Net Neutrality

Something doesn't seem right about this whole debate...

Other urls found in this thread:

citylab.com/life/2011/11/telecom-lobby-killing-municipal-broadband/420/
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/
youtube.com/watch?v=le2R2Ps58pQ
openconnect.netflix.com/en/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

exactly. false dilemma. the solution is to break up the ISP monopolies.

Your pic sums up what I've been trying to put in words, thank you OP

How though? All I can think of is sarcastic comments about Mom and Pops interweb shops.

No!
Don't be a silly goy!
Trust me!
I care about you

>I can't figure out simple things for myself if I can't decide who's the villain

Surprisingly accurate

...

...

Ive been researching on my own. Here is a big one I found
How the Telecom Lobby is Killing Municipal Broadband
Companies like Comcast are spending big bucks to prevent competition from local governments
citylab.com/life/2011/11/telecom-lobby-killing-municipal-broadband/420/

ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states
Bills limiting municipal ISPs in Kansas and Utah continue noble tradition.
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

how did they organize so fast and set up sites and organizations

These trash memes need to die.

Gay and 9gag tier. Learn 2 shill

Turn comcast into 100 different companies each with a share in it's infrastructure.

I don't trust companies. I don't trust the government.

The only difference is that at least when dealing with a company I have the option to walk away and take my business elsewhere, and for that reason we should be supporting the repeal of the 2015 regulations.

But yeah, as said the only real long term solution is breaking up the major ISPs and opening it up for more competition. Thankfully the substantial growth we're seeing in mobile internet could potentially deliver that over the next decade provided we don't regulate it out of existence.

THE SOLUTION IS TO REGULATE THE INTERNET AS A UTILITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

that may work too; along with social media. Bannon is right on that.

Both these ideas I'm down.
Their is one cable internet company in my town. Everything else is satellite or dial up

no longer possible

obama handed its core to the un

So tell me faggot, wtf IS good about not having net neutrality??

the only thing net neutrality does, is give the ability to jew companies who can pay ISP's a lot of money, to gain more market share, and more (((influence))) on modern media.

smaller, more honest startup companies(who are the backbone of capitalism), get fucked over by this.

real life example:
Spotify pays a shit ton of providers to give priority to spotify traffic on their networks, or even to make spotify network free on mobile devices.
> everyone gets free spotify with their mobile data bundle

all normies are going to be using spotify then, because why would they waste their data on alternatives, like soundcloud or anything else?

2 posts by this ID

>not being aware that Comcast and google hate net neutrality
Research 0

subsidize more ISP starters and/or deregulate all of the shitty state laws that hinder competition

Dissolve the un

Pretty much this. Fuck them both.

the physical infrastructure of the core of the internet is currently located in china

look it up

Carrier POV:
Ok, lets say you are selling internet to customers. You pay some ungoldy amount for all the hardware and running the wires to customers houses. Netflix/Youtube comes along and starts clogging up your network with HD video. So now you have to upgrade everything to cope with the ridiculous amount of bandwidth traversing your network. (Who pays for this?)

Website POV:
Lets say you host a website on the internet that provides the capability to stream video. You pay your provider each month some amount of money for your bandwidth (and they, their provider). The customers visiting your site should foot the bill for their download bandwidth right?

It's definitely a dilemma but it does seem as if the Website POV path has the least impact on all parties. The higher tier datacenters selling bandwidth to lower tier ISPs don't charge each other for bandwidth (in general) so from one giant provider to another (over multi-gig fiber optics) it's zero cost other than just keeping the lights on and paying for the hardware upgrades.

Does anyone have that comic with the internet aristocrat on it?

Where's the neutrality regulations for domain registrars?

> the only thing not having net neutrality does, is...

fuck me it's too early.

OP got it right. Faggots are busy fighting the merchants and shills.
Outside of ideological issues, (And netflix prices) Sup Forums has no horse in the race.

>Something
This meme pretty much sums it up.

I fucking hate Comcast but at least they fuck me from the front. Google is evil. Anyway, I'm going with capitalism on this one.

>Comcast is against net neutrality
>oi vey goyim trust us we won't charge more if net neutrality ends

>Google is for net neutrality
>oi vei because ???

>it's zero cost other than just keeping the lights on and paying for the hardware upgrades.

That's not really zero cost... or even close to zero cost. If it was zero cost, we'd all have datacenters in our basements.

