>killling net neutrality will be fine guys we swear it will be ok and not a problem at all
hope none of you are through verizon they just took a step towards shit tier
>>62033465
do you shills realize 4chan has been against this shit long before you niggers started squatting here?
we will never be consensus cracked. just shut us down already.
I mean thats shitty but 4k phone screens are a fuckin' meme. You're not even going to appreciate the difference between 720p and 1080p unless you've attached your phone to your face
>>62033502
stfu my 4k phone is a lot better than my old S8 1440p screen fuck off
>>62033502
you would still be better off with tmobile cause im sure this is just the tip of the ice burg ans they have much worse ideas coming
>>62033514
https://developer.android.com/about/versions/marshmallow/android-6.0.html#4K-display
>While in 4K display mode, the UI continues to be rendered at the original resolution (such as 1080p) and is upscaled to 4K
>>62033465
Speaking of which, how is net neutrality doing? Did the Battle for the Net on July 12th actually do anything? Their website hasn't been updated since.
>>62033465
net neutrality doesnt affect this
>>62034057
How so?
>>62034085
net nuetrality doesn't care if you throttle all video, it cares if you specifically throttle video from one source.
T-Mobile has horrible congestion problems. I can have full bars and lte and it feels like I am on dial up!
>>62033526
You know tmobile has been doing exactly the same thing for years right?
Use vpn
>>62034114
This guy gets it.
It is for your own good. A normal 1080p video would eat up all your data in minutes
>>62034123
I'm fine. It's just your area. Also, does net neutrality regulations even cover mobile data providers?
>>62034149
T-mobile gives you the ability to opt in to having all videos capped at 480p in exchange for videos and music streaming not taking any of your data. you can turn it off.
>>62033465
How are they planing to do that exactly? Most connections are encrypted.
>>62033465
>He doesn't know that if ALL video is throttled, net neutrality doesn't give a fuck
Why is this allowed
A supposed first world country where the citizens can't even stream at 1080p
I can do that in India where people shit in the street
>>62034427
>in exchange for videos and music streaming
The music streaming thing is separate from binge-on and is not able to be opted out of. It just treats a select few music services as data-limit-free and doesn't modify them.
>>62034589
They can't limit you though.
>hurr, let's kill off our good plans and Jew our customers, then cry when they switch and beg for government handouts when we go bankrupt!
Crony capitalism is a fucking cancer. Poor Adam Smith is rolling in his grave.
>>62034206
Exactly
But guys, it's okay! The FREE MARKET made this value deal and this is the best deal, otherviste the FREE MARKET would make a better one!
>>62034658
>Free market
>In crony capitalism
More like corporate communism.
Can't wait until you Americans lose net neutrality. Hopefully it will allow for more tech companies to innovate outside the US.
Internet providers need to be reigned in, as do cell providers. The problem is that congress is all too happy to be bribed, and these corporations can hire thousands of lobbyists to shill for them. Far too much money in politics, and policy won't change in favor of the people until that ends.
>>62033465
*sigh*
Time to start data hoarding.
But the free market told me that infrastructure investment is down due to Obama's NN rules !
>>62033465
Literal proof that trump is retarded and America is fucked.
Welcome to corporatism, a masked totalitarianism with an illusion of liberty. It's basically right wing communism.
>>62033465
>phoneposters BTFO
How is this a problem? People need to learn that they cannot rely on their portable botnet machines as a lifeline.
>>62033949
the UI is only the userinterface you dumbfuck
>>62034206
What's exactly stopping ISPs throttling and blocking them? Websites like Netflix and Crunchyroll already do that (sadly)
Good. Then we can go back to reading text like white men.
>>62034452
>How are they planing to do that exactly? Most connections are encrypted.
Not for long. Phase Two will begin soon. You'll see.
>>62034669
>Implying free market is something that produces benefits for the end consumer as a general rule even in pure capitalism.
>>62034114
and how do they know it is a videostream without package-inspection or source-discrimination?
>>62033465
Use a VPN. Many people are already forced to, for various reasons. And it will only get worse.
>>62034834
>Phase Two will begin soon.
Being what? Blocking TLS connections? By now, that'd be the same as blocking half the web.
>>62033465
Why is this a problem again? I thought 720p is objectively better than 480p?
>>62034829
they ban ip ranges of vpn providers. if you run your own vpn on a vps you should be fine
>>62034876
ISP with mandatory root certs would be the shit
>>62033465
So dont use Verizon then?
Good time being yuropoor ;^)
paying 20 euro shekels for 1Gbps without censorship or any limits.
>>62034888
Wouldn't a server be throttled as well?
Also, why wouldn't a normal VPN be throttled too regardless? In the end only IP ranges that will pay extra $$$ to the ISP won't get throttled
>>62033465
Old news. T-Mobile has been doing this for over a year.
>>62034907
And that's why VPNs exist you fuck.
>>62034589
when will you realize that literally all the (((news))) sources are sucking up to net neutrality as if its suddenly a thing?
Even if you dont consider /pol/'s reasoning, since when has literally ALL the websites ever saying the same thing lead to a good outcome?
Reading news like that from the US makes me kind of glad we have the EU here to protect our rights. It's a shame all their other policies aside from consumer protection are absolute trash
>>62033499
4chan was never against net neutrality you /r/the_donald faggot
>>62035483
>hey guise all these mainstream websites say eating shit is bad for yo
>i guess that means eating shit is good for you now, fucking libruls
This is your logic
>it's a "/pol/ defends their freedom to get nickel and dimed by kikes" episode
You can't make this stuff up
>>62033465
>smartphone videos
and nothing of value was lost
>>62033949
>upscaled to 4K
>>62034250
Yeah, it's not like we should get to choose what we want to use our paid service for. Not like practically everything has cell/wifi auto toggles to avoid it anyway.
Verizon wouldn't fuck us.
>>62033465
>Improving network reliability and reducing cost by not allowing dumb phoneposters to waste bandwidth on 1440p and 4k videos for their 5 inch screen
This is unironically a good thing. It means you can get an unlimited plan without having to pay the amount required to cover people blowing through 2TB of data a month on 4k netflix.
>>62034846
MITM proxy is the easiest targeted thing to do. They could also throttle your network speeds wholesale to force you to low bitrates.
>>62034976
Too bad you have bad peering and you're talking about a wired connection not a mobile connection.
>>62035928
bandwidth is not an exhaustible resource, at least not in the sense that we need to change how we charge everyone to deal with a small minority's overuse. someone blowing through 2TB of data a month is a manufactured problem in this case.
Reminder that killing net neutrality is a good thing because it will prevent people who are too poor to afford access to anything except Facebook and people are too stupid to figure out how to get around the blocks from shitting up the internet.
>>62035069
you can run a vpn through your own router m8
>>62034114
>>62034250
This. NN shills confirmed retards.
>>62034838
It does when actual competition happens. We're living under oligopoly tactics though.
The real joke here is that americans still use capped data plans.
>>62036001
>It does when actual regulated competition happens.
truly free market systems fuck consumers over just as much
>>62034250
>would eat up all your data
>in an unlimited data plan
Found the telco shill
>>62035984
Should've just dropped it. They're obviously just a normie who read a few articles.
Free the market, verizon does this because there is no competition. You can't solve government enforced regulation with more regulation
>>62035928
It costs Verizon mere pennies to move a terabyte.
>>62035974
You actually kinda have a point. It would be like when the internet took half a brain to gain access to.
