Net Neutrality

BT was the first to do this, and it was the main reason US telecoms have been killing unlimited plans, or making them 'unlimited but throttled'. It was the "plan B" in case of some sort of net neutrality legislation as there's no clear way to prevent it and it wouldn't be covered by any net neutrality bill. This was long before Obama's NN bill and made that whole fight pointless.

Oh yes, I love the unlimited* plans.

t-mobile.com/offer/binge-on-streaming-video-list.html

And look at the companies on that list. Most of them are ones claiming to support NN yet they participate in programs that clearly undermine it when it helps them lock out competitors.

Except the practice doesn't violate net neutrality, you dumbfuck, that's what I was saying. Learn how to read.

That user said it violates the spirit of NN, which it does. Maybe you should learn how to read.

It's for mobile data plans, tho that doesn't make it any less bad

No, but ISPs have been throttling P2P traffic at least since the 2000s, which is something net neutrality would seek to eliminate.
tbh I wish shaping prioritising latency-sensitive traffic were applied. However everyone knows kike ISPs would abuse it to prioritise their services to the detriment of anything else instead, which is why I prefer no shaping at all

Competition is a red herring; companies compete for who can make the most money, not who offers the best service. They just need to stop being kikes.

Hello reddit!

...
Think that through for a second.
Who decides whether their service is the best?

You have net neutrality now (the debate is to repeal it), and yet they still do this.

youre retarded

its availability that determines who buys what. there are huge swaths of the country with no choice in who their ISP is, and much of the rest has 2 choices and no more

Except it doesn't, at all.

Because of net neutrality and the ISPs wanting it to stifle competition

You might be retarded, user.

...

net neutrality laws raise the barrier to entry to the ISP market... how?

I secretly hope all these nightmare scenarios become a reality. It would be fun to see just how much these protected services would be willing to abuse their position in the bandwith highway. Meanwhile everyone outside that would be forced to remove all unneeded javascript and other bloat. This all would probably give torrents and other p2p sharing a big boost in popularity since you can't stream anything outside the few services like netflix

user, they are doing this BECAUSE they want to throttle torrenting. They couldn't give two shits about stuff like WhatsApp traffic because it can be measured in kilobytes, or some websites over others because all websites nowadays are the sane bloated shit. They want to get rid of those sweet 20 Mb/s torrents because that kills the ISP, and also MAFIAA fuckery.

They already can, and do. Obama's bill makes it legal to do so as 'reasonable network management'.

Wouldn't simply tunnelling my connection resolve this?

Not with zero rating. If traffic isn't destined to partner sites, it isn't zero rated and you get billed/limited at the regular rate.

Is there a way to make torrent traffic look like https? using port 443 and encryption is not enough, the cunts still throttle it.
Also the retards who get their news from WSJ should leave.

The internet should be considered a public utility, like roads.

If you don't like it, you don't have to buy it and aren't forced to pay for it you faggots. Internet isn't a right, it's a service being sold. If companies aren't making money on whatever it is they are selling, or a competitor comes in and provides something people want, they will change their business model accordingly.

Haven't heard much mention of anti-trust or anti-monopoly actions.

pic related

So neglected and clogged that people pay for FasTrak express lanes instead? I don't think you intended to make a great point for the anti-NN crowd, though.

Net neutrality is essentially price fixing. It's good for Google, Netflix, Comcast and others, who lobbied for net neutrality because it crushes potential competition. On the other side, you have cable companies who seek to have this repealed so they can jack up prices. There are innovative solutions waiting in the wings such as distributed networks, mesh networking and fiber optics, which have the potential to undermine the cable company oligopoly, but because of Net Neutrality, people with better ideas on how to approach this can't compete and have their solutions tried. The sooner we repeal net neutrality, the sooner these new solutions are tried.

dohoho, no. Distributed authority does not work. It's why global multicast never left the lab.
FTTX doesn't change the game at all.

No it shouldn't

Fucking technology board.

Just as much a state problem as a federal one, they get their hooks into state legislatures and prevent municipalities from putting together public internet services, or preventing them from selling the services outside of their incorporated service area

Comcast didn't lobby for net neutrality, you're just retarded.

It was in some form since 2005 until Verizon took the FCC to court and forced their hand.

Also, source about the 2005 action:
nytimes.com/2017/11/22/opinion/courts-net-neutrality-fcc.html
Timeline is basically:
- 2005 slapdown on small ISP throttling Vonage
- 2008 slapdown on Comcast throttling BitTorrent
- 2010 Open Internet Order (first official network neutrality regulations under Title I)
- 2014 Verizon vs FCC, Verizon crying and shitting its pants over 2010 Open Internet Order, judge says FCC does not have the authority under Title I, but they do have the authority if ISPs are classified as Title II
- 2015 Open Internet Order part deux, Title II regulation, peering dispute remediation, etc.
- 2017 Pajeet dismantles it

Regulation doesn't have to be 'codified' to allow a regulator to take action. They just slapped ISPs for anti competitive behavior and throttling traffic before any order was released.

There's a lot of shitposting on this board because drooling retards from Holla Forums found their way here, but they're just retarded. Their opinions are worth less than dogshit, so just laugh at them.

Don't forget about the time Comcast signed a petition for ending NN multiple times using information from dead people in their database.

Why do you always bitch about Holla Forums in almost all of your posts on this board?

COMCAST DID NOTHING WRONG

I don't "bitch about Holla Forums in almost all of my posts on this board" you cocksucking faggot, do you think every poster who tells Holla Forums to go back to their shithole is the same person? Also, it's only natural when retards come to this board and shit it up, loving the dick this administration is giving them, getting rid of Network Neutrality and attempting to push total liability onto services which will lead to the death of this website because it's ironic. I only bring up irony to give credit to some of them, the vast majority are the lowest of the low knuckle dragging retards, and they wouldn't know what irony is even if it shot them in the face. They honestly believe stupid shit because they're mouth breathers.

Also, more on topic. I think Tim Wu is right. The FCC needs a reason to go back onto those regulatory actions when they were establishing the framework. They will probably lose in court over repealing network neutrality.

It's clearly the same (you) in these threads.

Kek, let's make roads a service, $1000 to go on this interstate $50 a month for your local highway and $20 per month on your local street. If you don't like it you can build your own 100 mile road to your designation to unload your cargo.
Companies shouldn't exist.

I do agree with you on the rights though. Nobody really has any rights.

What service, hasn't been implemented so we can't test it.

Net Neutrality came into effect in 2015.

Was the Internet was better or worse before 2015?

based street shitter btfo-ing libtards.

Exactly. Just look at what Cloudflare has done to the net, and they started throwing their weight around this year.

Yep.
It's not the evil old ISP's that are censoring. Comcast didn't remove DS and SF I use them as an example only because they are well known. They where removed and hunted down across the internet by virtue signaling (((silicon valley))) tech companies that want the force of law to push their will.

They know one day they will get their Obama/Hillery back in to office and they want that person to have total control over what happens on the internet. They need the internet to remain under fed control.

Both parties are kiked, they'll push to control speech either way. Our Jew problem isn't going to be solved by elections.

675 thousand people have gone down with wit a bullet in the streets of america in the past 20 years and you fuckmuppets failed put a single slug in any of the politicians who deserved one
this is the government and dystopia you've earned. now live in it

Don't be defeatist.

...

Prove to us you're not a retard from Holla Forums

He's from Holla Forums. He does this shit on Holla Forums too - his form of autism is a fingerprint. Watch for his reactions like in future threads, it's a fun game.

The butthurt faggot uses opportunity he can to go on his anti Holla Forums diatribes. Then he goes to >>>/metatech/ and begs the mods to delete Holla Forums posts. Total loser.

I think a bunch of the old school ISPs are dead, and not just the smaller ones. Mostly it's just big conglomerates now.
BTW: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netcom_(United_States)#Scientology

Holla Forumsyps will unironically defend this

Here, a freebie to get you started. Found him -

I haven't actually posted on Holla Forums in six months before this thread, so you're just a fucking retard who's trying to change the subject. I'd tell you to suck on a dick, but considering you're a raging homosexual it's obvious that you choke on dick daily.

That post doesn't even mention Holla Forums, it just rambles about leftists and AIDS.
Why is it that you retarded sacks of shit actually can't dispute what I was actually saying in this post
Rhetorical question, it's because you're a fucking retard.

The laws prevent corporations to censor thigs they don't like, like ads for smaller businesses or for competition.

Anti-NN shills are just as likely to claim that government breaking up monopolies is also wrong. Don't let the corporate cocksucker brigade fool you.

Lol, /leftypoo/ communist, corporations can do no wrong and free market is the best.
Unless it's a (((corporation))) run by (((them))), in which case all they do is kikery and Trump will send them back to Mexico

I can't tell if this is parody or an honest post. Please add tags next time.

...

...

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK TO BELIEVE IN OR WHAT TO SUPPORT

Do I get fucked by the government jew?
or
Do I get fucked by the corporate jew?

East Asian Model Capitalism with a Classical Liberal twist?

It's easier to jew the corporate jew without going to jail.
Maybe, not sure how's the things go in America.

This is the exact problem that Title II solves. Under Title II common carriers, they have to lease their last mile to competitors. Under Title I, they do not have to lease jack shit. They can tell competitors to fuck off.
This is why they do not want Title II.

Anyways between /poll/ acting retarded and retards redefining network neutrality for the second time now, where the wiki definition has something to do with anti zero-rating, it's clear that we can't have nice things.
There's no possibility to have a discussion without laying out the ground rules, and once you lay them out everyone would agree with Title II regulation, because ISPs are telcos, there's no question about it. Anyone pretending that they're not telcos are either brain damaged or ironically shitposting.

it's not a choice since in every capitalist society gov is owned by corporations by now

Cyberpunk is reality. Ghost in the Shell or Gunnm?

Just kill yourself already. You know you want to.

...

...

Except the government is the one that makes monopolies, genius.

Go be retarded with you fellow neoliberal bootlickers on/pol/ and stop embarrassing yourself in front of your betters.
The government is the only thing preventing monopolies. If it were not there all companies would continuously merge until there is only MEGACORP (R). Competition is costly and a wasted opportunity for profit.

Everything you posted is scientifically false

Unless those monopolies somehow benefit government, like Facebook and Google with their massive data collection. Then government does nothing to stop them.

...

You're not a shill, but you're certainly a fucking retard.

We're building it up
To break it back down
We're building it up
To burn it down
We can't wait
To burn it to the ground

...

Hint: Neither was your post, retard.

what fucking dimension did I just step into?

Yes, without it ISPs will keep pushing their slimy agenda further and further. In the past (the '90s, and especially before the mid-2000s) most of the abusive practices NN seeks to curb hadn't been invented yet, or were not yet practical due to the structure of the internet at that time.

NN was barely in effect for a very brief period of time.
No, NN wasn't in force yet

An INFINITELY better one. Perhaps one where, the lobbyists stopped paying him.

