FCC Republicans Vow to Gut Net Neutrality Rules

>>58107822
what do you have to hide?

We're fucked anyway, better the US collapses faster and we start over faster.

Civil War 2 when?

>>58107822
TIME FOR YOUR DAILY LIBERAL CIRCLEJERK ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY

GET THE LOTION OUT BOYS NO ONE LIKES A DRY RUB

>/pol/lacks
>having foresight
>inb4 /pol/ is always right
It's all memes. Let it go, anon. Also, someone here is samefagging.

Yeah but at least he'll say RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM huehuehue

These rewards literally thought that voting for Trump would make people stop being SJWs, as if the president can control that. Now those types are just going to be more emboldened and seem relatively reasonable, and you'll lose freedoms on top of it.

File: Epep the Gorf.png (34KB, 657x657px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 657x657px

>>58107865
Nice argument you don't have there.
Where didn't you get it, the not-argument store?

They sell pepes there?

>>58107884
We have this daisy chain every day. You fags act like this speculation is news or something

>>58107882
>phoneposting
You can do better than this Anon.

>>58107865
>TIME FOR YOUR DAILY LIBERAL CIRCLEJERK ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY

Name one reason why Net Neutrality is a bad idea.

What possible good thing could come from abolishing it? There are no upsides. At all. There's fucking nothing to justify. It's bad for EVERYONE that isn't Verizon, Comcast or Time Warner, literally fucking everybody else gets the shit end of this stick.

>>58107928
Does it make you more mad that I did it while sitting in front of my computer?

File: CONNECT_FUHRER.jpg (117KB, 400x401px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 400x401px

>>58107925
>You fags act like this speculation is news or something

I'm sorry, some of us don't trust our government. Do you?...


why? I've never been given a reason to. Do they pay you or something or is being naive the new millennial trait to have?

>>58107935
You miss the point. We have this same thread everyday, at the same time. Its a thinly disguised political thread. I could easily go to /pol or leftypol if I wanted to engage in political discussion. Half the thread yesterday was devoted to Obamacare.

>>58107870
It'd be fine if it were only memayms. Instead, /pol/ became a literal shilling house for one of the worst candidates in recent history. With social security, medicaid, department of labor, education and energy all in serious jeoperdy, something like Net Neutrality is not surprisingly on the table. It's really sad to be on this sit

>>58107956
Its not anything that is new. Its the same shit being regurgitated since the election. Can anyone tell me something I do not know already?

File: tinyviolin.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

At the very least (and I mean very least), if this happens, maybe companies will put no focus on no-name websites.

Personally, I don't use Netflix, Facebook, Reddit or any major site. I just run home servers.

So long as that's not interfered with, I think some of us will be fine. That said, this really blows. It's just a bit too late to do anything about it at this point. The game's over. Might as well prepare for it rather than bitch now.

>>58107972
I suppose it's just the internet reminding you of your past mistakes in November. This is the penance we all have to pay for hindsight, anon.

File: 1473114620635.jpg (78KB, 455x700px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 455x700px

>>58107998
I think the point is to spread the information, not be a bitch because you're tired of hearing it. People need to care about this, not just sulk miserably about it or be unaware of it at all.

>>58108010
>4chains
>no name
We'd be on the chopping block mang.

>>58107822
Oh no!

Quick someone tell Slashdot circa 2006 I'm sure they'll be livid.

>>58108076
So net neutrality was the only reason to vote Democrat?

>>58108993
One of very few. But it's a very important one.

>>58109029
Why? It would be the only thing I agree with Democrats on. Im not a single issue voter.

Net Neutrality causes job losses

>>58109078
If you think net neutrality is the only issue being undermined, you must be living too deep in the partisan cave. Real issues require critical thinking, not mindless tribalist circlejerk.

>>58108986
People on this site have gone from being techno-/crypto-libertarians to neo-fascist authoritarians all because of memes and a fear that wimmin are going to ruin their video games. Amazing.

File: 1465063128134.jpg (47KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x378px

>>58107822
>voting against self-interest

Why do Americans do this?

>>58109202
No, it's newfags.

>>58109197
Go on...

>>58107822
You're assuming that the democratic default state is to be on the other end of things. Remember all those times people had to petition and call senators to get bills temporarily put on hold?

You've taken the bait and you think either team is on your side. They only exist to gut the economies further for profit of their friends and bosses.

>>58109497
This is why term limits are needed.

>>58109202
>/pol/ has gone from being techno-/crypto-libertarians to neo-fascist authoritarians
ftfy

Everyone else doesn't really care.

>>58109719
The redditors that come here for /pol/ love to leak.

File: refugees-welcome-dresden[1].jpg (752KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 2048x1536px

>>58109308
>yurocucks talking about '''self interest'''

>>58107822
>revisit [the disclosure] requirements

its literally nothing

>>58109740
You can blame a lot of the current reddit / 4chan crosstalk on how gamergate was bungled by team4chan.

>>58107822
those greedy corporate pigfuckers gotta make lots of shekels

File: 15203227_1239533216092937_3909542913530133630_n.jpg (11KB, 261x159px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 261x159px

>drain the swamp
>literally drains your coffers and throws you in the camps

I can't wait to see the look on a /pol/ack's face when they're staring down the barrel of a gun.

Net neutrality only seemed to benefit Netflix desu. Users were still data capped and throttled. I'm sure this wont stop OP from posting the same thread tomorrow and the day after.

how can you guys honestly say net neutrality exists when major carriers already force companies like Netflix into bandwidth deals and pull whatever shit they want with very little blowback and small fines? Wireless phones are all completely exempt from the rules and a majority of people use those networks and nothing has ever been blocked on 4chan or otherwise. You all sent in mass amounts of comments last time, and you will no doubt do the same this time. They will have about no effect as usual.

