Republicans caused and want this.

Yeah every other country that doesn't have NN laws has this problem, right?

Classifying everything as common carrier went great for the land lines, I for sure loved the wire tapping.

File: 1492380361323.jpg (46KB, 511x474px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 511x474px

>>61389344
>go.com
>napster
>aim
>digg
>flickr

>>61389381
https://www.thisisnetneutrality.org/

I want politicians and corpfags to leave the internet alone. No bullshit pricing, no bullshit common carrier laws, just let us surf god dammit.

>Government propoganda
Not what net neutrality is "preventing"

>>61389381
They actually do:

http://www.azimuthblog.com/2016/07/some-thoughts-on-net-neutrality/
https://blog.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-costs-around-the-world/

Didn't know that republicans and democrats switched names

>>61389556
Common carrier laws aren't bullshit, they just prevent the corpfags from fucking with what you can see and watch.

>>61389381
>wire tapping
>implying they cant monitor what you do online in about a million ways already

>>61389344
>>61389605
This isn't a republican/democrat issue.

Corporate lobbyists are trying to make it that way to garner support from idiots who can't help put automatically oppose/endorse something just because "their party" does.

The situation right now is really The People vs Telecom Corporations

File: Great-Firewall.jpg (75KB, 500x354px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x354px

Democrats caused and want this.

Title II classification is a huge fucking mistake, new laws should be drafted. Common Carrier is a horrible fucking idea for something as important as the internet.

>>61389389
haylee williams looks like a poormans dodger she can go fuck herself

that image is old as hell. as far as i'm aware the obama admin didn't even start to enforce this "net-neutrality" anyway.

>>61389606
>I don't actually read anything to do with this, I just listen to what leddit tells me

>>61389381
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with "wire tapping the land lines" (where do you people even come up with this shit?)

>>61389590
>foreign companies too fucking cheap to place servers locally
>it's my ISP's fault that Netflix is slow!
Fucking liberal tards.

>>61389605
hurr, democrats are the real racists etc.

back to r/the_cheeto

>>61389628
>new laws should be drafted

do that for now then make a constitutional amendment to really fuck the ISPs in the ass

>>61389658
Epic post my friend
upvoted, if you give me your reddit username I'll buy you gold

>>61389631
>as far as i'm aware the obama admin didn't even start to enforce this "net-neutrality"
You'd be correct.
Title II classification never actually got put in place, all the current FCC admin is doing is revoking rules that never took effect.

People equate "net neutrality" to the kerfuffle Comcast caused when they were throttling p2p traffic. What democrats are actually trying to pass is government authority over ISPs.
If it were JUST "hey you cant decide what traffic gets priority" nobody would care this much, but its not. It's about varying administrations trying to weasel more and more authority into what is largely an unregulated industry.

Think about this: When was the last time you couldnt access a website that somebody else could on a different ISP?
Never?
Oh, gee, how about that.

>>61389628
Common Carrier status prevents exactly what's depicted in your image.

The corporations want to control what we can see/hear/say/think online, and that's what getting rid of common carrier status will do.

Because all Common Carrier does is forces them to treat all data transmitted online equally.
Just like how if you buy 50L of water you can use it to wash your car, or water your garden, without paying a different price. Common Carrier status prevents the ISP corporations from charging you more money to watch youtube videos, and less money to watch their ComcastTube videos.

>>61389613
Might as well give up everything since you have nothing to hide :^)

>>61389344
stop pushing false propaganda, you lying piece of shit

>>61389652
We have pretty clear evidence what happens without common carrier protection, because some countries don't have it.

And it is exactly what we all feared: The ISP's start throttling bandwidth to competing services and begin to treat the internet like cable television rather than the internet.

You can plug your ears all you want and bury your head in the dirt; that doesn't change what the factual reality of the situation is.

>>61389699
im saying they wouldnt even bother wiretapping the internet cause they dont need to you bint

>>61389676
Title 2 classification has always been in place. The law was amended to include ISP's as common carriers in 2015, specifically because they were starting to misbehave and fuck with people's internet connections.

>>61389708
The ISPs aren't throttling anyone you fucking idiot. Netflix is too fucking cheap to pay for proper amounts of transit so their end users get fucked. The problem is always upstream, not with the ISPs.

>>61389700
while doing this would actually be more expensive than it is worth i can totally see streaming services havng issues unless they payed and that is still a YUGE problem

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

170KB, 1891x282px

For those of you who need or want a quick rundown on Net Neutrality, see this image

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

30KB, 1877x293px

>>61389730
>The ISPs aren't throttling anyone you fucking idiot. Netflix is too fucking cheap to pay for proper amounts of transit so their end users get fucked. The problem is always upstream, not with the ISPs.

That's not how it works.

Netflix paid for their bandwidth, and users paid for their bandwidth. The ISP is trying to double dip.

See image.

>>61389681
>The corporations want to control what we can see/hear/say/think online
No they don't.

>all Common Carrier does is forces them to treat all data transmitted online equally
No it doesnt.

Common Carrier gives the government the same direct authority they hold over telephone providers. And when it's just you calling somebody, that's not TOO big a deal. When you're dealing with what amounts to the carrier lines that run the modern world, that's a HUGE fucking deal and REALLY REALLY BAD.
ISPs should not be regulated the same way a telco company is, and we sure as fuck shouldnt be using 80 year old rules for a modern technology.

>charging you more money to watch youtube videos, and less money to watch their ComcastTube videos
Give one example of that happening anywhere.

File: 16.png (14KB, 1878x157px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 1878x157px

>>61389730
And again, another explanation of what the deal is with Netflix in the image.

The ISP's oversold their lines, and are now trying to pass the costs off on Netflix. Not the other way around.

>>61389749
Netflix didn't pay for their bandwidth, that's why the users can access every site besides Netflix just fine you fucking retard.

NN doesn't apple to mobile carriers.

Why is that?

And since it doesn't, why isn't there mass censorship and throttling like the retarded OP claims?

>>61389733
>>61389749
>It's just treating traffic neutrally!
Literally not what Title II is, literally not what these regulations want in place, literally not what is happening.

>le everyone who doesn't advocate for government acquisition of the internet is a fascist mayamy

>>61389733
>listening to an asuka poster
>>>/trash/

>>61389753
1. Yes they do. The same corporations trying to repeal net neutrality are the same ones controlling the mainstream media. They want nothing more than to lie, control, and misdirect the public.

2. Yes, it does.

3. No, it's not "really bad"; it prevents the ISP's from fucking their customers on both sides over. It prevents the ISP's from colluding together to control what websites you can visit. It prevents the ISP's from killing off websites by forcing them to pay more than they could possibly afford just to get more visitors. It WILL turn the internet into a new Cable TV Monopoly where every website is controlled by the ISP, and NOBODY wants that.

4.
http://www.azimuthblog.com/2016/07/some-thoughts-on-net-neutrality/
https://blog.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-costs-around-the-world/

>>61389756
There's no such thing as "push" or "pull" you fucking idiot TCP/IP is a two way communication protocol.

>>61389761
Netflix did pay for their bandwidth.

The ISP's oversold their lines to customers who started using netflix en masse - more than the ISP is able to actually provide.

That's not Netflix's problem. If the ISP can't help but oversell their network capacity, that is an ISP problem. The ISP's need to stop trying to legislate market regulations to protect their income when they fuck up.

>>61389771
That is LITERALLY what is happening.

>>61389761
my isp (and most) in the UK, work with netflix and host the videos from the main ISP servers which reduces bandwidth usage and costs.