>>62036051
>5¢ have been deposited into your account
>>62035962
Bandwidth is an exhaustible resource. It's easy to look at a 10GbE port and think 50Mbit/s is nothing even when it's going on 24/7.
But what if that 10GbE port is shared between 5 million people? It's the same deal with mobile base stations on a smaller scale.
>>62036146
It's only exhaustive at a given moment then. So in the long run it doesn't matter
It's mobile data so it's not affected by NN anyway. Only broadband is under NN
>>62036051
Are you retarded? I don't like their practices much but mobile data providers are the only providers in the world who actually compete because they aren't restricted by fucking wires in the ground
>>62036161
How exactly does network congestion not matter to an ISP?
Good. Phonecucks btfo
>>62035962
But it is limited at any given moment. At peak hours like lunch time 1 person watching 4k netflix is hogging the bandwidth that 1000 people could use to check the news. By throttling the dumbass to 1080p instead you increase the quality of service to those people.
>>62035934
>wired connection
4G wireless router with unlimited bandwidth and 100MiB/s / 50MiB/s costs around 25€
Unlimited mobile bandwidth (just the SIM card) costs a bit less and you also get unlimited calls/texts
>>62033502
Wrong.
Also the difference between a 4k 60fps video and a 720p one on my phones 4k screen is insane. I think lots of people must just have shit eyesight if they cannot tell the difference.
>>62033949
>implying the ui scaling means that 4k video playback isn't in 4k
>>62036146
You understand that once that cable is laid down all costs are fixed and only being paid off? Couple that with consistently rising prices and ask yourself why the fuck aren't they making the network more robust. Additionally, the biggest data eaters are the forced apps from the data carriers. You think recording every key stroke costs data and storage space? Imagine the redundancy when verizon, samsung, facebook, and google are all doing it on the same fucking phone. No, I don't have that issue but the people that do are the ones clogging the network needlessly.
>>62033465
>720p
>4" screen
ok
Imagine an Internet without Americans.
>>62036001
a true free market can only work with an informed customer, but the customer is always retarded and thus the free market will always be an monopolistic abuse heaven.
>>62034720
>it's trumps fault
you are aware that this all came from decades of lobbying for laws that fuck up the customer?
>>62036117
Says the shill promoting net neutrality, my fellow /r/technology redditor
>>62036342
meant him >>62034749
>They voted for Drumpf & Pai Ajit poos on Murrikans
>>62034749
>It's all evil drumpfs fault, thIs is why hillary should have won
>>62036312
Okay, first of all laying the cable isn't free and secondly it's not the actual number of bytes transferred that matters, it's about how those transferred bytes translate to bits per second in terms of averages.
Port speeds are finite. if you have everyone sending and receiving data at 1GB/s 24/7, you'll quickly run out of port capacity - even when your port capacity is absurdly high. Which it rarely is. US networks are very underbuilt.
And they aren't making the network more robust because A) they don't have money or B) they don't need to because they have a monopoly guaranteed.
>>62036405
All thanks to government regulation
>>62036362
>>62036379
He literally put an anti-neutrality pajeet to shill against internet freedom. Trump has no idea what he's doing and just wants to reverse all changes Obama made because "muh black president wuz socialist". Trump is an immature child and shouldn't be in charge of anything.
>>62036250
We use 4G at the office because all the land lines are crap.
There are 4 people sharing a single 35 euro/month subscription.
Works surprisingly well.
Was a bit of a hack to connect the 4G device to the router though, there are no standard solutions as far as I'm aware.
>>62036447
If he was good enough for Obama, why wouldn't he be good enough for Trump?
>>62034632
Clearly they are limiting you
>>62034250
My 60Gb unthrottled data plan doesn't have this problem.
>>62036440
The government has no regulations on the number of ports and speed of ports.
Large isps that make billions a year literally shit on their network by not upgrading them.
Twc for years would advertise speeds you can't get and would upgrade people to faster internet but refuse to give them routers and modems that can do it. Even today time Warner still insists on using old ass coaxial cables from 30 fuckin years ago. They'd advertise you a certain speed you'd only get at 3am because they didn't allot enough bandwidth for everyone to use so you're always stifled
They're being sued now for all their bullshut
>>62036563
>60Gb
Doesn't sound like a lot at 1080p, 7GB is not that much.
>>62034114
>>62034467
No.
If all DATA gets throttled it's still neutral.
If they only throttle video but not, say, app updates then it's not neutral.
>>62036447
so you are going to pretend like this didn't come out of years of shit? that's some level of delusion.
>>62033502
>This is the same people that used to say "you don't need more than 2GB Ram, you don't need more than 2 cores, there is no difference between 30 and 60fps, etc..."
>>62033465
>Mah Verizon throttle
>Mah cable only allows 1tb a month
Then switch services. There is such a thing as alternatives out there.
>Anything identified as a video will not be given more than 10Mbps worth of bandwidth. This limit will affect mobile hotspot usage as well.
(...)
>Verizon apparently won't be converting videos to lower resolutions itself. Instead, it will set a bandwidth limit that video applications will have to adjust to. "We manage HD video throughput by setting speeds at no more than 10Mbps
(...)
>you won't be able to stream 4K video on a laptop by tethering the laptop to a Verizon-connected smartphone, for example.
I wonder how easy it would be to cheat the system.
Can't you just stream encrypted video through a VPS, with no way for Verizon to know it's video and not something else?
>>62036792
not in the land of the free and brave where there are places where only a single company offers its service
>>62036691
Obama created a law that made this illegal.
Trump abolished this law, making it legal again.
How is this NOT Trump's doing?
>>62036920
because this would have gone through no matter who'd become president
>>62036051
>government enforced regulation
>>62036920
It wasn't a law, and since your so ignorant of any details, any and all of your """opinions""" should be ignored.
>>62036670
read up on "reasonable network management"
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
>>62033465
this has literally nothing to do with NN you retard, NN isn't even out yet
who the fuck streams 720+ on their phones anyway
>>62036962
It was a law, you nincompoop. And since you're so ignorant of any of the actual details, any and all of your ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''opinions'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' should be null and void
my network, my rules, suck it up commie.
>>62036980
Enacted by ((((regulation)))).
But go on and link to the bill, please. Ill wait.
>Americans are willingly getting fucked by an orange jew
What has this country come to
>>62036878
Sure, but you get throttled after using only 15 GB when tethering on the most expensive plan. Lower plans will also limit you to worse than DSL speeds at all times when tethering.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/22/16181362/verizon-new-unlimited-data-plan-video-throttling-net-neutrality
Welcome to the future that is 3rd world Ameristan.
>>62036934
Except the Democrats were behind Obama on this issue you double nigger. Unless you can post evidence that they'd go back on policies that they supported for over 8 years then fuck off.
>>62036975
>NN isn't even out yet
It's been cancelled
>who the fuck streams 720+ on their phones anyway
My Thinkpad has 4G, and a 1440p screen.
Phonefags are enemies of the state as far as I'm concerned. Do not care.
>>62036934
Keep telling yourself that, stupid Goy.
Meanwhile I'm laughing at you Trumptards while I enjoy my actual unlimited 4G that easily gets >70Mbps.
>>62036999
Oh, good. Well since you agree with that sentiment you must think what Google is doing by censoring users of their service who post hateful things is completely within line as it follows their ToS right?
I want to see that your beliefs are consistent and you aren't going to turn around and be a hypocritical faggot.
