co doesn't need to give a shit and have a monopoly on most part of the country. why buy fiber cables when you can buy congressmen?

>>59706724
With NN we need quality internet, A channel thats reliable and equal to everyone. Also, who dictates what is important and what isnt?

>>59706247
I would love paying less for no access to daily kos or little green footballs

File: internet.png (33KB, 300x135px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x135px

>>59706754

Lol you can find those speeds in pretty much any city in the US.

>>59706435
>>59706435
>>59706435
>>59706435
>>59706435

>>59706801
How does NN guarantee quality internet?

>Also, who dictates what is important and what isnt?
The ones paying for the service

>>59706724
nothing wrong with these giant telecoms deciding what's important and unimportant. it presents no precedent for conflict of interests at all.

>>59706564
It literally has been a thing already. Did you not hear about the Netflix lawsuits?

>>59706634
What difference does it make? Amazon has some ISP it's using.

>>59706614
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#FCC.27s_authority_narrowed_.282014.29

>>59706857
Fake news.
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html

>>59706863
Amazon is the ISP.

>>59706818
>How does NN guarantee quality internet?
It doesnt. We just need a service that can provide more than 1.5Mbs in rural areas.

>The ones paying for the service
We are all paying for service, its getting too expensive and becoming more worthless, and slowing it down for websites that dont pay their ransom would hurt it even more

>>59706721
Kind of. There are cables that run from each household to a box that takes traffic from each and sends it up the infrastructure. Different ISPs can sometimes share this equipment, but it will always forward to their own respective infrastructure. The ISP takes your traffic, sees where it says its going, and sends it through its infrastructure to the next best option. This could be AWS itself, since AWS has a line from the ISPs hooked up to its servers, or this could be other ISPs if it cannot find it connected to its infrastructure. AWS pays for a line out to their ISP which connects them to their consumers. They already pay for a certain amount of bandwidth and speed as it is, just as you do, but your requirements are in the Mbps, whereas AWS is in the Gbps or Tbps. In the end, your connection makes it to AWS because you both pay for access to an infrastructure that makes it possible for both of you to talk.

>>59706782
>>59706787
>>59706807
>Bu-but I-I have fast internet too anon

Your country is still raping you in the ass at every opportunity. Deal with it and stop getting so defensive, you twats.

I'm out.

>>59706787
>>59706807
>Faster than 95, 96% of US
I'm getting about 100 down, 10 up here in BurgerLand.

>>59706902
So Amazon is the ISP.

>>59706432
Let me put it to you in words /pol/tards can understand:

(((Things I disagree with)))

>ISPs shouldn't be allowed to deploy QoS in order to help manage data hog services that don't want to pay their fair share

>>59706934
No. AWS does not forward your traffic. They are the destination. Once your traffic reaches AWS, it is at its "destination". After that, Amazon takes it and routes it to your server that you've specified.

>>59706884
OK, this doesn't make it any different. You still have to go through your own ISP.

>>59706960
>Amazon takes it and routes it to your server that you've specified.
Kind of like an ISP.

>>59706967
If Amazon is an ISP then they cannot discriminate based on traffic and charge you different rates depending on the destination under net neutrality.

File: 6176676052.png (21KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 350x200px

>>59706807
>that skew

>>59707006
And that's why Amazon isn't an ISP, my point was that you still have to go through your own ISP.

>>59706956
>ISPs prevent people from serving and give fuck all upstream bandwidth and then complain that the incoming:outgoing ratio is all fucked up

>>59707036
That's why Comcast isn't an ISP. My point was that you still have to go through Amazon.

>>59706633
and just what could be done about them?
capitalism will always lead back to this point and communism doesn't work

>>59707006
When you have a router on your home network that decides whether your traffic should go to another device on the network or outside, do you consider yourself an ISP? No. Additionally, Amazon does not connect you to Microsoft, Google, or other ISP clients. An ISP networks all of these companies and customers together. Amazon routes the traffic internally based on which server you've specified. They own the hardware, not the ISP.

>>59707080
>When you have a router on your home network that decides whether your traffic should go to another device on the network or outside, do you consider yourself an ISP
I don't have millions of customers using my router.

>Additionally, Amazon does not connect you to Microsoft, Google, or other ISP clients
If that's true, then how can I serve traffic to external users on an AWS server?

