Net Neutrality

>>133331523
the best part about this is there is absolutely no need for fast lanes. the internet is working fine as intended.

>>133331742

It's triple dipping on old copper while other countries are building out actual infrastructural improvements to speed across the board.

>>133331742
That's it right there.
>So why do they want this?
They want to monitor and throttle internet access for "deplorables". Being able to charge extra shekels is just a bonus.

>>133331523
>UN flag

I'm going to pretend you're actually a concern individual and not a giant corporation ironically arguing for more power for corporations under the guide of "net neutrality".
"Net neutrality" is a ridiculous term disigned to obsfucate the true meaning of the law, which denies corporations the ability to control their own service, and allows the government to do so instead.
If you equlise the speed for every single service and user, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for ISP's to function, and the ONLY competition will be in the SIZE of the ISP, not the quality of their network and their engineers, which will kill off every competitor.
ISP's do not censor things unless they are told to by the government, and only recently have they begun censoring the internet because of it, and everything they are censoring is ALREADY ILLEGAL.
Everyone is under the imrpession that "net neutrality" will make their internet faster, it will not, it did not, and it can not.
ISP's only really throttled torrent bandwidth, and they did that because of the amount of packets that their routers were being fed, unbelievable numbers that were actually choking the routers and making access slower for everyone else.
So literally, it was unfair for everyone else because of torrent users!
But now with net neutrality, streaming services now have to compete with torrent users because of "fairness" and so nobody gets a better deal and both are slowed down by each other.

Reguarding advertised speeds not being met, forcing ISPs to make 2mb connections 2mb connections is already law, nothing can change that, and small text is still small text, net neutrality doens't change that, people need to complain to the ICCC in their country, because "net neutrality" has nothing to do with that.

So if we already have a law against illegal content, and there was already no censorship except that of illegal data by the government harassing the ISP's, and if the speed of data can't be changed by a law, why are they pushing it?
Because the government wants more control over things.

On the practical side of things, when was giving a government more control over what you see a good idea, ever, in the history of mankind?

If all of the huge internet providers like something, then it's not good for us. If I'm seeing ads on twitter for months upon months with different huge ISP companies pushing this shit then I know it can't possibly be in my interest. "Net Neutrality" is political garbage language used to make people assume just because it has a pleasant name it must be good.

Everyone is under the imrpession that "net neutrality" will make their internet faster, it will not, it did not, and it can not.
ISP's only really throttled torrent bandwidth, and they did that because of the amount of packets that their routers were being fed, unbelievable numbers that were actually choking the routers and making access slower for everyone else.
So literally, it was unfair for everyone else because of torrent users!
But now with net neutrality, streaming services now have to compete with torrent users because of "fairness" and so nobody gets a better deal and both are slowed down by each other.

>>133331523
You lazy fucking neets streaming movies and everything else are the reason for this shit.

>>133331523
Literally nothing will happen

>>133331523
stripping title 2 would work completely the opposite of the way your cartoon depicts. Its like a progressive tax system, the large companies pay a higher percentage with the more bandwidth they use. This is why the large corporate websites are freaking out and pushing propaganda. So congrats, you all fell for it.

>>133331523
Dumbass. 4chan came together years ago to defeat Net Neutrality. Stop confusing the law with the philosophy.

File: 1491358172713.jpg (57KB, 520x520px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 520x520px

>people are unironically defending ISPs ITT

>>133332167
they arent though. google sure as shit doesnt want net neutrality.

http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/net-neutrality/

>tfw fiber with 1 gig down and 0.5 gig up and no bandwidth limit

>>133331523
I don't really agree with it, but there are two arguments in favor of letting the ISPs do their thing.

1. It's their infrastructure, their company. Why shouldn't they be allowed to sell access on it the way they want?

2. An intelligently designed network would work the way the ISPs want. Some traffic (e.g. streaming video) is high priority. Other traffic (downloading large files, sending emails, automated messages, etc) doesn't need to be high priority. A smart network could prioritize high priority packets and improve the service of data transfer that needs to happen now.

>>133332286
then explain this: https://www.recode.net/2017/7/12/15957130/amazon-facebook-google-tech-giants-rallying-defend-net-neutrality-rules-fcc-ajit-pai-vote-day-action

>>133332320
>Why shouldn't they be allowed to sell access on it the way they want?

Because Internet companies are notorious kikes that have pseudo monopolies across our nation.

>>133332418
Always archive those
https://archive.is/wFyVy

>>133331970

>He shits on my UN Flag
>Its an AUS

Yeah, No. I asked for a non-ISP shill, Australia is where this shit-show was tested and implemented first.

You immediately went to the talking points of insincere ISP shill-bots.

>Muh Gubmint Control

This is a canard, it is the government ensuring that ISPs don't shake down companies they don't like and consumers that they want to double-dip on.

>If you equlise the speed for every single service and user, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for ISP's to function


Another lie, when Netflix paid their shake-down money their service improved over-night

>Everyone is under the imrpession that "net neutrality" will make their internet faster, it will not, it did not, and it can not.

Literally, no one is of that impression. We |know| from how the Aussies have been fucked over that it will be made slower by not growing as demand increases.

>ISP's only really throttled torrent bandwidth, and they did that because of the amount of packets that their routers were being fed, unbelievable numbers that were actually choking the routers and making access slower for everyone else.

Yes, service that they are paid handsomely for and jack up the prices for regularly but still drag their ass on building out their networks despite milking millions in government tax breaks on the promise that they would build out their infrastructure

>>133332320
the companies that offer the data pay for the bandwidth as needed to the isp's. this is just a way to block websites they dont like under the guise of free market. 4chan wouldnt exist if net neutrality disappeared.

>>133332320
>1. It's their infrastructure, their company. Why shouldn't they be allowed to sell access on it the way they want?


ISPs took on millions upon millions of government tax breaks to build out their networks to support the increase in demand.

This stance is a insincere one by the ISPs because they are pocketing that money and not building out their networks. Instead they are gobbling eachother up and putting the money into hookers and blow.

>>133331523
If you believe in Libtertarianism, you can't logically believe in Net Neutrality.
That's why you should become a National Socialist.

>>133332320
>1. It's their infrastructure, their company. Why shouldn't they be allowed to sell access on it the way they want?
Because your govt. paid a shitload to them to build that infrastructure.
>2. An intelligently designed network would work the way the ISPs want. Some traffic (e.g. streaming video) is high priority. Other traffic (downloading large files, sending emails, automated messages, etc) doesn't need to be high priority. A smart network could prioritize high priority packets and improve the service of data transfer that needs to happen now.
The high priority traffic is going to be either paid traffic or the traffic of the ISPs own services. They aren't going to optimize it for the consumer, but for themselves.
>inb4 b-but muh free market will fix it
Not when internet in the US and most other western countries is a monopoly/oligopoly.

>>133332436
Especially if you live in a more rural area.

Here in Kansas if you're not in Kansas City, Topeka, or Wichita you're getting bottom of the barrel internet from some out of country pit boss who owns the network and charges excessively.

Already had a couple times the provider I had a few years ago try to give me additional charges just because I was paying only for internet and not the more expensive cable plan.

>>133332167


>He thinks that Net Neutrality rules only protect corporations

I see, you have no clue about how Net Neutrality relates to consumer protection. Good to know.

>>133332699
>The high priority traffic is going to be either paid traffic or the traffic of the ISPs own services. They aren't going to optimize it for the consumer, but for themselves.
this already happens, are you not aware that google flat out buys the bandwidth of significant portions of underwater cables?

>>133332418
It's a PR move. They know this will accomplish literally nothing but put them in a good spotlight for millennials. Netflix bitched about NN until they became a sizable company and pretty much said it wasn't a concern anymore.

>>133331523
Are you talking about the sale of ICANN?

