NET NEUTRALITY BTFO

Point being the name is misleading you fucking nonce.

Net neutrality doesn't exist, people already pay for different speeds of internet. If the FCC didn't enforce monopolies it wouldn't even be an issue anyway (despite pretending to break them up)

The regulations in question apply to paying more for high bandwidth on specific websites or for the websites themselves being coerced into paying the ISP to provide high speeds to their customers for their specific website.

Again, no ISP has experimented with such a system, to my knowledge.

I don't think that's what anyone means by net neutrality kiddo. I think people are talking about Comcast offering a "select plan" on the cheap and you only get access to Netflix, Facebook and some main stream news sites (((because that's what anyone normal really needs))) everyone on pol with half a brain should be quick to say no to anti net neutrality schemes. They're only going to fuck you in the long run

People pay for bandwidth. I think net neutrality means they can't prioritize specific traffic to good goy established sites instead of indie sites. For example they would put infowars in the bottomest of the bottom tier while cnn.com gets max access.

I think Verizon said something about maybe charging Netflix more.

Because bandwidth is dirt fucking cheap and people in the US pay as much as ten times as other places in the world for internet a tenth of the speed because of monopolies in the US.

Its also the opposite of what you mentioned, what they've been talking about is charging netflix and google etc, more for the internet they provide to those companies

It's still theoretic if they haven't done it.

What they said:

It's all about making controversial (think "fake news") sites harder for normies to get to. Slow em down to the point where impatient clickbait sheeple don't even bother.

oh, and Time Warner blocked Hulu for a day or so because it competed with their cable services, but unblocked it after massive outrage.

Laying fiber optic cables through municipalities subject to land-use regulations and providing customer support, on the other hand, are not dirt fucking cheap.

That's not exactly the same as what I referred to. That falls under anti-competitive practices and would be subject to anti-trust law, a separate matter.

That doesn't answer my question.

When the government says "Net neutrality" they don't mean net neutrality.

It is more about companies double and tripple dipping , charging on both ends and denying service, extorting higher fees and not upgrading their networks.

See

Net neutrality being destroyed can mean a lot of things, but once (((fake news))) at right wing sites becomes (((out of control))) then you can bet that access to 8ch is going to be stupidly slow.

You guys love conspiracy theorizing, and this one seems so obvious to me.

What do people mean by this?

They mean neutral in the sense that they won't get involved and it is up to the provider and consumer. Basically the kikes are given free reign to fuck the goy. If they took sides they wouldn't be neutral. Why do people hate freedom?

And so projects the jew, watch him attempt to derail by using this reply as leverage.

I could of sworn there was a big reddit stink against net neutrality, or am I remembering it wrong and they were for it

Yeah net neutrality is the closest thing to government inforced freedom so telecom companies can't fuck you more than they already do… What's not to like?

The most correct answer to your question is that high bandwidth users incur minimal additional costs to the ISP. The overwhelming majority of costs an ISP incurs in providing connections to customers is in laying cables and circuits. The bandwidth itself is very cheap, well below $0.01/GB.

An individual who uses 250GB/mo of data, which I believe is close to the bandwidth cap Comcast has experimented with, costs Comcast less than an additional $2.50/mo to serve. Being a high use customer also does not degrade their infrastructure any more quickly. It is far different from, for example, driving a car for more miles than another driver.

The theory behind charging more for using more bandwidth is to shift infrastructure and maintenance costs to those who use the service most. Whether or not this is "right" or "a good business model" is subjective.

You wanna see cucked internet check out Canada.

Here in Canada the taxpayers paid for the cables and we still get extortionate prices for our internet.

reddit is pro net neutrality, one of the few things they're right about

They were definitely for it, and yeah there was a big stink about it when some bill was trying to pass I think…

Explain?

Did taxpayers pay for all of the cables, or did the ISP have to cover local connections costs from the node to individual houses?

This makes a significant difference, as a single bundle from Calgary to Edmonton uses far less cable and is far cheaper to lay than all the cables in Edmonton which hook from the nodes to individual houses.

Street-shitters are incredibly cheap and are only technically "customer service".

I am REALLY FUCKIN' TIRED of these deceiving names cucked politicians put on these bills.

I can't speak for your ISP, but customer support for my ISP is located in the US. And when a customer has a problem, all US ISPs have to send out an American to resolve it.

Net neutrality is useless. Giving a powerless organization like the FCC fake power was a stupid idea to begin with. AT&T and others already ignore "net neutrality" and the FCC can't do shit but yell at them about it. Net neutrality was just a way to keep the dumb fuck redditors from demanding that these massive companies be split up.

But you never had legal net neutrality and none of that happened, why is it that it an issue now other than big ISPs saying they're going to charge more for netflix? why does the fcc need even more regulatory power?

Net Neutrality is the one good thing they actually named correctly. Removing net neutrality is basically taking a lolberg 'da free market will fix it goy XDD' stance on internet censorship.

Don't forget the Patriot Act.

Because netflix can afford to pay more. That means when you type 'netflix.com' into your browser to watch your cuckold shows, it will be quick and snappy. However, a bad goyim site like infomeme or daily stormer will have dick drip load times because it's metaphorically put to the back of the bus when it comes to load priority. This is the way they're enacting censorship.

Ya cuz the government is all of the sudden concerned for our well-being, and not serving the telecom corporations. How fucking stupid are you people?

Thread.

Here's how it works in my area:
Step 1: Go though a Pajeet telling you to do basic shit from a manual for an hour straight
Step 2: Get transferred to somebody who actually knows very basic IT
Step 3: Have them run diagnostic tests on their end, in which they find nothing wrong
Step 4: Guy has to talk to somebody with an IT degree
Step 5: After 2 hours, get told that their routing servers are experiencing some difficulties, and will be fixed shortly
Step 6 Repeat all these steps every month

But thats literally the opposite of what they said. Plus net neutrality legislation allows the government to apply the regulations they applied to tv to the internet

Using the internet in non-approved ways would become very slow and possibly unstable. They want everyone to be able to access Facebook, google, youtube, etc while choking off traffic to outside sites like 8ch.

The real problem is a few massive corporations controlling all internet access. Shitty regulations enforced by the toothless FCC is not the answer to this problem. Break up the monopolies and create competition

The only people who support net neutrality are fucking kids who think there was something wrong with the internet before 2014.

