Net Neutrality

>>133387208

>government accepts corporate money
>corporations HAVE to give money to them to survive
>gov wants more control over the internet and paints the corps as the bad people
>masses believe them

Just support no regulations, NN is a smokescreen

Without net neutrality internet providers can choose to reduce your internet speed when connecting to websites.
This is a potential conflict of interest if the internet providers offer a product like e.g. movie streaming that has competition from other companies like e.g. Netflix.
The fear is that an ISP might choose to offer you a "movie package" that includes their streaming service for cheaper than an "unlimited package" that would give you HD access to e.g. Netflix.

File: IMG_7910.jpg (31KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 306x306px

Somehow the internet survived before NN. Now it's a matter of life or death according to libs.

>>133387208
Support: You want government control of ISPs (could do stuff to your internet)
Don't Support: You want ISPs to control it (could do stuff to your internet)

It worked just fine without the government for 30 years. We've only had 2 years with the government in the middle.

Do you trust the government? At all?

File: pepe.jpg (37KB, 600x653px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x653px

>>133387208
bad for burgers, good for everyone else on the planet

Bad. The whole 'website package' meme gets thrown around a lot. The real problem is it's going to limit information flow. All you're doing is putting more power into the hands of private corporations. Right now now nobody has that power. As it exists, they can't differentiate between types of traffic or destination. That power does not even exist. We are not getting government out of internet, we're just giving more power to major corporations. Corporations aren't good or bad but they do act in their own self interest. The internet will slow to a crawl because the major websites now will never have any competition. It will be legal for them to block a startup that threatens, say, Twitter's market share.

Proponents say we should get the government out of the internet. The problem is the government is not exercising any power right now. They're in fact keeping anyone from exercising power. Abolishing Net Neutrality actually creates power where there was none and gives to major corporations, who will use it to further their profits. I have yet to see a single argument that demonstrates how giving this power out will improve the internet experience.

>>133387621
How is that problem? Fuck Netflix. Sounds like they have a shitty business model. I mean fuck, a steel factory has to pay more for electricity than I pay at my house because they use more electricity.

>>133387208
Either why, corporations will fuck the people over. It just depends on what websites you can go to (without NN) or the price of the internet usage to go up (with NN). This shit didn't matter before, but now everyone needs internet so the corp. are going to screw everyone.

>>133388343
Thats a terrible analogy. For starters Netflix's internet bill is obviously not the same as yours, they have to pay more because they use more.

The internet speed wouldnt be capped on their end but on yours to make the ISPs own services more enticing.

>>133387208
anytime facebook, google, twitter and democrats support something, run away as fast as you can!

>>133387357
They already intercept, decrypt and archive everything. What more could they control? Just sound like greedy exploitation to me. I think it really sucks. Would hope for a boycott, but too many cucks

>>133388703
Which could also cap us here because many people hate us out in the world.

>>133388343
Because it lessens competition. ISPs right now are essentially selling a pipeline but this would give them power to tell you how you use that pipeline. They can come out with their own Netflix knockoff for $5 a month but charge you $25 a month for Netflix. And we will never get a true competitor to Netflix because anyone that wants to start up a competitor is now going to have a much larger overhead because not only are people going to have to pay for their service but they're going to have pay the cable company extra to gain access to it.

Look at the way every liberal website censors shit. Reddit, Twitter, Wikipedia, FactCheck. Reddit and Twitter shadow ban anyone from disagreeing to push a narrative. Now you've got ISPs who can do the same thing. COMCAST CEO wants people to vote liberal? Well, now FoxNews.com and /pol/ cost $50 a month.

And don't get it twisted. Outside of the major metropolitan areas ISPs don't have competition. The smaller ISPs buy their access through the larger ones.

File: 1499849908507.jpg (91KB, 700x807px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 700x807px

>letting the government or major companies control the flow of information in the first place

T.J. was right when he warned us of this in the days of FidoNet.

>>133387208
Net Neutrality FAQ:
>1. Who supports NN?
Reddit, (((4chan mod team))), Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, Snapchat, AirBnb, Spotify, etc. Notice how all of these groups are leftist.

>2. Will anti-NN legislation "bundle" the internet?
No, this is a commonly repeated Jewish lie like "communism works". If a company "bundles" the internet, another one will not bundle and get all the customers, just as the free market intended.

>3. Are they going to block/restrict/slow down 4chan?
No. They have the technology and legal basis to do this right now, but they aren't doing it. Anti-NN legislation won't change a thing. This is just another Jewish fiction designed to cause panic.

>4. We need to fight for NN or the internet will go into the hands of the evil corporations and Republicans! Keep the internet free and independent!
The internet is already not free. Obama already gave control of the internet to the United Nations in 2016.

>5. NN keeps us safe from evil corporations!
NN laws didn't go into effect until 2015 and things were fine before then. There were no bundles or packages, which is just a fictional threat invented by the Jews to control the panicked masses.

File: 1498391511238.jpg (70KB, 848x941px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 848x941px

Why is everybody shilling so hard for NN all of a sudden? Didn't we already deal with this like 3 years ago?

>>133389468
wow no wonder 4chan is shit now with idiots like you running about

>>133389468

I don't agree with any of that but instead of pointing out why, let me ask you this: What is favorable about it? What good will come from it?

>>133389486
They are bringing it back. It's gonna keep happening till whoever lost wins.

>>133387208
I support net neutrality because it prevents rent-seeking behavior (i.e. extortion) on the part of ISPs.

imagine an internet where 4chan is censored, private sites get the 'dirt road' while corporate sites get the 'highway', and you have to pay way too much to get your premium pass. that's not what I want.

>>133389468

Also, you talk like a shill. Nobody brought 'Jewish lies' into this bullshit.

I honestly think ShareBlue is on here pretending to be /pol/ and be in favor of this bullshit so we don't go out and fight it.

>>133389915
Then sites that use next-to no bandwidth will spring up.

>>133389915
Net neutrality is about heavy data users not wanting to pay for transit. All the touchy feely stuff is bullshit.

>>133387208
It's a bad thing because it prevents Verizon from charging me extra money to use Netflix and browse fake news . If we end it then there will be more competition among ISPs, just like how there was so much more competition and choice among media companies after the 1996 Telecommunications act was passed. Cartels and oligopolies will not form and start-up ISPs will easily be able to compete with multi-billion dollar conglomerates

NOTHING TO HIDE NOTHING TO FEAR

IF YOU'RE TOO POOR TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU USE CUT YOUR CONSUMPTION OR GET YOUR FUCKING PRIORITIES STRAIGHT


I HOPE THIS SHIT PASSES

>>133387208
This it's going to take a while.

>>133390092
they might find workarounds, but in a worst case scenario, they would find more ways to clamp down in a cat/mouse game.

>>133390187
you may be right. I could see scaling back net neutrality somewhat, but my concern is that the internet will slide down a slippery slope towards the scenario I described.

also, this seems to be a threat to torrents.

>>133390275
*slurping noises*

File: illusive_man_control_poster_by_saphin-d5ddloc.jpg (147KB, 733x1090px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 733x1090px

>>133390092
>plane white sites with black text only
Nice future you're imaginíng there

>>133388703
That's literally illegal I'm pretty sure. There were laws passed against this in fucking 1995.

>>133387621
muh jewflix kys

>>133390700
I dont know of any

>>133390187

Because ISPs would rather just throttle us than upgrade us to fiber. They're the ones not keeping up with the times because upgrading costs their bottom lines. The ISPs in America aren't competing with each other. They're all avoiding stepping on each other's toes.

>>133390092

They can just completely block them, not just throttle them. How long have you been using the internet? I remember downloading jaypegs of Jenny McArthy's tits and getting literally a line at a time.

>Ooh, there's the top of her breasts! I hope she shows them in this one!
Five minutes later
>Ooh, I see pink, I think her nipples are coming next!

>>133387208
Net neutrality is literally helping destroy Western civilization. Right now all the shitty cultural marxist propaganda companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Reddit, etc. use far more bandwidth than they pay for. Banning net neutrality will decrease their reach by forcing them to pay their fair share, so they'll pass on the costs to their consumers by charging a monthly fee, which will discourage people from using those cancerous companies and getting brainwashed by their anti-West message. Everyone wins.

File: lynx_vrooom.png (11KB, 498x295px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 498x295px

>>133390563
I wish a nigga would

>>133390563
Colour doesn't exactly have much of a bandwidth requirement.