>>133331970
>ISP's do not censor things unless they are told to by the government, and only recently have they begun censoring the internet because of it, and everything they are censoring is ALREADY ILLEGAL.
Everyone is under the imrpession that "net neutrality" will make their internet faster, it will not, it did not, and it can not.
>ISP's only really throttled torrent bandwidth, and they did that because of the amount of packets that their routers were being fed, unbelievable numbers that were actually choking the routers and making access slower for everyone else.


This is just the first google result. It explains the reasoning behind why netflix launched "fast.com" as a replacement for speedtest.net for testing due to some carriers throttling Netflix and actually prioritizing speedtest.net, skewing results even further.

https://qz.com/688033/netflix-launched-this-handy-speed-test-so-you-can-go-shame-your-internet-provider/

>>133331990
>Reguarding advertised speeds not being met, forcing ISPs to make 2mb connections 2mb connections is already law, nothing can change that, and small text is still small text, net neutrality doens't change that, people need to complain to the ICCC in their country, because "net neutrality" has nothing to do with that.


It is not about the ISPs leveling speeds across the board. It is about ISPs going: "Well you could use Netflix and butt against out bullshit usage cap or you could use our Netflix that has a more shitty collection of shows but it doesn't count against the cap!"

>Because the government wants more control over things.

The government sued Verizon over abusing their position to shake down consumers and competitors, they were told by the judiciary to switch ISPs to the new Title designation to stop them. Verizon persisted so they did.

>On the practical side of things, when was giving a government more control over what you see a good idea, ever, in the history of mankind?

Why don't you go look into regions that gave corporations control of their water supply and get back to me about how the government is the worst keeper of utilities.

>>133332039
>use a greater than symbol when your quoting another post so you don't look like a copypasta autistic faggot. Pro tip, it makes green text.

>>133332946
Netflix was not throttled. The gimmick here is fast.com is measuring your speed from netflix and not from their CDN located at your ISP which is what you use whenever you stream video.

>>133332842
Your point being?

File: 500004873-03-01.jpg (145KB, 800x602px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 800x602px

>because of the throttling all non-mainstream sites are dial-up speed

You were born just in time to experience the glorious return of Web 1.0.

>>133332320
Its becoming a public utility, not necessarily in name, but in use.

Hey OP, if your pic is true, why are Google and Microsoft etc. supporting Net Neutrality?

>>133331970
These people aren't going to listen to reason. They're unironically going to slurp and suck and ram the cock of the government, google, and facebook while saying anybody who thinks this disingenuous initiative sold to them by MSM is a footsoldier for ISPs

File: 1484090379156.png (90KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1200x800px

>>133331523
>Can anyone who is not clearly a paid ISP shill explain to me how its okay to let greedy ISP corporations shake down innovative new companies so that they can shill their competing service on the side?
Where is this currently a problem? Be specific. That's right, it's not a problem anywhere. What you're doing is giving greedy (((bureaucrats))) exactly what they want. They are playing your emotions like a fiddle and you're playing along exactly as predicted.

>>133333256
this net neutrality bullshit is just meaningless babble from the left. the consumer does not own the infrastructure responsible for their connection to the internet beyond their fence-line, and neither does the government. the corporations that own the infrastructure will do what they like with it.

>>133333306
what is becoming a public utility?

>>133331523

Why does everyone need the same bandwith? Why can't a doctor performing open heart surgery remotely have the more bandwith than the kids playing video games because he pays for it more?

File: membersofthesenate.jpg (370KB, 827x659px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 827x659px

The bill is currently being debated in the senate committee of commerce, science and transport. If you want to help it die in committee. then mail any of the senators in that committee that are in your state.

List of committee members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Commerce,_Science,_and_Transportation
More info on the bill : https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/993

>>133333219
>Netflix was not throttled.

This is a sly little obfuscation of the truth and disgusting one to trot out.


The real full disclousre:

Netflix was not directly throttled, the ISPs in question was simply not optimizing their traffic correctly and fairly like the traffic of corporations they didn't want to shake down.

The proof of this is in the |FACT| that Netflix users were able to use proxy-connections to netflix and get DRASTICALLY better service.


Netflix also offered to put boxes in the ISPs regional cores with all of Netflix's content on them get this: FOR ABSOLUTELY FUCKING FREE but the ISPs refused and demanded their shake-down money instead.

It is almost as if the issue has nothing to do with traffic burden and congestion and has everything to do with greedy ISPs that forced the government's hand in classifying them in a way to be regulated.

>>133333586

Verizon was screwing over their consumers as well as possible competitors, the government sued them and they were told by the presiding judge that it was out of their control until they changed the Title delineation of ISPs to one closer to utilities. Verizon persisted and the government followed the judicial advice.

So right now there is no issue.

Verizon and other ISPs are paying big money behind closed doors to turn that back to a playground where they can fuck you the consumer and sites like 4chan over.

File: Netneutrality.png (353KB, 590x415px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 590x415px

>>133331523
According to The Washington Post, Kickstarter, Etsy, Amazon and Mozilla will launch an online campaign on Wednesday, July 12, to protest against the plan to change the current net neutrality rules in the country.

NN is pro-big business and pro-government. anyone who thinks otherwise is a deluded cuck, like OP

File: 1472937961479.png (6KB, 390x470px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 390x470px

>>133333736
Right, because things will get so much better if we just hand the internet to a small group of (((bureaucrats))). Stop being retarded.

By the way, the Reddit spacing is a nice touch.

>>133333594
>this net neutrality bullshit is just meaningless babble from the left.

>Trying to make this a left vs right thing

I'm a Fiscal Conservative you fucking asshole shill.

>he consumer does not own the infrastructure responsible for their connection to the internet beyond their fence-line, and neither does the government

Oh, I guess all of those tax-breaks predicated on building out infrastructure and not holding back the internet were just freebies and that money should go to buying Verizon's CEO another fucking Helicopter

>>133334037
>I'm a Fiscal Conservative
>buying Verizon's CEO another fucking Helicopter
no you aren't, you commietard

File: retard.jpg (8KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 375x375px

>>133333917
Then don't use Verizon, genius..

>>133334043

I don't you fucking idiot but many people have no choice because of the ISPs gobbling each other up and pocketing the merger cash instead of building out their networks as they agreed when they took the tax breaks.

>Right, because things will get so much better if we just hand the internet to a small group of (((bureaucrats))).

What the flying fuck are you talking about? The Net Neutrality rules are in place right now and your bullshit straw-man situation does not exist.

>>133334037
>I'm a Fiscal Conservative you fucking asshole shill.
no, you're an idiot.

>those tax-breaks
what, choosing not to take away someone's money against their will is a gift?

>building out infrastructure and not holding back the internet were just freebies and that money should go to buying Verizon's CEO another fucking Helicopter
if i give you a TV as a gift, does that mean that i'm entitled to your living room since i made it look better?

>>133334136

>A fiscal-conservative should be all for corporations pocketing money that was agreed upon to go to building out infrastructure

Fiscal-Conservative =/= AnCap you faggot.

>>133333594
>this net neutrality bullshit is just meaningless babble from the left.
How is it meaningless and how is it from the left?
The point is that if I rent a server from a company X that has a contract with a backbone ISP for 1gbps I expect that server to be able to connect to anywhere in the US at the bandwidth their ISP sells them.
If net neutrality is not a thing then they can throttle my server for example if my server competes with their in house services.
For example you'll end up with a system where you have 1mbps for "general traffic" and 10mbps for specific services/websites. Or a 100gb cap, etc.
>the corporations that own the infrastructure will do what they like with it.
That's what you have laws for.
If ISPs start pulling major bullshit you can always just put a gun to their head and ask them to kindly stop.

>>133333632
>Cherry picking fallacy, I'm a retard.

Completely agree.

