Net Neutrality

Literally everything you have thought about net neutrality is WRONG. How does it feel to be an ameritard? Fucking Brainlets


link to wiki: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Deliberations_about_reclassification_as_common_carriers_.282014.E2.80.932015.29

Other urls found in this thread:

blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

bump

bump

Are you retarded?

If you think isp costs will go down without net neutrality you are a special kind of stupid

If you think isp costs will go down with net neutrality you are a special kind of stupid

if a megabyte is a megabyte, why would they be angry at Netflix? More business for them

It's pretty much a given that ISP's won't in any way shape or form "Reduce in price" as a result of this. That's not how "muh-sheckles" works...

THIS
Netflix pays their ISP to upload their data, the customer pays their ISP to download Netflix's data. No reason the customer should pay their ISP more for a megabyte of Netflix than a megabyte of Sup Forums, or that they should let the Netflix megabyte go faster.

>ISP: here you go goy, all the bandwidth you could ever use at a reasonable price enjoy :^)
>User: cool I'm going to start using it
>Netflix: we have this cool service where you can use the bandwidth you paid for to watch movies and shit
>ISP: oy vey netflix, your users are clogging muh tubes so you have pay up
>Netflix: lolno
>ISP: OY VEY DIS IS UNNACCEPTABLE!!! MUH FREE MARKET!!!! FUCKING COMMUNISTS ACTUALLY EXPECTING TO USE THE SERVICE THEY PAID FOR SHUT IT DOWN

This. Trumptards actually supporting being fucked over as usual.

That's exactly what's happening. Netflix is switching their ISP to a direct connection with Comcast. It makes perfect sense why Comcast would charge them. Stop reading fake news.
about:blank

blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html

Ok so I did some research and it seems they are playing tricks on people. NN is much more than preventing ISPs from throttling and outright practically denying certain services, which is the main selling point of NN as it's presented to us. Something about eventually making internet free commie style, that's something im wary of, it's in a way handing the gov power over the internet instead of ISPs which would happen without NN. Honestly the only part I care about is the above, I don't want more gov control over the internet than that.

Yes, but I'm pretty sure repealing NN would allow Comcast to differ between traffic from Netflix and Sup Forums, which would be shitty.

sorry this was meant for

>Netflix is used for streaming more often than torrents
What cucks.

This. Whoever is against NN is retarded.

Traffic from Netflix and Sup Forums are ALREADY treated differently. They come from different sources, go through different CDN networks, and get routed differently to their final destination.

they're handled differently, but neither gets preferential treatment. NN would allow giving Netflix packets preferential treatment because Netflix pays Comcast extra, for example.

What the fuck does "preferential treatment" even mean? If you pay to have a direct interconnect instead of going through congested public networks, is that preferential treatment? Should we ban direct interconnects and force every packet to go through a third party ISP? What if some links to ISPs are faster than others, simply because of the network topology at that location?
It's amusing to see all the reddiots spamming about this when they have no idea how networking and the industry works, and blaming their ISPs for Netflix being a cheapass.

good point. also, why would they go after Netflix? i mean the customer is the one that is constantly downloading crap. wouldn't the company instead limit bandwidth of the customer?

wrong. netflix data is prioritized, so it bogs everyone else down

every heard of QoS you fucking unintelligable faggots?

I'm not surprised someone on Sup Forums doesn't understand how technology works. Unless it's something to do with MUH GAMES or MUH LINUX DABBLES, it's over their heads...

Previous NN rules basically prevented any traffic on the internet from being having QoS put in place to throttle SPECIFIC kinds of internet traffic or traffic from disparate providers. With NN, if I request a packet of information from Netflix, it crosses a bunch of different network segments and gets to me, with the only latency being in the infrastructure network segments I'm crossing. Without NN, an ISP can now put QoS on Netflix packets unless I pay up for the "ISP+Netflix" package which 0-rates Netflix packets or unless Netflix pays the ISP a fee to 0-rate their packets and passes the cost on to consumers of Netflix.

I mean, this is really simple. Without NN, you're going to pay more for artificial limits imposed by ISPs instead of paying more for ISPs investing in better infrastructure.

Exactly. All these NN leddit shills are gonna end up getting us the next Great Firewall with their love of government. The problem is they've deluded themselves into thinking they can actually control what government does, despite you know, having that massive hissy fit about elections being rigged and all that.