The internet worked fine, and in fact, was a much better place (albeit for reasons completely irrelevant to net neutrality).

There is no reason to give the FCC any authority over the internet. There never was a problem, and it's quite confusing and somewhat humorous to hear people try to describe what exactly it is they wanted with net neutrality.

It is a textbook version of a solution to an imaginary problem. Just a bunch of paranoid people causing more harm than good with legislation.

The FCC has teeth alright, they're just aimed at our dicks.

Cox?

Good luck implementing this worldwide. Not all data is equal on the internet and that is a bullshit concept. By the way, Tim Wu is a fuckin' Democrap. You should have known this by now dumbass. No one is equal on this earth no matter what these mentally ill fucks tell you.

Fuck, I forgot about that.

That's the real-world application of the removal of net neutrality. You seem to have some missing information, user.

I see you know my pain, brother.

If that were the case it wouldn't have so much support in both houses. The real reason is far more nefarious: censorship.
See

net neutrality was not law

Was any ISP even thinking about throttling different websites before the giant campaign for Net Neutrality?

Because I don't remember them even proposing the idea.

I know you just filtered in from reddit, but you can hush when you don't know what you're talking about. This is going to be underhanded censorship. It doesn't have to be worldwide since the states is the only country that it matters regarding free speech really. Fucking over sites like Infomeme indirectly will fuck us and our bad goy thinking by making sites harder to access.

Anything short of a Teddy Roosevelt full on Monopoly Buster in the tech industry isn't going to free up the Internet unforuntately, but no lawmaker wants to touch those kinds of laws since the fucking 20's.

No. This is precisely why Republicans ask why it's even necessary. Democrats want to empower the FCC for theoretical reasons to forcibly maintain a status quo no one has left.

Do you have any evidence of this occurring? I don't recall this ever happening. I think you are making up an imaginary problem that never existed.

But I'll sit back and wait for you to submit some evidence.

Why do you think they're chomping at the bit to remove these rules if they're not thinking about implementing it? Do you having a brain in your head?

Do you really think that if a government/corporation has the power to be corrupt and stifle opposition, that they wouldn't make use of it?

Net Neutrality Mega Thread 2
archive.today/54PUF

Also, not to derail, but I'm noticing the number of images and quality responses in this archive compared to the low quality images responses in just this thread. We have to step up posting craftsmanship.

The same laws in question have been used several times since the 1920s. Companies make a strong effort to avoid violating said antitrust laws for fear of what the government would do to them.

Recent examples include AT&T Corporation (1982, broken up) and Microsoft (2001, settled with required changes to business practices).

Didn't Time Warner just merge with AT&T? I think that will be the first anti-trust case imo.

Listen kid, I know what the fuck I'm talking about. Net neutrality is jew shit and was created so we could argue and fight about it. It is a non-issue like which of the 100 genders they come up with should use the which bathroom.

OK then, if you think all data is equal, post ALL of your personal information right here, right now. Social security, bank accounts, address, everything since you think ALL data is equal. Net neutrality benefits your enemies too dumbass not just you and your libshit ideas.

I absolutely do, which is why I am against giving the FCC control of the internet via Net Neutrality.

Well I'm just saying that FCC being broken up wouldn't somehow make the monopolies and trusts go away. Lack of regulation doesn't somehow mean the power leaves, and I wish Lazy Fairy Market cucks would understand that.

Even the best attempt at a competitor in recent years, Google Fiber, has basically been cancelled, or at the very least, been shifted to a much more scaled down project at a much later date.

We're between a rock and a hard place, giving control of the internet to the government or to lefty-central tech companies.

It's pending government approval.

Google Fiber is still in the process of being offered to more municipalities. The primary problem they face are local and state laws which make it very difficult to get land-use rights to lay cable and provide service. It's these same laws which create the virtual monopolies in most municipalities today.

Your post didn't make a lick of sense. I hope you have more critical thinking ability than that, but I fear you don't. Again, go back to reddit if you think ignorance of an issue can be overcome with bluster alone. I don't know what you mean by 'data equality' when this will be used to throttle sites like this one and other bad goyim sites.

This. Net neutrality doesn't solve any actually existing problems but still gives more power to regulators. It's the worst of both worlds.

Blaming free market capitalists for being unable to unfuck a system of monopolies created entirely through government regulation is a tad bit retarded regardless of what your preferred economic model is. The FCC made this problem and giving them more power isn't going to make it go away.

I have said this before in other threads and I'll say it again, if you want to prevent the left, weak people in general, from infesting the tech industry, you have to find a way how to make it unappealing to them.

Jesus christ someone gas this jew. Net Neutrality is bad for everyone. Why don't you explain in detail why it's good here? All I see are ways the government, jews, etc. can manipulate it. What makes YOU think that it will ONLY benefit the people? The link is below so why don't you read instead.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

I already have, look up to my earlier posts. You're the one who failed to explain why it's bad other than that it is government regulation. I enjoy food regs on meat production so not all regulation is bad. Now it's your turn to explain in more detail why net neutrality is bad. Again, leave the bluster for reddit.

Because net neutrality is just a plan to regulate the Internet. Contrary to your retarded trust in obvious kike lies, the true purpose of net neutrality is to censor anything the kikes declare to be 'hate speech' or 'fake news' while pumping Wikipedia, porn, and Facebook into everyone's computers.

Most of which were bought and paid for by the companies in question.

Are we lolbergs again? Bad regulation can happen, that's a given, but do you think giving control of the internet to the kikes in the tech industry is any better? Maybe with Trump we could get some decent freedom net neutrality laws.

The "net neutrality" that the God Emperor is against is some bullshit kiked perversion of it. I don't remember the specifics but being against it is a good thing.

They already do and they have for years and years. Their different tiers of service are an implementation of this fast lane - slow lane concept.

You're going to have to go into detail because I have a semi-good understanding of the issue and I can't really see what it's bad unless you think lolberg is the way to go, which I (and many others here) don't.

Decent ISP regulation wouldn't look much like net neutrality. It'd involve breaking up some of the bigger players, forcing companies that are both content publishers and ISPs to split (Comcast is probably the worst offender in that regard), and reducing regional monopolies.

It doesn't look like that's the way this is going, or would I be wrong in making that assumption?

It probably won't be going that way.