>>133331523
Net neutrality is a fraud to pass more censorship laws and let the government control the internet.
The arguments for net neutrality make zero sense whatsoever, like the drawings of cards driving down highways. It's complete nonsense.
There is nothing you can gain from supporting net neutrality because the arguments for net neutrality are complete lies and terrible analogies disguised as arguments.
You should instead think of what you can lose by supporting net neutrality, and why do these people like Obama, Soros, Hillary, everyone in the MSM etc support it?
This entire net neutrality thing is shady as fuck. We know for a fact that we do not need government regulations and more laws to keep ''evil ISP companies'' from censoring you and forcing companies to pay more for their services. So what the fuck is net neutrality for?

You're shilling for something to protect you against a threat that doesn't exist. You don't see a problem with that?

>>133334188
>choosing not to take away someone's money against their will is a gift?


Again, in crayon for you:

The tax-breaks were contractually agreed upon to be in exchange for the ISPs building out their infrastructure to fit the demand present in the US.

The ISPs are using shills and idiots such as yourself to get them off the hook for this deal they made so they can pocket the money.

A deal with terms =/= a gift.

>>133334188
>what, choosing not to take away someone's money against their will is a gift?
They are free not to do business in the country.
And yes it's a gift since it's competitive advantage.

>>133334375
What does that deal have to do with NN? Stop conflating things.

>>133334320
>The point is that if I rent a server from a company X that has a contract with a backbone ISP for 1gbps I expect that server to be able to connect to anywhere in the US at the bandwidth their ISP sells them.
and that's not how it works, so too bad. get a guarantee from every party involved in the connection before you go around making plans like that.

>For example you'll end up with a system where you have 1mbps for "general traffic" and 10mbps for specific services/websites. Or a 100gb cap, etc.
and?

>If ISPs start pulling major bullshit you can always just put a gun to their head and ask them to kindly stop.
agreed.

>>133334375
>The tax-breaks were contractually agreed upon to be in exchange for the ISPs building out their infrastructure to fit the demand present in the US.
that means nothing. the government still doesn't have control over the ISPs.

>>133334397
>And yes it's a gift since it's competitive advantage.
not taking away someone's money is a gift? are you in the fucking mob?

>>133333966
Its a thing, 1st place I noticed was twitch.

>>133334335
>Net neutrality is a fraud to pass more censorship laws and let the government control the internet.


Discredited itt

>The arguments for net neutrality make zero sense whatsoever

Except that the judiciary suggested in in direct response to Verizon's fuckery and its protecting US users from it as we speak
>There is nothing you can gain from supporting net neutrality

Yep, the stick and carrot routine of data caps and zero-rating is totally not a thing because you say so

>We know for a fact that we do not need government regulations and more laws to keep ''evil ISP companies'' from censoring you and forcing companies to pay more for their services.

They did exactly this to Netflix and its users

>You're shilling for something to protect you against a threat that doesn't exist

The NN rules are in effect and protecting us as we speak. Unless you are arguing that something is wrong now fundamentally then you are full of shit

>>133331523
I've been watching this net neutrality debate for years now and what it seems to me is a choice between
A. Give government full access to regulate and censor the Internet as they see fit
Or
B. Give the mega corporations free access to regulate and censor the Internet as they see fit

No mater what the goyim get shafted

>>133334397
How is it a competitive advantage if they gave the same benefit to all the ISP's?

>>133334594
I like you don't answer the most important question
>if it's good, why are Obama, Clinton, Soros, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. shilling for its implementation

>>133334527
>What does that deal have to do with NN? Stop conflating things.


The excuse that the ISPs are using is that there is to much demand, Netflix's sudden quality improvement makes that a clear lie but under that agreement they accepted tax breaks specifically so they didn't have to cry about being too poor to build out the network in a way where they didn't ((((have))) to throttle services like Netflix.

>>133334598
Corporations don't care about censorship, only profits. It's government that censors: see Australia, Germany, Sweden

>>133334598
Wrong. Big business supports NN because it forces consumers/tax payers to pay for infrastructure

See:

>>133333481
>>133334672

>>133334556
>that means nothing. the government still doesn't have control over the ISPs.


>Deals with the US government for tax breaks are meaningless after you get the tax breaks but have not provided what the tax breaks are for

Yeah, No. They literally send people to jail and fine corporations for such abusing tax breaks fraudulently.

>>133331523
>Can anyone who is not clearly a paid ISP shill explain to me how its okay to let greedy ISP corporations shake down innovative new companies so that they can shill their competing service on the side?
Have you not noticed how 'it' has worked over the past decades?
They don't want anyone to have anything bar scraps from their table if you prove your worth.

>>133331827
It's almost as if the USA is third world tier.

Did Europe end net neutrality to do it?

>>133334723
If they broke the deal, then fine them. That's not reason to implement a law that gives more control to the government.

>>133334798
>Yeah, No. They literally send people to jail and fine corporations for such abusing tax breaks fraudulently.
doesn't matter. you don't get to take control of a corporation's assets.

>>133334824
Europe has massive government censorship of the internet

>>133334594
>Discredited itt
Bullshit. The libs support it, Obama championed it. It's government control. Leave it to the businesses. Let them COMPETE. Keep the kike lawyers from having the power to kill anything they don't approve of.

>>133334672


>Using trigger words for some sides of /pol/

Stop, really you fucking Shill. Oxygen is good for literally all those people |and| the people /pol/ like. Is oxygen suddenly bad?

That is not how it works. The only people who want NN rules to be smashed up are CEOs of ISPs and shills on the internet who either don't understand they are being used or are doing it intentionally like the shill-bots that flooded the FCC's site with fake names and identical comments.

>>133334594
Not an argument.

>this

Is not how

>you have a

Discussion

>learn to write

Properly, you complete fucking

>retard

If you can't read the entire post and reply to the entire post like a normal human bean, kill yourself.
Quoting a sentence and then going ''discredited'' isn't an argument, you sub-human low IQ net neutrality shill.

>>133334970
You are the shill, Soros puppet.

big companies need lots of bandwidth to deliver 3d 4k content. good websites use mostly text with some images, so it won't be a problem, they'll have more than enough bandwidth.

>>133334946
>doesn't matter. you don't get to take control of a corporation's assets.


They do exactly this for such fraud.

US =/= Fucked up Aussie-land where they bowed to the ISPs fucking them in the ass

>>133333736
...because your proxy connection was going off your isp dipshit.

Actually the more I think about this the more I like it.

USA fucks their internet so bad Amazon Google et al move their servers to Europe.

Everybody wins.

Except the Yanks, but they can suck a bag of dicks.

>>133334950
Which is why you never see any European flags here right?

>>133335040
again, doesn't matter. you can't control the assets of a corporation.

>>133334961
>The libs support it, Obama championed it.

Again: Cheap trigger words. There are things that both sides agree are good.


Again: The very site you are on and you as a consumer would be negatively affected if the NN rules are smashed. There is no inch of daylight here.

>Let them COMPETE

This actively fucks with the competitive ability of smaller upcoming players. Just look at the shake-down of Netflix.

File: op.jpg (53KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 250x250px

>>133334950
The poor libtard faggot socialist wants other people to pay for his online video games.

NN Supporters: "Who cares about censorship when the taxpayer pays the bills"

how big is this page? maybe 500k? 2mb if it has multiple images on it?

vs a netflix stream that needs 10mb/sec

who cares? if anything it will kick normies off the slowweb, they can play with the call of duty web all they want.

>Trusting microsoft google and their partners the media industry etc over your government

Morons.

Absolute stupidity

>>133334981

It is because your argument is flawed and bullshit not only in concept but on a sentence by sentence basis and can easily be refuted with fact.

