>support net neutrality >don't know what it actua

>>60464922
Typical.

I seem to disagree with almost everyone on almost everything these days, but this is really another case of (most of) the internet taking a very simplistic approach to something that likely won't pan out as they expect. "The big corporations, they hate our freedom and poor black people and they're going to oppress us." Probably not, at worst they're probably going to offer an extra streaming service or something at a premium and throttle occasionally until too many people complain. So not much different from what they do now.

The idea of big business ISPs messing with the speed of content is rather annoying, especially for people who live in rural areas with few options. But you know what's more annoying? A power hungry government that's shown beyond all doubt, REPEATEDLY, that it has absolutely no respect for the internet and the people on it regulating it centrally instead. "Don't worry, the law just guarantees freedom. It's to defend us." Until someone at some point in time inevitably tries to sneak something else in. Terrorism is bad, isn't it? Do you support terrorism? Of course not, so we'll just block some extremist sites here and there. You'll be fine with it, right? Hate speech is bad too, so how about a few more? Actually, we have trouble identifying people because they keep evading us, so we're going to need a new identification system.

I understand the frustrations of people who don't want to deal with shitty ISPs. And that the government has regulated new ISPs out of competing. And that the government has stopped mergers that would make things worse. It's a multifaceted issue. But what's consistent over time in the realistic sense is that you can switch ISPs, you can move, but what you can't do is escape central power. Even people in other nations can and will be affected by a centrally controlled internet. And sure, they can regulate all this either way, but it's an awful lot easier when you've got your foot in the door.

>muh netflix

Well the thing failed and net neutrality is now gone. How long until Orgin puts $$$ to throttle Steam ?

>>60465437
Net neutrality means an unregulated internet entirely.

>>60464922
I didnt support when obummer passed it and i dont support it now. Fuck the government and fuck plebbitors

File: 1486866780183.jpg (130KB, 600x620px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 600x620px

>>60467411
Seriously why the fuck are you shit posting like a retatd while name fagging?

>>60465437

Nowhere is the power given to the government to take any proactive action controlling content on the internet. Power IS given to stop corporations who are doing so.

The government operates on a whitelist, not a blacklist. They can't do anything unless given the power to do so, and this doesn't give them that authority, only the authority to slap down a corporation that is abusing the system.

When the government tries to pass legislation giving them the authority to make action on internet usage, the same people will be there to challenge them on it. This isn't a government vs private business issue, it's a "stop fucking with the internet I don't care who does it" issue.

>>60467518 >>60467820
I understand what it means in principle. My point is that in order to state that private businesses cannot do something, you must, necessarily, regulate it at the government level. This is a really slippery concept that doesn't end well in practice because once you give them a little they like to slip in a bit more. And then a little more. And just a bit more, still. Even if the government is doing something good, it might be better that they just stay away for everyone's sake. If a business does something bad, just don't pay them. Better to have potential choices and hope than to give in and remove all doubt.

People aren't "wrong" when you ignore the ridiculous outliers like some of the people in the video talking about oppression, they just haven't got enough foresight. Furthermore, we already did live without this for many years, saw the tech boom, an economic collapse, the rise of social media, and cellphones, and it was generally not the companies fucking people in really meaningful ways, but the government.

>When the government tries to pass legislation giving them the authority to make action on internet usage, the same people will be there to challenge them on it.
Not good enough. Look, Wikipedia and Google and whoever else can black out their page for a day, everyone can spam their websites with notifications saying to go send these letters, people can go stand out in the pouring rain in the thousands and it still isn't enough. It just doesn't work that way. And to make things worse, if they say the right things and it's pushed out to the media the right way, they can take those gradual steps and get away with it. Just cut them off now while you still have the chance and don't let them weave their way in.

The protesters might stop it a few times, but it's not like mass surveillance is popular almost anywhere and look how that's doing. How many times have there been large protests now only for them to do absolutely nothing?

File: trumpberg.jpg (724KB, 1228x1739px) Image search: [Google]

724KB, 1228x1739px

AMERICA YES!

>>60467970
>you must, necessarily, regulate it at the government level
it's not regulated at a government level though, that's the point, we are going from no regulation to SOME regulation, we are going from a free marketplace of ideas to control by the highest bidder.
And yet, of course there is some regulation, but we are only talking about things that are so severe that they break the laws in other ways, and these things would still see government intervention in the new system.

>>60465437

>Until someone at some point in time inevitably tries to sneak something else in. Terrorism is bad, isn't it? Do you support terrorism? Of course not, so we'll just block some extremist sites here and there. You'll be fine with it, right? Hate speech is bad too, so how about a few more? Actually, we have trouble identifying people because they keep evading us, so we're going to need a new identification system.

Are you fucking retarded or just a shill? the people who support Net Neutrality hate that shit to the nines, and IN NO WAY does NN support that type of Govt. behaviour. and when that shit DOES start up, we'll just kick up the same fuss that we're doing now to keep corporations out of our internet.

Why does everyone have to be retarded?

The Govt. should stay out of our data, and to whom it's sent and received from.
The ISPs should stay out of our data, and to whom it's sent and received from.

Net Neutrality secures the second thing, and does nothing to support the first. Why do you think all the open source type neckbeards support it so hard?

FUCKING IDIOTS.

>>60468140
I think we're just defining regulation differently or something. We're both looking at the same picture. We both get it. I understand businesses will do things you don't like, including for financial reasons. I understand the government and net neutrality are about not allowing them to. That's regulation. You have to tell them not to do that by law. It's good. If this existed in a vacuum it would be good. But when have things ever ended there?

Could the internet still be regulated with or without net neutrality? Of course. But there's a big difference between what they do now which is go after some actually illegal sites sometimes and pursuing it more in a way where they control what ISPs must do. That's more of the angle I'm getting at. The mechanism of net neutrality doesn't inherently let them, as it requires complaints and responses and so on, but if you can convince people to take this it won't take much to get a few more "moral" things. I get that on paper it's the opposite of net neutrality to do so. Telling them not to set up these regulations says to them, "fuck off from the internet, we won't even accept your involvement if what you're doing is 'good'."

I'm sure it sounds a bit out there but you have to keep in mind that people unironically protest free speech.

>>60468172
>the people who support Net Neutrality hate that shit to the nines, and IN NO WAY does NN support that type of Govt. behaviour. and when that shit DOES start up, we'll just kick up the same fuss that we're doing now to keep corporations out of our internet.
I already addressed this and your protest literally just failed.
>Why does everyone have to be retarded?
I've never heard anyone but myself argue anything like this in popular online spaces. Virtually everyone is gung-ho on net neutrality online.
>and does nothing to support the first.
Addressed it.
>Why do you think all the open source type neckbeards support it so hard?
Who cares? A lot of them support communism too.

I don't care about America.

But why did we let the EU kill net neutrality?
We're supposed to be the good continent.

