Very major yet underreported net neutrality happenings

Net neutrality refers to the current state of the internet where all websites are equally accessible without extra fees from your ISP.

so please explain what net neutrality is, and what it isn't.

please explain what we shouldn't be doing, and what we should be doing instead. what can we do for the internet that is even better than net neutrality? and how do we tell the people that matter the results of what we learned?

Googazon shill detected. This is hogwash. Net neutrality is the same old (((tricks))). They are trying to get you to enforce their monopolies under the guise of "internet freedom" when these are the exact same companies doing all the censoring in the first place. Verizon did not ban right-wing content. Google, Amazon, and Cloudflare did. All jew- owned though police.

Good.
so how do we keep it this way? obviously the globalist cucks are trying to fuck it all up for money.

wait, how the fuck am I a shill? and doesn't net neutrality do the exact opposite of what you're saying?- stop the monopolies from doing all the bad shit we hate?

seriously confused here.

By not enfocing a legal monopoly, like Net Neutrality

oh christ no!
what about shit like i2p the onion network? how do they plan on regulating the intranets?

if it was real net neutrality, they just call it net neutrality, like "free trade" isn't really free trade

wait what?

There's more than enough information for you to figure it out.
And I don't discuss shit with idiots that post as if it was a bad TV advert, shill.

I'm just going off of what you guys are saying. every other person seems to say the exact opposite thing. I'm not an idiot, I'm severely misinformed, maybe intentionally. maybe I'm being disinformed. I came here because I trust what Holla Forums thinks.

and of course to tell you guys about something that you didn't seem to be talking about at all. maybe didn't know about. maybe I did my job, maybe the difference is already made.

Disclosure: I am employed in the network side of this debate.

The entire issue is mostly concocted and marketed by (((lobbyists))) for the content owners - IE DRM profiteers.

There are companies who build and own the networks on which the internet runs. It is far from free and gets more expensive (albeit non-linearly) with increased bandwidth usage. Netflix, Amazon, and Google (content owners) use over half of the bandwidth across all networks to run for-profit operations. These companies do not want to have to pay for their bandwidth consumption and would prefer to keep all the profits and not have to share it with network builders. Enter the evil genius spin doctors who came up with Net Neutrality. They managed to portray this good old fashioned commons problem with parties fighting for government sanctioned free-riding as some kind of evil capitalist plot to censor your content. Typically of the Jews, they were just projecting their own desire to censor content onto their opposition. Verizon, AT&T et al do not want to censor content. Stateful packet inspection at that level of detail is wildly expensive, impractical and in complete opposition to what their customers want. The ones who want to censor and stop downloading of copyrighted content are the content owners, i.e. the beneficiaries of (((net neutrality))).

Freeloading megabandwith users suck the profitability out of network expansion, therefore NO GIGABIT ETHERNET FOR YOU GOY. If carriers can't make money from increased bandwidth usage at the host end, they just can't monetize it at all, because at the consumer end people are not willing to pay enough to shoulder the bandwidth cost. Fiber to the home expansion has basically halted under the Obama FCC's ruling on the subject. Google Fiber was just a PR ploy to try to bully/trick the network owners into expanding to compete with them. Under Net Neutrality, google fiber is a money loser too and has largely halted operations after losing truckloads of money.

TL;DR:
Pro "Net-Neutrality": Google Amazon Apple Netflix RIAA MPAA (muh royalties! muh free bandwidth!)

Anti "Net-Neutrality": Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Level 3, CenturyLink etc. (Muh network infrastructure costs! Muh $$ per terabyte!)

wew. I learnd.

thanks.

All data must be treated equally. Your ISP must allow all traffic through and give all subscribers an equal share of the bandwidth, regardless of what it is being used for. Faceberg, porn, memes, it's all 1's and 0's.

This guy explains it better.

It is something of a false dilemma though. A choice between control by (((government regulation of ISPs))) and (((corporate monopolies))) giving shit speed to content that isn't kosher and paid for at a premium.

FAQ:
Q: But why would Google, Amazon, Apple et al want to censor content? Aren't they mostly just software makers?

