/tech/ - Technology★

>>915259 (OP)

WHOAH SHIT GUYS

YOU GUYS SAID AS SOON AS NET NEUTRALITY PASSED THE GOVERNMENT WOULD COME TAKE MY INTERNET AWAY

WHERE ARE THE INTERNET POLICE IN BLACK VANS AT????

Fuck man, this means our Jewish government is controls our internet, not our Jewish media corporations now!

>>915262

If the reversal passes, it will be the Jewish media corporations that control the internet.

Tell me again why I should care?

Requiring ISPs to treat all data the same is bad how exactly?

>>915264

Basically Net Neutrallity is basically a lie to implement other shit, getting rid of it is shit as well but really on this issue it's lose lose, honestly it'd be better to shut down the whole internet

>>915269

REEE this literally means that trump will look at your browser history and shut down 8chan!!!

>>915269

It puts money into the pockets of Google, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, and Reddit. That's pretty bad IMO.

Oh no, big government will now censor my shitposts on twitter! Why cant these commies deregulate the free market so there can be competition???

>>915275

Because

EVERY MAN A KING

"3. Force President Trump to approve" Weird word choice. He'll pass it cause he's a jew.

Anyone bothered to go through both revisions? I get the feeling they only initially fucked with it to pass things that they'll conveniently forget to remove now.

>DPI-based QoS is nonexistent in Burgeristan from now on

woah, so this is the power of freedom?

>>915277

>I get the feeling they only initially fucked with it to pass things that they'll conveniently forget to remove now.

That's how this stuff usually works.

>>915263

Either way they control it. Reddit's version of NN only gave them more control. If it was such a good law how come every normalfag site came out in support of it? They would not support something they did not benefit from.

>>915271

This anon is right. We need to start over. Dial-up was awful but at least you had choice of ISPs. We really need to get a meshnet going sooner rather than later.

>>915280

Big websites benefit from NN, though. Everybody but ISP do.

>>915283

All of the web 2.0 sites that will benefit from net neutrality have pushed the narrative if you are against it you are evil. If you are in this to make money, you're going to go anyway the wind blows. At least on the surface.

>>915280

>Either way they control it. Reddit's version of NN only gave them more control.

In what way?

>If it was such a good law how come every normalfag site came out in support of it?

Non sequitur.

>They would not support something they did not benefit from.

They do benefit but why is that a problem?

>We really need to get a meshnet going sooner rather than later.

1. The Internet is a mesh net.

2. >we

start programming you lazy faggot

>>915286

>At least on the surface.

Agreed, what do they do differently behind the scenes? We know they lobby and oft get passed exactly what they want, as evidenced by monopolistic nature.

Also title 2 and NN are not the same.

>>915274

Still better than giving ISPs a chance to censor non-normalfag websites.

>>915297

How does this prevent or enable them from doing so?

>>915297

I thought they were going to make normalfags pay for faceberg. Sounds good to me.

>>915259 (OP)

(((ACLU)))

>>915321

No, make normalfags pay for everything BUT NSABook.

>>915353

>Every router, even your home-router does this.

It's called traffic shaping and when done in good faith it allows the network to run smoothly even under heavy load. When I was running a WISP we had to get very aggressive with it and sometimes cut off people that constantly ran torrents at full speed for the good of the network. We gave them fair warning and tried to keep them as customers, all they had to do was run them during off-peak hours (9pm-5pm the next day) but they couldn't play nice. I gave up when netflix came on the scene and the local cable company finally ran cable to the area I served.

>>915269

That isn't what got passed.

Bump because this is a fucking dire moment. Reddit, all our enemies, all of them fucking got their fucking way.

>>915363

This. It's like GDPR shit, got passed because it looks good, but in the end it will shut all the problematic users down, while big tech companys become God.

Can't tell if this thread is shilling or ISP cuckoldry. Why even do this shit for free?

>>915365

>implying normalfags know the difference

>implying they would care

>>915392

i don't know which way to go.

corporations can censor at will and have no legal reason they can't, and they obviously censor constantly.

the U.S. government still has the first amendment.

FUCK THE INTERNET

>>915405

This. It was neat while it lasted.

>ACLJew

>literally defending an arbitrary "rule" which would cement monopolies, prohibit new small players from ever connecting to the backbone, and has specific provisions for minority access and other SJWisms

>a rule that never went into place and yet has somehow been saving our internets

This shit is the proverbial candle drawing redditarded moths to its flame. Who here has read the actual proposed rule? I read it, and it's such a morass of vague bullcrap that theoretically it gave the FCC power to do anything they wanted, without ever resorting to the courts, and with no accountability. The fact that the ACLU is supporting it should be enough of a red flag, but it has also been supported by every blue-haired screaming witch we exposed with Gamergate. Some poor fools who are partially /ourguys/ but also with the world commie agenda also promote it, you'll know a person's stripes by how they act about this.

Nothing will happen though, and this proposed rule will just fade into memory. BTW I haven't seen any of those package deals and whatnot that /leftpol/ had been spreading, I wonder if we'll see a new spate of them?

Fucking niggers, our based poo will BTFO them.

https://hooktube.com/watch?v=JqONIPwidQw

>>915277

it's not weird so much as stupid, I mean they could be flaunting their power, but why bother to be arrogant about it ? Oh, wait, I forgot who we're dealing with.

>>915283

>muh meshnet

Hams have been doing it for decades, look up Winlink 2000. A distributed completely volunteer decentralized infrastructure-free Internet already exists and hooks up to "the" Internet as well. In some areas hams set up wifi on the high-powered ham channels and bridge it to Winlink and pskmail and the Internet and other outlets.

Doin it with your consumer privileges on low-powered equipment is retard tier. Get your license and join this century, kid. Even if every electrical grid in the world is shut down forever hams would be communicating both in the analog and digital realms, with self-made power.

That said I welcome meshnets but the extremely low power nature of the equipment pretty much only helps locally, you still need to hook up your populated area to the wider world and support the necessary bandwidth requirements of them. Meshnet advocates should be building up their backbones linking cities, not jerking off by putting up yet another "free" router node.

>>915260

It's almost as if a bill's whatever name doesn't actually correspond to what its about.

<N-net neutrality sounds like a good thing. Why should I be against it.

>>915425

all laws are oppression and all taxation is theft.

>>915409

Fuck yeah. Say it loud and proud, bitches!

>>915400

Kill yourself. Based poo will BTFO your kind in one fell swoop.

>>915400

t. Reddit

>>915400

<he thinks the government controlling the internet is good

You can't be fucking serious

>>915400

Can't tell if this post is shilling or Democrat cuckoldry. Anyway won't matter when the Chad Pajeet wins and Trump vetoes it.

>>915400

0.0002 rupees have been put in your Google account

>>915400

AYO HOL UP HOP UP

*cuts hand trying to open up a bottle of soylent*

THHO WAIT HOL UP

*lets tyrone open the bottle for me*

THHO U BE THAYIN

*drinks soylent*

HOL ON A THEC WAIWAIWAIT

*puts on chastity belt*

U BE THHHAYIN THAT

*watches tyrone fuck my wife*

THAT WE WUTHH

*pulls out Soytendo Switch*

THO HOL UP

*plays Mario*

U BE THAYIN THAT

*retweets anti-white posts on twitter*

WE WUTHH

*reads the latest Marvel comic*

THO U BE AR-TI-CUE-LAY-TING TO UTH THAT

*pays for the monthly BLACKED subscription*

WE

WUTTTHHHHH

NET

NEUTRALI-TAY

N

SHHHHIIIIIIIIEEEEEEETTTTTTTT

>>915400

>cuckoldry

How can you be cucked if you're fighting against government regulation of the internet?

>>915409

Most based post ITT.

>>915400

wtf #ImWithHer now!

>>915400

Don't you have an anti-gun protest to attend?

>>915400

I bet this thread is like that part in Star Wars when Darth Vader yells "NOOOOOOOO" amirite my fellow netizen XDDD

>>915400

Holy fuck can you be any more BTFO right now?