>>133390483
Text is basically nothing in modern technology. Besides, as I said already, letting the routing and management be done by companies in the first place was the mistake that Tom Jennings warned everyone of.

>>133390920
2017 is the year of the Gopher.

>>133390833
That's because you're a 20 year old dumb fuck.

>>133391276
well cite them then lmao

If you think Trump is based, go ahead, i dont mind but for you to give the full reins of how the internet is handled is a fullest cuck you can ever be. The presidency and government changes every 4yrs in the USA. What will happen if a libshit will win? What will happen when a full throttle moralfag will take office? Take it into consideration.

>>133390842
Dial up was never that slow. A few KBs is plenty when images used to never go above 20KB for that very reason.

File: AAAAAA1385779913511.gif (3MB, 359x346px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 359x346px

>>133390275
I agree fully, goyim.

>>133391027
my mind is not made up. net neutrality seems like a positive thing because it prevents the dystopia of 'premium access' and censorship. aside from the cat/mouse game of workarounds, there is some content (porn) which can't be reduced past a certain point.

that said, alot of anons seem to be saying that net neutrality is being used as a tool for leftist consolidation of power, in which case I'm against it.

this is tricky...

Good. It keeps the (((ISPs))) from slowing down other companies who aren't willing to pay extra shekels.
There are some retards trying to make it a partisan issue when literally anyone who watches porn or browses 4chan ] should be for it to some degree. Regulation is hardly ever a good thing, but in this case it is

>>133390917
>forcing them to pay their fair share
Anon, it sounds like you want to destroy Western civilization more than anything

>>133387208
Net neutrality is a massive bill to tackle a problem that doesn't exist while giving the government more power over the internet.
It's supported by everyone on the left, every globalist, all the big corporations and all the people who want the internet censored.
Net neutrality is pushed with fear tactics, talking about how ISPs are going to go insane and just start fucking with people for no reason. What is actually scary is what a batshit insane government can do when they have their claws on the internet with some 400+ page document that allows them to use any loophole in there or interpretation of any statement to do whatever they want.

The internet is not public utility, the moment the internet becomes public utility you can say goodbye to 4chan. It's not the lack of net neutrality that threatens 4chan, for fuck's sake.

>>133391329

>full throttle moralfag

The inquisitive "ban all birth control/condoms/divorce is a crime" type. Oh man.... I wish.

File: Hillary They Live.jpg (81KB, 819x819px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 819x819px

>>133387208

Its a nothing burger being masqueraded as an assault on the consumer to drum up political support for a floundering Democratic party.

Basically no one in congress really opposes the basic net neutrality rules they all realize it would hurt them politically. Even the ISPs and cable companies who ostensibly are the boogeymen behind deregulating the internet have expressed support for the basic concept of neutrality.

However there is opposition to the heavy handed FCC regulator powers that Obama set up to enforce net neutrality. Basically everyone wanted a net neutrality law; but instead of passing a simple law saying that ISPs have to provide equal service to all consumers and all sites Obama set up a bunch of new FCC rules which gave the government more power over the internet and are proving a pain in the ass for the broadband companies attempts to modernize the system.

So now you have the new head of the FCC and the Republicans trying to undo some of Obama's regulations and the Democrats are pretending that its going to break the internet because they know that it will score them political points.

>>133388767
Seriously? Mature up.
>Facebook, google, twitter and democrats believes eating shit is bad
Will i shit now? Cos im Right-leaning as fuck

>>133391567
ahh. this makes alot of sense if it's true.

>>133387208
It's a bad thing just because it gives the government more power over the internet. You might not like ISPs, but the government is much worse than ISPs. That's all any of us plebs need to know.

>>133391437
What? I distinctly remember the exact scenario happening to me. I remember it taking nearly an hour to download one MP3, and getting pissed off if someone tried to make a phone call and interrupted it.

>>133391276
This is the closest thing I could find and I cant find how my example would be illegal under this law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

>>133390275
Fucking statists....

>>133387675
But you are wrong. NN has been part of the internet since it's creation, the october 2016 obama net neutrality laws are entirely different you mongoloid

File: win 10 spy.jpg (971KB, 2565x2582px) Image search: [Google]

971KB, 2565x2582px

>>133390275
im sure you love using windows 10 too huh

>>133389066
>And don't get it twisted. Outside of the major metropolitan areas ISPs don't have competition.
>Outside of the major metropolitan areas ISPs don't have competition.
This. Expecting this shit to start in Russia anytime soon.

>>133391549
I'm a lawyer. Laws are illogical as hell. The more you specify a law, loopholes are made. When i said a full throttle moralfag, what if he censors anything violent? Well its a broad term right? It can mean to anime, rekt webm threads, etc. Anyone can take advantage of that. The world is not a black and white as you think.

>>133391317
Telecommunications Act of 1996

File: 1449307003945.jpg (13KB, 380x360px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 380x360px

>>133388912
>the government has jillions of nonoctobites of random bullshit data by intercepting, decrypting and archiving everything

wew lad
e
w

l
a
d

>republicans moving to end net neutrality

oh lawd who could have foreseen this

>>133391451
It's all going to depend on the wording of any bill that is passed. The problem is most people my age (mid 30s) or older do not understand the internet at all, ESPECIALLY our politicians. It's extra confusing because they're calling 'Net Neutrality' but it doesn't seem to actually do what it sounds like it does.

>>133391567

What type of shit did Obama throw in there? This is the first I'm hearing of this but I fully fucking believe it with the way he threw all that unrelated shit in Obamacare.

>>133392113
I dont see how it would be illegal under that law as it was mainly directed towards enabling competition among ISPs themselves and not users of those networks.

>>133391451
it's almost like people here will do or say anything to push the "right is good left is bad" narrative

>>133387208
The government is trying to steal and paywall every single rare pepe

File: reason magazine.jpg (56KB, 305x400px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 305x400px

>>133391567
>>133391716

I think companies like Google and Netflix and facebook and pornhub are also concerned that they might end up having to pay more to the ISPs if things change because their sites in particular take up a lot of bandwidth. So to a degree its turned into a squabble between ISP and cable companies and the websites that use their services.

>>133392336

>What type of shit did Obama throw in there?

Here's an excerpt from an article Reason Magazine did on it.....

>During the Obama administration, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler tried to impose net neutrality—twice—only to have federal courts block both efforts because the FCC lacked the authority to exert such broad control over ISPs. In response, the FCC in 2015 gave itself the authority (after privately working with the White House) to impose net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs as a Title II telecommunications service. With ISPs now subject to the same federal regulations as so-called "common carriers" like telephone services, a third attempt at imposing net neutrality survived a court challenge.

"Title II involves the panoply of heavy-handed economic regulations that were developed in the Great Depression to handle Ma Bell, the telephone monopoly of the 1930s," Pai told Reason TV last month. "My previous colleagues imposed those rules on the internet, one of the most dynamic systems we've ever known."

In short, the Obama administration found a clever way to get around limitations on the FCC's regulatory power. Thursday's vote is the first step towards putting the FCC's regulations back within those previous limits. As Pai points out, we weren't living in a digital dystopia in the years leading up to 2015.

and here's the whole article if you're interested.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/18/fcc-vote-isnt-the-end-of-net-neutrality

>>133387621
You conveniently leave out that Netflix, YouTube, and Facebook take up the majority of the ISPs bandwidth.

They actually have to build special "tunnels" if you will, to keep up with the traffic.

The ISPs started demanding shekels because duh, who wouldn't, or suffer bottle necking like everyone else.

The social Jews went to the government and whined and the government, in all of their love and wisdom, put a gun to the ISPs heads and said "build the tunnels or else".

>there are burgers ITT RIGHT NOW who are against net neutrality

are you fellow burgers retarded or trolling? this shit doesn't benefit you in the slightest all it benefits is jew CEO's of ISP like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. Why would you ever be agains this?

>>133391567
>Obama set up a bunch of new FCC rules which gave the government more power over the internet and are proving a pain in the ass for the broadband companies attempts to modernize the system.

Give me a link, because you are full of shit.

>So now you have the new head of the FCC and the Republicans trying to undo some of Obama's regulations

No, they are trying to undo basic net neutrality or maybe you are just a fucking retard. They want full control of you. they want to brainwash you by blocking websites and information that don't support their narrative. you are cucked by the corporate fox news brainwashing engine to actually believe anything they are doing here is somewhat helpful.