>>61389344
found a redditor

Literal fear mongering

Trump is going to make it right

>>61389821
>That is LITERALLY what is happening.
It is literally not

>>61389802
No they don't.
No it doesn't.
Yes it is.
>Here are two blogs, therefore I'm right

>>61389821
No Netflix clearly did not pay for their bandwidth. They cheaped out on buying a connection from Congent that was oversold and Congent expected Comcast to upgrade the link for free.

>>61389837

>Trump is going to make it right

Just like he's not gutting healthca- oh wait

>>61389825
Why the fuck should ISPs host Netflix videos in their data centers for free?

File: LiveLeakdotcomcef_14998148381499804339655_1499814847.jpg.resized.jpg (29KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x365px

who gives a fuck


if this happens everyone will have to start running mesh nets wish is a good thing.

>>61389805
Users request data from Netflix, Netflix uploads data to them.
Lots of users requested data from Netflix, they're "pulling" from Netflix, and Netflix is "pushing" it to them.

This is how the internet works. When you visit a server, you are making requests, and the server is responding to those requests.

The trouble is, the internet service providers over-provisioned their networks and could not supply the bandwidth contractually obligated to their customers.

To use an analogy with water: The ISP's built a pipe that could push 50L of water through, and they figured their customers wouldn't all demand water at once, so they sold 500L worth of subscriptions to their water line, and then when everyone started using their water at once, the ISP couldn't provide the amount of water that they were obliged to per the terms of their contracts with their customers.

So the ISP's are now trying to blame Netflix for the problem, when it's really been the ISP's refusing to upgrade their infrastructure and overselling what they have.

And a big part of the problem stems from the ISP's buying themselves monopolies in various jurisdictions so there's no competition and no need to actually upgrade anything - which is why the US broadband internet has been so slow to upgrade over the years.

>>61389864

ISPs cache other content. Why not Netflix?

>>61389890
Because they are being paid to do so. Netflix wants them to do it for free.

>>61389850
That's a problem between Cogent and Comcast, not an issue on Netflix's end.

If Cogent promised Netflix they could deliver X bandwidth, and they can't - that's Cogent's problem. If Comcast needs to upgrade their link, that's Comcast's problem.

Cogent and Comcast need to figure it out, not Netflix.

>>61389889
>so they sold 500L worth of subscriptions to their water line, and then when everyone started using their water at once, the ISP couldn't provide the amount of water that they were obliged to per the terms of their contracts with their customers
Water companies actually do that though. So...what's your point exactly?

>>61389889
>So the ISP's are now trying to blame Netflix for the problem, when it's really been the ISP's refusing to upgrade their infrastructure and overselling what they have.

They happily took tax payer dollars to upgrade infrastructure and it went straight to executive bonuses. Those poor oppressed job creators. amirite?

>>61389864
competition.

>We also give qualifying ISPs the same Open Connect Appliances (OCAs) that we use in our internet interconnection locations. After these appliances are installed in an ISP’s data center, almost all Netflix content is served from the local OCAs rather than “upstream” from the internet. Many ISPs take advantage of this option, in addition to local network interconnection, because it reduces the amount of capacity they need to build to the rest of the internet since Netflix is no longer a significant factor in that capacity. This has the dual benefit of reducing the ISP’s cost of operation and ensuring the best possible Netflix experience for their subscribers.

https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/how-netflix-works-with-isps-around-the-globe-to-deliver-a-great-viewing-experience

>>61389864
IIRC, Netflix actually offered to pay for it themselves anyways (even though the ISP's literally do it for free already for everyone else anyways) and they were turned down.

>>61389906
>oh vey please host our stuff for free!

>>61389894

I thought it was common practice to cache some content locally to reduce the congestion on the link to the upstream provider. Doesn't Netflix provide ISPs with appliances to do this?

>>61389889
Users have a 50L/s connection from the water company's pipes to their homes. It's not the water companies fault that Netflix only paid for a pipe half as big as they need from their water tank to the water company's pipe.

>>61389918

No one is complaining about Google or Amazon doing the exact same thing.

>>61389949
Google and Amazon are paying for local hosting.

>>61389902
That this is what happened with the ISP's and the issues have nothing to do with Netflix.

The ISP's can always increase their data rates at any time. Net Neutrality doesn't prevent them from doing it.

It just prevents them from fucking with the connections and picking and choosing who gets what they paid for. If you pay for 50mbps download, and you connect to Youtube - you expect 50mbps speeds.

But the ISP's want to do away with Net Neutrality (and again, this already happens in South Korea), and they want to throttle youtube so you get it at 50kbps, while the ISP offers to sell you their ComcastTube alternative that will work at the full 50mbps.

This kind of thing is what Net Neutrality prevents the ISP's from doing.

>>61389837
kek

>>61389953

No they give caching appliances to ISPs just like Netflix does.

>>61389955
That's not how the internet fucking works you idiot. If Youtube only paid for a 50kbps connection to the ISP then that's how fast your connection is going to be to Youtube no matter how much you fucking paid for your gigabit internet.

>>61389937
Netflix paid for a pipe big enough though. The issue lies entirely with the ISP's refusing to upgrade their infrastructure while overselling what they've said they have.

If Netflix is paying for a 5000L pipe, and the ISP can't actually deliver 5000L throughput, that's not Netflix's fault.

See section 223 of title 2, faggot!
https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

>>61389969
No you idiot.
http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/05/chart-shows-which-content-owners-have-direct-interconnect-deals-with-isps.html

>>61389969
AKA, paying for local hosting

>>61389984
No they didn't.

>>61389894

>get free caching appliance from Netflix
>bolt it in your rack and plug it in

whew that was hard

>>61389670
/u/sarah

>>61390003
Now every other company wants to get the same deal.

>>61389992
>>61389969

what these links are, are simply peering connections to bypass the core ring(s) of an ISP. it's mostly due to the sheer amount of traffic that gets used. ISPs don't want that on their main ring so they go another route. there's nothing nefarious about this.

>>61389904
A lot of people forget this, big telecomm it's ridiculously subsidized by the government and then they get monopolies enforced by the government
NN laws would be harmful in a free market, but in the corrupt planned economy that disguises itself as lobbyism this is the best that can be done
>>61389953
The ISP are literally getting caching servers for free
>>61389974
Under NN it does, without it Youtube pays for 50 MBPS and gets 50 KBPS
>>61390002
They did, if they didn't prove me wrong

>>61389974
That's exactly how the internet works.

You just refuse to believe that the websites have actually paid for the bandwidth they use.

They absolutely have. But the ISP hasn't upgraded their infrastructure enough to actually provide it.

It's like an ISP selling you a cable internet package, and then they deliver you a dialup modem. When you max out your dialup modem's connection they complain that you're using too much of the internet. Well, sorry honey bun, but they actually paid for more than they're even getting. Maybe upgrade your infrastructure to actually supply what you've sold to people?

Really, the takeaway here is that we need to break apart the service provider monopolies

>>61390002
Yes they did

>>61390018
Then fight to get the ISP's broken up so we can have some actual market competition and NN isn't necessary anymore.

Until then, it's the only protection we have against blatant jewry.

Holy hell the anti-NN shills got completely BTFO in this thread

Maybe you guys should stick to shilling on the other boards where everyone's not as tech savvy and are easier to manipulate and lie to?

>>61390044
So how is Net Neutrality going to solve that? Now everyone gets 50kbps per second connections. But everything is being treated equally! All good right?

>>61389344
If you mean free market capitalism then you are 100% right. In the end it will benefit the consumer, as companies are allowed to compete without adhering to market limiting standards.

I am VERY surprised that after all this government funded spying /g/ is fine with giving even more control of the internet to the government.

>>61390041
THE ISPS DON'T GIVE A SINGLE SHIT ABOUT CACHING SERVERS!
They don't get any benefit at all from having caching servers on their network. The only winner is Netflix. Why should the ISPs do it for free?