>all these butthurt leftists itt
lmao

>>58107822
There's a way around this...
Find all the like-minded technologically-inclined people in your area and pick a location to all move to. Setup a mesh network and share a connection to Level3, Hurricane Electric, or another backbone provider.

File: 1482082008631.jpg (22KB, 343x543px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 343x543px

>>58112452
nice retort

>>58109202
techno-/crypto-libertarianism was never a viable or realistic ideology. Fascism is much more practical.

>>58107822
>being a single issue voter

>>58107822
> It's a worrying about muh free (((porn))) is more important than the future of my people thread

So here's the deal, we can either have Title II, or we can make all of the "non-compete" agreements, local monopoly laws, ect. null and void. However, even if we make them void, there still has to be someone with enough financial clout to build out the networks needed to compete with comcast, verizon, ect. But because of their monopoly status nobody else has the kinds of capital required to build out a network of comparable size, speed, scope. If we void the agreements we would also have to nationalize the telecom infrastructure. There are going to be problems coming either way, just realize that we are going to be hip deep in bullshit from both sides for the next decade.

who cares. privacy was killed years ago. also there is no good media to pirate anymore.

File: self-murder yourself please.png (121KB, 378x796px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 378x796px

>>58113118

in 4 years when kanye gets elected we'll just enforce net neutrality again. Because that's how politics is done now: every administration repeals what the previous administration did.

File: netneutrality-june2016[1].jpg (46KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 640x400px

>>58107822
meanwhile in for once glorious EU: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-net-neutrality

I dont understand how americans be retarded enough to want ISPs to meddle with their internet usage. What kind of retard do you have to be to think the word "neutrality" is ever bad?

File: 1472218229603.jpg (108KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 640x640px

>>58109202
fascism mostly pertains to refugees and shiet, most of 4chan (and /pol/ ) is still libertarian

lots of unironic ancapers as well.

Why do Republicans just try and ruin every good idea?

>>58113595
>all internet traffic will be treated equally
Unless it is from a source that challenges their political narrative. People are getting arrested in Germany for talking bad about rapefugees.

File: tyler-the-fader.jpg (307KB, 1440x1433px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1440x1433px

>>58107972

Network Neutrality is 100% on topic for this board.

If you don't like it, just ignore the thread. Just walk away from the screen. Just close your eyes.

>>58113755
that has nothing to do with net neutrality, the ISP didn't hinder the internet traffic they needed to make those posts, and that's how it should be

whether saying stuff like that should get you in trouble is a whole other topic

>>58107935

it's anti-business

>>58113755
You're clueless my dude.

File: 18vcsq.jpg (209KB, 948x665px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 948x665px

>>58108010

Not a chance.

ISP's aren't just going to just throttle the squeaky wheels. They're going to throttle EVERYTHING, including VPN traffic, except for the specific companies that they happen to have a stake in or that have paid them extra.

>>58113848
Actually unregulated business is anti-consumer and anti-business. Unregulated business just ends up being regulated by the first businesses that make it big and they act as gatekeepers for any new businesses that would challenge their place in the market.

I hope they do it. Just imagine the tears on reddit that day.

>>58113934

lol no. tyrannical state meddling by obama that created ISP monopolies is why we have no new competitors entering this market, if all regulation was removed we'd have 100s of new ISPs.

>>58113887
Comcast already throttles ssh connections.

>>58113957
>>58113934
can we please stop using the word regulation as a sort of black and white thing? There are different things to regulate, different levels of regulation, and different ways of doing it all.

I think the govenrment should regulate just about everything in terms of forbidding companies from ripping people off: no throttling, no discrimination, no deception, etc. Everything outside the realm of customer abuse should be part of the free market and competition

>>58113957
Meddling by state and local governments is what has caused shitty regional monopolies. They'll still be meddling even when the FCC decides to stop being competent. These regional monopolies predate Obama.

>>58114003
>no discrimination

cuck

>They'll still be meddling even when the FCC decides to stop being competent.

not once trump disbands useless tyrannical regulatory agencies like the FCC and EPA

>These regional monopolies predate Obama.

they were put in place by the pedophilic proto-obama clinton

>>58114003
Government regulations are useless and don't prevent anything you listed

>>58114035
>don't want a company telling me what I can and cant do from a moral/political point of view like criticizing refugess
>this makes me a cuck
gtfo troll

>>58114037
they're typically called laws, anon. Many forms of abuse are illegal already, it's odd that companies can still get away with so much of it, so we need more of those protections

File: 1480553680834.png (1MB, 1191x708px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1191x708px

What death sentence? My internet has been getting slower, they've now added data caps and throttling nation wide, they secretly raise the price every year for me. How could it get worse? Thanks but no thanks libtard faggot. I'll trust the Don to increase competition in the ISP sector to fix this mess that you and Obongo have created.

>>58114054
>it's odd that companies can still get away with so much of it, so we need more of those protections
Is this satire?
>these laws don't seem to be working better make MORE

>>58114077
they don't work because either they dont cover shit or they are not enforced properly

this isn't fucking rocket science, make more if they are lacking or enforce them better if theyre not enforced well

do you muricans need every fucking obvious thing spoonfed to you?

>>58114094
How should they be enforced then? Let me guess, MOAR FINES. What would even take for you to accept that they are ineffective and that government regulations are not the answer to everything?

