This is what "get rid of Net Neutrality" fags want

> This is what "get rid of Net Neutrality" fags want.

Prove me wrong.

Inb4 "muh free market" retards claim a free market exists where crony capitalists have stopped it at the state level.

People won't pay for these services unless its actually worth it to them, other services with a different revenue model will appear to fill the gap.

Or in preemptive defense of this, these current services move overseas to retain their current business model.

They won't respond because they can't defend this.

So essentially Burgers are fucked.

You have no fucking idea what the issue regarding net neutrality is or how it affects anything, and you've clearly shown that.

They won't make you pay for websites. They will just make it so on certain websites your connection is so shit you'll not want to go.

Net Neutrality isn't about ISPs making more money. It's about shaping peoples experiences online.

Removing Net Neutrality would allow them to do *exactly* what the image in the OP depicts. It isn't just selectively slowing websites down - it's also blocking access entirely unless you pay more shekels.

What's stopping them from double dipping by charging companies for preferred bandwidth and charging users for overages? See the whole fiasco with Netflix and Verizon.

The Internet should and must stay free from taxation
Fuck off (((governments))) & (((companies))), go steal money somewhere else

Sure, it would allow them. But just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they WILL.

I can just off a fucking building if I want.

Charging for bandwidth and shit is massively different then charging for access itself. They've been doing some version of the former since the launch of public internet. An expansion of that is nothing compared to introducing an entire new system of access.

They've been Zero Rating their own services in metered plans and expanding the areas where metered plans apply.

What makes you think they won't do *exactly* what the image in the OP depicts if given the opportunity over the next few years?

And the Internet only flourished after they stopped doing the former. What'd you have before then? A bunch of BBSs and SOME shitty HTML1.1 web sites.

>But just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they WILL.
You have clearly never lived in a Comcast only market.

Public backlash.
They will just keep raising the cost of your current access, because people are used to that and are willing to accept it.
If they split it up like that, even if it meant that peoples bills could go down in price because they only visit a few sites normally, there would be large complaints.

So why would companies risk it for nothing?

Its also shit for 90% of telcos. I work for some friends that own/run an isp. They planned for shit like Netflix by buying up fuckloads of dark fiber like Google did. You know who didn't? Windstream, TWC, AT&T and such. So while we've had to run leaner, refinance to stay competitive those three I mentioned are running on 40 year old copper and 20 year old dslam switches.

NN forces ISPs to upgrade their shit to stay competitive and promotes web entrepreneurs by not charging them a fuck you tax for a data heavy service.

Repealing it means smaller ISPs cant compete by laying new fiber cause its so expensive and older ones own a monopoly on backbones their grandfather's laid. This is why Goog Fiber does so well, they have the cash to lay new line for shits and giggles, but if we want to lay line, we have to raise our prices to absorb the cost while AT&T and TWC especially literally dont upgrade jack shit and are cheap and shitty.

This is why Sven's dl is 1GB and yours is 16mb (max you can tap out an adsl2 line using hi banding)

What? Where do you live? I was under the assumption that most plans in America, like Canada and Europe, had limits on bandwidth. I only get 1tb a month for example.

Two words:

Captive Market

>lives on glorius canada
>gets caps on their internet

3rd word internet best internet

>So why would companies risk it for nothing?
They aren't risking anything. The only places plans like these would roll out are the places with only one internet provider. If they decided to do this where I am, I'd have three choices.
>Take it in the ass
>Switch to a metered

You said it, white man.

In the current context, net neutrality should stay. The real problem, however, is the restrictive telecom regulatory framework. Between the FCC and other state and municipal regulations, it is damned near impossible to bring new communications technologies to the marketplace in a cost-effective way.