Roads are a service you fucking moron. You you know car tags? License plates? Gasoline? There's a tax on that, and it goes to fund your states department of transportation. It's illegal to drive on a road without plates or tags and you obviously can't drive without gas. And on the subject of legality, traffic infractions also go to your department of transportation at varying levels. There's your monthly fee. Do you think roads are just magically grown from the earth?

The whole "libertarians hate roads XDXDXD" shit is beyond retarded. Roads are a business, someone has to make them and someone has to pay for them. If someone wants a road they're going to pay for it. If they want it maintained, they'll pay for it. If everyone wants to use the road, they'll pay for it. Just like we do right fucking now. Not all taxation is theft, but a lot of it is. If you're paying for a service you don't use, your money is being stolen from you. Bottom fucking line.

The difference being that the government isn't trying to take as much money out of your pocket as they can, unlike, let's say, toll roads. And then we have the whole issue of competing services or even getting the right land permits. You cannot do a highway system privately, so please fuck off with your complaining about how roads are also a service. Yes, we know that. The thing is that they are a service best provided by government.

This
nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=103050

Except when your area is run by a regional monopoly. Good luck functioning in modern society without it.

Yeah and the reasons why most libertarians and "tax is theft" are morons is because they don't realize how much the benefit from services they don't' actively "use". I've never had my house burn down, but you know what? I've had neighbors who have had fires, and if they weren't put out then it would have spread to mine. Just because I've never personally had an incident where I needed the fire department doesn't mean paying for it is "stealing" from me. I might not ever use an ambulance, but like insurance I'd pay for it (and be "free") and not need it than not pay for it and suddenly need it, then get fucked in the ass when a private company not bound by regulations charges me thousands of dollars for a 10 minute ride. Even services like libraries and public schools benefit me indirectly by helping kids get educated. I don't want to live in a society full of idiots who can't even read, I don't want thugs of 12 year olds with nothing better to do prowling the streets. Just because I'm directly interacting with something does not mean its of no use or benefit to me. I really wish libertarians would live a few months in bumfuck africa or have to pay thousands of dollars for medication for a genetic disease so they can really find out how the free market treats them.

Honestly, at this point I wouldn't care if the internet itself just died forever. It's become nothing but a tool for government spying and a platform for narcissists validation. I think everyone here, including myself, would most likely be out being better off if the internet didn't exist. Let's be honest with ourselves

...

I don't give a shit, it's my money not my neighbors or yours. Cry more, commie faggot. Taxation is theft because the government can only collect taxes under the pretense of using force to do so. Here's your (you).

except the fire department is a service you use. You can't say you don't use insurance just because you've never been in an accident. The whole point of the fire department to ensure your property doesn't burn down. Hence why you pay for it. To imply that insurance goes against libertarian values is laughable since I guarantee you most self professed libertarians have it. It just makes sense.

you were in one, you benefit from it. The idea that libertarians hate all forms of taxation is stupid. If a service is beneficial, people will pay for it. They always have and they always will. Even the oldest civilizations that didn't even have currency used this basic model. If I need a new thatch for my mud hut then I can pay someone with grain to put it on there for me because I lack the skills. That's the very root of capitalism.

if you check a book out you benefit from it.

So then don't use that service idiot. The reason monopolies form is because of government exertion, not the other way around. The "laissez faire" system was anything but, large companies were simply using their pull in the government to get special exceptions and avoid scrutiny. In a fair economy such a system can't form because everyone is equaled out. In a free society there are plenty of services you can use instead of being bound to one. Ever notice how hardly anyone ships with USPS? Because compared to services like fedex and UPS they're terrible. When given the choice people gravitate to the cheapest and most efficient service. If an ambulance company tried to charge 1000 dollars to ferry people to the hospital, they'd go out of business in a fucking instant.

you know what's a service you don't benefit from? Welfare. There's not a single fucking way you benefit from that unless you leech. And a leech contributes nothing. I have yet to see a single compelling argument for why we need welfare. Or income tax, that's literally a paycheck for the federal government. You don't benefit from that because you're giving money to the people fucking you so they can have the ability to continue fucking you. The federal government should be a confederation of the people. They require no funding because We The People are the government, as the founding fathers intended. You could argue they fund your military, but that's why we have a well regulated militia clause. YOU are supposed to be the military, not the government. If that seems too far fetched, just remember there wasn't even a concept of conscription until the civil war. Before that point you had a local militia. If you were fit, you were in the militia. This we will defend, etc. We have zero business getting involved in foriegn wars. Unless a conflict proves a direct risk to the security of our free state then we have no need for a foriegn legion. Hence why for most of our nations existence we didn't go and invade other countries. But once the federal government was given assloads of power they started nosing around in other peoples business.

They did, they were called colonies. The autonomous colonies set up in Africa were brought from the ground up. That meant they had to secure their own economies, and with new sources of income came new industries. Libertarianism is just the concept of reduced government and promotion of industry. It doesn't mean no government, it doesn't mean no roads, it just means let the people decide their own fate.

except you already do pay thousands because, get this, the drug industry is a fucking cartel and they lobby in your government to keep prices heavily inflated compared to their real value.

Except it isn't, because it's true. Taxation is unethical and anti-freedom.

Wow, I'm sure glad I don't have to worry about losing my job, or even wanting to quit without waiting to line up another job in advance. After all, it's not like having a fallback option for workers between jobs helps decrease the massive amount of coercive leverage abusive or inconsiderate employers have.

Cry more, you fucking hippie. Lrn2savings.

It's not really the governments job to wipe your ass for you, commie. The only person who's fault it is for not having a fallback option is YOURS. It's called being fiscally responsible like an actual productive adult

...

Doesn't help that the government also taxes income and thus doesn't provide an incentive to save money which destroys fallback options.

So you agree taxtation is theft?

You realize the reason most anti-tax whining is about the federal income tax, is because it's the one tax that hits the rich hardest? You realize sales tax is almost never spoken of by lolberts is because it impacts the majority of the population worse than any other tax?
Sure, but it's the least bad option to ensure we have a pooled fund to deal with expensive but rare problems that are easy for society to pay for, but devastating for individuals. I mean, theoretically, you could have unemployment insurance, like many labor unions, but that would pretty much be the same thing minus the fact that tax funding forces the bosses to pay in as well.

It hits everybody the hardest because the government has no right to your earnings.
Except it doesn't impact the majority of the population worse. Also
Okay, you're a Holla Forumsedditor, nevermind, opinion discarded. Here's your final (you), plus tax :^)

...

...

itep.org/whopays/

This whole thread....

Since it didn't work last time
Now (((fags))) actually try to persuade users that removing Net neutrality is a good idea

you want to know why the whinging about net neutrality is stupid? Because we didn't have any net neutrality for literally the entirety of the internet's existence yet no one did a fucking thing to exploit that. Because the truth is, offering a shitty service to people doesn't make them inclined to use it. If you tried to limit what sites I can and can't go on, i'll just find a service that doesn't do that. Everyone would prefer unlimited access so the companies never bothered because it's fucking stupid. Since anyone can make a website it's impossible to restrict the web. And since everyone's used to it the way it is, I doubt any company would be dumb enough to do it because one of the competitors would just jump up and say they won't do that. So we end up in a stalemate situation that everyone benefits from.

The only fucking reason people use Comcast is because Comcast worked with the local and state governments to ensure they had a virtual monopoly in the area by purchasing all the good spots to lay down wiring. Same with Time Warner. And that scumbag shit wouldn't be solved with net neutrality, it'd be solved by pushing some anti-trust suits against them. No one is going after the fuck head companies that circumvent capitalism, instead they think passing more laws will do fucking anything. If there was a way around, believe me they'll find it.

We had zero rating and 'reasonable network management' throttling P2P under the NN bill, so we're fucked either way.

My apartment complex has a single wired provider and it's AT&T. How exactly do I take my business elsewhere?

Don't forget about the now long-dead competitors of the internet.

It makes no sense that the people who actually put in effort have to pay more to cover the people who sit around all day watching anime. I'm going to be in that $200k+ bracket this year as I've been working 12 hour days in tech and I'm furious that a big chunk of that is going to Tyrone, Muhammad, and Paco.

Because now that people aren't wary, they won't forget about you.

You mean competitors of the World Wide Web? All those services used the internet you mental defect

I'm sorry, that's a LITTLE BIT too much newfag.

The Internet before the mid-'90s was the exclusive, very expensive reserve of mainframes in giant institutions like the military, universities, and corporations, that you could only access via 3-hops (or more!) from another BBS. Major BBS services like AOL distinguished themselves from normal BBSs by constructing their own regional, nationwide, and eventually global private WANs that allowed subscribers to communicate over long distances. It wasn't until years later that they offered (for an additional fee) gateways to certain Internet services like eMail & newsgroups, let alone full PPP access as ISPs.

Well this is where your wrong. Most people don't care about unrestricted internet access. They want their little walled gardens on their iPhoneX's and Pixels. They are A-OK with metered data plans as long as Youtube, NETFLIX, Reddit, YouPorn, etc are zero rated. Its all about the APPS APPS APPS my friend.

The open internet is dying. We are returning to the world of this

This whole NN fight is just political theater. The "Resist" folks trying to build a wedge issue for 2018. The old internet we love is fucked no matter what happens.

Maybe, just maybe, if we apply enough regulations to the Internet (not just NN, but sector/region-based anti-monopolization, and aggressive ongoing antitrust investigations against major websites), we can push things back. We have nothing to lose.

At the software layer, a lot of the ideas being thrown around on Holla Forums would be very helpful, making a decentralized, attack-tolerant, 2-way system.

Rebuilding everything from scratch at the physical layer though, especially without land and cabling rights, would be a real bitch.

When I buy internet access I should get a pipe with x bandwidth for y dollars a month. The service provider should have no say over what I do with that pipe, nor how much/often I use it. That is net neutrality.

Any other definition of net neutrality is bullshit meant to deceive, obfuscate, and inveigle. That's the biggest problem here. Things that are not net neutrality keep being called net neutrality.

I take it you don't live in a blue state

Use a non-wired service, genius

...

a metered data plan isn't a net neutrality issue, it's a service issue. If you sign up for a data plan you're agreeing to limit your data. Almost every ISP has a data cap but for most home services it's so absurdly high you'll never hit it. Mine's set to 300gb for instance. A lot of pre-paid phones have it much lower at 5gb or even 500mb. But a metered connection on sites that aren't in the "approved" category is beyond ridiculous, it's downright impractical for an ISP. Cable can do it because the FCC regulates the everloving fuck out of TV. But an ISP could never get away with it because there's simply too much access and too many sites. If they started throttling, people would catch on and undoubtedly the first company to do it would get raked over the coals, scaring off any other companies that might try it out.

I think you've reached a point of cynicism where you assume the average normalfag literally never goes to any other site besides facebook, youtube, neflix, and the occassional porn site. I'd recommend talking to real people some time, you'd be amazed at how versed people are with the internet these days.

