You guys ARE going to tell Trump and his FCC to fuck off when

>>59263158

>implying true /g/entooman rely on any of these websites or services in your autistic picture

either way ... reddit will stop those kind of movements anyway right in the tracks.

>>59263158
>>>/pol/ is that way, Dave.

>>59263158
We already pay for this with our privacy.

>>59263158
>when they turn the internet in this this, right?

If that were ever to happen it would be because of the websites extorting the cable companies, not the other way around. That's how it is now with TV.

Have some common sense.

One thing you need to learn is that you were not going to win.

If net neutrality legislation was enforced, it would have so much garbage added by politicians that it would effectively just be a way to enforce current ISP monopolies and send prices up even more. And possibly end up selling tiered internet but actually through a legal loophole no-one can sue them.

And if it is cancelled, then ISPs can start doing this shit, and you can't do a thing because the last set of internet regulations you cried about were also written by the ISPs.

Protip: When designing a hutch to protect chickens from foxes, don't ask the foxes to design it.

ISPs don't care about nickle and diming you, flat data caps and overage charges are much more lucrative and generate much less public backlash.

Also without net neutrality they can just charge facebook, google, netflix, amazon, billion dollar premiums or else "Whoops our customers can't access your services without 5 second delays".

>>59263158
isn't this exactly contrary to what makes a lot of the big "internet" companies successful?

I can't imagine Google doing nearly as well if it was locked behind a paywall
if cable dinosaurs tried to pull something like this I can easily see a company like Google utterly destroying them

>>59263158
Shut up you stupid fuckign libtard

>>59263158
Ah yes, ISPs will copy the pricing model used by dying cable companies. That sounds like a sound business plan.

File: C6LyfhJWYAIpKsm.jpg (45KB, 988x414px)

45KB, 988x414px

>>59263285

>>59263285
Typical conservative argument. Call them names and foam from the mouth since real arguments require more than they can handle.

>>59263299
Now show the same statistics grouped by income.

>>59263313
Feel free to do the work, it'll give a dum dum like you something to do!

>>59263299
What a surprise, people who have been to Stalin's Soviet education are more in favor of Stalinism

Oh wait, we're talking about a different system where ideology is implanted in those who are educated in ideologically oriented institutions.

>>59263158
Don't get me wrong, I support NN, but this shit didn't happen before NN, and it's not very likely to happen now for end users. This is mostly fear mongering.

>>59263299
getting a college degree isn't a huge achievement anymore. it's not that difficult to have your parents pay for a gender studies/art degree then pretend you're an intellectual.

>>59263297
They can, because there is nothing to stop them. They have a monopoly on the internet, and it is extremely difficult to be a new business breaking into the ISP sector

>>59263351
college degrees are easy for every discipline now.

complete retards can get them because administrations only care about keeping the dollar bills flowing so that the admins can buy new caddies and BMW M3s every year.

>>59263358
Then why haven't they already raised prices to 100 gajillizion dollars per month? Why would they use this complicated pricing model instead of just raising prices to 100 gajillizion dollars per month?

>>59263351
Or get the state to pay for your African studies bachelor's

>>59263333
This is your attempt? Pretty weak 2bh

>>59263351
Postgraduate vs HS is the focus.

File: niggarachi.jpg (96KB, 900x750px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 900x750px

>>59263299
>MUH IDENTITY POLITICS

>>59263383
Identity politics were a thing before you were born and started getting triggered by SJWs and were heavily utilized by majority of the political spectrum, FWIW. So at least attempt to understand the phrase before throwing it around in a desperate attempt to seem above it all.

>>59263158
You realize the internet is a 2 way street right ? The content providers could block traffic to ISPs if they did this, which would probably result in the ISP lifting such fees. Why would I want my customers to have to pay an extra fee to access my shit that I am getting no part of ?

>>59263351
>>59263333
>>59263366

>college degrees are so overrated, r-right?
>it's n-not that i couldn't even get into my state uni, i swear...

College degrees might be losing value in the job market, but not having a college degree is even worse career-wise.

>>59263158
You mean Americans

The rest of the world will be fine

File: IMG_20170305_231223_738.jpg (45KB, 550x296px)

45KB, 550x296px

>$5 playground

Gamers are literally manchildren, kek

>>59263416
I am the third anon, I have a college degree, I was just saying they are basically garbage and a waste of time now. It'd be better if we just stopped using them as HR filters.

