Net Neutrality is bad and should be opposed

It's fucking absurd how Trumpcucks and the_Donald wants to get rid of Net Neutrality.

>>133361037

Ending net nutrality will be the best thing for the internet. By making people have to pay extra for social media sites it may end up limiting the access to those sites due to some people simply not wanting to pay to go to facebook or instagram etc. By limiting access to those sites the social media/fake news machine will have less control over peoples lives.

Just look at what cable is already doing with bundling everything. If they are allowed to get control over the internet they will tear it apart real quick and that's exactly what needs to happen. The internet needs to be destroyed and rebuilt in manner that makes in decentralized and has a higher barrier to entry to keep the women and normies out.

Something low bandwith would be great imho. That would essentially kill "media" No more porn, No more stacey and her selfies. No more tyrone showing off his stolen shoe collection.

This is one time where capitalism can actually use it's power to destroy a greater evil.

>>133360869
>thoroughly controlled internet is more like free market than free internet
slide thread, fuck off nigger op

I know that you're trolling but Ancap as an ideology is as retarded as communism.

>>133361110
>>133361037
you're transparent as fuck.

It reminds me of communism's result. "Everything should be equal. Wait, why is my internet so shitty? What do you mean VOIP has equal priority as someone watching netflix or youtube?"

File: libertarian cringe.jpg (247KB, 2048x1502px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 2048x1502px

>>133360869
Anclaps are cancer. How much CEO semen to do you slurp every day OP?

File: 1493609201370.jpg (136KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 768x768px

>>133361110

>>133360869
Sliderfag

>>133360869
Steven Crowder made a pretty good video about net neutrality and why it's bad. People really are stupid.

>Dude, I don't want these corporations to control the internet, I want the government to control the internet!

>>133361037
Liberals aren't all for it and Trump supporters are not all against it, and not all Trump supporters are conservative. I could keep going on and on.

It's called individuality you little faggot, you can't exactly convince anyone here that net neutrality is bad because [insert boogeyman] is against it.

>>133361110
If you want people to not be fooled by the media, they need to know why and they need to see it the way people who aren't poisoned would see it.

>Limiting access
>for their own good

Still control, still telling them what to do, still teaches them nothing. They'll find an outlet.

File: Capture.jpg (63KB, 1192x416px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1192x416px

>>133360869
Why are people still using this image?
These kind of website / ISP deals have been becoming more commonplace for years.

>>133360869
Heh, to think that there are ancaps who don't believe that their whole movement is corporatist cocksuckers.

>>133361415
It reminds me of "communism"

Lenin: OY VEY SHALOM SHALOM WE'RE SOCIALIST NOW, NO MORE UPDATES

>reality
Still capitalism

>>133363986

I don't know anyone against net neutrality and it's hard to find anyone who seriously against it on /pol/.

The days of capital letters screaming 'FREE', and promises of "plans", and more restrictions, is fucking over.

When South Koreans get internet by the gigabit and Americans shit themselves over a mere 20mbit..

>>133360869
I like zero rating, which would be against the law under net neutrality, so I don't want it.

The OP pic is just FUD nonsense.

File: 1491778991151.jpg (98KB, 409x409px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 409x409px

>Net Neutrality destroys jobs

How?

Net Neutrality protects every single content provider on the internet, from small blogs and software companies to Netflix, from being throttled by cable companies

>>133361037
getting rid of net neutrality will shut you up

it'll be the ens of 4chan as well

File: 1492552709492.png (1MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1000px

>>133363986
>we're not over-charging our competition
>we're just making things free for our friends

RIP open internet

>>133364691
>Net Neutrality protects every single content provider on the internet, from small blogs and software companies to Netflix, from being throttled by cable companies

Can you give me one example of when this occurred?

>>133365021
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/netflix-performance-on-verizon-and-comcast-has-been-dropping-for-months/

>The story is really in how each provider's megabits per second changed from month to month. Verizon FiOS suffered just a tiny drop from 2.22Mbps to 2.2Mbps from October to November, but then it went down to 2.11Mbps in December and 1.82Mbps in January.

>>133360869
Why does anyone hate this picture? Every time I see it I think it's the best advertisment for it, you CURRENTLY already pay for every package in this image, if net neutrality passes at worst you can rebuy the package and in better cases you save money by not buying shit you don't want

>>133365021
My ISP throttled me last time it was raining! What kind of insane Jewish companies would throttle because of the weather!?!

>>133365021
>>133365163
I'll give you a bunch actually

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/net-neutrality-violations-history/

>>133360869
End on independent Journalism
End of any website that goes against the narrative, such as 4chan
End of freespeech on the internet
Turns the internet in to cabal TV

Only a Liberal would want to end Net Neutrality.

>>133365286
So, only for maybe a week over the last 20 years and only to websites that congest and throttle the rest of the internet?

>>133365163
>have a high bandwidth service
>crowd the lines, causing outages
>IT IS MY RIGHT TO DO THIS
California was a mistake

>our advertisers have notified us that they do not wish their products to be associated with 4chan.org and henceforth we are removing it from our $350 misc package

>>133361037
I support Trump (flag related though), but since I work in IT I support Net Neutrality because for fucks sake, there are already ads everywhere, ISPs don't pay those people and Internet is way beyond "TV" or similar media, it shouldn't be limited because you can't limit real life in such way.

I love how everyone implies that no net neutrality will result in every ISP immediately engaging in censorship and fully-blocking entire domains until you pay tons of money. Like that will go over real well for the offending business.

>>133365325
But what if our side can use it to ban porn? Would that be possible?

>>133365021
http://globalnews.ca/news/3034412/crtc-to-review-net-neutrality-in-videotron-music-streaming-case/
Canada has been cracking down on ISPs offering their in house streaming services for free.
In terms of unfair competition this is worse can just slowing down the competition a bit.

>>133365425
>crowd the lines

LOL idiot, you don't understand how bandwidth works, so please let me explain.

I own a website that gets about ~5000 unique users a day. I have a contract with Verizon which allows me to upload 200MB/s. Now, just because I am using my full bandwidth, which i've *already paid for*, does not mean I'm "crowding the lines"(which literally makes no sense, unless you don't know how computer networks work at all)

Same with Netflix, at a much larger scale. Netflix already pays ISPs to upload data to their customers through the ISPs networks. So you can't blame netflix for "crowding the lines" when they literally pay to use those lines at that capacity.

>>133365636
Then what's the purpose in getting rid of it?

>>133360869
Hi Google employee.

>>133361110
Nigger

>>133363741
>its only individuality if trump's policies will take away my funs
fuck off already

File: 1486043776849.jpg (91KB, 449x532px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 449x532px

>>133365636
Until NBC gets offended by 4chan, and refuses to broadcast on Verizon until Verizon blocks 4chan on their internet service.

Or better yet, some hacker leaks Expendables 5 on 4chan, causing ComcastUniversal to lose money, so Comcast blocks 4chan for "breaching the rights of its ISP contract"

>>133365455
My dad worked in telecoms for 30 years, and he's not jewish, and he thinks NN laws are fucking retarded.

>>133364365
Nobody even knows what ney neutrality is

>>133365636
Allowing slavery or other nasty things wouldn't result in these things becoming commonplace, but they still shouldn't be allowed.

File: 1499298269121.png (560KB, 570x604px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 570x604px

>>133360869
I love how /pol/ of all places is against net neutrality.
The second that shit gets passed this site is getting fucking hammered to the ground, don't you people realize that?

