Support net neutrality

>support net neutrality
>don't know what it actually is

faschbook.com/freepress/videos/10155163152795610/

Other urls found in this thread:

ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-net-neutrality
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Typical.

I seem to disagree with almost everyone on almost everything these days, but this is really another case of (most of) the internet taking a very simplistic approach to something that likely won't pan out as they expect. "The big corporations, they hate our freedom and poor black people and they're going to oppress us." Probably not, at worst they're probably going to offer an extra streaming service or something at a premium and throttle occasionally until too many people complain. So not much different from what they do now.

The idea of big business ISPs messing with the speed of content is rather annoying, especially for people who live in rural areas with few options. But you know what's more annoying? A power hungry government that's shown beyond all doubt, REPEATEDLY, that it has absolutely no respect for the internet and the people on it regulating it centrally instead. "Don't worry, the law just guarantees freedom. It's to defend us." Until someone at some point in time inevitably tries to sneak something else in. Terrorism is bad, isn't it? Do you support terrorism? Of course not, so we'll just block some extremist sites here and there. You'll be fine with it, right? Hate speech is bad too, so how about a few more? Actually, we have trouble identifying people because they keep evading us, so we're going to need a new identification system.

I understand the frustrations of people who don't want to deal with shitty ISPs. And that the government has regulated new ISPs out of competing. And that the government has stopped mergers that would make things worse. It's a multifaceted issue. But what's consistent over time in the realistic sense is that you can switch ISPs, you can move, but what you can't do is escape central power. Even people in other nations can and will be affected by a centrally controlled internet. And sure, they can regulate all this either way, but it's an awful lot easier when you've got your foot in the door.

>muh netflix

Well the thing failed and net neutrality is now gone. How long until Orgin puts $$$ to throttle Steam ?

Net neutrality means an unregulated internet entirely.

I didnt support when obummer passed it and i dont support it now. Fuck the government and fuck plebbitors

Seriously why the fuck are you shit posting like a retatd while name fagging?

Nowhere is the power given to the government to take any proactive action controlling content on the internet. Power IS given to stop corporations who are doing so.

The government operates on a whitelist, not a blacklist. They can't do anything unless given the power to do so, and this doesn't give them that authority, only the authority to slap down a corporation that is abusing the system.

When the government tries to pass legislation giving them the authority to make action on internet usage, the same people will be there to challenge them on it. This isn't a government vs private business issue, it's a "stop fucking with the internet I don't care who does it" issue.

I understand what it means in principle. My point is that in order to state that private businesses cannot do something, you must, necessarily, regulate it at the government level. This is a really slippery concept that doesn't end well in practice because once you give them a little they like to slip in a bit more. And then a little more. And just a bit more, still. Even if the government is doing something good, it might be better that they just stay away for everyone's sake. If a business does something bad, just don't pay them. Better to have potential choices and hope than to give in and remove all doubt.

People aren't "wrong" when you ignore the ridiculous outliers like some of the people in the video talking about oppression, they just haven't got enough foresight. Furthermore, we already did live without this for many years, saw the tech boom, an economic collapse, the rise of social media, and cellphones, and it was generally not the companies fucking people in really meaningful ways, but the government.

>When the government tries to pass legislation giving them the authority to make action on internet usage, the same people will be there to challenge them on it.
Not good enough. Look, Wikipedia and Google and whoever else can black out their page for a day, everyone can spam their websites with notifications saying to go send these letters, people can go stand out in the pouring rain in the thousands and it still isn't enough. It just doesn't work that way. And to make things worse, if they say the right things and it's pushed out to the media the right way, they can take those gradual steps and get away with it. Just cut them off now while you still have the chance and don't let them weave their way in.

The protesters might stop it a few times, but it's not like mass surveillance is popular almost anywhere and look how that's doing. How many times have there been large protests now only for them to do absolutely nothing?

AMERICA YES!

