What would removing net neutrality mean for video games? Would

>>383699745
Decreased regulation -> more competition -> lower prices
Good for gaming overall

Piracy and torrenting might take a hit but that's honestly a good thing.

>>383700404
>but that's honestly a good thing.
No it's not. How am I gonna get my never translated, only sold in Japan, H games?

>>383700404
>Decreased regulation -> more competition -> lower prices
/pol/ can you not give republican talking points ad nauseum even when they dont fit, its embarassing

>>383700663
Push for trade agreements like the unfortunately recently desceased TPP (RIP)
>>383700735
>no guys economics doesn't work in this one instance
Uh huh

>>383700950
>Push for trade agreements like the unfortunately recently desceased TPP (RIP)
disgusting

>>383700950
>no guys economics doesn't work in this one instance
please explain how removing net neutrality fixes the problem of little or no ISP choice in the US
oh wait, you can't, because you're a fucking retard spouting off garbage you read on /pol/

>>383701171
Repealing Net Neutrality won't fix the lack of ISP competition, true. What will fix it is deregulating who can set up infrastructure and bring services to new regions. As it stands it's way to easy for existing ISPs to lobby local and state governments to prevent new providers from setting up shop.

>>383701123
>he hates free trade
back to econ 101
>>383701171
It doesn't, thats why further deregulation is needed. Most local monopolies are state-sponsored cause established ISPs are given massive tax breaks that new competators aren't given. More government isn't the answer here though.

>>383700950
Ok, fuck you on the TOP thing, that was shit and would have illegalized generic drugs.

>>383701357
>>383701448
so basically you're saying repealing net neutrality doesn't actually do anything to fix the problem and you only want to do it because you're retards
thanks for sharing

>>383701465
*TPP
sorry, I hate phones

>>383701545
I'm saying all regulation is bad. When the government is able to regulate who can enter the business, or what they can do with their business, it's too easy for larger corps to lobby stricter and stricter regulations that they can meet, but smaller, competing corps can't. Hell, we see this with Tesla where state laws about direct sale to customers are preventing them from entering the market, or with Google Fiber where local ISPs in markets they have entered are trying real hard to get them out of that market.

>>383701357

DESU, I never looked much into the issue. What does allowing ISPs to give bandwidth preference have to do with new providers setting up infastructure?

>>383701902
>complains about the barrier of entry to markets
>but also wants the removal of net neutrality, which makes the internet an open marketplace and lets anyone have a chance to strike rich if they have a good idea
please just stop, you keep embarrassing yourself and its hard to watch

>>383701902
All regulation is bad? Let me guess you watched one youtube video of an economist talking and now you're an anarcho-capitalist. Stop being retarded.

>>383701465
Pharma prices are exhorbitantly high in the US cause they basically subsidize other countries' drugs. Other countries essentially screw American drug companies which raise prices in the US to drive investment. The TPP would have raised prices in non-US countries, lowered prices in the US, and increased medical research investment which is good for everyone.

There are trade-offs, but the good clearly outweigh the bad.

>>383702024
It's the principle. Government shouldn't have the power to regulate who can do what with their company, no matter what. If an ISP wants to try and squeeze money out of consumers or web services, let them try. With a deregulated market would let more ISPs compete, and the ones that provide shit service would quickly meet the boot of capitalism and fail.

>>383702202
Not an argument.

>>383702236
Also not an argument.

>>383702360
>Not an argument.
Really? Saying that your desire to make markets have a lower barrier to entry conflicts with your desire to have net neutrality removed isn't an argument?
like i said, it's clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are just embarrassing yourself

>>383700404
I wish there was someone here who actually believed this to explain why they believe less regulation would suddenly cause the absolutely absurd costs of starting an ISP to go down and there to suddenly be more competition than just comcast, at&t, and cox.

>>383699745
I'd imagine that within a week of NN being repealed there will be some way to spoof an external IP address.

>>383699745
>tfw I pay like 2 euros per month for my unlimited optic fiber internet connection and 1 euro per month for my 50GB of data and unlimited calls / texts for my phone.

How much do you pay guys ?

It's just delaying the inevitable, they'll just keep trying and trying until net neutrality is gone.

>>383702360

But that doesn't sound like it solves the issue of entrenched ISPs being able to block new competition that you yourself brought up.

>>383702658
Might as well got rid of all doctors then if we're just going to die one day

>>383702505
Present it as an argument then. If you're just going to jerk yourself off while acting like a smug child I'm not going to bother.

>>383702541
A huge ammount of that startup cost comes from the number of permits and legal fees required to start laying infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, actual construction and laying fiber is no budget task, but scores of cities across the country have their own local fiber providers, most started through city coops where the citizens themselves pitch in to get the ball rolling.

