Pai Ajit

>Pai Ajit

>Pajit

>Literally pajeet

Is the whole net neutrality thing just pajeet trying to take vengeance on us

Other urls found in this thread:

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8195/893e84945028efb2f1062ac5aea509b8dfab.pdf
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html
theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/
washingtonpost
unvis.it/washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html
econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html).
forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/07/12/bringing-economics-back-into-the-net-neutrality-debate/#487f11369da1
econpapers.repec.org/article/aeaaecrev/v_3a77_3ay_3a1987_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a154-67.htm
reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-podcast
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

The wagon wheel is your enemy, as well as mine. That doesn't mean we're friends tho, Mohammed

Shut the fuck up paki you got memed by reddit

Net neutrality being ended only hurts neet faggots

>Not White
>The Left can attack him for being Poo
WEW LAD

>*Cant

Le Fageet

You're retarded if you think NN is a bad thing. Yes, government intervention is a bad thin, but access to communicate and access to information as wide and as varied as the internet is should be a civil right.

The internet is one of the last few places free speech can be espoused without repercussion. Good luck floating your political views around the watercooler this Monday.

There's a few different crowds that are anti NN:
>Libertarian thinking: "government shouldn't intervene"
I almost agree
>Anti reddit crowd
Hahah reddit is pro NN let's be anti NN! Contrarianism isn't going to do you any good when you don't benefit, the whole dark knight "im a joker and want to wattch the world burn" crowd is a bunch of edgy faggots that want chaos, fuck you
>Intellectual opposition to NN
The minority. The few intellectual reasons for opposing NN have benefits that don't outweigh the good. An open internet is > tiny benefit

>a cres calling out a poo
>a leaf calling out a cres
>an amerimut wandering in and witnessing it

we need to burn down this place

t. ISP shill

this, being against it just to be against it, or just because people you dislike are for it is the apex of soyboyism

>The internet according to giant corporations that want to censor it to their liking
the 'neutrality' part of this whole topic is the most laughable
you are brainlet

you probably work for fucking rogers
god dang leaf

the memes have become self aware and taken on humanoid forms

more "neutral" than not > not neutral

>You're retarded if you think NN is a bad thing. Yes, government intervention is a bad thin, but access to communicate and access to information as wide and as varied as the internet is should be a civil right.
you're retarded if you think "access to communicate and access to information as wide and as varied as the internet" is in any way threatened by what /ourpajeet/ is doing
you bought into some moronic meme of what this is really about, you gullible retard

Somehow creating captive markets for ISPs is more neutral
Somehow subsidizing distribution costs for cuckflix viewers is more neutral

They already lost and can't do anything.
Now they're just being the biggest faggots possible.

>multi-trillion dollar tech giants all pushing to preserve net “neutrality”

How can anyone genuinely side with them? ISP’s at least have clear interests, making a profit. They don’t engage in the same shady shit Kikebook and Jewgle do.

You're implying that high bandwidth users (cuckflixers) cost ISPs more bandwidth than low-bandwidth users. This is true, and it's also true that this is NOT what NN is about.

Subsidizing distribution costs is a-okay. Throttling access to websites that aren't paying you off is not okay.

>we tried to get them to poo in loo
>but all they wanted was to poo on you

>you're retarded if you think "access to communicate and access to information as wide and as varied as the internet" is in any way threatened by what /ourpajeet/ is doing
There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what net neutrality means. Without NN, your ISP will give cuckbook and cuckflix top speed access and bandwidth, while your post here on Sup Forums will take days to submit (if ever,... if you can even browse).

I don't understand why you are a proponent for turning the internet into a subscription based model

You can't be fucking serious. You think that free speech is going to be stifled by corporations all of a sudden? If there's anything to fear it's ISP monopolies, which exists due to, you guessed it, fucking government regulation. So let's double down and regulate some more; two wrongs always make a right.

