Net Neutrality

idgaf

>>133343878
why would you fucking answer then you faggot

>>133343831
You stupid fuck faces the companies are gouging you worse now than the 90's early 00's.

>>133345242
so stay then?

>>133343831
>inb4 the ISP shills and retarded anclaps come flooding end demanding we all get fucked by the ISP monopolies.

keep it. It encourages innovation and is a net positive for economy.

>>133343831
Stay. A bit because it's actually good, but mainly just to annoy the (((anarcho-capitalists)))

>>133346026
>muh.. muh free market!

>>133343831
The only people who want net neutrality to go away are the (((officials))) who stand to earn money from its absence.

>>133343831
I don't know, you tell me? Do you want it to stay as it is or do you want microtransactions, complete monitoring, pay-to-access for different types of content, etc.

>>133348098
aren't you an an-cap?
i feel like this is more on the side of what you guy would want

ideologically at least

let the free market sort it out? no?

>>133348210
It already is a free market.

>>133348210
Maybe he's reasonable on this particular issue?

>>133348379
kek

>>133348373
i see, so net neutrality maintains the free market
gotcha

>>133343831
stay. they already jew us enough as is.

>>133348487
>>133348373
>isp monopolies start throttling competition
>indeed destroys the market
An AnCap who's actually true to his market principals instead of just screeching "muh big gubment". You have my respect.

>>133343831
>what does /pol/ think of net neutrality, should it go or stay
We don't have it. We have net federalization. The federal government is not a neutral party, and is just as if not more capable of censorship than private corporations. Nothing short of an entirely new corpus juris will result in net neutrality.

File: Screen-Shot-2014-11-12-at-12.04.32-PM.png (49KB, 630x359px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 630x359px

>>133343831
>>133346026
>>133346328
>>133347675
>>133348098
It's Democrat censorship, fuckshills.

>ISPs notice certain websites use more traffic and threaten to throttle them if they don't pay gibs
>Silicon Valley oy veys and runs to Obama
>Special policies put in place that keep the internet "neutral" aka controlled by leftists
>???
>Hate speech? To the gulag with you!

There is literally no rational defense for net neutrality provisions.

Net Neutrality is a meme pushed by democrats to prop up their literal censorship of other news sources. if the market wants an internet alternative then it'll arise but as it is i have no issues with losing access to parts of itnernet i dont care about such as CNN and the like

>>133343831
net neutrality is an important idea.

But its totally unnecessary if they went after the telecoms under anti-trust.

Which trump should do if not just because everyone fucking hates the major telecoms, and most poeple have no alternative.

>>133343878
this

>>133343878
/thread

fpbp

>>133348679
From an ancap position, antitrust litigation against Google or Faceberg makes about 100x times more sense than net "neutrality".

>>133348749
This truly is one of the most retarded tinfoil-hat posts I've read in a while. Good job.

>>133348715

Ding ding ding

China's blocked off 'net is "net neutral" for them.

Net neutral here just means government controlled compared to private controlled. Both can be shit and both can be good. There's no difference other than private by design having more options to choose from, so you can choose the less shit.

>>133348907
>explaining why net neutrality is bad is tinfoil
>"muh Jewish ISPs!!!" isn't

Spotted the shill

>>133348785
Appropriate flag for this hare-brained understanding of the issue

>>133343831
It's almost beside the point - the big telecom companies in the US should be broken up under anti-trust laws. "Comcast" should be 10 to 15 different companies, for example. But I doubt Trump has the balls to do what should be done.

>>133349010
>democrats and leftists are behind everything!! Fucking Obama!!
>you're just a shill!!
You truly are a braindead stormfag. Fuck yourself.
(You)

File: download.jpg (7KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 225x225px

>>133348749
Top kek what a dunce

Netflix: uses massive amount of bandwidth more than pretty much any other site or service by a huge margin

ISP: shouldn't they pay for that?

Liberals: THEYRE TRYING TO CENSOR US!!! NET NEUTRALITY NOW

>>133349184
>bill nye image
You're not helping your case, idiot. Did you come here from reddit?

>>133349458
>Netflix should also pay for the bandwidth that customers have already paid for
This is just ISPs trying to legalize an extortion bracket.

>>133349458
Quite a few ISP's have their own movie streaming services. They could use this act to strangle Netflix / anyone else's but put theirs on the "fast lane" and thus make their service better / kill comp.

This act benefits no one but the ISP's corporate. It should be shot down on that basis alone, will it is anouther story.

>>133349149
>>133349184
Note for your boss: Get better shills.

>>133349708
>Consumers should pay for that instead

Literally a backdoor for socialized media.

>>133349109
This desu. Net neutrality is a solution but not the ideal solution. All the broadcasting and cable companies need to be broken up but (((they))) won't allow it.

>>133349882
I wish this autistic 'shill' meme would die off already. For fuck's sake, it's just a buzzword to deflect criticism now.

>>133349910
>consumer paying for service and receiving service is "socialized"
>consumer paying for service and supplier paying protection money so consumer can receive his service is okay
This is just basic capitalist behaviour. How is it "socialized"?

File: IMG_3877.png (408KB, 1136x640px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1136x640px

>>133349981
>ISP shill! ISP shill! ISP shill!
>What do you mean I sound like an SV shill on internet censorship day? What are ya some kind of conspiracy theorist?

>>133350107
Forcing me to pay higher internet prices so commies can Netflix and chill *IS* effectively socializing the large social networks.

Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to extort Google? Give me one good reason.

>>133349109
This is the real issue. Net neutrality is just the jews trying to save shekels and brainwashing the good goys to back them up.

>oi vey, goy, the government will slow down your vidya and porno, goy. you don't want that do you?

The reality is net neutrality is like not taxing trucks on the highway. The trucks carry goods for jews, and the goys pay for the roads. Without net neutrality, companies can set up toll booths for the roads and charge the jews their dues.

57.5% of ALL INTERNET TRAFFIC is jewflix, jewtube, and kikebook. Remember that when you're defending the jew and preaching "net newtralitee" like a good goy.

>>133350278
>Forcing me to pay higher internet prices so commies can Netflix and chill
Are you actually so retarded you think your internet bill would go DOWN if this went through

>>133350469
>>133350278
Why is 4chan advocating it then?

File: earthring_1024.jpg (107KB, 1024x594px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1024x594px

>>133348749
>>ISPs notice certain websites use more traffic and threaten to throttle them if they don't pay gibs
The users of the web site are the customers of the ISP using a service the ISP sold to them.
Why does the ISP get to say they want more money from the web site because it's highly used?
The ISP already got paid from their costumers that access the internet by the ISP.

The ISP are already being paid to sell access to the internet. The ISP all use public right of ways or pubic wireless frequencies so they are subject to public rules.

The ISP should be told they could reduce their costs by taking their most popular internet services and co hosting them to reduce load on the backbone connections and save their use fees if they all of a sudden don't like actually having to provide a service they sold to their customers.

ISP are using public property for private profit and crying that they don't get enough. Fuck them.

File: 1497701271409.png (123KB, 292x389px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 292x389px

>>133343831
it's a question of how easy it is to either remove the people in the government responsible for subverting the internet unacceptably or remove the people in a multinational corporation for doing so.

The weakest choice is the correct choice.

>>133343831
>>133331523
I don't know all the specifics on the subject of net neutrality to make a judgement call on it so i'll refrain from that aspect of this discussion.

However I would like to voice some gripes I have with how internet service is handled in this country. Where I use to live here in Arizona the best internet speed we could get was 25mbps down and like 10mbps up (((even though it never reached those levels))). My father called our ISP (century link) to see if they were planning on improving the connections that we had in the area. Long story short their response was that we would have to move to a different area to get the higher speeds. We were already paying the same amount as other people in the state that were getting higher speeds, and its not like we lived out in the boonies or anything we were in the suburbs with a moderate population density.

Through out many parts of the US there are usually 3, 2, or, in extreme cases, 1 ISP company in control of handling internet service. Now I don't know about you but that sounds like a monopoly to me. They have the technology to provide speeds up to 3 times the current national average internet speed but they refuse and show little willingness to change. They've only shown some amount of effort in the last couple years because of Google fiber becoming a possible threat to their strangle hold on the market.