But really, I'd rather be fucked in the ass by ISPs for a while then doom myself to use North Korea Net.

The way Reddit sees the internet is a single tube. Not this conglomerate of ISPs which have different interconnects.

>I mean, this is really simple. Without NN, you're going to pay more for artificial limits imposed by ISPs instead of paying more for ISPs investing in better infrastructure.
QoS is GOOD you idiot. With NN, you're going to pay more for artificial limits imposed by the government instead of paying more for ISPs investing in better infrastructure.

The problem is the jew has managed to convince people to pick either BIG GOV or BIG CORPS (ISPs), both are bad. But seriously they should scrap everything about NN save the part about equal usage, no commie long term plans.

>QoS is good
and preferential treatment of packets that aren't being QoS'ed.
idiot.

according to the op pic prices
net neutrality 54.99
no net neutrality 54.96

anyone else confused about all this information? is this the goal of this net neutrality spam?
to get everyone confused with disinformation, fake info, real info.
to get everyone not knowing what's good or bad about it.

wow op, did you edit that in gimp?

no net neutrality is better since you dont have to pay for the gay shit you dont want to use

save money

>With NN, you're going to pay more for artificial limits imposed by the government instead of paying more for ISPs investing in better infrastructure.

The government isn't rate-limiting with NN -- that's kind of the point of NN. They are telling ISPs: "You've got to treat the Internet as a public-utility since, you know, it is kind of important since we've based pretty much our entire economy on it since 1999."

People act like repealing the NN regulations takes the government out of broadband infrastructure. We had NN before and it didn't stop government from dropping an entire center in San Francisco to monitor traffic.

This could go vice versa too with the company.
So it's basically a battle between the isps and internet companies

just use shadow proxy or some chinese GFW unblocker.

>no net neutrality is better since you dont have to pay for the gay shit you dont want to use
as if, you will have to pay the same price you are currently paying and you will have to pay extra to get shit you previously had access to by default

>All these people bitching about "muh net nutrality" and "muh stand up for what's right"
>mfw all these cucks don't realize the end result will be the same regardless of what they do

Reminder that the only reason to get rid of net neutrality is so that your isp can punish you for using their service that you pay for so that they don't have to improve their infrastructure like any other business would do in this situation.

Only poor people care about net neutrality. Prove me wrong

>Protip: You can't.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm gonna buy a bottle of champagne tomorrow, and save it up for when this finally kills Sup Forums.

If you aren't mad you're a cuck who doesn't mind getting fucked by your isp and the opportunity for them to censor the internet.

>Getting your information from discord
>EU has slower speeds
B O I
O
I

>If you *are* mad you're a cuck who doesn't mind getting fucked by your government and the opportunity for them to censor the internet.
>nevermind that the big tech companies you're supporting are already censoring it regardless.

But user we still have people from the EU

Do you really think "getting mad" and doing all this other bullshit is going to make any sort of difference? I'll let you in on a little secret, it won't.

How the fuck does net neutrality favor any specific companies. All it does is prevent the current ones who apparently run our government from maintaining their current monopoly.

You're probably right and that's the most fucked up part about the situation.

Site is hosted in the US and gets the majority of its users from the US.

Sup Forums will have the grand majority of its userbase gone, while it will run much slower for the rest of the world. Worse speeds and significantly slower boards will alienate even more users. And fewer users means that Hiroshima will make less money off of selling analytics data. Captcha V1 getting nuked next march will also contribute.

I mean the site probably won't die outright, but it has been on a downward spiral for ages. Less money may not immediately kill the site however, since bandwidth usage will get reduced dramatically as well (partially because of the smaller userbase, but also because ISPs will serve the data throttled, causing less strain on Sup Forums servers).

I cannot be bothered with this shit. Just tell me when this voting or whatever gets passed so I can watch the aftermath and be done with it. I remember shit like SOPA, PIPA, NN few years ago, and now this again. Same shit different shape.

Is the vote for this gonna be over by the end of 2017?

>net neutrality
>government censorship
What about application/hosting neutrality means that "the gubbermints censoring my lolis"?
This is literally the opposite of what's true.

A few years ago most of Sup Forums would have been for NN, unconditionally. What happened to this place?

Sup Forums and the proliferation of Austrian economic pseudoscience.

