/tg/Station 13

Bottom post of the previous page:

Woops there goes gravity

Remember when Barclay was a spider

What exactly is the change the net neutrality?

I'm hearing conflicting things that its either a complete abolishment of net neutrality (hello getting arse raped by ISPs' carving up the net in separate fast lane packages) or just rolling back NN to pre-Obongo by only getting rid of article 2 (which allows ISPs to charge companies the privilege of not getting their bandwidth throttled)

Pre obongo rolling. Obama's act only served to leave ISPs out of fines by the FTC by removing means in which their juden secret arts could be fined.

Just look at the extreme amount of lobbying ISPs lost by this going through. As an example, Tumblr, which is now owned by Verizon, was covertly hiding and making mass unfollows and unreblogs of anything related to the repeal.

You know they're up to no good because they're lobbying for it

Lobbying is like a universal way to show people that they have plans to fuck someone in the ass and want it pushed through quickly

"may's authority"

hahaahahahahahhahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahahahahahahahah

how much does she want to be the second Iron Lady

bitch doesn't even qualify for aluminium

fuckin' manganese-tier

Question time was good watching, i do love my weekly scheduled politician verbal battering on public television.

technically the net neutrality thing does not take effect yet because of everyone suing the shit out of it, including several states, including mississippi of all places

Malkevin wrote:What exactly is the change the net neutrality?

I'm hearing conflicting things that its either a complete abolishment of net neutrality (hello getting arse raped by ISPs' carving up the net in separate fast lane packages) or just rolling back NN to pre-Obongo by only getting rid of article 2 (which allows ISPs to charge companies the privilege of not getting their bandwidth throttled)

The changes do allow ISP's to discriminate against your traffic to particular websites, and to carve up the net into separate packages.

Im sorry but this post requires a premium shitposting package to view for a monthly charge of $30 dollars a month.

Outside of generic "I just want to watch funny cat videos in peace" sentiments, net neutrality or more of a abuse of net neutrality i also think is going to effectively send what parts of the 3rd world does have partial internet access into the dark ages & generally decrease global economic GDP growth (many people won't be able to afford to run internet & to also shop online when they are being milked) plus global literacy to simply remain connected to the rest of the world.

In such a case its a bunch of legislative work to actively write up laws to define a state recommended level of net neutrality under their own definitions and even so thats open to gross abuse (not that spying on all your citizens through the internet was enough) and general incompetence in not making loopholes for others to exploit. If schools & educational facilities are not subsidized by public spending then its leaving out a lot of vital resources

Most public & a few private workplaces also have internal internet systems called intranet (which varies widely), its going to be more of a pain in the ass to have protections on these, or charge additional costs which may be unsustainable and again damage small businesses & put dents into economies.

Also NN was put in place specifically due to them busting shit up for example throttling netflix back then.

So their husk's line about THE NET WAS FINE BEFORE is absolute horse shit they were the ones to ruin that state not regulations FNR.

The WEGULATION IS EXPENSIV line on this shit parroted by anyone dumb enough to not seethe at these customer betraying fucks is also against them net neutrality wasn't put into place for the fucking fun of it.

Incomptinence wrote:Also NN was put in place specifically due to them busting shit up for example throttling netflix back then.

So their husk's line about THE NET WAS FINE BEFORE is absolute horse shit they were the ones to ruin that state not regulations FNR.

The WEGULATION IS EXPENSIV line on this shit parroted by anyone dumb enough to not seethe at these customer betraying fucks is also against them net neutrality wasn't put into place for the fucking fun of it.

I still don't understand the issue, the fact that it wasn't regulated before doesn't mean that Netflix should be allowed to abuse the network for free. Companies like netflix, google, amazon and so on who freeload on the network is what is holding back investments in infrastructure in the first place. The issue is made even worse by those companies using it not just for profit, but for political propaganda as well. It's stupid to complain about ISPs throttling shit and demand better internet coverage at the same time. It's time people understand they can't have their cake and eat it too, ISPs aren't charities. And doosmday scenarios are still unlikely: you can keep shouting that internet is a basic necessity and a God-given human right, and while I may agree on that, Netflix sure isn't such a thing. Packages will allow more people to access all the internet they need for their daily life at a reduced price, precisely thanks to others paying more for "entertainment" packages.