File: Hear_serious_internets.jpg (66KB, 375x275px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 375x275px

>>61389344
This is actually for once very Srs Business. We really don't need people fucking around with this
https://youtu.be/kD7LEoMvp4A

>>61389626
This. They both want it anyway, OP wouldn't understand because he gets his political views from the other kids at the lunch table.

>>61389344
there is no visible problem with this
stay off the internet if you're poor or switch company if you have a problem with them
>B-B-BUT MUH MONOPOLY
Either stop using the internet entirely or move if means that much to you.

>>61390087

the only people for NN are redditors

/g/ can see right through the liberal fud

Question
As someone not living in the US, how will this effect me?

>>61390083
Net Neutrality means, if you pay for 50mbps, you get 50mbps.

Money offered for services provided.

If the ISP can only provide 25kbps, they are still free to try and sell that as a 50mbps connection, but they will have to suffer the consequences for lying to their customers and providing less than what was paid for. Rather than getting legal protections that let them screw people over.

>>61390131
>the only people for NN are redditors
>/g/ can see right through the liberal fud
/g/ has literally always supported NN until /r/thedonald invaded. We practically STARTED the NN support online back in the day. gb2 reddit.

>>61390157
That's not what net neutrality means idiot.

>>61390157
it is always "up to" 50mbps, never have I seen a connection advertised as "guaranteed 50mbps" without any fine print indicating that it is subject to your distance from the exchange or whatever, so there is nothing legally wrong or deceptive about this.

>>61390141
As our ISPs grow bolder and greedier, your ISPs will follow.

After all, why should you upgrade your network and provide superior service when you can just throw a datacap on customers plans, drop speed by 30%, and triple the monthly bill!

Also expect the internet to get slower, a lot of traffic goes through the US.

File: 1499932930676.png (390KB, 800x560px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 800x560px

>>61389344
Just buy business class, John Oliver.

Perhaps if you ask George Soros to make duplicitous infographs full of lies and spread on reddit..?


This shit was only started because Netflix didn't want to pay Comcast for the several hundred Yotabytes of bandwidth that they consume. Kill Net Neutrality and implement Last-Mile laws so that there is actual competition like in GSM.

>>61390087
> People in the USA actually believe this

>>61390189
>After all, why should you upgrade your network and provide superior service when you can just throw a datacap on customers plans, drop speed by 30%, and triple the monthly bill!

If that were the case, we would all still be using dial-up.

Now go back to Red_dit.

>>61390196
I am not in the US, but live in a country where the Internet is actually controlled by the (multinational-)government...

>>61390087
The US Government is beholden to the US Constitution in which the very first amendment is the right of free speech, which the US Government cannot infringe upon.

However, corporations CAN.

So you have legal recourse if the FCC begins to censor people, but you have no recourse if the Corporations do it.

Furthermore, this isn't a free market. The Internet Service Providers have actually bought market monopoly positions. People don't have any market choices. So once the 2-3 ISP's in an area collude together to lock out particular websites, services, etc. the customers are absolutely fucked.

It's even worse when you take into consideration how many people need the internet to find work, submit resumes, talk to family, pay bills, etc. etc.

>>61390044
>>61389955
>>61389889
>>61389756

This guy is arguing that every customer of an ISP should be able to connect to a single server all at once at the advertised speeds. Otherwise, he considers that to be "overselling their lines".

Listen here faggot, there in order to do that they'll have to upgrade their infrastructure from that exact server to every customer. That will cost billions just for a single Netflix data center.
What happens when someone else creates another bandwidth intensive video streaming app? Another billion on infrastructure because the ISP can't know if every user suddenly wanted to use Netflix one hour and google play movies another.

Net neutrality allows the ISP to tell those bandwidth hungry socialists to get the fuck off their network or pay to help them upgrade it. No ISP would be stupid enough to charge the customer for this, since that would just create demand for other ISPs. If there isn't one already, that demand will make one if it's profitable.

>>61390208
All legal under net neutrality. :^)

>>61390191
You as the consumer pay for the bandwidth!
That's how it works, you pay for, say, 50mbps, that means you can access the internet at 50mbps, and Netflix is part of the internet!

Netflix is also paying for their server bandwidth on their end.

>>61390215
*no net neutrality

>>61390099
The ISP's benefit from caching serves by being able to serve content to their customers at a higher speed, lower latency, without needing peering agreements, and they get it all on Google/Netflix's dime, not theirs.

They're a greedy bunch, these ISP's. Never want to pay their fair share on anything.

>>61390087
>In the end it will benefit the consumer
neolibs on the same level of retardation as commies

>>61390099
They literally do, see >>61390035
Netflix gets much less benefit, since they now have extra costs for the caching servers and they still have to pay for the bandwidth they use
>>61390060
You don't even need to break up big telecomm, just kill the monopoly laws and lobbyism
>>61390083
Are you literally promoting that ISPs should be able to not deliver what they're selling?
>>61390087
There's no free market on ISPs, they literally have exclusive territories and non competition agreements
>>61390141
If it can be pulled off in one of the populaces most heavily armed it can be pulled off almost anywhere
>>61390164
Newfags don't remember the announcements moot occasionally had since 2011
>>61390191
Good luck getting the kike to accept competition, NN is a shitty band aid but there's literally nothing else stopping the ISPs from going even more Jewish, specially with Pajeet at the helm of the FCC
>>61390208
The US is on dial up compared to other developed countries, hell, even Mexico has almost as fast land lines nowadays and faster LTE

>>61390044

you are misinformed. i actually do work for an ISP (one of the top 10, above cs level) and do this shit for a living.

speeds are always advertised -up to- a maximum. we can't deliver full speeds all the time. it's simply not possible. this can be due to a number of factors: outages, an amp somewhere fucking up, poor modem signal levels, a bad splitter... a squirrel/rodent chewing on the lines. a bad splice somewhere that is making the line take errors due to low light. it's an unlimited number of things.

ISPs also do maintenances every night to prevent and correct such things. generally past 1AM.

some companies (like Netflix and Google) go over dedicated peering links simply because of the demand that customers put on it. if we dumped all that traffic onto our core rings we'd fuck everyone else who isn't watching Netflix/YouTube. yes, these links have a huge amount of bandwidth, but it is not throttled in any way and are simply there to try and keep the speeds up for the end-user (you). i've seen Netflix hit 60Gbps easy, and that's only on one link to certain market.

>>61389984

this is hogwash. you don't understand how the internet works. if netflix pays for a "bigger pipe", this has no direct impact on the speeds you will see on your end, as your service will only be provisioned for x amount of speed. again, the ONLY reason they have these peering links is due to demand customers put on the lines from Netflix. these links serve different markets to keep it OFF the main rings.

i'm sorry if you guys think we can just upgrade infrastructure and it'll fix it - but it's not cheap, or easy, to do so. if you have a docsis 3.0 modem or below then speeds won't matter anyhow since it can't do gig service by hardware design.

and if you really want details, most of the time Netflix will have a large "pipe" that works just fine and rarely goes over what they are sending.

Reminder that government granted these monopolies.

Thats why you have such shit Internet in general America, adsl, data caps and now this. Meanwhile we have cheap fiber with lots of competition.

>>61390213
>The US Government is beholden to the US Constitution in which the very first amendment is the right of free speech, which the US Government cannot infringe upon.
Free speech should not be your only concern here privacy is also very important...

>However, corporations CAN.
But they will not. A corporation cares about profit, nothing else.

>Furthermore, this isn't a free market. The Internet Service Providers have actually bought market monopoly positions. People don't have any market choices. So once the 2-3 ISP's in an area collude together to lock out particular websites, services, etc. the customers are absolutely fucked.
It does not seem like you understand the basics of the free market.
People will get what they want.

