/ourguy/ weev explains how alphabet and (((Facebook))) are co-opting Net Neutrality for their benefit

/ourguy/ weev explains how alphabet and (((Facebook))) are co-opting Net Neutrality for their benefit
youtu.be/B03eByZia5I

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=ih94coOlnqo
forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/11/24/netflix-and-youtube-now-consume-50-of-the-internet-as-the-argument-for-net-neutrality-weakens/#1aba9b0736e6
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>2017^0.999...
>paying attention to nazis

>Listening to a GNAA troll
sage

Would the currently proposed repeal actually eliminate some of those barriers to entry for small-market ISPs? That's been the one regulatory change in the Internet I've been hoping for for years.

Most of the cost of a ISP is infrastructure and uplink

Sure, and if there is a legal barrier to entry all of that is moot. You can raise funds, it's harder to skirt the law if people are trying to keep you out of a market in order to maintain a monopoly.

Ah yes, every problem disappears once all you need is a magical pot of gold that vomits your funds for whatever you want, it's simple really.

It's moot either way if the situation is a natural monopoly.

>people have never raised large sums of money before
>people have never out-competed the dominant organism in an economic ecosystem
shills go away

Ah, the classic, let them have cake reasoning.

The fact that we have to fight about this shit means that the current normie net needs to die. We need to transition to web3 decentralized technologies where there are no servers to shut down and no ceos to threaten with false sexual harassment claims and the network infrastructure is literally controlled and created by the users.

The problem is state laws granting monopolies to lobbying ISPs. Removing NN from the equation won't solve a thing.

good video. weev is one of the few whose opinion i value.

How is he a Nazi?

wow nice non argument newfriend

Looks like a man who has it all figured out

Just reminder just as the retarded "lootbox" topic, this topic got coopted by reddit, so we take either no stance or the opposite stance.

>the problem is state laws
Exactly. If we repeal the 19th amendment and men start voting for small government and less regulation we could actually have a free market where competition creates better choices for consumers, including female and soyboy consumers who are dead set on turning this country into a socialist shithole where the nanny state removes all choices.

>advertising
Stop. Go back to Sup Forums
>why Sup Forums
Because you're like Sup Forums.

Perhaps, hopefully we'll be able to deal with those down the road some. I don't exactly have high hopes that this admin will go trust-busting, but this might be a good place to start.

This

This is the main issue that congress will ignore because they are bought out by lobbyist. Net Neutrality just a stepping stone to give the government more power over the Internet.

based weev knows what's going on

>How is he a Nazi?

Yup, there is no evidence Weev is a Nazi.

This scumbag is a literal nazi, stop spamming us with Sup Forumsshit

>the absolute state of Sup Forums in 2017
lol

you literally have to be a delusional retard to listen to a person like this.

...

how is this fag still relevant?

>ad-hominem

>Everyone outraged at the possibility of throttling and censorship if NN is taken away
>ISP's scared they will lose customers


Oh wow. it's almost as if free market fixed it.

The ISPs are already inflating their prices, already shaping the traffic and effectively false-advertising. NN is not the root of the problem and removing it will just give them more ways to succ the money out of you. They already have their monopolies, now they legally won't even have to give you the Internet access, just some "bandwidth", and you'll be stuck with what you have,.

Actually that's oldfags (loosely, before 2014) vs Sup Forums-Sup Forums fags.

The second view is wrong because not all are grouped. It's like Sup Forums is a large blob in the middle that's corrupting the rest. Bringing up irrelevant topics all the fucking time. I wish you could see the irony in your illegal (rule breaking) immigration (general off topic posting).

I wouldn't even mind if some place decent did this. But clearly you guys are the bottom of the barrel of humanity. You can go to Sup Forums and find in-sentence contradictions. It's exceptional.

>saying they won't throttle
>throttling right now
This should be illegal.

He's not. He's only relevant amongst the edgelords that haven't matured past the "everything politically incorrect is actually good" phase.

Most people stick to 2-3 boards, just look up any "what other boards you visit" thread.

