Content providers demanding 1st class seating in a 747 while

TRUE

>>61372077
>Telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon and content providers like Netflix push an almost geometrically higher amount of traffic

Telecoms were given four hundred billion in goverment funding to upgrade to fiber.

Where's the fiber?

Considering that the ISPs have been trying to throttle and restrict services and being slapped down by the FCC for years.

>>61372077
>telecom also pays to lobby against rural ISPs even though they refuse to provide service in those areas and are afraid of 'muh profits'
>there's proof that they have throttled and blocked apps/platforms in the past to promote their own
Three sheckles have been deposted into your account, Chad Lobbycuck

>>61372077
>a nearly flawless model of free-market growth

If it's a flawless free-market model, then why does 50% of America have no choice of ISP, aka local monopoly?

>>61373140
Its flawless my dude, don't question it.

>>61372077
>“Net neutrality” isn’t what you think it is. It won’t “level the playing field.” It will introduce government regulation to a nearly flawless model of free-market growth.

I like how all net neutrality opponents act like we don't have it now. Net neutrality is leaving things AS THEY ARE. Introducing "fast lanes" for ISPs puts the internet in control of the powerful, just like everything else in the world, because only huge corporations will be able to afford the "fast lane" costs. New start-ups who can't afford the fees will never succeed or compete with current players because their websites will be slow as fuck.

Net neutrality guarantees innovation, ditching it just makes ISPs rich.

>>61372077
False. Fuck the ISPs.

>>61373140
Because this is not a free market, Comcast. Verizon, and friends are in bed with the government. The barrier to entry is so ridiculous even Google is struggling. Ajit Pai is actually doing something to solve the underlying problem instead of playing the regulate a monopoly game.

>>61374027
It's not like free market solutions work in most real world applications anyway.
What is Pajeet doing to solve the underlying problem?

>muh free market
>ISPs have a monopoly in several areas
Amerifats are this retarded.

>>61372077
True

>>61374372
Cause we have shitty laws made to keep monopolies for ISPs

>unironically being against a regulation that prevents the jews from stealing your shekels
Enjoy paying extra for accesing certain websites.
Enjoy having your torrents limited to death, even if they are perfectly legal downloads.
Enjoy having to use a VPN 24/7 so can evade your ISP's arbitrary limits and blocks without paying.

>>61373193
How much of a tool can you be.

It was not enacted until *2014*. Google, Netflix, Reddit, and all the other dumpsters advocating for it are 3 years old? Was there some surge in "innovation" since then? This is just them trying to avoid paying for their disproportionate backend usage.

Fast lanes is a moot point as they did not exist prior to the law and large players already have an advantage through things like peering agreements or Netflix open connect.

This does not at all fix the issue of bandwidth allocation. Instead you are seeing data caps springing up in areas and things like T-Mobile binge on where they throttle you to 480p in exchange for data. Would you rather Netflix subscribers pay some more for their disproportionate

Title II is not simply net neutrality. It includes an assortment of other regulations and essentially gives government complete control.
ie:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/201
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/205

>>61374079
>It's not like free market solutions work in most real world applications
You're a complete idiot.

>>61374372
>Hey look a monopoly caused by government regulation, let's regulate it some more!

>>61374514
Net neutrality has always been a thing despite not being the law. The reason it was made law in both the US and EU is precisely because of rumblings within the industry that ISPs were planning to ditch it under the guise of video streaming taking up so much bandwidth (Comcast in the US and Virgin Media in the UK being the immediate examples). Instead they've invested in utilising technologies such as multicast to reduce bandwidth requirements rather than stifle competition on the web.

I don't know many specifics about the US regulation but getting rid of net neutrality would be a bad thing, anon. Data caps aren't really a thing in the UK for fixed broadband connections, the ISPs just segment based on connection speed and other services like TV, cloud services, and WiFi hotspot access. Works pretty well here.

>Hey look a monopoly caused by government regulation, let's regulate it some more!
Most government regulators are in the back pocket of industry lobbyists in the US anyway so the fact that the Title II change happened was pretty surprising in the first place. I am not surprised that most regulations help the ISPs become mono/duopolies rather than prevent it.

However, it's also a pretty dumb fallacy to think that because regulation A isn't good that any and all regulation will be bad.

>>61374909
>under the guise of video streaming taking up so much bandwidth
And they would be 100% correct. Netflix is 35% of traffic, streaming is >70% at peak hours and rising.

https://www.sandvine.com/trends/global-internet-phenomena/

But if you would rather get throttled and deal with data caps or subsidize Netflix subscribers go ahead.

>Instead they've invested in utilising technologies such as multicast
No they haven't. Multicast predates this and is not really applicable to Netflix. And overall investment is down in general so I am not sure where you got this idea from.

>I don't know many specifics
I've posted specifics. And this is just stuff some neet found in 5 minutes of research.

>Data caps aren't really a thing in the UK for fixed broadband connections
And they weren't a thing here until recently. And for fucks sake stop comparing Europe to America. America is a larger landmass with literally half the population. No shit infrastructure is worse as it's far less economical to build it in the first place. If you want to see the path America is headed towards look at Canada.

>it's also a pretty dumb fallacy to think that because regulation A isn't good that any and all regulation will be bad
Title II dates back to the 1930's and was never meant for ISPs. If this is not a bad regulation I don't know what is. Don't forget the portions I've posted above as well. Also I would like you to go ahead and show me where I said or implied all regulations are bad.

