Why do Conservashits want to make the internet more expensive

>>133645868
Because what we were told was net neutrality wasn't.

>>133645868
Because it won't, stupid nigger. The internet has been around for decades and this has never been a problem. 1 ISP out of 2500+ doing something you don't like 3 years ago doesn't warrant giving bureaucrats who know nothing about the internet more control over it.

Instead of lobbying the government to regulate the internet, why don't you lobby them to allow more competition? Companies like Google and Amazon are begging to get into the industry, but they have a million legal hurdles to jump through, created because ISP lobbyists paid the right price.

>>133645868
Net Neutrality isn't what you think it means which is what the Government wants you to think.

>>133648608
They're the ones trying to get rid of it, so you're saying Trump's government are misleading assholes ?

It's for the best, one less cracker burning hours on the internet, is one more cracker that can save their race.

so what is net neutrality and why does (((/pol/))) want me to oppose it?

>>133649206
It sets the precedent that bureaucrats who don't know anything about the internet can make rules governing the operations of the internet to solve a non-existing hypothetical future problem that people got worked up into a frenzy over.

>>133649462
right then what's the reason they want to get rid of net neutrality?
what problem do you solve with that?

>>133649206

Imagine a toll road. All cars pay 1$ to use the road to go to wherever they want. On this road is business A, and business B.

Now the road owner says, hey if you use our road to go drive to business A, you don't have to pay the toll fee.

Now business A gets more business then business B, although they do not have a better product. The market no longer works via competition, but by who controls access.

NN is needed so that the free market can work.

>>133649206
>>133649462
Fear mongering retards
>Never mentions it was made by Obama in 2015
>People think the Internet will forever be ruined for removing a policy that did almost nothing two years later

>>133649808
so why does /pol/ want this gone?

>>133649206
Equal internet speed preference to sites by federal law and certain privacy protection.

>>133648475
Huge problem in Canada. Govt grants three major companies monopoly and internet here is dogshit.

>>133649808
Except nobody is going to pay Comcast or TWC extra for what they were already getting. Businesses won't use infrastructure that plays favorites.

>>133649925

Well /pol/ thinks that the free market will extend to ISPs. So if ISP A breaks NN, and the markets cares, then people will change their business to an ISP that does follow NN. No government needed.

The reality is that ISPs often have a monopoly over certain areas, and hence the free market will not solve this problem.


However /pol/ usually follows ideologies and doesn't care about real world nuances. That is why for NN I do want government intervention. The free market for ISPs has already failed.

>>133650188
Can confirm. Been to Canada a few times and internet is atrocious when compared to internet in America.

>>133648475
>but they have a million legal hurdles to jump through, created because ISP lobbyists paid the right price.
Name two.

>>133650188
>Govt grants three major companies monopoly
How? What laws give them a monopoly?

>Internet in 2014 fine
>Removing Net Neutrality will just be the same
WTF IT'S THE END OF THE INTERNET!!!¡¡¡

>>133650557
https://www.google.com/#safe=off&q=google+fiber+legal+issues

>>133650649

https://www.theverge.com/2014/8/29/6084171/cable-companies-file-to-stop-municipal-broadband-expansion

>>133650858
Archive the shills
https://archive.is/aSFpK

>>133645868
It's not about making more expensive, it's about controlling what information people have access to. The wealthy are becoming masters at brainwashing and they need the ability to throttle those who oppose their propaganda.

>>133649206
Facebook and Google are for it so we're against it

File: counter nn.jpg (190KB, 1286x289px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1286x289px

>>133648078
This

>>133650557

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

>>133645868
b/c govt intervention makes things cheaper and better?

why are liberals so stupid?

>>133650856
So you have named none.

I haven't read the legislation. Excuse me for being coarse. Don't big companies already pay for higher bandwidth from the isp ? Isn't their already a tiered pay / bandwidth system. Who exactly isn't paying more for better service and vice versa?

>>133650858
That's not in Canada moron.

Seeing how the likes of Netflix takes up like 60% internet already, the doom and gloom of OPs pic wouldnt change shit

>>133645868
>Why do Conservashits want to abolishing Net Neturality?

because they are doing the bidding of the big ISP companies that pay politicians massive bribes. Also republican voters are to stupid to realize they are voting for people who constantly fuck them over.

>>133650649
FCC bureaucrats don't know anything about how to design and run networks... when the issue of fair carriership came up years ago, the government decided to intervene and put in regulations. Because the government is filled lawyers, businessmen and political science people, they didn't know the first thing about regulating the network infrastructure.....so they asked the experts...

....who were working at AT&T, Worldcom, and regional carriers... who said "hey, please use these people to recommend the proper regulations... they are experts!"

Hence lobbiests for these companies became the policy advisors for regulation.

TLDR; the monopolies themselves wrote the law on network regulation to make themselves legal monopolies.

>>133651145

i meant to link to the guy above you my bad

would never reply to a leaf on purpose

>>133651209
What does the FCC have to do with Canada?

>>133651051
best post in the thread and it's just a this of Anonymous quoting Anonymous

that image tho

another shill post
make a legit point using some facts? - no way
name calling - you got it!

>>133651299
It's a general issue with ISP monopolies... the US is an example

>>133645868
Removing net neutrality might make Netflix more expensive, but it almost certainly won't make your internet more expensive. In fact, ISP infrastructure has grinded to a halt because of this bullshit.

>>133649808
Regulations are needed so we can have a free market? Are you fucking stupid

>>133651560
>It's a general issue with ISP monopolies... the US is an example
The claim was Canadian government.

But lets see a law that gives US ISPs a monopoly from new start up ISPs?
The stuff about banning local city owned ISP is shit but that's not a monopoly stopping private rather than public businesses.

I think that it's not government laws making monopolies, but business cartels and government refusing to enforce antitrust laws. We need more laws and enforcement not less.

>>133651714

Yea we should remove anti monopoly laws while we are at it. Stupid pro-market laws that are good for the consumer.

>>133651072
That's factually incorrect in almost every facet. (Except the question of why are liberals stupid).