>>133334556
>and that's not how it works, so too bad. get a guarantee from every party involved in the connection before you go around making plans like that.
That is more or less how it works right now.
>and?
It's not good for anyone but the ISPs, it's not like they'll lower their prices or invest in infrastructure as long as there's no competition.
Net neutrality is nothing new and comcast/verizon have already tried to throttle traffic before, if it becomes legal then you can say goodbye to p2p among other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC
>not taking away someone's money is a gift? are you in the fucking mob?
If I take away 10$ from everyone except you, you are at an advantage to reinvest that money to get ahead of your competition.
You can argue morality but yes it's a "gift".
>>133334606
I'm pretty sure they didn't, only those who agreed to improve their infrastructure or something similar.
Govt. still paid for a lot of that infrastructure since they would collect more money in taxes if those breaks weren't in place.

>>133335019

Keep using your trigger words. Has literally nothing to do with Soros.

>>133334970
>Stop, really you fucking Shill

says the shill

>Oxygen is good for literally

Discredited ITT

>literally

As opposed to figuratively????

>all

[citation needed]

>Is oxygen suddenly bad?

Who said oxygen is bad????

>That is not how it works.

Discredited ITT

>The

WRONG

>NN rules

WRONG

>comments.

Stopped reading there

File: govjoint.jpg (166KB, 1200x1163px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1200x1163px

>>133335209
HAHAHAHA, keep sucking gov dick, you stupid welfare nigger

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-12 at 2.09.35 AM.png (1MB, 998x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 998x1000px

>>133331523
ISPs can go fuck themselves. Normally I am more of a libertarian but when it comes to ISPs I hear fucking Karl Marx whispering in my ear telling me we need to overthrow the ISP corporations.

>>133335154
No fuck you, UN.

I rethought my position and I'm 110% behind Trump on this one.

>>133335285
I'm getting a headache just looking at this.

>>133333594
just kys for being this retarded

>>133332418

Title II as a regulation that was created to put pressure on monopolies, can be used by the biggest players to prevent new players from entering the market, as the latter won't be able to satisfy the requirements of Title II without serious investments.

The only people who agree to abolish NN are ISP CEOS , except google , i still laugh when i hear people in the US that have LIMITED INTERNET (500 gb /) but murica is #1 rightt

>muh paid internet packages
shit that will never happen and no sane company would try to market

what "net neutrality" actually stopped from happening: bundled data-free content with internet service. wow.

>be cable company now.
>need offset to cord cutters to maintain revenue levels.
>cable data caps will monetize users who don't care but a lot do.
>mobile data will be sufficient to run a home with upcoming 5g.
>data caps on mobile won't work in the long run unless they collude.
>tax the fucking routs to the most popular online locations and get paid from both sides for access/convenience.
>be toll company now.
>now you're cooking with gas..

File: 1499559082070.gif (5KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 500x500px

>>133335348
Just faction of the headache from smoking it.

>>133335213
>It

wrong

>your argument

Which one? I made several

>flawed

According to who and how? Not an argument

>sentence by sentence basis

What does that even mean?

>be refuted with fact

Which you didn't do. Zero refutation to anything.

>.

Stopped reading right about here

>>133335209
>trusting companies that MIGHT censor and over-regulate a medium less than a government that already does

>>133335059


>Doesn't understand how VPNs work

Your VPN does not magically send your packets by warp to the VPN provider. It goes through your ISP just in an encrypted package to your VPN provider's server and then to the desired destination.

The only way for the VPN connection to be faster and better is if the destination is doing fuckery (Netflix has literally no reason to do this, at all) or if the ISP is not routing nearly efficiently as the VPN provider (which anyone who knows how VPN traffic travels and how it bounces around would immediately know this means the ISP is doing fuckery to slow down your connection)

>>133335509
You have good point.

They would put VPNs in the slow lane.

>he actually supports the ISPs
f u c k
y
o
u

>>133335572
Fuck what am I doing.


END NET NEUTRALITY NOW*

>*only in usa

File: 1499401968490.png (232KB, 346x397px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 346x397px

>>133331523
>internet is a natural resource
>paying more doesn't entitle you to better service

CAPITALISM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>133331523
>there was no internet before 2010
>after 2010 internet didn't get greedier and less user friendly with fewer options
pick two

>>133335509

>Your VPN does not magically send


Who said it was magic?


>warp to the VPN provider


Is this star trek LOL???


>It goes through your ISP


Refuted ITT


>desired destination.

Desired by who?


>T

wrong


>h


WRONG

>e

not an argument


>Netflix has literally no reason to do this,


[citation needed]


>ISP is not routing


Not routing what?


>which anyone who knows


How do you know anyone knows?


>VPN traffic travels and how it bounces around


This isn't scientific jargon. The internet isn't a ball.

>connection)

Stopped reading here even though there was no period here.

>>133335687

The US tax-payer already agreed by way of the government for the internet to be faster across the board by way of tax-breaks provided to the ISPs so they can build out their networks to meet demand without the need for shaking down companies or implementing slow-lanes.

>>133331523
>/pol/ should come together
go away
fuck Net Neutrality
plebs and niggers get off my internet

File: 1497261888115.jpg (29KB, 640x519px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x519px

if an ISP invests a bunch of money to lay fiber cables etc. why shouldn't they be able to rent it to the highest bidder?

when has the creation of a market for something created less of it?

Net Neutrality just means anti-white

>>133335862


>I am fine being fucked over if other people get fucked over too

>>133335433
>shit that will never happen and no sane company would try to market
Oh it won't be marketed like that.
>what "net neutrality" actually stopped from happening: bundled data-free content with internet service. wow.
That's exactly how it would work.
Just call it
>unlimited high speed access to netflix and youtube with a complimentary 100GB FREE 1mbps access to general traffic
Makes no difference to the effects.

File: 1499038765166.gif (3MB, 411x227px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 411x227px

>>133335889
do it faggot

>>133332436
/thread

Trump investiagte ad money income apple facebook google NOW

>>133335915
i'm not a poor nigger or white trash so i don't care if i have to pay a premium.
the less niggers and poor college kids on the internet the better.

>>133335889
>if an ISP invests a bunch of money to lay fiber cables etc

In the laying of said cable they took the benefit of massive tax breaks under the agreement that they would not pull this slow-lane garbage.

They are clearly fucking you over by not living up to that agreement while still taking the tax breaks.

File: ancappepe.jpg (32KB, 388x388px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 388x388px

"AT&T says it supports net neutrality and to prove it, it plans to join the massive online protest Wednesday to show support for rules under fire by the Trump administration.

Yes, that's right. The nation's second-largest phone company, which unsuccessfully sued the Federal Communications Commission in federal court to dismantle the 2015 rules, is joining 70,000 online companies, advocacy groups and individuals in a protest organized to tell the current Republican-led agency to leave the rules alone. Big tech companies joining the protest include Amazon, Facebook, Twitter and Mozilla. "

Why do libtard NN fags think that NN is bad for ISPs? It's great for ISPs because NN forces taxpayers to pay for ISP infrastructure.

Libtard NN fags want more government/bigbusiness control over the internet
- AKA fixing things that are not broken

NN fags kill yourselves

>>133332456
>gets his answers
>disregards them as shilling

Bag of rusty cunts you are.

>>133331523
The picture is reality

Corporate internet lines are 10x - 1000x as fast as residential

File: 1498827396389.jpg (90KB, 465x652px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 465x652px

>>133333966

File: 1482622642156.png (249KB, 500x576px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 500x576px

>>133336023
t.

>>133336023
>i'm not a poor nigger or white trash so i don't care if i have to pay a premium.


So you are fine paying for less even though your government is getting fleeced by ISPs using shillbots to claim they don't owe the service that they accepted the tax-breaks for?

Why not just deposit your money directly in the ISP CEO's account if you are willing for him to stick his hand up your ass and fist you while other countries build out great internet infrastructure?

File: op3.jpg (23KB, 474x473px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 474x473px

>>133336092
Yep, sage OP the welfare nigger

>>133335077
you ungrateful snaggle tooethed jew
we shoudl let hitler gas you
I hope you arenot the common bri and brexit gives me hoep lsoer kikes like you get ganked

File: nigro.jpg (129KB, 501x789px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 501x789px

>>133331523
How many people are in trouble from DMCA notices and torrenting stuff? Makes me feel paranoid. Especially with NSA having facilities full of everyone's Internet history going back couple decades.