File: capex.png (48KB, 871x272px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 871x272px

>>61375344
Overall investment going down can be demonstrated here:
https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/Broadband%20Investment%20Down%20in%202015.pdf
http://www.progressivepolicy.org/publications/investment-heroes-2016-fighting-short-termism/
or the FCC themselves.

I would like to note that there are literal hundreds of shill articles focusing on a cherry picked handful of companies to somehow disprove the above studies. Even ignoring that simple growth does not show anything at all (if instead of a 10% increase we saw 5% would that be good?), this is just blatant intellectual dishonesty.

>>61372077
>Comcast Internet Defense Force, the post
Net Neutrality is the radical notion that Comcrap and AT&Shitty aren't allowed to treat websites differently based on if the websites pay them money or not. It's literally an excuse for big ISPs to get bigger and block out little ISPs.

And quite frankly, if you've EVER had to deal with Comcast's bullshit, you'd be completely in favor of NN. I've had more problems with Comcast in the past year then I had with Wide Open West in the 5 years before that.

>Netflix is throttled to 400kb/s on your ISP
>You're currently paying for 100mbit
>Netflix counts against your data cap
>Comcast streaming doesn't

BOY I LOVE THE FREE MARKET AND ALLOWING ME TO CHOOSE WHAT I WANT. THANKS /G/ FOR TELLING ME NN IS BAD IDEA. I REALLY LIKE MY CURRENT SITUATION AND I THINK NN IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. THANKS POL

>>61372077
>content providers like Netflix push an almost geometrically higher amount of traffic onto broadband than they accept
so fucking what? the end user pays for the amount of data consumed by them. what the content or origin of that data is, is over 9000% irrelevant. every single packet could be diffrrent content from a different site, or all of it could be the same stuff from the same site. it makes no goddamn difference in any fucking way and the end user will pay the same cost for the network capacity they occupy in either case. what kind of fucking retarded corporate cuck comes up with non-arguments like this?

you americans are as laughable as a people as you are as a country. the literal and figurative toddler country of the world, with the intelligence of a fucking fetus.

>>61372077
>Netflix is the most famous example — are demanding first-class seating in a 747 while paying jump seat-in-a-Piper prices.
the web is a pull medium. netflix isnt demanding sufficient network capacity for the whole of their output, its consumers are. and those consumers are in fact paying for exactly that. that they all want to access the same content from the same origin is completely irrelevant in every way from the network provider's pov.

do americans just swallow anything tgeir corporate overlords throw at them without thinking for a second?

>>61374514
>This is just them trying to avoid paying for their disproportionate backend usage.
Netflix literally offered free cache servers so ease on the bandwidth usage and Comcast declined.

>This does not at all fix the issue of bandwidth allocation.
That issue doesn't exist. If I, as I client, decide to spend all my bandwidth with 4chan or netflix or niconico, my ISP shouldn't interfere at all.

File: 1403545227435.gif (226KB, 300x237px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 300x237px

>>61376082
>that they all want to access the same content from the same origin is completely irrelevant in every way from the network provider's pov.

the ISP's POV is "people are willing to by netflix for shit going over out lines - how can we profit from that?"

>OP' think more money for ISPs will lead to more bandwidth and investments

>>61376245
*willing to pay

File: 9.png (170KB, 1891x282px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1891x282px

>>61372077

>>61372077
Fairly sure a seat on a Piper is more expensive than a seat on a 747?

>>61374027
FREE MARKET DOES NOT MEAN FREE OF REGULATION OR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION

MOVE TO CANADA
O
V
E

T
O

C
A
N
A
D
A

File: 10.png (50KB, 1877x295px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1877x295px

>>61376382
Wouldn't help. Once the US does it, everyone will do it, and our internet will become nothing more than television with a different name.

File: index.jpe.jpg (5KB, 193x193px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 193x193px

>>61372077
>another net nuetrality shill thread
fuck this I'm adding net nuetrality to my filter.

>>61372077
>free-market growth
there is no growth in isps because they collude with each other to monopolize areas and fuck customers as hard as possible because they have no alternatives. they don't improve their services either because of the previous reason, most customers have no alternatives and are stuck with whatever isp dominates their area.

>>61376082
That's almost the truth.

The complete story is:
Netflix does also have to pay for bandwidth.
They pay for the part from their servers to the internet exchange.

Consumers pay for the part from the internet exchange to their home.

This makes perfect sense and is how the internet has always been organized.
But now downstream ISP's suddenly want a part of the upstream ISP's cookie. - it's like someone owning a bridge over the Mississippi river demanding toll for cars crossing over the Hudson.

>>61372077
True and false. The unreasonable demands for transit of the massive media companies are bad. The clear price-gouging and collusion that happens in the service provider space is also bad. Net Neutrality simply keeps the status quo. It's potentially worse than that when you consider that it's the green flag for those prospective higher prices in the internet service market to become the base rate for future pricing.

Either the government regulates these providers, or customers continue getting fucked. This neutrality subject is bike-shedding.

>>61372077
Absolutely false, this isn't some kind of resource like water that is an otherwise renewable resource or a nonrenewable resource.

Its not some supply and demand thing. The internet doesn't have to be rationed its not some shit like this.