>>58114094

the US isn't a socialist nation where the state has to tell businesses how to operate. businesses operate how they please and the market decides who wins and who loses.

also, you need to be 18 to post here.

>>58114153
letting companies freely abuse customers however they want without fear of repercussions is a better idea to you then?

you gotta make SOME shit illegal, anon. I don't run that shithole of a country you're in, you figure out what it takes to get those degenerate companies you have to deal with to obey the fucking law and general good ethics

>>58114155
>making morally criminal shit illegal = telling businesses how to operate
getting tired of all the false equivalences thrown around here, fucking arguing with toddlers

>>58114174
I love the assumption that being against ineffective regulation = letting companies freely abuse people. You're completely incapable of seeing outside the tiny little box you've put yourself in.

>>58109431
Not him, but sooner rather than later monetary policy might actually become politicized.

>>58114174
>you gotta make SOME shit illegal, anon.

this is what statists actually believe.

>>58107822
Meanwhile in yurop

http://www.zdnet.com/article/mass-internet-surveillance-is-unlawful-say-judges-in-blow-to-snoopers-charter/

>>58114198
either there is regulation/laws, or there is not. You can't not have any because then anything is allowed. You need to have some. If they're not working as they are now, figure out how to do it better then.

>>58114191
PS: like I said before: yes, the free market should decide. Some shit they could pull should just never, ever be allowed, just like it isn't fucking legal to kill someone for no reason. The government should ensure unacceptable shit is made illegal and leave the rest to the market

>>58114220
>I don't think randomly killing people should be illegal because muh statist cucks, small gubmint is better

>meanwhile in canada
>>58113048
kek, americans cucking themselves once again

>>58114261

it doesn't need to be illegal because it's common sense, just give everyone a right to defend themselves

>>58114261
People won't just start slaughtering each other in droves without the state. Murders will still happen just like they do even with all the laws and money spent on law enforcement.

>>58114326
>>58114326
>it doesn't need to be illegal because it's common sense
just wow, wtf is this kind of thinking

>oh you killed someone on the street for no reason? shame, shouldve defended better, go home now

>>58114353
>People won't just start slaughtering each other in droves without the state
that is true. Now apply this to businesses:
>companies won't just start abusing customers who dont know better or dont have the powr to fight it in droves without the state
yeah, sure, companies are you friends and they're looking out for you of course

i'm out, this is pointless, you guys just want the world to be the wild west again

>>58110493
No the media changed the argument and no other party other than the "victims" had the chance to correct the "official" narrative.

>>58113970
Is this a joke?

Shit, US is really a shit country.

>>58114353

It's not anarchy you need to worry about, it's the local warlord that rampaged through your city and killed or forcibly exiled anyone who refused to submit to him.

Power abhors a vacuum.

>>58114436

Believing that gamergate was blameless is part of the problem. All the MSM had to do was wait, and people flying the GG banner gave them more than enough material to run with.

This is an unavoidable problem with a decentralized movement. GG would have been much better off with some sort of actual structure, with people in charge and more importantly some accountability.

>>58107928
How can you possibly tell if someone's posting from a phone?

>>58107835
technology in the 21st century ensures that were not going to see any more revolutions from the people. this I it, the end of the line for freedom

>>58108076
you're spreading it until it becomes different information though

>>58114737

"rewards" in place of "retards".

I don't like how most people don't understand what net neutrality even is.

Current internet is like a city street. Non-neutral internet is a street where you might pay to walk more or less past certain buildings, and the sidewalk isn't consistant.

Who fucking cares.

>>58114771
I'd say I'd guess we can hope for a massive solar flare, but that would cause nuclear systems to fail and probably end in human extinction.

>>58114035
The EPA is extremely important if you don't want to end up with china core air quality you rightwing fuckwit.

>>58114654
Very true and good points anon.

>>58116120
Wrong board

you guys know that net neutrality under tittle 2 only went into effect in june 2015. It's not like the internet sucked before that.

>>58116236
I don't remember the epa outsourcing our dirty air to china.

File: a90c10969c825bca76fe0cac4e8d89f434999f7e7beb7130434aff1dad8e7a4c.jpg (11KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 480x360px

>>58107834
>what do you have to hide?
>NN Thread

File: 1480460170652.gif (2MB, 275x206px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 275x206px

>>58113970
Get
Me
A
Source

>>58107822
meanwhile in evil socialist canada, broadband internet is mandated a basic service and a $500m fund is being made available to companies in order to get infrastructure built out ti rural areas

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/crtc-internet-essential-service-1.3906664

>>58107834
His Loli collection

>>58116662
america already tried that too and the crooked politicians just let them keep the money without building shit and gave them monopolies on top of it.

>>58113848
Good. Fuck business!

>>58116687
>Right wing
>Hates buissness
Pick one you retard.

File: arstechnica.jpg (248KB, 1001x652px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1001x652px

>arstechnica
>pro net neutrality

when did this happen?

File: icecreameveryday.jpg (13KB, 244x235px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 244x235px

>>58107822
>implying the democrats weren't going to do the same

Horse shoe nigger.

>>58107822
>You only have yourself to blame for this, Donald memecucks. I guess you were too busy spamming memes to notice you were voting for our death sentence.

You are retarded if you think it would've been any different if they put the other frankencunt in power.