A: Not anymore. They are now the largest owners and licensees of copyrighted content on the planet. Therefore it is in their interest to censor. It is also far easier and cheaper to implement censorship at the software application layer than at lower network layers.

One interesting move here is the AT&T acquisition of Time Warner. This looks like a turf buyout of cable networks, but it isn't, that part of Time Warner is not included in the deal. AT&T is just trying to buy into the content owner's club so they can hedge their position opposing net neutrality. If they own content too, they can benefit from net neutrality if their lobbying efforts fail. One real concern here is that once AT&T gets into that club, they may have motive to try to censor content, but I doubt it will be an issue, because the reality is that censorship at the network plumbing level is expensive and messy and not profitable.

Are you 13 or something? You cross posted this to Holla Forums and Holla Forums and have (12) replies just to this thread. I understand wanting to learn but damn it's like speaking to a child. They're calling you shill because you act like one. Your thread isn't getting slid it's just a shit thread that's been gone over so many times. Also we don't give a fuck who you support, most people here were happy before the place turned into /trump/.

>>>/oven/

what a bunch of fucking retards

actually, no. you know what? they want to censor for power, control.

...

I did cross post, but I kept it short and sweet. nice and organized. I felt that it was important to talk about it, especially because nobody else was talking about it. Like I said, I control-f'd the catalog and there were no other threads.

anyways, that's some pretty good bait shill.

Low effort reply user. How (((new))) are you, maybe a few months older than the OP? I gave him a detailed reply in the thread on Holla Forums. I'm just calling him out for begin fucking retarded and a newfag.

with something as vague and as poorly explained as net neutrality, most people are newfags on the subject.

Because it's a shill website you found on fucking ((((startpage))).

It's a jew. You can tell because they go out of their way to be disingenuous and post retarded animal pictures.

What the fuck is net neutrality in the first place?

how retarded must you be to assume new-fag for someone who posts what I did and for the reasons why? don't you have the smallest idea why it was done this way?

at least it's not (((duckduckgo)))

what the fuck?

So we side with Jewgle, Amajew and (((Apple))) in this one?

Which is why the kikes plan on double-teaming you with government regulation of ISP's as well. Take the regulation proposals in the TPP, for example, or look at what China and Russia have been doing to providers. Call it 'surveillance' and get the tax payer to foot the bill.

No, we side with none. it's all shit.

Yeah, that part I don't know much about. I can only speak intelligently on the business side of the issue. The degree to which the players are compromised by Mossad/CIA/ChingChongCommies is beyond my expertise. I would say it is much easier to compromise companies with majority shareholder/owners like Faceberg,Amazon,Google and the fact that their majority owners, CEOs, and board Chairman are all in the tribe is pretty clear circumstantial evidence. The network owners (Verizon/T/etc) are mostly blue collar employee stockholder owned and the execs have much smaller stock positions in general.

Absolutely fucking not

I wonder how much tax money it would take to get all these corporations and groups to just look up their own buttholes

>>>/meguca/
>>>/out/
You fucking glow in the dark nigger

Alright OP, I'll try to explain Net neutrality so this shit thread can die right now

With Net Neutrality;
Without Net Neutrality:

Anyone correct me if I'm wrong. OP, just use Google next time

I don't. Most of the ill-informed angsty internet edgelords do though. I don't pretend to know which side is right as far as the commons problem goes. That is an economic conundrum as old as civilization and is studied by far smarter people than me. I know the host/content owner end can more easily afford to chip in than the content consumer end can. But I am a bit biased in favor of the network builders.

This is part of the propaganda. The fact is, ISPs have never tried to charge you (the consumer) for certain sites. They know that will never happen. They would prefer to charge the owners of those high bandwidth sites. Now, those site owners may then try to pass that cost back to you somehow, but you are paying for it now with shittier internet speeds and service.

how did they turn bandwidth into a commodity? cable thickness doesn't change degrade or give variable yields, I know it's just a scam

...

They have to pay a nigger to put electrons into the wire one at a time.