"first class seating on a 747" what a shit metaphor

>>61374514
>This is just them trying to avoid paying for their disproportionate backend usage.
It's not netflix using the backend, but the consumers wanting to access netflix. And guess what: those consumers pay for the amount of data they consume. That they all want to access the same thing has 0 effect on anything and can't be a basis for extra fees or other political bullshit. People pay to consume a certain amount of data per month. That that data is netflix videos means nothing, they paid to have your network transfer a certain amount of data, end of story. The origin or content of each packet has no technical bearing on anything.

>>61372077
Basically my exact fear of Title II. We've been beyond all hope for years now.

>>61376245
>the ISP's POV is "people are willing to by netflix for shit going over out lines - how can we profit from that?"
I was talking from a should-be perspective, not from the fatcat's desired pov

File: 13.png (6KB, 683x91px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 683x91px

>>61376411
If you don't fight against them, they'll win by default.

That's why corporate lobbying and shilling works so well. They can pay useful idiots to post the same thing every day to try and consensus crack whatever communities they're working in, for as long as it takes to accomplish it.

You have to fight back and inform people what net neutrality actually means.

>>61376406
The EU already has laws against it, and they won't change any time soon.

Although the EU net neutrality laws aren't as strong as I would have liked, we don;t have American style censorship here.

I am actually quite excited becasue this is a huge chance for Europe to overtake America in internet businesses.

>>61376478
I came to /g/ to talk about technology. Not politics. I WANT /POL/ TO LEAVE.

File: 1499924546955.png (166KB, 1863x950px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1863x950px

>>61376496
Politics effects technology

And this isn't /pol/ doing this. The entire website - /v/, /g/, and /pol/ in particular are being targeted by anti-NN shills.

It's not coming out of /pol/ (although shills want you to believe it is); do you see the arguments I've been posting? They're all from /pol/.

/pol/ is as much against repealing net neutrality as you are. Virtually the entirety of people arguing in favor of repeal are ill-informed, or genuine shills.

File: 1403705599017.jpg (17KB, 256x350px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 256x350px

>>61376496
>willingly comes into a thread discussing technology affected by politics
>MUH /POL/

>>61372077
>Essentially, monster telecoms and content providers — Netflix is the most famous example — are demanding first-class seating in a 747 while paying jump seat-in-a-Piper prices.
What a load of barnacles, they pay for their internet access at the backbones, we pay for ours at our last mile, but somehow the ISPs are entitled to more money being paid to them for... what exactly? They are paid for the connections, why would we pay them per photon and electron traveling across it?

>>61376536
I have yet to see evidence yet that this is really paid shills and for a while I thought it was just a bunch of ancap retards but some of this does seem more oragnized.

>>61376496
>boohooohoo why aren't all threads about desktops and mechanical watches boohoo

>>61376566
I suspect they are just dumb American brainwashed by TV ads.

File: 04 - lGiX9Fr.png (17KB, 626x624px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 626x624px

>>61372077
>>61373039
Samefag trying to troll

>>61376536
Affect is the verb, effect is the noun.

>>61372077
i am not at fault for the isp over provisioning
i will not accept the consequences for their stupidity
i am entitled to the minimum advertised speed agreed upon for my lease

>citizen wants access to the internet
>citizen enters a contractual agreement with an isp for access to said internet
>he pays monthly installments for unlimited or data capped data access to said internet, as per contract rules
>isp is obliged to provide the access the installments pay for, again, as per contract rules
>somehow, because said citizen and some others have a preference for site "X", isps are now mad that the have too much bandwidth going to site "X", wanting therefore to charge site "X" and trowing constant tantrums about it
>somehow disregards the central fact that citizen already paid for said access to site "X"
>still, isp has the gall to claim that citizen and other costumers won't be affected, won't be double charged, because if they charge sucessfully site "X", there is no way the company wont repass these costs to the citizen and other costumers (cucks)
>no bussinesses hae ever repassed costs downwards, ever

Why is it so hard for jews to understand? We need a second and final holocaust asap. Take the useful goyim with the package as well.

>>61376721
This, NN is fraud protection. This is necessary in a free market since fraid violates the NAP.

File: 15.png (30KB, 1877x293px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1877x293px

>>61376721
Break up the ISP's

That's the real story here. They've made it clear that they aren't going to let up on this net neutrality thing, so we have to go on the offensive and break the monopolies and destroy these companies with anti-trust lawsuits.

I'm surprised google, et al, haven't already jumpstarted this course of action with their lawyers and lobbysists.

>>61376225
>Netflix literally offered free cache servers so ease on the bandwidth usage and Comcast declined.
Hahahahah no. I don't think many people realize just how deceptive and fucked up netflix is. For example *they* were the ones actually caught throttling: https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-throttles-its-videos-on-at-t-verizon-phones-1458857424

>That issue doesn't exist. If I, as I client, decide to spend all my bandwidth with 4chan or netflix or niconico, my ISP shouldn't interfere at all.
No the issue does exist whether you like it or not. And either the costs get passed down to netflix subscribers themselves, everyone pays, or we deal with throttling/data caps. And I am definitely not dealing with the last 2.

>>61376485
>EU beating America
The only thing EU has is a bunch of black people and Muslim rapists. At least Western Europe.

>>61376851
You have far more blacks than we do.

