What does /b think of NetNeutrality
So any reason to be against NetNeutrality if you actually have no stock market share with a media or internet service provider?.
For those who dont know, this 14th in the USA they are changing the INTERNET... yes the whole thing called INTERNET classification to something that will allow companies to make the internet like a cable package.
What do i mean?:
In a hypothetical situation Verizon and Netflix become friends in business, but Verizon and Google are competitors, If NetNeutrality loses... it would mean that Verizon can make "youtube" slower or even unavailable, and make Netflix work fast.
Right now that amount of speed to acce YouTube and Netflix is the same, after the 14th if NetNeutrality ends up losing.... we might have to purchase extra services for gaming, downloading stuff etc...
People that are against NetNeutrality will tell you is GOOD because it makes companies compete in the market, which is bullshit as they always end up fixing the prices under the table.
So what is your stand on this topic /b?
>>752454018
Doesn't mean shit and proxy services will be booming.
>>752455107
but i don't want to purchase a proxy. Also gaming trough proxy sucks for real time gaming for instance.
You work for then you fucking idiot. if it doesn't mean anything why not keep it as it is.
>>752455264
>implying ISPs will throttle ultra low bandwidth latency critical games (read: stupid cheap for them)
Good proxies are less then $10 a month and I have never seen a bit of lag when using a nearby server.
If you don't want to purchase a proxy, well then it sucks to be you. There is literally no down side to having a good proxy service.
>>752455107
>>752455264
I'm prob wrong but don't you mean VPNs?
And to the 2nd anon it doesn't matter whether vpn or proxy the surge of competition due to the influx of users will cause the services to get better and thus those issues will get ironed out in the process
Still, fuck getting rid of net neutrality
I just can't see any benefit to the average user at all
>>752455757
ahahha moron direct SOCKET connection is always faster, particularly for real time gamming or P2P connections.
Also is ac rime to use proxy and bypass the ISP regulation, so if you ISP wants you to pay for YouTube and you use a proxy to access it you making crime.
Have you ever consider killing yourself anon?, are you actually going to give me a real reason to be against NetNeutrality i am looking for one...
>>752455962
there is no benefit other than now you can have companies fight for you as a client, until of course they settle all in bed and fuck as in the butt.
I see no advantage to getting rid of net neutrality and I see a metric shit-ton of painfully obvious shilling in favor of it's repeal.
All signs point toward net neutrality being a good thing and it's repeal being a bad thing.
>>752456091
>crime
>unenforceable
>unprovable
>moot
>>752456091
>direct SOCKET connection is always faster
unless your ISP is throttling your retard ass
If you had half a brain cell you would just malti wan a ton of local wifi hot spots into your home internet and fuck all for throttling and limitations
Do you even Tomato firmware? Do you even PFsense or real routing hardware other then the shit your ISP gives you?
>>752456091
No it's not a crime you dumb fuck otherwise how would people be able to use VPNs
>>752456363
the only reason is that they want more money, and need more money, cant get enough of money.-.. that sweet smell of money and control.
When you are looking for the person that made a crime, always look for the money.
MONEY MONEY MONEY
Imagine having to pay extra fees over your normal Internet service just to be able to play a game without lag.
>>752454018
There will be a block chain based Internet in the not so distant future and if the ISP's charge too much it will happen sooner.
I use Tmobile's 4g unlimited for everything. 5g is right around the corner. The sky will not collapse if we rid ourselves of some government regulations.
>>752456583
idiot the whole point is that ISP will Throttle the internet.
And is worse for people outside America as some of those servers route or live in USA ground like GOOGLE.
Go read a book before posting in thread that you don't understand.
WTF are you talking about setting WIFI hotspots??? are you retarded or something?.
Hotspots have nothing to do with Throttling.
>>752454018
Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now
When you go online you have certain expectations. You expect to be connected to whatever website you want. You expect that your cable or phone company isn’t messing with the data and is connecting you to all websites, applications and content you choose. You expect to be in control of your internet experience.
When you use the internet you expect Net Neutrality.
Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Net Neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked.
In 2015, millions of activists pressured the Federal Communications Commission to adopt historic Net Neutrality rules that keep the internet free and open — allowing you to share and access information of your choosing without interference.
But right now this win is in jeopardy: Trump’s FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, wants to destroy Net Neutrality. In May, the FCC voted to let Pai’s internet-killing plan move forward. By the end of the summer, the agency was flooded with more than 20 million comments. The vast majority of people commenting urged the FCC to preserve the existing Net Neutrality rules.
>>752456605
They can use VPNS to acces network, if you use that VPN to download torrents then is a crime.
Then anyone using proxy is jumping the service then is a felony (which is not the same as VPN) proxy's are only used to route information in an external IP that has "no throttling".
It work exactly the same as Torrents, you can install a torrent and use it, no problem, but if the ISP really wants to fuck you it will, because downloading illegal content is well... a crime.
With NetNeutrality OFF using a service that your ISP does not provide "like accessing YouTube" is a crime !!!! IDIOT. Exactly like cable hacking, you connect your cable provider to youur computer and see channels that you don't suppose to have for instance. IS A CRIME.
using proxys will be a crime also. RETARD
>>752456754
that block chain internet you speak about is an interesting solution, want to hear more about it, you are talking about a P2P sharing Internet network right? probably with ONION...
It might work, but at the end have you seen BGP Throttling? they read bytes, memorize it and slow it anyways, so is placebo without the law regulation. BGP is just way o strong of a protocol right now to be honest... even ONION services will be throttled.
>>752457195
ISP can't see traffic as it is routed through vpn first
They can't tell shit
No issue
Dumb fuck
>>752456754
>Literally doesn't know how the internet, proxies, VPNs, or routing works.
>Go read a book before posting in thread that you don't understand.
I kek'd way to fucking hard. I work in a datacenter, what do you do that makes you so knowledgeable?
Whats to stop an ISP from selling Neutral Internet access for all its customers? Would that work?
>>752457459
>Im a Janitor
>>752457402
>It might work, but at the end have you seen BGP Throttling? they read bytes, memorize it and slow it anyways
So they would throttle everything? An ISP would do nothing but loose customers if they throttled everything lol
>>752457547
kektis prime
>>752457415
Then go have no idea what BGP throttling is idiot. go read that and come back.
They can throttle anything they want over BGP
In short for anyone reading... BGP is the protocl that ISP speak between... is the BIG INTERNET.
This data centers read vytes, save bytes, and sort bytes. so if you are loading a video from youtube it will save part of the buffering and serve it from there, instead of you having to ask it all the way to google for instance...
now BGP one NetNeutrality is OFF it will also keep the services it cares about in a better and faster buffer, either they are proxy, VPN, ONION, whatever...it does not care. Enve if the package is encrypted etc, when reading a certain set of bytes "like the ONION hash" it will simply throttle it.