True Net Neutrality needs a bottom-up approach but no one in establishment wants that to happen.

There's no pressing need for said regulations. Said regulations have a huge probability of shutting us out if you actually understand how the Internet works and how business works. When you can point your finger at an actual example of a real world problem that this like regulation solves, then you can talk.

No, we probably won't see much progress in that direction under Trump (we might see Comcast targeted if Trump continues his war on the MSM, but I'd be surprised if very much else of importance happened). That's fine with me. I didn't vote for Trump to fix ISPs, I voted for Trump to fix our demographics.

'Like' was supposed to be 'kike.' Goddamn autocorrect.

Why would net neutrality shut us out? No one ever explains that to me. I see how removing net neutrality would however.

Fast lane - slow lane does not refer to offering different speeds to the entire internet at different prices. It refers to offering different speeds to specific portions of the internet at increased prices, or charging specific portions of the internet to allow your customers faster access speeds.

As a set of examples, consider the following.

A company offers two plans. Plan A provides 5mbps download speeds and 1mbps upload speeds for $30/mo. Plan B provides 50mbps download speeds and 10mbps upload speeds for $60/mo.
This is not fast lane - slow lane service. Instead, these are two unique services offered by the same company, each of which offer consistent speeds to the entire internet.

A company offers two plans. Plan A provides 50mbps download speeds and 10mbps upload speeds for $50/mo. However, it is specifically advertised that popular video streaming websites will received connection speeds of 5mbps down. Plan B provides the same base speeds but extends the 50mbps download speed to popular video streaming websites as well for $70/mo.
This is one example of fast lane - slow lane service. You will receive different speeds to different parts of the internet. The only way to reconcile these differences are with additional fees.

A company offers as many plans as it wants. These plans come at any combination of speed and price. However, the company tells popular video streaming websites that they make up a significant part of traffic from customers, putting strain on their infrastructure. As such, the company tells the popular video streaming websites that they can either pay a monthly fee for their customers to receive full speeds, or else connections to the websites will be throttled.
This is another example of fast lane - slow lane service. You will receive different speeds to different parts of the internet. You can buy whatever service you want from your ISP, but you have no control over which websites are throttled.

that's not an argument friendo, regulations for the sake of regulations are grinding the west into dust. We went decades without net neutrality, we didn't need it. You might say net neutrality prevents censorship (something that hasn't been a problem prior to net neutrality regs) but actually gives the government the tools to censor, just like they can censor TV. In reality, net neutrality as a concept was pushed by big companies like Google, who if they set up their fiber network would have been in place to sweep through their competition because of net neutrality laws. The US needs an overhaul to its infrastructure and net neutrality is the soviet bread line response to an aging network system. Many regions are experiencing massive congestion in the net and charging netflix extra money because of it is the entire reason this issue blew up.

They're concerned that increased government control of the web can censor right-wing wrongthink. If a left-wing government theoretically happens to get back in power, then they will purge it. See how pro-net netruality sites like Google, Twitter, and Reddit censor their content.

You didn't raise a specific point about net neutrality, simply vague generalities about corporations and regulations. Corporations are pro-net neutrality because they don't want to pay more, that's it. That doesn't mean it's not good for us – it is, for different reasons. I don't think you grasp the problem.

Are people fucking retarded? Net neutrality is what has to be protected. It is the way things currently are. You're confusing net neutraliy with whatever they plan to implement next.

Fucking this. People here have some serious reading comprehension problems.

Because it's exactly as the OP says. "I can't wait to pay more for slower internet".

Because net neutrality wasn't needed before a kike thought to charge a premium for accessing sites.

Because the actual regulation just hands over control of the Internet to the FCC, which already censors radio broadcasts. 'Hate speech' will be gone. (((Comcast))) and (((Verizon))) would like to censor the Internet as well, look at who runs their boards.

In the future, Internet will be fully peer-to-peer. This is inherently contrary to net neutrality. Net neutrality would centralize the Internet, and then cement that structure, outlawing all forms of information transmission. If we tried to route around the censorship, we'd immediately be shut down under your net neutrality laws.

They aren't written with free speech in mind.

But again, the onus is still on you to identify a single, real-world problem that your kike legislation would solve.

That's not net neutrality, idiot. Net neutrality is that if I have 100 Mbps and you have 100 Mbps we can communicate with each other at 100 Mbps and the ISP can't interfere. Being against it means you think the kikes should be able to say that this user is a bad goy, let's throttle his site to 56 k.

Holla Forums is for this because people are still half stuck in their libertarian phase and have this delusion that NSDAP somehow didn't dictate the order for its subjects just because it wasn't a commie party and they didn't do so needlessly.

Preventing companies from forcing companies to pay more for better load speed, effectively shutting down non-establishment sites. That's the central issue. I don't see how you're not grasping that. Your ignorance about p2p only betrays your ignorance about this topic.

I tried engaging you reasonably, but now you're filtered.

This has never happened. ISPs had plenty of chances to do this before NN was made an official part of regulation, and they never did.

It hasn't happened yet. Netflix was throttled until they paid more. Did you not know that?

The point is that the US has really fucking slow internet and that retards using netflix are chewing up more than half the data going through the net. Netflix and google etc blame the isps for not having better networks and refuse to pay more for the service. No other service in the world acts like this, and it reminds me of fat people having to buy two plane tickets because they take up two seats and then running to the government for help. The absence of net neutrality has literately never censored anything but the FCC censors shit all the time. Pretending that charging money for usage of net is censorship is leftist sophistry

Until they set up tier packages and refuse to give bad goyim websites like this one and daily stormer any sort of upgraded service. They won't ban speech, just make it load at dial up speed. Good luck uploading a 12 mb webm.

Our networks SHOULD be better. Even the top speeds of most ISPs are shit-tier compared to the rest of the world.

Bingo.

This is one of the most retarded things I have ever read on this board. It's entirely backwards. A peer-to-peer solution can not work if the connections to your peers are throttled to 56 k because that isn't included on the Zogbook package.

It's only the fact that neutrality has been somewhat the norm until now that means we have any decentralized networks to begin with.

Kek

We won't have ISPs. The structure of the Internet itself will be P2P, not the Tor-style of P2P over a semi-centralized infrastructure that you're using. 'Net neutrality' makes such P2P infrastructure illegal.

It's sad how little you know about the internet or the technology behind it.

