Do you anons agree with him?

Do you anons agree with him?
youtube.com/watch?v=WwdS8vaudYg

Other urls found in this thread:

mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/nyregion/ny-sues-verizon-fios.html
npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534/fcc-publishes-full-text-of-net-neutrality-rules
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

No he's a pretentious hipster

>Do you anons agree with him?
I watched most of it, until around 18 min or so and there's nothing new that haven't been discussed even here.
First I would like to say that half an hour videos won't really help on the subject because most people here can't handle even a 5 minutes video from linus tech tips made of literal 12 year old children with ADHD.
Second is that only people wanting to be contrarian or with literal zero knowledge about the subject would be in favor of helping giant companies being able to fuck them like that, ISPs aren't grassroots mom and pop stores, it's literal giant jewish conglomerates, some of them even own the evil (((fake news))) companies some people who were in favor for getting rid of it hate, ex comcast, time warner, etc. Memes can't really beat facts and all the anti NN people have are stale memes and the BBC of monopolies inside of their mouths.
And third is that Steve is too smug for his own good.

>Giving a shit about what this shill thinks. Go be a cuck somewhere else.
L M A O
M
A
O

>Yes goyim intel and comcast know best

>Yes goyim (((Facebook))) and (((Google))) know best
End yourself retard
Go back to

no
it is net neutrality that makes internet slow

do you even know what the internet is?

>ISPs aren't grassroots mom and pop stores
This

Friendly reminder that
Comcast's revenue in 2016 was $80 billion
Verizon Communication's was $125 billion
AT&T Inc.'s was $163 billion

Meanwhile, Google's revenue (or Alphabet Inc.'s) was $90 billion and Facebook's was $28 billion, Netflix' was $9 billion.

ISPs are greedy as fuck jews that have accumulated massive amount of financial power over the years.

do you even know what bandwidth limitation is?

Don't conflate bandwidth limitation with capacity user. Bw limitation is what ISPs do to artificially control bandwidth (e.g. enforce the bandwidth plan you are buying from them) using traffic engineering.

Capacity is the capacity of an entire network, and may vary due to contention and utilisation.

I see Sup Forums is using its sponsored posts again this morning. FYI I will never click your fucking youtube videos to boost your ad revenue or increase your view count.

Die in a hole, motherfucker.

>revenue
i do wonder what the operational costs for said isp are. i can only imagine they have a higher upkeep than google and facebook. netflix might be very close though. the only way i can see google or facebook being near the same upkeep cost is if they are truly beyond retarded and blowing their capital on absolute garbage things.
>see pic related
oh... wait... they might actually be retarded. either way, i've spoken to a lot of anti-net neutrality people and one thing that surprised me is that just a year or two ago they actually favored it. but a lot of them appeared to have changed their tune after google, facebook, twitter, and the like started to go full sjw / nazi censorship. one thing mr. pajeet of the fcc actually used as his line of reasoning, or just as a simple counter-argument was the fact that google, facebook, and twitter were ALREADY censoring stuff. so "why would it matter if isp's did so too." there would have been far less anti-support, and more pro-support if google, facebook, and twitter didn't open their mouths and go on a censorship spree. and to be honest, they have a point. if you can't trust isp's, then what would make you think you could trust net neutrality biggest supporters, google and the like? who have been doing the very thing you are fear mongering about with isp's?
>well, you see, facebook isn't an isp! i can go else where and they cannot stop me from shitposting on 4chans!
well that is a fair point but the problem is with all things considered, facebook is the de facto monopoly standard on traditional social media. google is the de facto standard on search. google's and facebook grasp alone is so powerful that for the overwhelming majority of internet users, if google / facebook alone censors something, most people won't see it. if we truly wanted an open free internet, if google / facebook / twitter truly meant they wanted a true open and free internet, they wouldn't have gone full blown censorship spree.

granted i still find it retarded to not support net neutrality regardless. the same reason why we can go after isps we can go after google and the like. but i do feel like most normies and people on the left don't have the same hatred for google and the like, like they do with isp's. likewise people on the right not having the same hatred for isp's like they do for google. that's a problem. people need to get on the same page if we truly want to protect the internet and keep it free.

>i do wonder what the operational costs for said isp are
Getting into the market is the main issue, after you have set the entire infrastructure it's all about maintaining it.
When a big ISP like that comes into a market they have to make a huge investment at the begining and plan for long term profits.

Some ISPs end up getting tax reductions and shit from countries because both parties are interested in the end result, can't say for sure for you guys at the US but around here our big telecoms got some mean tax reductions for many years in exchange of paying for the infrastructure themselves while at same time getting some safety nets against new smaller ISPs getting into the market due to the prohibitive cost of doing all that shit again.

Pretty sure the US has the same issue when we talk about only a couple of megacorps being the ISPs in certain regions and no other player being in said regions either by agreement between them or just being a bad investment.

stopped listening when the EFFag talks about ISP's continuing to spend money to grow their markets and read one from Verizon...WHO JUST SOLD EVERY MARKET NATIONWIDE EXCEPT THE NY MARKET AND HAVE COME UNDER FIRE BECAUSE THEY'VE YET TO COME CLOSE TO REACHING THEIR EXPANSION GOALS INITIALLY SET WITH FIOS

also time warner, charter and comcast have NOT expanded their speeds until fiber competitors start building in the area

>well that is a fair point but the problem is with all things considered, facebook is the de facto monopoly standard on traditional social media.