>you must, necessarily, regulate it at the government level
it's not regulated at a government level though, that's the point, we are going from no regulation to SOME regulation, we are going from a free marketplace of ideas to control by the highest bidder.
And yet, of course there is some regulation, but we are only talking about things that are so severe that they break the laws in other ways, and these things would still see government intervention in the new system.

>Until someone at some point in time inevitably tries to sneak something else in. Terrorism is bad, isn't it? Do you support terrorism? Of course not, so we'll just block some extremist sites here and there. You'll be fine with it, right? Hate speech is bad too, so how about a few more? Actually, we have trouble identifying people because they keep evading us, so we're going to need a new identification system.

Are you fucking retarded or just a shill? the people who support Net Neutrality hate that shit to the nines, and IN NO WAY does NN support that type of Govt. behaviour. and when that shit DOES start up, we'll just kick up the same fuss that we're doing now to keep corporations out of our internet.

Why does everyone have to be retarded?

The Govt. should stay out of our data, and to whom it's sent and received from.
The ISPs should stay out of our data, and to whom it's sent and received from.

Net Neutrality secures the second thing, and does nothing to support the first. Why do you think all the open source type neckbeards support it so hard?

FUCKING IDIOTS.

I think we're just defining regulation differently or something. We're both looking at the same picture. We both get it. I understand businesses will do things you don't like, including for financial reasons. I understand the government and net neutrality are about not allowing them to. That's regulation. You have to tell them not to do that by law. It's good. If this existed in a vacuum it would be good. But when have things ever ended there?

Could the internet still be regulated with or without net neutrality? Of course. But there's a big difference between what they do now which is go after some actually illegal sites sometimes and pursuing it more in a way where they control what ISPs must do. That's more of the angle I'm getting at. The mechanism of net neutrality doesn't inherently let them, as it requires complaints and responses and so on, but if you can convince people to take this it won't take much to get a few more "moral" things. I get that on paper it's the opposite of net neutrality to do so. Telling them not to set up these regulations says to them, "fuck off from the internet, we won't even accept your involvement if what you're doing is 'good'."

I'm sure it sounds a bit out there but you have to keep in mind that people unironically protest free speech.

>the people who support Net Neutrality hate that shit to the nines, and IN NO WAY does NN support that type of Govt. behaviour. and when that shit DOES start up, we'll just kick up the same fuss that we're doing now to keep corporations out of our internet.
I already addressed this and your protest literally just failed.
>Why does everyone have to be retarded?
I've never heard anyone but myself argue anything like this in popular online spaces. Virtually everyone is gung-ho on net neutrality online.
>and does nothing to support the first.
Addressed it.
>Why do you think all the open source type neckbeards support it so hard?
Who cares? A lot of them support communism too.

I don't care about America.

But why did we let the EU kill net neutrality?
We're supposed to be the good continent.

Kill yourself. You'd do all of humanity a favor, if you just stopped breathing.

not neutrality would also prevent the government from mandating isps throttling and data caps.
not to mention that if I understand you(and I'm not sure, you seem to make little sense from my interpretation so I might be misunderstanding) this is a total non-issue, government HASN'T done regulation, and there's nothing about net neutrality that would make them start to.

>everyone can spam their websites with notifications saying to go send these letters, people can go stand out in the pouring rain in the thousands and it still isn't enough. It just doesn't work that way.

Citation fucking needed, mass protest has been the biggest driver of policy change in US history. Even if your cartoon villain politician just wrings his hands and doesn't listen, shit like that gets major media attention and changes hearts and minds, and allows for populists to come in and dethrone those in power.

Protests have never been about making someone go "Oh wow look at those people outside better reverse my decision", they've been about letting those in power know they don't just have a lack of support, but rather they have active opposition by their constituents. And this gets large population segments to rally behind forces to change the system over time.

Does the greater EU economic sphere speak English fluently or some other common language? I would assume that language barriers prevents common meetup sites from forming where mass international protest can come together and coordinate. Maybe?

Gb2 class, lil' slugger.

