/v/ - Video Games

>>13884732

So, what now? How can 8chan get fucked now?

Thank christ.

Now fuck off.

>>13884742

>archive fcc.gov

Go be retarded somewhere else.

…Can someone explain if it's good or bad? Can they, like, make 8chan harder to access?

>>13884742

>not realizing this could be the end of torrent sites for good

Sounds pretty videogames to me.

/pol/ will defend this.

>>13884791

They can charge you extra now if you are acessing websites that aren't kosher.

>>13884791

Its a possibility an ISP can blacklist a site, but it is most likely they will just throttle traffic so everything will be slowed to a crawl.

so it did pass?

>>13884808

No it is being voted on December 14th.

>>13884791

Google, Apple, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Microsoft, Steam, Etc. will now have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars per year to Internet Service Providers because of all the data they transmit

>Live in Balkanland

>Everyone pirates

>ISP's don't care what you do

Sucks to be in Westernland or the Americas I guess.

>>13884807

>>13884803

>>13884802

They could have done that from inception until 2015. Never happened. BUT WHAT IF!?!?

LOL

>>13884820

they legally couldn't

>>13884827

That explains the child porn part and cruel onion very well, step on snek

>>13884820

Just because the kikes didn't think of new ways to kike it up before doesn't mean they don't want to do them now that they realized they could charge you extra to access youtube at normal speeds.

>>13884820

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

Maybe stop being an oblivious faggot and pay attention to the news every now and then.

>>13884820

>Encourage paid prioritization – sticking most sites and apps in the slow lane and reserving the fast lane for the few wealthy companies that can afford special treatment.

Next level jewery is being encouraged now so it is going to ducking happen.

>>13884732

literally the only thing happening is the 1st one.

and instead should be "FCC is relinquishing control of the internet" and the bunch of faggots are shouting "NO" because theyre terrified that companies might do this stuff assuming they wont lose all sales or be replaced by satelite and other services just like cable.

but removing it from FCC control prevents the "current administration" or obama 2.0 and NSA from having absolute control over the internet and whos allowed to bring us internet.

for the first time i can recall, our government is attempting to release their control of something, and we're calling them monsters for not wanting to regulate it anymore.

"net neutrality" is just another way of saying "government control of the internet". but good job helping soros and his cabal of jews and corporations seize control of the internet by putting it under government regulation that they'll be able to control with lobbying.

>>13884842

It happens in poortugal, ISPs are selling "special" 4G packages for popular mobile apps. No laws to prevent it, they will just kike harder from there.

>>13884863

>companies will lose all sales

Do you know what an oligarchy is?

>>13884863

The Internet is a right.

The government should control it so it can't be censored.

Down with big business.

Net neutrality forever!!

>>13884875

yes, hence why we should get the FCC as far from the internet as possible.

>>13884877

>The government should control it so it can't be censored.

right, because the government would never implement a massive censorship operation and get ISPs to cooperate based on their political leanings without any outside input or letting the people know.

you were kidding about that, right?

>>13884836

Oh no not Netflix. How will I watch my Soros-brand shows?

Meh, that's a shame but my level of caring is fairly low right now.

I hope all you fuckers that wanted it to end are happy now, I hope you burgers will enjoy getting $1000/month plans to browse the internet and having threads take a day to load thanks to throttling.

>>13884875

Do you know what game theory is, and how it applies to Oligopolies?

>>13884871

Those are just unlimited plans for specific apps. No throttling.

In more general news, if anyone actually cares about keeping companies fair, ignore net neutrality and focus on making data cables a public utility, much like water pipes and powerlines

>>13884742

>>13884791

>>13884881

THEY WILL SHUT DOWN CHANS

Good. If you can't afford a truly free internet then you don't deserve it, you commie fucks.

Can I get an amen?

>>13884732

>A-all this winning…

>>13884863

>"net neutrality" is just another way of saying "government control of the internet"

You retard. It's just a regulation on the ISPs, not the internet. Now the ISPs control the internet.

>>13884863

See you have some good points in there, and if we were in a truly free market for internet services I might even agree with you but we are not. We are strangled by a government backed monopoly keeping the. Incompotent ISPS afloat and keeping new competition out. These are the same Jews who were given billions to update their failing infrastructure and just pocketed the money instead of improving serrvices, people like Comcast don't care about service and only want to bleed everyone for what they can get and this bad deal passing declares open season on everyone who uses the internet for business or entertainment.

Another win for Trump!

>>13884902

government releasing their claws from the internet is definitely a win.

>>13884905

>its just regulation of ISPs, not the internet

>ISPs control the internet

its like pottery

>>13884908

you say that, then act like lobbying doesnt exist. without FCC control then people can fights ISPs on a case by case basis and boycott, etc. FCC has the power to mandate these types of controls and legislate it. they can force ISPs to throttle traffic to certain websites. and they can force "public services" to get cleaner services. think about this for a minute.

Didn't you know? Trump is a Republican and Republicans are NatSoc's somehow so this is good. Democrats are pro net neutrality and they're the baddies so we KNOW net neutrality is gommie shit.

>>13884896

More likely that they block p2p protocols like Bitorrent.

>>13884925

Wtf I love Democrats now.

FUCK TRUMP!

>>13884937

Sure! That isn't good either I guess!

Save the Internet!!!

>>13884908

Are your isps that bad? Ours appeared after commie times ended. Each town has several isps. The big ones provide bad service so you go local. 9 bucks a month for decent speeds otherwise.

>>13884914

It means you get to inspect the rusty dagger before it gets shoved inside you.

>>13884923

So you are implying the apathetic masses will be able to hold the ISP companies in check? This sounds hopelessly naive

>>13884923

I guess I have to spell it out for you since you're retarded or a shill.

>ISP is your gateway to the internet

>With net neutrality they aren't allowed to interfere with the content that you access

>Without net neutrality they are

Nowhere in this picture is "government control of the internet"

Trump is going to kiss second term goodbye.

>>13884955

Government regulation of evil corporations is the best way available to keep the Internet free for everyone!

>>13884956

Yayyyyyy!!!!!!

>>13884920

>>13884925

>>13884956

Holy shit, what's with the drive-by anti-Trump shills?

You get butthurt from being called a kike on /pol/, so now you have to try and astroturf /v/?

>>13884968

Trump put the Pajeet in charge of the FCC. Trump indirectly is getting rid of Net Neutrality through the Pajeet. People are pissed, he's not likely going to win another term thanks to this blunder.

>>13884937

people think because the FCC sneakily took control of the internet with the help of soros funded shills and reddit, and they've had control of it for a few months, that they'd never do anything wrong in the near or distant future, so removing that control is objectively bad.

the FCC chairperson is basically saying "we dont want to control this anymore" and we're begging them to continue their control?

when do you think we're going to get this chance again when the FCC starts overreaching and doing something horrible? future generations are going to call you faggots for ignoring this opportunity. "they had the chance back then and gave it up for netflix and youtube!"

>>13884945

there are so many ways to access the internet. so many alternatives. competition between them is crazy.

>>13884951

apathetic masses forced them to take control of the internet under obama.

>>13884947

where i live there are 4 different ISPs i can choose from, not including all of the satellite and phone carrier options.

>>13884955

soros is paying people to shill for your stupid idea.. literalyl nobody is being paid to shill against it.

next try to argue that the government doesnt control broadcasts like television and radio.

do you have any idea how stupid your argument is? they cant throttle bandwidth because people and companies will fight with eachother. do think netflix will want their shit throttled? do you not remember how that fight turned out? do you not know that the FCC can mandate legal and enforce censorship on ISPs?

>>13884974

So what's going to happen when some (((concerned human rights group))) writes several ISPs about this evil nazi hangout called 8chan causing it to get throttled by everyone? Netflix had big money to back itself up and if need be, they'd probably go over the lawsuit again because that's their business model. They make money off their service. Do you think that imageboards will be able to put up as much of a fight as well? What ISP will say "no, those anons from imageboards deserve a place on the net too?"

>>13884987

PLUMPF IS FINISHED

>>13884987

He will never get that second scoop now.

>>13884973

>Trump released FCC restriction on ISPs?

>Drumpf's fucking finished! So long racist orange orangutan!

Try harder.

>>13884742

>no archive

what the fuck do you think is going to happen to archive?

>>13884978

soros wont give up this fight. he'll keep dumping money into it. they need to rebrand net neutrality and call it something else so morons and redditors will understand, or atleast feel weird about criticizing it.

>>13884989

are you new to the internet? serious question. how old are you?

are you implying those same groups cant write the FCC? keep in mind, you can go to jail or be fined for cursing on the radio.

