Net Neutrality

Discuss.

youtube.com/watch?v=CjSm56PyO2U

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YR_LrB4tfew
money.cnn.com/2014/08/29/technology/netflix-comcast/index.html
funnyjunk.com/channel/FJNN/Actual net neutrality document/jjauLww/304#304
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/30-small-isps-urge-ajit-pai-to-preserve-title-ii-and-net-neutrality-rules/
youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I
youtube.com/watch?v=Un-9_K-aNaE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>Discuss.

No

hail hitler instead

youtube.com/watch?v=YR_LrB4tfew

I rounded each number for all the utilities, I saved a dollar by paying 54 instead of 55$. That's 12 shekels a year.

Poor americans. I feel sorry for you if this shit pass. Do as Driftor says and make some noice!

Disregard trumpers.

>implying that partial internet access wouldn't be substantially less than full internet access
>implying you wouldn't be happy to be able to pay $10/mo to shitpost and watch a few videos

I pay $70/mo for shitty DSL in my area.

Reduce barrier to entry, let more companies on the market, let them be creative, and stop giving content providers the ability to assfuck ISPs rather than working with them.

It looks like it's cheaper to do away with NN, if you shills would do the math

net neutrality is equal speeds to a government censored internet
/argument

What can we do there must be something it is the golden age for Sup Forums after all

Don't listen to the Jew.

ISPs have an economic incentive to make internet the most desirable product possible, which means they have an incentive to allow the most content possible. The only thing that could happen is them forcing streaming services to pay (not you, the companies) for their higher usage.
>B-b-b-ut there are Jews against NN too!
Jews own everything, so there are always a jew on the wrong side. The thing is: why are they there? In this case, the Jews against NN are only doing it because they have a high economic interest in the matter. Meanwhile, the ones for NN have no particular economical interest in either result, which means that they're doing it for other reasons, political ones - and those are far more dangerous than a few more shekels in pockets full of them.
>Muh ISPs ending Sup Forums
On one hand you have a government and several lobbyists who would love to see this website, and others like it, going down. On the other one, you have companies that do not care about our existence because we're paying a lot and cause almost no problem for them (or you really think that a bunch of reaction pics can compete against Netflix?).
>Muh internetz should be free
The content should, indeed, be free. So what do you prefer: a company with no interest on what you're posting, or a government highly interested in it?
>Muh big cartels
If you want to end the oligopoly on ISPs, you need to reduce regulation and open the market, not set up even more barriers.
>Muh those times it happened
You have 7 or 8 times where a company tried to over reach and failed, just that. It's nothing to be alarmed about. In fact, it's easier to fight a company than a government and their appointed officials.
>Muh pic of internet peckages
All fake and others are cellphone data plans.

You are all idiots. They will charge what they can get away with. Social media for instance, is essentially a NEED for a lot of people. People will pay out the ass for that shit and other categories will follow.

This is a misinformed infographic. The isps would turn to Netflix for money not the consumer. This is why Netflix, Google, etc. are so against nn. It would be faster and cheaper internet for the average consumer.

>people pay for demand
So you're saying that if people have to pay for social media access, they might be more critical if their viewpoints aren't allowed?

I'm all in for no net neutrality since I'm not a gaming social media e-mail cuck.

You forgot the basic internet service package which will be $29.99 a month(if not more). All the packages yu posted will be added to a base price.

>says the person posting on social media

this "infographic" is full of shit

Retarded Gen Z kid detected

It's the same price either way, and you wouldn't have to pay for dumb shit you don't want

discuss

oh, and sage

so if im only using the internet for games youtube and Sup Forums i only have to pay $45 instead of $60?

You know how we have publicly built and controlled roads so commerce can flow freely around the country? Just like that we need a regulated and neutral net so commerce can flow freely around. This is critical infrastructure at this point. If twitter or whatever is censoring you someone will make an alternative that is better and people will have the option to move.

I don't use use social media or play video games. Looks like a win to me.

...

>Netflix and its CEO Reed Hastings

> Hastings said that Internet users will "never realize broadband's potential if large ISPs erect a pay-to-play system that charges both the sender and receiver for the same content." He has called on the FCC to ban broadband companies from charging content providers like Netflix to connect to their networks.

money.cnn.com/2014/08/29/technology/netflix-comcast/index.html


Netflix played the country like a fiddle. He is clearly stating in his quote that it would be better for comcast charge you to view Netflix's content than for them to pay for you and you only pay for what you want.

