12th July Internet-wide Day of Action for Net Neutrality

>>61326490
god i hope this works. fuck pajeet pai and his plan to blow up net neutrality.

also fuck AT&T for pretending to support net neutrality while also paying for lobbying against it. pricks.

>>61326490
You mean today's the day.

Net Neutrality is a meme though. I mean there is already a shit ton of censorship with it.

>>61326490
who the fuck cares just let the stupid americans cuck themselves while believing they are free

>>61327119
Neutrality was the custom before Comcast and others broke it. What we have now is not actual neutrality, but a custom in the process of being lost through lack of regulation.
Seriously, burgers, grow up. You can still get porn via the Post Office and you could still get porn if the Post Office became the national ISP.

>>61327269
What we had before was Title I, information service, which can trace its roots back to the Clinton administration and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005.

>>61327313
>Title I, information service
Which is not only what allows the censorship we see today, but also in no way supplanted the observance of the custom of net neutrality that was commonplace before...
>upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005
Just before Comcast was caught tampering with torrent connections.

Right, so what dos this day of action entail, besides changing my Facebook profile picture?

>>61327359
Crying into your latte about how unfair the world is.

>>61327359
We're gonna
HACK
THE
WORLD

>>61327359
calling senators, representatives. emailing the FCC. sending letters. anything and everything, man.

sure beats being an apathetic faggot lazily doing nothing.

>>61327387
HACK THE PLANET!

The principles of net neutrality itself is supported by FCC Chairman Pai, Commissioner O’Rielly, Republicans in Congress, and broadband providers. They all support a free and open internet. The real issue at play is the Obama-Wheeler government takeover of the internet known as Title II which re-classified broadband service providers in 2015 as “common carriers” from the 1930’s. The net neutrality debate was never about “maintaining a safe, free, and open internet” as President Obama messaged it to be. It was about ensuring the one thing Democrats always want – control of the internet and to help their crony friends. Under these regulations, government bureaucrats can decide what websites they can prioritize or punish and what broadband infrastructure investments are worth.

>>61327427
Source? Because Pai made it pretty clear that his idea of "open and free" means that ISPs are allowed to do what ever the fuck they want

>>61327463
>"open and free" means that ISPs are allowed to do what ever the fuck they want
So this means nyaa pantsu's ISP can do whatever the fuck they want. This is good.

File: 1468980012984.jpg (77KB, 756x517px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 756x517px

>>61327427
>government bureaucrats can decide what websites they can prioritize or punish and what broadband infrastructure investments are worth.
Because corporate decisions are always in favor of the customer, right? Kill yourself, Orwellian script-flipper.

>>61327488
Fuck what they want. What about what I want?

>>61327463
SOURCE?
SOURCE?
SOURCE?
Pathetic, you are being used as a pawn of corporations for their benefit. The reality in what should really just be called “The Title II Debate” is that businesses using the networks which ISPs operate want to make sure their information pipeline into homes is as cheap as possible. Instead of building their own networks, with the exception of Google on this point, (which failed, because rolling out fiber across the US is fucking expensive, it turns out) cronyism is their tactic. And to reach that end they are demagogueing ISPs. Instead of regulating how broadband service is provided, Congress, the Federal Communications Commission , and governments at all levels should promote competition by making more spectrum available for commercial use and by reducing barriers to deploying wireless infrastructure. But that story wouldn’t help the activists raise money online, generate fake FCC filings, or advance their big government agenda. Your playbook has been fairly easy to forecast since it’s a recycled act, but that doesn’t stop you from spreading your false talking points and hate to feed off of a lack of knowledge in this technical issue.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-61A5.pdf

>>61327565
>businesses using the networks which ISPs operate want to make sure their information pipeline into homes is as cheap as possible
For some reason, lifting the SMTP and HTTP(S) blocks so people can run servers at home isn't even part of your calculation.
>generate fake FCC filings
Yes, let's talk about those. http://digg.com/2017/comcast-net-neutrality-fake-comments
Why aren't you killing yourself?

>>61327505
Unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats shouldn't have the power to decide such a large, and far reaching issue as this. This should be decided by Congress, which is duly elected and accountable. If it were such an important issue, a law should be passed. But when you make a power grab, such as the take over of a multi billion dollar economic sector, through regulation, the next executive can come in and wipe all the previous rules out. Classic Obama era over reach, which is part of his legacy, which 90% has been destroyed by executive order.

Pass a law, not a government regulation, because that's the heart of the issue, not the "concept" of NN.

>>61327565
>more competition
Yeah, keep believing that's Pai's agenda. It's not like he used to be a corporate lawyer before or anything. It's not like he already made statements about how there are a lot of cable companies in murica and therefore a lot of competition. It's not like smaller isps have come out against his plans or anything like that.

File: 1482044165316.png (245KB, 825x1100px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 825x1100px

>>61327668
>Unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats shouldn't have the power to decide such a large, and far reaching issue as this.
You mean, like corporate executives?
>This should be decided by Congress, which is duly elected and accountable
Only to their donors. If you actually believe this representative oligarchy bullshit, you're more part of the problem than you can even imagine.
>take over of a multi billion dollar economic sector, through regulation,
Don't raise the ire of regulators, and you won't need to worry about political risk.
>Pass a law, not a government regulation, because that's the heart of the issue, not the "concept" of NN.
In what fantasy world do you live where new laws actually benefit the people? Pic related.

>>61327663
http://freebeacon.com/issues/john-olivers-net-neutrality-campaign-filled-bots-fake-comments-racist-attacks-fcc-chairman/

There is nothing stopping you from getting a business account, it's $10 extra for me. You didn't pay for the ISP's infrastructure, you don't own it, or have any right to use it as you see fit.

>killing myself
Thats what the left wants folks, the death of reason.

>>61327688
Pai specifically let small ISP flount all the rules in a bid to help them.

>>61327705
Government cocksucker, all you are doing is letting Google, Netflix, and AT&T out. These are the large corporations that you are supporting, not me. It's their agenda you are supporting.

>>61327727
>There is nothing stopping you from getting a business account, it's $10 extra for me. You didn't pay for the ISP's infrastructure, you don't own it, or have any right to use it as you see fit.
Maybe that's the problem. ISPs should be nationalized.
>Thats what the left wants folks, the death of reason.
Kill yourself, liberal, but look up liberal before you do so that you know why you're killing yourself.

>>61327727
>Government cocksucker, all you are doing is letting Google, Netflix, and AT&T out. These are the large corporations that you are supporting, not me. It's their agenda you are supporting.
Their gain is none of my concern. What about my gain? Which policy is going to be more likely to get EVERYONE the ability to run servers at home, rather than this tiered bullshit? When people have their own mailboxes on the sides of their own homes, there is no reason to pay Mail Boxes Etc. a fat fee. Do you see where this is going, or are you paid not to?

>>61326490
>wanting the government to continue intervening
>wanting the government to continue allowing area-based monopolies

are you /g/uys retarded or?

>>61327727
>You didn't pay for the ISP's infrastructure
i damn fucking did pay for that copper

>>61327805
It's the shills for net neutrality throwing a shit fit like the babies they are, what did you expect? Except this time their tantrum isn't going to work.
Any time there is a mass hysteria, be very fucking suspicious.

>>61327790
If you enter into a contract, you have agreed to the terms. You agreed to let the ISP block certain ports, (which happens to be a huge security issue) in exchange for a smaller bill. Don't like it? Choose another option.

>>61327811
Show me the bill.

>>61327816
I used to be all for net neutrality until I realised it was all a crock of shit to censor the net and allow monopolies.

Hysteria is the surname of the media in the UK, I have a mental block on that shit.

>>61327805
City hall is different from the Fed. You and a few neighbors can go down to city hall, drag some miscreants from their offices, and tar and feather them if necessary. Not possible when the gov is several hundred miles away.
State-level governments that won't allow municipalities to offer internet utility service are another matter.

>>61327825
>If you enter into a contract, you have agreed to the terms
>pacta sunt servandum
Fuck off, nigger. You are not entitled to government enforcing the terms of your contracts if they contravene public policy.
Get the fuck back to /pol/ and stay there.

>>61327705
In reclassifying broadband access as a public utility, the legal authority of the Federal Trade Commission to police anti-competitive practices was immediately cut off. Good job helping out large corporations, cocksucker. Now it's just more of the same bullshit, but now government approved bullshit.

>>61327790
>Which policy is going to be more likely to get EVERYONE the ability to run servers at home,

So, electricity neutrality should be in effect as well. Shouldn't matter how much electricity a home consumes, everyone is entitled to it and to use it as much as everyone...

Cuz I got a lot of unused boxes I wanna turn to servers, bandwidth ain't what's preventing me

>>61327727
>Pai specifically let small ISP flount all the rules in a bid to help them.
Yeah, and to normalise the death of nn. Not to mention these smaller isps can easily be used as fronts for big isps.
And he seem to be permitting some mergers to make big ISPs even bigger.