>lawful content
>lawful
KEK

the ironic part is that the same applies to the contrary too, people complaining about Sup Forums on other boards are just as annoying. But I agree, politics should be contained to a board and there should be rules enforcing it.

The Internet has illegal content so we'll just throttle the Internet :^)

someone makes an edit with Sup Forums, Sup Forums, /r9k/, Sup Forums, Sup Forums and Sup Forums being separate entities on the bottom figure

>people complaining are just as bad
I doubt you mean that the source and the symptoms are just as bad.

Look at this thread. It's not technology related. It's clearly a Sup Forums thread. Everything within is the fault of OP. I normally post in /dpt/. I just saw weev and imagined we were gonna talk about how silly yahoo is.

good job rebutting anything he said in the video.

I've seen numerous threads that are clear Sup Forums bait. There is a lot of people who like to shit on Sup Forums and will do it outside of it to bait people. I'm not talking about this thread specifically.

Seems like his main arguments are:

* NN is bad because websites that don't like me support it
* NN is only about bandwidth for streaming 4k video, and will have no effect on other systems of the internet.
* ISPs are monopolies because of different government regulations

Seems like kind of backwards logic to me. Why would ISPs support government deregulation if it would erode their monopoly position, forcing them to be competitive? Doesn't really make sense to me.

The 4k streaming issue doesn't really make sense to me either. Like if thats what their customers are using the internet for, why is that a problem?

I feel like this guys perspective is clouded by his hatred and distrust of the large web companies that happen to benefit from NN.

As someone who already HAS to use a VPN to torrent(otherwise my speed drops to 16kbit/s) I welcome America to my special hell and suggest buying a VPN in advance.

I'm still at a loss over how people can be so bainlet as to not support net neutrality.

The logic of literally 90% of the people on Sup Forums against it is that people and corporations they don't like support NN.
If Reddit did a 180 and suddenly hated NN, Sup Forums would switch in an instant.

these

Just to provide a little context, weev also believes nukes don't exist and that the theory of relativity is false.

That's because Reddit doesn't know what NN is, they just heard it was good from some hippie ten years ago. If they knew it was just Netflix and Youtube not wanting to pay for their traffic they'd change their minds. The media is tying this fake censorship thing along with it and it's bullshit.

>a broken clock is right twice a day

You are fucking retarded that's not what nn is

lol why doesn't be believe in nukes. Does he also not believe in nuclear fission or just not the bombs?

>there is a lot of people
discarded, you don't belong here

>Seems like kind of backwards logic to me. Why would ISPs support government deregulation if it would erode their monopoly position, forcing them to be competitive?
The reason of ISPs going against NN right now are getting fucked over by heavy bandwidth users like netflix. I doubt that they want competition but the pricing regulations and the need of every data to be treated as same let normies ruin the internet and it makes pretty much impossible for someone new to enter the market.

If your enemies want something, you should probably think twice about supporting it. As nice as net neutrality sounds In theory, the benefit it provides to google, facebook, netflix, etc. is potentially hurting us more. The money Google gets from net neutrality is money they are using to spread pro-refugee propaganda and progress the spread of communism globally.

Well, but you don't know whether it is right or not until after the fact.

My point is, he might be correct this time but because of the insane shit he claimed before, there is absolutely no way you can trust his judgement.

that is absolutely what it is. NN is about heavy data users getting a "free pass"

But it won't *just* be Netflix and youtube.

No they are fucking not. Comcast and Verizon seem to be doing just fine.

weev is a pleb

>some government regulations made Internet worse for the consumer
>net neutrality is a government regulation
>therefore, removing net neutrality will improve the Internet
You do realize there's at least two fallacies here, right? Come on. It's not rocket science. Supporting NN doesn't mean you support the government or the jewgle. It means you have common fucking sense.

I wouldn't say "fucked over" because they're raking in billions a year in profit. I'd say they want to force Netflix (or the users by default) to pay extra so isp can cash in on it. This is the entire purpose of nn, it stops isp from strong arming other businesses into "pay us some more money for the service" it's literally legal extortion.