What do you guys mean by companies screwing people over? You enter into an agreement, and if they fail to uphold the agreement, you have legal recourse without any additional gov't regulation. If there are no gov't aided monopolies, you can also simply do business elsewhere. Muh ebil corporations... As if these megacorps care enough to try to screw the average shmo out of a couple hundred dollars when they have the gov't to milk billions from.
If an isp decides to throttle and cap everyone to death, another isp will see there is money to be made by not doing that, and then soon they'll have all of the former's customers..what is so hard to understand? Oh right, some of you actually think that a company can create its own monopoly without state help. A lot of well meaning regulation opens the door for companies to make deals with the state to further their monopolies. By requiring that all businesses of a certain type provide a specific set of services for "fairness" just prevents any new business from trying to compete if it can't meet those standards from the beginning. The same way I would like to buy cheaper health insurance that only covers more extreme cases, but these plans are not considered "fair" or "good enough" so I'm left with "better" plans which I can't afford.

>>58116605
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

>>58116900
>soon

you mean years later after the cables are run?

>>58116782
that pic...
there is no adjective sufficient to describe how ridiculous that statement is.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but at least they didn't say mean things about me on the internet."

>>58116907
It sounded like you said the epa is the reason the U.S. has cleaner air than China. Not sure how else that could be taken.

>>58116900
You're so fucking naive I think this is bait

ISP's fore most have been fucking over users for over 2 decades now since the internet started becoming a wide spread in house phenomenon.

From overages to throttling to bottlenecks all the way, ISP's have done dittlly shit to improve access to the internet let alone make them palpable and relatively usable. Case and point Comcast admitting that their datacaps were arbitrary and purely for profit gain rather than an actual equalizer for heavy users.

>If an isp decides to throttle and cap everyone to death, another isp will see there is money to be made by not doing that,
except this isn't happening, has never happened and likely never will happen purely because ISP's enter non-compete clauses to render entire swathes of geography of the US under one dominant oligopoly of territory. Case and point again Comcast being the dominant ISP in 25 states and the ONLY source of internet for upwards of 17 of those states. Residents have absolutely no choice and they're at the whim of Comcast in either paying for shit speed, caps and poor service or go without internet which in today's society is a necessity.

Unlike your shitty healtcare example I can't go out and get a different ISP than TWC in my area. Sure there are those home brew telephone companies that offer DSL but thats hardly considered competition when the service is even worse and might as well not exist in the first place.

Your entire argument that somehow the companies will self regulate if the government keeps off is completely unfounded and is explicitly found to not work so many different times in history that caused major lashes against public interest when monopolies established themselves.

In so many parts of the US, you don't have a choice purely and only because they choose not to compete with one another. So many times you cross a town you only get Verizon on one side and TWC on the other with no "oh I'll just switch to TWC" no you can't

>>58116936
the picture of the author does a great job describing the ridiculousness.

>>58116926
It can be done fairly quickly. The city I live in finally stopped their monopoly creating deal with the old cable isp and allowed new isps to run fiber through the city's conduit. They got 1/3 of the city up and running in about a year, with the rest to follow in the next year. City about 300,000 people, not huge, but not some podunk town either.

I just don't understand the mentality of the gov't telling a business they can't charge people in a certain way. Sure I despise caps and throttling, but it's their hardware and company, they can do whatever the hell they want. What if i wanted to start my own isp to try to compete with these pricks, and the only way to afford it is to throttle and cap people while trying to win customers in other ways, until I get big enough to stop doing that and finally crush the competition? Should I be banned from attempting that because it's not "fair" for the customers who voluntarily bought internet from me? Absurd.

>>58117001
>It can be done fairly quickly. The city I live in finally stopped their monopoly creating deal with the old cable isp and allowed new isps to run fiber through the city's conduit. They got 1/3 of the city up and running in about a year, with the rest to follow in the next year. City about 300,000 people, not huge, but not some podunk town either.
Which city?

>>58107938
>intended to say retards
>typed rewards
Bullshit, Anon. you would have to be a "reward" yourself to miss the T key so hard on a computer.

>>58116963
They are free to do as they see fit, just as you would be with your own isp. Those non compete contracts do nothing to stop any isp who wants to compete with them and steal their customers. The bigger problem is the agreements the local gov'ts cut with their isp to not allow other isps from trying to compete their. If comcast and verizon want to agree to not compete, that's fine, someone else could come have at them as long as the state doesn't prevent it. Also, afaik, those non compete agreements are technically illegal, though I know they still happen as a wink and a nod sort of thing.
Don't get me wrong, I absolutely fucking hate these companies. I would prefer to do business with a company I respect who treats me well as their business model, rather than having daddy gov't force them to "play nice" while they try to figure out other ways to fuck me over.

Cities get desperate and create all kinds of deals with local businesses that create monopolies. There were a bunch of silly rules about taxi service in my area until recently the city finally decided to wise up and remove them, and suddenly there are numerous cab companies now, and the one we had before couldn't charge ridiculous rates anymore. I'm sure they would have liked to, but they don't have gov't enforced help anymore.

>>58117049
lincoln, ne

>>58117001
>I just don't understand the mentality of the gov't telling a business they can't charge people in a certain way. Sure I despise caps and throttling, but it's their hardware and company,
Because they're doing what ever they want at your suffering and there's nothing you can do about it

The free market is all about competition and innovation over other compentitors

Isp haven't been competitive since the telecommunications became a thing Comcast isn't innovating, they're putting more restrictions so they can charge you more, they're counting Netflix towards your datacaps so they can get you to use their xfinity streaming service which is shit in comparison, they're opening up tour router for public WiFi that counts against your arbitrary data cap at your expense so they can charge more money

It's a fucking scam from collaborating companies to form an oligopoly system to purposely not compete

File: 1266126008249.jpg (68KB, 305x196px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 305x196px

>>58117001
>I voluntarily brought internet to the public, therefore I should be allowed to throttle and datacap just like everyone else!
>It's the free market!