>>383702626
90% of the civilized world is much more densely populated than the US, so providing fast internet is much easier and cheaper.

>>383703056
>Present it as an argument then.
I literally just did, you braindead moron. Stop sucking corporate cock for a second and use your eyes.

>>383703056
>90% of the civilized world is much more densely populated than the US, so providing fast internet is much easier and cheaper.
It is indeed but it doesn't entirely justify the price difference. Like always it's mostly big operator not having a real concurrence and / or not even trying to be competitive against each other because they have untold agreements and know they can grab you more money.

>>383703056
>A huge ammount of that startup cost comes from the number of permits and legal fees required to start laying infrastructure.

You've already lost to comcast anon. You're a corporate puppet now.

>>383703318
Push that stick a little bit farther up your ass, why don't you? If you had any reading comprehension your question would already have been answered: >>383702360
>With a deregulated market would let more ISPs compete, and the ones that provide shit service would quickly meet the boot of capitalism and fail.

But it's obvious you don't want an actual discussion. You want to spew talking points and act like a cunt, so you do you.

>>383703510
It does though. When providers need to pay for the cost of deploying internet into the sticks with a population of 3 people per mile, they're going to offload that cost somewhere

>>383703612
https://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/
>he incumbents are notorious for frivolous delay lawsuits. They know perfectly well they're frivolous, but it's a delay tactic. They have an army of lawyers and a budget to support lawsuits the size of Godzilla. That's one of their tactics, it always has been. It probably will continue to be so for many years yet to come..

File: 1499288329171.jpg (45KB, 450x320px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 450x320px

>This legislation that allows ISPs to seriously fuck over their clientele is being rabidly lobbied by those same ISPs
>People still believe that this will work out for them
>Even when ISPs have a history of doing anything they can to fuck over their clientele

I hate idiots. I hate them, I really do.

>>383700950
Fuck the TPP. Caused me so much paranoia.

>>383703847
>reeeee fuck the corporations we wuz the 99% n shiet

Fuck off you stupid statist

>>383703971
shut the fuck up you retarded lap dog
what does this do to improve anything, how do you gain anything? this is straight up you getting fucked in the asshole and thanking the people raping you

File: 1499362313962.jpg (65KB, 411x412px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 411x412px

>>383704097
If he attaches labels and strawmen to everything he can fool himself into believing he won't get screwed too

>>383703756
>With a deregulated market would let more ISPs compete, and the ones that provide shit service would quickly meet the boot of capitalism and fail.
Removing net neutrality doesn't deregulate the market, doesn't reduce startup costs for ISPs, and actively increases startup costs for internet entrepreneurs. I ignored that answer because I didn't think you were actually fucking dumb enough to think it was true.
>But it's obvious you don't want an actual discussion. You want to spew talking points and act like a cunt, so you do you.
Hey friend, I'm not the one who literally started off posting in the thread with the most basic of basic talking points "hurr less regulation = better for everyone"

>supporting net neutrality
>wanting to force corporations to give fair access to everyone
bet you fags also support welfare

File: 1454516391212.png (829KB, 1245x763px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 1245x763px

>>383699745
>tfw you realise you've been living in the golden age of the internet
>30 years from now you'll look back and remember these times fondly
>4chan has been dead for 20+ years
>get a fine if you don't watch ads
>unable to save images from the internet without them being government approved (and a small fee of course)
>ISP removes internet access until you read the new terms and conditions for your Windows 10+ and your Google web

>>383704312
oh no how dare we ask our one choice of ISP to actually give us access to the internet

>>383704249
>Hey, I disagree with this other person
>Better act like a mouth breathing retard, that'll show them how dumb their beliefs are.

It's like clockwork with you people. But as I said earlier, not an argument.

>>383699745
Gets rid of the poor people from online games.

>>383704374
I love how every time you get called out on being absolutely full of shit, you either tone police or try to meme it away with "not an argument" even though it is very clearly an argument. Really shows the level of intelligence you operate on.

>most tech companies tend to be somewhat liberal
>become ISP
>with net neutrality gone i can censor what my users browse
>limit bandwidth to conservative sites
I don't get why liberals won't support this

File: 1bgvov.jpg (19KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x360px

>>383704097
>N-n-no guys this time government regulation with help the economy and consumers. Just ignore the other 10^(500!) times it didn't!

You lost buddy, most Americans didn't fall for your tricks this time.

>>383703971
>fuck the corporations

Actually yes, fuck the Corporations you moron. You do realize in the United States that Corporations have more rights than citizens? Only an absolute fucking idiot would be against Net Neutrality unless you are being paid out the ass by these very same corporations to push it so they can fuck over their customers even more by gouging them.

>>383704495
Tech companies are not internet service providers.