"muh free market" will end humanity

>>61390237
But netflix isn't paying every tier 1 ISP for their bandwidth, they're just paying one that does connect to the larger internet. The other ones still have to deal with the heavy burden of bandwidth and net neutrality prevents those ISPs from complaining.

File: world.png (63KB, 652x560px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 652x560px

>>61390263

US has 10th fastest internet in the world.

Half of all LTE internet connections in the world.

Facts.

>>61390244
The ISPs literally do not give a fuck whether a packet of data comes from a Netflix server inside their datacenters or through a Netflix server across the country connected to them to through Congent. It's NOT their job to get Netflix data to their network. Once it's in their network they treat it equally just as with everything else. How hard is this for you to understand?

>>61390244

ISPs do have caching servers. these generally store the most commonly downloaded content. that's all. it keeps the traffic down and makes it faster for customers.

these are different than peering agreements - but it doesn't mean that Netflix shows won't be stored on the servers. anything can be, from common PSN downloads to youtube videos.

>>61390171
That is exactly what Net Neutrality results in.

>>61390178
ISP's used to have more certain guarantees and unlimited bandwidth, but they walked back from that because Netflix, youtube, etc. showed that they were over-provisioning their networks. That's why you could get Comcast, etc. to "buy you out" of your contract with them. They couldn't hold up their end of the deal anymore and needed to change.

But now instead of changing how they sell bandwidth and their infrastructure, they are trying to get rent-seeking laws placed, and protections against this kind of behaviour repealed. That's really what the Net Neutrality argument is about: Market Monopolies not happy with the amount of money they're already making, trying to fuck all their customers over via the law without actually introducing any market competition.

And they bought and paid for a shill to be placed as head of the FCC to do it for them.

>>61390285
>b-but I can get a gigabit connection in Romania for 2 cents a month!

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

88KB, 493x947px

>>61390285

And here is the Eu with their shitty internet.

File: 1481503450284.jpg (107KB, 1000x1783px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1000x1783px

topkek

>American Internet

>>61390306
No it doesn't. Net neutrality means you pay for 50mbps, but you only get 25kbps, but since it's 25kbps to every service, everything is being treated equally and it's all good.

File: us.png (58KB, 649x510px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 649x510px

>>61390311

Then here;s doing a fair comparison of similar poplation/size states.

US is the fastest in the world.

>>61389853
obamacare is not healthcare. it's niggercare and more gibs for worthless trash.

File: zizek.jpg (168KB, 440x440px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 440x440px

>>61390264
Ideology; the post

ITT: unironic trumplings and ancaps try to justify removing the one thing that will keep ISPs from literally fucking every consumer in the ass on the basis of "muh free market."

>>61390346
/thread

Typical /pol/-tier post

>>61390330
>>>/pol/

>>61390285
It's also the first or second richest country in the world GDP wise , and even fucking Romania has equally fast internet
>>61390322
Repeating yourself won't make you right
>>61390346
This is not a free market, it's a state monopoly disguised under two or three brands

>>61390346
>>61390353
Verizon decides to quadruple the cost of internet service for all its customers starting tomorrow. Where's your net neutrality to save you now?

I'm actually against net neutrality because having it dissolved will help wake people up against the evils of unrestrained capitalism. Hopefully resulting in the deaths of all the super-rich and the fragmentation of their giant corporate empires.

>>61390215
>Listen here faggot, there in order to do that they'll have to upgrade their infrastructure from that exact server to every customer. That will cost billions just for a single Netflix data center.

It's what their customers paid for.

If the ISP can't actually deliver what they're selling, they shouldn't be buying rent-seeking laws to allow them to continue tricking their customers, they absolutely should be improving their infrastructure to keep up with the demands of their customers.

We don't need to repeal net neutrality. We need to make it illegal for local/state/etc. governments to sign vendor lock in contracts that only allow 1-3 companies to even compete.

Because companies like Google are more than willing to build out the infrastructure that the rent-seeking ISP's refuse to, but those rent-seeking ISP's have bought market monopolies and market regulations that prevent fair competition and a free market.

>>61390367
How is that an argument against NN? It has literally no bearing on the argument. Good red herring though

>>61390364
>it's a state monopoly disguised under two or three brands
Probably this because corporations literally run the US.

>>61390237
Every site owner pays for their end of the connection. Netflix is lobbying for NN because they don't want to pay to deliver their Jewish pro-gay anti-white movies.

>>61390367
>Switch ISPs
>Receive same access to the internet for cheaper at the expense of being a little slower

Thanks net neutrality

>>61390379
The customers paid for a connection to the ISPs network, not to every single server in the world. The ISP is responsible for delivering packets on their network, what goes on outside their network is not their problem.

>>61390410
Your only other option is Comcast, which coincidentally also tripled their prices last month.

>>61390394
>removing the one thing that will keep ISPs from literally fucking every consumer in the ass
How is net neutrality going to prevent ISPs from raising prices and lowering speeds for everyone?

>>61390279
And what, you think those other ISP's just have to accept the data throughput?

Net Neutrality doesn't prevent them from saying "No". They can make any agreements with any other ISP's that they want. The problem is that they're in a peering agreement with another ISP, and that ISP is now following through on that agreement and pulling a lot of data that the other ISP cannot actually handle, because they never upgraded their infrastructure to meet the demands of their customers and peers.

This is a problem that the ISP's need to sort out between each other, not go seeking to repeal and replace laws because they don't like the contracts they signed with each other.

File: GEMA.jpg (30KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x275px

>>61390311
>And here is the Eu with their shitty internet.

>>61390437
That's not the point of NN, you retard.

>>61390394

I don't want to be told what sites I can visit.

>>61390455
>removing the one thing that will keep ISPs from literally fucking every consumer in the ass
I thought the point of NN was to keep ISPs from literally fucking every consumer in the ass?

>>61390322
But that's wrong. Net Neutrality means if you pay for 50mbps, you get 50mbps. If you pay for "up to" you get "up to".

Net Neutrality is not "Communism for data".
It's actually kind of amusing the weird analogies you shills try to come up with to get laymen who don't understand this to automatically hate it in a knee jerk fashion.

No end to the kind of manipulative tactics and lies.

>>61390437
That comment wasn't mine and I guess wasn't worded the best. NN won't fix everything, but it's a good thing. Your argument makes no sense though, Verizon could start killing puppies every day, and since NN doesn't prevent that I guess that means NN is worthless by your logic

>>61390326
Based. I live in NYC and I get gigabit internet for $70 a month.


>>61390379
See:
>>61390256
>>61390279

It's fucking impossible, with millions of servers you can't possibly have enough bandwidth for everyone to connect to each one at max speeds all at once. Hell, even Netflix can't handle that kind of outgoing bandwidth if everyone in the US wanted to watch an HD movie all at once.

>>61390445
Net neutrality prevents the ISP from telling netflix to fuck off its network. If they installed the lines, they should be able to control all aspects of them. Try refuting that alone without citing karl marx.

>>61390471
Ok then. The ISPs decide to cancel their 50mbps plan and move everyone to their 25kbps plan at the same price. We're still neutral right?

>>61390346
>ITT: John Oliver and ISP shills try to justify removing the one thing that will keep ISPs from literally fucking every non-governmentally approved website in the ass on the basis of "muh Youtube infographic"
You saw some betamale talk real simple-like over some fancy animations so it must be true!

>>61390346
Sup I voted for Trump and I'm 100% in favor of Net Neutrality.

And if you visit /pol/ you get a large outpouring of support for Net Neutrality there, too.