>>133649925
because pol is filled with contrarian faggots

>>133649808
If they wanted to charge customers more, they can do that right now. "Sorry, your internet bill just went up." They don't have to justify it.
However, what they CAN'T do is go to netflix and say "hey, your service takes up a disproportionate amount of our pipeline and users are experiencing latency when using their internet as a result. Help us fund a better pipe to hold your traffic or we will throttle you."
Yes, consumers will still end up paying for it, but through rate increases by netflix, not the ISPs.

>>133651560
The reason America has a near monopoly ISP is because of things like "net neutrality." Since they can't charge companies like Netflix extra money for the shit tonne of bandwidth they use, they would have to pay it out of their pockets, and that's unaffordable for smaller ISP's.

>>133651176
Regulations help big corporations by killing smaller competitors. Always have, and always will. Isn't it funny how just when a plethora of smaller isp's were starting to become popular and things like mobile Internet are becoming forces to be reckoned with, suddenly major corporations start shilling for so called net neutrality legislstion?

>>133645868
>paying for internet access
That's an outrage!

>>133645868

Why do libtards want to turn control of the internet over to the government when the government has proven it could fuck up a handjob?

>>133652136
The ISP are overselling their product with the expectation of never having to deliver on what they have actually sold.

If they can't deliver speedy service to all users they should expect their customers to leave them for better alternatives.

File: 1499909834479.png (253KB, 578x471px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 578x471px

>>133652240
exactly

>>133652240
>Regulations help big corporations by killing smaller competitors.
Name a regulation that kills smaller ISPs.
Name a regulation that kills smaller ISPs and is part of NN.

>>133652402
>better alternatives.
no better alternatives can arise because of the huge amount of pipe needed to get the netflix shit through.

>>133652204
>>133652136

No its because ISPs are so focused on marketing high numbers instead of actually improving infrastructure.
How it should work:

ISP A has x capacity. It wants to deliver y speeds. It can support x/y users. If the network is currently under utilised, they can give the extra capacity to the currently online users. This will lead to a situation that at 100% load, all users get there advertised speed, and during off-peaks users get even higher speeds.

How it actually works:

ISP A has x capacity. It lets unlimited users subscribe because $$$ and then can't deliver the speeds.

Data caps are the most retarded this ever, because its not about total usage. Its just about current usage at a point in time.

>>133651915
Yes, anti monopoly laws do such a great job of preventing one corporation from taking over a business. Now, we have three! So much better. Maybe instead of killing small competitors with expensive regulations and bullshit laws (which large corporations easily subvert or just pay a fine for), we could actually allow small businesses to compete. Smaller isp's and mobile Internet products were starting to cut into big isp corporation's profits. Suddenly, corporations like Amazon, Google, Pornhub, and various other big names come out and start pushing for "Net Neutrality".

>>133652582
>he doesn't remember the 90's early 00's
>he doesn't remember that there used to be countless internet providers in the US
>he doesn't remember that now there's 1, MAYBE two per state, not including satellite worthless shit

huh, I wonder where all those smaller ISPs went. It's almost like something changed a while ago, but nobody noticed it, and it killed all the smaller internet companies.

>>133652684
while true, this does not mean that ISPs intend to charge end users more for certain packages or lanes, as suggested.

>>133652629
>no better alternatives can arise because of the huge amount of pipe needed to get the netflix shit through.
So why do ISP oversell/overstate their capacity to deliver bandwidth in their service agreements?

Also some ISP manage to provide gigabit service without issue. Although most of those are government operated ISPs run by small cities that got screwed by the larger ISP refusing to provide quality service.

>>133651089
None is almost 2

>>133652684
yeah I always thought the biggest (((jew))) of all was data caps.

They have literally infinite of that resource. It doesn't matter how long you use it. It doesn't put any extra 'wear' on any hardware or anything. You're literally paying for access to a node.

so you're not paying for more data. you're literally paying for more time.

>>133652823
I asked for a regulation that killed small ISPs. You haven't given me any. I don't think it is regulations killing small ISP. I think it's cartel practices of large ISP and the lack of will to enforce antitrust laws.

>>133652911
>So why do ISP oversell/overstate their capacity to deliver bandwidth in their service agreements?
perhaps because there are no alternatives for people to switch to when they don't get the advertised speed?

>>133645868
I think ending net neutrality is good because it makes lefties so angry.

>>133653097
And the solution to that problem is what?
I see people saying less regulations on business but no one can name even a single a regulation stopping new private ISPs.

>>133645868
What is netflix pushing? What are the ISP's (Comcast, TimeWarner) pushing? The lobbies have an agenda?

File: THICC zeppelin.jpg (129KB, 915x599px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 915x599px

>>133652353
This guy gets it!

>>133645868
That image doesn't make sense. The cars at the "everyone else" lane should get stuck in a traffic jam that grows backwards from the point at which there is a bottleneck in capacity, not piling up at a random point in front of it.

And the "big companies" would be unable to effectively use the capacity increase in the wide lane as they can't get any extra vehicles through to the wide lane.

>>133653195
This pretty much sums up the current right completely.

>>133653230
The solution is turn off net neutrality. Make it affordable for small ISP's to compete.

>>133650300
why cant all of these tech illiterate shits get this

>>133653442
>The solution is turn off net neutrality. Make it affordable for small ISP's to compete.
How does NN make it expensive for small ISPs?

Net nuetrality is GOOD for big corps. Why tf do you think Netflix and Amazon like it?

>>133645868
Isn't that image the opposite of what ISP's want? Aren't they trying to charge Netflix and Youtube more on the backend for using all their bandwidth?

>>133651176
>Too stupid

File: 1499383841423.jpg (33KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 625x626px

>>133645868
Why don't you faggots stay on reddit? The world may never know.

File: dklooiehere.png (246KB, 1014x817px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1014x817px

>>133645868

If you think Comcast is the worst company to have existed in the history of mankind YET you love net neutrality you are an idiot.

Yes, if we get rid of net neutrality, you'll probably have to pay more for full Internet access BUT the Internet will be safe from possible government censorship and telecom monopolies ruling entire regions of the USA. Not to mention there'll probably be new telecom companies that offer better customer service and more discounted Internet prices (think Southwest, but for ISPs).

The situation is a lot grayer than anyone on the pro-neutrality side would have you believe as both have very legitimate pros and cons.

>>133653387
Well, actually I think it's an example of big government versus big business with we the people not having a horse in the race.

