Republicans caused and want this

Republicans caused and want this.

Other urls found in this thread:

thisisnetneutrality.org/
azimuthblog.com/2016/07/some-thoughts-on-net-neutrality/
blog.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-costs-around-the-world/
media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/how-netflix-works-with-isps-around-the-globe-to-deliver-a-great-viewing-experience
transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/05/chart-shows-which-content-owners-have-direct-interconnect-deals-with-isps.html
youtu.be/kD7LEoMvp4A
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Yeah every other country that doesn't have NN laws has this problem, right?

Classifying everything as common carrier went great for the land lines, I for sure loved the wire tapping.

>go.com
>napster
>aim
>digg
>flickr

thisisnetneutrality.org/

I want politicians and corpfags to leave the internet alone. No bullshit pricing, no bullshit common carrier laws, just let us surf god dammit.

>Government propoganda
Not what net neutrality is "preventing"

They actually do:

azimuthblog.com/2016/07/some-thoughts-on-net-neutrality/
blog.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-costs-around-the-world/

Didn't know that republicans and democrats switched names

Common carrier laws aren't bullshit, they just prevent the corpfags from fucking with what you can see and watch.

>wire tapping
>implying they cant monitor what you do online in about a million ways already

This isn't a republican/democrat issue.

Corporate lobbyists are trying to make it that way to garner support from idiots who can't help put automatically oppose/endorse something just because "their party" does.

The situation right now is really The People vs Telecom Corporations

Democrats caused and want this.

Title II classification is a huge fucking mistake, new laws should be drafted. Common Carrier is a horrible fucking idea for something as important as the internet.

haylee williams looks like a poormans dodger she can go fuck herself

that image is old as hell. as far as i'm aware the obama admin didn't even start to enforce this "net-neutrality" anyway.

>I don't actually read anything to do with this, I just listen to what leddit tells me

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with "wire tapping the land lines" (where do you people even come up with this shit?)

>foreign companies too fucking cheap to place servers locally
>it's my ISP's fault that Netflix is slow!
Fucking liberal tards.

hurr, democrats are the real racists etc.

back to r/the_cheeto

>new laws should be drafted

do that for now then make a constitutional amendment to really fuck the ISPs in the ass

Epic post my friend
upvoted, if you give me your reddit username I'll buy you gold

>as far as i'm aware the obama admin didn't even start to enforce this "net-neutrality"
You'd be correct.
Title II classification never actually got put in place, all the current FCC admin is doing is revoking rules that never took effect.

People equate "net neutrality" to the kerfuffle Comcast caused when they were throttling p2p traffic. What democrats are actually trying to pass is government authority over ISPs.
If it were JUST "hey you cant decide what traffic gets priority" nobody would care this much, but its not. It's about varying administrations trying to weasel more and more authority into what is largely an unregulated industry.

Think about this: When was the last time you couldnt access a website that somebody else could on a different ISP?
Never?
Oh, gee, how about that.

Common Carrier status prevents exactly what's depicted in your image.

The corporations want to control what we can see/hear/say/think online, and that's what getting rid of common carrier status will do.

Because all Common Carrier does is forces them to treat all data transmitted online equally.
Just like how if you buy 50L of water you can use it to wash your car, or water your garden, without paying a different price. Common Carrier status prevents the ISP corporations from charging you more money to watch youtube videos, and less money to watch their ComcastTube videos.

Might as well give up everything since you have nothing to hide :^)

stop pushing false propaganda, you lying piece of shit

We have pretty clear evidence what happens without common carrier protection, because some countries don't have it.

And it is exactly what we all feared: The ISP's start throttling bandwidth to competing services and begin to treat the internet like cable television rather than the internet.

You can plug your ears all you want and bury your head in the dirt; that doesn't change what the factual reality of the situation is.

im saying they wouldnt even bother wiretapping the internet cause they dont need to you bint

Title 2 classification has always been in place. The law was amended to include ISP's as common carriers in 2015, specifically because they were starting to misbehave and fuck with people's internet connections.

The ISPs aren't throttling anyone you fucking idiot. Netflix is too fucking cheap to pay for proper amounts of transit so their end users get fucked. The problem is always upstream, not with the ISPs.

while doing this would actually be more expensive than it is worth i can totally see streaming services havng issues unless they payed and that is still a YUGE problem

For those of you who need or want a quick rundown on Net Neutrality, see this image

>The ISPs aren't throttling anyone you fucking idiot. Netflix is too fucking cheap to pay for proper amounts of transit so their end users get fucked. The problem is always upstream, not with the ISPs.

