I think this gives a good idea of what U.S. citizens can expect if Net Neutrality is passed.

the sub 90s Metacritic score for New Vegas

the greatest tragedy of the last 20 years.

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on November 17, 2014, 08:30:30 PM

I think this gives a good idea of what U.S. citizens can expect if Net Neutrality is passed.

So you don't have apprehensions about opening the door for government regulation of the internet?

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on November 17, 2014, 08:45:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Commissar on November 17, 2014, 08:39:36 PM

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on November 17, 2014, 08:30:30 PM

I think this gives a good idea of what U.S. citizens can expect if Net Neutrality is passed.

So you don't have apprehensions about opening the door for government regulation of the internet?

Are you genuinely retarded? that isn't what net neutrality is.

Net neutrality means that shitty ISPs can't fuck you and netflix out the ass and force you to pay a premium for a decent connection to watch your movies, it also prevents faggots like comcast trying to artificially raise the prices on the internet, forcing you to pay more for a shitty connection.

in what fucking world is that a bad thing?

copypasta

Do NN advocates imagine they're supporting Netflix and Silicon Valley paying nothing for their traffic? I don't think so. Netflix are just using 'Net Neutrality' as a way of drumming up support for a subsidy. They know that most people already support Net Neutrality, so they blame their problems on Comcast citing it as a a NN violation. In reality they would just rather pay nothing for their traffic.

A lot of people say that the home-users ordered the traffic, so Netflix shouldn't have to pay. But so what? It has always been a two-sided market. Why mess with something that clearly is working well? If you put all the cost-burden on the home-user, the price of their connection will need to go up substantially to cover the infrastructure costs. This might be a wash for Netflix users, because Netflix could lower their subscription prices. So you pay less for Netflix, but more for your ISP. But it's a sucky deal for people who don't use Netflix. The way it works right now is more fair. You pay your ISP less, and Netflix a bit more. The bit more that you're paying Netflix goes towards paying for their bandwidth costs on their side of the network. Some of that money eventually goes to your ISP indirectly or directly through various contracts between companies on that side. That means Netflix's customers end up paying for the infrastructure that is needed to deliver the massive amount of Netflix traffic, and non Netflix customers don't pay as much. That's perfectly legitimate and another good example of the way the free market and price mechanism arranges things nicely when there is no central planning to get in the way.
Traditionally-defined NN remains still a theoretical problem only. The Comcast 'shakedown' of Netflix is not a real example. Demanding government regulation, and really expansive Title II reclassification no less, seems really foolhardy on the back of a theoretical problem. The only real examples are very few -- things like Comcast blocking BitTorrent very briefly. Would the market have handled that without it being against FCC rules? I think so, especially if the ISP market was more free to begin with. Customers don't want it.

TL;DR  Everyone supporting NN is a shill for Netflix and other companies that don't want to have to pay their bandwidth providers and ISPs more for using more bandwidth.  Seriously.  Do some research.

Quote from: Mega Sceptile on November 17, 2014, 09:00:41 PM

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on November 17, 2014, 08:45:27 PM

Quote from: Lord Commissar on November 17, 2014, 08:39:36 PM

Quote from: BrenMan 94 on November 17, 2014, 08:30:30 PM

I think this gives a good idea of what U.S. citizens can expect if Net Neutrality is passed.

So you don't have apprehensions about opening the door for government regulation of the internet?

Are you genuinely retarded? that isn't what net neutrality is.

Net neutrality means that shitty ISPs can't fuck you and netflix out the ass and force you to pay a premium for a decent connection to watch your movies, it also prevents faggots like comcast trying to artificially raise the prices on the internet, forcing you to pay more for a shitty connection.

in what fucking world is that a bad thing?

copypasta

Do NN advocates imagine they're supporting Netflix and Silicon Valley paying nothing for their traffic? I don't think so. Netflix are just using 'Net Neutrality' as a way of drumming up support for a subsidy. They know that most people already support Net Neutrality, so they blame their problems on Comcast citing it as a a NN violation. In reality they would just rather pay nothing for their traffic.

A lot of people say that the home-users ordered the traffic, so Netflix shouldn't have to pay. But so what? It has always been a two-sided market. Why mess with something that clearly is working well? If you put all the cost-burden on the home-user, the price of their connection will need to go up substantially to cover the infrastructure costs. This might be a wash for Netflix users, because Netflix could lower their subscription prices. So you pay less for Netflix, but more for your ISP. But it's a sucky deal for people who don't use Netflix. The way it works right now is more fair. You pay your ISP less, and Netflix a bit more. The bit more that you're paying Netflix goes towards paying for their bandwidth costs on their side of the network. Some of that money eventually goes to your ISP indirectly or directly through various contracts between companies on that side. That means Netflix's customers end up paying for the infrastructure that is needed to deliver the massive amount of Netflix traffic, and non Netflix customers don't pay as much. That's perfectly legitimate and another good example of the way the free market and price mechanism arranges things nicely when there is no central planning to get in the way.
Traditionally-defined NN remains still a theoretical problem only. The Comcast 'shakedown' of Netflix is not a real example. Demanding government regulation, and really expansive Title II reclassification no less, seems really foolhardy on the back of a theoretical problem. The only real examples are very few -- things like Comcast blocking BitTorrent very briefly. Would the market have handled that without it being against FCC rules? I think so, especially if the ISP market was more free to begin with. Customers don't want it.

TL;DR  Everyone supporting NN is a shill for Netflix and other companies that don't want to have to pay their bandwidth providers and ISPs more for using more bandwidth.  Seriously.  Do some research.

This argument is heavily predicated on the basis that the ISP market is extremely competitive, which it isn't. Lack of NN would entrench what little competition there is and ensure an oligopoly.

I HAVE done research, and the fact that you're trying to dismiss the biggest case for it proves you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Get educated you dumbass.

Thanks for the personal attacks.  Really helps get your point across.

As Network Utilization goes up then somebody has to pay the bill to expand the capabilities of the internet.  ISPs want companies like Neflix to pay for a lot of it. Netflix wants to have ISPs pay for most of it. Customers will need to pay for all of it one way or another. The best solution is to let these companies work it out for themselves.  Net Neutrality assumes a worst-case scenario for all of these exchanges.

>his teeth doe