On the one hand, you have ISPs and huge websites that want the additional fees to squeeze out competition and capture the market.

On the other hand, you have the libtards that want crushing overregulation because they're power mad. They want to control everything you do online and they want to stifle innovation and force price rises by price fixing.

Either way, you and I get really screwed over.

But in the meantime the lefties are really, really whiny about not getting their crushing overregulation, so since it's a loser for the rest of us either way, we may as well pick the one that pisses off the right people.

>>133650300
>The reality is that ISPs often have a monopoly over certain areas,

Post some examples. Im extremely interested in which areas are like this.

>>133649808
But now business B has an incentive to build a highspeed rail service to circumvent evil Jewey Comcast Tollbooth and plant Google Fiber in your area

>>133648078
fpbp

Giving the FCC power over it doesnt make the internet free and open any more than letting ISPs do whatever they want would.

At the very least we have the opportunity to vote with our dollars.

>>133653790
Explain how NN stops new ISPs from entering the market.

Explain how NN has anything to do with government censorship.

Explain how NN enables monopolies.

>>133653540
Cause they can't afford to pay for all the bandwith netflix and youtube takes up. And they can't throttle it either.

>>133645868
They can block everything they don't agree with making everyone way more hive minded than they should be. It's a huge mute button.

>>133650300
>already failed
Only because the government subsidized the costs to ISP's of installing the necessary infrastructure which allowed them access at a rate competitors without the same massive subsidies can't afford.

And don't forget faggot, necessity is the mother of invention. All this means is that you lose the incentive for niche competitors to enter the market or for further innovation in broadband technologies.

You'll get a nice, well regulated market, of expensive crappy ISP's that will be giving you the same service in 10 years that they do now for twice the price.

>>133645868
That comic is retarded. And so are you. Do corporations just send terrabytes of blank data through the internet just for shits and giggles? No. All of that data is downloads and streaming service going to their customers. And frankly some data should be treated with higher priority than others. For example people who post more than 1 thing on Facebook a week should be in the lane that ends in a giant pit of lava.

>>133649925
Net Neutrality is literally a mega conglomerate psy-op, look at most net neutrality "info" sites, its all shitty memes pandering to low common denominators where the biggest supporters of net neutrality are the technocratic shadow government like google and amazon.

Support net neutrality and you are supporting government intervention and control over your internet that is actually controlled by google, amazon, yahoo etc because obama sold the internet internationally and is why the british government are trying to make the internet now resemble something like they have in china.

>>133654168
>Cause they can't afford to pay for all the bandwith netflix and youtube takes up. And they can't throttle it either.
So they sell smaller bandwidth packages or charge more for their current bandwidth included.

Throttling doesn't reduce bandwidth consumed. It just makes it take longer. The price the ISP must pay to the interconnect is the same.

How would not having NN make the ISP more profitable while delivering the service the customers want to consume and have paid for?

>>133654339

its k i don't live in america, my country has NN and cheap ass high speed internet. When 4chan gets blocked it won't be my loss, I will still be here posting for free.

If big corporations wanted to do the scary things that net neutrality is purported to prevent, I have no doubt they'd find a way, and it wouldn't be a huge issue like this net neutrality craze has become.
It just reeks of manufactured conflict as a distraction or some other kind of psyop. The current government is in the pocket of corporations anyway, all this would do is change the perception of who holds the power, not the reality.

>>133651089
you need city council approval in every city you want to run cables in and in my local area (silicone valley) Comcast owns the city councils.

>>133649631
The problem of getting people to believe government should have any say over how companies operate.

What is the difference between this net neutrality law and price controls in Venezuela?

Both can be sold like government trying to stop greedy capitalists for the good of the people, in the end it ends up with less investment and eventually shortages. Literal communism.

>>133653831
I'm sure from their perspective the right winged folk sucking corporate dick are the whiny ones.

You aren't as objective as you think you are. If you were born ten years earlier or later you would be on the other side of the fence.

>>133654605
>you need city council approval in every city you want to run cables in and in my local area (silicone valley) Comcast owns the city councils.
So you have a conspiracy theory.

>>133645868
Fuck niggers, sjw and numales on the internet. If they want to internet social justice, they will pay up their share.

>>133654590
worse of all is just the big risk. giving the FCC this much power is just asking for some future administration to abuse it. And that's assuming everyone currently pushing it is pure of heart.

HRC pushing for telecom access as a constitutional right is just an excuse to put the government in charge of the physical internet. Practicality is the only thing stopping the state from pulling shit along the lines of tracking people down for social media posts and turning off opposition websites. Hillary's plan, this FCC nonsense, and all that SOPA business are all part of a plan for the fed to get a finger on the actual internet tubes.

It's as big of a deal as taking away our guns.

>>133654771
>What is the difference between this net neutrality law and price controls in Venezuela?
NN regulates access as a utility.
Stating that ISP can charge for access at whatever rate they want, and in any package they want, but how the end users use their access can't be regulated.

Price controls set the price for a service or good which can't be changed.

>>133654590
NN doesn't even prevent any of the things in those shit for brains comic to begin with. Like that retarded website package one. NN doesn't prevent that. The postal service is a common carrier but postage rates vary based on the destination and size of the package .

File: thisisyou.png (15KB, 614x174px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 614x174px

>>133654863

>>133654778
That's a dumb and unsupportable argument. And frankly I don't care what their perspective is. Their side is the one that caused a hundred million deaths, destroyed Europe forever, and is actively working to exterminate my entire race. To say nothing of the personal hardships they have caused me. If you want to be objective there's a right side and a wrong side here.

And if you bothered to read my position you would know that I don't much care for corporations either. I'm just more willing to put up with them than I am tyrants in government and their toadies.

>>133651915
A monopoly is not some Great Devil. Intel has a virtual monopoly on PC chips, but that's because they are ultra competitive and they run extremely tight margins. If they ever started gouging consumers they would create space for competitors and lose market share.
Even with the ENORMOUS capital it takes to develop microprocessors they don't gouge consumers. Why? Because they still want to keep that marketshare and rampant greed isn't actually a great business strategy. Of course, jobless NEETs don't understand this and have no concept of how competitive the business world really is.

