The biggest argument against net neutrality is a demand for a free market. But when making this argument...

The biggest argument against net neutrality is a demand for a free market. But when making this argument, the FCC ignores the fact that the "market" exists on the internet. Many businesses exist solely online, and plenty of innovation has thrived because websites can fairly compete. By removing net neutrality, we give a regulatory power to the ISPs, which threatens the free market nature of the internet. Therefore, the "free market" argument makes no sense. The removal of net neutrality removes regulation from the ISP market, but puts a stranglehold on a much bigger economy: the entirety of the web.

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/heres-comcast-netflix-deal-structured-numbers.html
google.com/amp/s/www.howtogeek.com/273617/how-t-mobiles-free-music-and-video-streaming-works/amp/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

if they're thriving then they can pay, if they cant pay then they're not thriving.

>That pic

You realize big companies already pay a shit ton of money for higher bandwidth, right?

I've argued against NN shills so many times on this retarded board that I just don't have it in me anymore.

Imagine that someone just made a good point against your blind faith in the "good will" of the government, and shit post whatever response you were going to make.

Nothing can save you. Prepare your anus. Anything not on the Alexa top 100 is going to load at dial-up speeds within a year.

Yep government loves to screw everyone except in this one particular case where they miraculously decide to do a good thing for no reason. Oh and also ISPs happen to be on-board with it for some reason. Weird how that is.

>implying this is a bad thing

good

>implying this is a good thing

Thank you for your response, phone poster. Unfortunately, due to recent deregulation of the consumer ISP market, the bandwidth needed to display your (lack of a) contribution to the thread is unavailable. Please try again later!

...

What about new businesses. This simply increases startup costs and makes it less likely that they thrive. It's a vicious cycle

>he's too poor/stupid to use a VPN

>The government is bloated and inefficient, elect me and I'll prove it.
Republicanism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

>such butthurt

cis white males strike again. NIGGER LIVES MATTER

How does it increase startup costs? They connect to end users through a third party CDN or cloud service like they always had.

>general inability to infer context

Phone poster strikes again! Enjoy this era of shitposting, because BASED PAJEET has insured that your long-overdue departure from this place will happen soon.

>you want bigger portions, you gotta pay more

Practically every business works this way. Whats the point you were trying to make?

good

Exactly, which is why OP is a retard for thinking this is anti freemarket

But ISPs new-found power doesn't have to be used that way. They can squash out any business they like, big or small.

I wish this was the case. Then this entire argument might have actual merit.

Why would they do that? Better question, why would all the ISPs collude to do that? Since that's basically what you'd need to slow someone down across the whole internet.

Also, you do realize E2E encryption prevents anyone from monitoring your traffic and making throttling decisions, right?

There are about a thousand holes in the argument they give, but they still give it.

This is why I've been against NN from the start. But boot-lickers just love the thought of daddy gubmint controlling the ebil corporate baddies!

Sad, really.

>throttling decisions

Whats to stop someone from making a 'default' throttling decisions based on 'I don't know what this guy is doing, lets just throttle it anyway'.

>Why would they do that? Better question, why would all the ISPs collude to do that?

Once someone starts doing it, and is profitable, everyone else will follow. This is how business works. Just think about how much bandwidth ISPs can save if they throttle Netflix/Youtube/Torrents.

Shit, Comcast was throttling Netflix, well before ...

Comcast was not throttling Netflix. Thanks for outing yourself as an idiot who reads fake news.

omg what if they just shut down everything!!!!!

this is a fucking retarded argument

also it will be the people paying for it, not the businesses

quit inventing ways out of the blue to extort more money out of people based on a false premise, asshole

t. Netflix shill

If ISPs throttle your favorite website, just switch ISPs.

Oh wait...

use a VPN you dumb fuck

>inb4 HURR THEY BLOCK VPN THEN DURR

>They can squash out any business they like, big or small.

ftc will stomp them if they do that.

Hah I remember when everyone in IT was a card-carrying Ayn Randist. Now you're all pleading for Mummy Gubmint to hinder the business decisions of ISPs.


Admittedly it was when we were all carrying a million+ in share options (that turned out to be worthless) without any formal qualifications.

When anyone would go into it (or indeed IT) in the 21st century beggars belief. Still got my Aeron chair that I liberated before the liquidators moved in.

>Whats to stop someone from making a 'default' throttling decisions based on 'I don't know what this guy is doing, lets just throttle it anyway'.

Even the corporations you hate so much are heavily dependent on E2E encryption, so they wouldn't do that you retard

>Still got my Aeron chair that I liberated before the liquidators moved in.

that is theft and violation of NAP

>implying they wouldn't throttle encrypted traffic outside their whitelist

It already happened. Netflix pays Comcast.