>candidate shilled for by pseudo-fascist contrarian memelords who literally wanted his cock in their mouths for the simple fact that he was so ridiculous and outrageous turns out to have stupid policies

who'd have thought

>>58107834
Are you genuinely retarded?

Nevermind, you probably voted for Donald Trump instead of a real conservative like Cruz. Can't even be a respectable right-winger, you make me sick.

>>58117086
well, you could simply not be a customer of theirs. Or you could make your own business and compete with them.
As much as I hate these practices, seriously read the agreement you entered into, if all of that is in there, then you're getting what you signed up for, if it isn't, then they have broken the law and you have recourse.

>>58117068
>If comcast and verizon want to agree to not compete, that's fine,
No that's not fine there's a reason why it's called anti-trusts

It's illegal for companies to form non-compete clauses to gage prices and stifle innovation and no one can take them on or penetrating the oligopoly because a DA will never attempt to challenge that. You go ahead and sue under the Sherman anti trust act and see where that gets you as Comcast lawyers surmount you with hours and hours of red tape and prolong court hearings just to drown you out because you have no money to keep up your suit so you have to drop. It's not as simple as "let the free market do it" when you've got massive companies that own so much of the utility, property and dominance over your geography and more. One does not simply go against and compete you're out of your element to think it's so fucking menial

It's super easy for such a large company like Comcast to simply reinforce their dominance and oust you from competing by beating you at your own game because the ball is in their court every single time no matter what

>>58107834
My wifes nudes?

>>58117098
I don't understand your sarcasm.
>I created a service and offered it to potential customers.
>I think I have the right to charge as I see fit for the service I provide
this is exactly the free market. If you prefer state control then that's fine with me, we can disagree and move on

>>58117125
>well, you could simply not be a customer of theirs.
And now I have no Internet because they're the only one for hundreds of miles

Fuck netflix. That shit takes up 32% of internet traffic. These bandwidth hording fuckers should pay more than 10 bucks a month.

>>58116963
It seems like you want to enforce anti trust laws on comcast but it came out as "just regulate them instead".

>>58117125
These types of libertarian idioms are the most retarded things ever. It assumes the companies and all knowledge is 100% transparent and blames the consumer for every trap and fault with shitty hindsight arguments of "well you should have known the companies were teaming against you every step of the way" as some sort of end all argument because they can't see or imagine people doing bad things so such a monumental extent that it actively fucks over the consumer hardcore

>>58117183
>It seems like you want to enforce anti trust laws on comcast but it came out as "just regulate them instead".
I didn't say that at all holy fuck you're retarded

Antitrust is a regulation you mongoloid your entire plot is counter intuitive

>>58117154
I said that I believe non compete clauses are illegal. I also don't think it's trivially easy to set up and compete with them, but it's definitely possible to try as long as gov't doesn't help them beat you up. With something like an ISP, yeah the average poor ebt user is never going to get a loan and build a company, but someone with a bit of resources certainly could. If a semi-successful business man decided he wanted to start an ISP because he disliked the practices of the current hegemony, I don't see why they couldn't. Google did this with their fiber service, although they haven't been exactly gracious in the deals they cut with the cities they're in. Which is why gov'ts need to stop making these deals in the first place.

>>58116770

>socially right wing
>economically mixed

Not who you were talking to but not all Republicans like big business.

>>58117216
>I also don't think it's trivially easy to set up and compete with them,
You literally said "just open your own business and compete" as if it was a light switch that could be flipped knstantly

>>58117167
yeah that sucks and I've lived that myself. But it isn't the fault of that isp that no one else provides internet there, it's likely the fault of the local gov't.

>>58117216
>Google did this with their fiber service, although they haven't been exactly gracious in the deals they cut with the cities they're in. Which is why gov'ts need to stop making these deals in the first place.
Google gave up on installing more Fibre because other isp kept lobbying against them and flat out lobbying bans on the expansion

>>58117195
What do you mean "bad things"? If the consumer is lied to or frauded, then that's illegal. If the consumer is paying high fees that they don't like but agreed to, then what's the problem?

>>58117238
You're fucking retarded shifting the blame from everyone but the fucking isp that forced a monopoly with their influence then blamed the consumer as some magic transparency "you should have seen this coming". Bullshit

>>58117247
right, but that's my point, the gov't is used as a weapon for these corporate pricks, otherwise google or someone else could do as they please competition wise.

>>58117236
I didn't mean to imply that its so easy and anyone can do it, starting any business is hard, but it's possible. Just because I'm poor and ineffective doesn't mean I want the gov't to force a company to charge less. price caps never do anything but create shortages, and drive out producers.

>>58117253
>What do you mean "bad things"? If the consumer is lied to or frauded, then that's illegal. If the consumer is paying high fees that they don't like but agreed to, then what's the problem?
There is no transparency behind closed doors. The libertarian ideology revolves around this harmonious system of truth completely devoid of any sort of negative connotations and just assumes they'll go away when "the people" discover "oh I've been lied to" and assumes that monopolies never form or Magically disappear because "the prople" will just choose another option at a whim

It completely falls flat when the fact that there is no transparency there is no reliability and there is no incentive to be truthful when you can participate in collision and conspiracy without anyone knowing

>>58117257
My point is that the isp can't enforce a monopoly without gov't help. it's the gov'ts problem. I can't prevent other people from selling hot dogs to compete with my hot dog stand, but i can make deals with the local gov't to regulate or prevent anyone from creating their own hotdog stand.