>Something doesn't seem right about this whole debate...
Yep. It seems you may have to think about it yourself.

...

Just kill it with fire!

I tried to warn you
you stupid fuck

It's about the data mining business, or rather the technicality of who owns the data, the transporter or the harvester? Does the harvester have to pay for transport?

Google makes bank mining data on comcast customers using Comcast lines. Comcast wants that money, and Google doesn't want to give them a piece of the pie.

IT IS THAT SIMPLE, GOY FOLLOW THE MONEY

>break up the ISPs
>leave the internet giants of Amazon and Google alone, goy!
The blindness towards one side of this fight speaks volumes as to what side you are on.

I think that a consumer and a provider could have an agreed upon rate. Electricity has peak hours and off peak. Throttling a specific service, or any consumer in any manner is against what I think is fair. I am paying for a specific data amount at the fastest rate. I don't care how others use their net, it is none of my business.

What I was trying to describe is the large carriers don't even charge each other for the traffic moving over their gear. It's a mutually beneficial arrangement. In addition, they make their money by selling to lower tier providers.

no, break those fuckers up too, dumbfuck.

You fail to take Big Data into account, so your post is meaningless. It's really that simple: this is about control over the data market.

Right, so you'd be for Net Neutrality. I'm not sure how so many folks forgot all of this in the several months since we last had these threads.

Funny how it's always an after thought. Just as designed for the sheep to eat up.

How much control over the internet does Comcast have? Now compare that to fucking Google and ask yourself who is closer to speaking in your ear.

Don't forget to solve the captcha, goy.

Under net neutrality, who owns the data Facebook collects?
I know you are paid to post the approved message, but at least try to use that peanut brain of yours.

LOL, "Big Data" - yeah apparently you don't understand what I'm saying - nothing at Layer 3 has to do with "Big Data"

It seems as though you are the one being intentionally dense, perhaps because you are the one being paid. Go back on 4plebs and just look at the discussions from back in May about this very topic and you'll see a wealth of the same knowledge (Pro Net Neutrality).

youtube.com/watch?v=le2R2Ps58pQ

This thread isn't about google you autistic faggot. Break them the fuck up. Arrest Hillary. And kys. All of these things should be true. But this thread is about net neutrality.

Google, Amazon, etc are buying up good services on the Internet, gutting them, making them absolutely shit, then washing their hands of any wrongdoing. Not to mention, they've been doing this long before net neutrality was an issue, and dare I say it, increased such efforts after. The Silicon Valley Tech Companies and the Old Media Telecom Companies are two sides to the same shekel, and there are times where it's hard to tell where one ends and the other begins(See: Netflix). Net Neutrality doesn't affect them either way, only reason why they support it is to gain the adoration of the people while fucking over competitors in the background and continuing to make their own services worse. It's like with gun companies and salesmen; on the surface, they are against gun control, but the reality is threats gun control is probably the best sales motivator out there and they prepare for it. Why you think AR-15a are 400 bucks now?

>forgot
There weren't here, they are new

You are some pleb who is thinking purely technical. Think like a CEO of Comcast going up against the CEO of Google.

What's the most lucrative internet market right now? What runs Facebook? What runs Google?

Stop being a shill and admit it: this is all about who owns the data that is sold.
>stop seeing through our lies, goy! This internet fight has nothing to do with Google, the rulers of the internet!
You shills are bad at this.

...

>I'm a retard and don't understand what the FCC is responsible for
You are paid by Google to push public opinion in their favor in this fight against Comcast. Google currently gathers data using Comcast services for free, and there is no recourse for Comcast to recover this lost revenue.
This is about Google vs Comcast. Don't let the shills fool you anons.

finally someone who gets it and sees the real problem

>and there is no recourse for Comcast to recover this lost revenue
I don't give a fuck
Break up all the monopolies faggot. Google is paying me to say break them the fuck up? Eat a dick you fucking schizophrenic retard.

You're almost there.

The thing about the United States is that there are extremely corrupt companies that behave almost exactly like Jews, but are not run by Jews and therefore do not serve the Jewish objective of hegemony. These companies, corrupt as they may be, serve their own interest. Examples include Monsanto, Enron, and typically big Oil industries, man of which are not run by Jews but fuck over consumers in every way they can either way.

