But muh net neutrality?

But muh net neutrality?

Other urls found in this thread:

smartyoutubetv.github.io/
archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/64074999/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Redditors turn a blind eye when tech companies do this kind of stuff.

>using nonfree software

You deserved it.

>jewgle fighting jewmazon
it's beautiful

>Google and amazon are title 2

You're posting here too? Fucking faggot.

Workaround:
smartyoutubetv.github.io/

I wonder if the nazis sometimes watched as they made Jews fight each other like gladiators. And the winner got a bigger dinner or something.

why does this matter to me or anyone on this board? I watch movies and Youtube videos with mpv on my Thinkpad connected via HDMI to a large non-smart TV.

So buy the shit somewhere else. Problem solved. /thread

This isn't net neutrality related at all. These are two private companies be assholes to each other affecting their consumers.

Old negro.

Regulation needs to be cut further, take away government ability to create artifical monopolies through special contracts paid for by the ISP. Anything involving the government always results in subpar services that quality rely entirely on how much you're getting taxed

>go to open youtube on my firetv
>this app is out of date
>please use firefox or chrome to access youtube
>it works fine

ah so media causing panic over nothing again

But they're private companies, not ISPs
kys Sup Forums

More and more regulation is necessary to stop greedy companies from becoming monopolies, anytime corporations of any kind have freedom, everyone except them suffers.

ISPs are private companies as well.

KYs redditor

Not for long, alt-reicher

Can't you just watch Youtube on whatever web browser FireTV uses?

Which is exactly what muh neutrality is about, you liberals like to use "private company" a lot but don't understand under your vague terminology that also applies to ISPs.

KY's what?

But it works fine in firefox????

I somehow keked so hard i spew my ovaltine

>"Dinner or Lead, the choice is yours!"

Google and Amazon aren't ISPs, you kumquat

Apple TV didn't have Amazon's VOD app forever. Isn't that against net neutrality too?

>you liberals
That's quite an assumption, based literally on nothing that would imply "librul". Stay angry retard, it's amusing to see people wear themselves out fighting the imaginary.

Blocking something vs. not releasing it on a certain platform is not at all the same thing. Do you think these devices all run the same OS? Do you understand how computers work?

A product blocking an app isn't the same IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT IDIOT ID IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

amazon isn't "blocking" youtube, they determined it's pointless and outdated on firetv when it runs fine through firefox instead

it's not like if you use the firefox app and go to youtube that it says "this is blocked" like att did to Sup Forums 4-odd years ago, they're just no longer releasing updates for the youtube application

I just use Firefox on my fire stick TV. It works fine.

That's anti-competitve and it's literally blocking an application which goes against muh open and fair internet.

Redditors are retards.

NO IT'S NOT STFU MORON

they're all publicly traded you idiot

It doesn't, ISPs will be utilities under Title 2 under as much government regulation as possible, making them a not-for-profit if possible, right after every alt-reicher is burned at the great purge.

I own a fire TV and YouTube over browser is a bitch

OP is pointing out the hypocrisy of the same companies that cried "muh neutrality" blocking each other from their services/playforms. This is exactly why I, personally, was opposed to it. It doesn't stop Silicon Valley from being cunts.

Haha libcucks btfo again

...

They're products and apps being blocked by a market and they're not ISPs

>bigger dinner or something.

I like you.

Google is an ISP and could potentially throttle connections to amazon for people who have google fiber. However unless that happens then this has nothing to with net neutrality.

Are you literally 10 years old

512MB has been added to your Comcast account.

The nazis were the jews.
The good ones though. NSDAP was financed by rich jews and there were some 200k in wermacht.
The "perfect aryan soldier" in propaganda was a fucking jew calle fucking Goldberg

>you liberals
Stopped reading there.

It may surprise you to know that germans tend to have german names. I know that german names are associated with jewry, but that's because lots of jews fled Hitler's purges.

>This anti-competitive practice on a service that Company A owns has nothing to do with this anti-competitive practice on a service that company B owns!
Technically correct, but missing the point on purpose.
Can't wait until google expands its ISP business now that it can throttle amazon services on it all it wants.

