>>69125809
Because it's time for a std tested consistent cuckservative like Rafael "Rato" Cruz.
I am now a #CruzMissile
>>69125809
I really don't have much opinion on the matter, but the argument I've heard is that telecomm companies have invested a bunch of money on infrastructure, so they should be free to charge what they want for its use.
Maybe somebody more knowledgeable could answer
>>69125908
Rafael "Rat Fucker" Cruz offered show me how it's done.
I am now a #CruzMistress
>>69125809
Yeah, millions of satisfied customers.
Is the comic mentioning the hundred million people not satisfied with Obamacare?
Can't believe that people like this exist.
Almost as awful as that Nestle cunt claiming water should be privatized.
>Letting the government be in charge
>>69125809
I don't want my rates to go up because your fat ass can't stop watching Netflix.
If you use more of something you should be expected to be charged more for it.
>>69125809
In all seriousness though the republicans are just trying to shit on obama. People are sick of the way cuckservatives represent them
Net neutrality means ISPs have to serve as dumb pipes without prioritizing data from content providers who pay more. Only retards oppose it.
>>69125809
Not really an issue.
The NSA is already capable of reading all your emails and companies like google, facebook etc. are already logging all your data.
>>69126222
explain
>>69126239
if you are both allotted x amount of usage at y speed then how are they using more
I'm not a satisfied customer. My Obamacare coverage went from $10 a month to $400 after the first year. Fuck that shit.
>>69126239
This shows a complete lack of understanding of how the internet works. It's not like water where there's a limited amount to go around.
>>69126205
Savage
>>69125809
BEFORE OBAMA CARE!
>Paying $140 for my policy per month.
>I can afford to see the doctors, co-pay was normally 15-20.
>After Obama Care.
>$380 per month.
>$40 co-pay.
My cousin has it worse, he pays 900 thanks to having a kid and wife.
>>69126037
I'm a conservative, but I'm in favor of net neutrality.
These telecoms have a monopoly granted to them by the government... And therefor shouldnt be able to parse data (e.g., charge for "fast lanes" aka slow down data) for their own benefit. It would be one thing if someone could start a mom and pop internet backbone. It's another when most areas restrict and only license utilities to a handful of carriers. It's almost like your power company getting you they're going to increase their rate by 50000% tomorrow. If you don't have an alternative, you're fucked.
I don't think net neutrality is comparable to obamacare or most other topics.
>>69126222
>he thinks he'd be making this post otherwise
>>69126560
They are bandwidth limits to nodes you fucking mongoloid retard.
http://www.twcableuntangled.com/2012/03/slow-internet-not-as-simple-as-you-might-think/
Yourel movie addiction is none of my problem and should not influence my ability to use the internet. Use more, pay more.
>>69126500
>>69126614
i love reading these lies
>>69125809
The Internet is still a frontier. Kikes shouldn't be allowed to monopolize it (example. Fine Bros trademarking).
Should be Free & Open, even too undesirables hence why Cyber police (More Jobs) can be on the frontlines.
>>69126614
jesus christ why is coverage so expensive? I make ~75k/yr and if I break down the tax dollars OHIP only costs me $60/mo
>>69126793
Once again, you don't understand how the internet works. I don't even watch netflix
>>69126793
>use more, pay more
except that isn't what net neutrality is
also if an isp doesnt have a data cap, then how is someone in the wrong exactly
>>69126447
Because I'm not allowed to buy a lower package. Since all traffic has to be treated equally, everything must be more expensive to compensate for the people who can't get off their ass and stop watching Netflix all day.
It's the same reason why Obamacare raised everyone's rates.
>>69125809
I guess conservatives are focused on the private property aspects of it and fail to recognize it as price discrimination.
>>69126614
Obamacare did a lot to jack up the cost of plans. The "exchanges" run by the states under Obamacare is the biggest load of kek out there.
>females can't be charged more than 1.5x the plan cost of males, all else equal
>the oldest sickest people can't be charged more than 3x the youngest, healthiest people on plan cost
Those are deliberate artificial caps unrelated to the cost of care for those populations. It means if you are younger and healthier and using less of your health plan's shit, you have to pay more still to subsidize everyone else.
Now if you make less than a certain amount (varies by state) you get a huge subsidy on these plans, otherwise you pay sticker price.
Nothing forces an insurer to participate in the exchange or prevents them from selling plans outside of it. Lower risk populations that need coverage buy plans outside the exchange. This reduces the number of people available to subsidize the people getting more than they're paying for. This brings up rates for everyone who remains in the exchange.
Very glad I pay $145/mo with my employer and pretax dollars for 85% coverage and great drug prices as a single young guy.
>>69126918
Someone else is footing the bill for you or you are not accounting for a tax that is going towards it.
>>69126918
Because we pay for your army.
Aside from whatever budget magic prioritizes OHIP, US healthcare is far shittier by comparison. Sure, the QUALITY of the care is fantastic and quick, but the (((companies))) that pay for it have all kinds of friends in Washington that grant them total monopoly so they basically can overcharge you and not pay for anything.
Because the whole situation strengthens internet control anyway.
>>69126800
Hey, faggot, pray to god you get hit by a fucking car today, the shits been a fucking nightmare for me since the shit came in!
