How do we save net neutrality?

How do we save net neutrality?

Other urls found in this thread:

forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/
forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/08/31/11-secrets-of-irresistible-people/#3e4328c05af3
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service
forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Advisory
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto
anyforums.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

We don't and wait till 3rd world have faster net then us and we then get outraged.

>Mexico has fiber,they don't pay package base internet.

why does that rat got no legs

>mfw 100Mbit internet included in rent

>Trump's FCC pick is killing net neutrality we have to save it
Fake news.
forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/

leave your cousin out of this schlomo

>says fake news
>cites fake news
do you just not care about NN?

Nah

Net neutrality will ultimately end in everyone using the same slow internet speed

Even if you have money and are willing to pay for higher speeds, those high speeds won't exist thanks to Net Neutrality stifling companies from innovating and creating faster technologies that increase internet speed and capabilities

Explain how Forbes is fake news

Why do you have a picture of Ted Cruz's cock?

Absolutely repulsive image

forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/08/31/11-secrets-of-irresistible-people/#3e4328c05af3

how does net neutrality stifle companies from innovating? it drives innovation! if there was never any net neutrality, netflix would still be using the same shitty bandwidth they were using 4 years ago. They are forced to create better bandwidth because there is less of it. Once you start distributing bandwidth unevenly shit gets fucked.

>Net neutrality will ultimately end in everyone using the same slow internet speed


Nothing like that in most of western Europe.
But don't let me stop you. You know better.

>all these kids think "neutrality" is a good thing

Kek

You don't.
As soon as normalfags were allowed to access the internet, the doom spell was cast.

You don't?

Pai is quite clearly on board with stripping title II which takes away the FCCs power to enforce net neutrality due to recentish court rulings, and even if he was gonna keep titlte II he is clearly in favor of zero-rating despite that being against network neutrality.

Once again, a Poo is ruining technology.

Vote democrat I guess?

>Inb4 forbes article that is completely fucking wrong is cited to prove that Trump isn't going to stop network neutrality.

>all these new Sup Forums shilled morons still blindly support trump against their best interest
net neutrality keeps ISP's from nuking whatever they want. its vital for a free internet.

You can't. As long as it's seen as a potential medium for propaganda, cash will flow and paid shills will flood it. It's far easier than with TV or radio too because the access to content creation is basically free.

It's doomed, the good old times won't go back. At least (for now) you still have a freedom of speech.

obama's rendition of net neutrality is the same orwellian bullshit that bush's no child left behind was. it should be repealed and reimplemented properly.

too late

>the good old times won't go back.
They will once meshnet technology finally gets out of the bottle/bag/box.

what exactly is obamas rendition of net neutrality? the government doesnt censor any legal content, it just stops ISP's from censoring.

It is. Very soon, you will be unable to browse Sup Forums because it will have slower than dial up speeds.

Neutrality is a good thing. But its not even being enforced thanks to google loopholes and the NSA monitoring in secret.

For any niggers who don't understand:
Net Neutrality is when everyone in the internet is treated equally in terms of speed, access, publication etc. No single person or company gets special priviledges, or a priority tunnel that only they get to use.

Eliminating net neutrality would mean big companies and businesses getting a highway for all of their traffic, while the regular joe gets the slow route. It also means they'd be able to secure their traffic and hide information better given they have control of the traffic and how it's exchanged.

go away moveon.org

fuck off shill

>net neutrality thread on Sup Forums

>"We need to get rid of it, regulations are costing ISPs billions"
>"What regulations"
>"The regulations you cuck"
>"What regulations"
>"The regulations you shill"
>"What regulations"
>"The regulations you kike"
>"What regulations"
>"The regulations you nigger"
>This thread is archived.

>internet didn't exist prior 2015

Like others have said, if you read the article it cites a 67 decision Pai made in regards to FCC enforcing title II. FCC reclassified ISPs as title II common utilities because of a successful legal case against the FCC saying they could not enforce network neutrality. Pai, as much as he says he's for network neutrality, wants to strip away the power that allows the FCC to enforce network neutrality.

