Verizon to Everyone: CLENCH YOUR TEETH, WE'RE GOING IN DRY!!! (The Potential End of Net Neutrality) - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Banhfunbags;42210604]If this passes then I hope Google Fiber reaches me soon.[/QUOTE] Fuck it, I'm moving to KC then.

I hope Verizon goes bankrupt and everyone in the higher ups goes poor.

[QUOTE=DrDevil;42208953]Europe already threw net neutrality over board[/QUOTE] Not really. Customers have to be properly informed all all (if any) blocks and they can refuse to sign the contracts if they want. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Law_in_the_European_Union[/url] [quote]On 19 December 2009, the so-called Telecoms Package came into force and EU member states were required to implement the Directive by May 2011.[83] According to the European Commission the new transparency requirements in the Telecoms Package would mean that [b]"consumers will be informed—even before signing a contract—about the nature of the service to which they are subscribing, including traffic management techniques and their impact on service quality, as well as any other limitations (such as bandwidth caps or available connection speed)".[/b][83] Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 established the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office[84] Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications. BEREC's main purpose is to promote cooperation between national regulatory authorities so as to contribute to the development and better functioning of the internal market for electronic communications networks and services by ensuring a consistent application of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications.[85] [/quote][ Also Net neutrality is a thing in the Netherlands [quote]In June 2011, the majority of the Dutch lower house voted for new net neutrality laws which prohibits the blocking of Internet services, usage of deep packet inspection to track customer behaviour and otherwise filtering or manipulating network traffic.[87] The legislation applies to any telecommunications provider and was formally ratified by the Dutch senate on 8 May 2012.[88][89][/quote] [editline]16th September 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=darkrei9n;42208998]They could deny VPN traffic. They could setup the internet as a whitelist, where you can only go to approved sites.[/QUOTE] This will piss off their business customers A LOT.

Thank god I don't have Verizon. I have a sort of local ISP (Service Electric) and they are much better.

[QUOTE=TheCloak;42211458]Thank god I don't have Verizon. I have a sort of local ISP (Service Electric) and they are much better.[/QUOTE] Your data still goes through verizon's backbone. Expect MASSIVE speed drops if this gets passed.

[QUOTE=DrDevil;42208953]Europe already threw net neutrality over board[/QUOTE] What are you talking about, the EC [url=http://gigaom.com/2013/09/11/cheaper-roaming-and-net-neutrality-heres-what-the-new-eu-telecoms-law-would-achieve/]just last week[/url] proposed new net neutrality laws

good thing me and my parents switch to sprint instead of staying with verizon, may those expansive, overcharging, greedy fucks get's their ass bankrupted.

Those who support a totally free market fail to realize what lengths firms will go to in order to eliminate competition.

[QUOTE=Agoat;42209163]Couldn't you just switch ISPs? Like somebody else mentioned, a smaller one could pop up and everyone would switch to it. If this goes through I'll probably just go outside, though.[/QUOTE] Verizons the fastest and most stable you can find in America, at least where I'm at its the best some people have no choice. though of course this would fuck verizon up severely. I mean holy shit " if Verizon has its way, it and other providers like Comcast or AT&T could “play favorites,” by blocking or degrading services such as YouTube or Netflix to promote their own offerings or that of their partners." People are gonna be pissed I just read the word "Google fiber" in this thread. that sounds a billion times better.

[QUOTE=Banned?;42209236]This kinda shit makes me cry myself to sleep at night because it literally kills innovation, creation and communication.[/QUOTE] I just cry because I might not get hentai on the go

[QUOTE=Geiger;42208930]When will organizations realize that there's no way to do this covertly? If ISP's put these rules in place that just means smaller independent ISP's will get more customers.[/QUOTE] The problem is that there are no smaller, independent ISPs throughout huge regions of the countries. Where I live, there are two choices (and only two choices): AT&T and Charter Communications. Both are awful, and I'd switch to a third provider in a heartbeat if one were available, but...! C'est la vie.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;42214074]The problem is that there are no smaller, independent ISPs throughout huge regions of the countries. Where I live, there are two choices (and only two choices): AT&T and Charter Communications. Both are awful, and I'd switch to a third provider in a heartbeat if one were available, but...! C'est la vie.[/QUOTE] Local monopolies! Gotta love em! I can kinda understand why they exist, though.