>there are actually people who wasted money on a screen larger than 720p
>>62037076
>It's been cancelled
retard
FCC hasn't even voted on it yet. NN is still active as of today, and OP's point isn't even relevant in regards to NN because it doesn't apply to mobile ISPs lmao
>>62037125
Yeah, it's not like the telecom industry didn't give over 26,000,000 to Clinton or anything.
What the fuck are you streaming on a phone that needs 4k?
This really doesn't look like it's violating net neutrality.
What T-mobile is doing is shitty because they've whitelisted SOME services, meaning alternatives are not going to get used. Like, I can stream from Spotify all day, but I can't stream from my personal music collection on my home server without running out of data.
But it looks like Verizon is just plain-old throttling the shit out of its users across the board, which while shitty, is origin neutral.
>>62033465
Nothing to do with NN. Dumb click baiter.
>>62037207
It isn't because they only throttle video.
And I'll bet they're also lazy and just throttled a couple of domains, leaving your home video collection free to stream at 4K.
But this will need checking.
>>62037107
The FCC wants mobile data to be the standard all US internet service is measured against. Don't be surprised if shit like this starts happening on regular internet service soon.
>>62037181
>OP's point isn't even relevant in regards to NN because it doesn't apply to mobile ISPs
In Europe, NN does apply to mobile ISP's.
Face it: Americans will have utter shit internet for the coming years, and we're all laughing.
>>62037305
>reddit spacing
You have to go back.
>>62037274
By your definition, QOS would violate net neutrality, but that is not the intention of net neutrality at all.
Muh gubmint regulation!!
Meanwhile in Europe, light regulation just werks. The speed they advertise is the speed they must provide you. Must suck living in a corporate hellhole where the corporations can fuck you in the ass and then ask for a tip.
>>62037333
Trips confirm
>>62037125
>thinks i am an ameritard
good one i neither have datacaps nor do i have throttling garbage because where i live there is competition unlike with the USa
>>62037305
America's had shit internet since we first got it.
>>62037341
It does and it is.
>The Abilene network study was the basis for the testimony of Gary Bachula to the US Senate Commerce Committee's hearing on Network Neutrality in early 2006. He expressed the opinion that adding more bandwidth was more effective than any of the various schemes for accomplishing QoS they examined.[32]
>Bachula's testimony has been cited by proponents of a law banning quality of service as proof that no legitimate purpose is served by such an offering. This argument is dependent on the assumption that over-provisioning isn't a form of QoS and that it is always possible. Cost and other factors affect the ability of carriers to build and maintain permanently over-provisioned networks.
Face it: you're getting cucked.
Enjoy your 600kbps "4G" HAHAHAHAHA
>>62036751
Kill you're self dumb newfag
>>62037333
>>62037343
I don't even know what "reddit spacing" means becasue I've never been there.
Please elaborate since you come there often.
>>62037447
It's a meme you dip
>>62037447
you're not fooling anyone, redditcuck
>>62037460
Yeah, but explain it to me: what's spacial about spacing on Reddit?
>>62036980
Still waiting
>>62037420
That looks like a ridiculous statement, considering that QOS and adding bandwidth are two things you can do in parallel. Regardless, it doesn't really address how peering agreement cost negotiations work.
The point of NN is to prevent an ISP from throttling or blocking a competing service's bandwidth while leaving their own untouched.
And you're acting like a retard, because I don't have Verizon.
>>62034589
i have a new idea for verizon
unlimited 32kbit LTE
squash those freedom hating americans
>>62037488
>The point of NN is to prevent an ISP from throttling or blocking a competing service's bandwidth while leaving their own untouched.
That's only a tiny part of it because ISP initially weren't content providers.
The real point is to allow the internet to be used in a variety of ways.
Once you give priority to one use case over another, say voice over text messages, you're disrupting the natural progression of technology. - THAT is the main reason to have net neutrality.
>>62033502
t. verizon sales rep #46
>>62033465
This is strictly over their 4G network, right...?
If they're going to limit me on my own fucking wifi I'll burn them to the ground.
>>62037615
There is no natural progression of technology. Technology progresses according to what people use and are willing to pay for. If people ain't willing to pay for voice but are willing to pay for text, then no matter how much you prioritize voice you will not get anything out of it.
If you have a problem with disrupting technological progression, though, I personally suggest opposing patent and copyright legislation. That's one of the biggest things standing in the way of progress by making it illegal to copy and iterate innovations of others. That's how you end up with monopolies like Intel suing all of its competitors into dirt.
>>62034253
Yes, AT&T used to have sugarcoated net neutrality in which you had to pay an extra $10/mo to remove throttling imposed on mobile Hulu and Netflix.
>>62037940
>Technology progresses according to what people use and are willing to pay for.
That only makes sense when those cost barriers are real rather than artificial. If companies started charging 2x as much for digital copies vs physical copies for no reason other than they feel like it at the time and the popularity of digital copies wanes, do you honestly think that would mean digital copies were a technological dead end?
>>62035356
You can only use VPNs if you subscribe to the power user package.
>>62035875
Upscaling from 1080p to 4k isn't a problem, you'll see no difference between a native 1080p screen and a 4k screen. A 1440p video, however, will look better on a native 1440p monitor than a 4k screen, because the dimensions of 1440p don't cleanly divide those of 4k.
>>62034877
You're right, 720p > 480p. The problem is that anything above 720p will be blocked by Verizon (1080p, 1440p, 2160p)
>>62038010
Try keeping your examples in bounds that pass sanity checks. That would only be possible if there was a legal reason for all of the companies distributing digital and physical goods to work together. Digital copies are cheaper to produce, cheaper to distribute and more convenient for the customer. So anyone who distributes digitally has a massive competitive advantage over anyone who distributes physical media.
No corporation will choose a less efficient way to make money, unless there is significant pressure from either the consumer base or legislature.
>>62037940
>Technology progresses according to what people use and are willing to pay for.
Exactly.
And not allowing people to pay for and use high quality video is stopping this progress.
>>62038143
>That would only be possible if there was a legal reason for all of the companies distributing digital and physical goods to work together
You do realize that companies can and do work together in cases that aren't legal.
>>62038063
And you have to pay an extra $10/month just to get that 720p.
For $75/month you only get 480p.
>>62038239
Of course they can, but why would they want to? if my competition crippled themselves by offering worse service, I'd rather take advantage of it and offer better service to get all their market share.
>>62038231
Verizon isn't the only mobile ISP in the world.
>>62038429
>Verizon isn't the only mobile ISP in the world.
The rest will follow, don't worry.
>>62033465
Net neutrality has nothing to do with what services a company can offer.
>what is tls
>>62037481
reddit uses the > character for block quotes but only stops the quote block once it reaches a line of only whitespace. people who are conditioned to posting on reddit instinctively put a whitespace line between any line starting with > and the next non-greentext line.
>>62038533
Depends on how well it works out for Verizon. I mean personally I don't watch videos on the mobile phone at all, because I have a 2GB data limit, so something like this wouldn't make me change my mobile ISP.
>>62038058
it's a problem because the 4K in that situation is a placebo. You're seeing 4K pixels but that doesn't mean you have 4K pixels of meaningful information.
Trumpcucks are the worst posters
I can't wait until Trumpcucks stop posting on 4chan because Verizon/Comcast will start charging a fee for http posts to non-bundled websites
>>62033465
Good. Assholes shouldn't be streaming 4k video and clogging up the network so bad that I can't even check my emails. They can do that shit at home.