>>69126918
Because its designed to force people to have health insurance and allow those companies to charge whatever they fucking want cause its on the government dime.
In order to apply for the super cheap bum Obama Care where the government wipes my ass I need to make 12k a year, EASY TO DO BUT FOR ONE THING! My job dropped me down to barely making 10k, I did do ok, until my job went to China, and the next went to Mexico, now I am stuck doing Wal-Mart while trying to find another manufacturing job.
America got fucked.
>>69126955
Just because you keep repeating things doesn't mean you are right.
I just provided a source wherein they describe how nodes function and why there are bandwidth limits on each individual one and how a large amount of data traffic can slow you down.
Since you apparently know everything about the topic, asswipe, perhaps you can provide me a source where they talk about a nodeless internet that has no bandwidth restrictions at any point.
>>69126205
more importantly, teddy's analogy is completely nonsensical and is a perfect example of what a bumbling retard he is.
Who else fell for the "net neutrality" meme?
It's just another example of over reaching government. We DO NOT need ENFORCED "net neutrality" - what we need is COMPETITION within the private sector. To increase competition we need less barrier to entry which entails less regulations and restrictions on startups. If we continue to let special interest groups create barriers for small businesses via the state then we will continue to have poor service! Regulation is bad for consumers.
>>69127009
>Because I'm not allowed to buy a lower package.
Yes you are. You can chose from whatever speeds the ISP offers. What net neutrality is supposed to do ensure that you get the speeds you are paying for regardless of the content you are accessing.
>>69126973
Explain to me how net neutrality isn't forcing me to subsidize your use of the internet by making all content equal including your Netflix addiction.
>>69126918
Americans use more expensive procedures (e.g. MRI) more often.
Americans take more drugs more often (2.2 medications per capita vs 1.8).
Doctors in the US make far more money.
Doctors in the US are far more easily sued for malpractice.
Availability of more expensive shit (MRIs) is far higher, without waitlists.
Canadian government negotiates drug prices on a national basis, with a final price and a yes/no decision on whether a drug can be prescribed. US government checks safety of the drug but does not negotiate prices. (Relatively small compared to primary cost of care).
The real per capita cost in Canada (US dollars, not Canadian) for healthcare is $5,718 (or $7,624 CAD). If you're putting in only $60/mo in taxes ($720), you're getting massively subsidized.
>>69127357
But not really, because all those prices have to keep going up because thanks to things like net neutrality, I can't buy a package that just allows me to access text based websites.
They must force me to buy a more expensive package to subsidize other people's net neutral streaming addiction.
>>69126758
> I don't think net neutrality is comparable to obamacare or most other topics.
Exactly this.
Ending net neutrality would also effectively kill off non-mainstream news sources, the negative effects of which should be obvious. It'd also have a significant effect on small/medium businesses, many of which can't invest heavily in hosting.
>>69125809
>Net Neutrality
>anything like Obamacare
If anything, it's actually the complete opposite of Obamacare because Net Neutrality wont force people to buy in to the system and then say it provided for people.
>obama
>in favor of net neutrality
>>69127336
>we need less barrier to entry which entails less regulations and restrictions
The problem is there are physical barriers to entry. Go be an new ISP you will need to run cable that has already been done by the big monoplies.
Sometimes the situation is such that a particular industry leads to a monoply due to practical barriers, not artificial ones.
>>69127382
go ahead and explain how it is
>>69127676
Look at Google. It can be done.
>>69127336
Do you support breaking up monopolies or forcibly fragmenting them using Antitrust laws?
Yes or no?
>>69127507
>all those prices have to keep going up because thanks to things like net neutrality
No, they don't. You don't understand what net neutrality is
>I can't buy a package that just allows me to access text based websites.
4chan is an image-based website, so... If you don't want to stream videos, etc, just choose the lowest-cost, slowest-speed plan offered by your provider.
>>69127336
Do you really think the government wouldn't be able to monitor internet comms if net neutrality was killed off?
>>69125809
Can someone ITT actually explain Net Neutrality? Everything I've read on it seems very confusing.
Sometimes I've seen "Net Neutrality" mean that certain users get preferential "speed" (for lack of a better term), while other times it seems to mean everyone has to use the same "speed" despite varying levels of traffic.
Please help.
>>69127382
What's with you and netflix?
>>69127507
Show me a company that was offering access to text data only and proof that net neutrality killed such an offering or go fuck yourself.
>>69127741
I do not support any antitrust laws. I think United States v Microsoft Corp was one of the worst antitrust rulings ever seen.
>>69127730
>Small businesses
Jesus, Canada. Just when I was about to defend you...
>>69127382
Because you fundamentally misunderstand how internet connections work. It's not a finite resource like water. If a cable company sells you a plan that will give you a certain amount of bandwidth at a certain time, as long as proper infrastructure exists, it costs the cable company no more money to provide the internet speed.
Big providers like Netflix even make an offer to cable companies: We're using so much bandwidth that it doesn't make sense to transit the whole internet. We'll put our server near your network and stream from that, and then rather than going over general internet pipes that are more expensive, the traffic originates in your network where you have a shitload of capacity. This sort of thing used to be free. Then ISPs see Netflix is getting paid and get butthurt and want to pad their revenues.
