No.71201
>>71200
Let the state release its regulations. So many are making a big fuss on the short term gains of having government regulation, not realizing that most major market innovation happens over the long haul.
No.71203
No.71232
> Trump wins
>"Shit, looks like our propaganda network is not working."
> net neutrality rears its head
> all MSM is totally for it.
> notsuspiciousatall.jpg
It was a matter of time. Any significant freedom is eventually destroyed by the state.
No.71260
I actually am sort of curious about this whole thing as I am almost totally ignorant. All I have heard is positive aspects of net neutrality while others sing a song of impending doom in a world without Net Neutrality where Netflix will be slower and you can't play online games or something.
Are there any negative aspects to Net Neutrality that are not being talked about? Are the worst predictions going to come true?
No.71262
>>71260
i mean it would help out internet/cable companies by giving them more more. So it would grow the economy. Thats the only good thing I can think of.
But for our personal freedoms its detrimental. look at pic related.
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
No.71275
>>71260
>>71262
Think about why this is even a concern. Cable companies are (supposed to be) run profitably. They wouldn't waste their money on banning porn sites for the fun of it, if that interfered with making profits. If they could, they'd provide unlimited, instant access to every site you can think of. They cannot do that, however. Bandwidth is limited. Depending on consumer demand, they'll either increase total bandwidth, or prioritize different services so as to maximize profits, by giving more bandwidth for the use of services for which high bandwidth is in demand, or to users who are willing to pay more.
The first of these options probably isn't an option. I don't know the specifics of that market, but I think there might be serious restraints to building new infrastructure. It sure isn't just because building it is so expensive. Here in Germany, our infrastructure is terrible, actually the worst in western Europe. Why is that? Surely not because Germans value the internet less, or because mysteriously, our geography just hates all things internet. Definitely not because Germans are willing to invest less than other consumer groups. The remaining possibility is that our government is somehow messing it up. I don't know how yet. I do know, on the other hand, that in the US, Comcast is shamelessly government-supported and even given monopolies. So no wonder the infrastructure in some places is just shit.
I highly doubt that the cable companies really benefit from this scheme, unless subsidies are involved. Perhaps some, even the majority, benefit, because their more efficient competitors are eliminated. It's obvious, then, that net neutrality is akin to a subsidy to the less efficient cable companies, the ones that refuse to charge the people who use up 90% of the bandwidth extra. No growth can be the result to that. It would be different, on the face of it, if the ISP-industry as a whole benefitted, but that would just mean that resources go to where they less effectively fulfill demand. Who knows, maybe the market in cooking books would suffer as a result. All we know is that some other market would suffer.
No.71280
No.71299
No.71304
>>71262
You do realize that image would also imply private roads should be banned? Why would all traffic and any vehicle have to pay and get the same quality of service when one uses up the road a lot more than the other? Why does the bridge owner lose his right to discriminate who he lets use his property in what way as soon as people decide they like it a lot?
Burn the damn bridge down!
No.71306
>>71200
Nothing you faggot. Get your head out of your ass. The federal government controlling the internet use inside these borders is not a positive.
No.71323
>>71306
This. Redditors claiming to be supporters of liberty, when they
actually just want government to enforce what they see as "fair" is the problem here, and similarly with other shit that
reddit supports, like UBI.
No.71330
>>71280
>>71275
These are actually very interesting and insightful, thanks. Also, my deepest sympathies for having to live in Germany.
>>71262
I feel like this example is a little poor, seems like there are more negatives than just increasing the national labor.
No.71344
>>71280
the fact that people at mises.org can be so retarded about net neutrality makes me wonder if they are retarded about other things too.
As principle I am against net neutrality. Hell, I am against any entity shaped or formed without the free market. If the free market gives us net neutrality good, otherwise fuck it. But I don't live in a world where free market is in place, nor I will ever live in one. In fact the world is on a one-way ride to a crony-communist dystopia.
The only thing I can aspire to is to try to move things so as much freedom as possible can be reached. If I have a neutral platform where I can shitpost against the government and the cronies all day long and I can bring good ideas about free market to people, I don't care if it is protected by the government.
The cronies wanna play? Let's play. I am gonna use the government now to beat the government in the long run.
Without net neutrality ideas about freedom will disappear, because without net neutrality isp will block right wing sites.
