Is anyone here actually Pro-Net Neutrality? I can't actually

File: 1499983488167.jpg (19KB, 438x344px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 438x344px

Who wouldnt trust him.
Just have a deep look in these eyes and feel the Love.

>>738951109
He looks like he's seen a wide variety of goat pussy in his days.

Without it, ISPs would be able to:
>restrict your internet usage to a cap, and then charge you more to get more internet.
>charge extra for websites, restricting freedom of what you visit, sometimes even blocking websites.
> if you want a restricted and more costly internet for the big companies to make more profit and ruin your experience, then go ahead.

it won't benefit you in any sort of way, at all.

>>738951109
So damn punchable

>>738951284
Usage capping is already a thing though

>>738950942
You read the definition wrong. Net Neutrality means service providers HAVE to give you access, regardless of source.

Without it they can deny you access and block the chans.

>>738950942
they would cut off youtube, unless you pay
they would cut off anything unless you pay really
also decide what can you see on the internet and what not, therefore see definition of propaganda

>>738950942
What the Republicans are trying to do is move a lot of money to providers and your expense, make no mistake.

>>738951974
It is, but it's going to be universal if net neutrality is abolished.

>>738951974
Usage capping isn't with regards to the content. It's with regard to aggregate usage. That's why it's "fair", or at least still legally allowed.

They aren't specifically blocking YouTube. They're blocking EVERYTHING. See? Fair.

>>738950942
I hope everyone here is pro-net neutrality, an you just fuck up. Net is now neutrality, and they want to make it not.

>>738950942
Is this only a USA thing?

File: suicideshoot.jpg (90KB, 300x360px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 300x360px

>>738951284
>>restrict your internet usage to a cap,
mine already does
>and then charge you more to get more internet.
again, mine already does
>>sometimes even blocking websites.
mine already does


inb4 change ISP. it's the only one in town, other than satellite and that sucks balls.

tfw around the middle of the month start getting "you've reached 80% of your data plan" information bars at the top of my browser from my ISP so I have to start watching youtube videos in 480p

>>738953593
OP here, same shit here. And yeah, I made a mistake, I meant to say "anti-net neutrality". I got mixed up

I have read about people supporting to abolish net neutrality though, so there are supporters. I just can't see their reasoning.

>>738953315
Yup

>>738953315
>>738954305
Cont:
In information restrictive nations like China and North Korea, the access to information is restricted by the Government.
In the US, the FCC chairman and republican lawmakers want to make the access to information done by private companies.
Imagine not being able to access YouTube or Netflix because you are subscribed to an ISP that YouTube cannot afford to pay off. Or alternatively, imagine not being able to access YouTube because our are not subscribed to "the right" ISP.

In a similar scenario imagine that you are a small business owner who wants to open a website. You pay for the webpage design and server costs. Under the proposed reclassification of internet access, ISPs have the power to cut off access to your webpage because you haven't payed them off. If it sounds like extortion, it's because it is. The difference between paying for webpage design/server costs and the costs for paying the ISP is that design and server costs exist in a free market while the ISL access costs do not.
It's insane. I can't comprehend how some people think this is a good thing.

>>738951284
throttling and capping is already happening

>>738955014
That is totally different.

Data capping as you know it pertains to the cumulative amount of data download on a network. As an example, you are permitted to download 300Gb of data, the sources are irrelevant.

The data capping that people are worried about it is artificial speed-throttling (or outright denial of access) in a discriminatory fashion. As an example, an ISL decides that you can only use thier network to access webpages that they own or are paid by. Another example, a news organization ceotisises an ISP. The ISP shuts down all access to the domain, effectively attacking the domains monetary income and censoring you from relevant data

>>738955391
Correction: ...a news organization, blog, or forum criticizes an ISP...

Fixed spelling error, added "a blog and forum" to the list

File: f09ff4a2-c3d0-4b9f-a5b8-f4ae88622e76.png (227KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 700x400px

>>738953593
>Complaining about watching youtube in 480p

You need to suffer more. Thats fucking weak shit. I used to only be able to watch 240. 144 on bad days... And holy fuck i would be happy as hell on those rare days i could watch on 360.

Youre a pathetic faggot

Here's another scenario that can happen under the proposed rule changes:

An ISP stands to gain significantly from a certain political party being in office. They decide to censor all information pertaining to the other party's candidates and promote thier preferred party's candidates and criticism of the opponent.

Without guaranteed, indiscriminatory access to information is pivotal in a democracy. Putting polical bullshit aside, any threat to the uncensored access to information is a threat to democracy itself.