Not comfortably. Have you seen the fire tv remote? (Most average consumers won't invest in an extra keyboard)

>how do we sell both jew stick and jewcast
>let's take away few services from each and make it exclusive like in the video game consoles
>that's right goyim now you gotta buy them both

You faggots fell for this

True.
But on a related side-note, Goebbels's "perfect aryan baby" project had a jewish infant girl on the cover, which i find hilarious.

Goebbels wasn't exactly above lying. Or he'd probably say that the truth is whatever he said loud enough.

This isn't anything to do with Net Neutrality, if Google was blocking YouTube on all their Google Fiber connections then there would be a problem.


Amazon started this shit by entering a dick measuring contest with Google and blocking anyone from selling Chromecasts on their website.

ISPs have nothing to do with this. This is absolutely net neutrality.

Unless you're delusional and think that big companies operating their own tier 1 network qualifies as an ``ISP''

It's about monopolies abusing their power.
Why not have Amazon shopping neutrality and Google app store app neutrality.

I'd be all for that, however this still isn't anything to do with Net Neutrality.

What if instead of having separate neutrality clauses crafted for every industry you had some broader rule. Like a rule against anti-competitive behaviour.

Tech companies want to avoid this. But since the ruling, they've been dealt a hand.

Why is there

so much empty

space between

the lines?

bump

>It's going to be bad anyways so let's make it even worse.
Also youtube has more alternatives than US ISPs, the literal majority over there only has 1-2 available, and all the major ones are jewing them.
There's also ways to work around this stuff, meanwhile the only way to bypass comkike is through a VPN or proxy, and they've already been caught throttling p2p services before.

>I don't like one work around so it doesn't count

My point is that it's not a good work around you dumb cunt.
Ultimately VPNs are easily found and they are going to throttle them.
VPNs in this context make it so they can't jew you as much as they want, why on earth do you think they won't tamper with it?

Amazon blocks lots of companies fun selling on their site.

Kobe used to sell e-readers on Amazon, but Amazon completely banned them

Hi rebbit

You don't sell your competitors products. This has nothing to do with net neutrality

Youtube is not an ISP and neither is Amazon.

The issue is that Amazon will not sell Google smart products, so Google blocks Youtube apps from working on Amazon's devices in retaliation. Google is within their rights to disable the youtube app on Amazon's devices.

But it's still a service monopoly provider that operates on the internet using internet servers.

>monopoly
Genuinely retarded.
Just go on vimeo if you want to watch video content, the type of content typically found on youtube.
Furthermore, you can get a chromecast if you live in any state, you just can't get it from amazon.
Meanwhile you literally don't have an alternative in many states, you either get AT&T or you don't have internet, how hard is it to understand that this is far different from not being able to access youtube on an amazon product?

the situation explained for retards:
>amazon sells chromecast
>its a huge success
>amazon introduces their own streaming stick
>everyone buys chromecast still
>they remove chromecast from amazon
>now everyone uses their shitty stick
>google gets mad >:( and threatens to remove the youtube app from amazon devices if they dont include chromecast again
>amazon doesnt
>google pulls their app
>youtube.com can still be accessed from a browser on an amazon device
>everyone who knows this realizes that this is all a non-issue, also the youtube app on the firetv was basically the website anyways

Jeff "madman" Bezos at it again i guess.
As always, Google does no evil yet again.
Though
>now everyone uses their shitty stick
bitch plz, nobody uses that garbage
Chromecast is so widely compatible with anything and everything that it's ez

Your point isn't valid

You can install kodi on a Chromecast?

>I'll just claim that the point isn't valid.
>I totally won't explain why though, that'd require it to be true.

>Also youtube has more alternatives than US ISPs

No there aren't.

It's literally only Youtube and 0 competitors.

In the US you have at least 2 landline ISP's, then there's at least 4 major mobile ISP's, and countless of mvno's.

>I don't like one workaround

You haven't argued anything.

It's not an effective workaround if it ends with EVERYTHING being throttled rather than the select ones that pay you inbred ape.

>No there aren't.
I literally named one, which you can access as long as you have an internet connection.
>"B-but it doesn't have as much content"
It's still an available option.

>You have at least 2 landline ISPs
Except for all the places where you don't actually have that. Pic related.
Of course, where there are 2 available it will generally be two of Comcast, Verizon or AT&T or whichever, the very ones that have already been caught throttling and even flat out blocking services.
Just FYI, when you have to lie to make your argument you know that you're in the wrong. I'm frankly a bit offended that you'd think me that much of an idiot.