>>915400

>the state of (((NN))) supporters

>>915400

You're never going to get your precious (((NN))) back. KYS with all your reddit friends.

>>915400

>>915287

>>>/leftypol/

>>915353

>>915355

>>915357

Bandwidth is cheap as fuck. It's the cheapest part about running an ISP. Not having 3x more capacity than normal peak bandwidth is gross incompetence or malice. If you're not running a wireless ISP, paying for equipment that does traffic shaping well is probably more expensive than just upgrading your net.

>>915392

You didn't read the law.

>>915478

>anyone who tells the truth about this blatant government crackdown on the internet obviously hasn't read it

Fuck off democuck.

>>915483

>GDPR is crackdown on the internet

>"net neutrality" is crackdown on the internet

what?

FUCK!

>>915484

You'd realize this if you actually read the fucking things like we did.

>>915486

I've read the GDPR. My comment "You didn't read the law." referred to the GDPR.

I haven't read the law from OPs picture, but I wasn't claiming that. I haven't seen any discussion on this particular law yet, only on "net neutrality" in general. Thus my comments refer to net neutrality and not the law.

>>915486

>I have no actual argument

Nice of you to let us know, now fuck off so we can have an actual discussion.

>>915274

How?

>>915297

I don't really think that's going to happen. Blocking based on the destination of the data would be beyond retarded. The only problem is the threat to things like torrents. It was already hard enough stopping the likes from throttling torrent traffic, and this just makes it worse if they can treat certain data differently.

I don't know why everyone is being retarded and crying about shit that won't happen while ignoring the legitimate problems.

What's the matter, you don't support "net neutrality"? Wow, it's just like those traitors who didn't support "the patriot act". Why do you hate America? Sure, I mean the problem its addressing doesn't actually exist, but we know we can trust the gov't to implement neutrality when we give them all the power. It says so right in the title, duh morons.

>>915503

This is /tech/. Let's talk about the details. What is an IXP and how much is it to connect to one? What's peering and how much is it? How much does a 100G optic transceiver cost?

>>915507

>this is /tech/ let's talk about prices

????

>>915501

>while ignoring the legitimate problems.

We're already discussing how this will lead to further government crackdown of the internet.

>>915507

Don't try and weasel your way out of this reddit.

>>915321

They'll most likely make goybook pay. But they can also make 8chan pay.

Problem is, only one of these makes billions.

Fact is, both options are shit. With NN, you effectively subsidize all the giant tech companies with your internet connection, without it you give ISPs the option of price gouging sites they don't like.

You can just decide if you prefer sucking off Facebook/Amazon/Google or Comcast.

>>915521

>Fact is, both options are shit. With NN, you effectively subsidize all the giant tech companies with your internet connection, without it you give ISPs the option of price gouging sites they don't like.

ISPs already have that option. NN dissolves the line between public and private entities. It removes options.

>>915523

>ISPs already have that option

And I mean by default, pre-NN (as private companies).

>>915523

>without it you give ISPs the option of price gouging sites they don't like.

How would that work with VPN's?

>>915526

> "all data is the same"

Hey asshole with your reddit-style strawmen. Is NN going to force Google to re-list 8chan? If not, how does this promote "neutrality"? It's Orwellian double-speak and you can go fuck your naive little self, faggit.

>>915353

>Data hogs deserve to be throttled.

<muh data hogs

Are you retarded, holy shit. If I pay for my connection, I expect to be able to make use of it as advertised, not get slow speeds if the service I'm using didn't fork out some shekels to my (((ISP))) or doesn't fit their retarded conception of what "low priority" traffic is.

>Low-priority packets should be treated as lower-priority.

I do agree with this, although at the local network level.

Fuck niggers who use P2P software to open a gorillion connections and download at line speed. And thanks to protocol obfuscation and encryption, there's no way to classify P2P file-sharing traffic in a home network, so you have to rely on a whitelist (problem is most applications use dynamic ports, so you're fucked either way). Though we wouldn't have this issue if jew ISPs and publishing industry kikes hadn't abused shaping and attempted to block P2P software in the first place.

>>915478

>Bandwidth is cheap as fuck. It's the cheapest part about running an ISP. Not having 3x more capacity than normal peak bandwidth is gross incompetence or malice.

Startup ISPs can't start without billions in investment because they must support Kikeflix and Facejew from day one.

No NN means that they can provide slower or limited access to those sites until they naturally expand to be able to support it.

>>915528

>low priority

normal priority*

>>915529

If you don't have capacity, then you offer lower rates. It's common sense.

>>915531

When an ISP blacklists a site, you can move ISPs. When the gov't does it through the control granted via "NN", there is no recourse. This is, and I hate to use the word since its been so cliched thru overuse, a concrete shift towards a fascist system.

>>915531

If you stare long enough at that GIF you can make the hoop go the other way around. Sage for OT.

>>915537

>When an ISP blacklists a site, you can move ISPs. When the gov't does it through the control granted via "NN", there is no recourse.

NN is not about blocking websites. The government will still have that power with or without NN.

>>915545

It is called "legitimacy". Giving them the power on paper only makes things worse

>>915552

The power to block websites? Network neutrality doesn't grant the government power to blacklist a site.

1. NN breaks the free market of ISPs to fuck with MuhFAG (Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Google)

2. NN gives power to the government to censor alternative websites like Daily Stormer

3. It is easier to control ISP censorship than Government and MuhFAG's censorship

>>915557

>power to the government to censor alternative websites like Daily Stormer

That has absolutely no connection to net neutrality whatsoever.

>>915552

Again, the government still has that power, NN has nothing to do with it.

>>915557

Net neutrality is about not throttling shit and letting traffic flow without discrimination because fuck you I'm a paying customer and you have no authority to decide whether my traffic is deserving of "higher" or "lower" priority based on your own arbitrary decision process. And given (((ISPs'))) track record of abusing their position to throttle traffic they don't like, they can go choke on a dick.

>2. NN gives power to the government to censor alternative websites like Daily Stormer

Explain how. Either way, this is not part of net neutrality. It's just da gubmint tacking some shit on top of NN laws.

>>915558

It's a stormfag. Do you really expect him to know what he's talking about?

>>915563

>stormfag

That brings me back. Haven't soon a goon spout this shit in a few years. Where are you from? Is that term still relevant on reddit or something? Can't be since this place is infested with reddit. You're either a hyper-normalnigger or something unique.

Can the pro-NN explain to me a problem that's happening right now, that NN will fix? Because it looks like a power grab by the fed, for no reason.

>>915529

Top retard.

Do you honestly think an ISP that supplies slow connections to the most popular normie sites can stay in business for longer than a day?

Even so, as other people already pointed out, ISPs can throttle all they want anyways. They've been throttling since forever and no one gives a shit.

>>915565

>le reddit

smh 😒

>>915569

It only looks like that if you read what the ISPs and the /pol/tards say about it. NN does not give any special powers to the government, all it does is restrict ISPs from throttling data.

>>915571

>NN does not give any special powers to the government, all it does is restrict ISPs from throttling data.

If it doesn't give the feds new powers, how do they enforce that?

>>915525

Probably not, but then they can price gouge VPNs.

>>915571

Ah, it's a cuckchan 7 layers of irony poster. Good to know

>>915575

>ecided to hide a bunch of shady shit behind it and tried to pass them alongside NN, then smart people caught on and made a big deal about the shady shit, and then goons and retards of various kinds thought that the shady shit was net neutrality. The end result is that nobody knows what the fuck is being pushed into law and half the people don't

Ok well giving the feds new powers should not be done unless absolutely necessary, and I don't see the necessity here. It's a fix for a problem that doesn't exist. It seems like the real thing people are worried about is being locked into a malicious ISP. The solution is more ISPs, not calling in the feds to enforce what will ultimately be a jewdicial interpretation of fairness.

>>915578

>the gov't can do whatever they want, at any time. They don't need laws lol. Just ignore this lol.

Fuck off you stupid kike.

>>915580

They can still force websites to remove certain content with current laws. Why do you think 8chan prohibits content that is illegal in the US?

NN has nothing to do with censorship, all it does is forbid ISPs from throttling for no reason.