>>59706199
poo.init()
lurk more

>>59705392
>We dont have censorship in the US
yes you do, especially now. And the censorship will be based on the whims of corporate interest rather than law

>>59707125
>the censorship will be based on the whims of corporate interest rather than law

What's the fucking difference? Anywhere. It's the same.

>>59707113
>If that's true, then how can I serve traffic to external users on an AWS server?
All connections are initiated by a client. This client connects to an ISP, tells it where it wants to go like AWS, Google, or MS, and the ISP takes their traffic and sends it to these companies. Once the companies receive it, they will respond with a copy of the web page or whatever the client requested, so another connection is made from AWS, Google, or MS, their servers say they want to send traffic back to your client PC, and the ISP sends the traffic back to your home network.

File: netneutrality-june2016[1].jpg (46KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x400px

>>59703662
friendly reminder that for once in its life, the EU actually did something good: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-net-neutrality

>>59707151
>What's the fucking difference?
>blocking torrent sites and child porn because of widely agreed law violations
vs
>providers throttling or blocking any website that in any way competes with a company the provider has an interest in
gee, what's the fucking difference?

File: 1490476063562.jpg (41KB, 374x374px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 374x374px

>>59706434
Help an anon without friends and phone out, what's the difference between "identity" and "contacts" permission?
Is the account in the first one the mail tied to your phone like the gmail used for the playstore?
I looked at an app permission list out of curiosity and the list shows this.

>Identity

> find accounts on the device
> add or remove accounts
> read your own contact card

>Contacts

> find accounts on the device
> read your contacts
> modify your contacts

>>59707153
>ISP sends the traffic back to your home network.
And how does the packets my servers send get to these ISPs?

>>59707194
you vs other people

how difficult is it to understand?

>>59707158

except the EU blocks websites routinely because of hate speech and piracy

>>59707224
That means the app has your mail?

>>59707223
Your servers are hosted by AWS at Amazon. Amazon has a connection to an ISP that can route traffic back to your home network or to any other customers. Your server sends a packet out, Amazon takes that packet and sends it through their connection to an ISP. The ISP sees where it needs to go and routes it there.

>>59707236
>hate speech and piracy
vs
>muh money deals with other companies
>block any shit that even remotely competes with anyone we like or says anything bad about us
what is it with you burgerstanis? Are you all just born retarded or what? Do you get raped by your own laws so much all the time that you think all laws and things governments do are inherently evil? Your government is a complete pile of shit and your country is just as pathetic, being led purely by corporate interests and lobbying. The EU is a shadow of its own dream but at least it fucking works a little better and doesn't fuck over its own citizens as much

>>59706434
those things are literally part of the app you insufferable retard. of course it needs the camera permission etc because that's the whole point of the app

>>59707270
your email address, yeah, and other stuff that identifies you

>>59705016
>>59705016
>for a pro white president
Oh shit, trump voters are really as stupid as they say...

>>59707281

Except you have hardly any evidence of ISP's blocking websites because of "competition". There;s tons of ISP's out there.

Yuroclaps we know for sure block web sites in masse.

That's very anti net neutrality and anti free speech.

>>59707280
So what makes my connection to an AWS server different than my connection to an AT&T subscriber? What makes AT&T an ISP and Amazon not?

File: 1489024330627.jpg (69KB, 306x331px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 306x331px

>>59707298
>put fake mail address on your phone which you also use for porn
>install normie apps like whatsapp
>facebook knows your lewd/shitposting mail

>>59707311
>There;s tons of ISP's out there.
>yet muricans always cry about huge areas having literally only 1 provider
>murican providers are widely known to all be the exact same shit, so they might as well just be 1 company

>Yuroclaps we know for sure block web sites in masse.
>EU blocks child porn and muslim extremist sites and the like
>this is bad
>muricans think their providers won't start blocking any random shit they remotely disagree with on whatever grounds now that the law specifically encourages them to do whatever the fuck they want
how can you be so deluded?

>>59706807
I live in san diego and you cannot get those speeds here.most is 150/5. unless you live in a tiny subsection of downtown where you can get fiber

>>59706872
I think im starting to get it.
Fake news is anything that isn't 100% correct.

>>59707450
Any news source that said that Comcast was throttling Netflix and forcing them to pay extra is 0% correct.

