Sup Forums defends Net Neutrality

>Sup Forums defends Net Neutrality

Explain yourselves.

Other urls found in this thread:

opensocietyfoundations.org/employment
cnet.co/2jeYWrI
eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-comcast-forging-packets-to-interfere
for.tn/2Apcr35
wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/
eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/widespread-search-hijacking-in-the-us
freepress.net/press-release/99480/att-blocking-iphones-facetime-app-would-harm-consumers-and-break-net-neutrality
fcc.gov/document/verizon-wireless-pay-125-million-settle-investigation
nyti.ms/2zZ5Dbk
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/on-net-neutrality-verizon-leads-push-for-fast-lanes/456891/
theverge.com/2017/7/21/16010766
wired
archive.is/LwLMM
theatlantic
unvis.it/theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/on-net-neutrality-verizon-leads-push-for-fast-lanes/456891
theverge
unvis.it/theverge.com/2017/7/21/16010766
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Poor people don't need to use the internet.

it's good.

Did you know Comcast is owned by NBC kikes? Fuck em. Fuck ISPs

I am Sup Forums, I don't support nn

Perhaps I'm not clear on the subject. Explain it to me like I'm an alien. Why is net neutrality bad?

If Netflix and Google wanted the support of one of the largest cultural influencers in the past decade, maybe they shouldn't have been turbo-faggots censoring conservatives and anyone who doesn't agree with their group think.
They fucked us, they can receive a bit of that dicking now in the form of paying for their free rides on the back of the companies that physically laid the internet cable.

It isn't. It means the ISPs don't get to throttle the chans or charge people more for using them. It means your "Internet Package" won't default to Facebook and Reddit, with maybe an extra $5 a month if you want to access edgy content like Cracked.com

Reddit thinks if NN is gone then the Internet will become a hellscape where you're charged to use specific parts of the internet, akin to a cable package. $50 to access Sup Forums!

This is despite NN only existing since 2015.

NBC probably rented a Russian bot farm for an afternoon in order to false flag their opponents while also pushing the Russia meme. Truely devious.

>Reddit actually believes this

>This is despite NN only existing since 2015.

Literally a lie. It's been the default model since the internet was DARPAnet.

So NN has always existed? What Orwellian shit are you trying to pull here?

opensocietyfoundations.org/employment

If you are gonna lie about the internet on the internet you may as well get paid for it. Fucking Redditors

Sigh. The flood of bullshit on this topic is unstoppable. It's paid for out of very deep pockets indeed.

>deflects
Kys Reddit

Net neutrality only gives Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, etc. more bandwidth at the expense of everyone else, and those corporations help kill humanity's future with their widespread globalist propaganda. Repealing it will be a great thing for all mankind, and anyone who seriously thinks ISPs will start hurting consumers without it doesn't understand capitalism and how their customers would just quit using them if that happened, so it won't happen.

When did Russia become so powerful that literally both sides of every issue in America were led by Russian bots?

The US was under the assumption that net neutrality laws applied for 30 years going. It wasn't until Verizon won a lawsuit about it that the rules no longer applied to them. They promptly began fucking everyone over:

2005 - Madison River Communications: Blocked VOIP services before the FCC put a stop to it.
cnet.co/2jeYWrI

2007 - Comcast: Caught forging packets to interfere with user traffic
eff.org/deeplinks/2007/10/eff-tests-agree-ap-comcast-forging-packets-to-interfere

2007-2009 - AT&T: Blocked Skype and other VOIP services which competed with their cellphone plans
for.tn/2Apcr35

2011 - MetroPCS: Tried to block all streaming except YouTube
wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/

2011 - Multiple ISPs: Caught hijacking search traffic to increase affiliate revenue
eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/widespread-search-hijacking-in-the-us

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon: Blocked access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit
freepress.net/press-release/99480/att-blocking-iphones-facetime-app-would-harm-consumers-and-break-net-neutrality

2012 - Verizon: Demanded Google block tethering apps on Android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction.
fcc.gov/document/verizon-wireless-pay-125-million-settle-investigation

2012 - AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
nyti.ms/2zZ5Dbk

2013 - Verizon: Literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/on-net-neutrality-verizon-leads-push-for-fast-lanes/456891/

2017 - Verizon: Caught throttling customer data in direct violation of FCC Net Neutrality rules
theverge.com/2017/7/21/16010766

Apparently Soros's people and the telecom lobbyists have learned to call people cucks and reddit as an astroturfing measure. Important to remember, kids.

