Will we be able to win the battle for net neutrality or has the poo in the loo won?

Will we be able to win the battle for net neutrality or has the poo in the loo won?

Btw what's all this Sup Forums? I thought you said Trump was good...

Other urls found in this thread:

freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
cnet.com/news/netflix-admits-throttling-video-speeds-on-at-t-verizon/
mattvukas.com/2014/02/17/venturing-comcast-netflix-rabbit-hole/
mattvukas.com/2014/02/10/comcast-definitely-throttling-netflix-infuriating/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_L._Roberts
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

He won

Net neutrality is overrated.

Its just here so big corporations like Google don't have to pay a dime and the ISP and its customers are left paying for all the infrastructure

The making of a future Tara McCarthy in progress.

>we

Fuck off

Aaaaand, nothing changed. Good or bad. Like pretty much every sensible person predicted. Literally a nothing burger.

The butthurt was nice however.

based poo

we already won it. Redditards "lost" but only in their minds, because they're too dumb to actually understand net neutrality and just believe whatever celebrities and Reddit mods tell them

Corporations always win

Oi, do you have license for your shitpost!?!

So do you run ISPs or are you cucks?

I am glad your country is being taken over by the worst sort of shitskins, without any fight. I hope every British man is exterminated, once that happens we can nuke your island and repopulate it.

Bitter eh?

I don't agree with corporate bullies using government power while a bunch of retards think they're on the same team

Fuck you I'd rather be Muslim than allow a horde of niggers over from across the pond.

reddit promised the internet as we know it would have changed by now... but everything is the same.

>I don't agree with corporate bullies using government power
That's exactly what the ISPs are doing with the FCC though.

ISP's being forced to build huge internet companies' infrastructure is overly heavy handed policy if you believe in the free market whatsoever.

Especially when the ISP's have no one to charge except the consumer. They weren't even allowed to develop new ways to direct traffic because that would be "discrimination"

>Net neutrality is overrated.

Said on a site that has supported NN and relies on it to exist.

>Its just here so big corporations like Google don't have to pay a dime

Are you implying that Google just hooks its servers up to a bag a pixie dust and magically gets to connect to ISP backends? Are you retarded?

The rule change has not even gone into effect yet.

The 1996 Telecom act paid these ISPs in regulatory fees for such a build-out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. There has been no free-market as it relates to large ISPs since at least that date.

Keep in mind that all those horrible things redditors shilled about what would happen without net neutrality never happened in the decades of the internet before it.
The ISPs didn't even throttle Netflix. Netflix admitted that they were the ones throttling their bandwidth to the ISPs

I believe in competition, which the ISPs have the ability to erase without net neutrality in place. In fact, Sup Forums would be under threat with net neutrality gone.

>Trump gets CNN to say shithole over and over again, even nigger a few times
>FCC fines the ever-loving fuck out of them

One can dream...

>never happened in the decades of the internet before it.


A confirmed lie: freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

>Netflix admitted that they were the ones throttling their bandwidth to the ISPs

Citation needed

Bandwidth wasn't as heavy then, and two wrongs don't make a right anyway

Netflix had been doing it for five years before they were caught
cnet.com/news/netflix-admits-throttling-video-speeds-on-at-t-verizon/

Having the government controlling the market because you're afraid of the near future and what ISP's "might" do is like a fat person refusing to get off the couch or stop eating because now it's too hard because they're so fat already. I don't care. If it needs to be done, it needs to be done. If shit sucks for a minute I don't give a fuck.

That says to mobile carriers. We are talking about the issues with home users on Comcast and Verizon

and to boot: the article says 600 kbps, home users were seeing as low as 300 before using a VPN where they got full speed

>and what ISP's "might" do


What are you talking about? That is a list of things ISPs DID do. The FCC reclassified the ISPs in response to its battle with Verizon where Verizon claimed the FCC had no authority to stop it from fucking over its customers.

People forget that the FCC was fine with Title 1 until Verizon tried an end run against their enforcement.

The ISPs deny throttling Netflix but Netflix was very publicly smearing the ISPs and asserting that they were.
Netflix has been caught throttling ISPs before, who's to say they weren't doing it to Comcast and Verizon too?

Again: That article is in reference to mobile carriers, when you find one that relates to home users then come back here and tell us all about it.

When VPN users can enable obfuscation from ISPs and suddenly their service improves several fold and Netflix can pay Comcast their protection racket money and service improves less than 24hrs. after: The ISP is fucking the customer over.

