Where does Jow Forums stand on this issue?

You can't tell me that's the first time you've seen this image.

this is what already happens on both ends, you pay for throughput if you don't use fixed wireless like some retard

This would support big websites while hampering competing start ups. AKA bad

See Netflix/Comcast.

Never happened. Communist lie.

It's impossible to do that because the speed of electricity and light is the same no matter what packet. They can't "speed up" anything.
What ISPs have been doing however is deliberately dropping packets (deliberate service sabotage) and asking for money to undo it.
This is called extortion.

>look like Andy Kaufman
>high-tech prankster
the plot thickens

Access to all websites should be slowed down to 0 bytes per second

Attached: snake roy.jpg (609x700, 81K)

They do now, actually.

What is QoS

Artificial difficulty.

Hell fucking no.

they want to offload as much data from air to ground as they can for normie phone shit, so there's not much incentive to throttle wired internet

Yes, for multiple reasons.

(1) The internet service provider owns the equipment. They should be allowed to operate their property as they see fit.
(2) The internet service provider understands the technology better than lawmakers so they are more qualified to determine policy.
(3) The internet service provider is motivated by profit, which although imperfect, is a better incentive than the government has, where lobbyists and corruption make the rules.
(4) The United States currently allows this behavior and internet service has not suffered as a result. Why make rules for a problem that doesn't exist?
(5) If internet service providers are engaging in anticompetitive business practices, it is because they have monopoly power, not because there is a lack of regulation. Break them up and let free market competition sort it out.

The real question here is, should 80 year old congressmen be allowed to tell network operators how to run the internet?

Attached: tread.png (994x1044, 34K)

>internet service has not suffered as a result
?? are you alright? 2/10 desu

Also, the reason companies like Netflix keep shilling Net Neutrality is because these services use up so much bandwidth to the point of causing slowdown, and as a result Comcast has to throttle the connection. Of course Netflix isn't happy about that.

or make it a $1.25 per Mbit

>government regulation
Eww
>government at all
Gross

he looks like a cool guy until you remember his voice. I can take fat, hairy, "I want to see the manager at hooters" stallman. I can't take whiny prankster.

isps are defacto monopolies in most small to medium metro areas in the US and this gives them even more power. I'm not disagreeing with you, but you can't scream free market when comcast will let some podunk congressman/woman have a night on the town for legislature that blocks competition. Many isps already have too tight of a stranglehold on places that aren't major metro areas. this isn't good vs bad. It's evil vs evil and the outcome needs to be that at least one evil dies.

if you're posting here you ought to have more sympathy for autistic behavior. the dude is not exactly charismatic but his aims are noble and he has accomplished a great deal.

Attached: rms_fa.jpg (1908x2042, 1.88M)

I love stallman and his principles. He just doesn't interview well and that's what irks me. I think he is a great small group/1-on-1 type of person but literally every interview or large audience appearance is cringe. i bet he is a blast if you were just shooting the shit about hacking on software but i'm never gonna get that opportunity.

Spoken like someone who has no grasp of networking.

>I love stallman and his principles
idiot

This, except I might be OK with the way energy for example works right now. It's a public utility that's heavily regulated but they are still private companies supplying to homes

Netflix's packets never made it to Comcast. Netflix was at fault.

If I remember correctly, Netflix actually has deals to speed up their service because it takes up so much fucking bandwidth.

No, they have a deal to connect directly to Comcast instead of going through a middleman.

yeh my bad
cnet.com/news/netflix-reaches-streaming-traffic-agreement-with-comcast/

>make internet free
>potable water, electricity and gas (for cold climates) is not free

kek, first world priorities, right?

How does making something a public utility make it free?

This.
But that post is completely right. Packets travel at the same speed. Only way to make some slower is to either artificially make connections slower based on domain (or content, if it is unencrypted). This is sabotaging by definition.

kek, third world education, right?

I think we should unironically let the invisible hand of free market have free reign on this one.
And then, once the magacorps are hanging from their own rope, crying about unfair competition / asking for more legislation protecting them, just look down and whisper "No".

Attached: anonycat.jpg (960x720, 59K)

since when are public utilities free, you dense cunt? SINCE FUCKING WHEN? what shithole third world nation do you come from? USA? would explain why you're this dense.