Sadly a lot of libertarians and ancaps are showing to be people who can't think ahead of "regulations = bad". They are like fucking leftists, they just repeat their mantra without thinking what it really means in the world they live.
Libertarians treat the abolishing of net neutrality like the abolishing of all regulations, but that's not true. You still need a lot of license and permits to produce the stuff to make the internet works. You need licenses to place the cables, you need licenses to negotiate with land-owners, you need a shitload of things that make the isp game something for cronies.
NN is not the abolishing of all regulations, it's the abolishing of a regulation that is good for spreading information about how regulations are bad. When the cronies and the government will be beaten, when the free market will be in place, net neutrality might go.
Until then, it must stay.
No.71347
>>71344
If banning certain sites were in the ISP agenda, they would have tried to get around net neutrality.
No.71402
>>71347
there have already been net neutrality violations in the past. Net neutrality is an important guarantee. Why risking making life easier to cronies? They are a big part of what makes the government screw the free market in the first place.
No.71404
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>71323
The worst shit is people think there is a winning side for us when they don't get it that the average user loses in both cases. Net neutrality doesn't exist to protect anybody but the lobbyists. For the same reason other lobbyists want it down. There is no space between regulations where we gain something. Nobody gives two shits about protecting our freedoms, and they aren't protected in either case. None of that was ever the point of it all.
We are neither bigger than the ISP lobbyists, nor Netflix and other large data consumers who stand to benefit. The Mises articles got that right. Ideally, you want Net Neutrality repealed, but that doesn't remove the state propped up ISP services. So having it "on" or "off" doesn't make a difference to US. The only part we have in this is being a tool for the eventual winner.
No.71406
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Peter Klein also on the Tom Woods show discussing Net Neutrality.
No.71468
If ISPs already have monoploies, what stops them from rasing prices now?
No.71469
>>71468
People will stop paying for it and switch to Wi-Fi provider.
No.71470
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>71275
This. Most places (except Pennsylvania) have monopolies (or duopolies if you include Verizon's fibreoptic provider) such as Comcast, Cablevision, and Time Warner. Is spend $75 per month just for 50Mbps internet alone.
Video tl;dr: Net neutrality = more FCC control
No.71485
>>71468
Well it's not a true monopoly but in general oligopolies and monopolies cannot charge whatever they want for their goods and services. Well they could technically charge whatever they want but as a rule they will instead charge the profit maximizing price.
No.71486
>>71485
Along with the fact that a monopoly will actually spur along innovation from the desire to compete and disrupt that monopoly, as long as that monopoly is not protected by the state. Net neutrality would actually create state protected monopolies and dampen innovation due to babysitting.
No.71487
>>71486
Well also monopolies can exist on small scales in small communities, I'm sure with or without net neutrality there will be for sometime monopolies in rural or undeveloped areas of the United States until the infrastructure becomes more developed to support competition from companies based in more developed regions.
>>71470
Literally (figuratively) the only good video on Youtube about the subject.
No.71494
>>71262
What a terrible example. Who built those bridges? If it was the pizza company, why is only one company allowed to build bridges? If the state built those bridges, why does the pizza company own them now? Why is a bridge the only way to cross water? Why does a small, local pizza company need to cross the bridge in the first place, and how do they go bankrupt from not doing so?
It's pretty typical of the net neutrality debate in the first place: The state creates problems and then people demand more state intervention to solve them, ignoring the fact that they could solve them by just letting go of the strict, cronyist controls that stifle competition in the first place. People like >>71344 get suckered in to debate on the terms of pro-/anti-net neutrality instead of just being anti-state intervention in the market.
No.71513
>>71262
>So it would grow the economy
Monopolies are not good for the economy
No.71548
>>71494
>People like >>71344 get suckered in to debate on the terms of pro-/anti-net neutrality instead of just being anti-state intervention in the market.
Since I am a professional shitposter I am shitposting a lot about NN lately, and I've noticed that people always miss this point I make in my argument in favor of net neutrality.
>As principle I am against net neutrality. Hell, I am against any entity shaped or formed without the free market. If the free market gives us net neutrality good, otherwise fuck it. But I don't live in a world where free market is in place, nor I will ever live in one. In fact the world is on a one-way ride to a crony-communist dystopia.
What part of it isn't clear? Is it really that fuckin hard to understand? Yes, it is because libertarians are just as dumb as communists, the only difference is that they read different books. I found very few libertarians who proved that this is not the case, sadly.