>>61376790
Not only that. But switch services as well. Cox Cable internet here is having caps with 1tb a month with 10$ overage charges per 50gb. But CenturyLink is 20mb no caps is a better alternative even if it is a bit slower.

The less relaint we are on these huge cable companies the better we will be for it in the long-term.

So if there's a problem with how the laws are set up now, why don't I notice it when watching Netflix? I'm not seeing any slowdown with streaming if I'm not saturating the download speed I'm paying for and Netflix doesn't seem to have any trouble uploading if they're not saturating the bandwidth they pay for. How is any of this a problem in need of change?

>>61376920
Seriously, fuck Cox.

Our speeds have gone down and a data cap was added, yet the monthly bill keeps going up.

These:

>>61376016
>>61376082
>>61376450
>>61376558
>>61376721

And these:

>>61376478
>>61376536

>>61376963

Absolutely it has been bipolar as hell and fluctuates a ton. I pay 75$ for 100mb a month. Next month it changes though I am going to CenturyLink for their unlimited service that is only 50$ a month. It might not be that fast but there is no caps and overages. Also I am going to buy my own modem and wifi(heard default modem is terrible). I would suggest you and anyone else do the same for now. We need to send a message to these cable companies with our money.

>>61373140
Sounds like a problem you need to bring to your local elected officials.

>>61376340
Who the fuck said it was?

>>61374514
>Hey look a monopoly caused by government regulation which was caused by corporations lobbying to their political bedmates to eliminate competition and weaken the free market, let's monopolize it some more!
ftfy

>>61376833
>No the issue does exist whether you like it or not.
Prove it, Chaim.

>>61377082
Won't do much, unfortunately.
Local official granted them their local monopolies.

>>61377082
Yeah it is, and we really need to start getting to work on this.

We left this shit alone for way too fucking long and now they're trying to completely destroy the internet because it wasn't enough.

No. We HAVE to take this back to the ISP's now. We have to start lawsuits against them, we have to start getting them broken apart. They pushed, and we need to push back, not let them push and push and push until they eventually succeed.

We need people to start working out how to FIGHT BACK. Organize, attack the ISP's.
We won't win anything if we let them lobby and shill like this. It's time to lobby and shill for THEIR destruction.

>>61377165
Nice royal we my dude.

>>61374514
Better than giving (((Wall Street))) complete control. I wonder who signs your paychecks?
Talk abuot CLECs or kill yourself.

>>61372077

Lets look at the conflict of interest here. Comcast, for instance has a trifecta. They own the content, the means to produce the content and the pipe to the content. Netflix always gets picked on because they are direct competition premium content industry. Having media giants like Comcast make it extremely difficult to have a rule set on fair use since the entity that owns the pipe also is a direct competitor to everyone else producing and distributing content.

Once more and more super media conglomerates have total control (and they will, its only a matter of time) you will be paying much more for far less.

I'm not presenting the right or wrong here. But as a consumer I would be concerned if you enjoy the easy access to many things the internet has to offer.

>>61377146
You want me to prove that rapid increases of bandwidth utilization over a short time period of time impact quality of service?

>>61376923
>why don't I notice it when watching Netflix
Fun fact: Netflix's ISP is Amazon.

>>61377316
That's the ISP's problem
If their customers are paying for a certain amount of bandwidth, and they can't keep up, then that's their fault for overbooking their decrepit networks and not updating it.

>>61372077
>>“Net neutrality” isn’t what you think it is.
I know what it is, everyone (here) knows what it is by now.
> It won’t “level the playing field.” It will introduce government regulation to a nearly flawless model of free-market growth.
the "nearly flawless" is a really poor description of the current ISP situation.
If they weren't doing anything, why would a regulation that says they can't be a problem anyway?
>>Telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon and content providers like Netflix push an almost geometrically higher amount of traffic onto broadband than they accept. As a result, the broadband providers have responded by raising rates and/or lowering speeds (aka “slow-laning”) some content.
And that is a problem.
If your netflix video streaming stops stuttering and you get high quality by using a VPN to access the site, there is a problem.
Data should be data.
Consumers pay a monthly fee which should cover the maintenance and expansion of the network, content providers pay for a connection to deliver content to the consumers.
Everybody is already paying to be on the network.
>>Essentially, monster telecoms and content providers — Netflix is the most famous example — are demanding first-class seating in a 747 while paying jump seat-in-a-Piper prices.
So raise the prices for netflix.
>>... pushed the idea that the FCC should force the broadband providers to adhere to a federally structured framework of service and fees.
What do you think the FCC should do?
>>Gigantic (CDNs) will now be able to dictate the terms of their agreements to broadband providers upon pain of civil — or even criminal –prosecution.
So companies shouldn't be penalized for breaking or changing the contract without the other party?
They are all huge evil corporations who want to screw over the customer, I get that, but intentionally slowing down specific sites because you have a competitor is malicious too.
>True or false, /g/?
mostly false.

>>61377316
Yes.

What do you mean by "rapid increases of bandwidth utilization over a short time period"?
What do you mean by "quality of service"?
In your view, how can the service have not been already paid for, by the costumer?
What does it matter the packets go to a gorillion diferent places or a single site? How is that a problem on the client side and not on the server? How does this affect your routers?
If quality of service is suffering, what is that so?
Could it be the case that ISP are simply selling bandwidth capabilities they cannot deliver?