They don't have to tell you what they do with BGP because is corporate secrecy, but trust me they are evil they can actually grab a video and take a part of the video, lets say something that says "trump is a child rapist" and block it from ALL Tcp/IP request of that video, that part of the bytes will never go trough. i have seen it i work for an Tier 1 ISP for the last 20 years.
(((Net Neutrality))))
>Gives power to government, as it allows them to regulate service providers and terms of service.
> Has only been in place for 2 years.
> Other countries that have it are arresting normie fags for "offensive" jokes.
No Net Neutrality
> Free market regulates prices
> Monopolies will fall due to competition.
>>752454018
If you really want to know the thinking behind the probable repeal, then I recommend reading Reason Magazine's recent interview with Ajit Pai.
>>752457459
that was another post you idiot organize your posts.
And stop giving false solutions like "block chain internet" what, are we all going to be a fucking mafia of routers just to get to thread in 4chan?
>>752458129
>>752457647
losing customers is the bottom line of the discussion i don't care about the customers.
That logic is like saying, if nazys keep killing Jews the people will be against the, and overthrown them.
In other words, where are you going to go??? if there are only 5 ISP providers in the USA, and they are all fucking each other in the bed.
>>752457979
surely no one is that stupid
>>752454018
Whats stopping a smaller ISP offering a net-neutrality style package for competition and taking all the revenue?
>>752457979
So you are arguing that NetNeutrality PROS are:
Government power
is to new..
ANd it makes bullys away?
You must be like 100% retarded really, what kind of cons are those?? i don't even know if you think those are pros or cons, stay on topic you fucking ADD fucktard. What are you 14 years old?
VPNs/proxies aren't going to save you BTW, it's not exactly hard for them to notice "hey this connection is all encrypted and shit", hell if anything they'd probably have a whitelist system where everything is throttled except for certain sites.
>>752457979
The level of retardation in this post, fucking nu/pol/
>>752458418
mostly the dominant isp of that area
see google fiber's nashville rollout trouble
if google and their endless pit of money are getting stonewalled what chance does a little guy have
>>752458057
You are posting to Ajil Pai which is actually the evil guy in here.
Are you evils advocate now? who are you? what are you doing what your life anon?:
There is NOTHING in that interview that says anything to control corporations from Throttling internet services.
Are we going to trust Custom Service & Service Contracts now? which they can change at any time.
hahah you must be stupid or worse you simply have no idea of what we are talking about.
>>752458495
This bait upsets me, pleas delet
>>752458300
>if there are only 5 ISP providers in the USA
>>752458418
You cant because the market is saturated, also once you grow up to some size you have to become evil otherwise they don't invite you to parties and birthdays etc...eventually you are broke and find yourself jumping of the bridge.
>>752458505
That is the GBP data center, we run some test 4 years ago to block parts of a video, lets say... that there is a video where someone says "fuck trump" they can take those bytes, recognize them even if they are encrypted, scattered etc and block them..
If they try to fuck the web like that it would just cause a pier to pier web to become popularized and ISPs would go out of business. Actually, that would be pretty fucking hilarious
>>752454018
I came in here and all I can read is "I have something good for cheap, but fuck it, I'm willingly to have something bad for expensive, because I'm hardcore and a badass".
Stay weird, weirdos.
>>752458495
Are you fucking stupid?
It gives unneeded power to the government.
It's been in place for two years, so if it is repealed it'll go back to normal.
AND everyone has a right to free speech. I can make any joke I want and be legally free from any punishment.
Fucking shill
>>752458328
Prove me wrong.
>>752459059
>a video where someone says "fuck trump" they can take those bytes, recognize them even if they are encrypted, scattered etc
>>752458832
The whole thread was asking why people might support repeal. I supplied a relevant link that discusses some of those reasons. When we silence the opposition, we're only saying that we fear what they might say. I don't believe in censoring the pro-repeal perspective, I believe in listening to it, analyzing it, and responding rationally.
>>752459079
but they will throttle P2P also... are yuo dumb? you think that P2P services go over the air free of all NAT, WAN, BGP routing from the ISP?
Also you become a criminal by doing this, because you "accepted the terms and conditions" and you are bypassing the regulations. Bottom line we always lose if the 14th NetNeutrality lies.
IT MIGHT NOT BE APPARENT IMMEDIATELY but over they years, one step at a time we will get the internet they want.
>>752458861
SHEIT I FELL FOR FUCKIN BAIT!!!!
>>752458832
>There is NOTHING in that interview that says anything to control corporations from Throttling internet services.
Actually, there is. You would know that if you had read it. He says that is a job for the Federal Trade Comission.
>>752459212
still... you are making no point, are you against or pro NetNeutrality and why?.:
Do you even understand what we are talking about? that's is what i am afraid of, the level of autism and focus.
Bye bye shitposting
>>752459260
oh remember this post take a picture please.... you will see LayoutNet when its launched xD remember me anon.
>>752459470
No, no more bait. I already fell for your shit once!
ITT:
>>752459212
>It gives unneeded power to the government.
It's taking powers from money-hungry corporations and giving them to a government that serves the people, what's bad about that?
>It's been in place for two years, so if it is repealed it'll go back to normal.
So what's been so abnormal about it in those two years compared to before it?
You mean how there's been two years without needing to hear about "comcast throttling torrents/netflix/<other competition here>"?
>>752458418
>>752458706
>>752458950
Small ISP's rent lines from AT&T. AT&T can throttle the ISP.
>>752459395
I read that, and is stupid, that is like saying to bank or the FED to regulate the monetary system... wait a second that also happens.
So trust politics again??? hahahha, as if that has worked ever in favor of the people and not the companies.
>>752459629
>a government that serves the people
>actually believes this
>>752459800
Compared to corporations yeah I do, you'd be an idiot to think otherwise
>>752459212
>everyone has a right to free speech. I can make any joke I want and be legally free from any punishment.
what does that have to do with being for or against net neutrality?
you peole are dumb i read all of this an luagh to death.
NetNeutrality is something that will go away, corporations win as they always lose, we will get shitty internet, if you have more money don't you worry... if you are poor then jump a bridge right now.
End of story.
>>752457950
who the fuck are you?
>>752459862
What are lobbyists
>>752459629
Oh yes, let's give power to the government, because that works out so well. Corporations are kept in line by buyers and only become a threat when they are either in league with the government or hold a monopoly and uses the government to keep other providers from coming into existence.
Every time a provider did something like that, they were strangled for it and were taken to court, along with losing customers. They can't legally slow your speed to websites.
i dont think that it will change that much because if companies like verison or comcast drop service or slow down service to certain websites than less people will use them and other companies that provide the same internet we have today will become bigger, because of capitalism.
>>752459862
When all of the politicians are practically bought by the corporations. Big fat campaign contribution and BAM, sure thing ISP throttle whatever you like! Please tell me you are not that naive.