>>62038670
To be fair, he also spaced out his non quoted lines in the same way, probably because he thought they were important enough to warrant their own paragraph each, which is worth laughing at, but the point is he didn't only use a line of whitespace to end his greentext
>>62039486
i was just trying to answer what is reddit spacing in general, but yeah you're right, that's an ambiguous case
>>62035134
but its optional its not a thing they are forcing you to use
>>62036315
i have a 6.2 inch screen thank you
>>62033502
>making a retarded argument based on your hatred for high-res smartphones
You will notice it when you turn on wifi hotspot to watch videos on your laptop through your mobile connection, or when you connect your phone to a display through MHL. They will also limit it to 1080p on tablets, which will be absolutely noticeable.
>>62038429
>>>62038239
>Of course they can, but why would they want to? if my competition crippled themselves by offering worse service, I'd rather take advantage of it and offer better service to get all their market share.
>>>62038231
>Verizon isn't the only mobile ISP in the world.
You're still assuming that consumers act rationally and have perfect information, in the real world simple theoretical economics do not play out
>this is surprising to people
contrary to popular belief, that cell tower you get service from doesn't have unlimited bandwidth. of course they're gonna throttle it. if they let everyone stream as they want, then everyone would have shitty service. fucking christ learn how the internet works.
>>62039719
Yes goyim, keep paying the same for worse service
>>62039719
Or they could just not sell more bandwidth than they can actually provide in the first place rather than only throttling certain services, or upgrade their infrastructure so they can actually provide the bandwidth they claim to offer. There would be absolutely no issues with this in the US if companies followed that rather than fucking customers.
>>62034250
It's not for your own good, it's for the good of normies who would be stupid enough to waste their data without noticing, at the cost of limiting non-retarded users who can handle the responsibility. You are also retarded for assuming altruistic motives from fucking verizon.
>>62036405
They do have the money. They were given billions of dolars from the government to upgrade the infrastructure. Instead of doing that, they took that cash as profit and didnt upgrade shit.
>>62039719
it could. retarded mobile carriers hog up 40-80mhz bands on each tower because they dont want to invest in better architecture and people get annoyed at the extra few seconds it takes to connect the nearest tower so carriers end up having multiple channels open on 2-3 towers so people can connect almost instantly.
>>62036017
I have yet to see a country that doesn't have datacaps on mobile networks. Some cell providers inNorway used to have unlimited, but they got rid of it to jew the customer more.
>>62033465
Net neutrality didn't apply to mobile carriers in the first place dumb phoneposter.
>>62033465
Doesn't it cost a shitload of money in computing power to resize video on the fly? Also how can they do this over HTTPS?
>>62033465
>mobile networks
>"net neutrality"
Kill yourself.
>>62037447
>since you come there often
Why are yuropoors retarded?
>in 4 English isn't my first language
It isn't mine either.
>>62037333
Retarded shit like this is why I barely even come to /g/ anymore. It went from legit tech discussion to gentoo fun posting to nonstop shitposting. /g/ is a caricature of itself.
>>62040896
At least you knew it back when it was (allegedly) good. This is the /g/ I've always known and hated, but I keep coming back.
>>62033465
Not that I believe in the "global warming" bs but they did the same thing with that they did to net neutrality to where the ONLY opinion allowed MUST be some political football team shit, with cheap ignorant/smart sounding actors on both sides. Same when Copernicus made his discovery and the church as well as the gay pagan-athesits both laughed at him even tho he was right. "If it was really true, then why wouldn't the authorities know about" (meaning who I PERSONALLY like)
>>62033465
it won't work over https
who cares
at most it would push website owners to use https
>>62036751
Who are you quoting?
>>62041498
Until they start throttling by host, if they don't already.
Good, they've been given the freedom to make bad decisions, let the market sort them out.
>>62033465
This has nothing to do with net neutrality. This practice is explicitly permitted under the FCC's net neutrality rules.
>>62033465
Don't care lol. Phoneposters can go fuck themselves, all their videos should be throttled to 240p.
>>62041896
They're be limited to throttling for network congestion. They'd have some 'splainin' to do if they did it in areas without congestion or allowed their own video to go through throttling. The absence of net neutrality means they can bend you over with no consequence.
>>62036222
Trips of truth
this just in:
verizon a shit
tune in at 9 where we cover more news about OP, and how he is still sucking dicks
>>62041936
But anon, the FCC currently thinks that the experience phoneposters have is the bar that all consumer internet service should be measured by.
network neutrality wouldn't have stopped this. there were going to different rules for cable and wireless ISP
>>62033465
>throttling a video to a resolution
I don't understand.
>>62033465
I'm with Verizon and the speed is barely good enough for a decent 720p60fps video from YouTube. Sucks they are limiting it but I probably won't see a huge difference.
>>62042201
higher bitrate video = more bandwidth
if you can't play the higher quality one = less bandwidth each customer uses
>>62036975
>who the fuck streams 720+ on their phones anyway
Have you even attempted viewing below 720 on your phone?
Do you even have a 1080+ display on your phone?
720 is basically the bare minimum. Considering the encoding settings that most streaming services use even there the artifacts are apparent.
>>62036447
>Ajit Varadaraj Pai (born January 10, 1973) is an American attorney who serves as the Chairman of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC). He is the first Indian American to hold the office.
>He has served in various positions at the FCC since being appointed to the commission by President Barack Obama in May 2012, at the recommendation of Mitch McConnell.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_V._Pai
>>62042216
I understand that but how do you throttle to a resolution?
>>62042270
botnet fuckery
>>62036222
>still can't afford a mobile phone with a plan
I remember being 19 and jobless....wait, that never happened. git gud nigger
>>62039677
>WiFi hotspot
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PAY EXTRA FOR THAT YOU FUCKING GOY PIECE OF SHIT! I'M MAKING SURE YOU GET THROTTLED TO 144p!
>>62041954
It's a little more complicated than that. It's correct that there is a lot of leeway for traffic management related throttling. However, the FCC (even the last administration's FCC) has given mobile ISPs considerable elbow room in business practice related throttling/prioritization as well.
It's not perfectly clear which side the FCC would fall on something like this, but, based on their other rulings, I think they would probably allow it (with certain caveats, i.e. they need to offer prioritization to other CPs as well and they have to charge themselves the same amount as they charge those CPs)
In the absence of NN, it would be up to the FTC to rule on something like this.
What fucking plan should I be on? I already downgraded from grandfathered UDP to 4gb because they jacked my rate up to $95/month. Should I keep 4gb or get on the new unlimited?
>>62033465
>phone screen resolution is less than 720p
Its good to not buy into the big screen meme
>>62033465
How would verizon know I'm on my smartphone when it's connected to my router?
>>62034960
that's not possible for many burgers thanks to internet monopolies
god bles :--DDDd
>>62034250
Nigga I pay for unlimited so if they throttle my video quality I'll be pissed
>>62033502
why do we have to move backward fag, theres no reason technology regress. they are making so much money. the burden is on them to improve the quality and capacity.
good GOD i hate companies merging so much it should have been made illegal.
why does the most wealthy country in the world suffer from all these problems?
>>62033465
>current year
>being on Verisis
>>62033465
Verizon has always been shit tier. Also: I don't care if I can't stream videos via LTE at 1080p. I'm constantly saturated in wifi anyways.