>>915527

>Hey asshole with your reddit-style strawmen. Is NN going to force Google to re-list 8chan? If not, how does this promote "neutrality"?

Are you just trolling or something? What does this have to do with anything?

What actually happened:

"If we call our scam "Net Neutrality" we can get millions of people to shill for mass surveillance for us at zero cost without realizing it!"

Obama 'Net neutrality' is to list the Internet as a utility like a phone line, so the same surveillance laws can apply to it.

>>915596

Now this is a post i like. Too bad cuckchan and reddit pretty much invaded to damage control their reddit bill...

>>915596

>>915613

So what you're saying is that the issue of neutral routing of Internet traffic cannot exist, that the only explanation is muh surveillance. I wonder how you can even live if your life is nothing but fear of the big bad unstoppable government machine whose goal is total surveillance.

>>915618

The proper arbiter of "neutral routing" is the people, not the government. Competition solves the problem without letting their gov't sticking their fingers in the stream.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshsteimle/2014/05/14/am-i-the-only-techie-against-net-neutrality

>>915627

Not who you replying to, but I'm interested in this topic now that I'm realizing how little I've researched it.

I'm only mildly paranoid about "muh privacy", and your link wouldn't load due to all the bullshit third party content and hosting IP location. You got another source that isn't cancer?

>>915649

Google has filtered all anti-NN sources. I had to use Bing and creative search terms. That alone should raise some alarms. Maybe try disabling JavaScript and trying again.

>>915514

>Netflix is hogging precious bandwidth

If you knew how the internet works then you'd know this is false. Bandwidth is cheap, especially if the source is present on all major IXPs.

>>915652

Glad you posted this. I was for the concept of NN initially when it was proposed, and was mad at it being redacted. Upon reading this article (on a separate system made just for wading into cancer) the info really resonated with me. I agree. I like the idea of NN, but it's the entirely wrong way to go about it, and an open market is ultimately the correct choice, albeit slower to achieve the desired results. Really wish there was a way to rewrite the whole thing tho. Start a private OS with everything locked into the user that was completely designed around a new web protocol so it would be impossible to cache data and information on individuals since everything would be scrambled by both the PC side, the browser side, the router side, and then dispersed amongst all users on the net. Tired of billionaires making money off knowing what people are doing on the net. Tired of neets staying at home, making pennies off being "content creators" as well, but that's another discussion.

>>915658

Netflix accounts for almost 40% of downstream network traffic in the US.

>>915665

So? You can peer with Netflix at 52 locations in 26 cities in the US. They provide caching servers to ISPs for free to put them directly in their own datacenters. Most of Netflix' traffic doesn't have to be carried far. That means they don't congest ISPs' backbones if they are willing to peer with them. There's no reason not to except for pressing money out of them. Refusing to peer probably won't significantly reduce customers' demand for videos but will greatly increase backbone load.

>>915478

>Bandwidth is cheap as fuck. It's the cheapest part about running an ISP. Not having 3x more capacity than normal peak bandwidth is gross incompetence or malice.

Bandwidth is cheap but the infrastructure is not. Don't you think I would have just bought more if I could? Go set-up a small ISP and see how easy it is to just buy bandwidth. Even a T1 will cost you an arm and a leg in the current year. When I started I knew of guys running entire WISPs off ADSL connections and serving 10+ customers. They upgraded to what they could as they could but eventually hit a hard road block. To provide streaming video they needed fiber and no one would sell it to them. Funny thing is whenever they hit that point the cable company was suddenly interested and would build out into the area.

Several WISPs were doing everything they could to compete. I know of many that were mirroring popular content (torrents mostly) on local servers to keep that traffic in-network. They later attempted to do this with streaming services but netflix didn't want to play ball. It worked well for youtube though. They're all dying now because it's impossible to compete when you're having to buy your bandwidth from your main competition.

>>915414

>Doin it with your consumer privileges on low-powered equipment is retard tier. Get your license and join this century, kid.

Tell us more about internet over HAM where encryption is banned and old farts report you to the FCC for doing anything besides handing out your callsign and talking about nothing. HAM is nice for its own thing but to pretend you can run a real network over it is retarded.

>>915526

>It's not. It's a regulation that says "all data is the same" because guess what: all data is the same.

All data is not the same and has to be sorted and throttled accordingly for your magic internet to work like it should. That VOIP call is more important than some weeb's hentai torrent. That email from your boss is more important than the cartoon show your kid is watching on youtube. Those packets from the game server need to get there faster than the teen girls show your creepy uncle is beating off to/streaming from netflix. Pass all the laws you want this is still the reality of how shit works at the network level.

>>915672

>T1

>WISPs off ADSL connections

You're doing it wrong then. You rent the Last Mile from your main competitors and darkfiber to the nearest IXP. This is the most expensive part. If customers congest your fiber, put faster routers at the ends of the fiber. I'm assuming your government forces ISPs to rent their last miles for a reasonable price to their competitors.

>That VOIP call is more important than some weeb's hentai torrent.

Because you say so? ISPs must keep their eyes OFF anything above layer 3.

>>915575

Sums up the net neutrality situation quite succinctly.

>>915672

>>915674

If you let your ISP decide for you which packets of yours are important and which are not, you're cucking yourself. If your ISP can't handle the load, they should offer less bandwidth to customers for any packets. Your voip calls and e-mails won't need much anyway.

>>915280

>Dial-up was awful but at least you had choice of ISPs.

You say this as if it's related to the technology. These ISP monopolies are mostly restricted to Burgerstan, divided into little fiefdoms between the big telecom corps. Abolishing NN would only make these monopolies even more entrenched. Hell, the NN we have now is little more than a placebo, but it's better than nothing.

>>915259 (OP)

Of fuck, you stupid freedum tards net neutrality only fucks us over more dont you understand? I don't want to have to pay more to cover the costs of Netflix's fucking intense bandwidth use.

>>915683

Sending packets is speech. Letting someone else decide which speech is important and which is not violates free speech.

Redditors never use the free speech angle because they circlejerk about why they like NN but not why someone else (namely those who like free speech) would want NN. Redditors hate free speech because if they didn't they'd be on imageboards.

>oh great, another NN thread

>>915683

How does NN fuck us? Every time there's an NN thread on the internet all I see is people saying NN fuck us. Even when making fake accounts and posting pro-NN messages I'm not sure what to say, because I've never heard anyone say anything useful on the subject.

>NN fucks us

You can just not buy internet, I don't. Use cafes etc. Take up their seats. Destroy consumerism.

>>915690

Sorry, I meant to say

>How does non-NN fuck us

>>915686

If you're going to claim packets as free speech, then websites are free speech and nobody should censor anything. The ones who will benefit from Net Neutrality censor speech, however. Why should I give a shit about their rights if they clearly don't give a shit about mine?

>>915695

>then websites are free speech

they are

>and nobody should censor anything.

websites that violate rights of others should be taken down

>Why should I give a shit about their rights if they clearly don't give a shit about mine?

You're the same type of cancer as redditors who want to shut down 8ch and ban guns.

>>915696

>You are cancer if you react to my actions

Okay kiddo

>there are people on this board right now who want broadband jews to block them from 8chan, VPNs, and torrents because the ZOG emporer said something "something muh gubmint"

>>915700

How would the presence or absence of Net Neutrality do any of this?

>>915701

Without the obligation to treat all data equally, (((people))) will try to foist other obligations onto ISPs. What do you think your ISP will say if Disney tells them to block torrents or get sued? What do you think they'll say if there's a (((movement))) telling them to block hate speech or be boycotted? Do you think your ISP is going to stand up for a handful of autists who want to engage in wrongthink and not pay for media, or do you think they'll cave in to the demands of the rich and powerful? I'd bet on the latter. This world where ISPs aren't classified as common carriers anymore is still fairly new, but restrictions against hate speech and copyright violation will come to Comcast just as surely as they came to Youtube.

>>915618

If you need the government to intervene then you're already doing it wrong.

If you think the government loves you think again. It loves your vote when required.

>>915618

>I wonder how you can even live if your life is nothing but fear of the big bad unstoppable government machine whose goal is total surveillance.