>>133366233
4chan has never been blocked in the last 20 years, why would it be now?

>>133365636
Are you implying that a company won't do anything to generate more/save capital?
The majority of where Americans live only offer 1 or 2 ISPs at most. They don't need to worry about competition because there's a virtual fucking monopoly. They can do whatever they please once this shit is repealed.

>>133366233
Daily reminder that /pol/ is contamination board.

>>133366382
Well fight against the monopoly, not for some imaginary net neutrality

>>133366233
Degenerate sites needs to be purged to help us MAGA.
This dumbfuck of a place bans people for the slightest shit anyways.

>>133366346
>4chan has never been blocked in the last 20 years, why would it be now?
because the public will think its a good thing, to block fake-news sites from getting any access to the web

>>133365996
The throttling can be very useful in creating a market among the poor.

>>133366131
Then NBC or Verizon lose customers and revenue.
Then ComcastUniversal loses customers and revenue.

>>133366382
Then the people can easily end their plans and go to the public library or somewhere else you can find internet

>>133366346
Given the option to throttle the shit out of /pol/ or 4chan in general, do you not think an ISP will take it? Especially if they're owned by kikes?
Imagine how much the normies would love it.
>"(x ISP) taking steps to throttle racist hate speech sites!" They'd fucking eat it up

>>133366382
Then why haven't they done it ever? Oh right, because if they do every ISP will go and open in that region to compete with their supermonopolist and win every time.

>>133365916
>Netflix is the only streaming service that exist
>bandwidth is infinite, and can support millions of Netflix-like sites
durrr

>>133366467
How are you fighting against monopoly by supporting legislation that GIVES MORE POWER TO THEM?

>>133366491
4chan will shit on the ISP that decides to block 4chan and they will quickly reverse their decision

>>133361110
Why are all ANCAP's retarded?

>>133366564
>when Egypt understands free market better than burgers
What a time to live

>>133366629
Yes, net neutrality does give them more power. Thanks for agreeing

>>133366577
Yes, bandwidth is technically considered a nearly-unlimited resource. It is very, very hard to crowd it.

Also, there aren't millions of Netflix-like sites nor will there ever be, so your argument is moot.

>>133366530
>Then the people can easily end their plans and go to the public library or somewhere else you can find internet
Do you honestly believe that the normies will cut ties with their ISP (most likely the only one in their area) and go to a public library, which would also be under the same ISP?

>>133366676
kinda hard to do that when you only got 3 people browsing your site posting horse porn a day

>>133366629
are you sure you know which monopoly is more powerful

>>133366803
>Amazon video
>Google video
>apple video
>etc
Do you really think bandwidth is unlimited? Holy shit come on man. Only so much data can be transferred at once.

>>133366794
I would imagine it's quite the opposite.
With net neutrality being revoked they will gain much more power in the ability of throttling competition and censorsing sites that go against their agenda.
How exactly is stopping this giving them more power?

>>133366684
he is false flagging as one
my guess is he missed out on bitcoin and litecoin

>>133366990
>he doesn't even know the wording of the legislation
ISPs lobby politicians. By giving more power over the internet to politicians, you are thus helping any one rich enough to lobby them. Including the ISPs.
Apply yourself, please.

>>133360869
>>133366346
Feels like fear mongers have been spamming this fanfiction for over a decade now.

>>133366530
>Then NBC or Verizon lose customers and revenue.
>Then ComcastUniversal loses customers and revenue.
whew boy you almost scared Comcast and Verizon there for a second

it's a good thing they hold regional monopolies so there's no one else to switch to
god bless capitalism and the US of A

>>133360869
I don't understand the problem, are you people communists? Why is the invisible hand of the free market good in every other instance except this one?

>>133366990
you seem very opposed to being throttled
I wonder if there are others like you
perhaps enough, to whe where the doomsday scenario bullshit you are prediciting, doesnt actually happen

>>133366837
It's less likely in places that are monopolized but in huge markets like cities all of the normies who don't even know what net neutrality is will be royally pissed that their ISP suddenly radically changed their plan and ruined their service. Those customers WILL switch on the first day. Google's service will thrive and expand across the country and dethrone Comcast/Verizon.

>>133366233
burn
it
down

File: lain-wire-tangle.jpg (356KB, 526x628px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 526x628px

>>133365021
https://www.freepress.net/press-release/99480/att-blocking-iphones-facetime-app-would-harm-consumers-and-break-net-neutrality
http://netneutrality.koumbit.org/en/node/5
> The most famous example of non-neutrality occurred during the Telus labour dispute. Telus blocked access to a pro-union site by blocking the server on which it was hosted. Researchers at Harvard, Cambridge and the University of Toronto found that Telus’s actions resulted in an additional 766 unrelated sites also being blocked for subscribers.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-comcast-forging-packets-to-interfere
>This morning the Associated Press reported that Comcast is interfering with users' ability to run file sharing applications over its network.

Is that enough?

>>133366979
Those services have nowhere near the usage of netflix, and even then, what's the argument here?

>Only so much data can be transferred at once.
There is no "congestion" when it comes to bandwidth or internet lines. A company or individual pay for a certain amount of traffic speed and they are fully allowed to use it to its maximum. If the ISP can't handle it, then it's their fault.

>>133367303
They blocked them because they cause congestion.

>>133367196
Oh, I'm sure those ISPs wouldn't be afraid of Google Fiber expanding.

>>133367234
>you seem very opposed to being throttled
So does fucking anyone who has access to the internet.

File: 1496299247685.jpg (45KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 240x240px

>>133367381
You don't know how internet traffic works, sorry.

>>133367207
good eye. he is a communist, but thinks by donning a different flag and "2 post by this id-ing" he can generate support for communism

>>133360869

The problem comes down to companies like news sources, Netflix, Google, etc. All don't want to bot have net neutrality because it costs them money. The whole point is that ISP's can charge for the amount of bandwidth these surfaces take up. I worked for a rural local ISP for a few years. Once Netflix came around, people were using 10x more bandwidth at least. Every company except 2 had to drop out, and they couldn't charge their existing customers more unless they wanted them to leave. Currently about 75%, it was 85% on our Network) of network traffic is video streaming from sites like Netflix. Why can't they be charged for this? You charge trucks more on tolls because they damage the road more, I don't see this any differently.

>>133361415
>VoIP having equal priority
That's not how 802.1Q tagging works hombre

Voice > Video > Best effort > Background

>>133367207
Because free (not in the sense of monetarily free) and open access to the internet is something that must be protected at all costs.

>>133367386
The reason the google fiber experiment was abandoned IS because ISPs fucked them over in absolutely every single fucking way to prevent them from expanding or doing anything.

If the biggest multinational technology company in the world can't do it, then how do you expect smaller actors to be able to?

>>133367422
You can't run infinite things over the internet without congestion or throttling. If you don't know this, you are tech illiterate.

>>133365021
faggot retard you clearly dont have comcast

File: 1498072253548.jpg (131KB, 1305x892px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1305x892px

>>133360869
>muh free market

>>133360869

no, the internet shall remain free and neutral.

>>133367386
haha you're funny
this is the part where I tell you how the incumbent monopolies literally litigated and bled Fiber to death

>>133367557
LOCAL LOOP UNBUNDLING WHEN
LOOP
UNBUNDLING
WHEN

>>133360869
>companies should be able to dictate what I do on the internet by punishing my wallet

No. No, no, fuck you, no. The goddamn telecom companies are already jerking off onto piles of cash and then setting them on fire, this argument that "not letting corporations get away with murder means their going to take their toys and go home" is so much specious bullshit and I want to slap anyone who legitimately believes it.