>>752459697
How on earth is that the same thing? The FTC is the government, just like the FCC. They just have different responsibilites.
>>752459890
The UK has similar restrictions put into place. You can be arrested for telling an offensive joke.
Net Neutrality allows for governments to put a foot in the door and all it'll take is for one judge to rule that "hate speech" is violent and now everyone is being charged for making jokes or speaking their mind.
>>752459947
I am an actual engineering from CHINA right now located in South American bored installing some satellites infrastructure for Brasilean and Bolivian country, i know how the internet works 100% and how the internet will work in the future.
Any questions?-
BTW i am actually installing infrastructure that will give USA people new ISP outside their own country. The only thing that NetNeutrality will accomplish is that American people will use outside of USA services.just to get normal internet. very sad... but GREAT BUSINESS FOR CHINA.
we cant wait for stupid Americans to go against net neutrality, hahahaha.
I feel like if they start fucking with the internet as we know it, there will be mass outrage. Basement dwellers will come outside for the first time in 20 years just to vote the republicans out of office.
But I guess we'll see.
>>752460262
>>752460330
here come the shills
>>752460001
you are forgetting they all sleep together, they set a price for things under the table, they always do, if they could they'll do it with oil also... to bad there is an actual intermediary taking care of international oil prices.
But if NetNeutrality goes down... they could say "20 dollars a month" and "20 dollars for gaming" a month, do we have a deal?... this between ISP companies. SO FUCK capitalism, is just a game between rich friends.
>>752459970
>Oh yes, let's give power to the government, because that works out so well
It kinda does, laws tend to have a much better effect than twitter post promises.
>or hold a monopoly and uses the government to keep other providers from coming into existence.
That's the main problem, local government stifling competitors almost all across America. That has nothing to do with net neutrality though, net neutrality was is mostly a band-aid fix, but it was a fix that worked.
>>752460104
So let me get this straight, you'd rather the corps have control directly without even needing to go through all the lobbying/bribing/etc?
God dammit people, net neutrality is what has keep the internet alive. Whit out it we would never be able to use free websites such as 4chan, Youtube, or PornHub with out the ISP charging you for very fap. Also it would make gaming imposible or newswebsites such as CNN or FuK's (FOX) News to ve reacheable with out paying for them if the ISP you use blocks them.
>>752460662
All those sites and services you named were in existence three years ago when we didn't have net neutrality regulations, so I think you're overreacting a bit. I'm for neutrality, but there's no need to exaggerate.
>>752460550
No, it literally doesn't fucking matter either way to me because I know how to fucking internet.
>>752460662
>Whit out it we would never be able to use free websites such as 4chan, Youtube, or PornHub with out the ISP charging you for very fap.
>literally believes the ISP will charge you per site like cable companies charge per channel.
>has no idea how the internet works
It is not like a big dump truck! Its a series of tubes!
>>752460550
Net neutrality isn't a law. It's a regulation. The FCC doesn't have the power to make laws.
Tell me, what did it fix? If it's a fix then what was the problem, because providers that were restricting people were already being taken to court and losing business.
So wouldn't the correct thing be for local government to stop stifling competitors, instead of saying fuck it and giving power to the federal government. You're asking the government to solve a problem allowed by the government.
>>752460416
go back to /pol/ faggot
>>752454018
>If NetNeutrality loses... it would mean that Verizon can make "youtube" slower or even unavailable, and make Netflix work fast.
but.. trump was going to drain the swamp? i'm shocked. he's such a trustworthy president. kek. i thought obama was a political hack, trump took it to the next level, drained the swamp, filled it up with raw sewage and communist pedophiles.
USA USA USA #1 USA USA USA #1
hahahahahahahaha
every single one of you dumb cunts has GOT what you deserved. you elected a black retard promising 'change' and was nothing more than a black version of g.w.bush but more of a cunt (i never thought that would be possible.. but here we are). they demonrats didn't give a fuck about net neutrality either if you can recall.. what made anybody think the issue would go away? you fucking morons keep electing fucking morons.. and then you wonder why civil liberties and basic freedoms fly out the fucking window! GOOD FUCKING GOING, MORONS.
>>752460961
Glad to hear that m8. However in a hypothetical situation, ISP could charge you for using Google, and keep in mind we use google for everything, not only that but some of us use emails that we use to comunicate with co-workers, family members, etc. So what would happen if we could not use google just because Verizon (again this is hypothetical) block google from it's plan and now you have to spend $10 just to be able to have a basic means of comunication.
>>752460961
>when we didn't have net neutrality regulations
The regulations were only brought in because corps decided to start doing this shady shit, remember when netflix made a big fuss about it?
Before they tried doing that the internet was pretty much neutral already, they only tried changing it because there was nothing stopping them, and you can bet they'll try again.
>>752461050
>literally believes the ISP will charge you per site like cable companies charge per channel.
Once it's repealed there's literally nothing protecting people from ISPs doing that though, which is the main reason people want to keep it, sure maybe they won't because of "PR" or whatever, but there won't be any guarantee of that anymore.
>>752460180
again that has nothing to do with net neutrality its 2 separate laws your just mushing together to suit your delusions
the uk twitter bollocks boils down to amendments in uk law allowing what you say online to be used as if you said it in person, you can’t get arrested for telling a joke you can however be arrested for breaking a pre-existing law. Non of which has anything to do with what my isp can do with the flow of my data.
TLDR: you're wrong
>>752461300
Dubs don't lie.
Winrar
>>752461441
Google's a bad example, there's no way that would ever happen, considering their monopoly on search and advertising. It will be the startups that will suffer, if anything.
>>752461987
Laws do connect with one another, you know this correct? I'm not mushing them together, they already have to do with one another.
I'm sure you realize that "Count Dankula" is literally going to court because he taught his girlfriend's dog to do a Nazi salute, as a joke, correct?
If everything you say online can be takin as you saying them in person, then yes everything that deals with the data your ISP provides matters.
How dense are you exactly? If you're tolling, then I salute you, because this brand of ignorance is great.
>>752455107
>Doesn't mean shit and proxy services will be booming.
Why cant they throttle the traffic to your proxy?
Why cant they throttle the traffic from your proxy?
Why wont they automatically throttle encrypted data?
>>752462996
Because there are literally consumer laws that don't allow companies to restrict that which you buy.
Let's say you buy a plan that's supposed to give you 25 MB/S, but they only provide 10 for a certain website. You report this to them and they do nothing to change it
You can then take them to court for not giving you what you bought.
>>752462606
I never said I was in favour of the gross overstep that is uk hate crime law
It still has nothing to do with isp’s and or net neutrality law
He was reported by youtube a content provider not an isp and the shit show that is invasive british law steamrolled him
>>752462996
Back in 2007 (I think), this is what Verizon did to certain websites, because they wanted to promote websites and apps affiliated with them.