>>59706247
this retarded meme is so old and imaginary it has Napster, blogger, and AIM on it. Stay scared of things that will never happen idiot

File: images[1].jpg (6KB, 350x144px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 350x144px

>>59707480
>current law literally encourages companies to do this
>"this will never happen"

>>59707461
you're correct. comcast just had shitty speeds and network and netflix freely paid them to make it better.

>>59707428

>anecdotal evidence

You failed to mention that Yuroclaps block sites like KAt, TPB, Torrentz etc.

100% against net neutrality and free speech. Yo're the one claiming you have NN, except you don't. You're the delusional one.

>>59707505
Did you even read the article, or do you just read fake news for Reddit?

>>59707515
First off, no I didn't, we already talked about piracy sites before. And most of them aren't blocked: I can get on tpb, kat (when it still existed), torrentz (also dead now) and all else that I want. I've torrented terabytes of shit and only ever occasionally saw tpb blocked for a short time.

Regardless, enjoy your soon-to-be internet where you have to pay extra based on which sites you want to access. I hope you enjoy being a slave to your corporate overlords and their greedy financial interests that they are free to force upon everyone.

fucking troll, I swear. You just cannot be this retarded and still be serious

>>59707502

It doesn't happen because you're trying to apply TV with internet.

TV packages exist because the providers charge cable/satellite companies out the ass for their programming.

Also can leftists explain why TV is expensive, yet there's a lot of competition when it comes to TV. You have at least 4 providers to choose from when it comes to TV.

Just move to comfy country like Albania
Cheap mercs
Cheap everything
They dont care about the internet since shops can legally sell cracked games burned on cds for like 5 €

I dont give too much of a fuck since i dont live in fatland but how is this even an argument
How do people not see how much trump is fucking u all up and u cheer for him
Fucking laughstock of the world
If i lived there id just assasinate him or smth

File: nick-young-confused-face-300x256_nqlyaa[1].jpg (25KB, 600x512px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x512px

>>59707565
>It doesn't happen because you're trying to apply TV with internet.

>>59707623

Websites are cheaper to deliver than TV channels.

>>59707613
this

when you're dead you don't know, it's only sad for those you left
when you're an idiot you think you're doing it right, only those around you see how fucking stupid you are
when you're murican, only those on another continent and some enlightened individuals within the united corporations of america see how fucking stupid you are

File: huh.jpg (97KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1280x720px

>>59706247
Does that mean that if I choose the first one, google and facebook won't track me?

>>59707650
yeah, in practice, to the provider. sure as shit not to the customer anymore soon. Enjoy paying your premium for facebook access, and a premium for gmail, and a premium for non-throttled youtube, etc

>>59707659
There is no first one for you to choose because such pricing schemes won't exist in the first place.

Good... but not nearly far enough.

Telecom industry needs to be completely deregulated.

>>59707709

Anything the FCC controls turns to shit.

See TV and Radio.

>>59707613
This desu senpai

>>59707709
why do you guys always think deregulation is the answer?

>murderers gonna murder anyway so better just deregulate it and let them murder if they want, people will sort it out among each other
>buildings on fire gonna burn down anyway, better not spend money on the fire department and just let the fire consume as much as the free house market will allow

You realize some regulations are just sane baselines, like "don't extort your customers" or "don't murder people because you don't like their hair", right? are you muricans fucking stupid or what? do you actually genuinely WANT the big corporations and whatnot to use and abuse you like tools? Do you guys collectively have stockholm syndrome AND masochism?

2 words:

Romanian internet

File: 14cohen1-inyt-master768.jpg (78KB, 768x512px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 768x512px

>>59707743

The only laughing stocks are people like Merkel, Hollande, etc all which want to import more refugees that run over their citizens.

>>59707774
Fuck off nazi

>>59707774
we can say shit about your idiot of a president too. About all of your idiots of presidents. murica thinks they're so great but they consistently fall short of every other country there is. bumfuckoo, africa is a more developed place than the united corporations of america

>>59707767
Because right now what stands between us and cheaper, faster internet is regulatory capture at near every level of government. The big incumbents are literally using regulations to suppress competition and raise the barrier of entry for new entrants into the market.

If a powerful giant like Google with near-infinite resources is having tremendous difficulty entering the ISP market, you know something is fucked with the current structure of the system.