Essentially being against common carrier status (net neutrality) is saying that your provider should have the right to discriminate against traffic they don't like or want money to carry. There is no "fast lane" on the internet. There is treating traffic normally and as quickly as possible as it comes in, and there is slowing down traffic so other traffic runs at normal speed while non-favored traffic is artificially restricted or delayed.
Currently the system is:
I pay my internet service provider for internet, I pay Netflix for streaming content over the internet.
Telecoms want net neutrality to fall so they can get paid from both ends of the connections: the telco gets paid by the consumer for the internet connection AND they want Netflix to give them a slice in order to not artificially disrupt their traffic. It's like mafia extortion.
This whole fucking problem could be solved if they just enforced local loop unbundling, thereby forcing competition.
The isps get about 100 tax dollars for every dollar they spent rolling out the connections anyway.
>>69127957
I never said Google was a small business. You also don't need to be a large corporation to roll out fiber to cities - this is largely a meme spread by lobbyists.
>>69125809
Because all the Jews at the FCC love the idea of net neutrality while all the non-Jews in the FCC oppose it.
>>69128089
other way around
>>69127730
This proves my point. Google is a behemoth. It takes those kind of resources to brrak into the market because the high cost of running all of that fiber is a massive barrier to entry into the market.
A barrier is not an impenetrable forcefield, it is just a condition which makes it exceedingly difficult to pass through.
>>69127926
What about the break up of AT&T and its natural monopoly?
No argument required. The burden of proof was on liberals to demonstrate why a government-created problem should have been fixed with a government-created solution, instead of just getting rid of the problem in the first place.
>>69127382
>I use 5gb of data in one day for netflix
>You use 5gb of data in one day for your "super important internet use"
You're saying one of us should pay more for the same 5gb, or that my netflix should cost less because everyone uses netflix and no one uses your super important internet uses.
You literally are arguing for net neutrality you idiot.
>>69128069
>You also don't need to be a large corporation to roll out fiber to cities - this is largely a meme spread by lobbyists.
Show me an example of a small corporation doing it.
>>69125809
The guy doing my taxes was telling me how at their office they're seeing a very sad trend. The vast majority of the people that couldn't afford Healthcare before ACA can't afford it now (because they're not poor enough), the only difference now is they have to pay the penalty.
I have yet to encounter anyone satisfied with obamacare
>>69126205
More people like it than don't, but its a far cry from perfect.
>>69128069
Shit's expensive and requires more capital than a small business would be able to produce. You have to advertise heavily to compete, undercut the competition's prices, and then lay your own lines. No one but a huge company can do that and succeed to any reasonable degree.
>>69125809
As it is, maybe even less so. Open up everything. The open sharing of information shouldn't be a criminal offense.
>>69126239
You're an idiot who has no idea who net neutrality works, or the purpose of it. What's more you have a very limited understanding of how the internet works.
>>69128271
>government-created problem
There are physical barriers to entry. If there are say 50 different ISPs comleteing they all need to run their own fiber. The cost of this is huge and the number of customers is fixed, so it will never happen. Not everything is about government regulation.
>>69125908
#CubanMistressCrisis
>>69127009
Almost every ISP offers many different rates...
>millions of satisfied customers
>only 12 million on it
>at least half had to go there due to being dropped by their company's
>everyone paying more than they used to
Yeah..."satisfied"
That said net neutrality should be in the Constitution. That is how important it is.
>>69128434
The problem is that it wouldn't have been the case had there not been government intervention. Companies like Xfinity and Centurylink are monsters now and it's because of artificial barriers to entry
>>69128563
The solution (which other countries have) is local loop unbundling. Remove responsibility for the last mile from telecoms, and let them compete at exchanges with hundreds or thousands of customers where the cost of infrastructure is far lower.
>>69127889
Currently, if you visit two different websites, the speed at which you can access them is down to their hosting and your connection speed. That is net neutrality.
The opposite of net neutrality is giving the owners of those websites the option to pay for preferential speed/bandwidth, so whoever could pay more essentially has a better performing website/service.
This is actually a pretty big deal as research shows that people will simply browse elsewhere if a website is taking too long to load/respond, with time spent on the site before leaving being literally on the order of seconds. This affects SEO (search engine rankings) which in turn causes reduced visability. It would basically kill off small competition and stifle the market.
>>69128563
Like another poster said, these companies receive subsidies from the government for the fiber they lay down. It's not fair for companies that are subsidized by the government to charge consumers in a way that benefits them so greatly.
>>69127889
Also see this excellent explanation: >>69127984
>>69125809
Wow, I can't even laugh at this level of delusion/subversion.
>being agaonst net neutrality
Corporate shills should be gassed
>>69128671
I'd say the telecom industry is a bit of an oddity in that helping it along had strong national interests such as improving our defense capabilities as well as providing a service that was new and necessary that could have been crippling had it failed.
That said, even if I agree with your post in its entirety, the truth is that xfinity and etc. ARE monsters now, and that giving them more free reign will make them BIGGER, WORSE monsters than they currently are. They're gonna do all they can to fuck customers in the ass, so don't let them, because as it stands now they already try to fuck us as hard as possible.
>>69127507
They go up because they can. Do you really think the major ISPs are bleeding money and on the verge of bankruptcy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds
http://www.dailyinfographic.com/internet-speeds-around-the-world-infographic
Its not like we get the best of the best and pay bottom dollar. Many nations meet or beat us.