Notice how I never said they will charge you more for certain sites, I said they can. But I don't believe that that's really the problem. The problem is that ISPs can choose to not allocate as much bandwidth to sites they don't like. If the bill gets through, they could slow down 8ch to the point where we can't use it, and keep CNN and Washington post untouched. My fear is that it'll be used for censorship

Not the cable no, although it does require a lot of maintenance and replacement costs as they fail from age and damage etc. The real cost is the switching, routing and transmission infrastructure. That is where bandwidth cost scales up fast. There are also limits at the top end so at some point you have to buy more hardware and floor space instead of just getting the next faster model.

Also the "last mile" to the house is difficult to deal with simply from a cost per foot of new cable standpoint. Copper is mostly maxed out and the best way forward is still burying fiber to the house, since wireless last mile solutions continue to disappoint. Glass to the house costs upwards of $2500+ per home (not counting inside wiring) whether they order the service or not, and it is impractical to deploy a la carte, so if you assume a 25% take rate you can go ahead and bump that cost to $10,000+ per actual customer home. Without other sources of revenue, you would need to extract > $200 per customer to achieve a 4 year ROI on that investment.

The rodents in the ground around my area love the taste of fiber.

(checked)
be careful with that meme user
(checked)
but…what? they're still using copper in the modern day?

Yeah, you need to add
under "With Net Neutrality"

I doubt that will come from ISPs. In Portugal, the ISPs were against blocking torrent websites, for example, and the regulatory agency simply demanded that they block them and continue to add new sites that have unauthorized content to the list.
Also, it is easy to gain public support to slow down websites like 8ch, saying that they will force ISPs to slow them down over concerns of right wing extremism or antisemitism spreading and will simply claim that they will allocate that bandwidth to Hospitals and police departments and whatnot for everyone's benefit at the expense of a few antisemites. That's the same way they get to increase taxes.

Most lines from the hubs down the street to the house are copper. The networks are a complete nightmare because we have coax, fiber, and telco all still using the same poles etc. Some people are still using DSL so they are stuck with copper. Even if the the telcos switch to fiber, all their lines from the pole to the homes are copper.
Centurylink in our area is beginning to run fiber for THEIR backbones but leaving everyone stuck on copper. They are constantly having problems with the gophers eating the shielding on the fiber lines.
REEEEEEEEEE

Don't mobile providers already selectively throttle content? Isn't that how most people use the internet now anyways?

NET NUTRALITY MEANS ALL INTERNET TRAFFIC IS CONSIDERED EQUAL
Similar to 'Road Nutrality'. Without it, software piloted motor vehicles decide which life is more valuable durng a life-ending crash.
Hint: Not yours.
Better resolution is treating the internet as a utility.
Then privacy protections preventing the sale or transfer of customer usage and meta data apply.
THE INTERNET IS A UTILITY

NET NUTRALITY MEANS ALL INTERNET TRAFFIC IS CONSIDERED EQUAL
Similar to 'Road Nutrality'. Without it, software piloted motor vehicles decide which life is more valuable durng a life-ending crash.
Hint: Not yours.
Better resolution is treating the internet as a utility.
Then privacy protections preventing the sale or transfer of customer usage and meta data apply.
THE INTERNET IS A UTILITY

This. It's fucking Obamacare for the internet.
Trump will likely veto, given his competitive nature.

yes, this is a very real threat. Mobile carrier networks (4G LTE etc) are classified differently than the regular Internet and not subject to the same regulation, Essentially, the carriers can do whatever they want with your traffic on there. They are obviously pushing for an all-4G world which is competing with their traditional landline-based internet packages. It's pretty fucked, friends.

The government handed out a fuckton of money to telcos to roll out fiber all over the place. They happily took that money, pocketed it, and fired an ass ton of people under the auspices of 'saving money.'

Most of the people running the telecommunications system today are devoted not to expanding or improving your quality of service, but lining their pockets, carving up their companies and selling them off to larger conglomerates.

The RIF rate is a fucking bloodbath while executives continue to collect record bonuses while stocks dive.

OK so imagine I send you a letter in the mail and the carrier says "This letter is for a nationalist, let's have the letter take two months to reach him". Not being allowed to that in the digital realm is what net neutrality is. It means if you and I both have 100/100 Mb/s connections I can send you data at 100 Mb/s and you can send me data at 100 Mb/s of course assuming there are no network issues at that time etc. and the ISPs can do fuck all to interfere because of who where are, where we live or what kind of data we are sending. Basically net neutrality it is the internet as it has works right now (without being mandated by laws mind you) and what must be in place for it to be worth a damn and not turn into to the global ZOG network.