Regarding the Net Neutrality debate, this is a case where the Jews (who support NN) and the corrupt companies (like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T) are at odds with one another. The Jews want their newspaper to be accessible to everyone (i.e. NYT, CNN, WSJ, etc...), but this will severely diminish access to it. On the other hand, Verizon, Comcast and AT&T all want to throttle that Net Neutrality so that they can make money off consumers. Very simple case of greed.

What is even more interesting is that we actually find ourselves in the same position as the Jews. The culture war that is being fought is one of information, where Sup Forums's Sup Forums sits on the far right, and the mainstream media sits on the far left. If you throttle Net Neutrality, both voices will be destroyed simply because normies aren't going to pay to have access to websites that they know little to nothing about and care little for (i.e. Sup Forums, Wash Post, etc.). This is bad for us because that means we will no longer be able to redpill normies who find themselves here, effectively cutting our ability to spread information. It would be an absolute catastrophe for our propaganda purposes.

Furthermore, this might significantly lower Sup Forums's traffic, since now you'll have to ask for a special deal just to access Sup Forums, which means Verizon will know that you go on Sup Forums. That's not the kind of shit you want people to know about you (as of yet).

I think Net Neutrality should remain. We need it to continue our conflict of politics with the Jews.

Why would an ISP need Google's data? They own the fucking transmission cable and therefore both sides of the TCP connection. Have you ever heard of stateful packet inspection? If they want the data, they need only capture it, parse it, store it, map-reduce, ???, profit

>the only real long term solution is breaking up the major ISPs and opening it up for more competition
to do that you need the pole space those major companies have monopolized

Data jewgle has been jewing jew Comcast, so Comcast is using the pajeet to fight new versus jew

Being the nu-jew that Google is, they have been operating a massive PR campaign for years to try and get the upper hand versus Comcast. After all, Google speaks directly to Comcast's customers, and Google doesn't charge them an arm and a leg. Easy as fuck for Google to look innocent to these people.

>This is about Google vs Comcast.
they both too big, break them up, especially CIA aka google/facebook

google AI protects against battle for the net spam, I think we are safe

both companies are anti-free market and need to be broken up to prevent any user end issue. In the mean time, I don't give a fuck about these jew cunt companies trying to out jew each other. Break them all the fuck up. And I sure as hell am not going to get on board with their jew competition being used as a trojan horse for the FCC to control content.

that's retarded. they dont really fear that, since they're already big, and already have the money, so they can USE THIS to choke out their up and coming smaller competition.

do you think someone like amazon will give a flying shit if the ISP charge them for their traffic?
you are going to be the one bearing that cost one way or another.

Enjoy your shitty boxed up internet consisting of facebook, youtube, amazon and google.

Legally they can't, which is why this has become a political issue. Obama era 2015 "Net Neutrality" (in name only) rules tied the ISPs hands behind their back when it comes to handling such issues.

Legally, they have to treat all data the same, so they can't charge Google for transporting the information on all of us because then they would have to charge us for individual packets as well.

Simply put, they are legally obliged to treat Google like me and you, which Google is fully taking advantage of.

>do you think someone like amazon will give a flying shit if the ISP charge them for their traffic?
yeah probably, they don't make much on shit besides selling weirdo companies like Monsanto lists of people who have bought mein kampf

Thats not even half of it
>

fpbp

>I don't know the issue, but I hate guy B so I don't care!
>guy B likes apples? FUCK APPLES
You can't be one sided in this debate, else you look like a fool.

> what is encryption

For sure, I don't disagree that Google and major players should not be doing their part to assist with caching appliances (Netflix started doing this after they got sued I believe).
Net Neutrality is apparently about to go away for everyone though, and that's a terrifying thought considering that would give ISPs the authority to drop traffic to a given host for whatever reason they deem acceptable. (ie: Sup Forums.org traffic goes straight into the bit bucket)

Amazon avoids overhead like the plague. If they can't push it off to someone else, they will drop a project with too much overhead.

This is called a strawman. I hate both guy A and B. How are you not able to follow this? Comcast and Google should both be broken up. Learn to follow a simple string of logic. My reasoning behind hating "net neutrality" has nothing to do with either company. You're the one bringing up Google and Comcast you dumb cunt.

Netflix Open Connect is what they call it, it's built on the frame of some open-source storage server running FreeBSD IIRC.
>openconnect.netflix.com/en/

yeah. this

Wrong, you disinfo shill. The 2015 FCC ruling is what will be reverted, back to the 2008 version that was perfectly adequate to cover all of your fears.