>>133654461
In the case of netflix I don't know if you can control the quality of the video, but I know you can on youtube. If you could throttle youtube, people would have to settle for something smaller than 1080p if they wanted to fluently watch videos.

Small ISP's may not be able to deliver a full service if net neutrality was abolished, but they would be able to provide 'some' service at least. Right now we are all paying for netflix even if we're not subscribed. If we remove net neutrality, the ISP's would be able to charge netflix some cash for all their bandwith usage or throttle them if they don't want to pay up.

Net neutrality only ends up giving us fewer options. If someone wants internet for email and articles, but not videos from youtube, there could be a package for that.

>>133655065
Agreed.
That's why I said "purported to prevent" rather than just "prevent".

>>133655086
Which is more believable?

1: Comcast has bribed every city council they do business with to vote down construction permits for upgrading data connections.
2: It's really expensive to enter the ISP market and the small operators can't economically compete with large ISP in anything but tiny niche markets.

File: 1498684119742.jpg (133KB, 844x1199px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 844x1199px

>>133651072

>>133655191
>Small ISP's may not be able to deliver a full service if net neutrality was abolished, but they would be able to provide 'some' service at least. Right now we are all paying for netflix even if we're not subscribed. If we remove net neutrality, the ISP's would be able to charge netflix some cash for all their bandwith usage or throttle them if they don't want to pay up.

NN doesn't include any requirement for delivery of bandwidth amounts. Just that you can not discriminate traffic. If a small ISP couldn't provide enough bandwidth for a smooth service removing NN wouldn't change that limitation or allow streams to run at a lower quality as if that was banned by NN.

You clearly have little understanding as to what NN is or how the internet works.

>Net neutrality only ends up giving us fewer options. If someone wants internet for email and articles, but not videos from youtube, there could be a package for that.
We already have that. It's a low speed low bandwidth plan. NN doesn't prevent that.

>>133655292
Considering the money Comcast makes and the paltry sums city council members will get down on their knees for, 1.
Permitting is pretty much the clearest cut case of graft and corruption in the US. Just look at how it distorts the Real Estate market in most cities.

>>133655292
the statements are not mutually exclusive and are both true.
If I can help you out:
campaign contributions are bribes.
government contracts are bribes.


All this happened like 15 years ago. The big "comcast is wiring CA" thing. And Google is not a small ISP that just cant pony up the cash for telephone poles and optical cable. The only thing stopping them is legal hurdles. And in every new city they try to move to they have to start all of their negotiations over again. Just so they can do what comcast is already allowed to do all over california. This isn't a conspiracy theory. It is the observably true reality of how our state is connected to the internet.

>>133655639
A smaller competitor could offer you broadband that includes everything but Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube for far cheaper.
If there's a niche for people that want good internet but not nonstop HD video streaming, that niche can no longer be met by a cheaper competitor. Net result: more expensive internet.

Cable TV works like this. Want ESPN? You gotta pay extra. Don't give a flying fuck about sports? Don't have to pay extra.

>>133655665
>Permitting is pretty much the clearest cut case of graft and corruption in the US. Just look at how it distorts the Real Estate market in most cities.
Permitting is city planning. They plan for some vision of development for the city.
I don't think any city council has ever voted down a private company upgrading telephone, cable or other data connection construction.

Also most cities have no requirement for permits for working on telephone lines (cable lines). Techs work on phone and cable lines all the time without pulling work permits. Upgrading connections, and improving service.

Also under the common carrier legislation large ISP must provide access to all competition on their hardware at cost.

>>133648475
but google and amazon are in favor of net neutrality. only conservative retards think net neutrality is overbearing government regulation. it's quite the opposite, it gives online competitors a chance to compete with the big wigs because NN compels ISPs to charge them all the same price and not discriminate among them

>>133645868
>competition makes prices go up
>regulation makes prices go down

Mental gymnastic economic theory at work.

>>133653092
>You haven't given me any. I don't think it is regulations killing small ISP.

Big isps got a literal bailout in the 1990s and got to piggyback off existing infustructure. If you try to make your own independent IP now a days with its own network, you have to pay out of pocket to build your own lines and that requires you to get permits and buy space on every single place you want new lines. It's impossible for a small isp to do this, the investment to wire even a small town would be tens of millions of dollars.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070816042517/www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html

>>133655955

dude a text post on 4chan costs the same as a 4k video from netflix. Its not about where it coming/going from, just the amount of data.

>>133655955
>A smaller competitor could offer you broadband that includes everything but Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube for far cheaper.
You mean offer a package that has a tiny amount of data cap?

>If there's a niche for people that want good internet but not nonstop HD video streaming, that niche can no longer be met by a cheaper competitor. Net result: more expensive internet.
We already have that.

>>133645868
>Why do neo-libs and neo-cons (aka corpratists) want to make the internet more expensive for consumers?

Fixed the thread title for you OP. You're welcome.

>>133656250
A tiny data-cap is not the same thing. You clearly have very little understanding of how the internet works.

If net neutrality was removed there could be packages that slowed down speed to certain websites, instead of having to use data-caps like they are doing now.

>>133654087

Since the gov has to regulate NN, the amount of regulations and redtape that a start-up ISP company would have to go through are simply too much, and the company will sooner die than be able to enter the market (What start-up company could survive 5 years of bureaucracy before being able to sell a product? Very, very few). Since the competition is nill, the largest ISP company in the area can overwhelm any outliers and become a monopoly free of the fear of losing their customers to a better service.

Also, since the government regulates NN, they have the full ability to shut down any website that they find to be a problem. I wouldn't be surprised that, with the current NN policies in place, the next Democratic administration would censor sites like /pol/ and Stormfront, for example. Fortunately our government hasn't really done this yet, but the current NN laws give them full credence to do so if they desire.

>>133656502

how to comply with NN

1. Don't shape internet

done

wow so much red tape, you literally just have to not do something

The solution is to smash these crooked telecoms up and force the regional monopolies to compete. The answer isn't to give the keys over to authoritarian government bureaucrats like Clinton and Merkel who'll have their hook-nosed kike intelligence agencies send out government black vans you cart you away for being a bad goy, like what they do in the EU.

File: pepe montoya.jpg (25KB, 303x166px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 303x166px

>>133645868#

One of the biggest ISP:s in Sweden, Telia, tried to break net neutrality by providing free surf to Spotify and social media sites.
They were stopped by EU:s net neutrality law.