>Not an argument

>>915652

If I search "forbers net neutrality" it's the third result. And if I just search "net neutrality" it's the 8th result.

I shouldn't have to defend a shitty company like google, but stop spreading misinfo

>>915704

You seem to be deeply confused. Net Neutrality wont prevent ISPs from issuing take down notices for copyrighted materials. The ISPs aren't blocking speech and wrong think. The way you spread FUD makes me think you're a kike.

>>915674

>You're doing it wrong then. You rent the Last Mile from your main competitors and darkfiber to the nearest IXP. This is the most expensive part. If customers congest your fiber, put faster routers at the ends of the fiber. I'm assuming your government forces ISPs to rent their last miles for a reasonable price to their competitors.

There is no dark fiber idiot. The boonies isn't your perfect world where you can just light up dark fiber and have a fat pipe.

>just lay your own fiber

I would if my main competitor wasn't lobbying my local Government to not allow anyone else to put anything in the ground.

>but that's illegal

It is and no one does anything about it because they don't care.

>>915679

>If you let your ISP decide for you which packets of yours are important and which are not, you're cucking yourself.

It's part of how the network works it isn't magic where you can just throw data down the pipe and expect it to get there in a timely fashion during heavy loads

>If your ISP can't handle the load, they should offer less bandwidth to customers for any packets.

There are times when load hits unexpected. No one in their right mind keeps 5x the bandwidth they need at all times. Eventually it gets repurposed because it isn't being used.

>Your voip calls and e-mails won't need much anyway.

No, but they need low latency which traffic shaping provides. That's why that traffic goes down the pipe before anything else.

>>915705

It's the government's job to prevent monopolies. Your anarchocapitalism is essentially the same as tyranny of the rich. It's nice when you are rich, but you most likely aren't. Do you know (((who))) is?

>If you think the ISP loves you think again. It loves your money.

>>915712

>I would if my main competitor wasn't lobbying my local Government to not allow anyone else to put anything in the ground.

Looks like your government doesn't properly regulate the market.

>There are times when load hits unexpected. No one in their right mind keeps 5x the bandwidth they need at all times.

Every ISP in their right mind keeps 5x the bandwidth they need at all times because load hits unexpected.

>>Your voip calls and e-mails won't need much anyway.

>No, but they need low latency which traffic shaping provides.

Thicker backbone pipes keep latency down. Again, whatever is inside an IP packet is none of an ISP's fucking business.

>it isn't magic where you can just throw data down the pipe and expect it to get there in a timely fashion during heavy loads

Thanks for telling me but I know how networks work.

>>915710

okay, then will being against net neutrality help achieve what you want?

While you might think your problem is more serious or more important, it's a separate issue, and net neutrality doesn't affect it.

It's not the biggest problem now, but net neutrality is trying to prevent it from becoming a bigger one in the future.

>>915710

I didn't say take down notices did I you dishonest little kike? I said block torrents. As in, do not allow bittorrent traffic to pass through your infrastructure. No takedowns needed.

And, no, ISPs are not currently banning hate speech. Like I said, this world without NN yes it existed before there was a catchy buzzword for you to shill against is new. For a long while, content sharers didn't restrict your speech either, but that changed now didn't it? What incentive will ISPs have not to ban hate speech as soon as the idea occurs to them? As soon as an army of professional offendeds threatens to boycott if they don't?

>>915713

>If you think the ISP loves you think again. It loves your money.

It loves Web 2.0 money even more which is why your bosses are sweating. Why don't you go fuck off back to Reddit with your concern trolling?

I, too, am against anything that reddit supports.

>>915720

>your bosses

I work for an european ISP that only has a few hundred customers.

>Why don't you go fuck off back to Reddit with your concern trolling?

Do you want me to create an account there too?

>>915718

Net neutrality has nothing to do with speech you absolute imbecile.

>>915723

Net neutrality is the rule that says ISPs must treat all data equally. Without that rule, ISPs are free to restrict speech by throttling sites that host unacceptable speech if they feel it's in their best interests. Why us that hard to understand?

>>915724

>I'm on the side that restricts speech because the side that wants money might restrict speech at some later date like they've done never.

Okay then

>>915690

<No NN

>ISP throttles traffic to a service unless said service pays up, also gives preference to traffic on own network

>moreover, ISP sets up throttling-free their own competing services

>small, low-income websites and services, and startups are especially affected by the above, while mainstream hegemonic cancerous websites with deep pockets and services remain unaffected

>web becomes even more concentrated

>ISPs also have free rein to throttle P2P networks

The main problem for net neutrality is gubmint, jewish ISPs and lobbyists are trying to pass shady, completely unrelated laws under the guise of net neutrality.

>>915729

Some people still have the false belief that the people run the government. The people do not run the corporation. (unless you can somehow force every company in this case to be Cooperatives or Soviets.)

>>915733

>small, low-income websites and services, and startups are especially affected by the above, while mainstream hegemonic cancerous websites with deep pockets and services remain unaffected

This is completely fictitious and the argument that large high-income websites use to spread FUD. They're the ones who will be affected the most.

>>915740

>>915743

Fucking this. Don't know much about what's being passed now, but if Dems and Google support it, that's a sure sign to oppose it at every turn.

BASED POO

Why is everyone fearmongering this topic in a community of like minded peers? Break down the points of the bill, and discuss the pros and cons like adults, would you? I wanna know more about this shit, but I'm finding is sensationalism and conjecture. That forbes article was nothing but "I hate the government" and had absolutely no info on what the bill entailed, or even how the government would ruin the current system. Sure, open markets work great, but lobbying is still a thing, and they still create laws to benefit themselves while restricting your rights. That, and brand recognition is a thing as well, which dampens open market competition. See case in point the american voting system; you can vote any party in, but how many third parties are in seats in the senate?

>>915764

>Why is everyone fearmongering this topic in a community of like minded peers?

We've had multiple newfag invasions in the last few months. Most of the posters you're seeing are from reddit. See >>>/b/7989906

>>915764

Here you go. Read all 400 pages of it. Enjoy.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

>>915771

>t. Arch Linux user

Maybe I should just send a letter to my congressman asking for them to explain it to me.

>>915774

It's tl;dr for him too though.

>trusting the (((government)))

>trusting (((ISPs)))

Either way, everyone is fucked.

>>915774

15. No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service

must get what they have paid for---access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet.

16. No Throttling. The 2010 open Internet rule against blocking contained an ancillary

prohibition against the degradation of lawful content

lawful

(lawful)

(((lawful)))

>>915272

why would Trump shut down the site that shitposted him to power

>>915795

>why would an honorary kike shut down an anti-semitic site

>>915557

>MuhFAG

More like FAG™ (Facebook Amazon Google Twitter Microsoft).

>>915775

Sounds like it's tl;dr for everyone here. No one knows what the fuck they're talking about, and that concerns me. This board is talking about building custom home networks with no less than 2 routers, and virtual routers and dedicated servers purely to keep the "IoT" from reaching from their smart TV, to their PC. It's talking about digging through strings of code the decide whether or not X company is truely FOSS. Discussions over blank hard drives/ethernet cards/memory sticks are coming with botnet info installed, which software is scripted by individuals who would sell your info at the drop of a hat, and what 30 year old unix forks are the most secure. You are the amalgamation of the internet's most paranoid and most researched group of tecchies: autists who've weaponized said autism in the pursuit of security. Less than 2% of the population knows what the hell any of the things you talk about mean, much less the expanse of the topic you know. Yet, somehow no one here has an actual clue what this bill is about?

Side note: how the fuck is anyone writing 400 pages of legislation in anything less than a couple years? Is there a program these lawmakers are using to pad pages and encrypt information into lingo that can only be decrypted with the non-trail version of the same software? How could a law meant to protect a freedom require 400 pages, either?

>>915780

Dank, but that's legit how everything is already done, and furthermore, it's been backed in writing decades before.

>>915814

They have boilerplate documents. They also have teams of interns to write the legislation with another team to see if what they wrote is satisfactory. Then the other politicians have teams to read the bills and see whether any of it will be hard for the politician's next election.

