Net neutrality is a no-brainer

File: Untitled.png (39KB, 623x214px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 623x214px

>How can anyone unironically be against net neutrality?
Because dickriding Trump feels better

>>58647871
P-please don't make my thread political. I don't want this to become a shitstorm like the previous ones...

>>58647808
If this is the direction the free market is will to take, so be it. Trying to interfere with market forces is ultimately disastrous for consumers and corporations alike. If the internet as we know it goes to shit, something better will replace it. It's the way the world works.

>>58647808
SHILLS ARE OUT IN FORCE

CTR HAS NEW FUNDING

THIS IS A RAID

REPEAT SHILLS HAVE INVADED 4CHIN

MANY SUCH THREADS ON /POL EXPOSING

SAD

File: ewwww.png (427KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 500x500px

>>58649641
>this is what capitalists actually and unironically believe
MAXIMUM CRINGE

File: 1485329258859m.jpg (151KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1024x1024px

>>58649799
Shoo shoo

File: 1485036498417-r9k.jpg (57KB, 480x792px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 480x792px

>>58649641
This isn't "free" in the scense of the word. Internet traffic to the end use should be treated as a common utility that provides bits. The net has been nutural until the early 2000's when Telecoms forced the fcc to call them Title 3 information providers in order to introduce fast lanes. Now that they are under title 2 again as common carriers they are flipping their shit trying to corner the market again and bully out local isp's with threats of legal action.

Just imagine you live on an island with 50+ people and the cable companies want 70k to run service to you. After you say fuck em and you +50 people build your own isp for much cheaper. Now imagine the money grubbing telecom's physically attack your isp's data link on the mainland (by snipping cables and launching ddos attacks) in order to cut your service and in the end they come back to offer you +50 others 35k for a service link. You all gather the needed cash and get hooked up to a much slower network with a higher monthly cost for all the homes of the +50 people.

Did I forget to mention this was a real story?

File: 547.png (628KB, 700x666px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 700x666px

>>58649806
>implying Obama is a liberal
Smelly, dumb, conservative scum.

>>58649835
>Implying implications

>>58649835
Typical shill tactics. Call names and attack dissenting opinions. Full of hate, you are are.

I probably would be too if I made my living shilling .02¢ a post on the asshole of the internet.

>>58649799
I'm not saying it's a good situation but I'm not at all comfortable with a "government knows best" solution that tampers with private companies going about their business. It never works out.

>>58649823
It's free in the sense that it is free from government interference even if it involves private companies then setting up tons of stupid restrictions and limitations. If that's what they want to do then so be it. Something new and better will come along because innovators always be innovatin. Besides, cable providers will just pass along the cost to consumers anyway.

I don't doubt that telecom companies are total pieces of shit and do horrible things, I'm just saying the precedent of the government telling them how to run their business is not the answer.

>>58649947
>it's free in some very counter-intuitive and completely dysfunctional definition of "free"

lmao

I'd recommend this talk, this guy discusses how to define "free":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1PtStipIsc

>>58647808
A friend of mine unironically believes net neutrality is an impediment of the free market. It's just empty neocon rhetoric that's been rehashed for every applicable scenario. They're ignoring the fact that people don't really choose which ISP they use (or which websites they browse, for that matter) as most of them are fundamentally anti-competitive. It's easier for them to believe that the internet in the hands of Time Warner or Verizon or the like is somehow preferable to it being in the hands of some bogeyman regulatory agency like the FCC.

Anytime I hear the same uninsightful arguments from /k/ or AR15.com, I honestly cringe because it's just such a facile, hamfisted understanding of how markets work.

>>58649823
>Real story
Got a link?

Powerful corporations have powerful lobbies.

What's interesting is that most conservatives believe in anti-monopoly and anti-price fixing regulations on business. A hard-line anti-regulation stance is incredibly rare. So, people coming out of the woodwork to fight against net neutrality from the position of laissez-faire government are merely revealing their contrarianism and blind party loyalty.

>>58647808
um, maybe because in it's current implementation it's nothing but smoke and mirrors that protects the isps from new competition

>>58647808
Well, we wouldn't need net neutrality if everyone had a choice of a dozen different ISPs for their wireline broadband.

The problem with Trump's proposal is getting rid of NN without dismantling ISP monopolies.

>>58651153
Then why are all the major ISPs fighting net neutrality?

>>58651168
Lmao you know that won't happen. Consumers get fucked so hard by those monopolies that it's almost laughable.
Comcast straight up lies to people in areas that offer Google fiber.

>>58649947

a government is essentially a monopoly that regulates things and sets up various infrastructures. ISPs are the government of the internet. They're monopolies more often than not, and saying that it's ok for them to totally regulate internet and extort customers just because they're not government seems totally arbitrary and pathetic. within the context of the internet, they're really no different, and potentially far worse.

File: c246b9bf8d25a8c8cbcabe783da55fa245f5817b6626766dfee3638a31e7b4bc.png (434KB, 1144x888px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 1144x888px

>>58647808
Let's say I don't want former Comcast execs writing the rules. Therefor I am against giving more power to the FCC. I don't want more regulation over the internet. We have not had nn and I don't get billed extra for certain sites. There were some companies in my area charging extra after exceeding datacaps but everyone left them and they had to revert to unlimited plans. Maybe there exists somewhere an ISP fucking over its consumers like this but but outside of wireless I don't know of any these days. Your trying to use bureaucracy to solve a problem that does not exist.

>>58651177
ISPs a gud boyz, dey dindu nuffin.

File: 1482313830560.jpg (67KB, 620x400px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 620x400px

>>58651244

>a problem that does not exist

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Comcast-Kill-Local-Gigabit-Expansion-Plans-in-Tennessee-136503

>>58651244

it doesn't exist because it's not allowed to exist, not because it wouldn't if it could. As soon as an ISP is OK'd for fucking everything up, they'll jump on the opportunity. The worst part is they make tons of cash doing it, grandmas won't even be aware it's happening to them. Most people don't understand the issue, don't know it's an issue, or just don't care. They can easily fuck everything up for the rest of us.