> be you
> failed at everything at life
> be stallman
> make massive contributions to the world of computing
> find stallman's work inside most non-windows computers on earth
lmao. looks like it's suicide for you, lamer.

>I think we should unironically let the invisible hand of free market have free reign on this one.
>what is capitalism?
how do you think modern ISPs work, Jow Forumsenius? do you think it's some communist cabal that are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts?

>(1) The internet service provider owns the equipment. They should be allowed to operate their property as they see fit.
No they shouldn't.
1.people gave them tax cuts so they could provide better infrastructure to the population. It's only fair we have a say on how it's going to be used it.
2. letting them "use their infrastructure as they want" will impact millions of people who depend on said infrastructure.
>The internet service provider understands the technology better than lawmakers so they are more qualified to determine policy.
The solution is to give lawmakers non-lobbied consultants that have the domain knowledge to determine policy while staying on the population's side.
>(3) The internet service provider is motivated by profit, which although imperfect, is a better incentive than the government has, where lobbyists and corruption make the rules.
I can't make any sense of this. How is profit a better incentive than having "improve Internet infrastructure so everyone gets higher speeds"? If you go by the first, you will only improve the service if profits come with it, which often isn't the case.
Lobbyists suck and they should be kicked out.
Corruption also exists in private companies.
>The United States currently allows this behavior and internet service has not suffered as a result. Why make rules for a problem that doesn't exist?
Because those problems do exist: nordvpn.com/blog/comcast-net-neutrality-fast-lanes/
digitaltrends.com/web/verizon-wireless-throttling-video-traffic/
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-and-netflix-throttled-by-carriers-research-finds
They sell an Internet service to the public. Now that the public use streaming services that use the bandwidth they paid for, providers are complaining instead of upgrading their infrastructure (to deliver the bandwidth they sold). Or they just have a conflict of interests (when the Internet provider is also a cable TV service provider).

>(5) If internet service providers are engaging in anticompetitive business practices, it is because they have monopoly power, not because there is a lack of regulation. Break them up and let free market competition sort it out.
No, that is simply false. ISPs often choose not to compete with each other if it means more profits (ie. not wanting to operate in a state dominated by another ISP). They will lobby together and operate as a cartel - as they always did.
"free market" doesn't work if the service is not profitable. This is often the case for small cities - yet, their population pay tax like everyone else and it's only fair they have access to utilities like the Internet.

The question implies that rates are currently being paid.

>break up the corporation to let the free market sort it out
t. Free marketeer
archive.fo/bEZcX

I have a gigabit connection and the sped is limited by the host.

Actually it is. Unless you're one of the few companies you physically cannot lay cables in any place of importance.

>where lobbyists and corruption make the rules
Then stop sucking so much corporate dick and elect politicians that don’t belong to corporate interests.

>Telephone service brought to every home no matter how remote in the 1930s
>2015: The USA is too sparsely populated to run fiber to every home
Wtf

FUCK NO
This shit is basically the end of the internet even if it takes a few decades.

I guess we’ll just keep paying $100 a month for 15x1 with 10% packet loss and 300 ms latency

>Actually it is. Unless you're one of the few companies you physically cannot lay cables in any place of importance.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
read it, you fucking moron.

>The internet service provider owns the equipment. They should be allowed to operate their property as they see fit.
Yes we should let the shittiest of the shittiest corporations in this country choose winners and losers among their competition. Is this free market capitalism?

I'd love an 80 year old to regulate the internet instead of letting retards like you have any say.

Attached: aoc feet.jpg (1079x744, 120K)

based and libertypilled

Attached: doom_paul_1.jpg (720x720, 103K)

USA ISPs are not operating under capitalism. They literally are a cabal.

Not true. Anyone can file the paperwork to be a utility, gain access to city infrastructure, and install fiber. It's not cheap or easy, but it is possible.

Telecoms in 1930 weren't expecting 10,000,000% profit margins to report to investors.

I hope Jow Forums understands you can't regulate internet with the same fucking law for phones.