Buddy, I'm posting from a non neutrality country and I get lower rates and higher speed than you do. You're falling for the corporate shills bait, isps are concerned with profit and hitting up facebook and google for more money is profitable. Throttling sites with a few thousand users that have less than .00001% of their bandwidth is not their concern, if it becomes a problem than we can regulate it later if necessary. its not like this is some massive constitutional once in a life time thing.

We have net neutrality, that's why sites like this one can even exists!

What this is all about is that this isn't formalized in any law and an ISP could start throttling bad goy sites tomorrow if they wanted to. Now that kikes would like to grab internet power by pretending to be making a net neutrality law is fucking obvious but that doesn't change what net neutrality actually is and the fact that you are retarded if you don't want it.

Yeah, we will. If you think enough people are going to invest in what is needed to establish an independent infrastructure network then you have no idea what actually goes into such a thing. If you think pleabs are going to participate in the scary pedophile network they've heard about on TV you even more delusional.

I've changed my mind. You have to be a kike shill. You can't possibly be this retarded.

Having your interests occasionally align with the corporate fags isn't a sign that the thing you align on is bad by virtue of the alignment. That is sophistry. It will be a problem since companies won't want the stigma of connecting users to sites like this one. Then you'll have sjews crying foul to the ISPs that they allow literal nazi websites access to their fiber and we will be summarily banned. If you think that ISPs will go to bat for us then you're smoking the peace pipe.

wow you're a complete fucking retard who has no idea how the physical infrastructure of the internet works

ISPs don't want the responsibility of regulating what their users can access. If they show they can do that and are willing to do that, all of a sudden they're going to be required to do that for a bunch of shit and that's going to cost them money both in the extra labor necessary and in getting sued when they fuck up and don't block something. ISPs really, really don't want to lose their safe harbor protection from stuff like the DMCA.

DUDE P2P LMAO

But hey at least it's reasonably fast and reliable. I used to be a fibre tech and I was sitting in my van having lunch when some bitch came up and started banging on my window. I rolled it down and she started raging about how I was wasting taxpayers money sitting around, I told her to get the fuck off my van before I call the police.

If only she knew how much taxpayers money is wasted higher up the chain, lol.

They won't have to step in, sites like this one and other websites already get by on a pubestring budget so they won't be able to afford the higher connection tiers and thus will be censured via economic means.

Filtered.

This post is tremendously, painfully stupid. I can't imagine anything you've said about net neutrality could be worth a damn.

OK, since no one here has any fucking clue what net neutrality is, let me explain.

When you buy 500mb/s Internet from Comcast, you don't get 500mb/s, you get that MAXIMUM, not guaranteed. During days when it's high usage, you get more close to 50mb/s. Comcast will never tell you if you're in a high usage time.

Next. Comcast has a Netflix competitor that they run, called Xfinity. What they did was approach Netflix and say "we will intentionally slow you unless you pay us", since Netflix is the more popular platform.
Net neutrality stops that.

Remember those Internet packages we saw on Holla Forums, fuck i had forgotten about them, where It'd say "Streamer: pay 15.99 for all your Netflix needs, gamer:just 3.99 more" blah blah.

Net neutrality covers that too, where it explicitly states that all websites MUST be treated the same with Internet access.

So, you're suggesting that ISPs will not be throttling specific sites (either for containing bad stuff or for using a bunch of traffic), but will instead have a whitelist of stuff that doesn't get throttled?
That's even less plausible.

Corporate shills keep using this meme. It's the same amount of traffic no matter what happens. You paid for that usage no matter how you use it, throttling is unethical.

Why is that not plausible? Comcast already did it to Netflix.

This thread is pure unadultered retardation.

*unadulterated

The ironing

that's an anti trust issue, you have plenty of laws for dealing with that.

You argue like a Jew. You say Holla Forums and other dissident sites will be throttled because ISPs "don't want the stigma". I respond by saying they don't want to be saddled with the legal burdens associated with regulating their customers' access to websites. You apparently agree with me that your claim was retarded, so all of a sudden you change positions and it's about sites not being allowed onto a whitelist unless they pay up. Now you're back to ISPs targeting specific sites again, which I already explained isn't a threat to us.

You seem to miss my argument every time so let me see if expounding a bit doesn't help. If you think that ISPs don't want the ability to cause all their websites to pay up, not just the specific large offenders like Netflix, then you're woefully mistaken. The way they will do this is by setting up different tier packages that companies will have to buy into to have a certain level of service. They don't need to single out websites because everyone will now have to play by this system by purchasing a tier that they can afford contrasted with the level of service they want to provide. That would mean all websites would have to purchase some level of service or else fall into the default, standard package that is likely to be africa-tier. There is no need to single out websites because the economic burden is being placed on everyone. Do you feel me? The ISP throttling argument is a secondary argument and apart from the first, though plausible as well. This whole fake news meme is setting up the precedent for this. A site will get labeled fake news and an ISP will feel the need to throttle it since legislation is flying through congress condemning this stuff.

OPEN UP THE MARKET
INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING

Kikebook or Jewtube could instantly destroy any ISP that tried this by refusing to pay (and why would they pay–their users are more locked in to them than their ISPs).
Again, you're equivocating between whitelisting payers and blacklisting offenders. A lot of the actual fake news sites (not infowars/zerohedge-style dissident sites, but places that are actually making up clickbait) are involved with ad networks that would totally pay up to get on a whitelist. If the ISPs specifically says "no, we're blocking/throttling you regardless", they're potentially taking on a huge regulatory burden.

Underrated tbh

ISPs have regional monopolies so, if anything, users are more locked into the ISPs than anyone else. ISPs work together to give each other relative regional monopolies so there goes your argument there. Why did Netflix pay up if they could 'destroy any ISP by refusing to pay'? Kikebook and Jewtube absolutely would pay us because their website loading even a bit slower would deter users.

Point taken about the second part.

ISPs would then have throttle competing isps using their networks to maintain a blockade which would be an anti trust nightmare.

"Net neutrality" is a scam, retard.

Netflix doesn't have anywhere near the power Facebook does, because Netflix is still competing with torrent sites. Facebook has no competition among normalfags. Google+ is dead and every other social network is very niche.

The government gets a lot of shit, and much of it is deserved, but it is at least subject to competing pressures. With regard to net neutrality, the pressures are the bribes and promises of telecom companies on one side, versus shit PR and major corporate money on the other.