>(((EU)))
>Good

I hope this is just poor b8.
Do you know that the (((EU))) is on such a brink of collapse that Merkel has discussed bringing Sharia Law into certain areas because that means Muslim banks would be allowed to be established and they don't charge (((interest)))? Of course you didn't, otherwise you wouldn't have made such a retarded post in the first place.

ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-net-neutrality what are you talking about senpai? EU is protecting net neutrality.

>Does the greater EU economic sphere speak English fluently or some other common language?

All young people speak English just fine.

They are just too busy with their Facebook and their Snapchat to care about something that will rape them in their ass eventually.

EU was also smart in pretending the law that banned net neutrality actually supports net neutrality. - like your "affordable care act" that actually made health care extremely expensive.

You're retarded and you have too much faith.

You do understand me, mostly. It's a trojan horse of trust that they're the good guys. It happens one step at a time. I'm not unconditionally antigovernment but man, every time they get involved in the net they fuck it up after a while.

>citation needed/mass protests work/dethrone power
I don't think they'll do a good enough job because we've had bigger internet issues and they didn't do shit to stop anything despite complaints.

Think it goes without saying that I can't prove the future. No one can. So sure, this comes down to my opinion but it's based on history.

nobody cares

Smoke and mirrors.

They SAY they support net neutrality.
But the actual law text abolishes it.

>Do you know that the (((EU))) is on such a brink of collapse that Merkel has discussed bringing Sharia Law into certain areas because that means Muslim banks would be allowed to be established and they don't charge (((interest)))? Of course you didn't,
cause it's not true. and further, merkel isn't a part of the EU parliament, she's the german prime minister.
>Does the greater EU economic sphere speak English fluently or some other common language?
yes

No the actual law text strictly illegalizes any isps from not being neutral.

>she's the german prime minister
nope, chancellor.
There is no PM in germany

>illegalizes

See this part:
>discrimination of internet traffic by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) is not allowed in the EU, save for three exhaustive exceptions

>exceptions

That's the gotcha.

If there are exceptions then it's clearly not neutral.
And it;s not trivial: one of the exceptions is that ISP's can impose data caps and extra charges on other peoples content while making their own services free.
T-mobile has already exploited this loophole to push their own music screaming service.

No, they haven't. There are many other music services that are except, because anticompetitive is already ILLEGAL

>compliance with legal obligations; integrity of the network; congestion management in exceptional and temporary situations)
So how it has always been. Illegal content, woah, big deal. And the other two are extensions of illegal content, if you got confused.

Yes, because killing Net Neutrality totally means the government cannot create laws and arbitrary rules so the ISPs have to block shit they don't like.

You're a retard.

>So how it has always been.

Not here in the Netherlands.

We used to have real net neutrality.
Now we have "net neutrality" designed by the ISP's (((lobby groups))).

>There are many other music services that are except

lol no.

Unless you have unlimited data, all except T-mobile's own streaming service will rape your monthly data allowance.

Already addressed this. The short version is that if there's substantial pushback against them categorically getting involved, they're certainly not going to be able to get things everyone hates by so easily. And if they do, it's less likely to last. It's an effort to force them to be pushed in other directions.

I do understand how people think net neutrality does exactly that. I disagree on greater track record.

Wow this thread is full of samefagging shill posts. What, was McDonalds not hiring? Call centers turn you away? Your minimum wage job shitposting on forums in support of Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and Charter fucking us all over get you enough to cover the bills? I hope not. I hope you and your family starve to death.

Fucking SAGE this crap.

>the (((EU))) is on such a brink of collapse

your brain on Sup Forums people

They're me. I'm the only one really defending the other viewpoint here and I haven't hidden that. Well other than who isn't me.

Would've been interesting of Le Pen won. Bare minimum would've been a media meltdown.

hahaha

did you have an actual law or was it just an agreement between ISPs?

this is very meta.
At the moment ISPs have lobbied local states to have a monopoly and the ISPs could in theory do what they want in terms of discrimination.