I'm paying a premium for a certain speed of internet.

I should not be throttled depending on different websites I go to because I am paying to have that specific speed already.

lntigracy wrote:I'm paying a premium for a certain speed of internet.

I should not be throttled depending on different websites I go to because I am paying to have that specific speed already.

So you want even worse speed, coverage and infrastructure in the years to come? Because making you pay for premium speed is literally the least an ISP can do but it's a drop in the ocean of the investments needed to upgrade and maintain the network, and as the companies I mentioned keep choking it with larger and larger content, it will reach a critical point soon enough. So either way you're going to pay more for your internet plan in the future, but with packages at least you will have a choice and maybe it will be even cheaper if competition actually manages to arise.

Grazyn wrote: I still don't understand the issue, the fact that it wasn't regulated before doesn't mean that Netflix should be allowed to abuse the network for free. Companies like netflix, google, amazon and so on who freeload on the network is what is holding back investments in infrastructure in the first place. The issue is made even worse by those companies using it not just for profit, but for political propaganda as well. It's stupid to complain about ISPs throttling shit and demand better internet coverage at the same time. It's time people understand they can't have their cake and eat it too, ISPs aren't charities. And doosmday scenarios are still unlikely: you can keep shouting that internet is a basic necessity and a God-given human right, and while I may agree on that, Netflix sure isn't such a thing. Packages will allow more people to access all the internet they need for their daily life at a reduced price, precisely thanks to others paying more for "entertainment" packages.

The problem here is that internet is more like roads and phone lines than like a luxury service where they can reasonably tell people to not use it. Nationalize it like normal infastructure and tax the users(Websites with economic activity, ISPs selling access, etc) to pay for, expand, and maintain this infastructure at reasonable levels

In before ancap MUH ROADS memes, this stuff needs to be maintained and accessible. And the ISPs in the US sure as fuck aren't going to do it

Edit: You are assuming basic packages for daily life will be at a reduced price. I like how optimistic you are but looking at history and the company track records it is also exceedingly unlikely that this is the case. More likely, the 'basic' package will be the current price of 'everything included', and then extra packages will come at a premium

You pay for what you can get in Aus adsl plans are comparably priced to much faster connection types.

You can still diversify price based on data caps (which they make anaemic for older infrastructure) peak time bandwidth etc.

Only in areas with superior infrastructure available do they need to drop the price for outdated tech.

Also with the case before NN the companies like netflix were not fucking freeloading in any case. You pay for bandwidth when hosting shit LIKE WE CROWD FUND FOR ON THIS VERY SERVER and the CUSTOMERS of the ISPs PAID for their internet service that accessed these websites to go at the fucking speed advertised by the ISP.
If you had proper consumer protection bodies false advertising would be the tip of the iceberg.

Glad the ACCC is taking ISPs to court over them pulling all sorts of dodgy shit with the NBN switch in AUS misleading people on cut off dates lying about speeds.
Proof perfect when these fucking parasites get the shitty neutered network and copper buy off they want they will always find a way to screw us over.
You just keep believing letting them get away with lying to you will get you better service Grazyn.

"OY VEY DOSE DIRTY STREAMING SERVICES IS STEALING ALL OUR BANDWITH AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF US POOR INTERNET SOIVICE PROVIDERS CUZ OF DOSE RATS IN WASHINGTON"

>implying id forget that the ISPs around here are also the damn cable companies
>implying I dont see that they're just trying to snipe streaming services because they can't shekelize them with advertisements

NICE TRY SCHLOMO

Screemonster wrote:"may's authority"

hahaahahahahahhahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahahahahahahahah

how much does she want to be the second Iron Lady

bitch doesn't even qualify for aluminium

fuckin' manganese-tier

More like the Mercury Lady.