I see thousands of people downloading shit, are they all going to get #rekt someday as laws get harsher?

>>133336092

>Asked for non-shill
>Gets the textbook shill answer that is repeated word for word in thousand of shill messages to the FCC that were confirmed to be falsely submitted en mass

>>133336173
this>>133336160

member when obama was president and we all had upload and download speeds the same as google HQ?

I genuinely did not anticipate the amount of ill-informed and shills on /pol/ pushing for NN to be smashed.

Whether you are on the fence or just genuinely don't think the ISPs were fucking you over and want to return to that trajectory I would suggest literally everyone read:

https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996


The ISPs took MASSIVE tax-breaks in order to not be able to beg poor when it came time to expand infrastructure in a big way to support the demand of companies like Netflix. They not only don't want to pay the piper they want to triple dip by:

Making you pay for service (and hiking the price regularly)
Making you pay to avoid data caps on the service and avoid slow-lanes
Making companies like Netflix pay protection racket fees

They have the right to do the first, but the other two are them fist-fucking every US user and there will be fallout for international users as well.

I am off, having to take on so many people who don't know what is going on and are vehemently for the ISPs screwing over the US tax-payer that subsidized their growth is tiring.

>>133332418
checkmate atheists

Is this about speed or censorship? If the ISPs and ATT would maintain their lines instead of hoarding their customers money and constantly having billing issues due to unauthorized add on crap we could really talk about net neutrality. From their POV everything is fine.

>>133336246
VPN, there are some sales for like 15$ for a year.
Or seedbox if you have money.
DMCA notices usually don't lead to anything but might as well to be safe.

File: epa.png (304KB, 564x527px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 564x527px

>>133336423
member before NN when the average internet cost was $500/month?

member before NN the ISPs committed war crimes and the internet didn't have any usefulness?

member?

>>133331523
>Can anyone who is not clearly a paid ISP shill explain to me how its okay to let greedy ISP corporations shake down i
It is ok in the free market. Who in their right mind would pay $50+150 for content throttling ISPs if another ISP offer $50 unlimited? It goes bad when there is no free market.

Yes hello

>fuck these corporations!
>do what these other corporations say!

what this is really about is that the tech giants make massive profits on the back of the internet and don't want to pay a premium price for their traffic

>>133336242
Brexit was a yank/kike plot to weaken Britain and Europe.

You deserve worse than this.

>>133335459
jesus fuck man, killed my eyes

>>133333736
>The proof of this is in the |FACT| that Netflix users were able to use proxy-connections to netflix and get DRASTICALLY better service.

That is totally normal

the netflix <-> cable user path was flooded
because netflix users hog the networks

if you use an exotic path nobody else uses it's not flooded
This is PROOF there was no actual traffic shaping against Netflix and video streaming

File: uk4.jpg (758KB, 1258x757px) Image search: [Google]

758KB, 1258x757px

>>133336885
>Leave the EU because mass migration destroying your country due to a kike plot (Kalergi plan)
>Kike plot to leave the EU

Pick one, bong. You went full retard; never go full retard.

I hope Netflix and Youtube get fined into oblivion.

>>133336885
no stupid

its to enable mroe unregualted capitalism that made usa no1 in 1800s while ending slavery and child labor

hong kong under copperwaitehe a smart brit has surpassed you

now you need to go full capitalism and suprpress jewy media n school n law and let capitalism amke all comfy

you are a jewbag and should move to israel

EU should be havily penalized for any trade costs lumped on uk and USa should hurt EU until it implodes

>>133337032
>mass migration destroying your country
Yes now Britain can be a truly global nation.
No more nasty white Poles.
Pakistanis and Nigerians are our best friends now.

Just gas yourself mouth breather.

>>133337134
They SUPPORT NN, you 'tard

"The two internet giants confirmed Friday that they plan to participate in a mass online demonstration to defend the rules as the Republican-led FCC considers gutting the protections, according to spokespeople for the companies.

Dozens of companies and activist groups, including Amazon, Netflix, Twitter, Spotify and the ACLU, have already signed on to the protest, which is trying to drum up grassroots support for the regulations."

>>133332178
This is the same shitty argument as "Oh you want lower taxes? You must hate the poor and love the rich!" "Oh you want to get rid of Obamacare? I guess you want sick children to die!"

>>133333333

File: 25 - Niggers Have Small Brains_jpg.jpg (92KB, 700x451px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 700x451px

>>133337237
Hahahaha you're a nigger! I knew it.

Low IQ subhuman faggot. Kill yourself.

>>133331970

This is the best response in this thread. Sad that it only has 3 replies.

/pol/ is generally immune to being completely retarded, but on the issue of net neutrality /pol/ seems to have drunk the normie kool-aid along with lebbit and 9fag. Amazing that the same community that can take holocaust denial seriously cannot see past the obvious government propaganda surrounding NN.

>>133337170
You write English like a Pajeet.
Sadly this is Britains global future now every cunt is equal to a European.

>>133337331
The sarcasm went right over your head, didn't it?

>>133332320
Gotcha, found the kike

>>133337315
It's not an argument it's a meme.
For arguments refer to my other posts.

>>133337286
I'm aware of their support.

>>133337434
Better be sarcasm. Hint for you: Libtards/Niggers actually believe that shit you typed

Sarcasm doesn't go over well on the internet

File: IMG_7820.jpg (353KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1200x1600px

>people are still talking about this shit
kys

File: utopia.jpg (221KB, 960x927px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 960x927px

>>133337623
Good.

If you hate ISPs then you hate NN

>>133337134
they'll probably subsidized from now on instead

>>133337668
>Libtards/Niggers
Which are you?

>>133337691
Sorry boss.

>>133337788
Don't forget to sage.

Here is the thing. The Internet started as a co-op but when it blew up the telcos could not keep up with the pace and had to share the cost of NNIs. ILECs especially Verizon overbook their backbone links 4-800% because not everyone is using max bandwidth 24/7. That used to work but as the speeds to the end user increase and media streaming like 4K video becomes more ubiquitous. ISPs have to buy multiple links to upper tier ISP carriers to interconnect and pay metered bandwidth plus the cost of the loop. The shit is not cheap at the telco level for equipment that actually routes that much traffic quickly and reliable 24.7. A Telco router/switch is a million dollar backplane shelf that gives you the privilege of plugging in a dozen or so line cards that are fancy blade servers costing 50K or more each depending on the link type per plug. You want dense wave multiplexing long haul fiber for city to city or high capacity metro Ethernet rings? Million dollars a plug installed. Those things run 24/7 and pop a lot but backups hide that from the users most of the time. The ILEC also spends insane amounts of money maintaining cable and the infrastructure takes damage daily. A backhoe here, telephone fire there, etc. A chunk of drama was because Netflix was gaming the system to get out of paying as much for bandwidth because they co-lo in data centers like Akamai. I was alarmist at first but ILECs and ISPs should be able to get something back from companies that hog bandwidth. Web traffic is nothing and a 50ms extra delay here and there is not even noticed. Only RTS need priority when there is congestion.

File: 1479208664262.jpg (27KB, 600x418px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x418px

I can't believe how retarded this board has gotten. Some of you people that actually think net neutrality is bad are such fucking retarded republican cum guzzlers. Some of you seem to be so simple-minded that you think its as simple as republicans support it and democrats don't so it must be good. Because republicans are right 100% of the time and Democrats are wrong 100% of the time durrrr. Many big corporations that support net neutrality are just doing it for PR and in some cases their desire for net neutrality aligns with the average consumer because repealing net neutrality literally fucks over everyone that isn't an ISP, including major websites.