>>133649808
what would the road owner gain out of cars driving on his road without paying any toll? whats the incentive?

>>133656693

the road owner owns business A

>>133656211
That's not a regulation killing small ISP.
That's what's known as a natural monopoly. The cost to enter is too high. Even Google had to end it's fiber service plans because of the cost.

Also you need to learn the difference between a bail out and a subsidy. ISP were not bailed out in the 90s they were given money to build infrastructure.

>>133645868
>100+ post thread.
>1 post by this ID OP

Gee whiz

We can do either two things.
1. Keep net Neutrality
or
2. Abolish the Government entirely and head for Anarcho-Capitalism.

>>133656473
>A tiny data-cap is not the same thing. You clearly have very little understanding of how the internet works.
>If net neutrality was removed there could be packages that slowed down speed to certain websites, instead of having to use data-caps like they are doing now.
The issue isn't where the data is going. It's the amount of data being used.

ISP are losing their profits by having to pay more for the data their customers use to the interconnect backbone providers.

Having a service that included the same data cap, and same speed which was used to the same degree as an 'open' account but blocked or slowed access to streaming video service wouldn't cost any less money for the ISP to provide.

The issue is the cost of data, now where that data is being used.

>>133656502
>Since the gov has to regulate NN, the amount of regulations and redtape that a start-up ISP company would have to go through are simply too much,
Do you have any evidence of this?

The rules for NN are not to fuck with traffic. Literally just route all your data the same without priority or preference. It actually takes less effort to comply with NN that it does to violate it.

>Also, since the government regulates NN, they have the full ability to shut down any website that they find to be a problem.
No the government holds the right to shut down anything they want because they can make laws. Not because ISP can't shape traffic.

>>133657004
Do you really think having a fast line to gmail is going to end up using the same amount of data as a fast line to Netflix? You can browse gmail all damn day and you wouldn't even download as much as 1 film on netflix.

What the fuck

>>133657194
>Do you really think having a fast line to gmail is going to end up using the same amount of data as a fast line to Netflix? You can browse gmail all damn day and you wouldn't even download as much as 1 film on netflix.

So you are saying the plan has a small data cap.

>>133645868
because they want to keep their voters uneducated

File: 1482634150291.png (63KB, 655x408px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 655x408px

>>133653195
>/pol/ in a nutshell

File: tmp_7643-14941829117431576631157.jpg (29KB, 500x562px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x562px

>>133645868
>big companies
The big companies already have super fast servers. Net neutrality makes those big companies much harder to challenge by smaller companies.

>>133649925
r/the_donald rejects.

Luckily, I have 1,000 MBPS Internet. I have Google Fiber, btw. The beauty of Capitalism and Google.

>>133657449
Alright, you're just pretending to be stupid (at least I hope so). Nice day to you.

>>133657564
>Why'd we lose the election, Amanda?
>IDK, did we call them racists?
>Yeah, we called them racists.
>And they still didn't vote for us?
>That's right.
>Well it must just be because of decades of hate rhetoric.

Why do Google and Facebook like NN?

>>133657774
Me >You mean offer a package that has a tiny amount of data cap?

You >A tiny data-cap is not the same thing. You clearly have very little understanding of how the internet works.

Me >The issue isn't where the data is going. It's the amount of data being used.

You >Do you really think having a fast line to gmail is going to end up using the same amount of data as a fast line to Netflix? You can browse gmail all damn day and you wouldn't even download as much as 1 film on netflix.

Me >So you are saying the plan has a small data cap.

>>133658065
>Why do Google and Facebook like NN?
Because they are internet businesses and they want all the traffic on the internet to be treated equal. Rather than having ISP extort them to not degrade connections to their services.

>>133658042

>republican voters tend to hold rascists views
> WHY DO YOU KEEP CALLING A SPADE A SPADE!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEE

>>133658393
>Omg, SPADE? That is so problematic I can't even.
>What do you mean I'm oversensitive just because I see racism everywhere? That's such a racist thing for you to say, racist.

>>133658296
You are one slimy little shill.

>>133649925
Current regulations were passed when Obama was president, due to Comcast trying to sniff packets and throttle traffic to certain websites and getting caught doing it.
Obama = bad
Trump doesn't support net neutrality
Trump = good
Since much of nupol is incapable of coming up with their own opinions independent of what their favorite personality says, net neutrality is automatically bad.

>>133658566
Why do you think Google and Facebook like NN?

>>133657194
I am also from SA! Cape Town and you?

>>133658650
Because it means ISPs can't extort them to pay up or have traffic shaped away from them to services that would otherwise be less competitive.

>>133656623
Frankly, I think this whole issue is just consolidation of power masquerading as something else. The companies are just as kike-infested as the government bureaucracies. I might even go so far as to say the whole conflict is between kikes and their controlled opposition, like the democrat and republican parties.

I find it so hard to care about issues like this these days, not because I think they're unimportant, but because I see them as just one more symptom of a greater problem. That is to say, the demographic problem. In a homogeneous white nation, this could be solved quickly and elegantly, probably wouldn't even become a problem in the first place. The kikes with their duplicitous tactics to control public opinion and government action create issues where none should exist. The perverse incentives of our (((multicultural))) society and the byzantine bastardizations of law and commerce forced upon us reinforce each other in a malicious feedback loop.

Each of these issues is like the head of a hydra, cut one off and it becomes two more. When more people are able to wake up to the demographic problem and subsequently the Jewish question, real progress can be made.

We don't have net neutrality now, why is it needed? There will always be a company willing to undercut the other.

Conservatives care more about corporations than people.

Liberals care more about niggers than people.

File: 1497175373644.jpg (64KB, 638x330px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 638x330px

>>133658984

This.

Tbqh i hope Trump repeals NN. It would be a big step to solving the Burger Question.

Can you imagine 4chan without the obnoxious, misinformed average burger poster?

>>133658650
Because, they will have to start shovelling money at ISP's in order to maintain their speeds. It will be a massive bidding war, whoever bids the most gets the fast data connections.

