The biggest argument against net neutrality is a demand for a

>>60097441
if they're thriving then they can pay, if they cant pay then they're not thriving.

>>60097441
>That pic

You realize big companies already pay a shit ton of money for higher bandwidth, right?

I've argued against NN shills so many times on this retarded board that I just don't have it in me anymore.

Imagine that someone just made a good point against your blind faith in the "good will" of the government, and shit post whatever response you were going to make.

>>60097441
Nothing can save you. Prepare your anus. Anything not on the Alexa top 100 is going to load at dial-up speeds within a year.

>>60097494
Yep government loves to screw everyone except in this one particular case where they miraculously decide to do a good thing for no reason. Oh and also ISPs happen to be on-board with it for some reason. Weird how that is.

>>60097527
>implying this is a bad thing

>>60097527
good

>>60097539
>implying this is a good thing

>>60097554
Thank you for your response, phone poster. Unfortunately, due to recent deregulation of the consumer ISP market, the bandwidth needed to display your (lack of a) contribution to the thread is unavailable. Please try again later!

File: 1493307647.png (160KB, 1044x1026px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1044x1026px

>>60097441

>>60097462
What about new businesses. This simply increases startup costs and makes it less likely that they thrive. It's a vicious cycle

>>60097600
>he's too poor/stupid to use a VPN

>The government is bloated and inefficient, elect me and I'll prove it.
Republicanism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

>>60097600
>such butthurt

>>60097611
cis white males strike again. NIGGER LIVES MATTER

>>60097612
How does it increase startup costs? They connect to end users through a third party CDN or cloud service like they always had.

>>60097620
>>60097626

>general inability to infer context

Phone poster strikes again! Enjoy this era of shitposting, because BASED PAJEET has insured that your long-overdue departure from this place will happen soon.

>>60097484

>you want bigger portions, you gotta pay more

Practically every business works this way. Whats the point you were trying to make?

>>60097661
good

>>60097664
Exactly, which is why OP is a retard for thinking this is anti freemarket

>>60097664
But ISPs new-found power doesn't have to be used that way. They can squash out any business they like, big or small.

>>60097775
I wish this was the case. Then this entire argument might have actual merit.

>>60097775
Why would they do that? Better question, why would all the ISPs collude to do that? Since that's basically what you'd need to slow someone down across the whole internet.

Also, you do realize E2E encryption prevents anyone from monitoring your traffic and making throttling decisions, right?

>>60097840
There are about a thousand holes in the argument they give, but they still give it.

This is why I've been against NN from the start. But boot-lickers just love the thought of daddy gubmint controlling the ebil corporate baddies!

Sad, really.

>>60097840

>throttling decisions

Whats to stop someone from making a 'default' throttling decisions based on 'I don't know what this guy is doing, lets just throttle it anyway'.

>Why would they do that? Better question, why would all the ISPs collude to do that?

Once someone starts doing it, and is profitable, everyone else will follow. This is how business works. Just think about how much bandwidth ISPs can save if they throttle Netflix/Youtube/Torrents.

Shit, Comcast was throttling Netflix, well before ...

>>60097932
Comcast was not throttling Netflix. Thanks for outing yourself as an idiot who reads fake news.

>>60097932
omg what if they just shut down everything!!!!!

>>60097462
this is a fucking retarded argument

also it will be the people paying for it, not the businesses

quit inventing ways out of the blue to extort more money out of people based on a false premise, asshole

>>60097989
t. Netflix shill

If ISPs throttle your favorite website, just switch ISPs.

Oh wait...

>>60098077
use a VPN you dumb fuck

>inb4 HURR THEY BLOCK VPN THEN DURR

>>60097775
>They can squash out any business they like, big or small.

ftc will stomp them if they do that.

>>60097441
Hah I remember when everyone in IT was a card-carrying Ayn Randist. Now you're all pleading for Mummy Gubmint to hinder the business decisions of ISPs.


Admittedly it was when we were all carrying a million+ in share options (that turned out to be worthless) without any formal qualifications.

When anyone would go into it (or indeed IT) in the 21st century beggars belief. Still got my Aeron chair that I liberated before the liquidators moved in.

>>60097932
>Whats to stop someone from making a 'default' throttling decisions based on 'I don't know what this guy is doing, lets just throttle it anyway'.

Even the corporations you hate so much are heavily dependent on E2E encryption, so they wouldn't do that you retard

>>60098178
>Still got my Aeron chair that I liberated before the liquidators moved in.

that is theft and violation of NAP

>>60098100
>implying they wouldn't throttle encrypted traffic outside their whitelist

>>60098139
It already happened. Netflix pays Comcast.

>>60098100
>inb4 HURR THEY BLOCK VPN THEN DURR
Even chink government cant block or throttle obfuscated VPN like Shadowsocks.

>>60098247
Do you even know what encrypted means? You can't fucking whitelist it, retard

>>60098247
you're dumb

>>60098247
>It already happened. Netflix pays Comcast.
Yeah but nobody was squashed.

>>60098247
Yes. They pay Comcast directly now instead of wasting money going through a third party like they did before. Stop reading fake news.

File: RONPAUL2016.png (266KB, 313x367px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 313x367px

Net Neutrality is a second bestism. I'll take a second bestism but the perfect ideal would be to break apart these ISP monopoly contracts that were agreed upon within the local government.

I'm a libertarian but I'll support Net Neutrality for the meanwhile as long as the language is clear and specific with its powers. And as long as we can replace it with meaningful legislation that unties up the government monopolies and restructures the market to allow for better competition.

>>60098318
This.

Libtards don't understand how ISPs (or the internet in general) works.

>>60098204
It was the like the last days of communism mate, if it wasn't nailed down, it went. We were ourselves creditors but in the wrong tier to actually get anything so it didn't feel especially wrong somehow.

Today I'm an officer in a corporation (on another continent, 17 years later) and I know better and wouldn't dream of doing something like that. My job still pays less than Dreamweaver in 1998 though but then most legal things don't.

Sometimes feel a bit sorry /g/'s more ambitious individuals, you missed the goldrush. It was a lot of fun even if it ended in tears (and a lot of people finding out being anti-government and anti-regulation wasn't as smart as they'd thought, turns out it was just dumb luck not judgement).

>>60098348
>I'm a libertarian but I want a fuck ton more government intervention (or more government regulations as a second best)

>>60098281
The IP addresses can be whitelisted retard. Encryption doesn't hide that.

>>60098289
No u

>>60098305
And why? Because Netflix is paying money.

>>60098318
Sauce?

>>60098374
Netflix was paying more money before you idiot. They just changed who they were paying money to and got a better deal.

>>60098374
do you have any use how DNS works? I'm guessing probably not

>>60097989
>it will be the people paying for it, not the businesses
There is no reason to think it won't be both.

>>60098353
This is wildly off-topic but I wonder if the state of IT today is because you're all working for people who were lucking 1999.