Imagine you're running a bandwidth provider. Under current rules, you have to provide bandwidth to any customer who asks for it at the same price, regardless of content. That means Google is buying every bit at the same rate as the tiny little hosting provider who works out of his spare room. No discrimination and no favor trading.

Without those rules in place, there is nothing stopping Verizon from throttling the shit out of Netflix, or charging them a lot more for "faster" service. If you run a blog where you criticize AT&T – perhaps you point out the corrupt relationship they have with Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia – your server could mysteriously slow way the fuck down and lose traffic, to say nothing of being unable to realistically load streaming video or whatever. Move your blog to a hosting provider, such as WordPress, and congratulations – you must now abide by their rules regarding content. And they definitely can't afford to piss off AT&T.

Is Sprint pushing for some tax break to pass through Congress? Are there a lot of good government types opposing it? Easy fix: Sprint asks Google to reorder its search results to exclude opponents of the tax break. If Google says no, suddenly it takes 30 seconds to load a simple search and Chrome keeps returning errors because the server takes too long.

YouTube is a fun place to watch videos. It would be a damn shame if anything happened to it and more people turned to DirecTV, which is owned by AT&T. I wonder if some smart blade down at AT&T HQ in Dallas has thought of that?

The trouble and expense of providing bandwidth makes a natural monopoly inevitable. Even wireless has to run off of something, and towers are pricey too. That means every area is pretty much stuck with one Tier-1 provider. And anyplace there's a monopoly, the government has an interest in regulating it so it's fair. It would be really depressing if endemic anti-government paranoia led us to support tossing the keys to the chicken coop to the Tier-1 wolves who've been asking for them all these years.

No way this could go wrong :^)

Right. The correct thing to do is break up the monopolies. Government can invest in expanding internet infrastructure as well.

Except Americans are retarded and pay for the infrastructure of the ISPs through their taxes, so ISPs are literally doing nothing.

It's a Jew paradise: get tax money to build infrastructure, then tell people your infrastructure is too expensive and start charging extra. Literally money for nothing.

Reminder that George Soros supports net neutrality and his fronts and paid shills have been pushing the net neutrality meme for years now. He has spent hundreds of millions on it.

For shame, Holla Forums

Then him and I have something in common

Yes you underaged faggot

Why do you think torrenting is dead? Anyone can download shit at high speeds today, tomorrow without NN you couldn't stream faggots on youtube playing vidya.

Use your goddamn head.

No, you don't. He's supporting it because it's good for his agenda. You support it because you're a low IQ retard from reddit.

Hitler didn't eat animals, why do you?

I feel like it has been this way for a while though… ads always seem to load super fast… netflix works great in every house and then everything else online in that neighbourhood gets laggy

Explain to me why net neutrality is bad then, since I'm such a dummy.

There aren't anyone in this thread who even understands what net neutrality is apart from

It's funny republicans supported the patriot act, sopa etc yet you'll take their word because MUH BIG BAD GOVERNMENT and Trump!

Oh wait, NOTHING EVER HAPPENED
THE GOVERNMENT NEVER CENSORED YOU AUTISTS THAT MEMED TRUMP INTO OFFICE ( wouldn't the evil government have stopped you???)

Keep spouting off about something you know nadda fucking thing about.

Chances are we'll see good results just from trump not letting corruption and regulatory capture go wild. These companies haven't been told one no in the past twenty years.

No he wasn't implying it he was straight telling you to your face you retard.

Thanks, user. Criminally unchecked dubs.

Holla Forums has been 100% newfags for 18 months now

Gee, I wonder why a microstate would have cheaper infrastructure and faster internet.

Gee, I dunno Shlomo. I am sure ZOG and Obama and Soros all have our best interests at heart.

What you're suggesting is that a mysteriously well-funded entity called "government" should lay 17 fiber optic lines into towns that only need one, and then let the highest 17 bidders compete for ownership of them. What happens next is that one winner, almost certainly the one with a huge international (or Saudi-funded, or Jewish) conglomerate behind it, offers unsustainably low rates for service to undercut its rivals. That winner then buys the remaining 16 redundant cables and tears out 15 of them. Then it starts hiking rates and punishing anyone who points out the scam on their blog.

Even in the best case scenario, deregulation of a natural monopoly in bandwidth results in multiple overlapping infrastructure projects that pile up insane amounts of cables and towers in places that are already fully served. It's as silly as building one power plant on every block like Starbucks, or wasting resources building one toll road on stilts over another so consumers will have a choice in which road to use.

The only real fix is to pave the interstate, set rules for things like maximum gradient and drainage, and then let anybody drive on it if they're legally allowed to operate a vehicle. That way, there's only one road, which is way cheaper than a hundred, and everybody can use it to drive to work, school, Grandma's house, or the local meth lab.

Just gonna throw this out here but you lot know that this isn't the ONLY internet right?

This is just an internet and they are very easy to make if you have enough hands on dick. We could easily create a web deeper than deep, they already exist by the hundreds across deeper groups.

It'd be pretty easy. Why don't we give it a go?

Because current ISPs and major tech companies are not every inch as Jewish as ZOG is? You can trust none of those rats.

Oh yeah because it's so much better now that they choose not to compete with each other because they realized that's more profitable than competition, right?

...

They didn't choose shit, nigger. The tier-1 providers own infrastructure. That infrastructure is parceled out by geography. It isn't like insurance companies, you fucking retard.

I work on P2P video broadcast protocols for a living, kike-shill. I know a thing or two about how the Internet works.

Also, you're not going to get your precious net communism with a Trump administration anyway, so kill yourself.

That's an incredibly thorough over-simplification of what actually happens.
What would be more accurate is that there's tolls on half the access points of said roads, and you have to pay more to use the freeway over the country roads.
Not only that, but the toll operators would be responsible for driveway maintenance, and sometimes neighbors end up driving over your lawn and there's no real fix for it besides "use a different driveway lul". If there would be flooding, it could take a good month or two before anybody gets out to repair the road, and whoever you call about it or any other issue really is some retarded fucking mud that doesn't even know what concrete is.
Oh, and you have to pay a monthly base fee to use the roads apart from taxes. Have fun.

Through dick, internet.