Many anons already came forward with great points, yet you are just stomping your feet claiming the oposite, with no proofs to back up your claims. You're not very good at shilling Chaim, I'm going to speak to Ephraim at management about your case.

>>61377520
>Could it be the case that ISP are simply selling bandwidth capabilities they cannot deliver?
Probably not. They can deliver. They just choose not to. It would be nice if someone would put a boot in Netflix's ass and get them to start collocating their data with ISPs, without all the collateral damage of paid prioritization which, incidentally, takes up router resources for doing things other than routing. But, being Amazon customers, Netflix already pays their muh metered shekels for the service.

You know net neutrality is fucked right? Right?

I mean, don't be reneging now that you elected Trump into office. They do not give a fuck about a few million 'I want my youtube )': )': ' letters.

This is nothing you can do at this point. If you're going to get fucked, you might as well enjoy it, and you did fuck yourselves over on this one.

Government control of the internet will end in disaster and censorship. The "net neutrality" topic is a meme meant to mobilize the masses into agitating for their own censorship.

The FCC is not your friend, being unallowed to say certain words on the radio is bullshit, and the net neutrality law that Google and friends are supporting specifically OUTLAWS some types of speech online.

Net neutrality means giving the government additional control of the internet and what people can use it for.

inb4
>muh Netflix

>>61378499
It's a price we must pay to make America Great Again® :^)

>>61378554
Agreed. To make America Great Again, we must sacrifice net neutrality

>>61378499

Net Neutrality doesn't even apply to mobile ISP's yet it's not full of censorship there like you retards claim will happen.

>>61378515
>Net neutrality means giving the government additional control
forbidding tampering and opinionated meddling by ISPs != relinquishing control to the govt, you idiot. They dont get to meddle any more than the ISPs do

>>61372077
I pay for Netflix can they not slow it down Jesus fuck

>>61378612
because right now doing so would still be political suicide for them

stop fucking taunting companies to do bad shit, so fucking sure of yourself they won't do it. They will if you let them, and everything you idiots are doing now falls under letting them, even daring them to

>>61378628

Retards like you using Netflix 24/7 are the reason everyone else has slowdowns.

Better pay up.

>>61378612
Actually I think mine lets me use their video service and it doesn't count against my data usage

>>61378653
They already pay their ISP for every gigabyte. Try to keep up.

>>61378620
I like how you ignore the blatant government censorship, you cuck

>>61378653
I ALREADY DID, YOU ALREADY DID, EVERYONE ALREADY DID!

You pay for a set bandwidth, and it doesn't matter what or where that data comes from, you're paying for the right to access that data at the speed you pay for.

>>61378667

Because there's no Net-Neutrality with mobile ISP's.

If there were, then you wouldn't have 0 rating.

>>61378681
[citation needed]

net neutrality forbids censorship, that's the whole point

>>61378699
>net neutrality forbids censorship, that's the whole point

Not it doesn't. YOU need to read up.

NN also doesn't apply to coyright infringement. The government will block bittorrent.

>>61378681
>blatant
>slippery slope fantasies
You can't cite this in the law because you're a shitposter from /ptg/.

File: hq default THIS.jpg (18KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 480x360px

DUDE WE GOTTA SAVE NET NEUTRALITY LMAO

>>61378725
torrent is a network protocol, a method of data exchange. It doesn't map 1:1 to piracy so they cant forbid it since it's very often used for legit stuff like game updaters or linux distros. If any of your FUD was true, I wouldn't be able to max out my connection at the full 200Mbps with torrents like I regularly do, considering NN is an EU-wide rule here. Stop talking out of your ass and go to bed, fucking shill

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

46KB, 640x400px

>>61378725
you muricans are such a fucking cancer

>>61378692
True, and it's a big shame the EU didn't ban 0 rating.

>>61378837

EU literally has state mandated website censorship.

US is like the only western nation that doesn't block TPB and other torrent sites.

>>61378892
>US is like the only western nation that doesn't block TPB and other torrent sites.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That 'Meridumbs ACTUALLY believe.....

>>61378782

>TPB has legitimate uses like Linux distros.

Yet the EU has blocked it:

https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-facilitates-piracy-and-can-be-blocked-top-eu-court-rules-170614/

>>61378892

More Yuro stupidity:

https://torrentfreak.com/selling-piracy-configured-media-players-is-illegal-eu-court-rules-170426/

>>61378892
Everyone in the EU can go to tpb. I'm doing it right now and have for years. The EU doesn't block sites, it's just that the police can attempt to seize servers and domains if they need to

>>61378918
what he said
fucking muricunts are unbelievable

>>61378920
extreme example that's an exception to the rule. Doesn't really apply anyway because guess what. in all these years tpb has still never been actually blocked.

File: 1489121386476.jpg (25KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 640x400px

The internet is a highway. A highway is a large street. And where there are streets, there I shall be.

>>61372077
>30 seconds
>11K hours watched

r/Didn'tDoTheMath

>>61378920
>>TPB has legitimate uses like Linux distros.
that's not what I said you humongous fucking retard. You can't change what I say and then call me wrong. Torrents != tpb

>>61378958
>Everyone in the EU can go to tpb.


https://torrentfreak.com/the-pirate-bay-must-be-blocked-in-sweden-court-of-appeal-rules-170213/

File: 17881775_1814840005501426_8992590425994821632_a.jpg (87KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1080x1080px

Whatever gets normies and niggers off the internet charge $10 a month for Reddit another $10 a month for facebook and watch the world change.

