Net neutrality

>net neutrality

You mean SJW gatekeeper death squads?

Other urls found in this thread:

extremetech.com/computing/212376-comcast-admits-that-its-data-caps-are-a-business-decision-not-an-engineering-requirement
youtube.com/watch?v=zY2DLdOSS8E
fed-soc.org/publications/detail/net-neutrality-and-the-rule-of-law
theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-newsfeed-censor-conservative-news
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senate-republicans-want-face-time-facebook-over-trending-topics-bias-n571521
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Net neutrality hampers innovation and completely kills the potential for some promising technology - remote surgery, for one. It's a way to bring highly specialized skills to remote areas, but could never even conceivably work if your shitposting must be given equal priority.

Trump is literally the internet candidate.

Trump posting his transition update on youtube, in addition to his classic tweats, support the idea that he is pro-internet.

>he posts on the internet like every human alive
>this means he will surely support net neutrality

Net neutrality is what makes it the place of complete unbridled freedom it is today. ISPs could just decide Sup Forums can eat a dick without net neutrality.

Net neutrality gives small businesses a real chance. Dismantling it simply gives the globalists and the power elite even more control over the narrative and who gets their voice heard.

>price discrimination is a bad thing

consider free market

mises.org

No it fucking doesn't, it stops oligopoly isp from hampering your connection to other sites and gives preferences to their sites. Have fun paying an extra fee for websites like you do television

It's not fair to throttle your favorite website and an isp forcing you to use YouTube or what ever preferred website for a fucking fee. That's as arbitrary and made up as datacaps

Net neutrality should have banned data caps too. There's no reason for them at all

Also, because net neutrality is totally stopping Comcast from upgrading your infrastructure and giving you better quality service even though they never did that before net neutrality and they had awful customer service ratings because they were such shit

>its not fair

you signed a voluntary contract with the ISP

choose a different ISP

consider free market

Refutation to my specific example:

Are there costs? Yes, although they could be handled by a narrowly-tailored prohibition on viewpoint discrimination.

Data caps are not what we are used to, but they make sense because you are paying for both speed and throughput. Have you ever operated a business? Businesses do not get unlimited plans and must pay based on data use. That's part of why many employers limit non-work internet use (in addition to productivity concerns).

You can't choose a different isp when Comcast has a monopoly on your geographic area. There is no competition and major ineternet service providers purposely don't compete so they don't lose profits. The reason Comcast doesn't help you or doesn't give you better service is because they have no incentive to because there are no other conpetitors

There is no free market in a non competitive oligopoly

What is natural monopoly? Come on user, it's like you were sleeping in Econ

>Data caps are not what we are used to, but they make sense because you are paying for both speed and throughput. Have you ever operated a business? Businesses do not get unlimited plans and must pay based on data use. That's part of why many employers limit non-work internet use (in addition to productivity concerns).
This is false, a Comcast engineer whistle blower revealed that there is no purpose for datacaps and Comcast only installs them to charge more money for the service. There is no resource allocation, this isn't like water or electricity at all.

>WAHH I WANT MY GOVERNEMNT TO CONTROL EVERYTHING WAHHHh

shut up crybaby

The only reason why I'm not saying I'll love watching you burguers get fucked on this is because once it happens on America it will happen in my country too.

Most people only have access to 1 provider because of 1. high entry costs to become an Internet provider (because of lots of regulations and lobbying from the few big companies in the business) and 2. the few big companies have deals where one won't go into the area of another. So you have a situation where tons of people only have access to 1 provider and there's no free market. You retard

Not an argument you fucking shit posting Australia fag

Isn't your Internet even fucking worse than the US?

Yes, Australian Internet is literally the worst in the world. Even here in Brazil I can get high speed with no caps. There they all have data caps and shitty as fuck speeds.

Don't listen to this guy.