BECAUSE TEXTS ARE SENT ALONG THE CARRIER SIGNAL THAT IS ALWAYS SENDING DATA ANYWAY. THEY LITERALLY COST NOTHING FOR THE PROVIDER.
Bandwidth is IDENTICAL to texts.

Prove your prowess by explaining why p2p isn't feasible now but will be later. Not in vague generalities, specifics.

YOU ARE RETARDED. LEARN WHAT WORDS MEAN.

Good goy.
My tech support is in my country and my Internet is still cheaper and better than yours

There's some pretty neat protocols that haven't really been explored, some hobbyists keep this one open called GOPHER for example. It's a kind of P2P server-sharing where you can host a "gopher hole" with various text available for access.
I remember seeing this one archive of a 2ch-like textboard that was hosted on there.

FCC Republicans confirm they’ll act to topple net neutrality as quickly as possible
Net neutrality is firmly on the chopping block in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election.
December 20th, 2016 by Joel Hruska
on extremetech.com

ttps://www.extremetech.com/internet/241391-fcc-republicans-confirm-theyll-act-topple-net-neutrality-quickly-possible
archive.is/WetSZ

Breddy sure it's been for centuries, and that's just in Burgerland.

Hilariously, this news piece uses the same talking points and flawed reasoning of all the shills ITT.

You're the one shilling by pretending you're a p2p programmer, faggot.

No laying fiber is not cheap that's why the government has been giving billions to telecom companies to get them to build out their service. To whichbtheyve pocketed the cash build thing like verizion Fios which services a fraction of what they said it would if the goverment would just help with the cost. This is across the board, they get tons of funding and piss it all away and don't deliver on what they said they would. All while rising the price and capping data like 1s and 0s are a finite source

...

Gopher isn't terrible but like TOR I'm always a little skeptical but all in all it'd be better than nothing if we had to go down the hole and text based

Obviously the government should be taking them to court for breach of contract

Though one thing I can't stress enough: START WORKING ON IT NOW.

Don't wait for the fire to consume the house before calling the Right wing Safety Squads.

Wow, it's just like the Muslims that flee their shitholes then try to push the policies that made their countries bad in the countries they move to. Maybe you shits will finally learn to understand the consequences of the policies you push and stop being the blight of the internet.

Wow, it's just like the kikes that cry when they hit you then try to make it look like they are the victim and reasonable one. Maybe you kikes will finally learn to understand the consequences of being complacent, just let the internet die out already.

Just like Muslims.

You're falling for a trick mate. This is just like when sjws ask "how can anyone be against peace and love?" Net neutrality is doublespeak.

Explain how

NTGB for all intents and purposes we do, you fucking nigger. Tell me what sites are noticeably throttled today? What services are gimped to the point where people will try to move to competing ones? Net neutrality is not a law, moron, its a fucking practice.

It has been explained at least three times, so yes, read the fucking thread.

Kill yourself please. One of the bigger problems is that most of our telecom companies are ZOG-bats and that regulations might actually be necessary to keep them from jewing us, you fucking muppet.

Saying that it is bad to enforce standard rules for internet distribution, being in a fair manner that it should be, is akin to saying that there should be no voter ID laws. It's like you want the leftists to steamroll your everything using all the dirty tricks while you sit here whining on a Mongolian cave painting board about kikes jewing you and everyone around you.

Lolbertards are a cancer upon this Earth.

Nice projection there, faggot. You are the one thinking net neutrality has anything to do with internet censorship or the likes. That's as retarded as basing an argument for or against patriotism on the patriot act just because it has patriotism in the name.

The patriot act does not define patriotism and neither does any potential kikery on the FCC's part define net neutrality. I personally think patriotism is shit just so no one has to bother with trying to shove words in my mouth.

underrated

That's not net neutrality, that's what ISP have managed to get people like
(who's a faggot, who knew?) make you believes net neutrality is.

Net neutrality is about the ISP not PURPOSELY DAMAGING NETWORKS then, selling it to you.

It's not complicated it's basic electricity. Electricity goes from point A to B the fastest it can. Internet is electricity, when you're connected to it you get ALL of the internet the fastest the electricity can move from point A to B.
Doesn't matter whether point A is Google or Holla Forums or whatever and point B your home, your phone, your work.
Only thing impacting the speed is the physical quality (copper lines, fiber optics, etc…) and the length of the path from A to B.
It's a basic physical phenomenon.

Then the network is not build point to point, there isn't a big cable from Mr. Google where each ISP are connected and a small one where Mr. Holla Forums is. It's a gigantic… web.
At each intersection of the web there is a router.
A router is a very simple thing, all it does is saying "I'm X.X.X.X" (it's address) and ask it's neighboring routers who they are (their address) what it's connected too (your address) and what other addresses the routers know. Then by using the very basic principle of electricity (which goes always from the fastest point from A to B), the routers class the address in orders from the fastest they respond to the lowest.
Then they route packets, which is again very basic, computer ask router "where is X.X.X.X", router says "that way" and send traffic towards the address or the faster router that shared that address or "don't know".

That's it.
That's how Internet works.

The whole idea that you could get "faster" if you paid for accessing specific sites is retarded because it would mean your ISP is PURPOSEFULLY SABOTAGING routers for them to loose traffic when they're asked about specific addresses to "slow" them.

It also mean that they will all implement deep packet inspection chinese style… well yeah routers have no fucking clue what are in the packets, just that the packet want to go from A to B. But A is your computer (are you watching Holla Forums like the terrorist that your are? Or Youtube?) and B is a flip server array in the jungle or a megadata center in the US, it's your computer that translate packets into data.
So, how the fuck else are they gonna bill you by site?

They can very well make you pay by bandwidth usage (number of packets are sent and received)and they do, there is nothing wrong with that from a neutrality PoV. Neutral means working properly not anything else.

What they're basically proposing is equivalent to USPS losing 1 out of 3 package from Amazon unless you pay USPS extra for them not to lose them when you order from Amazon, because of Amazon they use their trucks a lot.
It's called racketeering.

TL;DR: Libertarians and OP are retarded, the whole thing is a pretense to even more societal control, water is wet.

Double checked

Being regulated by the FCC whose chairman is invariably a telecom insider is good why exactly?

The whole thing is a tool to censor the internet. You fell for the fear mongering propaganda. Burn the whole thing to the ground. Net neutrality gives the government authority to lean on ISPs to shut down and block domains.