They were taken to court and given an ass fucking, along with losing customers.
>>752458704
holy fuck so theres underage and overage cunts shitposting
>>752463251
Whats to stop them from adding to their terms that they will throttle encrypted data?
>>752463344
How do you think the UK government even has any domain in the internet? Net neutrality allows for government to place a stake in where they have no business.
Without net neutrality, the government has no place in the internet, unless dealing with goods, as that is an actual item which is shipped through borders.
If you keep giving the government power, they WILL censor you. Companies have only their profit in mind, that is their only agenda.
>>752463425
Whats to stop them from putting in their terms that they will throttle all known proxies?
>>752463543
They can add terms, but any provider that wants to keep their buyers won't do that.
Companies are directed by profit. Whatever makes them the most money and keeps other competitors away. If you don't keep your customers happy, they will find another provider or a new provider will come to exist.
>>752463924
They have a monopoly
>>752463768
One of the big arguments was net neutrality didn’t exists 2 years ago and muh interwebz was fine
SOPA and PIPA legislation is from 2012 so how does net neutrality as a foothold work again ?
Governments will meddle with internet law as often as public outrage or lobbying interests demand it
YOU AMERICANS ARE GOING DOWN WITH MR TRUMP THE ALMIGHTY I LOVE IT GLORIOUS TRUMP WILL MAKE YOU JUST THE WAY NON-AMERICANS LIKE IT YEAH AHAHAHAAH OI
well well well, some pajeet looking guy tries to fuck with the internet and 4chan is spreading its ass and sayin "fuck me daddie"
how things change...
>>752464148
Some places do but others don't. Local governments need to lax their laws, so other providers can be created more easily.
This has been years in the making. Trump and the new FCC is trying to start correcting it.
>>752464743
i blame the trap threads
there was a time when every good 4channer/btard would seethe and froth at the mouth at the thought of losing net neutrality. now that they circlejerk over trump every day, they're like "Wtf I love net neutrality"
you faggots make me sick.
It seems like a ton of people are in favor of removing Net Neutrality, but let me just ask a quick question.
>Are you really ready to pay for all of these websites?
I can see it now, the people in favor of removing it will be bitching and moaning about actually having to pay to access those websites that they love to use within the first month.
"GIVE ME BACK MY YOUTUBE!"
"MUH SPOTIFY!"
>>752465512
Who needs 4chan when we have reddit. Things will be the same.
>>752464486
Both SOPA and PIPA deal with finding and stopping piracy sites and the selling of counterfeit goods, both of which are illegal by standard law and has the government working with ISPs, not controlling or restricting them.
TL:DR False equivalent
>>752465512
Anon makes a good point.
>>752464743
>>752465310
>>752465444
thats the proof, not only /b/, but the whole 4chan is dead, well it was about time to this end, look how things are now
>>752465512
Probably the best point in this thread
>>752465444
fuck me it's supposed to say hate "i hate net neutrality now" that's how sick you cunts make me. I can't even type.
>>752454018
I think almost nobody who claims to know what it means actually knows what it means.
>>752465512
I for one look forward to the not-too distant future where Verizon customers can only access tumblr
>>752454018
The "works for me" bubble needs to extend to Trumptards in the slow lanes, too.
>>752454018
This won't go down like how you crybabies are making it out to be. And if it did, all you'd get is third party forms of "internet" along with enough normie demand to work realistically.
At worst some providers will try it out and end up shooting themselves in the foot and making an example out of themselves
>>752457476
High startup costs. Google has tried to become competitive but even with their huge amount of capital scrapped fiber. Getting into a market to disrupt a monopoly just isn't as profitable as being a monopoly.
>>752465804
My point was net neutrality as a foothold argument is irrelevant
>>752466381
Maybe not i this generation but soon enough...
Not even Obama was brave enough to shoot hes foot for this, he has self respect, but what can we tell about Trump Media representative int he Oval office?.
HE DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT.
For him is just a big paycheck from the Jews at the RCA conglomerate that thought i the early 20`s that investment in the infrastructure (fiber optics etc) will give them the edge in the market... now they are going against companies like GOOGLE from which most are being owned by people that are not jew, then not real humans in their eyes.
>>752457979
If it was bad for monopolies why do monopolies support it?
>>752454018
you gotta pay to play. if you can only afford a Hyundai then that's what you shall have. if you can afford a Ferrari then by all means get a Ferrari.
the internet is a privilege not a right.
>>752461250
Before Net Neutrality, the FTC had the authority to break up the big ISPs that effectively hold a monopoly on the market in most cities. They didn't do that.
Net Neutrality gave the FCC jurisdiction over those ISPs and implemented rules to prevent a new revenue stream the ISPs had come up with that involved getting big content providers to pay for unthrottled content delivery.
Now the Net Neutrality rules are being dropped and the FCC is stepping away from regulating ISPs, since that's not really what they normally do - they're into keeping tits off your TV and people on your radio from using the F word.
The FTC is supposed to prevent anti-competitive behavior, like Comcast throttling Netflix because it competes with their own Digital Cable TV service. The track record on that isn't good, maybe because the FTC lags behind the technology curve, maybe because of bribes, who knows?
Meanwhile, Comcast says they're not going to throttle anybody and that they're committed to net neutrality, while they've quietly backed away from any promises about not building fast lanes and trying to get Netflix to pay for the same gigabyte of data that you're paying for.
If you really trust the FTC and Comcast, you can believe that dropping the Net Neutrality rules is a good thing because there's less government regulation. I don't trust them because of their track record.
Meanwhile, in the two years the FCC has been ruling the entire internet with their iron fist of tyranny, they've done... what? Nothing. Just enforced the rules they had to enforce, and that required no work at all because the ISPs backed down and started lobbying hard instead.
Net Neutrality was good for everyone except big broadband providers who couldn't tap the new revenue stream that advances made in packet filtering technology offered them.
>>752466652
Your point is invalid then or do you not know what a false equivalent means?
>>752466926
nice speech, now you really believe that? like if i give you power wouldn't you see a way for the internet to be free for all? i am sure you do... you are just trying to sound "mature", only jews and people from the 50`s or so think that way.
>>752459079
Unless we lay our own lines this won't work.
>>752466819
Clarify. Are you stating the monopolies support NN or are against it?
>>752459212
On an unrelated note the knights Templar were hunted down and killed for commiting heresy so your meme is shit.