Why would ISP's charge people less money for only a few sites they'll use instead of gouging big tech companies who would have no real choice but to immediately make their own ISP or pay up? This whole consumer paying the price doesn't make sense. Netflix Google and Facebook would never want to risk people unable to universally access them because some people might not seen them as worth the extra money. God I hate teenagers. This is literally just a price war between big corps and you're all getting shilled into it

We grew up from edgy teenagers and have a modicum of common sense

>why would they go after Netflix?
you ever looked up exactly what Comcast, AT&T etc. actually own? That they can block or charge other media providers net offerings would, in any land with any pretense of media monopoly regulation, be classified as 'conflict of interest'.

Sup Forums, being contrarian for the sake of it.

I'm Australian, but I thought the entire argument against NN was that a good chunk of places in America don't have alternatives for their ISP's, meaning they can't simply "swap over" if ISP's decide to pull jewish tricks?

Sup Forums has always been counter culture, but over the time it became a "normal" online community after moot pushed the site to favour longer and more intellectual discussions.

We are against net neutrality because we know that by doing so, it will troll every site online, including Sup Forums. And if Sup Forums dies in the process? It will free us from a decade-plus addiction that started in our teenager years (half of our LIFETIME ago) and allow us to move on and finally get a life.

It's a win-win situation. Major sites like Netflix, facebook, ebay, won't be affected anyway, they have enough ISPs in their pockets.

And non-americans are laughing at the whole deal and want to troll americans because you fucking deserve it.

Pretty much this
They'd risk anything since they're so obsessed with reddit. Ironically their obsession with being counter-reddit is what boosted all the SJW bullshit that pops up in the first place.

People that work for a living started using the site, and they realize that giving the government more power over nearly anything is a shit idea. Of course the NEETs on welfare that used the place originally thought differently.

whereas, giving Comcast, a company the majority of whose own customers hate them, but are stuck, free reign to fuck over both their customers, random original content providers and just be even more fucking useless in general, is preferable to a few regs how, exactly?

Ever wonder why it's so hard for anyone to challenge them, why there are virtual monopolies or duopolies for ISPs across so much of the US? hint- it isn't the free market.

NN has been spammed nonstop on Sup Forums for the past few days, so we are in the standard FUCK OFF mode.

Because it's not about how much you download, but how fast you do it.

>company fucks up the isp cables
>surprised when the isp throttles them for trying to hog the connection

Last I checked, the isp owns the cables, not netflix or any other streaming service.

Because ISP shills like Pajeet Pai make laws that destroy their competition.

>Netflix shouldn’t use the internet connection they’ve paid for unless they pay more money

>Comcast and other ISPs over provisioning is Netflix’s problem

Congrats, you now understand the argument for getting the government's grubby hands off the internet entirely instead of giving them even more regulatory control over it.

As long as women are forced to carry pregnancies to term, as thos smelly brown people are dealt with you can fuck over republican voters over all you want.

Your argument lacks a few contexts. First, Netflix is just an internet based service. They don't have any obligation to anything. The consumer pays for the internet to access internet based services. If that consumer did not have internet, they wouldnt be able to access netflix regardless of how much they pay Netflix. The isp is the gatekeeper. Second, you are paying for the ability to surf the net. The Isp's job is to make that doable for everyone on your network because that's how internet connections work. No matter how much you cry that you deserve so and so amount of bandwidth, you need to realize there's a certain limit you can get unless you live out somewhere else and have built your own private line, which is standard for stand alone homes.

You're complaining to the wrong entity. All of you are.

It's pretty racist of you to boil down a complex issue like immigration to be just about race like that, user.

You're a nigger

Netflix also pays for internet access. It’s not right to charge them more just for using it.

does Switzerland have net neutrality laws?

Netflix pays to make getting to their content faster. If they paid for internet access, all customers who sign up for Netflix would instantly be given access through an isp to their service specifically. Netflix would take care of their payments for them, but we both know that's bad for business on their part.

Netflix does not pay for access for their customers.

Everyone running a web service pays for an internet connection. Their servers aren’t just magically connected to the internet.

Where the fuck did you get that?

I'm never surprised by how stupid people on Sup Forums really are. You guys really are the cream of the crop when it comes to being fucking amateurs.

If you host a website or web service, that is a very different cost from access to the net. You're paying to have your stuff hosted, and then you pay for more bandwidth to allow a larger amount of people to visit your service. But you are not paying for internet access. That is a very different cost from hosting costs, you fucking dumbass.

Internet access is part of the hosting cost.

