NET NEUTRALITY

>>133378030
if my phone company did that, you know what I and every reasonable person would do?

stop using them.

>>133378190
Yeah, because all ISPs offer the same products, coverage, prices and there's no such thing as cartels or monopolies

If ISP's can charge for a certain priority, one of two things happen:

1) you buy a better service and your average bandwidth becomes unchanged since said service has now higher priority
2) you remain as you are but your QoS decreases

Either way you lose either money or QoS. You could just write a charity check and give it to ComCast. They will gladly accept it.

>>133378700

Also

>+1 for Stefania Ferrario, my favorite thunderdyke

>>133378030
What's wrong with communism faggot. The entire Internet is communism

>>133378030
What is the point in posting such picture?

Network Neutrality is fucking garbage.

>We love playing games on the Nintendo Switch and online functionality has been a discussion as of late. I'm not one to pontificate on issues like this however I feel this affects all of us as gamers.
>As many of you have probably seen on the Reddit front page, today is the day the Internet is coming together to protest US legislation aimed at limiting what we love about our online interactions. If net neutrality is done away with, the liberty we have for free online communications in gaming could be jeopardized. Internet service providers receiving compensation from large companies could throttle speeds or prioritize speeds for many of us.

Can someone explain to me how a lack of net neutrality would affect online console gaming? Like at all? I honestly don't get it.

>>133378030
What do you mean by spending data package?

>>133378972
To get your penis to make you click on the thread.

>>133379298
Well it fucking worked

>>133378030
Gross

>>133379170
Companies could charge you or the people who host online secrets to pay money to not have unplayable lag.

>>133378030
every thread about NN is full of ignorance


the entire Internet relies on fast lanes to work properly.


NN sucks. Government control of Internet sucks. Piss off NN nerds.

>>133378030
Stefania is one of the hottest females of all time, i need me a strong short haired gf to have fascist children with

>>133379407
I already Comcast to mich damn money for them to allowed to throttle my fonts t nn is the best shit. You fuck off.

>>133378030
>prove it's not communism
I still have to pay my isp for access to the internet.

>>133379407

>Government controls

What government controls faggot? All they monitor is if the ISP does not discriminate traffic.

You fags are ignorant as fuck!

>>133379635
If an ISP does shady stuff, then people will stop using it and go to a different one, won't they? That's the basis of capitalism.

>>133378030
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBg_sCLvqXI

>>133379731
Except there's a whopping 6 isp's in America who are almost all jew owned. It's not like how if a store does something you don't like you can go to another one because sometimes you can only have 1 isp where you live

>>133379731
Except most of the time you only have two or three to choose from, and they have you by the balls.
>Then just lower the barrier to become an ISP!
I agree, though this should come first.

anon is right, where I live there is only Verizon shitty DSL for like 10 megs and comcast is the only other that has above 50

ISP's refuse to compete with each other, instead they all stay in their own territory, effectively localized monopolies.

You are not able to go to a competitor in large parts of the US.

Ergo, net neutrality must be maintained.

>>133379731

>shady stuff

Every single one of them is permitted to charge you a service based on both bandwidth and priority. What shady stuff? This starts from the backbone itself (whoever is at the very top and holds the lines) to the bottom.

>>133378030
Belgian telecompanies do this.
If I take a subscription with Proximus, the largest provider, they offer unlimited mobile network for WhatsApp.
It's disgusting.

>>133378190
Let me just switch to an ISP that isn't operating in my city...

Shareblue and shill companies would not be able to freely manipulate people. Twitter, Facebook, Google could not outright ban people for saying things they do not like, can no selectively choose which hate groups get banned and which continue to operate. Companies designed to be used by political means would outright end as it would be against the law according to current laws. Anyone crying about tiered service is a fucking moron, as almost all of the U.S. already has this kind of choice for their services, including internet. 1st amendment laws prevents ISPs from blocking access to sites, as the reason for ending the fucking net neutrality in the first fucking place.

File: 1481757605557.jpg (15KB, 373x437px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 373x437px

>>133379731
>then people will stop using it and go to a different one, won't they? That's the basis of capitalism
mmmm, is that what you whisper to yourself as mr.monopoly and mr.bailout fuck your ass and mouth?

File: sancho panza.jpg (198KB, 485x608px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 485x608px

>>133378030
>>Hey guys my phone operator company just stroke a deal with whatsapp so I can't text without spending my data package

So you stop using WhatsApp and use one of the literally thousands of alternative competing services.

What foolish citizenry favour just one merchant with their spending! What errant fools and rustic peoples permit their made-powerful merchant maligns to connive and coerce and control the way in which the people disperse with their coin to further his benefit and increase himself and his estate!

But then, the remedy is there without need for appealing to the governor. If the general citizenry decline to support any other merchant in opposition to their created tyrant, and many such merchants abound and would gladly serve the people's needs in satisfaction of their own. For "when the pitcher met the rock and the rock met the pitcher, it was bad for both of them", and "those who go out to hunt flee home preyed-upon", and "laws go where tyrants want them to" and etc.

My God, I see no need for binding dictums on the freedom of others in the market to boon the citizenry too dull in their own choices to abandon within their volition and free will the very evils they claim to be oppressed by.

>>133380106
> hurr my massive overextended regulations made it too hard for newcomers and entrepreneurs to enter the market better just go full communist

Kill yourself

i kinda agree. i think the impact of having net neutrality repealed is way overblown. websites seem to want you to think YOU will be impacted by this in some way... no. the websites will. they don't want to pay more, or their fair share, for the bandwidth they are using through the ISPs.

sites like Twitch would get slammed simply because they are a bandwidth hog, and the IPSs are expected to keep their infrastructure up and pay for everything related so their end users can use the content.

Netflix especially would shit it's pants if neutrality was repealed. they'll actually have to pay for the massive amounts of bandwidth they use up.

>>133381007
Okay young one, explain to me how one would enter the market in the US?

For starters, the physical cables are not owned by the government like in a normal country, where ISP's rent them. Instead they're owned by the cable company.

Good luck trying to frontload the billions required to start your own infrastructure to compete with Verizon.

>>133378919
Kill yourself already

How will this effect porn streaming? Specifically foreign porn streaming?

>>133381294
>Good luck trying to frontload the billions required to start your own infrastructure to compete with Verizon.
If the margins are high enough you will have no problem raising the money

>>133381263
Twitch and Netflix don't use any bandwidth. The customers of those websites do.

Saying this won't affect them is like saying a higher minimum wage won't affect the customer either. It's full retard and not how the market works.

The end result will ALWAYS be some fuckery that the customer now has to deal with. Repealing net neutrality would make it legal not to charge more for usage (this is already the case), it would make it legal to charge more for services the ISP doesn't like.

It would completely destroy the free market on the Internet. Companies would have to pay protection fees else they get gagged out of business.

Internet at this point is no longer a product, it's a platform and a market for products itself.

Net neutrality is equivalent to free trade. Removing net neutraltiy is equivalent to the government (the ISP in this analogy) to manipulate the market.

>>133379874
THIS
inb4 commies sperging autistically about the evils of capitalism

>>133378030
>>whatsapp

Gook detected

>>133381562
>international package
>$60 / month
>porn package
>$100 / month
WHAT ARE YOU??
POOR?