For fuck's sake ISPs are the some of the most despised entities across the nation. Everyone hates dealing with these greedy little shits except for you retards who want them to nickel and dime us even more.

File: 1499038762009.png (504KB, 753x1010px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 753x1010px

>>133338071

File: shrineofthestatists.jpg (144KB, 727x600px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 727x600px

>>133338071
^Holy shit another illiterate retard

>>133333966
>>133334775
>>133336067
>>133337286

File: uk3.png (728KB, 560x1199px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 560x1199px

>>133338562
nice memes, bong

>>133336750
the problem has always been that there is no free market. isps are virtual monopolies and the government won't do anything about it because it's in their pockets.

File: 1499115475431.jpg (67KB, 800x557px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 800x557px

>>133338604
fuck off kike

File: jews.jpg (14KB, 300x282px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x282px

>>133338665
Not a kike/hebrew/jew.

They eat shit.

File: 1498898722941.jpg (196KB, 780x439px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 780x439px

keep bumping
good work
fucking moron

I was for net neutrality but I never stopped to question the other side of the story. Why is Trump and his newly appointed FCC guy against net neutrality?

You know who's for net neutrality? The big internet companies. Ask yourself how many ISP options you have, it's only a handful. These top big companies pretty much have a monopoly and have been eating each other up and communication companies have been merging --- killing competition which would lower your ISP prices. We want more competition and you get that with deregulation.

Pay for play? Are you guys new to America and capitalism? Who else gets their ads during the superbowl? Small family companies? No. It's no different than anything else. But with deregulation, you will have more options. You want to know why CNN, CNBC, ABC and all these other fake news crap stands while independent journalists and alex jones barely gets any air time? FCC regulations keep the small guys from getting their foot in the door. Even when CNN and these other networks get caught in lies and propaganda, what other choices do people have other than turning off the TV? These asshats in power want it to stay that way. The only way to get rid of them is competition and deregulation. If we had other choices, more of us would take our money else where.

The whole, they'll block and hinder smaller sites. Easy, if they do that, expose them and take your money else where. But right now we don't have that many ISP options.

File: 1498901581105.png (183KB, 743x711px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 743x711px

wtf is cat furniture?

>>133337860

finally, someone with a functioning brain

>>133338657
this. google, netflix, etc are supporting net neutrality. is it the goodness of their hearts? their love of freedom and equality?
no, fuckwits, it's so they don't have to pay ISPs a fair amount for the traffic they take up. it's not gonna kill freedom on the internet, it's going to let ISPs charge the more massive corporations higher rates. take the netpill

>>133332320
>1. It's their infrastructure, their company. Why shouldn't they be allowed to sell access on it the way they want
Wrong the issue is that isps want the ability to charge more for direct links from their data centers over to people like Netflix and Google, this means they are not allowed to charge large companies more and price smaller companies out of the market. At present all links must cost the same.

i wish the poor would fuck off and just accept the fact that they have no power

net neutrality is gonna die, your future and your kid's future are fucked. nothing you can do about. stupid ass 99%

maga

>>133331523
>support the government control of the internet guys!

Eat shit and die.

>>133334824
No we didn't (yet)

>>133334950
Some countries (not mine yet)
Besides censorship is a totally different issue

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-12 at 1.23.36 AM.png (280KB, 847x851px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 847x851px

>>133331523

Net neutrality is code for banning free speech

USA is filled with entitlement. Once student visa is up I'm leaving this shithole and never looking back.

>>133339856
How?

>>133337361
>literally advocating being a contrarian on everything just because

>>133339994
net neutrality regulation requires things that aren't required by law

>>133335477
>Trusting a corporation whose job it is to make money out of you at any cost over a government whose job it is to keep you happy so they stay in power

???

Seems like the down side is once it's legally bound as a utility the government can levy loads of taxes and other regulations on it.

File: kimjon.jpg (6KB, 227x222px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 227x222px

>>133340127
you know how they can also stay in power despite making you happy?
By controlling and oppressing you.

>>133339994
You really want FCC control? Have you learned nothing? Why would I like my internet to be as censored as my TV?

>>133340107
wut?

>>133340250
That's not net neutrality.

>>133331523
>Anclaps will defend this corporate Jewry.

>>133338909
>you know who's for net neutrality? the big internet companies

already wrong, stopped reading there

>>133340308
Yes it is. Stop confusing Wu's philosophy of net neutrality with the fucking Net Neutrality Law.

>>133340250
If you really want an analogy to TV, look at how providers bundle channels so you cannot opt out of paying for shit you don't watch.
This happens in EVERY provider so the free market fails there

>>133340308
1. The net neutrality bill makes the internet a public utility
2. This means that it would fall under title III of the Communications act of 1934, being "wired and wireless communication"
3. This means that the FCC would have the authority to regulate the internet in America.

Fuckass.

>>133340445
citation needed.
You can't expect Yrups to know when you purposefully mislabel your laws.

>>133340504
So because every website on the internet is bundles with being able to access the internet, the free market fails?

You're a dumb nigger.

>>133340596
Nice "constitution" you have there

>>133340504
Yeah, the FCC doesn't mandate that spaz.

File: 1489568651396.jpg (31KB, 660x574px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 660x574px

wow lol, if my internet is slow i go outside for a walk haha get a life nerds

>>133340660
that's not the part that's comparable.
The point is that when you involve content AND huge infrastructure the free market fails (a little)

We don't need the FCC to medal with our internet. Look what the FCC has done to radio and television. Censorship galore.

>>133340881

*mettle

>>133340913
meddle*

>>133340250
The reason so many people are fucking off from cable isn't that the government censors it to hell and back, it's that the ISPs jew the shit out of you with channel bundles and other fun things. Why the fuck would you trust a set of corporations who are infamously rabid about trying to fuck you in the ass not to fuck you in the ass when you give them power? It's not like you can just vote them out of office like government officials, and before anyone says "vote with ur wallet" ISPs are a fucking monopoly in many places across the country. You NEED the internet to get a job, among countless other things. It might as well be a human right to have access to the internet at this point.

>>133340596
>Implying that wouldn't be a crisis of free speech and people would go batshit

>>133331523
Only commies don't support the end of (((net neutrality))).

File: 1498893722802.jpg (265KB, 620x521px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 620x521px

>>133339994
Doesn't matter.

Just spam it.

File: 1498900638838.jpg (37KB, 600x411px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x411px

>>133339856

File: 1498873741717.png (418KB, 737x750px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 737x750px

>>133339856
let's go

Also, how does allowing already massive corporations to pay out the ass for faster speeds encourage competition? How would that not lead to the already incredibly wealthy ISPs shitting on everyone else?

File: IMG_4243.jpg (29KB, 439x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 439x480px

Jesus Christ how are these shills not mooted yet?

I'm too stupid to comprehend what the fuck is going on. If NN passes that means the web is govt turf?

>>133341485

Oligopoly will still be a thing regardless.

File: net neutrality.jpg (298KB, 1113x688px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1113x688px

>>133341533
No it just means ISP's can't throttle certain websites and turn the internet into something akin to cable TV.

File: rage1[1].jpg (39KB, 341x204px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 341x204px

>wanted to jerk on pornhub
>suddenly can't, because muh protest
>muh freedoms
>mfw privacy activists are literally blm

>>133341695
Isn't that something we would support? Who even watches cable anymore?

>>133333966
>NN is pro-big business
You misunderstand. Some big businesses stand to benefit over others if Net Neutrality dies so big businesses are on both sides of this issue.

For everyone else, there is only one side to this issue.

And Mozilla isn't big business. It's a fucking non-profit you fucking retard. Fuck's sake one of their largest competition paid for them to exist for a fucking decade because they don't fucking matter for shit.

And what the fuck is an Etsy?

>>133341533
NN is already in effect and it means corporations can't play favorites with websites or speeds, whether you're watching netflix or fapping to giant horsecocks or playing shitty video games your connection is the same the whole way.