Not him but holy fuck you are dumb.

You dumb motherfucker, holy shit. You stupid ass mother fucker.

t. corporate cucks with no idea how the internet works

Sorry, can you type that again without the government's cock up your ass? It seems to be interfering with your ability to understand things.

fucking this. the bandwidth was already paid for. isps have no right to dictate what we do with our connections.

How can you even speak with all that executive mayonnaise in your mouth?

Havent you been paying attention? The internet fairy magically connects services like Netflix to the internet for free. Then Netflix has the lack of morality to take advantage of those poor ISPs

>he thinks he isn't slurping down corporate exec semen too, just out of the government's dick.

You're delusional on what you're paying for. You're paying for access to the internet. If you paid for bandwidth, you'd be paying for your own private line, which will be in the thousands. You're not paying for bandwidth.

>trying this hard to justify being a corporate cuck

So this is a war where both are bad guy and the end result is all Amerimutt no longer allowed to access Sup Forums? Sound good to me.

huh, thought my speed limit and monthly bandwidth cap clearly outlined in my contract was what I have bought permission to use. sure seems like I paid for the ability to use Xmbps for a total of Xgb per month.

This, but you also missed a more important point:

>ISP: that Netflix model is raking in da' cash
> Let's throttle Netflix and force customers to use our shitty service

Every single one of these threads ignores this as just about the most important part: ISPs use traffic-shaping to push customers into services & websites that make more cash for the ISPs and their affiliates.

Of course the loss of freedom to use your own bandwidth in the manner that best suits your needs is critical. But blocking/throttling/interrupting sites is only partially about censorship ... that's really just collateral damage to the larger issue of draining customer bank accounts and locking them into sealed markets for goods and services. Just shaping the ad streams is worth billion$ per month, let alone blocking competing services.

Your contract said you paid for access to it, not for it.

What's wrong with an ips throttling a service that not only hogs bandwidth but is competing with their own services? Why are you defending a company from another company?

>You're only paying for ACCESS, goy, and 52kbps is perfectly fine for ACCESSING your vpn and peer-to-peer networks, so stop complaining you greedy criminal!

yup. I once saw a netflix thug break into an isp and force them to give away free bandwidth to people who wernt even their customers at gunpoint.

right, I paid for access to transfer a few hundred gigs of shit per month.
guess what I would be doing if I had a shitflix account? (protip: transferring data that I paid for the ability to transfer)

>le "all companies have to pay the same for the bandwidth they use" lie
fuck off cunt

You don't pay your ISP to host your content, dumbass. If you wanted to host your own VPN, you don't pay Comcast anything more than your existing internet bill per month.

Netflix pays for connections to the Internet through their local ISPs where their servers (which they own) are hosted. INCLUDED IN THIS COST is your bandwidth, commonly advertised as up/down speeds. Your home connection of 50/10 is priced considerably different than a university's 10G line. Netflix already pays for the massive connections they get. They cannot physically use more bandwidth than the ISP already provides them. ISPs cannot currently, under the Title II regulations, charge a different amount of money for different type of network traffic. Your monthly bill is the same, whether you watched YouTube at 500kbps or listened to Spotify at 500kbps. Additionally, both you and those services pay for their internet connections and have a maximum bandwidth that is set by your ISP's infrastructure based on the plan you/they signed up for.

Repealing the Title II classification put out by the FCC 2 years ago would mean that your internet connection can now be priced based on what content you access. So, on top of paying for your bandwidth allocation, you now could also pay for bandwidth according to network traffic type. For example, if you wanted to go watch YouTube, you might have a certain bandwidth allocation set for YouTube by default. This could be something abysmal like 20kbps, so your videos don't load quickly or in a decent quality. However, if you wanted to go read/watch CNN, your bandwidth allocation for them might be something higher, like 500kbps, based on some arbitrary definitions put out by your ISP. Additionally, most worrying is that they can throttle traffic to undefined services (ones that they don't care about) en masse, effectively censoring those services unless you pay for some "unlimited" access plan, which you currently enjoy right now.

hosting =/= internet access

dumbass

BITS IS BITS

Ultimately, there is no reason that anyone that values their money and uses the internet should support the repeal of the existing Title II regulations. This gives ISPs an additional way to charge you for the content that they already allocate access for, and it also gives them an incredible authority to control what information you access and at what speed. That is not conducive to an open internet at all.