And here's the archive

>wired com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge
archive.is/LwLMM
>theatlantic com/politics/archive/2014/07/on-net-neutrality-verizon-leads-push-for-fast-lanes/456891
unvis.it/theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/on-net-neutrality-verizon-leads-push-for-fast-lanes/456891
>theverge com/2017/7/21/16010766
unvis.it/theverge.com/2017/7/21/16010766

Trump is against (((Netflix Neutrality))). He is very smart, why don't you support him?

Sweet I'll finally have an excuse to delete my facebook account.
Just to be clear: are only certain websites being charged? I'm confused by the broad terms like "social media," is that like a bundle of Twitter, FB and Instagram? Is YouTube still free?

TV channels are virtually unwatchable, with far too many commercial messages.
Internet will similarly become corrupted without net neutrality.

Wrong, Soros supports net neutrality and has spent heavily to do so, along with the disgusting internet megacorporations like Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, etc

Correct me if I'm wrong, but net neutrality was its default. If it's been on the books as such since 2015, isn't that just an official affirmation that it shouldn't change.

I believe that if ISPs gain the authority to control our content and charge more for content they feel that they can profit from, they will. I don't think this is a political motivation, despite the fact that it could be used as such. Knowing what I know about companies like Comcast, if regulation comes with a paycheck, those capable of control will absolutely profit. Once again, I assume a lot, as I really haven't done much research on the subject. I'm surprised to see some people against net neutrality, honestly.

It's not going to happen. It's a strawman argument designed to scare you into defending NN, which is essentially bandwidth welfare for Netflix and other cancerous megatech corps.

Facebook/Twitter/Youtube is full of fucking ads, what the fuck are you yapping about?

A bunch of companies that make money because the providers arent allowed to charge them extra are butt hurt.

These companies have done everything to silence wrongthink.

Basically its corporate giants fighting each other, I really would careless but one group of corps are dicks to everyone the other specifically to one ideology.

...

nice try, Comcast shill

...

Correct, to me its basically hey people we demonized and silenced, we realized that you actually have all of the political power and are going to hurt us so dont.

>NN has always existed

more or less, yes, it has only been been enforced by legislation since 2015, once it came out that cable companies had been throttling data from certain companies(like netflix)

If the (((ISPs))) didn't use slimy tactics to save shekels, it wouldn't be necessary. But since cable isn't a free market, it is necessary.

>only existed since 2015
incorrect
>only legislated since 2015
yes

when they blame Russia you know they are full of shit

pAjit is on Comcast/Verizone payroll and shot be investigated

>Comments from Russia
Hey Gopnik lives matter

Considering Netflix IS eating up so much bandwidth, the ISPs are right to pick a fight with them.

You're defending welfare for shitty liberal corporations. If that isn't Reddit then I don't know what is.

Fake news

Net neutrality repeal is only bad for netflix

This

>If it's been on the books as such since 2015, isn't that just an official affirmation that it shouldn't change.

Exactly. That's what the (((poster))) was referring to by saying it's only existed since then. Originally it didn't even need a name, it was just the simple model of how the network packet switching worked. The name originated some 15 years ago once someone came up with the bright idea of taking an extra layer of payment for giving some packets priority over others, so the concept actually had to be defined for the first time.

This

Except that the ISP's guarantee bandwidth will be available when you sign a contract with them, you fucking retard

>ISP sells Netflix a 100GB/s bandwidth contract
>Netflix uses 100GB/s
>ISP: Reeeeeeeeee

They shouldn't be selling bandwidth that they don't want to fulfill. How can you defend that practice?

You're literally saying that Comcast can sell YOU a 50MB/s connection, and then penalize you for using it all.

So, since they're literally selling that bandwidth to Netflix, how can you defend them complaining when it gets used?

Actually, I don't.

>A bunch of companies that make money because the providers arent allowed to charge them extra are butt hurt.

The companies wouldnt get charged more, the consumer would you fuckwit.