Also, net neutrality is first and foremost a law to limit the power of governments and cronies.
You see, without net neutrality what is stopping now agents of government from going to some isp and tell it "slow down this website and we will grant you many government contracts"? What's stopping them? Nothing. Zero. Nada.
And of course it will happen. Both governments and cronies will stop websites and there will be no real alternatives because we don't live in a world where the free market is in place and net neutrality for sure wasn't what make new isps pop up. It will be a slow process, but I know that cronies are already sexually pleasuring themselves thinking about libertcucks defending themm, the very same people who are working to silence libertcucks unless they become good cucks and go back to sending newsletter in the mail, 90s style.
Too hard to understand, it is not as easy as repeating "regulation = baaaaaaaaaaaaad".
No.71549
>>71548
>net neutrality is first and foremost a law to limit the power of governments
Sauce pls
No.71550
>>71549
my God, it's explained the next sentence, what kind of sauce do you need?
With NN government agencies have to jump through all kinds of obstacles before being able to block a website. Without NN they can just call the isp and tell them "block this websites and we will give you many favors".
This is a big difference.
Also I can't believe how naive american libertarians are. You need to take a crash course on crony capitalism because it looks like you can't even comprehend how connected big business and the governments are.
Here is a realistic scenario:
Jim is an entrepeneur and a libertarian. He sells a shitload of paper online and makes the smackers. Thanks to the business money he will probably get into congress soon.
The people in the government can't have another fuckin libertarian asshole in their ranks. So, they call the isp and tell them "block Jim online paper shop". The isp block Jim website, he stops selling paper, he can't fund his campaign, he doesn't become a congressman, freedom suffers.
But you know what? Jim deserved it, because he was really retarded and decided to be against net neutrality in the first place.
Another scenario:
David is a young highschooler. He read about this guy called Rothbard in an old book. So, he goes online and searches for Rothbard. He tries to access a site called Mises.org, but a screen appear "this website is not available on comcast basic internet plan". He goes back playing candy crush and he'll never know who the fuck Rothbard was. He dies of communism a few years later. This because there is no net neutrality in place, so he doesn't get the internet but computer cable tv.
This is how it works. It's not like that something just because it is done by politicians is always bad and will always be bad. We don't live in an utopia, we live in a very cruel world and we need to be strong and SMART.
No.71643
>>71275
>If they could, they'd provide unlimited, instant access to every site you can think of
keep in mind this only works if that is truly the biggest incentives a business has. when we add political considerations, youre gonna fall victim to the irrationality of the broader customer base and inertia in information distribution. ex: people who have control over AT&T really hate 8chan and the libertarians on /liberty/. so they deny service to 8chan. this hurts them only a tiny amount because most their customers do not even go there nor do they care if cp or evil nazis or evil libertarians are censored. though if they were as rational as you and knew as much as you they would be opposed, but they dont so they arent - incorrectly so.
meanwhile you would like to switch internet providers, but ATT owns the cable and are exercising their right to exclude you and getting your own cable drawn costs $500,000.
if they were strictly a business none of this would happen. but they are humans with ideas outside of the business. globalist kind of ideas.
but you dont give up and get satellite internet for 3x regular rate. only to find out that they also removed thedailystormer and 8chan.
No.71681
No.72528
Necro since NN was just repealed. Enjoying harvesting the salt, although I'm disappointed people are still trying to put NN back in, rather than taking steps to break up the monopolies.
No.72530
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
The comment section is full of salt
No.72535
The asspain today has been glorious. I haven't seen anything like this in a while.
No.72547
The radiowave equivalents of net neutrality pretty much kept radio as a monopoly and fucked for years before podcasts became direct competition. I expect if this ever becomes an issue, something similar will happen with the internet.
You can direct traffic on routers based on ports, thus you can charge more to enable the ports that utilize video feeds and such on the basis of bandwidth (apparently large cities already do shit like this despite FCC regulations that were in place, where you have to buy a business line if you want to use more than 200gigs/month), but I doubt an ISP would restrict which sites you could browse.
This'll ultimately affect video streaming until folks find a way to circumvent it like they always do. At most you'll have the internet broken down into either data packages (X GB/month) or port-based provisioning (video streaming ports cost extra, fast picture loading costs extra, etc. if you don't buy a business line). Something like that.