Do you know why that shit went away? Because they were unnecessary, with web browsers you didn't need a hub to find shit on. Besides, all those services provided their own suite of "sites" rather than linking to others. Once people discovered anyone could make a website, the suite died. And it will stay dead, gone the way of the dodo. If you think the web can ever go back to that you're acting silly, once you're aware of the greener pasture you're going to always want on the other side of the fence, no matter how tall the wall may be.

should have read the last paragraph.

Maybe I will win the lotto tomorrow. Maybe I will live to 150. Maybe, just maybe.

Look at the things the majority of normies who are involved in the NN hype are worried about.. Their NETFLIX buffering. Access to Social Media..Being able to share their 8MP selfies with their "friends" on clapchat apps etc. All non-mainstream traffic could be blocked outright and they wouldn't care as long as their APPS worked.

Holla Forums types make up

finally, pcfags will pay for steam!

We are in serious danger

But we haven't lost yet

Unless the Internet is redesigned in such a way as to make such abuses impossible (I'm not confident in any current proposals, but some of them have promise), it will be a continuous struggle to reign in the forces seeking to subvert it, forever.

What do you want? A speedy service or one that doesn't screw you over? It's up to you to decide what's important for your enjoyment.

Look how many people own a desktop computer vs a smartphone today. Look at VZN, AT&T and friends running away from fixed line "wired" internet in favor of being 100% LTE. Frontier and the other 2nd tier wired ISPs are expected to go bankrupt soon. Even GoogleFiber is exploring wireless for the last mile because the fixed line growth is just not there.
On the CATV ISP side the industry has consolidated to basically 3 players who are all looking to get in bed with cell companies.

Look at the state of the PC industry today vs 15 years ago.

Give a normie millennial the choice between their smart phone or a real computer and they will pick their phone 100% of the time. Financial reasons are increasingly forcing that decision. What rules mobile? APPS APPS APPS.

The future is APPS,LTE and mobile.Walled gardens with metered/zerorated data plans.

The point is that alternatives are going to be squeezed harder and harder.

I think you are on the wrong website

why is it your post doesn't support the fearmongering that somehow hatechan will get shut down if we don't have NN to protect us

ISPs lobby the shit out of government to raise barriers to entry to the market. Fucking Google had this problem when they wanted to roll out dirt-cheap Google Fiber to San Francisco at the start. Major ISPs forced them out of the city at the time.

What the fuck are you smoking? It is clearly against the spirit of net neutrality. The entire point of net neutrality is that ISPs not be able to say "pay us cash if you want to use these sites" or selectively throttle sites and services they don't like.

American ISPs aren't a free market you fucking moron. They're an oligopoly, and in many regions an outright monopoly. When your choices are to take it up the ass, have no internet, or resort to extreme slow shit like satellite or dial-up internet, there is no competitive incentive for the ISP in your neighborhood not to price-gouge the shit out of you for internet access, which they will.

It'd be cute if it wasn't so goddamn stupid. Look, you're in a net neutrality thread, and a lot of nu/pol/acks are fucking retards who think reading is overrated or shit because they already got told their opinions by whatever fuckers they decided to listen and believe. Old Holla Forums may have been nutters, but they were at least clever nutters who understood the value of doing your homework and researching shit. New Holla Forums whines about spoonfeeding and Holla Forums and reddit and whatever the fuck else when people ask you what the hell you're on about and why you're acting retarded. They're classic 4chan shitposting imbeciles who think a "retort" is just as good as an intelligent answer because it makes them feel like a winner either way. Two years ago this board was much better off without your kind of scum.

Let me put it in language Holla Forumstards might understand: You get fucked by the government jew either way. The question is just whether you also want to get fucked by the corporate jew. When a government jew tells you government cannot be trusted so you should support his attempt to ambiguously deregulate government, you can bet your ass it is not a deregulation that will help you. He is selling a toxic pile of shit and preying on your distrust of government to make you accept it.

That's like saying the government wiretaps you anyway so we should just accept legalization of government wiretaps. It will get taken up to a whole new level once the shit is legal.

Mate, I'm sure he touched a nerve there, but believe it or not Holla Forums is not some fucking Holla Forumschan. A lot of our boards predate the last few waves of Holla Forumstards flocking to the site and liked it better before your kind decided to newfag shit up with that 4chan cancer of yours. If anyone has to go back, it's obviously you.

If you're going to be paranoid and crazy, at least make something cool like Terry. Do you have any software projects you've made?

What effect would end of NN in US have on EU?

It would be easier to turn coal into diamond than find sympathy for Google. Nobody cheers for ISPs. They simply hate the hypocrites in Silicon Valley more. Even Tim Berners Lee is a hypocritical POS. If you can read between the lines, these people don't give a fuck unless it costs them money. They're not champions for your rights.

About the same as the end of it in the USA.

None.

Yeah, no shit. Why do you dumb niggers keep ignoring the last paragraph?

The reason wired networks are getting fucked is because comcast and time warner buy up usage rights for land they never use just so they can prevent encroachment. It's a fucked up system that should be illegal since it's no different from creating a regional monopoly but no one does anything about it.

People like phones because they're convenient, easy to use and generally available. Back when desktop computers were considered those things they went for those. And when netbooks were the rage they went for those as well. It's just trends. The walled garden was really only something apple did. Microsoft didn't really do it and Google certainly didn't do it seeing as you can sideload apps and the store is full of garbage. LTE is probably going to be replaced with 5G in the near future. It's not some nefarious scheme to casualize our net use, it's just a fucking radio signal. All it means is areas that couldn't get internet before can get it now. Hell, satellite is getting better every day, you can actually play games with it now.

People like wireless shit because it feels like you're living in the F U T U R E. Wireless keyboards are awful, wireless mouses have inferior response time, and wireless charging is a fucking joke. But people keep pushing for it because they thing it's making progress. Mostly because the tech industry stagnated and stopped making big changes. The new iPhone x is being called dissappointing by complete normalfags. The last big tech development I cared about was ryzen and that wasn't a leap forward so much as it was AMD playing catch up.

The future was here once, but people didn't want it. They wanted IBM compatibles and Microsoft.

Thank you for actually making the real argument. Nobody I've seen talking about NN has ever brought this up.

The ISPs are arguing that people using Netflix is taking bandwidth from other services. However, if I'm using all my bandwidth watching Netflix, then that should be my choice. If the ISP is properly managing their network, then me watching Netflix shouldn't harm any other company, any more than me choosing to eat a hot dog 'harms' the burger industry.

The underlying issue, I suspect, is that the ISPs are always oversubscribing their networks. They have to throttle connections because they can't offer a fraction of the bandwidth they promise. They have to choose who to prioritize because their shitty network would choke if everyone tried to get the bandwidth advertised.

While I believe that true NN should be fought for, I'd like to see a bigger push requiring ISPs to actually provide advertised speeds. I'd rather pay for a lower speed that I can get 90% of the time than pay more for a 'high' speed that I never get.

Switching from monthly fees, to something charged per-GB, with some kind of divisor based on total network load, would be far better IMHO. But in order to avoid ludicrous price-gouging, ISPs would have to open themselves up to harsh government-imposed transparency requirements about their actual costs.

Currently, ISPs lie through their teeth about the insanely low cost of providing service, allowing them to get away with nearly unique 98% profit margins:
dslreports.com/shownews/25-Of-Your-Bill-Actually-Goes-To-Bandwidth-113131

It's mindblowing that ISPs describe the stereotypical email & web granny user as somehow victimized by people running torrents and streaming video, in spite of the fact that ISPs get away with charging her $30/month for service that's not even worth 30¢/month.

I hate the $/GiB price model. It's touted as similar to electric costs where ISPs say "You pay for what you use", but really, the cost for them is in the bandwidth, not the amount of data transferred.

In a $/GiB model, a 1KiB/s connection used continuously for 1 month will be cheaper for an ISP than a 30MiB/s connection used occasionally during peak times. However, they'll charge more for the slower connection over longer time because "Muh GiB!"

I agree with this on principle, but in that case why can't it be the ISP's choice what to throttle on their network?

The ISP's case is a bit more sympathetic than you outline it. From their perspective, Netflix, and other high data users are running mutli-billion dollar industries on their infrastructure, and the ISP can only indirectly profit off of it through charging the consumers more for data. They, and the consumer, are finding that difficult to arrange because no one wants data caps or to pay more for high amounts of streaming. The ISPs are stuck between charging more for data and implementing caps, or charging huge data distributors like Netflix, google, etc. for their absurdly disproportionate market share.

'Tough', you might say, and that's a perfectly tenable position if you just don't like the ISPs and want them to suffer. But it's about the balancing of power, and if you want weak, public utility tier ISPs you're going to get monolithic web companies. I'm personally more worried about the monopolization of the web, so I'd appreciate it if the ISPs were given some teeth to go after them. I'm not worried about mass censorship or application favoritism from them, because that would be PR suicide. I think giving them teeth would encourage new competition to emerge, because now ISPs are more profitable, and can maneuver against each-other in the services and agreements they offer.

The ISP monopolies that exist now are due to government lobbying and cronyism. Those have to be dealt with, but the way to do that is to remove the regulations preventing new ISP from entering an area, and giving them an opportunity to make money.

That analysis is so naive it's not really worth commenting on, just read the comments on the page you linked and think critically about the actual costs of the business. But one thing:
Do you want ISPs to do any of this?

What costs? The infra is already there. They've already bought it, and the cost of running a few electrons down a cable is negligible compared to the cost of the physical infra. If I have a pipe of size X, and all my customers want to get their water from the lake, instead of the pond, what business is it of mine? If I'm having trouble providing enough water for my customers, instead of limiting the lake supply, I should build a bigger pipe.

If I set the precedence of limiting the lake, that just sets me up for later down the line. If I wanted, I could buy the pond and limit the lake to a trickle, making everyone essentially forced to buy my water from the pond. You may say "Why would they do that? It would be bad PR?". If they own all the pipes in town, what will people do? Go without water? The fact that they have this kind of power, regardless of whether they say they won't use it, is enough of a threat in and of itself.

Sure, you could have more detailed billing, in addition to a fixed monthly charge for the connection, with total utilization-weighted per-GiB fees. But the main issue is the stunning lack of transparency. Backbone costs, peering costs, and last mile costs are all VASTLY exhaggerated, here's a more detailed analysis:
broadbandnow.com/report/much-data-really-cost-isps/

I think this would be disappointingly ineffective today, because unlike the old days, there is no shared modern telephone or cable TV infrastructure for competing ISPs to use, and the supposed alternatives (cellular and microwave) are fundamentally inadequate. At the physical level, networking is a natural monopoly, and we need some kind of initiative to lay down fibre without bilking people or reinventing the wheel.

No, and that's why I think transparency requirements are probably the only solution. They'll just keep crying and whining about unrelated expenses and fake fees eating them alive, even as they rake in profits practically no other industry can even dream about, fooling customers into paying for or consenting to cons nobody wants.