>>58117298
>My point is that the isp can't enforce a monopoly without gov't help.
It's the fact that they have the money the power and the ability to collude and decide. They lobby officials who then let isp lawyers write laws that benefit them

Who watches the watchers? No one the government is a tool, it's not some thing the people have any real power over. It's not some entity that can be changed like "well just don't elect lying and corrupt people" as if it's some moniker for already knowing the outcome and judging it before it even exists which is why hindsight is 20/20 in every case and is useless in the public eye

It completely ignored sociology economic and cultural patterns and reasoning and replaces it with finite and predictable a+b=c out comes

>>58117289
The people know. In my area where twc was king for so long, everyone despises them, and as soon as someone else is allowed to compete, twc will lose all their customers, which is happening right now..finally. My assumption is that monopolies can't form without a gov't aiding them to begin with, and as soon as they stop, competition enters, and people gladly leave until the hated company loses enough money and is forced to stop doing whatever was pissing off their customers.

>>58117351
>The people know.
No they fucking don't, you can't see through walls there is no "oh yea we're colluding" because there's no transparency

File: 1479322114454.png (343KB, 1439x1152px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1439x1152px

>>58108066
>The internet reminding you

Bro you're not the internet. You're some anonymous faggot that's mad that he lost.

Deal with it. Faggot.

Ggnore

8 more years biiiiiiitch boi

>>58107935
>Name one reason why Net Neutrality is a bad idea.
Name one time gov't intervention in private business ever went well, in the history of the world. That's right you can't. Trump is a genious businessman and he realizes this.

"Net Neutrality" is just a codeword for "the gov't is going to snoop on all your data." Obama already sold out our entire internet to Europe or whatever, we don't need this Net Neutrality bullshit to make things worse.

>>58117212
>Antitrust is a regulation
This is a FCC thread, mate. Get your shit together.

>>58117372
so banning child sex slaves is a bad idea.

thats nice.

>>58117349
I agree with you here though, there should be no lobbying, or at least it should be restricted to highly paid bitching on the same level that I can call up and bitch while no one listens. But if the gov't didn't allow them to write the laws, make shady deals, etc.. all the money in the world isn't going to grant an isp any special anticompetitive advantages. If you're saying that that is gov't nature and can't be prevented, I would argue that there could be laws passed against these types of practices. But in any case, if you agree that the gov't is the problem, we could debate on how to solve the problem. But asking the govt to control these industries more is absurd if you agree that the problem is that the industries control the gov't. If the industries control the gov't, then the gov't by definition can't control the industries, so what's the point? The answer is to find some way to prevent the industries from using gov't as a weapon, presumably by taking away the gov'ts power to affect these types of situations to begin with. If the gov't can't prevent another hotdog stand from competing with mine, then I won't waste my time/money on convincing them to do so.

>>58117363
people aren't that dense. You and I and tons of people are on here right now arguing about how they're fucking us. Everyone I know, even those who barely understand computers, know that they're not getting a good deal from their behemoth isp's and would jump ship to anyone else who may give them a better deal.

>>58117372

Regulations pushing for safer cars

Ty based Trump

>>58117479
Ralph Nader please leave.

>>58117569

notanargument.jpg

I'm still shocked at how many people on /g/ would lean toward this interventionalist type of thinking. The internet is the greatest decentralizing force the world has ever seen, and the people here that should understand that the best are still arguing about how the corporations are evil because they control the gov't, and how the gov't needs to prevent them from hurting us... instead of saying the gov't needs to tell them to fuck off and stop helping them screw us. A company, no matter how large, has no special powers unless the gov't grants them through lobbying/"deals".
In other words, corporations use the gov't as it's gun, so stop giving the gov't bullets.

It seems my views have angered /g/'s sensibilities. I'll call my gov't mommy and tell her you're sad and would like NSA-tier data services for 10$/month because it's unfair and you deserve it.

>>58117592

>implying government enforced limits protecting the consumer from being fucked by corporations (who are chomping at the bit to fuck us) are worse than allowing corporations to fuck us freely

Libertarian high schooler detected

>>58107822
>I can't host my service directly on an ISP's network to serve my customers better, because apparently Mr. Orange Bearded Numale knows better than me
You're the only commie here. Get out.

>>58117611
that's not my argument at all. If you disagree that corporations power to fuck people is only enhanced by the gov't that's fine, but I argue that without gov't interference, there's much less opportunity for them to fuck us over. Has a fast food place "fucked you over" lately? Doubtful, because you would go to a million other places instead and not give a shit. Because gov't doens't interfere or make exclusive deal with a shitty burger joint, so they're left to compete with everyone else.

I'm fucking tired of people assuming anyone who disagrees with you believes your version of the consequences and still thinks it's great. They disagree with you because they think you're wrong about what will happen, so let's have a debate about that, and not assume the other person simply wants people to get screwed over.

>>58117581
It's not like people didn't have the right/choice to buy safe cars. Checkard was safe, did people buy them?

Hows that proof that Corvairs are dangerous coming?

Not to mention the regulations pay for people to keep older, less safe cars on the road. The average age of cars on the road have gone up since that law was passed.

Let me try this another way:
For those of you that hate the corporations because they are too rich and lobby the gov't to get whatever they want, what makes you think that you could have the gov't make another regulation saying that can't do something? They will just lobby the gov't for an exception, or in most cases, they'll get the gov't to allow them to influence the regulation so that it's beneficial to them, and hurtful to their competition, like always. The trick here is to limit the gov't power to affect these types of market conditions to begin with so that all the lobbying gets them nothing. MAYBE after that, then you could talk about some common sense regulation, but again, if they have the power to regulate, then they enough power which is worth being bought with lobbying, and the problem continues.