>>60465437
>>60468566
Kill yourself. You'd do all of humanity a favor, if you just stopped breathing.

>>60468566
not neutrality would also prevent the government from mandating isps throttling and data caps.
not to mention that if I understand you(and I'm not sure, you seem to make little sense from my interpretation so I might be misunderstanding) this is a total non-issue, government HASN'T done regulation, and there's nothing about net neutrality that would make them start to.

>>60467970

>everyone can spam their websites with notifications saying to go send these letters, people can go stand out in the pouring rain in the thousands and it still isn't enough. It just doesn't work that way.

Citation fucking needed, mass protest has been the biggest driver of policy change in US history. Even if your cartoon villain politician just wrings his hands and doesn't listen, shit like that gets major media attention and changes hearts and minds, and allows for populists to come in and dethrone those in power.

Protests have never been about making someone go "Oh wow look at those people outside better reverse my decision", they've been about letting those in power know they don't just have a lack of support, but rather they have active opposition by their constituents. And this gets large population segments to rally behind forces to change the system over time.

>>60468635
Does the greater EU economic sphere speak English fluently or some other common language? I would assume that language barriers prevents common meetup sites from forming where mass international protest can come together and coordinate. Maybe?

>>60468660
Gb2 class, lil' slugger.

>>60468635
>(((EU)))
>Good

I hope this is just poor b8.
Do you know that the (((EU))) is on such a brink of collapse that Merkel has discussed bringing Sharia Law into certain areas because that means Muslim banks would be allowed to be established and they don't charge (((interest)))? Of course you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a retarded post in the first place.

>>60468635
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-net-neutrality what are you talking about senpai? EU is protecting net neutrality.

>>60468696
>Does the greater EU economic sphere speak English fluently or some other common language?

All young people speak English just fine.

They are just too busy with their Facebook and their Snapchat to care about something that will rape them in their ass eventually.

EU was also smart in pretending the law that banned net neutrality actually supports net neutrality. - like your "affordable care act" that actually made health care extremely expensive.

>>60468660
You're retarded and you have too much faith.

>>60468670
You do understand me, mostly. It's a trojan horse of trust that they're the good guys. It happens one step at a time. I'm not unconditionally antigovernment but man, every time they get involved in the net they fuck it up after a while.

>>60468696
>citation needed/mass protests work/dethrone power
I don't think they'll do a good enough job because we've had bigger internet issues and they didn't do shit to stop anything despite complaints.

Think it goes without saying that I can't prove the future. No one can. So sure, this comes down to my opinion but it's based on history.

nobody cares

>>60468792
Smoke and mirrors.

They SAY they support net neutrality.
But the actual law text abolishes it.

>>60468757
>Do you know that the (((EU))) is on such a brink of collapse that Merkel has discussed bringing Sharia Law into certain areas because that means Muslim banks would be allowed to be established and they don't charge (((interest)))? Of course you didn't,
cause it's not true. and further, merkel isn't a part of the EU parliament, she's the german prime minister.
>>60468696
>Does the greater EU economic sphere speak English fluently or some other common language?
yes

>>60468835
No the actual law text strictly illegalizes any isps from not being neutral.

>>60468836
>she's the german prime minister
nope, chancellor.
There is no PM in germany

>>60468856
>illegalizes

>>60468856

See this part:
>discrimination of internet traffic by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is not allowed in the EU, save for three exhaustive exceptions

>exceptions

That's the gotcha.

If there are exceptions then it's clearly not neutral.
And it;s not trivial: one of the exceptions is that ISP's can impose data caps and extra charges on other peoples content while making their own services free.
T-mobile has already exploited this loophole to push their own music screaming service.

>>60468924
No, they haven't. There are many other music services that are except, because anticompetitive is already ILLEGAL

>>60468924
>compliance with legal obligations; integrity of the network; congestion management in exceptional and temporary situations)
So how it has always been. Illegal content, woah, big deal. And the other two are extensions of illegal content, if you got confused.

>>60465437
Yes, because killing Net Neutrality totally means the government cannot create laws and arbitrary rules so the ISPs have to block shit they don't like.

You're a retard.

>>60468974
>So how it has always been.

Not here in the Netherlands.

We used to have real net neutrality.
Now we have "net neutrality" designed by the ISP's (((lobby groups))).

>>60468971
>There are many other music services that are except

lol no.

Unless you have unlimited data, all except T-mobile's own streaming service will rape your monthly data allowance.

>>60469029
Already addressed this. The short version is that if there's substantial pushback against them categorically getting involved, they're certainly not going to be able to get things everyone hates by so easily. And if they do, it's less likely to last. It's an effort to force them to be pushed in other directions.

I do understand how people think net neutrality does exactly that. I disagree on greater track record.

Wow this thread is full of samefagging shill posts. What, was McDonalds not hiring? Call centers turn you away? Your minimum wage job shitposting on forums in support of Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and Charter fucking us all over get you enough to cover the bills? I hope not. I hope you and your family starve to death.

Fucking SAGE this crap.

>>60468757
>the (((EU))) is on such a brink of collapse

your brain on /pol/ people

>>60469438
They're me. I'm the only one really defending the other viewpoint here and I haven't hidden that. Well other than >>60467557 who isn't me.

>>60469485
Would've been interesting of Le Pen won. Bare minimum would've been a media meltdown.

>>60468635
hahaha

>>60469057

did you have an actual law or was it just an agreement between ISPs?

>>60468140
this is very meta.
At the moment ISPs have lobbied local states to have a monopoly and the ISPs could in theory do what they want in terms of discrimination.

The net neutrality regulation is supposed to force the ISPs to not discriminate. It's also government intervention though because without any, they could discriminate.

>>60464922
>MUH NEHFLICKS
>COMCAST SUXXX!
>SAVE US GUBBERMENT
>SAVE US BASED BLACK PRESIDENT
>TELL EVIL COMCAST WHAT TO DO
good goyims

File: tmp_2108914944068773801412592048.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>60470035

Slow day?

File: 1476743608732.png (978KB, 886x757px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 886x757px

>>60470059
>ANY OPINION I DONT AGREE WITH IS B8

>>60470280

Here's your (you).

It's not the 90's anymore. Most of the surplus created by internet is now captured by edge provider megacorporations like fb, google, netflix etc. Not the end user or even the ISP. This is why forcing ISP's to a business model where charging fees from anyone else but the end user is illegal turns into equivalent of a subsidy toward these megacorporations. Simply put, your monthly bill is used to fund part of the google data collection and marketing infrastructure, corporation that rakes in profits while the isp struggles and gets all the blame.

If this situation continues it will lead to ISP business being less and less profitable. Eventually government needs to step in and start providing tax breaks or subsidies to the ISPs. Yet still ISP profit continue to be garbage compared what off the edge providers get. The edge providers will call it net-neutrality or whatever and defend it to the bitter end, for them the best situation is when the entire network funded by the tax payer and where the role of the ISP is nonexistent aka the dumb pipe model.