Yeah ignore the rest of my post. I already stated I don't care if some dumb shit happens. Bring on the competition. Yeah it will take years. It also opens plenty of opportunity for new developments. Maybe convince local governments to stop making deals with ISP's?

Legislation like this always sounds simple and reasonable, but if you can think beyond the immediate future you can avoid supporting stupid decisions that stop growth and good progress.

Netflix was the one making mobile carriers pay their protection racket. Even with net neutrality Netflix was throttling any ISP that didn't agree to a deal where they pay to host a Netflix server at their internet exchange. They were exempt from the law because they are not an ISP.
Using a VPN would also work by tricking netflix into thinking you were using a service that they weren't throttling if that were the case.
Where is the evidence that the home user ISPs were throttling Netflix and it was not Netflix; the company caught red handed throttling ISPs for their own benefit throttling them in order to push for net neutrality so they can have a monopoly on throttling people?

>Yeah ignore the rest of my post

The part where you claim that the ISPs dindu nuffin was integral to your argument and was wrong from the start.

>I already stated I don't care if some dumb shit happens

Ah, so in this matter where ISPs were fucking over their customers, where that is the entire matter and where you claim it didn't happen you don't give a fuck?

>Bring on the competition. Yeah it will take years.

See: Google Fiber


>Maybe convince local governments to stop making deals with ISP's?

Yes, that is also an issue that is hampering ISP competition. But removing Title 2 like Ajit has championed is literally what the concept of "throwing the baby out with the bath-water" would be in the case of you wanting genuine competition,

The irony of a Sup Forumstard saying this is truly breathtaking.

>Sup Forums would be threatened without NN
>Sup Forums existed just fine without it 3+ years ago
Hmmmmmmm. Yeah, KingNigger™ internet can go.

I didn't say the ISP's didn't do anything. I was responding to your exact post about them doing things in the past. My post was a direct response to that fact. The fuck you talking about?

The whole point I'm making is that I prefer incentive for competition and the ability for technological advancements over safety. You're breaking up my posts in ways that don't make sense and because of that I'm not sure you're comprehending what I am saying, as simple as it is.

>I didn't say the ISP's didn't do anything.

>Having the government controlling the market because you're afraid of the near future and what ISP's "might" do

Again: There was no "might" the ISPs fucked around and the FCC responded to stop them. That is literally their job.

I said "might do" not "might have done"

you're on the wrong board, kid
we want obamanet jewtrality dead
>>>/leftypol/

And the whole point of that post was to say I'd prefer the possibility that they will do some dumb shit over the safety given by legislation. How could that possibly be making the argument that they never did anything and wouldn't do anything when I'm clearly presenting it as a possibility that I am willing to deal with?

>Where is the evidence that the home user ISPs were throttling Netflix and it was not Netflix; the company caught red handed throttling ISPs for their own benefit throttling them in order to push for net neutrality so they can have a monopoly on throttling people?


mattvukas.com/2014/02/17/venturing-comcast-netflix-rabbit-hole/

In that case the person eliminated a blanket VPN and instead routed around the Comcast route that was designated for netflix in his area and he again got proper service.


Oh and an side-note: That article you posted is from after Netflix agreed to pay Comcast's protection racket money. Its almost like that scene in a movie where the police walk into a shop after the mob busts up the windows and they tell the cops that everything is alright and they should mind their business...strange that Netflix up until 2014 provided data on how Comcast was intentionally dropping their traffic into the shitter and then after the ink has dried on the deal to pay off the ISPs its "Oh this was our fault all along, don't look too deeply into it"

Verizon alone spends like $10 billion a year on capital investment in infrastructure.

10 billion x (2017 - 1996) = $210 billion

What's the problem? Find me another industry out there that spends more on infrastructure than telecom. You'll have a tough time, because there aren't many.

>And the whole point of that post was to say I'd prefer the possibility that they will do some dumb shit over the safety given by legislation.


Ah, so now its "will do" instead of "might do" but you are still one notch away from the truth.

The ISPs *did do* all of that fucked up stuff and they were punished for it.

>Wanting net Neutrality back
Use that energy in getting rid of the ISP's local monopolies instead, that'll fix all the problems and increase speeds while reducing prices.

You've got some awful reading comprehension, buddy. Here, I'll lay it out for you:

I AM AWARE THAT THEY HAVE ENGAGED IN THESE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES IN THE PAST.