Fuck you.

Fuck ATT.

Fuck Comcast.

Fuck Time-Warner.

And fuck you again. If you're not a paid shill I hope you've got some sort of vested interest in telecom profits so you aren't actually completely retarded.

>>133367502
So you charge more for users who use sites like Netflix, alright then.
How do you not see this leading to ISPs "bundling" off the internet in order to make even more money? You get your streaming package, X dollars a month, then your form package, your email and entertainment package, etc etc.

>>133367587
>You can't run infinite things over the internet without congestion or throttling.
They are paying for the bandwidth and internet speed they use. If the ISP can't handle it, then they'll move to another ISP. Why would they be allowed to punish a business for using the connection they're paying for to the fullest?

>>133367390
it was tongue in cheek
but you have dick in ear so cant understand
the market wont ever produce what OP pic shows

>>133367557
It was because fiber is expensive as fuck to deploy, and currently is not cost effective. Nobody uses that much traffic in residential situations.

Copper and wireless are currently the only cost effective way. Fiber, except for backhauls, is really only being deployed as EPON

>>133367730
You say that but how can you be 100% certain?
Buisnesses will naturally do anything that makes them more money. ISPs have virtual monopolies on areas all across the US. Hell, they can even work together in order to make more money and benefit each other in the long run.
This whole "muh free market" shit is so retarded.

>burgers kill net neutrality
>no more burgers on 4chan
>leaves take over
suit yourselves

>>133361110
you're a fucking idiot

>>133367601
>1 post by this id

>>133367801
>why would you ever want more than 10 mbps
>no one can even think at that speed
>do not look at europe
>do not look at east asia
>they are lies and communist sjw liberal propaganda cucks
>you're not a communist sjw liberal propaganda cuck are you
>you don't want more than 10 mbps
>with these speeds you can appreciate what you have

>>133367557
>>133367691
Do you idiots even know why Fiber isn't super successful right now? I'll spell it out: The intense throttling and censorship you morons think will happen has not happened. Nobody is going to switch to Fiber while they're still getting their usual internet.

>>133367955
>6 posts by this id

>>133360869
Slide to the left
Slide to the right
One sage this time
One sage this time

>>133360869

>implying businesses like ebay, paypal, itunes, etc wouldn't lose billions in revenue if they were no longer accessible to the general public but on a subscription basis

>>133367523
Why? That's LITERALLY communism, you're considering this to be "commons", just like other people would consider public squares, streets, water, healthcare, education or forests to be commons. You'd call those people communists.

>>133360869

I'm for net neutrality and worse. Flag related. If I have to suffer I don't mind seeing you yankie doodles suffer with me. (v:

>>133367897
>>133367897
>You say that but how can you be 100% certain?
this sentence applied to you before it applied to me. you realize that dont you?

File: _1280.jpg (547KB, 1280x1829px) Image search: [Google]

547KB, 1280x1829px

>>133367992
You do not know anything about it. Stop pretending you do.
Is it so hard to use a search engine?

>>133361037
Why is there only A or B when it comes to this? You've been told that NN is THIS, or that is is THIS. For fucks sake where did common sense plans go to? When has it been so cut and dry that this is what's going to happen 100%? Are there no other options available?

>>133367992
>Nobody is going to switch to Fiber while they're still getting their usual internet.
Unless their usual internet gets fucked with. Like ISPs deciding to throttle the shit out of netflix and youtube, and any other site they deem necessary.
But it's not like they can switch anyway considering they most likely only have one ISP in their city.

>asking for additional Federal regulation of the Internet

GTFO now faggot Go protest in favor of the banks or whatever Soros tells you

>>133367992
no one's going to switch to fiber because no one has the option to and the ISPs sure as shit aren't gonna vouch for or upgrade to it when they can get away with charging an arm and a leg for shitty 5 mbps internet over rotting copper connections from 1774

>>133367728
No, /I/ am paying for the bandwidth and internet speed they use.

File: 1487872579175.jpg (52KB, 378x423px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 378x423px

>>133360869
>being this wrong

Might as well start slurping this guys dick.

>>133361453
Why would the autist libertarian have a copy of the Turner Diaries?

>>133367720
ISP's already have different tiered speeds for different pricings. The probably is, when the lowest common denominator jumps from using .5 Mbps at peak to 5-10 Mbps at peak, and previously that was your highest plan (rural ISP), no customer is going to be happy about that significant price hike. It leads to spending a fortune on your infrastructure without minimal increase in revenue, from mainly bringing in MORE people

Internet consumers are some of the worst customers. I mean look at this debate, people are entitled as fuck

File: l42_dart.png (40KB, 291x187px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 291x187px

>>133368170
>/I/ am paying for the bandwidth and internet speed they use.
What the fuck are you even saying now? Stop being retarded.

>>133368091
Businesses will naturally do anything it takes to generate more capital. That was my answer.
My question is what makes this shit any different? Just because it's the internet they'll suddenly become angles and wont fuck everyone over?

I live in a teeny town with only one isp and that isp is unique to this town (doesn't exist anywhere else). Does this mean I'm fucked or I'm totally safe?

>>133367587
this
Idiots dont understand that bandwidth is a scarce resource

You cant just legislate the scarcity of bandwidth away

>>133367956
>10 Mbps
You know copper and wireless both give these speeds, right? Cat6a is 10gbps and wireless can reach similar speeds gbps depending on frequency.

I love how so many people with no knowledge of networking think they have any clue how this shit works.

How did this not slide with the obvious raiding shills at the top?
Fuck this ANTIFA thread

>>133368367
If that ISP decides to the throttle the fuck out of your internet to save money, then yeah, it does mean you're fucked.

>>133368427
A new ISP will open that won't

>>133368097
How is Fiber abandoned when I could easily get it if I lived in the places it's available in?

>>133368165
You're an actual moron. If the leading ISPs start shit then people in places where Fiber IS an option WILL switch to it. And once Fiber gets enough customers and revenue, they will expand be an option in even more places.

>>133360869
>use taxpayer money to build the infrastructure
>let a select few companies use it
>yo we should allow those companies to charge more for services that aren't theirs
>an caps think this is the free market in action

>>133368398
if they can reach that speed then why are we still using rotting copper from the 70's instead of fiber

>>133367956
east asia gets high speed internet for cheap meanwhile the US we have to pay extremely high prices for shit tier internet.
I know we love being "hurr america is amazing" but in terms of internet speed we fall flat here.

>>133368510
They completely stopped all of their expansion plans in any other city because they kept getting fucked over by the ISPs.

>>133368491
But my town is tiny. 95% of the people even in my state have never heard of it. Why would anyone open up here?

Net Neutrality is a fucking scam. It's government control over the internet, thinly veiled as some sort protection of rights.

Subscribing to specific packages would be MUCH cheaper than the full access we have now. And no, you wouldn't just lose access to the entire fucking net, as what you're paying for now is literally the most expensive option that WOULD be available, if we didn't have net neutrality. A much more sensible law, if you gotta have one, is simply to say that ISPs HAVE to provide the same "full access" option, in case costumers want it.

>>133368367
Local ISP's tend to be more connected to their communities. After I left a year ago, I still keep numbers of clients in case they have questions or issues. Look at what their throttle policy is, if they have one. If there is one, it's usually at a certain amount of data per month.