If Pai really cared about competition, he'd do stuff like force big isps allow new ones to use their lines and repeal laws forbidding municipal isps. It's funny how the only way he can come up with to foster competition is also the way that helps the big isps the most.

>>61327825
>Show me the bill.
state websites have a long running habit of every other fucking resource going 404
but in wisconsin, we paid for bell/ameritech/sbc/att and time warner/spectrum copper

>>61327860
ISPs run by municipalities aren't profitable in the least. Unless you want your city to pay off the infrastructure over hundreds of years, by which time it will be obviously inadequate. Your communist dreams are never based in reality.

>>61327916
They force commercial ISPs to compete though.

>>61327888
if you use less, you pay less

File: 1485860530462.jpg (37KB, 576x768px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 576x768px

>Before net neutrality
>American internet is shitty because controlled by monopolies
>After net neutrality
>American internet is still shitty because controlled by monopolies

Net neutrality is a fucking meme.

>>61327945
Sounds like what Net Neutrality is preventing... Why are we for that shit??

>>61327863
>In reclassifying broadband access as a public utility, the legal authority of the Federal Trade Commission to police anti-competitive practices was immediately cut off
Common carriers are not public utilities. Good job, shill.
Let's talk about the half trillion dollars you corporatist cocksuckers got from the government to build out the national information infrastructure. What has that gotten users?

>>61327916
>ISPs run by municipalities aren't profitable in the least.
So what? They're there to perform a service, not turn a profit, you Ferencgi cuck.
>Unless you want your city to pay off the infrastructure over hundreds of years
Fiber doesn't have to be upgraded every three years, you corporatist cuck. I'd sign up for a 1% sales tax increase to build a municipal ISP that almost certainly would provide better than the 15/30 I have now, and cheaper.
If municipal ISPs were such a bad thing, why would Verizon and Comcast and others have to lobby to get states to prevent them? Die in a house fire, shill.

>>61327945
>use less
The marginal cost of a kilowatt-hour is non-negligible. The cost of a marginal kilobyte is negligible. Are you really that much of a burger that you can't conceive of a world without meters and coin boxes?

>>61327971
disqualified

>>61327851
Basically every time the normalfag mainstream internet blows up on a moral crusade, assume there is faggotry involved.

>>61327990
I just want an answer :(

>>61327972
>you Ferencgi cuck
Shill detected. Only reddit faggots use western fictional sources as metaphors or references.

>>61328003
you asked an invalid question

>>61328009
If the shoe fits, wear it, nigger.

>>61327994
There is always faggotry involved in policy. See >>61327705
for Pic related. The question is which faggotry inures to more public and consumer benefit.

>>61326490
If the top10 websites would just stop working and showing something like "this is what happens if net neutrality is fucked" contact your reps now, then the US would never have a problem with anti netneutrality guys ever again.

>>61327972
>Lets change the issue
No, lets go back to title II, net neutrality,and the public utility—including a return to the Ma Bell days of regulated rates, services, and artificial barriers to entry.

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-fiber-in-the-united-states

2/20 actually made enough money to cover the payment for the infrastructure. Municipal broadband, run by local idiots, who will no doubt raise your taxes to pay off the millions in infrastructure that no one uses enough to actually pay the bills, much less make any type of profit.

>>61328047
NN was never actually a thing, it never went into effect, cleetus.

File: 1494482318840.png (164KB, 276x291px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 276x291px

>>61327425

>>61328047
>If the top10 websites would just stop working and showing something like "this is what happens if net neutrality is fucked"
The internet would be a better place, faggot. It would lead to an explosion of new sites.

>>61328068
>No, lets go back to title II, net neutrality,and the public utility—including a return to the Ma Bell days of regulated rates, services, and artificial barriers to entry.
Stop reeing, ISPcuck. I don't give two fucking shits about your barriers to entry to build a second set of infrastructure on public easements for your private use. I care about what, as a member of the general public, I can access and what services I can provide to others.
>2/20 actually made enough money to cover the payment for the infrastructure. Municipal broadband, run by local idiots, who will no doubt raise your taxes to pay off the millions in infrastructure that no one uses enough to actually pay the bills
>the bills
>implying that public services should be profitable instead of useful
>implying that people shouldn't pay the actual cost of the service they use rather than subsidize customer acquisition
>implying
ISPs should be nationalized and their owners summarily executed. How does that make you feel, ISP owner? You are a fucking parasite. Get the mother FUCK out of my way.

File: 1499805208734.jpg (7KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x250px

>Amazon prime day is probably drawing attention away from this

>>61328072
THEY'RE TRASHING OUR RIGHTS MAN

>>61326490
I think I will cancel my comcast tomorrow, because fuck it I need to do it anyway.

>>61328196
Or maybe the propaganda machine they're using is old and busted after they ran on a certain election last year.

>>61328143
This is part of an aggressive campaign by advocacy groups whose true goal for over a decade has been the re-regulation of the communications industry in all its forms. These are the same advocates repeatedly quoted in stories that distill President Trump’s Internet policy from a single 2013 tweet and, now, just as absurdly reduce Commissioner Pai’s entire career to a groundless and irrational animus toward net neutrality. The campaign is no secret. As the Ford Foundation, which supports all of these groups regardless of their names, freely acknowledged in a celebratory blog post after the public utility order was passed, the goal of its Internet Freedom campaign has been to use net neutrality as a populist wedge to push for public utility treatment for the Internet—if not outright nationalization of private broadband infrastructure. Which I believe is the true goal- government control of the internet. Each time Title II advocates have had the opportunity to pass enforceable net neutrality rules without turning ISPs into utilities, they have balked.
And now that a new Administration is likely to do just that, public utility proponents are turning up the volume on their rhetoric to eleven, hoping to confuse the media and consumers into believing that what is at risk here is the very survival of “the Internet as we know it,” whether it be from the Trump White House, Congress or the FCC’s Chairman.

>>61327888
I don't buy the electrical utility example. With electricity, I only pay for what I plug in to the wall. See argument against:
.>>61327945
>>61327988
Paying per kilobyte downloaded only works if I only have do download exactly what I want. I didn't ask to see ads, so I don't want to pay for them.

>>61327946
A lot of people think that ISP monopolies are bad. Perhaps NN rules could be removed if people like me had a choice between more than one ISP. Then I, the consumer, could simply use an ISP that better suited me. Given that many people do not have such a choice and that the likelihood of breaking up big ISP monopolies is low, NN is the best we have got.

>>61328237
As the misrepresentation of Commissioner Pai’s views illustrates once again in painful relief, any effort to return Internet regulation to the successful model that left engineering decisions largely with engineers--a bi-partisan (or, rather, non-partisan) policy that began during the Clinton Administration--is characterized by these groups with increasing histrionics. Objecting to utility treatment for access providers is somehow turned into a direct attack on the open Internet and everything it stands for, including freedom of speech, democracy, and free content and services. But stripped of the alarmist rhetoric, consumers might actually see that what’s at stake has little or nothing to do with almost completely uncontroversial neutrality principles, and everything to do with preserving the legally fragile and economically disastrous application of public utility regulation to ISPs. BUt perhaps there is an economic case to be made for upending twenty years of successful Internet policy, but if so there is no effort to make it.
What’s unfortunate is that so many media outlets have fallen into the net neutrality trap, a function of over-reliance on a very few sources with a clear agenda to turn the conversation away from anything that requires facts and analysis when emotion will do the job.
The sky is still not falling for the open Internet—not with a Trump election, not with Congressional legislation that would enshrine enforceable net neutrality rules, not with a return of enforcement power to the Federal Trade Commission. And not with Ajit Pai as FCC Chairman. The closer we get to a permanent solution to Internet governance issues that really matter to consumers, unfortunately, the louder and more desperate the pro-utility lobby will become.

>>61328143
Public utilities have to turn a profit to pay staff, upgrade and repair the infrastructure, and set aside funds for emergencies.

>>61328237
>>61328270
>stay in your homes
>do not be alarmed
>big business is your friend

bonus greentext:
>pro-utility lobby
man what the fuck are you on about

>>61328237
>This is part of an aggressive campaign by advocacy groups whose true goal for over a decade has been the re-regulation of the communications industry in all its forms
Your paranoia bores me, ISPcuck. I already told you my preference is to have the USPS offering ISP services. I grant that the involvement of (((foundations))) is troubling, but we don't have to go exactly where they want us to go.

>>61328270
>public utility order
Common carriers are NOT public utilities, nigger. They are private businesses whose profit margins are unregulated and who have rights to determine their own services or lack thereof. Stop lying, wife's son.

>>61328259
>Paying per kilobyte downloaded only works if I only have do download exactly what I want.
It doesn't work even then. Kilobytes cost much more to meter than to deliver. May as well just not bother and let people enjoy the service they are willing to collectively pay for as a polity. Nobody is special, especially ISP owners.

>>61328290
Public utilities are still privately owned, and their profit is strictly regulated by public service commissions.
Municipal utilities cost what they cost, and they don't need to turn a profit from user fees once paid for.