>>13884974

>literalyl nobody is being paid to shill against it.

Cute. The only people who ending net neutrality helps is ISPs and giant websites. Nobody would defend it unless they are stupid or paid.

>do think netflix will want their shit throttled?

I think they want their competitors throttled. Which is exactly the kind of shit that can happen without NN.

>>13885007

And yet you have to pay extra for clean water. What person actually believes that spicket water is actually pure? Pure water has to be bought from the store, otherwise most people would get diarrhea from their public water source.

>>13884999

>Imagine an electricity company that stopped being a public utility.

look up con-ed in NY. its a government mandated monopoly. its illegal to compete with them. the way around anti-trust laws is that con-ed provides electricity "supply" but youre forced to pay con-ed "service" charges, which are often higher. so what does con ed do? they sell the supply at 0 profit. which makes them the cheapest alternative, but it doesnt violate anti-trust because you technically have more expensive options that arent allowed to make money off of service fees.

>>13885009

>net neutrality helps is ISPs and giant websites

no it doesnt. the opposite is true.

> want their competitors throttled

yes, im sure verizon would love to throttle themselves. dumbass.

>>13885022

You don't get it dude. All corporations are pure evil! If the water company can't get a few extra dollars from you for providing clean water, they're just going to let you drink poison water or die from dehydration!

>>13885026

forgot to mention. while i had con-ed. my electricity bill in a single bedroom apartment was about 600/mo in the summer with air conditioning. 200 would be the "supply" charge… like the cost of the actual electricity, then $400 would be the delivery charge.

i've moved to a larger house in a different area where we have other electricity providers. my bill hasnt gone above 100

>>13884987

Well to be fair, if Net Neutrality is killed, sites in which support for overwhelmingly for Trump will probably suffer as a result, as their content will be deemed "offensive".

If there aren't a ton of SJWs already infesting major ISP providers, there will be if Net Neutrality is killed, chomping at the bits to regulate the content we're allowed to access.

>>13884974

>when do you think we're going to get this chance again when the FCC starts overreaching and doing something horrible? future generations are going to call you faggots for ignoring this opportunity. "they had the chance back then and gave it up for netflix and youtube!"

You're also implying the standard internet user will be in a higher position of power than they currently are. It sounds more likely that big corporations can court ISPs even more directly now, record companies and networks can finally shill hard enough for things like Pirate Bay and Kickass to be blocked for good instead of just trying to take down their domains, sites like 8chan can be taken down for virtue signalling reasons where they can show they take a 'Hard Stance on Internet Hate', and any forums for discussion that do survive the purge will be slowed to a crawl while Facebook can keep being top dog as a form for social interaction for the masses.

But hey, in your ideal best of all possible worlds we'd all be winners in these conditions because we made the government give up something right?

>>13885074

It's also literally impossible for most people in the US to drop major ISPs and join smaller ones because the major ISPs have successfully lobbied laws into legislation that make the barrier-to-entry in starting an ISP so expensive only mega-corporations can do it. Not to mention the collusion between them all at the top.

Net Neutrality is a necessary bandaid on a bulletwound thanks to ISP Jews.

>>13885063

Thats already happening with sites that provides services, like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Youtube doing purges over bad thinking during 2016 and this year.

If its not the ISP, its the company hosting the site that'll do the service.

>>13885099

But without NN it will be harder for new sites to compete with them.

>>13884732

When did government regulation come to be viewed as freedom? This legislation that "protected" americans through the FCC was in place for TWO YEARS. It was enacted because Netflix was overburdening their carrier and the ISPs wanted to satisfy their bandwidth requirements. I see people acting like pre-2015 internet was run by anti-consumer ISPs attempting to control the content we see regardless of how it would have damaged their profits.

"Don't you remember the internet in 2014 and how the ISPs throttled us all to death?! OY VEYYY"

>>13884732

The most likely thing that's gonna happen is huge bandwidth sink are gonna cost extra now,

What's the point in throttling niche sites with potentially higher concentrations of tech savvy people that could bypass throttling? unless they start throttling any and all traffic that isn't http but I seriously doubt it

Little to none.

But if you start throttling Facebook/Youtube/Netflix/Twitter you better fucking believe you'll rack in the cash instantly because people are retards and can't live with that shit anymore

Anyways the pajeet from the FCC put it best the biggest enemies of "an open internet" is and always was the big companies that decide what you should be able to say and do on the bigger platforms.

Finally lets not kid ourselves net neutrality was barely a thing to begin with, I'f be surprised if the vast majority of the thread hasn't experienced throttling in some way before, and also every single people that deals with caps which is basically the thing ISP¨used to bypass net neutrality.

>>13885022

Tap water is generally cleaner than bottled water in most parts of the United States.

The cleanest brands of bottled water, like dasani, are actually tap water.

Things will not change much no matter what happens.

So when is the vote on the repeal happening anyway?

>>13884732

Why is America braindead when it comes to internet? Seriously, how the fuck is your internet worse than third world?

>>13884732

tbh ive been looking for an excuse to have pirate internet access like the old days of pirate radio.

>>13885127

centralized jewish interests

>>13885099

Google, Facebook, and Twitter can't stop me from accessing 8chan.

Comcast can.

>>13885127

>why do jews ruin things

Why are you here if you have to ask that question?

>>13884896

4chan, and even 8chan, did just fine before the implementation of NN in 2015.

>>13885113

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but

>Soros owns a sizable chunk of Netflix

>Netflix uses up a disproportionate amount of bandwith, and thus would be greatly affected by the end of NN

>Thus, Soros is throwing money at pro-NN propaganda to keep his pockets properly lined

Do I understand this correctly?

>>13884800

donald cuck can do no wrong

>>13885089

You don't seem to comprehend what's going on here.

>>13884895

>Those are just unlimited plans for specific apps. No throttling.

Just because they aren't throttling does not mean it's not a neutrality violation. The argument your parroting makes no sense. They are treating data differently instead of treating all data the same.

>>13885007

The internet has never been "Clean water", you faggot - WE DON'T WANT CLEAN WATER! Clean water is a child-proofed internet safe for everyone and enjoyed only by normalfags.

Fuck off with your "utility" horse shit, the internet is a tool for free thought and dissent - government utilities don't condone dissent, look at TV and radio.

The FCC shouldn't even EXIST.

>>13885022

>water has to be bought from the store

Really now?

>>13885140

That's because he doesn't want to be exorted by ISPs, but extortion and throttling will happen anyways, if not Netflix then some other streaming service will be paying to be the favored service in terms of bandwidth.

>>13885140

>Do I understand this correctly?

Seems right to me, but a lot of people are using it as an anchoring point for arguing that Net Neutrality is bad.

>>13885145

>look at TV

Yes, look at TV for the future of internet without NN, where ISPs have as much control over your internet as TV providers have over your TV.

>>13885140

>4chan, and even 8chan, did just fine before the implementation of NN in 2015.

And it's not like there hasn't been a massive shift in the public discourse in the two years since.

>>13885136

Because I don't have this bullshit happening where I live. The only thing we have from OP is site blocking, but that's extremely easy to circumvent. You don't even need Tor. But yes, I'm aware of jews, but I wasn't sure that they were the ones who completely fucked up your internet.

>>13885127

Because of people who are tech illiterate and say shit like enforced net neutrality is bad. They don't comprehend that the USA is divided like a pie for big corps to kike without the hassle of competition.

>>13885140

>implying he couldn't just instead NOT lobby for NN, let it be repealed, and then sign a contract with ISPs to prioritize bandwith for Netflix and neglect bandwith for competitor sites like Hulu or Amazon Video

There's (((some))) other element we're not seeing

>>13884832

>charge you to access youtube at normal speeds

I hope, maybe if this does turn out to be a big kikery oppurtunity it'll alienate even more people from using the internet and help them start living in the real world again like what life was like pre-2000. Maybe it'll even lead to accelerationism and a uprising against the (((elites)))

>>13885168

>The only thing we have from OP is site blocking, but that's extremely easy to circumvent.

Depends on how they do it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they used the mazy as fuck way and just DNS blocked it.

>>13884883

This. It's such a weird topic.

>>13885203

im sure most reddit users would recommend against drinking bleach too

>>13884732

Sucks to be a burger I guess.

>>13885194

>implying your governments aren't already fucking you over on the internet.

Be careful not to get caught browsing right wing extremist websites or posting your dog heiling Hitler, you might go to jail.

>>13885236

>>13885158

Please explain.

You want the FCC to regulate the internet.

The FCC already regulates television.

And you think that allowing the FCC to regulate the internet will make it freer and distinct from television…how?