Once people are actually informed about Net Neutrality, they're all for it. Shills, you can only lie and obfuscate for so long.

>>61390495
>implying ISPs want Net Neutrality
you people are brain damaged

>>61389770
There is throttling on mobile carriers. There are also ones that offer data limit exemptions for certain sites and services.

>>61390491
Yeah, that isn't happening though. And if they are in collusion with each other, that's illegal.

>>61390517
It sure can.

>>61390285
Where exactly did I say all of the eu?

>>61390486
>Try refuting that alone without citing karl marx.


It's always something along the lines of the internet being a life necessity even though you don't need much more than 3g/dial-up to fill out online forums/apply for a job.

>>61390426
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with how much market competition there is.

There is no market competition here because the ISP's bought themselves monopolist positions in the market.

Basically, they bought market regulation, and are now trying to claim that protections against their entirely unfree-market, are the real market-regulation.

You can keep lying about it, but it's clear what actually needs to be done: We need to get rid of the monopolies and introduce actual market competition. Something that requires dealing with all the deals and bribing the ISP's have been doing with state/local legislature.

Net Neutrality doesn't even come into the picture here.

>>61390515

Which Obama/Wheeler were in favor of and ALLOWED.

Also something that consumers want.

>>61390461
Sounds like you're in favor of net neutrality then. Glad we're on the same page

>>61390451
Do you somehow believe that if the Corporations could ALSO censor the internet, that it would somehow mean the Government can't?

Getting rid of Net Neutrality would just mean that in addition to the government being able to censor the internet (Which they can unilaterally do regardless of laws), but also the ISP's can censor the internet however they like, too.

Getting rid of Net Neutrality only increases the number of agents who could censor the internet.

>>61390466
Net Neutrality means the ISP's have to provide their data without censorship, preferential treatment, etc.

The ISP's can still fuck customers in the ass despite the NN laws existing.

>>61390526
A random meteorite can kill you on the street any moment. What's your point? They offer 50mbps connections, not 25kbps ones, and non-neutral internet doesn't seem to drop the price/raise speeds either, quite the opposite actually

>>61390560
Where did I say anything about Obama? And fuck what the average retard wants, we're discussing what should happen.

>>61390545
>There is no market competition here because the ISP's bought themselves monopolist positions in the market.

There are no monopolies on the internet. You have a ton of landline/satellite/wireless ISP's.

Also ISP's making deals with CITY municipalities are something even libertarians are in favor of. City governments, not state or federal.

>>61390501
Argumentum ad populum

>>61390543
Yeah, they're always gonna use Marxist ideas. "From each server according to its ability, to each user according to his needs" Is literally what they're trying to implement use on the internet.

>>61390574
I don't think either should.

>>61390601
>And fuck what the average retard wants, we're discussing what should happen.

>fuck that the consumer, free-market wants, we libtards know better

Yeah, reddit is definitely here.

People constantly talk about their amazing internet at low prices in the US on here, but I have never seen anything like that in real life. I live in a tech giant city, literally a couple blocks from one of Google's largest offices. Gigabit internet costs $300/month here.

>>61390594
>Because of the passage of the new net neutrality laws, we are forced to buy new meters to place in our data centers to ensure that we are keeping in compliance with the new regulations. Unfortunately, these meters are quite expensive, and so we will have to double the prices on all our subscribers to make up for it.

>>61390572

It appears so.

>the pro net neutrality site literally shows john oliver, chocolate rain meme man and bernie sanders as the top supporters of the cause
Ummm, no thanks.

>>61390623
>muh free market
Feel free to live in a pseudo anarchist African country

>>61390285
there's gotta be some way to normalize the data by taking rural populations/landmass into consideration.

the fact that our average is so high despite having vast swathes of bumfuck cornfields is astounding

>>61390486
>Net neutrality prevents the ISP from telling netflix to fuck off its network.
No, it does not.

Net Neutrality prevents the ISP from censoring content and giving themselves preferential treatment. It doesn't prevent the ISP from refusing to deal with particular entities.

If the ISP doesn't want to deal with netflix, they can choose not to sell Netflix any bandwidth. They aren't forced by anyone to sell to Netflix. They entered voluntary contracts with netflix to sell a certain amount of bandwidth to them.

Honestly, at this point I'm not sure if you are manipulative shills, or so genuinely stupid that you can't understand what you're even talking about.

>>61390631
That doesn't magically turn your 50mbps connection to 25 kbps one. And I didn't say anything about the specifi regulation, it might be un-enforceable as well. Because net neutrality is a matter of consensus, not regulation. There was no strict net neutrality before, 100% neutral internet simply cannot function due to congestions (google 1986 congestion collapse). But today everything is polarized to the extreme, and the consensus is simply broken.

>>61390646
The point of anarchism is less violence. African war zones are places where warlords compet(with violence) to be the government.

If someone is threatening you with violence or imprisonment, it's not anarchism.

>>61390706
And the consensus right now is that ISPs treat data equally within their own network. Why do we need a bunch of vague regulations to enforce that?

>>61390622
Neither do I, but Net Neutrality doesn't allow the government to censor the internet. The government is the government - they can unilaterally decide to censor whether the laws exist or not.

That's what happens when you're the big kid on the block with all the guns. You make all the rules.

It just so happens that the general populace generally keeps the government in check.

Furthermore, in the US in particular, the government can't censor without befouling the US constitution. So there's extensive legal recourse for citizens to sue the government for such action, and a lot of legal precedent for it, too.

And again, if you look at cable TV - the government's enacted censorship through the back door there, because it's wholly corporate owned. That's really how it's done these days - collusion in the backrooms of corporate offices between government agents and corporations. The corporation, not the government, does the spying/censoring/etc. and the government gets off scott free.

Check into Project Mockingbird.

>>61390646
Ironically getting rid of net neutrality doesn't help engender a free market at all.

The market is a virtual monopoly in large areas of the US, and it's because these ISP's have purchased lock-in contracts with the governments of those areas, shutting out any actual "free market" compeition.

It is incredibly telling that the shills attack net neutrality because "muh free market" yet never say a PEEP about the actual market collusion and monopolistic practices ongoing right now.

>>61390623
I'm anything but a liberal, dumbass. What I'm saying is that the average consumer isn't educated enough to know what they're talking about. We know net neutrality is good, they don't. So fuck what they think.

>>61390679
They are forced to accept any connection the user requests without preferential treatment. If they refuse connections to certain legal services, they are breaking the law. How about you stop lying about what actually happens?

There's only one ISP that sells bandwidth to netflix under a contract, the other connecting networks don't get shit but still have to deal with the heavy burden of delivering the content.

>>61389918
>Oh vey
nice try, shylock.

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

6KB, 683x91px

>>61390717
Because, as we discovered around 2010 - 2015, the ISP's weren't happy with this state of affairs and began to fuck with people's internet connections, and even started censoring websites (see image)

And so we lobbied in 2015 to get them labeled common carriers. (e.g. Net Neutrality)

And now if you look at places in the world without net neutrality, you see EXACTLY the behaviour we were worried about: Preferential treatment given to an ISP's own services, to out-compete google/netflix/etc, intentional throttling of data for users trying to access those services competing with the ISP, active censorship of online content the ISP doesn't like, and even injecting content, like ads, into your data requests without even asking you about it.

that post formatting gives me

a headache

desu

>>61390780
>There's only one ISP that sells bandwidth to netflix under a contract, the other connecting networks don't get shit but still have to deal with the heavy burden of delivering the content.

The other ISP's have made peering agreements with the ISP providing Netflix access. If they don't like how those peering agreements work out, then they need to redo those contracts - not lobby congress to remove net neutrality so they can start fucking with everyone's internet connections regardless of what their contracts state.