>>133368510
>You're an actual moron. If the leading ISPs start shit then people in places where Fiber IS an option WILL switch to it. And once Fiber gets enough customers and revenue, they will expand be an option in even more places.

that's funny you're a real funny guy
that DID happen and the ISPs STILL lobbied and litigated and killed Google Fiber with 1000 cuts

>>133368491
Oh yeah a totally new ISP will spend thousands or millions on the infrastructure to serve an entire city or region just because they noticed one city or region decided to throttle.

File: Untitled3.png (127KB, 654x707px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 654x707px

>net neutrality is eliminated
>cable monopolies start doing OP's pic
>people start switching to 4G LTE/5G cell networks
>multiple LEO internet constellations go up
>everyone without good cell service switches to low-latency satellite internet
>cable companies go bankrupt
I can't wait.

>>133368577
Nice source. They've stopped because nobody signs up for it and digging holes in the ground is expensive in big cities

>>133368608
Hey, it's still free money for the ISP that opens there, I don't look at 5$ bills on the ground and go "it's too little".

>>133368667
this was my idea like 6 years ago :/

>>133368667
>Cable companies don't have satellites

What existing problem does net neutrality regulation solve?

>>133368662
It pays for itself so yes.

>>133368883
ISPs banding together to fuck over everyone else and make as much money as possible to provide as slow an internet as possible.

>>133368712
It would take decades to even see a return on their investment. And do you think the already established ISP won't make the new companies life hell in trying to get established?

>>133368712
Is opening up your isp in a whole new town really as easy as "picking up a $5 bill" though?

Net neutrality basically means that freeloaders can run wild on the internet.
The WSJ, amazon, and even reddit provide real value via subscription services. Websites that can't rake in ad dollars, websites like neogaf and the daily kos, are just a drain on the internet.

Lol if your website can only get shittier brands like Jlist to advertise on it, your users should be forced to wait for your webpage to load.

>>133368491
Depends it's easier to be competitive in wireless ISP's then copper of fiber

>>133368561
Depends on the ISP. I know ATT is neglecting their cable/network infrastructure because they are pushing to Wireless. But it isn't necessarily the physical cable, it is likely the networking equipment the data is going through can't handle the amount of data. Since people are using so much more now, the people closer to these points are hogging the bandwidth so people further down the line get shit.

>>133369040
Sure.

>>133368972
>Companies colluding

Illegal already

File: GalleryPhoto.png (55KB, 120x180px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 120x180px

>>133368883
Think about it, he only reason an ISP can't charge a shitload for "subversive site" or shit like that is because of net neutrality. People arguing against it may actually be mentally challenged. There are 0 people outside of ISP's and an caps who actually want to get rid of net neutrality.

>>133368956
Not for decades

>>133369143
Yeah seems like a perfect way to subtly censor the internet of opinions that you don't agree with.
Oh, this site hosts ""hate speech""" throttle them to hell so that it takes 10 minutes to load and 5 minutes to post!
Oh look at me? I'm (x ISP)! I've taken steps to clean the internet and rid it of hate speech!
And the normies will flock to and support it.

Google now owns over 100,000 miles of private fiber optic routes around the world. (For point of comparison, Sprint owns just 40,000.)

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

Net neutrality is bull shit propaganda from Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Netflix to try and regulate their competition while they own their own private networks that the same regulations don't apply to.

>>133368862
Satellite internet has like 700ms latency, good luck

>>133361298
This

>>133369352
Don't give them traffic https://archive.is/CA4b5

>>133368862
They don't. Hence why there's a delineation between cable and satellite television. When was the last time you heard of a satellite phone provided by Comcast? Never. If you have a satellite phone, you most likely have Iridium as your provider.


On the bright side of things, with LEO satellite constellations, we'll have global internet service. So if you live on a sailboat in the middle of the pacific, you'll get high speed internet just like if you lived in a typical suburb.

>>133369268
Where are the countless instances of ISPs charging a "shitload" before the designation of a ISP to a common carrier was voted on two years ago

This is it /pol/
This is where the internet as we know it will end. We can't fight Pajeet Pai on this, he's a soulless verizon shill. And he has the support to do whatever he wants. 4chan will be throttled into the ground and banned by many ISPs. It's been fun shitposting with you guys. This is goodbye.

>>133368627
I don't know why you're using a scenario where net neutrality exists to argue that Google would fail in a completely different scenario where net neutrality does not exist and the major ISPs are acting completely differently than they are now.

>>133369268
Why didn't the government make it so that throttling speed is illegal, and should always provide the OPTION to buy full access to internet?

Net Neutrality literally kills the possibility of providing extremely cheap options, for people who only use the top 10 - 20 most visited websites anyway.

>>133369354
>Satellite internet has like 700ms latency, good luck
Those are from GEO(~36,000km). The new constellations are going to be in LEO(>1,000km), so the latency will be less than 50ms. SpaceX speculates 35ms latency for its constellation.

>>133369348
No, the government will censor the internet thru net neutrality.
That's all the government does, censor.
Think about it: where do oathkeepers go to protest, a public park or private property?

Oathkeepers and other right wing heroes always protest on private property due to the expansive rights of free speech guaranteed in the ToS by private corps.

>>133369583
Sounds get and all but how much will it cost to have satellite internet?
And if these satellites are owned by one company, we come back to square one of them throttling the internet for not just the US or one area, but everyone around the world that subscribes to that satellite ISP.
We need net neutrality. The Internet is fine the way it is now, why are you people so obsessed with changing it?

>>133369477
No, because the FCC had a clear history of supporting net neutrality before that, what you mentioned just reinforced what we already have.

>>133360869
>Against free market
How? With equal playing ground only the best ideas succeed. This is a free market wet dream that ancaps will throw away because they love Big Corporate Cock.

In reality Facebook, Amazon, Google and Netflix account for over 50% of all bandwidth usage in US.

Net neutrality gives them a competitive advantage over everyone else because they have servers all over the country in telco data centers that give them preferential access to the last mile connections and then they have these servers connected over their own private networks which gives them superior bandwidth and latency to anyone who has to use public networks.

Net neutrality is a lie concocted to protect the 2-tier internet system that already exists and the companies that are on top of it.

>>133360869
net neutrality is only necessary if your government supports ISP monopolies.

>>133369552
>for people who only use the top 10 - 20 most visited websites anyway

Yes, the most bandwidth heavy sites.

>>133364809
Its not a prison yard, its a walled garden.

>>133369877
Also this is important to keep in mind, the gov supports monopolies which is a good thing, but net neutrality has to be in place for it to work properly.

>>133369583
Has this actually been tested, or is this theoretical. I'd imagine in an actual network setting, the amount of users would impact the latency significantly. Even with TDMA, there's a limit per AP radio.

>>133369552
Why should throttling be illegal? If you are downloading near a TB of porn a day (I had a customer fucking doing thing) and everybody else is suffering, damn right I'm dropping his speed to 1 Mbps

>>133369881
Point being?

>>133360869
This image is cringey and Reddit as fuck. They would never do this it's unsustainable no one will buy most those tiers. If anything they will just charge you more base for your internet service as a whole.

>>133366530

>Block 4chan.
>Making any bit of an impact.

You really going to switch to the other guy over 4chan? Let alone 4chan is one website only a hand full of people use when compared to other services and site. Don't let the meme that 4chan somehow made Trump president fool you.