>>752467158
You pay for your bandwidth. Want more, upgrade and pay for more. That's fair. What you do with that bandwidth is up to you, and whatever you choose to read, watch, post, etc, all of those data packets are treated the same way. This is how the internet has always worked, until mid 2013 when big ISPs figured out how to apply throttling technology to try to force certain websites to pay up in order to keep their content streaming at usable speeds. Normally, finding a new way to make money is a good thing for businesses, but:
- in the Comcast vs Netflix situation, it was anticompetitive, since Comcast is also in the streaming television and movie business
- it prevents small companies and startups from competing with the big guys on a level playing field, since they can't afford to pay the bandwidth extortion fees
- it stifles innovative new products and services which harms the economy
- it takes away the ability of consumers to use the bandwidth they're paying for the way they want to
Net Neutrality was one way to address that problem. Market pressure and competition would be a better way, but in most places there is no competition in the broadband industry. Most people have only once choice if they want high-speed internet service. Net Neutrality was the second-best option, the easiest to put into practice, and made for a good compromise.
>>752466982
It seems the problem is with the FTC. I'll be honest, I didn't read your entire post because I've been debating this shit with people for a about a week now, so meh, but you're the first to bring this up.
Back to the subject at hand. Yes, the FTC is meant to keep monopolies from forming, but either through laziness, red tape, bribes, or lagging behind in tech, perhaps a combination.
If the FTC isn't doing it's job then we need to either repair it and if the people in it are corrupt then they need to be charged and replaced.
If you want to fix a problem, then don't give more power to the government, which is part of the problem, but work to fix that which is broken.
It's like you're trying to put a band aide on a compound fracture and saying "yep that's good"
>>752467158
I have to believe it. it's the way it is. I only make so much so im not buying a Ferrari. rich people have privileges and us poor take what we can get. we have not evolved to a star trek type society yet. as long as capitalism is king then I have to believe.
Ajit Pai is a fag
>>752454018
doesnt bother me but i bet it would suck if i was poor.
>>752467505
Yes because the pope needed a fall guy. My ancestry goes back to the Templars, so I spent a lot of thing researching them.
If you'd like I could give a small paragraph as to why they were labeled heretics and fled to England and other countries, including the North Americas.
>>752454018
Everyone who uses this site should care. You think 4chins will be around when NN dies? This will be the first place to go.
>>752467936
Putting the FCC in charge wasn't the best way to fix it, but it was the fastest, cheapest, and honestly least intrusive way to fix it. Fixing the FTC and applying the existing antitrust laws to the problem is going to be a real mess, especially since it requires laying huge amounts of infrastructure to compete with the existing big ISPs.
>>752467104
They weren’t working with them they were forcing them to by making them complacent with shady shit like deep pack inspection and dns filtering major isps were the loudest voices bitching about it.. but anyway I’ve past the point of drunkenness where I can string coherent sentences together so im off. Keep up the good fight of eroding your own consumer protection
>>752456091
>>>752455757
>ahahha moron direct SOCKET connection is always faster, particularly for real time gamming or P2P connections.
Not always. A good CDN/Anycast service with better uplinks to the tier 1 nets than your ISP can provide you with less hops in a route, which can lower latency even for gaming/P2P.
>Also is ac rime to use proxy and bypass the ISP regulation, so if you ISP wants you to pay for YouTube and you use a proxy to access it you making crime.
ISP regulations aren't law. If you use a proxy and it's against their TOS, the most they could do is suspend your account.
>>752468213
You speak like ISPs aren't governed by their customers. If they try to raise prices to an unaffordable rate, then people will drop them and they won't be able to keep providing within most poor areas and so new providers will come no matter what, as long as they aren't getting money from the government to compensate their losses.
Rarely things that are worth doing are easy. Sticking duck tape on a broken window won't fix the problem.
The government is fucked as it is, corrupt and self serving. We gave Obama eight years do that and Bush most certainly did too.
Trump is trying to do the best he can, but people are too afraid or not willing to understand.
>>752466982
Those local monopolies you speak of are sustained through local law, there is nothing the FTC can do there. It's up to your city and state to disentangle you from the situation. Pay attention to local politics, everybody. It's way more important than what happens in Washington.
>>752468397
I can't see that yes you are drunk and this probably the reason for your stupidity.
You also realize that net neutrality sustains these monopolies by causing economic stagnation, correct?
I'm not totally sure what you were trying to get across, so meh.
>>752457950
You don't understand what BGP is
>>752468681
If Comcast was governed by its customers it wouldn't have the absolute worst customer service rating in any industry every year.
They own their customers connection to the internet and their only competition in most places is DSL which is much slower. They feel no pressure to provide good customer service, so they don't bother to. You think that same non-existent pressure is going to effect their prices, or prevent them from charging YouTube to stream your videos at a watchable rate?
I think Trump is trying, and the few times he gets the necessary support, succeeding in keeping his promises. Let's face it, he promised a lot of shit that he just can't deliver without congressional backing. All politicians do, I don't fault him for that.
Problem is, Net Neutrality is doing something that's good and necessary for small businesses and consumers. Getting rid of it, while not solving the underlying problems of monopoly and backroom dealmaking between large ISPs isn't helping anyone.
My stance is idgaf, stfu, and you're a fucking faggot;
rinse and repeat for all other inquiries.
>>752468754
When Comcast and Time Warner decide together not to compete, dividing big cities between them like the spoils of some war, intervention at the federal level is necessary, because local governments just don't have the jurisdiction to address the problem.
>>752468960
I didn’t realize that it sustains monopolies or causes stagnation but I would like to know how so please enlighten me
>>752469533
It does the exact opposite of those things. I suspect the anon you replied to doesn't understand the topic.
>>752460262
Yeah, explain DWDM.
>>752469688
He's installing an ISP in another country that'll somehow run a line to your house, because that makes a lot of sense.
>>752469178
Then that is the people's fault for being complacent, if they provide good internet speed, then that's what most people care about.
There are small businesses that will repair your router or give advice, which is what customer service is supposed to do. If people are happy then nothing will change.
Just like with the NFL, there had been other upsets in the past, but now with the boycott, they'd had to back peddle some and try to reconcile the losses.
Backdoor dealings are something that's supposed to be dealt with by the FTC, as it's basically conspiracy.
Net neutrality also causes economic stagnation, which is keeping these monopolies together. As said before, it's a band aide for a broken leg that isn't healing.
A lot of the stuff he promised is going through.
The wall has prototypes built.
The Muslim ban can only be held up in court for so long, as it is coming.
Tax reform is coming through and don't give me that bullshit of "It increases taxes for middle class by 2020", because that shit places a family of four living on a minimum wage job.
>>752454018
I'll want youtube. I've learned a lot of skills from it.
Don't really care about netflix.
I think it is these corporations attempt to make TV/Cable relevant again and to limit our amount of social influence.
It's fine. Whatever. I don't care.
hey, yo how about we not give a shit that trump is behind all this but be more focused on the fact its a hole load of backward shit wading that would make American internet far worse that it already is, as large businesses have already pulled off a literal R.K.O. on the speed and efficiency of the wifi its self making the US have some of the worst in the modern world nearly 10x slower than South Korea and Japan, even worse there is nothing we can do about it because it is illegal for US internet providers to out perform there "competition" (even though they are all owned by the same parent companies) and that is why star signs are a bunch Bos taurus deification.