That's something that the ISPs and Netflix need to work out.

Instead Netflix ran to the government and demanded regulations so they could save THEIR precious shekels. YOU are defending government mandated oligarchies instead of letting the markets do what they're supposed to do.

It is antithetical to progress.

Why don't the ISPs just improve and expand their infrastructure? Maybe its because they have no need to, as they are complete monopolies that don't have to worry about competition.

That's what it all boils down to for me. We need a repeat of what the government did with the railroad and oil companies, break them up and promote competition.

>Why don't the ISPs just improve and expand their infrastructure?

That's a state and local issue. There is no real federal solution for that, outside of a real heavy handed power grab that would piss a lot of people off.

How much the consumer pays or the companies have to jack up their pricing is a red herring. It's what they want you to focus on and what they want the debate to be about.

The real poison pill is packet priority. It means Sup Forums packets get lower priority than Netflix packets. It means throttling anyone who isn't a big player and a big payer. It means vastly increased MSM dominance of the internet while anything new developed by the people will struggle to not time out.

>letting the markets do what they're supposed to do.
>muh free market

I don't give a shit about major companies losing money, I care about people in shitty locations with few ISP options that may be forced to pay out of their ass to acccess content ISPs don't own because they have no other option

>only pay ISP to access VPN client
>Browse everything

See, it's like this: I have salt quotas, if I don't meet them, I don't get my vodka rations. My calculations have revealed that opposing NN will have the greater salt yields, so oppose I must.

>That's something that the ISPs and Netflix need to work out.

So you think that a cable company should be able to mistreat all it's customers, and every individual customer needs to fight them in court to get the service that they agreed to in a contract?

Yeah no, how about they deliver the services that you pay for.

> letting the markets do what they're supposed to do.

Cable/fiber is not a free market. You can't lay an infinite amount of cable into the ground. That's obvious, so how can you say the "market will fix it".

If it's not a free market, which it isn't, then there needs to be mandates to enforce that carriers provide the service you pay for.

Having every individual customer take every internet carrier to court, which is your solution, would never work.

There are many other reasons, but I doubt you have the technical knowledge to understand them. Either way, your original argument is already flawed, as I've shown above.

tl;dr it isn't a free market

Netflix would have to pay ISPs a lot of money for that kind of deal. And ISPs would have to then start looking into upgrading their speeds to compensate.

Right now there's no incentive to do anything because government demands everything to be equal.

Those companies are able to charge artifically low or not charge at all.

They do constantly. Demand outpaces supply in some circumstances. In major metropolitan areas, the fiber optic grid handles the demand easily, but the metropolitan paradigm doesn't exist everywhere, so comprehensive expansion doesn't happen that way everywhere. As much as I hate Comcast, I also accept that not everything can be upgraded at once, and priority calls for where their bread is buttered. In the end, this leaves the majority of the infrastructure behind the times.

most countries dont have net neutrality and much better internet than burgerland

for example Switzerland has no net neutrality regulations

If comcast can't provide the bandwidth it promised, then it needs to stop selling bandwidth that it can't provide.

Stop guaranteeing people a service that you can't provide. An amazing concept, I know!

This is like hiring a carpenter who just doesn't show up sometimes, and then says "sorry I'm overbooked", it's impossible to meet the demands my customers put on me

The assumption there being that the new enhanced infrastructure would give you the same access to small player content. It wouldn't - not unless Sup Forums ponies up to pay for "priority" access as well. You'll still time out more often than not if you're not trying to access Netflix.

It's banning disfavored content without once having to even acknowledge that you're doing it. The internet has become a global colossus and transformer of economies with net neutrality in place. There's literally no reason to change that other than as a de facto cash and power grab.

How come this sort of thing hasn't happened in other countries then? You're depicting a nightmare scenario that has never manifested in any other setting.

Switzerland and Denmark can do lots of things because they are small compact and rich.

Then talk about anti-trust shit against comcast, this is just a bunch of leftists trying to convince the people they shit on to protect their welfare.

We don't really need it but it's nice to have around. I think the point that is overlooked here is that while NN protects us from "potential" abuse it also allows other companies like Netflix, Hulu, EA etc to be protected from paying their fair share.