One final point I want to make is that America's current infrastructure rating is a D+ (https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/) which includes our internet connectivity. Despite this fact we have not seen any push from the ISPs to give a helping hand in this regard.

I'm not 100% percent sure about making our cyber infrastructure a government handled utility but I can sure as hell see that the free market has not done a damn good thing for it and they more than likely won't after all is said and done.

>>133349458
>Netflix: uses massive amount of bandwidth more than pretty much any other site or service by a huge margin
>ISP: shouldn't they pay for that?
Why? The ISP customers are already paying for that access, and paying near to 20 times the bulk rate.

Net Neutrality is communism of data consumption, the average consumer uses very little bandwidth. Large companies consume most of all the bandwidth and pay the same amount as anyone else. It is the residential class of user that subsidizes the cost of larger companies through monthly bills. Without NN rules in place you unshackle ISP's and force them to compete at the same time. Without NN rules in place you create a situation where every company is going to be looking to offer the better deal to try and sap customers from each other. Not only with that you create an situation where an ISP can come in and offer special data services that could result in cheaper internet access for specialized lines of service that can be made to fit the needs of residential customers and business customers alike. It doesn't even have to be based by targetting a specific website but more the type of data being transmitted itself. ISPs can already see the type of data passing in their own networks and can already prioritize it by type rather then site.

>>133350629
14 year olds on an armenian sausage origami site are easy to brainwash?
They should read a paragraph or two about what it actually is, instead of listening to "they will slow your internet down, goy" Having internet slowed down or taken away really "REEEEEE"s this generation. They can't turn their head from the jew media titty.

File: anti_anti.jpg (162KB, 1000x866px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1000x866px

>>133350629
Hiro doesn't speak English

>>133350536
http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-net-neutrality-leads-higher-prices-less-innovation/

That objectively doesn't happen, and it doesn't make sense why it would.

>>133350656
>>133350755
Why is it okay for Silicon Valley to systematically censor conservatives, why is it okay for the EU and Germany forcing them to self-censor themselves even FURTHER.

>But for some reason I'm going to feel sympathy for Jew tears that they might have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to local industry.

FUCK that shit.

>>133350831
The cartel business model of ISP means they will never compete with each other meaningfully. It's far more profitable to collude than compete.

>>133350995
>Why is it okay for Silicon Valley to systematically censor conservatives, why is it okay for the EU and Germany forcing them to self-censor themselves even FURTHER.

Are conservatives being censored in traffic on the internet? Or are private businesses that use the internet being biased?

So long as the connections treat traffic equally and so long as the price is the same that's NN working.

NN doesn't have anything to do with private services on the net.

If you don't want to be censored or regulated by governments don't do business in their jurisdiction.

>title 2 = Net Neutrality
This isn't the case at all. Pajeet just wants us to go back to title 1, which we were before 2015 when Obama made us title 2.
Are people just forgetting that everything was fine before Title 2?

>>133343831
I believe that without the dark side there is no force

I fucking knew there would be people advocating for monopolistic ISPs here. American Internet is already shit and filled with datacaps. Is this really the way you want to go? You're already bent over a barrel by ISPs, do you really want them to go balls deep?

>>133351226
>Are conservatives being censored in traffic on the internet? Or are private businesses that use the internet being biased?
Does someone have that webm of sweden blocking news articles? Seems pretty relevant right now.

>>133350831
>Large companies consume most of all the bandwidth and pay the same amount as anyone else.
kek
Google is not running their server off the 100 dollar a month unlimited plan that you watch porno with. They're already paying gigantic sums of money for Internet without a success tax on top.
>>133350995
Your article doesn't provide a single explanation of anything. It just makes a bunch of statements and then says we're better than Europe.
>local industry
Since when is a nationwide ISP corporation a "local industry"?
What you are advocating is big business fucking over other big business at the expense of everybody smaller, including you.

File: keanu.gif (2MB, 340x205px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 340x205px

>>133343831
Ok I'm finally fully read on the subject. Here's the deal, some of it's good, some of it's bad. The problem is people are either all in cuz of MUH NEUTRALITY IT SAYS NEUTRAL SO EVERYTHING IN IT IS GOOD, and some see none of it as good because of government overreach. I used to be in the second camp.

Now I realize though that the bright line rules are pretty useful and I have no problem with these regulations, it's basically just internet freedoms:

>No Blocking: ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services.

>No Throttling: ISPs cannot slow down or degrade internet service based on the content, application, or service accessed by users.

>No Paid Prioritization: ISPs cannot accept payment to give content, applications, or services more favorable access to users.

These should just be made legislation and take away the FCCs power to modify the rules to whatever they see fit. What we don't need is the gigantic regulatory clusterfuck that is currently there with the FCC also having free reign to do whatever the fuck they want to regulate the internet.

>>133343831
what fucking difference does it make
the internet is already greatly censored
ISPs already throttle bandwidth

we need to get the cellphone niggers off the internet and poor trash white trash / poor niggers

>>133351348
I don't have a datacap, my internet is great.

>>133351481
>No Blocking: ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services.
But there's nothing in there stopping the FCC from doing exactly that.

>>133351032
Antitrust laws already exist. Current rules NN in place don't make it profitable to move in on existing ISP territory and what you eventually have happen as we have seen in the last 17 years is all the smaller ISP's started to get absorbed into the larger ISP's because expansion is too expensive so the smaller ISPs are forced to be bought out by the already larger existing ISPs like Comcast and Timewarner. Create an a market for people to compete in and people will compete, allow innovation to be driven by the will of the people rather then the government.

>>133343831
For now, net neutrality is a good thing as it forces our ISP monopolies to provide internet service without price gouging.

But it doesn't address the real problem: that our ISP market is controlled by monopolies. If there was actual competition in this market there would be no need for these laws because who the fuck would ever buy from Comcast or time Warner if they had other real choices,?

File: 1401252442603.jpg (146KB, 654x539px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 654x539px

>>133351718
That's true, the FCC can revise their rules, but this rule is currently there preventing anyone from doing that. I think these three bright line rules should just be made into an actual law and then we can drop all the rest.

>>133351402
You do understand how that's not the same thing right?

Government censorship has nothing to do with NN, that's government policy and needs to be addressed.

Now if the government said to ISP if you suspect a user of your service is a conservative you can degrade their service that would be a violation of the idea of NN.

File: 1497250091113.png (310KB, 499x583px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 499x583px

>>133351226
>it's okay when silicon valley does it because they're private companies
>it's not okay when ISPs do it because fuck you goyim, just bend over and take it

File: 1394741380141.jpg (44KB, 442x341px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 442x341px

>>133343831
"Net Neutrality" is a fucking retarded term because if you ask 10 people, you'll get 12 answers on what it is.

I do not think ISPs should be able to inspect or manipulate content for commercial purposes going across networks - ISPs should be content-agnostic.

The internet should not be a public utility - otherwise, we will have a situation with ISPs like we now have with the postal service. Everyone pays the same price for a letter, but it can cost hundreds of dollars to deliver a letter to a remote location in Alaska, and everyone else gets to subsidize that, even in higher-density population centers where it costs much less to deliver a letter. If you live in Bumfuck, Wyoming on 200 acres, it shouldn't be our problem to run cable or fiber to your fucking compound to ensure you have access to the internet. That's your problem.

>>133351413
Depending on the companies agreement with the ISP and where servers used are located they actually could have no data cap and pay flat rate. Some areas have the benefit of that deal.

>>133351862
You missed the point, even if you make a law preventing the -ISPs- from censoring content, you still don't prevent the -FCC itself- from doing the censoring. And even if you did, you can't just strip away all authority and call it a day, saying the law is set in stone forever. Like I said earlier in the thread, this sort of thing won't ever work without an entirely new constitutional corpus juris.

>>133346026
>we all get fucked by the ISP monopolies.
But what if we also remove the rest of the retarded regulations and the monopolies fall apart from the incoming competition?

>>133351723
>Antitrust laws already exist.
But are not used to end the cartel practices of ISP.

>Current rules NN in place don't make it profitable to move in on existing ISP territory
Explain why not.

It's not profitable because cartels make more money than competition.