Let's look at this a little more in-depth. The libertarian thought isn't just a ideological reaction, it *is* the intellectual opposition. Being anti-reddit is just a fun extension - seeing hordes of absolute fucking faggots crying about NN without the simplest understanding of the repercussions therein makes it hard not to entrench oneself in their epistemic position.

I'm going to skip the wholly justified anti-govt perspective and get to the crux of why I'm anti-NN as someone who's not a fucking idiotic socialist: NN creates a price ceiling on high bandwidth usage, which is what has propelled companies like Netflix to lobby for NN. And what does basic economic theory tell us about price controls?

You're fucking investment into infrastructure.

Competition is barely existent because of regulation - that should be the next step after putting an end to this net neutrality bullshit.

Academia is anti-NN. Do yourself a favour and read this paper:

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8195/893e84945028efb2f1062ac5aea509b8dfab.pdf

I could link you to several others if you were actually interested. I know you won't bother reading it though. Dunning-Kruger effect. Minimal competency from browsing Sup Forums leads you to believe you're entirely informed on the issue.

oh sure because they arent owned by the same greedy fucking jews.

Do you honestly think that Sup Forums is going to be included on our new CABLE-INTERNET package?

I doubt it VERY much.

>How can anyone genuinely side with them?
Because they have the same motive as ISPs - make money. The current model is working handsomely, why would they want to change that?

>There's a fundamental misunderstanding of what net neutrality means. Without NN, your ISP will give cuckbook and cuckflix top speed access and bandwidth, while your post here on Sup Forums will take days to submit (if ever,... if you can even browse).
You've been memed. That's 100% false.

what competition? the competition between 3-4 large corporations?

do you fucking comprehend that even if i wanted to get something other than comcast i would literally have to drive 3 hours away to a different town.

MAYBE if there were 10-30 ISPs we would be ok, in fact, in that case NN would really be a meme, but when two large companies are about to merge leaving me EVEN LESS choice.

Im sorry but you are fucking retarded and im fucking glad you cant vote in this country you absolute fucking mongrel.

Stupid fuck can't fathom profit incentivisation

Well it would be nice if there were more ISPs that provided the service that you desired then, now wouldn't it?
No, let's instead double down on the shitty policies that got us here in the first place

I agree. Also nice pretty lady.

Oh boy, I can't wait to have to pay $500 just to look up the weather forecast! Fuckwads.

>They already lost
The vote isn't in. December 14th is when they make their decision and, judging by how many people are rebelling and complaining about it, I don't think anything major is going to happen. Poojeet can't win.

You stupid motherfucker, you couldn't be bothered to read could you. I specifically fucking mentioned the lack of competition. I made two very clear fucking assertions regarding it. Being the fucking halfwit you are, you couldn't fucking register them.

Read again. And again, maybe a couple more times. Unbelievable.

>If there's anything to fear it's ISP monopolies, which exists due to, you guessed it, fucking government regulation. So let's double down and regulate some more; two wrongs always make a right.

>Competition is barely existent because of regulation - that should be the next step after putting an end to this net neutrality bullshit.

Please consider your epistemic handicap, and re-read things before bothering to reply.

There's too much Garbage on the Internet

>You can't be fucking serious.
yes, i'm fucking serious, nice to meet you
>You think that free speech is going to be stifled by corporations all of a sudden?
Why give leftists an inch on 2a rights? Bump stocks are fucking stupid and a meme, but I don't think they should be banned
> If there's anything to fear it's ISP monopolies, which exists due to, you guessed it, fucking government regulation.
agreed, leave government out of what ISPs do
>Being anti-reddit is just a fun extension
yeah but you're a minority of that crowd, the majority of people that are anti reddit don't have an intellectual argument and are fucking stupid.

>NN creates a price ceiling on high bandwidth usage, which is what has propelled companies like Netflix to lobby for NN.
Okay, I don't think I understand. Enlighten me. How does NN create a price ceiling?

