Net Neutrality is Doomed, Again

Except the FCC has the power to fine those companies. Stop lying.

Emma Goldman was pretty cool, and he was joking about having sex with birds, you autist. He just finds it nice. RMS has always been right.

Then there was this one time he ate some flesh he peeled off of his foot. That was wierd.

Free food, man. Did he get sick from it? No. Did it nourish him? Yes. RMS is always right.

The FCC could enforce them, especially zero rating bullshit, it's just that the enforcement window coincided with the change in administration and putting Pajeet Pai in charge of the FCC, along with the majority Republicans.

Anyways, it's clear at this point that 1) we're getting a neutered FCC and 2) we're getting a neutered FTC who might not be able to even enforce this bullshit. How can you enforce networks that ISPs have used Title II rules to build anyways? Case in point, Verizon used Title II to build out their networks.

This is fucking hilarious, honestly. Pajeet Pai is not a "libertarian", he's a Verizon lobbyist who knows exactly what he's doing.

Can't wait for the subtle throttling of anything but the services, no way of getting insight into ISPs practices because the FCC was just neutered, and having to fight it in court against terms and conditions that contradict themselves. That's basically what it's going to be.

...

FTFY

And then we had to hear about it a billion times from every faggot that thinks it's still news.

What the fuck am I reading here?

Are you taking the piss, m8? People already pay for their internet service. ISPs double-dipping by charging websites fees to provide non-shit service to users of said websites is absolutely retarded.
If ISPs have a congestion problem, they get a larger pipe and/or adjust their offered rates/pricing. Period. Throttling services they don't like to get more shekels only pisses off users and hurts small businesses. And caps are just full-on kikery that doesn't solve anything.

I think you mean arbitration boardroom :^).

You have the entire thing backwards.

Net neutrality is not about ensuring that customers can siphon unlimited amounts of bandwidth.
Companies like Comcast with their 500GB bandwidth limit or whatever is proof to that.

Net neutrality is ensuring that internet DESTINATIONS doesn't get throttled.

Lets say for example that a new Netflix competitor pops up called "Webflix". Now lets assume that Comcast decides that this movie streaming business is lucrative because of this and also creates a Netflix competitor called "FlixCast". Internet streaming customers are divided between these streaming services. Comcast notices that these two competing businesses are "cutting into their streaming revenue", so they start throttling people's connections when they go to ANY streaming service because "it affects all customers and that's not good". This means that customers cannot stream 1080p or 720p anymore, everyone is stuck on 480p. Now lets say Comcast lifts that throttling ONLY when people visit FlixCast, so while they cannot stream in HD on Netflix and Webflix, they can stream in 720p, 1080p and even 4K on FlixCast.

Netflix notices this and strikes a deal with Comcast that if they pay Comcast $1 million every month Comcast will no longer throttle users visting Netflix. Webflix being a new company cannot afford this much money and as such are stuck being able to only deliver 480p because of Comcast. They proceed to loose a lot of customers because no one wants to pay for Webflix if they cannot stream in HD.

But wait! Suddenly Comcast decides that if people stream movies over FlixCast it won't affect their monthly bandwidth quota of 500GB. This means that customers can choose to either pay for Netflix, and run out of bandwidth mid month because of 1080p streaming on Netflix, or they can choose to go with FlixCast and stream unlimited 4K movies every month and pay only slightly more than they would for Netflix, also they avoid having to pay for overage charges due to 1080p streaming eating up their bandwidth quota.

This exact practice, and ones similar to it, is currently ILLEGAL thanks to Net Neutrality. A customer protection law the current head of the FCC wants to remove.
It's the same kind of law that exists for other public utility companies, such as your water company, or electric company, which prevents them from doing shit like forcing you to buy their brand lightbulbs or showerheads or else they will increase your utility bills.

Net neutrality has always been theoretical. All ISPs have been violating it and getting away with it for at least a decade.

[nutritionist's expertise needed]

Then why don't you go molest some kids or something?

Or perhaps live-streaming in HD is inadvisable if you don't like lag

I do it for free

I'm just making a point, relax.

I don't have the resources to teach you how to read. Sorry user.

So they are, and then one super-heavy user selfishly hogs all the bandwidth. Where do you address that?

And if the business case isn't there, if it is uneconomical, who pays for that user? Just because some asshole in bumfuck Alaska just purchased a Netflix subscription, the ISPs should pay for hundreds of miles of improved infrastructure that he and his neighbors couldn't pay for with a lifetime's worth of subscriptions to the evil ISP? No. At some point there is no profit and the ISP has a right not to be forced to subsidize a content provider. Period.

No, they are the only equitable way to deal with congestion problems when throttling is forbidden. Better to throttle and have no data cap but the super-heavy iser is the kind of person who probably cannot realize this because they are downloading tons of porn and can only think with their dick.

Unfair trade practices can be addressed by offerring arbitration. You seem to think that only a big government solution can solve any problem. You are probably a Communist.

And when that changes in a few weeks the sky will not fall and you will still be able to shitpost just fine user, I promise.

STOP POSTING WITH MY WAIFU NAME YOU FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT

...

I'm saving a screenshot of that.
I'll be posting it in a couple of months, not sure if you are going to be able to see it though.

I've been at this for a few years so a few more months isn't going to make any difference.

It's easy, don't sell connections you can't support. If you don't have the infrastructure to allow for someone to have a 100mb pipe, don't sell the entire neighborhood 100mb pipes and prey they don't max it out.

Overselling lines is a solved problem.

I never know who is shilling who in these net neutrality threads. like is this user correct ? Or is the namefag correct? I don't know fuck all about net neutrality and it always appears 50/50 in these fucking threads

Read this:
jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF

It was written in 2003, and is where the term "network neutrality" came from.