You stand to lose so much more then internet speeds by this rule change. It gives ISPs extreme amounts of unregulated power that they are asking you to trust them to oversee themselves

>>738955933
There is so much more to it then that you braindead fucking idiot.
Go build your strawmen elsewhere

>>738950942
NIgger you're retarded

>>738956061
not even talking about net neutrality shit in the post faggot. You autists and your first world problems. Kys

Do you want to pay $100/month for "blazing fast" 10Mbs Internet?

Do you want to pay an extra $15/month for Youtube videos in >360p?

Do you want to pay an extra $10/month so your online games don't have shitty ping?

Do you want to pay an extra $20/month for the "adult content" service package?

Do you want to pay more for Netflix because your ISP will charge them more to deliver your content?

There is literally no reason to oppose Net Neutrality unless you like giving your ISP more money

>>738953593
This is the new reality and no one is willing to fight it. Fuck I would and have some guns to get it started but I got a wife and two kids to provide for.

People need to stand up and fight. A few people can't do it alone and words aren't going to get it done.

File: a2952396-ca86-46df-946e-c86dcaa55586.jpg (52KB, 570x570px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 570x570px

I'm rich and dont care. There you go OP.

Do you like the way Internet works right now? Then you like Net Neutrality. You're really gonna fucking miss it if it's removed.

>>738956813
and dumb as fuck. but hey if you want your ISP to take your money, have at it.

This has nothing to do with affording it, it has to do with freedom literally being ripped from us. Soon we will be like Germany with none of the privacy protections. Every time you troll someone expect a fine and jail time.

>>738953593
We need to make providing internet services more competitive, that's true, but without net neutrality, the internet could come in packages like cable tv is now. You pay for some websites you want and a whole bunch you don't want but if you want to visit other websites, you'd have to call your isp to upgrade your package.

>>738951109
I hope someone mentally unstable tracks down this guys family and slits their throats.

>>738957016
What kind of freedom is being taken from you, when that supposed "freedom" is being taken by the private corporation? Don't you, as the consumer/individual, have the freedom to determine whether or not to subscribe to such an ISP's service, or to negate internet from your life entirely? Why do you act as though internet usage is your unalienable right, when that is far from the truth?

Do you guys seriously want Jew-controlled media giants controlling what information gets passed around on the Internet?

Removal of net neutrality will be JIDF on steroids. Say goodbye to all your favorite alt-right sites

File: catmemethis is why.png (190KB, 400x323px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 400x323px

>>738954903

> sounds just like internet access in the 90s
> sounds just like bbs services

It will bring back a time where people were less plugged in. So there's the silver lining.

You got to think meta here, forest for the trees sorta thing. Though other anons are correct about the heightened potential for propaganda.

Also consider this will hit the entire planet, since so much internet access gets routed through american based servers. A bunch of server routes are going to be cut off by this.

People will have to invest in old tyme linkages between internetz "to be able to get on such and such pipeline to access a website".

Almost feels like cyberpunk coming on. And we're nearing the 2020s man...

> the first site they need to block is Tinder

>>738957409
How many ISPs do you have access to?
We have 3.
DSL, 1.5Mbs down and doesn't work. Wants me to pay to run new line from box to house.
Satellite, 3Mbs down and upto 3 second delay
Cable, 60Mbs down and 85% reliable at best.
So how many choices do I really have?

People need internet, I know my job and ability to work from home require it. Thinking that it isn't to be treated like a utility and basic requirement is daft.

>>738957409

COMCAST INTERNS GET OUT

We will not tolerate your shilling and frivolous arguments

>>738957409
This. I have shit wifi because i live in the woods. I live a self sustaining life with nature and i dont use much internet unless i have free time and/or im bored. Which doesnt happen often.

People need to go outside more anyway. Go back to climbing trees.

>>738957819
don't wanna

File: goddamnit.jpg (78KB, 500x672px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x672px

>>738957737
>>738957819

This basically, the invisible ink on the wall is that we're shutting down the internet because its fucking up our american culture and we want the boys and girls to get out of the house and actually talk to each other again.

> those declining birth rates

4chan and torrenting might have something to do with it though

The campaign in favour of net neutrality is exactly what so many people seem to fear will happen if it is lost.

Those who stand to benefit most from the doing away with of net neutrality are the people who "use the internet the least". The people who aren't streaming gigabytes an hour from netflix, hulu, youtube, twitch etc. The people who are most against road tolls are the people who most deserve to be paying them, because they are the ones making the most use of the road.

So what do you do? You use the internet as a weapon, and coordinate a mass scale response to the FCC. Every single website you use tells every user to go to the FCC to complain. The users don't know how any of it works, they don't know what they're fighting for or complaining about, but they will do it because they've been coerced into doing so.