>>60098392
*any idea

>>60098370
Well what the fuck do you expect to happen then? Thousands of local governments decided to jew out telephone and power line rights to any ISP that would pump a ton of money to decrease last-of-mile costs to a fraction of what they'd be in the first place.

>>60098374
>The IP addresses can be whitelisted retard. Encryption doesn't hide that.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. That would be an undertaking only God could do. Do you have any idea how many up addresses there are? Then as soon as you get your whitelist done and build the myriad of data centers to enforce it across the entire internet, it's still easy as fuck to proxy around it

>>60098388
Sauce?

>>60098392
I do know how DNS works. Do you?

>>60098451
The whitelist is for IP addresses that don't get throttled dummy.

>>60098374
>The IP addresses can be whitelisted retard

Lol, are you talking about ACLs? Even the biggest routers in the world can't whitelist a /8 subnet

>>60098451
ridiculously easy to circumvent all these hypothetical nonsense cases, but these shills are too dumb to understand how. Not like it will ever happen anyway

>>60098475
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/heres-comcast-netflix-deal-structured-numbers.html

>>60098475
Of course I know how DNS works, and I know it would be trivially easy to change to a provider that doesn't use these """""whitelists""""" that only exist in your imagination

>>60097441
I can imagine in 10 year, Rest Of the World is going cut off the USA like the west did to Russia and there will be Americans jumping the wall around USA (trump did not build it to keep mexicans out, but Americans in) for the taste of freedom.their fathers and grandfathers had.

>>60098475
>The whitelist is for IP addresses that don't get throttled dummy

So you're saying that all of the ISPs will collude to whitelist less than half of the internet's ips? Are you fucking retarded? You're just assuming that all these huge companies make up some tiny minority of the internet?

>>60098522
whatever you say retard

>>60098476
TMobile whitelists certain websites through domains and IPs. Why not everyone else?

>>60098504
>switch to a different provider
Now we've gone in a full circle. There's not enough providers.

>imaginary whitelist
TMobile does this.

>>60098542
DNS PROVIDER YOU DUMB FUCK

>>60098542
>Why not everyone else?

I just said why, you retard. Even something as small as a private network would be too big to whitelist. Do you know anything about how a router works? Hint: its RAM is nothing like the RAM in your computer

>>60098542
>TMobile does this
proof?

>>60098560
Changing your DNS provider doesn't help. Using an encrypted provider doesn't help either. You will still access IP addresses outside the whitelist and get throttled.

whats with all the comcast and cox shills itt

some of this sounds like plain ass kissing. trying to get on your new daddy's good side?

>>60098599
>things that never happen

>>60098247
I work at a semilarge ISP in Europe.We live in the real world and we got an agreement where netflix has installed a large caching server in one of our datacenters so all that traffic flows within our own network saving us both money in the long run. I think they pay for the upkeep/their share of the electricity.

>>60098586
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.howtogeek.com/273617/how-t-mobiles-free-music-and-video-streaming-works/amp/
In this case, TMobile isn't throttling websites outside the whitelist but proves that a whitelist is possible.

>>60098614
Someday, Anon.

>>60098660
SHUT THE FUCK UP MOTHERFUCKER BERNIE PROMISED ME NETFLIX AS A HUMAN RIGHT REEEEEEEEE

>>60098694
>T-Mobile gives more for nothing
>this is bad

OH SOME DAY, what if they just turn into Facebook only? That's possible too right? What's that? They're trying to make money by providing full access? Well I'll be a sonofabitch

idiot

>>60098750
I never said that the way TM uses a whitelist is bad. I'm saying it proves that a whitelist is practical to make.

Dummy

>>60098858
Whitelists for metering usage at a particular music service owned by the ISP is possible. Whitelists for throttling routers is impossible, see >>60098584

>>60098858
your notion that it will be used to block access is completely unfounded and a total fabrication used to scare people into more gubmint oversight. Even IF that did happen, which it won't, it would be ridiculously easy to circumvent

>>60097441
There is no telecom free market in about half of the U.S. as incumbents lobbied laws into place that all-but-criminalize competition.

>Thread is full of people letting their politics bleed into every corner of every topic they ever discuss, unable to look at the situation for what it is since it's just another way to barrack for their political team.
I'm tired of this.

>>60098960
>This is what libtards actually believe

>>60098966
gibsmedat

>>60098885
Could the ISP just throttle all IP addresses that were accessed without going through their DNS first? That seems practical.

>>60098892
How could it be circumvented?

>>60098995
great counter-argument bro

>>60099064
proxies, VPS, VPN, etc. but it'll never happen, so...

>>60099064
>Could the ISP just throttle all IP addresses that were accessed without going through their DNS first? That seems practical

It doesn't matter how they construct the blacklist or whitelist. Routers can't support more than a few hundred ACLs

File: doc.jpg (27KB, 274x163px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 274x163px

>>60098198

I'm affraid may not understand what QoS is, and how it works.

>corporations you hate

Lol, what? Calm your right-wing snowflake ass down.

If net neutrality is removed, than any protections on local monopolies also need to be removed. That is the solution. Internet service is not a free market currently.

>>60099268
QoS only applies to outbound traffic smart guy

>>60099268
>Mommy let me play with the QoS setting s on my home router therefore it's possible to use it against the entire internet

Lol, yeah, the ISPs will collude and rebuild their infrastructure for this insane QoS whitelist then pray NN doesn't come back with the next liberal president

>>60098100

>vpn is magick

I love how normies advocate VPN as a way to circumvent throttling ...... its a mark of how litle technical know how posters like these have.

>>60099344
I love how dipshits assume throttling even occurs currently. Spoiler: it doesn't

File: 5582223+_af8926abc89e2bea62d3274ddec358e1.gif (257KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 300x168px

>>60099337
>>60099299

Sad children.

>>60099379
t. someone too stupid to avoid these hypothetical doomsday scenarios

>>60099376

Reading comprehension, ladies and gents.

>>60099413
because they'll throttle the VPNs, right? Good luck with that

File: 58ca3a801bd115885cb3bb511879e4ba.jpg (635KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 1920x1080px

>>60099436

Oh, lolololol.

For fucks sake, this /was/ supposed to be a technology board.

>>60099528
What your point, exactly? The big bad ISP is gonna lock down your internets?

File: www.gif (45KB, 600x243px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x243px

I see often debates about internet neutrality. But there is no debate : the end of the net neutrality is a bad thing.

>The ISP provide the customer a connection to the internet.
>The customer have a limited bandwidth, according to the plan (even throttle or data caps if you live in a shitty country)
>If the customer wants higher bandwidth, he have to pay more: the infrastructures are expensive, and someone have to pay for it.
>Same thing if the customer is a datacenter that need 40Gb/s connexion
>Every site have the same speed (depending of the server capacity), the ISP does not slow down or up any site.
This it net neutrality.