I made that image, user.It's a fake.

archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/64074999/

Vimeo is not an alternative. it doesn't even have 1/100th of the content Youtube has. Stop being retarded.

>Except for all the places where you don't actually have that. Pic related.

What exactly are you trying to prove? That image doesn't even have a source for one thing. Also it shows that like 99% of the populated areas do in fact have at least 2 providers. So your own image proves you wrong.

The image does refer to the FCC but this guy Made me doubt it.
So then here's another one, taken straight from the FCC map section, you can go verify it yourself if you want.

>That map is clearly cherry picked
"Other ISPs are not alternatives, they don't even have 1/100th of the speeds that Comcast has, stop being retarded."

Post link to map, or at least post headline, user.

That map shows most places have 2 options at the very least. Keep proving yourself wrong retard.

You do realize most of those places with 1 supposed option are inhabited?

Why are you also ignoring mobile carriers? They too are an ISP.

residential-fixed-internet-access-service-providers-by-census-block
>Posts a 10 year old map as a rebuttal.
Mate how dishonest can you even be.
There's also broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers which shows the majority of the country at around 1-2 providers,
Including mobile providers I get it to most of the country only having around 4 available providers on that service, which is also hosted by the FCC
>They have 2 options!
Yea. Comcast and verizon or AT&T
ALL WHICH HAVE BEEN CAUGHT THROTTLING OR FLAT OUT BLOCKING SERVICES

>>Posts a 10 year old map as a rebuttal.
It was not a rebuttal, it was to point out that a map is pointless without the link or headline.

Also,
>Mate how dishonest can you even be.
Dude, I made fucking this up. Of course I am dishonest.

Why isn't it called roundtine?

>the everglades has 10 isps in 1998

Not an argument

What this has to do with net neutrality you fucking retard?
Fuck this board full of shills and idiots.

I didn't even know it existed, nor do i care
i just meant that you can cast your screen if you use chrome, or even stream videos you have on your computer with some chrome apps
it's pretty sweet

Or he could just be retarded

Greedy companies become monopolies by supporting regulation that stops competition from rising and they have the money to afford lawyers to convince lawmakers that they didn't break any rules they broke

Exactly why lobbying should not be a thing, corporations should not be able to twist the rulebook to how they see fit, it makes no sense if what you're trying to achieve is a thriving economy with competition. Instead, regulations should be rules that apply to everyone chosen by the people, not by corporations, and there obviously shouldn't be any sort of difference in the weight of an argument between those who can afford and those who can't afford.
This, without changing the system too much is the way things should be, of course the voting system and such itself is flawed, and government isn't flawless either (especially not right now wink wink nudge nudge), but the government doesn't hold such a direct financial incentive in law making anymore, which would ultimately make it all about fairness, rather than what's best for someone's pocket.

Maybe it's time for you to "immediately cease and not continue to access the site".

Limiting corporate influence on laws can make a very big difference. Whenever google or amazon supports anything socialist or sounds socialist, they're doing it purely in self interest. It makes no sense for a company like google that wants to be an ISP support very heavy regulation of ISPs unless they wanted it very carefully worded to make even more profit for the company but also ensure that nobody could take away their customers because of all the bureaucracy they would have to go through

I agree, but regardless, it's really the fact these corporations are allowed to run free are the exact reason we don't have a free market

If corporations weren't allowed to make laws with easy to twist wording this wouldn't be a problem

europe has that
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law

The FTC was created to combat anti consumer and anti competitive behavior

>be a proponent of net neutrality for almost two decades
>goals and reasoning always clear
>Russian agents spread garbage like this

Look, the goal of net neutrality has always been clear: any IP should be able to connect to any other IP on the internet at full speed. The data should not be modified by any common carriers. That's fucking it. It was literally just that ISPs should be qualified as common carriers. For two decades. We NEVER cared about the data that these addresses exchange as long as the fucking common carriers allow them to voluntarily transmit to each other. Fuck you, fuck you for taking my goddamn life's work and completely fucking misunderstanding it

Classifying ISPs as common carriers literally had no relationship to this you fucking moron

>two fucktard companies fight
>blames it on net neutrality