I PREFER TO TAKE THE RISK.

>Said on a site that has supported NN and relies on it to exist.
Net neutrality is gone. This site still exists.
So? Do you seriously think that Sup Forums will now shut down? Are we now doomed?
>Are you implying that Google just hooks its servers up to a bag a pixie dust and magically gets to connect to ISP backends? Are you retarded?
What is more expensive?
To connect nearly every single person to the internet all over the country, or to get a few datacenters connected to the backend?
Goolge pays for the second one, they don't care to pay anything for the first one, even thought that just very few companies like Google, Netflix, Amazon and Facebook use the majority of the possible bandwidth over those connections.

The terms of the 1996 telecom deal was that they wouldn't beg poor and resort to predatory traffic manipulation when the time came for high bandwidth needs. They are. That's the big deal.

Oh and Verizon has begged the government to loosen up its requirements of their buildout because they have been not meeting their obligation in terms of speed and reliability in many markets.

"possibility that they will do"
"might do"

These are different in this case? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not a native English speaker.

>you're on the wrong board, kid
You're on the wrong site, shill.

>Wanting to keep up competition in a market is lefty
Sure thing kiddo. The American right really is retarded.

Well having net neutrality does actually do something to prevent ISPs improving their Monopoly.

>I PREFER TO TAKE THE RISK.
Why though? Why support having ISP dick in your ass if you don't like it, unless you do like it?

>You've got some awful reading comprehension


Says the moron that posts:

>I PREFER TO TAKE THE RISK.

It isn't a risk you illiterate moron. They did these things and it has been documented that they did them. A risk implies that there is a chance they did not do these things and might not in the future. They did them. Dot.End.Period.

so dont use netflix or comcast?

Poos are really shifty people. They'll do anything to make a dollar. They're Jews without loos.

Worry about your own country mang, that bitch is running it into the ground.

Israel is based.
G-d bless Israel.

You know why this happened?
It didn't happen because Comcast was so evil and just didn't like Netflix or just thought "Fuck You, i will annoy my customers now".
It happened because Netflix in this area was causing soo much traffic, that it limited the possible bandwidth for the rest!
By limiting netflix, they made sure that all other sites still work and get good bandwidth.

It HELPED sites like Sup Forums, while it didn't help streaming faggots and big companies like Netflix.
This is why just big companies sperg out about Net Neutrality, because they don't want to pay for customer connections too.
For small sites, nothing will change... those will even profit from it.

I've explained it already, but this guy can't read so I'm losing patience. He's acting like I'm contradicting myself when I'm saying the same thing in different words.

I prefer increasing incentive for ISP's to compete to give consumers what they want, and am aware that is likely to take a long time. I prefer increasing incentives to developing new technologies for internet infrastructure for more competition. I do not like one industry using government to force another industry to work for them. I do not believe in the long term effects of protective legislation.

>Net neutrality is gone. This site still exists.

The rule change has not yet come into effect. There are several dozen lawsuits and a congressional review first.


>So? Do you seriously think that Sup Forums will now shut down? Are we now doomed?

There is nothing stopping an ISP from killing Sup Forums after the change goes into effect or from coming to an agreement with reddit to boost their traffic speed and dump Sup Forums's into the shitter. Literally Nothing.


>To connect nearly every single person to the internet all over the country

A service that the ISPs are regulated for and paid a hefty sum in regulatory fees and subsidiaries to get done.

Are you really begging poor for the major ISPs? Companies that build stadiums with their spare cash?

>don't use comcast
If comcast is the only ISP available in your area due to their monopoly then you don't have another option.

The majority of the populace is being gaslighted on what Net Neutrality actually is by Soros backed organizations.

NN is the government forcing themselves between the customer and service provider and regulating what the relationship between them should be. This is why if you primarily want Netflix in crisp 4k instantly you're forced to buy a package with all this other junk attached you don't care about because every bit of data has to be regulated by the government despite what it's used for.

In a nutshell... if you love Net Neutrality, move to China. Their government is more than happy to dictate what you can and can't have access to.

>or comcast?

Very few in Comcast's target service area have this choice Mr. AnCap. Some apartment buildings have exclusive agreements to only use one ISP.

When I'm saying I prefer to take the risk, I am saying I prefer to take the risk of something more serious happening. I really don't give a shit at all if Netflix doesn't work. Is risk not the right word here? Should I get my crystal ball and know exactly what will happen?