>The ISP provide the customer a connection to the internet.
>Same thing, the customers also have a limited speed.
>But this time, some site or service are faster, because they have a partnership with the ISP.
>Basically, the services that paid the ISP get "the maximum of your available bandwidth", while the others, the competitors or smaller sites, are throttled down just to push you to visit the big site.
>you'll get 40Mb/s on Youtube but 10Mb/s on XHamster or any other streaming sites for no other reason than money
This is what big companies are trying to make, and we all agree that's it's shit.

A good analogy:
>You take the car to go to the supermarket.
>There are two supermarket, at the same distance.
>There is Walmart, that use a road with Premium Speed, where you can drive at 90km/h (or the unit in your country),
>and there is "other supermarket", where the road is limited to 50km/h.
>The two roads are basically the same. In fact, it's actually the same road for the most of the path.
>You could always drive at 90km/h on this road, but just because Walmart pay whoever made/own this road to slow down the others, you can drive at 90km/h only if you go to Walmart.

>>60099857
See >>60097840

>>60099857
>km/h
that's a terrible analogy and you're not even American so how about you fuck off and worry about your own caliphate

>>60097840
>Why would they do that?
So they can make $$$ by selling premium service for customers to big companies

>Also, you do realize E2E encryption prevents anyone from monitoring your traffic and making throttling decisions, right?
It would not be hard to make an encryption tunnel dedicated to "premium services"


>>60099899
My country have net neutrality and fast internet for cheap, thank you. Plus we use metric system.

>>60099899

have fun torrenting your furry porn at 1Mb/sec faggot

>>60100012
they haven't throttled anything before, and they won't throttle anything moving forward. My torrents will be just fine you whiny faggot

File: 1490548023040.gif (9KB, 468x60px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 468x60px

>>60099857
>the end of the net neutrality is a bad thing

Do you seriously believe so? There hasn't been any laws protecting net neutrality for the most of the 30 year history of the internet. There has been anti trust laws, laws against anti competitive behavior but net neutrality legislation is something new. Those anti trust laws aren't going anywhere. Your doom and gloom scenario didn't happen before, it isn't going to happen now either.

>>60100012
People torrenting are the ones buying fast connections. They are the best customers. Pic related, Finnish banner ad selling adsl for pirates.

>>60097441
>Internet access and content should be subject to the whims of corporations because as we all know, monopolies don't exist

All you contrarian niggers against NN are literal cuckolds working against your own interest for the benefit of your bull/ISPs. There is literally no tangible benefit to getting rid of NN unless you happen to be the CEO of an ISP. For everyone else, you'll just be paying more for shit you get for free currently.

Are you fucks just contrarians or retarded? Are you trolls? Are you just scared to agree with reddit?

Pol is ruining this fucking website.

>>60100316
>Internet access and content should be subject to the whims of the government because as we all know, governments definitely don't spy on you

>>60100329
I bet you also think that different shipping speeds from Fedex should be illegal.

>>60100329
It's never been implemented in the first place you idiot, and everything has been fine

>voting against your interest maymay
faggot

>>60100329
>There is literally no tangible benefit to getting rid of NN
Yeah there is. Having less laws is like having less lines of code in your program. There is less room for error and exploitation. Anti competitive behavior is illegal already, no need for NN laws.

>>60097441
http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/net-neutrality/

Net Neutrality has always been a "Gentlemen's agreement". It only existed in a time where Internet connectivity wasn't commonplace and existing incumbents had no conflicts of interest.

When the internet started become mainstream and replacing "Old Media". It went out the wayside.

These laws and pieces of legislation are just formalities.

The internet's own infrastructure is mostly owned by goveriments (Backbones) and private enterprise (last mile). The internet has never been a "free market".

OP please read this before you become even more retarded.

Local GOVERNMENT monopolies prevent smaller ISPs from competing with the big guys.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

>>60100329
It's painful to see all the newfags who think NN is their enemy for some reason, I don't know if the fappening, or gamergate, or the election brought them here but Jesus are they sucking corporate dong

>>60097929
>This is why I've been against NN from the start. But boot-lickers just love the thought of daddy gubmint controlling the ebil corporate baddies!
THIS

People that want the FCC to control the internet are fucking retards.

>>60100948

Internet connectivity in USA is excellent for backbones. The problem has always been the last mile.

You got a nasty mess of decenterized population centers, anti-competitive ISPs, local governments and NIMBY-types that prevent seamless bandwidth and infrastructure upgrades.

>>60097932
>Once someone starts doing it, and is profitable, everyone else will follow.
Wait? It would be more profitable NOT to do that because you would take the market share from the companies that DO do that.

>>60100964
t. diversity is our strength, Islam is a religion of peace, black lives matter

>>60098077
>If ISPs throttle your favorite website, just switch ISPs.
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/


read this

we need a free market in ISPs

>>60100989
That's why we need to deregulate local monopolies. Get government out of the picture.
Let companies compete.

>>60099952
>It would not be hard to make an encryption tunnel dedicated to "premium services"

Actually it would be impossible but you're a fucktard that doesn't understand how routers work

>>60100993

You mean kinda how duckduckgo completely eat all of googles lunch by not tracking customers?

>>60101097
they just have a shitty annoying name
that's basically the reason I don't use them

>>60101050
>>60101003
>>60100979
>>60100456
>>60100397

I'm having a hard time determining if this is a troll, disinformation agent, ISP shill, under educated person, or just a very naive child.

Might just be mix of the above.

>>60101139
>I don't have an argument and get my political views from jon oliver.
Just close the tab if you don't want to debate. Honestly.

File: 0096411f1a74f4558301bfefd2af4f24.jpg (491KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

491KB, 1920x1080px

>>60101136

Right . . . . .

>>60101139
well, it's not even the same person, so...

>>60101157

'Honestly', I wasn't aware this was a debate.

File: 45a6470350e814b86451dadcf4555b6c.jpg (783KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 2048x1152px

>>60101168

Thats even worse, poster quality is going down the drain, so ...

>>60101177
>>60101192
You still have no argument you know.

>>60101177
It's not. ISPs will remain under the jurisdiction of the FTC where they belong, and faggots who primarily get their news from Facebook will continue whining autistically

>>60101212
abolish the FTC

>>60101243
Why? They've done a fine job so far

>>60097441
Anything to keep shitposting burgers out.

>>60101256
Yeah, right.

inb4 >mises

https://mises.org/library/ftc-vs-ftc
https://mises.org/blog/ftc-cracks-down-sponsored-content
https://mises.org/library/blockbuster-vs-ftc-keeping-future-competition-safe
https://mises.org/library/politically-incorrect-guide-antitrust-policy
https://mises.org/blog/ftc-expands-censorship-campaign-radio-facebook
http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission
https://mises.org/blog/true-purpose-competition-policy
https://mises.org/library/consumer-protection-or-legal-extortion
https://mises.org/blog/schizo-feds-patent-monopolies-and-ftc
https://mises.org/library/federal-trade-commission-v-whole-foods-market-inc

>>60101017
>we need to let anyone tear up the sidewalks (government property) whenever they want!

>>60101323
No. But nice strawman.

>>60101309
given the reliance on mises, I take it your against net neutrality?