>I could link you to several others if you were actually interested. I know you won't bother reading it though
No you actually have legitimate responses, some of which i don't fully understand. Let me check out this pdf while you respond and we'll continue.

I can't fucking wait until net neutrality is ended and you realize that this is the fabrication of fucking idiot minds.

These companies aren't internet overlords, they're beholden to companies vastly larger than they are. If you think that internet access will arbitrarily be made prohibitively expensive, thereby cutting into the share prices at Facebook, Instagram, Netflix, or any of the myriad web titans, and that said corporations will do nothing, then you are a fucking idiot.

The worst part about bureaucrats regulating the internet is that they don't understand its infrastructure as well as network engineers.
Net neutrality rules could create entirely new internet(s) from being created with vastly superior capabilities because such innovation might only be possible if price discrimination is allowed. Net neutrality would not only discourage existing companies from investing to improve and expand their existing infrastructure, it could prevent the internet from becoming something even more amazing than what we can currently imagine.
Anyone who supports net neutrality should have their right to vote rescinded.

[citation needed]

>These companies aren't internet overlords, they're beholden to companies vastly larger than they are.
More than that, they're beholden to their customers. Customers would revolt if they could no longer access the content they want or freely communicate.

>[citation needed]
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html
theregister.co.uk/2007/01/18/kahn_net_neutrality_warning/

Archived that

>washingtonpost com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html
unvis.it/washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html

You're an intelligent person that actually engaged an opposing viewpoint instead of becoming entrenched in the reverse- that's a rarity, you're good shit.

NN acts as a price ceiling for websites using disproportionately high bandwidth, like Netflix, who I mentioned has been lobbying and stirring up people in favour of NN. Their traffic is treated as equal to any other despite this disproportionately high bandwidth usage, and if not for NN, they'd be paying ISPs a lot more. Essentially internet rent control (econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html).

If you want to read more about economics in relation to the NN debate (which is being entirely ignored because, of course, people are ignorant) this article is a good start: forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/07/12/bringing-economics-back-into-the-net-neutrality-debate/#487f11369da1

>two articles both 10 years old

>"If the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, then the party that takes the lead is probably only going to have it on their net to start with and it's not going to be on anyone else's net. You want to incentivize people to innovate, and they're going to innovate on their own nets or a few other nets,"
Starting to sound pro-NN in 2017...

>Engineers fear rash legislation would inhibit the ability of systems engineers to improve latency and jitter issues needed to move data at speed.
kek, your article's age is showing

literally not proving your point

As soon as socialist regulatory policies enter anything, innovation dies. I'm astounded at people who consider themselves right-wing yet automatically side with NN without pausing to consider the consequences.

>the age of the articles somehow affects the relevance of the principles being argued
>latency issues no longer exist
i'm now convinced you're actually mentally retarded. return to reddit.

let's say that after the so-called "net neutrality" rules (net neutrality isn't a real thing and has never actually existed) are repealed, all the worst nightmares being predicted by the reddit faggots come true. then i'd be willing to consider their arguments. but creating prophylactic regulations because something unlikely might conceivably happen in some alternate universe is the most moronic idea ever. People who support "net neutrality" are gullible morons who would be removed from the gene pool in a just world.

>You're an intelligent person that actually engaged an opposing viewpoint instead of becoming entrenched in the reverse- that's a rarity, you're good shit.
And for anyone reading - this couldn't happen on a platform like Reddit.

>Their traffic is treated as equal to any other despite this disproportionately high bandwidth usage
Okay I get it, but I still oppose your position and here's why: Netflix is popular - so? What about the unpopular? What about my website? An ISP shouldn't dictate who can and can't view something based on need. The consumers are driving the high bandwidth costs - not Netflix.