Tell me, if net neutrality is killed, what will you or we as a people gain.

spoiler: nothing. ALL this does is gives ISPs control over what you see and allows them to charge you more for it. Also the government isn't currently doing this and if you say that you are retarded

>>133392735
im not retarded. im woke. the internet is a disease.

>>133392740
>republicans want to control you and your access to information

>by removing republicans control over the internet

>>133392928
nah man you are retarded

>>133393170
It makes sense if you substitute "for-profit corporations" for "republicans". Which is reasonable, cause they're the same thing at this point.

File: Hypnotoad Poster.png (154KB, 800x1021px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 800x1021px

>>133392740

>Give me a link, because you are full of shit.


http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/18/fcc-vote-isnt-the-end-of-net-neutrality

>Tell me, if net neutrality is killed, what will you or we as a people gain.

Less power in the hands of the FCC.

>they want to brainwash you by blocking websites and information that don't support their narrative. you are cucked by the corporate fox news brainwashing engine to actually believe anything they are doing here is somewhat helpful.

Interesting. You're arguing that the FCC and the government should have more regulatory power to control the internet. Have you considered that its you who have been brainwashed to support more state power?

>>133392717
Then dont have to build special pipelines for those companies, they have to build them because their customers want to use them. If you cant consistently offer a certain speed dont offer it.

For the ISP it makes no difference if the customer uses his bandwidth to stream data from 100000 sites or just 3.

This is not the fault of Youtube, Netflix and co. but of the ISPs refusing to modernize their tech.

I can't wait for you faggots to lose /pol/

It's what you deserve for throwing in with a retard like trump lmao

>>133387208
Just let the free market handle it man. Goverment intervention is always bad.

>>133388143
This is the right answer.

>>133393378
>>133392717
Or let me phrase it this way, its not the fault of those "big data streaming" companies that usage is up, but that of the consumer.

And if you want to keep them as your customer you're going to have to modernize.

>>133392740
This is what NONE of them have answered. How does this actually help the common man? How does this help the user? How does this benefit ANYONE but the globalists in charge of all of these companies? It. Fucking. Doesn't.

This is the government saying, "No, you can't censor content under the guise of surcharges." This is one instance where the government involvement is needed. It's actually protecting the people by maintaining neutrality.

>>133393220
>wanting goybook and goygle to maintain control over the world
>not wanting internet 1.0 to crash and burn taking all the jews with it
good goya ' _> '

>>133393378
Basically, we should split up the ISPs and force competition. That's the real problem, that there aren't better options.

>>133393650
Thats the truth and what the Telecomm Act of 1996 had hoped to accomplish.

>>133393577
good luck accessing /pol/ to shill more. you might have to pay a $50 monthly premium. I can access jewgle for free. I rather take google jews than ISP jews.

>>133388143
>Corporations aren't good or bad, but they act in their own self interest.

This is true, I agree, but Corporations need to be controlled when their self-interest doesn't align with the public good.

>>133392740
Fucking nanny state begging retards like you should be deported from this country. Preferably by getting thrown out of a helicopter you commie piece of shit.

>>133392717

They didn't have to build special 'tunnels' for this and I'm not sure what you're even talking about. They offer a certain speed to the customer to use as they will. If their pipeline can handle 10k users at 10mbps then they shouldn't be selling 20k users the same 10mbps package. It's like if I built a private bypass and sold it to people promising they could drive 90mph to work but I made the speed limit 50mph.

If they offer me 10mpbs, I should be able to get 10mpbs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

>>133388143
this seems to be the right answer

>>133394084
the only reason they had to build "special tunnels" in the first place was because their initial tunnels were too shitty. Have you seen the internet in places like south korea?

>>133388767

That's what I've done, because I'm not smart enough to form an opinion of this intricate issue. I hate libs and they're wrong on everything else.

File: 1470206339780.png (23KB, 1067x325px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 1067x325px

>>133393815
>implying jews dont love 4chan
buy some more passes and shut the f*** up

>>133393845
And if we give them the ability to prioritize traffic past normal QoS then we are giving them a ton of power. The internet's power is unrivaled in human history in the amount of information it gives to the common man. We set here every day and you can hear directly from someone on the other side of world how they view their government's politicians, social matters, and how big of a faggot they think you are. We are going to give the power to shape that information away to the very elite who are trying to turn us all against each other.

Btw, when I say QoS, I mean in order to actually maximize a customer's experience. Prioritizing traffic in network terms means that things like video packets get a bit higher priority than, say, a text, so the video runs smoother, because getting a text 1/2 a second later won't matter but losing 1/2 a second of video will fuck it up.

File: 1499020077003.jpg (160KB, 1080x1235px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1080x1235px

>>133387208

http://i.imgur.com/F6Fh79C.gifv
http://i.imgur.com/F6Fh79C.gifv
http://i.imgur.com/F6Fh79C.gifv

>>133394084
>>133394312
Incorrect. The major ISPs had to build special tunnels for streaming services and the big websites because they had so much traffic.

This are fact.

>>133395018
Fuggggg sauce on the right??
Muh dick

>>133394084
>I'm not even sure what you're talking about

Pretty obvious.

>>133388343
This is dumb logic, bandwith speed doesn't need to be generated like electricity, there is no limit to it.

-They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

- Sen.Ted Stevens

>>133395276
This is fact*

Damn phone.

>>133392717
anyone who has taken basic networking knows you are full of shit

>>133395276

So what you're saying is that they had to upgrade their equipment to keep up with demand? Or are you saying they had to redo their Layer 3 and institute traffic shaping?

>>133392735
anti net nuetrality is just neocons and newfags trying to fit in

>>133393731
Except that's not what happened.

Yes they were split but then they divided regions amongst themselves and made contracts with districts, cities, and states.

We still have monoplolies, they are just geographical.

>>133395459
If bandwidth were limitless we wouldn't be having this conversation. It is a scarce resource like any other. If you use more of it, why shouldn't you pay it.

Jewtube uses a ton more bandwidth than 4chan. Why shouldn't jewtube pay more for using more bandwidth?

File: 2017-07-12 12_53_11-Exabyte - Wikipedia.png (15KB, 344x312px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 344x312px

>>133392228
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center
>literal exabytes

>>133388912
Not quite on that level, but even so the government (local typically more than federal) controls who gets to develop what infrastructure and who gets to rent space on government controlled property (most main communication lines).

>>133395550
And anyone who actually worked for an ISP, like myself, knows you're a fucking dumbass

>>133387208
> Hey Comcast CEO, Hilldawg here, theres an election coming up and I need some help

> Need you to switch your cheapest Internet package to these news sites only: CNN, WAPO, NYT, MSNBC, and Reddit's mainstream pages.

> Thx bby, will give you some government handouts when I get elected

>>133395550
Yeah I'm trying to get what he saying? "BUILD SPECIAL TUNNELS" Do you mean they had to fucking traffic shape by typing in some commands? It's so disingenuous.

>>133395459

The problem is we have a fuckton of people voting on an issue they don't really understand. I almost think you should have to have at least a CCNA to vote on Net Neutrality at this point.

>>133395810
But we didn't have net neutrality laws for decades and this never happened.

>>133388703
>oh wow now jewcast xfinity is the fastest option
>oh wow jewcast xfinity is literally a giant pile of bullshit
spin off your internet service so cable can die slowly please

>>133395614
Basically when you connect to a low key website, it has to bounce from to place to place to place, etc. To eventually get to it's destination, get the info, and then go back through that route to bring it back to you.

This is normally okay except when millions of people are pinging the location, especially streaming services.

So major ISPs have to set up tunnels, basically where the big websites and services get top QoS, and first dib access. They also make sure their route to information is much shorter.

Run cmd and ping (tracert I believe? been awhile since I've done it) google, youtube, and then a more obscure website, like southerndogfood or some shit. You'll see the big guys have a much shorter route than the little guys.

>>133395979
Yeah I'm sure the internet was great in the 70's.

>>133395737
they do
net nuetrality is about giving inequal service, not more or less service
they just pay at the same RATE as other businesses and get their service
>>133395798
lol hello ct-1, I'm sure you know your shit
how many boxes did you fix this month?

>>133395979
>being this stupid
net neutrality was never not a thing.

>>133389915
the road analogy is retarded
t. network engineer

>>133395737
What he means is that bandwidth is not consumed. You will always have as much bandwidth as the system can support. It doesn't matter how much or how little of it you use. The capacity doesn't change and it doesn't cost an important amount of money more to use 100% of it vs using none of it.