The problem for the Jew is of course a lot of people use this neutrality to be very bad goys, which is why a cable TV subscription model is infinity more appealing to them. Since net neutrality is something good it's fair to assume the kikes will try to pass laws to silence goyim on the internet, if the cable TV plan fails, under the false label Net Neutrality Law and hope people don't read the fine print, which is one should always assume kikery is afoot until something's been thoroughly vetted.

Sadly most of Holla Forums is completely retarded when it comes to net neutrality however and says the most stupid shit.

Net jewtrality is more about transferring jurisdiction from the FTC to the FCC. The FCC is far easier to fuck with and enact hatespeech policies with. The FTC is better for us.

SPREAD THIS LIKE WILDFIRE YOU FUCKING NIGGERS

YOU WON'T TAKE MY INTERNET

EVERYONE AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY IS A SHILL OR A FUCKING RETARD
IT'S OBVIOUS THAT CORPORATIONS ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO CENSOR, EVEN IF IT COSTS THEM MONEY
NET NEUTRALITY IS A PROTECTION AGAINST CENSORSHIP, NOTHING COULD BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS

I can't tell if you're pretending to be retarded or not. I don't support communists or corporate kikes fucking with my internet.

As in both of you can fuck off with your DnC controlled kike opposition bullshit.

Anyone trying to change it either way, with increasing (((government oversight))) or (((degradation of net neutrality))) both have an agenda

the internet is fine as is right now. government subsidies are all wasted on these cabling companies - they have a history of screwing the public over. i don't need ISPs to be profitable any more than I need my phone line or water services company to be profitable.

in fact, in the USA, i might prefer a government ran municipal internet protected by the first amendment. not this gross sex between corporate and private.

Net neutrality means that ISPs have to treat all network traffic the same.

If it ends then ISPs will be able to legally treat traffic differently depending on where it comes from and where its going. An ISP run by SJWs, for example, could make traffic to controversial websites so slow as to make them basically unusable.

This needed a screencap. Also, it's kind of sad many people here don't realize both sides to EVERYTHING are kiked. We have no organizations or institutions on our side period. You have two different cabals trying to milk the goyim, that's it.

It's incredible how much faith you still have in the constitution and in the Supreme Court as if they don't ignore some parts of the Bill of Rights once in a while.
Also, I would expect that in the supposed free country more people would embrace free market solutions. Romania might be a shitty backwards country but is well ahead of you in terms of internet quality and speed and has a shit ton of providers even though it's a small country.

im starting to think this is a jewish trick
with all of these pozzed neomarxist celebrities and socialist politicians…

always do the opposite of what jews say

Dutiful bump.
I know it's not exciting, but it matters.

Has anyone broken the net neutrality issue down into prohibitive vs proscriptive actions that are being taken?

At my employer they do throttle on the wireless side, but only based on usage volume and not, to my knowledge, based on content. Again, content based filtering is not practical at the lower layers of the OSI model, so if ISPs are doing it, they are probably being forced to do so by some government entity. The speed throttling of wireless is pretty much doomed anyway, as competition will kill it eventually. Customers hate it, we know it, but lacking any other way to monetize bandwidth upgrades, it was a decent way to generate revenue for a time. Without full government takeover, I don't see pay-per-gigabyte ever being a functional long term strategy. Too much of your bandwidth is being used by applications without your knowledge to be able to charge you for it with a straight face.

Almost nothing is copper anymore except the "last mile." Unfortunately, on a cable feet basis, most of the infrastructure on the planet is "last mile." Kind of like roads, there is way more asphalt in residential neighborhoods and side streets than on the interstates.

No, but the last time ISPs tried anything even remotely related to censorship it went downhill fast.