Why did they make these costs so close together? Nothing ever gets cheaper through microtransactions. Anyway though my problem with repealing NN has nothing to do with this, my problem is that if they strike deals with these companies for their data to have priority then that means other websites will experience slowdown. Essentially I'll be paying the same price for slower internet to the websites I like to use in order to subsidize other peoples' Netflix connections.

Honestly that’s so retarded I don’t need this bullshit going anywhere I wish someone hires an assassin on his ass.

Yes. It saves you money.

fpbp

Let me add on to this regarding the rest of that article.

>Prior to the direct connect, Netflix delivered its videos to Comcast customers via third parties, including Cogent Communications (CCOI).

Netflix was using a shitty low tier ISP that would charge you $10 for 1TB download speeds.

>But Comcast customers experienced abysmal Netflix speeds -- among the worst in the country.

Comcast saw that Netflix was buying cheap internet from some low tier ISP guaranteeing them 1TB of speed. Comcast operates only their infrastructure and not that of Cogent Communications. They would have to offer that speed to every person that has internet because NN states internet can't be throttled. So Comcast is paying for the extra infrastructure and employee costs to make up for competitors offered internet speed. Shell Company to get cheap internet? Those extra costs aren't put on Corporations like Netflix though it goes straight to the consumers that Reed Hastings said should pay for it.

Why not just charge the full package deal now?
>Social media for instance, is essentially a NEED for a lot of people.
Make ISPs block those people from Sup Forums, please.

That infographic convinced me that the repeal is the best. People should pay for what the use and give priority to important stuff. Facebook can go fuck itself

Literally nothing to discuss. None of those things were a problem in 2015 before it was enacted. Won't be a problem after repeal.

so you're saying i can save 12.99 a month on removing social media? sounds pretty good.

I pay 85 USD for just internet. I'm tired of paying for Netflix's and Facebook's bloated bandwith.

We must end net neutrality immediately.

>the ones for NN have no particular economical interest in either result
[citation needed]
>a company with no interest on what you're posting
Lies. Shill.
>If you want to end the oligopoly on ISPs, you need to reduce regulation
Yeah, it's not like antitrust laws existed for a reason or anything. Get fucked.
>It's nothing to be alarmed about.
Shill.

You're a dirty lying fucking shill. You're pathetic.

the regulations that are being repealed are from 2015. are you trying to say that this is how the internet worked before 2015?

Why are leafs being retarded? Do they want to give the goy money? Keep NN safe.

>believing FUD propaganda made up by Jewgle
Internet packages will never happen, ya dingas.

You are a retard you played 70 buck before NN and now u pay the same stop being retarded

I wish Steve Jobs was still alive, he felt very strongly about protecting the Internet from both the govt AND corporations. He was always an independent voice and wasn't scared to call it like he saw it. He told Obama to his face he was going to be a one term president the way he was going. Interestingly he died a year later..

I really don’t give a shit. On one hand, I have to pay a little bit more money, but on the other South Korea doesn’t have net neutrality and their speeds are 8 times faster than those in the US.
Fpbp

lel

>mfw i save money without net neutrality

>absurdly ridiculous prices that no one would pay, thus ensuring any ISP that did charge them would go out of business
>completely ignores the fact that this "equal" bandwidth is ensured through the federal govt, the same people who restrict what you can and cannot hear or see on radio and television
>completely ignores the fact that big ISPs are constantly lobbying the federal govt, and will always find a way to turn regulations to their competitive advantage, thus crowding out upstart competitors from the market
it's a leftist policy
ergo it's fucking shit
sage

>Jew detected.
>Implying you can't save money just by not paying at all for this shit.

Packaged websites are already legal thanks to the Obama FCC approving that If an ISP decided to make a curated service or website package, the service gets classified differently and exempt from the order.
funnyjunk.com/channel/FJNN/Actual net neutrality document/jjauLww/304#304

ISPs have been able to do what yours saying for 2 years already and haven't. You are a dumbass. And if you don't want this to be possible at all, then you would sure as hell wouldn't want the current rules.

Dumbass

>I don't use social media or video
>I'd cut my internet bill in half
uh

Nn is a lie
These Jews take down daily stormer all the time

I find it absolutely hilariously ironic that the top image accidentally illustrates network congestion when there's scarce bandwidth and yet all traffic "must" be treated equal.

No thanks.

That image doesn't imply Soros supports net neutrality, only that he donates to progressive/leftist organizations, and those organizations usually support net neutrality, even if it's incidental. It's one of the few issues they are right about. Soros owns shares in companies like Comcast, he will make money either way.