>>752469533
Easy enough. Monopolies formed through the failing of the FLC and the support local governments.
The Net Neutrality doesn't allow for companies to really change anything besides their prices on their services as a whole.
As long as this price doesn't change there is no need for a different provider to come in, so they keep their monopoly and the people stay happy with what they have and if another provider does try, then the local government places a mountain of red tape in front of them and they never gain a profit and shut down.
Basically net neutrally keeps monopolies from fucking up and therefore causing competition.
the FLC also needs to be fixed, but one step at a time.
>>752470352
and for reference South korea's internet speeds are just above Greece witch is the lowest of the top fastest countys America only averages around 10 mbps
>>752457195
Stealing content is a crime because the digital millennium copy write act says so and is pretty specific about what intellectual property means. An ISP isn't the owner of intellectual property they are not a content provider. Being analogous to something criminal does not make it criminal. There simply isn't a law covering the matter because why would there be when net neutrality has been the law up until now. Something being against the terms of service of a company isn't the same as being criminal.
>>752469533
If the government is going to use them, then they don't need monopolies fucking up and they need those in power to stay in power or risk getting ratted out or losing their form of control.
>>752470340
I get the impression that this is about defending Trump, for you. I'm glad you're happy with him. Honestly, I am too, though I do understand why some people aren't.
This is about Ajit Pai, an ex Verizon lawyer appointed to the FCC by Obama, promoted by Trump, doing something that's going to harm the internet for American consumers and businesses.
You talk about it being the people's fault, and what the FTC is supposed to deal with, but none of that has anything to do with this. This is about what's being done now, how it'll effect things, and what can be done about it.
Net Neutrality does not cause economic stagnation and keep monopolies together. It actively encourages economic growth by making the net a level playing field for everyone, big and small alike, preventing your ISP from blocking and throttling content you want to see. It's not breaking monopolies up anymore than it's keeping them together - it's not about that. It's not saving whales or making shoes for orphans either. Totally unrelated.
As for the wall, that's really a different thread, man. I think we agree on the problems, but you're defending Ajit Pai in order to defend Trump, which isn't really necessary here, and you're missing some of the facts man.
>>752459330
Do you not understand the difference between criminal and civil infractions? Violating the terms of service of a company isn't a crime, it is at worst a civil matter if they can prove those terms amount to a contractual agreement, which would be pretty hard to do. the only thing they could do at all would be to terminate doing business with you.
>>752471032
This isn't about defending the peach man. I voted for him, yes, but I don't like him.
Obama was the one who endorsed Net Neutrally, so don't think you're going to make me come to your side by sucking my dick.
The FTC is literally make to keep anti-competition away from the economy with ISPs and people buy their internet from their providers, so yes they are responsible.
I'm looking to what can be done about this shit show and now worrying about the short term effects, because those will be dealt with long term.
ISPs can't legally block or throttle content, unless it is stated up front. Your logic is horrible, if you think a small company could ever compete with a monopoly as it is.
I'm defending Pai because he's doing something good. Please enlighten me on the facts.
>>752463251
good luck proving that the problem is on your end, and not the websites end
>>752454018
NetNeutrality is a farce. It gave government control of the internet. A few large companies were given virtually total control over the internet, back by government funds. Basically it is Marxism of technology.
>>752472052
Been done before.
>>752472068
This guy gets it.
>>752457979
What was placed 2yrs ago was title2 making the internet a public utility. Net Neutrality has been in place for over 17 yrs.
Go back to school kid
>>752472318
As a basic rule, yes, but never implemented by the government until two years ago.
Also what school taught this to you?
>>752468681
You are missing a major aspect of this. Comcast could tell netflix we want $0.10 per show each person watches and threaten them with a massive slowdown if they fail to comply. Extend that to just about any paid service on the internet.
Those services would be forced to comply, and in doing so would raise their rates to pass that along to the consumer to remain profitable. Think amazon, hey 10% cut goes to comcast now --> all prices go up 10%.
It sounds fucked up but it would become completely legit without net neutrality stopping them.
If comcast's customers were bothered they could lower their rates and increase speeds to shit they know they cant possibly extract money from and the vast majority of people don't even fucking know what the words net neutrality means and won't have any concept that comcast is secretly fucking monopolizing them.
also you say this like there is some vast selection of ISPs out there, there are just a few that control all of the lines, the lesser ISPs all rent lines from the bigger ones and you'd be subjected to the same treatment regardless.
>>752457979
Your a uninformed idiot the regulation says that there can be no regulation
>>752454018
NN is securing freedom of speech
anti-NN is fascism
>>752472169
Sure, but dont you have better uses for your time, other that have to prove every fucking day that you isp is trying to fuck you over?
>>752472068
your an ID10t.
The internet was founded on treating every packet the same.
Its only when companies started to fuck with this for money that we had to put rules in place.
But Comcast is one of the most respected companies in america, the wouldn't try to fuck with it again, amiright?
>>752472461
They can't throttle them legally.
Not it isn't legit. Have you seriously not been reading any of my replies?
I never said there was a vast selection, also this would be illogical as the lesser ISPs would have to add to their rates that which'd they are charged to rent from the major ISPs, so people would just buy from the major ISP as it would be available and cost less.
>>752459970
Yeah but internet company's can't just be controlled by the people most places only have one option for a provider and the only thing that the regulation says is that providers cannot regulate
>>752471618
Alright. I think we can agree that we hold similar opinions on Trump. Probably similar opinions on Obama as well. And I'm pretty sure you'd concede that just because Obama endorsed something, that doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. If Net Neutrality is good or bad, Obama's endorsement of it is not evidence. So there's common ground there.
I agree with you regarding ISPs blocking and throttling content - they'd have to disclose that (somewhere in the multi-page legalese that is your Terms of Service Agreement). And you're right, a small company can't compete with a monopoly like Comcast.
Net Neutrality was implemented to keep the internet the way it had always been - nobody's data was more important than anyone else's. We didn't need rules like that until the technology to discriminate between different types of data became available. When ISPs started using that technology to make content creators pay if they wanted that content delivered across the network at usable speeds, the Net Neutrality rules were created and the FCC was given the authority to enforce them in order to prevent this. That's all history.
I think it would've been better to break up the monopolies, make the broadband market more competitive, and let pressure from consumers keep ISPs in line. But that would require a swamp-draining at the FTC, a crash course in wide-area networking technology at the FTC, a major influx of capital and companies eager to lay wires and invest a fortune in building infrastructure... Basically all of the things that Pai hopes this change in December will stimulate.
Putting the FCC in charge was faster, worked almost as well, cost much less, and was far less intrusive than declaring the internet to be a public utility (where monopolies aren't illegal, btw).