Of course the ISP's absolutely love this, money in their pocket. But websites like Facebook, Youtube, 4chan....etc will have to fight it out in a bidding war to avoid being squashed

>>133655189
It's interesting that you say this, since Intel has been losing market share to AMD lately, especially in the form of OEMs now starting to supply AMD chips, and Intel has begun to cut prices to compete.
Intel also has a history of pressuring OEMs against supplying AMD chips.

>>133645868
I never really bothered to look too much at the bill because I have actually given up on the US legislature because it is pretty much a wholly corrupt entity whick leads to the meat of this commentary, any law that is passed in the US is not done so for the benefit of the US citizen, but because it is profiting some faction within the legislature itself, or some outside faction has bribed and or extorted enough of the legislature to obtain passage of the law in question. it all needs to be burned with fire.

>>133659155
That'd be amazing, irmão. All those burgers, just gone in the wind.

>>133658984
Corporations are people my friend.

>>133659632
Pressuring in the form of "hey we'll give you a huge bulk discount but only if you buy X many where X equals your entire supply of Personal Computers and oh look at that you can't buy any AMD chips"

Either way comsumers benefit by getting great prices and constant innovation

File: 1495466278297.jpg (278KB, 879x1024px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 879x1024px

>A law in place to protect the consumer
>literally the only thing it does is ensure the consumers get what they want anyway
>libertarians oppose this

>>133655189
Most areas only have 2 or 3 ISP's. Rural areas may only have 1.

There is no real competition.

File: IMG_2756.png (413KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

413KB, 512x512px

I'll be brutally honest here, im not sure which side is good. But keeping NN and having the internet be free sounds pretty good. I havent admittedly done any research on this, it was just kinda thrusted into my face by a couple of my friends. I honestly dont care what happens as long as the internet stays free, open. And unrestricted. I am unfortunately ignorant to this topic and havent done any research, like i have stated previously. The only thing i know is that, big ISP shouldnt charge you for accessing certain parts of the internet. They may provide internet but not manage the flow of it.

>>133650557
BTFO

>>133645868
I hate the fucking road analogy.

Networks have protocols that prioritize certain packets already to ensure network functionality. In reality it's more analogous to a rail system.

You can't have trains just go when ever they want or they might collide. They need to be controlled at a high level to minimise collisions and ensure the most efficient use of the rail network.

I honestly don't know enough to know what side I'm on. Still have reading to do. Does anyone have any good articles on the subject? I.e. not ones written by some shitty news outlet in the past 6 months to cover this but an actually no bullshit assessment of the situation?

>>133658984
learn the difference between a conservative and republican

>>133653831
I hate making you ppl suffer under "our'' system as much as I hate living under a system you like.

We need a no-fault divorce of this country, and go back to being governed with consent.

>>133665248
Is for
>>133653387

>>133653832
Not entirely for NN but where I live Verizon fios is the only fiber service you can get

>>133645868
Because freedom.

Big telecom should be able to make you pay more to not have your traffic throttled, and you should fucking thank them for it.

I'm calling everyone who disagrees with this a communist nigger in advance.

>>133658643
literally this (fucking faggot)

>>133665890
Why can't electric companies do that?

>>133665953
Oh whoops, I'm usually a Pirate.

>>133665975
Are you retarded?

>>133665975
Because Gubmint.

>>133666079
Why doesn't the electric company throttle my power when I am an excessive user?

>>133665975
They don't pay for the infrastructure first off.

>>133665890
That idea would make sense if there wasn't a telecom monopoly in place.

A monopoly market isn't a free market.

>>133666273
They pay to maintain lines.

The power company has government regulation to keep them from jacking your prices too high.

>>133650188

Mine is 0.5 Mbps down, 0.05 Mbps up and cuts out completely if it rains.

>>133666228
Because there's no way to do that? They could disconnect you from the grid. And also you pay for what you use. Your home power consumption is the worst analogy for the NN debate.

Internet and power are similar in that they are delivered to your house via cable. That's it. Your question is like asking "why don't gas stations charge me more when I use a lot of gas?"

>>133661103
>I'm a literal retard
>literally
we already know

>>133664321
I have a good video of a debate that nobody watched but everybody should watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyyhwkyJ-Oc&t=7s

File: 1497039157773.jpg (189KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1080x1080px

So will this affect us yuropenises too?

>>133645868
holy shit that is actually fucking evil

>>133667329
Ty. Will watch.

>>133645868
god damn you fucking stupid god damn leftists

"net neutrality" as a phrase was literally coined to convince stupid motherfucking brainless idiots like yourself that giving the FCC jurisdiction over the Internet and effectively making censorship legal would be a good idea

fuck you anon

>>133667707
>Regulations to make all traffic on a network treated equally
>Censorship
Nice doublespeak you got going there, comrade.

>>133667841
that's not doublespeak you disingenious sack of shit, YOU wrote those words, NOT ME

just out of curiosity do you do anything in the IT field at all? because I'm a programmer and run IT for a small business and have literally never encountered these mythical problems that require us to grant new powers to our overlord regulatory agencies

but by all means do it like an Aaron Sorkin show, just write my arguments for you so you can knock them down yourself - don't bother addressing what I actually said

I forgot to introduce the fourth variable in decentralizing the web.

Quality data vs pollution.

>>133655417
>everything the government isn't in is getting cheaper or stays the same
>everything they get involved with has skyrocketed
>that fucking textbook inflation
my fucking god

>>133645868

>Netflix having to pay extra for the 1,000,000 times more bandwith they use is bad, we should all be charge for the same usage as them.

Nigger are you retarded?

cant nsa already do whatever it wants with you anyway??

You could always ancapon NSA technology and extort people for protection.

That's what I've been doing anyway.

Haven't really made any money for myself yet, but I'm carving out a niche here.

Yall are more than welcome to start trademarking anonymous if you want.

I'm not trying to be a ruthless dictator here, just an angry sjw neet with nothing to lose and everything to gain.

>>133653073
You're fucking dumb. There isn't "infinite". If every user attempted to download 1 TB every day in a geographic location the network would start to crawl. Most people notice this when they're home at night during peak usage in heavily populated areas.

Data caps are actually a way to force people to self-regulate their bandwidth usage (although they are retarded to an extent) but it's fucking much better than other ways such as having no data cap but throttling speeds entirely. I'd rather be capped at 2 TB a month but have 100 MB/s than be given unlimited with 5 MB/s.