>>133381294
> See; Google

Just because I'm not smart enough to come up with some plan doesn't mean it does not exist.

There's also ways to ensure the same basic consumer protections afforded by net neutrality without the government basically taking over the entire market.

>>133381642
Why was in needed in 2015?
NN is a solution in search of a problem

>>133378190
Don't know about where you live but here, Verizon is king. We can't just switch providers, Sprint and the little ones are total shit, and everyone knows it, so verizon has us over a barrel.

Comcast owns: MSNBC, Univision, Telemundo.
Time Warner owns: CNN. Soon to merge with AT&T.
Charter/Cox: Love to shit on newscorp, conservative media.


These are the companies that hate net neutrality, and want to control your internet.

>>133381263
you are stupid if you don't think a site like netflix won't pass the cost on to the customer.

The Net Neutrality Bill was passed in October 2016 by Obama literally as the nigger was pardoning criminals on his way out of the white house. What do these companies gain by shilling for keeping it in place so much?

>>133381642
The big 3 telecomms companies are against it because it opens up the avenue for new business to open and destroy their iron grasp on marketing and advertising. That is all this is about. They pick and choose what you see, and waive the idea that net neutrality is good for you and me, when it is only good for them.

I still don't quite understand all this shit. Is this the same as SOPA a few years back? Everyone seems to be treating it the same out in normieland. I can't really find anyone talking about it other than saying "NET NEUTRALITY BEING REMOVED WILL CHANGE THE INTERNET FOREVER" without saying what the fucking bill or law or measure will actually change.

>>133382381
notice how google/facebook/twitter started outright banning accounts who were pro-right?
yeah, that

>>133382629
From what I've read of it the bill basically allows all the companies to legally price-fix without raising suspicion.

>>133382074
Time Warner is not an ISP you dumb nigger
Also I cant wait for AT&T to buy them and shoah that kike Zucker

>>133383036
So we want it gone then, as opposed to getting rid of it? Why would companies want to protect it if it's going to hurt them by moving people to smaller, slower ISPs.

>>133379731
There's nothing capitalistic about the cable/internet provider industry at all. It's a completely overregulated industry that naturally led to usually 1-3 providers controlling any given area.

For this whole thing to reach a satisfactory conclusion, that industry needs to be deregulated to provide actual competition. Notice how laughibly behind the times they are technologically. I have Time Warner cable boxes and it's mid-90s tier technology.

>>133378030
T H I C C

I don't see the problem in the current debate.

Currently we have neutral ISP services

Non neutral services may compete with cheaper price, but if consumers don't want them they can still remain with the neutral services.

>>133383191
Because people are stupid and won't give up their conveniences regardless of the cost.

>>133383303
the problem is that there are a single digit number of ISPs who own cables, and they are all infamous for refusing to compete. All four of them were go non-neutral and there's nothing anyone can do but take corporate dick and pay more for shit we already have, while our speeds continue to lag behind the rest of the world.

>>133383563
Why didn't they do this pre-October 2016?

>>133378190
>cartellism isn't a thing no company would ever work together with competitors for mutual benefit also if there's only a handful of viable choices I'm sure one will fuck up their shared gain as a potential risky investment
t. libertardian

>>133381645
how is this not ironic?

you realize capitalism tends towards monopolies, and the only thing saving us from ISP's further raping us is regulation (net neutrality) right?

watching cuckistan retards sucking on the corporate shill cock trying to justify allowing cable companies to censor anything they want is just pathetic.

This very thread, this very website simply woulldn't exist if the ISP independently didn't like it.

And since they all gather around in closed door meeting to discuss pricing and how to rape us further, surely the OTHER (3) isp's will make 4chan available right? wrong. they can pick and choose which sites get seen, and which get seen fastest, further increasing the companies control over our minds. you thought brainwashing by media was bad before? lmao watch when they simply block news websites that don't support their adgenda.

>>133383944
And why didn't they do this pre-October 2016?

>>133384094
They tried, Multiple times.

>>133383200
Regulation didn't cause this. The companies refuse to compete against other and have functional monopolies. If anything we need more regulation to break this up.

>>133383944
LOL
We had the internet for fucking years that was just fine and dandy and enjoyable. it only became a fucking issue because with net neutrality, it allowed a group to outright control what people were seeing. sure, it allowed all groups to do this, but the groups that controlled the sites that the most people used? yeah, it was for THEIR gain. the left used it to suppress any discussion or gathering of the right online. before it passed? the internet was just fucking fine and you know it.

>>133381914
Stop being a pussy and make your own then. If it's that bad be part of the solution.

>>133384259
Okay so why wasn't it before Obama put the bill in place hastily on his way out October 2017?

Normies are behind it and are spouting your bullcrap, Obama was behind it when his picked candidate wasn't winning, the FCC was almost instantly against it. That makes me suspicious of keeping it.

>>133384259
and what was stopping them?

>>133380009
This. Free markets would solve everything.

The problem is government (whether local or not) giving ISPs a monopoly. Fix that, you fix the 'net neutrality' problem.

>>133380666
>If we make it cost more, rich Jews wouldn't use it! Also politics and banning people from private websites would be illegal somehow because that costs money and there is no money in politics lol
Really activated my almonds

>>133384745
> Make
> Your
> Own
> Multi-million dollar
> Infrastructure

Are you ankeks really this detached from life?

>>133383944

So it's politically motivated for enforcing censorship?

>>133384422
Regulation did cause this you retard, regulations that gave ISPs a local monopoly, preventing outsiders to come in and compete.

>>133378030
WTF I LOVE COMCAST NOW

>>133385176
Look at fucking Romanian internet you idiot. Your Messiah Bernie Sanders praised them. No regulations and they have among the best in the world.

Is this shit like the FED? They will try again and again to sort what services they can benefit, to brainwash the goys? Cyber is the new structure of the superstructure Marx described.

Is this politically motivated or profit only?

>>133378919
>What did he mean by this?

OP, for once you are not a faggot. The crux of the argument is this: Should we let private corporations make voluntary business decisions that customers can readily influence, or should we allow the State total regulatory control of the internet?

It's an intelligence test really...

>>133378030
net neutrality allows the left to block and ban the right on the internet so it cant be seen since its leftist faggots who run google/youtube/twitter. once net neutrality is abolished we go back to actual open and free internet

File: ss+(2017-07-12+at+11.12.58).png (18KB, 655x169px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 655x169px

What do they have to gain by this bill put into place by OBAMA in 2016 OCTOBER?

>>133378598
>>133380231
>>133381914
Seems like a local problem, not a Federal one. My internet is fine.

>>133384669
This is bait.

there is no proof of any of this bullshit that you just spewed.

>>133384828
because congress opposed bills that would give them this much control in the past? are you fucking retarded? get off your "obama is the root of all evil" horse and do some research.

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

>>133384849
do some research shill apologist

>>133385201
what

>>133385454
>do some research shill apologist
not an argument

>>133382540
Lmao it's the exact opposite.

>>133381866
Google isn't an ISP

>>133378030
>hey guys
>my phone operator just stroke a deal with whatsapp so I can't text without spending my data package
>do you know any operator that isn't a fascist cunt about mobile data?
>ah thanks, I'll look into them
That's net neutrality.
The scenario you suggest is retarded too, why would you be bummed about your operator not being able to fuck you over?