We should get rid of it when the broadband industry has been broken up, competition is in place, and a free market can keep the major players focused on customer service. Not now.
>>752472547
Umm... yes, that's the entire point.
Are you autistic?
>>752472593
yes, unless it impedes my ability to work. Otherwise I wouldn't give a fuck, unless I expected they were doing this.
>>752472856
yes and that's why net neutrality causes economic stagnation, as once a monopoly is formed, they have to literally try and fuck themselves over.
>>752472815
>They can't throttle them legally.
What law is stopping them from throttling?
Well, as they said not a law but a regulation
give you a hint, its initials are NN
>>752472870
Don't give a fuck really. This isn't about rather I like Obama or not, or if I like Trump or not. This is about a problem in our country and how Net Neutrality isn't fixing it, so we need to fix the FTC.
Net Neutrality was placed so the government would have power to regulate providers and terms of service those providers give. It's a fucking safety net for monopolies basically. They'd literally have to want to fuck themselves over.
You can't really break them up right now because they have backing from local governments and the FTC is supposed to deal with that, but they're too busy jacking off.
This move is to basically force the ball to get moving, because right now, everyone is happy to just let everything rest as it is.
>>752473171
If you want to start a business and compete with Netflix, you can. Video you stream to your customers will be delivered at the same speed as Netflix's data. The ISP doesn't get to give preferential treatment to Netflix just because they can afford to pay and you can't.
This applies across the board. If Netflix will pay (and they did) then Facebook, Twitter, Google, all the big players will pay eventually. That slows down innovation by putting barriers in place to keep the small guy out of the market.
>>752472870
I like your arguments, except that there will never be a good reason to get rid of it. The internet works because of net neutrality. Removing it will break it.
>>752473522
It's called false advertising. If they made a deal with you that your connection speed with be 25 mb/s and then limit you to say 10 for a certain sight, then you can take them to court.
It is literally a law and it isn't Net Neutrality, as Net Neutrality only keeps providers from placing limits on services.
>>752473668
UUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! How many times do I have to state this!
If you remove NN, they can't legally throttle you.
Also Netflix would just lower their prices to a point where I couldn't keep a profit, as a smaller company and eventually I'd have to either sell out or cut my loses.
>>752473810
You will not find a contract that says you get x speed to any particular website. Your contract says you get that speed to the next hop up the network.
Your ISP will have a Speedtest website, and as long as you get your rated speed to that website, you have no case. They will simply point to that, say they are delivering your bandwidth.
They will say they have no control (hehe) over what is happening through all the various connections that get you to that website.
you have no case, and will get laughed out of court
>>752474031
>If you remove NN, they can't legally throttle you
They did, though. And as long as they state that they're going to somewhere in their terms of service, they'll be able to again after December. What gives you the impression that something's making it illegal?
>>752474078
You realize that you can call for customer service and if they don't have a good reason and do nothing to help you, then you can still take them to court and have them investigated.
How do you thing Verizon and other companies got their shit pushed in when they tried this shit before?
>>752474287
If they place it in writing then yes, it is legal. However, if you don't want that, then you can either negotiate or go somewhere else.
However they knew people wouldn't like that, so they didn't put it into writing.
>>752474293
By the formalized creation of net neutrality rules is how they got their shit pushed in.
They are fomally proposing that they be allowed to do this shit.
that is why we are all losing our shit over net neutrality possibly going away.
Corporations are sociopaths, and will do sociopathic things. Lets not let them do that to us
>>752473732
The internet is amazing. The most amazing thing about it is that some nutjob in a trailer can put up a website and say what he wants, and his voice is just as loud as a Senator from Rhode Island, or a community organizer in Manhattan, or a little girl in Texas. A neutral internet is an incredible thing, and it's neutrality is incredibly important.
The Net Neutrality rules are what's keeping it that way right now, and I don't think we should remove them before something else is in place that will keep the internet neutral. I don't think a vague promise from Comcast is enough to depend on.
Ajit Pai and the Trump administration haven't mentioned a plan for that. If they did, and it sounded even remotely reasonable, I'd be all for deregulating ISPs.
>>752474525
No they fucking aren't because there are literally laws against that shit. They can only do it, if they put it in writing and you sign it.
Why do you think people always tell you to read the fine print? For fun?
Corporations will do what is best for their profits.
To call them sociopaths is like calling a farmer a sociopath because he doesn't give away his crops for free.
>>752474525
I don't blame corporations for doing what is in the best interest of their shareholders.
It would be irresponsible otherwise.
I do blame my government for failing to create rules to prevent corporations from fucking me over.
>>752474939
actually a sociopath is someone with no conscience who acts in their own self interest with a complete disregard for society.
i'm pretty okay with saying comcast meets that criteria.
when net neutrality goes away and level 3 and other backbone providers can charge comcast more money than it charges verizon, just because they feel like it, i wonder how comcast is going to handle it?
>>752474820
I would be fine with having net neutrality as the only regulation. I can't believe that an entity with a money motive and shareholders to answer to could ever be trusted not to fuck with this
>>752475201
Yes, that's still like calling a farmer a sociopath because he doesn't want to give a way his crops for free.
Comcast will do what most companies do, they'll raise their rates or switch background providers.
>>752475518
No, no the same. They farmer obviously has to have self interest, but they can be a successful farmer without having a disregard for society. They have to live and work and deal with the community they live in.
Corporations haveto look out for the interests of they shareholders, and only their shareholders. Some find that it helps their business if they also have regard for the communities they do business in.
But if their choice comes down to A) keep more money for shareholders or B) improve society, they will pick A every time
>>752475518
>switch background providers
There's even less competition in that market, and like broadband, they don't usually cover the same areas.
A farmer not giving his crops away for free doesn't make him a sociopath. Burning them because he can only get $10 a bushel instead of $10.50, that'd be slightly sociopathic.
I'm thinking of Comcast's constant price-raising, every month it's a few dollars more, no explanation. I'm thinking of their abysmal customer service. I'm thinking of how they're the second largest lobbyist in Washington, next to the defense industry contractors. Sure they're doing this to make money and raise stock values, but they really seem willing to do that at any cost. Maybe they've just got a huge PR problem and they need to throw some money into improving their image....
>>752475012
so cute....he actually think the world is real.
>>752475867
Of course, because choice a will keep them in business.
You give the same choice to the farmer. He sells his crops to others, keeps some for himself, and gives the rest the either his friends or to those who need it.
If it comes down to it, the farmer will do what is best for himself.
>>752476113
>If it comes down to it, the farmer will do what is best for himself.
To continue your analogy...
If the farmer discovers that some other farmer is also selling crops, he should do what he can to put that guy out of business. If that's illegal, he should spend a fortune giving "gifts and perks" to politicians to make it legal. If his buyers don't like the lack of competition, it doesn't matter. They want to eat, they'll buy even if their unhappy. Fuck 'em and fuck their problems. He can raise prices any way he wants once the competition's gone.