When the fuck has an ISP ever threatened to murder you? Complete non-sequitur. If you don't like your ISP you can say fuck off and not purchase their service.

>>59707774
>he thinks putin is good

I'll never understand why you retards bother to use analogies for simple shit that everyone can understand without one. There's no esoteric jargon when explaining net neutrality, so there's no need to compare it to something. You can just state it as it is and it can still be understood.

Every time an analogy comes up there's always some retard who tries to argue in terms of the analogy as if that's the reality of the argument. ie this retard: >>59706626

>>59707816

>t. some retard living in some shithole

Wish gookmoot would bring flags to this board.

>>59707818
>Complete non-sequitur
this defines literally everything muricans ever say about stuff like net neutrality. You guys think your corporate overlords are on your side as well

>>59707838

He's the only non-cucked leader in Europe.

>>59707840
I am a business owner. I need a reliable internet connection that won't go to shit when people get home and start streaming netflix. Net neutrality will make separate tiers of service for businesses illegal.

>>59707768
>being a gypsy

>>59707851
Yes they are, you fucking marxist dolt. Stop consuming anything produced by a corporation, if you think you're saying anything meaningful with that statement.

>>59707818

What stands between us and actual first-world internet speeds is the complacency of ISPs. Laying fiber isn't cheap, starting and ISP isn't something you're going to be able to do. Most of America gets one or two ISPs to choose from due to the massive amount of the country that's rural. They have a total monopoly in those locations. Try to start anything up and you get fucked out of the game by the already existing ISPs. They have no reason to make the service better. Good luck with a business plan of converting major ISP users to your new service. For every person who actually gives a shit and knows how bad they're being fucked, there are ten soccer moms and grandmas that don't know any better than just want to use facebook, or work off mobile data more than their home internet. You say "hey I can give you internet that's not trash" and they don't care because just having internet at all is good enough for them. The ISPs don't give a shit because those people will continue to make up such a large portion of their customer base that they don't even need you. They will continue to strangle the market, and only give you anything better than what you have by the time it's already out of date.

File: 1481088843364.jpg (53KB, 576x960px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 576x960px

>>59707870
AHAXHAHAHAAAHAHAHXHAHAH

You retarded amerifats and poltatds are fucking clueless

Putler is "cucked" by chechens, by oligarchs and by the west...
Im baffled when i keep reading underage edgy retards here jerking off to le based Putin and Rusdia, while living in their comfy middle-class suburbun house's basement


t. actual Russian

>>59707671
you're an idiot

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

1MB, 2500x2560px

>>59707933

>What stands between us and actual first-world internet speeds is the complacency of ISPs.

We have faster internet than Yuroclaps actually. ISP's have been upgrading their networks especially the cable companies.

Ruralfags might have bad speeds, but that's the same in Yurop and the rest of the world. Stop crying.

>>59707873

I don't believe this has any basis in reality. The core of net neutrality is the ability for services to be preferred over others by the ISP and your access to them artificially restricted. You can still have a separate tier of internet, it doesn't prefer Service A over Service B, there's no ethical dilemma here. The only difference is you pay for an entirely different plan from your ISP that puts you into that separate channel that keeps your internet stable. All of it, not just certain parts of it.

>>59707995
The core of net neutrality is that all data is treated equal. There is no allowance for tiers of service.

File: udontrumped.jpg (56KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 640x480px

>>59703662
If you voted for Trump and you didn't see this coming, you are a fucking idiot.

>>59708016
>There is no allowance for tiers of service.
what is bandwidth?

>>59708042
Quality isn't the same as quantity you idiot.

>OH NO I'LL HAVE TO PAY 2 DOLLARS MORE FOR NETFLIX BECAUSE NETFLIX USE MORE BANDWIDTH NOT FAIR INTERNET IS DED

t. liberal baby

>>59708016

It IS being treated as equal. You pay for X Mbps, that's what you get -everywhere-. Someone else happens to pay for half that in their plan? They still get it -everywhere-. There's no preference on what content you are trying to receive.

>>59708070
>Quality isn't the same as quantity you idiot.

so... latency?
which depends on how many hops it is from source to dest. net neutrality doesn't affect this. OTHER PEOPLE'S USAGE doesn't affect this.

you're fuckin stupid. you don't know how the internet works

>>59708093
>what is traffic shaping
Holy shit if you don't understand basic network principles then don't spout retarded shit.

