arisuchan    [ tech / cult / art ]   [ λ / Δ ]   [ psy ]   [ ru ]   [ random ]   [ meta ]   [ all ]    info / stickers     temporarily disabledtemporarily disabled

/cyb/ - cyberpunk and cybersecurity

low life. high tech. anonymity. privacy. security.

formatting options

Password (For file deletion.)

Help me fix this shit.

Kalyx ######

File: 1511556786402.jpg (31.26 KB, 652x437, hacktivism-anarchism[1].jpg)


What does Alice think about the underground group trying to set up Guerrilla ISP's

The general arguement is that net neutrality is more of a patch to a problem, rather than the solution. The real solution is creating a underground ISP similar to /g/'s internet and what they have in Cuba


Net Neutrality should be scrapped and I'm glad the FCC is doing what they're doing. Once the information is widely available consumers will have the option if staying with the big companies because they like the cheaper service or move on to a smaller provider that doesn't make that extra money by not prioritizing anything. The companies should be able to do that if they want, and the consumer can weigh the pros and cons of each service for themselves. That's the way it should be.


It's not the way it is, in many places there's only one provider because building the infrastructure is so expensive.


File: 1511583042945.jpg (66.11 KB, 640x455, net-neutrality-comic[1].jpg)

You have no idea how it works maybe read about the topic before flat lying.

net neutrality is saying megacorps and ISP's cannot slowdown traffic for smaller sites or charge extra fee's to view content (like cable packages).


In many places there are only one, or two providers because of legislation that keeps competitors from starting their own ISP's.

The gov does not want multiple ISPS because that can make prism like surveillance difficult, the more centralized the internet is the easy it is to monitor activity. This is also why governments favor the big tech monopolies such as google and Microsoft, these monopolies centralize services and funnels the majority of the population into a small number of websites, allowing them to collect the most datapoints with the most efficiency.



I should also say that getting rid of net neutrality will not be a problem if the following criteria is met.

1. Red tape that prevents new ISP's from starting up is removed

2. The big ISP's are busted up under anti-monopoly laws into smaller firms

3. Governments stop any subsidies currently going to ISP's


The "red tape that prevents new ISP's from starting up" is the cost of laying down the wires.


We definitely need a meshnet. People don't need governments nor corporations to scale the internet infastructure anymore when commodity wireless routers can chain together and route packets. Net neutrality is definitely a patch when we as citizens can aviod the problem entirely.

The only thing that I cannot see being possible is people taking up arms to actually build their own stuff. There aren't too many non-techy people that know (or care) what net-neutrality is. Fewer would care about the alternatives. Even people who grok computers would be divided over opting for a free but slow internet.



States and the government has made tons of laws to prevent people from laying wires in the first place keeping the top three companies stay in power.


Unfortunately, the barriers to entry even if the legal red tape is removed are still too high.

The cost of laying fiber in the ground is frankly too damn high for a small startup ISP to cover alone. Government subsidies should be going towards those costs, versus the situation currently.


>red tape is the cost of laying wires.
No. It's just a part of the story. In many modern (U.S.) cities, there are many "dark fibers" laid underground during infrastructure construction projects, intended for for-profit and non-profit ISP startups to provide Internet access, but because of the political and legal barriers, only a small portion of these fibers are being used. For example, many cities have non-compete contracts with Comcast, and in some states, community-based broadband service is illegal (because it's communism?). If these fibers can be lighted, better Internet access will be availble, competition will increase. We already have several successful experiments, what we got was some fastest broadbands in the U.S.

Read more:


The reason its expensive to lay fiber now is because there is relatively little demand for contractors who can lay fiber, if there was more demand, there would be more contractors to meet demand and the price of laying new fiber would fall. It all about economies of scale.

If we got rid of the red tape and made it easier for new ISP's to start up it is certain that the price of laying fiber would fall, not only that but some ISP's would start investing in making wireless ISP technology more efficient and cheaper so you'd have an abundance of ISP's to choose from who are all competing to bring you the best efficiency for price through many different methods.

Subsidizing ISPS is what got us into the situation we are in today in the first place, government favoritism is what created the ISP oligopoly. Plus subsidizing the tech won't make it cheaper, it will only encourage companies to price gouge because they know the government has to pay for it.