>>61328259
NN enshrines already existing ISP's as the de facto monopoly.

>>61328298
Yes, letting Google and netflix have total control of the ISP's infrastructure is the obvious solution.
>>61328339
Title II does exactly that: classifies ISP's as a public utility, a relic of the 1930's. You'll go exactingly where they tell you to go after they get to pump as much dis-information and propaganda into your brain as they can shove through the ISP's lines, at no additional cost to them, and you'll love it. Pass laws to regulate ISP's and content, not legal nightmares like the previous regulation entail.

Is there a legal path for the FCC to prohibit paid prioritization or the development of a
two-sided market?

>>61328388
>classifies ISP's as a public utility
Common carriers ARE NOT PUBLIC UTILITIES. Show me where in Title II that corporate profits are limited and all lawful public access is not guaranteed RIGHT NOW, or fire up the live stream and kill yourself while we watch your shilly ass swinging in the breeze.

>>61328443
Title II only
authorizes the FCC to prohibit “unjust or unreasonable discrimination”and both the Commission and the courts have consistently interpreted that provision to allow carriers to charge different prices for different
services. I have been unable to find even a single case in which the Commission found it
unlawfully discriminatory to offer a different (faster) service to customers at a different (higher) price.

>>61328443
The legal consequences of moving forward with net-neutrality regulation are sure to
wreak havoc on the Internet economy, no matter which legal path we take. If we are to take the D.C. Circuit at its word, section 706 grants the FCC virtually unfettered authority to encourage broadband adoption and deployment. So if three members of the FCC think that more Americans would go online if they knew their information would be secure, could we impose cybersecurity and encryption standards
on website operators? If three members of the FCC think that more Americans would purchase
broadband if edge providers were prohibited from targeted advertising, could we impose Do Not Track regulations? Or if three members of the FCC think that more Americans would use the Internet if there were greater privacy protections, could we follow the European Union and impose right-to-be-forgotten mandates? And because section 706 gives state commissions authority equal to the FCC, every
broadband provider, every online innovator, every Internet-enabled entrepreneur may now have to comply with differing regulations in each of the 50 states. Tesla, Uber, Airbnb, and countless others can attest to the welcome that parochial regulators give to disruptive start-ups.

>>61328388
>NN enshrines already existing ISP's as the de facto monopoly.
i'm not sure i follow this. what do you mean? does forcing ISPs to provide equal bandwidth for all web services make being an ISP harder? it seems like the opposite would be true - if you had to inspect each packet or host in order to charge them differently, that would require more work on the ISP's end, right?

>>61328501
>>61328525
The Internet would fare no better under Title I
I, and the consequences are likely to be even worse. Reclassification opens the door to actual access charges,tariffed charges that Internet service providers could impose on edge providers, content delivery networks, and transit operators without their consent One Title II option on the table would guarantee new Internet tolls by giving broadband ISPs no option other than access charges to recover their regulated costs. Not only that, but reclassification
means a broadband price hike for every
consumer in America: not exactly a move that will encourage broadband adoption. And alongside tariffed access charges and higher consumer prices, other Title II provisions: ranging from the disclosure of customer information to mandatory billing disclosures
would apply to broadband providers, edge providers, or really anyone in the Internet economy. And like section 706, Title II puts state regulators on par with the FCC, meaning there may be 50 sets of access charges to be paid, 50 different broadband fees to be assessed, 50 different privacy regimes to be complied with, and 50 different types of mandatory disclosures to be made. A Title II regime hardly lowers the barriers to competitive entry:starting a company doesn’t get you free legal services.

File: 1491095133801.gif (2MB, 250x265px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 250x265px

Remember, shit like "pay $2.99 to add additional websites to your internet" is a strawman. That would never happen, even if net neutrality were killed. If anything, I'd bet money that idea was spread by the ISPs themselves.

What's gonna happen is that eventually lawmakers will pass laws to "save" net neutrality. But what they'll ban is the blatantly evil strawmen. Meanwhile, because net neutrality is "saved", ISPs will be free to implement much more insidious practices: data caps, throttling, manipulating traffic. Things that are still bad for the consumer but can't be explained as easily in a single infographic.

Basically, be careful and don't lose sight of what net neutrality *actually* means.

>>61328554
this doesn't answer his question.

>>61328640
Yes, just ignore the blatant power garb Washington has tried to take. Just make the issue all about treating each byte equal to the next byte, and maybe people won't notice.
It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, to direct where Internet service providers put their investments, and to determine what servicc plans will be available to the American public. The only limit on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own
determination of whether rates are “just and reasonable,” which isn’t much of a restriction at all. Everyone loves the idea of NN, but let's get into law, not regulate, which offers no permanent, lasting solution. This should be a bi-partisan act, because regulations can be turned over by the stroke of a pen by the next administration. What we need is something new, not something from 1934, which WILL turn the internet into something like the existing telephone monopolies that flourished.

>>61328525
onsider that activists promoting this rule had previously targeted neither AT&T nor Verizon with their first nn complaint but MetroPCS
—an upstart competitor with a single-digit market share and not an ounce of market power. Its crime? Unlimited YouTube. MetroPCS offered a $40-per-month plan with unlimited talk, text, Web browsing and YouTube streaming. The company’s strategy was to entice customers to switch from the four national carriers or to upgrade to its newly built 4G Long Term Evolution network. Whatever the
benefits of MetroPCS’s approach, activists have said “there can be no compromise." Our standard should be simple: If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep
your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you. Economists have long understood innovative business models like these are good for consumers because they give them more choices and lower prices. To apply outmoded economic thinking to the Internet marketplace would just hurt consumers, especially the middle-class and low-income Americans who are the biggest beneficiaries of these plans.

>>61328640
It actually means FCC’s newfound control extends to the design of the Internet itself, from the last mile through the backbone. Section 201(a) of the Communications Act gives the FCC authority to order “physical connections” and “through routes,”meaning the FCC can decide where the Internet should be built and how it should be interconnected. And with the broad Internet conduct standard, decisions about network architecture and design will no longer be in the hands of engineers but bureaucrats and lawyers. So if one Internet service provider wants to follow in the footsteps of Google Fiber and enter the market incrementally, the FCC may say no. If another wants to upgrade the bandwidth of its routers at
the cost of some latency, the FCC may block it. Every decision to invest in ports for interconnection may be second-guessed; every use of priority coding to enable latency-sensitive applications like Voice over LTE may be reviewed with a microscope. How will this all be resolved? No one knows.

>>61328980
>It actually means FCC’s newfound control extends to the design of the Internet itself, from the last mile through the backbone. Section 201(a) of the Communications Act gives the FCC authority to order “physical connections” and “through routes,”meaning the FCC can decide where the Internet should be built and how it should be interconnected.
I see literally no problem with this.
>And with the broad Internet conduct standard, decisions about network architecture and design will no longer be in the hands of engineers but bureaucrats and lawyers
In what weeaboo fantasy world do you live where it isn't already? Corporate bureaucrats still decide where to offer service and engineers have no right of appeal.
> Every decision to invest in ports for interconnection may be second-guessed; every use of priority coding to enable latency-sensitive applications like Voice over LTE may be reviewed with a microscope
Good. It's MY Internet, little bitch, not yours.

>>61326490
Who gives a shit? Hasn't it already been repealed? It's only been around for a couple years anyway and everything was just fine before it.

Most of the people that support it are also the same people that want 1984 style surveillance of the internet (hillary clinton for example)

>>61329173
>be honest you had to look this up.jpg
What did I have to look up?

>>61328936
Is this the same breath in which you pissed your pants about jewgle owning the internet, or the next one?
Seriously, if the Internet becomes a piece of shit, a new one will be made. Dark fiber is a commodity.

>>61329218
Lame meme. Net neutrality was effectively stayed until overturned in 2005, when Comcast decided to start dicking with torrent traffic.

>>61329218
Yea but the president wasn't someone known for cashing in on whatever he can make money off.
See the deal with Saudi Arabia (and neglecting to ever add them to the no fly list), and his move allowing a paid service (Internet providers) to double dip and sell your data all because "its not fair that free elective services like facebook and google can do it!"
The idea of them making bank from cable television studios / cable providers to throttle competitors like netflix, hulu, etc to turn more profit isn't really that off the wall.

>>61326490
a day without normies on the internet im okay with this

>>61326490
>2017
>people on 4chan, on /g/ of all places are uneducated on this subject and side against net neutrality
There's no hope for 4chan, moot should have shut the site down when he left instead of selling it.

File: Capture.jpg (126KB, 1061x966px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1061x966px

>>61327565
>muh corporate boogyman

>>61327851
>I used to be all for net neutrality until I realised it was all a crock of shit to censor the net and allow monopolies.
You what? All net neutrality does is force people to have an equal playing field.
It's like if roads were privately owned by companies. In that situation, the net neutrality equivalent would be believing that these companies shouldn't be allowed to stop certain people from driving on those roads because they might be competitors, giving themselves a compete monopoly and preventing anyone else from even attempting to start.
If you're an anarchist who doesn't want that, that's fine; but don't act like you're anti-monopoly when you're opposing the internet equivalent to antitrust laws.