Netflix benefits more from their connection to you than you benefit from connection to netflix. Yet netflix wants you to pay for the service which they receive surplus. It's completely lopsided system leading to inevitable isp subsidies. European countries display less problems because the ISP business here is in many cases already paid by the government.

>>60470343

I hope you and your family starve to death. Your paid shitposting job hurts real people and would result in vastly more harm and suffering than if you were no longer able to feed yourself and your family.

Do us all a favor and kill (you)rself.

>>60470424

You fail to understand that two way connection needs to be supported by the both parties, if not it will lead to free a rider problem.

>>60470485

There's no free rider problem you parasite. Peering fees cover the data transport cost across ISP boundaries and what you're being paid to post here about is called "double dipping" which is thievery.


Go.

Kill.

Yourself.

You.

Fucking.

Pajeet.

Shill.

File: IMG_8361.jpg (30KB, 500x265px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x265px

>>60470330
>here is my non-arguement

>>60470612

Here's your (you).

>>60470553
>Peering fees cover the data transport cost across ISP boundaries
That's not where the costs are. Cost are at the user end. The edge provider wants to access not just the node next to the interconnect, it wants to reach the user as well.
If you are ok with the age old peering fees model I'm sure you are fine not having Title II regulation which intents to regulate peering arrangements.

>>60470280
past a certain threshold, it doens't really matter does it? it's disregarded either way.
>(You)(You)(You)(You)(You)(You)(You)(You)

>>60470749

Edge providers are the last mile ISP, shill. Your propaganda isn't going to win your an argument with a network engineer who works with ISPs you literal parasite.

Kill yourself (you) leech incarnate. Do it. Make the world a better place right now by ending your life.

>>60469099
Explain why Google Play Music and SoundCloud don't count against my data cap? Don't tell T-Mobile, but I haven't paid my bill and I'm still getting access to streaming services but nothing else.

>>60470982
well i'm a fucking computer and you can't just go around violating my rights to be treated equally by everybody

>>60470982

The costs are at the user end(multiple), not at the interconnect with the edge provider(single). Expecting to get high throughput to every user while not paying relative to use is ridiculous. In healthy market both sides take part in paying for the infrastructure, not just the user.

>>60469686
The EU made it law and forced countries with real net neutrality (like mine) to abolish it and adopt the EU's variation on """"""net neutrality""""" instead.

>>60471287

You get another (you). Don't you hate 9-5 jobs for minimum wage? Sitting in front of a computer and wasting your life on an imageboard full of degenerates? Going back to a wife that bitches at you constantly for the crappy living conditions your minimum wage job provides?

Some days don't you just feel like grabbing a knife from the kitchen and ending it all? No one likes you. Even your family is disappointed in you. You could make them happy though, anon. For the first and only time in your life, you could bring them joy. It's simple, really. All you need to do is quickly stab the knife in your chest where your heart is. Make it quick.

>The costs are at the user end(multiple), not at the interconnect with the edge provider(single)

Whose costs? Cause the costs are everywhere that data is transported. Infrastructure, personnel, and so on.

> Expecting to get high throughput to every user while not paying relative to use is ridiculous.

Then offer less bandwidth if you don't think you can meet the demands of your oversubscribed lines. That's the last mile's ISP'S fault for lying to their customers. It's not NetFlix's fault if the ISP can't meet the customers' demands for bandwidth caps that you sold them access to.

> In healthy market both sides take part in paying for the infrastructure, not just the user.

Both sides already do take part in paying for infrastructure. Netflix pays exorbitant amounts to the ISPs it uses who, in turn, pay exorbitant amounts to the ISPs they peer with and so on.

>>60468757
I said EUROPE is supposed to be good.
Europe is a continent, not a trading block nor a government.

The EU is destroying Europe and all the nice things we created.
Soon only laws lobbied for by big corporations (such as importing millions of Muslims to undercut wages).

>circa 2010-2011, netflix not making a lot of money compared to expenses
muh net neutrality it's not fair!!! we have to pay for our peering agreemenets! throttling! throttling! wahhh its not fair
>circa 2014, netflix making big bux and can afford their peering agreements
u-uh g-goys, we need those p-peering agreements, please f-forget about all this net neutrality stuff
>peering gets excluded from obamas net neutrality bill last rule

>>60471459
>Netflix pays exorbitant amounts to the ISPs it uses who, in turn, pay exorbitant amounts to the ISPs they peer with and so on.
I take you are fine with Title II regulation being removed then as it is there to give fcc the ability to regulate peering pricing?

File: chlorox.jpg (7KB, 233x216px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 233x216px

>>60471530
Here's your (you) for continuing to push the telecom lobbyist framing of reality.

Must be hard work, sitting in front a computer all day and shitposting. Why don't (you) have a nice, cool, refreshing drink?

>>60471563

The Title II regulations were implemented in a way that explicitly forbids regulation of peering prices, telecom shill.

Here's your (you).

>>60471600

Not true. In title II, when peering agreement is disputed, the case falls on fcc. Effectively meaning regulation of peering prices.

>>60471795

Here's another (you). You're really rackng them in!

>Not true. In title II, when peering agreement is disputed, the case falls on fcc. Effectively meaning regulation of peering prices.

At no point does the Title II regulation permit the FCC to dictate what price ISPs must pay to peer with each other. Not even in the case of disputes. The closest thing it permits is the FCC to forbid extortionary peering rates aimed at killing small ISPs.

>>60467518
Sure, in spirit maybe, but that's not what is actually on the wall. Which is almost 800 page worth of regulations.
And then there's title II, which is the one actually getting BTFO, and had nothing to do with what NN is in spirit.

>>60471981

Citations needed on all claims.

>>60467518
>Net neutrality means an unregulated internet entirely.
No, it doesn't.

>>60467970
>hurr durr the gubment is evil and muh slippery slope means that first they put restrictions on companies and next thing they will take away our guns

>>60471951
I never said FCC is going to _dictate_ the pricing. They just might in case of dispute say the pricing is unfair. The effective result is regulation of prices.

>>60472039

The effective result is preventing extortionary peering arrangements aimed at killing off small ISPs

So do you get overtime being paid to shill for telecoms? Do you even live in a country where the concept of overtime is a thing?

>>60472034
>hurr durr the corporate is evil and muh slippery slope means that first they put restrictions on consumer choice and next thing they will take away our internet
At least you can't take your business elsewhere when it comes to shitty companies.
Whoops, can't do that with the >gobmint

>>60472113
*can

>>60472113
>business elsewhere
Please tell me how US cable companies doesn't have in essence a monopoly on the ISP market again? How could Comcast throttle Netflix without loosing any customers (hint: they lied about it)?

>>60472039
>>60472107

Why do American exchanges even have peering prices?