>>69126349
Net neutrality would at least make this shithole become a slow loading rarely visited graveyard.
>>69126037
>I really don't have much opinion on the matter, but the argument I've heard is that telecomm companies have invested a bunch of money on infrastructure, so they should be free to charge what they want for its use.
Who gives a shit? Why would you willingly make your Internet more expensive?
Are you completely retarded or something?
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20140901/16294128388/everything-youve-wanted-to-know-about-net-neutrality-were-afraid-to-ask.shtml
The article is before the current Title II Classification happened, but it sill explains the concept well.
Internet infrastructure is a natural monopoly and should be treated like the utility that it is.
>>69126037
http://newnetworks.com/ShortSCANDALSummary.htm
>American government pays out over $200B from the nineties until 2005 for 45Mbps bidirectional internet with a choice of services
>telecom companies take the money, don't use it, and give shitty service
Americans paid for fiber to the home and telecoms stuffed their pockets with the money and bitched about how they should be able to charge high prices because "we paid for the infrastructure".
Notice how there's no more AOL chatrooms? That's an early form of net neutrality.
Goodbye, 4chan if the net gets regulated. We'll be another North Korea.
>>69127984
This. I don't want "package" deals to use the internet. All that will happen is basic plans will quickly raise to current basic plans, but high speed full access plans will cost a small fortune compared to what they do now. So you either pay the same for much less, or pay much more for the same. No thanks.
>>69127336
Why do all of the most poorly made arguments all have seemingly random bursts of capslock
>>69128293
He is saying he uses 1GB to your 5GB, so he wants to pay less than the lowest offered. What he doesn't realise is all that would happen is you would pay more.
educate yourselves fucks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw
>>69128563
Of course there are physical barriers to entry. There are physical barriers to entry in every industry, you retard. That does not justify forcing ISPs to treat some shitty, Times New Roman HTML1 blog the same as Netflix. There is no fucking logical connection between those two claims. It's pure parasitism against low-data internet users. It's blatantly anti-choice.
>>69130015
Except he can't be saying that because that already fucking exists and is 100% allowed and still would be under net neutrality.
The only thing he's salty about is .000000001% uses that 1gb amount anymore so no company offers it because it's a useless plan.
>>69130067
Pure propaganda. I don't even know where to begin...
>>69130135
No one loses anything by allowing john doe to go to fuckdagubmentaliensdidit.geoshitties.ass with the same ease as going to netflix.
>>69125809
Socialized healthcare would be great. So many other countries have pulled it off.
The problem is Obamacare isn't socialized healthcare, it's government subsidization for insurance companies.
Now that they're government funded, the jews can keep on scamming till America goes belly up or someone
with some sense fixes the healthcare system. Give the niggers socialism. Give them free healthcare, give
them free birth control and abortions, give them free education, but for the love of god stop handing food and
shelter to anyone over 18. Give them a reason to work.
how much are the anti-net neutrality shills getting paid from telecoms?
i remember this place being littered with them during this and it seems like they've started to come back
>>69129974
Not an argument.
>>69130156
Yep.
>>69130237
Is that why netflix is being forced to pay a ransom to comcast?
fuck off shill
>>69129330
>Internet infrastructure is a natural monopoly
Fuck you, you goddamn technologically illiterate piece of shit, stop pushing this propaganda.
The internet is not some disembodied, nebulous cloud of magic. It's fucking SERVERS. PRIVATELY-OWNED, DECENTRALIZED servers. NOT a public utility.
>>69126758
>These telecoms have a monopoly granted to them by the government
This is the problem.
Removing government intervention is all well and good when you're talking about a free market. But in this case they want to have government protection from competition without having to deal with any kind of requirements.
>>69128755
Ok. That was my understanding as well. Thank you Brit-bro.
Now the next part I don't understand is I'm not sure who actually supports real Net Neutrality.
The Common Carrier designation doesn't seem to actually promote Net Neutrality, or is that assessment completely off base?
>>69128069
> lobbyists
Who the fuck is paying these lobbyists?
Or are you talking about the lobbyists spreading lies for comcast etc?
>>69128395
because THATS how you determine whether its ok to force something on someone
>>69125809
>before Obamacare: $160 per month
>after Obamacare: $340 per month
Th-thanks, Obama.
>>69130700
and who owns the largest networks which form the internet backbone?
>>69130640
Because Netflix was completely destroying the peering model. They were pushing massive amounts of data down the lines, causing congestion and slowdowns. Comcast is charging Netflix for the infrastructure it had to create in order to alleviate the congestion.
Call it the "government foot in the door to taxing and legislating the Internet" or "How we will eventually shut down Drudge Report neutrality"
>As a consumer I am for net neutrality
>But I also think private businesses should be able to do what they want and let the free market decide
>But also the free market is filled up of mostly retards with no willpower or standards
Well this is a pickle.
>>69131142
better question what laws/regulations govern them?
>>69125809
The Republican argument (I'm not calling them conservative, there's nothing conservative about the economics of the modern Republican party) against net neutrality is the same as every other Republican argument about business. "The markets will fix it. Eventually. Any day now. I promise. Maybe we just need to throw some money at them. That's free market, right? Yeah, sure, why not."