The net neutrality regulation is supposed to force the ISPs to not discriminate. It's also government intervention though because without any, they could discriminate.

>MUH NEHFLICKS
>COMCAST SUXXX!
>SAVE US GUBBERMENT
>SAVE US BASED BLACK PRESIDENT
>TELL EVIL COMCAST WHAT TO DO
good goyims

Slow day?

>ANY OPINION I DONT AGREE WITH IS B8

Here's your (you).

It's not the 90's anymore. Most of the surplus created by internet is now captured by edge provider megacorporations like fb, google, netflix etc. Not the end user or even the ISP. This is why forcing ISP's to a business model where charging fees from anyone else but the end user is illegal turns into equivalent of a subsidy toward these megacorporations. Simply put, your monthly bill is used to fund part of the google data collection and marketing infrastructure, corporation that rakes in profits while the isp struggles and gets all the blame.

If this situation continues it will lead to ISP business being less and less profitable. Eventually government needs to step in and start providing tax breaks or subsidies to the ISPs. Yet still ISP profit continue to be garbage compared what off the edge providers get. The edge providers will call it net-neutrality or whatever and defend it to the bitter end, for them the best situation is when the entire network funded by the tax payer and where the role of the ISP is nonexistent aka the dumb pipe model.

Netflix benefits more from their connection to you than you benefit from connection to netflix. Yet netflix wants you to pay for the service which they receive surplus. It's completely lopsided system leading to inevitable isp subsidies. European countries display less problems because the ISP business here is in many cases already paid by the government.

I hope you and your family starve to death. Your paid shitposting job hurts real people and would result in vastly more harm and suffering than if you were no longer able to feed yourself and your family.

Do us all a favor and kill (you)rself.

You fail to understand that two way connection needs to be supported by the both parties, if not it will lead to free a rider problem.

There's no free rider problem you parasite. Peering fees cover the data transport cost across ISP boundaries and what you're being paid to post here about is called "double dipping" which is thievery.


Go.

Kill.

Yourself.

You.

Fucking.

Pajeet.

Shill.

>here is my non-arguement

Here's your (you).

>Peering fees cover the data transport cost across ISP boundaries
That's not where the costs are. Cost are at the user end. The edge provider wants to access not just the node next to the interconnect, it wants to reach the user as well.
If you are ok with the age old peering fees model I'm sure you are fine not having Title II regulation which intents to regulate peering arrangements.

past a certain threshold, it doens't really matter does it? it's disregarded either way.
>(You)(You)(You)(You)(You)(You)(You)(You)

Edge providers are the last mile ISP, shill. Your propaganda isn't going to win your an argument with a network engineer who works with ISPs you literal parasite.

Kill yourself (you) leech incarnate. Do it. Make the world a better place right now by ending your life.

Explain why Google Play Music and SoundCloud don't count against my data cap? Don't tell T-Mobile, but I haven't paid my bill and I'm still getting access to streaming services but nothing else.

well i'm a fucking computer and you can't just go around violating my rights to be treated equally by everybody

The costs are at the user end(multiple), not at the interconnect with the edge provider(single). Expecting to get high throughput to every user while not paying relative to use is ridiculous. In healthy market both sides take part in paying for the infrastructure, not just the user.

The EU made it law and forced countries with real net neutrality (like mine) to abolish it and adopt the EU's variation on """"""net neutrality""""" instead.

You get another (you). Don't you hate 9-5 jobs for minimum wage? Sitting in front of a computer and wasting your life on an imageboard full of degenerates? Going back to a wife that bitches at you constantly for the crappy living conditions your minimum wage job provides?

Some days don't you just feel like grabbing a knife from the kitchen and ending it all? No one likes you. Even your family is disappointed in you. You could make them happy though, user. For the first and only time in your life, you could bring them joy. It's simple, really. All you need to do is quickly stab the knife in your chest where your heart is. Make it quick.