File: CvGBZbfVYAAfsSC.jpg (48KB, 960x733px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 960x733px

>>60101139

>>60101390
>I take it your against net neutrality?
No, really?

>>60101359
It's not a strawman. Competition requires multiple companies set up infrastructure. It's like arguing the free market should build the roads, it's just awkward for multiple companies to be building roads on top of each other when perfectly good roads already exist.

>>60101427
>It's like arguing the free market should build the roads
They should build the roads. There would be more roads and less congestion.

>Competition requires multiple companies set up infrastructure
Companies like google fiber are already doing this.

>>60101420
Well I at least understand you wanting to abolish the FTC then. Wasn't sure if you wanted the FCC to babysit or whatever

Not american here, I live happily in country with organically neutral free market net, but Im just curious - how would you enforce NN? Doesn't it require monitoring all the net traffic of all ISPs to check for violations?

>>60101470
Read some of the articles. here:
>>60101309

>>60097692
>he thinks saying phone poster is an insult
kek

>>60101461
You can't build two roads that are the best route from my home to my work, unless you're literally building the roads on top of the already existing one. The road companies are always going to have a monopoly on the routes you need to use regularly, so they can charge whatever tolls they want to. I'd rather have the government build my roads, like they already do.

You still haven't disproven my point that multiple companies installing redundant infrastructure would require tearing up the sidewalks/other ground more often.

>>60101501
>customers notice that their speeds are awfully unequal across different websites and they've lost access to a number of sites, instead getting re directed to a page telling them they need to upgrade their service
>customers report them to the government
>government puts the criminals in jail
That wasn't so hard.

>>60101517
>they can charge whatever tolls they want to
then another company builds paralel road and takes all the customers

>>60101517
>You can't build two roads that are the best route from my home to my work
Local roads would be controlled by business groups/communities/homeowners associations and would be essentially free of charge

just read this book
https://mises.org/library/privatization-roads-and-highways

>You still haven't disproven my point that multiple companies installing redundant infrastructure
It's not redundant. It would massively increase speeds for everybody.

>>60101540
This. Except the last point.

The company would get a multi-million dollar fine, and the execs of said company would get a multi-million dollar bonus.

>>60101546
What if... There's something next to the roads that prevents the construction of parallel roads... Like buildings...

>>60101548
If you are going to cite Mises, you waived your right to complain when people tell you to fuck off to Somalia.
https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it

>>60101568
>https://mises.org/library/stateless-somalia-and-loving-it
All this article says is chaotic somalia is far far better than socialist somalia(which is what it used it be).

They're obviously not a free market.
Learn to read desu

>>60101582
It also uses the "success" of Somalia without a state as an argument against Somalia needing any sort of state, even a capitalist one.

>>60101540
>>60101568
Wow, so in US'n'A you can put companies in jail or to fee by merely reporting them to the government, and then without any investigation they are punished just like that?
Im starting to like bureacracy in my country

>>60101546
The original company then lowers its prices because it has a huge amount of capital. When other company then goes bankrupt, they raise their price again.

wew.

>>60101603
no it doesn't

http://webfoundation.org/2017/04/sir-tim-berners-lee-responds-to-us-net-neutrality-threat/

The fact of the matter is, if you're against net neutrality, you're a corporatist, boot-licking cuck of the worst kind- you don't even get paid to convince others to throw away consumer protection.

>>60101604
Yeah it's great. The days of childhood prank calling were golden.

>>60101604
Jesus Christ, no. I obviously over simplified things. Law enforcement would investigate and they would go to trial. But we were talking about a situation where the company is obviously guilty, so I left that point out for brevity.

File: 1492555131874.jpg (30KB, 364x364px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 364x364px

>>60097969
>muh fake news

>>60101616
Yes it does.

File: 1491172816734.jpg (18KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x400px

>>60097441
Just switch ISPs... oh wait...

Luckily we just got AT&T fiber here... so now there is a real option other than Comcast.

But even 2 or 3 ISPs in an area isn't a good market.

You need to make the conditions for a new ISP startup to happen improve.

So from that sense, what the FCC is doing makes sense, but the entrenched local ISP monopolies and oligopolies make what the FCC is trying to do very unrealistic.

>>60101659
no

>>60101631
>Law enforcement would investigate and they would go to trial. But we were talking about a situation where the company is obviously guilty, so I left that point out for brevity.

I laughed at that. What kind of wacky-tobaccy are you smoking? I can't recall a single time a major US corporation has been punished for their fuckups.

>>60097441
Sometimes it feels good to live in a 3rd world shithole. This is one example.

>>60101668
>You need to make the conditions for a new ISP startup to happen improve.
Yeah, it's called abolish government monopolies.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

>>60101679
Sucks to live in an area dominated by huge ISPs and not small local companies that can't afford to dodge the law :^)

>>60097527
Thank god

>>60101622
>stealing alt-right insults

>>60101713
I'm not American so I'm with you on that :^)

>>60101631
>I obviously over simplified things
Damn, I was ready to call the police and report Trump.
So you're saying there will be some investigation. Please tell me how it would look like without actual traffic control when ISP says uneqiality in speeds were sites servers foult or whatever

>>60101501
You give the government unfettered access to the network. What could possibly go wrong???

>>60101751
Nice false dichotomy.

>>60098394
Costs are always passed onto the consumer. Fuck ISPs, they're nothing but an extortion racket at this point.

>>60097623
This isnt a party issue. This is a lobbyist issue

>>60101751
>>60101679
Im all for Net Neutrality, but can we all agree it is unforceable?

>>60101622
>using corporatist pejorativley
Grow up kiddo. The modern world has been shaped by corporations and you suckle at their teat every day

>>60101546
Thats not how roads work

>>60101697
That's something that can be improved, but even if we had more choice, it's not a good idea to abolish NN. It took forever for T-Mobile to shake up the cellular game with affordable unlimited data and text (and that only happened as a result of a failed merger), until that point, all other carriers were fine fleecing customers for about the same amount. ISPs would be no different and the smaller ones would be absorbed.

>>60101733
But I am American, I'm just lucky.

>>60097441
Peer or die. That's how the Internet works.

That said, a cdn (Netflix /Hulu /Akami) is more latency tolerant than a SIP session...

>>60097638
For example if you try to make a streaming website, other established competitors can pay to be exempt from bandwidth caps, while you can't afford to do the same. Your users won't utilize your services because they will run out of data on their phone or line connections.

>>60101793
Yes

File: 6033138+_2ce49edb069a597a481120367619abfb.jpg (24KB, 655x252px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 655x252px

>Conservative doing mental gymnastics to convince themselves net neutrality regulation is bad

can someone give me the rundown on NN vs SOPA?

>>60101856
It's not bad, it just fantasy

>>60101856
>liberals doing mental gymnastics to defend their government monopolies that are preventing isp competition

>>60097527
Is 4chan on there?

>>60101762
Says the faggot who needs to be saved from the big bad ISP that out to ruin your life

>>60101868
>government monopolies
>net neutrality

How are those two related at all?