European exchanges generally charge a flat membership fee with no charge on data whatsoever.
This encourages ISP's to exchange more data...which is the bloody point in the first place.

No wonder Amercian internet exchanges are so pathetically small when it comes to throughput.

>>60472163
>Why do American exchanges even have peering prices?
Because in the US everything cost money and charity is considered bad and will make the shareholders question your abilities as leader.

File: b696cdd6c59991ed98c3dbf9f620a9df6aaabd9e8a332abf3fe5623bf4789851.jpg (17KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 800x600px

>The telecoms have paid posters on 4chan spouting the "Gubberment gonna regulate muh net" shit

Fucking hell.
/g/ went from full support no stops to daily threads abut it being suddenly terrible.
NN is deregulation of the internet, the ISPs want to gut it for profit you mongoloids.

>>60472148
Comcast didn't throttle Netflix. If you didn't solely read fake news you would know that.

>>60472216

Different pricing models are different. Neither are charity.

>>60465437
You got so much wrong its disturbing.

I am constantly amazed that free market competition and capitalist for-profit innovation is no longer a conservative ideal when it comes to this particular issue. Is the koolaid really that strong? Am I the only person on the right that isnt totally retarded now?

You even admit it in your argument. "Well rural communities will be subject to anticompetitive anticapitalist monopolies (not by ISPs mind you, but by all online services companies) but that's just the cost of our righteous hatred of our system of self-government!"

>>60472235
>Comcast didn't throttle Netflix
They clearly did, because the drop in throughput was clearly measurable and in addition Netflix wouldn't have given up and paid Comcast an undisclosed amount of money if they didn't.


>ZOMG FAKE NEWS
lol

>>60472223

Just be sure to immediately BTFO and SAGE the samefagging shills.

>>60469099
You're wrong, retard. Even the base 2GB plan gets free music streaming from a large variety of services

>>60472148
>how US cable companies doesn't have in essence a monopoly on the ISP
Unless you live in the middle of nowhere then you will most likely have 2-3 major ISPs and dozens of smaller ones.
If you do live in podunk bumblefuck nowhere, then you have more monopoly-related problems than your internet connection.

>>60472238
In the US, not charging market price is considered charity.

That's why the CEO of a burger company can't decide to pay employees any more money than other burger companies, for example, because the shareholders will boot you off and replace you with someone who maximises their profit.

>>60472239
Competition is a meme. The free market functions best when it is left alone to its own devices.

>>60472267
Netflix paid money to establish a direct interlink to Comcast because Congent was throttling and overcharging them. Netflix tried to take advantage of the situation through a publicity stunt to try to make Comcast connect them for free. Fake news.

so is NN a good thing or a bad thing

>>60472289
>2-3 major ISPs
Let me paint you a picture, anon. I live in Norway, a country with 5 million people. I live in Oslo, a city with 550,000 inhabitants, something that would clearly be considered "middle of nowhere" in US scale. I can choose from 6 different major ISPs, and 9 or so minor ISPs. Only 3 of the major ISPs are in to other telecom related industries in addition to being an ISP.

Choosing between 2 or 3 major ISPs, that ALL are cable companies that mostly charge you money for delivering content, is not a good situation. They will obviously prefer their own content over other content and treat traffic from competitors unfairly.

>>60472344
It's bad because it stifles innovation and growth in the ISP industry. NN is why America only has like 3 telecommunications companies.

>>60472290
If you actually stopped spending the rest of your paycheck on gaymen cpus and mobile tracking devices you could actually be a shareholder and have this be a good thing.

>>60472362
>greed is good
Gordon Gecko, please.

>>60472289
I live in downtown Seattle. I have one option for cable (Comcast) and one for DSL (Centurylink). The DSL maxes out at 12 megabit. That's the entirety of my options for wired internet.

>>60472290

In Europe that *is* market price as that's what the market agreed upon.

Not everything needs to be charged based on bandwidth usage.

File: d911302c990956db7716d9b485b54a30245fb56fcbc5a2154e39a00fd1a341c9.jpg (17KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x480px

>>60472317
How much do they pay for this kind of shilling.
You'd have to be desperate or they pay good.

>>60472360
Substantiate your claims! Preet.

>>60472435
Why should Netflix get an internet connection for free while you have to pay?

>>60472391
>In Europe that *is* market price as that's what the market agreed upon.
The market doesn't agree upon everything. What you are referring to is called price fixing, where telecom operators and universities etc have just collaborated together and decided what they should charge each other.

Depending on the market, price fixing is in the gray area of what is actually legal.

>Not everything needs to be charged based on bandwidth usage.
It doesn't, but some countries have stronger antitrust laws that prevent price fixing and collaborative pricing, depending on the market.

Also, I am European.

>>60472384
Give ballpark address and I'll prove you wrong

>>60472450

Why should (you) even be paid a minimum wage job to shitpost on 4chan with telecom lobbyist lies? McDonalds not hiring?

>>60472485
Answer the question. Why should Comcast connect Netflix for free?

>>60472435
not even that guy, but it's pretty much what happened. netflix doesn't care about net neutrality anymore because they can afford the peering agreement now

>>60472235
>there was no thottling LIES LIES LIES!!! FAKE NEWS

>>60472317
>there was thorttling but it wasn't Comcast LIES LIES LIES!!!! FAKE NEWS

Ajit Pai, please fuck off. Everyone knows you used to work for Comcast.

>>60472505

I've answered your sagefagging question several times in this thread, pajeet. They already pay their ISPs massive amounts of money and their ISPs pay massive amounts of money to the ISPs they peer with to transport Netflix's traffic.

>>60472512
>netflix doesn't care about net neutrality anymore because they can afford the peering agreement now
This is victim blaming and the internet equivalent of saying "she didn't care about being raped the second time, because she was already raped the first time"

>>60472541
Netflix isn't paying "their ISPs" anymore you fucking retard they are paying Comcast and connecting to Comcast directly. Holy shit you are retarded.

>>60472544
kys faggot

>>60472515
>pay for certain amount of bandwidth
>try to send more than what I paid for without increasing payment
>WAHHH WAHH!! ISP IS THROTTLING ME!

>>60472505
>>60472560
Why should Netflix pay when Comcast's customers pay Comcast to watch Netflix already?

>>60472544
they didn't get raped. They paid up then and bitched about it. Now they have money and don't care. The CEO said it literally won't affect his business.

>>60472560

They have multiple ISPs and Comcast pays peering fees to the ISPs they peer with you fucking parasite.

Here's your (you). Now go kill yourself.

>>60472571
Fuck of kike. Your astroturfing is untrue and you know it.

>>60472574
Why should I pay Comcast to connect to my neighbor when he already pays Comcast to connect to me?

>>60472574
because comcast is caching and serving netflix's content for them and that isn't free

When you watch shit on netflix you get the data stream from your isp not from netflix. This costs money and all the big companies do it.