>>133382658
That has literally nothing to do with nn, you're just blaming random unrelated shit on it at this point.

>>133385571
there's a link directly above the reply to you man of low intelligence and molymemeing

>>133385439
DAE OBANA IS EBIN TRUMP GOD EMPEROR just tryna fix all OBAMERS evil REGULATIONS

>>133385619
Actually they are in the US.

>>133378598
Different companies offer different quality of service at different prices!? Outrageous!! What do you think this is? A free market??

>>133378030
You Brockpuppets are really pushing this thing, huh? Consider meeting with your team lead for up-training.

>>133385749
You've got no argument, fuck off.

http://www.dospeedtest.com/blog/romania-the-little-country-that-has-faster-internet-than-the-united-states/

Romanian internet is better. How many monopolies do they have?

http://kernelmag.dailydot.com/issue-sections/headline-story/16900/romanian-digital-divide/

Oh hm. Looks like none.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/jp5aa3/why-romanias-internet-is-so-much-faster-than-americas

Deregulating ISPs locally would allow small, local ISPs to serve customers and neighborhoods.

>>133378030
That has nothing to do with net neutrality, what have you been smoking?

>>133378598
>ISP
>net neutrality

they come together my bluepilled friend

>>133385449
I agree. The local customers should raise a couple million dollars to lobby for creating their own network so the conglomerate will stop Jewing them out of using their product.

>>133378030
I've tried figuring out whether net neutrality is good or bad, but I'm not entirely certain. What I do know is that people I hate like it and people I like hate it, so I'm tempted to say it's shit.

>>133385762
Okay, but what is their coverage area? And also they became a multi billion company BEFORE they started their ISP shenanigans, being the exact sample of why emerging industry doesn't work as an upstart in the ISP sector.

>>133379874
Saying there are only six ISPs is like saying McDonalds, Burger King, and Subway are the only restaurants.

They're the biggest companies, not the only companies. Between lower-speed DSL startups, satellite internet, mobile internet, etc there are hundreds of ISPs in the US and even most small rural towns have access to at least two or three alternatives

>>133385434
Literally the opposite of that. Show proof.

>>133383042
CNN was owned by an ISP, and it will be owned by an ISP again soon. The ISP oligopoly will continue to push their media and anti-nn propaganda.

>>133385930
Deregulating the entry to localized ISP's has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Try again. Net neutrality offers zero barriers to making your own ISP.

>>133386286
Deregulating the entry to localized ISPs solves the problem that 'net neutrality' claims to fix. Fuck giving the government more power, especially over the internet.

File: 1499728454916.jpg (9KB, 220x229px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 220x229px

>>133379170
>As many of you have probably seen on the Reddit front page, today is the day the Internet is coming together to protest US legislation aimed at limiting what we love about our online interactions.
net neutrality is reddit, you heard it here

fuck off redditfags

>>133386161
Not very large unfortunately because, as Verizon found out, Comcast/TimeWarner/AT&T literally paid the local governments to write laws making it basically impossible for competition to put in new lines. There are plenty of local ISPS in the US, but most of them only service a handful of cities. It's because the ISP jews own the local governments. It will not end unless the federal government steps in.

If they get rid of net neutrality, they need to also kill the telecom monopolies

If they kill net neutrality in the current state of things, prices will skyrocket. Competition is the key

>>133378030
>Net neutrality stays
>I shitpost to my hearts content
>They get rid of it and it happens like you doomsday faggots say it will
>I'll just do things in real life

Either way Idc tbqphwyf

>>133386382
>Deregulating the entry to localized ISPs solves the problem that 'net neutrality' claims to fix

No, it doesn't. Net neutrality limits the power of big companies who would otherwise be able to stomp out smaller competition. The high barrier to entry is an attempt by big corporations to close the possibility of emerging competition and a direct sympton of net neutrality working.

>>133386587
It will be a glorious day when all of /r9k/ is forced to come out into the sun. The great cleansing will finally commence.

>>133386609
>The high barrier to entry is an attempt by big corporations to close the possibility of emerging competition and a direct sympton of net neutrality working.

Did you just say that the net neutrality = high barrier to entry?

File: cable company fucker.png (76KB, 994x573px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 994x573px

Here, this is what companies do when net neutrality is in place. Think of how this would look like if it wasn't.

>>133379407
>>133379407

Enjoy never accessing /pol/ again because Comcast deems it a "hate speech site" and throttles the shit out of it.

Millions of people have nothing but terrible interactions with their cable company and you cucks want to give them the keys to internet traffic. Fucking kill yourself.

>>133386382
What """power""" does it give them? All nn is, is a law that requires packets to be treated equally with equal priority. No artificially slowing down access to compeditors or people you don't like. Explain how this is a scary new government power, and why I should be okay with letting the Jews at Comcast/Verizon/timewarner potentially censor or restrict access to content I want to view.

>>133378030
>not allowing the internet to be controlled by a small cabal of leftist authoritarians and deep state bootlickers currently in charge of the surface web
>not allowing anti-competitive practices
>giving everyone an equal chance on the platform
Uh faggot that's capitalism not communism you fucking dipshit

>>133378030
ISPs in the USA have monopoly on regions. They get to have total control over parts of the USA as the only ISP. By law and regulation. Funny how regulation is what makes this net neutrality a problem.

Remove these monopolies and see how this changes everything.

>>133378030
The one where I have to pay less and keep what I have

what do the numbers dictate?

>>133386827
And you faggots want to give the federal government the keys to the internet, instead of the companies actually running the backbone.

>>133386883
>Hey goy, we have to look at the traffic to make sure nothing is slowed down, and we might as well watch for any hate speech or terrorist activity.

Because the government has never ever overreached on ANYTHING at all.

>b-but based Trump supports /ourpoo/
>if liberals support it, then I must oppose it

americans will know what it feels like to have shit internet

>>133386774
No, the high barrier of entry is intentionally caused by the companies who stand to lose the most by more competition: The established corporate giants.

They have to lobby for that route because net neutrality prevents them from taking the direct route.

Again, you're thinking this through in the wrong terms: The Internet is not a product anymore, it's now a market by itself and measures must be undertaken, just as in any other market to ensure the fair competition between stakeholders.

Net neutrality is important for the same reason we have a competition law too: To make sure companies do not use anti-competetive measures against each other.

>>133386286
>Net neutrality offers zero barriers to making your own ISP.
Suppose I want to start an ISP that specializes in one particular type of traffic, our service doesn't allow streaming video or gaming, but it does provide high speed for basic data transfer. Certain companies might find such a service extremely valuable, like healthcare providers, research labs, or other businesses that deal having to send lots and lots of raw data.

FCC regulations under the NN bill say I can't do that - I can't only offer one type of traffic, I have to offer all of it. Seems like a barrier to me.

>>133387136
>And you faggots want to give the federal government the keys to the internet, instead of the companies actually running the backbone.

Net neutrality gives zero power to the government. That's like saying imposing speed limits on the highway gives the government power over your car.

>>133387239
Oh, and government getting regulatory power over the internet is a good thing? Fuck you, fuck the government, and fuck anybody that wants to give the feds more power.

>>133379874
>>133386201
Not only that, but with NN you can expect the government upheld monopolies to remain EXACTLY as they are right now. We have an issue with lack of internet options in the United States and not enough companies are willing to put up the infrastructure to create better services. That's certainly not going to get any better with 8000 pages of government regulation concerning how they use that infrastructure.

