Wtf redditbros, I thought we needed net neutrality???

wtf redditbros, I thought we needed net neutrality???

Attached: government_fags_btfo.png (1116x1072, 1.43M)

>Quality journalism wanting you to link ending net neutrality with rising internet speeds without providing any evidence to support such a thing
Fake news

that pajeet is going fast

>who was the study funded by
>technological improvements were bound to happen, more goyim willing to pay more shekels for faster internet than ever
Im all in favor for shitting on net neutrality, but I wonder who was behind this post
|
|>
|
|3
|
|

it's pretty easy to find out if the skyrocketing coincides with the timing of nn repeal

Without net neutrality, I get free Netflix from my ISP.

>the opposite of Jow Forums said happened.

A guy with a fedora and his nuts hanging out?

From the study they used
>“As ISPs continue to build out their fiber networks and gigabit-level speeds expand we only expect to see internet speeds increase across the U.S.”
No relation whatsoever with NN

man who would have fucking known that only a couple years after consumer gigabit internet deployment that people would finally be upgraded from ethernet to fastethernet speeds countrywide

free market will regulate the prices, especially now that googlefiber exists.

Attached: google-900x506.jpg (900x506, 50K)

>Breitbart
checks out.

I disagree, without net neutrality ISPs can invest more into infrastructure.

Yeah, I love on the east coast of Canada and in my area, the fastest internet speeds went from 300/300 to gigabit to 1.5 gigabit in the same period and Canada has designated ISPs as utilities and the CRTC has enforced net neutrality since 1993.

So repealing NN has exactly nothing to do with rising internet speeds.

Based and redpilled

your country is going to shit, trudeau

I don't much like Trudeau and never did, but he's probably better than an orange frog wearing a toupee.

your wish, leaf

net neutrality only benefits bandwidth hogs at the expense of speed and price for everyone

Attached: 1521182155798.jpg (960x684, 202K)

>Breitbart
>no source

No thanks, but there's a (You).

no the fuck it hasn't
my internet connection is still shit

this, we're basically paying for netflix and google's bandwidth

AT&T finally started massive gigabit deployment thanks to Trump killing net neutrality

AT&T did release a press release saying that, but nobody has it yet except in cities that already have Google Fiber deployment and/or Comcast rolled out gigabit-over-cable.

That's only true if the ISP is selling bandwidth it can't provide. You're legitimately saying that you'd be alright with buying a car and later finding out that there's some other guy who gets to use your car if he's late for work.

lol'd
imagine being like this irl

>more people are watching tv shows on itunes, amazon, and bittorrent than hulu

I'm assuming 25.1% is porn

retard

But they have invested less. So we'd actually see even more development if it wasn't repealed.

jesus christ Jow Forums
how fucking stupid are you?

probably heh

Also

Why does it matter where my traffic is going? Why should my ISP care if I'm using the bandwidth I pay for to watch Netflix or p2p? Why is it even their business?

So has it caught up yet to what the ISPs promised us 2 decades years ago?

it's not your traffic, but the isp's traffic is getting hogged by netflix and jewtube

so they have to raise the price and slow down speed for everyone

>Why is it even their business?
>why is their business their business?
newsflash, faggot. they're in business to make money.

How is it not my traffic? I pay them $60 a month for 100 Mbps. How is it any different what I do with the bandwidth I pay for?

Nobody cares faggot. Your study does not imply causation. Fuck off.

If you pay them $6000 a month then yes

?

>without net neutrality ISPs can invest more into infrastructure
Fucking what? ISPs could have invested more money into infrastructure even when NN was in effect. The repeal of NN did not suddenly free up resources or give the ISPs resources they did not previously have.

NN did not put a dent in profits; if anything, the repeal of NN made possible an increase in profits by way of nickel-and-diming customers. That no ISP has yet to go full-bore "tiered Internet" yet - even though it legally could thanks to the repeal of NN - is attributable to the absolute firestorm that would come down upon the first ISP to even try.

NN was stopping ISPs from investing in infrastructure...seriously, GTFO of here with your bullshit.

ISPs are forcing speed upgrades so they can scrap old infrastructure. They're ramping up because when their regional contracts expire they'll be forced to compete.