>>133369994
Don't offer bandwidth options that you can not sustain
It' something that italian ISP have slapped for before

>>133369970
>Monopolies are a good thing

Kys

File: 1499418717022.png (187KB, 361x691px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 361x691px

>>133360869
AKA:
>Net Neutrality is bad for my principles and should be opposed for my own personal good.
L M A O
M
A
O

>>133370041
It's how cable channels work.

>>133370028
It won't be cheaper, there will be shit internet packages under the guise of being able to be there because of "no net neutrality". In reality any internet package that goes beyond email will be jacked up. These are literally gov supported monopolies, how can you support them as an an cap?

>>133369865
With those services you mentioned, they are probably at least 95%.

And ya, net neutrality is already a hoax. These services build servers in ISP facilities to give them an edge already.

>>133369994
I don't think it should be. I'm just proposing a far superior law, that achieves exactly the same as net neutrality, while allowing companies to be more flexible with the options they can provide their costumers with.

>>133363986
>binge on
>t-mobile
>cell phone plans

who gives a shit? unless you're black you should be using an actual computer to browse the internet.

>>133369970
>the gov supports monopolies which is a good thing
Monopolies are a good thing now?
Geez no wonder you people hate net neutrality. You want your corporate monopoly cock to suck.

>>133369865
Needless to say that Amazon, Walmart, etc massively benefit from another federal handout: interstate highways.
If interstates had private tolls, their competitive advantage would vanish overnight.

>>133370126
Gov supported monopolies are the most efficient way to things.

>>133370150
No it's not you can't get cable channels ala carte by category like this. If u could choose to not have news channels on my cable I would take it in a heartbeat but no option exists.

>Letting mega corporations control when we view and how we view it.
>Is a good thing

There are some major corporate cucks in this thread.

>>133370125
It's easily sustainable when you don't have people abusing it, thus throttling to deal with them. Network resource management gets difficult with you have retards constantly streaming, torrenting, or downloading.

>>133369970
when was govt supported monopolies good fuckin thing? Jeez no wonder the west is fucked.

>>133370365
They're probably all shills to be honest.
Yeah let's just introduce internet censorship under the guise of muh free market! Because muh free market is always good!

>>133369865
They have them because they need them for their own personal use because they get so much traffic. They aren't selling access to the internet to customers with these, they aren't ISP's so it's a completely different thing all together. The ISP's don't fucking own the internet they are just a gateway.

>>133370365
This seriously. What the fuck /pol/? When did this board get so cucked by CEOs

>>133369762
>Oathkeepers
>heroes
Don't make me laugh.

>>133369813
>Sounds get and all but how much will it cost to have satellite internet?
Considering that these constellations are going to be competing directly with cable providers, likely around the same price. The new constellations are going to be utilizing "smallsat" technologies and mass-production to bring the costs down.

>And if these satellites are owned by one company, we come back to square one of them throttling the internet for not just the US or one area, but everyone around the world that subscribes to that satellite ISP.
There are currently three companies that are overtly moving forward with their plans. Boeing, SpaceX, and OneWeb(which is backed by Virgin Group). All three have large institutional backing.

>>133369994
>Has this actually been tested, or is this theoretical. I'd imagine in an actual network setting, the amount of users would impact the latency significantly. Even with TDMA, there's a limit per AP radio.
The demo satellites for OneWeb and SpaceX are going up this year to do beta testing.
As for the second question, the constellations are also supposed to act as a second internet backbone. The satellites themselves will be able to transmit data across the constellation via laser. For very urban areas, there could be a lot of congestion. Not sure how they'll deal with it, but I guess in a worst case scenario, it just means that people will have to live outside of the cities in order to have unlimited internet.

>>133370074
If 4chan dies, other chans will come up.

>>133360869
>yes yes lets charge more money instead of investing in infrastructure!
>the goy doesn't realize the cartel here
>no no, thos isn't about us failing to upgrade landlines everywhere
>this isn't about us selling more capacity then we actually have

Hahaha Americans getting jewed hard on this one here.

>>133370458
>Thinking ISP's being able to charge these sites for their bandwidth use is censorship

I see you are drinking up the Reddit/Google talking points nicely

>>133361110
Unironically agree 200 percent with this

File: 2d0d15b556a6096cec61970403fb62cc--italian-army-propaganda-art.jpg (57KB, 560x938px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 560x938px

>>133370388

File: 1496058026662.jpg (159KB, 935x952px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 935x952px

>>133366233
This
>>133366483
>>133366346
Spotted the shills

PROTIP: ALL NET NEUTRALITY LAWS AND LEGISLATION HAS BEEN CRAFTED BY CORPORATIONS IN ORDER TO BENEFIT THEM

>>133369970
monopolies are the opposite of good.

>>133360869
Of course the faggot (((anarcho-capitalist))) wants to push for corporatism even more. Why would you want to let greedy isp's try and swindle more money out of your sorry ass?

>>133370302
nigga you gay

>>133370204
>it wouldn't be cheaper
How the fuck would teaming up with specific sites, and ensuring them traffic, not make it cheaper? What I'm opposed to here, is irrational lawmaking. See >>133370208. The need for Net Neutrality can be debated, for sure, but the actual law that has been placed is beyond fucking stupid.

>>133360869

>/pol/ is unironically against net neutrality

GOTTA GO.

>>133370596
You they wont charge them. They will just block them.

>>133370633
So? You're free to start your own corporation.

>>133370540
That's cool I'll have to look into it. I know on Earth, laser networking fails because of moisture in the air, but space should obviously work better. I hope it works out, but I need to see it actual deployment is a real networking situation before I can consider it.

>>133370557

>Other chans will come.

People already tried doing other chans and they are all dead. the chan that shall not be named fucking died after a week and it was honestly way better than 4chan. You really think new chans would pop up or even have the same popularity? Fuck most of us wish 4chan would die so we can finally be free of this hell hole.

>>133360869
U.S. ISP market is not free market.
You have a cartel.

Besides, get ready to pay 50 bucks extra to watch YT/NF

>>133369552
So you are arguing it should be cheaper to access most of the most frequently visited sites

>>Owner of a small website
>> ISP charge extra for people to access your website because you are not part of the "ULTRA CHEAP PACKAGE FOR TOP 10 WEBSITES"
>> It makes it impossible to compete in equal circumstances with the big corporations.
>> Somehow this is free market

You are a special kind of imbecil

>>133364365
>I don't know anyone against net neutrality and it's hard to find anyone who seriously against it on /pol/.
Trumpets keep bringing up that it's a "non-issue" because if something changes then the public will get upset. Yeah sure just like how the public got upset about TV ads and the cable system that we ended up with today.

It's their only defense because they secretly know that not having net neutrality is bad and Trump wanting to get rid of it makes their """god""" look bad so they deflect.

>>133370365
Look. Anyone can start an ISP.
All you need to do is gain permits in a handful of cities and bury a bit of fiber. Even relatively small corporations like Alphabet have been able to do this in just five years.

>>133370745

Dodging the question.

Remember when everyone was praising the corporations for increasing the minimum wage?

The reason why any big corporation would want to do something like that is so they can afford to eat the cost while the competition dies off from the cost.

This is the same thing. Just because "Net neutrality is good!" doesn't necessarily make it so.

>>133370732
Because that's how you keep customers, amirite?