>>738957409
Go die somewhere.

>>738957737
>It will bring back a time where people were less plugged in. So there's the silver lining.

Go fuck yourself please.

>>738957409
>corporations literally work together to decide who gets control of what area then extort the consumer
I LOVE FREEDOM

>>738957974
Have more children vs. have a more enjoyable life? It's hard to even see this as a choice.

>>738958141
that is a violation of competition law, a regulation that is already in place to prevent it from happening. You do not impose additional regulations in the fear that the original regulations that aren't correctly being enforced might not be followed. That is retardation.

File: loading.gif (16KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 200x200px

>>738950942
The real solution is to break up the giant monopolies. Remember the early days of internet, when anyone could open an ISP, rent the line (a fixed price for all) and go.

Net Neutrality is required because this will never happen. With monopolies and no regulation, expect to see pic at many of your favorite sites.

File: I have no sides and I must kek.jpg (36KB, 320x401px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 320x401px

>>738958103
Hey I grew up in the 80s and 90s and I fucking hate all these cell phones. Maybe not the phones themselves but all the stupid shit they can do which should be relegated to a tablet. And such devices should also be regulated to a minimum size.

I dont think we should even have texting. If you want to send IMs get on the damn computer. Phones should be regulated to voice communication only.

And I fucking hate phones too. If people are going to talk (vocally) they need to be face to face. I guess videoconferencing still counts since you can see their nonverbal.

>>738958272
> having children used to be joyful and part of an enjoyable life
> where are your priorities
> if you're any good at parenting you see your children as a blank book you can author in your own image
> you make your kids proud of you and they follow in your footsteps like a little soldier

>>738957409
>Don't you, as the consumer/individual, have the freedom to determine whether or not to subscribe to such an ISP's service
The company who owns the cable line provides the service, there is no competition unless you can get satellite internet (shitty) or fiber optic internet (which is objectively superior to all other providers still using copper lines.)
>or to negate internet from your life entirely?
Have fun getting any job worth having.
>Why do you act as though internet usage is your unalienable right, when that is far from the truth?
More civilized places do consider internet access to be a basic human right in this day and age, considering how internet access is nearly indispensable to modern life. The cable companies aren't your friends, stop taking their side.

>>738957754
People do not need internet. It is a privilege, not a right. The internet is much like a car in that sense. You ""need"" a car to get to work. But you do know you can ride a bike to work, perhaps walk, or maybe jog; it isn't your end all/be all. The same goes for the internet. And what makes you think your job will be forfeit when net neutrality is done away with? I assume you mean a free-lance job; have you consulted your current ISP, done some research, or maybe consulted the site owner to get an estimate on what'll happen? That would be your first task. The most the ISP will do is place fee's on pornography, social media, and recreational sites, like this one, le reddit, etc.

>>738957775
heh

>>738957737
>>738957819
>>738957974
>>738958531
Y'all got it right. :^)

>>738950942
WITH "net neutrality", dear Aunt Tilly will have the same bandwidth and internet speed as Netflix... since everyone has to have the same access. Of course that won't come cheap.

Now here's the real scoop of what's behind "net neutrality"...

>Google

This ENTIRE PUSH was Google trying to get the internet declared a public utility. And why? IF it's a public utility, Google would then have access to the utility poles that telephone and cable companies use. Google wants to string their fiber across the country. This is about making Google money. It has nothing to do with your ISP blocking MudsharkMoms.com.

Research these things off sites like this or l'eddit.

>>738958680
>But you do know you can ride a bike to work, perhaps walk, or maybe jog; it isn't your end all/be all.
Yea and did you know that over 60% of "poor" household have a fucking refrigerator? Don't they know they can walk or ride their bike to the store every day for fresh cold foods to be immediately consumed?

>>738958890
Your post was retarded and you should feel bad. You dont even deserve a proper reply with how fucking stupid your post is.

>>738958680
> mfw a variety of govt shit and even getting jobs requires you to get on the internet

we do kinda need it actually, but anything thats truly necessary I think would be given a pass, also there is the town library

>>738958890
> he's never heard of canned foods, or eating fast food, or fresh vegetables from the market that can keep on the kitchen counter for several days

>>738959116
Says the guy saying everybody should walk to work like we all live in an insignificant rural backwater that never saw the Industrial Revolution.

I'm completely for the net being served as neutral as possible.

However, equally, I am also for companies being created that exclusively sell parts of the internet.
Web-service providers have existed before, for example. They tended to sell you TV boxes that let you use the web through your TV.
Just the web though.
Usenet providers sell access to usenet.
Some ISPs straight up don't even provide this feature now.

