Can someone explain what this whole net neutrality/Title II situation

>>134166643
Jews want money

>>134166643

Everything you need to know is in the picture you posted, fagot.

>reee companies want to do with their own service as they see fit
https://mises.org/library/net-neutrality-scam

>>134166643
It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes.

>>134166643
Net neutrality is good but it creates some small problems.

For example here, one mobile service provider offered free data for customers who have a limited data plan for social media like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and all the popular ones. You could use those apps as much as possible without it consuming any of your monthly max data. That's just sweet right?

However it ended up with that company being sued because it "broke the rules" of net neutrality. According to net neutrality those popular social media apps have an advantage being used over no name social medias like Gab or some shit because they can be used data free while Gab can not. so "the competition is not equal" according to it.

Pretty stupid but that is how it works. It's just small things, over anything else net neutrality is good preventing ISPs from jewing hard.

>>134166643
ISPs are greediest and kikest joos the world has ever seen. Each of them sold way more bandwidth than they can actually offer if everyone was to get online at once and tried to do heavy traffic tasks like streaming or watching videos. Normally, selling more bandwith than you can deliver works fine up to a point but ISPs oversold and are to joo to invest shekels into infrastructure to support their customers. So they came up with the idea of gimping heavy bandwith services unless you pay extra shekels and people who own sites that make that traffic pay up too. Net neutrality would allegedly combat ISP kikery but it leaves a lot of wiggle rooom for some FCC fucker to effectively become a dictator and fuck up internet as we know it to the point of no return.

>>134168239
I don't doubt that Net Neutrality's intentions are good. What creeps me out is just how much support it has. I'm just skeptical about having more government control over the internet can be a good thing

This current situation specifically, about the Title II reclassification, makes ISPs common carriers, meaning they can't discriminate against sites and apps, like how you pointed out. While being able to not use data for popular apps would be nice, the possibility of abuse is there. But I agree that its just small little things.

>>134166643
Internet is a goldmine for noncensored information regardless its content unless it obeys law. So, can you come up with assumptions why this kind of controle of our info goldmine could be dangeros?

>>134168665
So, its either a potential dictator, or ISPs continuing to be jews?

>>134166643
Pro-NN companies censor everything, connect the dots

>>134166643
>normies get BTFO
seems fine too me. this shit is easy to circumvent

>>134171397
That's the way I see it. And I highly doubt that gummint forcing it's tentacles into anything can end well.

File: 1495715349991.jpg (32KB, 416x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 416x500px

I keep hearing that net neutrality laws would grant Google and Facebook government-tier oversight over the internet. How would that work?

Could anyone explain it? I'm having a real hard time comprehending how one would follow from the other.

>>134172042
the title change would grant more government jurisdiction over the internet and then they would just need to pass a bill in senate

>>134171588
Once those tentacles are inside... those suckers aren't letting go of anything

It's fear mongering in it purest.

Proponents of net neutrality have no understand of how network management work or how ISP's work. They strawman certain aspects of networking as some big threat and come to an false premise like internet packages or block sites like 4chan which uses fuck all of bandwidth. It's all hysterical, they yet to understand what a peering agreement yet assume shit.

File: 1498300464047.jpg (438KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1920x1440px

for the past 2 decades there is been no such thing as "net neutrality" -- up until the netflix v. comcast thing in 2014(?), where netflix lost and had to pay extra for using up more bandwith then everyone else, but then later they reversed it and now the biggest companies don't want to pay a extra fee for using extra data so they make up shit like how ISPs will charge individuals to use certain websites, akin to cable packages. at least that's what i've gathered so far, ive also heard the govt will end up regulating more of the internet if this title II aka NN thing goes through.

please clarify anons

The problem is lack of competition, anything that relies on infrastructure should be nationalised and this should be the only purpose for government

>>134166643
>companies are evil and want more money

Now ask yourself which political side hates companies and the decision of whose side to support will be easy to sort out.

>>134173532
i dont know, it seems like this is 100% ISPs fault for not building infrastructure, managing their networks and then overselling bandwith

both sides are equally bad however, either way the internet is opened up to get fucked

>>134173901
Question since it seems you don't know how isps distribute internet to homes: why are internet speeds faster in middle class areas than in city areas?