>>133370796
More like
>Charge Netflix more because 75% of your network bandwidth is from them
>Charge small websites far less since they are barely using bandwidth

How do I economics?

>>133360869
>>133361037
All of the big companies on this meme are actually pro net-neutrality. If anything net-neutrality makes it easier to shut sites like 4chan down which is why they want centralized government regulations.

Anyone who supports net-neutrality is a retard.

>>133370796
>Make up stupid scenarios that will never happen
>Say something even more stupid
>Muh free market

Any real arguments from you?

>>133360869
This is a fucking crime nowadays, how can you even justify being so greedy when bandwidth is cheap as dirt.
I can understand mobile companies putting limits otherwise everyone would just buy a flat internet tariff and use voip, but why in the fuck would you need to be this jewish for home lines.

>>133370796
Actually, I think the hosting companies like hostgator and bluehost will probably work out a deal to make sure their customers are also a part of the "super cheap" internet if it happens. Very few small websites use their own servers.

>>133364365
I'm.against it, but that's because I used to work as a contractor for local rural ISP's so I actually understand networking and shit. Funny how that works.

On the bright side, if net neutrality gets fucked, tor and its alternatives could start flourishing. Not to mention that it would seriously and negatively affect gov approval ratings. Would be good for the lefties

>>133370786
>other chans did not succeed while 4chan is still thriving

WHOA, WHO WOULDA GUESSED!!!11!1!

>>133371050
>>133371050
>If anything net-neutrality makes it easier to shut sites like 4chan down which is why they want centralized government regulations.

Government answers to 1A. Private corporation does not.

>>133360869
Internet acsess is a utility you fucking faggot, if i get a contract with my water company to get 200 liters a month, i can use that water however the fuck i want.

>>133370796
No I'm not, you reading comprehensively challenged idiot.

You keep the EXACT same option you have today, i.e full access to the internet, but ALLOW ISPs to provide options for limited but cheaper access to specific sites.

>>133370729
Don't worry. It's just the ancaps. And those are retarded. Almost always, it's best to disregard any ancap threads.

>>133371022
Why don't you just go live in Venezuela?

>>133371077
Because so many people are on using a ridiculous amount of bandwidth per person. Yes, bandwidth is cheaper, but the amount being used is growing faster.

>>133371050
Explain how net neutrality helps shut down sites like 4chan.

>>133370745
He can't because of the massive regulations put in place to stifle smaller businesses, net neutrality included. How do you think these monopolies form? It's always been through regulations.

>>133366530
How can anyone be this dumb? These niggers have to be trolling.
>Yes master please fuck me in the ass harder, censor my favorite sites unless I pay you for the privilege of using them.

>>133371033
>Because that's how you keep customers, amirite?

Yes the population of 4 chan is probably enough to make a dent in how much money they would make by everybody else.

>>133360869
i liken the net neutrality argugment like the argument the NRA uses when arguing against many gun regulations. If you let one regulation through, they are afraid it will just allow a influx of it until it just gets insane.

same thing with letting ISPs control traffic. why do people think letting comcast or cablevision control what comes through and what doesnt is a good thing at all?

letting the government control the internet does sound shitty, but giving ISPs that control isn't any better.

seeing how SJWs on social media are able to get people fired, banned, etc for the most minor offenses, they could just email the fuck out of every ISP to ban every website or even certain people that they hate from having access. the potential for abuse is immense.

>>133360869
Well you've succeeded in making me realise that you're completely retarded.

>>133371165
You're arguing for a data cap buddy.

>>133371077
USA is massive compared to your irrelevant Shitaly

>>133360869

You are a fucking idiot. Internet service providers are not operating in a free market. They have a government provided Oligopoly and net neutrality was a bandage to stop the full on rape of the customer.

You fucking free market cucks are so easily manipulated it's a fucking disgrace. You accept big corporations taking control of the government and keeping competition down, and then you cheer at the removal of any legislation that tries to reign them in.

I almost want NN to be repealed so that people will immediately bitch about ISP's fucking them over.
When this happens, nobody will even think about repealing NN the next time this shitstorm starts brewing.

>>133371150
It's a little different when you work for a company and when you are it's customer

>>133361110
>an cap
>Limiting freedoms for the people's "good"

Holy fuck are you retarded

>>133371306
No, i'm arguing for the internet to be used as any other ulitiy, i can also get contracts with my water company that give me unlimited water acsess, charge me by the ammount of water i use, what my water company can't do is charge me because i got it from a sink, or a shower, or flushed my fucking toilet, how you use a utility is not within the companies control, nor should it be.

>>133371306
hes a bit retarded.

>>133371273
>Thinking an ISP gives a shit if people browse 4chan

Holy shit these arguments are retarded.

>>133360869
The problem is that they claim ownership of certain websites without having ownership of the actual internet database you cuckhold
Furthermore, it's a complete infringement on privacy. Imagine if I'm a polical candidate running for office and I watch MILF porn, these people would know about it and could use that dirt to attack me. This means no politician could ever attack Verizon or at&t again, nor even impose price limitations on things that aren't theirs to begin with.

Gas yourself you fucking illiterate.

>>133369552
>Ancap flag
>Why doesn't the government just...

Stopped reading right there.

Under Net Neutrality, if Company A wants to work with Company B to deliver better quality at a lower price, that is actually prohibited.

If you're a net neutrality shill, you've bought into the anti-corporate meme sold by corporations lobbying for net neutrality in the first place.

>NETFLIX IS SO KEWL GUISE I LOVE STRANGER THINGS, DON'T YOU WANT NET NEUTRALITY? NETFLIX SAYS IT'S GOOD

Here's another nugget--the Obama administration claims it has the figures to show that net neutrality benefits everyone....but hasn't released those figures.

Why?

>>133360869
>>133361110
We did just fine for 30 years without any legislation to "enforce" net neutrality. Companies understood it was the de facto standard and didn't rock the boat.

Don't fix what ain't broke.

>>133371478
you are retarded.

>>133370796
>double arrowed green text

why are you wasting your time on here? you should get back to your favorite site where you'll actually get UpVotes for your insightful posts! Maybe someone will even give you some Gold(tm)*

*not real gold. No cash value. Redeemable only by faggots

>>133371271
To summarize comments I have made before that you dumb lover of Hitler the Jew failed to comprehend, any company that censors is going to get their ass beat by the free market.

>>133365703
nope porn would be used as a selling point, it would put more focus on porn, plus porn would probably become easier to access as it wouldn't be banned by family settings when paid for in a package

>>133371314
This is why anarchists inevitably begin to abandon their ideology every time they actually start to make real progress. It's so catastrophic that they can only ignore reality as long as they haven't accomplished anything yet.

>>133371500

Competition among ISP will lower prices. NN does not offer that.

File: jew-stereotype-800x445.jpg (33KB, 800x445px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 800x445px

Yes goyim YES!

>>133371500
t. shill

File: 1494308677401.gif (94KB, 490x478px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 490x478px

>>133360869
Kneck yourself you useless cretin

>>133371165
No, it still belongs to the company and you'll have to follow whatever limits they so please. The utility is on loan, it ain't transfer of property.

>>133360869
who the fuck even uses any of the shit in that image? like fucking why jesus fucking christ we literally need a boomer/cuck/normie/roastie/kike/niger genocide such degenerate bread and circuses shit
if you spend your time outside of work and family on any of that shit literally end your life asap

>>133371224
Then have a deal to reduce streaming quality with netflix and youtube, if you don't pay up you get only 480 and a limited amount of 720 with no 60fps.
To outright deny access is greed covered by "technical difficulties".