The only good anti net-neutrality shill is a dead anti net-neutrality shill.

>>738950942
Literally the only people that are anti-net neutrality do not know what it is. They keep screaming free market principles, but there is no free market in a duopoly of ISPs in suburban areas, or a monopoly in rural areas.
My wager is that the Republicans that struck net neutrality down have never used any websites outside of the major social media and video streaming ones.

>>738950942
https://soundcloud.com/clake0
https://www.mixcloud.com/clake/
https://www.instagram.com/clake0/

>mfw yurofag
>Mfw I have optic fiber internet
Suck it muricas!
Besides you wouldn't be making the same argument for healthcare or other private companies.

>>738958714
what are you talking about. them becoming a public utility has nothing to do with getting on those poles. the respected company own those hydro poles. and google can pay just like they well to after to be on the poles. because they arent owned by the goverment

>>738958675
>The company who owns the cable line provides the service, there is no competition unless you can get satellite internet (shitty) or fiber optic internet (which is objectively superior to all other providers still using copper lines.)
Is there a problem with competition among companies, is that what you're getting at? Because that isn't a problem and I fail to see the point of that statement.
>Have fun getting any job worth having.
You know you can find jobs in the paper right? But perhaps you mean in the workplace? Then you can operate the internet at your work and stop as soon as you clock out. It's really simple.
>More civilized places do consider internet access to be a basic human right in this day and age, considering how internet access is nearly indispensable to modern life. The cable companies aren't your friends, stop taking their side.
I think you're forgetting that what is "considered" and what "is" are two different things. Your basic human rights are those professed by the Enlightenment thinkers in the Constitution. Not some material good; we call that a privilege, not a right, and such a privilege is liable for change. Before you tell me to stop taking the side of the corporation and not that of the government who wishes to regulate the economy "for your best interest", read a book on the free market, and stop taking their side.

>>738959116
Fridges are pretty power hungry, bro.
Buying fresh food every day is hardly a hard task.

Then cook it all at once for the rest of the day, if it is stuff like noodles or meat.
Cooked meat can easily stay fresh for a whole day without being in a fridge unless you live in a desert.
Noodles can go in a tub, add some boiling water from a kettle to freshen them up or cold water and nuke in the microwave for a minute.

Fridges aren't needed.

>>738959481
>Stop taking the side that aims to benefit you the most.
You're so stupid it's almost unbelievable.

>>738957017
That sounds awful.
"Hi, yes, I'd like the 4chan package, and is it extra for redtube? Thanks."

Happy to live in a first world country with no datacaps, 100mb/s for 20 bucks and nobody worrying about net neutralimeme.

>>738959304
Says the guy that walks past an internet cafe every day and sees obese faggots that sit on their asses all day and live off of money from mommy.

This is talk about the fucking internet. The thing people use almost 24/7 when it should be only a couple hours a day. Faggots are sitting on their asses waiting to die early deaths.

Fridges have nothing to do with the internet and isnt even a good comparison you fucking retard.

>>738959564
>Stop taking the side that aims to benefit you the most.
I could say the same thing about you, though I'd be pretty nice and say that you're not stupid, just amazingly uninformed on the very basics of capitalist economics that's very loosely taught in public and private school, and if that's the only thing you took out of that reply, that's pretty unremarkable, and probably explains your lack of knowledge from said school. So I guess it checks out.

>>738959422
This

>>738957775
considering that the former director of the USSS was the director of Comcast simultaneously...

its gone.... get ready to surf nothing but TOR

>>738950942
My ISP tried to charge me an extra $10 a month to be allowed the privilege to use Netflix i pay for.
Then net neutrality was shot down and I told their faggot ass I wanted to speak to their higher up, threatened to report their scam as it was still illegal to try to do that.

If it gets passed be prepared to get "internet packages" where oh if you bundle these websites that we will allow you to access like a tv channel then you'll save $10!!

>2017
>Telling private companies what they can or can't do

File: THIS.jpg (8KB, 200x202px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x202px

>>738956676

File: velocipede.jpg (161KB, 692x600px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 692x600px

>>738959304
You replied to the wrong guy, but you do realize that back in the Industrial Revolution, the workers lived inside the city, right? The proletariat actually walked to work, because they were so ridiculously close to their factory job. And the amazing thing is, that once you work hard and do good, you become middle class, and escape the cholera filled city-center and move out into the beautiful suburbs. What's cooler is that you can now afford a twin-wheeled wagon! A bicycle! To get to work quicker and easier! Who would've thunk! And yeah, >>738958890 post was still retarded, because if you're poor, the last thing you should be worrying about or even buying is cold fresh food for your nonexistent refrigerator. You work hard for that privilege.