>>60101868
What is a government monopoly?

>>60101888
because if the government sanctioned local monopolies didn't exist we wouldn't even be having this conversation

>>60101886
Lol what?

Sounds like someone shit in your cereal. Is that the trickle down from big execs you guys are always talking about?

:^)

>>60101917
So remove net neutrality and government sanctioned local monopolies disappear?

I'm not following you.

>>60101917
>government sanctioned local monopolies
Wait, what? Nonburger here, did your government really granted some ISP a monopoly in certain areas?
What a dumb thing to do

>>60101888
>>60101912
read:
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

>>60101952
>What a dumb thing to do

You're implicitly assuming the US government works for the people. It doesn't. If you instead assume it works only for big paychecks from big business, then it makes perfect sense.

>>60101748
Or they just look for the money from the companies paying ISPs for privileged access. The government REALLY doesn't it like it when you hide money from them

>>60101939
No you dumb fuck. If the ISP monopolies didn't exist, you could just switch providers in the event of MUH THROTTLING

>>60101959
So you want to pass federal law to allow any jack off with a shovel and a coaxl cable to go around digging up roads and peoples yards? Are you fucking high?

>>60101668
>You need to make the conditions for a new ISP startup to happen improve.

Never going to happen. It has turned into the telephone industry of the past; who ever owns the lines in the ground, owns the industry. They may at some time in the future choose to rent out these lines to "startups" due to government regulations on monopolies, but it will just be for show. It is inevitible that all large buisness models converge on a centralist ideal, even if it pretends to not be.

>>60101966
The us government didnt do that tho

>>60101966
Aren't the people choose government?
What have you done you poor, fat morons?

If we don't need a law protecting net neutrality because companies wouldn't dare go against net neutrality if there was competition, what's wrong with having a law protecting net neutrality just to be safe? If the free market acts like you're claiming it will, then just having the law on the books will cost nothing because there will be no need to enforce it. It adds no overhead for ISPs and doesn't require constant government intervention if nobody breaks the law. The only reason to be against such a law is if you wanted to break it.

>>60101996
>So you want to pass federal law to allow any jack off with a shovel and a coaxl cable to go around digging up roads and peoples yards?
Yes.

>>60101959
What about removing the government sanctioned monopolies (so competition can happen) AND keep net neutrality?

What would the problem of that be? I cannot see any argument against net neutrality. At worst, it would be meaningless regulation (because everyone behaves nicely).

>>60097441
You Americans are doing it wrong.

You're granting local monopolies to ISPs.

And you're against net neutrality.

You should be demanding net neutrality and outlawing local ISP monopolies.

The highest speed available here is 1gigabit/1gigabit at $90/month. I don't really need that so I'm on the cheaper 100mbit/100mbit $40/month plan.

Come on 'muricans, tell me all about your "high speed" internet over there.

Net neutrality in the US barely matters, it's not like your 0.5mbit/2mbit ADSL line isn't slow as clue anyway.

>>60097611
The international postal service is a better example. If you get two letters and one if from someone in Spain and the other from someone in France then they are going to deliver both as they arrive, not let the letter from France sit there for days and weeks.

>>60102040
because NN is unenforceable and unnecessary just like tranny bathroom laws, and only serves to help beta faggots sleep well at night

>>60102019
>Aren't the people choose government?

When, like 95% of TV and radio is controlled by 5 or so companies that all work towards keeping the status quo. And you have a two party system. And an election process that is only possible to participate in if you're a millionaire. And you have a voter turnout of around 60%. And you have a voting system which intentionally divides regions so minorities votes matter basically nothing. No, I don't really think saying "the people choose the government" is an accurate statement.

>>60102040
Because its not in the ISPs interest, and they have more money than you to lobby, and they can convince conservatives to support something against consumer's interests.

>>60102077
>And you have a voting system which intentionally divides regions so minorities votes matter basically nothing.
cry more faggot

>>60101996
It's called "free market" and works quite well in Europe, at least with ISPs

>>60102047
That's funny because American internet speeds are way ahead of most European countries despite having a much lower population density and much higher average income.

>>60102100
>against interest
kys

Republicans think no net neutrality rules means old timers John and Sarah down the street will open up their own little INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER for some local competition to the big businesses.

Republicans are so fucking dumb.

>>60102133
Regulation turns the internet gat.

t. Alex Jones, ISP CEO

>>60102133
They control the entire government and Supreme Court, can't be that dumb

>>60102066
>unenforceable
perhaps.

>unnecessary
Only if everyone plays by the rules, which is arguably a pipe dream.

>>60102100
Yeah, that's kinda the problem though. That the government works in the interest of big business, not the people.

>>60102101
Delicious government sanctioned racism, amarite?
>>>/pol/

>>60102133
are you implying this doesn't happen ? because this happens all over the world and USA they are local ISPs. Same thing happens with cellular providers as well.

>>60102169
Substantiate your claims.

>>60101996
Wow, that fluoride they put in the water over there really dumbs you down, huh?

Every corporation, startup or big, who wants to put a fiber cable in the ground should be allowed to do so.

If you want to dig up a road then you'll have to follow the general rules that are there for digging up roads.

The US ISP monopolies do not prevent anyone from digging up roads and yards. That's allowed under some rules specific to doing that. It's the act of putting a cable in the ground that's not allowed, and this is foolish.

>>60102164
>racism an issue
>current year
I don't care about your pet niggers, there's more important things to worry about

>>60101888
They aren't. They're just trying to appeal to freetards to justify getting paid by big ISP to fuck consumers. Freetards and astroturfers then go on the internet to try and convince others that killing NN is in their best interest when anyone with a brain can see that it's not.

>>60102200
>>racism an issue
>>current year

>I don't care about your pet niggers

lol

>>60102164
>pipe dream
you mean like all these tiered service, blocking, and throttling straw men? You wish you were oppressed because that's what your identity revolves around. It's pathetic

>>60102184
http://broadbandnow.com/All-Providers

File: 1308107342190.gif (2MB, 236x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 236x224px

>>60097441
People who are against net neutrality should kill themsleves, for the betterment of humanity

>>60102112
>American internet speeds are way ahead

Please. Get real. Alright, everyone, let's set this strait. Tell us your current internet speed and the highest available speeds in your area.

I live in a rural area in the middle of nowhere in Sweden.

Current speed: 100/100mbit at $40/month
Higest available: 1gb/1gb at $90/month

>>60097462
> what are startups
> what are small businesses that don't turn multi-million/multi-billion dollar profits but nonetheless provide for their owners

This has to be bait.

>>60102215
>I'm scared of words and also too dumb to realize I'm being intentionally trolled

>>60102169
do you have any idea how expensive laying new copper/fiber is? it's extremely prohibitive.

>>60102231
>muh anecdotal evidence

>>60102133
>Republicans think no net neutrality rules means old timers John and Sarah down the street will open up their own little INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER for some local competition to the big businesses.
New ISPs literally pop up all the time.
Are you retarded?
Also:
>everyone who disagrees with me is a republican

>>60102224
What's the point of your post?