Without NN ISPs are allowed to block, slow down, or speed up whatever they please, say for example if Microsoft paid Verizon to give priority to Bing they'd be allowed to do that, among other things.
>>133341734
whole point of a protest is that it inconveniences someone so you see it, negro

>>133341005
So? Totally irrelevant. Everything else you have said in your paragraph has nothing to do with Net Neutrality Law either.

>>133341881
>Who even watches cable anymore?
Fucking nobody because the providers are terrible and the packages are overpriced bullshit and you can get everything online nowadays.

>>133341940
Fuck you freedoms, you goddamn nigger. What point do you prove if you restrict me from goodness of internet?

>>133341959
Cable providers are ISPs, m8.

Nothing in that paragraph was irrelevant, you're just retarded.

>>133341881
I mean, if you want access to 4chan I don't see why you'd be against net neutrality. "Controversial" websites will most likely be blocked.

>>133341940
I see, so we want NN since it keeps the lines from getting yidded. Ty

>>133340864
>free market fails
Opposite. The government cannot create a market, only consumers can.

>>133342046
RIP motherless I suppose

>>133342074
>The government cannot create a market,
I direct your attention to the military industrial complex.

>>133342040
Totally irrelevant. Hippos are also mammals. So what? I don't want government control of the internet. Period.

>>133341959
It's been a long time but I actually read the ruling that put the regulations in place and I think the gist was
>You can't deny service to certain websites
>You can't choose favorites and give priority to certain websites

the counter argument seems to be that they won't ACTUALLY abuse this power if it's given to them when cable exists.

Someone in here was saying "it's literally impossible for ISPs to treat all services equally" but they've been doing so for two years and I literally haven't heard that from anyone else in the debate, not from the FCC or any of its supporters

>>133342046
Exactly. All it takes is for the news to say "xxx ISP ISN'T BLOCKING xxx WEBSITE? ARE THEY RACIST?" and the ISPs will start taking down what they deem as problematic websites left and right.

>>133341533
Net Neutrality is corporation vs. government

with corporations you get greedy jews
and with government you get nannyism

>>133336867
>what this is really about is that the tech giants make massive profits on the back of the internet and don't want to pay a premium price for their traffic
As a consumer of a lot of traffic, I don't want to pay a premium price either, so why the fuck should I support ending Net Neutrality?

Best case scenario some of the websites I visit the most get more ads to cover their costs. Worst case scenario I have to pay more to visit those specific websites.

>>133342175
The government didn't create it dummy. That's what Eisenhower was warning about. The government is a consumer in the military industrial complex. The government buys the weapons from the industry.

>>133333736
Not for free. Netflix wanted to dump the hardware on the ISPs and make them pay for the upkeep on running the appliances.

>>133342324
I think if the government ever moved to step in and start censoring legal content there could easily be a case made for free speech. A corporation can do whatever the fuck they want without regulations.

>>133341533

Correct. Also it allow FCC to collect data on a whim. Also, allow FCC to request anything blocked on a whim.

>>133342386
Still in special ed, huh kid?

>>133342371
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Netflix has never tried to make ISPs pay for Netflix servers.

>>133342471
Yes sir!

>>133342197
>Hippos are also mammals
>So what?
So they generally have live young and produce milk and derive from separate ancestry than reptiles (and did you fucking know birds are taxonomically reptiles? Yeah, taxonomists have been getting their shit together.)

>I don't want government control of the internet.
That's not an option on the table. Your choices are a substantial government control of internet and companies can't fuck you or slightly less than substantial government control of internet and companies can fuck you hard.

>>133342386
A corporation would have to answer to the people, who will abandoned it as customers. A government can do what ever it wants to "protect us".

Net Neutrality as a concept is excellent. Net Neutrality by way of making the internet a public utility is horrible. We need to demand a better system, not defend this federalist crap.

>>133342629
>a corporation would have to answer to the people
not if it's a monopoly throwing money at big companies to ensure they have the best deal lmao

>>133342356
>The government is a consumer in the military industrial complex.
>only consumers can create a market
>The government didn't create it dummy.
I think you might be talking out your ass.

>>133333571
Americans are the ultimate shitposters. Keep sucking that corporate cock.

>>133339856
>implying isps won't throttle and ban free speech as soon as it attracts any negative attention

>>133342037
The point is it's supposed to be a taste of what could be the norm if people don't take action.
Realistically not everything would be effected that way but they're trying to grab attention.

>>133342605
>That's not an option on the table
Yes it is. It's called Net Neutrality. And it already been defeated twice now. The first time by internet freedom advocates.

>>133342503
That's one of the ways that CDNs work at the last step, they have caches at regional levels. For the big boys like YouTube and Netflix this goes all the way down to servers running at the ISP to minimize any possible latency.

One of the resolutions Netflix proposed when having a spat with Comcast over peering (which was more a spat between Comcast and L3), was that Comcast host their appliance and essentially maintain it.

I've always supported all this net neutrality shit for most my life but this year I've begun to change my mind on it a bit. My understanding is that net neutrality already doesn't really apply to cell phone companies such as T-Mobile, Verizon, AT&T, etc. They are free to do as they want, no? I look at what has happened with them and look for this sort of doomsday scenario that people say will happen with ordinary ISPs and I just don't see it. Instead, what I see are like T-Mobile's system where they allow certain sites to not count towards your data plan. I can stream Netflix, YouTube, and lots of other shit without it counting against my plan, and guess what - that's great. It benefits me as a consumer. I don't see the downside.

This is the way capitalism works. I think the issue people really have here is that ISPs fucking suck and that they have a horrible, manipulative monopoly. That is the problem. That is what something needs to be done about. Because there's a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism.

>>133342649
You can demand whatever the fuck you want. Doesn't mean you'll get it or even that that thing exists.

Every ounce of power government cedes to businesses will be wielded by those businesses against consumers.

Say what you will about the internet, but governmental oversight hasn't fucked it up yet.

>>133342692
It can't be a monopoly. That's impossible. And if a monopoly is your fear, why should it be a government monopoly?

>>133331523
Net neutrality is the popular name given by one set of corporations (content providers) in a fight with another set of corporations (ISPs). Why shill for either?

>>133342771
Congrats, you actually think Net Neutrality is the lack thereof and vice versa.

Net Neutrality has not been defeated and is largely supported by internet freedom advocates.

I don't get what incentive people have to be against net neutrality. Like if an Isp's decides to fuck over your favorite website by slowing them to a crawl, what other recourse besides NN do they have to fight that? People keep saying vote with your wallets but how is that possible when Isp has a damn near monopoly on the internet.

Lots of people are saying they don't support NN because it gives the government the ability to regulate the Isp which is bad, because government is bad. But I can't help but think that logic is disingeniuous at best. It implies that the government can regulate internet content by forcing isp's through NN. But where in NN does the government have the power to do that. Literally the only cases I have read of the NN being used was to stop Isp's from regulating the internet.

Then you have some people on here saying the isp should be able to do whatever they want... Why? Why should we let a semi-monopoly have unchecked power on one of the most important faceits of everyday society? Out of precipal? Like honestly why should I give a damn that the Isp's are forced to treat all content as equal. If they weren't a monopoly I wouldn't care about the removal of NN. But people literally out here shilling for monopolies simply because "mega" is beyond me.

People literally out here thinking that NN is pro-censorship. When it literally and anti-censorship law.

>>133342827
How would it fuck it up in the course of the 0 days we've had it? Trump repealed a bill that hadn't even gone into action yet, literally nothing is changing.

>>133342698
I think you don't know who/what the military complex is.
Let me help:
General Dynamics
McDonnell Douglas
Lockheed
3M
Seimens
etc

>>133343023
*industrial

>>133342886
In many parts of the country it may not be a technical monopoly but it's an effective monopoly where every other service sucks ass or gets bullied by the larger corp.