Also from the 67 dissent that forbes says TOTALLY PROVES pai isn't against network neutrality where he sings the praises of zero-rating:

>Consider that activists promoting this rule had previously targeted neither AT&T nor Verizon
with their first net-neutrality complaint but MetroPCS—an upstart competitor with a single-digit market share and not an ounce of market power. Its crime? Unlimited YouTube.

>take T-Mobile’s Music Freedom program, which the Internet conduct rule puts on the
chopping block. The “Un-carrier” lets consumers stream as much online music as they want without charging it against their monthly data allowance.

>If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you. Indeed, economists have long understood innovative business models like these are good for consumers because they give them more choices and lower prices.

Basically MUH FREEDUMS shilling and vague assertions economists agree with him. That completely ignores that when ISPs allow zero-rating of services, they can charge companies for access to their network that does not cost data. This creates an incentive for ISPs to not increase data plans, because they're getting money from companies they zero-rate, and increasing data caps would just cause companies to not upgrade their data plan.

Zero-rating is justified on short-term trojan horse benefits that ignore it creates an environment where ISPs get money from content providers YET have less incentive to upgrade their services.

>Very soon, you will be unable to browse Sup Forums because it will have slower than dial up speeds.
Says who?

The only real smear in this article, by the way, is the assertion that other people are smearing Pai.

They are just pointing out the things Pai says. He thinks title II regulations are bad, and he thinks zero-rating is good despite the fact it violates network neutrality as it favors one companies data over another. He says some vague things about innovation, consumer choice, and economics, and ignores the horrible incentives created for monopolies to abuse their monopolies.

who knows what the ISPs will nuke in favor of netflix
but they will nuke something given the oppurtunity

>If the constitution were being writ today, Sup Forums-tier citizens would be griping and bitching about all the regulations.

Just a reminder

>Pai isn't against network neutrality, see this forbes article

Are retards or trolls, it's not true.

>Network neutrality isn't nessecary, people can just choose another ISP

These people are only semi-retarded in that they recognize that in a free market environment, network neutrality is not nessecary. However, in a market dominated by monopolies, which ISPS are, ISPs can collude with eachother and abuse the lack of consumer choice to use the lack of network neutrality for profiteering jewish tricks.

If one wants to bring free market to the internet, get rid of the telecom cartels, and THEN get rid of network neutrality. If you do things the other way around, you're not making the internet freer, so much as giving more ammo to monopolistic companies.

>No network neutrality means TV packages for the internet

Are retards or trolls

>Without network neutrality, Sup Forums will be shut down/accessed slowly

Are retards or troll, network neutrality is mostly an issue in regards to content that needs high bandwidth and/or low latency. Sup Forums can be accessed with minimal bandwidth and high latency without issue.

This sort of situation is only an issue with projects like internet.org in the third world where access to every website not affliated with internet.org is legitimately unbearably slow, which is part of why Zuckerjews internet.org got kicked out of India for trying to monopolize the market with a trojan horse offer of free internet!

The second you allow corporate bodies to decide which websites people are allowed to visit, then you must accept that they will begin to block any site they don't like, for whatever reasons they don't like.

We already have kikebook censoring conservative posts while promoting white guilt shit, and twitter actively prevents certain hashtags from trending.

And you want to allow the government and corporations to control even more of the internet?

It'll start with "we just want to stop piracy" and end with "we must limit fake news and dangerous points of views".

the ones that the FCC came up with in 19 fucking 30

Actually, it's Netflix and Youtube they're pissed at.
Compared to either of those, Sup Forums is less than a drop in the ocean, especially with 4K streams in the works.

Honestly, if I was an ISP, I'd want Google and Netflix to pay more too, as they're both my direct competitors who are currently using my infrastructure without footing an extra bill.

Can't really blame the ISPs from a business and economic POV.
I know, how DARE I play devil's ad here right?
But really the NN war is between two factions. ISPs and video streaming/sharing websites.

One of them wants the other to pay more for the extra bandwidth they use.
The other wants to not have to pay this to keep their subscription prices competitive.

>The second you allow corporate bodies to decide which websites people are allowed to visit, then you must accept that they will begin to block any site they don't like, for whatever reasons they don't like.
You can run from ISP censorship.
ISP censorship doesn't come with fines and possible jail time.
FCC censorship can not be so easily escaped, and the price for violating the law is not the same as that for violating a contract.