>>62033502
This has nothing to do with 4K displays, you fucking cattle.
>>62033465
Good, fuck it. After cucks like the CEO from CloudFlare defending free speech then canceling contracts and people defending it as the free market, let them see what the real free market is with throttling out the ass.
>smartphone
haha, more like cuckphone.
>>62036146
>Bandwidth is an exhaustible resource
Get the fuck out of here, you contrarian meme fuck. I see you in every thread.
>It's easy to look at a 10GbE port and think 50Mbit/s is nothing even when it's going on 24/7. But what if that 10GbE port is shared between 5 million people?
We go back to the 80s and have Telnet and 250Bps connections, although there will probably be 150Bps and 300Bps tiers. No exhaustion here.
>>62033465
Literally trumps fault.
>>62033465
>government giving so much power to corporations to fuck over consumers
Good job, America.
Learn something from Europe, demand consumer protection and stop getting cucked by greedy corporation in the name of "muh land of the free."
>>62046787
But regulations are infringing my freedom.
>>62046851
Not your freedom, the corporations' freedom.
Are you Americans really this retarded?
>>62046886
What if I own a small business? Regulations infringe on my freedoms as a business owner, and it also fucks up the free market which ultimately ends up harming the consumer.
>>62046896
Only retarded people think net neutrality would hurt businesses. Not having it in place just gives more leeway for shitty corporations like Verizon to do exactly like OP is pointing out.
Get the fuck out of here with your shit.
>>62046896
They don't. If you're a small business owner then you'd benefit from regulations because they're forcing competition and helping new businesses. Which means only big companies get "hurt" as they get taxed more. Small businesses would be unaffected.
>>62046886
There's a difference between a free market and a corporatocracy. Guess which the US falls into?
>>62046920
Yeah. Better for them to charge by the mb than to put certain restraints on "unlimited" data.
>>62033465
hah *laughs in euro
>>62046920
>Only retarded people think net neutrality would hurt businesses
Really now?
Lets say I run a small local business that allows specialise in streaming local sport events. Our members pay a monthly fee and we pay employers to run around with cameras and basically record local sport games. We have a handful of servers around the city.
We strike a deal with Comcast, they set up the necessary infrastructure for us to reach their customers that are interested in this kind of thing. They decide to not bill us, because we're a small company and we deliver a niche service that make some of their customers happy.
Then suddenly, Google decides to expand their giant business into the same domain. They set up servers in their massive data centres and CDNs across the country.
Because of net neutrality, Comcast are forced to let Google use the same infrastructure they set up for us, and since Comcast doesn't really take any payment from us, they can't bill Google for it either. Without net neutrality, Comcast could have easily given traffic from our servers priority
Do you really think it wouldn't hurt my business that my small business has to compete with a behemoth like Google with all their resources on the same terms? Do you think it doesn't hurt business that Comcast is basically forced to give Google's traffic the same conditions as us, even though Google is more than able to pay their fair share for using Comcast's infrastructure?
>>62046956
The latter.
>corporations buying politicians
>for profit prisons that actively seek getting prisoners
>insurance companies running essentially your life and get away with it
Jusy to name a few. "Freedom" in freedom land is an illusion. Just because you have the freedom to fuck each other over doesn't mean you have freedom.
>>62046940
>If you're a small business owner then you'd benefit from regulations because they're forcing competition and helping new businesses
See >>62047008
Being forced to compete is not necessarily a viable option, when one of the parties have basically unlimited resources.
>>62047013
No argument there. The only regulations that need to be applied are regulations on government. They shouldn't be allowed to take payouts to help craft laws to stunt or eliminate competition.
>>62047027
>no argument
>just let me bend over for corporations to overcharge, underdeliver and monopolise
>nothing could go wrong
>>62047048
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Corporations buying politicians to stunt the growth of competitors is the problem. Don't believe me? Tell me how easy it would be to start a new car company in the US. Those "regulations" are there to kill any new competition, while the established businesses that can afford to front the money just pass the increase costs onto the consumer.
>>62047090
Kinda this.
I'm a yuropoor and I find it stupid how other yuropoors criticise the US for lack of regulations. There are very few other countries in the world where starting a new business is so simple and easy, and where your newly started business going bankrupt doesn't have ramifications for your personal economy for literal decades afterwards. If you have a brilliant idea, you can easily test it out in the market right away. If it fails, tough luck, but at least once the company is bankrupt, you're free of liability afterwards, unlike where I'm from where you are basically barred from starting a new company for up to five years and where you continue to pay debt to investors potentially for several decades after your business idea failed.
>throttling someone's cat video
omg they can't do this!!
>refusing to bake someone a cake with a goatse
omg they can't do this!!
>banning someone for having a "wrong opinion"
hmm.. sounds about right
can someone explain this to me?
>>62047090
>corporations buying politicians
You just made my point. Literally.
>>62047157
>can someone explain this to me?
You're new to /g/ because we've had threads for several months about the so-called fake news filter and people bitch about their freedom of speech and right to spew praise kek memes and videos about how the holocaust was a lie.
>>62047159
I never argued that corporations purchased politicians. That said, I think my solution is different than yours.
>>62047159
Corporations buy politicians in order to influence them to instate regulations that benefit them but hurt their competitors.
Regulations aren't some magic remedy that fixes everything. Some times, more often than not, the very thing a regulation is supposed to fix gets worse.
>>62047144
Where do you live? I'm from EU and you can start a company here as an entity separate from you so when it fails you're not affected.
>>62047144
Keep in mind that just because US has less regulation, doesn't mean that it's by any means "none." This is OSHA regulations alone.
>>62047176
>>62047090
>>>62047048 (You)
>I'm not sure what you're getting at. Corporations buying politicians to stunt the growth of competitors is the problem.
This is LITERALLY what I'm saying. How fucking illiterate do you have to be to get this?
>>62036271
>4k videos
>>62047189
Norway
The problem here is that small business owners usually don't do exactly that, either because of ignorance or because when you're a one-man gig you don't really plan that far ahead. So when your business grows a little, and you get investors, loans are granted to you as a person, and not to the company.
The US is a lot better at separating your personal economy with your business economy because they do this as default when you register your company and require a lot less paperwork than the EU does.
>>62047194
Yet you criticize the solution I presented.
>>62036598
>on using old ass coaxial cables from 30 fuckin years ago
>30 fuckin years ago
>30
you're fuckin retarded aren't you? why should i listen to anything else you say?
>>62047206
>>62047189
Not to mention that registering a company costs a fee of 30,000 NOK, whereas registering as a private business entity doesn't have a fee (but means that you have to reregister if you want to employ anyone, so people tend to contract their "employees" instead as consultants).
>>62033465
>Why would mobile broadband have problems with hundreds of thousands of people streaming 1080p or higher video ever be a problem
Why not just change fucking service providers you retarded ape.
>>62036051
Actually there is competition, there is still regulation making it harder for smaller service providers but in this case scenario even Verizon has plenty of competition, that you can switch to easily.
Because this is a non issue for anyone who isn't stupid.
>OH NO A COMPANY I USE DID SOMETHING I DON'T LIKE!!!!
Then switch company, you fucking retards. The only reason why you are mad is because you still live at home and your mother doesn't give a shit about 4K video even though you tried so hard to explain to her about neutrality and richard stallman... so instead you're venting your frustration out on 4chan.