>>738960346
>wanting to be the bitch slave of mega corps

It's like you want a horrible future where megacorps literally own government and there is no such thing as regulation any more.

The free market is anti-society.
It's on the same coin as anarchy.

>>738960835
By that same logic, health care should be free
Outta here commie!

File: IMG_1744.jpg (27KB, 249x238px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 249x238px

>>738956813
You'll care when all you're able to see is fake news and other biased internets

>>738961154
You say that, yet American healthcare, YET AGAIN, was rated the worst in the developed world on all areas, especially affordability and outcome.

What are the best ones? Social Healthcare.
Hilariously enough, the Conservative-destroyed NHS England rated higher than America.

Also, learn the difference between socialism and communism before you spout your nonsense.
Mixed Economies of capitalism and socialism are THE strongest economies at all levels.
Protip, America is also one of those economies.
In fact, America strayed too far in to the socialism side and that's why the dollar is literally worthless inside its borders, which is why half the fucking country are on permanent welfare for the foreseeable future.

>>738961411
Socialism = communism

>>738961720
So what you are saying is America is a communist capitalist economy?
That's on you bro.

File: robocop ocp.jpg (106KB, 878x478px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 878x478px

>>738960835
warnings were given about this sorta thing 30-40 years ago, repeatedly

people thought it was so outrageous it literally looked like another world, which made these things awesome movies

>>738954246
They're shills

File: hard reality.jpg (1MB, 2290x1527px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2290x1527px

>>738961411
>>738961720
>>738961862
>>738961154

(the following is an intelligent way to pull off these things, which is unlikely to be followed by anybody who actually instituted them)

it should be, and the way to do that is installing price controls on services/goods, and establishing priority lists for types of procedures (that way if its elective, you get bumped to the back of the line).

by the way this is a socialist idea, not particularly communist, since they had this in facist germany too

The reason why it should be free, as well as a universal income, is because its an investment in your people/country.

> universal income doesn't have to be good, only enough to survive, eventually living in a tent in someone's back yard or in some house without running water/electricity will get on your nerves unless thats how you like to live
> $300-500 a month will keep you alive but only just
> meanwhile you can do away with minimum wage since any extra money is Valued
> and even if you make a comfy amount that universal income check becomes disposable income that goes back into the market

>>738960346
Democrats are

>>738962289
Also the way you get businesses to set up shop in a highly taxed country is you establish border controls (hint hint - trump wants to do this) so that they need to set up shop locally if they want to access your country's market cleanly

> and the way you make them want to do that is because of product visibility - make sure your country is "the best place in the world"
> which the USA still kinda holds onto
> though Japan is catching up
> we're talking economy + culture here

Then you hold business over a barrel and they have to bend over. They can go somewhere else and make money there, but any success they have in "the best place in the world" feeds onto their success everywhere else.

>>738951109
Fucking pajeet

>>738956700

We should be willing to fight it. Us faggots on /b/ used to be a force to be reckoned with.

Where are those hackers on steroids when we need them?

>>738950942
They won't ban 4chan, they would jack up the price and have more control.

>>738959481

I hope you're just trolling. If not you're either corporate shill or a complete moron.

>>738960598
you could also maybe opposing it if your name is warner or sony, or ...stein and you have a general business intresst in getting all streaming service providers simply blocked, and thus force people to give those greedy jewish bastards more money again.

on the other hand who can blame them, guardians of the galaxy 2 for ecample only made 850 mil with a 200 mil budget, so we need some regulation that those hollwood studio owners dont have to starve next winter

Corporations are people, you wouldnt want to restrict the rights of people, would you? This is why we should let the ISPs charge more for less content

>>738964019
Baseless statement. At least try and elaborate on why said individual is a complete moron, or else your words have no worth and your credibility will be lacking.

>>738950942
>Is anyone here actually Pro-Net Neutrality?

You sure sound like you are.

>>738950942
I think you mean Anti-Net Neutrality boyo try to read the definition before you post it

>>738965364
I said it backwards, as I already stated.

>>738956676

Why people don't understand it in even these simple terms is beyond me.

Like wtf are they talking about? "Paying my ISP extra for YouTube access makes me more free!"

>>738952718
Can you explain what this guy is reading?

I can't understand OP at all. It makes zero sense to me.

>>738954143
Ah. Makes sense. I couldn't understand your post at all.

>>738951284
I don't understand, can't you just install vpns and proxies to boycott the restrictions?