>>133387369
Net neutrality IS giving power to the government, saying they can regulate something IS giving them power.

>>133387201
We already know what it feels like because the majority of ISP's here do nothing but suck the governments tit while double dipping into the pockets of their customers.

File: zzzz.jpg (101KB, 500x675px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 500x675px

>>133378030

>>133378030 (OP)

Hey guys. Net Neutrality essentially means that the internet will be treated as a utility by ISPs instead of a service.

Think of another utility like water. It doesn't matter whether you drink the water that comes from a faucet or use it to fill up watering can so you can water your flowers. Regardless of what you use the water for, the flow of water to your house remains steady and constant. Internet can be thought of as a data flow from the "web". The ISPs are only serving this data to you and it should not be their concern whether that data is being used to watch a YouTube video or download pornography. You pay for the utility and have freedom to do what you wish with it.

ISPs want to have the capability to restricting the flow of data or even stopping website access depending on their own decisions as a company.

This means:

>Companies and ISPs can collude to block the websites of competition
>ISPs can save millions by restricting data flow from services like Netflix or Pandora meaning that they benefit at the cost of your media getting extremely low download and streaming speeds
>(((They))) will be able to block certain anti-semitic or controversial websites because it will be within their rights to do so after this proceeding gets passed by the FCC

If you want to keep the net neutral just follow the simple instructions on this page and write a short email to the FCC. It will take less than five minutes and save the future of the internet as a free exchange of information.

netneutrality.internetassociation.org/action/

>>133387268
>Suppose I want to start an ISP that specializes in one particular type of traffic

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, there _are_ no different kinds of traffic. Every traffic is exactly the same traffic. That's the point: The content of the traffic doesn't matter, the service is 100% identical, no specialization could possibly exist. You would have to change how the entire architecture of the internet works to change this.

>>133387382
see
>>133387369

>>133385862
covering your eyes and digging your head in the sand and spouting molymemes won't save you

>>133387450
They're not regulating anything, they're preventing companies from regulating the internet.

It gives zero power to the government, while preventing other people from also obtaining the power to control the internet. It's a "hands off my shit" law.

>>133386779
>2014
>FCC regulations weren't passed until 2015
Gee, it's almost like some kind of free market pressure forced Comcast to stop being dicks so their customers wouldn't leave.

>>133378030
if you're wondering what ISPs will do if net neutrality is repealed, we already know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>133387634
Try again, it went back up because Netflix signed a deal with them.

>>133387610
You must be retarded, thinking FCC regulations aren't regulations.

>>133387649


>https://wired com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge
https://archive.is/LwLMM
>http://businessinsider com/verizon-blocking-google-wallet-2011-12
https://archive.is/YlqZs
>https://washingtonpost com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html
https://archive.is/MzqNt

>>133387690
FCC regulations aren't Net Neutrality.

We've had Net Neutrality since day 1, FCC regulations are a bunch of other shit added ontop of it that are not the topic of this debate.

You have never lived under no net neutrality.

>>133379162
kys idiot

>>133381007
retard

Net Neutrality is like the NAP. The fact that ancaps are even against it just means they don't know what it is.

>>133387610

>they're not regulations!
>they're just obligatory guidelines designed to prevent certain circumstances!

File: 1431841580297.gif (966KB, 350x261px) Image search: [Google]

966KB, 350x261px

>>133387473

>>133387853
see
>>133387852

>>133387772
Go back to your Dutch shithole, stop trying to get my government more power.

>>133387450

The government has the capability or recognizing your rights and forcing other institutions to recognize these rights and do business accordingly. This is not a bad thing.

>>133379407
this is sad, you are a fucking newfag, the internet isn't a communications lane for corporations, its a global telephone line

when i was little i played an mmporg with other couple thousand autists from my country, it was all payed for, programmed, graphed, etc, by the community, all the kids got together to make the game better year after year, hell even the cheats and trojans where made by us

that can't exist without net neutrality, there's already server infrastructure limiting that, why do you also need to cap traffic?

what do you need? A 4000000000k streaming of Kevin Spacey having gay sex?

Fucking underage little corporate shits

>>133387886

Except you're using state power to decide what is defined by neutrality

>>133387649
nice time to own a vpn provider

>>133387939
So does the free market, and one of these things doesn't use coercive power with guns behind it to get its way.

>>133387136
You don't "look" at the traffic by reading it's contense, and the u.s. has free speech. You give the messages equal priority, that's all. If you care about snooping, then you should direct your anger to Bush, Obama and the NSA.

>>133387484
>there _are_ no different kinds of traffic
A guy watching HD movies on netflix and a guy sending emails or files are not going to use the same amount of data or bandwidth.

If my company cuts out certain types of traffic - streaming video, online gaming, etc - it means I can dedicate all of my bandwidth to one particular type of traffic, offering higher speeds for a lower price at the cost of limiting my customers to only certain types of services.

>>133388094
>>133387136
This guy is a payed shill

>>133385176
Maybe if you left your NEET hovel for 40 minutes you could talk to people and recruit investors.

>>133387901
Okay, apart from the fact that they ALREADY have this power and you're arguing that they should not have it (it's a fair point, but your argument that we somehow don't have net neutrality yet and we'd "give" it to them somehow is total nonsense). So basically I'm arguing we keep the status quo, no added power whatsoever, in fact I'm arguing for deregulating all the barriers to entry into becoming an ISP yourself (which were lobbied for by the big cable companies).

What you're basically arguing is that we shouldn't have equality before the law. We have the government treat everyone equally before the law, it's one of our most fundamental principles, do you think this should be abolished too? Serious question, I want an answer to that. Because in terms of net neutrality, this is what you're asking for.

Even in the most Ancap society possible, you recognize the need of the "monopoly of force", right? I mean unless you're telling me I know more about your meme philosophy than you and flag would lead us to believe.

Certain fundamental rights cannot be left to corporations, it doesn't work. This is why we have a military and a police force in the hand of the government and not corporations, this is why the judicial system is exclusively run by the government and this is also why net neutrality is a good idea.

>>133385250
There is no regulation stopping people from starting competing services. There are alternatives in most areas, but they can't compete due to the massive infrastructure required to give high bandwidth internet, at least for now.

>>133388337
lol I wasn't aware I was on T_D

>>133388237
I'm sorry you're not as skeptical of government overreach as other people.

>>133387610
this. a lot of anons don't understand how municipal broadband works.

furthermore, making ISP's a title II common carrier merely means that the government makes THEM play fair, and serve all packets, customers, domains, and locales equally. Mobile phone providers (at&t, verzion, spring, t-mobile, etc) are ALREADY title II! People are acting like NN is a huge fucking change, when in reality it is a minor distinction legally that ensures all these hypothetical pay-to-play scenarios don't happen.

Regulating ISP's as title 2 has NO downsides.

"muh government overreach!!!1!"

people who say this need to fuck off, as they have no idea what they're talking about.

>>133385176
>What is telco wholesale

Thanks Telecommunications Act of 1996!