So what I really don't get is why when SOPA and PIPA were up to bat and looking to play fuckery with the internet and threaten file sharing services it was a no brainer to push against it but now that the FCC is pushing to allow similar things to happen eby handing the internet to mega corps and even suggesting them to go full Jew we now have a very vocal group just saying lie back and let it happen?

>>13885239

>You want the FCC to regulate the internet.

I want them to regulate ISPs

>>13884883

It's because of people like you that we get kiked hard by tech monopolies. Oh the people on the other tribe are against this, that must mean you have to be for it, right??

>>13885239

FCC is regulating internet service providing, not what goes on in the Internet. Jesus Christ you are retarded, literally retarded.

>>13885252

M8, why do you think you have to buy water from Coca-Cola in the US?

>>13885247

No shit, why? What was so bad about 2014 internet through unregulated ISPs? Can't you say anything in your defense?

We're anons here, bring me your facts.

>>13884795

It has nothing to do with torrent sites

>>13885252

>Net Neutrality is the way the internet has always worked.

You know the book this reminds me of.

>>13885163

>shift in the public discourse in the two years since

Nobody did jack shit back in 2011 when 4Chan was still been seen as a place full of nazi-pedophile-hackers, even till late 2014 when GG started.

Daily Stormer getting shutdown is the closest to such scenario, a site with controversial topics being removed because some real shit happened

>>13885252

>niggers need net neutrality because they can't "resist" without it

How does this retarded shit even begin to make sense? The big companies fund their goddamned movements and parrot their rhetoric. They aren't the scrappy little freedom fighters who are rabbling against the powers that be. They are the useful idiots of corporations and governments.

>>13885270

>Daily Stormer getting shutdown is the closest to such scenario

Didn't that get shutdown because Cloudflare decided to ditch them?

>>13885263

>you HAVE to buy water from coca cola in the US

my water company runs from a local spring. That is of course, >implying i dont just use my own well

>>13884877

Jesus how much /leftypol/ can a person be

>government has to control comunications to prevent censoring

>>13884905

ISPs don't get a single more benefit than they already had before NN.

>>13885267

But in 2008 the FCC stepped in to investigate Comcast blocking BitTorrent and now pajeet is outright saying that they should just allow ISP to block torrent services now. This has everything to do with torrenting.

>>13885157

It's more of tip-of-the-iceberg in that pro-NN is being bankrolled by rich interests every bit as much as anti-NN is.

>>13885277

>i am the rule

Get this in your stupid head: corporations are not your friend. The free market only works by itself if the people can PHYSICALLY HARM those who do profit unethically. As it stands, corporations just lobby all your rights away just so they can make more money off of you and you're defending them in this case because obama was the face of the regulations.

>>13885264

>nobody has killed you yet, why do you want a law against murder?

Okay, show of hands how many of you retards believe a law that has only really existed for ~ 4 years being gone is going to lead to the total destruction of the internet.

>>13885269

Please cease and desist in your ideas which are utterly untrue and useless.

Consider this a second warning. The ministry is watching you.

>>13885301

Its not just the laws being repealed, its also the slimy bastards greenlighting paid prioritization.

>>13885257

It's as if ISPs weren't really throttling service based on content in the first place.

Which would make NN legislation seem unnecessary. Also learn these words:

>LITERALLY

>RETARDED

>>13885301

It probably won't change shit, especially because the normalfags finally paid attention this time around, but that doesn't mean I'm not filling my bunker drive with as much anime and vidya as possible right now.

>>13885269

>>13885297

The only reason that title is not true is because ISPs started throttling P2P traffic at some point because of anti-piracy shittery, but besides the exception, it is how the Internet works. The network does not treat your connection differently depending on the IP you're connecting to, or depending on different protocols. Besides P2P of course.

so how is it going to affect me as a nonburger?

>>13885314

It's not.

>>13885314

You get to see what it looks like before it comes to a server near you.

>>13885300

Here's a (you) for not arguing.

>>13885323

not an argument

A law in america that, may I add; only exists because the networking monopoly bankrolled most of the government at the time and wouldn't and mostly haven't been prosecuted for Violations of it, such as lying about service issues and deliberate roll outs of inferior hardware to consumers.

>>13885321

>It feels like two different evils butting heads, private interests vs private interests, and no matter who wins, I lose sooner or later.

You do get to choose which dick will fuck you in the ass.

Can someone explain to me the pros of this?

>>13885343

see

>>13884955

>>13885342

>while people who have tech knowledge will fire up VPNs

>he thinks ISPs can't detect and then throttle VPN/TOR traffic

Better buy the package that gives you UNLIMITED VPN SPEED :^)

>>13885354

There's already VPN masking technology retard.

>>13885074

>ISPs want it because it allows them to charge more for 'premium' services.

thats just fear mongering. no company has ever done this. ever.

>>13885342

Except nothing can stop the ISP from black listing those programs in order to prevent that very thing from happening. This isn't the age of dialup and phone phreaking anymore you are using proprietary connections those companies have buried n the ground and they sure as he'll will start guarding what goes through them even more so should this go through in their favor.

>>13885354

>he doesn't know that you can disguise VPN traffic to look identical to HTTPS connections

>he thinks people won't find ways around literally any blocking an ISP can do, short of total blacklisting of destinations a la Great Firewall of China

>he doesn't want to see the jews of Silicon Valley suffer and stagnate

>>13885140

>Do I understand this correctly?

There's more parties of Jews involved than the government and ISPs. Internet businesses running sites with huge amounts of traffic, such as video hosting websites, MMO's, and news sites will find themselves forced to subscribe to such a premium internet bandwidth subscription in order to maintain the amount of bandwidth necessary for their userbase, which only costs them even more than it originally did. Users with shitty basic internet subscriptions will experience a less pleasant browsing experience because of all the shit such as ads and the sizes of modern websites taking up precious bandwidth, and will probably find themselves blocking ads more which costs precious revenue for the hosters.

Alternatively, instead of opting for an expensive premium internet subscription, webhosts can opt to provide a premium service themselves in order to throttle what little bandwidth they can reliably afford while gaining some more profit in the process. Do you not enjoy having to watch videos at 240p30fps which buffers every 15 seconds? Then how about you subscribe to our premium service? This will become more of a problem if tons of major sites opt for this solution if they want to avoid unstable servers or running at a loss. But there's always a free alternative, no matter how shitty, and most people would rather flock to something free than pay a monthly fee for something they don't really need that much after all.

>>13885361

Not to mention all the cable connections that have to go through a router provided by the ISP.

>>13885361

> nothing can stop the ISP from

except the customers that control their income.

no ISP wants to do this. and if one does, anyone that notices can just go elsewhere. there are tons of options. but you know who nobody can actually stop? the federal government regulation.

oh wait, thats not true. there are people that can control the federal government regulations. and they do it in closed door meetings allt he time. theyre called big business lobbyists.

>>13885366

>there are tons of options.

No there fucking isn't.

>>13885366

>there are tons of options

only in cities

>>13885371

Obviously not.

>>13885368

>>13885370

give me a location. i guarantee i can find atleast 3 internet options. did you forget satellites and cellphone services exist?

>>13885343

NN

>Internet stays pretty much the same as it already is

<Internet stays pretty much the same as it already is

No NN

>you get to see a bunch of corporation shit their pants

<likely gonna get fucked by ISPs down the line

>>13885356

They could theoretically throttle anything that isn't http, but then there's already an encrypted P2P program that allows you to mask all your traffic as http

>>13885373

he asked for pros, what good can come of it?

>>13885374

>did you forget satellites and cellphone services exist?

get the fuck off of /v/

>>13885374

Satellite and cellphone service isn't an alternative to high speed internet you moron.

>>13885378

good argument, shill. i hope soros forgets to pay you.

>>13885365

No, you fucking retard, they go through a modem, and you can provide it yourself. If you're stuck with a combo modem/router, buy a cheap firewall/router box, drop it behind the modem, set the modem to bridge mode. You can even run a firewall off of an ordinary computer as long as it has two or more NICs, just throw PFsense or Sophos Home on it and configure as needed.

>>13885380

>moving the goalposts

again. there are tons of options. and yes, many of those are high speed. enough for you to watch your interacial soap operas on netflix.

>>13885366

>except the customers that control their income.

Good luck switching to a better service when there is no better alternative. This isn't Pepsi vs Coke we're talking about here, setting up an internet connection requires an entire physical infrastructure and the US is a huge place, the infrastructure is shit and ISPs don't have incentive to make more because they all agree to milk different parts of the country.

>>13885377

Getting to watch corporations be shitty to each other.