A lot of you guys are either foreign or too young to remember the early 90s. The FCC has a proven history of being cunts, ESPECIALLY under conservative cabinets.

>turn the internet into a nationalized public utility
>the president himself gets to determine what you can and cannot look at
you'd think the libtards would think this is a scary prospect, and be happy at any move to turn away from that

When did Sup Forums start sucking the dick of cable companies? Are they that against ALL government regulation? You guys should realize that some government intervention is absolutely necessary to preserve a balanced capitalist system.
How do we save net neutrality?
The FCC doesnt censor the internet.
The NN war is between the government who wants to keep the internet unbiased and the ISP's who want to be in control of the bandwidth.

Is taking the ratpill the ultimate redpill?

>You can run from ISP censorship.

Guess again. I can guarantee you that once it passes, every ISP will jump on board.

No point using a vpn eiher, because they'll just limit those as well.

but thats not how it is. the government regulation is not over the internet but over the isp's.

Again, this REALLY isn't a network neutrality issue, the mechanisms that allow you to access some sites faster than others are mechanisms like QoS

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service

Which would be a REALLY retarded way to try and censor the entire internet, as the longer the list of websites you have setup under quality of service, the slower everything on the internet goes because it requires an insane amount of processing to figure out how fast each packet should go through every segment of the network. Generally when setting up QoS on networks, you want to be very sparing with how many "lanes" you setup to keep CPU utilization and such down.

Network Neutrality REALLY won't be how internet censorship starts, there are just far better ways to censor the internet with FAR less overhead. Such as DNS level filtering, IP blocking, URL filtering, packet filtering, and such.

If there is any sort of concern that Network Neutrality could lead to censorship, it's more on merit of the fact that Network Neutrality requires the internet to be regulated under Title II due to court challenges from fuckhead telecoms, giving the FCC greater powers.

>When did Sup Forums start sucking the dick of cable companies?
because at least you get to choose them, and can vote with your wallet. turn the internet into something the government controls through the FCC and you can say good bye to any net neutrality. companies are incentized not to censor your internet (except when theyre forced to by the government), meanwhile you can't exactly pick the country you live in and the whims of the man in charge who can have regulations passed on a public utility without any vote or consensus

I've literally never seen an anti-NN person actually display an understanding of what it is

Anyway the telecommunications systems need to be owned by the people (aka the govt) and treated like a public utility like water and electric but that's probably not gonna happen any time soon. Trump is gonna fuck us on this one too

To put it another way, for "internet fast lanes" to work you need to establish on every single node of the network that this data needs to go through at this priority or whatever.

Most censorship mechanisms work by "oh that's not allowed, blocked", and are way less resource intensive.

Completely blocking traffic is easier than making traffic go slowly but still working. QoS and similar mechanisms makes absolutely no sense as a censorship mechanism because they're resource intensive and are difficult to scale up, because keep in mind, every website you add to the list of "censored" websites needs to be forwarded to a ton of routers and whatever.

>The FCC doesnt censor the internet.
But they can, especially when given more power.

> the government who wants to keep the internet unbiased
Holy fuck are you serious? The ISPs should control the bandwidth. It's their property FFS.

>I can guarantee you that once it passes, every ISP will jump on board.
How can you guarantee it? What's the proof you have for this? Why doesn't it happen anywhere else, ever?

>telecommunications systems need to be owned by the people (aka the govt)
"no."

how can you be in Sup Forums and still trust big government? they rarely have your best interests in mind and are more in favor of controlling you. giving them carte blanche manipulation of the biggest source of information in the modern era is a very bad idea.

regulations in the FCC aren't passed through the government like bills are, through congress and the senate. they're made by government appointees. that is not the people

The bottom line is that we need to keep the internet uncensored and with the end of NN we will be one step closer to the edge of the cliff of censorship.
the government doesnt control the internet throught the FCC, it controls the ISP's through the FCC. Companies are incentivized by money which does not mean they wont censor, in fact it probably means the opposite. government regulation of the internet is bad, governmnt regulation of the behavior of ISP's is good.