That's Comcast.
>>752454018
OOOooooooo, everything will be like it was before 2015, so scarry.
>>752454018
>What does /b think of NetNeutrality
The Internet NEEDS to be neutral. It's a basic fundamental aspect of how the Internet works. The Internet doesn't care about your race, nation, or creed. 2015 and prior, we didn't have any regulation enforcing. And after around.... eh... 2006, the consolidation of the ISP and the progress of technology means that the cable telecoms consolidated the market and made a monopoly. Or at least an oligarchy where the top 5 players refuse to compete on each other's turf.
Welcome to monopoly shitsville. What happens here? They throttle torrents. They extort more cash from companies like Netflix. (Well, not anymore, any ISP would have to be nuts to NOT carry Netflix and Netflix would call SUCH bullshit on them if they saw throttling. They're big enough now that they no longer care. They're not an up-and-coming competitor, they ARE the establishment now). They make backroom deals to take ESPN360 regardless of what their clients want. They block or fuck with the services offered by competition.
I've been through all those fights. I'm one of the people who has been pointing out these violations of network neutrality, calling bullshit, and making it known and unpopular.
When Tom Wheeler of all people made it illegal to fuck with the most precious world wonder we've ever known, I called it a good day. Title II, common carrier status is a perfect solution. They can't fuck with shit. The FCC has the authority to smack down abusive bullshit. No new legislation is made by clueless idiots in congress. It really is the best solution we're going to get.
This is a big thing. Big enough to influence people to VOTE and BITCH AND MOAN to the people in congress. Get off your ass and do it you fucking /b/tards
>>752454018
>mfw tor would be an easy workaround
>mfw they made it so that the fbi could break into your shit if you use tor
>mfw shortly after they pull this bullshit
>>752475012
Firing everyone and selling everything increases value to the shareholders.
Taking a massive loan and investing it all into basic R&D increases value to the shareholders.
Putting every cent of profit towards fighting global warming increases value to the shareholders.
Hoarding all the profit in a bank in Ireland adds value to the shareholders.
Every one of those has a very logical explanation for how it helps shareholders, EITHER IN THE SHORT TERM OR THE LONG TERM.
It's a completely open-ended bullshit that can be used to excuse ANY action. Fuck that noise.
>>752477114
All you have to do to get around it is proxy to a different country. It might become China here in internet land, but US companies aren't allowed to fuck with foreign connections.
>>752477114
>They throttle torrents
I am so scared of losing my torrents... please stop Trump ASAP, anyone wants to plan a bomb?
>>752475948
Yes, but it's either that or maybe buy out a background provider so they can set it for themselves. If it comes to that, they will.
But he'd never do that because he'd need the money and losing the crops would be self destructive, which corporations don't do.
Yes, throwing money at stuff works as long as you're throwing it at the right thing.
>>752476329
Yes, but that's illegal as giving personal gifts or perks is considered bribing and is illegal. FTC is supposed to be on that.
>>752477383
but they can throttle proxy servers, and terminate a contract with you if they see that you are using Proxies to bypass a service regulation:
They might not get you in jail, but they could add fines to the whole deal also...and if what you are browsing is illegal they will find a way to put you in jail...just to show all the other internet hippies how the natzies rule now.
>>752477383
One of the FIRST things they'll do is throttle proxies and VPNs. They don't even have to hunt down the services, they can just say "fuck you" to any stream moving too fast out of the country. Hell, not even out of the country, outside of their turf. A few years from now (if unchecked) we could have the Comcast-net which operates practically separate from the Mediacom-net.
If that seems impossible and an anti-thesis to how the INTERnet works, YEAH, this legitimately has the potential to BREAK the Internet.
(But, of course, there would be SO much bullshit called if they tried that next week. So much. No, it won't happen quickly. But they'll do whatever they can to make a buck and every brick of NN they tear down makes the Internet less like the Internet)
>>752477583
After December, if we want the internet to remain neutral, we have to hope the FTC will start getting on that (even though they haven't in the past 12 years)
>>752477583
>that's illegal
exactly. if net neut is voted down, isps will be working on honor system alone unless enough evidence is shown to warrant an investigation.
>>752477944
They've been doing the best with what they can. If the government has any credibility, they'll give funding to the FTC or at least make sure not of the people are dirty..
Then again, sometimes there needs to be a lose for action to be taken.
>>752478106
Yes, that's with all crimes. You can't just charge someone without have evidence.
>>752472068
but when nn dies the government chooses what is the internet, like china. Either way you get NN but the gov sees what you do or no NN and the gov chooses what you see
Don't care, even if the millions of bot messages and the constant faxes where to do nothing, the Dem's will keep it tied up in court as long as needed.
Do something productive. Figure out if the northern gooks will be fuckable with their worms/malnutrition and radiation poisoning.
>>752478420
...and we just went full retard.
>>752478325
you're forgetting who will decide on what is enough evidence.
>>752478624
there's already talks about judges doing exactly that.
>>752459932
this: doesn't matter which side is elected or in control, big money will always win and it's going to happen
>>752454018
anyone who still thinks the loss of NN is not a huge problem has no idea how the internet works and will regret not having taken action when 4chan gets slow as balls or expensive as fuck then looses all its traffic and eventually dies
>>752459932
i'm sorry, if i have to read your comment 3 times to try to understand what the fuck your saying your argument is invalid.
>>752461300
or Verizon can just tell you that netflix wont count towards your datacap and youtube will, which is what the cell companies have been doing for years with net neutrality and nobody's been screaming about how that's wrong even though it's the opposite of how net neutrality is suppose to be working
>>752479406
> net neutrality had a loophole that mobile carrier exploit
Yup.
>>752479406
because they're not taking away a free service (youtube) but giving you a free one (netflix).
>>752478925
Judges, they issue a warrant for the collection of information. The FTC can only gather said information after it goes through the court.
>>752455107
>>752455757
>>752456091
>>752456363
>>752457415
>>752457647
>>752458704
>>752460262
>being this retarded
If you're against it go and petition or rally, don't bitch like children
If you're for it, stfu and do nothing
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
>>752480201
>The FTC can only gather said information after it goes through the court.
you need to reverse that. it would be the FTC's job to collect the information.
you think judges investigate crimes?
you need to stop talking above your education grade.
>>752480906
Bitch!!! WTF!? Are you retarded? Of course the court doesn't investigate crimes, but they have to fucking provide a warrant so said information can be gather as to the business' dealings.
The FTC gathers the information and provides it to the judge, then he makes a ruling as to rather the defendant or the prosecution is correct.
I cases like this, there is no jury as no one person is being convicted, so the judge is the jury.
Of course both sides get to speak on their own behalf.