File: SUBZERO FLUTTERING.png (26KB, 619x518px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 619x518px

>>61389846
>Time warner (CNN) or Comcast (MSNBC) doesn't have any interest in controlling what people see
Remember that time when CNN said that normal people shouldn't read wikileaks and trust them to describe what they were leaking?
Good times.

File: ?????.png (8KB, 277x271px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 277x271px

>this entire thread

File: estelle.png (365KB, 819x262px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 819x262px

>>61390131
Back to /r/thedonald you go, faggot

>>61390856
>that filename

Kill me

Now

>>61390820
>gizmodo

>>61390941
Their source is Moot himself.

>>61389730
Except that one time, when timewarmer got sued and lost for doing just that.

>>61390966
> "Our network security system found traffic from some 4Chan Web sites that had strong potential to disrupt the Verizon Wireless network, affecting our customers' use of their services," Verizon spokesman Jeffrey Nelson wrote in an e-mail to CNET. "With continuing investigation, and ensuring no current risk of harm, we are giving the green-light to all 4Chan traffic. We will continue to monitor for any possibility of network harm."
Wow, so they were preventing a DDOS attack. Literally hitler.

>>61390976
So when are you going to start arguing for breaking up the monopolies and ripping apart the contracts enforcing the monopolies?

These two things need to be done before we even think of doing anything to net neutrality

File: 1499862285967.png (378KB, 558x530px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 558x530px

>>61390361
>muh pol bogeyman
Gb2plebbit

>>61391046
>>>/pol/

>>61390844
If they wanted to make better agreements, they would be doing just that instead of going against net neutrality. There is no good or legal way for ISPs to say "we're not dealing with you if you have a contract with netflix". If you wanted true freedom in such contracts, you'd be against net neutrality.

You still didn't refute the fact that they own the network and should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with it. I'm waiting for someone to tell me why an owner doesn't have complete control of his property to make whatever agreements he wants with it...

>>61391096
>>>/r/polygamy

File: 1488278376685.jpg (60KB, 385x370px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 385x370px

>>61389626
>Republicans all vote to repeal NN laws
>Democrats all vote to retain NN laws
>Not a republican/Democrat issue

mfw

>>61391139
>>>/pol/

>>61391208
>>>/r/eddit

File: 70e.jpg (34KB, 567x565px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 567x565px

>>61391208
GET OFF MY BOARD FILTHY KEK REDDITOR RRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>61389344
Being an R myself, I tried to dissuade others from this faggotry but nobody would listen. Now that NN is gone, it's going to be conservative sites that get blocked for triggering normies or capped at 900 baud.

Fucking idiots.

>>61391304
Net Neutrality isn't gone yet.

And Google, etc are setting up for a gigantic lawsuit if the poojeet tries to change the law.

There's already enormous evidence showing that the vast majority of the population is against repealing it, they've got 2+ million letters sent to congress already, over 150k people phoned in. The shilling and lying in online communities hasn't worked.

There's basically a bunch of ancap retards and the corporations throwing bitchfits that their corporations aren't getting preferential treatment to fuck everyone in the ass, and then there's everyone else.

>>61389344
>>/pol/

>>61389344
Awful, and true, but unfortunately the alternative in our 2 party system wants internet plans to be hubs, except that saying nigger on the internet would be a free trip to the reeducation camp.

>>61391390
Just a bogeyman for shills to use

/pol/ is strongly in favor of net neutrality and always has been.

>>61391406
> plans to be gibs

Fucking phone not having proper shot posting words in dictionary

>>61390141
it won't. just like it won't effect most US resident either

>>61391246
>>61391223
>>>/pol/

File: Inspector_Pepe.jpg (124KB, 882x731px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 882x731px

>>61389344
>Fearmongering images from when Napster was relevant are being regurgitated today
>Despite the regulation not being in place none of this has happened

>>61391425
/pol/ is predominantly but not quite universally in favor of NN.
Like everyone else, they hate 1st and 3rd party zero-rating with a passion, but they also don't trust the Feds to not overreach everywhere they can on regulating people and companies.

>>61391603
It's beginning to happen to mobile internet (in my country at least, not sure about US data plans). There are specific prepaid data plans that would only give you access to certain specific sites (free Facebook, free Youtube, etc.)

>>61391603
Except that the ISPs have tried multiple times and were struck down by the NN law that the US already had.

>>61391157
Educated republicans want to keep net neutrality.

I mean unless you want to start seeing ISP's kill TOrrenting again and start restricting what sites you can visit online. Go nuts.

>>61391638
so don't buy those plans

File: 1493444700327.png (89KB, 363x475px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 363x475px

>>61391603
Captcha: Ends Show

>>61391643
wasn't set to be officially implemented until winter 2017. try again

>>61391651
The issue it's dumb republicans then...

>>61391743
ancaps are the ones dead set against net neutrality

They seem to believe that it's perfectly 100% okay for a corporation to purchase market regulations and completely undermine/destroy the concept of a free market, but 100% wrong for a government to enact any kind of laws to prevent them from doing that, or to at least make the market bearable for the customers while they're doing it.

Honestly, what I've come to realize is that ancaps don't give a flying fuck about the free market, they just want corporations to be legally able to fuck everyone in the ass.

>>61391846
just do it the right way and go through congress. FCC and Title II is already BTFO and a proper congressional law would be more enduring in the long term anyway

File: 1451800752245.png (30KB, 285x285px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 285x285px

>>61389344
>mfw all of 4chan is full of libtards pushing their propaganda since they get BTW on the /pol/ board.

>>61389681
>The corporations want to control what we can see/hear/say/think online
You forgot your WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!!!11!!

>>61391603
>Redditfrong poster outs himself as an uninformed retard
I'm SHOCKED

File: 1487409420375-1.jpg (370KB, 565x860px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 565x860px

Anti Net neutrality arguments:
>The Jews want it
>/pol/ is for it
>Regulation is bad
>Free market
All these sound like diversion tactics

The modern media wants a monopoly on information, like what we saw after the 2016 election.
De-funding YouTube channels, and blocking news articles that didn't go along with their world view.
If you think isps won't block information, you are mistakenly ignorant.

>>61391930
If you mean BTFO, I'd hardly call all caps sperging btfoing anybody.

http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/133681501
^/pol/ tries to prove that jews are behind net neutrality or something asinine.

File: 1499612998120.gif (826KB, 328x366px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 328x366px

>>61392000
already regulated by the FTC

>>61392000
>All these sound like diversion tactics
So does every single 2002-era THEY'RE GUNNA MAKE IT A PAID GARDEN! argument.

>If you think isps won't block information, you are mistakenly ignorant.
They won't if they're not forced to, which is what (((Net Neutrality))) will allow the government to enforce.
You give them an inch they'll take the whole fucking highway. They did it with radio, newspapers, magazines, even paid-access cable TV is under the strict thumb of government regulation and censorship. The only uncensored media is shit like HBO that you have to go out of your way to pay for.

>>61390411
>The customers paid for a connection to the ISPs network, not to every single server in the world.


Wat

>>61389629
but thats not even hayley williams

>>61390466

NN stops ISPs from fucking their customers in the ass. But, ISPs can fuck customers in the ass by giving poor customer service, poor bandwidth, or frequent outages. To say that because ISPs can still fuck a customer in the ass doesn't abrogate the merits of NN.

>>61391651
It's a 2-sided gang bang.
Republicans are in the pockets of most telecoms (and least more so than the left), but the Dems are completely in the pocket of (((Hollywood))) and have been the driving force behind every retroactive term copyright extension in the last century.

If copyright was only 15/30 years and just a civil and not criminal penalty to violate still, a lot of the ISP crap would be less onerous.