>there are just far better ways

Of course there are better ways, but this is giving them another, legal, tool to use to help it along.

Just because there is a better way of controlling the internet does not mean that all other forms of control are meaningless.

Who cares if blocking is easier than slowing?

Either of them are dystopian level concerns.

Posted from Google Fiber?

thats fine as is, and Pajeet only wants to trim old regulations from over a half a century ago. that isnt NN. however there's been a pushing towards nationalizing all internet service, which IS a bad idea. Pajeet's main goal is to prevent that.

I giggled like a retarded child because of that pic. Nearly choked on a pretzel stick

>Why doesn't it happen anywhere else, ever?

The American government has waged information wars all over the world. Look at the arab spring.

The last thing we should be doing is handing over control of the internet to businesses and government.

>The ISPs should control the bandwidth. It's their property

>People should be allowed to shoot their guns at whomever they want; it's their property.

We eliminate the other regulations that allow Time Warner and Verizon to monopolize most of the country.
>they try to limit or cut bandwidth of some sites
>Google fiber or some other competitor rapes their market share and boipucci

The FCC only takes care of illegal content while ISP's would censor based on the idea that a corporation always acts in the interest of profit.
>every ISP will jump on board
Based on the behavior of corporations, this is a safe assumption.
>why hasnt this happened anywhere else, ever?
It has. In china. Its happening right now and you can read about it.

>the government who wants to keep the internet unbiased
If the FCC starts to get out of control, we can check it. We cannot check the ISP's, You could argue that you can just use a different ISP, or that neccesity will create an unbiased ISP but thats just not how it works. There are regional monopolies in internet service. Many apartment buildings will allow its tennants only one choice of service. Small ISP's can't deliver the speed or reliablility of big ones and basically, we're fucked.
Help save NN.

>People should be allowed to shoot their guns at whomever they want; it's their property.
"If I only had a brain..."

>Explain how Forbes is fake news

Saying that Sweden is "Best Country for Business" is obviously lying through its teeth. The once flourishing high-tech industry has been in free-fall for many years.

forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/

Oh, and those growth numbers are basically all made up by household loans. It would be negative without them.

Fuck off with your false premise OP. Fuck you, fuck the government overseeing my Internet. Fuck off.

have you read the article? it has citations for all of its information. I think every large publication still has decent reporters, but they also publish shit as well. just read the damn thing

Analogies are hard for you, aren't they?

You shouldn't expect healthy and intelligent debate on Sup Forums.

Its not a false premise and the government isnt overseeing your internet. THAT is actually a false premise. The government oversees the behavior of the ISP's to ensure that they dont distribute bandwidth unevenly, wchich would fuck the whole internet. Please dont just think with your ego here.

Move out of the US, obviously.

your problem is that you're being led by the nose by the fake new's false narrative of "killing NN", based on literally nothing. when this new appointee has very different aims that have nothing to do with NN. its just an other attempt at character assassination that we've seen a million times before in the last year+.

when the global political climate shifts because every american on comcast verizon or at&t is cucked into a biased internet, nowhere will be safe.

>The FCC only takes care of illegal content
And guess who decides what content is illegal?

Here's a history refresher for you, young one.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parental_Advisory

Both of these exist because the FCC, under orders from dogooder moraltards, both republican and democrat, threatened to censor the industry, using children as the excuse as typical.

Here's something more recent-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto

Nah mate, guinea pig master race. Less likely to get bitten, love just sitting around doing absolutely nothing, eats most fruit/ vegetables(not citrus fruit though, thats bad for them)

its not based on nothing and its not based on fake news. read the top of the thread, leaf.

>Analogies
What you made was a strawman, not a comparable analogy.

I work on setting up internet networks and this just simply is not a plausible way to censor the internet. It's like, a really retarded way to implement any sort of censorship. Nowhere that has internet censorship I'm aware of using "fast lanes/slow lanes" as an actual censorship mechanism. It's kind of hard to explain just HOW impractical this really is. Most QoS mechanisms are designed to only discriminate, at most, and this isn't even recommended, between 64 different categories of data. They also DON'T SLOW DOWN THE DATA IF THERE IS NO NETWORK CONGESTION, it's not designed for blocking, it's designed for giving certain data higher priority.