>The costs are at the user end(multiple), not at the interconnect with the edge provider(single)

Whose costs? Cause the costs are everywhere that data is transported. Infrastructure, personnel, and so on.

> Expecting to get high throughput to every user while not paying relative to use is ridiculous.

Then offer less bandwidth if you don't think you can meet the demands of your oversubscribed lines. That's the last mile's ISP'S fault for lying to their customers. It's not NetFlix's fault if the ISP can't meet the customers' demands for bandwidth caps that you sold them access to.

> In healthy market both sides take part in paying for the infrastructure, not just the user.

Both sides already do take part in paying for infrastructure. Netflix pays exorbitant amounts to the ISPs it uses who, in turn, pay exorbitant amounts to the ISPs they peer with and so on.

I said EUROPE is supposed to be good.
Europe is a continent, not a trading block nor a government.

The EU is destroying Europe and all the nice things we created.
Soon only laws lobbied for by big corporations (such as importing millions of Muslims to undercut wages).

>circa 2010-2011, netflix not making a lot of money compared to expenses
muh net neutrality it's not fair!!! we have to pay for our peering agreemenets! throttling! throttling! wahhh its not fair
>circa 2014, netflix making big bux and can afford their peering agreements
u-uh g-goys, we need those p-peering agreements, please f-forget about all this net neutrality stuff
>peering gets excluded from obamas net neutrality bill last rule

>Netflix pays exorbitant amounts to the ISPs it uses who, in turn, pay exorbitant amounts to the ISPs they peer with and so on.
I take you are fine with Title II regulation being removed then as it is there to give fcc the ability to regulate peering pricing?

Here's your (you) for continuing to push the telecom lobbyist framing of reality.

Must be hard work, sitting in front a computer all day and shitposting. Why don't (you) have a nice, cool, refreshing drink?

The Title II regulations were implemented in a way that explicitly forbids regulation of peering prices, telecom shill.

Here's your (you).

Not true. In title II, when peering agreement is disputed, the case falls on fcc. Effectively meaning regulation of peering prices.

Here's another (you). You're really rackng them in!

>Not true. In title II, when peering agreement is disputed, the case falls on fcc. Effectively meaning regulation of peering prices.

At no point does the Title II regulation permit the FCC to dictate what price ISPs must pay to peer with each other. Not even in the case of disputes. The closest thing it permits is the FCC to forbid extortionary peering rates aimed at killing small ISPs.

Sure, in spirit maybe, but that's not what is actually on the wall. Which is almost 800 page worth of regulations.
And then there's title II, which is the one actually getting BTFO, and had nothing to do with what NN is in spirit.

Citations needed on all claims.

>Net neutrality means an unregulated internet entirely.
No, it doesn't.

>hurr durr the gubment is evil and muh slippery slope means that first they put restrictions on companies and next thing they will take away our guns

I never said FCC is going to _dictate_ the pricing. They just might in case of dispute say the pricing is unfair. The effective result is regulation of prices.

The effective result is preventing extortionary peering arrangements aimed at killing off small ISPs

So do you get overtime being paid to shill for telecoms? Do you even live in a country where the concept of overtime is a thing?

>hurr durr the corporate is evil and muh slippery slope means that first they put restrictions on consumer choice and next thing they will take away our internet
At least you can't take your business elsewhere when it comes to shitty companies.
Whoops, can't do that with the >gobmint

*can

>business elsewhere
Please tell me how US cable companies doesn't have in essence a monopoly on the ISP market again? How could Comcast throttle Netflix without loosing any customers (hint: they lied about it)?

Why do American exchanges even have peering prices?

European exchanges generally charge a flat membership fee with no charge on data whatsoever.
This encourages ISP's to exchange more data...which is the bloody point in the first place.

No wonder Amercian internet exchanges are so pathetically small when it comes to throughput.

>Why do American exchanges even have peering prices?
Because in the US everything cost money and charity is considered bad and will make the shareholders question your abilities as leader.