>and what you eventually have happen as we have seen in the last 17 years is all the smaller ISP's started to get absorbed into the larger ISP's because expansion is too expensive so the smaller ISPs are forced to be bought out by the already larger existing ISPs like Comcast and Timewarner.

So break them up like Bell.

>Create an a market for people to compete in and people will compete, allow innovation to be driven by the will of the people rather then the government.
You haven't explained how NN stops competition or how having no NN will suddenly cause the government to use antitrust laws.

Oh and here's the actual proposal

https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom

Here is the 2015 order

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order

>>133343831

Net neutrality is just a cover for internet censorship. It sounds nice but it essentially is the first step to radically recreating what the internet is.

>>133351413
More local than Jewgle and Faceberg.

>>133352038
The Internet is a utility. Twitter is not.

>>133343831
>attempt to talk about net neutrality on another forum
>"politics aren't allowed!"

>come to /pol/
>"lolwedontcare xD"

You truly deserve this.

>>133351999
It has everything to do with NN. NN makes the internet into a public utility, giving the FCC the authority to censor content under the 1934 Federal Communications Act.

>>133343831

>Internet is perfectly fine
>"We need laws to keep the Internet okay!"

It makes no sense.

But even if it did, people will just find a way around any impediment. The Internet is the beginning of a truly global, naturally occurring anarchy. It's not going anywhere, even with liberals attempting to Jew it up.

TITLE II ISN'T NET NEUTRALITY RETARDS
THE PAJEET WANTS US TO GO BACK TO TITLE I WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE UNDER PRE 2015
IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND
TITLE II IS NOT NEEDED FOR NET NEUTRALITY TO EXIST

>>133343831
S T A Y

>>133343831
If net neutrality goes they could slow down internet service to ANY website they like in order to reduce to access to it e.g bye bye Pornhub, bye Youtube, Bye bye Reddit and 4chan.

>>133351826
You'll never get rid of the ISP monopolies unless your government takes control of the lines and rents them out. or forces the monopolies to rent them out to any starter ISP company. And i doubt that either would ever happen because "Muh socialism"!

>>133352161
>No one's antitrusting the ISPs, therefore further cartelizing social media is acceptable

If I'm mistaken and NN does not cartelize the internet, explain why. The large companies have deeper pockets and thus stand far far faaaaar more to gain from not being throttled and extorted than 4chan or stormfront.

>>133352038
>muh muh utility

Nice socialist logic.

>>133352161
>But are not used to end the cartel practices of ISP.
So fucking advocate for it instead of this federalist crapheap! Jesus it's not that hard to understand.

>>133352038
ISP use public right of ways and public RF. If an ISP bought all it's right of way land as private property and paid property taxes on it that would be different.

However they don't. They use public property. The companies that use the internet are not in general the companies that provide the connection services.

It's like saying a company that owns a road should be subject to similar regulation as a gas station. A gas station might refuse service to a class of vehicle while the road should be required to accept any licensed vehicle.

>>133352110
You can take the internet off of title two classification and they wouldn't be under the FCC's jurisdiction anymore.

Tbh fuck it, the jannies ruined /tv/ I would like nothing more than for this whole site to go to shit

>>133352438
I dont see the connection between this and banning them from extorting Silicon Valley...

>>133352463
Yes, which is exactly what repealing NN would do.

>>133352357
Oh well, fuck porn and reddit. Worth it.

File: 14262800565730kru2i.gif (1MB, 256x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 256x240px

>>133343831
It already gone long ago. Net neutrality was once so widespread that you could have Windows 98 and no anti-virus protection, since literally nobody was looking at internet traffic, not to mention break into systems, so ISPs also didn't filter internet by type of traffic and of course didn't think about limiting specific traffic when not virus related.

>>133343831
stay/expanded.

File: 1499311228664s.jpg (2KB, 123x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 123x125px

>>133343831
You have to go back

This is what is going on Now! goy pays ISP $80 for T3 internet ISP throttles Netflix and Youtube.
Bottom line you are not getting what you pay for.
like Digital cable boxes that block over the air channels (which the government allowed) and feed you 480p garbage.

>>133343831
Net neutrality is scam by google, amazon, etc to take out their competition. They own huge private networks that aren't regulated so they want to force regulation on their major competitors (comcast, verizon, etc)

File: 1499816834115m.jpg (60KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1024x1024px

>>133346026
monopolies are only allowed to exist because of govt intervention and now you want to give them even more control
kys, and when you reincarnate maybe read books on history and economics so you don't obsequiously lay the bricks of your own enslavement

>>133352541
Yes, you could do that ALONG WITH making those bright line items into federal law independent of title II

>>133343831
well, reddit won't shut the fuck up about it so I conclude they are a bunch of faggots

anyway lmao america you guys are fun to watch

>>133352436
I advocate for both. End the cartel and make sure that traffic is not content judged.

>>133352377
>If I'm mistaken and NN does not cartelize the internet, explain why. The large companies have deeper pockets and thus stand far far faaaaar more to gain from not being throttled and extorted than 4chan or stormfront.
NN doesn't do anything for the cartel structure one way or another.
However, the point made counter to NN is that because of NN we don't have competition, and that if we had no NN that would end the cartel structure.
I believe that is false. When asked to explain why treating traffic equally stops competition the anti NN people have nothing.

It's simply an attack on NN using a false attribution of the problem.

>Join the Day of Action for Net Neutrality, or else we may all end up banned from 4chan.
It's up to you muricans. Good luck.

>>133352357
>Bye bye Reddit and 4chan
if only this were true

>>133352658
Someone prove to me this anon is wrong.

>>133352671
>monopolies are only allowed to exist because of govt intervention
Are you really seriously retarded? Government has no intervention and even if they did, they proven clearly that government of USA is private owned by ISPs, not other way around, after all they accept money from ISPs when voting for internet related things, not other way around.

>>133352674
Repeal and replace? I like it. Sorry steppy snek man I misunderstood your posts.

>>133352907
Ancaps are retarded don't even bother trying to reason with them.

>>133348373
bullshit, the entry to the ISP market is very carefully guarded by monopoly companies that own the wiring infrastructure in huge areas, charging their competitors whatever usage fees they want to stifle any real competition. There is no entry allowed, not even to giants like Google, the multi-billion dollar company who couldn't even manage to roll out fiber because of how impossible it was to feasibly navigate telecom monopolies.

THERE IS NO FREE ISP MARKET

>>133343878
Same

>>133352193
So basically:
>single companies owned by jews use a majority of ISP bandwidth
>ISPs throttle their service so everyone can use bandwidth equally
>Jews throw a fit and good goy obama says ISPs cant charge extra
>costs get passed to the consumer

Remember, people on this forum, actually defend this.

File: 1355789066990.jpg (63KB, 445x770px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 445x770px

>>133352792
> I advocate for both. End the cartel and make sure that traffic is not content judged.

Exactly right. Why is this so hard for people to grasp?

File: Barack_Obama_Campaign_Weeks_Away_Election_4cUXxqGbQQll.jpg (74KB, 594x396px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 594x396px

>>133352907
Yes because no politician has ever kissed up to non-ISP parts of the internet... No sirree, wouldn't happen.

>bringing shame to mommy trump's flag

>>133352962
>everyone who doesn't like democrat orwellianisn is an ancap

>>133353029
/thread

>>133353093
They guy literally has an ancap flag.

>>133353035
Both of those things can be accomplished without making internet title II. Net Neutrality is just Net Federalization.

File: 1486340935313.gif (2MB, 619x350px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 619x350px

>>133343878
>mfw I get 1Gb/s and 300GB of FTP storage for 20eurobux

>>133353029
Except jews also own the ISPs

>>133353175
Oh no! A flag

>>133350656
>public rules
which is that it's their company and they get to say how they want to make money. They can 'tax' websites if they want to, but in the same way another provider can choose not to tax them at all. This will continue until finally the websites choose to no longer associate themselves with a certain provider whose taxing them and only providers who allow neutral access to websites survive. Why instate rules for things that will happen naturally, as those rules can't solve new problems which might arise, whilst allowing the problem to solve itself by free market principles would encounter those same problems and naturally find a way around it...

