I don't agree with anyone and I believe that ISPs could profit a lot by putting net neutrality aside. It could increase the rate and quality of researching new technologies which could benefit everyone in the future.
Why would you want to stagnate development Sup Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
medium.com
twitter.com
Because those ISP's don't use their freedom to make the internet better, they use it to force people use their services for everything instead of cheaper/better alternatives from competitors
Post proof
Net neutrality is for every ISP, which would mean that no one gets to reap the rewards in that case, if everyone would just accept the fact that investing would mean developing, you will see that a lot of the revenues would be spent for the better.
Afterall, that't the thing which ISPs do right?
Improve their service?
Verizon made phones using their network unable to tether unless they were using a special Verizon plan (which cost money of course) a few years ago
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
Every single time something like this happened the service provider was fined by the FCC. We don't need net neutrality.
fast communication technologies like fiber optic already exist. if those assholes actually cared about consumers, they would have already implemented these technologies.
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
It's almost like it's expensive to lay new cabled everywhere.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
But will they still be able to do so if Net Neutrality gets repealed?
Don't forget that Ajit Pai used to work for Verizon
Aren't there large parts of the US where there is only one service provider, giving them no incentive to improve their service because no competition?
Yeah man, it's not like Verizon wasn't paid by NYC to lay fibre throughout the city but never did and it's certainly like they don't earn upwards of 75 mil in pure profit each year. Smh why don't people just understand that Verizon and Comcast are POOR!!!
me too
Verizon was just caught throttling in 2017. Net neutrality hasn't done anything other than make it harder for small ISPs to exist.
Kill yourself with your anime waifu
It's only being put back to how it was two years ago. It's not going to be that different.
Oh, you mean Ajit Pai didn't pursue his ex-employer for violating an FCC ruling? Who'da fuckin thunk.
That's not how things work, user. You can never go back.
en.wikipedia.org
Not at all what I was saying. The FCC caught them. Net neutrality didnt stop it because all the big ISPs can do what they want regardless of regulation.
It is because it's not a court case. It's a repeal.
NN was implemented because Verizon was continually poking at the idea of implementing content-favoring services. For fucks sake they've been suing the government to let them do that shit for years and years now. NN was a precautionary method to prevent this shit from happening. You don't just "go back to the way things where", because you can't. Verizon has already stated numerous times that they want to implement a tiered-internet model.
Source that the FCC followed up? Because Verizon was accused of it but the FCC did absolutely nothing.
>Net neutrality hasn't done anything other than make it harder for small ISPs to exist.
Sure thing. Because small ISPs will get such great deals from Google, Facebook and Netflix.
Without net neutrality, only the big ISPs will get a new income source.
You can. That is literally what a repeal is. They are removing a law that was put in place two years ago. That is all.
Government regulation always squashes small business. Period.
What the fuck is even your point. No shit you can go back to "having no law". But what is the argument? You can't bring the internet back to the way it was pre-NN; the changes aren't overnight but there's no doubt what Verizon's intentions are. And it's not a giant logical jump to assume Comcast is right behind them.
Agreed, something which happens all over the world, doesn't matter which side you're on
Lol, isps don't care about new technologies. They just want to increase profit margins for their existing infrastructure. Fiber rollout is coming to a crawl, country areas have a better 4g wireless connection than their actual home connection. In 2018 datacaps will still be a thing here while in many other countries they have done away with them since adsl and are moving towards having none on mobile plans either.
The only thing that you will accomplish with no NN is that paying partners of ISP's will get priority over other traffic. IE netflix pays to make sure their service runs smoothly on outdated infrastructure and passes the bill on to you.
I want to lift her skirt
Yeah man, those poor fucking lead miners were put out of a job when the government banned lead in paint and gas. So fucking sick of government taking away jobs.
>comes to Asian anime fan site
>expects it to be anime free
back to Sup Forums
On-topic pls
>It could increase the rate and quality of researching new technologies
Except ISPs aren't involved in that.
I want to lift YOUR skirt
Okay that's pretty meterosexual.
Strawman
Anime ruins your brain m8
medium.com
Smh now the government is taking away scare crow jobs??????????????????/ What is drumf coming to.
Please pay me 50 cents for having to use bandwidth to download that image, thanks.
>
>All NN did was prevent small ISPs from starting up
>The majors ISPs are against this, get NN repealed
Wow thanks Comcast, didn't realize you were looking out for me.
Are you just going to ignore the nuclear bomb of proof this dude just showed up your ass?
Wow I didn't know Google Facebook and Netflix were looking out for me too by supporting NN.
Drumpf is on a crash course anyway
Lmao what proof?
