You now remember the useful idiots who were duped into lobbying for the financial interests of Google, Netflix...

>t. still didn't figure net neutrality had had nothing to do with QoS

>Ookla
Lmao you're so unaware of the numerous amount of tricks ISPs can pull to game dumb benchmarks like Ookla's website in order to misrepresent max bandwidth as throughput.

I bet you're one of those people who actually believes comcast's advertised speeds huh?

>conveniently ignoring the fact some providers halved the bandwidth cap
nice cope OP

What do bandwidth caps have to do with NN? That's right, fuck-all.

That just means that ISPs are raising the cost of the cheapest service level and justifying it by increasing the rate limit of the cheapest plan. I should be able to have $10/mo 10 megabit plan by now, but nope.

>still doesn't realize that ISPs use QoS to priotize traffic on "bandwidth test" websites to inflate speeds beyond the speeds their packet switching networks actually do on real traffic
>he actually falls for the ISP press release spin by citing this QoS'd bandwidth test data as evidence "bandwidth has increased 40% this year"
How gullible are you?

Sites like Google Netflix and Facebook were opposed to the repeal of net neutrality because it would open the door for ISPs to charge content providers for "internet fast lanes". And with that they would have an unfair advantage if the provided their own services to compete with services from Google, Netflix, and Facebook.
The useful idiots were the ones who allowed ISPs to change the narrative and allow the argument to be about client side threats.

I got a data cap. Thanks pajeet pie

pay your fucking bills you Netflix Jew

completely unrelated to NN you retard

What should I support if I just want to pirate everything?

I like how you completely ignored because it completely BTFOs your argument that actual bandwidth has increased. It hasn't, repeal of NN just allowed ISPs to cheat the bandwidth tests even harder to lie to people and you lap it up, kek.

Is it really, though

G O O D

>repeal of NN just allowed ISPs to cheat the bandwidth tests even harder
I don't know why you decided to double down on your retardation and highlight it again.
You still have no idea QoS has literally fucking nothing to do with net neutrality.

fightforthefuture.org/news/2019-03-06-congress-introduces-save-the-internet-act-to/

AAAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

OP BTFO

>Deputy Director Evan Greer (pronouns: she/her)
Into the fucking trash it goes.

Attached: 1550250547702.jpg (1440x1115, 504K)

You're calling the wrong side astroturfed buddy.

motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43a5kg/80-percent-net-neutrality-comments-bots-astroturfing

...

fucking worthless faggots lmao

>vice.com

Attached: 905991D9-DFA6-46E8-BA83-A43536679914.png (673x767, 542K)

Why do you believe something that is constantly repeated on the Fake News?

You really don't think ISPs give you a fastlane when they see your dns request for speedtest.net (or any number of types of DPI they can do even if you're using https) How naive are you? Do you REALLY believe the speedtest.net number you get is genuine? Do you not believe that ISPs have an incentive to game this number and that removing net neutrality regulations allowed them to cheat this benchmark even more than they were before?

You are being lied to. There was no "40% bandwidth increase", that is simply a result of them being able to cheat metrics more effectively because of the lack of NN regulation now. The ISPs are taking a shit in your mouth as a consumer and you are asking for seconds.

Stay mad faggot

fortune.com/2018/12/05/fcc-fraud-comments-chair-admits/

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-156A1.pdf

"FCC Chair Ajit Pai admitted in a commission statement Dec. 3 that fraudulent comments in the millions, including “half-million submitted from Russian e-mail addresses,” were made in a public process prior to the commission’s allegedly foregone decision to reverse net-neutrality policies set in the Obama Administration."

>I don't like the source so it's wrong

nobody cares

>Do you REALLY believe the speedtest.net number you get is genuine?
Yes, considering I can corroborate those numbers by measuring the time it takes to download data from my VPS on Digital Ocean, or by looking at the average throughput of my torrents.
Fucking dunce.

Attached: img.jpg (620x465, 32K)

>fortune.com
More fake news. Bye bye libcuck.

I believe it when I get my rated speed doing a variety of tasks, the least of which are speed-test related.
Before Pajeet A.I.: 11/2
After Pajeet A.I.: 120/20

Is it gigabit to the desktop? No. But I live in the middle of fucking nowhere.

I'm glad I don't have to subsidize the retarded Zoomers using Netflix and Hulu anymore.

Ty based Ajit

You should

I think you missed the part where it was said in an official FCC statement by Ajit Pai himself. Stay mad illiterate retard.

Well at least you stopped using the abbreviation you've never understood, so that's something.

The real secret battle behind this Net Neutrality bullshit is who should be regulating the internet. Initially when the internet first opened to businesses in the 90s, it was overseen by the FTC who took a hands-off approach and things worked just fine. Under Obama, it was mysteriously moved to the FCC, which is our censorship board and which got loud applause from large tech companies currently engaged in censorship.