>>62047335
This
>>62039915
Almost like the government giving people money for doing nothing doesn't actually incentivize good market behaviors.
>>62033499
>if I call them shills, they won't realise I'm a shill!
Fuck off anti-NN turboshill. Nobody here wants their internet crippled.
>>62036913
There is far more than 1 mobile provider in the US, or in almost any city in the US. You can switch, it's not hard.
>>62033502
4k screens are a meme full stop, that's why you don't really need 4k streams on your pc either.
t. verizon
>>62047335
>>62047360
>just switch companies
You guys do know that there are areas of the US where that isn't an option due to lack of coverage.
>>62047378
>almost
those with alternatives are not the problem though are they?
>>62047415
I see this claim posted many times, but I have yet to hear mention of an actual area in the US where this actually is a problem.
I'm starting to think that it isn't a real issue.
>>62035356
>VPNs get throttled, or regulated such that they need a backdoor so the government can check you're not illegally streaming video at a higher resolution than your contract specifies
Now what? You signed your rights away because you thought internet providers were tech-illiterate and wouldn't pay attention to that loophole? By the time you're pushed into using a VPN, you've already lost.
>>62047428
>>62036146
because in a place with 5m people they use a single 10gbe port to supply connection
>>62036196
they get subsidies to make sure such a thing does not happen
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Takes-Billions-in-FCC-Subsidies-For-Broadband-Expansion-134949
>>62047428
Go look up coverage in rural areas you dumb shit. Verizon is the only company that offers consistent coverage in many of them. Even in areas where other providers may offer coverage, it's generally spotty and your car breaking down in the wrong spot could leave you stranded for hours before someone comes along because you can't actually call someone to help you.
>>62047360
>le free market will fix everything
Companies will shaft their customers as hard as the market allows. The only thing standing in their way is regulation. There's a reason IPs are throwing so much money at repealing NN, and it's not so they can keep their services the same. All of them are planning to throttle services/websites, otherwise they wouldn't care about NN.
>>62047300
This. Are there sub-providers in US aswell? I mean in europe, even fucking Tesco has it's own simcards and dataplans. There's like 20 mobile internet providers covering my town.
>>62047446
Seem to me that there's plenty of options.
>>62047476
>The only thing standing in their way is regulation.
Or, you know, the loss of customers.
>>62047464
>hurr durr if you don't take my word for it you're dumb
>>62047508
>loss of customers
>customer can't go anywhere else because company essentially has monopoly in their area
>because muh free market
There are incredibly few areas in the US where mobile broadband coverage is only available from one company.
https://www.t-mobile.com/coverage/lte-comparison-map?icid=WMM_TMNG_Q217NETWOR_Y6ZFTW7BB8990
https://www.att.com/maps/wireless-coverage.html
https://www.uscellular.com/coverage-map/coverage-indicator.html
https://www.metropcs.com/coverage.html
>>62047415
For one, most of those areas don't have the infrastructure for 1080p anyway,
>>62047427
Those in the extreme minority don't matter do they? It sucks but living in the middle of nowhere is going to have downsides.
>>62047532
This is almost never the case.
>>62047488
There's quite a bit actually, but the reason people make a big deal out of this is because Verizon was one of the first few to start trying 1080p unlimited streaming, but it evidently didn't work out for them.
>>62047532
>company essentially has monopoly
Again, unless anyone can actually prove that this is a real issue for a substantial amount of people, it's just a make-belief argument. I don't care that you could maybe find some god-forsaken mountain village with a population of 300 where people refuse to move 40 years after the coal mines closed down, that's not really an argument here.
>>62047540
>Those in the extreme minority don't matter do they? It sucks but living in the middle of nowhere is going to have downsides.
what an overly reasonable argument for a monopoly it's not like those companies are not getting paid by the taxpayer to expand to prevent these monopolies
and seriously what argumentation is that
>minorities don't matter
this is absolutely retarded in this context
>>62047532
>>62047464
>live in rural area
>only one company offers coverage
>except the coverage is so bad it's basically useless
How much of a cuck do you have to be to continue to live there and STILL pay for a service you don't receive?
>>62047546
>as long as an arbitrary amount of people is not affected it's not problem
>>62047592
>>62047580
Seriously, if the problem affects like 50,000 people in total it's not a fucking issue. We have some pretty remote locations in my country as well, and when the state-owned telecom company decided not to provide coverage for some really remote island when they killed off the landlines, they were upset. The government response was basically "if you don't like it, then fucking move".
Why should companies be required to build costly infrastructure at a loss for a small amount of people?
>>62047588
>lol just print money and move its ez
>>62047580
> it's not like those companies are not getting paid by the taxpayer to expand to prevent these monopolies
They aren't getting paid to prevent these monopolies, besides the fact that the monopolies barely exist, paying large companies to combat large companies monopolies sounds a bit... retarded, does it not? They're paid to expand their coverage, which only really makes it that much harder for more smaller more local options to compete.
Though, I agree, the government shouldn't be robbing taxpayers to give to billion dollar companies. I don't think I've contested this.
>minorities don't matter
>Fuck over the majority of the country to benefit the few
>>62047592
>as long as an arbitrary amount of people are affected it's a problem
You see how much of a non-argument this is?
>>62047588
>How much of a cuck do you have to be to continue to live there and STILL pay for a service you don't receive?
On a scale from 1 to American?
>>62047624
Moving is easy, yes. People had to have a reason to move there to begin with. It's not a human right to have multiple ISPs offering 1 Gb/s competing to give you the lowest price possible if you live in a fucking tree hut on a mountain close to the Canadian border.
>>62047618
because the government PAYS them
this is not a question of a free market
>>62047629
good that you don't contest that that's the only reasonable way to look at this.
But fact is they get payed and thus they HAVE to expand or else the majority is actively being fucked because the money they pay for the expansion is not used for expansion
>>62047629
>You see how much of a non-argument this is?
>yeah fuck your taxpayer money let's fuck the people
as long as taxes are used for this it is a problem as long as even a single taxpaying person is affected
>>62047663
>because the government PAYS them
So you find it reasonable that tax dollars should fund expensive infrastructure in remote areas where less than 0.01 promille of the population lives?
>this is not a question of a free market
If it isn't, then those people can fuck off. It's not a human right to have 4K video, those that can change their provider will and those very very very few that can't will obviously not. Big fucking deal.
>>62047698
>>62047663
Anyway, in areas where the government subsidise the company, the government can dictate the terms. Elsewhere, let the fucking free market reign.
>>62047206
In America you start a llc to separate business from owner assets
>>62047698
do you selectively read posts?
literally a couple lines below that i wrote that i don't approve of taxes funding that shit, but the fact is they do and thus the obligation is to do what the money was handed out for.
seriously are you dense?
i don't understand how you can fail to understand this easy as fuck concept of
the government pays for expansion, thus expansion has to happen fullstop
>>62047663
>But fact is they get payed
Maybe redirect your anger to the people taking your money to give to them
>they HAVE to expand or else the majority is actively being fucked because the money they pay for the expansion is not used for expansion
They don't have to do anything outside of terms of the legislation, which they have or else they'd be fined, this is the problem is legislation, legislators are shit and have no idea what they're doing and end up wasting money. The majority is getting fucked either way because they're paying for other people's shit, which is the problem here.
>as long as taxes are used for this it is a problem as long as even a single taxpaying person is affected
>yeah fuck your taxpayer money let's fuck the people
No one said or did this except the IRS
>as long as taxes are used for this it is a problem as long as even a single taxpaying person is affected
No. Your taxes are going towards a non-issue. You should be upset by this fact.