No it isn't, there are always new areas to expand to or improve the infrastructure. Even existing infrastructure needs to be maintained. And the initial cost of investment in the infrastructure needs to be recuperated. And this is only speaking of incumbent ISPs, don't you WANT new ISPs, who would have to develop their own new infrastructure, to be viable businesses?

I don't run an ISP, so I can only imagine. But customer service and paying and managing employees is a huge cost with endless, inexplicable fees including legal work, pensions, etc. And these overhead costs get larger and more self sustaining and reproducing the larger and older a company gets. Trying to estimate the margin's of a company by the cost of reproducing it's product compared to its price is a foolish proposition. It's a very difficult thing to do, even with the most sophisticated analysis, which is why some people make a fuckton of money doing market analysis. In a Free Market™, price gouging isn't really a problem because the value will hover around the cost eventually. ISPs don't operate in a free market in some areas, and that needs to be addressed, but NN doesn't directly help that.

Another ISP would come in and absolutely demolish their monopoly. Or their customers in other regions would be so disgusted they'd find another provider. Access to netflix is not water, and these kinds of business practices are already protected against by anti-trust laws.

As far as the data caps go, they're obviously a way to profit off of high data usage like streaming without being able to go after the stream distributors, and limit their bandwidth consumption. It's absurd to criticize the ISPs for charging for data when their costs are in bandwidth, because the vast majority of data usage comes from streaming at particular times of the day, which puts a floor on what bandwidth you must provide to an area to maintain advertised speeds. The price on data is obviously a surrogate for the cost they'd like to levy on Netflix for necessitating so much bandwidth. Would you rather the ISPs milk you or Netflix?

The article you linked just concludes with exactly what I'm saying: the actual cost is unclear, and we need to fight for a freer market so we can be sure it's fair.

It says absolutely nothing like that:
We have ISP shareholder reports that blatantly indicate the MAXIMUM expense of most major ISPs is in the low single digit percentages, the only "uncertain" part is that due to all the Triple-Play-type bullshit mixing such figures into non Internet services, the actual numbers might be EVEN LOWER.

From the article

The main cost is not in the infrastructure.

Why don't you link those, and explain in context how they relate to the total operation costs of the business and how this is evidence for consumer exploitation.

>>>/reddit/

I do, but I fail to see what NN has to do with it. Why are new businesses hampered by not being allowed to throttle connections? In fact, many small ISPs have already come out saying that NN has not hurt their ability to run and expand their networks: eff.org/files/2017/06/27/isp_letter_to_fcc_on_nn_privacy_title_ii.pdf

The thing is though, none of those costs are related to how much of their bandwidth is being used. They would be paying those costs regardless of how much bandwidth Netflix is using on their network, because those are the costs of managing a company, not the costs of shooting beams of light down a tube. I have yet to see anyone explain to me what specific costs a company incurs when its network is near capacity while streaming Netflix, vs when that network is far below capacity because it's being used for email.

Now, of course there are costs of increasing overall bandwidth to provide more speed to more people. But once again, those costs are incurred regardless of how much use the new lines will get, so I again fail to see why those costs should be subsidized by the websites whose data may or may not travel down those new lines.

If the costs of running an ISP and expanding a network are so high that they cannot afford to expand without forcing tech companies to subsidize those costs, then how have they managed to stay in business so long? Obviously costs must be so horrible that they should have either internet costs should have been shooting up, or they'd have gone bankrupt long ago.

This is a fast-moving issue (as I'm sure you noticed the graph in that last article indicates, prices are dropping like a rock) so I'll link two articles. First, a very detailed older article (in particular, the linked 103-page PDF of their FCC filing):
freepress.net/blog/2009/11/24
>This estimate does not include the initial expense for laying cable because those one-time costs have been fully recouped.
>So while about a quarter of cable operators’ revenue comes from selling Internet access, they only allocate around 3 percent of their networks’ total capacity to provide that access.
Second, a newer, briefer article to illustrate how much worse the situation has gotten thanks to tech advancements and ISPs' neglect (yes, it's on Huffington Post, stopped clocks and all that.):
archive.is/7Kq9T
>revenue was $43.92 for 2013, up from $39.66 in 2012. Note that the annual report explained that this increase was in part due to an "increase in equipment rental charges".

This is not open to legitimate controversy or disagreement: ISPs are raking it in, and none of their expenses amount to even pennies on the dollar.

This is to prevent people from using their full bandwidth 24/7 for no reason. The lines are oversubscribed and that's okay because it is the only way to operate a network at reasonable cost. The alternative would be a cap and no way to use more than that, but no one wants such a plan.

...

Rules 1 & 2, don't be such a sperg. This isn't even really a partisan issue, since the vast majority of both democrats and republicans support net neutrality.

You fucking bet it was. Porky will always try to get way with more, and the megacorps have been doing exactly that, especially in areas where they're the only option. This traffic discrimination bullshit is one such nickel-and-dime measure, but one that might have massive repercussions, not just because of the egregious customer fleecing, but mainly because the various deals and corporate relations between ISPs and media outlets would create these "corporate tribes", whose clients would be limited to specific news sources and other sites. Corporations would have even more power over the public discourse than they already have.

Nah, it's pure kikery. If they just wanted to keep a handful of people from hogging the bandwidth, they would institute plans that punished them in some other way, such as temporary speed decrease, which would be perfect to curb hoggers. But that would only save them what, a few dimes worth of electricity and a less clogged line that no one would notice anyway because the service is always shit? Charging by the GB is far more profitable, it's almost free money. It's essentially taking away what used to be a free feature and start charging for it just because they can.

To further drive the point home, I don't know how used to be there in Burgerstan, but around here, all ISPs had no transfer cap, from the dial-up days and well into the broadband era. Then one of the bigger ones tries to squeeze its customers some more, like they always do. Normies barely notice, so more and more ISPs follow suit. I think my state doesn't have a single ISP without transfer caps anymore, I'm lucky that I have an old-ass contract that keeps me on the old, unlimited transfer plan.

Temporary speed decreases have definitely been a thing

wew lad, it's real
meo.pt/internet/internet-movel/telemovel/pacotes-com-telemovel
another meme became reality

I WANT OFF THIS RIDE

...

I hate to interrupt urop prematurely celebrating as usual, but you're currently much worse off. Your ISPs were among the first to start zero-rating. BT was even doing it before the first NN bill. You also have hate speech laws that are used to pull sites that challenge the government's positions. And you aren't allowed to speak the truth about the Jews or question the Jewish version of history. Should probably work on that when not being crushed by trucks of peace.

I live in Bulgaria and none of these apply here
still a second world country, but in terms of internet is perfect

also it's so poor and unimportant that the migrants don't wanna stay here, there was this one riot at a migrant camp, and the police went in and beat the shit out of everyone

...

You just can't win.

Except it has nothing to do with net neutrality, or violating it. As previously stated this is a mobile carrier offering plans that allow users to subscribe to special services that do not suck up the data allowances you get per month with that cellular carrier. Are you retarded or just stupid?

Except that's literally what net neutrality is about.

Mobile plans have always had data-caps. That one example people keep bringing up has nothing to do with anything. Maybe mommy pays for your phone plan, but not everyone is that ignorant.

Except it isn't.

No, they didn't, but that's not the point. Data caps aren't against net neutrality. Different caps for different services are.

So what makes the packets above the data cap different than any other packets? I thought net neutrality was about treating ALL packets equally.

Now you're just being silly. The point of net neutrality is not to ensure people can leech as much as they want. It's to ensure fair competition among different online service providers.

No, it's so that each packet has to be treated equally by ISPs. If you don't support that statement you don't support net neutrality.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality doesn't say anything about data caps being against net neutrality and I'd bet virtually anyone working in the industry (tech people, not support pajeets and management) would disagree with you. So, what do I support then?

Yes they did, faggot, and the point is you don't have a point, because either way it doesn't apply. Seeing as Portugal is part of the EU, 'net neutrality' clearly doesn't prevent this, and has nothing to do with it.

They are not taking anything away, they are giving you more data for certain sites if you want, in addition to the standard data-caps they usually have. You're grasping at straws in a desperate bid to add validation to your doomsday scenario. There is no basis for the level of hysteria I've been seeing, where people are seriously telling me I'm not going to be able to post on this backwater site anymore.

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.
>i-ignore the fact net jewtrality is supported by (((corporations))) and (((open society foundation)))
Same shit, same shills, different words. Fucking kill yourselves.

Not sure if you're retarded or just pretending. Charging $10 for 1byte + unlimited Faceberg and $100 for more non-Faceberg bytes is taking something away.

Looks like they didn't: web.archive.org/web/20080501213014/http://www.t-mobile.com:80/shop/plans/Default.aspx?plancategory=7#Voice, E-mail & Internet
That's the first and only archived plan I could find mostly because I know only very few american cell providers

Seems like EU net neutrality laws suck?
repeating it doesn't make it any more true

No, you're not getting the point. Imagine Netflix giving an ISP a few shekles so their videos can be watched unlimitedly at no obvious additional cost, but other streaming sites don't get this benefit. This gives customers of other ISPs a reason to switch, so the ISP benefits. Netflix also gains customers from other streaming sites, and can now earn more money than they're paying to that ISP. Where does the money come from? It's you! And other, smaller streaming sites have it even harder to compete.
That's their doomsday scenario, not mine. While it is possible, it's unlikely.

And what's wrong with that? If Netflix thinks it's a good investment to give a few shekels to the ISP in order for them to make money what's wrong with that? If all other streaming sites are allowed to do the same (at the same rate) then I see no issue. The only issue I see with a scenario here is the ISP only allowing Netflix to be a part of the deal while the other streaming sites are left with 'data caps' of the person trying to use their service.
Aslong as you and I, as well as the other streaming sites are getting the service speeds and 'data caps' we are paying for then I see no issue with letting Netflix pay the ISP for no 'data caps.'

Yeah, if... and even if they technically can, this can be unaffordable for small, new competitors.

This all comes down to good business ethics, something that shouldn't be regulated by the government.

Companies are states.

...

'Unlimited' plans still exist, it's just that you have to pay out the ass for it. The thing is though, going through something like 10GBs of data on your phone is actually pretty unlikely, so there's no reason to pay for it, and they even though it's 'unlimited', the truth is they will throttle you if you really abuse it.

Lolbert, in the end it is you who's paying for unnecessary bullshit.

Why should I run to the government if I make a bad judgement call?

They throttle you on everything as soon as you go over the "limit".
NN is about selective throttling.
t. Have to use broadband because wired services apparently doesn't like trailer parks.

Sage isn't a downvote, commie :^)

Well, I though there was a way around this by creating onion sites.

You can't get around zero-rating. All traffic not going to a partner site is penalized. All your onion traffic would be penalized.