ITT: this image and idiots who havent studied how internet infrastructure works

Attached: electric jew.jpg (256x257, 5K)

just a cohencidence

Attached: 1544130241590.png (1024x1023, 1.56M)

>build a canal
>charge boats a toll for traveling through it
>boats pay toll
>boats deliver goods to merchants further down stream
>charge the merchants more money for the canal having been used in a way that benefits them even though each boat already paid for its passage
>this is legitimate business goy
>those merchants were hogging the whole canal
>we need more boats to pay tolls

nice try jewflix shill

Nice argument comcast

>tfw increased speed from 75mpbs to gigabit since nn repeal
Feels good man.

Attached: ab8.jpg (425x283, 17K)

Absolutely seething

Was Net Neutrality even in place before it got repealed?

kek, they also laid off thousands of people

"Net Neutrality"
"Affordable Care Act"
"The Patriot Act"

What do these things have in common?

>kek, they also laid off thousands of people
good, fuck white trash rednecks

bingo

>thanks to Trump killing net neutrality
imagine believing this

no, they did that because it's what A) people want and B) what will net them a profit

Oh shit! Everybody thought the internet will become slower as time progresses! How is this possible?

With it you don't Netflix.

If you're against net neutrality you want to pay more for less and that makes you dumb, so change your ways.

Attached: 1530746052750.jpg (583x582, 36K)

>Why does it matter where my traffic is going?
Because it gets treated differently.
>Why should my ISP care if I'm using the bandwidth I pay for to watch Netflix or p2p?
Because some applications are more time-sensitive than others. They have to discriminate the traffic importance to a degree, so they actually care a lot.
>Why is it even their business?
Because they built it? Try making your own company and then communist assholes will ask you "why is this your business?" too.

No, dumbo - you just want all of it for free.

My usage is ~200-300GB a month.
I should not have to subsidise those using 4-5TB a month.

Ask yourself why Big Tech supported NN

> Why should my ISP care if I'm using the bandwidth I pay for to watch Netflix or p2p?
They don't.
They care that you're using multiple terabyte of data every month, not what where that data comes from or goes.

200-300GB? That's not even 50 hours of YouTube in 4K. Get with the times gramps, TVs run far more than 50 hours per month. You just didn't realize the world is changing right in front of your eyes.

The problem with the US net neutrality debate is, that it's not only about net neutrality and the equality of packets, they also changed some shit about the last miles. That makes every discussion about nn very foggy and vague, most people see something else in it.

I pay for fast internet. I just don't see why I should suddenly pay 5 bucks more a months for some shit just because somebody sent me a link to it and I want to see it as well. It's just one fucking site, but that shit is allowed to clog up my line? FUCK OUTTA HERE, I say. That's not how IT works, that's not how IT ever should work and I will always vote accordingly. Nothing else we can do. Vote with wallets and checkmarks in ballots.

NN is just the concept that an ISP provides a utility service and shouldn't throttle specific websites, or dictate what sites or services the customer accesses with the service they pay for. If you use more bandwidth than your plan allows or pay for a faster connection that has absolutely nothing to do with NN. A better example would be your power company telling you they will charge you extra if you use a hairdryer with your electrical services.

>network max capability : 1gb speeds for everyone
>What the isp says they can offer for 100$ a month : 30mb
>nn gets repealed "hey good news, now you can get 40mb speeds for 95$"

>200-300GB? That's not even 50 hours of YouTube in 4K
Yep.
>, TVs run far more than 50 hours per month. You just didn't realize the world is changing right in front of your eyes.
Yep.

You don't realise it buddy, the infrastructure that exists now was for delivering websites, not delivering 4K netflix - to do so it will need significant change to the infrastructure
AND the price structure of your internet access.
You wanted the change, so get ready for it.

Many ISPs hate NN because they don't like services accessed by many "cord cutters" which are in direct competition with other non internet services they offer. Or in competition with their online media services.

>network max capability : 1gb speeds for everyone
Except it isn't.
If you think it is, you've got literally no clue how networks work.

Lets make this easy for you-
Lets assume everyone has 1 gbit.
Lets assume a particular city block has 101 houses
Right now the fastest available switches are 100Gbit.
How are you going to route 101Gbit worth of services over a 100Gbit switch?
Now you also have to remember that there is more than a single city block.
How are you going to route 1,000,000 1gbit connections over 100Gbit switches?

I see what the intention is and it's a good one. But I seriously and strongly doubt and also question that the world works that way. If I want to make hurrdurrflix now, a direct clone of Netflix, the customers would say "Netflix streams faster than hurrdurrflix with my ISPs netflix package" and that's how you kill the free market 101. They would keep Netflix. Netflix could raise prices, yes they could even whine along the lines of "ISPs are milking us, boohoo"

These companies started out small and are now trying everything in their power to kick out the newcomers that could potentially threaten them.