Also a kekflag is insulting any other person's choice of flag? Top lel

>>133353002
>THERE IS NO FREE ISP MARKET
This is only focusing on one market though. Google, Amazon, Facebook, and others have huge private backbone networks which allow them to move their data faster and more efficiently than over the publicly peered internet (what plebs have to use).

If they force the ISP to be "neutral" that means they lock in their advantage of being able to move their data over their private network and force the ISP to take it and give it equal priority with the data moved over the publicly peered network which allows their data to crowd out everyone else so it cripples any potential competitors who can't afford to spend billions on their own nationwide fiber network.

>>133348969
Net neutrality has nothing to do with Socialism, it's a solution for free market economies and Net Neutrality has no rights to decide who's ISP one should buy. Net neutrality is merely a way for you to complain about ISP, since many can't without net neutrality. Net Neutrality regulators have no jurisdiction over free market, monopolies have made themselves place cap on free market. We have net neutrality here, it's not a big deal really, i can download whatever i want, nobody monitors me, i get a warning when i open Google if i agree for Google taking my data, same on YouTube, i have no limitations on internet.

>>133353479
>Oh no! A flag
And the exact ancap argument.
>monopolies are only allowed to exist because of govt intervention

He's an ancap and is a moron and is making the same false arguments ancaps always do.

>>133352792
Without NN rules ISPs can provided specialized data services, and prioritize traffic. You allow a new type of ISP market to exist, where any customer can customize the the types of data and prioritize that data to them. Basiclly allow you to price you connection to what you actually would use/want/need and by type of traffic. Say your a public school, typically your network is restricted for educational/administrative purpose, if your network is setup right most of content on the web is already blocked on your network, you still have pay for access to everything, without NN rules in place you can have access to data service types specifically, you can create a cost saving situation where the consumer pays less for service by reducing/restricting data by type at the ISP level.

>>133353555
Wow, it's impressive to see someone so wrong about something they clearly know nothing about.

>>133353617
In this case he's right. Silicon Valley would collapse without the US government on its side.

>>133353671
Shill

>>133353029
If the ISP's cant support the bandwidth their customers paid for that's a problem on their end. The customers can use that bandwidth wherever they like and it's up to the ISP companies to supply what they are contractually obligated to do so.

>>133353671
Great counter argument. I am sure you can provide evidence that I am wrong.

I am also sure that Google, Amazon and others are spending hundreds of millions on "lobbying" and propaganda just because they lovez the freedumbs.

>>133353668
Do you think it is somehow cheaper to restrict manage and block internet content than it is to allow unmonitored access?
Do you think the ISP with it's questionable package of management will be cheaper because it offers less access?

>you can create a cost saving situation where the consumer pays less for service by reducing/restricting data by type at the ISP level.
That is exactly the opposite of what would happen.

>>133353674
Explain in detail how the US government is propping internet services like Google, Facebook, Amazon by US laws and regulations making monopolies of those internet services.

What kind of web do you want? The web's inventor @timberners_lee on why we must stand strong for #NetNeutrality http://battleforthenet.com

https://twitter.com/webfoundation/status/885050496964337665

IGNORE THE SHILLS

TRUST TRUMP

>>133353943
why are the ISPs blocking content in the first place.

File: Screenshot_20170712-081911.jpg (105KB, 1075x277px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1075x277px

I haven't paid attention to this because nobody seems to know what the fuck they are talking about but this new announcement is really making me think.

>>133353943
>Do you think the ISP with it's questionable package of management will be cheaper because it offers less access
False, deceptive and ignorant argument.

Services like video conferencing and telepresence which require consistent high bandwidth and low latency for acceptable quality do not work at all (the quality is shit and too unreliable to use for anything critical) on current public internet.

Killing net neutrality is the only way to get next level internet services on the public internet.

Corporations already have these things on their private networks which is why they want to prevent the public from getting them to maintain their competitive advantage.

Looks like reddit is in full force today

Please leave and take your government-increasing policies with you

>>133353883
You suggest that Google, Amazon and Facebook have their own backbone connection that they exclusively own that connects only to their data centers.

That internet services do no use the global internet interconnect services, and that ISPs must move internet backbone customer data over the ISP customer connections (somehow) providing data center connections over the ISP consumer connections.

You're fundamentally wrong.

People really need to stop panicking and trust trump on this stuff

net neutrality has been dead for a long time, big name sites pay to host CDNs in the data centers, which give them better speeds, and smaller sites are locked out of that because no money

actually getting rid of net neutrality will be much worse, but what we have now is already shit

>>133354231
t. literal inbred

>>133343831
Does this shit affect anyone besides Amerifats?

Net neutrality is stupid, I trust Trump on this

>>133343831
>all these net neutrality shills
Sure is leftist around here

>>133354178
>why are the ISPs blocking content in the first place.
You can read what I did.
> Say your a public school, typically your network is restricted for educational/administrative purpose
He thinks that having filters and content blocking will be cheaper somehow than unfiltered access.
It might be cheaper to off load your content filtering to a 3rd party provider but now that almost everyone has internet access often in their hand many schools have moved past the 90s mentality of a safe internet and simple enforce non technical limits on it's students.

For example, 'If you violate school internet policy your access is revoked.' Rather than trying and failing (even back in the 90s) to block all 'objectionable' content on the internet.

>>133354231
>Services like video conferencing and telepresence which require consistent high bandwidth and low latency for acceptable quality do not work at all (the quality is shit and too unreliable to use for anything critical) on current public internet.
No?

Live in a place with a gigabit connection and connect to other gigabit connections and video conferencing works well. Limited not by bandwidth but by computer power to encode data. Hell even mid 30megabit connections are enough for 1080 video.

>>133354285
>You suggest that Google, Amazon and Facebook have their own backbone connection that they exclusively own that connects only to their data centers

I don't suggest. It is a fact. Private companies like Google are big enough to lay their own fiber all over the world. Smaller companies lease dedicated access to existing private fiber and this access is exclusive for a particular amount of bandwidth.

>>133343831
The government should care more about Google monopoly than net neutrality. Google is an evil leftist Corp. Imposing their politics on naive innocents.

It's ironic that some of the same people supporting net neutrality also support ala carte cable pricing. If I can buy the internet for $10 less without Facebook I would do it in a second. Net neutrality is bullshit policy that favors dems and is heavily pushed by soros, the biggest enemy of our way of life there is.

>>133354804
Well offer up some proof of the national Amazon or Facebook network those companies have built for their exclusive data center use.

Some data centers that are very close to each other do have dedicated interconnects. But none have even city wide networks.

>>133343831
These ISP monopolies were created by the government. So since there are monopolies I support net neutrality for now.

And keep in mind Comcast and Time Warner cable are owned by the MSM, so if they had the power to, they would be very happy to censor 4chan, Infowars etc

File: ! ! ! ! ! ! ! VERY WORRIED.jpg (481KB, 2758x1822px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 2758x1822px

>Net Neutrality is bad because evil corporations can choose to do hypothetical things like limit internet access to certain websites to their customers in the name of profit
>And hypothetical situations like these won't create demand for better, cheaper and faster internet providers
>But adding regulations will, because it means that all ISPs can be equal
>Because the Government knows best how to regulate our internet providers to ensure fairness
>Since every ISP has to basically be the same we should rather have the state control our internet access
>They clearly know best and it surely won't turn out like China.
>Net Neutrality still existed before the Obama administration 'in spirit' because evil porkies didn't think about that back then
>John Oliver told me that 4chan and leddit are pro-net neutrality so I need to stay hip with the crowd

FUCKING REDDIT GET OFF OF MY BOARD REE

>>133354869
So youd rather have everything you view be edited and decided by the government that you hate?

>>133354797
Lol, bullshit. I live in california on verizon fios and the network is still too unreliable for anything mission critical.

Yes, it does work sometimes, but it is too unreliable to use for commercial purposes.

Why do you think that traffic shaping features exist on every piece of networking hardware out their and they are the main differentiating feature that vendors charge big bucks for?

ISPs aren't allowed to use that technology so who are they selling it to?

Obviously someone is using it, right?

>>133355004
https://cloud.google.com/products/networking/

"Google’s high quality private network connects our regional locations to more than 100 global network points of presence close to your users"

>>133354869
It's not going to cost less to not have Facebook it will cost more to have Facebook.