>>134173981
because there is more internet traffic in cities?

im a retard, im just going by what other people have said until i better understand the situation btw

>>134174112
Then you answered your own problem of why isps absolutely hate companies like netflix that just hog all the connection. Netflix and google cried to the government because their a popular service, yet the most popular internet distributors didn't like them due to making maintenance hell. Not to mention, it costs these companies a lot of money every year to keep that shit up. Now imagine a smaller company trying to penetrate the market. They can't now because they don't have as big of an infrastructure so services like Netflix will eat the hell out of one datacenter.

Of course, this is all mostly just a war between the isps and the big social sites. But I trust the devil that I know more than the devil that I don't. At least with isps, they are still beholden to people and fear of them switching to someone else, so they will keep their customers happy.

>>134166643
>that pic
There is literally nothing wrong with this. If you don't want your ISP to filter your Internet, use a different ISP. If you don't like the product, don't buy it.

>>134174287
wouldnt it be better for all companies to pay equal amounts per gb of bandwith? instead of larger companies having to pay a larger fee per gb?

also, ISPs definitely do not keep their customers happy, and its backfiring on them now, comcast literally is the most hated company in america

>>134174431
In addition, competiting isps will solve this problem outright.

>oh, your isp is censoring someone? Well, we won't. Come on over.

>>134174666
Exactly. Tripps of truth.

>>134174666
IF that was guaranteed, then by all means, I wouldn't support net neutrality.

>>134174634
I don't get your first question.

Comcast is a business and do things for profit, but a lot of their issues have mostly been with trying to balance the government being on their ass while trying to keep their customers content due to congestion caused surprise, surprise, mostly by the very people complaining. If Comcast could, they would happily oblige everyone if it meant spending less money and time with customer service and on site maintenance.

>>134174666
that would make plenty of sense in a perfect world, but in reality, most people (in rural south) only have 1 ISP they can choose, and if they have more, 90% of the time they will stay with the cheaper option because its not worth spending extra for paying for a slightly better service

>>134174431
It really begs the question, do you necessarily need internet?

Just like telephones, no, but it sure damn helps. Coverage isn't the same in different locations either. Some areas have little choice in picking ISPs due to lack of infrastructure. Its not as easy for some people to go to another ISP.

>>134174933
I can see you dont live in rural south. I assure you, that's not reality. Most of the non rural south has competition, abeit again, they can't do much, even Comcast or Verizon, cause of the previous FCC. And those who live out in the extreme rural areas either have satellite or their own fiber lines.

t. lives in Texas

Don't believe any news of people who likely don't live in said south.

>>134175057
>Most of the non rural south has competition, abeit again, they can't do much, even Comcast or Verizon, cause of the previous FCC. And those who live out in the extreme rural areas either have satellite or their own fiber lines.

I didn't know that there was satellite or fiber lines available. Could you elaborate more on the part with the previous FCC?

>>134175057
I do live in TN and have 2 options: Centurylink or Comcast, while my friends in a town over only have Centurylink, and it's pretty shitty. Comcast already charges ridiculous fees and constantly fucks with my internet, not only that, their customer service is awful, we've replaced had to replace 4 routers with them and they take forever to schedule the shit, and we can't change because Centurylink is even more expensive. I live with a few others, and they have called and called again about random fees we get, and they always act like they don't know what we're talking about.

Again, I don't know as much as I could, but I sure as hell know why there the most hated company in the US.

>>134166643
Aryan way of doing business- pay to post on 4chan
pay to lurk on 4chan
or else watch tv.

>>134175607
That's mostly because the US is too fucking huge to get everyone covered properly, and it takes a lot of money just to service the major cities alone. I would stress that it's mostly your fault that you're in a bad area to begin with, nor do I know your actual internet situation to make a comment on the reality of it.

But a lot of problems can be solved by yourself, if you're willing to make the sacrifice for them. That or pray that another company decides to invest in where ever the hell you are at.

>>134166643
Yes you are now seeing the futility of (((democracy))), the elites will always buy their way in, although it probably the best thing that happened to 4chin in years

>>134174815
Company A is a large company and takes up a lot of bandwith.

