Net Neutrality

Attached: 1511447276157.jpg (718x960, 81K)

reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/us-net-neutrality-bill-gets-enough-senate-votes-to-advance-idUSKCN1IH2DS

Nice Boomer-tier facebook meme, friend

Before 2005 anyone could lease telco lines and start their own ISP.

The FCC in 2005 decided telco providers did not have to lease out their lines.

Imagine being able to start your own ISP and run it from your home. That is what people were doing before 2005. The FCC decision in 2005 eliminated competition, thus people think we need Net Neutrality.

What we actually need is more competition. Restore the lease line requirements, let anyone who wants to start their own ISP, and all this Net Neutrality issues would go away.

it amazes me that so many people still have absolutely no clue what net neutrality actually is.
That just shows the scope of the power that google, amazon, facebook, etc.. has

>it amazes me that so many people still have absolutely no clue what net neutrality actually is.
Enlighten us then.

This.

Why have the FCC if senate is just going to cock block them.

Overrated nonsense that probably won't change much except a few prices here and there. And it most certainly won't result in any "packages", as they'd be hanged for even trying

Attached: 3a7.jpg (680x680, 77K)

Gas yourself retard

Those lines should be municipal property anyway, i'm tired of fucking spectrum kikes doing nothing and blaming union disputes on their terrible service.

Dont care ill make my own server once shit hits the fan either way cause fuck paying this big ass bill

They would literally put a price on something that you are essentially getting for free as of now, does this not bother you people at all?
it'll be like cable tv all over again, and you can be damn sure they'll be censoring everything down that seems even slightly politically right-wing, infact the only reason how we're spreading awareness about how 'GREAT' multiculturalism can be is because of free net neutrality

(((free and open))

Getting rid of it is good, so it makes sense that New York Democrats are in favor of keeping it to protect globalist corporations since they both have the same agenda of forcing the US to join a totalitarian one world government whose corporate and banking owners can further oppress the rest of humanity.

Do more research about what Net Netruality actually does. It forces ISPs to give internet traffic priority to the big corporations like Google, Netflix, Twitter, Youtube instead of average consumers. It screws us consumers, and getting rid of it helps us consumers, by forcing the big internet corporations to pay more for all the extra bandwidth they use, which means average consumers either get more bandwidth or cheaper prices since we no longer have to subsidize the big corps.

this

a year ago when pajeet won against net neutrality most murican faggots were advocating for no NN because of Trump dministration and >muh capitlism.
murican polfags are retarded.

Yes net neutrality is good.

Net neutrality != free and open internet.

sounds like you have no idea what net neutrality is

Yep, I fully agree.

The FCC decision in 2005 set the United States back decades. No longer did ISPs have to worry about competition, as they had a monopoly.

All someone had to do was lease the lines, then provision the modems from their home computer. Anyone could run an ISP from their home.

Did not like the rules your ISP had in place? Start your own ISP, and make your own rules.

It was a win-win for everyone.

No they'll be putting a price on that as soon as they are able.
This occurs when one of two things happen

A. Net Neutrality regulation neuters what congestion the internet can deal with, and basic internet is now a premium service.
B. Net Neutrality regulation specifies that nobody except for existing ISPs can compete as ISPs (as the gov needs to approve new ones, which requires lawyers time and money) and those ISPs can now freely charge premium for non-premium things

This is the correct answer. The whole net neutrality thing is nonsense from both sides. Those for it want bigger government, those against it want monopolies and crony capitalism. The real solution is for ISPs to be little hubs like convenient stores, rife with competition.

FUCK NET NEUTRALITY

Who is using the bandwith to reach those big corporations? The public. As long as my ISP must guaranttee me the bandwith I pay for, no matter who I am reaching, I am satisfied.

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with freedom of speech, they trick people into thinking it does with such a euphemistic name. It's about stealing bandwidth from consumers and giving it to corporations. Getting rid of it forces corporations to pay more for all the extra bandwidth they use which means consumers pay less.