>>915771

Why is it missing a few hundred pages?

>>915260

>Hey Schlomo lets call it the "Good things bill" and they'll eat it right up

>>915832

Not meant for your eyes goy.

>>915814

>Yet, somehow no one here has an actual clue what this bill is about?

I just tried reading it, and it's hard to tell what sections are actually important. The Introduction is pretty straightforward at least, but the bill covers a lot of ground in 400 pages so it's incredibly easy to get lost. For example, the bill refers to other court cases and rulings that even I wasn't familiar with, and it takes time to check the footnotes and determine if the statements being made are actually supported by the rulings and whatnot. Even if I was able to piece together this entire bill and understand it inside-out, there's still the question of how it will actually be implemented. The bill might say one thing on a matter, but that doesn't mean shit if a court five years from now decides to spin it another way. For example:

<15. No Blocking. Consumers who subscribe to a retail broadband Internet access service must get what they have paid for---access to all (lawful) destinations on the Internet.

What is an "unlawful destination" in this case? I know that copyrighted material and CP is unlawful material, but what is an unlawful destination? Who knows.

There's just too much information here. You'd have to pour over this thing for days and understand the context around it to really form a strong stance on it. On top of that, you have to have some idea of how this will actually be implemented and understood by the courts. After all, this bill isn't the law; the law will ultimately be what the courts decide to uphold when/if this bill ever gets called into question in a court case.

>>915814

400 pages is not a lot if you have 40 people doing it in parts, then it's only 10 pages per person. But like >>915823 says there's boilerplate documents, and I'm sure a lot of it is copypasta from previous legislation they made or what lobbyists or thinkthanks gave them. It's not like they come up with 400 pages of completely original content.

Incidentally, this is why people like >>915878, instead of bitching, should document their findings in a wiki so that we can crowdsource the task of reading this.

>>915596

>so the same surveillance laws apply to it.

Spoiler alert: they already did.

>>915897

I was more trying to speak about how you'd get 400 pages of complete "this makes sense from beginning to end, without repeating information 20 times, and every section has the same continuity to it" since each writer would have to be tasked as to what portions they're to cover, and how to write that without accidentally phrasing it in a way that'd revoke previous portions, or whatnot. Idk, admittedly I'm not a lawmaker, so maybe it really is as simple as throwing interns at it till you get enough jargon and pages that no one wants to chew through it. I was at work and on mobile, so downloading a 400 page pdf wasn't an option, but I plan on going through a bit of this myself, to at least get a basic understanding of what they hope to implement.

>>915878

Yea, that bit of writing is super odd, considering how easy it would have been to accurately describe what destinations would be permissible, and which wouldn't be. Sounds like they're trying to futureproof their writing, by avoiding specifics like "no torrenting sites", because those could later turn into something like "no cloudshares sites", but yes, I could easily see some judge bending a ruling based on this lack of context. It does still sound tho like a rather earnest attempt at protecting freedoms. whether or not there's hidden pork barrel in there, we'll see.

>>915764

>Break down the points of the bill

So far this thread hasn't been about any bill, it has been about NN, which are not the same.

>>915722

No need for you to create an account, you've probably been an active member of whatever socialism and politics boards they have for a number of years now.>>915562

>>915562

Fuck you I'm a paying customer that pays millions more for their corporate internet connection than you. Reliability and 24/7 availability is important as it saves the bottom line and puts less burden on our workers. I'll be damned if some kid torrenting 800 petabytes of mega blok and undertale porn's going to shit it for me and any other paying customers.

>>915963

>I'm a paying customer that pays millions more for their corporate internet connection than you.

So more than enough for them to upgrade their equipment if it can't handle the load. Or maybe they shouldn't sell as much bandwidth to 'some kid'. Volume plans are a thing.

>Reliability and 24/7 availability is important

Your ISP is africa tier if other customers affect your connection's reliability or availability. Besides that, the internet was designed for availability but not reliability. Consider using other technology if you want actual 24/7 reliability.

> if some kid torrenting 800 petabytes of mega blok and undertale porn's going to shit it for me and any other paying customers.

See above.

>giving women the vote will strengthen society

>immigration act won't alter the demographics of the country

>patriot act doesn't violate constitutional rights

>net neutrality doesn't affect the freedom of the net

Schlomo, please.

>>915986

give an actual argument, comcast shill.

>>915982

>So more than enough for them to upgrade their equipment if it can't handle the load.

We both know that's an unrealistic pipe dream, small ISPs barely have the money for non-20 yo equipment, and the large ones are too cheap for it or get so much traffic that even the best equipment gets bogged down.

>Your ISP is africa tier if other customers affect your connection's reliability or availability.

Simply not true- even large megacorp-tier ISPs still get bogged down during peak hours. Less of a problem if you've got a small loan of a million dollars for a few business lines to your home- but unless you're some reddit-tier le 1% stereotype, good luck.

>Besides that, the internet was designed for availability but not reliability. Consider using other technology if you want actual 24/7 reliability.

Perhaps this is true for the Web, but the Internet infrastructure it's piggybacking on was certainly designed for reliability. Everything from the TCP/IP stack, to the underlying hardware was absolutely created with reliability in mind. After all- this wasn't some consumer level network of BBS services, it was the successor to countless government, business, and academic networks worldwideobviously not LANs we're talking about

>>915982

Nice job replying to such low effort bait and shitposting. Must be a slow day at Reddit for you?

>>915995

>We both know that's an unrealistic pipe dream, small ISPs barely have the money for non-20 yo equipment, and the large ones are too cheap for it or get so much traffic that even the best equipment gets bogged down.

Then why this isn't a problem in other first world countries? Why is it that the American ISPs are the only playing victim "wowie our servers are too smal and we can t put lines in rural aeras pls gubmint gub us moar taxpayer moneyz. oops we didnt upgrade and we put sihty liens pls gubmint dont force us to gib consumers the srevice they paying 4 ;-;"

>Simply not true- even large megacorp-tier ISPs still get bogged down during peak hours.

Not a problem in other first world countries.

>Less of a problem if you've got a small loan of a million dollars for a few business lines to your home- but unless you're some reddit-tier le 1% stereotype, good luck

Which is why the entire "coeporations need tonsend emails and they are being throttle down by otakus watching Boruto in 4K" is bullshit. Big corporations have their own lines and waste tens of thousands of dollars per month paying for them. ISPs even offer special plans for small and medium sized businesses, so again this shouldn't be a problem for them.

Just for your information, Net Neutrality still allows ISPs to throttle or shut down a specific user(s) that bogs down the network by, for instance, making 80000 connections per minute, hosting a website with a bunch of visitors, etc.

What they can't do is tell a random otaku that's watching Boruto in 4K that he can't wath Boruto in 4K because they don't want him to. If said otaku is paying for 50 MB/s of download, he should be getting 50 MB/s.

>Perhaps this is true for the Web, but the Internet infrastructure it's piggybacking on was certainly designed for reliability. Everything from the TCP/IP stack, to the underlying hardware was absolutely created with reliability in mind. After all- this wasn't some consumer level network of BBS services, it was the successor to countless government, business, and academic networks worldwideobviously not LANs we're talking about

"Resilience" is the word you're both looking for. Although the modern web is way more centralized than it was initially intended, the web was made to be resilient, so even if a node comes down the entire thing still works.

>>915672

>That VOIP call is more important than some weeb's hentai torrent. That email from your boss is more important than the cartoon show your kid is watching on youtube. Those packets from the game server need to get there faster than the teen girls show your creepy uncle is beating off to/streaming from netflix.

Why, why, and why?

>>915592

>>>reddit.com

>>916033

>No you can't, there is a regional monopoly and you have no competitors in your area.

If that were true (and its not; there's 19 ISPs in my city, 3 of which are connected to the building I'm in), then the course of action to take is gleaning which regulation is enabling that monopoly (they don't occur naturally) and repeal it.