If every company particpating in this, especially google, stopped running their websites for the entire day and just had a page up that explained net neutrality; then it would be over in an instant and legislators would get off their ass and do something about it.

>>61327945
>>61327888
>>61328259
You guys have no ides what you are talking about. We already have electrcity neutrality: Your power company can't charge you 50$ for using X amount of watts on TV, but 100$ for the same amount of watts on something else.

That's what net netruality prevents: That your internet provider can only charge you for how much you use, not charge you more or less based on what you use it on.

guys i'm scared
please explain what the fuck's gonna happen if title 2 is repealed

>>61327565
About time someone said it. Then again this thread is probably made by people from jewgle and friends to begin another internet psyop.
The last one was a gigantic success afterall.

>>61329637
Shush, /pol/.

>>61329334
>why don't people agree with me!
>you should be ashamed for not agreeing with me.
Gee, I wonder why no one is taking you serious.

>>61329726
>the shills are back from lunch, saddle up

>>61329717
t.google

>>61329737
>t.comcast

>>61329272
>Obama
>not cashing in on anything and everything
wew, someone doesn't pay attention it seems

WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO THE INTERNET /g/?
I'M SCARED
ARE THEY GONNA BLOCK MY PORN AND MAKE ME PAY EVEN MORE THAN I ALREADY AM

>>61329750
So you are ok with trading one set of shackles for another? Typical.
>let's break the monopoly guys!
>by giving it to someone else! They won't take advantage of us, right?

>>61329763
>So you are ok with trading one set of shackles for another? Typical.
So you are ok with supporting a monopoly solely because some absentee landlord makes a profit? Typical.

>>61329751
Partisans, man. Cucks who don't know they're dead inside.

>>61329783
>I know you are but what am i
I guess this is what I should expect when I try to debate with a 12 year old. Keep sucking corporate dick, lad.

>>61329809
Wew. Keep pretending the dick you're sucking isn't just a different corporate dick, lassie.

>>61326605
I'm never getting anything through AT&T again because of this I canceled my phone service.

Net neutrality or Internet is kill forever and we riot in the streets until we are covered in luminati blood and reek of love.

>>61329828
Those corporations actually compete with each other where I'm located, so not much dick sucking to be had.
It is amazing what happens when you don't try to undermine their entire business structure. and instead stick to enforcing the perfectly good regulations on the book.
The big ISPs have to compete with local ISPs, so they don't have the chance to fuck the end-customer. It is a lot more beneficial for them to just lease the lines to the smaller ISPs and call it a day.
>Everyone wins
Woah.... so this is the art of the deal.
>inb4 LARP
Move out of Commiefornia and a lot of your "issues" will be solved.

>>61329213
>give control of the internet to the US Government
>I see literally no problem with this.
Wow, you are retarded lad.

>>61329877
>Those corporations actually compete with each other where I'm located
Competition is a /pol/ meme. No, they play fight.
>It is amazing what happens when you don't try to undermine their entire business structure
Business means that someone else is gaining private benefit from my money. Fuck that.
>Woah.... so this is the art of the deal.
>>>/pol/
>Move out of Commiefornia and a lot of your "issues" will be solved.
>>>/pol/

>>61329917
Not retarded. However, there is a very good case you're a rentier or aspires to be one.

>>61329867
Is this your idea of a revolution?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a85Xdmk_WIA

>>61329932
Don't start a political topic on /g/ if you don't want a political opinion.
I can't wait for summer to end.

>>61329932
>wants to give the government control of the internet
>not retarded
pick one and only one.

I keep getting mixed messages /g/
It's either "nothing will happen everything will be fine" or "THE INTERNET IS GONNA FUCKING DIE"
Which one is it?

>>61329970
>give government control over the internet
>give government particular powers over the internet
You might need some refreshers on set theory. Start with any != all

>>61329957
Go back to /pol/, newfag.

>>61329987
You don't remember when this happened last time?
The only thing that changed was Google stopped rolling their Fiber out because their lucrative data market was no longer under threat from the ISPs moving into the business (which is perfectly within their rights to do, it is their lines after all).
The only thing NN is about is attempting to keep the Data Market exclusive to Silicon Valley giants. It is quite a good example of crony capitalism, and any "blackout" campaigns they run are purely for convincing the public it is something they should support instead of prevent.
>>61330015
>government not encroaching on any power they are given
You need some lessons in political history, kid. You are seriously retarded if you think the government won't do worse than the corporations do. Who will stop the government when they do something wrong?
>go back to /pol/, newfag
boy you sure as hell don't belong here, do you. Don't bring politics to /g/ if you don't want political opinions.

>>61329950
Naw

>>61330039
>the Data Market
Read as "companies infringing on your privacy". Less of that is better, anyone who comes on /g/ or any other tech enthusiast board and argues otherwise should be banned. It's no different from going on /k/ and arguing in favor of more gun control laws.

>>61330039
>You need some lessons in political history, kid. You are seriously retarded if you think the government won't do worse than the corporations do. Who will stop the government when they do something wrong?
Your entire argument is based on that corporations can do no wrong, which is patent bullshit. What will stop corporations when they pay to get their wrongs transformed by fiat into rights? Huh?
>boy you sure as hell don't belong here, do you. Don't bring politics to /g/ if you don't want political opinions.
My politics are that you should kill your bootlicking self.

>>61330080
This, and permanently.

>>61329987
research interment censorship and tally who does it more, the government or corporations.

At least we burgers don't get arrested for posting hate speech

Looking at you, eurocucks

>>61330080
>Less of that is better
Wishing for an end to the Data Market is a pipe dream at this point. The analytical marketing will never go back.
Or are you saying the Silicon Valley Giants deserve to have a data monopoly? Because if so, that is quite retarded.
>>61330096
>What will stop corporations when they pay to get their wrongs transformed by fiat into rights?
The government, tard. Now answer the question: who will stop the government from doing something like what they already do via the NSA?

>>61330124
that could and would most likely change with the different title classification

>>61329950
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBn7iWzrKoI

>>61330131
>Or are you saying the Silicon Valley Giants deserve to have a data monopoly?
Are you in favor of more companies trying to sell your data to advertisers, including companies that you can't just not use services from if you want to access the internet? If so, then it's quite obvious to everyone here that you aren't from around here.

>>61330131
>What will stop corporations when they pay to get their wrongs transformed by fiat into rights?
>The government, tard.
Would they? No -- the elected government are the ones the corporations PAY to work on their behalf. Are you 12? At the very least, administrative rulemakings have the benefit of being somewhat fair and required to take public opinion into account.
>Now answer the question: who will stop the government from doing something like what they already do via the NSA?
Private corporations, I bet? Pic related. So we're in no worse shape, then, except that a bunch of parasites will have been gotten out of the way.

File: 1473698648767.jpg (126KB, 1200x901px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1200x901px

>>61330183
>pic related
>forgets to post pic related

Of all the programs that were exposed, PRISM really gets 'em antsy.

>inb4 all the listed corporations denied it exists

>>61326490
we have to out astroturf the corporate shills. It's the only way

>>61331623
>we have to out the corporate shills. It's the only way
fixed. Put their rare pepes and common popos on the internebs for all to ogle and gawp.

>>61327851
Net neutrality literally prevents monopolies because it forces the ISPs (who are owned by media companies) to not prioritize their own media over other peoples media. How the fuck does net neutrality allow censorship? The ISPs ALREADY HAVE effective monopolies, which they managed to form before net neutrality laws were made, I don't think that net neutrality laws affect their monopolies, but they could help reduce them.

>>61327825
>You agrred to let the ISP block certain ports, (which happens to be a huge security issue)
Opened ports are not a "huge security issue" especially when every router made in the past decade has a basic firewall that blocks incoming connections unless you open the port in the router interface. An open port (especially on the ISP level) is not an inherent security issue, especially if your computers are properly secured. It's pretty obvious that you are either a corporate shill or someone from /pol/ who thinks someone Trump hired could never do wrong and either way you need to get off /g/.

the issue isnt the bills being passed, its the people like ajit pai, you guys need to get rid of him somehow

>>61327916
Yes of course comcast, thanks for reminding me of the approved "truth". While of course in reality we have things like this: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/ephrata-washington-fastest-internet-us/
tl;dr: some small town decided to build fiber as a public utility and ended up with fastest internet in the nation and tons of jobs from data centers going there.

>>61327945
It doesn't work like that with current internet plans though. It's not a static rate it's usually like you can use up to this much then you pay a ridiculous amount for a small amount more. Also net neutrality has nothing to do with bandwith caps, it has to do with preventing ISPs from throttling sites to try and give and advantage to other sites.

>/pol/ is sucking the dick of companies like Comcast and Warner bros which owns shit like cnn and hollywood which /pol/ calls jewish propaganda
wtf /pol/

>>61327946
It's true that ISPs still have a monopoly, which really needs to be solved; but the point of net neutrality is to prevent ISPs from throttling some sites while giving others full speed to give sites (that pay them) an advantage over competitors.