>inb4 HURR THEY BLOCK VPN THEN DURR
Even chink government cant block or throttle obfuscated VPN like Shadowsocks.

Do you even know what encrypted means? You can't fucking whitelist it, retard

you're dumb

>It already happened. Netflix pays Comcast.
Yeah but nobody was squashed.

Yes. They pay Comcast directly now instead of wasting money going through a third party like they did before. Stop reading fake news.

Net Neutrality is a second bestism. I'll take a second bestism but the perfect ideal would be to break apart these ISP monopoly contracts that were agreed upon within the local government.

I'm a libertarian but I'll support Net Neutrality for the meanwhile as long as the language is clear and specific with its powers. And as long as we can replace it with meaningful legislation that unties up the government monopolies and restructures the market to allow for better competition.

This.

Libtards don't understand how ISPs (or the internet in general) works.

It was the like the last days of communism mate, if it wasn't nailed down, it went. We were ourselves creditors but in the wrong tier to actually get anything so it didn't feel especially wrong somehow.

Today I'm an officer in a corporation (on another continent, 17 years later) and I know better and wouldn't dream of doing something like that. My job still pays less than Dreamweaver in 1998 though but then most legal things don't.

Sometimes feel a bit sorry Sup Forums's more ambitious individuals, you missed the goldrush. It was a lot of fun even if it ended in tears (and a lot of people finding out being anti-government and anti-regulation wasn't as smart as they'd thought, turns out it was just dumb luck not judgement).

>I'm a libertarian but I want a fuck ton more government intervention (or more government regulations as a second best)

The IP addresses can be whitelisted retard. Encryption doesn't hide that.

No u

And why? Because Netflix is paying money.

Sauce?

Netflix was paying more money before you idiot. They just changed who they were paying money to and got a better deal.

do you have any use how DNS works? I'm guessing probably not

>it will be the people paying for it, not the businesses
There is no reason to think it won't be both.

This is wildly off-topic but I wonder if the state of IT today is because you're all working for people who were lucking 1999.

*any idea

Well what the fuck do you expect to happen then? Thousands of local governments decided to jew out telephone and power line rights to any ISP that would pump a ton of money to decrease last-of-mile costs to a fraction of what they'd be in the first place.

>The IP addresses can be whitelisted retard. Encryption doesn't hide that.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. That would be an undertaking only God could do. Do you have any idea how many up addresses there are? Then as soon as you get your whitelist done and build the myriad of data centers to enforce it across the entire internet, it's still easy as fuck to proxy around it

Sauce?

I do know how DNS works. Do you?

The whitelist is for IP addresses that don't get throttled dummy.

>The IP addresses can be whitelisted retard

Lol, are you talking about ACLs? Even the biggest routers in the world can't whitelist a /8 subnet

ridiculously easy to circumvent all these hypothetical nonsense cases, but these shills are too dumb to understand how. Not like it will ever happen anyway

blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/heres-comcast-netflix-deal-structured-numbers.html

Of course I know how DNS works, and I know it would be trivially easy to change to a provider that doesn't use these """""whitelists""""" that only exist in your imagination

I can imagine in 10 year, Rest Of the World is going cut off the USA like the west did to Russia and there will be Americans jumping the wall around USA (trump did not build it to keep mexicans out, but Americans in) for the taste of freedom.their fathers and grandfathers had.

>The whitelist is for IP addresses that don't get throttled dummy

So you're saying that all of the ISPs will collude to whitelist less than half of the internet's ips? Are you fucking retarded? You're just assuming that all these huge companies make up some tiny minority of the internet?

whatever you say retard

TMobile whitelists certain websites through domains and IPs. Why not everyone else?

>switch to a different provider
Now we've gone in a full circle. There's not enough providers.

>imaginary whitelist
TMobile does this.

DNS PROVIDER YOU DUMB FUCK

>Why not everyone else?

I just said why, you retard. Even something as small as a private network would be too big to whitelist. Do you know anything about how a router works? Hint: its RAM is nothing like the RAM in your computer

>TMobile does this
proof?

Changing your DNS provider doesn't help. Using an encrypted provider doesn't help either. You will still access IP addresses outside the whitelist and get throttled.

whats with all the comcast and cox shills itt

some of this sounds like plain ass kissing. trying to get on your new daddy's good side?

>things that never happen

I work at a semilarge ISP in Europe.We live in the real world and we got an agreement where netflix has installed a large caching server in one of our datacenters so all that traffic flows within our own network saving us both money in the long run. I think they pay for the upkeep/their share of the electricity.

google.com/amp/s/www.howtogeek.com/273617/how-t-mobiles-free-music-and-video-streaming-works/amp/
In this case, TMobile isn't throttling websites outside the whitelist but proves that a whitelist is possible.