>>59708082
The content I am sending is important, so I should be able to pay a premium so that it arrives to the destination quicker and with more reliability.

>>59707851
>he thinks the government who's gonna regulate NN is on his side
At least with corporations you can sign out of your service and use any other alternatives.
But that'll be too hard for burgers I guess, let's just have the trusted government deal with that. Fuck consumer choices.

>>59708109
It's unethical to shape one user's traffic differently than another, just because he pays more. That's why I support net neutrality.

The ISP can screw over people using certain applications, without net neutrality.

>>59708173
Have fun not being able to send an email because all your neighbors are using Netflix then.

>>59708173
>consumer aren't allowed to pay less if he doesn't care for shitty network shapes
Land of the free, everyone.

>>59708173
>it's unethical to send a package faster because the sender pays more

>>59708192
>NEET
>sending emails

>>59708213
Have fun getting your packets in CS:GO dropped because everyone else is using Netflix.

I think I get why neo-/g/ are supporting things like NN now.

These retards honestly considers the internet to be a natural resources. Therefore, they somehow judged it to be unethical if those resources is not shared equally to everyone.

>>59708117

>so I should be able to pay a premium so that it arrives to the destination quicker and with more reliability.

In the reality of non-net neutrality you're not paying to go fast, you're just paying to not be slowed down. The ISP has the ability to provide a better service by default but can get away with giving you a worse service since there are (most likely) few alternatives for you to choose from. They're fucking you over until you give in and pay into their scam.

>>59708264

>These retards honestly considers the internet to be a natural resources.

It's not considered a natural resource, but rather a human right since it contains essentially the sum of all human knowledge. It would be unethical to prevent people from having access to that knowledge, since it puts them at such a massive disadvantage.

>>59707341
ISPs run nation wide networks connecting homes and business in a geographic area.

Amazon does not, they are limited to internal and cross datacenter links that they own themselves much like any other collocation provider.

>>59708295
In the world of net neutrality they will just raise prices and lower speeds for everyone. That is legal under net neutrality. See, I can make up scenarios too.

>>59703662

>Implying this is a bad thing.

>>59708016
Business internet is x amount of mbps that isn't shared with others. You are guaranteed x mbps at a 1:1 ratio.

Consumer internet is x amount of mbps shared with y other consumers. As an example 1000mbps is shared among 1000 users who are each promised 10mbps, thus the ratio being 1:10

This has nothing to do with net neutrality

>>59708314
>ISPs run nation wide networks
No they don't. Only a few do. You think that my local ISP that you've never heard of has a fucking nationwide network?

>>59708250
desu I'm a different guy and Im against NN.
retards here doesn't realize that everytime competitive businesses have more leeways, it'll always benefit the consumer in the end as they can segment their services better. This happened in the budget automation industry, budget flight industry, budget accomodation industry, etc.

Have the businesses pays more for a little quality bump and I can save myself a few bucks on the long run.

>>59708334
>ISPs run networks connecting homes and business in a geographic area.

Better?

>>59708350
>a giant datacenter warehouse doesn't count as a geographical area

>>59708295
bandwidth is limited. it's why you have such strict data caps on mobile internet plans. like in a postal service, it makes sense to pay a different amount depending on how much bandwidth you're using and for what priority service you require

>>59708362
No they don't. Only a few do. You think that my local collocation provider that you've never heard of has a fucking giant datacenter warehouse?

>>59708333
So data for one customer who pays more is at a higher ratio? Sounds pretty unfair and non neutral to me.

Thanks /pol/, im sure those ebin memes and wall (that americans themselves are paying for) were worth it.

>>59705126
>If Net Neutrality is disbanded, ISPs can throttle traffic that doesn't suit their business interests (Netflix, Opposing media, open forums, etc). They can completely control what information you get over the internet, whether it be by firewalling or throttling.
Welcome to the real world, sucker. They all already do it and they all get away with it.

t. Europoor.

>>59708385
Who are you paying for internet service out of your local collocation provider?