That's not how it works.

Netflix paid for their bandwidth, and users paid for their bandwidth. The ISP is trying to double dip.

See image.

>The corporations want to control what we can see/hear/say/think online
No they don't.

>all Common Carrier does is forces them to treat all data transmitted online equally
No it doesnt.

Common Carrier gives the government the same direct authority they hold over telephone providers. And when it's just you calling somebody, that's not TOO big a deal. When you're dealing with what amounts to the carrier lines that run the modern world, that's a HUGE fucking deal and REALLY REALLY BAD.
ISPs should not be regulated the same way a telco company is, and we sure as fuck shouldnt be using 80 year old rules for a modern technology.

>charging you more money to watch youtube videos, and less money to watch their ComcastTube videos
Give one example of that happening anywhere.

And again, another explanation of what the deal is with Netflix in the image.

The ISP's oversold their lines, and are now trying to pass the costs off on Netflix. Not the other way around.

Netflix didn't pay for their bandwidth, that's why the users can access every site besides Netflix just fine you fucking retard.

NN doesn't apple to mobile carriers.

Why is that?

And since it doesn't, why isn't there mass censorship and throttling like the retarded OP claims?

>It's just treating traffic neutrally!
Literally not what Title II is, literally not what these regulations want in place, literally not what is happening.

>le everyone who doesn't advocate for government acquisition of the internet is a fascist mayamy

>listening to an asuka poster

1. Yes they do. The same corporations trying to repeal net neutrality are the same ones controlling the mainstream media. They want nothing more than to lie, control, and misdirect the public.

2. Yes, it does.

3. No, it's not "really bad"; it prevents the ISP's from fucking their customers on both sides over. It prevents the ISP's from colluding together to control what websites you can visit. It prevents the ISP's from killing off websites by forcing them to pay more than they could possibly afford just to get more visitors. It WILL turn the internet into a new Cable TV Monopoly where every website is controlled by the ISP, and NOBODY wants that.

4.
azimuthblog.com/2016/07/some-thoughts-on-net-neutrality/
blog.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-costs-around-the-world/

There's no such thing as "push" or "pull" you fucking idiot TCP/IP is a two way communication protocol.

Netflix did pay for their bandwidth.

The ISP's oversold their lines to customers who started using netflix en masse - more than the ISP is able to actually provide.

That's not Netflix's problem. If the ISP can't help but oversell their network capacity, that is an ISP problem. The ISP's need to stop trying to legislate market regulations to protect their income when they fuck up.

That is LITERALLY what is happening.

my isp (and most) in the UK, work with netflix and host the videos from the main ISP servers which reduces bandwidth usage and costs.

found a redditor

Literal fear mongering

Trump is going to make it right

>That is LITERALLY what is happening.
It is literally not

No they don't.
No it doesn't.
Yes it is.
>Here are two blogs, therefore I'm right

No Netflix clearly did not pay for their bandwidth. They cheaped out on buying a connection from Congent that was oversold and Congent expected Comcast to upgrade the link for free.

>Trump is going to make it right

Just like he's not gutting healthca- oh wait

Why the fuck should ISPs host Netflix videos in their data centers for free?

who gives a fuck


if this happens everyone will have to start running mesh nets wish is a good thing.

Users request data from Netflix, Netflix uploads data to them.
Lots of users requested data from Netflix, they're "pulling" from Netflix, and Netflix is "pushing" it to them.

This is how the internet works. When you visit a server, you are making requests, and the server is responding to those requests.

The trouble is, the internet service providers over-provisioned their networks and could not supply the bandwidth contractually obligated to their customers.

To use an analogy with water: The ISP's built a pipe that could push 50L of water through, and they figured their customers wouldn't all demand water at once, so they sold 500L worth of subscriptions to their water line, and then when everyone started using their water at once, the ISP couldn't provide the amount of water that they were obliged to per the terms of their contracts with their customers.

So the ISP's are now trying to blame Netflix for the problem, when it's really been the ISP's refusing to upgrade their infrastructure and overselling what they have.

And a big part of the problem stems from the ISP's buying themselves monopolies in various jurisdictions so there's no competition and no need to actually upgrade anything - which is why the US broadband internet has been so slow to upgrade over the years.

ISPs cache other content. Why not Netflix?

Because they are being paid to do so. Netflix wants them to do it for free.

That's a problem between Cogent and Comcast, not an issue on Netflix's end.