Usually QoS is a bitch to setup, and that's only when you're trying to discriminate between types of data that don't change over time. If you're constantly trying to add new types of data to go into "slow lanes", updating every router that gives your packet a priority when it goes across the network, it's not just an administrative nightmare, and not just an ineffective censorship mechanism, it's likely going to slow the entire network down to do all that processing.

The government already has powers to block websites, they shut down sites for piracy and various crimes regularly. The idea that network neutrality itself will lead to censorship is, it's not really realistic, probably the only way the two are connected is that the FCC gets more power under title II regulations which are needed to enforce network neutrality.

Im pretty sure we will be safe even then. We have absolutely no restrictions to what we can watch, see or say in this country.
Truly we are the most free basement dwellers.

No, it was apt. Simply because something is your property does not give you the right to use it in a way that negatively impacts others.

why don't you?

read the whole post
we can control the FCC
the ISP's can control us.

It sucks we test shit on such harmless and cool critters.
Why not use niggers or politicians?

No, you're wrong, friend. But I don't care and it doesn't matter. I can't wait until Net Neutrality is ded just like your thread will be soon if retards will learn what "sage" is.

Prove that I'm wrong. Oh wait, you can't.

>have you read the article?
Yes, and I'm very unclear on what their definition of net neutrality is.

When the phrase was coined a couple of years ago, it was a framework to prevent the forming of monopolies through ISP.
As with everything with billions at stake, everyone tries to redefine the words to their own political agenda.
With so much at stake nobody wants to be precise about what exactly they mean with "net neutrality" since making a stance can make powerful enemies.

Read this post- Remember Megaupload? That wasn't the doing of ISPs. That was the US government. The same sniveling shits you assholes wanna turn the US internet over to.
Pic related. Those aren't Comcast, TW, or Charter logos there.

read this
and other posts from that guy

why is no one talking about the fact that someone stuck their dick inside a rat

noone's trying to turn the internet over to anyone. none of those badges have anything to do with the FCC. the DOJ the NIPR and homeland sexurity will have the same control of the internet either way. The only difference is without NN, the ISP's will also be able to censor shit.

>They also DON'T SLOW DOWN THE DATA IF THERE IS NO NETWORK CONGESTION, it's not designed for blocking, it's designed for giving certain data higher priority.

It's all about bandwidth caps. Some traffic hits the cap. Some traffic will be free flow.
A few countries only provide access with caps as anti-piracy measure. Most don't but it will change in the future as caps can make you lots of money.

because niggers are "people" too. But srs, i think its because a nigger is more likely to chimp out and attack the skyentist. So mostly it comes down to typical beta males being scared of nigs hurting them, and obviously a small animal is less likely to be able to hurt you. Disgusting. This is my guinea pig, sadly he passed away on christmas, many manly tears were shed that day.

>he doesn't live in a country where nobody gives a shit anyways
I could probably watch childporn without a proxy and wouldn't get into trouble

You must make a sacrifice so you may have something great, anons

Thats a vagina.

Trump killing TPP was a good start

>prove that I'm wrong.
lel You don't even know how to argue points, nigger.

This is obvious bait now fuck off nigger. I don't care about your feelings on a ded bill. Stay mad.

fuck off shill.

>netflix offers to setup a caching box for isp to cut traffic
>isp: N-NO!

>guy is shilling for Net Neutrality
>telling him to fuck off
>now I'm apparently the shill
top wew

instead of providing any sort of argument or proof against NN you resort to calling the post bait and saying "i dont care stay mad". no progress will be made like this. you're cancer.

>proof against NN
It's literally "let the government control the Internet".

What proof are you looking for, faggot?

I just don't understand it.
There's no point to test on animals when there's no short supply of riffraff humans to utilize.

And before anyone says it, it's not because they're cute.
I feel the same for dung beetles or those little hideously ugly rat dogs. I feel compassion for them because they don't fuck with me and don't hold humanity back.
They're just animals doing what animals do, without causing noted issues. They're not trying to take my drugs, guns, internet, or sanity.
Government and nog riffraff are, and thus they should be used in testing.

Or shot.