A good analogy would be if government regulations had severely hampered hard drive manufacturers at the beginning of the tech explosion. Software would have much more quickly run up against space limitations, and storage capacities would have increased too slowly to keep up. In that scenario, you would likely see certain software providers lobbying for storage preference on HDs to guarantee a certain level of performance for the end consumers, and then there would be a debate about "storage neutrality" as a result. But we're not having that debate because hard drive manufacturers weren't regulated into the ground like the communications industry is.

I mean, hell, only a very tiny portion of the radio spectrum has been freed up for commercial usage, and there are a variety of methods to control "signal trampling" that don't require the FCC's current draconian measures. The real solution to this issue would be to totally restructure the way the FCC works, and get rid of whole swaths of state and municipal regulations on communication service providers.

>Canacucks are THIS cucked
lmfao
First world nations don't have data caps.

I always assumed getting rid of net neutrality would also include a removal of the laws that provide for monopolies.

In which case your entire argument is a strawman.

>Assuming that removing net neutrality would be done for the benefit of the little guy.
This upcoming administration is the first one in forty or more years that your assumption might hold true.

No, we dont cap, our two local competitors dont cap, and our only competitor that does cap is Comlols and thats because they running fiber with huge throughputs across a tiny pipe and hoping your netflix watching ass at 1am wont be choking Pop's Grocers at 2PM because you are leery about your cap.

I didn't know there were places that only had 1 option. There's 5 where I live. I just jump between them when a deals over, to make a new one at the next place. Also jesus fuck that's worse then the satellite options here.

Have you ever used more the 1tb of data a month? Cap doesn't mean shit for normal people. It's just to stop abuse.
Certain shit doesn't even apply to the cap.

At the backbone level, people still pay for bandwidth. the internet is not cheap.

But you're already charging both the user and the website $ to pass the data through your lines. It sounds like you want to promise high bandwidth to your customers and don't want to deliver.

Considering laying down new fiber has absolutely no bearing on Net Neutrality, I'm perplexed why you brought it up.

I'm even more perplexed by your convenient omission of the fact that TV channel licensing fees cost *more* per user than Internet does and that the cost of Internet access is raised for every ISP in order to subsidize television offerings.

You will always be limited to the 2 or 3 companies who happen to own the cables to your home.

You're not suddenly going to have dozens of competing networks in one area, the investment are just too big.

You assumed wrong. The President has no power to change state laws on monopoly-granting state laws.

I've used more than 1TB a month.

And what do you mean by abuse? It's cheaper than ever for ISPs to send large amounts of data through their infrastructure. The whole "abuse" shtick is telecom monopolist propaganda.

>At the backbone level, people still pay for bandwidth.

Most internet exchanges don't charge for data.
Members (ie: ISP's) pay a flat rate regardless of how much data they push through.

This is a deliberate choice to encourage data exchange.

Regularly? How the fuck? The hell are you downloading. Netflix and Youtube don't count to that limit.

And by abuse I mean the people that just run a buisness off a personal plan or run seedboxes and shit. You run 2-3x the cap a few months in a row and they are gonna start fucking calling you on it and either make you change your plan or start charging you fees for overuse.

Downloading large public data feeds for analysis and research.

Also I'm not in Canada so I don't use zero-rated anti-competitive bullshit ISPs.

A 1 or a 0 makes no difference as far as "abuse" goes whether it's going to YouTube or a research website.

>Charging
No we arent. It is vendor neutral. We charge how big your pipe is period. We never see a dollar from any website. We dont give a shit if its pornhub or NYT. I bring this up because if we did, PornHub is fucking expensive, to cut down on users jacking it, we could legally charge you a $5 jacking it fee. Dont wanna pay the fee? Enjoy stop motion tits during what we determine is peak period. Get up at 435AM to jack it realtime. Oh Im sorry, you wanna go to Youtube or watch Netflix tits? Hahah give me $45 a month or enjoy a 15min buffer during peak. But Netflix is gonna go bankrupt without viewers! Fine Netflix give me 3m or users can only watch Netflix during Muslim holidays without QoS data manipulation and slowdown.