In truth, 1) infrastructure spending (like high speed cables) has a fairly massive start-up cost. High start-up costs create distortion in a market that prevents it from being perfectly competitive, and 2) existing ISP's work very hard to fuck small start-up ISP's at the points of connection into their network, so unless you're prepared to start laying cable across the entire fucking country AND magically convince every single person to switch over, other ISP's are going to throttle your customers and there's nothing you can do about it because without net neutrality it's fucking legal to do that.
It's an incredibly predatory industry and the market has failed. Republicans are against government intervention because the reality is Republican establishments believe in protecting failed markets. Failed markets are more profitable than healthy markets, after all.
>>69131142
'form the internet backbone' -- what does that even mean? Are you talking about the DNS servers?
>>69131247
this, most people don't know a peering agreement was or how networking works.
>>69131247
Seems like that's limiting free enterprise. "You did too well, you're not a monopoly at all, but you're doing too well, so now we're going to limit you"
>>69131293
this more of an government corruption issue than market failure
>>69130951
>Who the fuck is paying these lobbyists?
anybody who benefits from hyper-regulation
mostly globalists who aren't bought by ISPs
>>69131276
Not a free market if they have monopoly over it though, right?
>>69131390
How are you connected to 4chan? You claim it's decentralized, but you're using an ISP still the same...
>>69131247
Do you have any proof ?
>>69125809
Because "Net Neutrality" isn't about the concept of net neutrality, it really seems to be about inserting government control into the internet.
>>69131247
>thinking this is about peering
You are buying the telecom line - hook, line and sinker. Same shit with Verizon:
https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Level3-Verizon-Intentionally-Causing-Netflix-Congestion-129745
>All of the Verizon FiOS customers in Southern California likely get some of their content through this interconnection location. It is in a single building. And boils down to a router Level 3 owns, a router Verizon owns and four 10Gbps Ethernet ports on each router. A small cable runs between each of those ports to connect them together. This diagram is far simpler than the Verizon diagram and shows exactly where the congestion exists.
>Verizon has confirmed that everything between that router in their network and their subscribers is uncongested – in fact has plenty of capacity sitting there waiting to be used. Above, I confirmed exactly the same thing for the Level 3 network. So in fact, we could fix this congestion in about five minutes simply by connecting up more 10Gbps ports on those routers.
>Simple. Something we’ve been asking Verizon to do for many, many months, and something other providers regularly do in similar circumstances. But Verizon has refused. So Verizon, not Level 3 or Netflix, causes the congestion. >Why is that? Maybe they can’t afford a new port card because they’ve run out – even though these cards are very cheap, just a few thousand dollars for each 10 Gbps card which could support 5,000 streams or more. If that’s the case, we’ll buy one for them. Maybe they can’t afford the small piece of cable between our two ports. If that’s the case, we’ll provide it. Heck, we’ll even install it.
Direct peering is cost neutral, but when one party is using substantially more bandwidth, they pay the other provider some money. Just not as nearly as much as Verizon/Comcast demanded to alleviate congestion.
>>69131721 here
In Comcast's case:
http://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/
>A few months before Netflix launched Open Connect, it also purchased transit from Cogent, which had a settlement-free peering arrangement with Comcast. Netflix’s experience with Cogent resembled its experience with Level 3. Shortly after Cogent began delivering Netflix traffic requested by Comcast subscribers, Cogent’s routes into Comcast’s network started to congest. According to Cogent’s CEO, “[f]or most of Cogent’s history with Comcast…[as] Comcast’s subscribers demanded more content from Cogent’s customers, Comcast would add capacity to the interconnection points with Cogent to handle that increased traffic.” After Cogent began carrying Netflix traffic, however, “Comcast refused to continue to augment capacity at our interconnection points as it had done for years prior.”
Netflix tries to pay more companies for capacity:
>Netflix attempted to address congested routes into Comcast by purchasing all available transit capacity from transit providers that did not pay access fees to Comcast—which involved agreements with Cogent, Level 3, NTT, TeliaSonera, Tata, and X0 Communications. Although all six of those providers sold transit to the entire Internet, only three of them—Cogent, Level 3, and Tata—had direct connections to Comcast’s network.
What does Comcast do?
>When Netflix approached Comcast regarding the lack of uncongested settlement-free routes available to its network, Comcast suggested that Netflix return to using CDNs, which Comcast could charge access fees that would then be passed on to Netflix, or use a Tier 1 network like which charged its own access fees. Comcast made clear that Netflix would have to pay Comcast an access fee if Netflix wanted to directly connect with Comcast or use third-party CDNs. In essence, Comcast sought to meter Netflix traffic requested by Comcast’s broadband subscribers.
>Arguments in favor of it
Muh freedoms to charge people however I want to access my network.
>Arguments against it.
If you understand even a little about how the incentives of this work it's inevitable that ISPs will play companies off against eachother for faster access to their network and pocket the extra money, simultaniously making internet access more expensive for no reason and also adding another roadblock for smaller companies to be competitive with larger ones online.
Stefan Molyneux lay it down for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4
>>69131247
Congestion is actually a straight-up fucking myth. There's basically no evidence of it whatsoever. The actual engineers (i.e. not the business/PR people) who work in the industry will openly laugh at you if you talk about congestion like it's a problem.