File: 1475680349477.jpg (69KB, 697x396px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 697x396px

>muh Net Neutrality
>muh internet privacy

Meanwhile in the real world under Obama:
-every piece of data about you ever created is permanently stored forever
-throttling nationwide
-data caps nationwide
-price increases nationwide
-competitors blocked by governments
-botnets and backdoors added to every single electronic device
-microphones and cameras secretly added to devices that shouldnt have them
-intelligence agency takeover of every tech company because "national security"
-intelligence agency requiring everything online to use your true identity via facebook/google
-every forum and comment section on the net flooded by bots and paid shills by the same organizations electing Democrats and receiving funding from all the usual suspects rendering them unusable


and not a peep from the internet memers

>>59708393
not an argument. you still haven't explained why this is supposed to be bad. you could be a shill for all i know.

>>59708393
they were.

>>59708316

Yes, they can do that already. The difference is that non-net neutrality has this occur, basically by definition, so they they can offer the normal speeds as an alternative. It simply compounds an already existing issue. There is no doubt that we don't necessarily get the maximum possible speeds, right now I'm even getting speeds faster than what I pay for via some fluke. However they're not making me pay based on what I want to receive.

If you want a world were you can pay more to get more speed across the board, go for it. There's no issue with that, it's how it already works. You're already in that reality. I don't know why you'd want to put more constraints on the service you receive though. "Yeah just slow it all down to a crawl so I can give you more money to get it back to what I should already be getting", It just makes no sense.

>>59708407
The collocation provider is a subsidiary of a local ISP, internet access is included for free so I pay only for the power / cooling and space.

>>59708295
>prevent access
No one is stopping you to buy into any tier of service, no access is prevented.

>but rather a human right
Yeah fuck every investors who place and maintain those thousand miles of fiberoptics underwater. They shouldn't be allowed to use them as they see fit to get their roi the fastest because that'll be intruding your arbitrary definition of a human right.

>>59708385
local smaller ISPs uses/contracts larger ISPs services.

>>59708422
soros put in 65 million dollars for net neutrality. any body who defends it is a libtard shrill

>>59708448
So if I bring my own server and battery, and find a place to store it without getting in the way, I can get internet for free there?

>>59708388

Whether it's unfair or not..

But it has nothing to do with the content of the mbps, which is what neutrality is.

>>59708445
Except that doesn't happen.

>>59708485
It does if the customers are serving different content.

>>59708476
You'll have to pay for the space and power / cooling you use. The internet access is free.

>find a place to store it without getting in the way
I'm not sure what you mean.
If they have space in a rack you can't be "in the way" as the server will fit right inside.

>>59708475
>defends it is a libtard shrill
No a useful idiot is a better term. Soros knows that this will lead to the eventual censorship of the Internet and the stagnation of ideas and free thought.

>>59708363

Yes paying for more bandwidth is fine, noone says it isn't. The issue is that you should have to pay more to have more bandwith for specific services. There's no need for analogies here, if you follow this line of conversation you'll find the original post stated this. It brings nothing to the table.

>>59708445
desu I live where NN is not a thing.
Contrary to what the retards believes, corporations doesn't jack up prices and have tiers of service based on accessible websites.
Because of course that'll be the quickest way to get your consumer fuck off to another business.

What they do instead is they make deals with their partner or large businesses so that their users can access them free of charge or faster.
Different ISPs here now have these deals with different companies, and I actually have the consumer choice to choose which of these ISPs I should use to best benefit my browsing preferences.

>>59708559
>that'll be the quickest way to get your consumer fuck off to another business

You know what's frustrating for me?
To do just this I'd have to pay 17k in burger dollhairs just to get a second fucking option.

>>59708559
>What they do instead is they make deals with their partner or large businesses so that their users can access them free of charge or faster.
that sounds fucking awful to be honest

>here's free access to facebook lol, anything else you have to pay XD

>>59708559

Where you live there are other ISPs keeping eachother in check. Where I live there are not, they have free reign. This is life in rural America. The only world where non NN works without an issue is a world where you have enough choices to promote competition. This is the issue with one economic model being applied everywhere, sometimes it just isn't compatible with the reality of certain locales.

>>59708558
Really? What if one of those services is across the world and one of them is located down the street? What if one of those services is sending mission critical data that needs low latency and high reliability, and one of those services is streaming video content that is resistant to lag spikes and dropped packets? What if one of those services has a reliable throughput that they reserve in advance, and one of those services is burst based?