Time Warner cable was already doing this to league of legends servers to try and extort Riot into paying twc more money and they're actively being sued for it under the (soon to be killed) nn rules

>Comcast and Verizon seem to be doing just fine.
>People are complaining more and more about supposed throttling and traffic shaping

How is it a "free" pass if that's what they pay for? If they pay for a 100 megabit connection an unlimited download, that's what they should get.

I think he believes in fission, but that the activation energy is higher than what can be achieved
youtube.com/watch?v=ih94coOlnqo

Because Comcast spend 20 years sitting on their shitty infrastructure while collecting billions in profit and subsidy all in the name of "the internet" and now when their shit infrastructure is shitting the bed because everyday life revolves around the internet they're crying and saying "everyone is using it too much, the internet needs to be rationed"

Because they're cheap fucks who should be putting down better infrastructure.

Comcast engineers even admitted that the throttling and data caps were because Comcast wanted to make more money not because there was an infrastructure shortage or some shit

Their shits all fucked and they keep making up shit as they go along. There's a reason Comcast has something like a 95% dissatisfied customer rating

> Netflix and Youtube not wanting to pay for their traffic

Netflix and Youtube have _users_. Those users are paying ISPs for access to the internet. ISPs are just upset that the internet is being used a lot and want to charge everyone more money for using it, with less accountability. Any cost that the ISPs charge netflix for their bandwidth usage would just be off loaded on to the users.

> The media is tying this fake censorship thing along with it and it's bullshit

Well it certainly makes censorship way easier. What makes you think they won't do it?
Why are you so quick to trust big telecom?

I agree. I guess fucked over was a bad term, I'm sure they are doing it to get the most amount of money they can. But I think it is clear what I meant. People are trying to get a free pass on heavy bandwidth usage with the help of the government and they are helping monopolies by it. Even than these monopolies going against it doesn't exclude the fact the same regulations make a harder job to create competitors. I'm sure that what could happen if NN was repealed is that the big ISPs just rake the money and buy out incoming new ones but I'm just trying to say what I got from weev point.

I like the audio. It sounds like its coming from an intercom speaker rather than my headphones.

>People are trying to get a free pass on heavy bandwidth usage
They're already paying for it. Why do o have to pay more for a service I'm already paying for?

I pay for 100mb up and down but I should pay more because I'm using it to its abilities? That's like paying double taxes or some shit

You can't be this retarded.

>doesn't exclude the fact the same regulations make a harder job to create competitors
Where do you get this? How will killing nn help make more businesses and jobs? How is TWC strong arming riot into paying more money by blocking their servers somehow helping other businesses grow?

Did he seriously just fucking said that the biggest danger of nukes is the fucking debris?
>the activation energy is higher
It barely has anything to do with nukes. A critical mass is a critical mass, it's computable from the first principles, you can absolutely make a nuke without any implosion or a fuse, it's just going to be really wasteful and dirty.
I'll give him one thing though, the nuclear winter probably isn't real. But this doesn't fucking matter because that's not the main danger of nukes.

>* NN is bad because websites that don't like me support it
No, his argument is that the biggest entities that push for it arent doing because they love freedom, they infact censor others themselves and even with net neutrality they are able to censor people a lot.

>* NN is only about bandwidth for streaming 4k video, and will have no effect on other systems of the internet.
He's saying that free big data transfers, most notably 4k streaming is why they want net neutrality. Without net neutrality they would have to pay - probably a lot, to ISPs.

>* ISPs are monopolies because of different government regulations
Which is the main problem here - otherwise you could just pick a ISP that doesn't throttle traffic.

12 poos have been deposited on your street

>No, his argument is that the biggest entities that push for it arent doing because they love freedom
Indeed. Except, NN isn't about freedom in the first place, the general public just wouldn't understand otherwise.
>Without net neutrality they would have to pay - probably a lot, to ISPs.
And you too. Do you think that they'll just stop sucking the money out of you because they got additional income?
>otherwise you could just pick a ISP that doesn't throttle traffic
Uh, no, because the laws OTHER than NN(the real problem here) hinder the competition.