>>133389468
>If a company "bundles" the internet, another one will not bundle and get all the customers, just as the free market intended.
lmfao

>>133387208
NN ensures that ISPs can't pick and choose websites to "throttle" Some big ones would pay so users could visit those websites at the speeds we pay for. But if we want to use our speeds on sites like 4chan, ISPs will be able to force us to pay more.

And that's just a small part of it.

Without FCC oversight, all power would go to ISPs, which are a monopoly since, unlike with most of capitalism, competition can't take place as it takes literally millions of dollars to "break in" to the market. Good fucking luck getting that loan.

>>133395962
I answered your question, check here
>>133396204

File: 1499354828991.jpg (90KB, 532x348px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 532x348px

>>133393566

Well, if NN was kill, and companies were allowed to do whatever they want, wouldn't this create more competition and result in lower prices for consumers?

A 50 year old lady who just gets online to check her Yahoo email and look at FaceBook doesn't really need to pay the $80 for 100mbps down like I do while I'm torrenting, gaming, and streaming 1080p porn.

Also, through competition everything becomes cheaper. Remember when your cell phone plan included X number of minutes (before texting), and now all plans have unlimited minutes. Then they did unlimited calling with 500/1000/2000 texts a month, and then the companies competed with each other and now every plan has unlimited texting and calling, but you pay for data. Now all the main cell providers in the US have gone to unlimited data. But, you can also pay the $20 a month for no data if you're just an old lady with a flip phone who just wants to call her grand-kids occasionally.

This is what the free market, competition, and capitalism does. The minute that Comcast decides to put quotas and limits and restrictions on what you can access, a competitor will announce their "Unlimited" package, and steal all of Comcast's customers.

>>133392717
>You conveniently leave out that Netflix, YouTube, and Facebook take up the majority of the ISPs bandwidth.


Which is why ISPs like Comcast rolled out Data caps each month. It's my choice how I use the data I pay out the ass for.

>>133389468

I emailed your Congress anyway. I can't have my porn searches be slowed down any further than it already is. I only just managed to start watching porn with quality above 360p about a year ago and my fapping sessions are more satisfying thanks to that.

>>133387208
It's a great thing because it will remove Americans from most websites.

It only we could do the same with Canada.

>>133395727
Yeah it failed. Like many other Clinton proposals

>>133393378
Also fucking this. They make insane profits, but improving our ageing infrastructure is slow af. The US has some of the worst in the world, and some of the highest premiums.

>>133396272
So WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION AND WHY DID WE GET NET NEUTRALITY LAWS IN 2015

>>133392228
Holy shit how retarded are you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)

Why are so many retards on 4chan these days?

>>133393650
If we made infrastructure public, then we COULD have competition again. But since it's not, we can't. Hell, in some areas making public infrastructure is illegal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/07/12/even-4chan-is-opposing-the-republican-plan-for-net-neutrality/?utm_term=.d4b718e47046
They're here

>>133395979
A different beast then. Then they were actively trying to sell us something. People didn't really see the need for the internet until, what....15 years ago? Around then. But now it's something you pretty much have to have. So now the demand is high enough they're going to start jewing us for shekels.

Look, here's what's essentially happening. I am a network engineer. I have done this for 10 years. Here's the basics.

The ISP has a 100 lane highway. As it stands right now, they are selling you a lane on that highway. You have the right to use that line all day, every day or just once a month. You are buying the lane.

Now what's happening is they have 100 lanes but 200 people want to use those lanes. Rather than upgrading to 200 lanes, they want to instead limit how many times you can use those lanes in the hopes that those 200 people will limit their trips out so you don't notice anyone else is using your lane. Sure they can fit 200 people into those 100 lanes but you're going to notice it's suddenly 1/2 as fast.

Now picture every website or service you use on the internet as an exit. Right now anyone who wants to establish a service on the internet can do it if they have the money to pay to construct an exit and a parking lot (a server and their own bandwidth basically). Now the ISP wants to set it up so they can block certain exits. They may grant you access to use that exit if you pay a toll (the monthly fee). Now picture that on that exit is a business competing with their friend's business or that exit leads to a website that supports a rival political candidate. Do you really think they are going to not do everything they can to block that exit?

Look at the major websites right now like Reddit and Twitter. They block and shadow ban dissenting political opinions. Do you really think ISPs are above that?

>>133397102
I ran it through archive
https://archive.is/LLgPe

>>133397019
Making it illegal for cities and districts to sign contracts with just one provider would help solve most problems.

Even socialistic hellholes like Europe understand this, they just do it by force.

ISPs that are too large are forced to give up part of their plants to smaller ISPs to give people options

>>133396356
Understood.

This makes it seem like net neutrality is a good thing. I don't understand why ISPs are bitching about it. They just want more shekels?

>>133395979
>Something didn't happen
>Therefor it never will

ISPs also didn't have this much power or freedom of competition before.

>>133387357
>mmumumumumumumuh free speech n shiet
It's not down to NN - it's down to your government.

>>133396968
NN in 2015 codified polices that were already unwritten, made it so comcast couldn't jew their customers

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

>>133397325
>That flag
DELET THIS

File: 1450337769654.gif (3MB, 200x170px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x170px

>>133395018
>imgur (essentially reddit but worse)
>editing some meme movie
your graphic is trash and you are trash

>>133397102
>bullshit article that claims the exact opposite of what actually happened.

>washingtonpost

figures.

>>133397160
Great write up at last I finally see.

I'm now a #cruzmissle

>All these idiots thinking Net Neutrality only became a thing 2 years
The internet has always operated under Net Neutrality, it was when it was challenged that it was put into law.

>>133387621
Sounds good to me. I don't use Netflix. Give me the cheap package.

>Use more water
>Get charged for using more internet

>Use more bandwidth
>REEEEEEEEE EVERY BODY SHOULD BE CHARGED THE SAME

There's no way that anyone in this thread actually believes that Time Warner, Comcast, and Verizon will compete with each other if NN is repealed.

The free market stops working if only three companies control a product and they all agree to be absolute shitheads in order to squeeze the consumer for all their worth. When was the last time you even considered changing your ISP because you saw a better offer.

>>133397517
using more water, fuck

File: international handsign for ' what the fuck is this nigga doing'.jpg (41KB, 590x482px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 590x482px

>>133396204
>tracert
who the fuck came up with the windows command names
they're all shitty

>>133389468
>If a company "bundles" the internet, another one will not bundle and get all the customers, just as the free market intended.

Except like all (((free market))) theories that will never happen because the few ISP companies there are will just collude with each other like they always have and always will. The barrier to entry for ISPs is astronomically high and fucking Google got curb-stomped by ISP collusion so if you think some random start-up is going to topple all of this you must seriously have a few screws loose.

>>133395276
Yes, I agree. They were forced to upgrade because they were deliberately keeping their hardware low grade because they aren't forced to compete in the modern environment.

>>133397381
>Many of those were blocked before Net Neutrality was even a thing

Really sends my noggin for a joggin.

And again, if we would stop making these regional monopolies, we wouldn't need the government to step in.

Only reason verizon could jew like that in the first place is because of limited local competition.

>>133397381
>lolbertarians will defend this

File: 616.jpg (255KB, 1321x1782px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1321x1782px

>>133397161
>4chan, the message-board site that's known for producing an avalanche of pro-Donald Trump memes during the 2016 presidential campaign that made the GOP nominee a viral sensation on social media and, many argue, helped usher him into the Oval Office.
I don't see how this website won't be in the history books
Good or bad don't matter to me anymore

>>133396598
There are no competitors. The ISP industry is basically a monopoly. There are a few companies, and a lot of the time there's only ever even one in your area. In my last apartment complex for example, I was forced to use Comcast. There were no other ISP's available. Where I live now, in SW Virginia, there's only one ISP in the whole region, Shentel. The monopolies exist for a few reasons, and the only way of solving the problem is to destroy the monopolies. First of all, the laws are fucked, there is a shit ton of anti-competitive legislation that prevents new ISP's from coming onto the market. Second of all, the cost of entry for making an ISP is enormous. Hundreds of millions of dollars.