>>133386110
With net neutrality
>You want to access a website
>Your ISP get your connection going to that website as best as they can
>that's it, you can shitpost

Without Net neutrality
>You want to access a website
>Your isp charges you more because it isnt part of the ''standard customer package'' which include normiebook, cnn and other comon (((websites)))
>So you paid more to access the website? I hope they are paying their premiums or you will have a slow access (but normie website are ok because they can afford the fast lane)
>You start shitposting, only to find out the website shutted down because your isp didn't like it and decided to restrain access to this website

Why would you want net neutrality?

>>133379236
An additional fee that you have to pay for a service you, at the time of reading this, already have.

>>133388316
A different amount, but the exact same TYPE.

You are not physically able to offer a service that's tailored towards one specific use case, because there are no use cases on the transport layer where all this ISP business happens. Every traffic is identical.

The only way you can conceivably make an ISP tailored towards one specific use is by intentionally obfuscating how the system works and employing anti-competetive measures yourself, which are illegal as of now.

It's like saying, you're an electricity provider, but you offer a "special service" for people with 3 microwaves. All electricity goes into the same grid, just like all of the Internet goes through the same cables.

>>133388494
You are an ultrajew man, you are reframing all this shit the opposite way and abusing the normal pollack's lack of understanding of how the internet works

there's a reason you guys are mostly jewing in this board

>>133379443

Don't we all, anon.

Don't we all....

>>133386403
Even if it is as bad as they say, I would support it just to fuck with Reddit.

>>133379170
>Pay for internet access
>Did not pay gamer package cannot access Sony or Microsoft or Nintendo for updates,news or buy games.

>Did not pay for multiplayer package cannot use Sony,Nintendo,steam,Microsoft servers. For games

>Turn out the game I play is not hosted on the server but is a peer to peer conmection, so I gotta pay for the P2P package.

>>133383944

> you realize capitalism tends towards monopolies, and the only thing saving us from ISP's further raping us is regulation (net neutrality) right

Capitalism tends towards monopolies, except innovation is done cheaper and thus better at the small-business, entrepreneurship level. Thus capitalism survives only when small business and invasive entrepreneurship thrives. Regulation is by definition anti-entrepreneur as it raises overhead costs which are far more easily absorbed my large companies.

You're retarded. Go take an econ 101 class.

>>133388438
Leg mij, in lekentaal, uit wat net-neutraliteit is.

>>133378030
KYS faggot

>>133378030
The funny thing is how they manipulated normies into supporting it.

Half of Twitter posts about it are people explaining to each other what is Net neutrality, by giving a variation of the example they just read on Gizmodo or another cucked website.

Basically, tech multinationals can promote any shit idea, and as long as they pretend it's a "geek"cause, normies will flock to support it, thinking it makes them look computer-savvy.

>>133388674
>A different amount, but the exact same TYPE.
But that's the point - if I block access to services that use more bandwidth, I can offer more bandwidth for other services.

And yes, different types of traffic CAN be selectively blocked or throttled - hell, half the complaints in favor of net neutrality cite concerns about ISPs throttling peer-sharing traffic or streaming services.

File: 1494259667450.jpg (76KB, 666x1024px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 666x1024px

>>133379298
Diabolical

>>133378030
>filename

That's stefania Ferrario, a lesbian and mentally ill model.

>>133388316
that would only work if your company had a private network anon

File: 1468875595226.png (133KB, 487x622px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 487x622px

>>133388861
And this regulation is put in place so that small business owners (sites ran out of basements, i.e. how 4chan started out) can exist and not get fucking shafted.

>>133378030

you are the worst of the worst fucking shills.

go to hell

>>133378030
The economic aspect of communism or socialism is not bad, its the social part that's unacceptable.

I don't see a problem with higher taxes when it upholds social stability in the process.

>>133378030
It's not communism it's socialism for big tech companies like Google, Youtube, Netflix and Facebook.

No idea why are leftists in favor of it though. Is 600 billion market cap not enough money for Google? Do they need to have a trillion or something?

>>133386403
So your only argument is "a website believes this so its wrong?"

God you brits are so fucking retarded. Don't meddle in american politics if you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Maybe I shouldn't be too hard on you. After all, you must have bits of your crumbling teeth lodged in your brain.

the horror stories of net neutrality will never happen because they would be bad for businesses and the economy

>>133389098
How does your local isp banning a service makes your connection to australia faster

I'll try to put it in the most simple terms possible:

Should companies be allowed to distinct the CONTENT of what you're browsing in terms of how they bill you, as opposed to the AMOUNT of the content.

Right now, it is legal and quite common to regulate the AMOUNT of traffic you're using. Nobody has an issue with this, this is legal and very widespread.

Net neutrality however forbids ISP's from regulating the CONTENT of what you're using. This is and was never about bandwidth hogs like Netflix, this already has a free market solution (B/W caps, etc.). Deflecting onto Netflix is a common misdirection by cable companies who don't want you to think about what Net Neutrality actually does.

Say you have a 50,000 broadband connection, and say in actual speed you get like 48,000 from your connection on a good day. Net Neutraltiy prevents companies from throttling the speed based on the content you're consuming. So you get 48,000 on youtube and 48,000 on 4chan and 48,000 on whatever the fuck you want, you get the same speed everywhere.

Without net neutrality, you could drop to unusable levels of speed if you use a service that your ISP doesn't like.

It's as asinine of a concept as I've ever heard.

Being against net neutrality is like saying "yes, companies should be able to throttle my tap water to the point where i fucking die because i use it to cook my own food instead of buying from mcdonalds". it's LITERALLY that.

>>133389458
telephone vs cable company

>>133389360
Precisely - we didn't have NN regulations before and we managed just fucking fine. The whole argument of "oh well now that they don't have to do that thing that they didn't actually have to do anyways, but still did because it was profitable, they totally won't do that thing" is retarded.

File: curious pinoy babby.jpg (104KB, 537x525px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 537x525px

I hope Net Neutrality gets abolished so normies get off the fucking internet and retard poorfags are priced out of posting on 4chan.

File: 1424115093924.png (51KB, 240x232px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 240x232px

>/pol/ always claims to hate the jews
>Is anti net neutrality, which only benefits the jew
Is it just contrarianism at this point?

File: 1490233241460.jpg (135KB, 500x521px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 500x521px

ANY CANADIANS HERE?

Who else here think Rogers and Bell reign a monopoly and do deals in the shade to prevent competitors from rising to compete with them?

>>133389638
internet streaming at this quality is quite new anon

>>133389514
What did you even mean by this
Was this an argument

>>133389360
i genuinely believe the liberals pushing this shit are kids who never grew up without net neutral internet

>>133378030
> Stroke a deal
Maximum lol

>>133389156
If there were no regulation we would have more isp and you wouldn't have to worry about it moar regulashuns!!11! Because someone would come along with tree fucking Peking palace lunch buffet for the internet.

Solving every problem with a new regulation hampers competition which requires more regulation to emulate a free market which hampers competition which requires more regulation to emulate a free market which hampers competition which requires more regulation to emulate a free market which
hampers competition which requires more regulation to emulate a free market which hampers competition which requires more regulation to emulate a free market which ends in the housing market crash.

>>133388556
You forgot the part where the internet is considered a "utility" and may be regulated by the federal government. Does the FCC abide by the First Amendment?

What is easier to influence? A centralized ideologicaly driven bureaucracy, or a private corporation that relies on paying customers?