No.72550
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
Ignoring this dumb fuck doesn't know the difference between a megabyte and a gigabyte, this is a pretty accurate and succinct video on the issue. In practice, net neutrality says you have to treat all traffic as equal. Even if you're like me and don't have cable, and recognize that this is a lose-lose situation, net neutrality still allows companies like Cisco to get away with trying to shove VOIP, Streaming, Data, Email, etc. all on the same line. The telecom companies will abuse it because they have the government monopolies, but ideally the internet should function on the principle that data is a "scarce resource" insomuch as cabling only allows certain speeds and certain fidelity, thus certain traffic (such as VOIP or Video Streaming, which nowadays includes cable) should get priority treatment and possibly should cost more to get that priority treatment.
No.72554
>>72547
t. retard who never heard of radio interference and doesn't know what the fuck a "port" is
Is this what they call "engineers' disease?" Just because you can change lightbulbs does not mean you understand how different telecommunications infrastructures work.
No.72557
>>72550
It's not accurate at all, it is just some retard whining that he is afraid that the government might for some unknown reason force everyone to switch to IPTV. He has no idea what he is talking about.
No.72559
>>72554
Keep being assblasted, statist faggot.
No.72574
>>72554
The FCC personally fucked with people for retarded shit in the name of "radio interference" that was already an issue being solved in courts before they got involved.
I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of networks is limited, but I have had to study this shit for the last five months for certifications, so I'd like to think I know a little.
No.72575
>>72574
You missed the difference between ports and protocols.
No.72577
>>72574
Completely besides the point. Frequencies can only be used by one radio station at the time at a given location, it has nothing to do with regulation or net neutrality. A completely retarded parallel that tells us nothing other than you are technologically illiterate.
UDP and TCP have separate ports but both are completely arbitrary. You can use any port for any kind of (UDP or TCP) traffic. You can use tcp/80 (usually http) for email or whatever the fuck you want to do as long as the protocol used at the transport layer matches. You just need to configure the mail server to listen on that port. Completely unenforceable.
"Fast picture loading costs?" How the fuck are you going to enforce that over HTTPS? You have no way of knowing what kind of content is requested. Even with HTTP it is only possible with deep packet inspection. Imagine if they opened your mail at the post office to see if you are sending a photo to your parents of your imaginary daughters on your ranch and then decided to send it slower. Same thing happens except you can't tell that your packet was "opened" and the router probably won't masturbate to a picture of your sisters.
What they usually do is discriminate based on IP address. They can refuse to forward packets to certain IP blocks or prioritize traffic heading to or coming from certain others. If they are lazy they will just fuck with DNS, but that is negative only. If there's nothing else they will turn to deep packet inspection, which is costly and slows down everything but it can be used to discriminate based on protocol used (you can block bittorrent) or even the content of the packages (you can block anything mentioning "tiananmen Square protests", for example (unless encrypted, ofc)).
A very important thing is that these only work inside your own network at the moment, so any advantage is lost at peering. This means that your preferential content will only be faster as long as it is inside the ISPs own network. Anything outside will be as slow as everything else, unless they slow down everything else also to make it seem faster. This also means that negative discrimination is way easier, especially simply blocking stuff.
Here's a list of previous violations so you know what to realistically expect. It contains blocking of services, blocking of websites (including one about labour disputes with the blocking ISP, how surprising) and even redirecting requests to different websites for sweet ad money:
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
No.72581
Woud smaller peer to peer networks survive and be allowed to exist? I keep hearing that in Eastern Europe they have them and a relatively free internet.
No.72595
>>72577
>labour
Please remind me why you care.
No.72604
>>72577
Are you the same faggot from /tech/ who was pissing and moaning about "muh ayncraps muh throttling"?
No.72616
No.72618
>>72616
>The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) is responsible for maintaining the official assignments of port numbers for specific uses.[1] However, many unofficial uses of both well-known and registered port numbers occur in practice. Similarly many of the official assignments refer to protocols that were never or are no longer in common use. This article lists port numbers and their associated protocols that have experienced significant uptake.
It's just tradition, they are not enforced or anything.
No.72682
The NN fallout just goes to show the little socialist that lives in 90% of the populace. As long as people get their Netflix, Hulu, and FB, they could give two shits less about the market or Government encroachment. This is why the ideas of liberty are still basically on the fringe.
