Is the net neutrality thing blown out of proportion? I don't remember having problems pre-net neutrality (early 2015 if i'm not wrong)
>>61425302>i don't remember something happening, therefore it didn't.
>>61426195>I couldn't even tell if it was happening or not, so I need to care whether it was happening
>>61425302>Is the net neutrality thing blown out of proportion?More then that.With net "neutrality" people are trying to get the government to control the internet and stop the free market.
>>61425302As a non American I always laughed at your tiny, expensive data caps and constant complaining about only being able to choose between two shitty ISPs.
>>61425302>I don't remember having problems pre-net neutrality>early 2015Try 2001-2008. I had no problems either before net neutrality ever emerged from the leftist mindset.
>>61426533>controlmore like make it illegal for corporations or anyone else to do exactly that, controlling your internet>>61427170>>61425302because you had net neutrality despite it not being mandatory. You had it implicitly and enjoyed it that way. Now companies are getting the audacity to stop being neutral, so you need laws to make it mandatory for them to remain neutral and not interfere in your online freedom.Stop watching fox news you idiotsDo you enjoy being able to go to any website without your ISP saying "yeah no, we kinda politically disagree with that site or something so we're not gonna let you connect to it", or up/downloading any kind of data like videos, voice chat, regular http traffic, online multiplayer, your dropbox files, etc without your ISP going "yeah no we don't like that much so we're just gonna slow your connection down to unusable rates so you'll stop doing that because fuck you"? Congratulations, you want net neutrality.Maybe look up what the fucking word "neutrality" means.
>>61427273Net neutrality laws will make it harder for current ISP's to expand their infrastructure to bring us better, cheaper service.Also, why is it that leftists support a progressive tax bracket, those who make more money have to pay more taxes, but when it comes to ISP's they don't apply the same logic? Why should bandwidth hogs like Netflix get the same treatment as sites and services who use significantly less?
>>61427323>make it harder for current ISP's to expand their infrastructure to bring us better, cheaper service.>implying they're even remotely interested in doing such a thing>implying they aren't just interested in jewing the living shit out of the filthy goyim by tacking on extra fees for the same shitty serviceThey'll just pocket the extra shekels and you know it.
>>61427323>Net neutrality laws will make it harder for current ISP's to expand their infrastructure to bring us better, cheaper service.seriously? They get enough money as it is, they just squander it on exec bonuses and other rubbish.Here in the EU net neutrality is law and we are doing WAY better with our ISPs than you guys in your pathetic country think you are. We have tons of choices and great service, despite those demonic anti-freedom net neutrality rules that don't actually impede ISPs one bit you mongoloid.How on earth do you think not allowing them to arbitrarily deny users access to parts of the internet they dislike is going to ruin their business?>Why should bandwidth hogs like Netflix get the same treatment as sites and services who use significantly less?Because it's the end user who pays for the consumption (transfer, rather) of data you idiot. Whether packets of data all come from a single source like netflix or from all kinds of different places makes 0 fucking difference to the infrastructure. The only thing that puts stress on an infrastructure is the debit or amount per timeframe, which is completely unrelated to the source of said data. If everyone was watching netflix at the same time, or everyone was watching videos on a different website for every individual user, would be the exact same thing for the ISP's infrastructure.The end users pay for a certain amount of data per month at certain average expected speeds. Where that data comes from is of no fucking technical importance. The way ISPs are bitching about netflix now is because they oversold their capacity: they're pocketing money from customers who are increasingly trying to get out of their subscription what they paid for, and now it's becoming apparent the ISPs sell more than they can deliver, like overbooked airplanes.What you want, is to let them steamroll you and take your money while scamming you into worse service, all while they pretend to be the poor good guys.
Posting in a state department thread.
>>61425302No, it's awesome.Americans will be cut off from most of the internet so quality of discussions will greatly improve.
>>61425302GO SNAKE-O GO !!
>>61427273>corporations can't control the internet they provide you if the government already doesvery intelligent
>>61427518>Whether packets of data all come from a single source like netflix or from all kinds of different places makes 0 fucking difference to the infrastructure.Shouldn't the single sources actually be possible to optimize?If millions of people want to watch Game of Thrones why not have cache servers somewhere down the line?Hell, just using bittorrents should solve most of the bandwidth issues.
Here in the Netherlands the entire parliament supported the net neutrality laws (including privacy that for example ISP's cant scan your traffic. They have no purpose for it anyway) due to how disruptive shaped traffic could be to the market. With startups able to get slowlaned and people/corporations being forced to pay for traffic twice. And then our European Commission member inplemented a weaker version EU wide.This was years ago and we still have dozens of ISP's on the market.
>>61425302>>61427170>pre net neutralityIs this a ruse?Net neutrality has been around since the conception of the Internet. Just because you never heard of it before, doesn't mean it just suddenly sprung into existence the moment you did hear about it.