>>58107822
>Wanting more regulations on companies
fucking statist
this is why I have been working on a new system of routing and a new internet for the past two years, I still have a lot of work to do, like a year or so, it won't require anything but a router, free market motherfucker

>>58117803
/thread

>>58117803
>They lobby the government, so lets just let them do whatever they want!

The sad thing is even not counting the desperate attempt for replies, people actually believe this

>>58107822
You think hillary wouldn't have done worse?

Moron.

>>58117829
sadly, that is what western education produces now. Either statism, or heavy interventionalism, which is about as far to the economic right as people get. There has been some pushback, but I'm not sure how effective it will be. Soon enough, anything to the right of Lenin will be considered "right wing extremism"

>>58107834
>First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out for I am not a Jew...

Besides, everyone has something to hide, whether it's something small or large. The NSA will, within the next decade or so, have the power to blackmail anyone into silence.

>>58117372
>what are child labor laws
>what are anti-monopoly laws

>>58117868
I don't know what you mean by "whatever they want" exactly, but I argue that if they aren't using the gov't to crush competition and get special treatment, that they'd go out of business pretty quickly if they didn't start pleasing their customers right away.
They only exist to make a profit, and you can either please your customers until you gain more customers, or you can use the gov't to beat up your competition and hold your customers hostage. If you disagree with that, that's fine, but you don't have be smug about it or imply that I'm in favor of corporations "abusing" people.

File: Screenshot_20161222-003430.png (248KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 1080x1920px

>>58117900
there is nothing wrong with child labor
monopolies only really form because of government aka corporatism, natural monopolies are REALLY hard to form, and the way to curb those are with counter economics
fuck off with your statism

>>58117592
>A company, no matter how large, has no special powers unless the gov't grants them through lobbying/"deals".
That's hilarious. If it wanted to, without net neutrality, Comcast could effectively extort fees from websites that want full access to bandwidth. Smaller websites would be slower (or perhaps even inaccessible). Without the shield of the FCC to hold it back, Comcast wields an enormous amount of power.

>>58114003
>no discrimination
So prostitutes should get punished by the state for discriminating against customers and refusing to fuck someone of a certain race, gender, etc? They should be coerced into sex?

>>58117945
And why would anyone continue to use comcast in that scenario if the various gov't/corporate corruption weren't preventing people from going to another isp?

>>58117939
The belief that monopolies won't form naturally is an idealization of free market theory. There are plenty of industries where monopolies will form, particularly ones which require infrastructure to be effective. Internet service requires an enormous amount of capital to get a foothold into.
Here's a hypothetical scenario, and companies like Walmart have actually used this technique, so maybe it's not so hypothetical. An infrastructure-centric company operates across the nation, and as such, it takes in an enormous amount of revenue. A new startup launches in a city - only one city, because it doesn't have enough money to build infrastructure across the entire country. So what does the first nationwide company do? They temporarily lower prices in the city where the startup launches to prices that are cheaper than those of the startup. They're distributed across hundreds of cities, so they can handle a dip in revenue from one city. The startup is squashed. The end.

>>58117976
>if the various gov't/corporate corruption weren't preventing people from going to another isp?
Evidence that the government is responsible for Comcast/CenturyLink having a duopoly on internet providing?

>>58117939
>parents should be allowed to force their children to work
brilliant!

>>58117947
i love the crying about discrimination. Force these companies that hate me to do business with me! Seriously, no self respect. If a company hates me, I prefer they be allowed to discriminate openly, so I am aware that they hate my guts, so I can take my business elsewhere. Also, if I own my own business, why should i be prevented from only selling to certain people? I'm not required to operate and sell to anyone, and being a bigot isn't illegal, so who cares? If there is a business known for hating mexicans who refuse to do business with them, they are only costing themselves profit from said mexicans, and from anyone else who finds that despicable, and they probably won't last very long. Or if they do, it's because they've found a niche of customers who like what they do, in which case, more power to them, why the fuck do people care?

>>58117869
Obviously she wouldn't have, no. Net neutrality is a regulation on business. Why wouldn't Democrats favor it? She and Obama both have the same stance on it, and as you may have noticed, Obama's FCC chair protected it.

>>58118019
The city where I live had a deal for years with twc, where they wouldn't allow anyone else to lay cable in the public city lands. So it was impossible for anyone to compete. They ended that deal, or it expired, and they allowed a few new isps to lay cable, and now twc is likely fucked at least internet wise here, because everyone is going to bail for fiber at about the same price as twc shitty internet. Just one example. Plus like others have mentioned, they will do whatever they can to lobby the gov't to create favorable circumstances for themselves, and barriers for anyone else. Many times it's not an outright monopoly in that others are banned, it's just that they have created so many burdens to entry into the industry that smaller companies can't afford it, and only those as large as themselves can survive, then they agree to not compete with each other, knowing everyone else is de facto blocked from competing due to a web of various gov't rules/regulations.

File: NowWaspICanGetInto.png (339KB, 1057x594px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 1057x594px

>tfw 4chan is blocked by ISPs until you buy a "Social Media Package" including reddit, twitter, Facebook, etc.
What will all you autists do without this place? Go outside? Kekeroo. Better go buy some Nem while you can to kys.