You don't actually think they will reduce prices do you?

ISP make their profit by users under using the connections the ISP sells. The ISP are not offering a price break to exclude content. They are already betting that you are only going to use 1/100 of what they sold you.

As people have started using more of the connections they have been paying for, ISP started to panic as their profits were threatened so ISP started trying to extort money from big data users by lower service quality to them and to gear of their political donations to get a political solution to their terrible business practices.

So now we get an ISP funded push to end NN and bring in the age of cable packages for the internet.

>>133355082
All this free market shit. I dont know if you live in burgerland since you hide your flag but whenever a new ISP pops up in burgerland it is quickly stomped by comcast, comcast owns multiple ex sovereign ISPs.
So many search engines yet you only know google. So many operating systems yet you only know windows and linux, and you dont even know "sub-OS's built on linuxs platform.

So what are you left with? Your favorite ISP selling your data freely and legally, your favorite government dictating what you can read, see and say on the internet. I use the word favorite with sarcasm here.

>>133343831
100% unnecessary. Anti-trust laws already exist to prevent the throttling of data speeds and anything involving the selling of private data is already covered by other legislation. It's all complete garbage.

File: IMG_2781.jpg (82KB, 599x798px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 599x798px

>>133355082
Well put anon.

>>133355365
This. The amount of data usage increases incredibly fast and ISPs dont really enjoy having a fair deal so theyre trying to jew you even more.

But there is also an authoritarian aspect to it all where the ISP can legally, disable whatever content it desires and simply state "the website is just not paying enough for the traffic". Google has already been sued for manipulation of search results, imagine how manipulative can internet be compared to something thats simply on the internet.

>>133355345
Google's leased priority access connections.
>Connections are offered by Carrier Interconnect service provider partners

>>133355382
Your post was fine until this niggerfaggotry:

> So many search engines yet you only know google. So many operating systems yet you only know windows and linux, and you dont even know "sub-OS's built on linuxs platform.

OH MAN YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS DISTRO THAT HAS 18 USERS OH MAN YOU BURGERS HAVE IT ROUGH.

I'm glad that's what the nothing-people care about in your nothing-country, anon.

File: 1499002064541.png (102KB, 410x236px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 410x236px

>>133354026
See

>>133350469
>>133348749
>>133353555

>>133355663
I merely wanted to give you an example of how monopoly crushes companies to the point where you dont even know about them.
Anon is raving about free market producing a better ISP but maybe that shit that has 18 users is actually something youd like to see. And if the super rich company with a million users sees that, theyre going to buy it for virtually no cash and thats -1 on the number of things that are "good" hypothetically.
In this case seeing as comcast in your country is supreme leader, i doubt theyd have a problem buying out things that they dont like seeing.

>>133355365
>>133355593
Explain the connection between forcing COMPANIES to pay for non-throttled traffic and turning the internet into cable tv.

As that anon pointed out, ironically, it is the SV giants themselves turning internet into cable tv (youtube, netflix, hulj) while suppressing independent media.

>>133355082
>le reddit bogeyman

File: 1464960548776.png (200KB, 895x820px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 895x820px

>Uh oh, it seems that www.4chan.org is not in your current internet package
>For just $10 extra a month, you can subscribe to this website

Americans will defend this

>>133355864
I don't live in a Comcast area, moving is always a thing.

But good luck moving when Google bans you from the internet for being a Serbian neo-Nazi.

>>133356024
>this will happen because a jew told me so

File: file.png (162KB, 1048x975px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1048x975px

>>133355934
No seriously, if you went on /r/technology RIGHT NOW literally EVERY top thread is about net neutrality

>>133356163
>when you overfund your shilling budget and it makes you look retarded

>>133356163
>>le reddit bogeyman

>>133355663
>>133355864
Also i didnt intent to insult burgerland, monopoly happens in all countries but the most ridiculous example internet wise i know is from america so.

>>133355916
Independent media just cannot survive. These big companies know that internet is the future compared to TV and are starting to move in that direction. And thats the thing, usually what TV does is blast something they know people would look at and in order to sponsor a show ( that probably paid cash ) they put it right after that, or inbetween 2 shows that people tend to watch often. The second most viewed shows and TV stations move on the internet, people dont even suddenly stumble onto something on the TV, the tv is simply turned off.
>>133356058
Movings not as easy when you dont have enough money. And if you did most would probably just pay for the internet extra, giving more cash to the comkikes. In reality im using comcast as an example because its big, but there is nothing indicating that not every single ISP will abuse the shit out of the system. All around the globe.

>>133355916
ISP want to be able take their current offering of access anything and change that into we will block unless you pay.

They will package access to the most popular services and sites into different packages. Do you can get your Social Media package for Facebook and Twitter, but would need to buy the Online Video package for Youtube and Netflix. Or you can buy the ultimate package that combines them.

It's simply a way to increase prices and profits without actually doing anything to innovate, or reduce costs.

Under NN they can't block access to the internet outside of direct government action. Like when ICE seizes webpages and has DNS redirect to ICE capture pages rather than the service you wanted.

We have seen this exact practice with cable TV, given that many of the current ISP are former/current cable TV providers it's not surprising to see a push for the exact same.

>>133356476
Nice evidence

Meanwhile nonstop demonetizing and censorship from the companies actual pushing for jewtrality...

>>133356476
Now your just spouting nonsense.

>>133356163
If you know anything, if those faggot corporations are for it, then it's better to avoid net neutrality like the plague.

>>133355601
>Google's leased priority access connections.
>>Connections are offered by Carrier Interconnect service provider partners

What you are quoting is a private network. They lease an allocation of bandwidth on existing fiber which they are guaranteed while the plebs get what is left over.

I already said that they have a mix of own fiber and leased fiber and smaller companies have more leased then owned.

It is still private. Net neutrality still don't apply to it.

How about we don't allow any private networks at all? Do you here any of these freedom loving companies advocating for that?

>>133343831
GO GO GO GO GO GO
I want welfare niggers priced out of internet!

>>133354869
Good luck finding a package with fourchins buddy

>>133356625
There is nothing more jewy than a big company being able to dictate what you read and say on the internet.
Often people here complain how the kikes are in every media outlet and messing with the information you get, well this will take that control of information to another level.

>>133356136
>>this will happen because a jew told me so
Oh you want access to the sports channel? Just buy the Mega Entertainment Package for another $11.99 a month.

No that doesn't include movies, that's the Premium Movie Package which is $14.99.

No that doesn't have all movies, you need the Add on Movie Package to go with the Premium Movie Package that's just another $5.99.
No you can't just buy the Add on Movie Package for $5.99 and skip the Premium Movie Package, The Add on Movie Package Standalone is just $11.99.

What? You paid $150 a month for access and it should all be included? No, but here is 400 channels of TV from India and South America... not including the 10 most popular channels that's the International Premium Package for only $7.99.

>>133356728
Right. They have spent 10's of millions on lobbying and 100's of millions worth of advertising through the properties they own.

Because they love freedom ... right.

Destroying the internet will be the best thing ever. Imagine how much spare time we will get.

+1 on fucking the internet over.

>>133356710
>Now your just spouting nonsense.
Have you even looked into buying cable TV?

That's exactly what ISP want. Packaged subdivided content.

They might not go as bar as blocking content, but they have already shown their willingness to degrade service to popular content.

>>133356476
And theyll be able to kill off websites they dont like by not including them in any packages

>>133356476
Why should this be illegal?

File: 1496478779736.png (599KB, 1286x957px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 1286x957px

>>133351248
things feel fine right now. what's the motive?

>>133357082
Because it will kill of small sites and so called hate sites. Its the jew trying to decide what you can and cant read.

>>133357190
Money and mind control

>>133356763
It's still public connections that carry general internet data at the backbone level. It's not a private network.
All large internet users make connection deals with backbone providers.

It's not a private connection. You really don't seem to have enough background information to know what you are talking about.

What we really need is to keep Net Neutrality until an actual free market for ISP's can be restored. People saying that the current big ISP's won't exploit this are retarded, because you know they will. Until Anti-Trust Laws are actually put into effect, and until government corruption maintaining the monopolies is purged, Net Neutrality protects the consumer. After, it hurts them.