>fiber etc etc
This has everything to do with massive infrastructure costs for certain ISPs to be able to support data heavy traffic like Netflix or Skype. Copper can only support so much throughput. 10 people watching Netflix is more than 1 town in 1990 datawise, and 20 year infrastructure is simply not ready for that amount of data. It costs me 5mil to put in a new 40gb fiber backbone, it costs me 80k to put in a copper dslam at 24mb and fine you faggots for using my service. Im a business, what is more profitable?

I didnt bother reading your third paragraph because you already had two faulty points.

The phrase you're looking for is "fair use policy"

I think most ISP's still have it in their fine print.
It's a non-issue though, usually ISP's don't even enforce it because a couple of extreme users means nothing compared to the 99.9% of normal users.

>Oy Vey goyim wanna buy a bus ticket?
- sure
>Oy gevalt, don't take up the entire seat! I sold that seat to 10 others.

It's none of your business what people use their internet for.
They payed for a certain speed so you need to deliver.
If that doesn't cover your costs charge more or let a more efficient company take over.

You charge interconnection fees which are paid by those who connect to you who do the same for those who connect to them who get money from Google, Netflix, and other website owners since they're the last-mile ISP that manage those services.

So yes, you do already get paid by vendors. Indirectly, but you're still paid by them.

> infrastructure costs ect ect

And what is a small-time ISP doing laying fiber down to a tier-2 ISP rather than piggybacking off of incumbent ISP's infrastructure that current law mandates they allow you to rent part of their throughput?

Righto! And because copper is cheaper than fiber by 3x, and creating new lines is 6-7x more expensive than holding your dick and watching your racks fall apart, Old ISP can charge you 15mb for $10. A competitor which needs to lay new copper requires twice the cost, so his price is $20 for 17mb but his latency is better and shit works and tech advances add +2mb for downloads. New Teleco drops fiber and offers 90mb, but they need $60 to justify laying new line. There arent enough users who would pay 60 for 90mb, and will pay 10-20 and bitch about their service instead.

With NN, it doesnt matter because New Teleco's shit wont MELT because he has the capacity for it and can offer you bigger plans for your bigger pipe needs (which will always increase, 4K movies are right around the corner for example). New Old Teleco will get the old people who dont care, and Old Teleco cant it on their ass anymore and need to actually invest in new tech.

I'm well fucking aware cunt, I just dont care, its an easy thing to circumvent with better technology

>You charge interconnection fees which are paid by those who connect to you who do the same for those who connect to them who get money from Google, Netflix, and other website owners since they're the last-mile ISP that manage those services.

Hosting is completely different. NN has nothing to do with interconnect.

So yes, you do already get paid by vendors. Indirectly, but you're still paid by them.

No. A guy gives a hobo a dollar. The hobo buys a sandwich. The shopkeep buys my portrait for a dollar. Did the man who gave to the hobo buy a portrait for the shopkeep?
> infrastructure costs ect ect

And what is a small-time ISP doing laying fiber down to a tier-2 ISP rather than piggybacking off of incumbent ISP's infrastructure that current law mandates they allow you to rent part of their throughput?

When needs are insufficient to match. Comcast and some T2's piggyback off of us for fiber backbone. We piggyback from them from home to node. I can push a SHITLOAD of data through cable to a home, but pushing that amount is insignificant. 50 homes through one node on a backbone creates a choke. That is the point where copper needs are insufficient. That law is to prevent the wheel from reinventing not promoting stagnation profit by apathy.

We should only get rid of net neutrality if ISP's stop having regional utility strangleholds, as is we should keep it for the same reason we don't let power and water companies run completely privately.

>let ISPs do whatever they want
>somehow this will improve the internet

price fixing triggers the "muh competition" free marketfag

> NN has nothing to do with interconnect

Nor did I say it did. I said you already get paid by websites indirectly via interconnection fees. What you've advocated in an earlier post would be tantamount to charging them a second time.