>>133387473
Name of this cum storage?

>>133389728
Canada is built upon oligopolies. It's obvious to any Canadian who's not a retard.

>>133389744
i tl;dr his post

File: 1480696749567.jpg (10KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 184x184px

>>133389360
Well what are we going to do, switch? ISPs do not compete. Only one company covers an entire town under the mutual agreement of equal monopolies.

>>133389098
And ISP doesn't "offer" bandwidth like that. You put a cable down that connects different computers and get paid for access to it. ISP based throttling doesn't even work the way you think, you can't just selectively throttle one house if you feel like it unless you install draconian orweillian surveilance devices in every house.

For an ISP, every traffic looks exactly the same, it's an ENORMOUS amount of privacy breach/invasion if you unpack the data and check what's actually inside.

What an ISP CAN see is the destination of requests, the IP addresses of you and wherever your request goes to.

So no, neither does this allow you to offer "more" bandwidth, nor does it even allow you to differentiate between content. If you watch youtube on a seedbox, you can not even regulate it anymore, but the average joe is not capable of setting something like this up.

This is another factor here: In theory, we'd need no net neutraltiy, because in theory everyone is a technologically literate person and we have zero borders to making your own ISP and ISP's don't engage in fuckery with each other, but we're LONG LONG LONG away from that, and before we abolish net neutrality, all of the above needs to be fixed first.

>>133389963
See
>>133387649
For a list of times they tried to pull this sort of shit and failed because of the free market / existing title I laws. Moving it to title II is wholly and utterly unnecessary.

>>133389896
This guy is a jew, as well as everybody who is against net neutrality

Net Neutrality is to protect the internet from the grasp of the dying tv and media corporations who want to keep their control over you

>>133378700

or they could pass the cost onto the companies themselves (which they don't now) instead of onto you, the consumer

you think companies want to pay for the bandwidth they use? fuck no. they want you guys to keep paying for it. this isn't about a neutral net. this is about their bottom lines.

>>133389963
Why do people keep saying this like it's a fucking thing? It's not 1997 anymore - almost every town in America has access to two or three competitors. Just because they aren't the big ISPs like Comcast and Mediacom doesn't mean they aren't viable alternatives.

>>133378030
All I know about NN is that CIA allied corporations like Amazon are in support of it, therefore it can't be good for us. Fuck the CIA and everything they touch.

>>133390351
>The KKK endorses Trump

>>133390172
>you think companies want to pay for the bandwidth they use?

customers use bandwidth, companies don't

>>133378030
>Hey guys my phone operator company just stroke a deal with whatsapp so I can't text without spending my data package, oh wait Net Neutrality won't allow it because it is not fair to other texting apps. Too bad....


>>133378030
>If I take a subscription with Proximus, the largest provider, they offer unlimited mobile network for WhatsApp.

but this what my ISP did, for $2/mo i can get unlimited video bandwidth (YT, Twitch etc.)

without using a single megabyte off my quota

>>133381914
I use kricket wireless never had any issues

>>133378030
woah are they twins?

>>133378030

>my phone company CEO just invested in a messaging app and wants to make more money

ISPs already charge you more for increased bandwidth and data usage. Why should they get to double fuck you if you don't get in line with what they want you to access.

Losing net neutrality would be both a violation of the first amendment and an attack on interstate commerce.

Fucking natural monopolies are retarded.

>>133386827
> Enjoy never accessing /pol/ again because Comcast deems it a "hate speech site" and throttles the shit out of it.

Guess what : even with Net Neutrality, when the government / corporations will decide to shut down 4chan, they will shut down 4chan.
Net Neutrality doesn't prevent webhosts to ban pornography, for instance.

>>133389891
I do not care about the general nature of regulations as a method of problem solving. I am talking about the incredible NECESSITY of this regulation, because without it, it's ISPs who start making the regulations on the usage of the internet.

Removing Net Neutrality only makes more regulations, just from companies this time.

>>133390140
So what you're saying is they block services I already have in favor of ones I have to pay more for and are probably worse and only exist so they could siphon more money from me.

>>133390433
Big companies ARE ISP customers. Where the fuck do you think they get their internet from their own fiber?

>>133390134
>What an ISP CAN see is the destination of requests, the IP addresses of you and wherever your request goes to.
Which can be used to selectively block certain types of traffic.

If I block traffic going to/from Netflix, Youtube, Hulu, etc servers, that has the effect of blocking a particular type of traffic.

>>133390875
read the rest of my post and try again, i specifically debunk this point.

>>133390686

>Removing Net Neutrality only makes more regulations, just from companies this time.

100% this.

Oh and telecom is actually one of the areas where the government can do a decent job. Municipal broadband often outperforms commercial options for a lower price.

>>133390686
Well that's fucking retarded.

You can choose not to use a companies regulation.

You can't choose to not use a government regulation.

I was on the fence about NN but seeing everyone who supports it appears to be brain dead and/or tyrannical commie scum I have been swayed to be against it.

>>133391058
I can choose to not use company or government regulations by NOT USING THE SERVICE AT ALL NOR LIVING IN THE COUNTRY. This is not acceptable.

>>133390686
don't argue with retards. you'll never convince them. fox news and 4chan have drilled into their heads that REGULATIONS = BAD.

MUH FREE MARKET.

MUH INVISIBLE HAND.

you could convince them anti-monopoly laws are good if you just word it using their language. about it being a democratic (((regulation))) to stop progress and tax people and they'd believe it.

>>133390134

>having to set up a VPS just to watch youtube.

How cucked are you?

>>133391165
Then move back to Africa.

>>133391058
>You can choose not to use a companies regulation.

Ebin. let me know who's paying you, comcast, verison or time warner? you can't choose not to use their services when they all agreed in backroom meeting to charge the same prices for the same services and are going to collaborate for charing the same prices for the same "internet packages" "gaming package" "sports package".

fuck off dude. you are cucked beyond belief by anti-consumer propaganda.

>>133391259

He's in Germany, I am sure half of the content is blocked because it's too "right wing" or "fascist"

>>133391058

Net neutrality is a regulation to prevent people from regulating the internet.

I can see how this might confuse you.

>>133391058
>You can choose not to use a companies regulation.
>You can't choose to not use a government regulation.
This. I'm in support of the concept of NN but moving the internet to title II just allows FCC regulation instead of corporate regulation. Everything you want to accomplish with NN, including content neutrality and bandwidth neutrality, can be achieved with simple laws not requiring FCC oversight. This is blatant federalization.

>>133378030
Wtf is wrong with you

>>133391425
>>You can't choose to not use a government regulation.

But you can, move to another country.

>>133378030
> whatsapp
> text
> data package
> kekistani flag

There's nothing wrong with communism when it benefits non-jews.

>>133391376
And who's paying you, Amazon, Google, the CIA or the communist party for America?

Having the government seize companies/markets because they don't want to give you free shit for no profit isn't a solution. Read an econ or logic book. With the way the government fucks up every market they seize every single time what makes you think surely this specific time it'll truly work out for we the people?

>>133391528
>This law is totally fine just move away if you don't like it lmao
I've seen some pretty shitty arguments here but this one is particularly impressive.

>>133391425

>communication service regulated by government with duty to uphold the first amendment

>communication service regulated by ISP with a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders and its shareholders alone.

Which one of these seems like a good idea?