I think its a MUCH bigger stretch to say "everyone deserves fair access to social media" than to say "everyone deserves fair access to the Internet"

And those two concepts aren't even really in the same ballpark. 'Fair Access' isn't really easily defined in terms of social media. But in terms of Internet access 'Fair Access' is extremely simple.

this fucking EFF fag seriously has my blood boiling for how fucking idiotic he could be

mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/nyregion/ny-sues-verizon-fios.html

well i was arguing more with the combination of both google and facebook duopoly in their respected fields. with both combined they really do control a massive amount of information we see. unless you purposefully try to avoid both of them, which is pretty hard, they see, hear, read, and control a lot of what we do, see, hear, and read. for the average normie the internet is google and facebook. facebook has reached a level where its "to big to fail." the amount of capital needed to come in and compete with facebook is as high these days as trying to start your own isp. google with search? look at microsoft, arguable more money than google, and yet they can only barely take single digits away after nearly a decade of trying to. yahoo is all soon btfo, finished, and bankrupt. and that's kinda my point, of all the complaints about isp's, you can easily turn around and say, word for word, about google / facebook.
.....
its disturbing how many sites break without allowing facebook / google. even Sup Forums breaks with posting if you block google's javascript.

Yes, google and facebook are huge and no competitor comes close to their market share.

But it's still not comparable to internet service providers because the problems they address are fundamentally different.

What you buy from the ISP is a dead-fucking-simple service (in concept, I know that actual networking is very complex). Move bits from this IP to this IP. It is something so basic and fundamental that it needs to be treated as a utility.

The service you buy(?) from Facebook or Google can no be so easily described.

My point being, that while it may be accurate to say 'Verizon and Facebook are both (almost) Monopolies' this comparison is not relevant in a discussion about net neutrality.

>What you buy from the ISP is a dead-fucking-simple service
well to play devils advocate, you are not forced to buy the a service from an isp. you are free to speak with your wallet. personally i do understand in this day and age its hard to go without the internet as you need it to even apply for jobs at places like mcdonald these days and its pretty much hard to not go without the internet.
>The service you buy(?) from Facebook or Google can no be so easily described.
well no it can't because even if you don't use their services, you're still using their services if you like it or not. you can never have created a google account or even use google search but right now google on this very site google is tracking you. to even use this site properly to just post you have to allow for google javascript which tracks you. you are freely giving up your personal information to google to turn around and sell by simply browsing sites that you never would have thought had a connection to google, facebook, twitter, and the like.

i think we are talking about different things though. i'm talking more from the perspective of the fear mongering people said about isp's in the regard to censoring, blocking, restricting, and controlling your data. in all of those accounts the big three tech giants alone have been doing those very things and became multi-billion dollar monopoly giants because of doing those things. for a lot of anti net-neutrality people they're reasoning was strictly about what i just wrote. they ignored everything else and that's why i said, google, facebook, twitter fucked themselves over and net neutrality by having to open their big mouths and engaging in censorship and the like. i'm not really talking about how isp providing you with internet connection and how they provide it to you as most anti net neutrality people didn't even care about that part. it got overshadowed by the censorship, spying, blocking, restricting stuff.

well i concur because it is. people who advocated for net neutrality, like john olivier, brought up fear mongering about censorship, restricting sites, and what not. which caused mr pajeet to turn around and point out the face the three big tech giants people like john oliver love so dear has been doing all of that themselves and the amount of internet marketshare they control. that's why i said, if the big three didn't open their mouths and didn't engage in the same very tactics that people where using as fear mongering about isp's, and kept it strictly about wanting isp's to just be isp's and actually provide the service they are charing for fairly without bullshit like data caps and start going into rural areas, there wouldn't have been that big of a anti-net neutrality base. go back to 2015 it was rare to find anti net neutrality people. the message back then was also more focused on what i wrote:
>and kept it strictly about wanting isp's to just be isp's and actually provide the service they are charging for fairly without bullshit like data caps and start going into rural areas
fast forward to today and the tune was completely different because tech giants like google, facebook, and twitter gave the anti crowed and mr pajeet ammunition to use against them. and that was their monopoly status and their monopoly abuse with censorship and control.

>concur
i don't concur*
>face
fact*
ugh hate posting on my phone

>All these salty anons angry at Steve.
All he did was talk about points everyone made on the internet and asked a specialist in the area about what eh thought, it was literally an interview.
Go be a salty magapede somewhere else and take your nigger pajeet with you.

>i'm talking more from the perspective of the fear mongering people said about isp's in the regard to censoring, blocking, restricting, and controlling your data.

I don't like the way consumers are treated by 'big data' type companies and I'm not happy about the lack of privacy.

It is a similar issue but still fundamentally at a different level.

It is (still not reasonable enough but) much more reasonable to 'opt-out' of google and facebooks services (clear cookies, block ads, etc) than it is to 'opt-out' of having an Internet connection.

>i do wonder what the operational costs for said isp are
You can look up operational revenue on Wikipedia, same source as for those numbers.

>we dont know whats in this giant pile of regulations with the cute title "Net Neutrality" but we know that we like it

>it's long therefore nobody knows what it says
npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392544534/fcc-publishes-full-text-of-net-neutrality-rules

>we dont know whats in this giant pile of regulations with the cute title "Net Neutrality" but we know that reddit likes it so we must hate it.
MAGA! Based pajeet please fuck my wife, etc etc.

Stop pushing the meme that nobody knows what Title II contains.

only 400 pages for a fraction of the full order? whoa!

>400 pages
That's the entire Communications Act