>free market
>ISPs

extremetech.com/computing/212376-comcast-admits-that-its-data-caps-are-a-business-decision-not-an-engineering-requirement

Comcast installs datacaps to make more money, not because they can't deliver or they have to ration it. All datacaps are completely arbitrary and they only get away with it because they're a monopoly for huge swathes of geographic regions

in nashville for last 8 years. comcast internet only 25mbps has been $75 for 7 years

google fiber is in nashville (not where i live) but comcast now suddenly gives me gigabit internet for $82

> techcrunch

If you'd bother to read up what the guy says on Net Neutrality, you will understand why he opposes the current laws that we call "Net Neutrality", the same reason why many also oppose it. It isn't because he wants ISPs to screw you but because the current legislation will restrict ISP companies instead instead of raising internet services to a "neutral" platform.

youtube.com/watch?v=zY2DLdOSS8E

Here is something that gets into the details of it:
fed-soc.org/publications/detail/net-neutrality-and-the-rule-of-law

basically its just another regulatory measure which ISPs will be subject to follow whatever restrictions imposed by the FCC via Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

>Title II, "Broadcast Services": Outlines the granting and licensing of broadcast spectrum by the government, including a provision to issue licenses to current television stations to commence digital television broadcasting, the use of the revenues generated by such licensing, the terms of broadcast licenses, the process of renewing broadcast licenses, direct broadcast satellite services, automated ship distress and safety systems, and restrictions on over-the-air reception devices

What you think is Net Neutrality, and what the actual legislation that is being called "Net Neutrality" are two very different things.

Net neutrality is double speak.

You realize Sup Forums and other places existed long before Net Neutrality was adopted right? How fucking retarded are you? You DON'T NEED IT.

On one hand the regulations and the campaign came out of fucking nowhere and I saw no indications that companies were actual doing to throttle different sites. Not to mention that the government regulating the internet sets a very bad president and those regulations are usually designed by big business to strangle small business competitors. So honestly I have no fucking idea what's going on. I think that Trump should fund a completely decentralized countrywide meshnet so that anons can enjoy freedom of speech for eternity.

Or maybe partner with Elon and his Satellite internet idea that he stole from Zuckerkike after blowing up his satellite.

Which is something they never did even before Net Neutrality.

Solution looking for a problem.

Yeah. There are many providers.

Doesn't surprise me. They've had years to try and work around public perception. The net neutrality rules that the FCC would've been enforcing likely would've turned the internet into some locked down shitpile, just at government behest rather than corporate.

> techcrunch
Friendly reminder.

>2016
>Still playing video games
It's like you really do live in your mother's basement.

what is net neutrality?

> 2 posts by this kike
>>> (OP)
>> techcrunch is just another SJW false news
> (you)

>youtube.com/watch?v=zY2DLdOSS8E

I watched this video and I have no idea what he's saying in the second half of it about "what net neutrality turned into." He mumbles something about regulation but doesn't actually say why it's bad.

I don't give a fuck about Techcrunch
>Posting from Russia
How's it feel to know your life is meaningless?

The fcc attempted to raise the bar for what it considers to be "high speed internet" from 3mbps down/1mbps up to 15mbps/3mbps and isp lobbied against it because that means they'd have to put out more to people who weren't getting those services. 15mbps is still really slow for this day and age of gigabit fiber BTW. The previous standard is from 2003 and even that was slow at the time.

Time Warner gets up and lies about their service coverage and says "our customers don't want faster internet" then Comcast gets up and lies that the Internet needs to be rationed which is why they have datacaps despite no other isp in the world outside of the country does this at all and the fact that datacaps are only there to make more money and not limit the access at all

It's a huge fucking farce and net neutrality keeps isp s in check by abiding by the fcc there's nothing wrong with this.

Comcast already does it with their xfinity streaming service

They charge you to use Netflix against your data cap but don't charge you for xfinity. That's not innovation that's fucking jewery

> I don't give a fuck about Techcrunch
Really looks like it.

> How's it feel to know your life is meaningless?
What life?

that is what the second link is for, familia. its a good read.