>encyclopediadramatica.rs/AT&T_Blocks_4chan

It was never put into place. Congress delayed implementation until they could kill it, because it was an overreach by the FCC. ISPs have been able to do all those terrible things for 20+ years. Yet, they have not. This is nothing more than a play on fears to get people to push for something that only benefits a small number of corporate interests. Without Net Neutrality, mobile carriers can offer reasonable Internet services to rural areas. With better rural infrastructure, solutions my company creates actually becomes viable. Just like ACA healthcare, if a provider cannot be profitable under government regulations, then they can just choose to not participate. This is what would occur in rural areas. ISPs and mobile carriers will pull out and people will be left without any options. Prices would skyrocket. Again, urban elites push for something at the expense of rural people. Very transparent when they kvetched about lowering broadband classifications to 10mbps for mobile carriers, which was being done to provide incentive for companies to expand their rural offerings.

They want it too probably. Why wouldn't they want every human to have easy access to devices that real time monitor their owners every emotion, want, need, desire, etc. Just a smoke screen to make you think net neutrality is good and perfect. Everyone feels like they win once it happens but really we are sealing our fate. Not that stoping it would help anything anyways.

Cable networks realize that in a few years everyone will get sick of paying for 100 channels of Zogs'N-Nogs with 1 minute in 3 commercials and all of it social engineering… and will dump them for internet channels. So they are preparing a new method of raping the consumer by charging 20 times the cost to run cables between houses.

Yea one of the first things Trump did was allow the cable companies to track and save all our private web browsing then sell them to third parties.

This is on par with allowing the mailman to open and read our mail then sell that to wandering merchants, perverts, foreign spy agencies, etc.

You are saying they will do the opposite of what they currently do. No, consumer prices won't be raised. What they do now is charge large services like Netflix and Amazon usage fees. In areas where infrastructure isn't capable of handling data rates for things like HD streaming, those services are throttled. This throttling can be bypassed through a VPN. Everything is being paid for today. Those that will lose out in the future are individual television networks. They will be shutdown, as they should be if nobody is watching them.

You didn't read the FCC regulations, nor do you know that they were delayed and never put into place. There has been no change in policy at this point.

What exists works in most of the world. ISP’s in my country maintain healthy profits and charge a fraction of what the legally guarded monopolies in the United States do. Should the average bandwidth usage increase exponentially then they can simply charge more per month for their unlimited services (do you even have those in the United States?), this is justifiable and would therefore meet little objection. Lite users could simply opt for a package with lower usage allowances.

Changing the fundamental nature of the Internet is a retarded option that WILL be INSTANTLY abused. Simply charge the end-user a bit more of they are heavy users, what is the problem?

or

BULLSHIT,
That is not the logical conclusion. Why would you think that some of the slimiest corrupt operators in the western world wouldn’t use this to their advantage at the behest of small business/ the consumer. If it’s an option, they will. We are talking about companies that got given billions of dollars of tax money to improve their infrastructure and just pocketed it rendering America’s internet services at below many third world nations.

He's got it right. Give this man a donkey.

No.

I don’t know how Holla Forums has such a hard time understanding this concept. It is so simple.

Take two web services. Reddit and Holla Forums.

Reddit has lots of money because it is owned as a propaganda front for a massive media corporation. Holla Forums is run by a Masonic pig farmer currently hiding somewhere in Asia, it has very little money.

Reddit pays to deliver its service to users at competitive speeds because it can afford to. The pig farmer decides he would prefer to keep his lady boys in handbags rather than pay all of his pork profits to keep his shitposters shitposting at zesty speeds.

Reddit remains usable, Holla Forums is slow and unusable and dies. Now apply this to all small borderline profitable/ labour of love sites across the entire Internet. The end result is a shitty internet where all that exists is a small hub of sites run by giant corporations that set all the rules (default destruction of free speech) that have their position secured as its almost impossible to run a ‘start up’ in such an environment.

LOOK WHAT YOU MADE ME DO. You I got so angry I reddit posted.

Currently, most ISPs in the US offer unlimited data at a certain rate with no data cap. Mobile carriers work in a way you describe. Though, what they do is throttle things like video streaming services. There is a benefit to that though. The major carriers do not apply that bandwidth to your monthly usage. So you might only be able to stream at 480p, but you can do it without limit. This is good enough for many people in rural areas. The US has lots of empty land. The only way we get to 10mbps across the nation is through mobile carriers. That will happen within the next 10 years.