>comcast sees a lot of use coming from netflix

>comcast throttles netflix

>normalfags flip their shit about buffering on their tv shows

>netflix shits its pants cries that it's modern gang protection/beatdowns

>everyone gets to laugh while normalfags are pissy about their netflix not working

Look for the bright sides.

>>13885384

>they go through a modem, and you can provide it yourself

>modem in the current year

How is that ADSL working for you

>>13885384

>they go through a modem, and you can provide it yourself

You do know that making it so you need the "official proprietary ISP provided modem router" if yopu want your connection at all isn't exactly hard right?

>>13885366

A good percentage of the USA cannot choose their own provider, if they want internet they cannot take their business elsewhere and access to email and web services are quickly becoming a necessity for the modern work force so I do not really think they can take their business elsewhere if they do not like the one providers practices.

>>13885392

what the fuck do i care about normalfags?

>>13885392

>look for the bright sides

Lootboxes for unlocking access to new websites?

>>13885388

>no better alternative

as i said. name a place that doesnt have options and i guarantee i'll find some. but i find it hilarious that you consider a company that throttles connections to undesirable places the "best option nomatter what in this hypothetical situation"

>>13885407

name somewhere. stop using hypothetical fearmongering. you argue like a faggot liberal.

>>13885392

Sure that would be fun, but I'd rather not give that much control to ISPs solely for being vindictive. Considering the amount of shit that can come of it being removed, I'd leave those laughs aside.

>>13885363

>>13885342

I'm sure that if people could go on the internet without paying any kind of subscription for the ISP that companies would lobby the governments to crack down hard on anyone robbing them of their hard-earned money, as they are already doing (depends on the country) with piracy. Hitchhiking the neighbor's networks isn't always a dependable solution either. It's like with water and electricity, if the provider decides to jew you, there's rarely an alternative or a way to go without what they provide.

>>13885385

And many of those have either a datalimit or ridiculously expensive monthly fees for connections with no datalimit. On top of that you're paying extra money for having a satellite connection, and having access to the internet everywhere is not something you really need, nor is it really worth the money. Unless your job demands it for some reason.

>>13885421

>name somewhere

youre not this retarded, youre just being a corporate cocksucking gay dragon

>>13885421

A quick Google search will yield the information you want. "ISP distribution in the USA"

>>13885432

>>13885433

so neither of you can name anywhere in the united states that doesnt have options?

are you both giving up on that argument?

you argue like liberal reddit faggots. "im going to take a stand! to defend those i dont know and know nothing about! because someone, somewhere might get oppressed! but i dont know who! and i cant name how!"

good job.

>>13885402

The FCC requires companies to allow customers to use their own modems. That's not going to change.

>>13885402

How fucking stupid are you? Did you think coax cables magically plug into your computer?

If you really want a free internet you should be asking for LESS regulations. The US has stiffled new ISPs, and NN wouldn't aleviate this in the slighest. It would only raise costs for data lanes since what are now slower and thus cheaper lanes would have to dissapear.

If a tiny archipelago like New Zealand can have more than 3 providers, the US should be filled to the brim with providers. Guess what stops them

>"I have never seen an independent… start up without having to fight the incumbent legally," Patten told Ars. "The incumbents are notorious for frivolous delay lawsuits. They know perfectly well they're frivolous, but it's a delay tactic. They have an army of lawyers and a budget to support lawsuits the size of Godzilla. That's one of their tactics, it always has been. It probably will continue to be so for many years yet to come."

https://please use archive.is/information-technology/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

Without laws allowing for a bunch os stupid requirements (that were probably included under a "sugestion" from the now dominant ISPs) those legal costs wouldn't exist.

Wherever there are less regulations busineses can prosper.

Also why the hell do you think it is a good thing to charge the same amount for different lanes? Jesus fuck how many of you are so naive o really think prices would go down if they were forced to bring lanes used by e-mail, messaging apps and etc to the speed of video streaming sites. Of course more demanding lanes cost more. No shit sherlock, it has been like that since forever. The reason ISPs don't charge you extra to browse youtubepoop videos is because it would be a major shot in their own feet. Not because they haven't figured a way to do it yet. Supply and demand laws can only be twarted if the government gets in the way.

t. Brazilian who has been experiencing net neutrality for almost 5 years now.

Costs have been UP since then, markedly because slower lanes are not allowed to exist anymore. ISPs could either slower the faster lanes to meet in the middle in order to keep costs down, or ditch slower lanes and charge more. Guess which option prevailed.

tl;dr: the internet has been a halmark of the age of information since it's inception, competition thrives more where there is less involvement from the government, and even though you don't trust most government services in almost anything else they do, for some mysterious reason you want the government to take care of internet of all things

>>13885449

>The FCC requires companies to allow customers to use their own modems.

nigger. i've used my own modem since the 90s. stop making shit up.

>>13885437

>implying they won't just pay up and shut up

It's normalfags we're talking about here, look at the state of the video game industry. Once kikery becomes the norm, they keep pushing bit by bit until you're paying to unlock Darth Vader for 5 minutes.

Honestly, with how many Social justice net neutrality adverts there are, i can only see this as congress pulling a stunt to virtue signal when they slap the bill down for the thrid time. "Look at me my delegates! I totally work super hard representing you and protecting you from the evul corporations, vote for me next election!

>>13885455

>The US has stiffled new ISPs, and NN wouldn't aleviate this in the slighest

so you admit the US (government) has negatively affected the ISPs. and you think the release of government control on ISPs wont alleviate this?

are you retarded? or is that a copypasta soros emailed you.

>>13885455

>he believes the lanes meme

There are no lanes if the connection is neutral, that is the entire point you fucking hue nigger.

>>13885432

It's okay if you don't know there are other options anon don't be embarrased. Shoot it's even okay if you didn't know about local wireless infrastructure, which is basically on par with a ground wire connection at this point and a fraction of the price of satellite for similar speeds

>>13885473

>basically on par with a ground wire connection

who do you guys think youre fooling?

>>13885467

>what are lobbies

>>13884940

How come robot fights are never as cool as they are in anime?

>>13885449

>How fucking stupid are you?

I'm not stupid because that's exactly what my ISP is doing right this instant

>can't use the phone line or access most services if I'm not using the official box

>can't use an unofficial firmware on my official box or I don't get any service at all

So yeah it's 100% possible for ISP to force you to use their official boxes with the official firmware.

>>13885467

Niger I'm the one here who doens't have english for his first language. Re-read my post dumbass, I'm against NN and pro de-regulation

>>13885456

Go back and re-read what you just quoted.

>>13885480

I mean as far as anyone gives a shit here would want. Low ping.

>>13885483

Soon.

>>13885467

The biggest stumbling blocks are laws at state level as well as the previously mentioned lawsuits ISPs use to wear out newcomers. Relinquishing net neutrality does nothing to stop that and only harms the consumer.

>>13885497

Will people end up using atlas as a sex toy?

>>13885472

Oh my god the stupidity…

There are lanes right now you dumb fuck. Faster lanes cost more, slower lanes cost less.

If NN dictates that there should be NO difference between them, then I sure as fuck would bet that they wouldn't allow the same data used for e-mail, messaginf and everything else to have the same priority of video streaming (which would raise costs if we are talking about keeping the same quality we have right now) for free.

Making all lanes equal would raise costs you doofus.

>>13885497

They make a robot that hugs people yet?

>>13885505

No there aren't, you pay for a single internet connection, not for different types of internet connection. Your one connection can be limited but it is limited for global use, it is not limited just for streaming for example. To do otherwise is to violate the desired neutrality.

>>13885493

It's American network infrastructure, getting fucked either way is a given if you aren't in a not retarded state.

Does the shitposting in this thread "prove" that no one know what exactly net neutrality is?

>>13885505

>Making all lanes equal would raise costs you doofus.

>he bought this ISP propaganda

>>13885481

>you cant lobby the govnerment, only corporations

literal pants on head retardation.

>>13885489

heres a question for you, little man.

when did the FCC start regulating ISPs?

>>13885499

literally dozens of satelite internet providers exist in the US. not including cellphone providers. not including phonelines, and not including cable lines.

>>13885484

>I'm not stupid because that's exactly what my ISP is doing right this instant

>>can't use the phone line or access most services if I'm not using the official box

>>can't use an unofficial firmware on my official box or I don't get any service at all

Then you file an FCC complaint because your ISP is breaking the law.

>>13885526 (2/2)

>>13885107

>Anyways the pajeet from the FCC put it best the biggest enemies of "an open internet" is and always was the big companies that decide what you should be able to say and do on the bigger platforms.

