Can all American anti-net neutrality folks please post their current internet plan, justify the price/speed/value etc...

Can all American anti-net neutrality folks please post their current internet plan, justify the price/speed/value etc. and then explain why removing NN will make it better? Thanks.

I'm just doing it to piss off reddit really.

It's ultimately going to kill Sup Forums or your access to it, you know...

I would pay $100 extra a month to use this site if it kept off redditors.

Stop shilling on Sup Forums reddit.

My ISP is a local non-profit co-op and I'm paying the same price for 50Mb now that I was paying for 256kB in back in 2000. They're extremely flexible and offer packages from 20Mbps-1Gbs with no data caps. Law requires them to enforce DMCA otherwise they probably wouldn't care about that shit either. Couple years back I even got a $150 check from them at the end of the year (they came in under budget).

So with or without Net Neutrality it would make zero difference as to how they run things.

>all for teh lulz
u make kekistan proud

I'm not burgers so I cant help

Are you American? Which ISP do you use. I need for research purposes.

But how many others will? Not a lot, and without visitors Sup Forums will die.

Nice ISP. If there was something like that here, I would use it. Unfortunately the only choices I have are giant cable companies that have negotiated with the city not to allow competitors in.

>If there was something like that here, I would use it
It's likely that your municipality would start one if the currently available service provider options became too corrupt.
Negotiations with the city only last as long as they give the city more money than the city loses from people not wanting to live there due to shitty internet

Isn't the big deal about lacking net-neutrality that it would (((supposedly))) cause ISPs to charge extra for PREMIUM sites? Then why the fuck would ISPs bother charging for access to this tiny obscure shithole of the internet infested with poor folk?

What benefit would I, as a consumer, derive from corporate control of my internet usage? How will limiting access to it make the internet more free and competitive?

The city proposed it a while ago. If I'm remembering right, the cable company sued to block it.

Because it's not on the list of sites on the other plans available, so you have to pay the premium price for real, complete internet without site restrictions.

NN is protecting you from corporate control of your usage. With it, they have to treat all traffic more or less the same. If NN is removed, they'll start by prioritizing traffic to premium sites. Then they'll start to throttle non-premium traffic to keep it from getting in the way. Premium site traffic will also bypass data caps. After a while that can act as an excuse for lowering or failing to raise the caps. Similarly, packages that only give access to premium sites will be cheaper than normal complete internet ones -- but with fewer people using full packages, the prices on those will rise.

So if you use only premium sites it probably will benefit you. But if you use sites that didn't pay up, you'll suffer.

i'd see it as: give users an arbitrary data cap outside the service packages they already pay for e.g. 1gb to access whatever sites they want at reduced mbps. or some shit like that.

You must be over 18 to post here

Kekistan accepts immigrants of all ages.

>It's ultimately going to kill Sup Forums

If only.

Do you currently love your ISP? Because if it's anything like time warner/verizon/comcast/etc, then probably not. Removing regulations makes it easier for them to compete with each other in all kinds of ways, and lowers the barrier to entry for startups that may want to come in and disrupt them entirely.

Just look at the way google fiber failed. That's what excessive regulation does, it makes it near impossible for even large established juggernauts like google to compete in certain areas. Does that sound like the kind of situation you want to live in? where your only choices are between a small cabal of large shady ISPs? That's the bigger principle here.

They may be stupid enough to actually try and limit your internet access initially (contrary to popular belief, this isn't even guaranteed to happen), but if enough people vote with their wallets, you can bet the competition will step in to grab a large swarm of new customers. Resulting in a more dynamic, *consumer driven* marketplace for internet access, even if still not totally ideal.

It's only """corporate control of my internet usage""" if you make absolutely no distinction between shady companies and decent companies, and ignore all the market forces that would push companies to get their act together.

I'm not even against net neutrality, but the argument for it is easy enough to understand. Don't know why people seem to keep conflating the *lack* of regulations with """increased restrictions""".

So basically, like a ton of mobile service plans that already exist.

Someone remind me, don't smartphones also access the "net"? If so, where's the "net neutrality" for mobile been all this time?

It won't kill Sup Forums but most burgers will be cut-off unless they pay up.

Sup Forums will be sooooo comfy in a while. . .

That's a very optimistic view.

ISPs are more interested in pleasing shareholders than customers. Current net neutrality rules don't prevent them from competing with each other. They've divvied up the country in such a way that it's exceedingly rare for the consumer to even have a choice between two companies.

Further, we're charged more for our internet than many (possibly even most) developed nations, and we often receive worse service for our troubles.

