So is net neutrality a bad or a good thing? The left keeps saying that no net neutrality is literally Hitler and the (((Right))) keeps saying that net neutrality is literally Arthur Harris.
Like, how will it impact me as a sysadmin? Will my company have to move to Europe? Will this result in a massive IT emigration from the USA?
What do you think Sup Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
eff.org
nber.org
papers.ssrn.com
wypr.org
motherboard.vice.com
annarbor.com
wired.com
arstechnica.com
twitter.com
Literally everyone thinks getting rid of net neutrality is bad, except for the ISP companies, who are the only ones benefitting.
/thread
Alt right babies are against Net Neutrality because the pajeet dismantling it is republican, aside from that pretty much everyone for it
There was no net neutrality untill 2015, and nothing bad was happening
That's sounds like an economic impossibility. It's not a tax break; how can only one person be benefiting? Government regulations control the KIND of contracts which can be made. But at the end of the day you NEED a contract, i.e. an agreement between two or more entities. SOMEONE else has to be benefiting or at least THINK they're benefiting.
Depends, what kind of sys do you admin?
Britbong who ignores the net neutrality news stories.
What will ACTUALLY happen if net neutrality is lost?
So far it seems like its guaranteed that every ISP will start:
1) Charging more for 'decent' level internet, and charge today's prices for absolute shit level internet
2) Start blocking all controversial/adult content
How wrong am I and why?
google ultron.
Fuck, I just got fired.
LEWD
Except the things that could have happened are outright prevented from happening right now. Repeal will just reopen th vulnerability and give virtually nothing in return.
It's ultimately a non issue because of the consolidation of the internet
The internet "a la cart" model will be implemented regardless.
The real issue here are the ISPs being allowed to dick everyone so easily. They have been breaking rules, even with NN.
Repealing NN is actually a good thing if these companies weren't so anti consumer.
Your choices shouldn't be getting skull fucked in you left eye or your right eye
Everyone from reddit maybe
Not all ISPs are against NN, you brainlet.
eff.org
It makes more sense than you think. There is an insanely high cost to entering the isp market in a significant way. By handing over control to a governmental body, the prices are set, and rules are established which forbid throttling per package. So, the current isps can continue their stronghold over the industry, while the government controls the price (likely based on current figures). This means you will no longer see price dropping via competition with smaller break through 'mom and pop' isps who cut into the market by offering affordable packages which are better suited to their rural clientele, because this practice is now illegal.
All isps won't charge more for throttling packages. In fact the outcome would be the opposite. Removing net neutrality is removing a barrier for smaller isps to enter the market and increase competition with the big boy isps. The new entries will likely target rural areas as they get established. These smaller isps will likely offer different 'tiers' of Internet access based on users online interaction. But here's the kicker, as smaller companies dedicated to specific areas, and not nation wide, their 'complete' Internet package would be cheaper than that which is offered by the big isps. This would force isps to not only offer a complete package, but to do so at a price cheaper than is currently available without as much competition.
If net neutrality was what people think it is, the daily stormer (not to defend them) would not have been denied hosting services
The prices AREN'T set, though. I don't know WHERE you're getting that idea.
>not nation wide, their 'complete' Internet package would be cheaper than that which is offered by the big isps
That's a huge fucking leap you made there. That's like saying "as a local specialty store gets bigger and starts expanding its inventory, its 'general item' prices will be cheaper than Walmart."
Whine all you want, distribution, be it of goods or information, is an industry which favors the large simply because of economic factors of efficiency.
And why can't rural packages just throttle globally? Throttling specific web-pages, at best, is an attempt to deceive customers especially if there's no enforcement of transparency.
There are plenty of people who never heard of it before current events and so were first introduced to it as another political "trump vs liberals" issue and just decided to support whichever team they "belong" to.
A big part of US politicians fucking their citizens in the ass is in disguising corporate-profit-vs-public-interest issues as party-vs-party issues to get their voting base to support them.
They are, you are just interpreting 'set' to mean wholely controlled. That is not what I intended to imply. By prices being 'set', what I am saying is that by removing consumer choice, in conjunction with the restriction of access to the market for competitors, the price is no longer attributed to market established value and is instead made arbitrary based on current figures. This removes any chance of a price drops, and raises must be based by inflation and not market dictate, regardless of the ever increasing comparative value of the Internet (hence the conversation on converting it to a 'utility').
If you think a price drop would not be possible anyhow, I think you ought to look at telecom pricing over the past 10 years, and look for any policy which might have lead to an uptick in telecom competition.
>1) Charging more for 'decent' level internet, and charge today's prices for absolute shit level internet
They already do this as much as they want since they are effectively monopolies already and consumers have few or no competitors to switch to. Americans pay more for shittier internet than some third world countries.
Net neutrality will let them slow down different shit by different amounts, so e.g. the TV streaming service Comcast owns will run at full speed but their competitor Netflix will be throttled to half.
Or alternately, netflix will keep running at full speed as long as they pay $assloads per yer to Comcast for the privilege, and all of netflix's customers will have to eat the larger monthly fee.
>2) Start blocking all controversial/adult content
They are still not allowed to block content. They can throttle and add data caps to content they don't like but they can't block it outright.
You don't know about isp operating costs at scale when compared to an area the fraction of a size do you? Its not a leap, youre just missing information. A better comparison might be a supermarket to a local farmers market. Because the cost of operation and distribution is so much lower, you get cheaper produce from a smaller seller thanks to a reduction in operating costs.
>an industry which favors the large
So was telecommunications, and opening up the industry to competition reduced prices to a fraction of their former, and with an increase, not a decrease in services provided
Net neutrality: you can't toll different cars on the road different amounts based on where they're going.
Stormfront: "I used to use the road to drive to my bud's house, but he was kicked out by his landlord!"
The road still works just fine. The landlord has nothing to do with the road, except that you need to drive on one to get to his property.
By the way, I agree with you on transparency. A governmental body established to ensure companies must report to their customers transparently would be a much better approach than wholesale banning the practice of content throttling, because there are swathes of the population who wouldn't need to be tricked into 'the sound cloud package', they actively intend to purchase it.
My grandma doesn't use the whole Internet. She shouldn't pay what I pay
Maybe we should remove the regulations to stop monopolies from fucking over consumers only AFTER getting an actual competitive free market, instead of giving the monopolies free reign and hoping competitors pop up fast enough to save us.
Actually, fuck the monopolies. do the Standard Oil thing and forcibly split them up so there are at least two-three competing service providers for the majority of US citizens.
I will be writing to my state politicians encouraging them to legalize municipal broadband networks so we can get at least SOME competition instead of one local monopoly controlling everything.
It doesn't cost the ISP any more to give your grandma the whole internet instead of the "nothing but facebook" package. If you want to charge people less based on how much they use, charge by data usage rather than by diversity of destinations.
Why did you put Right in echoes, when every (((banking elite))), (((corporate elite))), (((media elite))), (((political elite))), and (((university elite))) support globalist policies which are inherently leftist and harmful to the citizens of a country (such as open borders, not deporting illegals, increasing worker visas, and increasing outsourcing), and which will eventually put complete control of the world into the hands of those elites in the form of a one world government which no one can escape from while turning the rest of humanity into their literal slaves?
The current version of net neutrality only came into existence to protect Google, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and all the other globalist internet megacorporations from throttling of their excessive bandwidth use, and did so by taking away bandwidth from everyone who doesn't use those sites. It only hurts the average person, like most regulation which only increases costs and taxes, and repealing it will only benefit consumers by saving money and increasing bandwidth. And if ISPs hurt consumers like the NN propaganda declares will happen, everyone would quit using them, and they know this. Use your head.
I get your point. Removing government oversight wholesale is a recipe for disaster. I actually think transparency laws would suffice
Why not both for a further cost Deduction?
It "costs" them more since they can't sell a big company a QoS category 5 or 10 tiers above a home account for more money, while selling amazon + walmart + alibaba priority server privileges and selling your grandma a facebook package and you a Sup Forums one.
So many unfair losses.
And then the legalese will contain: "specific partners and services may get higher priority on traffic than you" and 30 pages or more of details on transparency how they sell better internet on both ends and to specific isp "peers" in between and what they throttle. Now wtf is anyone going to do with that. Go negotiate with the ISP that they should cut the crap and give you a neutral offer that has the same traffic priority as big websites and companies etc that paid the ISPs off? Haha, sure...
Transparency is near useless. We need NN to be enforced.
Only correct answer
It doesn't cost the ISP less to do both, so they won't charge your grandma less.
Naturally, they will take advantage of both options to try and get more money by charging more to certain customers. No reason to leave profits on the table.
If we were in a healthy free market, a competitor could simply pop up with a more honest and less manipulative/cash-grabby system and outcompete them.
But the costs to enter the industry are too high and so their monopolies are likely to stick around for quite a while. In fact the big ISPs paid for much of their infrastructure with government grants and not their own money, giving them even more of an advantage over new competitors who will have to do everything themselves.
Regulations to keep them from abusing their monopoly power are essential.
>The current version of net neutrality only came into existence to protect Google, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, and all the other globalist internet megacorporations from throttling of their excessive bandwidth use, and did so by taking away bandwidth from everyone who doesn't use those sites.
Wouldn't be necessary if ISPs hadn't squandered the money they got to upgrade their infrastructure desu.
I own 100 custom-made dragon dildos
for hygiene purposes they should be boiled in hot water after each use, to keep them clean and bacteria free.
90% of my gas bill goes to boiling dildos on the stovetop.
Why doesn't my utility provider go after the dragon dildo company for all their "gas usage"?
The utility is already being paid (by me!) for the gas that is being used. They do not need to be paid a second time.
Well who's making the leap now? If you concede a consumer transparency mandate could be established, why would that not include accepted practices on the dissemination of that information? Even down to a table of figures representation isn't hard to envision.
>the government must enforce control over isps in the interests of the people of this nation
Musolini would be proud
Alright, pornography and controversial content can't be blocked, we'll just set it to download at a rate of 1 byte/s
it's not blocking, just throttling...for your safety :)
It has existed de facto, without the label, for almost 30 years, idiot.
It does, I'm using far more data accross far more locations which uses a higher portion of the Infrstructure which costs what? Money.
It's interesting that you mention how hard of a point of entry the isp industry is. Its difficult because of the cost of infrastructure. There are smaller isps who have a point of access in rural areas with less coverage. NN puts a restriction on the growth of these companies, further establishing the isp monopoly that exists. These companies can no longer utilise a throttling-based business model to provide consumers a service of their choice at a cheaper price point, and as such can not undercut the larger companies as effectively, further establishing the current stronghold the big isps have over the industry.
>it did so exist, it just didn't exist yet. It was alive in out hearts and minds
Heh
>There was no net neutrality untill 2015, and nothing bad was happening
BitTorrent?
>and nothing bad was happening
Comcast and bittorrent.
AT&T and facetime
MCI and literally everything it didn't like
>oh but these don't count because
kys cuckcast shill.
Can you imagine how much money is guaranteed to the isp who decides to let porn go unhindered? Its a sure thing at billions.
Did the Sun not exist before being called the Sun?
Did you just compare government intervention and restriction on the throttling practices of isps to the fucking sun?
If this so called dystopia nightmare takes place, why can't I just use a VPN?
I can't see it anymore
You know who doesn't covertly fuck with thing they don't like? The government....
You aren't supposed to think that hard about it. Just pretend your ISP is omnipotent and they can counter any technical solution you come up with.
Like I said, it was a standard for a very long time and there was no need to label it until some kike companies started throttling things they didn't like and fucking over their customers.
And what part of net neutrality would allow the government to fuck with the internet any more than it can now? You're a fool if you think cutting back regulations will make the government less involved. They'll still subpoena ISPs and use shit like the patriot act to mine data, and ISPs will gladly hand it over.
It most likely won't have any noticeable impact on consumers, all the corporations like netflix and google are pushing for NN because they are the ones that will have to pay out the ass for the amount of bandwidth they use up.
Here's some reading material from people that aren't some youtube memesters:
nber.org
papers.ssrn.com
TL;DR ISPs are shit and will probably continue to be shit regardless
So a response to throttling practices existed before the companies started throttling?
It wasn't ISPs that denied them, it was their host, cloudfare. If it was an onion website it wouldn't be a problem.
So why give them more power?
it'll be blocked
Because a VPN only obfuscates what internet you get on the server side.
It's like sending out a delivery truck to get what you want. If you have a VPN, you can hide the contents of the truck. Your ISP is the truck driver. He knows either way.
There was no need to label it because nobody was throttling anything. Only after the throttling began the term had to be coined.
Yes. And that response was called NET NEUTRALITY. It was called labeling the internet as type 2 under the FCC.
Which are the very things the FCC now wants to dismantle.
>won't have any noticeable impact on consumers,
>like netflix and google are pushing for NN because they are the ones that will have to pay out the ass
And who, pray-tell, do you think they're going to pass those savings on to?
They're not going to eat the losses.
There was no way to label it because it wasn't conceptualised. It didn't exist yet
It existed before the throttling as the default mode of handling traffic. It did not need to have a label to exist.
>It's like sending out a delivery truck to get what you want. If you have a VPN, you can hide the contents of the truck. Your ISP is the truck driver. He knows either way.
You've managed to come up with an analogy that's both shit and wrong.
Follow your chain of responses. You just said it wasn't labeled until it was labelled, and prior to it being labeled it was labeled net neutrality, and now that it is labeled it is called be neutrality.
Is English not your first language?
You are mistaking a neutral Internet as a concept with the term 'net neutrality' which is specifically a government regulation
A regulation that was made to return traffic handling to the previous non-throttling standard.
Jesus fucking christ.
In the beginning, it wasn't labeled, because everything was fine.
Then telecom companies tried fucking with it
then people decided they wanted to protect it so people can't fuck with it, so to describe what "It" was, they labeled it "Net Neutrality" and placed legislation over it to protect it.
Was the government capable of holding isps to account for the act of throttling prior to the inception of Net Neutrality. Yes or no?
Do you not understand that the government having control over this is not the same thing as before?
Yes and no.
It was a legal gray area for a very long time. That's why labeling it as a concept and placing legislation over it was necessary. It removed the legal ambiguity.
You just made that up. They unequivocally did not have that ability. It was not a grey area, because it was not an area of contention at all yet
Hi, shill, we always had it. Verizon tried to get around it. Which led to Title II. Title II is not Net Neutrality. Its the definition.
Why is it wrong for ISP's to benefit?
You're not giving them any power at all. You're giving them regulatory authority. They still get no say in what ISPs get to deliver.
>it's not power, it's authority
(you)
ISPs would throttle ALL network connection that are not on their list of nonthrottled IP addressess.
For example, let's say Netflix, Google services and Amazon would be the only full speed services you can access. ALL other network connections (your VPN solution) would be throttled.
>"nothing bad was happening"
What about the times Comcast slowed down BitTorrent and Netflix or when AT&T blocked Sup Forums temporarily?
>Trusting ISPs
>Ever
Allowing other Isps an enormous and guaranteed cut of their market share
The "net neutrality" in question was put into place during Obama's presidency in 2015. Meaning pre-2015 the "net neutrality" in question didn't exist.
I'll let you put two and two in your head.
Then tell me what you're worried the government will do that ISPs won't. List one thing the government will be legally allowed to do under net neutrality to the detriment of the internet that they
a) can't do now
b) actually requires net neutrality passing to do
Forbidding the ability for smaller isps with much less infrastructure the ability to grow and be competitive with the big isps by offering an opt in throttle based service to their customers for a lower cost, allowing them to claim a bigger market share in ruralities, forcing the bigger isps to capitulate with their prices and effectively destroying the 'natural monopoly' that is currently operating.
>What about the times Comcast slowed down BitTorrent and Netflix or when AT&T blocked Sup Forums temporarily?
You realize they could still do that today right? ISPs could also already start selling internet packages for different sites like those meme images show. Curated offerings aren't forbidden under the current net neutrality laws. There's so much blatant misinformation and hysteria surrounding this shit.
Don't try to reach these people, these are the kind of people who came to Sup Forums only to bitch about overblown diversity stuff that shitty tech companies that were shitty long before this whole wave of SJW stuff are promoting, and believe that Net Neutrality is bad because daddy Trump told them so. Probably they were't even here when the regulations were implemented because the ISPs were starting to throttle anything that could challenge their media monopolies and engaging in private censorship, it had overwhelming support.
The fuck are you talking about? It was a point of contention for a solid decade and a half until it was labeled as Title 2 Communications.
ISPs had been doing things and getting called out on it for YEARS, and their defense was
>Well, it's not strictly illegal!
And then the government made it illegal.
And now there are people who want to make it legal again.
>ISPs were starting to throttle anything that could challenge their media monopolies
Current net neutrality laws only strengthen monopolistic ISPs you gullible partisan retard. These laws seriously hurt the chances of any smaller ISPs posing any real competition.
ISPs are a natural monopoly, you mongoloid. There's only so much space for network infrastructure to occupy, they need to be regulated. They're a fucking utility, this shit is as absurd as proposing competitive water markets.
>it’s another “gutting net neutrality will increase competition” episode
Then why do the big, monopolistic ISPs shill for getting rid of NN while smaller ISPs support it? I guess Comcast knows what’s better for the small players than the small players do and have the interest of competition at heart...
eff.org
>allowing them to claim a bigger market share in ruralities,
Stopped reading right here. The #1 barrier to entry is major ISPs lobbying state and local governments to disallow anything but their service.
wypr.org
motherboard.vice.com
annarbor.com
You will never have fair competition unless states repeal these laws. The FCC can do fuck all about it, NN or not.
'The fuck we are talking about' is whether or not the government regulating throttling practices was a natural state of the Internet prior to the procession of title 2 contention; whether or not 'it always was this way', and I'm arguing that that is factually inaccurate
there is a competitive water market though how many different brands of water do you think there are
As with all issues, neither end of the broken American political system is correct, and pretending that it can be reduced to a partisan issue is retarded, not that I should expect any better of you
>I stopped reading, here is a different argument you don't disagree with
Also, the argument that the Internet was fine before regulation is such a load of bullshit, for the vast majority of that time, Internet usage was limited to academia and niche stuff like online gaming and forums, the amount of bandwith consumed by the normie masses was a fraction of a fraction of what it is now. Net Neutrality regulation became necessary when streaming and mobile computing became a threat to the media empires that also own the ISPs.
I can't believe you are this fucking dense. I explicitly mentioned utilities, bottled water is not an utility, tap water is.
Fine then. I'll go back to your original point. NN does nothing to prevent competition or allow smaller ISPs to make special packages that are lower cost, it just mandates they are a dumb pipe.
A small ISP can still do shit like dynamically adjust your speeds so you get less download/upload during peak hours but also pay less because you're not a "priority" customer. They can also do shit like charge for actual data used, which could be cheaper depending on the type of customer you are. Again, only caveat is that all data is treated equally.
Easy. Public relations and political demographics. Smaller isps can leverage this for competition, and all power to them. The larger isps are aware of their public image as monopolistic and evil and so can send you in the opposite direction with a benign public statement, which has been shown to not effect their bottom line in the slightest.
His point was that you’re conflating net neutrality with a totally different set of regulations which are actually responsible for monopolies. If you get rid of net neutrality, the ISP market will still lack competition just as much as it does now. Monipolistic telecom giants wouldn’t be pushing it so hard if there were actually any merit to this idea of “it’s going to cause so much competition and being down the monopolies!” It’s just a lie shilled by Verizon and Comcast to trick people into thinking that getting rid of NN will be good for them
I get that. What I don't understand is why both a metered method, and packaged method could not be used simultaneously in order to benefit low-use consumers with exceedingly low prices