$1.25 per Mbit would be a vastly superior plan than the one I have in all honestly
>t. ruralfag paying for $75/mo or 10Mbit

>$1250/mo for gigabit is better than $75/mo for 10Mbps

Only if they want less customers.

>look like Andy Kaufman
More like Krist Novoselic

Attached: Krist-Novoselic.jpg (900x600, 75K)

just stop using http

Attached: Ipfs-logo-1024-ice-text.png (1024x1024, 70K)

you just earned the Good Citizen Badge.
wear it with autistic pride

i love the free market

Queen of Spades

Yeah, but then how will I know people's passwords?

>net neutrality repeal affects nothing!
Who could have guessed.

"Break them up" is literally the government regulation that you said was harmful.

>affects nothing
Verizon used to let you do pic related. Now they throttle you at 20 GB.

Attached: 1436754127064.png (768x1280, 107K)

If I'm paying for 100Mbps down, that's what I'm expecting to get. Nigger shit like this needs to be gassed.

While I'd love to /thread your post, you're not paying for 100Mbps, you're paying for UP TO 100Mbps

If the peer I'm connecting to doesn't have a 100Mbps upload, that's fine, but for it to be artificially throttled is hooked-nose extortion. If your fuckin' archaic network can't handle modern Internet traffic, you shouldn't be offering it.

No, at least not on the client side.
ISPs should not be allowed to control how their customers make use of their bandwidth.
That would be like charging different amounts for water or electricity depending on what you do with it.
This is what people mean when they say the internet is a public utility.

*should be a public utility

Hey, this website is pretty neat.

Attached: cool.png (1206x2048, 1.31M)

>Packets travel at the same speed
they're not given the same routing priority, however. one of the big bottlenecks in large scale networks is routing, so paying for priority is like paying to use the toll road instead of the public road. i don't give a shit if somebody pays more for better service, the internet is slowly coming under control of a few major corporations anyway. contrary to popular belief monopolies are created primarily by retarded consumers, let the normies reap what they sow.

Too bad Delaney cucks on guns.

Yes, they should. It's their networks and they should have control over them.

The real issue is state-granted monopolization. If there were a real market for communications providers in the US, you wouldn't have to worry about this shit.

The best solution is to have municipalities create their own local fiber loops, have ISPs piggy-back on, and sell their services that way. That way the infrastructure is maintained, and providers have to compete with services. This already exists. My city is actually on the map!

muninetworks.org/communitymap

You're a faggot. I bet you suck dicks.

Facial recognition systems should be illegal.

Oh, cool! Digital communism! There's no way that this could fail! There's no way that the profit motive and a truly free market wouldn't force ISPs to provide quality services.

Attached: comunism.gif (640x534, 1.42M)

This

Cool story, Mr. Homosexual. I won't stop you from felating me.

Attached: thumbs_up_cat.png (720x714, 722K)

the thing all the crybabies keep forgetting is that the government is the reason for localized ISP monopolies. we've had 3 ISPs turned away in the last 5 years in my town because they wouldn't bribe the city council. the council literally solicited a "kick-back" during a hearing on public access tv and nothing ever came of it. this guy knows whats up.

would've fapped to that if it were not for that dumb look on her face

You literally just replied to two of my posts.

Attached: blackhole_brain.jpg (903x960, 52K)

>because these services use up so much bandwidth to the point of causing slowdown
heaven forbid that the CUSTOMER tries to use the bandwidth they were told was provisioned for them on the advertisements for the subscription from the TIER-3 BANDWIDTH RESELLER
oh no, there were LAWS PROTECTING THE CUSTOMERS FROM FALSE ADVERTISEMENT CLAIMS ABOUT THE SERVICE BY PROVIDING A STANDARD DEFINITION OF WHAT IS BEING SOLD, better get comcast and the good ol boys (pajeet, i) together to do something about that

Depends on the amount of bandwidth the website uses.

based

i just really want us to be friends. i'm sorry if i came on too strong.

That's okay. We can still make out.

Attached: stallman_kawaii.png (300x360, 176K)

>web service companies feel like they get a raw deal from ISPs
>they create their own ISPs in competition
>inb4 some reply about how ISPs would do something to Google that explicitly violates antitrust laws
Problem solved.

It's the only way