If lack of profitability is a driving factor in their failure to innovate, then they need to look at how they're wasting their money internally rather than seeing how they can squeeze the customer some more.

>Removing regulations makes it easier for them to compete with each other in all kinds of ways, and lowers the barrier to entry for startups that may want to come in and disrupt them entirely.
In a perfect fantasy world where there is only True Capitalism™, maybe.

Sup Forums is a world top 500 site

It will be exactly how the internet was before 2015 which was when NN was implemented.

>more interested in pleasing shareholders than customers.
MEME ALERT
Companies are interested in pleasing shareholders.
Shareholders care about profits.
Companies are therefore interested in profits.
More customers = More Profits.
Less customers = Less Profits.
Angry customers with alternatives for where to go = Less customers.
Companies are interested in preventing angry customers for the sake of their profits.
Q.E.D.

You gotta view the full picture user.

>Current net neutrality rules don't prevent them from competing with each other.
Obviously, preventing competition would effectively be mandating monopolies. The point is that less regulation opens up more *avenues* for competition to arise.

Nobody's saying your mom&pop ice cream shop doesn't have flavor selections, they're just saying Baskin Robbins has more.

>If lack of profitability is a driving factor in their failure to innovate
Err, that's the opposite of what would happen if they lacked profitability. Having a large incentive to increase profits significantly in the long run it literally what drives most innovation, and it's easily what drives most startups.

>they need to look at how they're wasting their money internally rather than seeing how they can squeeze the customer some more.
Well, they don't really have much of a choice but to look for internal optimizations. If a company opts to squeeze it's customers as much as literally possible, something's gonna give. It'd just be a poor business strategy, and a one way ticket to bankruptcy.

>Removing regulations makes it easier for them to compete with each other
Yep, like they're not going to continue cutting up the maps to make sure they don't have to actually compete with each other, right?
All that GUBMINT INTERVENTION is making them do that, not them being greedy cunts, right?

What I wanna know is- what absolute fucking insane mental gymnastics are you idiots gonna pull out of your ass when we're paying more for this shit, and getting worse service?

We've been through this rodeo before. The lack of govt. intervention sure made the telecom companies compete and play nice, right? Not like Bell just fucking ate the competition up and fucked everyone with absurd rates for calling.

History surely won't repeat itself.

You sure are fucking optimistic, when we've seen how these large companies work already. Surely they won't fuck us again.

>The point is that less regulation opens up more *avenues* for competition to arise.
MEME ALERT
there is nothing inherent to regulation that promotes or prevents competition. You lot love spouting this as if it were gospel.

WoW internet $70/mo I get about 400 MBit somewhat symmetric

Also forgot to say NN won't make fuck all difference in my internet service one way or another.

>Angry customers with alternatives for where to go
You can't go anywhere that isn't owned by jews.
There are no alternatives in a monopoly.
You are going to get buttfucked and you are going to take it, because nobody cares about you and most customers just care about netflix and reddit.

Nope. Previously there was an understanding that ISPs are neutral and don't fuck with traffic. Then some ISPs proposed to change this, so they could give preferential treatment to sites that pay them. NN is the FCC telling them no, and blocking this change.

Except when there aren't any other choices for consumers other than going without. Now the companies don't have to offer better service than their competitors. They only have to offer better service than no service. They don't need to care if you're pissed -- so long as you aren't pissed enough to shut off service, they can fuck you as hard as they want and you'll go on paying them.

What will data "fast lanes" accomplish? Is that like a virtual t3 connection?

Fast lanes will make sure you can watch netflix and I can browse Sup Forums and both of us will get a decent connection.

It won't accomplish anything.
Fast "lanes" are just normal unthrottled connections.
Everything that isn't payed for will be throttled though.

No, that's just what retards think. The big deal is that it will allow them to have data caps and do throttling during peak hours again.

It's like the connection you already have, but other people's premium traffic will take precedence over your non-premium traffic, or even throttling your traffic to make sure there's enough bandwidth available for the premium stuff.

This isn't like adding more lanes on the side for fast traffic. This is walling off lanes that are already there and reserving them for it.

What if you're saturating the network with your expensive connection and I want to use my 2Mbit connection to browse text based site. They can't prioritize packets so my connection will suffer for it even though I am not using it to its full capacity.

Removing NN in no way gets rid of regional monopolies for ISPs you are making shit up you worthless retard.

>My ISP is a local non-profit co-op

I think certain FCC regulations only apply to ISPs with over X number of customers. I don't know if NN is one of these.