Because it hasn't been put in place in the places where it matters much. What's Switzerland's vital role on the internet?

Fuck Google
Fuck Reddit
Fuck Facebook
Fuck YouTube
Fuck Twitter

Don't they also have internet censorship? No thanks. I'll take slow connection speeds at times. I'd rather get slow truth than instant bullshit.

The average person really does not care if ISPs want to throw a shitfit because they don't think some other company is paying them enough.

Sup Forums is nothing but contrarian with no real values, so all the wannabe edgemasters on here flip instantly from "heh dont you know capitilism is a jewish system? national socialism is the way to go" to "what are you some kind of statist? the free market will run it better than the government" the nanosecond that is the edgier stance that winds up normies

I agree. If the infrastructure isn't there to provide the best service, only what can be provided should be charged for.

>it doesn't happen because it's not america

I don't understand why corporate censorship is ok when facebook, twitter, google, etc censor conservatives, but when different companies use corporate censorship for reasons that aren't actually political in nature, it is suddenly so evil.

Maybe if leftists weren't so cheerful about conservatives getting censored all over the internet, they would be able to build a bipartisan coalition now to stop this.

Exactly

The only reason we have to fight over NN is because ISPs are monopolies and can do all kinds of shady shit to screw over customers and increase their profits. That really gives us two options here, we either break up these monopolies and let the free market do its thing, or we continue to regulate them like we do currently.

Because their market share isnt as important to these google, reddit, facebook and twitter?

Just look at the nature of the campaign, it doesnt have any "good points" for the other side.

Clearly there are some good reasons for net neutrality but once one person is trying to tell you something is just pure evil you can guess that they are trying to con you.

>Right now there's no incentive to do anything because government demands everything to be equal.
This is fucking retarded. The government only demands everything be equal for a particular speed.

You can still fucking sell 50 mbps and 100 mbps plans and charge more for one than for the other. Companies could still fucking sell better products than what is currently on offer at higher prices.

netflix's own subcontracted infrastructure service was throttling them completely independent of any ISPs

It's a battle between Big Tech and ISPs. Net neutrality prevents ISPs from charging Netflix etc more for their usage. The argument is that if ISPs start doing this to the big guys they'll eventually bring this practice to the little guy.

>Don't they also have internet censorship? No thanks.
NN has fuck all to do with censorship.

Switzerland also mandatory military service. These things are not fucking connected.

Holy shit, shitlibs BTFO by a POO! Both sides of the NN debate are retarded. Cyber anarchy is the way to go.

No new laws. Come what may.

It’s a battle between consumers and providers seeing as isp’s generally have a monopoly in the United States.

>muh tiered internet armaggeddon!!!1

Has this EVER fucking happened, anywhere?

If a company utilizes the internet, and their customers choose to use the connections they pay for for such services, companies like Netflix aren't financially responsible to pay more because they're better than the rest. Perhaps the solution is to charge for individual usage. This would regulate the perceived "abuses" of companies like Netflix organically. Those who check their emails every other day would pay a little. Those who watched Netflix from sunup to sundown would pay more, as charged for bandwidth used, not a blanket package price. Companies like Comcast, who own the damn infrastructure, also own sports coliseums and other massive investments. Before feeling bad about how much Netflix costs Comcast, put Comcast's wealth into perspective.

Don't let your partisanship taint the issue at hand here. All NN does is ensure those who provide internet services do so in a fair manner and don't screw their consumers over by shady tactics.

I get where you're coming from but with social media companies we at least have the ability to boycott them and start up our own alternatives, we can't do the same with ISPs so that's why some level of regulation is required for them.

>needing to label the default model of the internet since its birth
>fighting against that default model

Is this what Amerimutt brain atrophy looks like?

>Has this EVER fucking happened, anywhere?
Do you want to end up as Australia? Cause deregulating ISPs is how you end up as Australia.

>All NN does is ensure those who provide internet services do so in a fair manner and don't screw their consumers over by shady tactics.

And coincidentally saves Netflix and Google billions of dollars in revenue. Heh heh! We're just looking out for the consumer, goy!