Which is why net neutrality is a free market idea and why destroying it will hurt companies like Netflix, while ISPs force their own shitty alternatives which will only discourage normies from using these kind of services.
So what's not to like about all this?

How's that Republican thing workin' out for ya?

I only skimmed their posts but they're both right, they just emphasize different aspects and make different evaluations of the situation.

Out of the anti-net neutrality 50 about 40 is that single namefag, consistently.

FFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK STOP POSTING YOU PIECE OF SHIT WHY DO YOU HAVE TO USE THAT NAME STOP ITI DONT CARE IF YOU NAMEFAG JUST CHANGE IT YOU CUCK COCKSUCKING FAGGOT

Thanks Pajeet Pai. it's time for my morning street shitting now

Search on Google, etc. "Makise Kurisu Net Neutrality" and behold

For fuck's sake. Throttling access to 3rd party sites unless they pay (while leaving their own streaming service unthrottled, and not making it count towards caps) won't do jack shit about congestion, but it sure will line up their pockets nicely.
Caps won't do jack shit either. Bandwidth isn't fucking electricity or water; it isn't stored and consumed. Either the ISP is over-rate or under at a given instant. Congestion happens during peak hours, not late at night when you torrent or download shit. Hence if everyone maxes their connection at the same time, there will be congestion (ISPs are over-subscribed because people don't use their connection 100% 24/7).

If your ISP meet demand and can't afford a bigger pipe, they can increase prices to pay for a bigger one, or reduce customer rates during peak hours (you know why some ISPs increase your rate after midnight? It's exactly this at work). Or, you know, not be retarded enough to advertise 10/10 mbps connections to a whole neighborhood when your capacity is 50/50 mbps.
Any ISP with at least an ounce of brain matter will take capacity and usage patterns among other measurements into account before deciding what rates to offer.

I expected you to put at least some thought into your post, but then I remembered you're a deluded namefag.

being kikes*

...

...

get on my level

stop fake newsing, leftypol

Must it always be a pajeet?

You say that like it's a bad thing!

I find it rather funny you unironically talk about the privacy laws being "useless" because "unencrypted communication is not private" and then this whole board, nay the internet, screeches like a barrel of autistic monkeys when the government and corporations announce they know what anime porn you jerk it to.

I just wanted to point out a little discrepancy in your logic. If someone is saving up for their whole life (or next to it) to pay for the infrastructure to get internet doesn't that defeat the point of having the internet? You're never going to be able to enjoy it if you're dead. That's assuming there isn't a law in your area that prevents public ISPs.

I think you didn't read her last sentence carefully...

Net Neutrality WAS good before the content providers intervened and helped the ISP enact the ((agenda)).

Net Neutrality never had a centralized movement. Never declared their demands, no manifesto. Nothing that's why it got bastardized and I watched it burn in front of my eyes but who cares at this point? Millenial redditors? Those damn f*ckers who never think and disagree.

Actually the 1% heavy-users including hacker communities ABSOLUTELY HATE the bandwidth cap and were the very first to discuss about Net Neutrality long time ago.

I belong to the 1% and have done many hacks to painfully circumvent the ISP throttling/bandwidth caps (and selflessly give them away to 99% noobs). Re-enabling 'ISP banned UDP ports' also belonged to the original Net Neutrality movement.

The ISP doesn't want to improve the infrastructure. This is why they want to remove the 1% and make them pay premium "because an average internet luser only use facebook :^) and consume 500MiB at maximum".

The 1% customers aren't the problem here. Like the old saying "The customer is always right."

I don't know about IS/Content Providers that shill ((Net Neutrality)) but NN was originaly a movement against them. Content providers clinged to the bastardized NN to kill startups because everyone with the proper setup can create a competitive web service and make a youtube and facebook clone. It would surely hurt their profits so let's kill the egg before it hatches!

Conclusion?
There are two movements. The former is dead, the other is (((the current))).

*chuckle*
Peak hours and midnight boosts are fake.
I've been hacking ISPs since 2008 and know for a fact that they are simulated and you can have peak speed and unlimited data any time (as long as the hole in the ISP's main firewall isn't patched yet)

Ancap Trump confirmed?

Pick one. If he were ancap maybe we wouldn't be taxed for do-nothing missile strikes.

I don't know if Trump really "defends free markets" when he is (was?) opposed to TTP while everybody else was claiming that letting foreign corporations fuck your whole country means "spreading democracy".

Nice claims and no evidence, faglord

Sage it people

heatst.com/politics/former-fec-chairwoman-calls-for-regulations-of-political-speech-on-the-internet/

During her tenure as the chairwoman of the FEC, Ravel previously called for right-leaning websites like the Drudge Report to be “regulated,” and blamed hostile responses towards her proposals on “misogyny.” She claimed it was within the purview of the Federal Election Commission to oversee internet political activities, including the airing of political viewpoints.

In 2015, the Democrats tried, but failed to expand the FEC’s regulatory powers to cover social media posts and other forms of political speech on the Internet, which are not subject to the same scrutiny as political advertisements on old media. At the time, liberal watchdogs complained to the FEC with allegations that (then-probable) presidential candidates like Jeb Bush and Martin O’Malley were skirting finance laws to campaign. Conservatives managed to stall the vote, fearing that the additional powers would chill political speech on the Internet.

Since then, Revel has only doubled down. In her speech at UC Berkeley, Revel claimed that companies like Facebook have “no real knowledge” of who sponsors the posts of political viewpoints on their platforms.

“I think this is a really serious issue that we need to address,” she said.

Trump has to do whatever he can to avoid being impeached. Still a better alternative than Shillary.

...

Can you give any details on how you circumvent isp's like a book or something?