>>133371146

>4chan.
>succeeding.

Also even given the compition one would think at lest 1 other chan would still be alive anon. There isn't enough popularity. Even all the times 4chan almost got shut down there wasn't enough interest to keep another one alive both population and money wise.

>>133371498
I'm proposing a more rational law. I'm not saying I support the laws regarding net neutrality at all.

This is the difference between being a militant extremist, so inflexible that they can't at least try and better the system gradually, and someone with ideals, but who still can.

>>133371500
Without net neurality, if company A wants to make it harder to acsess company C's content in order to drive consumption of Company B's service, they can do so without any form of peanlty.

It's anti competition, established companies with economies of scale cannot have the power to make market entry costs higher, this is about the preservation of the competitive nature of the internet you faggot.

>>133371306
Everyone has a data cap.

Just multiply your maximum bandwidth by your contract length, that is your data cap.

>>133371445
>False equivalency

The purpose of removing net neutrality is so an ISP can charge content providers more if they are using up more of that network.

Water utilities works one way, the internet is two-ways. The ISP just lays down the infrastructure between you. Like a toll road. You charge multi-axle trucks more than a normal car.

It's a mediocre solution to a real problem. There are far less pernicious solutions than net neutrality.

>>133371673
>>4chan
>>succeeding

Name one chan that isn't 2ch that has a userbase anywhere near as large as 4chan's. Because that's the "thriving" I'm subscribing that's limiting the growth of other chans.

>>133371540
>ad homniem
he presents a point you nigger don't ignore it

>>133371225
If the government controls it, they will censor it.
Do you really think that the United States Postal Service isn't censoring mail? There is literally no protection of free speech when it comes to government property.

>>133371595
>>133371314
bullshit from both of you.
NN makes a non-issue into an issue that benefits media carriers exponentially at the expense of everybody else.
If ISPs can't provide good service then people won't buy and seek alternatives, and there are alternatives - simple as that

File: cap choose.jpg (13KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 600x338px

>>133371541
This. We're not living in the late 90s anymore, ISP monopolies aren't as total as they used to be - between slower-speed DSL startups, satellite internet providers, and mobile internet, there are a lot more alternatives to the big ISPs than there were 10 or 15 years ago, even in small and rural towns.

If your ISP throttles your service, switch to a different ISP. You won't necessarily be able to find the same speed for the same price, but that's how the free market works - YOU, a a consumer, choose what is most important to you and how much you're willing to pay and put up with in exchange for it.

If the kind of broad regulatory power approved under Obama's Net Neutrality bill comes into play, you're giving up your right to choose.

>>133371198
Thats exactly the same you fucking dufus. That means its cheaper to access those specific sites, how is a new website supposed to compete against those specific sites if the entry barrier is rigged toward me?

>>133371088
But what about the new websites? How is a new startup company, the most important part of the free market, supposed to survive if its more expensive to access it than to the major sites?

>>133371033

>> Be ISP
>> Most people only visit fb and youtube
>> offer a special, cheaper plan for people to only have access to those webpages
There, it now is impossible to start a new service competing against fb or youtube because it will be more expensive to access it.

>>133360869
I don't have parenthesis big enough for this.

>>133371745
Source?

>>133366233
Yeah kek. Whatever though I don't really give a shit anymore

>>133371666
The ISP doesn't control your video quality. You select your video quality, and that application may be able to notice if you aren't getting the right speed.

Throttling isn't deny access, it's slowing your speed when your hogging up network resources and everybody else is suffering from you.

>>133371881
>If the government controls it, they will censor it.
How can they censor when it will have to respect 1A?

and corporations can just as well censor it.

>>133361453
>that watermark logo at the bottom right
thanx for doxxing yourself to me
you'll be visited shortly
say goodbye to your family while either of you are still alive

>>133371881
Its not like the USPS can fucking read billions of pieces of mail each day. so stfu

>>133370302
I would like to interject on this
It is not
Italian government has complete state monopoly on tobacco. Cigarettes still cost ~5€ per packet.
>>133370385
>abusing it
Substations, and terarouters, have a set bandwidth they can sustain by specification (here it's 156GB/s iirc). Selling that bandwidth to customers as-is is a terrible practice that leads to terrible service. Selling bandwidth that you can not even sustain technically is straight out fraud. "Abuse" by a customer would be to use more bandwidth than he is allocated, not "using all of the bandwidth he is allocated", that's literally normal use as far as anyone is concerned.

Oh shit, check the red announcement.

>>133371881
>If the government controls it, they will censor it.
Even if they git rid of net neutrality they could still censor whatever they like you dumb nigger. There also nothing stopping corporations from censoring when they don't have to be neutral with the data being transmitted.

>>133371755
And if you are doing that, you deserve to get throttled. Chances are you are fucking over the network if you are constantly at your max speed.

>we can't trust the government with the internet all
>let's entrust it with Faceberg and other (((CEOs))) that are pushing for white genocide and degeneracy
lmfao

>>133372030
But you can have IAs reading posts and messages like [USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST BY THE US GOVERNMENT] would not be uncommon.

>>133371251
So basically you want communism where the government owns everything and sets the rules for everyone?

If the people don't like the monopoly, they will fix it through the invisible hand, obviously you're the only one that whines about it if it's still standing.

>>133371894

Except there are few enough ISP's that they will easily collude to make it a market standard, forcing internet companies to pay them.

they already tried this on netflix, hence the legislation. In my area I have the Option of two ISP providers.

>>133371901
>But what about the new websites? How is a new startup company, the most important part of the free market, supposed to survive if its more expensive to access it than to the major sites?
Well, I already mentioned above how land-line providers are going to face severe competition in the future from wireless and satellite services. The new competition isn't limited by "last-mile" costs or state limits on how many services can be allowed on the telephone poles. That alone will probably stop what would otherwise be the greedfest in OP's pic. As for startups, they'll probably buy from large hosting companies that already have deals with the ISPs. Think Amazon Web Services.

>>133371881
Then why haven't they cencored this place, of all things? This place is swarming with retarded anarchists and anti-government people and ethics, yet they have not blocked access to this website. Why?

>>133361110
>Just look at what cable is already doing
You shouldn't be looking to cable for anything

>>133371901
Nobody is going to pay for a plan that only gives Facebook and YouTube, let alone enough people to actually cause any effect on other sites profits.

And like I said, it's about charging content providers.

>>133372139
Please reread your own post. I don't think you meant to support what you just wrote.

>>133372336
>>Nobody is going to pay for a plan that only gives Facebook and YouTube,
hahahahahah

>>133372160

We really can't trust either. It's literally lose lose when it comes to this situation. The fact is the internet is a beast that needs to be tamed and one of these things is going to happen so who cares.

>>133370796
>>133371870

>Be ISP
>Turn internet into a closed garden to get 5 more bucks a month from your customers
>Now advertising loses any value it every had on the internet
>Ops, now all those big sites have no income source
>now ISPs service is useless

wow, what a hard logical thread to follow. And unlike his retardation that will actually happen.

>>133372269
These monopolies exist because the government enforces their monopoly through barriers to entry and preferential treatment.

>>133372045
>Italian government has complete state monopoly on tobacco. Cigarettes still cost ~5€ per packet.

That's probably because of a sin tax. Also a little cheaper than $12 a pack for Marlboros where I live. Don't understand how people can afford that.