I argued that it's stupid to think companies will play be the rules because...? It has nothing to do with being oppressed or whatever other pointless buzzwords you post contained.

>>60102245
>twas' merely pretending

:^)

>>60102272
see
>>60102249

>>60102249
If we had a free market, capital prices would come down making such a thing extremely cheap.
Abolish central banks.

>>60102272
>>everyone who disagrees with me is a republican

You won't see a democrat agreeing with policies that benefit big businesses only. Why are Republicans such bootlickers?

File: 1469831407782.gif (2MB, 256x192px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 256x192px

This probably sounds redundant since I haven't figured out all of the particulars for this but, in the event the internet becomes even more pay to play than it already is via the removal of net neutrality. Lets say it goes through, big businesses stomp out competition easier than ever by paying top dollar, and the consumers no longer have a voice etc.

Would building a second internet, regardless of cost of laying new lines worldwide etc or how long it took, be possible without that new network taking on all the laws and regulations of the previous internet if those doing it refused to sign any contracts to bind them to their countries laws. Or do they have a sort of catch all where its like "if multiple computers, routers, etc are connected thats the internet now and you must respect our laws"

>>60102276
The point is that all these doomsday lack of NN scenarios will never happen, no matter how much hysteria is generated around this stupid issue

>>60102298
>You won't see a democrat agreeing with policies that benefit big businesses only
fucking l o l

>>60102313
>Trump will never be president

>>60101199
Actually he does, you fucking retard

>>60102263
other anon here, living in France. Here you can get 100mb/s for 10 to 20€/month or 1gb/s for 40€

>>60102313
Nothing ever happens instantly.

You remove NN and ISPs have yet another way to stifle freedom of expression online. Even if the effect is only minor, we'd still be worse off.

>>60102298
>that benefit big businesses only
It will only fuck over consumers you idiot. Fuck net neutrality.
Fuck the FCC

>You won't see a democrat agreeing with policies
Do you think anyone here is a democrat or republican? lol

>>60102330
>media says something will happen
>it doesn't
REALLY MAKES ME THINK

>>60102336
no lmao

>>60102310
wired/physical network = nope
wireless network = kinda because the govts hand out blocks and theoretically they could barr you from any legal access to wireless spectrum

>>60102344
Nice anecdotal evidence. Plenty of broad studies have been done that shows the U.S consistently beating Europe in terms of internet speeds.

>>60102359
>give isps a way to throttle the content you get, based on which big company pays the most dough
>Is good for the costumer

lol

OK, NN sounds like a good idea, let's say that kicks in.
Then what?
How do you ensure that your ISP is following that Net Neutrality?

I understand why you want it, but it would simply be a dead law, or even worse - would require massive surveillance

>>60102310
for one the big ISPs have abused regulations to prevent new ISPs from using utility poles, getting permits, etc.

another thing is what I said here.
>>60102249

Minus the bullshit abuse of regulations literally laying lines, setting up the network, keeping it maintained is really fucking expensive.

>>60102354
NN has never been enforced. Just because something COULD happen, doesn't mean it will. Especially if there will be significant consumer pushback and outrage. You don't need daddy government to save you every single time.

>>60102393
>FCC ruined radio and tv
>hey guys lets give them control of the internet surely they wont fuck up this time

>>60102413
And now they're ruining the internet by killing NN. How fitting!

>>60102374
Yes fool
>>60102047
This, America is a retarded wacky nation

>>60102399

depends on HOW they abuse it.

If you have to pay extra to access smaller websites, or sites like netflix have to pay isps directly to access their sites at faster speeds people can complain to the FCC and they can sue companies to make them stop and treat data equally.

>>60102413
You are such a fucking idiot I do hope you realize that.

Let me spell it out for you.

NN will not give the government control of ANYTHING. The ONLY THING it does is this:

ISPs can not manipulate data based on where it's coming from or where it's going.

EQUAL ACCESS.

>>60102440
>America is a retarded wacky nation
The more i know about how your country works the less i want to move there.

t. East Yuropoor

>>60102047
>You should be demanding net neutrality and outlawing local ISP monopolies.
No, just get rid of the local monopolies. FUCK net neutrality. FUCK the FCC taking over the internet.

Once more infrastructure is laid down and everything is extremely high speed fiber then NONE OF THIS WILL MATTER

Seriously this WONT be a problem in 20 years time.

FUCK OFF

>>60102454
>NN will not give the government control of ANYTHING. The ONLY THING it does is this:
It's honestly cute that you think the government won't add like a million other things to a NN bill.

Also NN isn't even required. No companies are pulling shit like this.

ALSO in 20 years time internet speeds would be so fast there would be no need to throttle anything.

Why do you care?

File: 1273941621486.jpg (31KB, 363x310px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 363x310px

>>60102463
Cool story moron. America is a joke, a nation sold out to corporate interest/control and lobbying

>>60102471
>20 years

I chuckled.

>>60102501
Weak bait/10

>>60102404
>NN has never been enforced. Just because something COULD happen, doesn't mean it will.
But that's the point, though. If it DOES happen, you want something in place to stop it from continuing. It's a safety net.

>Especially if there will be significant consumer pushback and outrage. You don't need daddy government to save you every single time.
Give me a fucking break. Prey tell, how did "consumer pushback and outrage" result in the perpetrators behind the last financial being punished? Oh right, it didn't.

>>60102514
>>60102529
whats so funny?

>>60102503
The only real solution to corporate lobbying is to dramatically reduce government power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

>>60102454
>they can sue companies to make them stop and treat data equally.
First of all, companies will want to pay to ISP if that means they'll have more users than competition.
Secondy how would you prove that ISP is slowing down some packets?

>>60097441
Big corporations have money.
ISP's want money.
Therefore Big corporations will have "more" internet available to them in a free market.
It's literally the ISP's directive to make more money so this is guaranteed to happen if net neutrality goes away.
How anyone can support the removal is beyond me.

File: 1492784454549.jpg (391KB, 1374x1425px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1374x1425px

>>60102501
>ALSO in 20 years time internet speeds would be so fast there would be no need to throttle anything.

>>60097638
Startup CDNs and cloud services

>>60102534
financial crisis*

>>60102549
problem with facts?

>>60102471
Who owns that fiber anon?

Could it be the ISPs who don't have to share it? Who will nickel and dime everything out of you?

>>60102501

There doesn't need to be a bill, it was already planned by the FCC.

see above comment about fiber and faster internet.

>>60102540
Yeah the FCC was captured, maybe you've heard of ajit pai and the republican party? Who don't care about you, and only about greedy companies who will fuck you at every chance they get?

File: 1483716252216.jpg (8KB, 296x296px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 296x296px

>>60102540
>The only real solution to corporate lobbying is to dramatically reduce government power.

File: 1380398279381.gif (989KB, 300x212px) Image search: [Google]

989KB, 300x212px

>>60102540
No, the solution to corporate lobbying is to BAN it, Take money out of politics and law making.