If Cogent promised Netflix they could deliver X bandwidth, and they can't - that's Cogent's problem. If Comcast needs to upgrade their link, that's Comcast's problem.

Cogent and Comcast need to figure it out, not Netflix.

>so they sold 500L worth of subscriptions to their water line, and then when everyone started using their water at once, the ISP couldn't provide the amount of water that they were obliged to per the terms of their contracts with their customers
Water companies actually do that though. So...what's your point exactly?

>So the ISP's are now trying to blame Netflix for the problem, when it's really been the ISP's refusing to upgrade their infrastructure and overselling what they have.

They happily took tax payer dollars to upgrade infrastructure and it went straight to executive bonuses. Those poor oppressed job creators. amirite?

competition.

>We also give qualifying ISPs the same Open Connect Appliances (OCAs) that we use in our internet interconnection locations. After these appliances are installed in an ISP’s data center, almost all Netflix content is served from the local OCAs rather than “upstream” from the internet. Many ISPs take advantage of this option, in addition to local network interconnection, because it reduces the amount of capacity they need to build to the rest of the internet since Netflix is no longer a significant factor in that capacity. This has the dual benefit of reducing the ISP’s cost of operation and ensuring the best possible Netflix experience for their subscribers.

media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/how-netflix-works-with-isps-around-the-globe-to-deliver-a-great-viewing-experience

IIRC, Netflix actually offered to pay for it themselves anyways (even though the ISP's literally do it for free already for everyone else anyways) and they were turned down.

>oh vey please host our stuff for free!

I thought it was common practice to cache some content locally to reduce the congestion on the link to the upstream provider. Doesn't Netflix provide ISPs with appliances to do this?

Users have a 50L/s connection from the water company's pipes to their homes. It's not the water companies fault that Netflix only paid for a pipe half as big as they need from their water tank to the water company's pipe.

No one is complaining about Google or Amazon doing the exact same thing.

Google and Amazon are paying for local hosting.

That this is what happened with the ISP's and the issues have nothing to do with Netflix.

The ISP's can always increase their data rates at any time. Net Neutrality doesn't prevent them from doing it.

It just prevents them from fucking with the connections and picking and choosing who gets what they paid for. If you pay for 50mbps download, and you connect to Youtube - you expect 50mbps speeds.

But the ISP's want to do away with Net Neutrality (and again, this already happens in South Korea), and they want to throttle youtube so you get it at 50kbps, while the ISP offers to sell you their ComcastTube alternative that will work at the full 50mbps.

This kind of thing is what Net Neutrality prevents the ISP's from doing.

kek

No they give caching appliances to ISPs just like Netflix does.

That's not how the internet fucking works you idiot. If Youtube only paid for a 50kbps connection to the ISP then that's how fast your connection is going to be to Youtube no matter how much you fucking paid for your gigabit internet.

Netflix paid for a pipe big enough though. The issue lies entirely with the ISP's refusing to upgrade their infrastructure while overselling what they've said they have.

If Netflix is paying for a 5000L pipe, and the ISP can't actually deliver 5000L throughput, that's not Netflix's fault.

See section 223 of title 2, faggot!
transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

No you idiot.
blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/05/chart-shows-which-content-owners-have-direct-interconnect-deals-with-isps.html

AKA, paying for local hosting

No they didn't.

>get free caching appliance from Netflix
>bolt it in your rack and plug it in

whew that was hard

/u/sarah

>Trust the government, heavily lobbied by kikes
>Trust the Media, completely owned by kikes
Lose-lose

Now every other company wants to get the same deal.

what these links are, are simply peering connections to bypass the core ring(s) of an ISP. it's mostly due to the sheer amount of traffic that gets used. ISPs don't want that on their main ring so they go another route. there's nothing nefarious about this.

A lot of people forget this, big telecomm it's ridiculously subsidized by the government and then they get monopolies enforced by the government
NN laws would be harmful in a free market, but in the corrupt planned economy that disguises itself as lobbyism this is the best that can be done
The ISP are literally getting caching servers for free
Under NN it does, without it Youtube pays for 50 MBPS and gets 50 KBPS
They did, if they didn't prove me wrong

That's exactly how the internet works.

You just refuse to believe that the websites have actually paid for the bandwidth they use.

They absolutely have. But the ISP hasn't upgraded their infrastructure enough to actually provide it.

It's like an ISP selling you a cable internet package, and then they deliver you a dialup modem. When you max out your dialup modem's connection they complain that you're using too much of the internet. Well, sorry honey bun, but they actually paid for more than they're even getting. Maybe upgrade your infrastructure to actually supply what you've sold to people?