Consumers should determine how their bandwidth gets allocated, not ISPs

ending net neutrality is a GOVERNMENT regulation

net companies can OFFER limited use packages to companies on a competetive cost basis but NO ONE chooses it. the big companies don't choose it because then THEY have to pay more. the small companies don't choose it because they thrive on adaptation

the big companies are FORCING this via regulation on smaller companies. the big ones can afford the cost of compliance

the FREE market offers unlimited packages if bought. only idiots advocatre removing unlimited deals from legality

dude you are kind of retarded, even if we repeal the regulations how do you expect smaller isps to form? most third party isps use the infrastructure of larger companies, and with the current giants on the playing field what you say is completely impossible, maybe if the internet was new and new services were popping up left and right you would be correct.

i don't think we should repeal or support NN, i think we need whole different laws for the internet.

but ether way you are canadian so your opinion doesn't matter desu.

you should spend time considering why all you have to offer is bumper sticker slogans.

Because ur website is most likely trash.

It's like a Library, why should a Library give equal space to classics such as Shakespeare and Dickens, and the same to some Ad infested trash some Pajeet shitted out that doesn't even work properly

>the age of the articles somehow affects the relevance of the principles being argued
What is moore's law?

>Engineers fear rash legislation would inhibit the ability of systems engineers to improve latency and jitter issues needed to move data at speed.
lol, 10 years later this is relevant...? kek

You're not understanding, this is occurring on the provider end, Netflix is fronting the higher costs to the ISP, this might reflect itself in higher subscription pricing models, it's not immediately predictable, but it comes back to the consequences of price control.

Referring to the first link:

"But if rents are established at less than their equilibrium levels, the quantity demanded will necessarily exceed the amount supplied, and rent control will lead to a shortage of dwelling spaces. In a competitive market and absent controls on prices, if the amount of a commodity or service demanded is larger than the amount supplied, prices rise to eliminate the shortage (by both bringing forth new supply and by reducing the amount demanded). But controls prevent rents from attaining market-clearing levels and shortages result."

Like I had said initially, it undermines Internet infrastructure the same way it would a housing market, by reducing investment levels.

>less regulation is MORE regulation
>i think we need whole different laws for the internet.
>big daddy government needs to protect me from the free market!
unironically kill yourself. shitskins like you are destroying our country.

>Because ur website is most likely trash.
Yep! It is, but my local library has more space for books not Shakespeare and dickens

>What is moore's law?
A prediction from the 1950s that microprocessor speeds would double approximately every 2 years for the foreseeable future, which is completely irrelevant here, you absolute fucking retard.

All data is not equal

Qualify what you're saying. Why is it impossible?

Quoting Michael Katz: "Discriminatory pricing by an upstream monopolist selling to downstream competitors would often tend to be against large successful incumbents- in this case, against established edge providers- not struggling new entrants, which is the opposite of the pro-net neutrality narrative."

econpapers.repec.org/article/aeaaecrev/v_3a77_3ay_3a1987_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a154-67.htm

net companies already offer packages, the price based on total speed and total usage

the companies are trying to introduce legal code, composed by them, for price regulation, you kike

and yes, the ability of systems engineers to increase network throughput is absolutely still relevant, and you need to kill yourself.

>You're not understanding,
I think i am :)
>this is occurring on the provider end
Yeah, so? I've granted you access to my stream, how many fish you catch is not my decision
>Netflix is fronting the higher costs to the ISP
No it's not fronting shit. You're punishing netflix for being popular.

So it's exactly how it sounds, Obama's government subsidizing big business like Netflix and Google and shifting all the costs to the ISP's and CDN's with blanket regulations that will never change even when Netflix is shooting 4k streams to every house in america.

I fail to see how making things worse just because the ISP situation is bad will help in any way.

>the companies are trying to introduce legal code, composed by them, for price regulation, you kike
no, that's what net neutrality does, you moron.