>>60472588
They aren't using those ISPs anymore now that they are dealing with Comcast directly. Holy shit how are you so retarded to not understand such a simple concept?

>>60472609
You shouldn't, that would be all sorts of jewish tricks. Do americans really accept this jewry?

>>60472614
>because comcast is caching and serving netflix's content for them and that isn't free
I'm pretty sure that Netflix host their own CDNs though. Comcast may have their own caches, but they could easily just drop caching.

>When you watch shit on netflix you get the data stream from your isp not from netflix.
Nope, it's from a CDN over in Ireland in my case (Norway). My ISP isn't involved at all.

>>60472624
Yes, because they don't have any real choice.

>>60472624
So ISPs should be forced to offer internet service for everyone for free?

>>60472618

(You)'re the one pretending Comcast is literally the only ISP in existence.

>>60472223
>NN is deregulation of the internet, the ISPs want to gut it for profit you mongoloids.
How is it deregulation to regulate what ISPs can do? Just because they regulate that they NOT do something doesn't mean it isn't regulation. Regulation doesn't automatically imply good or bad. Regulating that a wedding cake must be baked for all customers is still regulation. I disagree with it, too.

>>60472239
I know it would cause some situations in which some people would lose out. I get it. That's why I say it upfront. I would prefer if smaller ISPs weren't regulated out of existence, which they are in some parts of the country explicitly. My solution isn't "cut everything down and it'll be perfect", it's "try to keep them out like you used to and it'll probably turn out better than it would if you didn't in the long run." At least you'll have a chance at a choice then rather than hoping the whole thing doesn't collapse at once.

>I am constantly amazed that free market competition and capitalist for-profit innovation
Are we just defining things differently or something? Free market competition doesn't mean everyone has to play nice and Walmart has to let all the little stores open up. It doesn't say anything about anything like that. As markets become freer, things actually start to get pretty brutal both for small business and consumers quite often and completely naturally as a logical progression. They'll get bullied. I don't support the government helping big business there either in ways that wouldn't happen without their involvement.

>>60472297
Fake news. If you let things become TOO free it can get very ugly for tremendous stretches of time. Like 50+ years at least. Some companies are just better than others, some can afford to lose money now to gain it later, etc. Everyone but them loses. I'm glad you brought this up because my points are more anti-gov-on-the-internet than pro-business.

>>60472465
University Ave & 45th St NE
98105

name one (1) thing we needed net neutrality for that didn't get a company fined under another law, or went away under the pressures of a free market
>>60472652
where the fuck do you think a CDN operates nigger?

>>60472672
Why should I have to pay Comcast for internet to connect to my neighbor when he already pays AT&T for internet?

It means ISPs will give everyone smaller series of tubes and big companies can pay for bigger series of tubes.

>>60472700
>it means Costco will sell smaller packets of meat but will also sell bigger packets of meat for bigger families

>>60472670
ISPs pay to peer with higher-tier ASes. As in: everyone pay upstream and get downstream as part of the deal.

Only in the US have you allowed a corrupted model where ISPs are also 1-tier ASes, so everyone has to pay double or triple to use the price.

>>60472686
>where the fuck do you think a CDN operates nigger?
See above. If your ISP is also a CDN, you seriously need the government to step in and regulate the market already because it's not regulating itself.

>>60472289
Having more than one ISP doesn't mean there's robust competition between them. They're protected from further competition by the high barriers to entry. Knowing no one else is going to challenge them, nothing stops them all from screwing you.
"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Why get into a bloody price war and perhaps come out with nothing when you can just shear the sheep you have?

>>60472679
Cable or >20mbps
>Century Link
>Level 3
>Megapath
>Xfinity
>Integra Telecom
>TW Telecom
>Hughes Net
>Comcast

And a bunch of other smaller ISPs.

>>60472721
Except internet in the U.S is cheaper as a percentage of median income than every European country.

>>60472721
What was the problem with an ISP being a CDN again?

>>60472751
I really doubt that, considering that I have a 200/15 Mbit/s ADSL link for $35 (~300 NOK) a month with no data cap.

>>60472731
Well maybe if people would vote out the hundreds of pages of regulations, then there might be less barriers of entry.

If more and more regulations (like the title II) keeps adding up, you'll be left with a real monopoly, and then they could fuck you in ways that NN or other regulations wouldn't even imagine to cover.

Why can't people see that the way to a better place for internet is to use and promote smaller ISPs despite the maybe slower speeds or slightly expensive cost?

File: Kek.png (42KB, 1300x256px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 1300x256px

>>60471462
Your retardation is show, numbnuts. Lying only works when you can cover it up. That is why Trump is going out the door.

>inb4 That was not me! That was some other equally retarded mouth breather

>>60472786
What is you annual income?

>>60472753
In the case of Comcast: They prefer their own media content over other content.

In general: price collaborations and antitrust

>>60472786
In a country with half the median income of the U.S, in addition to paying twice as much taxes.

>>60472814
Everyone look at this delusional faggot

>>60472819
~66k USD (560k NOK), which is only slightly above median income

>>60472821
So Amazon prioritizing it's own traffic on Amazon.com instead of the traffic of AWS customers is also anti-competitive?

>>60468635
>EU
>Good

Pick one. While you decide, enjoy your race dying out as the hairy-assed muslim race fucks your women and brings about an end to your way of life. Buy your turban now before they go out of stock. The EU is trash.

>>60472823
We have higher median incomes than the US, though.

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

And yeah, we pay more taxes. But then again, we enjoy stuff like free(tm) higher education and universal health care, so meh.

>>60472866
Yes, and which is also why the AWS eula state that they won't differentiate.

>>60472890
>Yes, and which is also why the AWS eula state that they won't differentiate.
Post the location of the exact text in the EULA that states that.

>>60472890
Show a timestamped picture of either your Norwegian passport or currency. You're probably bullshitting about being from Norway and probably from a third world world shithole like France, Spain, or Germany.

File: IMG_0312.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>60472921

>>60473053
Nice photoshop skills.

>>60472921
Seriously? You think no one's from Norway? It's not North Korea.

File: 1495077427839.jpg (10KB, 250x238px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x238px

>>60473053
Today anon was told.

Folks, the only way to have an internet free from government meddling and corporate bullshit is to institute stateless communism. Stop voting for conservatives

>>60473066
>Everything that is counter to my opinion is fake!!

Keep being retarded, right-wing gutter trash.

>>60473119
Keep importing those rapefugees.

>>60473053
den känslan när man föddes 15km öst om riksgränsen

>>60473129
>but her emails!

Please hurry up and die so the world can advance.

>>60473163
To what?

>>60473129
Last year we had like 4800 refugees in total. The US accepted something like 150,000 refugees

http://www.wrapsnet.org/admissions-and-arrivals/

>>60473148
Vel, ta hoyere utdanning/utbildning og kom jobb her. Du får svært gunstige/fordelaktige skattefordeler som arbeidsinnvandrer fra Sverige.