We should just tear down the red tape, cut subsidies, bust up the companies and created a more positive and free economic situation that will allow the internet to flourish.


>want to stream video
>can't because the cable company wants you to buy cable
>want to go the 4chan
>can't its been "deplatformed for hate speech"
>so have most other chans.
>want to torrent
>want use the site of a competitor to one of the companies own by the isp


Pretty much this in a nutshell


So people would leave that ISP for another one who does offer the services they want. Or even move to use mobile internet. You're describing a possible, yet theoretical situation. This situation could have existed before net neutrality but it didn't, it did to a much smaller degree. Worst case was Netflix getting bamboozled. I like my net neutrality but I'd rather pay extra to an ISP to guarantee me net neutrality than have to government force it on every ISP, maybe next they'd force a steady price across all ISPs, and then just own the whole thing and stick the price in your taxes, hey we're the government we're only looking out for you Present Day, Present Time! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!.

Net neutrality is a temporary fix, deal with it. Maybe a good rustling will create an actual solution.


>You're describing a possible, yet theoretical situation.
Except it isn't, people in the US don't have options they have one option, two options at best. ISP's work together behind close doors to agree on high prices together. What your saying 'could' work if there was competition, but there isn't.

They, the ISP's carve up the US like drug cartels.

Comcast is the most hated country in the US, why do you want them to have even more power over all the information in the US?!?


>Except it isn't
Except it literally is, as of right now, and as of the last moments before net neutrality, it's a fictitious extreme.

>No competition

Yeah well that's the problem that should be addressed instead of forcing net neutrality. As I said, temporary fix.

This person got some resources

>Comcast bad

And government good right? Difference is, one wants money, the other wants total control.


But the government funding universal internet access with taxes is not a fictitious extreme? Come on, don't be so dishonest.


Oh we're going to play like that? You're going to ignore my points but latch on to one and call me dishonest, classy.

>two options at best.
Wrong. You're backed by emotions, not facts.

>ISP's work together behind close doors to agree on high prices together

Net neutrality or lack thereof have no affect on this. If anything opening more revenue streams for the ISPs will get them to step on each others toes, to the benefit of the consumer.

>competition, but there isn't

There literally is, although it could be a lot better.

>all the information in the US

Since when is 37% == 100% ?

We both can nitpick.


Either side of net neutrality does not solve the actual issue which is ISP monopolies. Net neutrality would not be needed if there were more ISPs competing in the market because the ones who did shady things would not get business. Those in favor of keeping net neutrality seem to be ignorant of the real issue. The whole reason you are all concerned about what a central authority has to say about the internet is because the internet is centralized. Whether we keep or get rid of net neutrality the censorship button is still there and that is what needs to change not just some law telling corporations to be good.


>Wrong. You're backed by emotions, not facts.
most people have 0 to 1 providers that can provide 10mbps

>Net neutrality or lack thereof have no affect on this. If anything opening more revenue streams for the ISPs will get them to step on each others toes, to the benefit of the consumer.

Net neutrality forces them to not play favorites. giving them more revenue streams will not make them "step on each others toes" it gives them more reason to limit and charge more money like a cable package.

>There literally is, although it could be a lot better.

refer to the link, in the US internet speeds and access is the worst in the first world countries.


Preach it

Thread related, these are all really fascinating


>most people have 0 to 1 providers that can provide 10mbps
Did you look at the charts? It seems to suggest the opposite.

>giving them more revenue streams will not make them "step on each others toes" it gives them more reason to limit and charge more money like a cable package.

Yes, and what they'll be limiting is competitors, media providing platforms. 10mbps is enough to consume most media, and as the link you posted states, most people can just move to another ISP.

>refer to the link, in the US internet speeds and access is the worst in the first world countries.

Doesn't dispute the fact that there's competition, and the article doesn't seem to compare the US to other 1st world countries.

I'm going to stop responding because that's not the point of the thread. I'm afraid we already ruined it.


While I know you won't change your mind I'd like to point you to two videos that make a good case for net neutrality.


You can also use gnunet to build ad-hoc mesh networks, since it supports a wide variety of transports (including WLAN and bluetooth). Definitely see something like this as being the ultimate solution to net neutrality issues.

[Return] [Go to top] [ Catalog ] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]