I agree, we have a problem, but I say: The only solution is more bandwidth, everywhere. LTE everywhere, 5G in cities integrated into lamp posts. Fibre optic cables for the rest, they've got capacities that go into the the exabyte/s range. You could netflix all day with that, but instead you get ads on highways and on youtube. That's how they _really_ work with their profits: Increasing profits by fooling people, it's more cost effective than laying out spare cables or cable tunnels whenever they dig up a street. In germany they've enforced that by law for them to do and look: Internet speeds increased significantly, the plan worked, everybody can watch netflix and surf without congestions and that from 15€/month already. Why complain? Why argument towards a concept that makes you having to pay more? Not only "the others" have to pay for Netflix, you will have to pay for it as well. You're aware of that, right?
I'm also holding the firm belief that internet is to be counted as infrastructure and that infrastructure should be public property, freely accesible to all.

Attached: 1545019650230.jpg (3000x2059, 1.23M)

I mean ads for the ISPs. Orange, an ISP, even advertises at FIFA worldcup. Do you have the slightest clue how incredibly much money that is? Money that didn't go into the ISP itself, no, it got spent on fucking plastic banners printed with the Orange logo. That's what they do with their money.

>How are you going to route 1,000,000 1gbit connections over 100Gbit switches?
The way they do it in europe/asia with 1gb connections.

>the repeal of NN made possible an increase in profits by way of nickel-and-diming customers

The fact that you think NN protected you at all shows you have no idea what you're talking about you fucking peabrained mongoloid. It was almost all B2B regulation. It would only have helped other companies, almost nothing was in the books to protect consumers

but this never works, how are these talking points hard-wired into so many parrots

>How are you going to route 101Gbit worth of services over a 100Gbit switch?
you don't, you use another switch

Are you a 50 cent army, or a slav with a rotting arm?

of course speeds are increasing it's because they bullied all those bandwidth hog websites like youtube and netflix out of business

bandwidth isn't a depletable good though, any recurring costs are completely arbitrary and artificially inflated. anyone who shills for the empirically discredited price-setting ability of the free market being favorable to consumers, especially in a market with 2-3 major competitors, is either shilling or should be checked for mental competency

Except title 2 never prevented ISPs from anti-competitive policies in the first place because it wasn't actually net neutrality. It was the anti-anti-competitive laws that prevented anti-competitive policies.

Oh look, yet another anti net neutrality shill post and the classic fallacious association post.

Net neutrality makes no practical sense, there is no rational reason for real time application like VOIP to be on the same priority level as stuff like email where latency doesn't matter. Sorry you're been propagandized, but in the real world it always makes sense to prioritize real time applications over non-latency sensitive applications.

Wish posts like this could be stickied so the next moron who keeps creating these threads can just gtfo.

Attached: 1539879941597.jpg (1894x1636, 541K)

Sure, but VOIP isn't a company.

>Sorry you're been propagandized
Well yeah, same.

Everyone who defended (((net neutrality))) was a Soros google shill

VOIP isn't a company (whose saying it is?), but net neutrality would make it illegal to prioritize real time traffic over non-latency sensitive traffic which makes no practical sense.

I've noticed a contradiction: Google is Chrome, whereas Soros is Firefox. They're both the biggest enemies of each other. Something doesn't add up in (((your post))).

Net neutrality makes exceptions for VOIP and anything else needing real time.


Aspergers? Or a lawyer? You seem to be clinging to semantics.

>Net neutrality makes exceptions for VOIP and anything else needing real time.
If net neutrality is making exceptions it's not net neutrality .

Aspergers, autism or a lawyer. No doubt.

>Soros is Firefox
still trying to force this huh

>still trying to force this huh
Prove it.

Soros is significantly more based than the Zionist kikes

It also coincided with Trump's exponential growth in criminal activity.

Firefox has become more chrome-like when soros took over

firefox is literally funded by google

Didn’t Google Fiber stop deploying because they were tired of dealing with the lawsuits from AT&T and Comcast?

>muh Soros boogeyman

Remember when Jow Forums said the internet was going to be over and we were going to go back to the stone age because regulations that had barely existed a year and a half got repealed? I remember.

Attached: nn.png (838x218, 20K)

Around here, max speeds went from 100/5m to 900/30m since nn was repealed

The internet is already so fast, it's too fast for screenshots of speedtest.net!