>The telecoms have paid posters on Sup Forums spouting the "Gubberment gonna regulate muh net" shit

Fucking hell.
Sup Forums went from full support no stops to daily threads abut it being suddenly terrible.
NN is deregulation of the internet, the ISPs want to gut it for profit you mongoloids.

Comcast didn't throttle Netflix. If you didn't solely read fake news you would know that.

Different pricing models are different. Neither are charity.

You got so much wrong its disturbing.

I am constantly amazed that free market competition and capitalist for-profit innovation is no longer a conservative ideal when it comes to this particular issue. Is the koolaid really that strong? Am I the only person on the right that isnt totally retarded now?

You even admit it in your argument. "Well rural communities will be subject to anticompetitive anticapitalist monopolies (not by ISPs mind you, but by all online services companies) but that's just the cost of our righteous hatred of our system of self-government!"

>Comcast didn't throttle Netflix
They clearly did, because the drop in throughput was clearly measurable and in addition Netflix wouldn't have given up and paid Comcast an undisclosed amount of money if they didn't.


>ZOMG FAKE NEWS
lol

Just be sure to immediately BTFO and SAGE the samefagging shills.

You're wrong, retard. Even the base 2GB plan gets free music streaming from a large variety of services

>how US cable companies doesn't have in essence a monopoly on the ISP
Unless you live in the middle of nowhere then you will most likely have 2-3 major ISPs and dozens of smaller ones.
If you do live in podunk bumblefuck nowhere, then you have more monopoly-related problems than your internet connection.

In the US, not charging market price is considered charity.

That's why the CEO of a burger company can't decide to pay employees any more money than other burger companies, for example, because the shareholders will boot you off and replace you with someone who maximises their profit.

Competition is a meme. The free market functions best when it is left alone to its own devices.

Netflix paid money to establish a direct interlink to Comcast because Congent was throttling and overcharging them. Netflix tried to take advantage of the situation through a publicity stunt to try to make Comcast connect them for free. Fake news.

so is NN a good thing or a bad thing

>2-3 major ISPs
Let me paint you a picture, user. I live in Norway, a country with 5 million people. I live in Oslo, a city with 550,000 inhabitants, something that would clearly be considered "middle of nowhere" in US scale. I can choose from 6 different major ISPs, and 9 or so minor ISPs. Only 3 of the major ISPs are in to other telecom related industries in addition to being an ISP.

Choosing between 2 or 3 major ISPs, that ALL are cable companies that mostly charge you money for delivering content, is not a good situation. They will obviously prefer their own content over other content and treat traffic from competitors unfairly.

It's bad because it stifles innovation and growth in the ISP industry. NN is why America only has like 3 telecommunications companies.

If you actually stopped spending the rest of your paycheck on gaymen cpus and mobile tracking devices you could actually be a shareholder and have this be a good thing.

>greed is good
Gordon Gecko, please.

I live in downtown Seattle. I have one option for cable (Comcast) and one for DSL (Centurylink). The DSL maxes out at 12 megabit. That's the entirety of my options for wired internet.

In Europe that *is* market price as that's what the market agreed upon.

Not everything needs to be charged based on bandwidth usage.

How much do they pay for this kind of shilling.
You'd have to be desperate or they pay good.

Substantiate your claims! Preet.

Why should Netflix get an internet connection for free while you have to pay?

>In Europe that *is* market price as that's what the market agreed upon.
The market doesn't agree upon everything. What you are referring to is called price fixing, where telecom operators and universities etc have just collaborated together and decided what they should charge each other.

Depending on the market, price fixing is in the gray area of what is actually legal.

>Not everything needs to be charged based on bandwidth usage.
It doesn't, but some countries have stronger antitrust laws that prevent price fixing and collaborative pricing, depending on the market.

Also, I am European.

Give ballpark address and I'll prove you wrong

Why should (you) even be paid a minimum wage job to shitpost on Sup Forums with telecom lobbyist lies? McDonalds not hiring?

Answer the question. Why should Comcast connect Netflix for free?