Yeah, would like to see some proof as well
>> increasing the rate and quality of researching new technologies
Oh fuck no. They ain't gonna do shit, most places still have copper fucking wiring and the '4g' wireless being offered isn't actually 4g. The only innovations they're going to come up with are how to charge you more for less.
>ISPs could profit a lot by putting net neutrality aside. It could increase the rate and quality of researching new technologies which could benefit everyone in the future.
This didn't happen before 2015 when NN was enacted, why would it happen in 2018 after NN is ended?
My address recently got flagged by comcast’s system for promotion hopping for 5 years so they’ve definitely improved. I just wish they told me this on the phone, so I didn’t have to find out in person from one of their employees as he pointed out the dates when we switched each year.
Why do you think they care about inovating when they're just competing with themselves? Ameriburgers get dumber each day.
It did, internet quality improved drastically from 2000~2015
are you underage?
... and fixed internet speeds improved 37% year over year in 2017 in the US.
I went from 150mbps in 2015 to 1gbps in 2017, while paying less money.
This is wrong why?
so you agree they are innovating stuff, what is your question?
>Make claim as OP
>provide no warrant to support claim
>Post makes counterclaim
>WHERES THE PROOF
This is not how an argument works. Where's the "proof" that having no NN will
>Increase the rate and quality of researching new technologies which could benefit everyone in the future.
You've made the first claim. Support it.
My point is innovation happens regardless, NN has no influence on it. NN was only in effect for TWO years, you can't make ANY sort of educated inference based on that limited time period.
You have no idea of NN was good or bad because it didn't last long enough for anyone to be able to judge OBJECTIVELY.
Since innovation was already happening and innovation continued to happen under NN, why the fuck would innovation suddenly happen MORE without NN?
Solution: put all those blocks in the user agreement. You know, that thing nobody reads when they click Accept.
Because the problem wasn't that they blocked a certain service, it was that they chose to do so behind everyones backs.
>I'm a dumb faggot
There, I shortened your post for you.
>I went from 150mbps in 2015 to 1gbps in 2017, while paying less money.
That's not representative at all.
The average speed is 12mbps you stupid cuck.
comcast et al don't research anything except your traffic
because it removes restrictions on how they can handle the packets, they were unable to provide service more tailored to individual needs because net neutrality forced them to treat everything the same.
>The average speed is 12mbps you stupid cuck.
Here is the current global average for fixed download (meaning a home connection download speed, not mobile connection or upload speeds)
oh look, over 70mbps
How long till you libertards let it go?
You lost, deal with it
Your definition of innovation seems to be cable TV and content restrictions.
currently I am provided 100/100 internet with unlimited data, do I need that? not at all. if they are able to provide me the service closer to what I actually want it for, that is innovation for me.
You're just a cuck then. You're literally saying it's fine that you get less than what you're paying for as long as you can still access what YOU want.
So basically fuck everyone else as long as i'm happy. Great mentality to have.
you use what you use
do you think net neutrality disallows capped slow connections? kill yourself post haste
lol maybe if you're talking broadband.
12 mbps isn't broadband.
Most Americans don't have broadband.
In my short 24 years on this earth, I have never heard of internet providers EVER acting on competition.
With or without that regulation, monopolies will still exist. I don't see the point of this media shit-show.
If you want to include all internet access in the country the average speed is still up around 20mbps, not 12mbps.
Either way, I still proved my point you stupid shill.
See, the problem here is that you replied. He made a claim about average speed, with no evidence, while also attacking your character. You reply with evidence and he laughs it off and changes the subject.
There's no point in arguing with these people. Theyre subhumans who will never be able to think for themselves.
You didn't prove shit...
If between 2000-2015 most of the country is STILL on sub 20mbps, how the fuck is that "innovation" working out for you? And why the fuck do you think now that NN is dead suddenly you'll get faster speeds? You weren't getting faster speeds before NN, so why the fuck would you after NN?
I would get what I pay for, and if I want less then I would pay less. Yes, that's fine for me, then they can provide better for businesses that require more stability than me.
yeah but I'm paying for more, since I can use more than I do. They could optimize it so that I don't need as much, since I don't use netflix or youtube or any streaming services, and provide better service for businesses.
It disallows providing special speeds to things like streaming services that I don't use. They could innovate services that allow me to pay for specific services that I use, meaning I would pay less for not using netflix, especially if they pass the cost onto netflix/google which seems likely seeing how much google/netflix/amazon are mad about this.
net neutrality wasn't really fair to the company, to be honest. it was a socialism type idea i think
>They could optimize it so that I don't need as much
ISPs are not going to drastically and voluntarily drop the amount of revenue they make, ever
>They could innovate services that allow me to pay for specific services that I use
you mean they could throttle you and then you'd have no recourse but to spend more money on top of your internet package
by the way, if you want 1mbps, get a 1mbps package.