Really, the takeaway here is that we need to break apart the service provider monopolies

Yes they did

Then fight to get the ISP's broken up so we can have some actual market competition and NN isn't necessary anymore.

Until then, it's the only protection we have against blatant jewry.

Holy hell the anti-NN shills got completely BTFO in this thread

Maybe you guys should stick to shilling on the other boards where everyone's not as tech savvy and are easier to manipulate and lie to?

So how is Net Neutrality going to solve that? Now everyone gets 50kbps per second connections. But everything is being treated equally! All good right?

If you mean free market capitalism then you are 100% right. In the end it will benefit the consumer, as companies are allowed to compete without adhering to market limiting standards.

I am VERY surprised that after all this government funded spying Sup Forums is fine with giving even more control of the internet to the government.

THE ISPS DON'T GIVE A SINGLE SHIT ABOUT CACHING SERVERS!
They don't get any benefit at all from having caching servers on their network. The only winner is Netflix. Why should the ISPs do it for free?

This is actually for once very Srs Business. We really don't need people fucking around with this
youtu.be/kD7LEoMvp4A

This. They both want it anyway, OP wouldn't understand because he gets his political views from the other kids at the lunch table.

there is no visible problem with this
stay off the internet if you're poor or switch company if you have a problem with them
>B-B-BUT MUH MONOPOLY
Either stop using the internet entirely or move if means that much to you.

the only people for NN are redditors

Sup Forums can see right through the liberal fud

Question
As someone not living in the US, how will this effect me?

Net Neutrality means, if you pay for 50mbps, you get 50mbps.

Money offered for services provided.

If the ISP can only provide 25kbps, they are still free to try and sell that as a 50mbps connection, but they will have to suffer the consequences for lying to their customers and providing less than what was paid for. Rather than getting legal protections that let them screw people over.

>the only people for NN are redditors
>Sup Forums can see right through the liberal fud
Sup Forums has literally always supported NN until /r/thedonald invaded. We practically STARTED the NN support online back in the day. gb2 reddit.

That's not what net neutrality means idiot.

it is always "up to" 50mbps, never have I seen a connection advertised as "guaranteed 50mbps" without any fine print indicating that it is subject to your distance from the exchange or whatever, so there is nothing legally wrong or deceptive about this.

As our ISPs grow bolder and greedier, your ISPs will follow.

After all, why should you upgrade your network and provide superior service when you can just throw a datacap on customers plans, drop speed by 30%, and triple the monthly bill!

Also expect the internet to get slower, a lot of traffic goes through the US.

Just buy business class, John Oliver.

Perhaps if you ask George Soros to make duplicitous infographs full of lies and spread on reddit..?


This shit was only started because Netflix didn't want to pay Comcast for the several hundred Yotabytes of bandwidth that they consume. Kill Net Neutrality and implement Last-Mile laws so that there is actual competition like in GSM.

> People in the USA actually believe this

>After all, why should you upgrade your network and provide superior service when you can just throw a datacap on customers plans, drop speed by 30%, and triple the monthly bill!

If that were the case, we would all still be using dial-up.

Now go back to Red_dit.

I am not in the US, but live in a country where the Internet is actually controlled by the (multinational-)government...

The US Government is beholden to the US Constitution in which the very first amendment is the right of free speech, which the US Government cannot infringe upon.

However, corporations CAN.

So you have legal recourse if the FCC begins to censor people, but you have no recourse if the Corporations do it.

Furthermore, this isn't a free market. The Internet Service Providers have actually bought market monopoly positions. People don't have any market choices. So once the 2-3 ISP's in an area collude together to lock out particular websites, services, etc. the customers are absolutely fucked.

It's even worse when you take into consideration how many people need the internet to find work, submit resumes, talk to family, pay bills, etc. etc.

This guy is arguing that every customer of an ISP should be able to connect to a single server all at once at the advertised speeds. Otherwise, he considers that to be "overselling their lines".

Listen here faggot, there in order to do that they'll have to upgrade their infrastructure from that exact server to every customer. That will cost billions just for a single Netflix data center.
What happens when someone else creates another bandwidth intensive video streaming app? Another billion on infrastructure because the ISP can't know if every user suddenly wanted to use Netflix one hour and google play movies another.

Net neutrality allows the ISP to tell those bandwidth hungry socialists to get the fuck off their network or pay to help them upgrade it. No ISP would be stupid enough to charge the customer for this, since that would just create demand for other ISPs. If there isn't one already, that demand will make one if it's profitable.