>>915989

>Comcast whining

>>>reddit.com

>>916120

Meant for >>915989

>>915996

argumentum ad praeferentiam fori imaginum

>>916121

>Monopolies don't occur naturally

>>916127

https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

>>916131

You show me a monopoly, I'll show you the government regulation that created and/or sustains it.

>>916131

>>916133

au contraire, absence of monopolies in the free market assumes strong market efficiency, which requires omniscience of all participants.

>>916133

Microsoft Windows

>>916137

Smooth move when you can't address the argument, but I've already thrown the gauntlet: show me a monopoly, I'll show you the corresponding regulation.

Absence of regulations is a pipe dream. The market is ruled either by capital or by people. The government is representing both, to varying degrees. Less government means more power to the money, which creates social inequality. Money creates its own regulations in this vacuum then, which prevents the people from ruling over the money. Because money drives technological progress, anyone who strives for advancement of mankind should demand for an equilibrium between both. Absolute rule of money means enslavement of the masses while absolute rule of the people means poverty for all.

>>916136

>Microsoft Windows

I own 8 computers counting my mobile devices, and only 1 runs Windows: my toy gaming PC. Hardly a monopoly.

Next.

>>916141

>The government is representing both, to varying degrees. Less government means more power to the money,

From this follows that more government doesn't necessarily mean more power to the people. But at least it gives you a chance. Freedom isn't free. It has to be fought for.

>>915269

>t. reddit

>>916141

This a borderline off topic post.

>>916151

Why don't you tell this to the ">t. reddit" spammers? Are you one of them? Contribute to the topic. At least you saged your post.

>>916149

>No, it's always ruled by both. Who do you think ultimately makes the consumer choices which lead to allocation of capital?

I think that's a miscommunication. Consumers have a choice over their money, but if they have very little money then their choice isn't worth anything. Democracy gives poor people a chance to elect a government that acts in their interest. Whether they do or not is a different issue.

>You can't just infinitely produce crap nobody wants.

Of course, but you don't have to produce crap if you own enough money. At some point you can only make more money by indebting people, which gets easier the more you have.

>>915995

> small ISPs barely have the money for non-20 yo equipment,

[citation needed]

The network of my employer, which is a small ISP, is mostly idle (well below 10% load during peak times) because our customers don't know what to do with 100Mb/s lines. It's built out of equipment between 5 and 10 years old. I'll celebrate the day when I'm not the only one on this network who is pushing terabytes every month.

>>916153

>Why don't you tell this to the ">t. reddit" spammers?

Because I didn't feel like skimming this cesspool of a thread. I'm not whoever you think you are and I don't owe jack shit to your stupid topic. Moreover, your words are much bigger than your head, or at least much bigger than your current understanding of them, and if you can't understand that what you're posting is also on the edge of being some pseudo-intellectual nonsense and that it was never worthwhile to being posted in the first place that's *your loss.* Enjoy a conversation of people of little understanding of either money, markets or regulation talking past eachother till it either dies or devolves into shitflinging.

>>916167

>complains about pseudo-intellectual nonsense

Why are you even here?

>>916153

Not miscommunication, you are just plain retarded. Everything you write reads like some fanfic.

>>916184

Sorry, english is not my first language.

MAKISE ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>915260

NN has still been in effect, dipshit

REMINDER TO ANTI-NN SHILLS

NET NEUTRALITY RULES ARE STILL IN EFFECT, ROLLOVER IS IN JUNE

<"W-WHO CARES IF COMKIKE FUCKS MY ASS, T-THE NET IS FINE WITHOUT NN!!

<BAAAAHHH THINK OF THE CORPORATIONS!!

<WAHHHHHH STOP USING DATA YOU PAID FOR, ITS NOT FAIR TO THEM

PAJEET PAI

B T F O

T

F

O

>>916121

>city

I don't think you comprehend how suburban mobrule works.

>>916195

>free markets exist

Where? Who claimed that? Stop dodging and give me just one example of a monopoly that occurred without regulation. People have implicitly claimed it in this thread, I'm still waiting for just one instance.

>>915527

>>915527

>re-list

8chan has been back in googles search results for 2 years, go back to /pol/ with the rest of the tech illiterate mouth breathers.

>>916200

If you search "8chan" it won't provide a link to the site. Site content itself is crawled and indexed, but they still censor a direct link for people explicitly searching for 8chan's URL.

>insulting /pol/

Do you know where you are? You seem lost, friend.

>>>reddit,com

>>916200

Day of the rope soon faggot

>>915878

>What is an "unlawful destination" in this case? I know that copyrighted material and CP is unlawful material, but what is an unlawful destination? Who knows

Its literally just CP. "da gubmint is tryna censor us" boogeyman is debunked. Two long years /pol/tards were kicking & screaming obama would censor the internet but it never happened. If he had the power to why wasn't 4chan shut down during the election? oh no wait.. it was individual CORPORATIONs shutting down free speech, not the government. Corporatate ISPs owned by the same kikes who own the media. Now that obama is gone, /pol/tards new excuse is net neutrality somehow prevents a "free market" from existing.. think back and remember before NN, did you EVER hear anyone say how great our free market was? nope. but there is no free market and the expense of having a startup ISP is beyond affordable. Nevermind the fact verizon and comkike will lawyer up to drive out competition within their regions.

>>916202

>h-how dare you insult /pol/, ur le reddit!! xP

I'm a regular /pol/tard myself but when it comes to technology nobody there knows what the fuck they're talking about, keep your dribble in their shill threads.

Friendly reminder at&t tried to block cuckchan in the late 00's

>>916209

>telling people to "guu bak 2 pol!!" on a website that is 99% /pol/acks even when you yourself are one as well

At that point you're just spewing an utterly meaningless phrase almost exclusively used by /leftypol/ and pretending like it doesn't make you sound like a complete fucking retard.

>>915537

What part of NN gives the government any more power to shut down websites than it already has?

>>915575

>It's like there was never a law that says companies can't fuck you over in X way

Yes there was stupid fuck. ISPs were classified as common carriers for 99% of the internet's history and thus had to treat data equally. There wasn't a catchy buzzword for it back then because kikes like you hadn't wanted to shill against it yet.

>>916223

>/pol/babies flood a thread

>why are you telling us to fuckoff?

go back to >>>/v/ then

>>916231

>ignoring everything I just wrote and repeating yourself

>reddit spacing

Enough (You)'s for you leftypol

>>915672

>Tell us more about internet over HAM where encryption is banned

Because of spies, also pedophiles like you would just abuse the airwaves.

>and old farts report you to the FCC for doing anything besides handing out your callsign and talking about nothing.

This literally never happens though.

>HAM is nice for its own thing but to pretend you can run a real network over it is retarded.

You most certainly can and many people do. Maybe Tumblr is more your speed, you seem like kind of a weak retarded baby who is afraid of technology, soyboy.

>>915679

Streaming video should be the lowest priority on the network. It's not my problem if you have to wait thirty seconds for your 4k bullcrap to buffer. However, it is everybody else's problem if you aren't able to accept QoS on the network.

Grow up.

>>916345

I posted an in-depth article on how gov't creates monopoly

<goon attacks source rather than the argument >>916137

I proposed that monopolies do not occur without gov't regulations supporting them, and invited anybody to provide a contradicting case to debunk me

<goon ignores argument and constructs a "free market" strawman >>916195

If you're going to reply in disagreement, but speak only in fallacies, then I presume you're just an attention whore troll, or a moron. Either way, this is your final (you) from me.

>>916359

>first article

This is an exposé on Harvard's profiteering off of the de-Sovietization of Russia. There is no mention of monopoly.

>second article

This is an exposé on the IMF's predatory lending to developing countries in South America (I agree with the sentiment of the article). It has nothing to do with monopolies, except for a one-line parenthetical reference to the DeBeers diamond cartel (which of course, is enabled by the nationalized diamond mines in Africa; only DeBeers is given a license to mine).

These articles were 99% off-topic. Next.

>>916381

Well, they were. But those places I mentioned all had developed monopolies due to free market reforms.

>>916303

Users don't affect each other except on africa tier networks. If they actually do because your network is too shitty, sell less bandwidth or volume capped plans.

>>915269

The gobernment is oppressing our rich boyfriends!!!.