>It happened because Netflix in this area was causing soo much traffic


See: 1996 Telecom Act


It was literally penned as: The US Gov sees a massive increase in bandwidth need so we will give the ISPs regulatory fees from customers and massive tax breaks to build out their network to support such

The ISPs pocketed the money and still sold the bandwidth to the customers assuming they would never use the connections that they paid for. Then netflix came along and suddenly the people paying for 2MB/s actually wanted their 2MB/s and Comcast has been begging poor since.

>NN is the government forcing themselves between the customer and service provider and regulating what the relationship between them should be


Net Neutrality is the natural way a network of great size works before intentional interference and has been a governing principle of large networks since before the internet existed.

You may take issue with Title 2 style enforcement of NN but to claim that NN is something its not is the very definition of gas-lighting.

On one hand I want ISPs to lose their local monopolies, which NN didn't do anyways, on the other hand I want internet to go up to $300 a month so disgusting paid digital media distributors such as Steam and Netflix would lose so much money due to people not having internet anymore that they would hopefully go bankrupt.

>The rule change has not yet come into effect. There are several dozen lawsuits and a congressional review first
So, when are we finally doomed? When will this site finally shut down?
>There is nothing stopping an ISP from killing Sup Forums
I asked you if you think that this will happen.
And btw. total blocks of sites are perfectly legal even with net neutrality.
>Are you really begging poor for the major ISPs?
Are you really begging poor for big companies like Google and Facebook?
Until now, all examples for ISPs without net neutrality were limits of those big as fuck companies. For the simple reason that they cause huge traffic but don't pay for it. There is no example of some ISP blocking Sup Forums.
Until now, we know for sure that net neutrality profits big companies. But that it will harm sites like Sup Forums is pure theory..... just some apocalypse fags think that this would happen.

> since 1996 internet usage didn't change

Bullshit. NN regulations under the FCC never even existed until 2013.

Tell me... was your internet service cheaper before 2013 than what it is now? I think we all know the answer.

It more likely that Netflix subscriptions would become more expensive than internet subscriptions. ISP's can already charge what they want.. unless there's some rule I don't know about?

>I am saying I prefer to take the risk of something more serious happening

Something serious has ALREADY HAPPENED you dolt.

Before Title 2 enforcement ISPs were blocking things such as encrypted data. Some people not only rely on encrypted data transfers for their job but it has been proven that encrypted data traffic has been used in multiple cases of someone needing to get information out without prying eyes into their privacy.

> Is risk not the right word here?
Perhaps English isn't *your* first language. Risk implies that they won't fuck you in the ass. They were caught fucking people in the ass before Title 2 and have no incentive not to if/when it is removed. That is certainty, not risk.

>I prefer increasing incentive for ISP's to compete
This will not happen though. They will not compete because there's no point in doing so.

Not too sure what your point is here. With net neutrality repealed, the ISPs will be the ones in a position to dictate what we have access to. The government is doing their job in protecting the consumer. I see nothing wrong with this. I'm only annoyed at the FCC for becoming so corrupt and working for the ISPs rather than the consumers like they're supposed to.

Well people have to find other channels to do that stuff. If we as a society don't have a solution, handing the keys to the government is not the answer and is sweeping the problem under the rug and delaying the creation of a solution.

>Something serious has ALREADY HAPPENED
And still, nothing happened and Sup Forums is still here.

>This will not happen though. They will >not compete because there's no point in >doing so.

Yeah that's never happened before. Compelling argument.

>When will this site finally shut down?

We literally don't know what will become of sites that rely on NN if/when the rule change comes. But until it does the protection afforded to it is important.

Your argument is like someone taking a lamb out of its protective pen and placing them in a field full of wolves and walking away, and faulting others for wanting it in the pen.

Why did the ISPs pay millions lobbying for the change if they aren't going to do anything when it comes into effect?

>total blocks of sites are perfectly legal even with net neutrality.

Throttling of service to a site that has not violated the law IS under Title 2.

>Are you really begging poor for big companies like Google and Facebook?

No, one of the hilarious parts of the anti-NN argument is "you boys are shilling for Google and FB!" That is laughable. Both those companies can readily pay the ISP shakedown money. I advocate for the future companies that could *displace* google and FB. Under the coming rule change those companies won't have a snowball's chance in hell.

Agh phone posting is challenging

That is literally the opposite of what I said.

The 96' act specifically said that the internet was changing and regulation needed to adapt.