>>58118019
also, many times cities are stupid and are desperate for certain services, so they beg a company to set up infrastructure there, short sighted thinking that it will help them be an attractive city, and in return for that investment, they are happy to agree to anti competitive measures, because they just want the service, and they figure once they get it, they don't care about the future consequences. They don't realize they end up with years of stifled innovation, higher prices, lower satisfaction, lower service quality, etc.. then in 10 years when they realize they are desperate for improved service, they're back at the ass kissing table looking to sign more corrupt deals to get what they want. Rather than staying the fuck out of it and trying to foster an environment of easier competition and lowered barriers to entry. If i want to start my own isp, comcast isn't going to be my worst enemy, it will be all the expensive convoluted rules I have to follow, permits I have to acquire, and bureaucratic red tape I have to fight through to even try to give comcast a run for its money, which is by design. comcast and others know that they can't smash people's businesses like the mafia does, so they use the gov't to brow beat anyone who dares try.

>>58109308

>dank memes

Just wait till we need to insert our verification cans to play vidja, or have a literal pepe market.

as long as the government is footing the bill for rolling out the copper, the isps really have no point in dissenting against regulation

it's the government's copper, the government paid for that copper

>>58109202
Nah, the election brought a lot of redditors to shit up /pol/. 'technology' is a pretty common numale interest so they found us here and stayed.

There seems to be a lot of confusion ITT about what net neutrality actually is.

What it isn't about: Some SJW cuck mechanism to censor your ability to criticize homos with pink dyke hair. Also, spying.

What it is about: Preventing ISP's from being able to throttle or block traffic that compete with their interests.

Getting rid of net neutrality is ANTI-competitive. In the US (aka the only place that matters re this discussion), you can't just take the rules away and expect the free market to fix it. The communications industry has grown and colluded for decades under regulatory misstep to become Oligopoly. Doing away with neutrality just makes them stronger, as they own much of the infrastructure to begin with.

If you want a more free market, you have to start with breaking them up first. Abolishing net neutrality is like saying "Oh well, fuck it" and giving up on any hope of a healthy marketplace.

File: 1 (8).jpg (607KB, 798x1088px) Image search: [Google]

607KB, 798x1088px

>>58107822
>obama gave it up to the chinese
>set in motion chinese censorship
>blame it on republicans

>>58118222
I agree, though in many cases though it's not the gov'ts copper. It's the isp's copper, which they agreed to lay in return for favorable gov't regulation.

>>58117692

You can't possibly be this retarded. Your analogy fails, because fast food restaurants are not fucking us over because of regulations preventing them from serving us shit.

If you want to see what would happen if your naive ideology is implemented, study history. Corporations can, will, and want to fuck you and everyone else at every given opportunity.

>what is OSHA, and what were conditions like before it
>what is the FDA, and what kind of shit did companies get away with selling before it

I get it, man. I went through that phase too. It feels nice to tell yourself "I don't need anyone looking after me! I'm a rugged individual that doesn't need protection, because muh free market guiding hand will deal with them", even though that almost never happens, and it's almost always reform pushed by the government on behalf of the will of the people that punishes bad practices.

Then you turn 20

>>58117939

>implying it wasn't the government that broke up the monopolies in America

>>58117611 was right. You really are a highschooler that doesn't know jack shit about history.

>>58118270
I'm not talking about regulations regarding selling people poison though. I'm talking about well meaning "fairness" type regulations, which can sometimes turn out to be anti-competitive. I'm not against all regulation.

>>58118313

Fair enough. Sorry for over generalizing your position.

>>58117372
If you'd get donald trumps dick off your face maybe you'd see he doesn't shit rainbows. The internet is, for all intents and purposes, the biggest communications platform in human history, and net nuetrality rules help to protect the free exchange of ideas by making sure no voices can be quieted just by a providers intent to stifle access.

>>58118297
I'm long passed high school, and I argue that the gov't broke up monopolies it helped to create, because it is short sighted and incompetent. And what happened after it broke up the telcos? They reconsolidated with ignorant gov't help and are now bigger than ever.

So many insults here, just show me why my positions are wrong and where/why they break down. Implying the person you are arguing with is retarded is only reducing the quality of your presumed intellectual victory.

>>58118375
No problem, I hadn't said that, and there are lots of people who are opposed to all regulation.

File: 1472979482562.png (2MB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5000x5000px

>>58107834
>What is the freedom of speech?

For the record, for all of my free market supporting arguments, I'm not categorically opposed to so-called net neutrality. I just have serious concerns that it is applied as advertised and won't be subject to corruption by the gov't and its corporate buddies, like everything else they touch.

>>58118389

Try providing an evidenced based argument for the government creating monopolies through regulations that were intended to protect the consumer in the first place.

That is, after all, what we are arguing over. Net Neutrality is intended to protect consumers and content producers from being fucked by ISPs. You think these protections are stupid because they would somehow help the corporations because.... reasons?

I am rightly calling that retarded, and will continue to do so until you make a solid argument.

>>58118457
>Try providing an evidenced based argument for the government creating monopolies through regulations that were intended to protect the consumer in the first place.

What is regulatory capture for $200, Alex?

I'm a fan of net neutrality, but you have to bring out better arguments than this stupidity.

>>58118466

>"Don't protect the consumers from getting the shaft, because those protections might fail and then the corporations will fuck us anyway"

>Calls my argument stupid

W E W L A D S

>>58118466
>>58118479

Rudeness aside, your point does answer my specific request. I only think that the core of your argument is still flawed

>>58118466
title II classification is pretty clear cut, at least as far as I understand it. Not him, but I see your point.

>>58118479

I'm on your side you idiot, trying to point out shitty arguments before somebody else does.

>>58118457
I don't think the idea is stupid, I don't know if the implementation will work as advertised because like i said here >>58118445
and like this anon said>>58118466
are legitimate concerns.

>>58113886
hes right, its the same here in the UK
you literally go to if you say mean things about minorities

>THEY FELL FOR THE GOP MEME

TOP KEK