File: 1373917989756.png (122KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 700x700px

>be britfag
>government wants to regulate internet

dont be a cooperate cocksucker.
Hell dont be a cocksucker for anyone

>wanting internet providers to give equal access to all sites is somehow a bad thing

>>383704480
You say you love it, but we both know you don't. You've cycled through your talking points yet accomplished nothing but making yourself look retarded on a Mongolian cave painting board. So let me throw you a freebee. How does government regulation help a market in any form? Try and answer without spewing ad hominem.

>>383704581
>N-n-no guys this time government regulation with help the economy and consumers
It actually does, nice try with the memeing though. Or are you going to pretend the absolutely ridiculous amount of internet startup companies and entrepreneurs don't owe even a bit of their existence to, as a rule, being able to receive as much traffic as they want from any interested consumer?

You're already seeing elements of this in the Northeastern US. There was a big class action with Netflix and League of Legends about the lone big ISP(Time Warner, I think) throttling them. One is basically the biggest streaming service of all time, and the other is one of, if not the most popular online multiplayer video games right now.

Obviously, back then, we actually had net neutrality enforcement so that was done and done as soon as you got the law involved. But now we're at the mercy of the monopolies.

This would be a non-issue except for the fact that pretty much all Americans only have one Broadband provider and some slow-ass DSL or some other shit that barely counts as competition for the sake of anti-trust laws.

So I guarantee you, once the Republicans have their way we're gonna start see Steam connections struggling.

>>383699745
Piracy doesn't follow rules of basic economy, there will be always people looking for it and always sombedoy supplying it, its like drugs, so net neutrality won't affect piracy, as of the rest i don't know

>>383699745
What's this mock-up from?

>>383704809
>How does government regulation help a market in any form?
How about the fact that the open marketplace of the internet, where people like Zuckerberg and companies like Google have made literal billions of dollars, relies on the base premise that consumers do not need to pay extra to access their services and entrepreneurs do not need to pay extra to have their work accessible to the consumer base?

>>383699745
It means when the walking dead, or the Super Bowl or any other big tv show with a shit load of ads is on you can expect your internet service to be throttled to encourage you not to play games or watch Netflix.

Basically if you get your internet from the cable company you are fucked. Especially Time Warner and Comcast.

>>383705064
Same place all statist liberals get their propaganda

HINT: it starts with an r and rhymes with "said it"

>ree I love Trump and because I am a retard who is unable to form my own opinion I hate net neutrality

Imagine if Microsoft or Sony ran their own ISP. They'd have no incentive to give quality service to people attempting to access another console manufacturer's network or Steam.

Comcast and Time Warner are already chomping at the bit to castrate Netflix and Amazon.

>>383705161
why are you such a cocksucker?
I hope in the case net neutrality gets removed your isp blocks 4chan

>>383705049
Drugs don't require an infrastructure of data constantly streaming.

>>383705487
But does require infrastructure nevertheless, it the same principle as drugs, ig you don't change the demand for it, they will always find a way example denuvo getting destroyed by every cracker in the internet

>>383705161
link? I want to see an actual intelligent discussion about the image instead of
>le memes
>le bait
>le falseflagging

>>383700404
can you name one(1) example in the last 5 years where this actually has worked and led to lower prices?

>>383705782
you cant link to it. 4chan the site goes
>reee your post is spam!

>>383704374
>bring up blatantly untrue arguments that get easily destroyed by 12 year olds
>better call everyone names, that'll show them!

>>383704809
>>383705128
How convenient, you didn't respond after getting utterly blown the fuck out. I guess that's to be expected though.

>>383704581
>can't bring up one single persisting case where deregulation actually led to lower prices/increased quality for the general population
see, your argument is invalid because it does not hold any weight, because you can't support it with actual evidence

>>383705128
Then your fundamental knowledge of Net Neutrality is flawed. The basic premise of net neutrality is that ISPs cannot favor some services over others in terms of bandwidth access. Without it, an ISP could theoretically offer more bandwith to Hulu instead of Netflix because Hulu pays for more access. This has no direct effect to consumers. They could, however, be met with an indirect effect of higher subscription costs to Hulu as the company offsets the cost of paying ISPs for more bandwith. The OPs mockup picture has no basis in reality because, to my knowledge, there is no way for an ISP to block access to specific sites for specific customers. They can block sites on their network, sure, but that's as far as it goes, to my knowledge. I could be wrong on that point, but I've found no evidence to support it, even before Net Neutrality became a thing.

But back on topic. Yes, an ISP charging sites for more bandwidth is shitty. That's why this is a two part question. Markets need to be deregulated so there are competing ISPs in every region. If Comcast gets me 1mbps connection to Netflix of Youtube but Google Fiber gets me 100, you can assume that people are going to go for that one.