Why should it be in the FCC's purview instead of the FTC? The FTC was doing a good job. Access to the internet and the terms certainly got better over that stretch of time. Explain why we should give it to the FCC, an organization that has had a questionable history with television and radio.

>muh russians
Pathetic.

Comcast is unironically the best company that I give money to on a consistent basis. Stay gay

>You still have no idea QoS has literally fucking nothing to do with net neutrality.
Imagine knowing this little about networking and being smug about it. Imagine thinking you know better than IEEE engineers when you insist that "net neutrality has nothing to do with QoS" when the two are very closely related at the ISP level.

>imagine being a seething dicord tranny who thinks he speaks with the authority of an IEEE engineer

>R-R-RUSSIA DID IT
imagine dying on that retard hill

I know it's fake news because Trump tweets told me so.

Attached: 1532021825540.png (207x243, 15K)

Pai's statement says nothing of the sort. You are just parroting whatever the Fake News is telling you to repeat. Or maybe you are simply repeating what Reddit is telling you to think. It's time to think for yourself. Time to be an adult.

Tell us more about Russia

Why do you guys see that as not an issue?

Bots like and dislike all social media. Most popular posts consist of new products you could buy.
Politics are mainstream media which pushes their funders agenda also trying to keep it balanced. Failing to report subjects that harm their bottom line.
Useful idiots get funded to stay float.
Misleading research is pushed by media for clicks.
Products are made to generate most profit by making them weak or obsolete.
Hail corporate.
Marketing echo chamber. People repeat marketing.
Gaslighted to think corporations compete for the best possible products and that their new products are so much better than the last. Offer only bad options so people buy soon again even worse products. Cause problems and sell the solution, be a monopoly. Increase prices and the whole industry will follow. Profit margin creep.
Goverment works for the people never forget that. If something doesnt get done and is against the people you have to make noise but you cant if you are in debt. You cant if you have no privacy imagine getting private army to your door for going against corporate overlords. Dont race to the bottom. Killing critics harms democracy the most. Killing should never be justified hearing them out is the only way. Otherwise you get dead people who happened to be critics of highly profitable banks. Framed by the corrupt police or as gang violence. They even might jail or try to shut their mouths. Ban them from the internet. Restrict access to communicate and share data. Kill privacy so getting rid of dissinents becomes as easy as a money transfer.

>still deflecting blame nearly two years after an election
yikes

Nice strawman. I've only proved the fact that most anti net-neutrality comments were astroturfed contrary to what a previous poster said. Also if you don't think russia is actively trying to influence this country youre fucking retarded.

Our PRESIDENT who was elected by the AMERICAN PEOPLE has told us that the FAKE NEWS has an AGENDA that people like you are trying to push. Donald J. Trump is different from the other politicians who simply bend over for corporate interests. People like Hillary Clinton belong in prison.

> Everyone up in arms over the current FCC chair
> No one questioning if the FCC should be involved at all

>Notice how broadband access AND average bandwidth has gone up all across the US since this dogshit statute was repealed.
What does that have to do with NN?

Our bandwidth here also has risen, and we got unlimited 10/10GBE at $60/month with TV and telephony inclusive.
This is largely thanks to state enforced network access on two strands of optical wires for providers competing with the monopolist.

I honestly think its sad that some people are so far gone that they will probably consider your 100% true statement satire.

> imagine dying on that retard hill
Now that's a new comeback I haven't seen yet.

No, why is the head of the FTC accepting half a million comments left by Russian bots on our legislation

Servers pay for their bandwidth too, you dumbfuck. In fact, they are charged per gigabyte, unlike home users.

*FCC

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-03-06 at 3.56.25 PM.png (1308x164, 50K)

I can't believe that they still pay shills even after they won. That's some dedication to their cause.

>corporations outsourcing shilling to Russian spambots
based

Attached: 7ydekzzHFX-2.png (300x250, 29K)

It's definitely satire

>Uninhibited by government regulations, service providers have been free to expand their fiber optic networks

Ah yes. With net neutrality, they wouldn't have been allowed to expand their fiber optic networks.

I'm not nearly as worried about Russian shitposting FOR FREE on Jow Forums as much as I am about hundreds of millions of dollars being funneled from technology and media corporations to democrat coffers.

OH NO TEH RUSSHANS D:

>Notice how broadband access AND average bandwidth has gone up
Internet Providers Are Investing Less Despite Net Neutrality's Death:
fortune.com/2019/02/07/internet-providers-net-neutrality-investment/

Wasn't this what the proponents claimed why they even wanted to risk breaking net neutrality?

Also, even if slavery was allowed again: Would you want to be the first to stick your head out and run a slavery business while the anger over the decision is still fresh, people might resort to violence and boycots, court cases are still pending and congress might smack it down this year again?