>which is completely irrelevant here,
moore's law does'nt apply to bandwidth

>I think i am :)
Of course you do, Dunning-Krueger effect. Meanwhile all you're doing is spouting off bumper sticker slogans that you learned on reddit.

you think isps charge netflicks the same for connectivity as you or me?

you cant be serious

>moore's law does'nt apply to bandwidth
your own pic says that's nielsen law. and "net neutrality" would prevent it from working.

price regulation does not mean keeping prices the same/lo you fucking idiot

if means legal code determines the composition and ability to set prices

prices are already set by demand ffs

You're citing the dunning kreug effect without actually stating your stance or making an argument. How about you state your stance with evidence or reason (or both, like I've shown in this thread) and i'll take you seriously

>Meanwhile all you're doing is spouting off bumper sticker slogans
kek the fucking irony

yes nigger
>moore's law does'nt apply to bandwidth
i hate repeating myself

"net neutrality" allows the government to regulate pricing structures.
the absence of "net neutrality" allows the market to work.
less regulation is not more regulation, you Orwellian faggot.

>Nielsen's Law and Moore's Law are the same thing!
No, they're not. You proved yourself wrong.

>moore's law
60%
>nielsen law
50%

you're gonna have to try harder man, unless your whole point is over 10%

No you're not at all. What the fuck is the fish/stream analogy supposed to mean.

Can you explain back to me the principle of price control as it relates to what I'm saying? When you control rent pricing, the economic fallout is welfare and deadweight loss. The same thing occurs in regards to NN and the internet. You haven't addressed that, you're just saying they shouldn't be punished for being popular. It's not a matter of being 'punished' it's the market shifting such that they pay for their share, instead of being essentially subsidized.

In what sense do you see this as making things worse?

It's 10% difference

you're arguing for regulation which would halt nielsen's law in its tracks. you are too stupid to live.

so what? you still called it the wrong thing. I was correct when I said Moore's Law wasn't relevant here.

>no net neutrality
>ISP gets to jew me until SpaceX and OneWeb get their LEO constellations up
>SpaceX makes enough money to fund a Martian colony

>Net neutrality
>things stay the same

I kinda want that Martian colony... but I kinda like my internet too.

This all pol's republican voting asses fault ironically voting to destroy themselves.

You made your bed now lie in it.

>What the fuck is the fish/stream analogy supposed to mean.
ISPs grant access, how much stream you use is not up to them and forcing popular services to pay the cost of an ISP granting access is nonsensical.

>t's the market shifting such that they pay for their share
Why the fuck should Netflix have to cover an ISPs cost of doing business? The user decides how their bandwidth is used. Netflix doesn't tell an ISP how much/little they're going to use.

>you're arguing for regulation
No, I'm not. I think infringing on internet access is the same as infringing on your 1st amendment right.

Becuase the ISPs shoulder the cost of carrying Netflix's bandwidth you retard. If you want faster internet then you should want massive bandwidth users to pay more so that ISPs can afford to improve their networks.
Also, I don't use Netflix so I shouldn't subsidize the morons who do.

>No, I'm not. I think infringing on internet access is the same as infringing on your 1st amendment right.
Cool, not having net neutrality doesn't "infringe on internet access" in any way, shape, or form.

nn is the current state of affairs and also a proposed regulation

ending nn is a proposed regulation

nothing need be introduced. reject all legislation.

proposals to make drugs cheaper let companies raise prices. bills do not do the things they state.

all, EVERY single piece of legislation thats not killing nigers or setting half the book on fire needs tobe rejected

>not having net neutrality doesn't "infringe on internet access" in any way, shape, or form.
Again, total misunderstanding of what NN is. They'll infringe on your access when they don't want you to access websites of your choosing.

he certainly has a punch-able face....and teeth like a horse....smug fuck

go back to your cave to fuck your sis.

>he wants you to pay for something you've already paid for

but... google and facebook are free to use?

hmm?

>If you want faster internet then you should want massive bandwidth users to pay more so that ISPs can afford to improve their networks.
Implying ISPs pay or have paid for the development of telecommunications infrastructure in this country post-1900. Daily reminder that since the early-90s, ISPs have received hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies and grants to build out better telecom infrastructure with the goal of providing easy and affordable access to all. Oh, and prior to that, the government paid for most of the prior development too, especially in non-urban areas.