>>62047715
The government creates terms of subsidization in the legislation, they don't and shouldn't be afforded any more control than that, and they shouldn't be subsidizing companies in the first place
>>62047717
That's my point, and you probably do this without a fee as well.
>>62047739
part of this was for >>62047680
>yeah fuck your taxpayer money let's fuck the people
No one said or did this except the IRS
>as long as taxes are used for this it is a problem as long as even a single taxpaying person is affected
No. Your taxes are going towards a non-issue. You should be upset by this fact.
>>62047723
>do you selectively read posts?
I read your response to me, and I responded to that again. I don't care about your pissing contest with other people.
>i don't approve of taxes funding that shit
Then stop defending that money is being wasted on a minuscule amount of people that life as welfare queens and are to stubborn to relocate. It's as easy as that.
>>62047739
>The government creates terms of subsidization in the legislation, they don't and shouldn't be afforded any more control than that, and they shouldn't be subsidizing companies in the first place
I agree.
>>62047739
>get angry at the govt but don't demand at least that you get the services your money was taken for
what a retarded point of view
anger is worthless i rather demand my shit and vote against the corporate cucks
>have no idea what they're doing and end up wasting money.
i severely doubt that i am sure it is intentional
>>62033465
This is terrible!
Now Boomers won't be able to stream 1080p Netflix on the bus
>>62047751
>No one said or did this except the IRS
you literally said that it's not a problem as long as only an arbitrary amount of people is affected
>No.
Wrong
>Your taxes are going towards a non-issue.
yes
>You should be upset by this fact.
i am
>>62047789
>I will dedicate my life to make sure that Bobby-Joe and Mary-Jo can stream 4K video in their car in the middle of the woods on a mountain top and vote only for candidates that support this view
>>62047809
*can stream 4K video in the middle of the woods or on a mountain top at the expense of the tax payers
>>62047773
i don't care what you want to read, don't misrepresent my views.
>Then stop defending that money is being wasted
i am not defending it
the money was already wasted
now the corporation has to act on that because the money is already wasted on them
i am all for stopping this waste but as long you people vote for corporate shills at least demand that they do what you pay them for
>wanting to give the same people who censor free speech on the net a la daily stormer, more government power
we avoided a huge catastrophe the left had planned
>>62047809
>i have no principles and am completely fine with rich corporate faggots getting my tax-moneys
>>62047820
>i am not defending it
>the money was already wasted
You are literally saying
>but well at least we should make sure that the money is being well-spent as the government has already decided to spend money and keep on spending money
What you should be saying is
>slash this welfare program asap
It's not like this is a one-time cost, money is still being spent to maintain and expand infrastructure.
>now the corporation has to act on that because the money is already wasted on them
No, it's not "already wasted". It's being wasted right now.
>i am all for stopping this waste but as long you people vote for corporate shills at least demand that they do what you pay them for
We vote for people who wants to terminate any such program.
>>62047829
>My principles start at Universal 4K Netflix streaming over LTE and stop just before caring about blacks burning down cities and revenge raping white women
>I have my priorities in check!
>>62047789
>>get angry at the govt but don't demand at least that you get the services your money was taken for
Get angry at government and stop supporting politicians who want to "solve problems" with your money.
>i severely doubt that i am sure it is intentional
It'd be a nice thought that it's just some evil people doing evil things but the truth is saying "I'm going to fix this" sounds a lot better to voters than "I have no idea how to fix this and neither do any of you so let's not make this worse"
>>62047797
>you literally said that it's not a problem as long as only an arbitrary amount of people is affected
Yeah, but I didn't say "fuck the taxpayer, let's fuck the people" like you strawmanned.
>>62047829
Literally no one in this thread has supported taxing people to pay these companies.
>>62047851
>We vote for people who wants to terminate any such program.
then the only difference between us is your resignation that you don't care about what happens with the money that got thrown out
and yes it is wasted because until you get to vote again you will not be able to slash it
>>62047829
My principles is that government has no fucking business meddling in the market. I'm opposed to your strategy of "making sure we get our money's worth" because that is implicitly saying that government subsidies are a-ok.
You should use your vote to voice your opinion about those programs being terminated immediately.
>>62047858
I was with you until you got completely fucking off topic with the
>blacks burning down cities and revenge raping white women
This is just as statistically rare of a problem as anything else in this thread.
>>62047858
>only one thing can be done at a time
>>62047874
>then the only difference between us is your resignation that you don't care about what happens with the money that got thrown out
>and yes it is wasted because until you get to vote again you will not be able to slash it
This is a sunken cost fallacy.
First of all, we can't do anything about the money already used, because you can't retroactively renegotiate terms that are already set. So your whole "we must stand up to these corporations and demand our worth" is nothing but grandstanding. You can't do shit about the money already wasted, because you can't change the terms retroactively and demand that they live up to the new terms.
Secondly, you're missing the point. The cost of these programs are so high that slashing them should be number one priority. Not keep them around, evaluate them, make demands and patch up here and there. It's so god damned awful that it should be killed ASAP.
>>62035483
>/pol/'s reasoning
>/pol/
>reasoning
kek nice one, aren't you supposed to spread right wanker FUD like moon landing's fake and some shit right now?
>>62047876
>making sure we get our money's worth" because that is implicitly saying that government subsidies are a-ok.
i fundamentally disagree you are in no position to repeal it while the vote is years away that means you have to go on and at the very least make sure your money is not being completely misused because that's the whole point of this thing.
>>62047940
>no position to repeal it while the vote is years away
The same argument goes for wanting to claim "your money's worth".
>that means you have to go on and at the very least make sure your money is not being completely misused
How do you do that, when the vote is years away?
Here in Australia we get 35mbps on 4G and it's pretty consistent. Only problem is we have shitty data caps of like 1.5gb up to 8gb on the $100/m plans. So they want you to download more..
>>62047917
>You can't do shit about the money already wasted, because you can't change the terms retroactively and demand that they live up to the new terms.
you can stop defending the companies as if they are somehow innocent and not the once lobbying for this subsidies
>It's so god damned awful that it should be killed ASAP.
yesyes i completely agree there is noone disagreeing with that here
>>62034640
>"I just call the current economic system "Crony Capitalism" because I don't want to admit that Capitalism is flawed"
Capitalists buy the government, not the other way around.
>>62047971
>you can stop defending the companies as if they are somehow innocent
They are, though. Companies operate within the bounds and framework dictated by law. Politicians failed to set the terms for the subsidies properly, that's not the fault of the companies.
>and not the once lobbying for this subsidies
There is nothing inherently wrong with lobbyism. What is suspect, however, is lobbysim based on campaign funding.
>>62047952
stop using their services :^)
make it clear for years on end that you will not vote for anyone agreeing with this shit
>>62047987
ok law-wise they are but i am referring moral wise, it would be retarded to assume that they are breaking laws since they are the ones lobbying for these loopholes and subsidies
>>62047987
>There is nothing inherently wrong with lobbyism.
Just as there is nothing wrong with communism, a completely free market and uncountable amounts of other Utopic ideas.
The problem is that we don't live in an Utopia where people don't misuse such things that's why the abuse has to be prevented
>>62033465
This was the first time I have seen someone talking about this as being a Net Neutrality issue. Verizon is throttling all video. It isn't as if Verizon is throttling Netflix specifically but not other video streaming services (which they have done in the past!).