>implying it's not just indian shil-for-hire farms fighting each other

>even after they won
Court battles and battles in congress are still going on.

And I'm rather certain that the marketing trend data botnets recorded that people haven't forgotten yet.

>Internet neutrality is a debate controversial to a tiered, application-aware Internet. Bandwidth and end-to-end delay of connections across the Internet may vary by several orders of magnitude, therefore unequal data handling per node is commonly applied to achieve differentiated QoS. This practice contradicts Internet neutrality if it is not restricted to pure application awareness.

"QoS differentiation and Internet neutrality", Brikena Statovci-Halimi, 2013

>To continue providing adequate QoS, network operators and service providers can build more infrastructure — but this requires huge investments to deal with the enormous growth expected in traffic. The parallel solution is traffic management: making systems more efficient, while also setting restrictions on the amount of data that can be sent, and who gets priority as a sender or receiver. How traffic on IP networks could — or whether it should — be restricted in this way is sometimes included in discussions of “net neutrality.”

WCIT Background brief, 2012

>Network Neutrality is a non‐discriminatory principle for Internet traffic. It has been widely debated recently, with
significant policy deliberations occurring around the world. IEEE EPPI believes that there is a need for regulation
which guarantees network neutrality by ensuring a non‐discriminatory treatment of both wired and wireless
network traffic, and urges EU policy makers to:
>Define minimum Quality of Service / Quality of Experience levels for each of the main classes of
Internet services and applications. These defined minimum levels must be guaranteed to all end users
most of the time, and revised as technology advances.

"Network Neutrality: An IEEE European Public Policy Initiative Position Statement", 2016

There you go, 3 papers discussing how QoS at the ISP level and net neutrality are very much related contrary to what you say.

You literally don't know what you are talking about and it shows.

I'm curious how much you get paid? I'm currently jobless and I'm ready to throw away my soul and dignity for a quick buck. Please hire me as a shill.

I could use some extra cash too. If shills from both sides could reveal their rates per post that would be great in helping me make a decision.

>Jow Forumstards know they can't win the debate on the technical front so they shift the debate to attacking some "muh russia paranoia" strawman
pathetic

> tfw you will never get paid to shitpost on an irrelevant internet backwater to an audience who doesn't care

Just use iperf bro

God you're pathetic shit for brains. You fucked up with QoS, and now you're trying to swap the net neutrality term to cover yourself.
Now open the fucking Communication Act and read about "net neutrality" we're talking about, as in legally binding definition.

You said something retarded. You were called out on it. You are now backpedaling to a "legal definition" rather than a technical one. Noted.

>don't talk about legal definition of something that was legally repealed by FCC
I don't know how you could recover yourself at this point. Just start from scratch and pretend that isn't you, preferrably with wojak pic.

good luck in 2020 with whatever half breed tranny your party decides to run

>Notice how none of their baseless fearmongering proved correct.
And they are still fear mongering in this thread. Reddits are such good goys and relish receiving love, directly injected from google.

You said "QoS has nothing to do with net neutrality" but that is blatantly false when we talk about the technical considerations of observing NN. The term is even used in policy recommendations by the IEEE. So now you are moving the goalposts to the strict legal language enshrined in law rather than the technical considerations of how companies follow that law, which was the original discussion in the first place (QoS/throttling/fastlanes)

>the statute doesn't say "throttling" so throttling has nothing to do with the law

Attached: 1548922071295.png (586x557, 66K)

>ISPs use repeal of net neutrality laws to QoS
>I don't know what are "net neutrality laws", what did they govern and what exactly was repealed because it's boring strict legal language, but still have an opinion because reddit
Your last (you) for today.

Yes, the repeal of NN directly affects how ISPs are allowed to do QoS

Are you stupid?

No, it doesn't

Yes, it does.

>how ISPs are allowed to do QoS
Holy shit, you finally realized they were allowed to do that even with "net neutrality laws"!
Took 2 hours though, but still.

>Holy shit, you finally realized they were allowed to do that even with "net neutrality laws"!
Nobody claimed they weren't. NN repeal just changed to what extent they can do it.

Throttling data is still regulated as anticompetitive behavior you jackass. Go back to retarddit

Yeah right, faggot, follow the post chain you're in.

>ANTITRUST LAW
>ENFORCED IN TELECOM INDUSTRY
AAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

>Net-Neutrality

I've never seen a difference at any point since the 90s.

Attached: 2007.jpg (4576x2000, 1.85M)

Link one instance of someone in that post chain claiming that ISPs weren't allowed to do QoS under net neutrality. Just one. You can't.

>boring legal mumbo-jumbo
didn't read lol
orange man bad

NN was never applicable to mobile providers

>he thinks "telecom" only refers to mobile providers

Attached: 1548922153416.jpg (733x464, 102K)