gizmodo.com
This guy in one breath says that we need to get rid of Net Neutrality because it’ll stifle competition and screw consumers over, and then in another statement says it’s okay to have less competition by letting two mega-corporations merge into an even fatter company, therefore potentially screwing consumers over?
Other urls found in this thread:
aclu.org
archive.is
twitter.com
tell us your incorrect understanding of nn… you do realize google facebook amazon etc are pro-nn? do you even understand why?
Look at all that smug without even a hint of point.
How is giving private corporations even more control over what people have access to a good thing?
My point is that you are a tech illiterate redditor that doesn't understand anything about NN and I am asking you to reflect on the fact that Gizmodo, a subsidiary of Univision Communications Inc is shilling for it alongside the rest of internet titans.
Quite the opposite, today you are CURRENTLY subsidizing Google Netflix Amazon Facebook bandwidth without actually using it. In developing countries, ISPs are able to provide internet services to the poor for low bandwidth sites (messaging boards, forums, news sites, Wikipedia) while blocking bandwidth-intensive sites like Netflix and YouTube. Because of NN, all ISPs in these developing countries would require throughput to deliver ultra-intensive 1080p content to all users, which their infrastructures cannot support. Who can support this level of throughput? Established internet giants. You don't know what you're talking about and it's plainly obvious. The reason why a group of determined communists cannot start a spy-free and fair ISP organization to provide people access to low-bandwidth web resources is because NN requires them to also support sites like Netflix, which increases the startup requirements by 2 orders of magnitude.
No, I don't know much about how ISP works either legally or practically. Please expand on this.
I know that isps are there to direct traffic from point to point through servers but I don't understand how this works or how capitalism controls it. What is the best way to resist capitalism in this important area?
Fuck off, /liberty/, and take your petit-bourgeois-worshiping horseshit with you.
Other guy is a retard or a glow in the dark. Net Neutrality means ISP's can't discriminate what content they provide, it doesn't force them to build infrastructure. Without NN, they can both force customers to pay them for access and force content makers to pay them for what that access is. The reason content makers like Google and Amazon support NN is obvious, as are the attempts by ISPs to abolish it. It's a porky dispute over profits, but boy will it be easier to fuck over the people without NN.
Reminder that breaking up monopolies is a petty bourgeois "progressive" demand. The proletarian demand is to bring the monopolies under state control with worker management.
BOY I SURE DO LOVE LACK OF PROPER NET NEUTRALITY PROTECTIONS
What point, another psychopath hired to screw everyone over.
this ain't it chief
that already happens with mobile data packages though
Yeah but you pathetic fucks will do fuck all about it as usual.
Haven't you got some milkshakes to throw at Stephen Molyneux or some shit
I'm not shilling against NN, I just understand how it impacts ISPs and users as a whole. You on the other hand aren't even trying to reply to what I am saying and are just resorting to name calling.
Oh this is ridiculous. These statements are mutually exclusive. If you or I try to build an ISP that connects proles in the 3rd world with low-bandwidth content such as messageboards or Wikipedia, then of course we would need to discriminate against those on the network that stream Netflix, otherwise our network would be unusable without massive investment in infrastructure- which would of course require massive fees.
Again, you CURRENTLY are paying for this infrastructure TODAY. Because ISPs are not allowed to discriminate against giant high bandwidth sites like Amazon, FB, and even worse Netflix and Google, the infrastructure required to support this bandwidth is offloaded to those that do not even use it.
What does this mean? Facebook and Google can stuff their sites with a metric fuckton of advertisements and asynchronous JavaScripts to track you with no consideration for bandwidth. Microsoft's Windows telemetry system can constantly send back information to their servers about your activity without caring about network impact. Amazon's website will ping their servers every single time you scroll, move your mouse, type and erase and so forth without consideration of network impact. This results in MASSIVE network traffic that an ISP must meet. How does the ISP then meet this? By raising the prices on you- the consumer. I am sure there are whitepapers out there, but the BS that these companies are up to far exceeds what you, the user, actually uses in bandwidth. Google Amazon and others don't care for optimization of their platforms or their impact on the network because NN guarantees that YOU will pay for it.
When Netflix starts to release 4k videos, your internet bill will skyrocket.
Dumbfuck, it's not about my ma and pa ISPs, it's about internet giants like Google not having to take responsibility for the massive amount of bandwidth they require.
You are the worshipper of Amazon and Google. Enough said. This bill is shit and Ajit is shit, that doesn't change the fact that you are totally ignorant of what you are talking about.
the cost of the* infrastructure required to support this bandwidth is offloaded
What the fuck are you even talking about?
The absolute useless of the modern Left, as usual, what else?
Retard Alert
Retard Alert
Legally, an ISP cannot deny you access to high-bandwidth services or demand you pay extra for them. Practically, this means the ISP must invest in additional infrastructure to meet the bandwidth demands of these services, and offload costs to us.
Example:
Your Google.com search may take up 1mb of bandwidth, but Google's fingerprinting, advertisements, and background tracking may take up 2mb depending on how long you are on the page. The ISP must provide 3mb of bandwidth. Oh, my ISP is not allowed to discriminate against Google, therefore your internet bill remains high or even gets higher despite new advances in hardware and network infrastructure.
I'll be damned if this poster isn't from /liberty/. However I don't know anything about the issue so I can't comment.
Consider a society where everyone is paid 1 labor voucher per labor hour. Now consider a bread-line that everyone visits at the end of the day to exchange 1 voucher for 1 piece of bread. A number of workers in this bread-line require 3 times the amount of bread because they perform back-breaking intensive labor for a capitalist conglomerate. What I am saying is that the capitalist conglomerate that demands the additional labor should make up the difference, rather than the bread-line offsetting this cost to everyone by upping the voucher-to-bread ratio to 1.1.