>Angry customers with alternatives for where to go = Less customers.
There are no alternatives you idiot.

In spirit I'm for net neutrality, but i use mobile data so I don't gaf. Don't like the precedent tho.

No. It guarantees MY Netflix will be fast, because Netflix paid for a fast lane. It makes no promises about your Sup Forums browsing. If I and other Netflix subscribers are saturating some part of the route they control, it's just too damn bad and you can party like it's 1999 while you watch pages load line by line on the scraps of bandwidth that are leftover.

Government intervention made it nearly impossible for other ISPs to start up and compete with the current ones

You can comfortably browse Sup Forums on 3G, I doubt it'll be worse than that.

If your ISP actually has the bandwidth available to cover what they sold to both you and the other guy then there won't be an issue. If it doesn't then it shouldn't be selling what it doesn't have available.

Remove that intervention and wait for a healthy ecosystem of small alternative ISPs to form. THEN we can talk about dropping NN and letting the free market handle it.

As it is today, we have no free market for ISPs. Most places it's either monopoly or duopoly.

>No NN
I can pay for a fastlane on my smaller connection. You and a million other people can watch avengers on netflix. My fastlane won't suffer.

>NN
Everyone's connection has to be treated equally so fuck everyone else who isn't streaming

So what if I can't fully saturate my bandwith 24/7? I can spike and it meets my demands. I don't want the option to run 100% throttle all day and fuck over everyone else on the network. If I want to do that they better be able to charge me for it.

>All that GUBMINT INTERVENTION is making them do that, not them being greedy cunts, right?
How about, BOTH? The whole point of capitalism is to harness the efforts of all those greedy cunts, and still provide some value in society, instead of having them literally just rape and pillage us all.

>What I wanna know is- what absolute fucking insane mental gymnastics are you idiots gonna pull out of your ass when we're paying more for this shit, and getting worse service?
Because all complex things just magically work out become amazing overnight, right? That's why obamacare was a total smooth success story, right?

> The lack of govt. intervention sure made the telecom companies compete and play nice, right?
Hah, and what definition of "lack of government interaction" are you using here? Are you implying the 1900's were some kind of lawless wild west with no regulations in the telecommunications industry whatsoever? Because it sounds like that's what you're saying, and your argument kinda depends heavily on that little factor there.

We simply DON'T KNOW what a lack of government intervention would've caused for most things in recent history, because it's always been there. It's like performing a ball drop experiment on Earth, and then just assuming it'd be completely identical on the moon.

>You sure are fucking optimistic, when we've seen how these large companies work already.
Who said anything about endorsing large companies? It sounds like you're the one that wants to continue giving your money to these crooked tycoons by actively pushing against anything that would give them competition from smaller players. I don't trust large conglomerates, nor should anyone else, and that's why I want to help SMALLER companies compete. I'm not saying we'll see mom&pop ISPs anytime soon, but I am saying that there are companies already out there who are just as interested in gaining market share as we are in dismantling the ISP monopoly.

fuck, second reply was for

>They can't prioritize packets so my connection will suffer for it even though I am not using it to its full capacity.
Everybodies connection suffers the same when that happens.
And they won't be prioritizing your connection in the future, because you don't pay more than the one with the expensive connection.
It's more likely that you will have to shell out extra money to be prioritized in such cases.

You'd be surprised. I'm in a country where net neutrality isn't a thing, and my ISP throttles the 200mbit connection I pay for to less than 1mbit for every site that's not YouTube, Netflix, or Steam.

No everyone won't suffer equally. 1MB slower for someone on a 100MB connection is not the same as someone who needs 1MB and gets .95MB.

I have no evidence that it will or won't, but unless the ISPs set aside some bandwidth that can't be filled by fast-lane traffic, there's no guarantee it'll be any better than dialup.

However, there are plenty of other things I do on the internet that do require more bandwidth. For instance, using a smaller video streaming site or downloading a Linux iso. All these sites will either have to start paying ISPs or become hell to use.

Letting ISPs do this also puts up an artificial barrier to new sites that require bandwidth to work. A new Youtube competitor will now not only have to deal with what they do now, but also find the money to pay for fast lane access on major ISPs, or be throttled into the ground.

Create a free market for ISPs to prioritize sites, destroy the existing free market of sites.

That's because it's a tautology you dumbfuck. Regulations are RESTRICTIONS BY DEFINITION. It's like arguing that adding 1 to 1 won't make 2.

Or do you just not know how restrictions work?