>ISPs have an economic incentive to make internet the most desirable product possible
No they have an economic incentive to screw the consumer and websites over to make more money. Telecoms in the US don't really compete. They engage in a lot of backroom deals to set up isolated monopolies around the country where consumers only have one choice of ISP, or they price shit up at the same time. Even if an ISP doesn't price shit up, most people are too lazy/poor or it's too inconvenient for them to switch so they'll accept being fucked over and the MSM which is owned or in bed with the same ISPs will brainwash people to accept it.

>the Jews against NN are only doing it because they have a high economic interest in the matter
Yes, they want to Jew (especially white) people out of their money. And you're wrong, they also have a political incentive to be able to control the flow of information by favoring and throttling certain sites (like Sup Forums). Your premise is wrong. Do you really think NBC which is owned by Comcast doesn't have a political agenda? Or HuffPo and tumblr which are owned by Verizon don't?

>On one hand you have a government and several lobbyists who would love to see this website, and others like it, going down.
All the govt. does right now is prevent ISPs who want to shut this site down, and have done it in the past from doing it. Just because you don't want more government censorship, that doesn't mean you should let ISPs fuck you over. Again, your premise is wrong, ISPs have blocked access to several sites in the past, have political agendas, and will keep doing it.

Cut my internet bill to $27 a month?
WTF I hate net neutrality now.

>Telecoms in the US don't really compete
Have you ever asked yourself WHY they don't compete?
What do you think the SOURCE of other people entering the industry? Do you think the ISPs have hit men who go around killing people who threaten to enter their markets?

Enig, Andreas

With no NN, the entreprepeneurs building those alternatives won't get any traction, since they can't afford to pay the ISPs like twitter can, and will basically run on dial-up speed.

I support one part of NN because it supports Title 2 Common Carrier for ISPs. That means CHOICES of ISP.

This part of NN is pro capitalist. Comcast etc. don't hate NN because of netflix using data. They hate it because part of the "NN deal" has allowed upstarts to compete with them.

The main thing anyone should care about is whether they have choices.

You don't get choices through government mandate.
You get choices through free competition, which the government can only hinder.

>t. retard who doesn't know what a natural monopoly is

They added new laws when ISP found loopholes or something

Title 2 common carrier increases competition by mandating that the providers of the last mile allow competition. If you revert it, the internet monopolies are allowed to continue signing deals with localities.

ISPs are not natural monopolies in the SLIGHTEST.

>my 1s and 0s are more important than yours.
I mean it sounds worse when you say it the other way around.
Why intentinally essentially bottleneck traffic unless you just want to try to get others to pay more for access to the internet?

ISPs aren't in a position to disallow other people from entering a market in the first place, so how in all hell would telling them "they must allow others to compete" when they never had the ability to disallow someone in the first place helpful to anything???

This graphic is dumb as hell. The "net neutrality" rules went into effect in 2015. Pre-2015 internet pricing did not happen that way at all nor will it.

In many cases people's 1's and 0's ARE more important than yours, and it's why people would be willing to pay a premium to make sure their data has priority over people who use the internet to send an email a couple times a month.

>ISPs are not natural monopolies in the SLIGHTEST.

they are a perfect case in point example.

t. libertarian aspie

>This graphic is dumb as hell. The "net neutrality" rules went into effect in 2015. Pre-2015 internet pricing did not happen that way at all nor will it.

Your cable pricing was and is exactly that way. Net Neutrality was popularized because the ISPs were planning on making internet like cable. look at lawsuits like Netflix.

yeah, until 2018 rolls around.

No, that's factually wrong. It is incredibly easy to route cables places and there's more than plenty of space for people to add their cables into the mix. Do you think there was no infrastructure in all the places that have had Google fiber laid down before Google got there?

...

...are you crazy, OP? ISPs would lose so much money doing this. Not even cable works this way! They feed you one big-ass package. I would LOVE to be able to carte blanche the TV stations I wanted and get a reduced price instead of subsidizing the fucking HSN for a bunch of 80-year-olds.

Netflix lobbied the government because they were being asked to pay for infrastructure that was becoming more and more necessary because their app constitutes something like 35% of ALL internet traffic by its fucking self. So of course when you can spend less money lobbying the government than playing fairly in a marketplace, you lobby the government to play favorites for you.