There is a lot of evidence that in the late 00's, early 10's, ISP's started selectively throttling services while negotiating payment agreements with those services. Or basically: give us money or we were single you out and wreck your business model. They blamed this on "congestion."
It's the same reason certain providers have datacaps. They aren't there to fight congestion (pretty much any serious look into datacaps has suggested there is no such consumer-side bandwidth over-consumption problem) - they are there to increase your bill at the end of the month.
>>69131605
> How are you connected to 4chan? You claim it's decentralized, but you're using an ISP still the same
Jesus Christ you have no idea how the internet works do you. Please go teach yourself basic networking and come back later.
> Do you have any proof
What evidence do you want? You know Netflix is a popular service, right? You know it has extremely high data usage, right? Well, just do the math. Millions of people streaming HD videos at roughly the same time = massive congestion. The current infrastructure could not support it, and so the telecom companies had to build more infrastructure. Do you think it's unfair that they should ask Netflix for some compensation?
>>69132166
>>69131821 here
Basically, rather than following established industry protocol as they had done for years, Comcast and Verizon both broke away from standard practice with Netflix's peering providers (Level3 and Cogent primarily) and started refusing to hook up more ports from Level3/Cogent equipment. This is a cable that costs a dollar at best that those providers were willing to provide and the ports were already free - there's no equipment to provide.
http://blog.level3.com/open-internet/verizons-accidental-mea-culpa/
>But, here’s the other interesting thing also shown in the Verizon diagram. This congestion only takes place between Verizon and network providers chosen by Netflix. The providers that Netflix does not use do not experience the same problem. Why is that? Could it be that Verizon does not want its customers to actually use the higher-speed services it sells to them? Could it be that Verizon wants to extract a pound of flesh from its competitors, using the monopoly it has over the only connection to its end-users to raise its competitors’ costs?
>To summarize: All of the networks have ample capacity and congestion only occurs in a small number of locations, locations where networks interconnect with some last mile ISPs like Verizon. The cost of removing that congestion is absolutely trivial. It takes two parties to remove congestion at an interconnect point. I can confirm that Level 3 is not the party refusing to add that capacity. In fact, Level 3 has asked Verizon for a long time to add interconnection capacity and to deliver the traffic its customers are requesting from our customers, but Verizon refuses.
Verizon and Comcast specifically discriminate against Netflix demanding they pay for peering or suffer congestion that affects their customers using Verizon/Comcast connections. The cost of the equipment is cheap, and not even the issue (if Verizon needs network cards to be installed in their equipment, Level3 has offered to pay for it).
>>69126800
everyone i know has had their monthly cost raise at least 150 bucks
>>69125809
First Amendment definition. An amendment to the United States Constitution guaranteeing the rights of free expression and action that are fundamental to democratic government. These rights include freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech.
>>69125809
>politician has no idea what net neutrality means
>cartoonist has no idea what net neutrality means
>obama has no idea what net neutrality means
>what is the conservative argument against net neutrality
No one fucking understands the topic and until there's actual tech literacy in government, they should fuck off. Conservative/Liberal/W.e none of them fucking understand what they're dealing with and need to shut the fuck up trying to get people to side with their rhetoric even though they don't understand the topic themselves.
>>69131247
this a fucking hilarious ass lie
>>69126239
holy fuck you are stupid, that's not how the internet works at fucking all
>>69126219
this
>>69132224
see >>69131721
and pic related.
On verizon, for instance, there's plenty of capacity on both sides. Level3 wants Verizon to run a patch cord a few feet from their equipment to Verizon's equipment which already has the port. Verizon won't do it because they want to charge Netflix $$$.
>>69132085
>the truth
Why would I listen to a man in his 50's about something he has no experience with?
>>69126793
stop posting, please god stop posting.
>>69127336
There is 0 competition currently.
>>69126758
Good post.
Upboat.
>>69127336
>I like monopolies
consider suicide
>>69132224
>Jesus Christ you have no idea how the internet works do you
Not an argument. You said it was decentralized, hence not a natural monopoly yet everyone has to go through a backbone provider to get to popular content. Are you purposely being dense? Pretty typical for a shill. Are you telling me you don't get your internet service from an ISP?
>What evidence do you want?
Oh, I don't know, maybe evidence more than just "believe me, I said it". How do you know their networks are anywhere near capacity and that facebook or pornhub doesn't use more?
Although I guess if your argument has no basis to it, I understand why you're getting so angry over being asked for evidence.
>>69132902
>In early 1995, he and his brother Hugh founded Caribou Systems Corporation, a Toronto-based provider of environmental database software.
>>69133053
>muhnopolies
Not an argument
>>69125809
>My friends, my business partners and eventually me myself will lose money if this thing goes through
It is as valid reason as any.
>>69131276
monopoly = no free market
which is exactly why net neutrality is a huge issue
>>69133135
yeah it is you dumbfuck leaf
monopolies are inherently bad
if you honestly like monopolies you should probably kill yourself
>>69132902
>in his 50's
Not an argument. Also, you needn't put an apostrophe in the word "50s," famalam.
>>69126205
Ya, don't forget the penalty
Cuz worthless illegals should be covered too
>>69133741
>disliking regulation is the same as liking monopolies
Do you have any valid arguments, anon?
>>69126349
Net neutrality concerns the ability of ISP's to fuck with your internet usage. NSA surveillance has nothing to do with it.