>>60097638
Hmm, yes. The internet definitely needs yet another reason for more centralization.

File: baby-boomer-cartoon-1qzbymy.jpg (40KB, 450x336px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 450x336px

>>60102501
>the gubment gonna put stuff in da net neutrality bill
>which is being lobbied by private interest groups
>capitalism is so great! it does no wrong, unlike that SOCIALIST/STATIS goobment!

You sound like a typical lolbertarian.

>>60102568
More speed = more to throttle

>>60102591
You're arguing with someone that has a double-digit IQ.

>>60102569
>Who owns that fiber anon?
Multiple companies, all competing with each other.

>Who will nickel and dime everything out of you?
There's competition?
Why don't they charge like a million dollars for basic internet now? There's nothing stopping them from doing this.

>Yeah the FCC was captured
It was, abolish it.

>>60102570
It's funny because it's true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
Are you mad that you're wrong?

>>60102385
So a physical wired network is not possible, but a wireless network might be possible? I remember there were efforts to do this years ago, but there seems to be nothing now. I'd personally be happy to just shove all of the businesses and big money sites onto one network, and have fringe/old style internet on its own. We'd miss out on multi million dollar sites like facebook, twitter, youtube etc and lose all connectivity with them, but I dont think thats really a bad thing.

File: emot-LMAO.gif (1KB, 16x16px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 16x16px

>>60102602
>It's funny because it's true.

>>60102602
>Why don't they charge like a million dollars for basic internet now?
Considering the abhorrent speed to price ratio there is in America, you aren't far off.

File: 2TQB523.jpg (34KB, 500x290px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x290px

>>60102586
>You sound like a typical lolbertarian.
Lol like half this fucking board is libertarian.

You sound like a raging manchild that wants mommy government to take care of everything for you and change your diaper.

>>60102602
They do compared to europe you fucking mongoloid.

Read the part about the fcc you absolute cretin. It's all about the republicans handing over control to big businesses.

>Michael K. Powell, who served on the FCC for eight years and was chairman for four, was appointed president and chief executive officer of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, a lobby group. As of April 25, 2011, he will be the chief lobbyist and the industry's liaison with Congress, the White House, the FCC and other federal agencies.[39]
>Meredith Attwell Baker was one of the FCC commissioners who approved a controversial merger between NBC Universal and Comcast. Four months later, she announced her resignation from the FCC to join Comcast's Washington, D.C. lobbying office.[40] Legally, she is prevented from lobbying anyone at the FCC for two years and an agreement made by Comcast with the FCC as a condition of approving the merger will ban her from lobbying any executive branch agency for life.[40] Nonetheless, Craig Aaron, of Free Press, who opposed the merger, complained that "the complete capture of government by industry barely raises any eyebrows" and said public policy would continue to suffer from the "continuously revolving door at the FCC".[40]

>>60102591
Why the fuck would they throttle if they have a fuckton of speed to offer to people.
If there is competition, you can always go with another isp.

>>60102598
>You're arguing with someone that has a double-digit IQ.
Then why are you unable to refute what I am saying?
Christ, go back to redddit you delusional libtards, holy shit.

>>60097738

>> Has the scent of corporate dick on his breath

>>60102632
>It's all about the republicans handing over control to big businesses.

Then you should just abolish it!

Big business saves money on lobbyists. It then follows from the trickle down effect that everyone will be better of.

File: 1487130019071.gif (380KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 600x600px

>>60102642
Watch out guys, this kid is going full circle, devouring his own ass.

>>60102390
Need a decent source.
If this is the case, that's probably because some garbage tier countries are so under developped they can't even provide a better internet than ours.
Please, it's not like we are good in this, we are fucking late.

>>60102617
>>It's funny because it's true.
Define regulatory capture.
This should be good.
>>60102632
>It's all about the republicans handing over control to big businesses.
No fucking shit, it proves my point.

>>60102642
>Why the fuck would they throttle if they have a fuckton of speed to offer to people.

Are we talking about the same multi billion dollar mega corporations here? Do you think they're your friend?

>>60102656
>not an argument

>>60102627
>speed to price ratio
Countless other factors play into it than just speed and price you gigantic idiot.

>>60102540
Corporations are not going to miss any chance to promote own interests with any givenment of any power.

File: 1488926285998.jpg (9KB, 124x128px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 124x128px

>>60102629
>implying I'm a crybaby liberal

This country is fucked if people really believe there's only red/blue politics in this country.

What are the costs of implementing Net Neutrality bill?

>>60102666
>Do you think they're your friend?
No, I don't care if they hate my guts. If they want my money they will have to lower the price. It's supply and demand.

Why does supply and demand work for literally everything else, but when it comes to isps you idiots think companies can set their own prices.

File: 1482871440701.png (472KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

472KB, 640x480px

>>60102663
>posts some freetard wiki entry
>it doesn't even have anything about NN

Really makes you think

the only people against net neutrality on 4chan are /pol/fags. this shit was universally supported by everyone back when it was a big deal, but because trump doesn't like it people here are now against it too.

>>60102696
Pretty much. These NEET losers just want to see the world burn because they've been denied pussy for two decades.

>>60102684
>>implying I'm a crybaby liberal
You're literally using crybaby liberal comics.

>>60102695
>freetard
Do you know which board you're currently posting on?
Also why are you such a corporate bootlicker that you completely ignore the idea that the corporations can write regulations in their favor?

>>60102696
Half of these faggots don't even understand the context of what they regurgitate.

>>60102029
because it's not enforceable and only stands to increase bureaucracy

>>60102696
>the only people against net neutrality on 4chan are /pol/fags
Great job completely ignoring the arguments put forth in this thread kid. You're a winner.

>>60102708
>>60102714
>I literally believe ISPs have unlimited bandwidth and they're just too greedy and won't give it to me
Are you 12?

Hey, why haven't you amerifags have Bread Neutrality act yet? Literally any bakery can start to raise the pirces to hundreds or thounsands $$$ for single bread.
They don't do it today, but someday they may! You need to do something about it!

>>60102690
Except for Water, Electricity, and Gas. Which are state sponsored REGULATED monopolies. How would you like it if there was no regulations on the ONE water pipe to your house? Or the ONE wire for electricity to your house?

Which is why the internet should be a title ii government regulated (though not owned) monopoly. (or duopoly) Like water, gas, and electricity.

File: pol ruined 4chan.png (75KB, 1229x417px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1229x417px

>>60102728

found the /pol/ newfag

>>60102674
>Countless other factors play into it than just speed and price you gigantic idiot.
You're right. I forgot to consider the giant paychecks ips CEOs need in order to provide the best service :^)

>>60102710
>NN
>corporate bootlicking

You're very confused about this world we live in, child. It's alright, though, the world is self-correcting. Soon NN will be abolished and you will no longer be able to get these strange ideas from the other parasites on /pol/ and /r/redpill.