>>133371945
Source on what? He is just describing the scenario.

Let me give you a real life example.
Where i live phone companies can give you free internet access to certain websites (usually facebook and twitter). So you pay for a fixed amount of MB but if you exceed it you still have access to fb and twitter. Sounds fine a good for the consumer, but consider the competition, how is any alternative to fb or twitter supposed to thrive in such an environment? How was google version of fb supposed to be successful if the ISP arent giving access to them for free? Its the opposite of the free market.

>>133372311
I wonder the same thing. This place is against Love and Tolerance(TM) many governments love to preach about.

>>133371050
>If anything net-neutrality makes it easier to shut sites like 4chan down

Yeah, so easy that 4chan is still up and we're both on it right now.

>>133372045
It isn't normal, most people don't come near their max. That max is for burst usage. Not a sustained maximum throughout the day. That's how you fuck over networks full of thousands of people.

>>133372269
For something, like such a free speech module, its important.

>>133372311
>implying (((they))) don't literally censor the FUCK out of this place
wew what are (((mods)))?
>This thread has been pruned or deleted
jesuit christ are britbongs literally this daft?

>>133372336
they will if its cheap enough, thats the point

>>133372468
What about vape?
>inb4

>>133361110
This is one of the most insane things I have ever read

>>133371984
same, board is garbage now.

If there was some kind of plan that blocked anything to do with facebook , snapchat and instagram I'd buy it anyday

>>133372139
>Chances are you are fucking over the network if you are constantly at your max speed.
??????????????????????????????
The "network" works at speed that exceed the terabyte per second in bandwidth, you can literally not fuck with it unless you're exploiting hardware or software vulnerabilities in the underlying infrastructure, downloading porn at 20mb/s for a week straight isn't going to do shit to an infrastructure that needs to direct two million times that amount every second

>>133372361
I did. If I see somebody running at their max speed all fucking day, chances are they are torrenting or downloading videos throughout the day, and coincidentally I'm getting calls that everybody else's se vice is shit. So ya, you throttle that fucker.

>>133372395
Sorry, except for that one old lady

>>133371992
Corporations won't censor it, just slow it down.
Think about all the BS that /pol/ believes due to endless shitposting facilitated by fast load times and 'sources' like drudge.
99% of the time /pol/ would benefit from just staying on Fox News dot com all day. Fox knows how to currate a user experience that lets users know how to respond to uninformed people.

>>133372536

>tfw you forgot to take your med and now think 4chan mods are government agents.

>>133372446
>internet will die because banner ads are gone

are you retarded?

>>133361110
That's the most retarded argument I've seen in quite some time.
>It'll be great if ISPs will jew everyone and people will not use services I dislike
Well, they may also restrict services you care for. It may be what libtards are getting wet about - imagine now everything you like getting throttled because it's hate speech or other such shit and Soros decided to throw some cash at it. Your OP is also retarded - ending net neutrality won't offer more jobs, it helps against monopolizing the market and agreements in effect limiting first amendment.
Severely controlled internet solely for the sake of maximizing profit is a great way to have the same shit as it is with MSM, where it'll stop being about serving the citizens accessing it, but about propagating narrative and influence of those who will pay ISP to manipulate bandwidth.
You're trolling or fucking gullible.

>>133372778
>Corporations wont censor it.
Why do you have faith in corporation keeping anti-corporation material available?

>They will just slow it down
slowing the speed of anti-c material to 0,1b/s, is, essentially in its effects and purposes, censor.

I get the feeling that if the American government tried to pass that SOPA act now instead of back in 2011, people on this board would be supporting it.

File: Bill Baits.png (51KB, 169x129px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 169x129px

Agree, who is the nazi who thought this autustic tubler idea shit was good.

File: 1489147566856.jpg (34KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x500px

>>133372778
>99% of the time /pol/ would benefit from just staying on Fox News dot com all day.
Get a load of this goy.

\frac{a}{b}

>>133372126
There are many ISPs.
There's only one government.
Consumer choice is the foundation of a free market.

Let me put it this way. Imagine your favorite restaurant suddenly decides to offer patrons a "premium subscription" guaranteeing them faster service. If, as a consumer, you don't approve of this you have options:

A) You can purchase the premium subscription and get fast service at your favorite restaurant.
B) You can continue eating at your favorite restaurant and put up with the slower service without paying extra costs.
C) You can eat at a different restaurant - it might be a different price or a different kind of restaurant, but it's an alternative.
D) You can stop eating out at restaurants.

At the end of the day, though, it's your choice. YOU get to decide what's most important to you and what you're willing or not willing to pay for it. If we start imposing standards of service instead of letting the market develop de facto standards based on what consumers want, we're taking away your right as a consumer to make that decision for yourself and, instead, letting a government agency make that decision for you.

To continue with the analogy, it's like if your city responded to your restaurant's decision by imposing a law that ALL restaurants in the city limits had to serve the same food at the same price.

>>133371541
No they won't, as long as leddit, youtube, Netflix, and Facebook are untouched 90% of the normie consumers won't give a shit what sites get shutdown. There's really not that many ISPs, if the government ends net neutrality while still maintaining the current oligopoly we'll end up with billionaires like Soros simply paying ISPs to throttle "nazi far right terrorist" websites like this one.

File: rtPJmdgf.jpg (12KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 240x240px

>this many idiots responding to the OP post seriously

>>133360869
>there is absolutely nothing wrong with pic related
>30$ for 500MB full speed and then 128kbps
What the fuck, I pay 25$ for 30mbps and after 300 FUCKING GB it goes down to 5mbps

>>133372963
American people supported Patriot Act. American people are dumb as fuck.

File: DEMI LAVATO SEPT 23.jpg (1MB, 2504x2744px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2504x2744px

world ends sept 23 so it doesnt actually effect me

take my interdicks

>>133360869
>not letting monopolistic ISPs to collude with content providers striving to achieve monopoly
>ensuring bandwidth stays fungible product
>against Free Market principles
It's either bait or you are so cucked that you do not even understand how isp free market looks like.

File: M191.png (4MB, 7400x6413px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 7400x6413px

>>133371917
I don't even think I have a nose big enough for this

>>133371881
Site your source for the Postal Service censoring mail.

>>133372710
>The "network" works at speed that exceed the terabyte per second in bandwidth, you can literally not fuck with it unless you're exploiting hardware or software vulnerabilities in the underlying infrastructure, downloading porn at 20mb/s for a week straight isn't going to do shit to an infrastructure that needs to direct two million times that amount every second

Now it's time for you to realize something, it isn't just one lone person doing this on a network if you allow it. Many people will do this, and per node you only need a few to fuck over everybody else.

The networks I worked on, we had about 2,000 total. Because of the physical layout, if we had two users doing this at the right spot, everybody past them would be latency and connection experiencing issues during peak usage hours. Include constant torrents, etc, we'd have to constantly monitor the network to prevent these guys from fucking up the service for everybody else.

>The network
Which network is the network?

>Exploiting vulnerability
Lol, just keep throwing in unrelated jargon

>>133367502
Customers are already paying for the access which ISP are not providing and profiting because of it.

Now that their customers have a use for the data they have bought ISP are doing everything they can to limit data use.

Simply put ISP have a business model of selling a service they have no intention of fulfilling.

>>133372963
>Are you doubting Daddy Trump and the BASED Republicans!!!!
>REEEEEEEEE Fucking Shill!!!!!!!
I could see it.