The current legislation says the isp must abide by fcc standards which is pretty simple in an of itself. The fcc sets telecommunications standards like what is or isn't considered high speed broadband and how isp can't discriminate against websites with throttling

Are you dense? Net neutrality IS THE STATUS QUO of the internet as you know it

so basically right isp's cant decide that sites that get more traffic should get more broadband or whatever?

but also they can't decide that they want to shut down a site with no priority because it has questionable thing on it.

Correct

Shutting down a website isn't the job of an Internet service provider. It'd more in tune that if a website hosts illegal things that it's the Fbi s job to investigate those things

If Net Neutrality gets overturned you're going to see the internet federalized with the next Democratic administration. It'll be made a utility.

Which would actually be a good thing because Internet speeds and shit would go through the fucking roof unlike now where Comcast charges 70 dollars for dsl and thinks it's OK to use 20 year old coaxial and has made zero attempts to introduce high speed Fibre at all

He'll time Warner Cable is the same fucking way without the data caps

I don't know, are there any ISPs that aren't owned by the kikes?

it could be fine if there's the ability for new ISPs to pop up and create competition.

I'm sure you could sue if the site you created gets enough traffic but they throttle it because (((racism))) especially if you used a free speech defense.

But no competition hence an oligopoly

only 2 at best in each town/city you pathetic shill.

I suppose. The isp gets away with a lot of their shit because they lobby for it. They either buy out or squash any new competitors with excessive fees and shit and let you go bankrupt with non perjury induced lawsuits

They have ready agreements with other major isp to not compete at all

I hear it's worse in Canada and Australia where Europe has some of the best Internet and the fastest speeds

that would be good because the internet is more important than any other utility or infrastructure provided by the government. without the internet our economy would be destroyed.

>They have ready agreements with other major isp to not compete at all


that's some bullshit.

Wake up, it is openly an utility since "facebook revolution" in Libya.
theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/09/facebook-newsfeed-censor-conservative-news
nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senate-republicans-want-face-time-facebook-over-trending-topics-bias-n571521

Kikebook affects up to 56% of votes on municipal elections and up to 25% votes on national elections in USA.

How would the ISPs defeat VPNs if this came to pass?

t.delusional or shill
it's called collusion.

Log all internet traffic ala Russia

Some VPNs like PIA dont use Russian servers anymore for this very reason

It is bullshit. In america (in my state anyway) I can walk from one side of town that only gets Verizon and walk a few blocks down the road and have an area that only gets time Warner Cable

In other states it's worse. Comcast has a monopoly over 15 us states by itself with absolutely no other competitor. Cox Internet has reign on most of the South near Florida and the only states that have some competition are the large metropolitan areas in California, New York, etc

Read your own source. As they are currently imposed on individuals, they are a business decision that has little connection to legitimate concerns of bandwidth usage or violation of the terms of service. As applied to business customers and as it applied to individuals in the past, there is a legitimate basis for it outside of shekel-squeezing.

My concern is with (in addition to the in-practice issues of regulation noted by ) prohibiting prioritization of access for uses that rely on an invariable and reliable connection at the bleeding edge of the providers' capabilities to operate. A less reliable connection that yields to other traffic is fine for twitter, shitposting here, etc., is less useful for online gaming, and absolutely unacceptable for remote surgery.

That isn't what being a utility means.

IP filtering for known VPN providers. Its probably easy for ISPs to identify a VPN connection via packet inspection as well.

So how do we fix this artificial monopoly?

I'm actually more worried about Trump's family

whenever Melania talks she mentions internet bullying lmao, I wonder if it will have an effect

No, and they take over all projects of decentralized non-commercial internet to choke them.

They also killed Ilya Zhitomirskiy, because he wanted to make *diaspora client for smartphones, that would transmit infromation with wifi seamlessly within local community.

They also destroyed Nokia, because it was ready to introduce fully reprogrammable libre phone, instead of backdoored java-mutant, which apple, android and bberry are.

Government builds fiber optic wire line to the last mile where private companies compete on the same line.

obviously social media where you have all your information should be shut down.

everything should be anonymous on the internet as to protect the citizens from personal attacks.

This.