>>61389411
>Who We Are
>Greenpeace on top row
It's like they don't want me to support net neutrality.

>>61392086
because intentional malice is common and encouraged for publicly traded companies

>>61391846
Nice strawman faggot

Nice job ignoring all the arguments before you too.

/pol/tards take your political left right autism bs back to your shit board

>>61392033
I have yet to see any facts proving NN will ensure government regulation on information

>rich people get better service

I see no problem with this. I can segregate myself away from plebs this way.

>>61390311
This is weird. Where i live you can't even get internet slower than 10Mbps so the average being slightly over 10 doesn't make much sense.
How do they get their data?

>>61390711
You think people won't try to be the government in anarchy? You really are divorced from reality.

>>61392101

>Ugh I can't agree with something if someone else agrees with it too

I've got some bad news for what awaits you when you become an adult

>>61392033
>So does every single 2002-era THEY'RE GUNNA MAKE IT A PAID GARDEN! argument.

Except that's exactly what they did to cable TV, what they are presently doing to mobile, and what they've been doing for the past couple years in countries without net neutrality laws

Have you even been paying attention, or do you just slurp up whatever Comcast and AT&T tell you?

>>61392150
*shills

>>61392451
Rich people get the same service they get now, but at a higher price

Poor people get worse service

Everyone gets worse service because 99% the websites on the internet are now gone and there's nothing worth connecting to anymore; just like cable TV

>>61392530
Never said that bucko. I still want common carier legislation. All my post stated was that it doesn't help their cause by advertising those retards as being part of the team. I would have a funny retort about you learning to read by the time you become an adult but that probably isn't in the cards for mental manlets such as yourself.

>>61389902
>these other guys make the same mistake
>therefore it isn't a mistake!
fucking senile old farts like you will be the death of everything good

>>61389605
They switched around the 60s-70s. You're about 50 years late to the news.

>>61389556
>I want republicans and ...
Fixed. This is a pure partisan divide. 100% of republicans voting against net neutrality. 100% of democrats voting for net neutrality.

It's case by case.
The US probable needed net neutrality as a temporary aid until someone finds a way to decentraalize the oligopoly of isp' s.

The counterargument to this, however is that corporations from that oligopoly whom have control over the government though lobbying would be able to take control of that power given to the government for their own profits (cornering the market).

However establishing net neutrality in a country that already has a decentralized internet service would seem like a government power grab.

File: IMG_20170614_141728.jpg (356KB, 720x1148px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 720x1148px

>>61389605
How could they switch sides when they're basically the same party?

>>61389344
We had Internet without Net Neutrality for most of our lives. It wasn't like that and it also worked perfectly well, so fuck off.

>>61389381
Its really funny, Monopoly ISP's and content throttling and extortion is only an american thing

>>61393067
We had de-facto NN, so yes we did.

>>61393091
>de-facto
Then why add regulations if the problem doesn't exist?

>>61393137
Since it wasn't law then, telecoms started getting ideas, lobbying people, the usual. We had our last NN debate during Obummer's time, which resulted in Title II. Now with Ajit Pai (former Verizon lawyer) heading the FCC, he wants to gut Title II. Therefore, this time it's not about adding regulations, but keeping them in place.
We really should be getting rid of regional monopolies right now but nobody wants to talk about it.

How many jobs do you think will be lost,
millions?

>>61389344
Go back to >>>/pol/ faggot

>>61393239
Nigga wut

File: Image2.jpg (128KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1280x720px

>people who hate trump's government want it to be in control of the internet

I'd vote for this if it means that we have less teenagers and kids browsing.

>>61393220
All unnecessary regulations should be repealed, the more, the better. And that includes one that was added 2 years ago for a problem that didn't exist. Do you really think ISP never had those ideas before the regulation? Do you think they wouldn't have put them in practice if they earned much more dollars with them?
Saying that is what's going to happen is pure speculation with no basis on reality because never before had happened and NN could be the tip of the Iceberg and the cure end up being worse than a disease which doesn't exist and there's no evidence it will exist.

>>61393417
How would NN help that, at all?

>>61393239
None

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with market competition.

If you want more jobs, you should be bitching about the monopolists buying lock-in contracts with local governments.

That's the real cause of problems

>>61393445
>Do you really think ISP never had those ideas before the regulation? Do you think they wouldn't have put them in practice if they earned much more dollars with them?
Except that's exactly what they did to cable TV, what they are presently doing to mobile, and what they've been doing for the past couple years in countries without net neutrality laws

Have you even been paying attention, or do you just slurp up whatever Comcast and AT&T tell you?

>>61389344
DRUMPF AMIRITE

>>61389344
democrats wanted third world niggers to invade the USA

>>61393501
Nigga wut
Without Net Neutrality, there would be a much smaller demographic for websites, causing the lost of jobs.

>>61393999
Net Neutrality doesn't reduce the demographic for websites, although repealing it would.

File: 1436139944861.jpg (225KB, 682x600px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 682x600px

*laughs in European*

>>61393520
Utter bullshit.

>>61394017
That was my point anon

>>61389723

Factually wrong.
Title II was adopted in 2015.
https://www.fcc.gov/document/internet-regulations-myths-vs-facts

>2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls/

>2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

>2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/

>2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. https://www.wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/

>2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-blocking-google-wallet-2011-12

>2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html

>2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money. https://www.freepress.net/press-release/99480/att-blocking-iphones-facetime-app-would-harm-consumers-and-break-net-neutrality

>2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place. https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/09/18/verizons-plan-break-internet

And of course, my personal favorite

>http://www.pcworld.com/article/169079/ATT_Blocks_4chan_Stirs_Internet_Hornets_Nest.html

Corporations are NOT your friend and they never will be, quit kissing their asses like some retarded /pol/yp

File: Flag_of_Canada.svg.png (18KB, 1280x640px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1280x640px

MOVE TO CANADA
O
V
E

T
O

C
A
N
A
D
A

>>61394357
It's always been in place, and ISP's followed it as if it applied to them, even though they weren't referenced specifically.

Then ISP's started to abuse their market positions and we got the FCC to amend the law so that the ISP's were definitively considered common carriers in 2015.

We wouldn't even be talking about net neutrality today if the ISP's hadn't gone out of their way to start violating it and causing everyone grief.

>>61389389
>SAIL

>>61394385

Look, the FTC was originally regulating them. It should have been left as a FTC issue. All the FCC did was now have 2 agencies in control of ISPs, more government oversight. THe only reason we are talking about net neutrality is because the previous administration saw a chance for more government control, not because ISPs were fucking up and there was no way to combat that.

>>61394374

Fuck that on a stick. The Kanadian SSR is just as bad as a communist country.

>>61389381
>Yeah every other country that doesn't have NN laws has this problem, right?
Pretty much every other country does have some kind of NN regulations.

Or, I could just change my ISP.
Oh shit you mean I can't do that because ISP monopoly is allowed.
Ok, so how does it prevent my ISP increasing prices because they can't ask money from Netflix anymore?

>>61394496
Other countries open their broadband networks, hence removing the need for Net Neutrality.

>>61394445
>the previous admin saw a chance for more government control
Was that before or after all the major cable companies banded together in an attempt to weasel their way out of the existing regulations?

File: 1327008143277.png (216KB, 1402x555px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1402x555px

It just keeps happening

>>61394524
How are they trying to weasel out exactly? T-mobile not charging extra for music or YouTube? Or AT&T streaming Direct for free?

>>61394726
*DirecTV

>>61392136
>Nice strawman faggot
"Nice strawman faggot"
or
"Nice strawman, faggot"?

>>61389605
> believing the false dichotomy

>>61389344
These images are so unbelievably ignorant. Do the redditors spreading them ever consider the logistics of an ISP actually controlling/regulating traffic like that or how easy it would be to circumvent?