Or did you not realize we have had net neutrality since 1996? Oh, well we haven't really had it since 2015. Thanks Obama.

you do know amazon has a video streaming service, and AWS(amazon web service) aka one of the biggest cloud hosting/computing service world wide.

They have a lot of data through their datacenters spread all over the world.
And a lot of big companies paying them a lot of money to host their shit at amazon.

>what is key exchange

The Soros shills are spamming the shit out of online media in favor of NN. That is all you need to know.

You are the one arguing about net neutrality without understanding the true purpose behind it, no?
This is about Big Data. Not your porn, or your netflix, or your mongolian knitting forum.

>You are the one arguing about net neutrality without understanding the true purpose behind it, no?
>This is about Big Data. Not your porn, or your netflix, or your mongolian knitting forum.
not an argument

All just piggybacking off of their servers established for their marketplace.
Amazon hates overhead. Hell, that is how they got so big in the first place: pushing cost to someone down the line.

The retailer, the post office, doesn't matter. They push cost away from themselves to maintain such revenue.

Nice false-flag memes, you fucking retard.
Seems this shit isn't too fucking dumb to work on this sub-95 iq board though.

>oh shit better regurgitate meme 27 I have no leg to stand on in this discussion!

> what are private keys the ISP has no access to.

read a fucking book.

I guess I missed that part, I was under the impression that the pajeet from FCC wanted to repeal everything.

I would rather side with the ISPs. Most are descended from Ma Bell, and hence share a long and rich heritage with our nation. The tech companies, on the other hand, are the grotesque offspring of a destructive "worldly-libertarian" environment. The ability of anyone to be a "founder" on the internet so they can "live and die on their ideas" has given us a world where a handful of mid-20s numale millennials wield an obscene level of money and power like psychopathic children on adderall. These men aren't remarkable, young men almost never are. Had they been born a decade earlier they would be fetching coffee for elder, wiser superiors who were making decisions backed with a lifetime of experience. Compare that with our modern status quo, there is not much objective difference between the "tech founder" superiors of our oh-so-enlightened information age and most of the faceless keyboard jockey bugmen that pull their opulent sleds. The founders were just students that happened to have some mediocre skills handy to utilize precisely at a once-in-a-millennia watershed moment for human industry. Everyone who cares about their nation and people should be concerned about these functional children with inexhaustible bank accounts and typical early 20's outlook. For most of human history only men who were very remarkable built wealth, and comparable riches took decades to cultivate, often coming with maturity of outlook and perspective. If our society has become too globalistically libertarian to understand the threat-prevention value of freezing the assets of these sociopathic "tech founders", then enabling older and stabler corporate adversaries is what must be done.

The solution is to break up the ISP monopolies AND companies like Google, Netflix, and Amazon.

no you literally didn't present a counter argument so the debate ended with your loss. Feel free to construct a substantive rebuttal. "You don't know what you're talking about" is not a cohesive or substantive argument.

exactly, so they'll just charge the companies using AWS more for their data transfer rate, and not give a shit.

Peer-to-peer internet using a middle-out compression algorithm to compress the data being stored on your phone by said internet.

what is this weird shill shit where one must pick to either side with google or comcast? The actual choice are standing with government internet control )net neutrality) or breaking up monopolies.

You ever heard of a phrase called realpoltik?

You really cant break them up with the way it is organized right now. You have to change the FTCA and make them non common carrier status. Their common carrier status means the FTC, the one organization fucking designed to deal with this sort of thing, cant fucking touch them.

Its a whole clusterfuck with people not understanding the underlying arguments/dilemmas

3 posts by this ID

Handing over control of the internet to a censoring body like the FCC is far from practical.

Don't beat yourself up over it, your wrong impression is by design and has been cultivated for years to muddy the waters of this topic.
Long story short is the 1996 ruling is what everyone is wanting today. The 2015 ruling introduced some technicalities that favor internet companies over internet providers.

This is purely an issue of business versus business. Worse case for the consumer is their Netflix bill might go up, and Google might have to start paying Comcast for the data they sell over Comcast lines.


In case you were wondering, this is the driving force behind Google Fiber. Notice the timeline in regards to the 2015 FCC ruling and Google slowing down their Fiber project. The whole point of fiber was to cut the ISPs out of any potential claims on Google's data.

top kek