>>133357028
>but they have already shown their willingness to degrade service to popular content.
bullshit. they refused to prioritize netflix over their other traffic so netflix got butthurt and attacked them.

This is massively hypocritical because netflix already has forward caches all over the country which allows them to monopolize a huge percent of last mile bandwdith at the expense of others.

Netflix is completely full of shit and they have used their fake net neutrality bull shit as way of getting useful idiots to support their attempts to extort even more preferential access out of ISPs.

>>133343831
everything else that reddit stands for is fucking retarded, so anytime reddit stands for something I'm immediately skeptical

>>133356795
Hence why I support ISPs if they extort social jewdia.

>>133357239
>It's still public connections
You are just straight up lying or stupid.

Google specifically says it is a "private network" and uses this as the #1 selling point for their cloud services.

>>133356887
You literally just described Netflix and YouTube Red. Remind me again how net neutrality avoids your hypothetical future?

>>133357230
Which is fine because under an actual free market, it wouldn't' happen: small ISP's would arise that don't do that. In our current market, it's unavoidable.

>>133343831
OUT OUT OUT! Poorfag and niggers need to get off the internet!

>>133357230
Why should it be illegal? If I own a book store, it shouldn't be illegal to stock or not stock what ever the fuck I want. The ISPs own their infrastructure just as much as a bookstore owns the shelves.

>b-b-but the government gave ISPs money
Not taking is not giving. Not getting taxed is not being given money by the government.

>>133357230
Except literally the opposite is true regard. It's silicon valley doing most of the censorship and NN saves them shekels.

>>133357521
meant for >>133356476

>>133357082
>Why should this be illegal?
Because ISP use public right of ways to deliver service. Because the internet backbone uses public right of way for their cables. Because wireless providers use public RF to deliver service.

If an ISP privately owned the land, paid property taxes and upkept the land they used I wouldn't have problems with them making their own network. But they don't so they are subject to government laws in exchange for the right to access of right of ways.

It's in the best public interest to have communication that's free from manipulation.

So the people (government) and the companies made a deal. The private companies can profit from the service provided but are required to follow the laws and regulations the public makes.

>>133357245
In reality i doubt that any ISP will not abuse everything. Quite literally it is free money. You just package the sites you have now and profit immensely.
>>133357390
If they extort sure, but seeing how the political climate looks like between people that actually own things that influence people, i have a feeling that social jewdia will be the only thing you can view.
To make it incredibly close to users on this site, i find it highly unlikely that youll have the 4chan package. And even if 4chan gets a pass, itd be because of how many users and cash the ISP can get off of it. But smaller "nazi, hatespeech" sites are probably not going to be available unless they pay alot of cash themselves, which i doubt they have.

>>133357523
Problem is that its just a fucking book store compared to the internet friend.

>>133357636
Worst case scenario I'll just use a private dns, what else can they do?

>4chan becomes small again

It is the dumbest forced meme brought on by Jon Oliver types and Reddit users. Despite all the doomsday rhetoric, it all amounted to an increase in FCC regulatory power and bringing the internet under the Telecommunications Act section II. Even at that it has only been in effect for almost two years with nothing really improving. When this regulatory excess, disguised as "net neutrality", is removed, things will be about the same, because the ISPs are not in the interest of pissing off their customers with unnecessary throttling of minor commercial internet use. Netflix is the only example of any friction happening with the ISPs and that was almost immediately resolved on its own. Also do you realize that priority bandwidth is a good thing when essential infastructure and services like hospitals and debit card useage is tied to the internet?

>>133353029
But the customers are already paying for that bandwidth. Who cares how you use it?

>>133357626
>>133357626
So why did you defend Google doing the same thing except a million times worse?

Demtard shill.

File: styx-still-lurking_.png (580KB, 922x634px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 922x634px

>>133354405
s'up styx?

>>133357432
>Google specifically says it is a "private network" and uses this as the #1 selling point for their cloud services.

>Google Virtual Private Cloud

Know what the word virtual means?

>>133357814
>So why did you defend Google doing the same thing except a million times worse?
What did I defend Google doing?

>>133357636
>ISP 1 restricts acess to small sites with a paywall
>ISP 2 does not
>ISP 1 slowly looses costumers to ISP 2

In the current market, this can't happen because of government-influenced monopolization of the industry. In an actual free market, consumerism thrives.

>>133357523
The infrastructure is public

>>133357892
Maybe confusing you with a different ID, but didn't you say SV censorship ship was okay because they're just private businesses?

>>133357848
VPN is a different product you dumb shit.

I can't believe that you are actually trying to argue that Google and other big corps don't have their own private networks.

You are fucking retarded.

>>133357910
What if the ISP 1 buys out ISP 2 ? There are alot of things that go into this

File: 1499820735938.jpg (46KB, 215x280px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 215x280px

>>133352907
>USA is private owned by ISPs, not other way around, after all they accept money from ISPs when voting for internet related things, not other way around.
You actually wrote this out.
You wrote this out and still don't see how the govt is the problem.
Who makes regulations? Who decides on tax policy? Who is the one pointing guns at people so that they comply with the wishes of their financiers?
THE STATE, YOU FUCKING MORON.
If you removed the state's legitimized ability to influence the market, ISPs would actually have to compete, instead of buying off the politicians who then crowd out all of their competitors with regulations and taxes.
Seriously, you people are fucking RETARDED.

File: macac soup.png (109KB, 1984x1708px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1984x1708px

>>133343831
Can someone give me aquick rundown on what Net Neutrality actually is? Too bored to go to wikipedia...

we need anti-trust to smash Cox and AT&T, where the corporate entities mage agreeements to not compete in favor of making a deal where "I'll take this part of the country, you can have that part of the country."

Whenever a small, local really good ISP springs up suddenly ((the government)) crashes down on them and shuts it down

Can somebody give me pros and cons of both sides?
Only thing I saw was "Netflix will go down because it will have less bandwidth available because of cable monopolies".

>>133357636
>>133357745
Any isp that offers this site will be boycotted by normies with msm backing and forced to drop it.

And when that happens hiro will just shut it down rather than absorb huge losses every year just to benefit dns fags

>>133343831
>>133348749
We have it here and hope to keep it. The Internet is a common utility which which belongs to the people but is privately managed.

Removing net neutrality is like letting different parts of a highway be patrolled by private police who change the rules arbitrarily depending on your status.

>>133357521
>Which is fine because under an actual free market, it wouldn't' happen: small ISP's would arise that don't do that. In our current market, it's unavoidable.

Explain how a small ISP can't enter the market now, but would be able to without NN?

Or under want condition would a small ISP be able to enter the market without government intervention giving them access to common carrier lines, Literally being given access to the physical lines other companies have installed with price regulated access.

The only small ISPs that have stood up to the big ISPs were local government created ISPs to address the terrible service offered by large ISPs.

>>133358048
people want the govt to force private companies to abide by the "will of the people." So, essentially, more socialist control of the free market promoted by retards who call themselves right wing.

>>133357968
They start a new ISP company that holds to the same practices. Customers now move to ISP C. Free market wins again.

>>133353530
>I don't know what a monopoly is.

>>133357940
But it isn't.

>>133358048
Something not needed that's why AOL and net scap died out.

>>133358059
THE GOVT CRASHES DOWN ON THEM
EXACTLY
SO GET THE GOVT THE FUCK OUT OF THE MARKET
WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO COMPREHEND?

>high, Im the ISP
>I used to sell packages based on a maximum threshold bandwidth. Whenever there was too much traffic going tough the line, everyone got a similar delay.
>but now I am allowed to sell them based on PRIORITY LEVELS
>your current service costs X. Is it getting too slow? Tough shit! Because most of your neighbors and the people of the city purchased the "premium package" which has higher priority and costs X+Y. Therefore since you are a pleb, their traffic has priority over yours. Do you want to buy the premium package too?

>>133357626
>public
And the books are delivered on public roads. Just because the government shoved itself into roads doesn't mean anyone can demand book shelf neutrality. That's just "public interest" is forcing itself into none of its business.

And come on, you have to realize "public interest" will be behind the push to censor "hate speech".