No, nigger. Net neutrality means an ISP can't give advantage to traffic coming from one server over another. So if someone wants 8ch.net, they get it as fast as Holla Forums's server can deliver. Without net neutrality an ISP can slow down undesirable websites. This can be advantageous for the ISP if for instance they partner up with company A so that video from A is fast but video from B is always slow. Most users won't know it's the ISPs fault and will switch to A even if B is otherwise better because for all they know B is slow.
Anything else the FCC can do is not related to net neutrality. You could have net neutrality even without the FCC for fucks sake.

...

so pretty much, without net neutrality DDoSing by microsoft google facebook twitter and the MSM would be legal and a common business practice, meaning that nobody else could compete if they need Internet to compete and can't afford DDoS protection?

Routers wouldn't just drop packets from low priority sites. Throttling would not be directed at any particular site but would be a side effect of having to yield to high priority traffic. Sites would pay so that they don't default to the lowest priority, which, unless the router has too many packets in the queue already, won't drop any packets. The effect is not quite the same as intentionally losing packets. Many in here don't understand that, without net neutrality, it's not small sites being censored directly but big sites paying to be given priority over anything that's not paying huge sums.

No need for deep packet inspection since IP packets contain the source and destination addresses. It's right there in the part that's normally processed by routers.

...

A dictatorship can't have Internet if it wants to remain in power.

I'm surprised it took this long. What better way to control what people think than to limit what they have access to online in this day and age? The brexot referendum, trump winning, etc…people are a little too free for some tastes. I would expect these media conglomerates to do more to control the masses.

Because they are kikes or have been subverted by kikes.

Net Neutrality = Not legal to censor (by slowing access to) "fake news" or sites like 8ch.

No net neutrality = Nothing stopping ISPs from only allowing you to access normie-friendly sites at full speed, while throttling everything else to 56k speeds

I don't get how there are so many people on here that have it completely fucking backwards and have nothing to back up their opinion on it. inb4 leddit spacing- SAYS THE FAGGOT WHO KNOWS HOW PEOPLE FORMAT TEXT ON REDDIT. Eat a buffet of dicks, its easier to fucking read.

I'll just leave this here.

archive.is/afG5p

pic unrelated

You use meme arrows for lists. Here's what your post should look like:
Because they are kikes or have been subverted by kikes.>Net Neutrality = Not legal to censor (by slowing access to) "fake news" or sites like 8ch.>No net neutrality = Nothing stopping ISPs from only allowing you to access normie-friendly sites at full speed, while throttling everything else to 56k speedsI don't get how there are so many people on here that have it completely fucking backwards and have nothing to back up their opinion on it. inb4 leddit spacing- SAYS THE FAGGOT WHO KNOWS HOW PEOPLE FORMAT TEXT ON REDDIT. Eat a buffet of dicks, its easier to fucking read.
It's even easier to read than the reddit spacing as it does a better job of keeping ideas that are part of the same point together while being more compact.

Net preference is kind of like a car salesman selling you a car without windshield wipers, engine, or wheels.
If you're a regular guy, you buy parts you need at ridiculous prices to make a complete car.
If you're Zuckerberg, the preferred individual, you get your car upgraded for free.

Net neutrality means that the car dealership has to sell you a road worthy car.

...

Greentext is only for quoting, newfriend.

Double spacing has been common on imageboards since before anyone ever heard of rebbit.

Net neutrality is the concept that every packet of data is handled the same way regardless of its origin or function. There are reasons that this could be an issue, but it's mostly an excuse to get more money without improving the existing infrastructure.

It's true, but it's usage has spiked because of redditors. I have proof of 'reddit spacing' on this website from 2014 but it was never prevalent and it was used to separate logical points instead of an intended format. It's eye rape really.

Learn how to make proper paragraphs, retard. Spacing was always used as someone who would normally write a text or to split answers in the case of quoting multiple people.

On an imageboard completely devoid of any means of identifying posters by their reputation, the format of the text itself becomes a vector for disruption

Your post if written by a human being with at least average mental capacity would appear as follows.
Greentext is only for quoting, newfriend. Double spacing has been common on imageboards since before anyone ever heard of rebbit.
Both of those sentences deal with the same idea and therefore should be in the same paragraph instead of two separate paragraphs.

Fucking this.

OP is a faggot shill and everyone supporting op is a retard.

Some of us think a wall of text is eyerape.
How about don't be an autist about it and turn this place into 7chan, eh?

Redditors are easy enough to spot otherwise:
They say "normie" instead of "normalfag".
They really like frogs.
They don't know what sage is for… ahem.
They say things like "filtered" and "reported".
Imgur filenames.

But, even better than trying to single users out for being alien would be to critique their posts on their own merits.
Shitting up the board with "reddit", "kike", "jidf", "shill", "CTR", etc. doesn't help anyone learn anything. If they're wrong, say why or ignore it and go find a thread you like.

o rly?

So why is it so hard to put things into paragraphs?

The choice isn't reddit spacing or wall text, there's a happy medium with paragraphs. There's no reason why we can't write things out as if we were putting words to a page. If you want zero effort low energy posting, there's cuckchan.

And if you want autists dictating a uniform posting style, there's 7chan.
Dead as fuck because of shit like that 7chan.

Where has the time gone?

Listen buddy, I know you don't know anything but that's not why 7chan is a dead site. We're not asking a lot of you cuckchan newfags, just don't freak out if we ask you to format things in a readable format that isn't eye rape like reddit spacing shit or wall text. 4-5 sentence paragraphs is pretty normal and not a lot to ask. Again, if you don't think you can manage, try not posting at all or just posting on cuckchan.

I'm okay with this faggots. Global mesh network will happen faster:
arste chnica.com/information-technology/2011/11/the-darknet-plan-netroots-activists-dream-of-global-mesh-network/

What the hell is with your cancerous spacing? Why are you putting spaces between the post number you're responding to and the first line of your actual post?

fucken lol
You
can
go
fuck
yourself.

Explain it to normalfags like this:
What we need is a level of Net Neutrality that keeps Comcast (which owns MSNBC) from being able to slow down FoxNews or CNN's websites because most of America only has one broadband provider.

...