Of course, this doesn't mean net neutrality is good. It sets a precedent for allowing the FCC to step in and fuck everything directly. Which they fucking will if we get a Democrat in office ever again in our life times. We are honestly fucked either way, just watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4

>>133397567
yeah, i agree, command names like "grep" and "sudo" and "yum" and "touch" are so much better

>>133397252
this is what I really want
here's the options I have:
>comcast 200/10 ($100/mo)
>centurylink 3/1 ($30/mo)
>about 20 wireless or sattelite providers, from 1/0.5 to 10/2 ($30-$200/mo)
>move (not a option)

>>133397670
>Only reason verizon could jew like that in the first place is because of limited local competition.
and no net neutrality

kys

>>133397810
I use tab completion all the time, but command names should not exceed 4 characters
who the fuck wants to type move all the time when mv means the same thing

>>133397631
You and I agree somewhat, we just disagree with the methodology. When Google threatened my area with fiber, Charter suddenly doubled my speed, free of charge.

Instead of relying on government to fix this problem, which was honestly started by government, we should be electing officials who allow 2-5 plants in one infrastructure, without obstruction, and stop signing regional contracts.

Don't give power to the government.

>>133395617

This

>>133397517
But netflix already gets charged more than you because they use more.

This is about YOUR connection getting throttled when visiting websites the ISP doesnt particularly like, e.g. rivaling movie streaming business. It's not just about Netflix, it's about making sure there is an even market for competition to flourish.

Imagine a company that built a highway and you pay to use that highway. Now they build stops where you can rest up/eat/go to the toilet and of course you have to pay extra for those.
But then another company decides to put stops next to that highway.
Your local highway provider doesnt enjoy that and makes the exits to those stops narrower/closes them down so you go to their stops instead.
Net Neutrality makes sure you can visit the stop that you want without having to jump through extra hoops.

>>133396204
I get that. Saying they had to build 'special tunnels' is going to confuse the fuck out of normies who don't work on this stuff like we do into thinking that they had to actually do some unjust thing like installing new hardware all over, which I wouldn't even call unjust. They'd just need to be honest with telling the customer the speeds they're going to get.

>>133396598

Not a bad analogy but doesn't dissuade a lot of my fears for this. I don't trust that, in a world where the leftists control a majority of websites and streaming services, this is not an attempt at a power grab. I mean, does nobody remember George fucking Soros owns a fuckton of Netflix now? Do you think he's above greasing some palms to keep any competition down while it pushes his subversive narrative?

>>133397939
I actually agree, I just hate retarded *nix command names that aren't descriptive

like how the fuck am i supposed to know that "touch" creates a file unless I've used it before and know what it means

File: tracert.png (128KB, 4096x2160px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 4096x2160px

>>133396204
>www.google.com
>17 steps
>4chan.org
>8 short steps

>>133397567
>trace route
>explains exactly what it does
>shitty
Wut?

>>133398118
sick screenshot bro

>>133396204
>You'll see the big guys have a much shorter route than the little guys.

Duh.

Because big sites have numerous servers at locations right next to internet exchanges.
When you go to google.com you get connected to a very different server from when I go to google.com.

Whereas some obscure anime board could very well be hosted from some kid's bedroom.

It has nothing to do with how your ISP handles traffic, it's the big sites pouring millions and millions into their servers and infrastructure that makes them fast.

>>133398085
that's linux in general though, it's not intuitive and the community hates when you ask stupid questions
it's perfect for 4chan

>>133398038
Netflix gets charged because of the amount, but not the immediate traffic.

They should be charged more when they are hogging the majority of the bandwidth at one time and the ISPs have to give them special pathways.

stop defending Jewflix.

>>133397265
>They just want more shekels?
Do you really have to ask?

>>133398199
It's not that simple toothpaste. Even if Netflix has multiple servers, they're stl using more bandwidth of the ISPs at one time, especially during certain times of certain days.

ISPs have to run QoS for them or they will be throttled.

>>133397517
>Give me the cheap package.

You can already do that. If you only go to places that don't take up much bandwidth, buy a low speed plan. You don't need 150mbs DL for browsing 4chan. Get a 10MB plan, the difference will be fractions of a second.

>>133388343
>Fuck Netflix
i count one woke american

>>133398527
The fuck are you talking about?

Try making sense next time.

>>133398782
I'm sorry you're too stupid to understand.

>>133398712
I suspect ISP's offer shitty service just to encourage people to buy more expensive plans.

Most people are too dumb to understand what "10Mbit" should actually entitle them to.

>>133398118
so you live near 4chan HQ?

>>133388703
>For starters Netflix's internet bill is obviously not the same as yours, they have to pay more because they use more.

Netflix per GB charge is so much lower than what you pay it's not even a comparison.

The argument boils down to: The customers wanted to pay for their cable and then use netflix VS netflix uses the broadband as a delivery method.

If customers use Netflix like a torrent website, then the current way is OK.
If Netflix positioned itself as video-on-demand, then they are leeching the urban network equipment at the cost of others (abusing internet lines for their stuff)

File: fS6KHxz.jpg (424KB, 1598x966px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 1598x966px

>>133397388

>complaining about the truth because it's not in the medium of a Chinese cartoon

kys faggot

>>133397517
see
>>133397160

It's all disingenuous bullshit trying to pull the wool over your eyes so they can get more shekels. The technology doesn't work like electricity or water. I have worked in networking for 10 years and have never met a single network engineer who doesn't understand that this is a bullshit attempt at a shekel grab to jew the fuck out of customers.

>>133387208
I have great internet speeds. I don't want my skype blocked just because some kike mobile operator wants to force me use their services that I don't need. Fuck this jewish free market meme.

>>133397567
Trace route.
Its not hard.

>>133399140
watched WW yesterday... she's pretty cute in some scenes

>>133399140
at least post a infographic with sources and not some video a tumblrina made with after effects

>>133399245
>>133398181
I always read it as tra cert and it confuses me

File: 1497820191618_0.png (20KB, 365x363px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 365x363px

>>133387357
>Regulations are bad
Coporate shills are out in full force today

>>133393969
"I am literally worthless" the post

>>133399072
>abusing internet lines

This is what Goyim actually believe is possible.

It's like saying people with luxury cars are "abusing the roads".

>Telecoms own government supported monopolies
>One of the strings attached is having to treat data from one company equally to that of another company
>They fight legal battles to do away with this in the interests of muh free market
>Now to get data-cap free access, or higher speed access, a website needs to pay an ISP shekels
>The ISP, in turn, has an incentive to rather than investing money into improving their infrastructure, investing their money into schemes like share buybacks, as improving their infrastructure and getting rid of data plans would take away any incentive people had to pay for faster data that didn't count against peoples data caps
>So websites pay more money to ISPs, who subsequently are incentivized to slow down how fast they improve their service

It is literally only corporatist shills and contrarians that are against network neutrality. Even lolbertarians should realise that if you want to get rid of the telecom monopolies you start by getting rid of the government enforced monopolies then network neutrality, not network neutrality than the government enforced monopolies.

>>133399072
So wouldn't it make more sense for the internet to be free to access, and ISPs start charging internet companies? Then internet companies charge you for the services you want.

So the Facebook jews have to pay the Comcast and Verizon Jews, but you don't have to pay the Comcast Jews. But if you want to use Facebook, you have to pay the Facebook jews.

>>133397003
the gov should have the net under surveillance, but not the current gov because they aren't secure

File: 1486587577467.jpg (83KB, 546x678px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 546x678px

What the fuck is happening and why is there 5 threads on the 1st page about this?

>>133399657
and you have to pay the comcast jews for extra service

File: 1490594073801.jpg (9KB, 300x222px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x222px

>>133399378
>pot smoking communists are in favor of liberty

>>133396356
>>133397265

It's obviously an imperfect rent/sharing approach; ideally you would buy a 1 Mbps line and it's yours. Instead, what is done is you get 20 Mbps at the same price but you're expected to not use all of it most of the time.

Things like thist exist in different models, like, you would rent a car on a day by day basis. Obviously the car isn't really consumed, especially not on an per hour basis.

The idea that Network Neutrality is new by the way, is wrong, it has been the norm for the internets entire existance, the thing that is new is the establishment of Title II powers to enforce network neutrality as the FCC vs Verizon established without such power, the FCC had no legal means to enforce Net Neutrality.

Network Neutrality has always been enforced, legal challenges have simply forced the government to reclassify Internet Services as Public Utilities if they wanted to continue enforcing Network Neutrality.