>>61328220
If you are moving somewhere and switching ISPs you should tell them you are leaving until they stop their terrible practices, maybe they will listen.

>>61328237
Even if we nationalized ISPs it couldn't lead to (legal) censorship as the first amendment still applies to government operations, despite the CIA and NSA's denial. Your assumption that it would be a horrible thing to nationalize ISPs is ridiculously flawed, as the people at least have some control over the government due to the right to vote and exercise some control on the government, people can't control shit that private companies do though.

>>61328270
The internet policies of the past clearly didn't work, as it led us to being a nation with some of the slowest connections in the world (despite the internet being an American invention) and to ISPs having their own per area monopolies. Having internet be a public utility is a good idea as the people can actually practice control over the government unlike with private companies. Also it's total bs to claim that private companies make their choices based on "non-partisan" engineers as decisions in private companies always end with the execs who want to squeeze the most profit out of everything.

Fuck the Net Neutrality debate, it's literally megacorps getting into a hissy fit about which way they're allowed to fuck you over. Democrats are bought out by the cucked social media sites, and establishment Republicans are bought by equally shitty ISPs. It's a pissing match over who gets the regulations tailored to their business interests, nothing more. We were better off before they realized they could sell controlled opposition.

>>61328501
Are you actually trying to argue that enforcing better security on the internet is a bad idea? Jesus christ the ISPs are desperate, do you guys not remember the recent rash of ransomware attacks? Also whats happening right now is that the FCC is trying to repeal net neutrality, and seeing as for the short time we had it the world didn't blow up, I think your claims are ridiculous and stupid.

>>61328867
You are right that having an actual law on the books would be much better, but I think it's a good idea to have regulations as a stop-gap to prevent ISPs from abusing customers until such a bill can be made into law.

>>61331994
I prefer google to Comcast or Verizon desu

>>61327425
>implying PLANET>WORLD

>>61328936
That business model may be beneficial for MetroPCS but it absolutely destroys the chances of any small business trying to compete with youtube. I think that the opportunity for many small businesses matter much more than some sizable network provider being able to make a stupid marketing scheme.

>Thing we've literally never had before
>we're gunna LOSE IT ALLLLLL
>but we never ha-
>LOSE IT ALLL EVIL MEGACORPS!!!!!!

>>61331994
>Fuck the Net Neutrality debate, it's literally megacorps getting into a hissy fit about which way they're allowed to fuck you over
This much may be true, but the ramifications do affect our everyday lives, and one side works out better for us than the other.

>>61328980
Do you actually think that engineers are the ones making decisions in private companies? It is always going to be based on what some corporate exec thinks will make the most money and give him that new $2 million raise so he can buy another sports car while laughing at people like you. At least the FCC is composed of government officials who are indirectly elected (chosen by elected representatives) who might actually care about what their constituents think (even if it's just because they want to be reelected).

>>61329917
The US government at least has to respond to the people, unlike ISPs.

>>61329582
ISPs are going to get plastic surgery using the money you paid so that the 8 inch dick they have up your ass will now be 15 inches long.

>>61329762
Probably. Corporate execs are soulless monsters who only care about how many billions they can rake in by fucking people over. They should all be fucking executed, along with their over-privileged kids.

>>61329987
The internet is going to be fucked is the real answer. Any other answer is just from some corporate shill that has probably been paid using the money you spent to get an internet connection.

File: 1476927507385.gif (570KB, 360x246px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 360x246px

>>61332114
that sounds kind of hot. pls fear monger more mr. astroturfer

>>61332130
I'm not a fucking astroturfer. I'm an American citizen who wants to be able to use the internet without being fucked over by the local internet monopoly because they know there is no alternative.

>https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170706/07200737728/50-million-us-homes-cant-get-25-mbps-more-than-one-isp.shtml
>50 Million US homes can't get 25 Mbps from more than one ISP
>125 million homes in the US
>~40% of the US can't get 25 Mbps from more than one ISP
Where's the competition?

>>61332150
sure you aren't mr daily same threads all same template for a year now.

you don't want to get buttfucked by companies but you will end up getting faceraped by government. libtards like you are blind to this because your eyes are filled with so much jizz from the constant facerape

>>61332364
I know I can't prove to you that I'm not the guy who has been making these threads, but I'm not. Also you are stupid to think that giving the government control of things is worse then corporate control, because at least we have a vote on government policies.

>>61332377
really? tell that to these countries

https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/14/13596974/internet-freedom-decline-global-censorship-facebook-whatsapp

>>61332534
>China, Syria and Iran are top three
Wow, what a great example you really proved me there. Because those governments that are run either by dictators or single parties that barely have elections (and the elections they do have only let you vote for approved canidates) really proves that the US government will censor the internet. You are grasping at straws here, you know full well that comparing the Chinese government to the US government is ridiculous because we actually have free elections. You are just a ISP shill.

>>61332572
nope not an ISP shill. It's not ridicilous when some of the companies(google, facebook) backing net neutrality are already censoring the internet and throwing things down the memory hole.

>>61332594
Then why do you think that giving the government control would make it worse? Your only examples of censorship are corporations and authoritarian regimes, I am saying we should take power from corporations and give it to our democratic government.

>>61332610
because America is basically an oligarchy now and FB and google are backed by NSA/CIA. What powers have the ISP abused that you think would be fixed by the government?

File: g kiddies.webm (3MB, 1280x544px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x544px

>>61327387
>>61327425
>>61328072

>>61332664
The power to throttle things they don't like for one thing, like when comcast throttled netflix or when they throttled torrents. I know that our government is pretty corrupt right now, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't implement overall beneficial rules just because the government might abuse their power a little. Corporations are already abusing their power and can't be stopped at the ballet box, unlike the government.

>SAVE NET NEUTRALITY
>all the sites are protesting etc etc
>WE SAVED NET NEUTRALITY
6months later
>SAVE NET NEUTRALITY...

Do you americans ever get tired of that nonsense?

File: Ron_Paul,_official_Congressional_photo_portrait,_2007[1].jpg (978KB, 1189x1491px) Image search: [Google]

978KB, 1189x1491px

Where what I think

Net Neutrality is bad. Government regulations restrict freedom for ISP's to do what they want and this, in turn, will inhibit innovation. What innovation? Who knows, but now if anything is discovered to make surfing to websites faster than the ISP's won't be able to implement it because of Net Neutrality laws that will be an ever living pain in the ass to get rid of.

If the ISP's go all totalitarian, there will be competition. Competition will force ISP's to play fair and, worst case scenario, it'll motivate people to create an "internet 2" that cannot be throttled.

t. Voluntaryist who follows the Non-Aggression Principle and who has always voted for Ron Paul since 2008.

>all these corporate cocksuckers
Holy fuck why do amerifats get so emotionally invested in defending corporations that actively work against their best interests on a daily basis? Worst of all they actually do it for free, seriously pathetic.

Go ahead, get your weak defense mechanism meme replies out.

Or we stop giving ISP's regional monopolies so that the idea of "net neutrality" is irrelevant because then ISPs would actually have to compete and offer higher speeds at much lower prices like in the UK or SK. No reason shit holes like in Europe or SK should have much better and much cheaper internet than in the US.

>>61333420
Except ISPs collude to specifically avoid competition in all but the most crowded markets.

And lobby state/local governments to make alternative models like municipally funded internet straight-up illegal.

Libertarians being retards as always.

>>61333426
It's just /pol/tards who are deathly afraid of looking ""leftist"" on an anonymous imageboard. If "the left" started supporting gun rights then /pol/ would be screaming about how guns are libruhl cuck shit and how you need to save the white race by giving up your guns.

>>61333471
>Except ISPs collude to specifically avoid competition in all but the most crowded markets.

No they don't.

>And lobby state/local governments to make alternative models like municipally funded internet straight-up illegal.


Wrong. Municipalities have been proven to be massive failures in places that have tried them. So they do exist and we know them to be failures.

sounds like a good excuse to spend less time on the internet

File: 1424826100973.gif (1MB, 518x500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 518x500px

>>61326490
>How screwed is the burgernet right now?
You will always be screwed with your jewish government.
Net Neutrality will be abolished and the jews will become richer than ever.
Either move to another country or become a cuck and enjoy it.

>tfw yuropoor and paying 20 eurobucks a month for 50 Mbit/s unthrotteld and unmetered

Why should yuropoor care? And how could we help?

>>61334198
>implying there a way out of this cuckery
another holocaust wouldn't be enough.

>>61333528
No they dom they have control o fthe lines.

And alot of communities have tried to put up their own network but because cable companies own existing infrastructure and outright prevent any competition by making it hard to establish new or groundbreaking infrastructure.

But then you already know that didn't you shillfag?

File: GNU+net.jpg (369KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1600x900px

>>61334212
We need decentralized internet

>another anti-Trump shill thread on the first page
Mods? MODS!