But they are
Net neutrality is the old status quo ante bellum, so to speak, as ISPs used to operate solely on the common carrier-regulated telephone network. Current net neutrality legislation is necessary only because ISPs have started worming their way out from under preexisting regulations through loopholes
>i-ignore the fact net jewtrality is supported by (((corporations))) and (((open society foundation)))
As opposed to anti-NN, which is pushed by far more established corporations that out-spend pro-NN efforts by a 2-5:1 ratio on lobbying, are overwhelmingly against bipartisan pro-NN (70% of Republicans) opinion among the general populous, and who shill so hard that anti-NN opinions encountered online are 10 times more likely to be botspam.
>that didn't happen before obamacare was passed
Except that's precisely what happened for decades until HeritageCareRomneyCareObamaCare was passed, and forced insurers to cover more people for less money.

You realize no matter how clean you lick that boot, they'll never let you wear it, right?

Stop being useful idiots. There is no way that you can justify that data from Netflix and data from hospital remote surgery machines need to have same priority.

It's easy.It's all data. It's not like we worry about prioritizing electricity to hospitals.
That's why they usually have backup generators. They get the same electricity everyone else does. They should get the same internet too. They get x bandwidth for y dollars, and they can do whatever they want with it. Same for little Timmy. He gets x bandwidth for y dollars, and if he wants to stream porn while the hospital is experimenting with remote surgery, that's not the carrier's concern.

The strawman FUD you're shilling
What NN is actually about

I'd like to perform some remote surgery on pajeet pai's shit eating grin.

Electricity is a public utility, the Internet is not, and it should stay that way.

Zero rating has nothing to do with the letter of network neutrality. Regulating zero rating is 'neutrality' beyond Title II. Why do you retards keep bringing up zero rating? Is it because Wikipedia focuses on it and you didn't actually read Tim Wu's original paper or know anything about network neutrality before this year?
Zero rating violates the spirit of network neutrality, but it has nothing to do with regulating carriers to prevent blocking or throttling of application-level traffic.
If they don't throttle or block anything, and yet offer agreements (probably with a CDN box on their network) for some shitty movie streaming service to not use data, it is, in effect, giving an advantage, but it's not an advantage that prevents you from using competing services.

wow, you must really not understand economics.

he's been chased off Holla Forums ever since reddit took over. they were jealous of the attention he was getting and started mass-reporting him

most US ISPs would be free to throttle access to websites they dislike which means 0% traffic from americans which means the sites would die

You must not understand reality.

Why are so many posters in this thread shilling for same thing that Google and Facebook support? Are they doing something good this time or are they sending those posters here?

You wouldn't accept any other answer than "Yes, we're being paid by Google/Zuckerface/Soros/whoever" so why do you even ask?

The impression I get is most people are for/against net neutrality only because they're against/for Trump.
For jewgle/etc net neutrality is a double-edged sword. On the one hand net neutrality means ISPs can't demand extra money from them to not favor yahoo or whoever instead, but on the other it means a small competitor can have a chance to compete.
Also those companies' position on net neutrality isn't 100% honest. Faceberg's is particularly ridiculous since in the US they support it yet in India and other shitholes they're against it (Free Basics).

That is not true. I am actually interested in finding out if Google, FB, etc. are actually doing something good.

I'm for Trump, for net neutrality, and against the facejew. Where did you find these 'most people'? Are you talking about reddit and Holla Forums?

I think there is one major reason why Google and Facebook are supporting net neutrality: Their workers grew up on the internet, they literally build all aspects of the internet. They know it and it's the center of their lives. It worked well for decades without fast lanes, zero rating, or filtering. They don't want it ruined by corporate bureaucratic bullshit rules (or, as we would call it, jewry) made by people who voluntarily wear ties and suits. Because the companies can't afford their own workers to turn against them (and they would even if their employers took a neutral stance), they support net neutrality.
Besides that, Google and Facebook don't have much to gain through net neutrality, but they don't really have anything to lose either because they're already monopolists.
Netflix on the other hand has competition, they could lose customers if ISPs favored one of their competitors, e.g. by zero-rating or giving them the fast lane.

if your "libertarian" meme ideology were any true we'd live in fucking paradise and not in this shithole dictatorship of the wealthy, the fact you honestly think more competitors rigging shit however the fuck they want is any better for most people shows just how delusional and disconnected from reality you are

go fuck yourself

So they're anti-net neutrality?

Crony capitalism that relies on the state is not libertarian capitalism, sage-kun

Look, I can't help you if you're not even trying to understand what I write.

AYO HOL UP
Assuming that the price of the full package that includes access to all websites equals the price of the internet subscription we're paying now (since we're technically provided with access to all websites right now), could this mean that you could theoretically decide not to use the Social Network™ package and thus end up saving $10 or more than we're currently paying?

You're just like commies and their 'gommunism has neved been dried befod x-DDDDDDd' meme. I'm sick of hearing this shit.
Businesses always will resort to shady tactics and defraud the consumer to save shekels; they don't give a shit about playing fair.
example: all telcos in my country are either refusing to install copper lines (even if the fucking wiring is already in place) or forcing crappy, dropout-prone GSM landline phones (with obscene rates) down new subscribers' throats in hopes of getting people to switch to mobile (also with obscene rates). If we didn't have consumer protection offices to keep them in check, they'd fucking get away with it without any consequences whatsoever.
Go die in a fire, you pathetic useful idiot.

- Buying a package that limits access to sites that you aren't using anyway isn't going to save any money, so there are no savings an ISP could pass on to you. This means the weighted average price of a package has to be at least as expensive as your current package.
- The most expensive part of your internet connection is the last mile of copper to your house. Cost for sending a few extra bits over cables that are already there is very low, so the more expensive packages wouldn't actually "pay what they use", they would subsidize your cheaper package. But why would an ISP introduce packages that need subsidy by more expensive packages? Just for the extra shekels from Netflix?

Hey, tech. Since we have about 10 days left until NN is gone I am starting to prepare for it but I still have a few questions. Will end of NN destroy Google and FB? Should I start exporting photos from FB and documents from Google Drive? What about MS OneNote, is it still going to work after NN is gone? Will I still be able to watch movies on Netflix and buy things on Amazon after NN is removed?

Those companies already violate what you'd think of as NN by paying for zero-rating of their traffic. The Obama NN bill is worthless and didn't prevent that. Example: t-mobile's binge-on thing which was not illegal under the NN bill and all these tech companies were 100% on-board with. You'll see no difference as everything was already fucked.

kys trumpie

...

...

Sup cocksucking tranny, what specifically do you think they'll do after NN is repealed that isn't currently legal under the NN bill? Are you aware all those "they'll tier the internet!!1" posts your fellow LARPers make are already possible under Obama's worthless NN bill?

If Commodore had won, we'd all be talking about how the IBM PC would have been the future.

Commodore had zero chance as it had zero presence in industry. It wasn't even remotely close to winning, it was just a question of when IBM would enter the PC market.

No, it won't destroy everything.
Also, network neutrality will be saved by the courts.
Pajeet Pai is acting in bad faith. One of the legal requirements of the FCC is to benefit the consumer. Along with zero factual reasons backing the repeal of the Open Internet Order, they will lose in court. To elaborate, the FCC also needs strong reasoning to reverse regulatory direction in this manner. "Network neutrality" was first enforced with fines, but through no regulatory framework, from 2005-2008. It was only until 2010 that there was a concrete framework, but then Verizon shot itself in the foot and made the FCC reclassify them to Title II.
You can be sure the EFF and the ACLU have lawsuits that they're waiting to file after the vote.

Zero rating has little to do with network neutrality, you fucking retard. Again, as has been explained multiple times. Go read Tim Wu's paper.

Just because it's not in the original paper from 2003 doesn't mean it doen't have anything to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is a topic that has been discussed for years and zero rating was always an aspect part of that discussion. To me it seems like you are the one who has just discovered NN.

Except it wasn't a bill, and it wasn't legal. Nice try, though. It's so nice that no matter what Trump does, you choke on his dick as if it was the source of life.

No, it wasn't. Also, as admitted in the thread multiple times, it does violate the spirit, but not the letter.
Ostensibly, as long as nothing as throttled or blocked, beyond data overuse, it's not a violation of network neutrality. I agree with priority for things like voice, E911, and medical, which is what "reasonable network management" is, however.
Retards on wikipedia have redefined network neutrality to prominently mean "anti-zero rating" but that was not the case, at all. Primarily what network neutrality has been, has been slapping down ISPs throttling/blocking things like Vonage or BitTorrent.
The main point of it has been going back to the AT&T shit that Title II was necessary for: no restricting network attachments and network uses. However, under such common carriage exists "toll-free", perhaps you aren't familiar with the concept since you're underage.
Zero rating is basically ISPs signing agreements with content providers and putting CDN boxes that don't cross the boundary of their network, I understand why they do that. It's basically "toll free."

As opposed to the same thing that the far more entrenched AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner, Comcast, and Alcatel support? The thing they greatly outspend the other side on in terms of paying lobbyists and shills?

That's a remarkable assumption, since the overwhelming majority of Democrats, independents, AND REPUBLICANS all support net neutrality. In fact, among Internet users concerned enough to comment on the subject, nearly 100% of "grassroots" opposition to NN appears to be from shillbots:
hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6?gi=63f27d2ac446

Online services are in favor of net neutrality for one reason, and one reason only: Their bottom line, versus the profits of ISPs. Of course, this overlaps neatly with the reason everyone else is in favor of NN: ISPs are the only people who stand to benefit in any way from eliminating NN.

That's never how this sort of kikery works out. What's going to happen is the caps on internet access will be lowered again and again to the point of unusability, so as to bully people into nuAOL.

One other thing to keep in mind: The price ISPs charge has basically nothing to do with operating costs, as I pointed out earlier ISPs run a profit margin in excess of 97%.

Wintel was the exact worst platform in the entire PC market, aside from a few complete jokes like the Speccy.

Commodore dominated the #1 spot in PC sales clear from the mid-'80s into the early '90s. If they had been maintianing their platforms instead of milking once-leading-edge chipsets bone dry, they easily could've squashed the IBM clones.

Maybe I should have said I'm an eurofag.

No one cares what your dumbass codifications of network neutrality are. The only thing we care about are the original definition (see Tim Wu's original paper on network neutrality) and what regulatory framework the US uses for this.
Again, I will readily admit that zero rating, in many cases, violates the SPIRIT of network neutrality. That spirit, treating ALL traffic equally. But, it doesn't work like that. You have to have prioritization for E911, voice, and medical. So there's already damage to the spirit for the good of the consumer, if you were so autistic that you would make zero concessions.

Zero rating is a different topic than stopping ISPs from throttling or blocking traffic on a whim. It's also a different topic from forcing last mile ISPs to lease their last mile so competition can exist.

This is the reasl reason ISPs do not want Title II. It has nothing to do with Google getting a free ride or whatever bullshit. Google does not get a free ride. They have made massive investments to their networks just to deliver this traffic, and while they use IXP's, it's definitely not a free ride. They've paid for their bandwidth and infrastructure. They've paid for their agreements. ISPs whine about it, but it's primarily them whining about upgrading their failing infrastructure for a shitload streaming video, which anyone could've seen coming in 1995. That's not what they really take issue with, it's just a simple scapegoat.