>>738950942
>>738951284

All you fags are complaining because you're in america, and your government wants to implement it - thing is, companies will just start hosting overseas, on high speed servers, and everyone will be fine - except you fags in the US, which your ISPs will charge extra for access to. There's no way the rest of the world will let you fucks block our youtube, or whatever sites we're trying to access. Wont happen, nada, nil, fuck off.

>>738965890
As an amerifat, you should know, "freedom isn't free"

Suck shit

>>738956676
The net neutrality laws have only existed for about 18 months. If ISP's really wanted to do any of the things you mentioned, they could have prior to that time. Can you find any examples where it happened?
Under the last president, net neutrality laws were passed as a way to start taxing internet usage. Under the existing net neutrality laws, the government has complete control over what you can / can't see on the internet and has the right to tax you for providing that service.

Do you really want the government having control over what sites you can and can't access?

>>738966465

Not if your ISP blocks access to VPN services.

/try our new $25 vpn access pack!

>>738963406
Off jerking to traps and fags

>>738966719
Go home Ajit Pai, it's the weekend.

>>738966719
>Under the last president, net neutrality laws were passed as a way to start taxing internet usage. Under the existing net neutrality laws, the government has complete control over what you can / can't see on the internet and has the right to tax you for providing that service.

None of this is true.

>>738966719
>Under the last president, net neutrality laws were passed as a way to start taxing internet usage

Oh right, I remember that. The phantom Obama internet tax that doesn't exist.

>>738966740
ah shit.

isp is a piece of shit then

>>738957974
Declining birthrates have more to do with the weakened buying power of the dollar than a lack of internet access. These days it's hard to fathom being affluent enough to raise 7 children for over 90% of Americans, unless you don't mind them living a life of poverty and neglect. And good luck raising more than 4 these days with a job that you can do without internet.

>>738958008
Except roads experience more wear when more people use it. This isn't actually true of the internet. Google doesn't spend any more money providing gigabit internet than Cablevision spends giving you ~20mb/s internet. It's not a consumable resource like water or gas. There's a flat cost for the provider to install infrastructure, then that's it. They're raking pure profits forever, regardless of how much or how little is used.

>>738958312
And yet Google stopped it's attempts at bringing Google Fiber into more areas because of how difficult and expensive the existing ISP's made it. If Google can't afford the cost of the barriers to entry, who the fuck can?

>>738958008
>The people who aren't streaming gigabytes an hour from netflix, hulu, youtube, twitch etc.

Yes, but the people who use the internet the most already pay for high bandwidth and high/unlimited caps. They're paying for it already. It's just that the way things are now, they can access everything as long as it doesn't break the cap.

>>738950942
I'm profaggot, long live the troll, suck me!!! Fuck mee!!!!

>>738951284
With it, the government would be able to:
>restrict your internet usage to a cap, and then charge you more to get more internet.
>charge extra for websites, restricting freedom of what you visit, sometimes even blocking websites.
> if you want a restricted and more costly internet for the big government to monitor and ruin your experience, then go ahead.
it won't benefit you in any sort of way, at all.

>>738950942
I am because it pisses you off.

>>738958714
So what you're saying is that it's impossible to have competition in the same area for the same quality of service because new ISP's can't afford access to the poles? If giants like Google can't get into the industry, how is real competition with new companies going to flourish? Doesn't really sound like a free market to me to be honest.

>>738967603
I'M READING BRAIN WASHED CORPORATE SCUM FILTH SPEW FROM THE MOUTHS OF RETARDS!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>738967688

What does maintaining net neutrality have to do with whether or not the government bans sites or taxes the internet?

>Net Neutrality not even a thing until 2015
>People actually think removing it will turn the Internet into something else
>Combat defending Net Neutrality when retards use the excuse that with Net Neutrality Combat can charge you even more money for better Internet
Ignore the shills

>>738967747
Its not. Its about giving the government power to authorize ISP companies to do business.

>>738958714
>WITH "net neutrality", dear Aunt Tilly will have the same bandwidth and internet speed as Netflix... since everyone has to have the same access.

WTF are you talking about? Aunt Tilly can pay for dialup with a 1gb cap if she wants.

>>738959518
I'd wager the internet is more important than having a fridge tbh

>>738967908
>authorize monopolies known for awful service and lower-tier goods compared to other developed countries to "do business"
>this is a good thing
How much do you get paid for this?

>>738959625
Which one? I'll move there. Fuck this gay ass country.

>>738960346
Our country has been doing that since it's inception. The principles of capitalism are great, but a true free market doesn't work any better than pure communism.

>>738950942
WHY WOULD ANYBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND CONSIDER BEING PRO NET NEUTRALITY REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

>>738960346
>>Telling private companies what they can or can't do

Yeah, the rule of law is such a bitch.