File: 1491148176196.gif (209KB, 900x650px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 900x650px

>>61334294
Who runs the backbone aka the ethernet cables under the ground that connect you to the IPv4 and v6?
Your ISP or your government. They can throttle everything as they wish and can make you pay to unthrottle it.
The solution isn't some new obscure network but a wireless hardware network made of millions volunteer nodes that don't need a backbone to work and run on a detached IPv4 with open access, no ISP involvement.

REMINDER TO ALL PARTICIPANTS IN THIS THREAD:

Net neutrality is not paying more to access specific websites. A byte is a byte, no matter the origin.

We currently benefit from net neutrality, as we do not pay more for specific websites.

Republicans will have you believe that we don't have net neutrality because it isn't in a bill yet, but their main goal is to pass laws that will take an inch in terms of ISP favoring, which will in turn become a mile.

Fuck Republicans. Fuck Drumpf. Fuck /pol/.

>>61334440
>unironically shitting on trump
Be glad that he stopped TPP, retard.

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Your beloved shillary would have raped your ass directly from her home PC with remote access to your USB dildo. Fucking americans, you deserve THE WORSE you can get, I hope they abolish NN.

>>61334440
>Fuck Republicans. Fuck Drumpf. Fuck /pol/.
This is a technology board, ma'am.

>>61334470
Same to you, Germany.

>>61334410
How do you intend to cross the Atlantic with this method?
I assume you mean nodes that connect to nodes that connect to the current internet as we know it?
So essentially many intranets that also connect to the internet through multiple points?

>>61334483
>ignoring the problem shitposting
how does it feel to get buttblasted? you ignorant useless fuck, before you open your smelly mouth next time inform yourself, I bet you didn't even know what TPP stood for if people didn't mention it all the time on /pol/ and here, faggot.

>>61334497
>I assume you mean nodes that connect to nodes that connect to the current internet as we know it?
No no, a whole new parallel internet with a decentralized backbone, you can host your site on your node and anyone can access it.
Naturally at start it will be slow but as nodes increase, it will become faster. It could be based on the onion router, there're onion-only websites aren't there? imagine it like a huge tor that only uses onion addresses and each onion site isn't hosted on some ISP server but on individual people's machines, nodes.
Reaching islands will be a challenge but I've seen many mini-satellite projects before, it's not impossible, there was recently a project about a mini-satellite net that would be launched worldwide to allow free access to the regular internet, what I have in mind is similar but rather than just allowing access, the satellites can work as servers themselves and host websites, launch your own satellite with your site and you'll be online right away.

>>61334198
> how could we help?
Why? Americans don't care about other countries at all, why bother helping them.

File: mainframe.jpg (576KB, 2400x1758px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 2400x1758px

>>61334410
I really don't get why American ISP can be so shitty. I mean Internet was, essentially, invented in US during the times of ARPANET which was the predecessor to Internet.
Land of freedoms, my ass.
>>61334575
The thing what I'm a bit concerned that if others started to do the same. After, most of us do take example on US when comes to other continents such as Europe. I guess, you do have a point there.

>>61334604
>why American ISP can be so shitty
If they can make profit they will, all monopolies work like that sadly. In my country only 6 months ago the main ISP increased speeds, before it was average overpriced DSL/ethernet provider, now it's more reasonable, the only advantage European ISP offer over US ones is the unlimited bandwidth, 90% of them at least don't have caps, only on mobile which is expensive as fuck, overpriced shitty 4G (never seen 4G on my phone I swear) service.

File: DEO19QAVoAM8PV7.jpg (113KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1024x682px

>>61334575
>why bother helping them.
Yeah you people sure showed your true colors when you disrespected my president.

>>61334604
> most of us do take example on US when comes to other continents such as Europe
You know, if ISPs want to restrict their customers, they can do it right now and see what's going to happen.
> why American ISP can be so shitty
They are a monopoly that happened because US ISPs can't use telegraph poles to extend their fiber network. They have to use underground cable channels and... Those are private!

>>61334646
Nah that was probably your neighbor shillaryfag or berncuck, I actually defended him on TPP. Still, this doesn't mean that he's always right, there're too many factors that he didn't predict influencing his decisions since he became president, don't forget he kissed the fucking wall of the dead jews or whatever was its name, and stupid shit like that.

>>61327059
g'day cunt

>>61334635
>the only advantage European ISP offer over US ones is the unlimited bandwidth, 90% of them at least don't have caps, only on mobile which is expensive as fuck, overpriced shitty 4G
Pretty much the same experience what I have seen as well with European ISP. Also 4G is a meme due to it's shitty range.
>>61334664
> they can do it right now and see what's going to happen.
I wonder if they would be ass raped by the EU anti-trust charges like Google just got fined.
>Those are private!
Well shit. I guess building another fiber network infrastructure is out of the window just to compete with those companies. Truly a horrible situation.

>>61334741
Washington fag here
It's not much different in America, if you don't have a grandfathered Mobile plan you have to pay like 20 USD a month for unlimited internet and even then they throttle you at like 30GB.
As for land line ISPs we are usually stuck with 250mbps dl / 10 ul 1 TB per month for like 50 USD a month or unlimited possible throttling after 3TB for like 65 USD a month.
Worse in rural areas or better in areas with fiber.

>>61326490
>>61326605
>>61327152
>>61327269
>>61327313
>>61327389
>>61327463
>>61327488
>>61327663
>>61327892
>>61328047
>>61328220
>>61329334
>>61329717
>>61329932
>>61331797
>>61331890
>>61332104
>>61332114
Fuck off. Fuck net neutrality. I want poorfag and niggers priced out of the internet

Get fucked, murica

NN doesnt stop throttling on cell providers or wireless and satellite ISPs

these are the majority of users these days with the prevelence of mobile

File: IMG_3607.jpg (499KB, 2048x1393px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 2048x1393px

>>61326490
>He gets his service from any of the ISP's who lobby against net neutrality
Charter night throttling master race here

>>61335934
wtf I hate net neutrality now

>nother fearmongering retard reddit thread
The only way to win is to beat them at their own game.

Your cul de sac has a pipe that serves 100 internet units to ten people. In an ideal world, they each use 10 units and pay the same amount. In the real world, 20% are """power users"" using 20 units while everyone else just uses the biggest most popular sites, only 5 units. With 80/100u in use, service is great but 80% are still getting fucked in the wallet for net they don't use.

Now 40 pajeets move in. Thanks to net neutrality, Prices go up while speed and quality goes down. Everyone's throttled to 0.5 units each. Half the pajeets have no internet because they can't afford it. The internet is less free; the more popular and bandwith-heavy sites must be throttled or outright blocked a certain time frames to keep up with demand. The extra money makes no profit because they need it just to keep things running. No profit means no new pipes. Everyone's fucked.

WITHOUT net neutrality, power users pay more while normal users pay less. By prioritising certain traffic, speeds actually go UP and service quality stays good. They can offer discount services to pajeet at next to no cost; this is only possible because they now have profit to lay new pipe. Of the new 150u pipe, only 132/150 is in use. The two power uses still use 10u. The eight normal users have the freedom to choose what they want to use, so they're now only using 4u at a lower price. All 40 pajeets have access with discounted 2u internet, a luxury compared to dozens-of-times-a-day black and brownouts of the east. Anybody can use any website at any time thanks to the surplus units; a truly free internet.

A vote for net neutrality is a vote for net fatality.

>>61335934
HAHAHAHAAH
pampered useless fucks get the fuck out
You don't have to worry about jack shit

>>61337286
The fuck are you talking about? None of this is accurate.

>>61326490
We had network neutrality for almost 30 years before Obama passed Net Neutrality. If it ain't broke, don't pass vague, broad, sweeping regulatory laws to "fix" it.

The last time we gave the FCC any influence over the infrastructure of the internet it led to ISP monopolies across wide regions of the United States, and it's taken 20 years of development and the rise of satellite and mobile internet to start making a dent in those monopolies.

Why anyone would think giving the same regulatory agency even MORE power over the medium is beyond me.

> tfw i tether off my cellphone for internet and alreadu get throttled based on the sites i visit

:/

>UK never had so-called "net neutrality" until last year the EU regulated on the matter
>unlimited data packages were the norm way before burgerland
>fibre is now offered even by the smallest ISPs
>huge market place and great competition
>easy as fuck to shop around
>literally the worst thing that happens is they throttle torrents during the day
>cheap as chips

Remind me why I give a fuck

Who cares if anything gets passed to hurt net neutrality, just vote with your wallets right guys?? That always works!
Then ISP's will be forced to revert back XD

>net neutrality passes
>ISPs say fuck you, triple prices for everyone
>can't switch because they have monopolies
Thanks Obongo.

>>61335934

Nah, the SJW faggots got all of daddy's money to gain access to a Tier 1 internet, and they'll fuck it all up just like they do now.

>>61334018
Too right. The end of neutrality is another step towards people pulling their heads out of their asses and stepping into the real world again.