This is literally a fucking cash grab to enable ISPs to legally engage in rent-seeking off of infrastructure built mostly with taxpayer funding. It's akin to the US government handing over the nation's interstate highways to private companies for free so they can jew us with tolls. Think New Jersey Turnpike except nationwide and worse. That's what's about to happen to the internet.

>They'll infringe on your access when they don't want you to access websites of your choosing.
Any examples of this happening before Obama took over the internet?

>google buys up all the bandwidth
>net neutrality is in effect, which means everyone pays the same
>google owns everything, they get to dictate the price
>nobody can afford
>all other competitors die out

YEAH A REAL BACK BONE OF ORIGINALITY U FUCK

Fuck sakes. We've reached an impasse.

1. Bandwidth is finite, it will never be infinite, given this, NN decreeing that ISPs can't prioritize traffic is asinine.

2. This won't be some novel cost to Netflix, they're just paying a different provider, and fuck, it could potentially even be at a lower cost. Theoretically it's cheaper for Netflix to buy direct from Comcast, and in addition they get an SLA, which improves quality. Given that Netflix already has an array of options to buy transit from, honestly why the fuck would they pay more? Again, consumer costs don't get any primacy here.

3. Are you drawing the conclusion that data will be made pay-per-access? Because there is no precedent for that.

>Services such as telegrams and the phone network (officially, the public switched telephone network or PSTN) have been considered common carriers under U.S. law, which means that they have been akin to public utilities and expressly forbidden to give preferential treatment. They have been regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in order to ensure fair pricing and access.

We were fine before shitty-ass NN, we’ll be fine after, faggot.

>NN is bad because gubbermint regulation is bad
>muh free market will solve ervythin

look dude, i hope your right and that everything will become just dandy when this passes, but undeniably, if what you say is correct ME and millions of americans just like me will get fucked on internet pricing for at leas 5-10 year, at least in the immediate future.

not very good eh? and if you're wrong then we don't just get fucked for a decade, but we get fucked for even longer.

i understand the free market, but this change isn't there to show us the potential the free market can bring, its made in such a way that even if it turns out to be awful we won't be able to change it.

you can at least agree that the permanence of this action is unconstitutional. Plus even if you support the message, you can't support its delivery.

Mr.Pajeet wont even try and question his opposition he downright ignores them.

ether way, i hope your are right but i doubt it very much.

I agree this pro-Net Neutrality thing seems an awful lot like Facebook, Google, and Netflix and the other large content companies, using the government to gain leverage over the service providers.

I don't see why the government should have to regulate pricing until some sort of problem emerges. The more the ISPs attempted to press prices up the more communities will choose to create city utility internets through voter funded bonds, thus providing a democratic and also free market solution to any perceived abuses by ISP pricing.

The silencing free speech argument for a pro-NN stance makes no sense as well. Right wingers are already the ones being banned for content by these platforms who then turn around and tell people watch out, no NN means someone could ban your content!

Ultimately I think the end effect of these policies no matter which way they go would probably affect your average 40$ internet monthly fee like a couple of dollars either way. The only ones who have a dog in this fight are the major corporations and people who are Pro NN should examine their positions on whether Facebook, Google, and Twitter and such openly promoting NN actually care about your best interests vs theres. I mean for christs sakes they are the ones who provide you with "free" service and makes their profits selling your personal data to companies. Its funny how the ISP is the bad guy even though you agree to pay them for a service, while most people started using these content companies with little understanding that they would be selling every scrap of info about you they could.

You're wrong, Pai does address the NN fears. See: reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-podcast

I understand that there are fears, but frankly, deductive reasoning and historical precedent suggest those fears are unfounded.

pretty amazing how they can convince the people of the opposite of what is really happening

nobody is saying that