>>61378964
It's a series of tubes, my man.

>>61379000

https://torrentfreak.com/court-orders-french-isps-block-pirate-bay-141204/

>>61379002
Yeah but what happens when sites like 4chan and Infowars get blocked by ISPs because they don't want to be associated with the sites.

>>61378920
>can-be-blocked
>can be

not
>must be

See the difference?

>>61379000
>>61379019
here in belgium I have always been able to and still can, so what you're posting is little more than an inconsistent anecdote and it doesn't provide you with an argument against nn at all.

you muricunts can choke to death on the corporate cock you like to suck so much. Getting tired of you and your country of toddlers that still need to learn everything the rest of the world has learned long ago.

>>61379031

Just because a website can be blocked, then it will be blocked is the argument you NN shills use.

Try to be consistent you fucktard.

>>61379022
If someone wanted 4chan dead it would be.

>>61376287
>kike shilling
NOT ALL JEWS ARE MONEY GRABBING BUSINESS MEN WITH BIG NOSES /POL/

>>61379000
>>61379019
Not my fault that you live in a shitty country.
Thank god my government doesn't give a fuck about the Internet and let's me do whatever want.

Why is everyone for net neutrality? Throttling is the freedom of corporations to do what they want with their services. Support the free market and join a different ISP.

>>61379053

https://torrentfreak.com/belgium-blocks-alternative-pirate-bay-domain-120418/

Don't know why Yurocks love getting cucked by their government so much.

>>61379059
by your logic, anyone owning a fire alarm that has never gone off yet should just throw it away because clearly the alarm isn't necessary. You have no idea how goddamn stupid you are if you're against protective measures that forbid undue meddling

>>61376340
laissez faire motherfuckers

File: conf.jpg (44KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 600x450px

>>61379022
It will open up competition like the old dial up days...the internet was so much better without normies fucking everything up.

>>61379087
retarded logic

>>61379093
none of any of the shit you linked is an argument that net neutrality is bad, you sperg. Do you even logic? Do you even know how an argument works? All yout fancy little links have no relevance to your point and are the most extreme shit that you pulled from the bottom of the can, more the exception than the rule

>>61379134
Net Neutrality will let the government shut down 4chan, shill. It's obamacare for the internet at the speed of the government.

>>61379134

You're the one claiming NN will not allow websites to be censored yet I am disproving your bullshit.

>>61379059

Point is it's not some government censorship.
It's just civil law now gives some rights to copyright owners.

What you don't understand is that piracy was perfectly LEGAL in the Netherlands.
Yes, LEGAL - as in it was my RIGHT to download copyrighted movies for free and to share them with my millions of friends.
All that has changed is that it's now illegal just like in the rest of the world.

So now copyright holders can try to sue TPB if they want, as they are no longer protected by our pro-piracy laws.
But the government or the police won't help them.

>>61379145
except it wont. net neutrality says "no meddling", not "oy vey shut it down now"

>>61379161
murder is illegal yet the cops can shoot to kill. You're pulling the same thing here: just because tpb gets blocked for being an extreme piracy enabler doesnt mean net neutrality is a device to enable arbitrary blocking. Youre ripping shit completely out of context and blowing things way out of proportion

you disgree with anyone (isp or govt) being able to just block a website because they want to? Congratulations, you are in favor of net neutrality.

>>61379161
They can't censor TPB.

But they can try to shut them down by seizing their servers if they manage to win a court battle.

America, PLEASE end net neutrality we want to see you guys suffer! :D

>>61379237

NN is even an enforcable law and has been beating in court many times.

NN doesn't apple to wireless ISP's.

Yet we're still here, and will continue to be here, unlike Yurocucks which will soon block this site because of "racism" and "fake news".

>>61379091
But you can't do that when the "free market" has allowed a corporation such as Comcast or TWC to violate the NAP by pushing out or severely gimping the competition with political lobbying, backroom deals, and warping of popular opinions. In a truly free and transparent market, we would never have this bullshit to begin with.

>>61379172
Just dropping by, downloading pirated content is also legal in Italy, uploading it however Isn't.

>>61379263
And private, non commercial, use is legal in Switzerland.

Net Neutrality is just more communist control of the internet. /pol/ is always right when they say that it's more judaism.

>>61379091
>Support the free market and join a different ISP.

Not possible.

My options are
>4g tether, fucking expensive, and has a 10gb data cap
>Cox Cable internet, 30mbit/s, 1tb data cap
>ATT DSL, 12 mbit, 300gb data cap

None of these had datacaps before 2010, and the speeds haven't gone up either.
Meanwhile the monthly bill has doubled.

>>61379263
Well, the EU just told both our countries to stop that.
Which I don't like, but it is fair I guess because it did get out of hand when normies discovered bit torrents.

It's just funny how Americans, who can ACTUALLY GET FINED for piracy, think they have more freedoms than we do lol.

>>61379303
You have choices and the freedom to choose, so the free market is working as intended :^)

>>61379324
All of which are shit, and became shittier.

I moved to Cox after ATT added the 300gb data cap, and now 3 months latter, Cox added a data cap.

This isn't a choice, this is the illusion of choice in the form of shit, shittier, and abysmal.