Even the shit China pulls can't effectively filter what their people can see or where they can go online.

>>61394967
They truly believe ISPs are evil corporations just out there to screw everyone and not provide a profitable well liked service.

>>61389344
>>>/pol/

>>61395021
That is pretty much 100% what they are

Have you never actually had to deal with cox, comcast, AT&T, etc. before?

File: 1488252159881.png (46KB, 500x397px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x397px

>>61395217
Yeah, it was much better than dealing with the DMV. Especially when I told them I want to cancel my service and switch to Verizon. Got a price match and a $10 discount too. Now I'm gonna call Verizon and see if they'll price match my discounted rate.

>>61395217
Comcast is unironically a top 3 company that I use, no shill. Pls no bully

>>61389344
>$49.99/mo

Seems really cheap for internet access.

>>61395331
It's too late, comcast representatives are already on their way over to fuck your dog

>don't have att or Comcast
>???
>Profit!!

>>61395317
I'd actually say, aside from the lineup, the DMV is pretty straightforward. Significantly easier than pulling teeth that is trying to cancel a contract with an ISP, and not constantly trying to sell you anything, either.

>>61395405
>ISP contracts
wat

File: 1494131244894.jpg (50KB, 694x816px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 694x816px

>>61395405
Waiting for half the day and dealing with niggers left and right is pretty straightforward, but I don't want to do that shit. Haggling over the price of my plan with my local ISPs is fun as fuck, those Indian fucks cave in seconds.

>>61394726
Since when are T-Mobile and DirecTV cable companies?

>>61394486
what's wrong with communism? socialism is good

>>61395487
T-mobile and AT&T serve as primary ISPs in many rural areas that don't have access do cable internet

File: 1387124733136.jpg (23KB, 300x400px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x400px

>>61395504
someone gas this faggot

>>61395504
yeah hundreds of millions of murdered people is great. Retard

>>61395516
AT&T is a cable company. T-mobile is not.
At&T, Verizon, and Comcast banded together to sue the FCC because they wanted to get rid of NN. All of them have done incredibly shady shit in the past. See >>61394371

>Libertarian retards who worship muh free market and trumplets who only hate it because daddy trump hates it.
>ISPs will have the freedom to block sites they don't like, but at least you fought the libruls on something.

>>61395592
So nothing that wasn't resolved or active within the last 4 years? Cool story

>>61395601
Blocking or throttling content will still be illegal under FTC consumer regulations you retard

>>61395604
>moving the goalposts
What, do you think they all turned over a new leaf in the last four years or something? They're the same companies run by the same people. They're all calling for less regulation so they can do the shit they weren't allowed to do in the past.

>>61395636
Based on what exactly? Your feelings? As anon a couple posts up mentioned, just implementing an infrastructure necessary to attempt such a task is entirely cost and time prohibitive. They're not going to go out of their way to cause a huge social media shit storm just to make an extra buck. Wake up

>>61395631
Anti net neutrality shills always post that whenever they get called out for wanting to block conservative websites

File: 1494016487960.png (9KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 120x120px

>>61395666
ISPs haven't threatened to block anything yet Google Facebook and Twitter censor wrong think every single day

>>61395691
And even if the ISPs did block anything it would be ridiculously easy to circumvent. It's simply not profitable

Well, just to be sure, if they throttle all connections to 4chan, I want you guys to know that I love you in a non-homosexual manner.

>>61395691
ISPs like comcast hate net neutrality because it stops them from enforcing the narrative. ISPs are more dangerous right now than google wishes they were.

>>61395728
And what narrative would that be exactly? More likely they just wanna promote their own video services for additional profit, of which little negative repercussions for the consumer will occur

>>61395759
They don't want you to know about ISP alternatives and they definitely want you to know about their agenda. ISPs already inject ads into packets, soon they'll inject political propaganda propaganda into them.

>>61395795
All of which is easily circumvented. Alternatively, stop giving them money

>>61395759
I like this guy. I seriously can't wait until ISPs start blocking popular websites and services. I'll instantly join the ISP game and sell the Truly Free™ internet.

>>61395814
Not very possible ajit if only one ISP is available.

>>61395829
mobile

>>61389389
Das da joek

>>61395816
>ISPs have successfully convinced many people that net neutrality is bad
>this is ISP vs. consumer
>implying you'll be able to compete against that on a company to company level
Someone is asking what their agenda is. Their agenda is to make more money, and they won't stop until nothing is in their way, no matter who has to suffer negative consequences. If they have to follow net neutrality principles to maximize their profits, they'll do it, but if they can convince people to eat shit and let them do what they want, that's ideal.

>>61395883
They're publicly traded companies not evil merchants lurking in the shadows

>>61395946
And the shareholders want more money

>>61395961
And more customers.

>>61395883
This is ISP vs Huge data centers owned by near-monopolies. Consumers can choose which ones they get fucked by without your help.

I already know a CEO of a smaller ISP that services rural areas. If one ISP blocks a website but there is another one 20 miles away doesn't then he can help extend their reach and use the demand for a better service to make a lot of profit. He can also start a VPN business that routes traffic through a more free ISP. There is a lot of money to be made for the little guys if anything bad happens

>>61395980
Only so far as it makes them money. Like I said, if customers want net neutrality principles they'll follow them, but if they can market in such a way to make the customers reconsider, that's better. Even if it's not actually in the customers interests. The money rules all.

>>61396008
I love that T-mobile let's me stream YouTube and music without going against my cap, because I'm too cheap to pony up for fully unlimited. Not ever net neutrality "infraction" is to the detriment of the consumer, quite the contrary

>>61396033
Granted but now competitive streaming sites are at a disadvantage

File: image_4.jpg (198KB, 425x562px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 425x562px

>>61396105
>YouTube competitors
but for real though, T-mobile allows multiple video services and consumers can petition to add any new services they want

>>61395662
>Based on what exactly? Your feelings?

Evidently based on their past behaviour

>>61396136
Nigger you're not even American. Fuck off

>>61396148
Yes I am, and that's not an argument.

>>61396129
So why would they need a cap to begin with?

>>61396171
Spelling says otherwise. If their past BEHAVIOR was regulated then, it will similarly be regulated moving forward. Stay retarded shills

>>61389344
>muh Republicans
>>>/pol/

>>61396204
Network regulation and profit you dummy. I don't wanna pay for fully unlimited when I don't have to so kindly fuck off

>>61396033
>I love my cap
net regulation is ungood

>>61396249
>everything should be free because I'm entitled as fuck

>>61396228
Streaming has to be the biggest use of bandwidth by far, so why put a cap on everything but certain sites when you already allow the biggest users of bandwidth, the most popular streaming sites?

>>61396270
Because in order to qualify you have to let them limit it to 480p, otherwise you can let it count against your cap to your heart's content should you so wish. Again, goes back to regulating and balancing the network load

>>61396260
lolwat? How brainwashed are you that you can only distinguish between datacaps and 'everything should be free'? Fuckin hell mate.

>>61396333
>I don't understand competitive incentives

>>61396345
I understand them perfectly well, that's why I criticize these specific "incentives"

>>61396293
>480p
>specific sites
So it sounds like T Mobile has to work something out with the sites, which means if you and only a handful of people try and petition to let your favorite site in the plan, it won't happen. That makes a negative feedback where less people use the site, and that's what I'm against, disregarding the no Youtube competitors argument anyways.

>>61396371
Then you'll understand why caps have legitimate places especially with regard to mobile

>>61396388
Then switch to Verizon if you hate it so much. Problem solved

File: pilkopalm.gif (396KB, 300x162px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 300x162px

>>61396393