>>133654778
That's because leftists are literal retards.

>>133652582
>Name a regulation that kills smaller ISPs.

Anti-discrimination legislation. My favorite example because it works on all small businesses.

>>133655639
If you think that's what the fucking law is you're a useful idiot. It gives the government unprecedented oversight over your information under the guise of giving your "neutral" network access. Might as well fucking give them access to your hard drive too.

>>133661103
>let's make a law protecting the consumer by giving a giant corrupt monolithic government that is equally inefficient and evil unprecedented access to everyone's information

>the same fucking government(s) that enabled the "monopolies" the ISPs enjoy in the first place

I'm sure you leftists have your hearts in the right place.

>>133655417

>govt provides gibs to minorities and student loans galore
>schools make school cost more because there is more demand
>libtards think the govt will fix what it fucked up somehow bt giving them more power

>>133665975
ACTUALLY THE FUCKING DO

Most utilities actually charge MORE as you use MORE. There isn't a flat rate. If you use a ton of power you actually pay more. In the summer when it's hottest they actually charge more during the day.

This would be like your ISP charging you $0.20 a minute for using your internet at night from 7:00 to 10:00.

So fuck you 12 year old who clearly doesn't use utilities.

/pol/ has absolved every political issue in record time before any president elected during its existence could even be elected.

If we're all attention deficit autists, none of us are.

>>133645868
What stops an ISP from publicly providing a "net neutral" service?

>>133670628
If Internet is a utility then why does Comcast have a monopoly? And unlike Power, internet doesn't cost more throughout the day. There would be optic fiber all over the planet if the ISPs wanted efficiency.

>netflix gets throttled
>they become and isp
>amazon media gets throttled
>they become an isp
>google gets throttled
>they expand google fiber

NN is preventing this

>>133649925
Muh goverment is spying on me

>>133670868
Okay you're fucking stupid so I'll be brief. Where I live there are 10 ISPs available, Comcast is not a "monopoly" even in a loose sense.

>And unlike Power, internet doesn't cost more throughout the day

Are you fucking stupid? Sorry, I have to ask. Like power, internet cables CAN ONLY TRANSMIT SO MUCH AT ONE TIME. In order to support more, they have to put more fucking cables. Capacity has to be constantly upgraded. Do you think coal burns slower during certain times of day or are you fucking moronic? Power costs more during certain times of day because POWER LINES HAVE BANDWIDTH just like fiber cables do.

File: 1499469283936.png (226KB, 300x487px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 300x487px

I trust the free market WAY more than I trust the government. Do people seriously think companies are just gonna do what they want and rip off their customers blatantly if "net neutrality ends"? People will just flock to different, fairer companies. Mobile phone carriers are like that, and nobody complains about them. I bet a lot of companies are gonna remain pretty much the exact same as they ever were if "net neutrality ends".

Net neutrality is part of the great slippery slope toward socialism and government gibs, and I'm not on board with that.

>>133671193
They were.

Now it's just ai personalities trying not to shit post on the same website their scraping.

/pol/ is literally free for all deathmatch.

Sure governments have spied in the past, but now everyone is spying.

You ever heard someone next door through the wall?

You are now a spook.

Welcome friendo.

>>133651637
Today everything is streamed. The one With the bigger pocket just bought the whole pipe when your fav political figure is giving a speech. Sorry that you missed it. Fine print in your ISP contract says this is allowed. You could have watched car videos instead

>>133671991
You what's good service? Purposely providing poor service. Oh wait.

Further, take off your flag you faggot fraud.

>>133648475
>1 ISP out of 2500+ doing something you don't like 3 years ago


It is amusing that you acknowledge the arguments for NN but do it in such a reductio absurdum way that you make it clear you are a dirty fucking shill.

File: main-qimg-6dc2ccd4ae85391f5363557ef7d8cf05-c.jpg (100KB, 591x457px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 591x457px

>>133653832
Almost every part of the USA.

>>133653339
They dont need to have more traffic. They just artificially slow your line down and claim you need to pay more for more. Its a legal racket

>>133651637
>In fact, ISP infrastructure has grinded to a halt because of this bullshit.


A flat out lie made up by the ISPs. AT&T claimed this was the case...and then quietly expanded their infrastructure building budget significantly.

>>133672253
Well the thing is, laws are subjective attempts at being objective.

You let 1 ISP do something dodgy and the rest will to.

It's like the Windows 10 lockscreen background image.

It permanently stores it in an inaccessible directory and can't be deleted.

Now replace that method with something a long the lines of a remote access viewer or a keylogger.

Should this be patched?

It's not like I'm actually stealing your identities, I just like knowing that I can.

Because I'm a narc.

>>133654036
>Giving the FCC power over it doesnt make the internet free and open any more than letting ISPs do whatever they want would.


See: All of the fuckery the ISPs were pulling in certain markets stopping in 2015.

I guess that is just coincidence that it was the same year NN and Title 2 happened.

>>133654590
>I have no doubt they'd find a way, and it wouldn't be a huge issue like this net neutrality craze has become.


Yes, their way is to deploy a bunch of ISP shills across discussion nexuses like 4chan and the FCC public response page and to get their shill in a position of power at the FCC.

That is literally what they are doing as we speak.

>>133645868
Stop projecting.
(((net neutrality))) rules would put unnecessary requirements on ISPs and make them charge you even more than they already do.
If you think Comcast is dicks now, just make them need to buy 10x more server farms and monitor all traffic from all users and see what fucking happens.
Not to mention what it would do to hosting costs. 4chan would have to start charging you per post.

File: 1487636752314.gif (95KB, 49x41px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 49x41px

>>133672255

>>133672692

That guy up there is fully aware that it was several ISPs doing shady things in 2014. And yes, as they saw they were getting away with it they started to expand their efforts and other ISPs followed suit until the 2015 rule changes.

File: lincler.png (156KB, 460x460px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 460x460px

>>133645868
because the entirety of the conservative party is made of either retarded as fuck old people that dont know the first thing about technology, or stupid as fuck uneducated retards that dont know the first thing about technology.

its pretty fucking simple.

>>133672222
The free market takes the best offer first. For example kicking you out of the airplane with loosing teeth because you just annoy them. What service? Are you dreaming?