>>133399774
reddit made a stink about it and it leaked over here

>>133397530
Exactly. I guarantee these fuckers have data models comparing how much money they'll make if the status quo stays compared to how much they'd make if they tried to move in on each other's markets. The fact that they're supporting this bullshit means it's better for them to stay the same. It's a fucking price fixing ring because they know they can obfuscate the truth to people who aren't familiar the technology at play here to jew more shekels out of the current infrastructure rather than risk competing with each other by upgrading to fiber and moving in on each other's markets.

This is all bullshit and not one time has anyone shown any feasible way this is going to positively impact the internet. I am all about the free market but this is not a free market issue. This is about a monopoly disguised as 3 separate entities. They can't get any bigger without being busted up as a monopoly, so they're just going to stay the way things are, and none of them have any reason to improve shit. Their profits aren't to increase either...unless they can regulate your traffic. So that's what they want. Fuck any other argument. They are after shekels.

>>133399806
And the solution is simple: just charge people per GB.

Problem solved.

>>133387357
>NN is a smokescreen
Net Neutrality is the marketing name they're trying to sell you this under. Just like, "The Patriot Act," and, "Citizens United."

Vote against Net Neutrality, and support no regulations, as anon said.

>>133400032
>jew people like wireless carriers jew people
because I want to pay $5/gb and be beholden to jewcast because they're the only provider in my area

>>133399793
>Democratic socialism
>The same as Communism or socialism

Wew. Kys

>>133397467
THIS

File: 1477321299314.jpg (44KB, 550x412px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 550x412px

>>133387827
Wait a second, aren't they repealing laws that are already in place?

>>133393305
>Less power in the hands of the FCC.
and more in the hands of the ISPS. much more than what was taken away. this doesn't balance out

>>133393305
>You're arguing that the FCC and the government should have more regulatory power

No. what they have no gives them absolutely no authority over brainwashing people, blocking public information or selectively choosing which websites to allow. none. zero. there is none stop with this shitty argument.

>http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/18/fcc-vote-isnt-the-end-of-net-neutrality

never touches on anything obama did, nice try though

>>133399774
It's probably Netflix astroturfing.

>>133399045
There is a high chance of it. Now if only that meant anything at all for an image board.

>>133387208
muh netflix gets to keep its monopoly

>>133400539
>people disagree with me, must be paid shills

kill yourself. you are in the wrong here

>>133387827
I trust them more than a monopoly. The Government has done fine with other utilities, ISPs have a shitty record, and monopolies even worse.

>>133387675
the concept of the internet as a utopian, completely free and neutral place pre-dates the existence of the world-wide-web though.

It's important because anonimity is vital for a flourishing democracy. One needs to be able to express whatever they desire without fear of prosecution.

>>133400032
They are free to do that right now. The problem for them is it's so unpopular they don't want to switch to it. But by doing this bullshit they can frame it differently. It costs next to nothing to actually transfer data over a preexisting path. The amount of electricity used on their end to pass along information or not pass along information over a preexisting path pales in comparison to the cost of the equipment even being on.

>>133399657
In theory Yes

because ISPs attempted to charge internet companies they're now furious to get NN passed

if we look at the supporters: Netflix, Google, Amazon,...

In practice most people think they have already paid enough for their broadband subscription for this to be included indirectly, like a hidden option that helps enhance the popular services

>>133400680
youre doing it wrong shill. so obvious

>>133400836
>MUH RIGHT WING SEKRET CLUB WHY ARE SO MANY PEOPLE DISAGREEING WITH ME SHIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

this is you.

>>133400680
This is being pushed all over the web anon, even Google's published something. For once it's actually likely that basket weaving forums could be getting corporate attention.

File: 1490665967365.jpg (141KB, 717x880px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 717x880px

>>133400959
Lurk moar newfag.

>>133400791
for example, in the past many broadbad subscriptions had usenet access included in the package

the usenet servers had to be paid seperately (like internet companies)

at prices like $120 most people would expect there should be the $25 for the services on the other end

>>133400348
Wired should be a lot cheaper.

And I'm not saying charge more.
Just charge proportional to how much someone actually consumes.
This is fair and discourages people from wasting bandwidth.

Net neutrality is the one and only thing libcucks are right about.

File: 1499383730689.gif (2MB, 260x260px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 260x260px

>>133387208
When will nu-pol learn that every time the government regulated something it turned to shit.
>inb4 muh monopoly
Who do you think put those monopolies there
>inb4 muh access charge
There not going to charge you they will most likely charge the companies who's services take up more data.
>inb4 muh big corporations
You think NN isn't also helping big corporations?

>>133399609
fuckin preach

>>133401173
it should be a flat rate to a point
1-2TB is a good baseline, past that it's a extra $0.25/GB
jewcast now wants $2 or something per gigabyte over 1tb right now, or an extra $50 for actual unlimited

>>133389468
This.
How are there so many communist anti-corporations retards here?
Free market = Free market

One corporation throttles unjustly, well all the business goes to the one who doesn't

>>133401178
Dude weed too
And abortion

>>133399438

some trucking companies can be said to leech roads because they're only in business through the free usage of roads that need maintenance

>>133401118
>something political, and extremely in the public eye today is being talked about constantly
>people are surprised /pol/ is discussing it.


???

>>133399774
Get your head in the fucking game. Trump FCC started making a move beginning of the year to SOPA our asses again, this isn't *new* Goddamnit.

But today's some big protest. And 4chan heads are in it, read the top of the page. Ergo posts.

>>133401163
With usenet, ISP's maintained a copy on their own servers.
Just like they had their own e-mail servers to provide customers with an e-mail address.
Some even let customers host a simple website.

It's not the same as charging extra for a 3rd party service.

>>133388143
yea this is the right answer

i have a shitty isp ((Spectrum)) and its really fine, its actually great.

this looks like a power move by the corporations, follow the money, find the beneficiaries

>>133399818
Yeah this has been a long road. Title II classification came when it did mostly because of long-fought court cases wrapping up, etc.

>>133401457
some ISPs have a flatrate base amount and beyond that you get traffic shaping

the per GB is always very expensive if you're the end consumer because they assume people shy away from using any and in response the price comes up

>>133401195
Net neutrality has been defacto enforced in your country since the 90's anon. The 2015 ruling just made it official. The protections that are already in place have worked perfectly so far, it's you mongs who want to change things.

t. connecting though a shitty government-owned monopoly ISP who throttles anything except browsing if you don't pay for an "unshaped" connection

>>133401578
This is more than just /pol/ discussing it. I've seen fewer similar threads during terror attacks.

>>133400457
Keep telling yourself it isn't

>>133401821
what are the prices for entry level and unshaped

probably too high if it's a monopoly

>>133400306
You're dumb because this is not a fucking vote. If you're not willing to engage with the situation at hand because of 'muh principles', ignoring the realities of the ISP monopolies and current status of the Internet in the U.S., maybe you should just go back to /a/.

Allowing the current FCC to remove Title II classification doesn't get you 'no regulations' like you claim to want. It just makes it harder for you to get there, ultimately.

You have a chance to push the government into helping fix a government mistake by using Title II regulation to help destroy the monopolies that are drowning the market. You idiot. We can more easily move towards backing government back out of a newly-leveled market than we do with this nonsense they're trying to do now.

Or do you *want* to force the government to nationalize the ISPs to keep the country internationally competitive when this shitbox comes tumbling down because you couldn't be bothered to slap short-term money-grubbers properly?

>>133387208
Liberals are for it, and will likely get their panties in a bunch if it fails. See Trump, Brexit, etc

So I am against it. Any good for me is immensely outweighed by something bad for them. As always, they are overreacting about the consequences anyway.

>>133401471
>literally ignoring real-world variables in support of 'muh principles'

Fuck your feelings, lolbertarian.

File: anti-nn summary.jpg (147KB, 1280x303px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x303px

>>133387208
net neutrality - good, all data is treated equally by Internet Service Providers (ISPs)

Net Neutrality - bad, legislation granting vague, broad, overreaching regulatory powers to the FCC and will likely only solidify the monopolies maintained by a handful of ISPs in the same way that the last major piece of legislature pushed by the FCC (the Telecommunications Act of 1996) did.

>>133402914
Good argument.
Really got me good there, faggot

>>133398118
you're connecting to european google for some reason, weird

>>133388143
Winrar!