>It is incredibly easy to route cables places and there's more than plenty of space for people to add their cables into the mix

"i don't know what line rights are"

>arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/30-small-isps-urge-ajit-pai-to-preserve-title-ii-and-net-neutrality-rules/

>"If a company the size of Google could be stifled without the law supporting them, what hope does a smaller ISP have in entering into a market where the incumbent broadband provider owns the poles that are a necessary component to deploying the network?" Falcon wrote. "The FCC chairman's plan fundamentally ignores this problem and offers no clear solution to competitors. An incumbent broadband provider that owns a lot of the poles is going to have no federal legal obligation to share that access at fair market rates if broadband is no longer a common carrier service."

natural monopoly

if you pay for cable, why are there commercials? pls responbd

"Line rights" are things big ISPs want and bribe local governments to get so that they can restrict other people coming in and competing. That is literally the definition of an ARTIFICIAL monopoly.

Basically degenerate social media users and vidya gamers will have to pay for their gay hobbies. Nothing of value will be lost.

Except they still can bundle if they want to. It's permitted under the current laws from the start by just calling it curated services. The Obama FCC confirmed it back in June of 2016. These current laws do not prevent website bundled packages.
So if they didn't do it then, and they aren't doing it now, then why the fuck would they do it when we go back to the FTC that actually has laws against this like harmful exclusion and consumer abuse?

Ajit Pai is a faggot who just wants to line his pockets. This is the only issue I’ve ever seen where the vast majority of people are on one side.

That image is completely wrong.

Fuck off shill. youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I

youtube.com/watch?v=Un-9_K-aNaE

>bribes needed to start your company are not startup costs

just fucking stop

I unironically oppose net neutrality because I want less poorfags (and by extension, niggers) to have internet access.

Post quality will go way up.

Not the best image if you oppose the repeal, I'd save money provided that these fictitious numbers became a reality.

Regardless, anyone supporting the FCC at this point is just a telecom shill.

Bribing WHO?
WHO is being bribed?
Hint: it's not actual fucking property owners who would gladly SELL to a company parts of their property for cable usage. Fucking moron.

You are paying for monopolies allowed by the government forcing a lack of competition and increasing prices. That or you live in a rural area and it makes no fiscal sense for them to bury anything faster there, so they just use whatever telephone lines are already buried.

>t. network engineer with telco experience.

You're subsidizing Netflix's connections now. Without NN Netflix will have to pay more to ISPs which means more reinvestment.

18 + 9 + 15 + 13 = $55 ..... you mean i can avoid social media and still use the internet for LESS money?

>ISPs have an economic incentive to make internet the most desirable product possible
No, they don't. Every ISP is basically a local monopoly. Almost every area in the US has a choice between one high speed broadband provider and a shit DSL provider. This is not a free market.

>Poorfags can't Vidya or normiebook
>Day of the rope accelerated
>Porn now at a cost
Seems great

What was stopping ISPs from doing this package deal service before 2015 when internet wasn't protected under Title II?

>tfw both add up to be the same exact amount but allow consumers to custom tailor their service for their needs to achieve a lower bill

If you would even consider using (((Faceberg))) for free you don't deserve Net Neutrality desu.

>government censors you can't refuse
>corporate censors you can refuse
So how many NN supporters even bother reading the actual bill and not just some retarded red herring the ((media)) puked out

>Every ISP is basically a local monopoly
You can blame your local governments and the FCC for that, since they're the ones who make the rules that say or otherwise facilitate other people not being able to join the market.

You treat traffic equal in core networks cause ISP core networks are engineered not to have congestion, so you never queue. The edge on the other hand usually gets congested at aggregation points but you don't usually queue there on consumer shit, cause who gives a fuck? Tail drop works fine for that, no reason to put extra money into equipment that can differentiate, police/shape and do weighted queuing. Easier to just let it drop naturally, TCP backoff algorithms will take care of the rest.

The only time you differentiate traffic is when the customer asks for it, for things like MetroE or MPLS, then it is just at the PE and for that specific customer pipe, not between other customers.

true, you're technically right. but we both agree it's a monopoly

I'd save money since I don't use social media or gaming.

>trying to save net neutrality

both sides suck, I believe neither party will be able to provide a good alternative.

That guy definitely makes a very strong argument. I don’t get why Pajeet Pie won’t just explain that’s instead of acting like a super villain

>no reason to put extra money into equipment that can differentiate
Wouldn't it be pretty rational from a business standpoint to ask Netflix at the very least to pay ISPs for what their service costs? I don't know what method you'd employ to discriminate against Netflix or someone, but I think that would be desirable to do.