Apt observation

>It forces ISPs to give internet traffic priority to the big corporations
How? It specifically says that ISPs cannot differentiate between the bandwidth so the prioritization would be anti-nn.

who were the three republican senators to vote in favor of NN? WE NEED TO KNOW

Attached: IMG_1470.png (731x611, 876K)

this

>oh man this pro-consumer legislation won't totally be used by corporations that can already skirt regulations in order to engage in government sanctioned price fixing and bury actual competition that prevents monopolies under idiotic nothing-lawsuits
>said the Railroads

Attached: 1508948521596.jpg (960x720, 76K)

It's a nonissue as long as social media companies can censor whoever they like. While internet service providers will try and Jew you out of some money, they're not trying to brainwash you. Meaningless debate unless we regulate social media.

Actual Jow Forums want NN, the Trump cultists from /ptg/ and T_D dont because "da libtards want it so bad"

It says that up until they pass the law that says
"The federal government controls the internet"
That's literally all that matters.
Then the media stop covering when the lobbyists who wrote the laws in the first place get the rest of the laws passed that say
"It's actually impossible to run the internet with no differentiation between senders, therefor we need to structure the internet like xyz"

Probably the only his thing Obama ever did.

we never will.

Attached: 1526207631668.png (229x220, 6K)

So net neutrality is staying? But I really wanted global WiFi. I would've paid for it.

>up until they pass the law that says
So it's a hypothetical scenario of what could happen in the future if more laws were passed?

NN is for liberals and faggots. Fuck that shit, let it stay dead.

T H I S

It's a recognition of a pattern that has occurred in every single sphere the government gets involved in in the past 5 decades here in the US.
Every person both sides will admit lobbyists control our government and write our laws.

Happened in housing, healthcare, schooling.

Anti-discrimination laws support Walmart with its team of lawyers more than the mom and pop shop that can't deal with a frivolous lawsuit that takes ages to determine is frivolous because the law itself is so.

It's just price fixing, figures part of Jow Forums would shill for it. I miss /new/.

If NN was pro consumer, why did all the big bandwidth hogs support it?

I don't really understand it. Based on the type of people who fiercely support it, it's probably a bad thing.

im a globalist shill

Net Neutrality is

Attached: RIPbugz.gif (200x200, 948K)

It's also a recognition that "Net Neutrality" as the average dumbass thinks it is is actually impossible to implement without destroying the internet as we know it.
Either they're destroying the internet or they aren't doing what they're saying they're doing.

Notice how the ocmpanies who produce the most global internet traffic (Netflix, Google, Reddit) are the ones shilling for it the most.

Depending on which version of Jow Forums you're on about. Years ago when it was under threat Jow Forums was for it but current Jow Forums is against it.

Attached: 1513713523932.png (1240x1870, 3.48M)

I am an average dumbass, and the version of net neutrality that I support says that whatever download speed you pay for every month has to be the speed that your ISP ATTEMPTS to serve data to you from. So if I try to download backdoor sluts 9 from a seeder in Kotsiusk Oblast in Russia, and he is capable of upping at 20mb/s, then my ISP has to serve that data to me at 20mb/s. He can't decide that because Dimitri has not paid for the fastlane service on Americorp USA's lines in the US I only get it at 256 kbps.

Sound fair?

But your argument was
>[NN] forces ISPs to give internet traffic priority to the big corporations like Google, Netflix, Twitter, Youtube instead of average consumers
which is just false. What's fundamentally wrong with it other than "it could pave a way to much worse things"?
>it is is actually impossible to implement without destroying the internet as we know it
What's the reason for that? NN is the default state of all networking equipment, in order to not abide by it you have to go out of your way to inspect packets which majority of the internet isn't doing.

This reply is not relevant to my post, and furthermore is not even an argument. Defend the merits of your talking points or GTFO.

>Notice how the ocmpanies who produce the most global internet traffic (Netflix, Google, Reddit) are the ones shilling for it the most.
Yup, I had noticed that.

I don't give a shit, I just want everybody to shut up about it.