>>69127336
>We DO NOT need ENFORCED "net neutrality" - what we need is COMPETITION within the private sector.
But there isn't competition. If you're lucky, you have a duopoly - Verizon (or AT&T) as the phone company and a cable company like Comcast or Time-Warner.
Right now there is de facto net neutrality. They already abuse it - if you go to some nonsense website like kqkjdqdzcxgdj.com , it should go nowhere but nowadays most companies route it to some ad for the carrier. The carriers want to ramp things up.
We need net neutrality because there isn't competition. No net neutrality means these monopolies become more entrenched, and there is less competition.
>>69127784
this
>>69130700
It should be, ought to be, and is already considered to be a public utility by the vast majority.
Does private power companies owning substations or powerplants make power any less of a public utility?
funny. its cheap at first then the prices skyrockets later
>>69134338
entirely different issues
one has nothing to do with the other
>>69134374
>this level of entitlement.
what should be and/or ought is relative and people considered is not a arguments.
>Does private power companies owning substations or powerplants make power any less of a public utility
repeat the natural monopoly myth is not a arguments unless you really believe that roads were never private.
>>69126239
Data is not something that costs money to create, like electricity. The only real costs of data come from maintaining and building infrastructure hence why we pay for bandwidth not data.
Also, a whole part of the net neutrality issue is that companies not only want to charge you for data, but want to be able to discriminate between data. So that watching 1GB of Netflix content will cost more then watching 1GB of the video streaming service that is owned by the ISP. Which is extremely unfair competition, if you hadn't figured that out yet.
>>69132334
You mean like congestion? Because he's dismissing that baseless myth.
>>69128231
You mean Bell?
>>69125809
It's a redditard meme and there are obvious corporate shills on both sides.
>>69125809
>What are conservashits argument against net neturality ?
They oppose it because their donors in Comcast oppose it.
>>69134935
>not an argument
Fuck off Molyneaux.
>unless you really believe that roads were never private.
Oh, I know roads were private at one point, but it's better that they aren't. Things like roads, national transportation in general, electricity, water, and information ought to be public, nationalized, or at least subject to nation regulation.
>>69135331
>Fuck off Molyneaux.
Not
an
argument
.
>but it's better that they aren't.
Prove it. This
>Things like roads, national transportation in general, electricity, water, and information ought to be public, nationalized, or at least subject to nation regulation.
is not proof btw.
>>69126219
The Nestle water thing is taken way out of context, the CEO said using water for nonessential purposes should be more expensive. Everyone should have drinking water, but only paying customers should be able to fill their pools.
>>69127382
>>69126758
>Explain to me how net neutrality isn't forcing me to subsidize your use of the internet by making all content equal including your Netflix addiction.
Alright, let me explain the problem with net neutrality.
>Gov gives a company the right to make a highway, and the right to charge people for its use
> company makes 6-lane highway, and everyone uses it and has to pay the same fee
> company charges, you as the end-user (driver) have to pay the fee
> all is good, so far
> company gets the idea to keep 5 lanes of highway for its partnership with BMW, and everyone else driving any other vehicle (mercedes, honda, toyota, lexus, etc) has to only use the sole other remaining lane
> company "invites" others car manufacturers to enter into partnership with it if they want to use the other remaining lanes of the highway
> even though you already pay for use of the highway, the company is trying to backdoor and get money from the vehicle manufacturers (or content providers)
also, for the purposes of the anology, it's not just a few car manufactures that are out there... but literally countless of content providers.. ranging from behemoths like Netflix/Google/ESPN to your local pages hosted on geocities
The ISPs are not only making money off of you, the end-user, but are trying to backdoor and get payments from the content provider.. thereby restricting you from using "the information super highway" except by driving on a congested slow-lane.
>>69125809
I'm a software engineer who's been on the internet since before Mosaic, but I still can't get a tldr on net neutrality.
I only saw the infographic with non-net-neutrality being like tv where there are tiers of service.
Well, there are already tiers of service--I do a cloud product where about 30% of my customers need to upgrade their connections, and some of them are not even able.
My interest in this thing is that I want them to have better access for my muh product, and privacy to shitpost on the chins, as well as to download automobiles.
>>69126909
I want this, but pacman dies and he dindu nufin
>>69136396
>>but it's better that they aren't.
>Prove it. This
>>Things like roads, national transportation in general, electricity, water, and information ought to be public, nationalized, or at least subject to nation regulation.
>is not proof btw.
Not the guy you're responding to, but imagine if you had to drive from Point A to Point B, and every 50 feet, a property owner charges you a toll. Oh, and the guy who owns the road adjoining the hospital decides to charge you $10,000 every time he sees you need immediate medical attention.
I believe the government should let the people do what it wants, and that government intrusion into personal liberties is the BIGGEST threat we face as free citizens.
With that said, I'm not an anarchist, and I do believe that government has certain core functions. Providing for a means of intrastate transportation (i.e., roads) is one of them.
>>69126037
You use 4chan on a daily basis. If you're a /pol/tard it's probably your life support. If you don't have an strong opinion on net neutrality then you're an ignorant shitlord.
>>69138229
>>69138480
>>69138480
Check out the analogy I posted right after your post.