Poisonous and completely amorphous.

Nah mercury doesn't suit, mercury poisoning touches hearts and minds.

I place her all the way out of metals and pure elements to nitrous oxide for her ability to make you laugh or put you to sleep.

Grazyn I don't understand how you can feel that way when these companies have already taken money from the government to build up infrastructure for the internet and they pocketed it while doing nothing. That is a thing that happened, it's real. Why do you think companies will start doing the right thing now?

Yeah, my ISP is also my cable provider and also my home phone line provider(If we still used home phones)

TWC/Spectrum is literally the only option I have and NN being repealed is going to let them crank prices like they do on their fucking cable

I already overpay for the speed I get so it's only going to get worse if the FTC comes out on top of all the shit being rounded up to throw at them

Wyzack wrote:Grazyn I don't understand how you can feel that way when these companies have already taken money from the government to build up infrastructure for the internet and they pocketed it while doing nothing. That is a thing that happened, it's real. Why do you think companies will start doing the right thing now?

As I said before, I'm not American. I just read the reports and base my opinion on those. This one especially is a gold mine of information

http://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-con ... behind.pdf

The U.S. broadband industry has invested $1.2 trillion in wireline, wireless, and cable since the Telecommunications Act was passed in 1996. Expenditures have averaged $66 billion annually in the first four years for which we have data since the 2008 economic downturn (2008-2011). A recent White House report on the state of American broadband reported that just two U.S. telecommunications companies account for more investment than the top five oil and gas companies combined and four times the investment of the Big Three auto manufacturers; five of the 20 U.S. investment leaders in 2011 were broadband providers—Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Sprint, and Time Warner Cable.

In 2010, the United States invested a slightly smaller share of GDP in telecommunications networks than Korea or the United Kingdom, but a sizably larger share than Japan, Canada and the other European G-7 nations. In fact, since 1996 the United States has regularly invested more than Europe. Copenhagen Economics, a European consulting firm, notes that per capita investment in telecommunications networks is more than 50 percent higher in the United States than the European Union, although part of this differential may be explained by the much lower population density of the United States, which makes building new infrastructure here more expensive (as it is in Canada and Australia). The Copenhagen Economics report notes that “had the U.S. followed the E.U.’s slower pace in ICT investments since the late 1990s, U.S. labor productivity would have been 25-30 percent lower than it is today.”

Next question obviously is, did those investments bear fruit? The report answers that as well: the US is ranked 10 for average connection speed but "three of the first four places are held by highly urbanized, Asian economies in which the cost of building infrastructure is dramatically lower than in a highly suburbanized society such as the United States. " and "The other nations high on the list—Switzerland, Latvia, the Czech Republic and the like—are small economies with dominant urban centers."

The true result of those investments is seen in coverage:

As to higher speeds, almost 97 percent of the population has access to speeds equal to or greater than 10 megabits. Through the widespread introduction of “fourth generation” LTE technology, wireless alone now reaches about 97 percent of U.S. households at that speed. 85 percent can access cable networks with speeds capable of 100 Mbps.

[...]

As seen here, the availability of connections greater than 25 Mbps and greater than 50 Mbps grew from less than one half of the population in 2010 to over three-quarters in mid-2012, and at an 11 percent annual rate in the six months following. The share of the population with access to a 100 Mbps connection rose from just over 10 percent in 2010 to over half by the end of 2012. More Americans have access to a 100 megabit connection today than had access to a 25 megabit connection two-and-a-half years ago.

My thoughts are perfectly summarized by this phrase:

Piling new regulations that restrict a producer’s freedom will, in turn, restrict the return she or he can make from their investments, which means less infrastructure and innovation down the line.