>Why should it be a government monopoly?
What?
The government's not controlling the internet, it's ensuring that corporate control in the government doesn't start to stifle the freedom inherent to it. These regulations aren't on the internet itself, they're on the service providers offering the internet.

>>133331970
Retard. Government regulations are needed when there is a natural (or pseudonatural) monopoly on certain resources. Muh 'free market will fix it' only works if new investors/ventures can step in to challenge the existing monopoly.

>>133343010
>How would it fuck it up in the course of the 0 days we've had it?
We've had it since 2015 and Trump hasn't repealed jack shit.

Seriously, you have no god damn idea what you're talking about.

>>133342951
No it isn't. You keep ignoring what the law is and reverting back the Brian Wu's philosophy of what net neutrality is...DESPITE several of us pointing this out repeatedly!!!!!

>>133343065
>*corporate control of the internet

>>133343065
>The government's not controlling the internet
Exactly. Which I why I oppose Net Neutrality. Why give it to them? Especially for some fear of nothing to be fearful of.

>>133343172
Let me ask you this one simple question.

What will repealing net neutrality do for me?

Assume for the purposes of this discussion I give 0 shits about the rights of ISPs, because I don't.

>>133343315
You know Net Neutrality is already in effect and has been for two years and the discussion is about repealing it, right?

Have you noticed any censorship of legal content in the past two years online?

>>133343315
>Especially for some fear of nothing to be fearful of.
Have you literally ever talked to a Spectrum service rep?

File: net neutrality.png (284KB, 945x575px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 945x575px

>>133342906

>>133343363
Have you noticed any censorship of legal content online before net neutrality?

>>133343336
>What will repealing net neutrality do for me?
I didn't know you had a Net Nuetrality law in Europe, so I don't know what repealing your law will do for you. We on the other hand don't have a Net Neutrality Law to appeal, because it has failed twice fortunately.

>>133331523
Can an American explain to me why this is the issue in the US but nowhere else?

>>133343467
>Have you noticed any censorship of legal content online before net neutrality?
Yes. Yes I have. My ISP sent me a cease and desist for fucking legal torrenting I was doing (was not a pirate yet) because they oversold bandwidth in my geographic area and I was making the internet shitty for everyone in my neighborhood because the 10 mbps they were promising people was actually more in the neighborhood of 1.5.

Because ISPs are horrible companies with horrible business practices.

>>133343505
>in Europe
That's the UN flag, not the EU flag, you fucking dipshit burger.

>>133342906
>why choose sides between content and service providers?
Are you retarded? Fuck ISPs.
You can choose exactly what content you want (including the entire internet).
ISPs are monopolistic and exploitative.
Fuck comcast and fuck verizon

>>133343363
No it isn't. It was defeated like 5 years and failed this second time. Stop reading those misleading internet "tech experts writers". I've seen some their articles pretending it's a law.

>>133343653
Because only the US has the FCC. You guys have probably already been fiuked over by your countries regulatory commissions. I know Germany has.

File: PON.jpg (111KB, 563x752px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 563x752px

>>133331970
>"le free market will fix it"
>America has some of the worst ranked broadband in the world

>>133336581
About half of them are paid ISP shills, the other half are ancap retards. Sorry shills are ruining your thread OP. There's a few of us out there who know what the end of NN will lead to.

>>133343714
>just making bullshit up
The FCC reclassified the internet as a public utility in 2015. This current matter is about whether that reclassification should be repealed. You're wrong on both the year and the outcome.

>>133343661
>That's the UN flag, not the EU flag, you fucking dipshit burger.
So? Was that suppose to impress me less? More?

>>133343791
We have national equivalents of FCC. My question pertains to the fact nothing like "fast lanes" ever happened here despite lack of net neutrality laws. What gives?

>>133343467
It's not really the same complaint, the worry of government influence is censorship whereas the chief worry of corporate influence is screwing over consumers with the added niggle of potential censorship.

The internet has been around for a fairly brief time in the grand scheme of things, around 30 years, give or take? It was only even more recently when it became the massive fact of life that it is today.

All the same throttling certain services absolutely has been an issue in the past and the current back and forth between net neutrality has been going on for the past 7 years.

>>133343898
>So? Was that suppose to impress me less? More?
No, me calling you a retard for thinking I'm European for using the flag of an organization based in New York was not supposed to impress you.

It was supposed to insult you. Maybe I should try smaller words.

U R DUM

>>133343676
My ISP is pretty sweet. I like them. But they're also not Verizon or Comcast.

But net neutrality isn't how the internet works now, has ever worked, or even should work. It's a clever name for feel good bad ideas.

>>133344101
>It's a clever name for feel good bad ideas.
What's bad about them?

And I mean for me personally, not businesses or some higher ideal like freedom or some such bullshit.

>>133343996
Oh, you were making assumptions and being smug. Was your pinky in the air?

>>133344278
Actually I drink with my pinky tucked beneath the glass like some sort of contrarian asshole.

Weird habit I picked up to see if I could.

>>133343103

All natural monopolies are fractal offspring of the monopoly on authority we grant to the state. The nation state is just glorified cult behaviour, and our governments do not govern, they play god and interfere with the rise of spontaneous order.

>>133344409
>>133344278
Also, it's not a fucking assumption to point out that you thought I was fucking in Europe. You said as much.

>>133344483
>nature
>ordered
Bitch, do you even know that life finds a way?

>>133337361
NN is just like the digital locks argument looks good on the surface.
It was sold on the basis of avoiding the cable tv packaging of the internet, which by the way includes a general assumption that ISPs are monopolies. While that latter being sold on the idea of opening the phone of a terrorist.
They sound reasonable, right?
But for some reason, people only suspicious about one of these things and LOVE the other one.
How did we get to the point that there is a piece of legislation, a rule, with this huge acceptance? How can people belive that this is somehow their best interest?
And don't even start on the idea of hiding all kinds of things in the legislation, like making the internet a utility, or making it easier to control in any way.

>>133344691
>How can people belive that this is somehow their best interest?
multiple decades of ISPs acting so shitty they make Congress look good by comparison.

They made their bed. They should have to lie in it.

>these net neutrality threads only show up at night when all the Eurocucks are awake
We get it. You're mad that you lost a war 250 years ago.

>>133344896
>>133344444

>>133342998
Underrated post.

>>133344808
the people will lie in the bed. The bed of regulation and censorship.

>>133344808
Stop shilling for Netflix and Jewgle. We dont need the FCC regulating the internet.

>>133344808
>multiple decades of ISPs acting so shitty they make Congress look good by comparison.
>They made their bed. They should have to lie in it.
If NN is so bad for them then why are telecom giants like AT&T fully supporting NN?

>>133344149
There are legitimate reasons for packet priority, like infrastructural uses like broadcasting DNS updates or certificate revocations. Requiring those to be plain old data like every other packet is a weakness not a strength, and makes the internet a less safe place.

Requiring data to be treated agnostically also delays the use of remotely operated robotic surgery since QoS guarantees can't be made making the surgeries too risky.

You would literally have to privatize roads to make the ISP industry competitive because government controls all infrastructure "public" right-of-ways.

There are really only two choices:

A) Continue to grow the power of the state by enforcing Net Neutrality (band-aid solution, over the long term it just creates much worse problems).

B) Get rid of public commons (if you need something, pay for it).

>>133343103
dude what? are you really trying to say that isps don't already have monopolies? in the usa most people only have one fucking option

>>133345074
>The bed of regulation and censorship.
People that believe the internet can be effectively censored except in situations where the government directly owns and controls all the architecture are delusional.

We've known this since IRC was used to get messages out of Russia during the fall of the iron curtain.

Also, I would expect to be more regulated by a business than a government. Businesses have to keep up appearances with regards to their clientele. Governments aren't accountable for their citizenry, just to them.

>>133345158
don't know if operation should ever be remote and even if, it would be best to have your own cable for this