How can you claim neutrality when the biggest content providers on the internet are in agreement to censor and shape the internet to what they perceive as the best environment for advertisement money?

Also, the companies that censor their users the most.

We should be attacking google and facebook with anti-trust laws, but that is a separate issue.

>anything reddit likes, pol hates.
don't forget Reddit is literally owned by the Jews

they also own my local newspapers :(

That's already the case. Otherwise it's false advertising or discrimination of service.
So you've got a different view but it's not the one the media is pumping out. It's a pretty fair version of "Net Neutrality"

This version of Net Neutrality that the media is pumping out, is one that says you have to have a 256 kbps connection because Netflix tripled their bandwidth usage and even though you don't use Netflix your ISP can't adjust intelligently to make sure you still get service.

>What's fundamentally wrong with it other than "it could pave a way to much worse things"?
The fact that people have been deliberately paving ways like that for five decades.
In addition price fixing has never worked.
Finally there's no good argument for why it accomplishes what you want it to accomplish, and the burden of proof is on you.

Because if you aren't allowed to discriminate against greedy entities then those greedy entities are free to be more and more greedy.
It's honestly a miracle that our infrastructure isn't buckling under the congestion as it is. Implement arbitrary rules that make it impossible to manage congestion in the way that we are and things won't turn out well.

Yep. ISPs are going to fuck us over if they can, partially due to anti-competition laws in most of the US and partially due to the nature of big businesses under capitalism. I'd rather be fucked by only one group than by one group then every other group that uses that group.

>Gas yourself retard
why are you so upset? you sure that meme isn't 100% correct?

Jow Forums was in favor of net neutrality until daddy Trump told them otherwise.

>Jow Forums is one person

what are the odds of this passing the house?

>Jews want net neutrality
>always do the opposite of what Jews say
That should answer all questions
Praise the Lord

>That's already the case.
As in the law as it exists protects this? Which law is going to revoke this? What I see is that ISPs want the power to charge domains which lots of people visit and dl data from extra money for being high-volume. If they can diminish volume for netflix then they can diminish volume for dimitri.

As it is, I am able to get my 20mbps from Dimitri just fine, so any additional powers to charge netflix and google and the like extra dosh is not in my interest. Call me when the tubez are literally so clogged with netflix streaming that they cannot serve up packets from anywhere else.

Hopefully none, but there isn't a lot we can do at this point except shill hard to "our" "representatives"

It's already the case that you aren't allowed to deliberately provide different service for the same product at the same price. That has been illegal for centuries, and in common law before that.

I'll call you a few years ago, when most of the ISPs in business entered in a huge peering agreement where they agreed to give Netflix a specific fast lane. Since they expect a certain proportion of Netflix traffic at all times, it's actually faster to sequester it into its own lane. Net Neutrality as pushed by the media also makes this illegal.

>In addition price fixing has never worked.
It works just fine for RAM manufacturers which have doubled the prices over the last year and are currently being sued over it (again).
>Because if you aren't allowed to discriminate against greedy entities
But you are allowed to do so. Do you think Netflix is paying $100/month for their internet connection? They're paying Level 3 to be able to deliver data over their network and Level 3 has peering agreements with various last-mile ISPs to ensure that the data gets to their costumers. If it isn't viable for Level 3 they can raise prices, and if it isn't viable for the ISPs they can stop peering with Level 3.

You say that like it's a bad thing

Attached: 1526490637154.gif (1280x640, 155K)

Alright, if the status quo has always worked, then why change the law? As in, why should Trump seek to change the law or the congress?

I don't really care at all what the media says. This is a stupid conversation to have. What does the law say?

>Since they expect a certain proportion of Netflix traffic at all times, it's actually faster to sequester it into its own lane. Net Neutrality as pushed by the media also makes this illegal.
What makes it illegal? Peering agreements aren't against net neutrality.

Ram is not priced fixed in the United States. I don't know about your backwards hell-hole.