What Verizon is actively doing is not a violation of Net Neutrality but it is objectively terrible.
>>62048002
>ok law-wise they are but i am referring moral wise,
Well, this is highly speculative. I seriously doubt that Verizon is throttling 4K video solely for the purpose of fucking people in rural areas over.
You must remember that most of Verizon's decisions are directed at maximising profits, which means that their policies are targeted mostly towards areas where they have the largest customer base (as in areas where there are competition from other suppliers).
>>62048016
>Just as there is nothing wrong with communism,
There is though, communism is inherently a violation against your and my natural rights.
>>62048024
Maximising profits can be an imoral act
and if they actually were doing this without preventing competition to arise it would be fine but they do so and thus are imoral.
>>62048032
that's why it's an Utopic idea communism implies that every person is in a familiar relationship where they are willingly do that stuff
that's why it is an Utopia
>>62048053
>>62048032
forgot the pic
>>62047953
nbn with their newer infrastructure may enable LTE speeds of 100down/40up
This way you can use all your data in just a few minutes
>>62048043
>baww but they're immoral
No, they're not. Again, lobbying is no different than you calling your congress elective and bitching about this or that legislation. The politicians that didn't think the terms for subsidies through are to blame, not the companies.
>>62048092
the companies got those legislation to the politicians thus they are not somehow without blame, and of fucking course the politicians are to blame noone says that they aren't.
I am not even saying that the corps are the main problem but absolving them of any fault is plain wrong, you wouldn't say "few" Germans who elected Hitler were not at fault would you? because that's the same dumb argument
>>62048117
>the companies got those legislation to the politicians thus they are not somehow without blame,
You elected these congressmen. YOU, the people. Not the companies.
>and of fucking course the politicians are to blame noone says that they aren't.
I am saying that they are the sole bearers of responsibility.
>I am not even saying that the corps are the main problem but absolving them of any fault is plain wrong
Then we fundamentally disagree on the power of the free market.
>you wouldn't say "few" Germans who elected Hitler were not at fault would you?
Companies don't cast votes.
>>62048139
>I am saying that they are the sole bearers of responsibility.
responsibility is not fault
they carry the responsibility sure, but they are not the only once who are at fault for this that's why the corps are not innocent
>Companies don't cast votes.
not yet :^)
but yes it seems that we are fundamentally disagreeing
>>62048200
>they carry the responsibility sure, but they are not the only once who are at fault for this
This argument doesn't make any sense.
Are you saying that if you break into my house, you're not entirely at fault, because I left my windows and front door open?
Or if I bribe a police officer, the police officer isn't the only one at fault because after all I tempted him with my bribe?
>>62048234
maybe i am using the wrong word
let me expand on it
entity x does something
entity y does something too
this leads to entity z doing something
entity z holds full responsibility
but the actions of x and y lead to z doing that thing which means that they are not innocent in this
>>62048270
>entity z holds full responsibility
>but the actions of x and y lead to z doing that thing which means that they are not innocent in this
This is contradictory. If Z holds full responsibility, then no action X or Y takes whatsofuckingever should determine whether or not Z is at blame.
>>62048234
>Or if I bribe a police officer, the police officer isn't the only one at fault because after all I tempted him with my bribe?
legally you are both at fault in that case
>>62048286
i don't get your way of thinking
their actions in no way affect how much z is blamed
z did it and thus is to blame for doing so
take the Hitler example again
the people voted for him
he is fully responsible for what he did
but the people who voted for him are not innocent because they enabled him to do it in the first place
>>62048286
are you implying blame is a limited resource?
>>62048292
Legally, yes. Morally, it's debatable. If I was a hot girl offering my body instead of receiving a ticket, the blame would not be so easily dealt.
>>62048325
Do you not understand the concept of full responsibility?
>he is fully responsible for what he did
No, he and other nazi leaders share the responsibility. Hitler could not have done what he did without the help of others.
>but the people who voted for him are not innocent because they enabled him to do it in the first place
But they are, because they had no way of knowing that there would be literal extermination camps and war.
>>62048362
I'm implying that full responsibility literally means FULL RESPONSIBILITY.
If you lead a team at work and you screw up and you say "I take full responsibility", you're the one getting fired, while the rest of your team goes free without any blame.
>>62048374
so ignorance absolves fault?
>>62048389
and again fault is not responsibility
if you say I take full responsibility and your teammate fucks it up then sure legal you are fully responsible because you took it onto yourself, that doesn't change the fact that your teammate was at fault for it.
fault and responsibility are two completely separate concepts
>>62048414
>so ignorance absolves fault?
No, having no responsibility absolves fault.
>and again fault is not responsibility
If you have no responsibility, how can you have any fault?
>if you say I take full responsibility and your teammate fucks it up then sure legal you are fully responsible because you took it onto yourself
Exactly.
>that doesn't change the fact that your teammate was at fault for it.
Only if I said it metaphorically and to take the blame. If I was literally the one with full responsibility, then no matter what my teammates did, they are free of fault.
>fault and responsibility are two completely separate concepts
You can't have any fault if you have no responsibility. If you drive a car, you have full responsibility. If you crash, it's your fault.
If you're a passenger, you have no responsibility. If the car crashes, it's not your fault.
>>62033465
You forgot to mention that this is for their "cheap" unlimited plan, though.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-verizon-unlimited-idUSKCN1B21PM
>>62048433
hmm fuck me i've just realized how retardedly i have been misusing fault, it should have been cause.
I ask for forgiveness for such an oversight
>>62047984
No. Government controls the companies through regulation, and voters who think they know how industry should be run (but don't) select the politicians to run the government.
>>62048016
A free market isn't utopian, no one claims everything is perfect under it, just that it is better and more moral.
>Abuse has to be prevented
Abuse comes ffom those with the ability to bring against you or others the threat of violence in response to nonviolent acts. The only institution claiming the legitimate authorityto do that is the state.
>>62033502
What if you use your phone for internet like in a remote area?
>>62048032
>Violation of ... natural rights
You are referring to property, right? Communists usually make the distinction between personal and private property.
>>62048656
The regulations that the government has set on corporations have been withering away in recent years. Do you think the government did that just 'cause? Corporate lobbyists bought politicians and willed them to do that on their behalf. In many areas, Time Warner Cable is a monopoly but we don't see any anti-trust laws being invoked by the government. Gee, I wonder why.
>>62048715
a completely free market will inevitably lead to misery, slavery, monopolies and so on because the masses are stupid
>>62048715
>Abuse comes ffom those with the ability to bring against you or others the threat of violence in response to nonviolent acts.
what speaks against corporations doing that?
what will you do against a monopoly for say electricity production ?
a free market will not prevent them from amassing the power to buy out the competition.
Fucking libertarians and other Republican crackheads need to fuck right off.
>>62048898
For one thing, they wouldn't have the ability to stop anyone else from generating power or from people from generating their own power.
>>62048825
Regulation hasn't been withering away, tohugh they need too, this claim is completely fictitious. Antitrust laws are retarded anyway, but Time Warner is not a monopoly.
>>62049802
k.
>>62048798
The distinction is completely arbitrary, and even considering that distinction disallowing people from owning "private" property such as factories, farms, lands, or waterways is a violation of people's rights.
>>62048776
Don't be in a remote area, or accept the negatives of the situation you've chosen to put yourself or your family in.