File: IMG_5903.jpg (104KB, 792x1019px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 792x1019px

I see no problem OP.
You just need to get the Ultimate Internet package and you'll be fine.

>>738968091
Probably Slovenia

>>738968260
Shhh, you'll trigger the econ101 babbies who only ever learned free market = max utility

>>738950942

you fucking moron. Unless you're a major stockholder in a major cable company, you definitely need to support Net Neutrality.

fucking retard.

>>738968755
>free market = max utility

Is that really what they teach in Econ 101? Like, does nobody put a fucking prisoner's dilemma matrix up on a screen once in a while?

>>738966719
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

Yup, I can find a whole lot of examples from before that time. Also,

>fabled internet tax
>government controlling what I can and can't see

>>738968864
Generally the first course in microeconomics will introduce supply, demand, and equilibrium and the concept of deadweight loss via intervention (such as taxation). It'll follow with externalities and how intervention can correct for them, etc.

The issue is people who are shit at academics or year out of college only remember the most memorable, simple content, which is EQUILIBRIUM = GOOD, and forget the assload of assumptions that mean that rarely, if ever, holds in the real world. That's also intentional, a lot of money has gone into designing syllabi that emphasize the libertarian elements with very visual content.

We ALREADY HAVE NET NUETRALITY. The isp's lobbied to pass a law that would get rid of it so they can make a profit from users by obstructing our viewing habits

>>738958680
>>738957737
>>738957819
>>738957974
>>738958531
Y'all got the retardation. :^)

>>738966719

they are the ones pushing to repeal the law so they can start... they havent always had the monopoly to get away with doing these things but you can bet your ass they are trying

why is this a problem only in America? ISP's in the UK are nowhere near as fucking greedy as the likes on Comcast and Verizon. Who the fuck caps data useage? The capping here is on mobile devices, which is relatively uncommon as most providers offer decently priced packages.

>>738950942
You are an idiot, my dude. Your whole post is defending Net Neutrality and then you go: "So, in light of all this, why would anyone support Net Neutrality?"

You do not understand what Net Neutrality means.

Without net neutrality cable companies can make deals with other companies like Hulu to give them a lot of bandwidth while throttling the connection to Netflix so they can control what kind of content you can see. If they decide there's some websites they don't like and don't want you to go to (like 4chan/torrenting/certain news sites) they can make it harder to use them.

>>738969323
You got it right. :^)

>>738969504
>why is this a problem only in America?
American politicians fellate oligopolies as saviors of capitalism, which tends to let consumers get buttfucked.

>>738969606
This simply would not happen in the UK. Lobbying in America should be a criminal offense. Why hasn't there been a revolt against the government there yet? The amount of bullshit they feed the citizens is alarming AND THEY ALL LAP IT UP LIKE GOOD LITTLE GOYS. Are Americans too stupid? too lazy? too fat? a combination of all of these? I know people would be protesting bullshit here in the UK (which we already are) and given the riots that happened here a few years ago, the gov would be fucked if a REAL revolution against the took place.

>>738969909
>Lobbying in America should be a criminal offense. Why hasn't there been a revolt against the government there yet?
Because "lobbying" is muh freedom and that includes lobbying to take eliminate liberties and free markets. Ironic? Yes. That's Murrica.

>>738966719
>Under the last president, net neutrality laws were passed as a way to start taxing internet usage. Under the existing net neutrality laws, the government has complete control over what you can / can't see on the internet and has the right to tax you for providing that service.

This is utter bullshit. Stop listening to Alex Jones.

>>738969909
>Why hasn't there been a revolt against the government there yet?
You could argue the last election was an attempt at one. In the end, shit moves so slowly and there are enough retards on both sides of any issue that little of substance gets done.

>>738969606

The telecom companies also don't want to be buttfucked by huge content providers like Google, which is what net neutrality is really all about.
They want ever expanding bandwidth without having to pay more for it.
Anything having to do with the end user in this whole battle is an afterthought.
We haven't had net neutrality all these years and suddenly there's all this fear mongering about telecoms regulating the internet to convince people they need government regulating the internet.

>>738970213
>In the end, shit moves so slowly and there are enough retards on both sides of any issue that little of substance gets done.
Yup. Politics 101.

>>738969909
>This simply would not happen in the UK

And yet you can have the police raid your home for saying "mean" things and your government is taking total control over your internet China style.

>>738970269
>They want ever expanding bandwidth without having to pay more for it.

Customers already pay for bandwidth (mbps and caps), and they'd continue to do so with net neutrality in place. You're full of shit.

>>738970269
>We haven't had net neutrality all these years
This is false. We have not had ISPs able to filter content based on source and they are not legally able to currently.