>>133387208
Without net neutrality, your ISP might start charging you a "racist" fee for visiting /pol/

File: cox-communications[1].png (52KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 400x225px

Who here part of the Cox masterrace? They support net neutrality and our literally /ourguys/

>>133403094
>>133401471

>He thinks the ISPs won't just charge the same thing

LMAO. tell me friend, what do you pay for your internet? 50 up / 25 down for 70 a month? oh whats that? the only other provider in your area is comcast, lets take a look at their prices........whats this....50 /25 for 70 a month as well hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm really makes me think maybe these companies shouldn't be trusted hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

or, like most americans, you only have one singular option in one area.

Want the free market to work and have local ISPs compete? me to! too bad your republican shill fuckdaddies literally have laws preventing local competition!

off yourself. the only thing removing net neutrality will do is GIVE power where there was no power before. thats it. period.

>>133397381

can people please spread this? This is the only thing that needs to be posted about NN. This is the reason why we need it. If you value internet freedom.

>>133403094
"I have no substantive counter-argument" the post

>>133403445
And are going to add bandwidth limits.

File: 1484159525221.png (19KB, 448x448px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 448x448px

>>133387357
*rubs hands furiously*

>>133403515
Yeah, because
>Fuck your feelings, lolbertarian.
was an excellent summary of you points.
Get the cock out of your mouth.

>>133403451
>hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
trolling can be an artform, but you're just throwing shit at the wall

>>133403517
They already did and I have exceeded the limit they give time and time again and they have done nothing. When I was torrenting movies and programs they sent me a letter warning me that I was being targeted by organizations trying to fine me and they gave me a heads up and said this was a freebie and that they wouldn't be able to help me out next time. I love Cox, and I'm pretty sure Cox loves me.

>>133403748
>complain about others ignoring arguments
>do it yourself

the average trumptard boys

>>133401471
>well all the business goes to the one who doesn't
That would make sense if they weren't a multi-headed monopoly.

>>133403137
That actually is pretty fucking weird.

>>133403748
>waah i can't read the thread
>waah my feefees are hurt because someone called me on my bullshit

Fuck your feelings, lolbertarian baby. gb2/a/.

>>133403355
If your ISP fucks with your internet you can go to a different ISP (despite the claim from the pro-regulatory that there's only three or four ISPs in the country, there are actually substantially more, even most small towns have access to a couple alternatives).

If your government fucks with your internet, you have to change your government... which is a lot harder.


Honestly with all the fuckery we're seeing with the internet in the UK it's amazing anyone's even considering letting the US government have even more power than it already has.

>>133403321

It's not surprising to me that people view this as a free market issue. I am all about the the free market, but what we have here is 3 companies who essentially own the internet in the USA. They all offer basically the same service at the same price and don't step on each other's toes. Why? Could it be because if they were to actually compete and eliminate any more of the competition they would be viewed as a monopoly?

See this post I made earlier>>133397160

The ISPs right now are at their limit of what they can offer over exist infrastructure. There is absolutely no way for them to increase their profits. It's capped. They own the whole market and the only way for them to offer faster services at this point is to spend billions on upgrading infrastructures. Rather than do this and compete with each other, and risk becoming a monopoly, now they want to change the way they can charge you for the same service. That is all this is.

>>133404530
Tell me how I know you're not from a small town.

Also I can appreciate the attempt to reframe the argument as letting the government have more power, but it's such an 'I don't understand the reality and history of the issue' that it's laughable, friend.

File: 1498559495331.jpg (69KB, 530x795px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 530x795px

Is this shit world wide or just in America?

>>133404530
But that offer anywhere near the same services?

Where I live (the entire fucking county) we have Comcast, offering up to 150mb/s DL and 20 mb/s UL, and centrylink. with it's wopping 10mb/s DL and 1.5MB/s UL.


It's like saying "We have many choices of water! Sure all but one are toxic because one company controls the only clean water supply (infrastructure in this case), but come on! It's still water!"

Fuck off.

File: 1494085095292.gif (1MB, 264x264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 264x264px

>>133404123
>the average trumptard boys
>>133404488
>Fuck your feelings, lolbertarian baby. gb2/a/.


>>133404322
They wouldn't be a multi-headed monopoly if you didn't need so much fucking government to establish a goddamn internet service.

>>133404911
As with almost everything else the US does, it's just the US for now. Wait 5 years and you'll get yours as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K88BU3kjZ-c

There are 0 valid arguements that support getting rid of net neutrality. None.

Funnily enough, maintaining the status quo is the conservative thing to do, yet their corporate overlords convinced them otherwise.

>>133404530

They don't have any power right now, that's the thing. The only regulation in place is that there is no regulation.

>>133404949
>They wouldn't be a multi-headed monopoly if you didn't need so much fucking government to establish a goddamn internet service.

Are you fucking kidding? They pressured the government to ensure that the infrastructure remains PRIVATE so they can stay a monopoly.

So yes, the government fucked up, but in the way you are describing.

Tell me how giving them MORE power would incentivize them to stop being dicks?

>>133387208
Non-net neutrality = ISPs/corporations control/regulate users.
net neutrality = ISPs/corporations don't control/regulate users.
Has nothing to do with government controlling internet, it's about corporations control. Government will control nothing with net neutrality or without it.

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

2MB, 2607x2861px

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

One hilarious thing about all this that isn't being talked about here, because of Internet anime board demographics: the shitty infrastructure and multi-headed monopoly situation in the U.S. *directly contributed to uneven economic recovery during/post Recession*. Making the old rural-small-town v. urban divide even worse.

But sure, you go ahead and hand over more power to the guys who helped fuck us all over in multiple ways for some short-term cash and market laziness.

Eliminating net neutrality would kill 4chan so yes it should be removed.

>>133405320
GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CONTROLS ANYTHING WITH NET NEUTRALITY YOU STUPID SHIT. NOWHERE IT SAYS GOVERNMENT REGULATES FREE TRADE WITH NET NEUTRALITY. WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ISPS CONTROLLING USERS. COMPLETE RETARD.

if you dont support it you are full retard...

All NN is is treating all data on the internet the same...

The can of worms opened up when ANYONE has control to limit or put emphasis on any traffic should chill you to the bones if you have any intellegence or have noticed what a shill all the TV/news/ect media have been for decades

>>133405282
>Nazis supporting NN
What a time to be alive.

>>133387357
fpbp.

Government regulation is the problem with the internet. Internet should be a utility like electricity. Companies should be forced to compete for your service instead of Comcast having a monopoly on the line that runs to your house.

Supporting NN is retarded. Fuck the feds.

INB4 jews claim NN helps jews so that they can jew you.

Reverse jewism people, its a tactic against you

>>133405320
>implying the government is using this power
>Implying monopolies won't use it to further screw the consumer

File: 1479579317772.jpg (87KB, 1221x739px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1221x739px

>>133405236
>Are you fucking kidding?
Of course they want it private.
We're the US, not the Soviet Union.

As for the monopoly, it's entirely government created.
You can only create an ISP if you have a shitload of money, so you can jump through all the government's hoops.

hownu.ru

>>133405661
>implying Nazis supported capitalistic exploitation for money
>implying Nazis had internet

>>133404949
So you're gonna make it worse by ensuring the free market stays dead in this issue by further cementing the power of the not#government reign-holders?

This is a lot of why you are, at best, a baby. Because you can't apply your claimed metrics to anything but simplified thought experiments. You brush up against the real world and your argument falls to jumbled pieces.

lolbertarian faggot.

Why do Americans like to suck corporate dick so much?
At least the ones on /pol/ do.

File: images (1).jpg (6KB, 215x234px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 215x234px

>>133399378
You're not very intelligent, are you?

>>133404820
>Tell me how I know you're not from a small town.
I live in a town of 2,000 in Iowa. Mediacom is the largest ISP in the state, but there's also a local satellite internet provider (which I use) and all the same mobile internet providers available anywhere with coverage.

The "oh there's only like three ISPs" argument is complete horseshit. Just because an alternative isn't one of the major companies doesn't mean it's not an alternative.

>>133405320

And Aaron Swartz was suicided for some of the shit he found out about these people. Sorry man but this is like the only issue I am falling on the side of these crazy fuckers. Please read my posts in this thread. This is like the one thing that government has done right in decades. This benefits not a single citizen that doesn't own an ISP. The major ISPs here control everything about the market now and have no way to increase their shekels because any further expansion will risk them being classified as a monopoly and broken up. This is only for them to find ways to charge more for the same services you already are getting now, and yes, they WILL fucking censor.