>>133378030
no it didn't, you're actually lying

>>133378030
>Uses Whatsapp
>Sharia blue detected

>>133391839
Lol you think the government is still worried about upholding your rights? Where were you the last 8 or 16 years? We've lost most our second and fourth and ninth rights already.

>>133379375
Cum for the photo,
Stayed for the shitty dialog

>>133388372
A basic search will find stories of people trying to do exactly this and seeing how it falls flat because larger corporations lobby against it.

>>133391839
Neither of them, which is why I'm advocating for simple protective laws that don't require federal oversight.

File: Oh-my-god---girl-meme.jpg (347KB, 700x920px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 700x920px

No.133390303▶
I don't think you will find anyone on 4 chan from Anarchist, Marxist, Socialist, Lybtard, Liberal, Moderate, Libertarian, Conservative, Neo-Conservative, alt-right, to Nazi who opposes
net-neutrality. If they understand it.
The Providers (gate keepers) could charge Walmart and Amazon a large fee to keep there speed. Anyone who doesn't pay the fee would be forced into a smaller band with which would create a bottleneck and slow everyone else down. an Amazon sale would completed before other website pictures could open. Streaming movies videos and songs would only be possible from companies willing and able to pay the fee. It will kill innovation.

>>133391767
>Having the government seize companies/markets because they don't want to give you free shit for no profit isn't a solution

No. you don't fucking understand.

The government doesn't have any power here, nor does the ISPs. thats the entire fucking point. the government isn't regulating the speeds of certain traffic or what you can and cannot see, they can't and neither can the ISPs. Thats literally all that is at stake here, do you want NO ONE to fuck with internet traffic, or do you want corporations driven by self-interest and have proven to engage in anti-consumer behavior in the past?

your choice.

>>133391839
Oh and also corporate regulations are predicable. Federal regulations are not. So the second one if I had to just take the lesser of the evils.

>>133392076
Then address that problem. Not make up new ones in your head with the solution being to just have the government seize everything

>>133392202
That doesn't make sense to me , if the internet is unlimited (as in usage) how can you be stopped from visiting a site or video ?

>>133392209
> The government doesn't have any power here, nor does the ISPs. thats the entire fucking point

They do have power just not much. And your "solution" to the "problem" will give the feds and fcc a bunch of power. That's what I've been saying. Keep up.

>>133392317
>make up new ones in your head
We've already seen the ISPs double dipping with companies like Netflix in order to maintain guaranteed network speeds for their services to function properly. This isn't new.

Why does /pol/ want to protect an oligopoly so badly?

>>133392558
>changing nothing
>give

Stopped reading. You are retarded.

Doing nothing changes nothing. striking down any bill to abolish or change net neutrality changes nothing, it only stops the demise of the internet.

off yourself.

>>133392430
you technically can't, but ISP's could heavily favour sites or services by their own brand or ones that are able to pay up so that their speeds are faster, meaning that most smaller
websites and internet services would be left at a disadvantage. Also ISP's could instead charge the user extra to acces certain types of content at a regular speed, since they would be allowed to discriminate between what content has priority

>>133389360
The horror of equal traffic priority and no throttling?

>>133378030
yeah the whole argument is about made up fantasy scenarios

>>133393139
> it only stops the demise of the internet.

Coming next fall, to Showtime

Stop being a drama queen. And stop being dumb. You just made the argument that passing a bill changes nothing. I'm actually glad you think I'm retarded if that's the level of logic and intelligence happening in your brain. A lot of things are probably foreign and retarded to you

>>133392970
I don't know why we want to pretend like bandwidth is an unlimited resource.

If some company wants to charge $15 a month just to use Facebook and YouTube why should you or the government or anyone be able to tell them not to?

Address your already defined and accurate problem of limited competition because lobbyists and interference and the rest will eventually sort itself out.

>>133394616
I assume you can't be this retarded, but I'll explain it like this.
If I pay for my bandwidth already, why should the ISP be able to charge me more for one service over another? The cost is no different to them.

File: ThinkingAngry.png (8KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 120x120px

What REALLY makes me think is that by abolishing Net Neutrality we stand to gain absolutely nothing, the best we can hope for is that the companies will accidentally end up with the exact same situation that we have RIGHT NOW.

>>133394301
Are you illiterate? He said not passing a bill changes nothing.

File: 1476854860897.jpg (53KB, 657x527px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 657x527px

>>133392430
Wikipedia
Internet bottlenecks are places in telecommunication networks in which internet service providers (ISPs), or naturally occurring high use of the network, slow or alter the network speed of the users and/or content producers using that network. A bottleneck is a more general term for a system that has been reduced or slowed due to limited resources or components. The bottleneck occurs in a network when there are too many users attempting to access a specific resource. Internet bottlenecks provide artificial and natural network choke points to inhibit certain sets of users from overloading the entire network by consuming too much bandwidth. Theoretically, this will lead users and content producers through alternative paths to accomplish their goals while limiting the network load at any one time.[Note 1] Alternatively, internet bottlenecks have been seen as a way for ISPs to take advantage of their dominant market-power increasing rates for content providers to push past bottlenecks.[2] The United States Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has created regulations stipulating that artificial bottlenecks are in direct opposition to a free and open Internet.[3]

>>133394891
Because a mutually agreed upon transaction doesn't work like that.

You buy what the company sells and only what they sell. You don't dictate the terms of the trade simply because you gave them money.

If you walk into a restaurant and slap down $15 for a #1 You dont have the right to then also demand a #2 And #5. You purchased a #1. It's like saying "why'd you only gib me a burger I paid for food you have to gib me everything on the menu"

That's not how society works.

Ideally if an isp offered some bullshit package you'd just go to the next isp but, as accurately already stated, regulation and lobbying interference keeps the barriers to entry artificially high in what is already a high cost to enter market. But that's where the problem lies - not that some company doesn't offer you a bunch of gibmedats just because you gave them your shekels.

>>133394891
>If I pay for my bandwidth already, why should the ISP be able to charge me more for one service over another? The cost is no different to them.
The real question is "why should we make it illegal for them to charge me more for one service over another?"
The answer I have seen so far is "because there are crony monopolies in place that would use this freedom to extort their customers"
Seems to me like if we fix that problem, there's no need to further federalize the internet.

>>133387586
Come up with something better than bullshit next time, flatearther.

File: 1490052238490.jpg (204KB, 700x933px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 700x933px

>muh net neutrality

File: ubAPlph.jpg (169KB, 700x933px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 700x933px

>muh precious intrawebs

>>133385779
Except they don't, they strike a deal to not enter each other's territory so they can do whatever the fuck they want.

>>133378030
don't mind me I'll just be Strogonoff

>>133397757
Then address that problem. Forcing them to sell you gibmedats will only force more collusion and less competition as that adds to their expenses while their profits are being reduced by NN

>>133399124
>then address that problem
Except they lobbied massively on the US to be able to do this, even worse if they simply decide to not step on each others territory there's absolutely nothing a person could do, not even organize properly.

>forcing them to sell you gibmedats
You mean forcing them to not control what I can or cannot say on the internet.


These companies are on the top of the food chain, along the big pharma and others. Until there's a massive revolt and the Jewish owners heads are put on a pike there's nothing to be done besides forcing them through law to not meddle on free speech.