>>133672952
>(((net neutrality))) rules would put unnecessary requirements on ISPs
>would put


Your talking points are woefully out of date.

NN rules have been in place since 2015 and the ISPs that lied that it would crush them are expanding their network buildouts (See: AT&T)


Go back and ask for more up to date talking points or read before you speak.

>>133673039
I don't know so much about the rule change.

But if your streaming criminal activity, you deserve to detained without a warrant.

Maybe your just downloading bomb making instructions, throttled.

Or you are trying to upload child pornography, v&.

That's why governments are involved, because crims are gonna crim.

>>133673333
>NN rules have been in place since 2015
This is a blatant lie.

>>133673039
Even the guy who is pushing this said himself, that "few" mishaps happened. He hadnt the balls to flatout lie about misusing the system

>>133673039
They didnt stop because of any rule changes. They stopped because it's bad business and would lose them customers.

>>133673917

>Break gentlemen's agreements until 2014
>Rules change in 2015
>Stop breaking the gentlemen's agreement in 2015
>"ITS ALL A COINCIDIENCE, THE FREE MARKET FIXED IT!"

Cool.

>>133673749

Ah, you have no clue what you are talking about and what this issue is even about. Fuck off.


See: Pajeet's own comments

or:

https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

>>133645868
isn't the internet already super expensive in the states? how much is unlimited 150-300mb/s?

We should go back to dialup and share a folder with txt dox.

Think if TOTSE became an ISP.

That'd be fucking awesome.

>>133656236
His argument is that you're paying for services that you may not be using. no idea where your argument stems from. If people don't use netflix/youtube then that means lower data usage which means companies and charge people lower than providers that do offer netflix/youtube. The reason your argument doesn't make sense is because isps don't charge per byte of data used. My bill stays the same even if I download 1tb of cp.

In a perfect world any schmuck can start their own ISP.

Now introducing: The Anonymous™ ISP
Where your contributions are our service.

>>133645868
With Net Neutrality ISPs cannot give preference to anyone using their services. ISPs cannot charge different rates for different amounts of usage.

Without Net Neutrality, it's the opposite. Companies and users can be charged different rates depending on their usage and the speed of connection.

With net neutrality there's one product that everyone pays the same amount for. Without there are different levels of services that cost different amounts.

Think of net neutrality as a buffet, everyone pays the same amount and can eat as much as they want. The price has to be high enough to cover the cost of the fatties (Netflix, Google, Amazon). So for the skinny people (small businesses and your average internet user) the cost is going to be pretty high, while the fatties are lovin' it.

Without net neutrality is like a traditional restaurant where you can buy the value meal (dial up) or pay more for the surf and turf (high speed).

>>133645868
If getting rid of net neutrality has the slightest chance at reducing the amount of shitskins on the internet im all for it

>>133649808
>The market no longer works via competition, but by who controls access.
The road owner is just exercising his property right. After all, he can deny anyone from using the road and that isn't anti-competitive. Property rights can't break a market since they are the market. Buying and selling goods makes no sense without owning them.
If there's legal entry, there's competition. Investment is a continual decision making endeavor. The choice to continue making a good or investing in a new one is constant. Getting into business to sell good X is just as much competition as staying in the selling of group X.
Denying property rights breaks markets and kills competition. It should be obvious that the government making it illegal to compete kills competition.

>>133645868
Why would the width of the lanes make the car go slower? The cars fit and there is still the same amount of lanes. Traffic would be the same, but the roads wouldn't cost as much to maintain.

You guys seem to think TWC and Comcast cant get away with it. You realize theres entire counties across the country who only have one ISP available to them right? Imagine giving even more power to those monopolies.

>>133670628
That has nothing to do with NN. Data caps and fuckery on time or capacity are irrelevant to the argument.

A correct analogy would be paying $0.5 for a kW of lightbulbs and $1.2 for every kW of laptop charging.
It's none of the company's business how you use the resource because that's what they're selling, not the fucking services on the internet.

Just returned from the local supermarket.

Apparently its NOT rude to flirt with women while their working.

I had to ask because she was beautiful dark and soft spoken.

I got butterflies in my tummy and forgot a whole bag full of goodies.

What does this have to do with net neutrality?

I like to consider what I do to the Internet. Work.

So I'm working all the time, which means I should be getting paid all the time, which means I should be flirting all the time.

FFS, why do I gotta always make this personal.

>>133645868
Because their only choice during the election wanted it so now they have to want it. It's that simple.

File: Milton-Friedman.jpg (90KB, 802x1165px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 802x1165px

>>133645868
Because everything that operates under free market competition is awesome and everything operated by the government is garbage.

>>133649832
>has no reason to be opposed to net neutrality
>lol, I'll just call it fear mongering because my meme fueled political husbando doesn't support it

>>133657564
It's amazing how they always accuse others what they are guilty of themselves.

>>133645868
Why do libtards conveniently forget that this actually started with Obama?

Reminder that piss poor gypsies with near totally unregulated internet have some of the fastest speeds in the world:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAStVnqD53U

>>133679652
>The road owner is just exercising his property right.


Nope, and people really need to stop using the road analogy as it breaks down immediately


1) "Owner" skips over the fact that the 1996 Telecom Act subsidized large sums of building out the networks and as such the ISPs are beholden to the demands of that act

2) Bandwidth usage =/= road usage. In terms of wear, right of use or how speed on either works. The primary difference of which is:

3) The ISPs' customers paid for their bandwidth up and down both ways, if the ISP blocks one way it is not the company (ex. Netflix) that they are blocking in truth, it is the download capacity of the customer of theirs who wants Netflix's content).

>>133680159

The image does not show the toll booth right before the entry of the (((fast lane))) which actually makes the point of how artificial they are.

File: wrong.jpg (51KB, 670x377px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 670x377px

>>133685851

Wrong. Net Neutrality has been codified as the gentlement's agreement of how the Internet and most interconnected networks function: "You don't arbitrarily throttle my stuff and I don't touch yours" but ISPs have become such powerful monoliths in Cable, Phone, Internet, Media, etc. they can throw around their weight with abandon at this point. Which is why the FCC's hand was forced in 2015.

Those packets smell good.

I wonder who owns them.