>Hobo example

Except there is nothing analogous to the hobo in reality. All three parties are already paying into the telecom ecosystem. You want to double charge one of them.

> Muh backbone

So your fear is that with Net Neutrality, customers will use more data which will require you to upgrade your infrastructure?

Is your hope that you can use copper forever and Jew out your customers? Because the literal fiber bundles and SFPs are not the priciest part - it's the "laying the fiber in the ground" that costs so much. You could go with installing them on shared phone poles if you're not in a state that has anti-telecom-competition laws written by (((Comcast))) and co.

Crony capitalist state laws that prevent competition against the existing telecoms prevent the free market from working.

And who do you think pushed for such laws :^)

The gimmick is the market existed and was slowly devoured by larger companies already. So whatever "competition" you think will happen is never catching up with the industrial giants.

Google is trying to compete.

Local municipalities are trying to compete.

Nether can do it because of state laws that (((Verizon))), (((Charter))), (((AT&T))), and ((((((((((((Comcast)))))))))))) lobbied into place.

>g-guys if we give the government who created conditions for these monopolies to exist more power they will get rid of them I swear on me mum

They already have the power, faggot. It's literally enshrined into law.

They wont respond, because chances are they don't exist.
The internet is already a bit fucked up, we need fiber, no fast lane bullshit, no "data cap" bullshit and LARGE FINES for companies that stall competitors from installing new lines.

>Interconnect, hobo example
NO THEY ARENT CONNECTED. AN ISP DOES NOT HAVE A REQUIREMENT OF QUALITY OF SERVICE BY LAW. If FB wants to buy pipe from an ISP to prevent slowdown, autehntication/connection issues that is their choice. This has nothing to do with DATA NEUTRAL TRAFFIC FLOW.

>muh backbone
Nigga Im for NN, our company is for NN and our stock is rising due to NN. Title 2 has employed a shitload of netgineers. explained exactly what you said earlier.

((((((((((((((((((((Google)))))))))))))))))))))))

Come on m8

>g-guys if we trust the corps who pushed these conditions for these monopolies to exist more power they will fix themselves the free market will fix it pls believe me

youre a fool

good news guys! heres another chart for you to slobber over! cant wait

> Quality of Service

If Quality of Service is in use, that means you already have a connection. Your choice to use QoS is wholly discretionary on your part. You're arguing "if they don't pay me more then I might not feel like letting them go through my pipes".

Which begs the question of why you're not increasing your interconnection fees if more 1s and 0s are crossing your pipes than your infrastructure can handle.

> For Net Neutrality

Then wtf are you arguing over?

Was just an example. Even Jews don't have enough money to overcome the telecom-monopoly-protecting state laws.

>Gamer? We hear you. Unwind, relax, and play hard.

Oh god I could see an actual telco write this.

>Have you ever used more the 1tb of data a month? Cap doesn't mean shit for normal people. It's just to stop abuse.
>Certain shit doesn't even apply to the cap.

Everything you do on the internet adds to your monthly bandwidth usage. It's easy to breach 1TB if you stream shows, or play Steam games, or stream radio, or stream yourself, or watch porn, or go on Sup Forums and download big scary JPEGS.

It's not just anime pirates who are affected by this bullshit bandwidth tyranny. It's anti-consumer and to say otherwise is pure cuckoldry.

What you don't realize is telecoms have monopolies in where they set up shop. There can legally be only one cable company in an area for example. Depending on where you live your choice could be Comcast or comcast.

In america these telecom companies have you by the balls. Without net neutrality laws they could do anything they want and you'd either deal with it or live without internet.

I don't care. The world was better without widespread use of the Internet anyway.

Holy shit actually kill yourself.

Are you and the OP being sarcastic?

What's the problem here? If you want unlimited access you pay for the $30 plan, otherwise if you visit certain sites more frequently you can save money by signing up to one of the cheaper ones?