>>133357713
Special pleading.

>>133358059
Google, Microsoft, and amazon first.

>>133357626

So instead of committing the terrible act of privatization, you would rather that public infastructure remain in place, and then fully entrench through Net Neutrality regulation, those corporate ISPs as the providers of that public service, thus creating a defacto monopoly on the whole industry. And thus making you a complete corporatist.

>b-but muh Netflix is now accessable "neutrally"!

>>133358171
How many bitcoins you wanna bet?

>>133358211
no it doesn't dumbass, because the more expensive company will buy that one too. in addition to start up costs, you actually have to be able to own and maintain some cable to actually be an ISP, so you can't do this an infinite number of times. also you are smaller, so you're going to have to charge more because you don't have legions of customers proping you up. with reliable income comes more optimized paying services and small internet companies have less and less.

>>133358266
>things that never happened
Gee, I wonder how the internet ever survived before these caring politicians came tell us what to think.

>>133357942
>Maybe confusing you with a different ID, but didn't you say SV censorship ship was okay because they're just private businesses?

No. I said censorship was acceptable because they are internet services not the internet connection.

The connection should be open and free (free as in free to do what you want with it, not free of charge). What a provider that uses that connection for should also be free*; Free to censor, free to charge access, free to do what they want.

*Clearly within the bound of our laws.

>>133358266

Meanwhile in the White House

>Trump: "Thank you so much for your latest gift Comcast!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd9PYIb0H2o

>>133353275
:(

>>133358448
Obvious shill lol.

>>133358278
>demand book shelf nuetrality
do you even due decimal system you fucking idiot?

>>133358266
>Hi, I'm a new ISP. Don't like what the other guy is doing? We don't do that. If you want, you can buy our ser--
>"FUCK OFF I'LL JUST GET THE GOVT TO WRITE A THOUSAND NEW PAGES OF LAWS SO THEY CAN POINT GUNS AT THE OTHER GUYS EVEN THOUGH THE OTHER GUYS PAY THEM"
absolutely retarded

>>133357953
>VPN is a different product you dumb shit.
VPC not VPN.

From your own link from Google:

"With Google Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) Network, you can provision your Google Cloud Platform resources, connect them to each other and isolate them from one another. You can also define fine-grained networking policies with Cloud Platform, on-premise or other public cloud infrastructure. VPC Network is a comprehensive set of Google-managed networking capabilities, including granular IP address range selection, routes, firewall, Virtual Private Network (VPN) and Cloud Router."

"Google Cloud Interconnect allows Cloud platform customers to connect to Google via enterprise-grade connections with higher availability and/or lower latency than their existing Internet connections. Connections are offered by Carrier Interconnect service provider partners, and may offer higher SLAs than standard Internet connections. Google also supports direct connections to its network through direct peering. Customers who cannot meet Google at its peering locations, or do not meet peering requirements, may benefit from Carrier Interconnect. "

It's the public internet with google servers at high speed backbone connection points. Not some fancy Google only internet.

>>133358410
>companies have infinite amounts of money
Stop talking about shit you don't understand. If what you are saying is true, why hasn't Google bought out everything internet related yet?
Because they can't, retard. Same reason ISPs can't just buy out all small setups to prevent business. Go learn how they operate before you swallow the propaganda.

>>133358386
wheres the NN on computer OS. who has the government contracts.

>>133358577
>hi I'm a new Isp, don't like what that guy is doing? just pay just as much as their largest package for my small internet that you can't even get in most cities

>>133358509
>lol
As if we need anymore proof of a brigade.

>>133349866
>Quite a few ISP's have their own movie streaming services
they're all shitty though

>>133348749

That's the complete opposite of net neutrality you dingus.

>>133358048
>Can someone give me aquick rundown on what Net Neutrality actually is? Too bored to go to wikipedia...
NN is the idea (law) that all the traffic on the internet is treated equally for priority of routing, and that all points of access are equally available to be accessed from any other connection point.

>>133358551
>retard actually thought this was a good comment.
I too want a system that categorized and tracks all internet activity. Do you even think about your analogies, plebbit?

>>133358448
wow your done.

>>133358666
Nice get lol

>>133358587
>durr
they don't need infinite ammounts of money you dumbass,. there are millions of criminals but that doesn';t mean your house gets picked either. the internet has a high skill curve and demand, and comcast has pushed every ISP out of the market in half the cities in the country, in some high pop cities theres even no choice.

the reason google hasn't bought out everything is because theyre an ad company. focused on finding ways to add more ads to things.

>>133358661
>city officials allow monopolies
>it is the federal government's fault

>>133358710
Substantiate yourself

File: what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg (298KB, 1113x688px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1113x688px

>>133358048
net neutrality means data is data and internet service providers can't mess with your access to the net.
removing net neutrality would allow isp's to block certain content unless you pay extra.
pic related.

I like how people argue over "muh competition" for the internet, but you probably can't change power or water companies without moving out of your state

>>133358661
>hi, I'm a fag flag who doesn't understand what competition is or prices are.
kys fag
why the fuck would you pay the same price for shittier service with less coverage?
it's cretins like you that will usher in the totalitarian state

>>133358815
Shill pic

>>133358738
do you even read anything that comes out of your mouth? or just other peoples. I was responding to the fag who suggested that theres no organized shelf traffic system in the public libraries. Since all internet is public, even if no websites are, it's the only analogy that holds up.

>>133358834
Yes, because those markets are controlled by the state, you stupid fuck.

>>133358815
>removing net neutrality would allow a private company to do what it likes with the service it provides
ftfy

>>133358787
Do you think running an internet company is nuclear science or some shit? The barrier to entree is not what you think, though you probably think that because you buy the silicon valley propaganda st face value.
Go do some research, dumbass. Large ISPs lease lines to the smaller ISPs. Why would they want to ruin that deal to establish a monopoly that makes them a target and thus the bitch of the USA government?

Your lack of business knowledge is embarrassing.

>>133358855
That is the ideal scenario for ISPs. No net neutrality is a step towards that

>>133358710
War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Diversity is our strength.

File: firefox_2017-07-11_13-27-14.png (128KB, 801x702px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 801x702px

The concept is retarded and is the pathway towards a metered internet service.

File: 1429263655062.png (951KB, 799x799px) Image search: [Google]

951KB, 799x799px

>>133358855
38 comments with no substance; who's the shill?

>>133358815
that's what AOL use to be but none for that cost shit. it did lump sites into sections.

>>133358897
That you think the analogy holds up just shows how retarded you are when it comes to this subject. Why are you defending crony capitalism and silicon valley lobbying?

>>133358794
>its the federal governments fault
It will be if the bill passes you mongoloid.
you don;t know fucking anything about buiseness. Starting up a company is hard, if it was easy, everyone would make their own company and have "Free" internet without any of this bullshit. just hiring one technician if you want to expand is a whole different ball game compared to comcast who can afford few technicians for many. There is no hope to fight giants like these unless you have some kind of niche. the only successful alternatives have done away with capable, used sattlite, phone internet, and hotspots, all basically different markets than most comcast costomers. and other than that you have AT&T.

>>133353035
Because we live in a left/right false choice lesser of two evils rigged system. You're either 100% for their specific idea which is handwritten by the Jew corporation class or you are the enemy.

>>133358115
>Can somebody give me pros and cons of both sides?
On the side of NN you pay a rate to access the internet and can use data in accordance to your ISP plan, in terms of speed and bandwidth. The ISP can't manipulate your traffic and you have full equal access to everything.

Anti NN you may have your access to the internet shaped in ways to promote some types of traffic on the internet as more important than others (gets routed faster). You may have access to some content blocked or degraded by your ISP unless you pay extra for that content. You still have the same limits on speed and bandwidth but may have extra limits placed as well.

NN will cost ISP (and customers) more as they will need to improve all their network to benefit any one service.
End NN and ISP can within their current network benefit select service without any major costs by traffic manipulation.

>>133358834
did you like the ending to Mad Max FR?

>There are people who want support for the mega corporations like jewbook while probably throttling the very website we're on
Die

>>133358815
>spreading propaganda
I bet you do it for free, too.