If I'm paying my ISP for my bandwidth why does it matter which site I'm going to? What's going to happen is Comcast or Verizon will make some deal with Google to let all their youtube traffic through on an internet fast lane, for a small fee, and their traffic will get priority over smaller sites like Vimeo. You know that's how it's going to go down because Google can afford to pay for that and smaller streaming sites can't.

They will. Inevitably, the little guy will pay. If they charge Netflix, guess who's price for service just went up? If they charge the customer, the same person still pays.

>And coincidentally saves Netflix and Google billions of dollars in revenue. Heh heh! We're just looking out for the consumer, goy!
Companies like Netflix and Google don't lose money. They just change where it comes from. If they can't get cheaper prices from ISPs they'll just get more income from customers.

You know what's funny. Autists here and on Redit beg that cable companies offer a, a la carte system for cable channels. I don't think they will so this for inter sites but if they did you could theoretically ignore what you don't want and pay less for internet. People would also decide if social media which is free would be worth paying for now which people won't and that hurts social media. I wish that system was in place. I pay $95 for my internet every redit mock-up would allow me to pay much less.

Your point? I think fair access to the internet is good for everyone, especially companies which are entirely built upon it. Of course regulating the ISPs and preventing them from fucking over their consumers would benefit these companies. Like I said though, if you don't approve of Netflix or Google, you can easily find alternatives or simply not use them. You can't do the same with ISPs.

>let the free market do its thing,
Impossible because the cable industry is not a free market

>free market electrical grid
>free market water companies

You can't lay infinite pipes/cables/fiber into the ground. It's not a free market.

Yes. It's happened in countries that have regulations not too different from Obama's "net neutrality" Title II shit.

>pretending consumers do not benefit from net neutrality

In fact I would argue small companies and startups benefit more than the large content providers.

If Youtube signs an agreement with wireless carriers saying that videos from Youtube do not count against data caps, that will obliterate the video hosting market beyond repair, nobody could ever compete.

Net neutrality actually protects small businesses FROM large businesses in this regard.

I get what you're saying. To perhaps over simplify it we're talking about metered internet. As for feels I'm not sure where I fall on that, mostly a guilty conscious for using a shit ton of bandwidth personally i suppose.
If we are going to go the route of calling access/bandwidth a utility I think you are right on the money. Every other utility is metered; water, natural gas and electricity are all charged by how much you actually use against a rate structure so it makes sense on the surface level.
I would like to know what other folks that maybe have a more nuanced understanding of the big picture have to think about it.

>Considering Netflix IS eating up so much bandwidth, the ISPs are right to pick a fight with them.
They literally pay for all that bandwidth. It's not like they're fucking stealing bandwidth from anyone else.

They're servers pay monthly fees to ISPs for x bits per second same as your house and the only way they can support that much traffic is by paying for enough speed to do so. They only get up to the speed they pay for same as you.

What you're defending ISPs over is the position that not only should customers be charged for maximum download and upload speeds, but also traffic volume.

So say your monthly bill would be $60 for your 100 mbps line+a new fee based on how much shit you download.

I'll pass on defending a monopoly's right to charge me more money for a service they already fuck me on anyway. My 100 mbps plan is currently getting me 30.67 mbps and that's a really good day for me.

Then say comcast should be pressed with anti-trust suits, dont defend companies that benefit from this shit.

Oh NOW he cares.

?

which works for us because if one ISP is being a dick, you just switch to another one.
burgers can't do that, since in most of the country there is only one ISP

>Every other utility is metered
Waste disposal isn't metered. You pay a set amount per month for a fixed rate of volume disposal and how much you use of that volume is on you, but you can't go over.

I'm not defending companies. I'm defending myself.

Giving ISPs the right to fuck somebody gives them the right to fuck everybody and your odds of getting fucked increase the lower down you go on the economic totem pole as people try to recoup costs from all the fucking or exploit the increased leniency towards fucking to generating even more fucking.

It shouldn't matter at all, but if your usage exceeds what is included in what you pay for, that's the question. It's a matter of overtaxing the infrastructure en masse. Targeting the current biggest sources is misguided. These problems could easily exist if everyone watching Netflix suddenly decided to mine Bitcoin.

>if your usage exceeds what is included in what you pay for
That is literally not fucking possible. If you're on a 50 mbps plan, you will never be given over 50 mbps.