>>60473188
Enjoy paying 50% income tax plus 25% VAT.

>>60472921
>>60473053
Well? Why did you want me to prove I'm from Norway? What did you gain from this?

>>60473236
You live in a country where the government takes 50% of your income whenever you get paid, and then another 25% whenever you buy anything, but hey, your internet pretty cheap! Congratulations.

>>60472317
>Congent was throttling and overcharging them
Only when Netflix hit the 95% of the bandwidth allotted to them by Comcast, and it was corrected as an billing error.

If you really think that Cogent is the only transit that Netflix has, or even the only peering point with Comcast, you might in fact be completely retarded, amongst other things.

QoS exists to prioritize SIP traffic over a file download, or ACK's over everything, for example. But the internet is very simple - Peer or die.

>>60473293
Peering only makes sense when the upload and download ratios are fairly similar across both parties. If Netflix is too cheap to pay Congent, and Congent too cheap to invest in better infrastructure with its peering partners, then the partners have no obligation to pay.

>>60473223
VAT is already included in the price for consumers, so 300 NOK for internet is including the 25% VAT. Also, for food it's only 12% VAT. Since it's not customary to tip in my country, I'd say that your 7% sales taxes and 18% gratuity fees actually adds up to more than what we pay in VATs.

As for taxes, I pay 28% income tax due to having a mortgage/loan on my apartment. People rarely pay as much as 50% in income tax, we have different brackets so only you tax 50% of income above ~600k NOK, and only up to 38% of income below that. Income below 350k NOK is taxed at most 25%.

Also, there are a fuckton of deductions though. Debt and mortgage is deductible. Having to travel more than an hour to work is deductible. Giving to charities is deductible. Getting higher education means you can deduct from your tax. Being member of a labour union is deductible etc.

>>60473277
See >>60473324

I pay 28% in income tax. Taxes are at progressive rates, and not flat percentages.

File: JKr5cUK.gif (171KB, 267x199px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 267x199px

>>60473323
>Peering only makes sense when the upload and download ratios are fairly similar across both parties. If Netflix is too cheap to pay Congent, and Congent too cheap to invest in better infrastructure with its peering partners, then the partners have no obligation to pay.

What the actual fuck?

No, that's not how the internet works. Level 3 peers with Sprint peers with Verizon peers with Above Net, so on, and so forth.

Also, Cocent is a reseller, much like Boost! or Tracphone is to the cell service world. They have very little infrastructure and resell transit, usually from Level 3 or HE.

Maybe spend some time out in the real world...

>>60473337
>>60473324
Don't bother, he's obviously jelly as fuck.

>>60473337
Meanwhile a single filer making $66k USD pays 22%, and a couple pays 18%, with absolutely no deductions at all.

everyone is talking about fast lanes for corporations, but I don't know if that'd ever happen.

On the other hand, before we had net neutrality in Canada, all the isps started throttling torrenting. Only their implementation was so fucking dogshit that it just throttled anything peer to peer that wasn't whitelisted (video gaymes) and there are instances where they forgot to set the white list for major games . After you did anything p2p your internet would be slowed to about 50kbps for everything for about a whole hour

and no there wasn't any choices to go with at the time, the internet was effectively a duopoly at the time.

If you think net neutrality isn't a positive thing to have and you're on this board I suggest fucking killing yourself.

>>60473396
Just filter the thread desu. This thread is just corporate shilling at best.

>>60473368
Companies peer with whoever they want if there is a mutual benefit. There has never been any established "rules" on how peering works. Nice try buddy.

>>60473382
Couples are also taxed differently here, but I'm single so I don't really bother with those rates. However, I don't have to deal with health insurance, which I guess is a significant cost in the US (for either you or your employer), and I also have zero in student debt and have a master's degree.

Also, it's actually my employer and not me that pays for my internet, but I do have to pay extra taxes for this though, since it's considered a benefit.

>>60473396
And this is applicable to USA how exactly? That behavior is already illegal here

>>60473442
>>60473382
Oh, and we have 5 weeks vacation, so yeah, wouldn't wanna live in the US even if you doubled my salary.

>>60473486
>That behavior is already illegal here
Then explain why it keeps on happening then?

>>60473382
>american pays $14.52k for next to nothing
>norwegian guy pays $18.48 for everything from healtcare to education

So the norwegian guy pays a little under 4k more per year and get his moneys worth. I guess this is why Americans consider taxation to be theft. What the hell does your government even use all that money on?

>>60473566
War and being the world police.

>>60473507
Source? Preferably relevant and timely

>>60473587
See Comcast vs Netflix.

>>60473614
That's already been resolved and doesn't effect me whatsoever. Try again

>>60473614
>>60473587
Also for throttling bittorrent, this is quite common.

https://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-formally-rules-comcasts-throttling-of-bittorrent-was-illegal/

>>60473624
>that's already been resolved
Yes, by Netflix being coerced into paying Comcast you fucking dolt. Also, see >>60473627

Comcast continues to try to throttle bittorrent traffic and circumvent regulations preventing them to do this.

>>60473627
>2008
also
>torrenting without a VPN
found the retard

>>60473644
>>60473624
>obvious astroturfing

How much is Comcast paying you?

>>60473643
Good, I don't wanna pay more I don't even use Netflix

>>60473644
hey, I get away with it

*shrugs* (yes, its still absolutely fucktortuise)

>>60473663
The American consumer, everyone. Less choice is better. Less freedom is better.

>>60473662
>promotes VPN usage
>OBVIOUS COMCAST SHILL
go back to daddy John Oliver you faggot

>>60473679
How is me, the consumer, subsidizing Netflix's usage increasing competition again?

>>60464922
Which MSPA is that?

>>60473679
The muslim cucked consumer, everyone. Giving businesses the ability to monopolize and shit on their customers is a good thing.

>Makes a lot of sense that a cuck would want to watch as their money is fucked away

>>60473681
You are so fucking stupid, it hurts. Are you really arguing that you find it okay that you are forced to use a VPN in order to not get affected because Comcast is literally breaking the law? Are you really arguing that you should continue to pay money for Comcast's subpar service that require you to go jump all sorts of hoops in order to get the normal service you actually pay for?

You're literally being cucked by Comcast. You deserve it.

>>60473697
Comcast shill.

You are not subsidising Netflix, you are paying for Comcast's media content you don't even use.

>>60473724
Most torrent activity is literally breaking the law too you fucking retard cry me a river

>>60473714
See >>60473724

>continuing to pay money for a service that's worse than what you pay for
>not being cucked
Pick one.

File: mfw-dog.jpg (34KB, 575x465px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 575x465px

>>60473768
>bittorrent = piracy and """illegal downloading"""
Get the fuck out. You don't belong on /g/.