What they take issue with is being forced to lease their last mile to competitors. Title II effectively ends regional monopolies. That is the real, underlying truth in this US political shitstorm.

Isn't that sort of question wholly and unequivocally divorced from the most hated policies like zero-rating and DPI for throttling, since it occurs on the other side of the fence from the WAN connection between a consumer and their ISP? Whether or not different customers get treated differently by ISPs in the LAN-WAN side, has absolutely zilch to do with whether different requests from the same consumer get treated differently at the WAN-Internet side.

Has nothing to do with network neutrality.
Network neutrality is talking about regulation to prevent ISPs from throttling or blocking certain applications/hardware.
All of this retardation is just retards taking a vague term that they don't understand "network neutrality" and projecting it onto things they don't like. The term was coined, specifically, for the eventuality of ISPs blocking and throttling services, whether there is an anti-competitive motivation or not.
It's not "zero rating." It's not "my torrent traffic is more important than E911". It's "you cannot restrict network attachments (forcing modem rental fees, restricting computers or equipment, etc), to a reasonable extent, and you must not throttle application-level competition to your services, or any application you do not like."
And no, it's not. There has to be some sort of network management. Even if something is a "dumb pipe", it's really not, there's some semblance of network management going on.

The ideal is "treat all traffic equally" but it doesn't work that way. If you're not autistic you know there are concessions to be made.

Ultimately, network neutrality will be saved in court. Pajeet Pai has failed to demonstrate that Title II depresses investment, he has failed to demonstrate that this is not the FCC's purview (if it were not, then the Bush II FCC would not have fined ISPs for blocking Vonage), and he has failed to demonstrate any actual reason for going back on previous regulatory direction, spanning two administrations. He also is demonstrating bad faith to the consumer "network neutrality supporters are desperate" comments made within the last week, and ignoring public comments. Which is a legal requirement for the FCC, act in good faith for the consumer.

The ACLU and the EFF will tear him a new asshole in court, I'm not too worried.

No one cares about the definition from the original paper. The discussion shapes the meaning of the word. The discussion, at least in my country, has always included zero rating into the definition.

:^)
Bigger pipes, if customers demand it. It's that simple. And yes, t. networkfag.

Why have words if you don't know what the fuck they mean, retard? Zero rating is a violation of the spirit of it, but just because it's regulated there does not mean you come into here and bitch about net neutrality not being net neutrality because your definition in yurop is different, despire being coined in the US.
Fuck off, faggot. Quit shitting up the discussion with zero rating, it's confusing enough with redditors and Holla Forumsacks not knowing the definition either.
You're fucking retarded. This has nothing to do with network neutrality. And yeah, you can demand FTTP all you want, you just gotta pay for it.

Given the 97% profit margins of ISPs, the intentional suicide of DSL and now cable in spite of enormous headroom remaining, continued effort by ISPs to push stationary customers onto fixed 4G or microwave connections, and repeated instances of ISPs gulping down infrastructure subsidies without actually spending them on buildout as contractually obliged, I very much doubt any amount of money would convince ISPs to give me FTTP.

Or you could just not buy anything from those companies you hate so much. You're the one being a pathetic useful idiot.

And your country is probably some backwards shithole. Your point?

Except he has and many other have illustrated this too.

That's great man, I know all about the stolen subsidies when they were unregulated, it's still a different topic. Just some retarded yuropoor trying to shit up and further complicate the discussion.

No, he hasn't. We've already discussed it itt. There is no statistical evidence that there's any "depression" in the one year of regulation under this. It's bullshit. What I have seen is variable capex.
Don't get so angry over the fact that the EFF will tear Pajeet a new asshole in court, user. It's going to be glorious.

If you're European, do you have any insight on how the EU has NN regulations, yet they're apparently dependent enough on "national interpretation" that Portugal became the poster child for abusive ISPs?

You don't know what they mean. 2003 is pre-industrialization era of the internet. No one except you is using the definition from 2003.
The assumption that the definition is the same makes sense, doesn't it?
Who gives a fuck

no u
see above

no u. This board really has affected your mental well-being, hasn't it?
You do realize I'm talking about backbone pipes? Why would you need shaping on you average customers' uplinks?

I'm saying the yuropoor that I will reply to below.

No, because it's not the same definition.
No, retards like you shit up wikipedia and just lump everything under network neutrality because it's a great vague phrase that obviously didn't have the foresight to not be abused, a better term would be "open internet" as in "open internet order" under title II.
The open internet order basically encompasses network neutrality, but zero-rating is something beyond this, and it's an open question whether it would be detrimental to consumers and/or competing services.

And ultimately the only reason that it was done this way was because there was no chance in hell that it would be accomplished through legislation. The US is dysfunctional, and now it's even more dysfunctional with regulatory agencies under Trump shitting things up. There has already been one lawsuit regarding this sort of regulatory uncertainty, there will be a second one, once the FCC gets rid of the Open Internet Order.

Seriously, fuck off. Quit shitting up the US-tailored discussion.

Can you please explain why zero rating is harmful to users? Users are literally getting free stuff, I fail to see how that harms them.

...

So t-mobile's binge-on thing is illegal? Why no lawsuits?

So, problem with zero rating is that people are going to like some service so much that they are going to ditch all other services? I understand that zero rating might nudge some users to use one service over similar non zero rated service. But I doubt that zero rating would create web singularity like one that you described.
If user has choice why would she choose ISP that forces nuAOL on her over ISP that allows her to use services she likes more?

...

That wasn't a throttling of packets, only a lack of penalty from data cap when using their services. Net neutrality did not make capping illegal. You should read shit next time before acting like a retard.

It's zero rating, and tiered internet plans can be built on top of that, and are in the developing world. You guys were scammed by the original NN legislation and still haven't realized it.

There is no net neutrality in Germany thanks to some loopholes and ISP's are already abusing it. But as the two other pictures show, Internet in Germany in general is pretty fucked up.

...

CELL PHONE PLANS ARE NOT THE INTERNET YOU QUINTUPLE NIGGER

Wired internet plans are unmetered, free of traffic shaping and relatively cheap in Germany. IIRC, traffic shaping is not against the law, but incompatible with the market.

The only problem is that it didn't go far enough, according to what you're saying, not that NN is bad, which is what faggots seem to be arguing. That is, unless you're arguing that we're better off without any protections because current protections are inadequate, in which case, you're a fucking retard.

That's the crux of the entire issue. There isn't meaningful competition in most areas of the US; people often have no choice at all. If and when that changes all the rest of this debate will dissolve like the nitpicking it ultimately is.

It's like if we were in danger of being stampeded by elephants and the government passed an anti-stampeding bill but it excepted elephants. It's not that it didn't go far enough, it was a sham. People were swindled and 'reasonable network management' throttling was legalized in a law they thought did the opposite.

nigger you can't even sage probably. You are obviously not from here.

It goes in all fields.

sage
Fuck off.
HOURLY REMINDER THAT (((NET NEUTRALITY))) IS UN/ISRAEL/GOVERNMENT CONTROL OF THE INTERNET AND PROPONENTS ARE PAID BY GEORGE SOROS'S OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION

...

As you two can see, it doesn't. You are not from here.

sage
Cry about it, net jewtrality shill.

It's pretty obvious you guys are not from here. For starters you can't sage properly and more importantly you just throw buzzwords around. Let me guess, you are part of nu/pol/?

Shoo newfags.

What is nu/pol/?

If it didn't do anything, the telecos wouldn't be so interested in making it go away. You're either a shill or a retard.

Ah yes, the informed voter.

Please quit being fucking retarded, none of those pictures have anything to do with net neutrality.

Start gassing yourself then, commie.

Some very gullible people will like it, and they will be used as an (oft-exaggerated in size) excuse by ISPs to make things worse for anyone who refuses to go along, until a combination of con-artistry, coercion, and outright lies have shrunken the Internet to the point where ISPs can get away with disconnecting entirely. Carrot and stick tactics typical of such predatory loss-leader pricing.

If it's being pushed so hard by "muh soros", then why is pro-NN advocacy being outspent 4:1 or more by anti-NN corporate shills and lobbyists?

in theory, the consumer. in practice, the company withg the deepest pockets. The big player does a race to the bottom in pricing. Consumers flock to them, the competitors starve and either shut down or get acquired by the big player. With no competition, big player ratchets up the kikery to 11 with stratospheric price increases and ever-diminishing service. No other game in town means they eventually capture most of the market and become too big to take on.

Just wanted to butt into this thread and say you guys all do realize the Rural Electrification Act has amendments added in 2008 to allow government provision of broadband internet right?

Just also wanted to add that ISPs are still under scrutiny by the FTC, Fair Credit Billing Act.etc

Just want to continue by saying more regulations really aren't necessary and we should value stripping federal government bloat more than muh internet at this points in time

I am not a payed shill

This is my only post in this thread and will also be my last post

Good day

Infrastructure is a natural monopoly by its very structure, networks even more so (for instance, all of the so-called market competition that occurred in the dial-up days was actually the result of the Bell network being opened up for loop-unbundling by federal intervention). Strong regulation is the only realistic alternative to private monopoly in the utilities sector.

when will you realize that you guys elected the best goy?

I unironically hope the internet shits itself to death from a failure of net neutrality because the net as it currently exists is a mass media engine for social control rather than the information sharing network it was conceived as.

I wish that ISPs get so incredibly shitty that new models and new companies arise to feed on their rotting corpses. I sincerely believe it would be best for the main ISPs get so bad that people start making local intranets to route around the trash.

It won't.

still better than the other options.

Except I do know what it does, and I know the reason the telecos want it gone. People like you are arguing that it makes no difference. If that's the case, then it follows that the telecos wouldn't be spending millions to fight it. Again, you're either a shill or a retard.

i don't think Shillary would've been that much of a good goy.

It's still just a government bandage to fix a government created problem. That being cable companies having state monopolies. That is what should be undone along with net neutrality. Let the market decide who can and cannot provide internet access. You don't end corporatism with more corporatism, it only exacerbates the problem. Just look at the financial industry.

Nigger, landline phone service is a public utility; companies can't just fucking refuse to install them because they make more money off mobile phones.

Without government regulation, "the free market" would still turn it into a monopoly, especially in a natural monopoly sector like networking infrastructure. If what you're arguing for is different government regulation, something that forces ISPs to promote artificial free markets, such as net neutrality AND loop unbundling? That's a fair argument to make.

Incidentally, the problem with the financial industry, if (as I assume) you're talking about the last recession, that was caused by the erosion of preexisting regulations. Kinda' like this issue.

