> Now assuming Google uses the 3 terabits a second above and sends 2-1 more traffic than it receives it would cost Google ~$5.7b a year given current FCC rates. If Google’s reciprocal ration was 5-1 it would cost Google ~$11.5b a year, 10-1 would be $14b, and 40-1 would be $16.4b.
Do you know how much that is? Google's operating cost is (The amount they pocket after all expenses are put down)? it's 32.9 billion. That's a sizeable chunk.
How about Netflix? 36 terabits per second, they'll have to pay 206 billion dollars a year for something they got for free. How about Amazon web services (Just web services)? Their operating income was 4.33 billion using 102 TB/second in 2017 and they'll have to pay 585 billion for something they previously got for peanuts.
Oh no! Big corporations will have to start playing for things instead of depending on the taxpayers! How awful! Same for the jobless poo convertors.
Liam Cox
>implying they will not hand down the cost to the consumer >implying traffic is a resource that is "finite" Retard off yourself.
Aiden Barnes
No one is forcing you to use their services. However taxation is not optional. That being said I barely use anything Google and I will not use Netflix. I'm a bit too high in the IQ department to be upset.
Austin Myers
Not even worth arguing with you and your high IQ my boi.
Cooper Hall
more decentralization the better
Aaron Myers
this
Daniel Young
I don't really care about any of the examples. I'd like to avoid having to pay more if I decided to torrent 2TB+ of misc files in a month, though.
Jaxon Myers
Decentralization as in ISPs pushing off the market every competitor and giving preferential treatment to their own services?
Ian Richardson
>implying fees that high will not kill alternatives to Google because the normal user doesn't give a shit about anything but page loading speed thus making Google the only search engine >implying ISPs will not throtle anyone but the giants that can pay effectively killing all consumer choice
Bentley Davis
Fpbp
Jeremiah Morris
Exactly. I'm fucking hyped to see how this will change the tech landscape. Decentralization everywhere.
>NO YOU FUCKING IDIOT YOU ARE GOING TO PAY MORE. >THE ISP's ARE CHARGING DOUBLE FOR THE SAME TRAFFIC. NET NUTRALITY (TITLE 2) ENSURES ALL TRAFFIC IS TREATED AS A COMMON STREAM FROM THE BROADCASTER. >TITLE 3 MEANS THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE PACKETS ARE CHARGED AS THEIR OWN (CITING AS THEM REBROADCASTING (YOUR FUCKING TRAFFIC)).
Better internet, better competition, less shitty apps, nerd.
Isaiah Howard
>sending more bytes than the ones you receive is more expensive What the fuck is this bullshit? Do the people who write this kind of retardation even know the basics of how the internet work?
Joseph Taylor
Instead of rewarding innovation, we will now reward retarded boomer ISPs that use their monopoly to provide a shit service
Josiah Johnson
Kneck yourself
Robert Ramirez
NO. YOU DON'T GET IT. COMPETITION ISN'T HAPPENING. THEY DON'T ALOW A COMPETITOR RIGHTS TO HANG WIRE ON THE POLES. THEY BUYOUT ANY SMALL COMPETITION.
>How about Netflix? 36 terabits per second, they'll have to pay 206 billion dollars a year for something they got for free. >something they got for free. OP, you're a fucking idiot. Netflix still had to pay for their internet connection before NN was repealed. The difference is that now they'll have to pay for the same traffic twice.
Chase Turner
"So this is how d̶e̶m̶o̶c̶r̶a̶c̶y̶ the internet dies... with thunderous applause"
Evan Reed
Unlike the vague net neutrality was gonna save us thing I would actually like to avoid paying more, this is a guaranteed result, and since I hate the government more than I hate monopolies I'll support it.
Christian Mitchell
no amount of theoretical scenarios is going to quell the Jow Forums tourists. we just have to wait with dread. shit like this doesn't change overnight. the news of the big 5 brokering agreements with the big ISPs is coming.
it's not a matter of if, but when. until then, hide all "lmao hey libtards NN is gone but nothing happened!" bait threads.
Standard market forces, creates an opening for someone else to come along and do it for cheaper.
John King
>I have no clue how economics works
Dominic Young
The link is from like 2014 and it's talking about the FCC potentially treating broadband like a Title II common carrier. I have no idea if this site is reliable or whether its conclusions are correct. It's not talking the current administration, it's talking about something the FCC considered doing but ultimately didn't do several years ago. It's not relevant to the situation at hand.
Daniel Gonzalez
>I'm sure you guys have gotten tired of net neutrality posts
Way more fucking tired of lain posts.
Go fuck yourself.
Nathan Green
>instead of depending on the taxpayers! U wot m8
David Hall
someone post the image of the tripfag getting owned
Robert Russell
lainfags are cringey, they really try to look cool and edgy but just end up embarrassing themselves. back to Jow Forumsedgyanime
Samuel Edwards
So what you're saying is ISPs are more profitable now so investors will be more likely to enter the market which drives prices down? Ok
Easton Morales
If Google had to give that kind of money to the ISP they would simply spend the money to build their own network. ISP are lobbying themselves to suicide.
Benjamin Jackson
Are you implying traffic is a resource that is infinite?
Samuel Price
this, Google isn't retarded, if they became an ISP they'd also be able to monitor ALL traffic from their customers which in turn means you'll get dirt cheap high speed internet because you are the product