Its funny, everybody here was pro-Trump because of "muh globalists" but it turns out you're just angry children too scared to deal with the world. Denying net neutrality is, without a doubt, one of the most harmful things Trump could do to the economy and only further entrench the power of global corporations.

Technically, but not humanitarily.

>Read your own source. As they are currently imposed on individuals, they are a business decision that has little connection to legitimate concerns of bandwidth usage or violation of the terms of service. As applied to business customers and as it applied to individuals in the past, there is a legitimate basis for it outside of shekel-squeezing
Regular customers are not businesses you fucking shill

>So how do we fix this artificial monopoly?
The end-game of capitalism in a free market system is monopolies turning into bigger monopolies. Which also at the same time remove humans from the equation.

Capitalism has an expiration date. It's visible. It's evident. And a decision needs to be made what we do to meet it. And depending on who makes that decision, we can either try for something good for everyone, or we all end up under the heel of an artificial state that regresses to sustain the status quo as aristocrats live like lords chosen by God.

you mean by making internet a government service that you would pay taxes for (or a single payment every year) but also allowing private ISPs who may provide better service?

THERE IS NO "BEFORE" NET NEUTRALITY RIGHT NOW

VPNS are used in business to connect site locations together through so you can't just block VPN protocols.

You could just create your own Virtual Private Server and use that as a VPN if they blocked the providers.

>THERE IS NO "BEFORE" NET NEUTRALITY RIGHT NOW
There is in concept. It was hell.

WITHOUT Net Neutrality:

You:'Hey did you read X on Website Y?'
Me: 'No, I only have THIS ISP, not THAT ISP.'

Net neutrality means a bunch of Netflix users can hog 99% of the bandwidth and the ISP can do nothing about it.

Fucked up brahs

My reply

Net Neutrality is a government hit job, any coincidence Obama handed over ICANN? More regulation is never the answer

guys, you know how facebook is starting to censor what they consider "fake news"

great

now imagine that your ISP could decide what they consider "fake news" and "fake sites" aka Sup Forums, and they could slow your connection to near 0 when you try to access them.

This is the world without net neutrality

The Internet is not like water or electricity at all faggot. This isn't some stupid shit like it has to be rationed. The reason your Internet is slow is because Comcast won't make new infrastructure to handle the requirements and would rather charge you for using a shifty slow service than put your wants first because they know you can't do fuck all about it because there's no competition

Net Neutrality in short is, without those rules ISP's could charge more for priority access, as well as potentially limiting the sites you can visit without paying extra $$$. It's an attempt to thwart crony capitalist practices which were actually preventing free market competition.

If you think of the internet like a phone system, the 'net neutrality' internet means you can call anyone, and all calls get equal priority (first come first served)

Without net neutrality, you could be charged more to call certain areas, and other areas would be completely blacked out because the company didn't like them, or they were unwilling to charge a connection fee. What would the election have been like if Alt-Right sites were 404'd for the entire election?

There's also legal issues, if ISP's are not common carriers, they may technically be liable for what's transmitted over them. Think CP and other nasty illegal shit.

All indications are that Net Neutrality was actually forcing competition to occur and ISP's were getting dragged into 'utility' status like Phone, Electricity, Water and Sewage.

That's not how the internet works. Packet routing is first in first out, and it should be able to handle everyone and then some. There's nothing inherently special about packets from a doctors office other then perceived feelings / importance of them.

Up until recently the government did a decent job of breaking up the uber-monopolies. AT&T in the 80s comes to mind. At the same time, we still have absolute bullshit ones:

> TI and school calculators.
> College Textbooks (Pearson)
> Luxottica owns 80%+ of the eyewear market
> De-Beers controls most of the world diamond supply
> Intel controls 98% of the world server CPU market

In all of these competition exists but is quashed due to lobbying or taking advantage of market forces. Crony capitalism is a big issue today.

>There's also legal issues, if ISP's are not common carriers, they may technically be liable for what's transmitted over them. Think CP and other nasty illegal shit.
I remember the Fbi tried to subpoena Verizon to release the records of one of their customers in order to get a search warrant for every customer under Verizon if they truly wanted to see everything