I agree, but with net neutrality, only those websites can censor your content, and you can just move to a different website. Without NN, now websites AND ISPs can throttle your content, and not only are you not allowed to post on the big websites, you get throttled if you wander off the ranch.

>>13885140

>4chan, and even 8chan, did just fine before the implementation of NN in 2015.

These repeals go further than how the internet was before NN was implemented. Also see >>13885163

>Do I understand this correctly?

That's half the. The other half is that Netflix had a contract with Verizon to provide a certain bandwidth to their servers, and Verizon throttled them anyway. Repealing NN essentially makes this form of contract breach legal.

>>13885269

But it is. The only packet discrimination in America is throttling P2P networks due to the MPAA lobbying hard to allow it.

>>13885270

>>13885274

Daily Stormer got shut down by Cloudflare, GoDaddy, and Google Domains. No ISPs were involved.

>>13885301

It won't destroy the Internet, but it'll change things drastically. You won't be able to just buy a domain and spin up a server anymore to start a website; costs will be too high, especially if you're doing something high-bandwidth or making a multiplayer game that requires low ping.

>>13885321

I agree, but see above; the main reason repealing NN is bad is because now ISPs and websites can censor you, instead of just websites.

>>13885366 (checked)

>except the customers that control their income.

Yes, but consumers are sheep and often don't have an ISP choice. See above.

>>13885374

>cellphone service

>implying

Data lines on a cellphone are 3000% more Jewish than anything Comcast does. Shoot yourself.

>>13885438

>For example, most Silicon Valley companies have an unspoken no-snipe policy for employees and actively work together to keep employee wages artificially lowered.

You literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Employees at the big tech companies (e.g. Google, Microsoft, Facebook) easily make $250k a year: https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/

(I agree that "the hand of the market" require a few million government-provided caveats, but your statement is false.)

>>13885455

>Costs have been UP since then, markedly because slower lanes are not allowed to exist anymore.

NN doesn't remove slower lanes. You can pay e.g. $29/mo for a 30Mbps connection, or step it up to $59/mo for a 100Mbps connection. Both are allowed to exist. I bet there are even slower lanes for cheaper, but I wouldn't know because I don't buy them.

>>13885467

>>13885485

>>13885493

See >>13885499

The current status quo is fucked, sure, but repealing NN does not fix any of the actual problems and makes the situation objectively worse.

>>13885505

>If NN dictates that there should be NO difference between them,

But it fucking doesn't you worthless hueposter.

>>13885526

> these regulations

can tell in your first line that you have no idea what net neutrality is.

thank you for putting this right at the start so i didnt waste time reading your post.

>>13885527

>often don't have an ISP choice

name one place that doesnt have a choice. 1.

>>13885523

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=de0ee827bf53c33bd7190687b81a35fb&mc=true&node=se47.4.76_11201&rgn=div8)

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0510/DA-16-512A1.pdf

ISPs cannot force you to use their equipment as long as your equipment doesn't cause damage. The FCC has fined Charter for this already.

Saying "hurr durr I've been using my own modem for years" does not contradict this, it just shows that you can't read.

>>13885541

having a choice between 2 flaming piles of garbage isnt a choice

>>13885527

>Repealing NN essentially makes this form of contract breach legal.

Are you actually retarded?

>>13885527

>but repealing NN does not fix any of the actual problems

They were never going to get fixed in the first place. The internet was going to become shit either way. NN is now a fucking socialist farce that means nothing now. What activates the almonds is these fucking niggers suddenly becoming little useless activists for it.

>>13885550

and how long has the FCC enforced this rule?

>FCC and Local Municipalities strongarm small ISPs to ensure they can't lay cable and thus enforce the monopoly

>We want to give the FCC more power

Net Neutrality is retarded. The repeal is gonna pass, all you doomsday shills are gonna cry for a week, and then literally nothing will change. Mark my fucking words.

>>13885551

>i cant name a place, so i'll assume a place exists without real choices.

this is a wage-gap level argument. you should go back to reddit.

>>13885562

I'm not going to spoonfeed you any more. It's current policy, and isn't at all likely to change.

>>13885565

b-but without the FCC the internet will go back to the dark ages like it was before 2015

>>13885568

Anon, I'm anti NN but where I live it's either Verizon or Time Warner unless you want to get fucking godawful HughesNet/DISH satellite

>>13885558

>NN is now a fucking socialist farce that means nothing now

Explain. Is it just that they're calling for more regulation on the market that you are calling it socialist? If so then you forget this is far from a free and open market and that argument shouldn't really apply in these circumstances.

>>13885582

What state are you in?

>>13885587

New York

>>13885591

Ok if you aren't in the city I'm like 90% sure you have local wireless options there.

>>13885596

I live in the fucking capital of the state. There are no independents here unlike Jew York City. Even then I'm lucky because if you live down further you get fucked by Mid-Hudson cable.

>>13885582

so you think a throttled verizon or time warner is better than an unthrottled satelite connection? if thats what you believe, you deserve the hell you created for yourself.

>>13885591

>ny only has 2 choices. nigger i used to live in the catskills. i had more choices than you?

>>13885578

>spoonfed by avoiding the argument.

nigger, they started requiring that like 1-2 years ago. i had my own modem since the 90s.

do some basic math and please explain how it was the FCC that allowed me to use my own modem.

>>13885600

>albany

YOU HAVE LOCAL WIRELESS YOU RETARD.

>>13885600

nigger, i've lived in east greenbush, albany, and saratoga. youre either a kid and assume your parents dont have a choice, or you dont know how find alternatives.

>>13885527

> only those websites can censor your content, and you can just move to a different website.

And what stops you from doing the exact same thing in case your ISP is doing the blocking?

>you get throttled if you wander off the ranch.

Why would they throttle niche sites responsible for a minor fraction of the traffic, it doesn't make sense from any standpoint.

It I see much easier to repeal government censorship than it is to remove coordinated censorship from telecom companies. And telecom companies may censor having only shekels in mind, while government censor may benefit society more, like banning cp.

Our country is safe from your corporatocratic crap. TRAI rocks. And we have so many options that no group of companies can plan and totally regulate the internet based on their own wishes.

And one thing people forget is that government is far more inefficient in everything including censorship than private companies. China's firewall is easy to beat, for example.

Are ISPs a natural monopoly?

>>13885613

>Why would they throttle niche sites responsible for a minor fraction of the traffic

because naturally thousands of companies around the US would love to hurt their own business and income, to appease globalist jews that are coincidentally in favor of regulating ISPs.

>>13885631

what about fairpoint, windstream, and spectrum? and verizon? i havnt lived in albany in a while, but dont you have fios now?

>>13885626

Not really since ISPs themselves serve as a barrier of entry to prevent competition. They are more of an oligopoly.

>>13885626

They shouldn't be. The only reason they are monopolies is because the cables themselves are not considered a public utility.

>>13885643

kek, is that for real?

>>13885638

My neighborhood doesn't get FiOS, and that's the FCC map. Time Warner is owned by Spectrum now, and I haven't heard or seen anything about those other two you've listed in any map, newspaper, or commercial I've seen. but it's comforting knowing there's another anon who's a local. rip Jerry D.

>>13885653

>is that for real?

Yes, yes it is.

Wireless mesh network based upon a fleet of open source hybrid airship drones using encrypted laser communication to provide somewhat slow Internet to crafty Anons with self-built transcievers when?

>>13885541

>can tell in your first line that you have no idea what net neutrality is.

Net neutrality is a set of regulations. I was specifically referring to the Title II utility regulations. I'm now 90% sure you're a shill.

>name one place that doesnt have a choice.

Bedford, WY: https://broadbandnow.com/Wyoming/Bedford

Only option above 25Mbps is Silverstar Communications. This took about 30 seconds of Googling to find; I should note that this situation is not the exception, but the rule.

>>13885550

>The FCC has fined Charter for this already.

>implying fines do literally anything

Google got fined nearly $3B for antitrust violations in the EU: http://archive.is/rZ1BM

You might think that's a lot, but it's less than 5% of their yearly revenue.

>>13885556

It's an exaggeration, sure, but ISPs are scum that always do scummy bullshit. They want NN laws to pass so they can throttle Netflix even harder they already do, and force Netflix to pay bribes to make it stop. That's how their current court case started in the first place.

>>13885558

>NN is now a fucking socialist farce that means nothing now.

<things are bad, let's make them worse for literally no gain!

I don't understand you people.

>>13885565

FCC doesn't strongarm small ISPs, but the local governments do that and I agree it's a problem. It doesn't justify making the situation worse.