ITT

No one actually understands the legislation.

>>915733

i agree, the problem is people trying to make laws. meanwhile are your arguments in your greentext are things that will not happen even without NN. why? because no matter how shit ISPs try to make the internet, we can always encode whatever we want over it in a way that they can't recognize and block/throttle

also

>>small, low-income websites and services

that hasn't existed since the late 90's, aside from like 5 websites

>>916033

>No you can't, there is a regional monopoly and you have no competitors in your area.

even if that was true you could just use an overnet like Tor

>>916543

literally all they can do is turn down the speed of _everything_ if they want to throttle overnets (blocking is not possible). and no you don't need ISP's equipment since you can just run a wire to your friend (they do this throughout the country in Cuba, which has no official internet in the first place)

>>916390

>chartered state-sanctioned diamond company monopoly

>free market in action

Choose one and only one.

Leftist aren't ignorant willingly, they can't help it. Lack of cognitive capabilities.

>>916195

Existence of state does not negate free market.

Left is always confused. I assume that is due to inherent genetical errors causing severe brain damage.

>>916185

Neither its mine, so you are just retarded.

>>916543

>ensure the ISPs can't throttle

We don't need NN for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Corp._v._FCC

>treat websites like cable packages

How would they even pull this off? Have websites maintain a list of ip addresses that they plan to use? Regardless, this is a very poor business move as they would rather not have people pay less, since infrastructure is expensive. Are they going to build lines to your house just so you can buy the cheapest thing they offer? Do you think they would just raise the price of long distance internet to anywhere you want? If so, their competitors would have a much better deal for it.

>ensure the monopolistic companies can't censor

See above.

>>916582

Liberals including left has developed curious coping strategy recently: every time their insane ignorant bullshit is actually confronted such that they can't argue back or even makes them just pause for a few seconds, putting stop to their trained monkey rambling talking points, they reflexively call the other person a troll. It shields their fragile retarded mind via giving it escape hatch: "I'm just being trolled! I'm not incorrect!"

>>916582

take your meds

>>916547

>(they do this throughout the country in Cuba, which has no official internet in the first place)

Yes, they do. Venezuela built a cable that goes under the sea from Venezuela to Cuba to provide them with Internet.

Latency must be awful, but then again only state workers get Internet in Cuba.

>>916679

You have now gone three rounds of that same passive aggressive act, unable to reply anything indicating brain activity. No, you do not appear more intelligent now. You manifest increasing retardation with each post, which is of course expected, as you are a leftie, and brain damage tier retardation is prerequisite for leftism.

>>916686

I know Feynman and Pontecorvo as famous physicists. I had no idea they were leftists. Now your behavior makes a little more sense. You judge people based on their conclusions rather than how they got their. You are an illogical person by definition, unworthy of respect, and the men whose aura you stand in pretending its your own, would surely shun you, regardless of incidental political similarities. Trust me on that one.

>>916706

on second thought that might be a mis attrubuted picture.

idgaf if they find me as a idiot or not.

>>916706

I'm not arguing as you post nothing worth arguing, because you can't, as per definition you are retard as being leftie requires retardation, I'm pointing out your typical leftie behaviour for others and my own amusement.

>Not even Fynman, thats Alexy Ekimov. They all reside in the soviet union.

On same retard logic you are neoliberal capitalist or whatever your country's prevailing economic policy is. Besides it was notoriously diffucult to escape USSR.

>>916714

nice mem

>>916716

again adhoms are not a argument. I suggest reading into them m8.

I don't want to spoonfeed you.

>>916720

>I'm not arguing

>adhoms are not a argument

You can't even read on elementary level.

>>916725

>not knowing what a argument is

You know it's not about just spewing rhetoric to another person. You don't even need another person to make a argument.

>>915287

>Internet is a mesh net.

So why can't I just use my router to access it without having to make a contract with an ISP?

>>916808

Here we see how in final stage leftie resorts to semantics after being throughoutly humiliated. Let's review stages:

>called out on bullshit as that's all leftists ever spew, inability to answer like functioning human

>accusations of trolling

>passive-aggressive shitposting

>semantics play

Next step will be return to passive-aggressive shitposting OR tirade which includes "educate yourself" and/or "you are ignorant"

Notice how none of those steps had nothing to do with topical assertions presented in clear manner:

- chartered state-sanctioned diamond company monopoly || free market in action; Choose one and only one.

- Existence of state does not negate free market.

>>916837

litterally the only argument. I never even denied your statement as being false. You don't have to be a ass about it.

>>916547

>Cuba has no internet

>Somehow also has computers and internet components to make an unofficial internet with.

>Even if this was somehow true, ignores that Cuba is smaller than every state but Rhode island.

>>916664

This makes a little more sense.

>>916569

<We don't need NN for that.

>Proceeds to provide a link showing why we need NN.

Timeless.

<Have websites maintain a list of ip addresses that they plan to use?

You just answered your own question.

Anon in >>916703 also shows a way it could be easily done by whitelists.

<Regardless, this is a very poor business move as they would rather not have people pay less, since infrastructure is expensive.

Whatever you pay currently would become the basic package where you only get connection to the big companies, you want access to other sites you gotta pay more for a more premium package.

<Do you think they would just raise the price of long distance internet to anywhere you want?

Certainly, they still do it with phone calls.

<If so, their competitors would have a much better deal for it.

THEY'VE BEEN BUSY CONSOLIDATING TO THE POINT THERE ARE NONE.

Had this same conversation with some dumbass in Montana claiming that since they had 24 ISPs there that they had options except that,

5 didn't exist despite being listed

2 are Spectrum which most have

4 could be competitive but only competed with Spectrum in some small areas.

13 are small spots that compete with NO ONE while not even covering a county.

>>916945

>Proceeds to provide a link showing why we need NN.

How does that show that we need NN? This case was dealt with with using laws already in place.

>>916945

>Whatever you pay currently would become the basic package where you only get connection to the big companies, you want access to other sites you gotta pay more for a more premium package.

How much extra traffic do you think actually goes to the small sites. Small websites are a tiny fraction of the internet's traffic. A competitor could easily offer the full thing without having to pay that much more.

>THERE ARE NONE

There's always dialup or satellite internet if you don't like any of the dsl internet or whater isps. If things really are that bad, you could startup a new isp yourself and if there really was a problem you would get tons of customers.

If the root of this problem is that there are not enough ISPs why not try and support legislation that actually makes it easier for ISPs to be created. Personally I think this is root of the problem and if it was solved the abuse you are envisioning would pretty much never happen.

>>916945

>>Cuba has no internet

>>Somehow also has computers and internet components to make an unofficial internet with.

>>Even if this was somehow true, ignores that Cuba is smaller than every state but Rhode island.

They do have it, but only in government buildings and it's either heavily restricted or available only to party members.

>>916945

shut the fuck up. Cuba has a country wide internet run by volunteers. making basic functioning internet is not hard like LARPers like to fantasize or what socialists like to use as a standard point in their pro-NN arguments.

>Cuba is small

okay, you got me there. obviously only comcast or whatever meme company you have in USA is capable of providing internet throughout a full continent

>>917044

No, they have their own internet separate from The Internet used in most of the rest of the world, setup by volunteers. It's illegal because communism but the law doesn't attack it in practice so far. Also obviously more Important people there have access to the global Internet. Also you can buy USB sticks/hard drives from people who smuggle in terrabytes of media from the outside world every week, for a few dollars. This isn't really prosecuted for either.

>>916457

>networks not built to handle millions of people streaming 4k

>therefore they're "shitty"

Nah I'd rather make videocucks pay more and have their packets pass with low priority.

>>917060

>no, they have their own internet separate from The Internet used in most of the rest of the world, setup by volunteers.

I'm fully aware they have their own intranet, I was just saying the normal internet is inaccessible for anyone not in party leadership or trusted positions. As far as I'm aware, they're able to keep it from being shut down by voluntarily disconnecting users that post anti-state material/"foreign propaganda".

>>917074

They should pay more, if they expect to use significantly more bandwidth like that.