I have to pay more for water each month anyway and I don't need internet to stay alive.

This is not how it works you retard.

Tell me then, how will it work? Will they offer all customers the same guaranteed bandwidth? No, they'll have different speed packages no different from how it is today. I will have no way to guarantee my minimum speed. They will not be allowed to guarantee speed to me. They will have to treat everyone's connection equally.

>I can pay for a fastlane on my smaller connection. You and a million other people can watch avengers on netflix. My fastlane won't suffer.
That's not necessarily how fast lane works. Sites would pay ISPs to give their visitors priority or guaranteed bandwidth. It's up to the ISP whether to offer similar priority to all your traffic if YOU pay them more.

Even if they do let you pay them for fastlane, it looks like you're still getting a raw deal by dropping NN. You'll be paying extra for the same as you get today. How is this supposed to be beneficial again?

>Everyone's connection has to be treated equally so fuck everyone else who isn't streaming
No. Simply fuck everyone -- if the connection is clogged up and the ISP isn't allowed to prioritize streams, everyone's Netflix fucks up and they call the ISP until the ISP improves the link that's congested and fixes the problem for everyone.

Without NN, they have no reason to upgrade their stuff until your connections are fucked to hell and it starts to impact the premium streams too.

Everyone that is streaming will fuck up the internet for everyone else and then they'll all have to pile into the fucking call center to tell the ISP about it. That sounds like the best fucking way to run the internet. No guaranteed minimum speeds, everyone just shits it all up at once.

I agree, and that situation is ultimately preferable than what reddit is wanting.
I doubt the 2005 decision will be thrown out sadly

are you retarded?

Thank you for the (you)

I hate how this has become the new meme, they'll jusy make the connection to Sup Forums worse in favor of their own websites and sites that pay and they'll do stuff like shit down skype so you have to make a call

Actually they'll throttle streaming services when they are saturating the middle tier providers so you can still access your websites. If you want to stream then you might be butthurt about this.

>jusy
just*
>shit down
shut down*

Nobody has guaranteed minimum speeds either with or without NN. NN only guarantees that if a cable run is saturated, everybody will get throttled about the same -- and if this is a regular occurrence, network upgrades are in order. Without it, they might throttle the non-premium traffic to hell and call it fine so long as premium streams aren't affected.

If it were "all streams", that might have some validity -- basic QoS, prioritizing streams, calls and gaming since they can't withstand latency, then web page requests, and then downloads at lowest. But instead we're talking about prioritizing based on the site's willingness to pay the ISP. So, if Steam pays my ISP and Pornhub doesn't, your Steam downloads (which should be bulk) might take priority over my porn streams (which should be on top because video streaming).

This puts up a barrier to anyone wanting to make a new video streaming site, or anything else that needs bandwidth: pay the ISPs or be throttled out of business.

What about the innovation that nn restricts?

They won't do that to bog streaming providers because they are already paying, the real losers are smaller websites and start-ups

I thought Kimmel actually did a skit with him and I was confused and then I discovered it was some off-brand in-house shit they did to probably raise their "relatability" or whatever

>bog*
big

> What if you're saturating the network
With what, your 4 fiber strand * 12800 MB/s connection that kinda combines with 12 other such people to saturate some 48 strand trunk line?

This never happens. It's technically possible in the sense that this is basically off the shelf fiber tech now, but it never happens.

NN makes it so they can't run another cable for specific streams so other cables don't get saturated. They have to allow all traffic through the cables equally. I cannot pay for a guaranteed minimum speed with NN.

I also cannot pay for a low latency connection at X speed with NN either. I will have to suffer for the whales that saturate the hell out of middle-tier providers.

>But instead we're talking about prioritizing based on the site's willingness to pay the ISP

This is last leg. NN is going to regulate mid-tier providers as well. If you want to have a functioning internet you need mid-tier providers to be able to discriminate based upon data.

No they won't have the internet divided up like that. They will most likely cater to different bandwidth needs. This whole idea that they're going to be curating thought is ridiculous.

Not mine specifically, aggregate demand.

Fucking retard

They'll throttle or even disable shops and streaming services that don't pay them to be fast.

They'll do many tiers of this for maximum exploitation.

You CAN pay for greater bandwidth and lower latency. You can even get guaranteed minimum speed. It's called a business tier connection. You don't have one because they cost more.

NN allows ISPs to sell higher tier connections that perform better. What it doesn't allow is prioritizing based on sites or types of traffic.

And I can pay for my connection and get reasonable VoIP while those heavy users will pay more to use more infrastructure and I won't have to subsidize their heavy usage of the infrastructure.