Nukes and relativity are "jewish physics" and therefore everything you said is invalid

Why did you make this post?

You just reenforced all the points without countering any legitimate arguments.

>otherwise you could just pick a ISP that doesn't throttle traffic

It isn't this black and white. There are different levels of ISPs. There are the ISPs end consumers connect to (Comcast, Century Link, etc). Then there are the ISPs that connect those together, and then a third level of ISPs that connects the second level ISPs on a global scale.

Sure, you _might_ be able to switch to an ISP that doesn't directly throttle your traffic but you traffic will most likely traverse a and ISPs network that does throttle so you are fucked either way. There will be no escape.

Something to consider:
Telecommunications companies are regulated like utilities while Google, etc, can fuck you over without limits.

Project Manhattan is literally the nazi project carried over to the USA.

Well, let's say someone makes a new ISP and they completely block netflix. They even promoting doing so. They would have more than 30% extra bandwidth available. So if you're don't care about that shit and don't want your internet completely congested by normalfags watching their shows it could help it decrease the cost or the total availability. They can't do that when there are laws that make it illegal for them to do so. I know I'm overreaching here with a creating a hypothetic scenario and you might like netflix or whatever other flaw you may find but I think that there is an argument for it either way.

You can just not use google yano
There are plenty of other services available that provide the same functionality.

A lot of people cannot say the same of ISPs

>network at a peering location
>not on the internet
So yeah. That doesn't fucking work at all. Private addressing is agreed upon between two parties at an IXP. The ISPs would have to voluntarily create private non-routed addresses and bridge them to routed addresses. That's just the most retarded claim to make ever. This guy is saying that googe is saying "hi comcast, make us a route please!" and comcast would have to say "sure thing google!"

That relies on ISPs giving away IP addresses that they paid for. I'm going to have to see a source on that one. By that logic, I could use up every single address comcast has. That's 100% false information. For a nazi this guy sure has a lot of little jewish tricks. Maybe he just wants to stir the pot.

so if ISPs block the sites I don't care about, I can get a better deal?

That traffic would just be moved to a different stream service. People will still watch their shows just not on netflix. No problem solved

You type like a redditor

I'm pretty sure its illegal.

Please stop interesting other boards reddit

In the perfect world, it would be like that. They are way more likely to leave the current prices and jack them up for those who want Netflix.

and the ISP would block the new streaming service. They could have a police of no streaming plan who could be cheaper or something like that. As I said I don't think that ISP are good boys who dindu nuffin but if we take it at face value the point is valid.

In theory. Doubtful in reality. In the other side people who uses their bandwidth all the time at the limit would probably get really screwed up.

yeah I agree with you.

> They could have a police of no streaming plan who could be cheaper

Then why not just charge you by data usage instead dropping the price for waving access to streaming services, that you likely wouldn't be using in the first place.

Doesn't seem worth it to me, considering the considerable power we'd be giving the telecom companies

Or they could balance their budget in favor of improving their network instead of focusing on the goddamn entertainment industry. Just look at all the companies comcast owns. Jesus christ. These ISPs are acting so hard done by. SUCH VICTIMS! Seriously. Look what time warner and comcast own. They both collectively own the entertainment industry. They're entertainment first, and telecom second.

This is completely unsubstantiated.

>weev
>our guy
Does anyone take this crypto Jew seriously?

I don't agree either. I'm just saying that the point he made in the video is valid, the NN basically kills any chance of a new competitor entering the market, mainly because they are forced by law to cater to everyone and use of very heavy data transfer is very common nowadays. I think that this was the whole point of him talking about the specialized services provided.

The fact is that personally, I don't trust either the government or the ISPs or the big companies so the whole debate to me is kinda pointless.

>le current year meme

this is the mind of the shitposter

what is unsubstantiated? That a lot of people now use a lot of traffic? That catering for people who don't use so much traffic could make their plans cheaper or faster?
forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/11/24/netflix-and-youtube-now-consume-50-of-the-internet-as-the-argument-for-net-neutrality-weakens/#1aba9b0736e6