>>13885613

>And what stops you from doing the exact same thing in case your ISP is doing the blocking?

The ISP you dumb nigger. This is literally laying the groundwork for the Great Firewall of America that the MPAA has always wanted, but because it'll be done by the ISPs instead of the government there will be even more "they're a private entity and they can censor things if they want :^)" posting.

>Why would they throttle niche sites responsible for a minor fraction of the traffic

See (((concerned human rights group))) above.

>>13885626

Pretty much, yes. At least the cables are, and should be considered a utility as >>13885647 suggests.

>>13885643

Wait, does your government DNS resolve thepiratebay.org to localhost?

>>13885654

>Time Warner is owned by Spectrum now

No, TWC owns Spectrum, they just took Spectrum's branding because people are sheep. They know TWC sucks, but there's this new company called Spectrum that'll certainly be better!

>>13885661

never ever not ever forever

>>13885654

someone i know was killed by the smiley face killers in albany. i used to live on washington street with the niggers. i didnt stay there long. you can imagine why. i moved to east greenbush. that was a mistake. so i moved to saratoga… that was pretty nice. expensive though. albany is the most souless city i have ever lived in.

those other two are DSL providers. i mean, time warner sucks, but you have other options. their infastructure isnt as good, but if time warner started being dicks, you can go somewhere else. and i know "DSL isnt high speed" but those ones are "new" dsl.. easily 10-15mbps. which is what most cable companies provide. even if you dont have fios, verizon provides "old" dsl… which is like 1-5mbps.

>>13885661

Havana of all places has had a meshnet for ages, complete with a Cuban Wikipedia equivalent and a private WoW server. And all that was built with equipment smuggled into the country, it's illegal to own networking kit.

We'll be fucking fine.

>>13885679

>Wait, does your government DNS resolve thepiratebay.org to localhost?

Yeah any DNS hosted in my country is legally obligated to not properly resolve sites on the blocklist, it's about as easy to bypass as you think it is.

>>13885706

what happens if you ping the site's IP?

>>13885686

Yo if we do this I want a city of heroes server not WoW

>>13885684

Yeah I mean if it comes down to it I'll switch, but they're not jewing me too hard for the time being ever since I cancelled my phone and cable.

its only getting worse nigga Albany Med's swallowing up everywhere down near Morris St. (they offered Lombardo's like 2.5 mil I think and he turned them down), the city's full of heroin, and the new even more retarded mayor wants to build a fucking gondola from the concourse down to those bike trails along the river nobody fucking uses. Pyongyang on The Hudson.

>>13885728

A gondola you say?

>>13885716

>what happens if you ping the site's IP?

Works like normal.

It's a simple DNS block, the instant you use a good DNS there's no block anymore.

>>13885514

I don't know if you are making an effort to not understand it of if it comes to you naturally.

Costs are different between lanes. Right now your ISP spends a lot less money with e-mail and other less demanding services than it does with youtube and netflix. They do charge you the same, but their costs are different. Your internet bill is what they figured as an average necessary to cover them both.

>>13885527

> You can pay e.g. $29/mo for a 30Mbps connection, or step it up to $59/mo for a 100Mbps connection. Both are allowed to exist. I bet there are even slower lanes for cheaper, but I wouldn't know because I don't buy them.

Those are not the lanes I'm talking about

Within a certain speed plan different data have different priorities, simply because some are more demanding than others. If you browse yourube and use irc at the same time, irc data is spread in smaller packages in between youtube packages, that's good because you don't need irc to be as fast as youtube. What NN does is remove that difference. In order to keep the same quality all data lanes have to be more efficient. This has nothing to do with the speed plan you contract.

>But it fucking doesn't you worthless hueposter.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Ok, gonna research the text pre-FCC alterations, this response will take longer than usual.

1/2

>>13885758

2/2

Link for pre-FCC Net Neutrality. This is what NN shills wanted to happen

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

>I hope I don't fuck up format too much

201. In contrast, large broadband Internet access service providers assert that edge providers such as Netflix are imposing a cost on broadband Internet access service providers who must constantly upgrade infrastructure to keep up with the demand.510 Large broadband Internet access service providers explain that when an edge provider sends extremely large volumes of traffic to a broadband Internet access service provider— e.g., through a CDN or a third-party transit service provider—the broadband provider must invest in additional interconnection capacity (e.g., new routers or ports on existing routers) and middle-mile transport capacity in order to accommodate that traffic, exclusive of “last-mile” costs from the broadband Internet access provider’s central offices, head ends, or cell sites to end-user locations.511

Commenters assert that if the broadband Internet access service provider absorbs these interconnection and transport costs, all of the broadband provider’s subscribers will see their bills rise.512. They argue that this is unfair to subscribers who do not use the services, like Netflix, that are driving the need for additional capacity. Broadband Internet access service providers explain that settlement-free peering fundamentally is a barter arrangement in which each side receives something of value.513 These parties contend that if the other party is only sending traffic, it is not contributing something of value to the broadband Internet access service provider.

<This CLEARLY states that some services like video streaming need faster lanes and exclusive upgraded infrastructure, and that NN demad those differentiating costs to be eliminated, thus increasing costs of ALL services, not only video streaming, thus increasing costs overall, leading to higher prices.

202. Mechanism to Resolve Traffic Exchange Disputes. As discussed, Internet traffic exchange agreements have historically been and will continue to be commercially negotiated. We do not believe that it is appropriate or necessary to subject arrangements for Internet traffic exchange (which are subsumed within broadband Internet access service) to the rules we adopt today. We conclude that it would be premature to adopt prescriptive rules to address any problems that have arisen or may arise.514 It is also premature to draw policy conclusions concerning new paid Internet traffic exchange arrangements between broadband Internet access service providers and edge providers, CDNs, or backbone services.515 While the substantial experience the Commission has had over the last decade with “last-mile” conduct gives us the understanding necessary to craft specific rules based on assessments of potential harms, we lack that background in practices addressing Internet traffic exchange.516 For this reason, we adopt a case-by-case approach, which will provide the Commission with greater experience. Thus, we will continue to monitor traffic exchange and developments in this market.

<Those conflicts in costs between different trafic sources can no longer be settled and negociated freely, and thus are mediated case-by-case by the commission

<government officials now have a say on yet another cost, but this won't be exploited at all by lobyists to twart competition acording to NN shills

These two paragraphs are the ones that define the different speed lanes that everyone is freaking over.

Your online games, youtube and netflix will not get a boost in speed because of NN. Instead it demands all data have the same priority, leading what are now low-priority data to receive an undeserved and unnecessary boost. Costs will rise

Why do you want the government to take care of the internet

You should be asking for less rules blocking new ISPs to be created

Fucking hell man, I'm tired

Imagine being paid to regurgitate excuses for Comcast on a Mongolian basket weaving forum.

>>13885684

>ADSL2+

>new

And I thought my Internet was shit.

t. 9mbit DSL with shit signal and the govermnent stepping in to slow down expansion of Fibre infrastructure by small, local ISPs in favor of monopolist 50mbit VDSL expansion that doesn't work due to 300m range limit and copper wiring from the 1950s.

meanwhile (((they)))'ve invested so much into their 4G infrastructure they've started selling wireless routers with sim cards to remote villages with 300mbit mobile reception

>>13885728

> cancelled my phone and cable.

i have optimum (cablevision) where i live now and do the same thing. just FYI if you put your incoming connection on a splitter before the modem and put one going to your TV and do a channel search, you'll get a bunch of channels. i mostly get the same stuff i would get with an antenna, except no antenna, and a few extra channels bleed in.

a fucking gondola? >>13885753 holy shit a fucking gondola. i guess i'd rather use those than be on the ground with my bike so bands of nomad niggers attack me and steal my bike. i bet i could even witness a few of those thefts if people actually used those lanes like the gondola rides at the bronx zoo. heroin is just replacing the oxycontin problem since its cheaper bc mexicans. i really just hate the feeling of walking down those streets and feeling completely alone. schenectady has the same feeling. as well as portland oregon. creepy fucking cities.

>>13885756

please try just using https… if it goes through on that i'm going to die laughing.

>>13885760

>You should be asking for less rules blocking new ISPs to be created

We should all be doing that.

>>13885783

>please try just using https… if it goes through on that i'm going to die laughing.

Nah doesn't go through.

>>13885780

10-15mbps isnt bad. fios (fiber) claims to offer 100mbps but even at peak times speed test sites rarely go above 20mpbs, and even less at peak times.

also, 10 mbit is like 1 mb. so you probably have about a 30mbps connection. go to a speed test site and screencap it if you can.