>>133394301
lmao

>>133378030
Day one when it gets passed, every torrent website will be blocked.

Day two, every "dark" website (4chan etc) will be blocked.

Day three, businesses will be blocked in favor of donor companies.

Day four, political and news websites will be block in favor of political donors.

Day five, it is already over, your freedom is dead and gone.


Companies, and Political factions are pushing hard for this, because they will greatly benefit from this. The average Joe will gain nothing, and lose everything for their agenda. Do not fall for the "more freedom" meme they push. This bill is all about pure greed. It is your job to push back and defend your rights and prevent assholes from exploiting you.

>>133378030
sauce me up senpai

>>133400436
>Companies, and Political factions
Amazon, Google, reddit, hiroshimoot, and all the other big jew companies are lobbying hard for net neutrality. That by itself is a huge red flag that net neutrality sucks

>>133401123
Ending it is bad.

Keeping it is good.


Comcast, Verizon and AT&T want it ended so they can jew it up and fuck over other businesses.

Amazon, Google, reddit, hiroshimoot, want to keep it, because ISPs like the above-mentioned jews can fuck with their business (also morals).

>>133402186
>google
>morals
are you TRYING to kill me with laughter? Jewgle is absolutely on the 'exterminate whites' bandwagon. Why shouldn't I oppose whatever they say is good for them, just on principle?

>>133399124
if this were a debate about keeping net neutrality vs busting the cartels, then i'd be with you on the free market side of busting cartels

but we're not in that situation so it's pointless to pretend that's what you're arguing against

>>133378030
>Implying there's anything wrong with communism

>>133378030
You're retarded.

>>133378190

Honestly only hillybillies in Bumbfuck, America will get shafted by this. They only get to have 1 ISP, and 2 if they're lucky.

I hope they get Jewed as fuck when Net Neutrality, not like they'd realize they voted for it.

>>133401123
Because they need this to not be blackmailed by AT&T and Verizon. Which own many of the traditional media outlets that are dying thanks to the free speech on the internet.

>>133402484
Because the core of the issue is YOUR freedom.

Which do you value more, your vendetta against a company or your own freedom?

Here's an example. You get to burn down your enemies house, but in doing so you burn down your own. Would you just suck it up and deal with them or burn down your own house? The point is that just because you can fuck them over, doesn't necessarily mean you should because maybe in the future you could have the opportunity to burn down their house without burning down your own. Do you get what I am laying down? Pick your fights wisely, you are here to win, not to lose.

>>133402484
>Why shouldn't I oppose whatever they say is good for them, just on principle?
>"I'm gonna shoot myself on the neck so I can try harming them"

File: mfw.png (572KB, 448x575px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 448x575px

>>133378030

>this happens
>companies start popping up everywhere offering unlimited broadband

File: shill-pic.jpg (77KB, 402x402px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 402x402px

>>133404550
You say free speech is killing big companies like its a bad thing.

>>133378030
what does her crotch taste like?

>>133378030
>everything is communism what's not capitalism

How is freedom on internet Communism? China or North Korea don't have net neutrality. It has nothing to do with government regulations, it has everything to do with ISPs not regulating and exploiting users. Stop making billion threads, one is enough.

>>133404379
what has a higher percentage of jews per capita, ISP workers or government workers
>t-t-t-those are the good ones, t-t-they wanna keep the internet neutral
open up that brown chute

>>133404706
>(((unlimited)))
until you download 5GB then they start to charge more

>>133404723
That's the point you retard, free speech is killing those companies which big ISP owns. They want to END NN to force their world back into their narrative. That other idiot is the shill, not me.

>>133378030
>ITT: how they force the hands of retards into giving up their 1st amendment rights over trivial bullshit and thereby kill net neutrality.

>>133404608
>google not being allowed to wriye laws is like a house burning down
the motives you have projected on google are hilarious. they want this because they will get to help write the regulations.

>>133378030
Is that supposed to be zarya

File: net neutrality.jpg (2MB, 2607x2861px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2607x2861px

corporations are bad
goverment is good
net neutrality will save us all

huehuehuehuehue

There is NOTHING wrong with NN

>>133385384
how about somewhere in the middle you, fucking moron. How about a nice balance between the two so that I am not handing myself over to the sway of either the corporation or the state.

Way to fall for the false-dilemma-jew.
It's an intelligence test really . . .

>>133405000
Fuck the big companies. This is what happens when they try to fuck with peoples rights. fucking Kikes

>>133405359
Are you telling me that the guys who control CNN are less jewish? This is a jew vs jew war, it only matters which side is going to benefit you.

So you'd be forced to use Facebook's botnet?
You are American retard. Go kill yourself, smelly cuck.

>>133380672
Pretty much this. What happens when they all abridge your rights do differing degrees, or just in different ways, to generate the illusion of competition, and to generate the illusion of personal freedom so that they can continue taking your money and controlling you at the same time.

>>133381592
how the fuck are you going to FRONTLOAD the BILLIONS of dollars required to build the infrastructure used to generate the profit margins? How are the margins going to be high enough to raise the money, if the infrastructure which is used to raise the money doesn't exist because you dont have the money to build it in the first place?

Jesus christ. these fucking people.

>>133388337
No, I really think that he is just this retarded. Jewish tools work for free.

>>133388494
I am sorry that you are not as skeptical of corporate overreach as other people. You can be skeptical of both, you understand this, right?

>>133389340
>socialism for big tech companies
you do recognize the cognitive dissonance inherent in this statement, right?

>>133405152
I think you've got it backwards. Jewgle want to keep the internet neutral (what is currently is). Other companies want to remove the neutrality so they can create regulations and rules to fuck everyone over with - which right now they can't because net neutrality is in place.

What this means is that going against jewgle (burning down their house) is going to burn down yours as well. They don't (and can't) benefit from neutrality being removed because they are not an ISP, they do not handle how your data is used. The ISPs want it removed so they modify how your data is used and ultimately jew your data and companies that provide services to you such as jewgle.

>>133378030
The "Sage" option is right below the "name" box.

It is used to control trash on the board.

Ex. " Sage this jewish cock mongering , media matters , correct the record, shareblue bullshit from orbit... its the only way to be sure "

The net is for everyone.

61% of /pol/ in favor of NN so far

http://www.strawpoll.me/13420194

>>133409646
GTFO the board, you spacing trash! XEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>133409800
I don't understand why anyone would want to give ISPs the ability to dick them.

Like what counter argument cool-aid are people drinking? Is it that the wording is confusing as fuck or is it the us vs them stigma that mostly librals are defending it so that automatically makes it evil or something? I really don't get it.

people must learn to distinguish real opposition from "no massah pleez don throe me inna briar patch" fakeout strategies.
Every time communications laws are "deregulated" it promotes monopolies. Every time.
To see if the current crap is good or bad, just look at who genuinely supports it and who genuinely opposes it. And actually look at the effect of past similar laws. Don't just spout slogans.

>>133383225
>looks like my wife 15 years ago
She's gonna look like 15 pounds of shit in a 5 pound bag in less than a decade anon

File: 84828021.jpg (37KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 620x413px

>>133378598
TFW enjoying unlimited broadband with no Corporate bullshit because government encourages equal competition

God Save The Queen

>>133391780
Why is it shitty ? What's the difference between changing countries and companies ?