>a site that has supported NN and relies on it to exist.
imagine being this deluded

More accurately it is not wanting to become the lamb before it's too late

If ISP's are really stupid enough to play with fire and try to throttle or censor peoples internet usage... they will take their business elsewhere.

If people are looking for alternatives it will create competition and new companies will rise to give the customers what they want.

This is exactly what's happening in Canada with their cellular service and Freedom Mobile. Google it.

>Well people have to find other channels to do that stuff.


or we could just keep the Title 2 protection, like civilized people with rights and protections on what we paid for.


I guess that must be cuuuuu-Raaaaazy, getting what you paid for.

>And still, nothing happened and Sup Forums is still here.

You were already informed earlier in the thread that the rule change has not gone into effect. If you are going to be willfully stupid of how US politics works perhaps you should stick to Austrian politics.

Well anyhow I don't think you guys are convincing anyone

>Implying he wouldn't get the same results if it was Netflix throttling the data to comcast.
>Implying Netflix couldn't just remove their throttling after the deal to make it appear that they were the ones being throttled to push for net neutrality.

>Sup Forums hasn't had an annual message at its top in support of Net Neutrality since its birth


Yeah, and we have always been at war with East-Asia

I am not the website known as Sup Forums, user

> Hey guys! Support net neutrality and shill for Google, Facebook and Amazon!
> The big companies that took over the internet and made it to some censored safe space and who are trying their best to silence you need your help!
> Support JewTube now! If you don't support them, they will have to pay for the bandwidth they use and small companies could take over!
> If you don't support those big companies, the ISPs will for some reason shut down all small sites!

>We literally don't know what will become of sites that rely on NN
So suddenly we don't know?
One month ago every shill told us that Sup Forums will be the first site to shut down.
And what do you mean with:
>sites that rely on NN
I already told you that the sites who benefit the most of NN and rely on it are fucking Google, Amazon, Facebook and Netflix. The big players rely on NN, not the small one!
In every single example of an ISP slowing down a site, it was one of the big one, never a small site. Because why the hell should they care about the small sites?! Why should they care about Sup Forums?
If they want to shut Sup Forums down because of evil Nazis, they can do it! They can do it without net neutrality!

Sup Forums doesn't rely on NN. Google does!
Stop shilling for the jews!

The rule change that Ajit passed will turn you into the lamb and burn down the pen and put an open door in its place (FTC style NN regulation).

If the ISPs didn't have a history of this trash you may have had a point earlier. They do and as such Title 2 was needed to stop them.

the irony of autistralians caring about american internet service is truly load times
you have no right to speak until you have basic human rights, as in the right to self-defence, you hear me changa changa?

> I don't understand how networking works and I want to be as loud as possible about it!

His first test could be due to Netflix's throttling: mattvukas.com/2014/02/10/comcast-definitely-throttling-netflix-infuriating/

His second cannot. Its literally routing around Comcast's mapped route for Netflix. It doesn't obscure his provider from Netflix.

The ISP's not having a history of this would not be an argument whatsoever

>leftyshill calls me a shill on my own site
wew
fuck off sadiq

The argument that poster was using is that Sup Forums has not been a champion of NN enforcement. It has since day 1.

>You were already informed earlier in the thread that the rule change has not gone into effect.
So the shills from December lied.
But somehow i should believe your faggots that it will harm small sites, even thought that there is not one single example of that.

I laid out in my last point how small sites need NN more than Google and FB. But you just stick to those approved talking points.

Your earlier posts framed the matter as a "risk", the argument would hold water if the party involved (the ISPs) did not have a confirmed history of such actions. That is what I am saying.

and? (((mods))) are fucking kike shills like yourself, i dont give a fuck what they try to drum up support for, nor does it mean Sup Forums's existence relies on net kikeality, fuck off shithole nigger

>So the shills from December lied.


The "shills from December" said that if the rule change goes into effect Sup Forums and other sites could be at risk. The rule change has not yet gone into effect and as such the doom they said was coming is still in the coming phase. That's how FCC rule changes work. Your ignorance about the process does not make you right. It makes you ignorant.

>are fucking kike shills like yourself

Another laughable argument:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_L._Roberts

Roberts was born into a Jewish family[2][3] in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the son of Ralph J. Roberts, the founder of Comcast Corporation, and Suzanne Fleisher, a former actress and playwright.[4] Roberts graduated from the Germantown Academy and earned a Bachelor of Science degree from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1981, and immediately began working for Comcast.[5]