Guy claims in that speeds improved rapidly before NN came along.
Turns out that they've actually been pretty stagnant, for most people.
Most people do not have better speeds than they had 10 years ago, and most people certainly do not pay less for better speeds.
google/netflix/amazon already pay for bandwidth
That's my point, if before NN innovation was stagnant how is getting rid of NN going to spur innovation? It wont.
You're correct and it's obvious but there's no point. Trying to convince OP here is like asking a rock to get up and move on it's own. It's impossible.
>Implying you're ever getting what you paid for with ISPs.
Remember when you pay for 150MBps but only get 100 peak? Odd right?
Also confusing to think how competition can't be better fostered with more competitors and a lower barrier to entry.
I don't care about your point, I just wanted to prove this smug fug with gigabit internet wrong.
>ISPs are not going to drastically and voluntarily drop the amount of revenue they make, ever
Correct, it would be offset by getting more revenue from user specialized services such as netflix, youtube, etc.
>you mean they could throttle you and then you'd have no recourse but to spend more money on top of your internet package
I would have the choice not to, which is better than currently not having a choice and getting it anyway. I could buy a slower internet service right now, but I enjoy high speeds for when I use it although I don't need very much data total. Currently there are no specific options for users like me who enjoy high speeds, but don't use streaming services like netflix, youtube, amazon, etc. If there was a base package, and then special upgrades for specific providers that is now possible without net neutrality, then that would benefit me.
oh no, you hurt my feelings
What does net neutrality change? that users can pay for specific connections? that also benefits me.
>verizon
Shill detected
>users like me who enjoy high speeds, but don't use streaming services like netflix, youtube, amazon, etc
bandwidth is bandwidth
are burgerclaps unable to understand networking?
Why aren't we doing something that's not working? I liked it not working! Why should we do something that could possibly work?!
This is a typical shill tactic of deliberately misrepresenting net neutrality to be the opposite of what it is. Do not reply.
I never studied networking, I'm an electrical engineer. As for my knowledge of net neutrality, they can throttle specific services, correct?
>This is a typical shill tactic of deliberately misrepresenting net neutrality to be the opposite of what it is. Do not reply.
or you could tell me what net neutrality is, then
I could move to comcast if you want... they even offer 2gbps in my area
Nope, you can read up and educate yourself. In the meantime, you can also stop posting so that people who know what they are talking about won't be interrupted by your shill bait posts.
they can now throttle or block the transit of a packet entirely based on:
>source address or port
>destination address or port
>the complete contents of one or multiple packets
>I never studied networking
then you need to know that there's nothing special about bits coming from or going to a certain address. you say you enjoy high-speed internet access, and then assert that you should be provided a cheaper service because you don't use netflix or youtube. that's not how it works. the ISP just transports bits for you, it doesn't -- or should not -- matter where.
Every piece of information I find on it is just shill from google/amazon/netflix about how its over!!!!!!! I've read about it, they can throttle certain services, right? Or is that not right? because that's all people seem to be talking about
you're unironically a cuckold
So what is likely to be the effect, that they throttle packets based on where it's going such as services that require high bandwidth like netflix and youtube? Then that works in my benefit, if they are able to throttle based on where packets are going they can optimize my service for the individual needs
They can also de-prioritize anything they deem shouldn't have access to high speeds.
So lets say they make their own streaming service, suddenly youtube, HBOgo, netflix get throttled to shit, but included for FREE in your plan you can use your ISPs own streaming service without any throttling.
Wow, free market is great
what's certain is that they'll throttle or block bittorrent, FTP, and similar. netflix and youtube will always be in a jew-pact with ISPs so no one will be nickel-and-dimed by ISPs with regard to access to those.
to make matters worse some ISPs have meddled with packets from games just to sell their "gamer" fast-lane options, and games are never bandwidth intensive so that little justification has no grounds.
that is my experience in the UK.
>if they are able to throttle based on where packets are going they can optimize my service for the individual needs
define optimize.
I don't really care about that since I don't use streaming services, but if they get more revenue from charging netflix/google to get more bandwidth to customers then their revenue is passed on to netflix/youtube customers saving me money, another win. I can't find anything bad about this situation at all.
>I can't find anything bad about this situation at all.
Then you're uneducated and need to examine how you made it this far in life.
Seriously mate, take a step back.
>saving me money
are you stupid?