The argument is that a small selection of services consumes most of the bandwidth, but it is the consumer choosing to utilise the bandwidth in this way. If unlimited packages are already offered and the average consumed data has increased then why is the logical step not to charge more for these packages. If road users suddenly started driving twice as much then the logical step would be to charge more in road tax to cover extra road wear (with options made for low mileage drivers) not to invent a new type of fee for Ford to pay because a disproportionate amount of drivers chose to drive their vehicles.

Take it from a lawyer: It's far more than once in a while.

Holy god damn this is probably the most barefaced lie I've ever seen in my life. Telecom price fixing has been the norm since the vertical purchasing gold rush in 2007. So long as telecoms are granted regional monopolies it will always result in digital serfdom.

They already charge companies like Netflix for usage of their infrastructure. ISPs sought another revenue source, and they got it without having to raise prices for consumers. This has been the case for the last several years. I don't know why you would wheel out this tired point. What is Netflix going to do, raise their rates $5 a month? You really want to hand over control of the Internet to the government and allow FCC and FBI oversight over the fear of paying $5 a month? The money people spend on Internet access pales in comparison to things like healthcare. Technology is the one industry where the price of doing business DECREASES year over year.

That could be done, but why put all of the cost on the consumer? Let ISPs seek payment from the companies that are utilizing their infrastructure the most. Internet legislation should follow the approach of laws like CANSPAM. When something becomes a problem, then address it. People shouldn't be worried about large companies like Google or Amazon getting charged money by another business. It is not meaningful at all. At this point, it is impossible for a small company to compete with those companies. They are also too big to fail. Many services run on top of their offerings. Many business utilize their solutions. Consider that Netflix runs on top of Amazon's cloud services.

Because the consumer is consuming the product, economics should be kept as simple as possible. You consume more of something then you pay more, in the case of data, reducing legacy services such as cable television subscriptions covers the extra expense. The pointless complexities of these structures always end up costing the consumer more in the long run in one-way or the other and also creates the opportunity for typical tricks to occur.

You purchase bandwidth, say 10mbps or 100mbps. Now, what does it matter what you use your bandwidth on? How is streaming video from Netflix any different from downloading games off of Steam? It isn't, so your ISP should not be able to slow down different websites (lower your bandwidth for them) just because they are popular. If your 10mbps is so expensive, they should charge you more for it, instead of blaming the sites you are using your bandwidth on.

10Mbit/s full rate (capable of this speed regardless of traffic load) is a business class service and runs $500+ per month. The thing you are paying $30/month for at your house is just 10Mbit/s theoretical peak output and is far from the same product. If the residential class customers on your network segment were actually using all the theoretical bandwidth, the switching backhaul would get DDOS'd out of service. With the popularity of streaming video, this is becoming more and more of an issue.

THIS
Anyone saying anything different is a shill. Losing net neutrality gives your ISP the right to charge you more depending on what you download or try to access on the internet - instead of treating all websites equally.
Want to access Holla Forums? You need to have a Premium Internet package and ADL membership as a licenced researcher.
Anyone saying this cannot happen IS A LYING NIGGER and should be filtered.

Net Neutrality has multiple meanings now. Every side uses it to argue for more control.
The government says we need "net neutrality" so that they can treat ISPs like public utility and have the FCC censor it like they do with public radio and tv.
ISPs say we need "net neutrality" which they call "open internet" which is the logistics of how our current ISPs have contracts with each other. They like this monopoly and don't want to lose profits. They also don't want the government or internet media companies having more power over them.
Internet Media Companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, etc) say we need "net neutrality" because they want to remain and strengthen their internet gatekeeper status. They don't want the government regulating them, and they don't want ISPs fleecing them for money to get in the 'fast lane' (i.e. pay bribes to ISPs).

The three way fight keeps us as consumers as free as we are today. It's a precarious position. It's usable, but it could quickly fall apart.