>>13885799

aw. i wanted to die.

>>13885783

>please try just using https… if it goes through on that i'm going to die laughing.

Won't work. HTTPS doesn't mask the destination domain, and it's being blocked by DNS anyway, so the request gets looped back to localhost. What HTTPS is good for is masking the contents of a request or reply, it can't be intercepted or subjected to deep packet inspection unless you've accepted the root cert of the intercepting device, and even then there are safeguards to prevent that.

>>13885822

at my workplace it blocks most sites, but i can get on here if i putt that little S in. i was just curious.

>>13885828

Your workplace is likely doing content inspection on a page for blocking. They've implemented it poorly, because they should be using large blacklist of domains and relying primarily of that. They should also have pushed the web filter's cert to the root ca store on all workstations and done DPI on all https traffic.

Your IT guys are either shit at their job or have too small a budget.

>>13885300

Well you haven't actually brought fourth any arguments for the FCC ruling. btw the FCC ruling made ISPs equal to a phone service and at the same time didn't actually protect or promote Net Neutrality. Much like how patriotism isn't promoted by the Patriot Act.

>>13885868

[cont]

>Enter Judge Green who decided that “Ma Bell” was a monopoly, and it should be broken up. He splits up the company into regional “Baby Bells,” which raises costs because now each one must hire its own staff to do what Ma Bell’s national staff did, and then spends years administrating this through court oversight. Ultimately, what altered the situation was this: new firms, like MCI, rose up to offer long-distance communications through local numbers you dialed up using your regular Bell phone lines. These created competition for long-distance lines, and eroded dominance of the Bells, at which point the market fragmented without having to run new local lines. While that was positive, the downside is that most of us are using 1970s or 1960s copper phone lines, including for our ISDN (“DSL”) access. There was no need to upgrade the lines, since competition was concerned with where the real money was, which was in long distance. But then that went away, thanks to cellular, and competition has now shifted to the digital realm. This is why FCC chairman Ajit Pai prefers competition to regulation. In an ideal world, competition will produce new options, and regulation will ensure that basics like phone lines get updated every twenty years instead of once a century:

<The FCC is not completely evacuating its oversight role. ISPs, he says, will need to be completely transparent with customers about all practices related to prioritizing traffic, data caps, and more. Pai believes that market competition for customers will prove far more effective in developing better and cheaper services than regulators deciding what is best for the sector. “In wireless,” he says, “there’s very intense competition—you have four national carriers and any number of regional carriers competing to provide 4G LTE, and a number of different services. In those marketplaces where there’s not as much competition as we’d like to see, to me at least, the solution isn’t to preemptively regulate as if it were a monopoly, as if we’re dealing with ‘Ma Bell,’ but to promote more competition.”

>This form of light regulation allows the market to be the growing edge of the industry, and government to give these firms a plausible excuses to spend on infrastructure, because if it is a regulation, they can deduct it without fear of an audit. So why does industry — notice who is supporting “net neutrality” — want to be regulated? And why is industry writing the net neutrality laws? The answer is twofold. First, industry already has its own solution to the neutrality issue, which is “fast lanes.” Second, regulation raises costs, which protects big companies from new companies entering the market, although as we have seen above, what consumers really need is more ISPs and more options to Facebook and Netflix in order to keep those companies honest. Inversion again. What are “fast lanes”? Fast lanes are that parallax shift. Instead of making traffic from your competitors slower, you make traffic from your allies faster, and then since you have no obligation to upgrade your entire infrastructure, over time the traffic from your competitors naturally becomes slower:

<Today, privileged companies—including Google, Facebook, and Netflix—already benefit from what are essentially internet fast lanes, and this has been the case for years. Such web giants—and others—now have direct connections to big ISPs like Comcast and Verizon, and they run dedicated computer servers deep inside these ISPs. In technical lingo, these are known as “peering connections” and “content delivery servers,” and they’re a vital part of the way the internet works.

>“Net Neutrality” legislation is designed to avoid regulating the fast lanes. Every site will be equal… in mediocrity… except for those that pay the toll, and they get faster service. The sheep will get their Facebook and Apple at high speed, and Wikipedia no doubt, but all those small sites which might compete with the big sites will be squeezed out. This achieves the aims of the monopolists, not the consumer. They raise costs so that fewer people can compete with them; they get protection for their “fast lanes,” which is how they are going to exclude the little guys. The average voter, fixated on the idea of being charged a special price for those fast lanes, misses the parallax, which is that accelerating some sites means that others remain at slower speeds. Democracy normally chooses idiocy. The net did not have “net neutrality” rules until 2015, mainly because back in 1987 when the net was made commercial, the decision was made to allow firms to manage their own sites as they saw fit, which naturally meant an un-neutral net. However, that actually helped the little guy and the consumer. “Net neutrality” simply exploits them, and neuters the net.

sauce:

http://www.amerika.org/politics/net-neutrality-is-net-neutering/

>>13885887

>Your IT guys are either shit at their job or have too small a budget.

i work in IT. its both.

>>13885089

>>13885608

wireless is not a real choice

>>13885527

>You literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Sorry I didn't realize I'd have to spoonfeed a down-syndrome-afflicted baby today:

https://archive.is/S80h2

https://archive.is/vYhX3

https://archive.is/YEOf4

https://archive.is/NgkhR

>>13885990

Local wireless is dummy.

Niggga I ain't talking about shit like hughes net.

>>13885868

>>13885893

Whoever wrote this has some fucking chip on their shoulder.

I will say this does not address that the repeal paperwork green lights paid prioritization for websites. Also the guy seems to be saying that federal regulation is the thing raising costs for small businesses which sounds fucky to me, considering small business websites aren't being negatively affected by the FCC, and also he doesn't explain why paid prioritization, or 'fast lanes' are a good thing. I understand when he goes on about how the heavy hitters can afford to have dedicated servers within ISP infrastructure and essentially have innate prioritization because of that but I feel that's not what we'll be seeing more of should this be repealed as he wants. In fact it seems that he's arguing passing net neutrality is protecting these servers by not allowing other people to have similar situations?

>“Net Neutrality” legislation is designed to avoid regulating the fast lanes. Every site will be equal… in mediocrity… except for those that pay the toll, and they get faster service. The sheep will get their Facebook and Apple at high speed, and Wikipedia no doubt, but all those small sites which might compete with the big sites will be squeezed out.

Yes while they may be faster the others are not being throttled, while under Pais suggested system where people have to pay upright for better service it still wont hold a candle to those dedicated servers he's talking about so it seems a moot point.

Also he doesn't even touch on the potential fallout when ISPs start trying to axe things like BitTorrent again.

>>13886041

read

>>13885760

NN repeal doesn't greenlight anything new. NN increases costs.

>>13886041

>considering small business websites aren't being negatively affected by the FCC

Net Neutrality is a regulation for ISPs, not websites.

Consider this, almost every other nation in the world has dozens of different ISPs to choose from whereas in America all you have is Time Warner/Bell/Whatever the fuck megacorp you have.

While I wouldn't say that Net Neutrality is the thing that is preventing local ISPs from flourishing(it probably isn't), the fact that you have so few options compared to even third world countries despite paying way more on average should say a lot on its own.

>>13885756

That's basically the same as how a DNS revoking works in America (e.g. sci-hub.io had their domain revoked due to DMCA non-compliance, but now they're at sci-hub.bz and still completely accessible). Instead of resolving to localhost though, they just remove the entry from the DNS server entirely.

>>13885758

>Right now your ISP spends a lot less money with e-mail and other less demanding services than it does with youtube and netflix. They do charge you the same, but their costs are different.

?????????

You seem to believe that 1000 pounds of bricks are heavier than 1000 pounds of feathers. The reason e-mail costs less than Youtube is because the messages are generally smaller. If I sent a 16MB e-mail it would cost the ISP just as much as if I uploaded a 16MB webm.

>irc data is spread in smaller packages in between youtube packages, that's good because you don't need irc to be as fast as youtube.

the proper term in english is packets, btw

That's more of a software issue. If I wanted a chat client that had as low latency as possible, I'd do the same stuff Youtube does. I'd probably be even more aggressive than Youtube actually, because they do a lot of BS to try and minimize bandwidth from unwatched videos and video segments. There's no way to mark your packet as a video or an irc message; their different behavior and request frequency is entirely software-bound.

>>13885760

>Link for pre-FCC Net Neutrality. This is what NN shills wanted to happen

The two paragraphs you cited are literally the official statements of the ISPs, aka the anti-NN shills. See "In contrast, large broadband Internet access service providers assert."

>201.