[QUOTE=Agoat;42209163]Couldn't you just switch ISPs? Like somebody else mentioned, a smaller one could pop up and everyone would switch to it. If this goes through I'll probably just go outside, though.[/QUOTE] I can't. If I thought my current ISP was even capable of enforcing a sort of 'whitelist', I'd be worried, but these incompetent greedy idiots don't even know how to throttle properly. They're so bad that when Cox was over here, interested in buying them and making it theirs, they said nevermind, after inspecting saying it would cost Cox too much to basically repair/install new EVERYTHING because it's all in such shit shape The only ISP I have besides Mediacom is AT&T 6mbps DSL. Which I recently had to play games with since Mediacom is completely incapable of a consistent connection. It worked well until I got the first bill of over $300, but what really fucking pissed me off was they gave Geeksquad permission to take $20 every month on top of the bills, then refused to even acknowledge that they had anything to do with it, and Geeksquad said the same thing. After the second month, I told the bank to change my card number and give me a new card. A month later $20 again. It took the fraud department of the bank and the threat of legal action before AT&T cut the shit My ISP just instated a 250gb/month bandwidth limit, too. I can't download for more than 3 minutes without my internet shutting off and restarting thanks to their shitty throttling software as it is I hope Google takes over the world

I had Cox for quite a while during my time in Arizona. They had good customer support, which was absolutely shocking as somebody who's had to deal with the [B]UNSCRUPULOUS BASTARDS[/B] at Charter for his entire adult life, but they throttled the everliving shit out of me. I'd go down to dial-up speeds for days at a time.

[QUOTE=Kigen;42209305]ISPs need infrastructure in place. This is normally cables in the ground or wireless towers. These things are very expensive and often require a lot of permits from local authorities. So what you generally have is a monopoly on a certain kind of infrastructure in the area. For example, in my area I only have three choices for internet: AT&T (overpriced, heavy compression latent, poor customer support), Time Warner Cable aka Road Runner (overpriced, poor customer support [I seriously couldn't even get them to change my IP when I got attacked, they wanted to sell me their "static IP" plan" but I figured out that you basically get a static IP assigned to the mac address of the modem, so change modem equals new IP]), and Clear (I haven't experienced it myself but it is wireless internet). There has to be regulation on ISPs, heavy regulation. Most of your internet bill is pure profit for the ISPs. They're just milking it as long as they can.[/QUOTE] why do they claim to make a 90% profit on trafic then? they make like 10 billion a year from subscribers, yet they only spend around 150 million to maintain and upgrade infrastructure, theres a massive gap in spending there

[QUOTE=Sableye;42214878]why do they claim to make a 90% profit on trafic then? they make like 10 billion a year from subscribers, yet they only spend around 150 million to maintain and upgrade infrastructure, theres a massive gap in spending there[/QUOTE] Most of it probably goes to lining Swiss bank accounts that the CEOs most definitely don't have.

[QUOTE=Sableye;42214878]why do they claim to make a 90% profit on trafic then? they make like 10 billion a year from subscribers, yet they only spend around 150 million to maintain and upgrade infrastructure, theres a massive gap in spending there[/QUOTE] Other than Verizon's FiOS, most the of the infrastructure used for the internet has been in place for years. Example: AT&T U-Verse. [url]http://www.att.com/u-verse/explore/internet-landing.jsp[/url] They charge you at a minimum $41/mo for 3Mbps. They try and bill U-Verse as "fiber" but really its just fiber to the node. The node could be miles and miles from you while also servicing a ton of other people as well. So how do they get the internet to you from the node? The old copper lines that were put in the ground a very long time ago. They use heavy compression to get the data to travel over the lines. Which results in a high latency/ping for people using the service. How much does it cost AT&T to use the old copper lines? Practically nothing. The node costs way more obviously to install, but once done it serves a large amount of people and quickly is able to pay for itself. Another example: Cable providers (Time Warner, Comcast, etc). They use the coax cable that was put in the ground a long time ago for TV cable. At most what they have to upgrade is the boxes at the end of the coax cable to support the latest DOCSIS. Other than that they don't have much infrastructure cost. So for the most part your price per month is designed to match with AT&T. The key to know is that infrastructure is expensive to install. But generally not to maintain. And the customers in the area will only have one or very few choices. So the "competitors" like AT&T and Time Warner don't have a need to compete heavy with each other. They just do some light competition but otherwise they know they got guaranteed amount of customers in a given area. The internet is much like a utility such as electricity or water. You only got one or a few choices. And in fact I think the ISP business can learn much from the way electricity business go about selling their packages. Google Fiber is the only thing lately that is scaring the shit out of the old ISPs. And that's because it shows consumers that they have been overpaying. [url]https://fiber.google.com/about/[/url] 1024Mbps at $70/mo vs 3Mbps at $41. At those prices AT&T would likely charge in the neighborhood of $13,994.67/mo for 1024Mbps. Now which is the better deal?

If this somehow manages to pass I would think the FTC would eventually get involved. There's basically an open doorway for any ISP to become the fucking internet monopoly in their community.

We have an outdated unlimited plan from Verizon. Go [Redacted by Verizon]

[QUOTE=Miskav;42211778]Your data still goes through verizon's backbone. Expect MASSIVE speed drops if this gets passed.[/QUOTE] fuck christ

I feel so sorry for Americans when it comes to your internet. You guys get so royally fucked on price, bandwidth, speed and reliability and the companies doing the fucking are too big to be taken down.