No they won't have the internet divided up like that. They will most likely cater to different bandwidth needs. This whole idea that they're going to be curating thought is ridiculous.
>no they won't
because...? They have always talked about fast lanes which they will sell to big businesses which gives the ones with money an advantage and screws the ones that don't. It is anti-competitive and therefore anti-consumer.
And that skype thing I mentiomed actually happened before title 2 btw

The Netherlands
Unlimited 50 Mbit/s including TV+phone
Killing NN will improve my online experience when most burgers wouldn't be able to afford shitposting anymore.

>Not mine specifically, aggregate demand.
So they got 30000 customers in a city that have bought $120/month plans with only like 50/10MBit or some nonsense like that, and OF COURSE for those $3.6mn / month they should throttle more heavily rather than lay down a few more strands of fiber (and maybe local data caches or whatever) if necessary?

You and I have a different understanding of what we think ISPs should do.

@63495500
are you retarded?

How is that retarded?

Say we have no NN and the ISPs accept payment from sites to prioritize their traffic for visitors.

Now say I want to start a new video streaming site like Youtube, but with more free speech. Unless I can find the money to pay off some large ISPs, nobody will want to use my site because all the videos take forever to load and then stream in tiny resolution. The ISPs effectively throttle me out of business, because as a startup I don't have the cash to pay for a fast lane.

Competition drives prices down. Everyone can't afford to fully guarantee the speeds. That's asinine.

Do you also think fractional reserve banking is a bad idea?

What streaming service do you have in the Netherlands?

Why is he doing that obnoxious millennial gasp?

what competition?

ISPS ALREADY DO THAT WITH NN. You can already pay more for a better connection. What NN prevents is the ISP taking payments from sites in exchange for prioritizing the traffic when people visit their site.

All.

You and they already paid for the infrastructure though.

What you can get on top of that is that you can pay more directly and indirectly.

Directly because access to Sup Forums may cost extra, like access to German and Japanese and Chinese internet locations.

Indirectly because you possibly won't even be able to reach half of the shops and get elevated prices for those that DID pay ISPs for the privilege of being reachable by their customers.

It'll OF COURSE make everything better rather than just make profits even fatter, right?

Everyone does not pay for top speeds right now, with NN in effect. ISPs are allowed to offer shit speed connections for cheap. That is not what NN is about.

And that payment structure is what affords them to build out more infrastructure than would be possible if they did not prioritize packets.

>Indirectly because you possibly won't even be able to reach half of the shops and get elevated prices for those that DID pay ISPs for the privilege of being reachable by their customers.

Only when I can't access the rest of the web at all. They would need to saturate the prioritized streams entirely for the packets on non-prioritized streams to not be accessible at all. I would have my prioritized half of the net and the non-prioritized. They won't block access altogether, it will just be non-prioritized packets.

It is exactly what it is about. If they can't prioritize packets they can't afford nearly as much infrastructure.

Pizzaland
1Gbps/300Mbps FTTH, €25/mo

Don't care about burgers quantity, I guess my experience would be more or less the same.

>implying the cable company isn't swimming in profits and can't afford to upgrade their infrastructure

imagine thinking ISPs would actually spend their extra cash on infrastructure to enable higher speeds for everyone, and not just lower speeds for people who don't want to pay for priority

> that payment structure is what affords them to build out more infrastructure than would be possible if
HAHAHAHA
How fucking retarded are you fucking faggot?
How much do you wish to be buttfucked you slimy turd?
Go choke on a bag of dicks.

> Competition drives prices down.
Good thing split up mono-and duopolys etc. and force larger, dominant ISPs to let smaller ISPs interconnect with net neutrality in place, huh.

That elegantly avoids the problem with the barrier to market entry where you have to build a whole national and international network before you even could give customers better conditions than the existing companies.

Ah wait, the USA isn't doing shit and removing net neutrality too will just equip the big companies with endless amounts of money and power because ultimately they hold all the cards.

>He's gonna bend over for Pajeet just to piss Reddit off.

you really think they can't afford infrastructure without this? How can even think that when in literally every western yuro isps are doing fine woth net neutrality? Even some of your isps are fleeing overseas(like telenet) because the olygopoly in america is too crushing.
They have so much control that they can AFFORD to not innovate, that is the real problem here.

i'm sure our entire country would be blanketed in fiber if it weren't for those greedy ISP

if only NN could save us all

>kill Sup Forums or your access to it
net neutrality != open internet