No.72722
No.72734
>>72581
As far as I know we have no regulations and are doing just fine. For everything else though…
No.72735
>>72734
EU has net neutrality and more
No.72755
>>72722
Thanks anon those look interesting.
No.72777
>>72776
Also the Republicans are set to introduce their own NN legislation but not involving the extensive Title II regulations.
No.72811
>>72776
Interesting article thanks anon!
No.72813
No.72825
>>72813
>what's inflation created by debt based central banking
No.72859
>>72616
Fuck, forgot my flag.
>>72577
>Frequencies yadda yadda yadda
Yes and these were aready being solved in court before the FCC got their grubby mitts on it. Way to ignore the whole point.
>Ports are arbitrary
Not really. They're pretty fucking important for end-to-end device continuity that allows a lot of applications to function (hence the whole idea of port forwarding). If an electrical guy like me can enforce it on a virtual interface with just a little training, I have no doubts an ISP could enforce it over their router.
>Fast picture loading costs?
Admittedly I was a little drunk, but I believe I was referencing the idea that you could direct the router to use slower (cheaper) lines. I'll give you this one.
>What they usually do is discriminate based on IP address.
Which is fine and dandy as long as we use IPv4 because of limited numbers of public IP addresses. As things transition to IPv6 over the next decade or so, this becomes a lot more difficult to do in practice unless you throw in an ACL denying everything except specific IP addresses, and that ACL will require constant maintenance.
>This means that your preferential content will only be faster as long as it is inside the ISPs own network.
As for this, the ISPs have both regulations and private contracts on the books to not do this sort of stuff to each other.
No.72860
>>72859
Gotta take a shower, may or may not address the other posts later.
No.72861
>>72581
I imagine they could with a little fuckery. Once the switch to IPv6 happens, it'll be a lot easier. Most of the power ISPs hold right now is because of how limited IPv4 is. They can't afford full IPv6 architecture and ways to counteract consumers in an IPv6 arena, which is why they're holding off on its implementation for as long as physically possible (and because the government doesn't want to switch).
>>72618
>It's just tradition
So are BBB ratings and IPC standards. "Tradition" can hold a lot of weight in context. Routers typically use Ports 1028-5000 as the router sees fit, but the loss of NN could lead to more strict port usage as defined by the IANA. As things currently stand, IANA isn't saying "you can't use this port" they're saying if a conflict occurs between your usage and the official usage of a port, the router should in theory default to the official usage, and they might have a claim if the officially registered user ever took it to court.
>>72776
Good article. Gets to the heart of the issue IMO.
No.72881
>>72859
Are you functionally illiterate? You said radio had something like "net neutrality" and podcasts are "disrupting" that. But that's not true, the situation with radios is because of the physical limit of electromagnetic waves, most notably interference. How the FCC handles or ignores interference is completely besides the point, this is how radio works in all countries and planets and no amount of anarcho-capitalism will change it.
Ports are arbitrary, you can run any service on any port you want, you just have to tell the client to use it. The ISP can only enforce protocol usage on the ports if they check the data in the application layer, which is very costly. Port forwarding is for NAT, it's not relevant to the discussion at all. I doubt you actually understand what a port is.
No.72882
>>72881
>But that's not true, the situation with radios is because of the physical limit of electromagnetic waves, most notably interference.
All explained in pdf related, in less than five pages I think. Should be possible to find them through the index, or through ctrl+f.
There is a physical limit to how many radio stations you can have in any given location, yes, and the FCC doesn't change that. All the FCC does is arbitrarily assign wavelengths. As Orthobro said, this was a non-issue before the FCC was created. The courts already handled conflicts between users of wavelengths, if I recall correctly even on the basis that the first user of a given wavelength in a location had the exclusive right to it, which others couldn't interfere with.
>this is how radio works in all countries and planets and no amount of anarcho-capitalism will change it.
I'm still trying to make sense of these kinds of comments. Are you implying that because all states have a given policy, that policy must be good? That would be a naive view. Or do you just don't want to talk about ethics unless there's a way to implement them in the immediate future? But in that case, why do you go on this board in the first place?
No.72897
>>72882
I'm not making a judgement of the regulation of radio. The Christfag claimed that radios have net-neutrality like regulations and that is what is restraining competition. I simply pointed out that this is wrong, the two carriers are nothing alike and radio has very real physical limits that won't disappear just because of your politics.
No.72919
>>72897
Alright, got you. Fam tbh.