>>60102534
Those are two completed different scenarios you dumbass. How much debt did you have to take out to pay for your monthly internet access?

>>60102754
>Those are two completed different scenarios you dumbass.
How? There was (and still is afaik) no safety net to ensure big investment firms didn't fuck up the economy. I'm simply comparing it to having no safety net to ensure big ISPs doesn't fuck up the internet.

>How much debt did you have to take out to pay for your monthly internet access?
This, however, is putting words into my mouth.

>>60102743
I've literally been here since before chanology, but okay kiddo.

>>60102741
>Except for Water, Electricity, and Gas. Which are state sponsored REGULATED monopolies.
They should all be privatized.

>How would you like it if there was no regulations on the ONE water pipe to your house? Or the ONE wire for electricity to your house?
If the government was never involved in these things there would be many competitors and better infrastructure.

>>60102750
>le evil rich CEOs
More like the vast distances of size the USA is.
It's like you actually believe these companies can magically lower their prices without LOSING MONEY.

>>60102751
>Soon NN will be abolished and you will no longer be able to get these strange ideas from the other parasites on /pol/ and /r/redpill.
lel you children actually think there's a massive conspiracy to throttle connections.

Who gives a shit even if there is?
Internet speeds are going to increase dramatically over the next 10-20 years. A throttled website would be like a high speed website today.

>>60102710
>literally

Underage or manchild confirmed.

>crybaby liberal comics
>critique of baby boomer/corporate welfare is liberal

>>60102728
I've built infrastructure to cater to an entire airport. That's a lot more bandwidth than any residential neighborhood would ever use. The patrons have NEVER maxed out our network bandwidth, ever, at most it's probably peaked at about 42-43%. This is with no throttling or data caps. If an ISP cannot seriously deliver you bandwidth on the premise that "dur not enough gigabitz 4 evry1" is an outright lie. Fiber can transmit on more than one frequency, and paired together with multimode and NIC teaming, your bandwidth is pretty fucking large.

Let me ask, are you 12?

>>60102797
You are such a corporate cuck holy shit. And you have literally no idea how water/power/gas is moved around. Are you going to have like 20 water lines to your house to "increase" competition?

>>60102741
>>60102743
>>60102750
>>60102751
You know what else is funny.

Internet speeds have increased dramatically over the past 20 years thanks to market competition and prices have come down dramatically.

What in the WORLD makes you think speeds are not going to keep increasing and prices aren't going to keep falling as infrastructure increases?

Google is already laying fiber.

Why do you people give a shit about trivial non issues like throttling when it will be a non-issue in 10-20 years anyway?

>>60102819
>corporate cuck
this isn't an argument you dumb fuck. I'll side with an ISP who gives me great service over some senator who cares more about 3rd world desert monkeys than his own citizens

>>60102819
>You are such a corporate cuck holy shit.
Ohhhhh the fucking irony.

>Are you going to have like 20 water lines to your house to "increase" competition?
No, but 2-3 would make sense.

>>60102813
You're LITERALLY a manchild.
>>critique of baby boomer/corporate welfare
From some libtard facebook post?
Hmm really makes you think.

>>60102835
because corporations are inherently evil, duh

>>60102807
It's not a conspiracy, it's business.

>>60102797
You're right. Big ISPs pocketing 200 billion, instead of providing better infrastructure (as they promised), definitely has nothing to do with "le evil CEOs", as you so correctly quoted me :^)

>>60102835
>it will fix itself in the future, I promise
>there's no need to protect consumers in the present

ok then

File: 1275267789748.jpg (68KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 720x540px

ITT: Corporate shills

File: 1493291385638.jpg (12KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 258x245px

>>60102813
>I've built infrastructure to cater to an entire airport. That's a lot more bandwidth than any residential neighborhood would ever use. The patrons have NEVER maxed out our network bandwidth, ever, at most it's probably peaked at about 42-43%. This is with no throttling or data caps. If an ISP cannot seriously deliver you bandwidth on the premise that "dur not enough gigabitz 4 evry1" is an outright lie. Fiber can transmit on more than one frequency, and paired together with multimode and NIC teaming, your bandwidth is pretty fucking large.

>IT'S A BIG CONSPIRACY
>DEY NOT GIVIN ME DA BITS AND BYTES

>>60102835
Google stopped laying fiber in October. Educate yourself. You're the most retarded person in this thread.

File: bernout breakdown.jpg (169KB, 820x461px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 820x461px

>>60102872
<---- also ITT

>>60102857
You ever heard of an oligopoly? What would prevent those 3-4 from colluding and raising prices?

>>60102835
>ISPs are astroturfing on 4chan now

What a world we live in.

>>60102813
>I've built infrastructure to cater to an entire airport. That's a lot more bandwidth than any residential neighborhood would ever use. The patrons have NEVER maxed out our network bandwidth, ever, at most it's probably peaked at about 42-43%. This is with no throttling or data caps. If an ISP cannot seriously deliver you bandwidth on the premise that "dur not enough gigabitz 4 evry1" is an outright lie. Fiber can transmit on more than one frequency, and paired together with multimode and NIC teaming, your bandwidth is pretty fucking large.
Just because one small area has the capability to consume that much bandwidth, it doesn't mean the isp is able to transmit that much data to that neighborhood

>>60102893
That fact that you think big business works in your best interest is the real meme here.

File: 1486723304874.png (37KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 960x540px

>>60102899
You don't get it man, the free market will sort itself out!

>>60102916
it's serving my purposed quite well and I've been nothing but pleased with my service. here's a tip, if you don't like it, stop paying for it.

>>60102866
>It's not a conspiracy, it's business
No, you're just retarded.

>>60102863
>le ebul capitaduisss

>>60102868
>Big ISPs pocketing 200 billion
Then those companies will lose market share to other companies that do increase infrastructure.
Also there are plenty of companies that are increasing infrastructure. It's literally happened right now. They've been doing it for decades. Why would they magically just stop now?

>>there's no need to protect consumers in the present
There literally isn't and these companies HAVE DONE IT IN THE PAST.
Why would they just stop?
holy fuck you retard

File: 1489450605462.jpg (169KB, 500x466px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 500x466px

>>60102904
>Equipment somehow is able to provide that bandwidth to the customers but not transmit it

What kind of lapse in brain power did you use to create that response?

>>60102881
Gee, and I guess sales aren't through the roof for unlimited data plans through wireless carriers now that the capped/throttled data is gone. Really makes you wonder...

>>60102857
>maybe if I project harder and call it a liberal facebook post I win

>>60102893
>Using a fallacy
Uh no

>>60102922
>the free market will sort itself out!
well, it always have, haven't it?

File: 1486524391377.png (422KB, 750x501px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 750x501px

>>60102922

>>60102863
>because corporations are inherently evil, duh
rage against the machine listening teenager detected

>>60102916
>dramatically increases in living standards aren't in my best interest
hmmmm

>>60102922
I mean if we show up with enough people and guns we might be able to overcome the private police that the company hired.

>>60102955
maybe we should vote in a better government then. :thinking: