Where the hell are people getting the idea that ISPs will introduce separate internet service bundles without Net...

Where the hell are people getting the idea that ISPs will introduce separate internet service bundles without Net Neutrality? I genuinely don't understand this meme. The worst that happened before Net Neutrality was some ISPs getting caught throttling certain packet types.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/AbJBEBZvDNY
consumerist.com/2017/02/23/time-warner-cable-customers-unable-to-access-tv-apps-after-charter-merger/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Do you ever leave your house?

lmao

Because these are usually the same companies that do cable tv, so it's not without precedent. And it gives them a way to get more money so why wouldn't they do it? Get more money from users that use up more bandwidth and extort big web companies for more cash while you're at it. You'd have to be stupid to not take all that money.

Because reddit, Facebook, Twitter, google, (insert giant tech company) told me

Then why didn't they do it before Net Neutrality?

they did, numbnuts

I'm still waiting for an answer to this. I am neutral on Net Neutrality due to the massive amount of shilling on each side, but the common argument of internet service bundles comes off as extremely retarded because there is no precedent for when Net Neutrality wasn't in place.

Shut the fuck up Sup Forums, go back to your home board and jerk off to your manlet in chief Donnie Smallhands.

ISPs are a manifestation of pure evil, the epitome of everything wrong with our sick capitalistic society and you're nothing more than a blind lapdog for believing that they wouldn't skullfuck the teeth out of your mouth and sell them back to you if it meant making an extra penny.

Source on this?

Way to completely ignore what I posted, you fucking retard.

Stop ruining Sup Forums

>>>/r*ddit/

>Source on this?
Just wait faggot, I hope you're the first person that gets dicked hard by the greedy corporation cock you can't seem to get enough.

Nice arguments.

>t. windows users

Net neutrality was initially made to prevent ISPs from providing tiered internet speeds. It was useless anyway.

Dont' care about NN, just want pol to stop coming in here to not talk about technology and post their shitty reddit-grade memes.

You guys have to be the most genuinely stupid group of people to the point where its intoxicating.

Thanks for the bump.

Do I need to spell it out for you? It's now legal for these greedy fat cat fucks to extort the entire nation out of every last penny they own and it's all because of stupid contrarian fucks like you.

Now YOU provide ME a reason why they won't take advantage of such a fucking absurd ability to control the populace, you dipshit, Nazi, retard.

I'm not from pol and I know more about tech than you m8 :^)

Lol. No

Thanks for the bump. You didn't answer my question of why they didn't do it in the past when they could, by the way.

The clock is ticking now dipshit, there wasn't any compelling reason for them to want to roll back the net neutrality laws unless they planned to do something that wasn't lawful under their protections.

They didn't do it before only because they hadn't thought about, they didn't have the balls to do it before and feared the wrath of the people. Now? They have an entire nation of braindead, bootlicking, nationalistic sheep eagerly awaiting the chance to lap up the dribbles of cum that drip from their massive fat cat cocks, so long as they convince them that antifa or SJWs or some other delusional alt-right boogeyman doesn't want them to.

>dribbles of cum that drip from their massive fat cat cocks
Where does the bad part start?

>the government doesn't control something
>thinks Nazis would like this
>calls someone else a retard

Honestly, I don't think the bundle example is necessarily something that would really happen, especially not now that everyone is scared of the possibility and it would probably cause a major backlash if they did it. It's just an example of the kind of shit ISPs could theoretically do. In reality they'll probably do stuff that isn't as immediately noticeable and feign ignorance if anyone calls them out on it (kind of like how Comcast or whoever blocked bittorrent and then completely denied it way back when).

I'll admit, I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, but I vaguely remember hearing that net neutrality has existed in some form even before the 2015 change. So the reason they haven't done this yet is because it may not have been a viable business model back when it was actually legal. Not sure about this, and I'm too tired (and lazy) to research it right now.

At any rate, this could just be a bout of massive paranoia, but I'm not so inclined to believe that ISPs are lobbying the shit out of this in good faith to the consumer. They have to be benefiting from it, and that usually means someone is getting screwed on the other end.

>The worst that happened before Net Neutrality
The Obama "net neutrality" enactment simply formalized what was FCC policy all-along. If ISPs were throttling before it was against the rules and done covertly.

There has never been a non-NN internet in the US.

>why they didn't do it in the past

Did you even fucking read the post? I'll repost it for you:
>Where the hell are people getting the idea that ISPs will introduce separate internet service bundles without Net Neutrality? I genuinely don't understand this meme. The worst that happened before Net Neutrality was some ISPs getting caught throttling certain packet types.

ISPs tried to block certain services even when they knew the FCC would do whatever it could to stop them. Now they can legally do whatever they want with the FCC's blessing.

It's a worst case scenario version of the bullshit they were doing. The principle is still the same: throttle certain packet types in the name of money. Are you suggesting that throttling packet types is acceptable at all?

No, I'm not saying throttling is acceptable in any way. I'm SPECIFICALLY asking about the notion that ISPs will do internet bundles similar to TV bundles without Net Neutrality. Where are people getting this idea when ISPs didn't do it before Net Neutrality?

You're referring to corporatism not capitalism, maybe you should pick up a book once in a while instead of spending your life on your knees for commies like Stallman and Moore to cumfeed you your belief system.

Because it was already done on mobile. That's how they all got the idea in the first place. The idea that certain traffic is unrestricted while others are isn't unknown to people since they're already experiencing it on mobile. It's only logical to assume that, once given the leeway, ISPs would implement the same Jewish tactic on home internet.

Because mobile networks are completely different than the networks that you get with something like a fiber internet plan with an ISP. Christ.

Are you fucking stupid? Invite all your friends over to your house and let them connect to your internet, then tell them to all load and play a YouTube video.

That's the reason why the mobile internet market is different and has a reason to throttle data-intensive applications or allow users to pay extra for their use you fucking retard.

>There is a problem with regulating things thay might happen in the future

Just because ISPs haven't bundled service yet doesn't mean they won't, especially since there's a financial incentive and precedence for it in other industries. Do you not get car insurance because you haven't gotten into an accident yet?

>these are the people who post on Sup Forums

You ask where they got the idea from. There's that and there's the fact that they were already selectively throttling certain types of traffic back then. People know that these companies are greedy so it's only rational to assume that they would amp up the bullshit once given the chance.
>inb4 no good reason
there's no good reason to implement data caps on home plans but they do it anyways

Why wouldn’t they have done it before Net Neutrality, though?

>goes from saying batMEN to duperMAN
fake news

>when you have no arguments and find yourself on a website without downvote button

There was no "before net neutrality"

>implying they won't use the same excuse on home plans
you're the retard here
>oy vey, streaming traffic has increased this month, we need to offer specific bundles so people would not interfere with each other's traffic

read >2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money
More streaming traffic, being data intensive, is only going to give them more excuses to block you from accessing certain traffic

>b-b-but why didn't they do it in 2003
Because the average Internet user was openening 1 website a month.

With TV channels providing all their content on the Internet, music and video streaming for the masses, the ISPs now know that they can pull a cable channel pricing.

youtu.be/AbJBEBZvDNY

Does net-neutrality exist for mobile data in the US currently? Doesn't look like they discriminate by traffic type.

Can someone explain to me why some people believe removing 'net neutrality' will in any way fix the issue of local government collusion with ISPs?
From what it seems, net neutrality today exists as a protection at a federal level with the FCC using the powers it grants to regulate. It does not seem to guide the local/state markets for ISPs nor in any way control the apparent barriers to entry that plague the internet service industry.
Why then, do people seem to think that removing this broad federal power will change policies unrelated to the power that are present at the local level?

>local government collusion with ISPs
That's another issue entirely, m8. There's also the fact that local ISPs aren't exactly very friendly with local governments. They're more than happy to sue just to maintain monopoly.

>separate internet service bundles
Because it's in their interest to do so , are you stupid user ? Look at Portugal isp
>The worst that happened before Net Neutrality
You've had nn since the beginning you abysmal retard, fcc promoted it in mid 2000's and then came obama which legaly reinforced i and by no means obama invented it.

Thank you OP for proving anti nn actually have no idea what they're talking about. Trump, drm internet, killing nn , what's next muricans ?

>>r/eddit

>2013
>2012
>2012
>2011
>all before 2015's rules
>none of them succeeded
lmao thanks for proving my point

They didn't succeed BECAUSE THE FCC STOPPED THEM. What Trump has done is to remove that control over the ISPs from the FCC.

This isn't Sup Forums. You can park your cognitive dissonance and recognize this for what it is: Trump selling out the little guy to corporate interests.

google vodafone gigapass you retarded fuck

>implying Netflix and Google are the little guys
>implying monopolies are not due to fdr and johnson
Fucking brainlet soyboy berncuck commie jew fuck

The FCC is just going to keep stopping them, you retard.
>inb4 REEEEE DRUMPF IS IN THE FCC REEEEE
>inb4 REEEEE DRUMPF REPRESENTATIVE IS GOING TO FUCK US ALL REEEEE
Sure thing.

Because people won't fucking put up with it. They will demand access to all sites and that's what they will get. No one will ever even entertain the idea of tiered internet

Not a fucking agreement, but nice fucking LARPing you idiot, go on, keep pretending your a cyber freedom fighter

This is actually wrong though, there was no net neutrality before 2015, things will be exactly the way they've always

The FCC has kept a hold on ISPs a lot longer than "muh rules started in 2015," whenever an ISP got caught throttling or something they made them stop. Net neutrality was already an unspoken rule until it was officially written down in law.

Now it's officially been repealed. You have to understand how this is a different set of circumstances than pre-2015. It's not going back to being an unspoken rule, the FCC has officially done away with it and the ISPs probably aren't going to keep playing nice in lieu of that. The official repeal sets us up for a lot of internet kikery in the future. With any luck it won't get past congress and we'll be able to continue as we have been. I can't understand the point of view of anyone who genuinely wants companies like Comcast and Verizon to have free reign over how they can distribute the internet to clients.

Leaving the whole argument aside what I don't understand is how the FCC got away with this. No matter which side of the argument you are on you can't deny that the vast majority of americans is against the repeal. Consequentially the repeal should not happen period.

Why are americans so fucking gullible holy shit

You just gave ISPs the power to give you worse service and you're celebrating it

What is wrong with you lot

>huhuhuh but the liberals will be so mad xD

Yes, Netflix and Google can *now* "pay to play". But what's really worrying is that the NEXT GENERATION of Netflixes and Googles will never arise because new players will need to pay for access to compete with established incumbents.

If "net neutrality" was ditch 10 years ago you'd be using MySpace and Yahoo or whatever since those would have been the companies that could have paid for access and to block access by competitors. And instead of Netflix you'd be watching "Comcast Video" or "Verizon Movies" and you can bet it's be pure AIDS.

This is also why the US will lose its edge in internet innovation, and become to consumer internet services what Japan is now to consumer electronics: a once-leader that fell behind because it tried to lock-in the status quo.

I don't care how sincerely you hate/fear black people or whatever; I just can't wrap my head around ANY sane person who isn't an executive at a large ISP thinking this is anything but an impending slow-motion disaster for the US economy.

Stop spreading lies. Net neutrality literally didn't exist until before 2015. We had no net neutrality before 2015. Nothing is going to change, there will be no fast lanes, no throttling, no blocked sites, especially no blocked sites, no one will tolerate sites they want to go on being blocked. There will literally never be tiered internet ever stop spreading this lie. Go back to Redit and get fed propaganda

If somehow the repeal sticks and there really is no more net neutrality, I want you to screencap your post and check back in 4 or 5 years.

>the NEXT GENERATION of Netflixes and Googles will never arise because new players will need to pay for access to compete

This literally won't fucking happen. Explain why this will happen other than because of the MUH CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL meme. Im in favor of net neutrality but please stop pretending that Comcast is trying to personally ruin your life

Time Warner Cable has been doing it with TV for a while, and now they can do it with internet

>Can't sign into watchESPN app with twc
>Can't sign into AMC app with twc
>Can't sign into FX app with twc

consumerist.com/2017/02/23/time-warner-cable-customers-unable-to-access-tv-apps-after-charter-merger/

It won't be presented as "pay us X-dollars for Netflix or you can't access it", it'll be presented as "COMCAST CUSTOMERS TRY SUPER FAST UNLIMITED AMAZON-BY-COMCAST VIDEO; SO MUCH FASTER THAN SLOOOOOWWWWW NETFLIX!!! *Netflix and other video services count against your access cap, AMAZON-BY-COMCAST is all-you-can-eat for Comcast customers"

...

If you're not trolling you've done ZERO research on this. How the FCC had upheld 'net neutrality' principals on its own since the advent of the internet has been cited multiple times in this thread, as in every single NN thread not-on-Sup Forums. All Obama's "net neutrality" rules did was codify the status quo, since it was under threat by ISP lawsuits against the FCC which was trying to uphold NN without explicit executive backing.

Net neutrality existed in code since 2010, in 2014 title I was challenged in court and that's why in 2015 title II was implemented.

This is a ridiculous argument because repealing NN is not going to take you back to a pre 2015 era where the FCC acted on a per case basis. The FCC just gave ISPs the power to do whatever they want. It is not going to meditate net neutrality violations anymore. Good luck with that.

Did you even read the article? They said they can't sign in because the merger isn't complete yet and they need to get their system updated and running. Oh but I guess you ignored that because you wanted the evil corporation narrative you already decided to believe. Get the fuck out, Rebbit may be fucking retarded but 4channers are even more so.

Why will this happen other than because you're afraid it will. No one knows what the future holds, so stop being doom and gloom and get a grip.

>nextgen of netflixes and googles
>will hog just as much bandwidth as current gen
Sure thing that a small indie company is going to use as much as 37% of the internet in primetime.

Zero Rating plans are good.

> Net neutrality existed in code since 2010
No it didn't
>Repealing NN is not going to take you back to a pre 2015 era
Yes it will
>The FCC just gave ISPs the power to do whatever they want.
No they didn't
>It is not going to meditate net neutrality violations anymore.
Yes it will

Educate yourself. Go on a deep-dive through Wikipedia or whatever of the history of net neutrality, and then come back and say this.

The ISPs ***AGAINST THE LAW*** did everything they could to kill independent voip, video calling, internet video, movie streaming, internet radio, music streaming, etc, etc. with an eye to either taking these segments over for themselves, or to preserving their old telephone and cable TV monopolies. Now they can do that FULLY WITHIN THE LAW.

Here, this post applies to you too

This isn't just about Netflix. Streaming is just the big threat to ISPs right now just like VoIP was ten years ago. The thing is that ISPs now have the power to kill any new service they don't want competing with what they offer before it even takes hold.

>yes goy, keep paying for 10mbps for video streaming. What's that? You want to download your Steam games at 10mbps as well? Sorry but your current plan is only optimized for video streaming. You need to buy the gaming bundle for that.

You said yourself it was never offically law. So nothing has changed, things have just gone back to the way it was before Title II. You're an idiot.

it already did

If you paid for a plan that says "10mbps for video streaming, 512kbps for everything else", that's your fault

It will happen because (in this example) Comcast will get a cut of user streaming subscriptions, where they get none if acting as a dumb gateway as under net neutrality. If Amazon (as an example) partners with Comcast (as an example) then they can easily make Netflix as bad/slow/uneconomical option for Comcast internet customers; competition on the merits of the service go out the window, and it comes down to who cuts the best deal with the gatekeeper ISP.

It's basically putting the US internet economy on the same footing as some third-world tin-pot dictatorship, where you need to get in bed with El Presidente's cousin to get any business done. This is of course TOTALLY in keeping with Trump's philosophy and brand, but it will TOTALLY fuck the consumer and the economy.

I don't care anymore. I've worried year after year about SOPA/PIPA, ACTA, TPP, net neutrality, etc. My senior year of high school was hell because I couldn't stop constantly worrying about ACTA all the time, I'm sick of caring. They can do whatever they want, I'll just use whatever service they give me, I'm sick of standing up for the little guy, I want to live my life, fuck you.

Just imagine if all plans were in bundles and there aren't any options for unrestricted internet access unless you were an enterprise customer.

No. Thinks have evolved:

>invention_of_the_internet-to-2015
FCC enforced net neutrality unilaterally (basically, analogizing the internet to the phone service as a "common carrier")
>2005-to-yesterday
FCC enforced net neutrality with explicit backing of the executive
>From-now-on
ISPs can do whatever they want, fuck you.

I don't know why you trust a Verizon lobbyist to watch out for you, but you're American. By the time you realize you've been ripped off somebody will feed you some bullshit about more regulation that needs to go and you'll believe it.

Welcome to Portugal

>Sure thing that a small indie company is going to use as much as 37% of the internet in primetime

Who would have thought this about Netflix before they did? Or YouTube? Or anything else?

The history of the internet economy is of new innovative companies coming in and disrupting and often totally destroying incumbents with new business models made possible by equal access to the network.

The end of net neutrality will put a stop to that innovation. Do you know what happens to those who don't evolve?

This is fake, no country has tiered internet. America will never have tiered internet.

>mobile plan
>normal NN plans also exist
Try again

If they get big enough to become bandwidth issues like Netflix, they deserve to be charged for that.
>waah but I can't keep my REVOLUTIONARY service because I need to pay my bills
you should try charging more for your REVOLUTIONARY service

Go read that post. If your entire argument is REEE TRUMP just stop arguing.

So your counter-argument is simply to state things that are easily demonstrably not factually true by *any* standard of the word "true"?

I guess you've learned from the best how to "argue" in this way.

>he thinks the potential victims of this will have any other choice
wew

These are all zero rating, you monkey. You pay 5 Yuropoors and you get 10GB/month of bandwidth plus Zero Rating for those companies listed.

here

>Go read that post. If your entire argument is REEE TRUMP just stop arguing.

Where did I mention Trump? Pajit was nominated to the FCC by Obama, that doesn't mean I have to stand by what he did as a liberal. Why do you want to make this a partisan issue you brainlet

The man is a Verizon mole, he's not going to stand up for the consumer. It's this simple.

Some countries are getting there, m8.

>500GB to do whatever the fuck you want
>100GB extra to watch youtube
>this is somehow tiered internet
huh
next you'll say what, that internet is a basic human right and that everyone should have it?

Oh, and by the way, Zero Rating plans don't stifle competition nearly as much as you think for 99.9% of services, and by the point that your data eating service has grown big enough for that to be a worry, you'll have enough power to buy your fucking bandwidth already.

A new product won't need to get big before ISPs try to stop it. Skype was insignificant when carriers tried their best to kill it because they saw how poisonous it was too their core services if given the chance to grow.