>>133358585

"Google’s high quality private network connects our regional locations to more than 100 global network points of presence close to your users."

https://cloud.google.com/products/networking/

It is the first fucking sentence in the first fucking paragraph on their sales page.

"Google and Facebook building super high-speed cable between LA and Hong Kong"

https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/12/13255858/google-facebook-submarine-cable-trans-pacific

FACEBOOK AND MICROSOFT ARE LAYING A GIANT CABLE ACROSS THE ATLANTIC

https://www.wired.com/2016/05/facebook-microsoft-laying-giant-cable-across-atlantic/

Facebook and Google Are Buying Up the Cables That Carry the Internet

http://gizmodo.com/facebook-and-google-want-to-control-the-cables-that-car-1484955396

Google Funds New Brazil – U.S. Undersea Fiber Optic Cable

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/google-new-brazil-us-internet-cable

>>133358997
>hello small competing friend, I own all the lines but I'm not a monopoly, you're my rival, would you like to pay me to stay in buisness at all
what a fucking idiot. kill yourself you ancap.

>>133359083
and aol was slower an netzero.

>>133359200


>https://theverge com/2016/10/12/13255858/google-facebook-submarine-cable-trans-pacific
https://archive.is/Bypbo
>https://wired com/2016/05/facebook-microsoft-laying-giant-cable-across-atlantic
https://archive.is/pMoZp
>http://gizmodo com/facebook-and-google-want-to-control-the-cables-that-car-1484955396
https://archive.is/CA4b5

File: 1489996443364.png (638KB, 883x722px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 883x722px

>>133359038

>>133359118
>durrr
nothing you're spouting has any value at all, defend it with real arguements or fuck off.

>>133357523
A more clear comparison would be a public library, not a private book store.

>>133359123
Why is it the federal government's duty to do the city's job?

>>133358048
It basically means that ISPs must protect all websites equally, regardless of content. By getting rid of net neutrality, ISPs have the power to slow down, or even block websites. Now while that doesn't make sense on why they would do something like that, you must also remember that times have also changed, as in comcast or at&t are losing cable tv subscribers daily, do to the internet taking the place of television nowadays. By getting rid of net neutrality they can slowdown website like youtube or netflix, forcing people to take their cable packages again. Another thing people forget is that ISPs have a major monopoly here, meaning there is noway to switch to a less restrictive ISP, for simply no other exist.

Major ISPs want this for obvious reasons. Ajit Pai (the FCC guy doing this) was always a scummy indian piece of shit. Even if the repeal fails, he will pull some other dirty tactic, just because of how scummy he really is.

>>133359178
Its weird that people on 4chan of all places are in support of this

>>133359211
>I own all the lines because I paid off the local govt to have exclusive rights but this is somehow the fault of the free market because some redit homo says so.

>>133358815

Not only that. They sell you the service based on priority regardless of the content you browse.

>>133359071
>no substance

My first post was
>>133348749

Feel free to prove me wrong

>>133359000
It's fucking retarded propaganda because that's what Silicon Valley/pro-NN ACTUALLY want the internet to look like. A platform where only Jewish left-wing content is allowed.

>>133358997
AT&T got broken up over this kind of thing.

Your lack of business knowledge is embarrassing.

I filed an official comment on the FCC dossier stating I support them putting ISPs back under title 1 classification.

>>133359145
>>133353035
Maybe if pol worked together about shit that matters they would be more concerned with destroying the first past the post system in america instead of bitching about how its all women and blacks faults.

Honestly. Pol hates a ton of people but I cant even imagine how much of it is hatred created by jews who keep this bullshit binary election system in place that ensures half the country at any given time is absolutely fucked for representation.

>>133359288
This is a literal propaganda campaign by the internet companies. They hire people to go around and shill for NN, even paying websites to put up the stupid little banners.

>>133359234
Thanks bro.

>>133358854

You will lose money. That is assured faggot. That or your current average bandwidth deteriorates.

>>133358386
>So instead of committing the terrible act of privatization, you would rather that public infastructure remain in place, and then fully entrench through Net Neutrality regulation, those corporate ISPs as the providers of that public service, thus creating a defacto monopoly on the whole industry. And thus making you a complete corporatist.

I'd love to see a government corporation act as an ISP. The few cases of both small ISP (city level) and large (national level) all seem to do vastly better jobs than private providers do.

Within the current system I'd like to see at cost access forced on more ISP to allow smaller ISP to access customers over the networks of other ISP.
Literally the large ISP must provide at cost access for another ISP to run services over their network.

>>133359234

Google now owns over 100,000 miles of private fiber optic routes around the world. (For point of comparison, Sprint owns just 40,000.) Facebook just finished installing a massive high capacity network throughout Europe that links back to its massive Arctic data center in Sweden. The social network also just invested millions to help lay a 6,000-mile-long cable across the Pacific. Meanwhile, Amazon's spending on infrastructure is up 44 percent to $2.6 billion as it buys up more fiber networks, as Microsoft builds its own networks and invests in underwater cables.

>http://gizmodo com/facebook-and-google-want-to-control-the-cables-that-car-1484955396
https://archive.is/CA4b5

>>133359211
You do know leases have legal protections right? You aren't some dumbass talking out of his aas, right?

>>133359432
I meant thats its weird that people here are anti-net neutrality

>>133359498
>I'm a full blown commie

But yeah even what you described would be better than net jewtrality.

>>133358815
So? Even if this happens, so? Why is it just assumed something like this will serve most people just fine.
Can't all of those websites put themselves behind a paywall? Why does it matter if it's at ISP level?

>>133359558
NN is Jewish censorship

>>133359265
You have no value, shill. You are trying to usher in a new era of monopolies for your jewgle overlords. Fucking leave you retard.

>>133359267
How is the ISP a public library?

>>133359286
>copy and pasting the talking point paragraphs

>>133359599
No its not you paranoid fuck. You will still be free to call people niggers online, dont worry

>>133359558
once you actually read the law and understand it most become against it. libtards are low info voters.

>>133343831
>net neutrality gets abolished
>internet providers notices traffic to /pol/
>OY VEY ITS LIKE ANUDDA SHOAH
>"hateful" websites all get throttled by ISPs responding to leftist outcry

>>133349458

They already do moron. You pay for upstream. Ever wonder why upload speeds are often lower than download speeds?

>>133359430
We here are just as entrenched in the fake politics system as the SJWs are on the left. This is a symptom of the problem. This is why you have poor folks advocating for tax breaks for billionaires unironically and the destruction and privatization of public interests.

>>133359340
If the government isn't enforcing anti-trust laws, then yes.

>>133359599
But don't jews run your fuckhuge ISPs or something? What's the difference here?

>>133359286
>By getting rid of net neutrality they can slowdown website like youtube or netflix
they already do this just search for people calling the ISP's to not throttle netflix, it a commen complaint.

>>133359382
Wrong. They got broken up for being the only one owning the lines, hence monopoly.

>>133359599
have to pay more shekels for my sites isn't censorship?

>>133359525
I thought you wanted muh free market and zero regulation

>>133359525
>the point
>your head
>>133359340
>I own all the lines because I paid the government
vs
>I own all the lines because I own all the lines
go away ancap. the real response should be
>why are we letting random companies have total control over our lines? we should reframe the system so that companies aren't forced to pay their compeition just to survive as a buisness.

>>133359649
How is it a book store? Your shitty comparison, not mine.

>>133359200
Literally all your links are for partnerships.

Google needs more bandwidth so they partner with an internet backbone company to make a deal.
If you build this cable we will buy a set amount of bandwidth on that service. You can do what you want with the rest.

It's not Google saying well we need our private internet so lets build a cable to China that only we use.

It's literally just another set of connections on the internet, with full public access to that connection.

>>133359704
this.

>>133359706
>outing yourself as an outsider
Gee, you think you guys would coordinate in discord or something.

>>133355082
>And hypothetical situations like these won't create demand for better, cheaper and faster internet providers
THATS NOT HOW THE FUCKING INTERNET WORKS CITYFAG

>>133359704
>net neutrality gets put in place
>title 2 means ISP are liable for unlawful material
>dmca out the ass no torrents
>cyber and online hate speech laws
>now ISP are obligated to censor free speech since it's not an information service anymore