>>61375890
>watching netflix
u deserves it desu

File: 18547419-Happy-3d-smiley-guy-on-sand-and-blue-sky-background--Stock-Photo.jpg (125KB, 1300x1300px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1300x1300px

>>61379388
The free market is working as intended. You're obviously just a poor statist who doesn't want to or is incapable of participating in a free market economy and you want to ruin it for the rest of the country.

>>61375344
>subsidize Netflix subscribers

I already pay more for my speed, you stupid fuck. Not only do I pay directly to the ISP, but I also pay taxes which are meant to pay for infrastructure improvements to the networks.

>>61379576
Could be worse. You could be in Chicago where there's an "amusement tax" on things like Netflix and online content transactions such as Steam or GOG.

Net Neutrality never existed as QoS was built into TCP from day 1.

What we need is some sort of independent body to monitor traffic and ensure it's being fairly rolled out

>>61372077
This. Honestly why shouldn't high volume services have to pay more? Torrentfags are currently ruining my internet speeds, surely they too should have to pay more to use their internet.

File: net neutrality1234.png (80KB, 921x270px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 921x270px

>>61372077
All I know is that Trump is for this and al the libcucks are against it so I am for it too.

Also see pic.

>>61379804
Stop reposting shit from /r/the_donald

>>61379804
ISP monopolies are not because of the government, reddit.

File: 1480203141993.gif (2MB, 400x255px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x255px

>>61379804
>Man I'm so glad that the big ISPs have blocked my favorite pages such as /pol/ and r/t_d, and that this country's flawed "free market" has made it incapable for a serious competitor to exist
>The snowflakes are gonna be so pissed, praise kek
t_dfags, I swear.

>>61379840
I even double checked the thread it was posted, the guy who posted it called ajit based. These are the people who come here now.

>>61379827
Well they partially are, but that's because many politicians are easily manipulated by corporate interests. The reason why you only have one decent ISP and a bunch of tiny shitty ones that run off of the big one is because that big ISP threw a tanturm in front of your state/county/city/town's government over "MUH PROFITS".

File: 150638.png (279KB, 543x415px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 543x415px

>>61379479

Jesus how are you this dense.

The free market under the context of internet service providers is not working.

Were getting shitter data plans. gtfo slimmy CEO.

>>61379840
>le blocking meme
NO (nil) ISP in any part of the world that have/dont have NN including third world shitters does anything you mention because it is literally not feasible in terms of business model to do so.

The only entities that had banned or restrict any type of website, have been Governments and only governments.

NN advocates are literally peddling fear mongering and they are getting away with it.

>>61379761
That's not how QoS works at all.

>>61379888
No it's because infrastructure is costly to put up

>>61379895
>NN advocates are literally peddling fear mongering and they are getting away with it.


Fuck off Comcast.

>>61379908
Not as costly as fighting an endless legal battle and burning all your capital.

>>61379890
>not working
Tell me how much was ur 10mbps connection costs 10 years ago.

>but muh technical advancements
so things u dont invested on

>>61379905
what are you talking about?

>>61379916
Prove me wrong.
pro tip: you can't
keep posting adhoms

There is nothing wrong with throttling, prove there is something wrong.

>>61379895
>The only entities that had banned or restrict any type of website, have been Governments and only governments.

God, the fags on this thread I swear.

AT&T, Comcast, etc these internet service providers have ALWAYS tried to censor sites cuz

>'MUH PROFITS'

https://techcrunch.com/2007/09/29/communist-att-sensors-users-secret-police-to-follow/

https://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-accused-of-trying-to-censor-anti-comcast-site/

btfo

>>61379895
You are too my dude, with the whole big gubment boogyman.
Remember when Google was hiding "hateful" content on Youtube in order to keep their sponsors happy? Now normally speaking you couldn't get away with that kind of shit on a network wide scale, but deregulation would allow a corporation like Google to curate what it allows and disallows on its entire internet network.

>>61379861
>wahhh there are people who disagree with me poating hereee
pathetic.

>>61377299
This is true and AT&T and Verizon own multibillion dollars sorry worth of channels and industry. It may be the start of cutting the cord and cutting off cable and going to a competitor even if it is DSL.

>>61379965
>remember..
Oh when the free market works and Google stopped/reduced doing that shit
Good times, when consumers actually does shit without relying on the government to do it for them.

>>61379965
With the free market, I could open a competing youtube service. Regulation is why I cannot and it's too expensive.

>>61379936

>Tell me how much was ur 10mbps connection costs 10 years ago.

Was referring to how ISPs are treating customers NOW.


>so things u dont invested on

I very much do invest in next gen technology.

NEXT

>>61379908
No it's because the small ISPs can either play nice and use the big ISP's network, or they can be dragged to court for encroaching on the big ISP's territory that they lobbied the Government to set up for them, go bankrupt, and then get bought out by the big ISP.

>>61372077
If the world wants to use half the internet to stream from netflix so be it.

The thing is, everyone should be free to send and received that from whoever they choose.

Is not that hard, the only tards that are anti net neutrality are people who doesn't understand how the internet works.

>>61372077
>All these pro-NN posts

Wow. Sure is shareblue in here. This is 4chan. Fuck off.

>>61380041
But wouldn't net neutrality increase government involvement...?

>>61380060
I think you forgot this isn't reddit and you can't downvote posts that go against the hivemind.