How does this limit freedom?

we already have 100% free access to internet and we did before net neutrality
this image is a fake shitpost

>QoS
Not necessarily has to do with QoS manipulation but literally quality of service. Some content companies want to host a local server at IEPs (Net Xchange Point). An easy way for a smaller ISP to profit is via interconnects, you devote a portion of lambda fiber light to route traffic between the IEPs you sit between. What Netflix is salty about is they used to change CDNs literally every other month so suddenly those transit guys are getting practically ddossd by the traffic increase. Like how Sup Forums, Digg or Reddit zergs a page. Netflix is 30% of all traffic for example, so if a Netflix server pops up at an IEP that you werent expecting thats what an interconnect covers. Because ISPs dont have a quality requirement, they can throw their hands up in the air and tell the IEP too fucking bad, they are cutting the pipe to that IEP by 75% so it doesnt ddos the rest of the net. So users instead route through Akamai, L3 and a few more hops instead of the transit ISP to IEP. Those fees are "grit your teeth and take it" fees. NN interconnects are no different than 1990's ones and how its always been.

>Net Neut
Beats me, Ive been arguing for it and how it protects little ISPs from the Big Four.

Read the fine print under the $30 plan.

Not if Comcast keeps expanding bandwidth caps to more and more captive markets.

Both sides of the debate are retarded tbqh. We need to find an economic way to become our own ISP.

What, they impose a bandwidth limit. So what? Their business model seems to be built around directing traffic in certain ways, but their plans seem cheap to me (I'm in Australia though where I pay $70 a month for unlimited ADSL2+).

Can you explicitly state what the problem is for me?

> Companies hosting infrastructure at IXPs

Companies like Google host part of their infrastructure at IXPs to reduce latency and minimize the amount of intermediaries that can fuck it up prior to users reaching Google.

>Smaller ISPs hammered by Netflix changing CDNs often

So smaller ISPs dedicate a fiber strand for peering purposes which gets saturated.

Sounds like the smaller ISP needs to raise their interconnection fees while telling their peers that it's because of Netflix. Have the price increase eventually dumped on Netflix's lap.

He's right. Just because you can kill someone right now doesn't mean you will. The same can be said for the other side to. Just because the government can regulate the internet doesn't mean that they'll start censoring it. Both sides suck.

>70$ for adsl2+


Ahahahahah that s what wrong , i pay 30 euro for 70/20 UNLIMITED

Because it's only 500 megs of reasonable speed followed by being throttled to 128Kbps?

So aren't there other companies providing full internet access at better speeds?

There is no cap in Europe.
In France we might have the cheapest internet/mobile provider.
It's called Free.
For less than 30€ you get unlimited data with fiber speed.
And on mobile, for 2€ you get 1h of communication, 100Mo, unlimited text message in the whole world.
15€ is 50Go, unlimited communication and text in the world.
Shit is cash.

Most of the U.S. has only one or two ISPs in a given area. There's no real competition because the big telecoms successfully lobbied many state legislatures into writing laws effectively barring telecom competition.

Reminder that the government doesn't give a shit if you're ripped off you bluepilled faggot. This is all a power play for control over the internet. They don't care about "net neutrality" they care about making sure they have complete control over who can do what on the internet.

There would be no need for net neutrality laws if competition was allowed to thrive without government intervention. If a company puts out a cancerous package like OP then another company will put out one that everyone loves and people will switch to that.

Thank you for Correcting The Record!

What competition? Big telecoms have successfully pushed through laws in many states that effectively make competition impossible. Not even Google with its bottomless pockets could compete as a result.

here's your (you)

Exactly, you missed where I said "without government intervention" the government is responsible for 100% of monopolies.

That's retarded. Your claim only holds true in a world of literally unlimited access to infinite resources.

You just said the reason they can't compete is because of laws.