>>738956676
>Do you want to pay $100/month for "blazing fast" 10Mbs Internet?
>Do you want to pay an extra $10/month so your online games don't have shitty ping?

Wow, sounds like canada, except 100 a month for 1.5mbs.

>>738958680

yeah its not like the last 4 jobs i have worked at all required me to apply online or anything!

>>738958714

lmao yes making google half the money you already give your isp for 100x the internet speed and bandwidth...

>>738959116

Your post was retarded and you should feel bad. You dont even deserve a proper reply with how fucking stupid your post is.

>>738970798

I'm in Canada and get 100mbps for less than $100...

>>738960743

lmao when was the last time you worked anywhere near minimum wage? you cant even afford to rent an apt on min wage without splitting it with 3 other people, and you expect someone to save enough for a house and car and take time off from work in order to move your shit to the suburbs?

It will happen regardless.

Now is the time to learn Amateur Radio. The free open internet will soon only exist between callsigns.

>>738958531
hurry up and die old man

>>738971252
Should've talked past tense, that was in 2013, since then isp's have goten better where I live, or I've just goten lucky.

>>738959481

lmao human connection is not a basic human right, no human will ever have to come into contact with another human, we should all just sit in a blank room seperate from each other and never expirience anothers touch or even see someone like our selves.

>>738955014
"well the isp's already stab us in the back, lets give them a sword to cut us down faster"

>>738955933
yeah i used to have shitty internet! so lets make the whole internet shitty for everyone! fucking pathetic faggots why dont you just fix what isnt broken?

>>738971252
Telus?

Imagine if your land line had arbitrary restrictions on who you could call? I'm not talking about "Long Distance" but say if you wanted to call Dominos and the phone company preferred you doing business with Pizza Hut? Would ya'll be okay with that?

What if they told you you -could- call Dominos, if you paid an access fee? Does that make it alright for them to restrict it?

This is what Net Neutrality is about. We used to call the internet the "Information Super Highway" Your ISP was your "on ramp", but where you went from there was up to you. Without Net Neutrality we are going to be back to the very beginning days of dial-up services like Compuserve and America On Line where you could connect to the services and pages -they provided- but little else. It's be like the old days when Compuserve would nickel and dime you for every click, when America On Line, then known as Quantum Link, would charge you -by the minute- for being in a chat room.

You guys saying that can't happen are fucking wrong because it -already has- happened before during the days of dial-up when people were restricted to what the service they subscribed to provided.

Having a free and open internet, where ISPs compete for business against each other is the only solution. The internet needs the kind of deregulation that phone companies got back in the 80s. Ya'll are too young to remember when there was only ONE phone company and you either took it or did without. Without Net Neutrality, that's what the Internet will become

File: qlinkDisk8-04.jpg (93KB, 330x331px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 330x331px

>>738972647
forgot the pic

>>738950942
why did nobody give a fuck about privacy or net neutrality until trump was elected

>>738973204
they did, you fucking moron.

>expecting people to be vocal about something when they already have it and it isn't in jeopardy
>being this inbred

>>738973371
you already have zero expectations of privacy, retard

throwing a fit over some stupid ISP law doesn't change that

>>738973204
There were net neutrality events on 4chan repeatedly in the past many years.

How fucking NEET do you have to be to be out of touch with other autists?

>>738974184
>with net neutrality
ISPs are state granted monopolies that don't compete and fuck you in the ass
>without net neutrality
ISPs are state granted monopolies that don't compete and fuck you in the ass

>>738974422
A faggot like you should know there are different ways to get fucked in the ass, and some are more comfortable than others

>>738974492
KEKKED!! Well played...

>>738974422
And that's the way it was for the phone companies for nearly a hundred years. You couldn't even buy a phone. You had to rent one from Ma Bell. They had to change the fucking law to allow you to go out and buy a land-line phone. Seriously. Ma Bell had THAT much of a monopoly.

The first step was breaking up the Company with a Sherman Anti Trust lawsuit. Then came deregulation. After that, a dozen different phone companies emerged and began competing for business.

The internet is at the early stages of this process now, about where the phone company was after the lawsuit broke Ma Bell into the Baby Bells. They still had monopolies in each state, but those went by the wayside FAST as new startups like Sprint and Verizon came on the scene.

Naturally, the ISPs don't want to repeat history. They like their monopolies and want to strengthen them. Net Neutrality prevents that from happening. WITH NN, new ISPs will begin to come on-line that have nothing to do with the big telecom and cable tv companies. Net Neutrality provides the opportunity for that to happen, and it will. It's just a matter of time.