But it worries me that you need a European to tell you this, while such a thing should be the cornerstone of the United States of America, the one thing that makes it rise above all other countries, that makes it build great, big things and reach for the stars. The one thing that truly makes America the greatest country in the world.

Yep, we're going to go back to not having an Internet. Like we did before 2014.

We're not going to no-internet

We're going to TV levels of internet which means package-bullshit and fucking priority lanes

TV levels of internet without competition, I might add

Most of the US is served by 2 ISPs per area, sometimes 3 if you're lucky
But even that changes nothing since they're in partnerships with each other anyway so they don't compete too hard

I already pay more than I should for the speeds I get compared to places with any meaningful competition, and I'm likely to get even more fees thrown in my face because the protections are gone

Takeguru wrote:We're not going to no-internet

We're going to TV levels of internet which means package-bullshit and fucking priority lanes

TV levels of internet without competition, I might add

Most of the US is served by 2 ISPs per area, sometimes 3 if you're lucky
But even that changes nothing since they're in partnerships with each other anyway so they don't compete too hard

I already pay more than I should for the speeds I get compared to places with any meaningful competition, and I'm likely to get even more fees thrown in my face because the protections are gone

Which is totally different from the levels of competition we had in 2014 because

except in 2014 and before ISPs were constantly pulling bullshit like "lol I'm gonna charge this 100mb more than this other 100mb because of reasons" and when the FCC told them to cut their shit the ISPs sued the FCC and the basis of their case was "you can't tell us to stop unless you declare us title II"

so they got declared title II

Here's a really wacky idea. Instead of creating ad hoc FFC regulations, what if we passed actual legislation for once?

cedarbridge wrote:Here's a really wacky idea. Instead of creating ad hoc FFC regulations, what if we passed actual legislation for once?

Shocking revelation!

I mean. If we did that and congress just passed a bill that set proper regulations ground rules for this sort of shit then we wouldn't have to deal with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U ... uncil,_Inc.

You should read the report, it is a good read and contains all the numbers you need. There are more things that could be said about it, but take-home message is: America is big, it's tough to cable up, but nonetheless they managed to do it and guarantee basic internet with western standards to most citizens. That's a huge accomplishment and I don't think it's fair to paint ISPs as evil and selfish all this considered.

I understand your analogy but let's keep it real, on the other hand we have Google, Netflix, Facebook and other corporations with an obvious political agenda who are basically shouting "ISPs are evil, we want to own the internet". I trust a corporation that only wants to make money much more than one that wants to do politics.

I just want to address this

>potential connection speed is the metric for investment! Totally not returns on money I swear!

the argument was "ISPs don't invest in infrastructure and that's why we have shitty speed and coverage", thus the quote

They barely do any maintenance they are slovenly wastes of space and anywhere with initial infrastructure is in the extraction phase priced like it's on top of the line fibre service.

Cabl;e and internet companies are one step away from highwaymen

>https://hackernoon.com/more-than-a-mill ... f0e3ed36a6

hmm

Good post craglad. Ya did it.

his was the best post in this thread thus far

The Virginia delegate lost reelection by one vote.

Just goes to show you, votes always matter.

Google tried to be our hero. Google wanted to install fiber to our cities. It was legally middle-fingered by the existing ISPs (and some utility companies). One Touch Make Ready is the law that Google could have used to install fiber on poles without having to wait months for other companies to move their stuff to make room.

Google tried to free us all with glorious 1 Gigabit fiber at a super low price. Imagine having that speed and that price in all big-ish cities.

Google, being an ad company, would probably sell your traffic metadata along with what it already collects, but Google simply existing in your city would mean the other big boys would have to sell you internet at similar speeds and prices. Cox/Spectrum/AT&T/Comcast all have the ability to compete at those levels - there is just no motivation.