>>61335934
no, you fuck off retarded faggot, go back to being a sperm in the balls of your nigger dad you've never met.

>>61337633
>literally the worst thing that happens is they throttle torrents during the day

That was a terrible experience and i would rather not go back to those days of hopping from one ISP to the next because ISP's were pressured to cut down on torrents.

>>61334440
thank you for this.

>>61337878
Yeah, I'm sure if this goes into effect everyone will start reading books by candle light and going to church regularly. Wake up you jackass.

>>61334440
>>61334470
wow, it's almost like all politicians are asshole scumbags who don't care about your or your life. thanks for making sure to inject your pointless political posturing into the thread, we couldn't be as irrelevant as we are without you.

>>61334048
which country

i need to pick somehwere to move

Even on /pol/ people are for net neutrality. Seriously, why speaks against it?

>>61327916
>Tacoma public municipalities
>Run by local ISP business
>Both profitable and one of the highest rated ISP in the country.
>Can pay my electric, water, garbage, and net on one bill.
>Get speeds at half the price as comcast and not be forced into cable channel purchases I won't use.

Me thinks the shill does protest to much.

>>61331862
I think reality hurts this shill to much. Note he will not reply to sane comments.

>>61338081
repeating a lie doesn't make it true astroturf

>>61338113
Yeah, you'd think the anti-neutrality shills would learn that. But astroturf they will.

File: cap choose.jpg (13KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 600x338px

>>61334440
We had network neutrality for almost 30 years without federal regulation deeming it as such. Neutral treatment of data and services was demanded by consumers and became the de facto standard without government regulation imposing it. "Net Neutrality" and network neutrality are not synonymous just because they share a name.

Imagine your favorite restaurant suddenly decides to offer patrons a "premium subscription" guaranteeing them faster service. If, as a consumer, you don't approve of this you have options:

A) You can voice your concerns and outrage, and convince other patrons to do the same in the hopes of convincing the restaurant to change their policy.
B) You can purchase the premium subscription and get fast service at your favorite restaurant.
C) You can continue eating at your favorite restaurant and put up with the slower service without paying extra costs.
D) You can eat at a different restaurant - it might be a different price or a different kind of restaurant, but it's an alternative.
E) You can stop eating out at restaurants.

At the end of the day, though, it's your choice, and that freedom to choose - to decide, as a consumer, what is most important to YOU, what YOU need, what YOU want, and what are YOU willing to pay and put up with - is the foundation of the free market.

If we give the FCC broad, sweeping power to impose policy and service standards, we're giving up our right to choose.

>>61338156
Look in the mirror. You're the hideous shill

>>61338159
>it's your choice


OHHHHHH.... bullshit.

With the set up monopolies that most Americans deal with when it comes to ISP choice your full of complete bullshit. We've heard your arguments before and they are cut and paste from the marketing text books you shills are given. Go back to Comcast and suck that man giving you your checks dick.

>>61338159
yeah, that's how capitalism works, but it just has on condition: competition

Until there are still areas where some ISP's have a monopoly, this approach won't work.

>>61338190
said the shill and blowed my dick

>>61338190
Struck a nerve did I? Sorry but you've got nothing.

So, is there going to be a voting? When? Is this shit ever going to affect anything? Help a Yurofag out burgers, gib information
Googling it gives heavily biased shit but nothing of what I need

>all these ISP shills in this thread

How do we fix /g/?

File: a02e894c9a6c281f9a11549879b1b33a.png (412KB, 1266x615px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1266x615px

Wow fuck 4chan

>>61334470

m8 >>61334440 is a falseflag just for using "Drumpf".

/g/ is infested by indian SHILLS who don't care about net neutrality cause it won't affect them. They sold out to the JEW.

But mark my words, this will bite you in the ass in the future. This is a precendece case. And whenever you want to market your spam sites, you have to pay the isps too

WHY ARE THOSE SUPPORTERS JUST NEW STARTUPS WHO DOESNT CARE ABOUT PRIVACY? SEE DISCORD FOR EXAMPLE
t. Eurofag

>>61329245
>What did I have to look up?
That it's a photoshop: there isn't a CCTV camera just outside George Orwell's former residence.

File: 1498856403136.jpg (148KB, 1000x1250px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1000x1250px

/rlg/ supports net neutrality

>>61338385
just be glad that we are never gonna be cucked as much as US citizens are about to
Losing access to a Taiwanese site is a really small price to pay, and even that won't really happen, and even if it does, theres 8ch

>>61338378
How come murica keeps fucking shit up and then force other people to fix their shit?

>>61338212
>With the set up monopolies that most Americans deal with when it comes to ISP choice your full of complete bullshit.
You absolutely have other options. Choosing a different provider might mean having to accept slower speeds or a higher price - but they're still alternatives. To continue the restaurant analogy - just because another restaurant is more expensive or doesn't offer the same food or aesthetics, or you don't like their fries, doesn't mean they aren't a viable alternative.

You, as a consumer, have to decide what's most important to you. How important is neutral treatment of data to you? Is it important enough that you would complain to your ISP if they were considering changing their policy? Is it important enough that you would consider a slower or more expensive ISP to continue having your data treated neutrally?


>>61338218
ISP monopolies arose as a direct consequence of the regulations passed by the FCC's 1996 Telecommunications Act. It's taken 20 years for low-speed startups, satellite internet, and mobile internet to soften those monopolies, having to struggle against regulations and red tape all the while. I'll never understand why so many people who have a problem with issues that arise from government interference think MORE government interference is the solution.

Didn't we have already true net neutrality before like 2007 and then we got nu-neutrality? SOPA and PIPA I could understand were net negatives for everyone, but this seems like an overreaction. ISPs will always be greedy power-hungry monopolies, my fucking ISP blocked /b/ back in the day.

>>61338507
>You absolutely have other options
I don't. There is one company that provides internet to my area. They provide cable internet. There's no DSL or even dial-up coverage anymore.

>>61334575
>why bother helping them
For one, because 90% of the Internet is hosted there or belongs to companies seated there
And therefore if we let burgertards lose net neutrality we will let the world lose net neutrality

>>61338582
What is your zip code?

>>61326490
the republican yammer on endlessly about freedom and how free they are then hand everything they can over to private interests and makes everyone less free.

idiots

>>61338718
Who cares it's probably Cleetus from flyover land, poor and uneducated.

>>61338751
Because it's been my experience that most of the time people say they don't have any alternatives, they're usually wrong.

>>61338740
What you want is to hand over control of private networks to corporate Giants like at&t Google and Netflix.

>>61338778
I lived in the country for 30 years. the only options we had was dialup or 1 shitty wireless company

>plebbit
>says everyday "on july 12 we close the site to protest"
>be july 12
>they're still up
>decided to keep advertisers and political investors happy
>instead encourage people to guild so reddit makes more money

/g/ I thought we were better than this. I thought we understood what NN is and is not.

>>61338868
Net Neutrality was about no one getting preferred access. so anyone could put something on the internet and the free market would decide how popular it was

republicans can't stand a level playing field

File: remember me?.jpg (116KB, 1200x872px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1200x872px

We can safely assume net neutrality is a bad thing.
The GOP wants to kill it.
They can do no wrong.

>>61338156
Who the fuck would pay someone to hawk neutrality? What's the return on investment? Or are you using "shill" like a retard and meaning "somebody of a group of people that feel a feel about a thing"?

>>61338958
Show me that line, please. And you keep conveniently ignore the Crux of the NN argument :. Are we a nation of laws, or a nation of regulations?

>>61337957
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/net-neutrality

>>61337286
t. brainwashed cuck

>>61338778
>Satellite

File: 1489153615011.png (286KB, 326x509px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 326x509px

>>61338958
>republicans can't stand a level playing field

>>61338992
The W era brought me cable internet and cheep education Obama gave me 3x the healthcare premium.

funny how the same corporations hogging the bandwidth are the ones complaining about how they need special access .

n america has some of the shittiest internet in the world so now big corp has to screw over the consumer

I can't wait for freemium internet!

>>61339023
no!
this has been going on for at least 10 years

>>61339089
>cheep education
We can tell.

>>61338301
thank good there's no 4chan on that list full of leftist censors!

>>61339089
W era raised a generation of kids that can't do math or name the three branches of government but know how to cheat on standardized tests.

trump is a faggot

>>61339123
>that list full of leftist censors!
t. successful free market businesses

>>61339089
if it would have screwed brown ppl republicans would have paid 5x times as much and would be happy about it

>>61339155
Take your meds, you probably need them.

You dumb liberals need a lesson in economics. Not the type of lesson that teaches you less market competition is bad for the consumer.

>>61334440
This. Everytime /pol/ tries to bite /g/ they lose, ending net neutrality is retarded.

>>61339155
Thanks for reminding me liberals key defensive move is race-baiting.

>>61339171
You need to advance your understanding of economics into the information era. Bandwidth is more akin to tobacco than it is ladders and shovels.