Yet you would accept a world where the ISP can charge that hospital an enterprise rate because of the files that they have to transfer. Data is data no matter how you shake it, and a 100 gig transfer of anime is going to be the same network pressure as a 100 gig transfer of someone's CT scan. It is clear that the ISPs would rather cut costs and hold off on having to vastly improve their delivery of data. Making them publicly held companies was a mistake and I await the day that the freedom of the internet is granted as a constitutional right.

Remember that "muh hospitals, muh animes" is strawman FUD. The issue NN is focused on isn't requests from different users (two hospitals on two different ISPs sending data back and forth, competing with other users on both ISPs torrenting anime), NN is focused on requests by the same users (a hospital wants to send data to another hospital, but most hospitals are SLOWLANE'D so only hospitals that made a deal with the ISP work at full speed. Some weeb wants anime, but BitTorrent is THROTTLE'D and anime-specific services like Crunchyroll are CAP'D, so the only anime they can watch is on XFinity or whatever).

We do not have much time left until NN is gone in US. It is time to discuss most important aspect of NN removal. What is best way to extract as much fun as possible out of salty Americucks?

By doing the same?
ISP's will never place land lines in my trailer park. I have to somehow figure out how to do it myself without paying out of the ass to the Landlord and the NSP.
Any advise?

Because Soros is a boogyman.

If they're too salty to let you actually string a line, your best bet is directional wireless. Simple high-gain directional 802.1 bridges capable of several miles in clear-line-of-sight conditions are cheap, here's a pair for $140:
cdw.com/shop/products/EnGenius-EnStation-2-wireless-bridge/3606919.aspx

If you're even more isolated, you'll need something exotic like microwave or optical bridges, which cost about $2k-$10k.

DIY optical here for $100: twibright.com/hw.php

She's a much gooder goy which is why the media was furious. But we're still dealing with blue Jew or red Jew and need to deal with the problem at its source.

said the unpaid shill

Well no shit, It wouldn't suprise me that people are using this as another excuse to shit/defend on him (and thus ignoring the real problem to stead make it about Trump again). I myself don't know what to make out of this, it seems that everyone has his own definition on what NN is so it just creates a moot point, I guess I will wait and see how it goes.

They won't let them be tried. FCC has restricted broadcast/information innovation for the last 80 years. Its not going to stop with NN.

yeah former Verizon exec helping his friends. nothing to see here

yet historically true ala mabell standard oil US steel

bingo comcast has data caps 1024 GB/month for me. been limited a few times working from home.

Except both of those examples only happened because of the government creating those monopolies. Are you retarded?

Net neutrality has nothing to do with what you posted, you dumb fuck.

Do you hate throttling? Hate caps? Hate zero-rating? Congratulations, you already support NN. Don't believe the FUD.

Trump is a corporate whore who (like all Republican presidents) will try to deregulate the Internet into some sort of AynCrap free market hellscape, but Clinton as much as promised Australian-style state and private censorship. Both are terrible, but Clinton definitely would've been even worse.

Argument not detected

Kill yourself kike.

Kill yourself.

Kill yourself kike.

Shillbot rapefugee fresh off the boat from cuckchan, I take it?

He's pretty obviously an underage cuck/v/ refugee.

if i were a kike wouldn't i be happy about best goy's election ?

You're retarded. We've always had net neutrality, the FCC just made it something that was protected in 2015.

But Obama's NN law we're talking about explicitly allowed throttling, caps, and zero-rating. Do you know what you're fighting for?

"Net neutrality"?
"Pro choice"?
"hate speech"?

you hear all of these one word or two word quick zingers for quick forming of opinoin based on those few words

whenever I hear orwellian language I know the stage is pre-set and ready for "action" by minions

We have not. DSL providers were notorious for gimping the residential-class lines with claims they were preventing attacks in order to force people who wanted to use more complex software to buy business-class DSL (same line and modem) which wasn't wrecked by filters. This is still legal and is called 'reasonable network management'.

This will help to keep normalfags off the internet, since they'll be too stupid to figure out how to circumvent it. It's unfortunate that any rich normalfags will still be a problem, but you can't have everything.

So tell me how you'll circumvent zero-rating.

Disgusting.

You know, the cool thing about these words is that you can look up the definition to see their true meaning. Which means if you still think NN is some kind of evil thing, you're a fucking retard or you didn't look it up. Kill yourself, faggot.

Repealing it isn't evil either.

This is a regulatory state we've never been in. It's not evil, but it certainly wasn't the status quo before the first open internet order, nor the second.

Common carriage has nothing to do with the two other things. Network neutrality is not an "orwellian" phrase, it's quite simple:
jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF

It's basically a word to describe the application of telecom regulations to ISPs. Which makes sense, because ISPs are fucking telecom. The regulations have nothing to do with "hate speech" and the dumb telephone harassment shit that Holla Forums likes to talk about isn't even in the regulations, Title II was not fully applied in the case of the Open internet order because of a process called "forbearance."

Utter this sentence to any alt-right retard claiming NN would invoke censorship and get no response, they'll leave the thread and cry on Holla Forums

"Why didn't Obama use it to censor Trumps election online?"

There wasn't packages but certain websites cost more to access and P2P was throttled to hell. Theres an argument told here by a certain shill "but da internet waznt bamboozled in 2005!!" completely ignoring the fact data use a decade later is significantly higher. Streaming is the majority of internet traffic in the united states at a time corporate cable is dying.

By pure fucking coincidence, the same companies involved in cable are also distributing and regulating the internet, Comcast and Verizon are attempting to control the content on the web and these tinfoil dumbfucks believe stripping consumers of their only leverage against regional monopolies is "fixin the free markets mann!!!".

I pray enough for autists to stop existing but they keep coming. Am I cursed?

10/10 post

Thanks user, I might use this.

That seems good too, and the data transfer is larger.
I'm having a hard time choosing.

When is NN going to be removed in US?

Today...

>anti-NNers claim title II prevents infrastructure (((investment)))

So.. pre-2015 where was the """"""competition"""""" and """""investment""""" coming from?

Can anyone answer this? correct me if I'm wrong but if consumers didn't light a fire under an ISPs ass with NN to expose their shitty infrastructure where was the motive to lay in new cables and infrastructure?

Do these mongoloids actually believe these corporate giants don't have politicians lobbied to restrict the market?

Has it been removed yet? What time?

vote is literally happening right now
fcc.gov/general/live
fcc.gov/general/live
fcc.gov/general/live

With broadband now classified as a Title I communication service, ISPs are no longer considered a "common carrier" but now an "information provider". This change brings with it new responsibilities and obligations. In recent years there has an explosion in the popularity of hateful websites promoting white supremacy and holocaust denial. The most well known offenders are the dailystormer and 4chan's politics board. These sites are breeding grounds for extremists and are having a profound negative influence on the next generation of young Americans. Sending their message through your networks is now as obscene and unthinkable as delivering a national socialist TV channel along with the food network and MTV. I understand that such changes will require time to organize and execute. However in the mean time we will be contacting your top advertising customers and will urge them to also express their desire to not do business with ISPs which promote hate.

Thank you for your time,
Benjamin Shapiro

Net Neutrality has been officially scrapped, it is over.

F

Get ready for the salt.

IT ALL COMES

TUMBLING DOWN

TUMBLING DOWN

TUMBLING DOWN

Thanks trump

...

This is a very bad day for all those people who fought for Obama's Net Neutrality. Soros, Google, Facebook, they all fought very well to preserve our freedoms, like they always have, but this time it was just too much of a fight against the evil drumpf.

Hopefully Facebook, Twitter, and Google all continue making sure all information is transmitted and reaches all people. These three have proven time and time again to be the benchmark for not restricting any flows of information.

Books can be replaced with the library, but I can't replace videos so easily. I'm fucked depending on implementation time.
Also self help sites like Khan Academy.

What are you most worried about?

Nothing.

They are going to put fees on certain websites when everybody starts forgetting about it.
Looking into getting a contract with networkMaryland at the moment.

...

Fuck you, as if you're any better than the retards on Holla Forums.

Well, hope y'all have 50 bucks/month to spare for accessing Holla Forums.
That is, if your local (((ISP))) allows access to non-premium (faceberg, jewgle, etc) content

Thank fucking god, I'd only need h8chan and ixquick.

Except it is. It's designed to lock you into whatever your ISP wants you to view. Congratulations, retard.

Yeah, totally won't have shit like bit torrent blocked or anything. You have to remember that some shit you have will never come back.

Your ISP cares too much about you, so you'll only be able to access the (((best))) search engines (Google, bing)

I access oxwugzccvk3dk6tj not Holla Forums.

inb4 they pretended to be against it because they know that some dumb niggers would just go against it for political reasons instead of reading the dam papers.

How bad is it with capped landline data plans in Murika?
They're fairly rare over here in germony at least.

I've never seen one. But then again, I don't live in niggerville.

We're cumming bucko.

It's moderately unknown, I'll be fine either ways. If they somehow block all VPN's then I will be concerned, we don't know yet.

Cumming is right, the Holla Forums BO can give a mean piggy succ

Except anarchists don't like BO powertripping and moved to >>>/leftpol/

I don't see a reason why they wouldn't

Kick out tankies for me.

Underrated post

lol

You gender freaks can never do anything right

I didn't make the infogaphic so go ask oc why he's such a fag someone with a black flag on leftpol, but I forget who is what I got it from.

kek

Not an argument, if you want my support for NN, argue its merits, don't make personal attacks against its detractors. You've had years to make arguments in favor of it, but you squandered them blaming "the rich" and "corporations", accusing those who disagree of being "retarded" and "corporate shills". Net Neutrality won't end, implying ever person out is weak-willed enough not to get what they want from ISPs is an insult to the concept you claim to support. It need not be law to survive.

Is that supposed to scare me into supporting NN? I'd prefer that, pay $15 to get the shit i do want over the $50 i'm spending now.

Yea, just how Google and Facebook don't gather all your data, MS doesn't automatically load and force updates to its OS, Adobe sells their software instead of offering overpriced subscription models and ISPs offer 100Mbps that don't cost an arm and a leg. Because they care about what customers want.

This is what FCC Pajeet removed. Up to $50,000 fine and 6 months in prison for doing things like anonymously harassing people. The next part states that it's not the telecommunication company's responsibility if it happens.

No no, you'll pay $50 to get "Internet access", but in order to visit any site that's not your ISPs "customer information site" you'll have to pay extra.
You don't think (((they))) will lower the prices just because the service got worse?
Also, any site that's not fecesbook, jewgle, egay or w/e will either be unavailable, or can only be accessed via the "unlimited premium" offer. $250/month (plus the 50 required for basic access), limited to 128kbit/sec. Only a handful pedophile terrorists would want to access such unsafe sites anyways.

holy fuck since when did we become /g/?

...

allah ishamar brother!!

When those corporate shills arrived, of course.

internet sucks?
buy another internet, fag
having internet is a luxary smallson

Rest assured, the day we won't be able to shitpost here anymore, I will remember you. And laugh at you. Cause you were a retard.