>>59708617
Sounds like someone fucked up then.

>>59708633
Why should different services with different needs all be forced to pay the same price?

>>59708649
Because port numbers are arbitrary and everything looks the same to the network.

>>59708703
That explains why ISPs invest millions into traffic shaping every year.

>>59708558
>have to pay more to have more bandwith for specific services
So to prevent this you just make it illegal to do so? What happened with consumer choice?

Everytime a competitive industry have more leeway, those benefits goes to customer in the end. If such industry is not competitive, then what should be done is make them competitive, not placing bandaids all over to stifle everything and make the industry even less competitive.

>>59708597
>>59708608
>the business in my place is noncompetitive that it can get away with fucking their customers
>lets have more regulation and make it even more non competitive so that they can't fuck us in that one particular way
>boy this will never happen again

>>59708598
Don't like it? good, you doesn't have to pay for it.
Other people may be interested in it though, that's what it means by competitive free market environment.

>>59708712
Where is the proof?

>>59708723
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Systems

>>59708473
>They shouldn't be allowed to use them as they see fit to get their roi the fastest because that'll be intruding your arbitrary definition of a human right.

The can use it as they see fit but once they put access to it on the market they have to play with a different ruleset. Literally all that you have to do is make it accessible, nowhere is it said that it needs to be free or arbitrarily cheap or some shit.

>>59708617

I really just don't know if you fully understand what we're arguing when we talk about the speeds of services. Let me lay it out as such:

What you want: The option of paying more, for more speed/reliability/etc
What you get with NN: Go for it.
What you get without NN: Sure, but also depending on the content of the data, you may have to pay more or else receive a worse quality of service.

You seem to think that NN refers to the overall speed of what you pay for. This is not the case, and I thought I made it clear previously. The non NN gameplan is to make your plan, by default, worse such that you have to pay to get a reasonable quality for specific services. It's not that you're paying for a fast connection to youtube or some shit, it's that you're paying for a substandard connection and then that goes ontop of that initial payment plan.

>>59708722
Well it isn't getting any better with or without regulation.
Goddamn ISPs here keep passing regulation to stop local municipal and personal ISPs.
I have to bank on something and what you're wanting isn't helping.

>>59708759
No. Such a model would be illegal under net neutrality, where all traffic has to be treated equally.

>>59708755
That old phone and firewall company? I asked for proof.

>>59708473
>local smaller ISPs uses/contracts larger ISPs services.

Could you contextualize this more? I'm not sure how that applies to a collocation provider charging or not for internet access.

>>59708775

Again, you don't seem to understand what equally means in this scope. You receive all content at the speed you pay for regardless of what content is coming to you. Non NN allows this idea to be disregarded, and you will recieve different content at different speeds based on who it's coming from or what it is. The NN model is not illegal, thinking it is illegal is just a massive misunderstanding of what the argument is. The idea that everyone should have the same speed globally, since that's what you think equal means, isn't even feasible, so your incorrect view of NN isn't even possible in reality.

>>59708759
Nowhere in NN specified that companies are not allowed to deny a service to a paying customer. Not saying that it will, but pointing that NN won't change anything in that end.

>make it accessible
Which requires capital and investment, pulling miles of fiber optic cables to bumblefuck nowhere cost a ton you know.

Why can't these guys asked for more money to the 5 families that lived there when they have invested a lot more dollar/potential customer than lets say in a city?

>>59708816
>Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

>>59708841

You literally don't understand what the words "equally" and "same" mean here. You're either pretending, or are an actual retard. Refer back to the post you're responding to, the response is the same.

>>59708841
That's in the context of priority, not throughput as you seem to misunderstand.

>>59708838

Accessible just means that if it can be accessed there, then you must allow it to be. Even for a price. You're not expected to roll fiber out to the savannahs of Africa under this terminology. You have no reason to disagree with me, if there's a product that can be sold, it should be able to be sold to whomever wants to buy it.

>>59706293

But we've ALL done wrong desu

>>59708838

Also I should add that in the case of

>Why can't these guys asked for more money to the 5 families that lived there when they have invested a lot more dollar/potential customer than lets say in a city?

This does occur, but instead of charging more for the service, you can be simply charged for the price of rolling the fiber out and then pay normally for the service. Which makes sense since it's the same service.