>>61426533>With net "neutrality" people are trying to get the government to control the internet and stop the free market.the free market is fucked because there is no competition due to large ISPs holding too much control. There's no choice so the customer can't vote with their dollar.ISPs gained all this power by co-opting the government and using legal loopholes to force any smaller firm that tries to offer anything better out of business. Regulation just makes it easier for them.it's pretty much fucked from both a conservative and liberal point of view
>>61427676>including privacy that for example ISP's cant scan your trafficYet our government spies more on its citizens than any other government in the world.Even North Korea has better privacy than we do.
AYO DAT NEET NEUTRALITY BE HELPIN A BROTHA U FEEL ME?!?im tryin to equalize that bandwidth for us brothas in tha hood u feel me cuz?DAS HOW THA TEKNEEK BROTHAS BE DOIN IT SON!shits opression senpaishit aint kool forreal doe
>>61427146Same here. Would be funny if Americans also had to pay $5 more per month to get access to Google or just use bing or something.
>>61427754That's no problem. Because we don't have decryption orders people can just secure and encrypt everything.
>>61427786But you can't take public transport or even drive without the government tracking your movements.Which is fine.....until burglars hack the government's servers so they know when you're on holiday.
Americans complain that net neutrality will impede ISPs, but countries with net neutrality as law have a lot more ISPs and a lot cheaper Internet and a lot faster Internet as well. (mostly because there are so many ISPs to choose from) Who pays for Internet infrastructure in the US? It's not the ISPs, it is the local government for the most part. Just because only one company has monopoly over the government paid infrastructure does not mean that they paid for it. They just don't have to share infrastructure with other ISPs like in Europe.
Guys, stop being so damn gullible. And I damn mean it.Net neutrality is just another government takeover regulation hidden under a well meaning name. Remember the 'Affordable Care Act'? 'Net Neutrality' is the same, a regulation intended for government to take over the internet under the pretense of solving problems government itself created (ISP fucking over their customers). Now that someone decides to take it away the media is using the largely ignorant populace who know absolutely nothing about it other than it has a warm fuzzy feely positive name and therefore it must be good and the one who tries to take it away must be bad. It's all emotional manipulation.The problem isn't that some politician tries to remove that law, the problem is whether he actually intends to remove it or just replace it with something else, and whether that something else is more controlling or less.
>>61425302It's a very big deal if you want a free internet, giving anyone power just because you haven't seen them abuse a power (they didn't have before) is dumb, but net neutrality legislation has some obvious flaws namely replacing one potential tyrant for another. I think the best way to handle it would be to make a constitutional amendment so it's as close to untouchable as it can be, both by private and federal forces.
Are we all overlooking new means of getting around this old problem? Would BBS be a thing again? Would that be comfy as far as normies go? New industry? Wifi networks? All these /damnpis/
>>61427273>Stop watching fox news you idiotswhy does every statist cuck think people still watch cable news?
>>61427596>>corporations can't control the internet they provide you if the government already doesexcept it wouldn't, retard. Meddling with your internet is illegal for both corps and govt under net neutrality. The govt won't control your internet, they'll pass a law that says nobody can.You can't just change what is said into something bad that wasn't said, and then go>hurr durr look, it's just as bad! hurrrrwhen the bad stuff you're talking about is something you made up that isn't reality.
>>61428402>problems the government itself created (ISP fucking over their customers)This is so ass backwards. Especially with your talk of "emotional manipulation" and then mentioning unrelated acts, takeovers, and then linking that to ... someone replacing the regulation under discussion with a hypothetical, "more controlling" future one? What thread so you think you are in?This must be some kind of false flag or attempt at muddying the waters because there is no way someone could actually write this shot with a straight face.
>>61427748>Regulation just makes it easier for themexcept when those regulations forbid the shit they want to dogod what is it with you americans just slapping a label on something, reducing a complex subject to a single word ("muh regulashons"), and then dismissing the entire thing based on a one-sided interpretation of that word? I can hold more intelligent conversations with a fucking toddler than with you people
>>61427323>Net neutrality laws will make it harder for current ISP's to expand their infrastructure to bring us better, cheaper service.Shill language detected>>61427596Corporations have no obligation to protect freeze peach, at all, and can not be forced to do so. Spare me your muh voting with your feet. Barriers to entry make a mockery of your argument.Governments do and can be forced to respect it, such as it is.>>61428569/pol/, r/T_d, Fox News, same shit, different proprietor.
>>61428753Shills are cheaper than profits.>>61428791Reification is what America is all about.>>61428551Alternate communications media is unironically a good thing to be working on right about now.>all those /damnpis/This. Buy 'em by the bucket while you still can.
>>61426224>i don't make any sense, so fuck me in the butthole.