Someday, user.

SHUT THE FUCK UP MOTHERFUCKER BERNIE PROMISED ME NETFLIX AS A HUMAN RIGHT REEEEEEEEE

>T-Mobile gives more for nothing
>this is bad

OH SOME DAY, what if they just turn into Facebook only? That's possible too right? What's that? They're trying to make money by providing full access? Well I'll be a sonofabitch

idiot

I never said that the way TM uses a whitelist is bad. I'm saying it proves that a whitelist is practical to make.

Dummy

Whitelists for metering usage at a particular music service owned by the ISP is possible. Whitelists for throttling routers is impossible, see

your notion that it will be used to block access is completely unfounded and a total fabrication used to scare people into more gubmint oversight. Even IF that did happen, which it won't, it would be ridiculously easy to circumvent

There is no telecom free market in about half of the U.S. as incumbents lobbied laws into place that all-but-criminalize competition.

>Thread is full of people letting their politics bleed into every corner of every topic they ever discuss, unable to look at the situation for what it is since it's just another way to barrack for their political team.
I'm tired of this.

>This is what libtards actually believe

gibsmedat

Could the ISP just throttle all IP addresses that were accessed without going through their DNS first? That seems practical.

How could it be circumvented?

great counter-argument bro

proxies, VPS, VPN, etc. but it'll never happen, so...

>Could the ISP just throttle all IP addresses that were accessed without going through their DNS first? That seems practical

It doesn't matter how they construct the blacklist or whitelist. Routers can't support more than a few hundred ACLs

I'm affraid may not understand what QoS is, and how it works.

>corporations you hate

Lol, what? Calm your right-wing snowflake ass down.

If net neutrality is removed, than any protections on local monopolies also need to be removed. That is the solution. Internet service is not a free market currently.

QoS only applies to outbound traffic smart guy

>Mommy let me play with the QoS setting s on my home router therefore it's possible to use it against the entire internet

Lol, yeah, the ISPs will collude and rebuild their infrastructure for this insane QoS whitelist then pray NN doesn't come back with the next liberal president

>vpn is magick

I love how normies advocate VPN as a way to circumvent throttling ...... its a mark of how litle technical know how posters like these have.

I love how dipshits assume throttling even occurs currently. Spoiler: it doesn't

Sad children.

t. someone too stupid to avoid these hypothetical doomsday scenarios

Reading comprehension, ladies and gents.

because they'll throttle the VPNs, right? Good luck with that

Oh, lolololol.

For fucks sake, this /was/ supposed to be a technology board.

What your point, exactly? The big bad ISP is gonna lock down your internets?

I see often debates about internet neutrality. But there is no debate : the end of the net neutrality is a bad thing.

>The ISP provide the customer a connection to the internet.
>The customer have a limited bandwidth, according to the plan (even throttle or data caps if you live in a shitty country)
>If the customer wants higher bandwidth, he have to pay more: the infrastructures are expensive, and someone have to pay for it.
>Same thing if the customer is a datacenter that need 40Gb/s connexion
>Every site have the same speed (depending of the server capacity), the ISP does not slow down or up any site.
This it net neutrality.

>The ISP provide the customer a connection to the internet.
>Same thing, the customers also have a limited speed.
>But this time, some site or service are faster, because they have a partnership with the ISP.
>Basically, the services that paid the ISP get "the maximum of your available bandwidth", while the others, the competitors or smaller sites, are throttled down just to push you to visit the big site.
>you'll get 40Mb/s on Youtube but 10Mb/s on XHamster or any other streaming sites for no other reason than money
This is what big companies are trying to make, and we all agree that's it's shit.

A good analogy:
>You take the car to go to the supermarket.
>There are two supermarket, at the same distance.
>There is Walmart, that use a road with Premium Speed, where you can drive at 90km/h (or the unit in your country),
>and there is "other supermarket", where the road is limited to 50km/h.
>The two roads are basically the same. In fact, it's actually the same road for the most of the path.
>You could always drive at 90km/h on this road, but just because Walmart pay whoever made/own this road to slow down the others, you can drive at 90km/h only if you go to Walmart.

See

>km/h
that's a terrible analogy and you're not even American so how about you fuck off and worry about your own caliphate

>Why would they do that?
So they can make $$$ by selling premium service for customers to big companies

>Also, you do realize E2E encryption prevents anyone from monitoring your traffic and making throttling decisions, right?
It would not be hard to make an encryption tunnel dedicated to "premium services"


My country have net neutrality and fast internet for cheap, thank you. Plus we use metric system.