So apparently 4chan shat itself

Some kinda malicious ad-script that might be:
1. Potentially ransomware
2. Buttcoin mining
3. Pajeet fucking up javascript so badly that it hurts your CPU as much as a crypto miner

Gun Hog wrote:Google tried to be our hero. Google wanted to install fiber to our cities. It was legally middle-fingered by the existing ISPs (and some utility companies). One Touch Make Ready is the law that Google could have used to install fiber on poles without having to wait months for other companies to move their stuff to make room.

Google tried to free us all with glorious 1 Gigabit fiber at a super low price. Imagine having that speed and that price in all big-ish cities.

Google, being an ad company, would probably sell your traffic metadata along with what it already collects, but Google simply existing in your city would mean the other big boys would have to sell you internet at similar speeds and prices. Cox/Spectrum/AT&T/Comcast all have the ability to compete at those levels - there is just no motivation.

Google's TOS on the fiber connection is actually pretty draconian.

I will invest early into nuyen so that I may buy my synaptic boosters early and get an advantage in my IP after char gen early on.

Dark blue passports?

Two thousand adults of non-specified age ranges but inevitably this data will probably be misinterpreted to sleight the leave side as being older & therefore right wing.

Saying that we (or more appropriately, the people of Britian) live inside a left-wing humane society is a fallacy by the government to foster one out of by grooming and associating the values with the young millenial generation over the past 15 years, but the very newest generation having come to the opposite end of the spectrum and are projected to embrace right wing values because the government initative has been a catastrophic failure socially especially after the economic collapse of 2008 hitting everyone hard too besides from brexit.

If you cast your eyes to places like Sweden where there's already a hardline approach to right wing groups like what is basically described as nordic neo-nazi's ironically recently hitting the headlines was a report that the influx of middle eastern migrants holding also extreme views has also escalated. In the UK because of our relationship with the EU its not quite directed but still present for much of the same reasons i feel, and that it will escalate as soon as we leave the EU and promptly the flow of immigration stops, and then all the super-conservative fundalmentalist nutters will start to come out of the woodwork when they suddenly can't float over their families to live in their slumlord apartment they are sharing with 10 other people putting us in a better position to deal with it.

FantasticFwoosh wrote:inevitably this data will probably be misinterpreted

That's a new one.

Fbi arrests a guy planning a terror attack in san fran

He a muslim member of the Berkeley antifa

Hm

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Fbi arrests a guy planning a terror attack in san fran

He a muslim member of the Berkeley antifa

Hm

I have found no reliable source that he was associated with Berkeley Antifa, and have searched thoroughly. Please provide one if you have it, but that claim smells like bullshit to me.

Additionally, the guy in question (Everitt Jameson) is a former Marine, however, which makes me think it is unlikely he was involved in Antifa. Antifa does not, as a rule, care for the U.S military.

Furthermore, of note is that he was American-born and converted to Islam after a dishonorable discharge from the military.

They have always been American-born. I think you have to go back to 9/11 to find a terrorist attack in the US carried out by a non American-born Muslim.

Drynwyn wrote:

Super Aggro Crag wrote:Fbi arrests a guy planning a terror attack in san fran

He a muslim member of the Berkeley antifa

Hm

I have found no reliable source that he was associated with Berkeley Antifa, and have searched thoroughly. Please provide one if you have it, but that claim smells like bullshit to me.

Additionally, the guy in question (Everitt Jameson) is a former Marine, however, which makes me think it is unlikely he was involved in Antifa. Antifa does not, as a rule, care for the U.S military.

Furthermore, of note is that he was American-born and converted to Islam after a dishonorable discharge from the military.

http://www.independentsentinel.com/comm ... -islamist/


Why spout bull shit little pinko?
We know your type readily infiltrate the armed forces to destroy from within

well if I was crass and narcissistic and also president I'd replace the traditional latin motto on the presidential coin with my personal campaign slogan

edit: and also put my name on it

Marrying yourself?
That sounds absolutely pathetic

I mean, if you already have regular sex with yourself, you are fine living together with yourself, you trust yourself, you get along with yourself... may as well marry, no?