Also
>unironically arguing that certain combinations of 0s and 1s are illegal
mfw

>>60473768
>unironically defending disproportionate copyright laws and anti piracy laws
Obvious shill / 10

>>60473798
>unironically arguing that certain combinations of 0s and 1s are illegal
It's a fact that they are. They don't care about your opinion.

File: super-retard.jpg (23KB, 499x376px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 499x376px

>>60473811
>implying that they are is somehow an argument that they should be

>>60473811
I'm not the one selectively propping the law up as a shield only when it suits my argument. I literally don't care about either but I'm not stupid enough to willingly put my IP in a swarm

>>60473824
He didn't say anything about whether they should be, he said using a VPN is a good idea.

>>60473824
>the law doesn't matter if I don't agree with it
I hope a three letter agency busts your poor ass.

>>60473768
>"it's okay for comcast to break the law and not give me the service I pay for because some other people might use bittorrent to do something illegal"

C U C K E D
U
C
K
E
D

>>60473724
He is a eurocuck. They like their women to be fucked by sand nigger apes, so why should their internet not be too?

>>60464922
I think this new idea that net neutrality has nothing to do with the internet but with ISPs only is the classical divide and conquer.

>>60473831
BitTorrent is merely a protocol for sharing files in a decentralised manner. Plenty of software, such as various Linux distributions, can be downloaded using a BitTorrent client.

Why should Comcast be allowed to throttle this traffic because BitTorrent also can be used to share """illegal""" files?

What about HTTP? If someone downloads a rar archive with child porn, should Comcast be allowed to throttle your HTTP traffic too?

>>60473838
I'll be fine, thanks for the concern tho

>>60473844
I am the Eurocuck. The guy I'm responding to is clearly a Comcast customer with buyers' remorse.

>>60467518
Literally the opposite

>>60473877
they're not, they can't. Already illegal

>>60473900
You are providing incentives for companies to continue to break the law. You should be arrested, to be honest.

>>60473916
Good luck with that

>>60473912
>Already illegal
Didn't stop them from doing it in 2008, 2012, 2014 and 2015 now, did it? They will probably try again this year, only this time they have Ajit Pai on their side, which will push to change legislation in cable companies' favours.

>>60473929
Apparently, it did stop them since you shills have yet to post anything that's happened after 2013

>>60473941
2015 is literally after 2013, you moneyslaving cuck.

>>60473970
And yet you have yet to post the source

>>60473980
How much are they paying you to shill on /g/ anon? I bet you are astroturfing for free, aren't you?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2090834/bittorrent-throttling-in-u-s-creeps-back-up.html

>2014

https://torrentfreak.com/comcast-users-sued-after-ignoring-piracy-notices-150516/

>2015

>>60474004
Trolling, big difference

>>60473877
>BitTorrent is merely a protocol for sharing files in a decentralised manner. Plenty of software, such as various Linux distributions, can be downloaded using a BitTorrent client.
Wasn't criticizing that part of the post. I was going after the part about 1s and 0s being illegal.
>Why should Comcast be allowed to throttle this traffic because BitTorrent also can be used to share """illegal""" files?
The alternative is the government regulates it. You can change your company but not the government, or not easily anyway.
>What about HTTP? If someone downloads a rar archive with child porn, should Comcast be allowed to throttle your HTTP traffic too?
This isn't really about "should", but it shouldn't be illegal at least. Framing it in the way of what I think "should" happen is like saying
>don't support abortion? you hate women, you like killing women, you don't like women having choices
>support abortion? you kill babies, you don't think kids have a right to life, you'd be fine with killing all of them
Yeah, if you literally take everything the worst way possible and present a doomsday situation anything could look bad. Sometimes people just have different priorities and prefer a different balance. I'll take a worst case scenario of having to move to another city over having to move to another country. That's why I tend to side with business long before government.

>>60474036
>The alternative is the government regulates it. You can change your company but not the government, or not easily anyway.
You can't easily change the company when it has, or a select few have, a monopoly.

Government, however, is easily changed by swaying voters. Trump managed to reverse net neutrality legislation from Obama era in less than 100 days.

>This isn't really about "should", but it shouldn't be illegal at least. Framing it in the way of what I think "should" happen is like saying
Why shouldn't it be illegal to throttle traffic based? Especially when done because of incorrect assumptions?

>Yeah, if you literally take everything the worst way possible and present a doomsday situation anything could look bad.
You are literally doing the same thing when you argue that regulations are bad because of the imagined slippery slope argument you presented in >>60467970

>Sometimes people just have different priorities and prefer a different balance
I could say the same thing about government enforcing regulations.

so how much did they pay you to post that?

>>60474113
I don't have to get paid. Comcast is literally the best ISP and cable company and you shouldn't be using jewish streaming services anyway. It's extremely unamerican to use netflix

>>60464922
Why would anyone support net neutrality?

It's literally obamacare of the internet?

>>60474103
>You can't easily change the company when it has, or a select few have, a monopoly.
It's far more realistic and sensible to switch companies than to move entire countries. Moving to another city is already the worst case scenario here. That's the difference.
>Government, however, is easily changed by swaying voters. Trump managed to reverse net neutrality legislation from Obama era in less than 100 days.
Not after things have settled in. For an extreme example, try changing the constitution today. Yeah, it's ridiculous, but you get the point. If you think about most of the things Trump has challenged, it's very recent stuff and he hasn't even challenged it that hard. People weren't even forced into health insurance at all in the past, and now Trump is offering a cut down version. Going all the way backwards might not go over so well.
>Why shouldn't it be illegal to throttle traffic based? Especially when done because of incorrect assumptions?
It's back to the government/business thing again. Because government pretty invariably tends to expand and mess with things combined with what I previously mentioned. "I think your guess is wrong often enough for this to be a bad idea" is largely my argument.
>You are literally doing the same thing when you argue that regulations are bad because of the imagined slippery slope argument you presented in
>I could say the same thing about government enforcing regulations.
Both of these are true. I admit if you let businesses do what they want, it'll have adverse consequences. I think those are smaller than what the government will do in the long term. That's it. I don't think you're wrong in the objective sense in a way that's provable right this second. Both of us are actually guessing what might happen in the future based on historical information.

File: 114.jpg (605KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 1024x576px

I see I'm late to the shitposting party.

>>60474316
>It's far more realistic and sensible to switch companies than to move entire countries
Again, I don't understand how an american with literally two companies to choose between can argue that it's so simple to change company etc.

Also, I'd argue that moving entire countries not being easy is in fact a real argument for making government in charge of regulations. Most consumers have no idea what net neutrality is, and therefore legislation is warranted in order to protect mindless consumers from themselves. It is unrealistic to expect enough people ditching for example Comcast because of their hostile attitude towards net neutrality.

