Net Neutrality

How is Net Neutrality bad?
How will the internet improve without it?
Red pill me on NN user kun.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=AdANAZ-bk44
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

Bump

OP is a fag.

Bad things can happen therefore we shouldn't do anything.

t. plebbit

Bump

I know this is 4chsn but can you try dialing back the autism? That's not what OP is saying.

I just want some red pills on NN. I know it's old news now but all the libtard normies I know are still bitching and I don't get it.

Net neutrality is bad

Ironic considering you're a fucking retard. Did you ever consider I was replying to OP with a statement? Goddamn fucking idiot.

>Lib friend talks about Trump being a fucking idiot over NN
>Lib friend gets borderline racist about the buck-toothed poo-in-loo
>Next sentence, starts talking about how startups offering gig speeds are popping up in his area
I just stare in disbelief sometimes, ya know?

Your statement was a non sequitur, it doesn't make any sense in relation to OP's question.

youtube.com/watch?v=AdANAZ-bk44

How right/wrong is this goy?

...

So you goys like NN? I don't get it. I don't know how to use reddit its format looks like a cluster fuck and there's no pics. Those cucks probably like NN but I need red pills plz.

Someone post the ShareblueShills.jpg pic

>goy

look at that nose

...

Shut up, dumbass. Just accept you're a retard.

...

Sage

Obama wanted nothing more than more control over what people can and cannot do, or say.

He switched control over to the FCC from the FTC, because they sound similar. But the FCC is controlled by politically appointed committee members, and the FTC is not. By controlling the committee, he could control what people can do on the internet.

The Tom Wheeler bullshit that the FCC voted not to renew has nothing explicitly to do with NN. NN is an idea that is enforced through other means, the real debate actually has nothing to do explicitly with NN at the consumer level either.

Stop the autism, retards. user came here with a legit question so stop acting like pretentious cock suckers.

Obama is not as crafty as his nigger brains believe him to be.

It's a mixed bag. On one hand, the less the government has control over literally anything, the better. On the other hand, there are obvious concerns regarding the shady practices of mega-corporations, and something needs to be done, but the market is always right and there's only so much IT companies can get away with before customers get angry en-mass. Personally I feel regulation is more harmful because a company will eventually bend the knee and accept terms if it begins to hurt their image or bottom line, while the government never will even if the country is degraded to a smoldering piece of rubble.

T. tryhard.

Lol fuck off newfag nobody cares about your tough guy shit.

Bump

The only people who are against net neutrality are retarded sheep who follow Trump no matter what. They don't have any argument against net neutrality. It's just "Trump said it's bad. Liberal corporations are for it so I'm against!!!!".

Why would you want to pay more money to not have your internet provider slow you down?

Are you literally against net neutrality only because liberals support it?

What I have noticed is that every leftist who shills for net neutrality completely oversimplifies the technical aspects. The fast lane analogy is hamfisted. I say this as having a masters degree in Electrical Engineering.

Let's suppose the worst fears are true, and ATT decides on top of their sauron building that they want to charge people extra money to access certain websites.

How can they enforce this? They could try to block packets going to specific domains, but for small-medium sites like Sup Forums that have distributed hosting, they have to monitor the content of each packet. This is called deep content inspection, and it is how your work or school network blocks certain websites and comes with a big performance overhead.

OK, let's say that internet providers are willing to accept a performance overhead to enforce their fee hike, can they still make money doing this? Well they have to invest billions in new equipment that has, because the current structure of the internet is not set up for deep content inspection, so the business case is sketchy at best, and someone could probably figure out a way to trick the inspection and get access anyway.

This specific guy even says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" when the Obama era net neutrality was a fix for a problem that didn't exist. Why does he have comments disabled on his video?

He also says "is the current system limiting what we can build in any way?" and answers no. This is a blatant lie. One example that has been brought forward is a doctor performing remote surgery would like the ability to buy a priority connection, because if he lags for a bit someone might die, instead of your netflix video buffering for a second. Under the Obama era net neutrality it would be very hard to sell priority connections. As a utility, there is a lot of red tape that basically rules out anyone but a large megacorp doing it.

So what I summize is Obama wanted to control free speech on the internets so he gave this policy is lawful good name Net (((NEUTRALITY))) similar to Dreamers, and all it did was give control to a private group he controls called the FTC? By repealing NN it allows the FCC to take control from them who are less biased. Meanwhile ISPs are less likely to piss off consumers with streaming bundles/packages and it didn't exist before 2015.

How am I so far anons?

Thanks user and you made some very good technical points. I always wondered how ISPs could monitor traffic for mid to small size sites without overextending resources or creating a Constitutional crisis.

Soyboys can't accept their deficiencies.

>They could try to block packets going to specific domains, but for small-medium sites like Sup Forums that have distributed hosting, they have to monitor the content of each packet
Because? What else can they get from encrypted packet? All the information ISPs use is in the Internet layer, in the IP header.

I think that most people don't even realize that the internet is a finite resource. Everyone wants all the internet all the time, spoiled shits.
Enforcing anything with the aid of hardware monitoring has just gotten harder with the Intel bug anyway, because all of a sudden 95% of all servers in the world spiked in overhead.

>All the information ISPs use is in the Internet layer, in the IP header
Currently this is true. If they want to enforce some kind of filter, then they would have to look at other parts of every packet, thus introducing nasty overhead.

High end network switches that ISPs use to route traffic are not based on computers with Intel chips, they use dedicated hardware specifically designed for the task. That is why it would be such a huge capital investment to roll out completely new hardware with completely new capabilities.

>If they want to enforce some kind of filter, then they would have to look at other parts of every packet, thus introducing nasty overhead.
But why would they want to do that? They can block any communication channel today very easily if they want. It's all unencrypted and not nested deep in the packet. Every time a packet is routed the destination IP address is read and since they own the routers, they can just disregard that packet (or move it to the end of the queue to slow communication) if one of the hosts "didn't pay". There's no magic.

>It's all unencrypted and not nested deep in the packet
I mean host information here.

That's not enough information. So many websites use AWS or whatever big cloud hosting service, or even cloudfare DDOS mitigation. They can't just block a packet going to one of these places because they would block huge swathes of the internet

>How can they enforce this?
They currently have the ability to do so. Throttling is something ISPs can very much do, but have to be careful about currently for legal reasons.

>One example that has been brought forward is a doctor performing remote surgery would like the ability to buy a priority connection
He can already do this with a dedicated line. Also removing net neutrality won't help the doctor, and might possibly make the situation worse. You argued earlier that ISPs would have trouble knowing exactly what traffic is going through their system, which completely defeats your argument here.

I'm pretty sure they could block your connection by monitoring DNS requests (before proxy servers are even contacted), yes it might be costly but not as much as you describe it

DNS is even easier to bypass. You simply have a browser extension that changes your dns to something that is not blocked and boom, multi-billion dollar system bypassed.

Blocking shit in general is not easy. Even the Chinese, who try very hard to block shit, fail to do so effectively.

>He can already do this with a dedicated line.
well building a separate parallel structure to the internet to make sure it works for you doesn't really seem like a good solution.

>You argued earlier that ISPs would have trouble knowing exactly what traffic is going through their system
please refrain from commenting on technical things when you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. ISPs can and do tell very easily where things are coming from and going to. This sort of thing can be prioritized or throttled with existing infrastructure.

Cheaper to build infrastructure due to less regulations. Infrastructure dropped off a lot when NN was passed. Smaller companies could not compete because of the added expenses. It was pretty much a present to the big ISPs.

What part of sage do you not understand