For what's it's worth, there's a lot of misinformation floating around out there about the subject. I'm an attorney, so I'm well-versed in wading through cesspools of legal diarrhea on a daily basis, but the garbage out there about net neutrality is particularity impressive. When you combine (1) the underlying complexities of the very subject and (2) special interest with the desire to obfuscate the issue, it's no surprise that most people aren't actually sure of what to make of it.
It's a big fucking mess.
>>69138653
The first problem in your example could easily be met by the multiple property owners bundling prices into one package to save the customer convenience as and their own public image.
The second is assuming that all roads are private, but even if they were, I wouldn't be against a law mandating that transient emergency vehicles may traverse your road if there is no better way. That way, even if a hospital was surrounded by private road, the only people they could charge such an exorbitant fee to would be people who wouldn't care to pay it, leading them to never actually use that power.
>>69125809
No one with a fucking brain disagrees with net neutrality. However what really pisses me off is both these faggots have no idea how ISPs fuck the consumer. They really really need to destroy this monoply
>>69127336
Fuck off.
No really, fuck off.
There is no competition because all of the fucking lobbyists have prevented competition from happening.
Comcast has a monopoly on internet. The rest of the world has faster internet speeds than us with net neutrality, even though we are a first world country. (inb4 fags coming in and calling me on it) You want competition? End all of these fucking awful regulations preventing competition. Colorado got skipped over for google fiber because of Jewcast's hardcore lobbying many years ago to prevent new company's from just 'moving in'
Do any of you faggots know how data works? It isn't "oh this is SPECIAL VIDYA DATA," data is fucking data. It's as fast as the server allows it to be. Even if ending net neutrality MIGHT (and that's a big if and might) be helpful, we have zero fucking business ending net neutrality in the name for competition when there are far bigger factors facing competition due to fucking lobbyist.
Fucking end yourselves if you feel this way. Net neutrality should be enforced, lobbyists should be shot, market should be open and free.
>>69140543
I'm in Canada, you don't know shit about third world internet. Go fucking kill yourself globalist fuck.
>>69130700
Everything you've said is true however why can't more than one ISP come in and start there own ISP? Oh thats right because the monoply of ISPs will sue the fuck out of them and put money into the pockets of local officials to tell them to fuck off. You need to realize their is a deep problem with the current ISP situation.
>>69126560
Actually there is a limited amount to go around, its the whole reason you have to pay for it at all to begin with
>>69125809
It is the same argument that the Democrats have: There is money to be made and politicians to be paid. The two groups dress it up differently but they both have their hands out and everyone of your inalienable rights is negotiable for a price.
>>69138480
net neutrality is just a buzzword for the end to end principle of networking (a trade no one in this thread fucking understands) that existed long before net neutrality was propose around 2000/2001 which the proposal suggested metering your service.
what the proponents of NN want is the government to decree and force ISP to treat "all bits equally" which is fundamentally flawed.
Like all leftists, they have a deep seated hatred and fundamental opposition to property rights, and will eagerly go running to the state to initiate violence against anyone who doesn't do exactly as they want them to.
They will then conjure up post hoc justifications for this based on whatever sophistry or outright lying (both to themselves and others) they can. Since they are incapable of supporting their position through reason and logic, they usually just scream "shill" at anyone who disagrees with them.
As to the actual arguments concerning regulation of the internet, it boils down to a few basic things. One, are you the owner of the ISP company? If not, you have no right to impose your personal preferences on them, period. If you don't like what is offered you can not do business with them. Two, if your problem is that their are so few ISP companies, then the problem is the state granting monopoly rights to companies and restricting access to the market, in which case it is logical to work on that instead of piling on more government "solutions" to problems caused by the same fucking government in the first place. The fact that the advocates of NN choose the latter is therefore really telling of their actual motives and desires.
>>69125809
>millions of satisfied customers
100% false
most 'customers' got higher rates and lost their doctors (which the nigger promised wouldn't happen)
the millions of satisfied customers is a blatant lie because the only people satisfied are indigent niggers that didnt even have insurance, so they're not 'customers' if they're getting free fucking healthcare.
>>69128395
I don't know anyone making over $35,000 a year who likes Obamacare.
>>69140712
>>69140712
>you don't know shit about third world internet.
3rd world internet is faster than what I get. We pay out the ass for Jewcast and there is a certain time every night where I'm lucky to get 1 Mbps.
Looking at shit country's and going "well why is it working for them? What are they doing different?" is not globalism you retarded leaf.
The number one enemy to internet speeds is Comcast's fucking ridiculous lobbying that has chased out god knows how many possible competitors.
>>69141401
>that pic
niiice
>>69128195
USA should do what the uk does.
Monopolize the infrastructure and enforce a charge that all companies have to pay to use it called Line rental
>>69125809
There's more than 1,999,999 people satisfied with Obamacare?!
WHAT THE FUCK
>>69125809
>giving the government more control over the Internet
What could possibly go wrong!? I mean the TPP is the perfect solution to everything!
>>69128395
[citation needed]
>>69133512
>>69126037
The infrastructure is paid by the tax payer, not the telecom companies. They just make you think that because they have a monopoly on the infrastructure due to contract with local government, but everything is subsidised and the telecom companies don't pay shit.
>>69137023
Nestlé don't believe everyone should have drinking water unless they pay Nestlé for it.