What we really need is for meshnet technology to become ubiquitous and cheap. The software will be getting there soon with IPFS, Zeronet, Monero webmining, blockchain tech, and P2P CDNs. The hardware is technically doable if it came down to it, but it would really suck for a while. The use of cellphone wifi broadcasting would be the best bet for actually creating something on the level of early 2000s interent.

riddle me this, fucko:

most other developed countries in the world have better infrastructure at lower consumer costs that the US. The US taxpayer pays massive subsidies to the provider companies and can't even get fiber to the home, something japan did 15 years ago. Now you are telling me it is acceptable to start gouging the consumer (because that is who will pick up any cost change despite your misdirection regarding google and netflix bogeymen) based not only on the bandwidth they get but also the type of traffic and sites they use, if those sites are particularly open to being extorted. And then you expect me to believe that comcast/time warner/etc (who already operate in geographic monopolies and hence have no need to compete) will spend this new income stream on upgrading the quality of their infrastructure?

get fucking real.

>(((net neutrality))) shills are spamming Holla Forums again
Fuck off. Net Jewtrality was completely co-opted and is full government control of the internet. None of you redditniggers has any sense and keep shilling the same fucking lies for years.
Same shit, same shills, different words. Fucking kill yourselves. Fuck this, with how often this gets reposted and spammed by you same reddit faggots for your jewish horseshit, I'm making my own copypasta of this response.

One thing I've always wondered, why does neighborhood QoS always seem to give preference to spics and niggers over white people? Peak time everything takes a shit, but the commies across the street always have zero problems downloading their horse porn.

The US is one of the largest countries in the entire world. Japan is about the size of a single state at best. Stop being disingenuous you double nigger.

Yeah, and there isnt a single state with internet quality on he level of japan, thanks to regional monopolies currently protected by the fcc. Even NYC and San Francisco have absolute shit internet service. Why, I wonder? Oh it must be because our ISPs arent allowed to charge extra for youtube access yet. Right.

These fucking kikes never stop. They probably want some shit like England just past where you get 15 YEARS in prison for watching a video Shlomo doesn't like and if it's one he has copyrighted, 5years and a million dollar fine. Shit like that. Or vpns and or ad blockers banned. FBI fag saying the other day that good encryption is 'unreasonable'.

It's completely muddied now because morons have been convinced that net neutrality means TV package internet when it's actually the lack of net neutrality enforcement that could lead to this.

The simplest way to put it is net neutrality says ISP's aren't allowed to fuck with content or delivery. They can't charge you $5 extra to visit google, $10 to visit reddit, and they can't charge google $50000 extra per 20,000 visitors.

By getting rid of net neutrality, this protection is gone, and now the ISP's can do this all they want.

The net neutrality protections were put in place during Obama's term, prior to this they didn't exist, but ISP's didn't try fucking around about it because the assumption was that net neutrality laws already applied. When the ISP's started lobbying against net neutrality, people got upset and lobbied the government to prevent it, and that's where obama's net neutrality rules came into play

ISP's are trying to get rid of net neutrality

There are still idiots out there who think net neutrality has some effect on what google lets you see - no, google can still censor you all you want whether there is or is not net neutrality.

I used to have a shitpile more posts and summations on it, I'll see if I can find them again

alright here we go

...

...

I think some of these might be redundant, I'm just posting all of them that I saved

...

Fuck off back to reddit.

keep your criticism about you, this is one of the times where pol is wrong. net neutrality is not socialism for the internet, its healthy regulation that prevents an ISP from discriminating against your traffic. without it, we may soon have to use a vpn and/or onion router to visit this site and others like it. content providers in pedowood want the internet to look like cable TV and it looks like they are going to get their way. look at the chart. I even remember google being really loud in their support for net neutrality, so was the colbert show. that fag did at least one thing right when he managed to get millions of viewers to flood the FCCs phone line and emails with support for net neutrality but since free speech is what lost these companies their bid for hilldabeasts presidency in 2016, I have a feeling they are not going to support it this time around.

Wew theres no way someone can be this dumb.
Surely when people get their internet ID permabanned from visiting youtube/faceberg/twitter for making a wrongpost everything will be better.

startpage is run by dutch jews fyi

NN is a shit system designed to let google and friends dictate the internet instead if the cable companies and ect.