>Not after things have settled in. For an extreme example, try changing the constitution today. Yeah, it's ridiculous, but you get the point. If you think about most of the things Trump has challenged, it's very recent stuff and he hasn't even challenged it that hard. People weren't even forced into health insurance at all in the past, and now Trump is offering a cut down version. Going all the way backwards might not go over so well.
Well, we are currently discussing net neutrality and the effect of enforcing it through legislation or relying on the market. And Trump administration, through former Comcast lawyer, Ajit Pai, have actually successfully reverted net neutrality laws. So this is actually an example of government doing what government does best.

>Because government pretty invariably tends to expand and mess with things
I'd argue that a cable company such as Comcast expanding into ISP business as well as being the largest TV media content provider in the US, is an example of unregulated companies expanding and mess with things too.

File: b0cee0ca3db4e6d0cb437889c5cb79fea88ec769989dac7dcecc761a8505a9c2.jpg (30KB, 310x440px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 310x440px

> Every single anti-net-neutrality cuck in this thread.

File: c62 (3).jpg (136KB, 546x700px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 546x700px

To all the anti-NN shills in this thread:

>>60472673
I think you are confused about what regulation means.
There are government regulations and corporate regulations.
If all the hospitals got together and decided that only minorities can use hospitals from now on that would be corporate regulation.
If the government said "no you arent allowed to choose who can use the hospitals" then that would be deregulation.
The problem with this generation is that they only understand buzzwords. They dont think about what they words they use actually mean.

File: C5X5Ze7WQAE_Ll8.jpg (147KB, 831x717px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 831x717px

Hey /pol/ - we're not asking for your help. Fuck off back to your containment board.

>>60474432
If they don't care, why bother? It's up to them. It's never going to be absolutely every single provider realistically.

Companies will expand. They'll merge into monopolies if they can. They'll do what they can to win. It's still not as bad overall.

>>60474464
Buzzwords? This is more of just wordplay. Regulations typically refers to the government, not a group of private businesses collaborating. Maybe you can argue the technicality but it's not what people are talking about usually. Well if that's your point then my point is that we misunderstood each other, I guess. If you brought up corporate regulations to most people they'd consider them regulations on corporations by the government.

>>60474631
>If they don't care, why bother?
If people don't care about free speech, should it be illegal to waive your right to free speech?

I consider net neutrality to be essential for freedom of press and freedom of information.

>Companies will expand. They'll merge into monopolies if they can.
Which is why we have regulations in place to limit companies and to protect the consumer.

File: 1493251958443.jpg (18KB, 279x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 279x300px

>>60474505

>>60474741
>If people don't care about free speech, should it be illegal to waive your right to free speech?
You can drop your company. You could (theoretically) even start your own, of course that probably won't pan out. Companies can't actually remove your rights in the manner government can. Well, not without breaking tons of other laws like kidnapping, anyway.

The situation regarding having 1-2 providers is pretty rare. It's usually that people only have 1-2 they know, not 1-2 who would provide them service. There are some, but I mean, there are some who might not get any internet at all too. Things aren't nearly as bad as people think.

>I consider net neutrality to be essential for freedom of press and freedom of information.
So the fundamental difference is that I don't think the internet is owed in the way people might expect, I don't know, letter delivery for example. I don't think that's owed either, but I understand your point.

>Which is why we have regulations in place to limit companies and to protect the consumer.
Yes, I know.

>>60474863
>Companies can't actually remove your rights in the manner government can
This require net neutrality to be considered a right, something previous legislation did but current legislation doesn't.

>The situation regarding having 1-2 providers is pretty rare
My impression is that it does sometimes happen and even in big cities, but I guess you have a point with only the big ones being well-known (and therefore counted).

>So the fundamental difference is that I don't think the internet is owed in the way people might expect, I don't know, letter delivery for example. I don't think that's owed either, but I understand your point.
Okay, I think this is the crux of our "disagreement" (we agree, I think, but only disagree on implementation).

Anyway, it's way past bedtime for me, so have a good night and thanks for an interesting discussion.

Feels nice to live in Canada where the CRTC strictly enforces net neutrality, there's no real debate about it and we don't have jews like Trump trying to fuck with it

>>60474949
>so have a good night and thanks for an interesting discussion.
Yep, you too. I really wanted to have this discussion at some point. I'm not actually hugely against net neutrality, I think it's great in the short term, but people approach it with such zeal that I don't think many realize there is a legitimate other side.

File: a post.jpg (52KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x600px

>>60474135
>It's extremely unamerican to use netflix
hmmm i wonder who's behind this post

probably schlomo shekelstein upset that there's a cheap, legal way to watch movies instead of paying 4.99 for a standard definition pay-per-view and 8.99 for a high definition pay-per-view

>>60474631
Regulations dont typically apply to anything. You can regulate the temperature in a pool. When you hear regulations you think of big brother and bad because of buzz words. Thats why you think net neutrality is regulating the internet.
Also most people are retarded. A common misconception doesnt make it correct.

>>60475341
Please. If you're just going to say, "technically, the government deregulated the way some companies regulate their service" by regulating it out, I'm not going to argue with it because it's so pedantic. If you think it's the fault of others for misinterpreting that then I don't know what to say when your post was a reply implying you corrected someone. So you were just saying your own thing despite bringing up other people, too.

File: dcd87feac95814ee8dafe4d6ea50cbe82960e1d06670a641b9708f987fa842aa.jpg (59KB, 748x573px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 748x573px

This the shitposting thread? Let us diversify the anti-NN shitposting and shilling.


This is now a GamerGate thread.

i still dont know what net neutrality is and no one is willing to give me a good answer that i would understand with my manlet brain so im not doing anything cause the word NET NEUTRALITY means something that is good for me if it passed

>>60475491
The government makes certain regulations illegal. You dont regulate regulations you retard. You are literally arguing the semantics while ignoring the conversation. Regulations impose control over something. The net neutrality laws prevented IPs from saying you can only use my product for x y and z. The IPs had regulations on what you can and cant do with their services. Net neutrality said that you cant do that. It didnt say that the internet instead can only be used for a b and c.
That would be like saying the second amendment is regulating the governments control on civilians guns.

>>60475836

Net Neutrality prevents telecoms from picking winners and losers among the businesses and communities who depend on the Internet.

>>60470982
Funny this guy really sounds like he knows what he's talking about but he has no fucking clue.
Comcast is a huge content provider they run hulu and a bunch of other shit and they're going to stack the deck so that other content providers can't compete and once there is no competition they'll gradually move to the new equilibrium pricing.

Fuck i hate these arrogant idiots.

>>60471530
>u-uh g-goys, we need those p-peering agreements, please f-forget about all this net neutrality stuff
That's not what a peering agreement is. Please go read the wikipedia article on the meaning and I will deposit 0.00 into your paypal

>>60476285

Equilibrium pricing after you acknowledged they'd create a monopoly?

You're brain damaged. Drink some more bleach to finish the job.

>>60464922
>>60473703
Bard Quest, the one everybody ignores.