WHY DO YOU PEOPLE THINK THIS IS BACK? Because Trump won and they need to further censor the fuck out of the goyim just like Reddit and Twitter already do!

>>133405933
Make your own iPhone.
Make your own Google.
Maybe it'll give you a sense of perspective, instead of leeching off of our ideas.

>>133401195
>There not going to charge you they will most likely charge the companies who's services take up more data.
Are you sure there not? And the companies will then need an increase of revenue so charge the customers

>>133405933
We're tribalist children that don't understand what power is. We see the messenger but not the message.

We're advertising junkies.

>>133387208
Why is 4chan pro government control when they fear their internet may be slower?

>>133387357
Have you forgotten about all the taxpayer money the Govt handed to ISPs to upgrade their infrastructure and they fucking didn't?

>>133403048
so basically you are saying nothing should be done? Or a simpler piece of legislation that says what: companies cannot do xyz to the internet, government and population: the government cannot do xyz to the internet, companies and population

>>133405976
Glad to hear that.

That wasn't the case in my home stretch of southern Indiana. Or really most of the cities I've lived or been in, in this region.

File: when the (You)s come in.png (17KB, 274x242px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 274x242px

>being against Net Neutrality
>"muh statism!"
>"muh free market competition, goy!"
>implying there's a fucking free market in internet providers when most of the time you have literal monopolies and no choices in the matter

I can't wait for my cable-package-tier internet. Pay an extra 20 dollars to use torrents! 10 dollars extra for 4chan! Oh I'm sorry, we only support Yahoo and not Google on your plan :^).

Look, I'm out of this thread for now, anons. I know there are shills in here but I implore anyone who doesn't know how they feel about it to just read my posts in this thread and consider them,that's all. This is literally the one thing in decades the government has done right. It essentially told corporations they do not have the power to censor how you use the internet. It did nothing to say that it could censor the internet. This is not about government controlling the internet, they don't. They told ISPs that THEY can't control the internet. It's the same as telling a power company that they can't control whether you use their electricity to power a Sony or a Samsung television, because then suddenly you'd get entire swaths of the country who only support Sony Electricity. It's a power and money grab, plain and simple.

>>133406281
Because we're not dumb enough to fall for Fox News propaganda and trust American corporations to do the right thing

http://www.strawpoll.me/13420194

>>133404916
>But that offer anywhere near the same services?
That's the way capitalism works - it's up to you, the consumer, to decide what you want and how much you're willing to pay for it.

Neutral treatment of data is important to everyone here, but how important? Is it important enough that you would pay more for a different ISP if your current provider stopped? Would you accept slower service? Or is convenience more important?

If your restaurant changes its service in a way you don't like, you accept the change or you go somewhere else. Maybe the other restaurants you try won't have the same food, or they'll be more expensive, or the service won't be as good - but those are the appropriate options available to you in a free market. What you don't do is run out and give the Federal Burger Commission massive regulatory authority over all the restaurants in the country and force them all to provide the kind of service you specify.

>>133406581
I don't either but isn't it a lesser of two evils situation? I don't want to end up like Britain or Canada where we will be fined for shitposting.

>>133405792
>You can only create an ISP if you have a shitload of money,


You got the first part right. The infrastructure is what costs millions and millions of dollars. Because it's private, a starter company needs a loan of literally millions of dollars. Which doesn't fucking happen. The very, very few that try and start up in small towns get bought out almost imminently (Look at Road Runner a while ago).

>>133405856
You don't understand, I'm saying you just gave me one more in a long list of things to respect Nazis for.

>>133406349
I'm saying don't fix what ain't broke.

If one ISP starts fucking with their service, consumers will respond and switch to other providers, we've seen it happen on dozens of separate occasions over the last twenty years and it's always worked out fine. If all the ISPs conspire to fuck with their service together, its a violation of federal anti-trust laws - that's the purview of the FTC, not the FCC.

>>133407181
It's not even just an issue of upfront capital. You have to essentially get permission to go around house-by-house and install that shit ahead of time. Even fucking GOOGLE is having a hard time getting their high-speed internet installed, and that's still only available in a few select places.

Maybe things will change when we get to the point where satellite internet or mobile data plans are good enough that you can just use your smartphone as a wifi hub and that's all you need. If that were to happen, at least it'd result in less de facto monopolies because you can send everything over the air rather than needing to install that shit.

>>133406849
The fact that so many people are willing to sign over almost complete regulatory control of the entire internet over to a federal agency in the light of hundreds, thousands of citizens of Canada, the UK, and mainland Europe getting fined or imprisoned for tweets and facebook posts is, frankly, mind-boggling.

>>133406625
I smiled at Federal Burger Commission, but as a former restaurateur, what do you think county/city health inspection and the FDA are?

Also while I'd argue with you about what the Title II classification actually does, versus what the current FCC is trying to do, it's almost quaintly useless an argument. Because you do get that the tool you're trying to use doesn't work in the situation, right? Free market principles are all very nice, but once a certain critical mass of a market is sucked up by a few bad actors, the 'free' market dies. Which we're well in the territory of.

Market correction is required. You wanna trust-bust, or you wanna make bombs? Or do you have a better idea? Other than 'explicitly undo what few chains we have on these rabid dogs and see what happens'?

>>133406849
What's much more likely would be a Facebook and Twitter-esque situation wherein "socially conscious" ISP elites declare some websites more reputable than others, crack down on "fake news" and make it harder to access websites of an unfavorable ideological bent (or just ban them entirely).

Net neutrality already exists and is working fine. There is no internet company crisis that necessitates they assume more money and control. Republicans are working to change an existing regulation that you and I comfortably function under every day.

>>133407493
Mobile is definitely the way shit's heading, especially with the exponential growth of smart phones, tablets, and other wireless devices.

Which is why it's all the more important that we prevent a repeat of the '96 Telecom Act.

>>133407548
What do you think the Title II classification *did*? And what do you think the current FDA regulatory proposals / Congressional push is saying it will do?

>>133387621
so get a different ISP

>inb4 i only have one here

so get rid of your net you dont need it

>>133388143
wasnt a problem 3 years ago

>>133407629
The FDA doesn't tell you how much you're allowed to charge for your fries. The city health inspector doesn't have the authority to make you provide the same grill time for burgers that you do for a cheesesteak. These agencies have a very niche purview of regulatory responsibility and care is taken not to give them anything broader.

We're talking about giving the FCC extremely broad powers to regulate the policies and services of internet providers. Right now the FCC supports neutral treatment of sites and data, but what if that changes in the future? What happens if this administration or a future administration decides that sites critical of their party aren't protected by network neutrality?

>>133406625
Do you know why we break up monopolies? It's because they destroy what makes capitalism great. Competition. But when one has a MONOPOLY over a service (such as not shit internet or clean water) then it becomes a problem.

To go back to my analogy:

Clean water is important to everyone here, but how important? Is it important enough that you would pay more for a different brand if your current provider stopped providing it? Would you accept toxic water? Or is safe water more important?

You are comparing two unlike things. Many areas have two-three options, and they may seem similar on the surface, they are very, very different. And when one controls one resource it's a major issue. No one can compete.

Not to mention 2-3 choices is still utter crap.

>>133387208
America is the most Capitalist Country Ever! Money Is Everything to the U.S!!

>>133388143
>The problem is the government is not exercising any power right now.
>right now
The danger of giving the government power when they aren't using it, is that it becomes much, much harder to take that power away when they are using it.

>>133407493
>Even fucking GOOGLE is having a hard time getting their high-speed internet installed, and that's still only available in a few select places.


Yeah, like I said before, the government fucks up.

But giving monopolies more power won't help. Make it easier for ISPs to be challenged. Then talk about ending NN.

>>133408991
How is that untrue of monopolies who are extremely successful at lobbying?

>>133408854
1) Breaking up monopolies is a job for the FTC, not the FCC.
2) Absolutely nothing in the 2015 NN law in any way helps to break or even weaken the monopolies that exist now. In fact, if anything it will probably have the opposite effect. The 1996 Telecommunications Act created the monopolies we've spent the last 20 years trying to overcome, the 2015 law could easily put us right back where we started - making it more difficult for smaller companies to compete.

>>133409153
I agree completely. Getting rid of NN now would be a death knell to free speech online. We'd probably see the same Zuckerkike-tier policies being implemented on the ISP level. It can only be solved in the future AFTER we can somehow break up the ISP monopolies and make it so people actually have fucking options no matter where they live.