Af best with NN all internet will be treated the same, at worse with nn, google and the like will have more power over the internet(they have powerful lobbyists and the gov will control content)and we will see places like 8ch get totally sensored out of the US.

What we have now is a shit system…what we currently have as a 2nd option is a shit system. But right now we have a open internet(expensive but open, and without the mpaa and ect having way too much power).

People are trying to convince you(for the past 20 years) that the cable companies are going to break up the internet and sell it in packages. In reality what they will do is charge places like google and netflix more to supply bandwidth. Maybe the worse case scenario under the current system could happen but i would take a more expensive internet over a pozzed internet any day of the week.

I dont trust spectrum, comcast, and ect but i trust google, netflix, and the jew senate less. Until we get a 3rd option im just going to assuming NN people are retarded or just super poor and want free internet. NN doesnt mean no censorship all it foes is introduce more government and more far left companies to obtain content control over the internet. All because people dont want cable companies to use a qos system for smaller websites or because of the "dreaded" ale carte system tjat weve been told is coming(for the past 20 uears).

NN doesnt simple mean what people want it to mean, it has a lot of hooks in the bait.

NET NĘUTRALITY DOES NOT EXIST
1. Mobile data (internęt over cęllular) is already throttled.
2. Certain services (Torręnts) are already throttled.
3. Websites (Jęwgle) "require" scripts (JavaScript) or "payments" (shęckles) to unblock content.
4. Scripts (JavaScript) are used to collect usage data (sensitive sources and męthods, i.e., your property) which is a "payment" (shęckles), on your behalf.
DO NOT BE FOOLED
Net Nęutrality is for cucks.
It is not enough.
THE INTERNĘT IS A PUBLIC UTILITY
Like water.
Like power.
Like telephony.
Why are there laws preventing public ISP?

Your E is broken.
All services are throttled equally here on mobile.
No.
Nothing to do with net neutrality
Nothing to do with net neutrality.

Explain how or GTFO.

Never heard of this. Can you point me to more information on this view?
Not going to happen. The software part not in the next 15 years, the hardware stuff isn't going to happen ever. Customers won't demand it, government won't allow it.

polite sage

data caps are not "equality"
streaming video gets downgraded.
Do you read your ToS?
Not an argument. So, yes.
The argument is about "censorship".

It's already fucking here, and works.
Where the fuck have you been?

What's not equality about data caps?
How is video streaming being downgraded? Eurofag here btw, 21 Mb/s is 21 Mb/s. :^)
So content providers requiring javascripts and payment equals censorship by ISPs? What?

Which one? How can I use it?

I think this is relevant.

hooktube.com/watch?v=S97TCpuBvnc

>The EPA exists so (((they))) can get people up in arms about the (((environment crisis)))
>The FDA exists so (((they))) can make everyone fat and soy
But, government intervention in the operation of the currently privately owned internet would mean a better internet for everyone?

Poland here ,last time I checked for a new internet only 2 companies where not also cell providers
The cell providers who name their home internet deals "no limit" still write them in a shady way with * that leave them the ability to limit the speed on cabel deals
I don't know who came up with paying for data used but they should fuck off
I pay for speed and stability on the cabel
Every company fucks around anyway writing speed with bits instead of bytes to use big numbers
On the deal I have it's 10$ a month for 50:8=6.25m /s dowload and 1m/s upload per month
My mother tried 100:8=12.5 for 20$ a month were the upload was 7/s from the same provider but the deal has some tv trial shit that they send earlier but would charge extra if used before you get/sign the papers ,it was shady ,so she told them to fuck off and went back to 50
I understand that they think everybody using more than 10gb per month is a pirate ,but with 4k Yt and 100gb games they really have to fuck off

I'm happy this went so well. lots of people learned alot. this is good when Holla Forums has good threads.

You never side with them, user.

You can't you'll never be part of the tribe.

This is going to happen unless you side with youth. Get them to rally and harass. Your current leader loves this idea and will not abandon it. If he falls many other important pieces fall, so he is not worth tarring.

This will require careful navigation, user. The enemy of your enemy is not your friend sometimes. You have to bring out the useful idiots and the non-reliable s to the table to scurry this issue.