>>917107

The customer should get what they pay for. That little "speeds of up to 50mbps" shouldn't only apply to ISP open ports for speed tests. I'm baffled that someone could be so tied up in what their party tells them to vote for, that they forget just how fucking bullshit internet companies are, and have been since inception. NN isn't going to change that, but at least it's gonna force shitty ISPs running 20 year old tech to upgrade a little, instead of pretending their system could ever manage 50mbps to 10,000 customers accessing facebook/youtube/stream sites/etc. My internet cuts out 5-20 times an hour because my ISP is so fucking bad. All I ever have open is just 8ch pages, keep your opinions of how I deserve it to yourself.

>>917060

No they don't. Refilling cigarette lighters is a lucrative work in Cuba because they can't afford or find new ones. Computers are not commonplace.

Oh, yes. There are smuggle rings. Possessing "imperialist propaganda" or a parabolic antenna is risky as fuck.

>>917114

>this is now a partisan issue

You revealed yourself here. People expect their packets to go through quickly in low-latency applications, like gaming or interactive type stuff. Video streaming is inherently non-interactive and can easily be buffered for a little while.

This is about netflix and amazon and hulu and youtube trying to get people to subsidize their bandwidth requirements.

>>917329

>This is about netflix and amazon and hulu and youtube trying to get people to subsidize their bandwidth requirements.

Or maybe this is just present day, and this is the normal operating structure for ISPs. You act like this is some sort of invasion of a minority that's gonna wipe out the rest of the userbase, when in reality, all normies stream insane amounts of content on a daily basis. If ISPs can't keep up, they need to stop charging an arm and a leg for inferior services under the guise that "it usually works flawlessly under all circumstances". Also, enjoy the constant buffering in your "ideal" range of operations. early 2000s called, and they told you you were supposed to bring balance to the force, not destroy it.

>>915478

>Bandwidth is cheap as fuck

then why is my local ISP's metered 150 megabit/second internet connection cost 150$ a month?

>>917114

so what you're saying is we should add more laws restricting what people can do so your ISP is forced to slightly upgrade their shit which will still be shit. what could ever go wrong

>>917132

u fuckin wot m8

>>917329

>be redditor

>go to r/gayporn

<NN IS ABOUT TO BE REMOVED! IF YOU TRULY VALUE GAY PORN, YOU WILL VOTE FOR NN

<ISPS ARE GIVING BAD DEALS TO NETFLIX. NN WILL MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR NETFLIX TO GET A BAD DEAL FROM ISP

>muh netflix

>starts spamming about NN

>>917368

>all normies stream insane amounts of content on a daily basis

Not true, only a few percent use the majority of bandwidth.

>>917401

That's because USA ISPs are scammers. I was in Spain a couple months back, and they get 500 Mb speeds for 140 € and the package includes cable TV and two mobile lines with 8 GB of data per month.

The worst part? USA ISPs receive taxpayer money regularly and their entire shitty infrastructure was made thanks to government subsides.

>>917450

>so what you're saying is we should add more laws restricting what people can do

You're jumping to conclusions merely because it might become a law (which you, nor anyone else here has read) which is written as much as I've read similar in content and protection as the Good Samaritan Laws. Don't hear anyone bitching about how those laws take freedoms away from people, unless maybe they're jews who just got their life saved.

>>917543

>"Only a few people are getting their monies' worth of their contract"

Good on them? This isn't early 2000s. Most consumers aren't just ripping everything they can from napster/bearshare/limewire/etc, and devastating the poor ISPs and their customers who depend on them. There are indeed tons of people still streaming a movie a night, or their favorite TV show. You can't sit on your high ground and tout how people using their bandwidth as being the bad guys. It's silly. That'd be like limiting people how many miles a day/year they can travel on the roads.

>inb4 road taxes for semis

Do it. Make anyone who's main generation of money from being "content creators" or who sells products online have to pay a surcharge to use their bandwidth. I think that would be great. Maybe it'd force those basement dwellers to go get real jobs in the market.

>>917872

good samaritan laws are also stupid. the default should be no law unless there's a very strong reason for it to exist (aside from lol without this law 50% of people are affected by bad things, now 49.999999999999999% are, according to my retarded empiricle study)

>>917872

>unironically replying to >>917543

the internet will always be shit. just like all technology. the consumers demand it to be shit. no amount of law will make it good for the few people who can actualy distinguish shit from non-shit

>>917893

>good samaritan laws are also stupid.

Tell that to China.>>917893

>>918490

Yes it can and is. Besides if you want factory, seek funding and build one like everyone else. Even niggers in Africa manage to do that. But oh wait, you are not an IQ 80 subsaharan nigger, you are a leftie, I'm expecting waaaaayyyy too much from you now.

>>918502

>notice clear pattern of actions over time gravely violating white interests and liberties

>raise justified suspicion over what the fuck are they up to now so strongly

>somehow a bad thing

>>918496

>you have the means of production because you can rent them from the bank

?

>>918506

Yes.

Why do I see so many retards ITT whose only response to questions are "lul lefty cuck" and "gubermunt crackdown" with ZERO substance?

How many of your are Cumcast employees?

>>918512

but that's wrong you mongoloid

>>918538

>sonicfags calling others redditors

heh

>>918517

>Cumcast

Get fucked. Verizon represent.

>>918538

no u

>>918572

>i am fine with being treated like a literal tool

C U C K

OH SHIT GUYS THE GOVERNMENT JUST BURST IN TO MY HOUSE AND UNPLUGGED MY MODEM

>>918504

>I'm a unprincipled fuck

>>915353

You make me think a lot of communists and trumptards in that your assuming that everything will work out well and people will do the morally right thing when given the freedom to.

Thing is, that's not how people are, especially the (((suits))) in charge of isps.

If companies are allowed to throttle data, they're going to take advantage of it for financial gain. They don't give a fuck about any of the people using their services; all they care about is bleeding you for every last shekel they can get away with

>>916683

>incel

Might as well call him a sexist tardlet, you sure you aren't a false flagging feminist?

>>>/reddit/

>>919125

literally this

>>919125

And they'll be able to get away with bleeding you for those said shekels when consumers have no options. Less regulation = more ISPs = lower prices. This is basic economics.

>>918563

>he's fine with the means being loaned to him, not owning them

You can and must pay back and that's when you own it all. That's what banks expect you to do. How is this difficult? Of course you and your anarchist commie friends can always collect money from each other, and start your factory with money gained in that way and own it all among comrades right off the bat. But you won't do that, thought hasn't ever even occurred to any of you, because you are <80 IQ violent animals without functioning brains.

>>919304

>mfw firecocks has search for dumb niggers with no regexps

>>919301

>windows font rendering

>>915458

Because corporate regulation of the Internet is worse, retard. This is like saying the government enforcing free speech is bad because it's the gubmint. You're 15 and should go back to /pol/. If you're not 15, you should kys.

>>918517

>>>/reddit/

>>>/murica/

>>919427

MODS please ban this guy he, keeps stealing my trips. Remember people, my real tripcode is this.

>>919427

>waaaaaaaaaa

>corporate regulation is worse than government regulation

>waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

It isn't a question of how bad the internet will be, it's a question of having more ways to get fined / go to jail. I don't even own an internet connection, fuck you. >>>/reddit/

>>919427

>Because corporate regulation of the Internet is worse

Now that's an convincing argument again.

Let me guess: you're a shitheaded leftie and like Pavlov's dog, assume everyone else kvetches hysterically on word "corporation" too, which makes entirety of your argument.

>>915259 (OP)

Blow your fucking brain out provider shill.

>>915297

Non-normalfag websites are already being censored

>>919444

>>919458

Yes! Capitalism is great! I love not being in control! Soyboy! Le cuck!

Edit: thanks for the gold, kind stranger!

>>919488

They're like tankies, but with big companies instead of big government. They can't hide their desires of being dominated by a bigger entity.

>>922358

You shouldn't be in control over anything. Luckily you are not.

>>922312

Not a huge weev fan, but that's right on the money. This thread was massively raided by big gov't leftists using le comcast reddit boogeyman rhetoric.