That entire paragraph is literally "How dare we be required to improve our infrastructure in response to increased demand!" followed by "Each side receives something of value: we get your money, and you don't get throttled in breach of your contract with us!"

>This CLEARLY states that some services like video streaming need faster lanes and exclusive upgraded infrastructure, and that NN demad those differentiating costs to be eliminated, thus increasing costs of ALL services, not only video streaming, thus increasing costs overall, leading to higher prices.

Video packets are no different than any other packets. Do you think that there are two different pipes to your home for shower water and tap water? The only reason video streaming needs "faster lanes and exclusive upgraded infrastructure" is because of increased demand, not because of anything intrinsic to video protocols. Streaming basically hasn't changed in a decade; if anything it's become more efficient and faster with new formats.

>202

>As discussed, Internet traffic exchange agreements have historically been and will continue to be commercially negotiated.

<Those conflicts in costs between different trafic sources can no longer be settled and negociated freely, and thus are mediated case-by-case by the commission

No, it's saying that if Netflix believes it's being throttled, they can sue Verizon for breach of contract and it will be resolved by an FCC investigation rather than the courts, i.e. FCC will police the ISPs and enforce the regulations. The FCC would not be a party in contract negotiations between Verizon and Netflix when they're agreeing to the 10TB/s internet plan.

>Your online games, youtube and netflix will not get a boost in speed because of NN.

I agree about online games, because they require low latency and you won't necessarily be guaranteed that when you go through an ISP and the American Backbone, but that literally hasn't changed. Further, ISPs still throttle games with or without NN, e.g. League has been throttled since 2012 by TWC: https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-announces-lawsuit-against-spectrum-time-warner-cable-and-charter

Even so, Youtube and Netflix don't need low-ping networks, they need high bandwidth networks. If ISPs could provide fast enough internet connection that downloading a file is faster than playing it, there would be literally no issue with either of them. The reason ISPs aren't fast enough is because they're greedy kikes who don't want to pay the cost of upgrades without lining their pockets with shekels. If anyone is going to get fucked by NN, it's not YT or Netflix, but Twitch, because they rely both on low-lag constant livestreams, and a real-time chat system.

>You should be asking for less rules blocking new ISPs to be created

You can do that whether or not you ask for NN though. I don't believe that NN is the cure for our problems, but not having NN is objectively worse for the consumer and doesn't fix the problem with blocking new ISPs.

>>13886101

See that's what I'm saying, but in the article that guy says

>Second, regulation raises costs, which protects big companies from new companies entering the market, although as we have seen above

Unless he's talking about ISPs, which again are strangled out by local legislation and wouldn't be affected by FCC rulings for the most part when it comes to trying to get their foot in the door.

>>13885868

>1. Parallax switcheroo. They are not going to charge extra for your favorite sites; they are going to give “fast lanes” to those sites, but in doing so, they are going to leave every other site at the unaccelerated speed. You will get your Facebook, but you are going to find it harder to get to smaller sites. Monopolizing increases.

THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT NN PREVENTS COMPANIES FROM DOING HOLY SHIT

I'm not going to bother point-by-point responding to that whole thing, whoever wrote that is delusional.

>>13885995

That was years ago. Back in 2012 when this was happening, senior SEs made $140k; now they make nearly twice that because bidding wars are no longer being suppressed.

>>13884732

The consumer is fucked one way or the other. In one route the consumer is giving up the internet to government regulation, on the other hand regulated by private industry.

On one side, internet based megacorps can use up 20% of the known internet for their own use and pay no more than you or I. On the other hand, ISPs can overcharge even further for just decent internet.

This reality fucking blows. How can I join one where the people actively involved themselves with politics and industry?

>>13886145

>That was years ago

Why do you think they would stop just because of a single lawsuit? You are extremely trusting if you think they wouldn't just keep doing this behind the scenes. I personally know two people who work at Microsoft and Google, and while they each make six figures they aren't pulling the quarter-million-a-year that you're suggesting.

This also isn't the only way tech corps are keeping down wages. They all support immigrant worker programs like the H1B visa because they'd rather import cheap streeshitter labor than hire American.

Just realized the threads been bumplocked. I wonder i the cake eater is behind this.

>>13886232

He doesn't want to goy to know.

>>13886232

Probably because it's not video games.

>>13886214

>Why do you think they would stop just because of a single lawsuit? You are extremely trusting if you think they wouldn't just keep doing this behind the scenes.

I suppose you're right, but salaries have doubled, to the point where startup compensation just can't match it even with a billion-dollar unicorn buyout.

>I personally know two people who work at Microsoft and Google, and while they each make six figures they aren't pulling the quarter-million-a-year that you're suggesting.

I'm talking about total compensation, not just salary. Salary is about $160k according to Glassdoor: http://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Google-Senior-Software-Engineer-Salaries-E9079_D_KO7,31.htm

Also, how long have they worked there? Those SSE $250k payouts are generally only given to employees who have been there 5+ years. I really recommend you read that blogpost, Dan Luu has been around the block and he helped design Google's TPU, among other things: https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/

I apologize for saying you have no clue what you're talking about by the way. That was rude of me.

>This also isn't the only way tech corps are keeping down wages. They all support immigrant worker programs like the H1B visa because they'd rather import cheap streeshitter labor than hire American.

This is true, but I think that some things like code.org, coding bootcamps, and pushing for CS curriculum in high schools is far more harmful to artificially increasing supply of programmers than importing pajeets.

You probably know more about the internal situation more than I do, but what sort of work do pajeets do at Google/MS? Are they doing more grunt-work stuff like customer support and system monitoring, or is management trying to pass room-temp-IQ numbskulls as Just As Competent As Everyone Else And If You Disagree You're Racist?

>>13886353

Doesn't matter too much anyway, we're only 3 posts to bump limit.

>>13886101

>despite paying way more on average

Costs is the US are still lower than in third world countries.

soros ngo's are pushing for net neutrality hard, saying reversing this is raysist and shit. And, honestly, anything mudslime bongo pushed I dont trust.

>>13885760

>You should be asking for less rules blocking new ISPs to be created

FUCKING THIS

True competition is the true enemy of monopolies, otherwise the government can be bribed and companies can just make a trust and later lobby or bribed to add (((exceptions))).

>>13886559

Nothing is preventing the corps who own ISPs to also own their own internet based services. Without net neutrality regulation, nothing is then preventing these corps from throttling competition in those internet based services markets so the customers all flock to their fast service. The internet being regulated by governments makes sense if you're not an old cuck who doesn't care about the freedom to share information with other people. I like my Internet fast for anything I chose to do and not just for the things my ISP wants me to do.

>>13886510

>It still bogles my mind that people will trust bureaucrats to judje for anything entering their homes. You need more options in ISPs, not for the government to tell you how you can be serviced, because it will be fucked by lobbyists and corrupt politicians.

My stance on this is we need a buffer to stop ISPs from running wild, because once they start getting free reign it will do nothing but lower quality of life when it comes to using the internet, and they will STILL stall out anyone trying to enter the market keeping us trapped in the current situation but with them having even more power over the consumer.

The FCC is a necessary evil in our current situation, far from ideal but the best we have at the moment.

>>13886764

Yep. Beware of normalfagbook political discussion.

>>13886764

youre being memed right now. what makes you think theyre not playing for the same team?

>>13884981

Its just desinfo to get people to hate Trump, for the wrong reasonsif theres any big one, beyond touching the jew wall and having jewish grandsons

It smells bullshit, funny how Obongo starts this shit and leave a culprit to end it, while this shit is shilled with fear mongering and blame Trump making it even more suspicious, since there wasnt all this havok and rampant censorship when NN didnt exist

>>13887064

Come on, nigger.

If there's proof, leaked or documented, no need to stretch with bs.

>>13887482

how do you prove to a normalfag that theres a not so secret hand controlling this meaningless puppet show?

>>13885590

The 00's were the best era of the internet. No fagbook, no twitter, no Jewtube. Good riddance.

>>13887866

yes, i loved jacking off to tiny thumbnails because internet wouldn't load a screen sized picture in less than 15 minutes. i also loved when downloading a 3mb mp3 took 3 days and ended up having a virus embedded because anti-virus was non-existent

>>13888109

Hue, reminds me of back when using Limewire was a thing. Far from ideal that was.

>>13888109

wow you must have had shit internet

>itt fags fall for the (((NN))) meme

>>13887779

In most cases you dont, not without first watching them get embarrassed over and over. Even then many are so impervious to the truth that even after having been memed on 100 times over they will still call you the mad man.

>>13885113

South Korea has State sponsored Internet access that requires doxing/social security ID…

>>13885145

This