File: 1491228190881.jpg (143KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1024x683px

>>61339182
Fucking pol faggots got BTFO HARD

>>61339110

I guess the point is there's no point fighting for anything. if big corps want something they'll get it sooner or later.

and republican bootlickers will have their backs every time

File: tech-company-campaign-donations-chart.jpg (31KB, 538x404px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 538x404px

>>61339228
>Republican bootlickers

>>61339246
One of those people didn't disclose the sources of their campaign funds. Hmm
But anyways, the election is over nigger.

>>61338958
>republicans can't stand a level playing field
>entire republican argument is that regulating and imposing standards prevents a level playing field
Excessive regulation prevents smaller companies from competing. The 1996 FCC regulations gave select ISPs a total monopoly on communications lines in parts of the US, eliminating competition for those companies already in the FCC's favor. Overreaching regulation didn't level the playing field then and it won't level it now. Companies need to be free to compete.

Suppose you wanted to create an internet service provider company that offered cheap, high-speed transfer for certain kinds of data, but not things like streaming video. Some customers and other companies might like a plan like that - especially companies that deal in large quantities of raw data transfer - healthcare companies, research labs, etc.

If the FCC has the power to enforce the new regulations it wants, your company would be prohibited from offering that service because it doesn't guarantee equal treatment of all data types, you would be prohibited from operating your company unless you were capable of offering the same services as companies like Comcast and Mediacom... how is that a level playing field?

File: 1492888612018.jpg (71KB, 550x705px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 550x705px

>>61339228
Reddit

Spacing


Every

Time

>>61339264
spin for the idiots

>>61339264
>Suppose you wanted to create an internet service provider company that offered cheap, high-speed transfer for certain kinds of data, but not things like streaming video. Some customers and other companies might like a plan like that - especially companies that deal in large quantities of raw data transfer - healthcare companies, research labs, etc.
1's and 0's are 1's and 0's nigger.

File: americans.jpg (104KB, 1252x1252px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1252x1252px

woah dont care desu

File: 1487092620467.jpg (94KB, 680x697px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 680x697px

>>61339228
you piece of shit. KYS immediately!

>>61339279
I wouldn't know. but you seem to know a lot about reddit

>>61326490
I wish the stupid americucks get cucked even more lmao. I'd laugh my ass off and enjoy every second of it.

File: laughing guy.gif (510KB, 480x228px) Image search: [Google]

510KB, 480x228px

>>61339279
hey

does this annoy you?

:^D

republicans will eventually turn the us into one big disney land so all the child like citizens will be safe from the big bad world outside

>>61339298
Have you considered the legal implications of a Title II classification? Can you please write a short rebuttal to Chairman Pai's report? You have read it, haven't you? He's a great lawyer and brought up many legal obstacles. Please write about that.

>>61339324
kys yourself

>>61339359
No more than my ===D in your O would annoy you.

File: 58a313b91b8810b08022db5f37f839b7d3c8ab74c47253c906bc925b385958bb.gif (992KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 540x540px

>>61339362
Enjoy your weekly bombing.

File: image_011.jpg (65KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 720x720px

imagine internet without Americans

Change is good
don't fear change

think about it, do you really need to give the disney and fox monopolies a leg up in the us?

>>61339298
>1's and 0's are 1's and 0's nigger.
Yes, but shit like gaming and streaming video suck up bandwidth like a Thai hooker.

If I'm a research company that needs to constantly transfer huge volumes of data between facilities and branches, I stand to benefit from subscribing to an ISP that doesn't deal with certain types of bandwidth hogging traffic. But under the FCC regulations, I can't subscribe to a company that only offers some kinds of traffic, they have to provide all of them.

>>61339425
more like daily shootings.

>>61339507
Most of the monopolies that exist in the US, exist precisely *because* of the standards and regulations imposed by federal agencies. You think a company like Monsanto would own 90% of the agricultural seed business if it didn't have the FDA and the USDA driving all its competitors out of business?

The 1996 FCC rules created the monopolies that companies like Mediacom and Comcast enjoyed for nearly two decades - it's only in the last few years that those monopolies have started to soften as more competition has risen. You really want to repeat the same mistake?

>>61326490
>Net Neutrality
That's why you have shitty speeds, let the ISPs do whatever so they bring more competition and better service.

You've exceeded the number of video views your plan allows you to Subscribe to. Please upgrade your Internet package to continue watching videos.

>>61339604
Not covered under Title II, try again.

>>61326490

Who gives a shit

the internet is mostly MS, Google and facebook in the west anyway

>>61339604
>being this fucking stupid

is there anyway i can be informed on net neutrality without some reddit faggot fear mongering or going to a liberally biased website?

>>61339588
I know how the scam works.
republicans aren't going to change that. they're going to poison the water because of that.
they're idiots

>>61339648
Wow, great argument! Net Neutrality just got BTFO!

>>61339527
>THAI HOOKERS
its a fact that asian people have smaller mouths
>Research Company
Uhhh whats a fiber connection, data compression or physical transfering of data? Wait research company's use Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Apple, Other Products that ARE GETTING IN THE SLOW LANE UNLESS YOU PAY FOR PER SEAT LICENSES, WHICH WILL COST MORE IN PRACTICE SINCE NOW YOU PAY MORE FOR NOTHING AND HAVE FLEXIBLE COSTS COSTING THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF COMPANY BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF CASH IN OVERCHARGING AND ADMINISTRATIONAL COSTS.
wtf I love my EU country.
Long live the netherlands wait new spying laws entering mid 2018 FUCK

I Ain't gonna support shit that the Americans want.
Fuck them.

>>61339654
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0426/DOC-344590A1.pdf

Read this for Chairman Pai's real views.

>verizon wireless charges $2 extra a month to visit anon's video website
>anon's video website for some reason still serves to verizon wireless even though they are losing viewership and vzw is literally just taking money straight from their viewership which they will never get a cent of
>T Mobile (or another company) doesn't run an ad the next day saying how verizon wireless sucks and that on their network there are no extra charges despite the fact that vzw just handed them a free comparative advantage and they have to do nothing but advertise to take advantage of and make mad $$$

this is what Net Neutrality tards actually believe.

This is one of the few problems I have with trump. I support net neutrality whole-heartedly and yet trump opposes it. It's understandable as he's a businessman but I still want muh freedom.

>>61339730
muh free market!
except that isn't actually how it would work, dumbass

>>61339730
This is about wired too, dipshit

In fact it's mostly about wired, where people in rural USA sometimes can have only 1 provider like Comcast

>>61339784
ok ? and 4G LTE is as fast as my current DSL wired subscription.

File: trump-tvs-rtr-img.jpg (116KB, 896x564px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 896x564px

https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-is-helping-big-media-companies-get-bigger/

File: smug pinoy babby.png (115KB, 537x525px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 537x525px

I hope Net Neutrality gets abolished so normies get off the fucking internet.

>>61339673
>Why would you want to have the option on a high speed, data-only ISP when you can just dump all your data on a harddrive and fedex it?

>>61339774
>except that isn't actually how it would work, dumbass

that's the whole point. in the real world it would never happen because ISPs would never see a dime. No website owner is going to cuckold themselves like that.

shills everywhere

>>61339729
kek

(Legal) streamer here, fuck all of your pirates. I'm sick of you clogging up my internet so you can steal. I absolutely deserve to have my legal activities prioritised.

>>61339923
https://www.fcc.gov/general/editorials-commissioner-ajit-pai

Here's more.

>>61339654
yeah you can read Tim Wu's paper where he for lack of a better term invented Net Neutrality:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863

doesn't matter if you are for or against. if you read that you will be smarter than 99% of the people on the issue.

>>61339954
>pay for Internet
>USE IT
???????????

File: Snowmobile-1-768x317.png (395KB, 768x317px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 768x317px

>>61339869
FEDEX AHAHA
See image

>>61339958
corporate welfare
you pay for the infrastructure and we'll gouge you for the taxpayer subsidized internet

>>61340108
oh man

>>61340123
and them will give priority to other corporations.
some of which wouldn't even exist in the first place without the taxpayer subsidies.

>>61340108
>completely missing the point

funny how some of these big Internet companies don't wanna pay for their own infrastructure but they'll gouge you for the electrons that go through those taxpayer funded wires

>>61340294
they'll charge every costumer $30-80 a month forever after but they can't afford that 3rd world tier infrastructure

think iowa is gonna get fiber optic?
nope. a lot of ppl are gonna get 1960s surplus military wireless crap. and everytime they are forced to improve they'll make them pay again

>>61338159
Well said

>4chan is literally against net neutrality now

What the fuck happened to this site?

>>61341454
Right wing death squads killed all the liburalls and set up camp in /pol/ to make sure wrong think ever happens again on 4chan.

>>61341454
Unironic republicans started coming to this website.

>>61341454
We're not against net neutrality, we're against Net Neutrality.

The internet is fine, we didn't need yet another bloated government regulatory act to "fix" it.

>>61339404
So didn't even notice it? But you just replied? Weird

>>61339588
>amazon
>steam

How did government intervention create this monopoly?