Yes Netflix is paying level 3. With Net Neutrality as the gov wants it, they don't have to peer at all. They get ALL of the leverage because the ISP are legally FORCED to serve their users who want Netflix exactly as well as any bandwidth hog that actually cooperates.
If you as a business get exactly the same service without sacrificing money. Why on earth would you not?

There's a good reason Netflix and other bandwidth hogs are pushing "Net Neutrality" and it's because they would be the ones to benefit.

Because this is a different law.
Nobody changed the status quo and nobody wants to.
What Trump is getting rid of is additional regulation that does nothing but make it more difficult to handle congestion and provide leverage to people on the other side from the ISPs of the ISP-provider dichotomy.

It's illegal to discriminate based on source. Sequestering x% of your bandwidth for a specific source is discriminating based on source.
If deep packet sniffing is not allowed then you can't do shit like that.

the Jew York Attorney General says?

MUST be FAKE NEWS.

the NYAG office is THE kamehameha megacuck banker cum guzzling capitol of the universe

It's a red herring.

>Those for it want bigger government, those against it want monopolies and crony capitalism
Those for it want big government and monopolies. NN IS CRONY CAPITALISM. Why is NN so hard for people to understand?

>implying crony capitalism is not a natural occurrence of big government

>ISPs are evil.
>Facebook and Twitter can do whatever they want because they are private companies.

>Yes Netflix is paying level 3. With Net Neutrality as the gov wants it, they don't have to peer at all. They get ALL of the leverage because the ISP are legally FORCED to serve their users who want Netflix exactly as well as any bandwidth hog that actually cooperates.
>If you as a business get exactly the same service without sacrificing money. Why on earth would you not?
>There's a good reason Netflix and other bandwidth hogs are pushing "Net Neutrality" and it's because they would be the ones to benefit.
Look at this in another way. With NN Netflix can take up all the bandwidth they want without paying for it. This means that if you have netflix and I don't, then the ISP will charge everyone for the extra cost, meaning that I am subsidizing your subscription.
Without NN, netflix pays the cost, so they have to raise the subscription price. I no longer have to subsidize your subscription. Fuck NN

a bunch of geriatric lawmakers and senators who still never figured out how to program a VCR and a bunch of random idiots upboating them telling me this is a good thing doesn't fill me with confidence

Attached: 1521598391425.jpg (600x800, 55K)

Attached: netneutrality.png (1059x682, 427K)

if Democrats are for it, then I an damn well going to be against it

Net neutrality is fake and gay.

Sage

Indeed and imo we can talk about net neutrality after the big sites are broken up.

>being this stupid

Retards being manipulate for the ends of what is essentially the entirety of the silicon valley as if those corporations give a single fuck about plebs on the internet.
They are only good to be milked for data.

Obviously. Their traffic is being subsidized by all other internet users. It’s in their interest to keep net neutrality.

>One side being shilled by the democrats, reddit, google, netflix etc
>the other one isn't
hmm a difficult choice
also
>Google claims they are against internet censorship

Attached: 1234.png (1004x872, 1010K)

That's mindless contrarianism, not policy.

I'm fine with Net Neutrality as a legal precedent, it has served us well since the 80s. I'm not fine with the internet take over of 2015 which had nothing to do with Net Neutrality. ISPs don't need the same legal classification as radio stations for basic Net Neutrality rules to be enforced. Create a radio station ranting about niggers and kikes and see how well that works out. Why? Because of the FCC take over of the radio, which is now what people want for the internet. The FTC has more than enough power to enforce Net Neutrality rules. 5 bureaucrats having unlimited regulatory control over all broadband in the USA behind closed doors is the most dangerous thing to ever happen to the internet, and most people are too retarded to realize it. It shows how good (((they've))) gotten at propaganda and fooling the public.

no one gives a shit about it outside of reddit, go the fuck back and death to israel
sage

It's not though. All of the companies I've listed proven themselves to be against the good of the consumer and/or freedom of speech on the internet

Not such a bad idea. I'd rather that Tech companies dominate traffic rather than ISPs. The former at least have an interest in keeping the internet functional.

Attached: doomaaron.png (658x460, 74K)