You do know you can resize your browser to make every post wrap at the width you want. Also, people have larger monitors for a reason.
Not everyone
wants to read
text that looks
like it came
out of the
fucking Bible.
Seriously, I
hated going
to church for
this exact
reason.

Then don't read it, trollbait.

I sure as hell don't read your 8th grade five paragraph essay format posts..

...

OP is a faggot

Tim Wu:

twitter. com/superwuster?lang=en

timwu. org/essays.html

archive.is/SISoL

Interesting bedfellow you government stooges have there.

w o t p w o J i Cr f r o e r a m oi a s i p a nt J d t a g a g si a i s l i n e in p t l n e b dg a i i s o e? n o n w s e a r e n r h r i s a t i o i d n e l h t u n s g e e l s d a t o n r y u ' e l r t e

Forgot this

We exist (indirectly) because 2ch rangeb& US IPs a long time ago.

Fuck the nips.

Comcast in 2007 I think it was, when they throttled bittorrent traffic which just so happened to affect a lot of shit, including World of Warcraft. It's not just a matter of throttling specific websites but also them choosing to throttle protocols, which often is targeted at p2p traffic. Here's a good example, let's say wikileaks just released a 2 TB torrent filled with a bunch of crap - all of a sudden ISPs around the US throttle ALL BT traffic to try and prevent it from spreading. Net neutrality would prevent the ISPs from treating BT traffic differently, thus preventing that from happening.

Also, Comcast was indeed trying to force Netflix to pay more for delivering content to their subscribers not even half a year before NN was pushed into the FCC.

Now, what we really need is actual fucking competition in the marketplace. Most areas only have 1-2 providers (if any at all) in the US and we pay ridiculous prices because we pretty much have forced non-competition in the market. What makes it even worse is the American taxpayers have paid billions upon billions to these companies to do build outs and upgrades - enough for them to have covered the whole US multiple times over - and yet we still pay way more than most other countries for worse service, not to mention not having the coverage we have already paid for.

There are a few ways to go about this, first is obviously opening up the markets so more competitors can easily come in which will drive the prices lower. Another is making the internet a utility where you pay a lump sum + the cost of extra - however unlike now they can't charge a ridiculous amount (several charge $10 for 50GB over, when $10 can easily cover the cost of 500GB+ of data). Either way there needs to be accountability in how the tax money we give these corporations is spent since it is obvious waste when they keep getting the fees but just put it into their pockets instead of improving the infrastructure which is specifically what it is for.

Basically, lots of corruption that needs to be fixed and not JUST net neutrality, however people tend to lump it all under the NN banner because they're relatively uninformed.

Internet isn't perfect ::full stop::

But it's better than the majority of shit in the modern world ::full stop::

So just leave it the fuck alone ::full stop::

Literally Wu.

When did it die? I see any of this happening.

Yeah, it's just legal to outright censor content. Why do you think giving control of the internet to the FCC, whose chairman is always a telecom industry insider, is some manner of magical equalizer? "Net neutrality" is a total buzzword for government regulation of the internet, not government can't censor. You're being sold a lie.

That's the marketing, the reality is it's just giving internet control over to the whims of regulators.

Yeah, then when some Comcast insider is appointed FCC chair, you realize how stupid you were for pushing this.

Why is that? Oh, yeah, it's because the FCC that you want to give more power to granted those ISPs virtual monopolies.

The people of the US payed for the lines the phone infrastructure was built on. Then for some reason (((politicians))) let ATT etc. have them.

Oh. The people still pay for upgrades through subsidies and tax (((Incentives))).

Whatever. ISPs being able to charge how they want guarantees a democratic flip control of all 3 branches + states governments.

ITT: retarded shitposter/shill tries his damdest to make pol anti net neutral

What you said makes no sense what so ever.

Throttling made by a third person (ISP, it's not your computer nor Google) is losing packets.
That's what throttling does.
You can't slow down electricity. Google send as much data as they can, you want as much data as you can if you have an ISP in the middle saying "no you can't", they're losing packets, that's the only thing they can do.

Or they're gonna fit every routers with several To of RAM cache??? I though that was because infrastructure was costly? So their solution is to make it even more costly? Of course not.

Even if they do it's still racketeering in a Kafkaesque setting where power companies are asking Lockheed, Ford or Disney to share a part of their profit because they make money with the electricity that they pay and it's not enough. Because electricity network infrastructure is costly.

Fuck ISP is the only sane response, if they want more money they can just raise their prices (and they don't because they're already making a s shitload).

Surprised?

We must meme Trump to stop this.

Comcast is already gearing up to introduce many customers to datacaps with a completely misleading infomercial.
The disinfomercial tells the viewer how much data 1tb is (approx. 1 trillion bytes), then goes on to say "that's a number SO HIGH, it may as well be imaginary!", this being a complete farce since many video games coming from AAA publishers have a download size over 20gb and bluray quality video can be just as high in filesize.
They never outright say they're going to charge extra for a higher data cap, just that "we're so generous for letting you have all this data!". Going to their site to find the page this is embedded in, revealed they want to charge you $50 extra for unlimited data or charge you $10 for "buckets of gigabytes", meaning you can have optionally pay up to or over $50 according to your data needs.

fast lanes is a secondary cost to use what you are already paying for,

you wont be paying to get extra speed, you will be paying more to not be throttled with high bandwith services.
because these few services use such a large percentage of all internet bandwith some ISPs want to charge higher rates to these providers and/or customers who use them. but such technology will inevitably be used to throttle/close entire sections of internet traffic, good-by torrenting.

its basically a supply demand mindset, people really want to use netflix and some people in ISP think they should be able to charge more for the usage, internet hardware doesnt last forever, and they see services netflix and youtube as the big cause for maintenance and the general need to expand/improve their networks, buy paying for that yourself isnt very cost effective so they want to charge netflix and others more to pay for these inprovements(and make a little extra for their trouble)

the bigger reason though is that netflix is a competing service to on demand video services provided by some ISPs the difference is that if you watch a netflix video the ISP still has to transmit all the same data without pocketing some for themselves like they would have if you used their own service.

That's not how routers work. They route packets. The internet isn't actually a series of tubes that electricity flows through at all times.

Based slavs

t. slav living in burgerland

That issue is completely orthogonal to net neutrality.

Obviously, because muh torrentz.

They've really colonized and fester a hive then, since I would be hard pressed to find one user against net neutrality a year ago