>>61380060
go back to your hole

>>61372077
>flawless model
there's definitely no issues with monopoly in this country, not like millions of people have few or no choices of internet provider. Companies buy up infrastructure then strong arm out any competition by manipulating legislation and being buddy-buddy with regulators.

>>61376411
Hey, OP here, sry about making yet another thread about this shit.

But I wanted to see a more technical discussion on /g/. Because I thought more people here understand how the internet actually works, compared to amateur journalists and hipsters who campaign about something they don't understand.

So far I've heard a few interesting things.

Btw, this is my first reply in this thread. I didn't even know this thread was still here. When I posted it, it had zero replies, so I left.

Thanks for your contributions, everyone. Cheers

Net Neutrality means more censorship. Free speech is more important than getting throttled or you can't waste bandwidth on your degenerate chinese cartoon porn.

>>61380115
see >>61376340

>>61380147
>>61376340
Regulation is more big government. You're more free with less regulation.

>>61380068
It would increase government involvement to prevent this anti free market bulshit from happening in the first place. Think of it like the Antitrust Law.

File: f0cbcf37e3587e922502480cd84fc3cc.png (13KB, 1671x58px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 1671x58px

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act
DEREGULATION IS A GOOD THING YOU FUCKING BLUE KEKS

>>61380165
>This is what communists actually believe
No such thing as good regulation, I would rather live in a world where ISPs slow me down to dial-up speeds than a world where big government censored me.

File: half life the hedgehog.jpg (790KB, 936x1654px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 936x1654px

>>61380165
But if the government gets out of the way, there won't be any governmental regulations preventing smaller ISPs from setting up shop

>>61380173
>citation needed

>>61380115
>all traffic is treated equally
>censorship

File: 1481324243070.jpg (143KB, 565x419px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 565x419px

>>61380186
If the goverment gets out of the way, the big companies don't need to do their backroom deals to push out the little guys and get away with violating the NAP.

>>61380195
>Government deciding that your website wasn't promoting equality and decided to cut off contact from ISPs
>Not censorship
Part of net neutrality means they can cut off parts of the internet they deem abusive or intolerant or bigoted.

>>61380204
>Part of net neutrality means they can cut off parts of the internet they deem abusive or intolerant or bigoted.

It's the opposite.

>>61372077
>nearly flawless
lolnope. datacaps, slow speeds, little to no competition between providers over most of America aren't "nearly flawless," especially compared to stupidly fast and cheap asian access. The only issue with asian internet, in fact, is their lack of a 1st amendment.

reminder to sage this shit thread

File: 1488861784771.png (10KB, 284x178px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 284x178px

>>61380201
Anti-competitive practices are still illegal you know.

>>61380230
They shouldn't be.

>>61380241
sure

File: 1498901185704.jpg (68KB, 699x485px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 699x485px

>>61376851
Eastern Europe has no blacks/muzzos and has some of the best internet connections in the world (especially Romania).

Coincidence?

>>61380253
Eastern Europeans are basically niggers.

>>61380257
yet eastern europe has far superior internet than any western nation. You're getting BTFO by russians and ex soviet states.

>>61372077
Can't wait to laugh at muricans when they will need an IP-over-Facebook tunnel just to shitpost on 4chan.

If a companies could fuck you over for money,You better prepare your anus.That's why regulations exist,Faggot

File: eu.png (88KB, 493x947px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 493x947px

>>61380268
>yet eastern europe has far superior internet than any western nation.

Wrong.

>>61372077
>>Gigantic content delivery networks (CDNs) will now be able to dictate the terms of their agreements to broadband providers upon pain of civil — or even criminal –prosecution.

Genuinely don't understand this part, the fuck is this nigger on about?

>>61380271
REgulations exist because niggers and leftists need the government to protect them from the market. Read Hoppe.

File: 10385501_976897985682742_7898146179221060277_n.jpg (94KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 960x639px

>>61380221
OP here, those aren't my arguments. It's some blogger guy's arguments.

I just brought them here so we could discuss them. No need to get so angery about it, m9.

>>61380257
Yep, I can confirm that. Pic related, an Eastern European nigger. kek

File: 1484493815377.png (794KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 700x700px

>>61380281

>>61380279
>Cheaper
>Governments don't give a fuck what you do as long as it isn't CP
>Not better

>>61380279
Those are averages. If everyone in Norware has 20Mbps internet, they win.

Meanwhile like 30% of Romania has at least 300Mbps. You see, averages are deceiving. You obviously can get way better internet in Romania than in Norway, but since there are more people in the rural area, they don't feel they actually need fast internet or internet for that matter.

>>61380311
Reminder that statistics is the science according to which, on average, everyone has a testicle.

How relevant!

>>61380280
In simple, non sensationalist terms, I think he means that ISPs can can change the contract between them and a consumer in the event of a prosecution.

>>61380332
Not an argument

File: 1495067569547.png (273KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 793x794px

>>61380241
Honestly.

>after reading the facts of the case come to the very obvious conclusion that NN is a good thing
>not a cucked /pol/ faggot who experiences cognitive dissonance when reddit is right for once and has to 180 his opinion immediately

>>61380253
Lol I notice that as well. It's almost like Western Europe forgot their nationalism, people, and their own society mattered than identity politics, Muslims and all the dumb things we know is not worth our time.

File: idpol409812309489023840923.png (518KB, 1202x1001px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1202x1001px

>>61380425
>implying that nationalism isn't identity politics