The laborers are us. The bread-line is the ISP. The conglomerate is Google, in case this wasn't clear.
I am not sure if I believe this given that I do not think that it is actually what net neutrality is. What I understood of NN was that the ISP was not allowed to charge differently or apply different data rates based on what site you were accessing. Whether the site required higher or lower amounts of data was irrelevant. It also doesn't seem to fit with how bandwidth works, a site accessed at 3mb/s will just load faster than one that is accessed at 1mb/s, but provided that it doesn't time out, it'll still load. And even while NN was enforced, you could buy differing grades of bandwidth, just that it would have to apply to every site equally.
Also, it seems to me that tech megacorps would primarily be interested in maintaining NN so that their massive ad network across millions of sites retains its value. With NN gone, many many smaller sites are at risk of having their bandwidth throttled down, which greatly reduces their advertising space value for the content makers, costing them their investments for no gain.
Correct. Follow through. An ISP is responsible for processing and delivering data, the amount of data transferred (throughput) is their singular concern.
Latency is a legacy issue that has largely been solved with innovation in fiber optics and now shortly with 5g, it is not relevant to an ISP.
Consumer plans do not cap bandwidth.
Smaller sites consume less bandwidth.
I hope to see the online advertising industry (Google) destroyed.
he is just a scapegoat and a constructed hate figure
go back to reddit with this individualising shit
So then how is removing NN a good thing? It doesn't force every ISP to be able to load every site, it forces them to provide each site with even access to be able to be loaded. At no point up till now have I seen anything mentioning the claim that they all have to be able to deliver as much data as a site puts through them, only that they can't discriminate. If a particular site is too bloated for an ISP that doesn't seem to be a NN issue.
Also the point of this is that without NN ISP's are allowed to alter the data they're carrying, meaning that they're allowed to censor or block content that they don't like. How is that a positive thing?
I don't know what's more pathetic, the prospect that a communist is arguing passionately for one set of porky interests over another, or the prospect that paid shills are now learning communist terminology on behalf of their multi billion dollar bosses.
IIRC previous legal precedent means if they do this they will be sued.
They were doing this already.
aclu.org
>Telus' blocking of striking workers' web site.
Elaborate on this pls. Wouldn't it 'soft cap' the bandwidth by restricting access for a larger amount of consumers and therefore reducing the average rate of consumption of bandwidth and total amount of bandwidth that can be consumed?
Destroying the online ad industry doesn't follow from removing NN (and i don't mean just directly), in fact it's very unlikely that whatever small ISP co-op will be able to throttle ads and telemetry without getting fucked in the ass. Unironically if you want to fight the ad industry in the here and now memeing people into fucking with their hosts file to block ads and others on a OS level is a better idea, even though it wouldn't work either.
This makes no sense. Why can't they just throttle bandwidth regardless of what it's used for? When I'm torrenting something my download speed doesn't go off into infinity. It caps off at a couple gigs per second. When you've got underdeveloped infrastructure you cap it off at a couple of megabytes. Watching YouTube becomes impossible but you'll still be able to check Wikipedia. You don't need to "block bandwidth intensive sites."
You sound utterly computer illiterate. Where did you learn this bullshit?
That was before the invention of the iPhone and the masses flooding the internet.
This is why Social Democracy doesn't work.
No they don't. An internet user connecting to a smaller video server will take just as much bandwidth as them connecting to YouTube.
Australia has literally never had net neutrality and we're doing fine. Calm down you speds.
Remember back when people used to make fun of Australian internet speeds? Remember how they'd mock us, humiliate us, kick us out of their online games if we tried to join, imitate dial-up sounds over voice chat with us, make jokes about our servers being powered by wombats on treadmills? It's because Australian broadband infrastructure developed slowly. The telcoms were reluctant to spend the expenses expanding infrastructure into less populated regions that weren't going to immediately support them, because no matter where they'll build they'll only be able to charge fair market value for use of that infrastructure. America, on the other hand, didn't give a fuck. They didn't think of their futures, all they thought about was how they wanted their high-speed wireless right now now now now. In America, it was absolutely a winning proposition to build high-speed internet in a backwoods Kentucky trailer park, because you then get to monopolise that high-speed internet forever and charge whatever the fuck you want for it, because you're the only player in town. America quite literally gave a pack of thieving opportunistic modern-day Railroad Barons absolute power over access to the internet, because the fat, mindless, constantly-screeching-for-instant-gratification American populace simply couldn't wait that few extra years for the free market to take it's course and expand their infrastructure naturally.
And as it happened, as the conniving shylocks slowly tightened their greasy, money-grubbing fists around the throat of the American people, they laughed. They chortled and they clapped and they stuffed hamburgers into their fat stupid ugly faces and they laughed at us. They laughed at us poor dumb Australians with our dial-up speeds and our modem noises. They chanted "America #1" and they uploaded files without compressing them and they streamed all their movies and they laughed. They laughed at Australia. They laughed right in our faces and they thought the laughter would never end.
Who's laughing now, you cunts?
They connect to the site as fast as the web server and their internet connection allows. Youtube will take more bandwidth because it's video streaming. I almost never see my connection go as fast as it can on downloads.
This.
Communist nations don't need to obey the whims of Multinational corporations because they already nationalize their lines.
the simple way to understand the people Trump has appointed is to know that they will always do the most nakedly evil thing possible. if there ever was a moustache twirling villain, the way Stalin and Mao are portrayed in anticommunist propaganda, it is the current ruling class of America.
You guys still get kicked out of servers
Welcome to 8ch OP. Never browse clickbait unprotected:
archive.is