Company B is your average company and takes up a average amount of bandwith.

If ISPs win, they will make Company A pay more for using more bandwith than average, per gb.

If they don't win, they Company A and Company B will still pay the same amount per gb.

Is that correct or am I completely wrong?

(last question i promise)

>>134166643
Reminder that this situation only would have happened if the FCC continued to push the internet toward an internet utility. Then you would have had it where anything the isps wanted to do would have to be approved by them directly, resulting in the government having complete control over how the internet is distributed and who gets access.

>>134176125
Companies they use more bandwidth are restricted for the purpose of allowing the entire connection of people to also be able to use the internet as quickly as possible. If those companies want access to greater bandwidth, then they will have to pay for it. If they don't pay, then the company has the right to not give them greater access. They won't block usage of it, but the service to them will be the same like everyone else, aka, throttled.

Btw, being throttled isnt a bad thing. isps have to do it to keep their centers from being overloaded. They still do it today, which is why during peak hours, your internet goes to shit. Thank whatever faggots near you who is probably either torrenting or streaming shit.

>>134174666
more like

>hey competitive ISP, let's jew people together to earn more shekels, fuck the goyim

thinking anything else is just dumb naivete

>>134176271
ty sir

>>134176652
You're actually naive thinking that these companies are working together. The only reason the top companies were mutally acquainted because the government wanted to make them all into public utilities. Now that threat is out of the way, they are going back into competitive mode. Trump's election was literally the best thing for them. And it works out cause it just means it helps the consumer.

Take notice that everyone who is crying that the big bad companies are going to jew them don't realize they are already being jewed. But they also don't realize that it's better for them to have the isps free of regulations. No consumer pro NN would realistically be for this if they understood that it doesn't benefit them at all to do so. It's all a massive cult.

>>134176271
So in the Netflix vs. Comcast thing, Netflix was just trying to jew Comcast at their own game so they can get more bandwith at no extra cost(not have to pay extra interconnection fees)?

>>134176845
>You're actually naive thinking that these companies are working together.

t. someone who cant into economics

>Apple agrees to settle e-book price-fixing between the tech giant and publishers.

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27884580

>German competition authorities have fined five big breweries a total of 106.5m euros (£88.8m; $145m) for illegal price-fixing.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-25721119

>Goldman Sachs and HSBC are among four platinum and palladium dealers to be sued in New York for allegedly fixing the price of the metals.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30209544

>Some of the world’s biggest consumer products companies, including Unilever, Reckitt Benckiser, Procter & Gamble and Gillette, have been fined a combined €951m (£748m) by the French competition watchdog for price fixing in supermarkets.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/18/france-fines-unilever-reckitt-benckiser-procter-and-gamble-gillette-price-fixing

>Panasonic and its subsidiary have agreed to plead guilty to separate allegations of price-fixing, the US justice department says.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-23371059

Just in case you still don't get it, brush up on game theory to see why colluding is in companies' interest.

>>134177371
What if we archive that
>https://theguardian com/business/2014/dec/18/france-fines-unilever-reckitt-benckiser-procter-and-gamble-gillette-price-fixing
https://archive.is/ihrKy

>>134177317
Pretty much. With the threat of FCC coming in and saying it's illegal if they started throttling them.

They still get throttled, but only because it's simple network logic to offload processes to keep the connection load balanced.

>>134177371
>companies jewing other companies

Welcome to the free market. Enjoy your stay.

>>134166643
>ISPS
Disgusting

>>134177371
So it's more profitable for ISPs to build networks in areas without ISPs then it is to compete with them, is that why rural areas(like mine) only have one?

>>134177439
>>companies jewing consumers together
ftfy

>>134177631
You don't have to use internet providers. You have that choice. Unless you're one of those losers who cant go to a library or a wifi hotspot for some internet.

>>134177716
>"haha, what you don't want to use that 4 Mbps with regular interruptions and poor service? You don't have to use internet providers. You have that choice."

That's incredibly dumb dude.

>>134177876
It's called free will. Nothing is stopping you from not paying for internet.