Come on, even my bumfuck area has 2 or 3 ISPs. If anything though, it's this site that will close.

I live in the 3rd largest city in NY and we only have one decent ISP. I guess we technically have two but the second is really shitty and nobody uses it.

Lol good job america way to get cucked by pai. Fucking goddamn fucking idiots. Fuck I hate your shithole of a country, your fucking bought and paid for politicians, and your population's incredible ignorance and stupidity. You fucking retarded pieces of shit. It's bad enough you fucking morona vote a fuckibg criminal, tax dodging, fucking clown into office(fucking repeatedly) but now you have to go and fuck the internet for the whole fucking world. Gpd I hate your shithovel country with it's fucking miles of emptiness and antimeth and suicide billboards, your fucking towns of nothing but churches and fastfood places fuck you all. You all deserve to get bent over and tag teamed by both those fucking goofs trump and pai one by fucking one. I can't wait till the fucking Chinese conquer your country and rape and pillage you all to the fucking ground.

Those two things make you the unluckiest user I've ever seen. And cousin marriage is legal on your state, while my" backwards" Indian Casino has that as a criminal offence.

You didn't even get luck of the draw, you got a truck full of cow shit.

You were manipulated. The NN bill did not give anyone NN, and the social media companies fighting NN are actually the biggest abusers and were merely pretending.

lol @ socialists

...

This image triggers me. (It's also one of the reasons why I got into anime. I'm in undergrad so no bully)

1. There was no "bill", retard. It was a reclassification as Title II, because whenever the FCC tried to do NN regulation under the old classification, Verizon and Comcast kept suing.
2. Yes, it did give NN protections, and if it made no difference, the telecos wouldn't have spent millions to get rid of this classification.

Enjoy being cucked because you're so retarded that you can't even do a 15 min google search.

I wonder (((why)))

...

The people you think opposed removing it secretly supported removing it. Both the telcos and facebook are for removing it.

We are entering new dark ages and people celebrate it

who the fuck is celebrating this besides us, everywhere else has gone full fearmongering lies GET READY TO BUY YOUR GOOGLE PACKAGES and the like.

(((They))) left.

youtube.com/watch?v=u6mYGcNgKn8
when the internet was like the wild west, more innovation and creavitity was seen
fuck corporate internet

This

I can get my social and video package and what else do I really need? :^)

the only ones selling packages like that are the sites themselves
twitter will charge people to access twitter media
facebook will charge people to access facebook media
and for alphabet
they will charge people to access youtube as it is

what could be better for these internet companies than charging their users to do internet searches?
think about it.

Do you buy your internet directly from Al Gore? Or did Obama come hook up your cable modem?
Verizon, Comcast, and the rest of the"evil" post-dereg telco's ARE the Internet. They built it. They invested the money to develop things like DSL, DOCSIS, FTTH/FTTN etc. They spent the money to wire everything up. Everything we enjoy about the internet today happened because of some for profit company searching for the next best thing to make money on.

If the Bell system wasn't deregulated in the 1980s we would still be using 300 baud acoustic acoustic couplers, paying by the minute on our leased model 500 telephones.

I don't want to lose you guys. Where do we go now, lads?

Holla Forums existed 2 years before NN. If this site goes away it wont be because of anything that happened today. Stop letting (((them))) manipulate you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

False. Essentially every piece of the FCC's net neutrality policies came about in direct response to such abuses:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cable_&_Telecommunications_Association_v._Brand_X_Internet_Services
fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-committees/general/open-internet-advisory-committee

Fat lady ain't sung just yet. Lawsuits can still save us:
reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-lawsuits/advocates-ready-legal-showdown-with-fcc-on-net-neutrality-idUSKBN1E62SQ

Which is, of course, already the case under preexisting meatspace law.
Which is a good thing, since it eliminates anything that would legally compel them to implement censorship and snooping.

OP's pic itself is from the EU, don't be too smug if you're already sitting in the hell us burgers are worried about in our future.

NN isn't new, new NN regulations were created only to preserve the traditional state of the internet as ISPs invented new forms of kikery and discovered loopholes. What will be new, is if these regulations can be repealed while ISPs now have these methods ready for abuse, then NN will vanish for the first time in the Internet's history.

Now I can get packages for my packages to watch my packages in my gay porn packages

...

Yes government suing the government. Lawyers on both sides all being paid by the tax payer. Round and round we go. So many shekels can be made off the goyim with all of this.

Yeah because the ACLU and the EFF are the gubmint.
Fuck off, moron.

there is nothing to lose, nothing big will happen, odds are it might even be for the best unless you are a netflix shit

Aside from monopoly deals they worked out to crush municipal competitors.
You mean the cable companies that provided little or no Internet service until the Federal government twisted their arm and subsidized them:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Service_Fund

Shill harder, corporate spambot.

(((ACLU))) and EFF.
kek good luck with that.
Don't forget to send in your donations!
Just remember, NO REFUNDS

Monopoly deals are local franchise agreements. Nothing to do with NN. Thats your local government selling you out and fucking you.

And USF had nothing to with internet until 2016. Your own link even says that. You keep trying to mix decades of Ma Bell telephone subsidies up with internet.

hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6
Gee, I wonder why the following was imposed on the telephone system, allowing a free market among DSL ISPs, whereas cable (which investment (((mysteriously))) shifted toward) has never had this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling
You're badly misreading the article, even greater priority was placed on Internet service at that time, but Internet infrastructure was a central point of its policy even in the '90s. Here's something a little more focused on its role vis-à-vis cable Internet:
alternet.org/story/148785/cable_companies'_$46+_billion_robbery_--_subscribers_have_been_ripped_off_for_$5_a_month_since_2000

What's the full context on that? A single snippet from a tweet doesn't really say much.

What's it like being this much of a corporate bootlicker?

Of course we do, you braindead American. Why do you think freedom of speech was invented and is integrated in the constitution of modern liberal democracies ? To preserve the way the printing press could be used before absolute monarchs and their friends deemed that books they don't like should be banned.

Freedom of speech is a type of regulation that goes against the interests of governments on a surface level, yet we have it because they realized that it can be beneficial to be criticized for a few reasons. most notably to (ideally) get potentially constructive feedback on their policies, and also to avoid uprisings and serious backlash because people would be tired to not being able to voice their criticisms in peace. That kind of the logic is the reason why liberalism won in the West.

GoDaddy isn't a government body.

Americans are shooting themselves in the foot by stifling innovation and competition against the GAFAM oligopoly, as the maturation of WebAssembly is around the corner and opens up a shitload of possibilities. But go on and keep choking on daddy emperor's dick, I won't cry for you.

It means that ISPs can throttle and censor when they tell you that they throttle and censor up front, they would need to prominently inform all customers in their advertising and such. tl;dr, the first amendment to the constitution (you cannot restrict ISPs from doing such a thing completely, but they must inform their customers that they're doing it). It's just a bullshit talking point made by retards.

They all get a shitload of subsidies. In fact, many of them build out their backbone under Title II, regardless of USF.

Under Title II they must lease out their last mile. There is no "monopoly" franchise agreement. The last mile must be leased.
47 U.S.C. 224 - REGULATION OF POLE ATTACHMENTS

...

Only a moron would support abolishing NN with ISPs like that.
It also makes no fucking difference whether I'm downloading 5 GB from Netflix, Mega, an Indonesian website or my home server through SSH. Abolishing NN is absurd.

No, I didn't ask for an interpretation. I asked for context.

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

None of that stuff could happen if your running a VPN.
Its not 2005 anymore. With the computing power we have today you have zero excuse for not running encrypted 100% of the time now.

i cant get anything besides DSL i pay for 7 down i am throttled to 2.5, I cant run VPN because everything is already fucking slow enough I cant ad another layer of SHIT on top. the 2.5 throttling started in September. I had a good stretch of good ping 7down for a while, but before that I was getting 500 ping to all servers no matter what and it only got fixed after months of bitching there is NO OTHER ISP

This isn't fixed by NN regulation. It's fixed by anti-trust cases from the DoJ targeting ISPs.

Retard, go back to Holla Forums. They will simply do the reverse, i.e zero-rating. How can you be so stupid to think the advancement of technology is on your side? They are MUCH smarter and richer than you moronic Amaricans celebrating the loss of power.

To make a long story short, I trust NOTHING Obama pushes.
What I also remember is a time when there were no unlimted internet access over the phone. I also remember when texting could cost you an arm and a leg if used too much. So how about some of us stop being so dependent on bandwidth hogging hobbies. Either use less of it if companies pull internet access bullshit or find work arounds to send a message to the ISP.

Why is net neutrality going away not a bad thing I haven't kept up with this and this thread seems to be a bunch of autism.

Nice FUD you got there

Because if you're an ISP, like the bots and shills infesting this thread, it means you can get a lot of money through anticompetitive practices after network neutrality stops being protected by the FCC.

I'm not saying the companies would never jew you. I am saying that anything Obama touches catches on fire. So I have doubts anything he pushes is good for anything. Nevermind that the more I here people describe net neutrality sounds awfully similar to how brain washed people describe socialism and communism. So I have my doubts internet socialism will ever be a good thing.

Just get with the times gramps

Jesus Christ, we're hitting buzzword levels shouldn't even be possible! It's not a complex issue, period.

This was quite simply regulatory intervention to preserve the status quo of the Internet, which from its beginning in the 1960s to now has been network neutrality.

Look at the lawsuits in and notice that they're all the same thing, ISPs experimenting with attempts to use their position in the network to forcibly curtail competition. Probing to see how much shit they can get away with.

Those lawsuits are what turned this into a "political" issue, because it's possible that under current law the courts might find in favor of ISPs new abusive ambitions, so legislation was proposed that would unambiguously prevent what ISPs are attempting.

Also
Look at those cases, look at FCC and judicial actions, notice that net neutrality dates back to the mid-2000s during the Dubya administration. Look at corporate lobbying groups for literally every industry other than ISPs, look at nonprofits of every kind other than ISP shill fronts, look at opinion polls and notice that not only >70% of Democrats and independents, but >70% OF REPUBLICANS are all in favor of net neutrality.

This is not a debate with points on both sides, it is not complex or confusing. It is blatant ISP shills and a few contrarian dupes, versus the entire rest of the country.

if only
give me more of that water that makes frogs gay #YOLO

You are currently the worst poster on this board.

**Reddit* :DDD

Internet is a right in Finland.

Pajeet Pai: In 2017, FCC began blocking access to their governmental website from some networks.

Can't post webm here, but a proof is at the end: mewch.net/.media/464d94cef6c2955489a45915719b2414-videowebm.webm or mewchqgmqfe6zhnu.onion/.media/464d94cef6c2955489a45915719b2414-videowebm.webm

How am i supposed to check the FCC details on my Librem hardware?

Oh noes! Google and Facebook will have to pay ISPs to make sure they don't get throttled, so their precious customers can still access their "free" platform where they can harvest user data and be fed advertisement. Is there no justice in this world?
In every fucking field