>>59263158
if trump wants this, it obviously is because it will benefit us and the economy

>>59263274
Well they aren't internet companies in the sense that Google or Facebook is, they're telcos and cable companies. Tech companies trade globally on platform and network effects and use the internet for data transfer, having few real physical assets beyond datacenters that they can place where they will, or contract out. Telcos are in a very infrastructure-heavy business that's much more heavily regulated, and they usually make their money by being a monopoly provider.

>>59263435
I don't see how it would be better. They're easy to get (are they not?), therefore they operate fine as a baseline HR filter.

>>59263382
Postgraduate is not hard. Law school has many of those people and they are 99% libtards who are brainwashed into stupid shit like activist judiciary.

Most of these people are literally Communists who have a PhD in English or Philosophy and teach at some shitty college.

File: 23.png (139KB, 893x305px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 893x305px

>>59263158
>mfw all of this is still cheaper than comcast right now

Americans deserve it desu.

>>59263158
Haven't seen this in almost 10 years.

File: (You).png (505KB, 500x533px) Image search: [Google]

505KB, 500x533px

>>59263400

>>59263464
I pay $40 a month for 100/10 through Comcast. Maybe you should stop being a retarded boomer who also buys cable and phone through shitty bundle deals and counts that in the price.

>>59263382
Postgrad is mostly non-STEM retards who read library books and write papers.

>>59263370
there is a difference between unaffordable and consumer unfriendly

>>59263416
>assumptions
Not everyone is upper middle class. Many poor families in the US can't send their kids to college, so instead they become mechanics or plumbers or something useful. It's entirely possible to have a good career without going to college.

>>59263501
And why would ISPs introduce a consumer unfriendly pricing model that would also bring in less revenue?

>>59263484
congratulations ? Internet access is a completely geographic down to the exact municipality and street you reside.

Nah, I'm going to make local networks great again in my city.

Proprietary software will go fuck itself, DC++ and emails will become a valuable thing again.

>>59263510
>tfw went to school and got a BA in Advertising
>tfw went straight from graduation into an electrician apprenticeship
>tfw 5 years later I make about 70k-80k/yr with union benefits.
and to be honest, i don't even do much work and I work like 30 hours a week - yet my parents are still assplastered about my career choice.

>>59263310
>Typical conservative argument
>ignores the millions of liberals and redditors calling Trump "Drumpf, orange cheeto racist, Putin-puppet"

I think you need to step outside more.

>>59263516
>why would ISPs introduce a consumer unfriendly pricing model
Because they can.
>that would also bring in less revenue?
Because it wouldn't, it would bring in more revenue. Most people can't switch because they have a monopoly provider, and most of the people who can won't bother. Lots of normies pay over a hundred a month for cable and internet, and just have a "it costs what it costs, nothing to do but pay for it" attitude.

>>59263669
If they have a monopoly why wouldn't they just charge everyone a higher flat price instead of doing this "package" bullshit?

>>59263651
"You go low I go high"
More like you go low I go low.

Hop off your pedestal.

>>59263699
To use this system for pressing on web companies.

>>59263713
Why would they need to do that? According to you, they have a monopoly so they could charge whatever price they want. They don't need any more money from web companies if they can get any amount of revenue from their customers.

>>59263699
Market segmentation. You want to charge each consumer the maximum price they're willing to pay.

>>59263734
They have a monopoly. They can charge whatever they want.

>>59263710
>"He started it!" tier argument

You're just as bad as the so-called "evil conservatives" you hate so much.

Keep holding on to your shitty "Reality has a liberal bias" mindset, though. I'd love to see your face when sharia law becomes more and more dominant in the west, thanks to you and your liberal actions.

>>59263745
Sorry, but what a degenerate you are.

>>59263745
The consumer does have an option though: Do without. Which is more viable in this smartphone age. There's some price at which they'll do that.

This is also why they divide pay TV into regular cable and the "premium" sports channels - people who want to watch the latter are willing to pay for it, everyone else isn't. So instead of having yo worry about the first group cutting the cord or the second group not paying you as much as they might, you split your services and charge them separate prices. You retain more customers and maximize the revenue you can squeeze out of them.

>>59263781
>The consumer does have an option though: Do without. Which is more viable in this smartphone age. There's some price at which they'll do that.
And this option doesn't exist under a packaged based pricing model?

>This is also why they divide pay TV into regular cable and the "premium" sports channels
No you fucking idiot the reason they do that is because the channels charge the cable providers for each subscription.

>>59263751

retard alert

When exactly did we have net neutrality again?
Why didn't ISPs start doing this the first chance they got?
Maybe because it's fucking stupid. Anyone who doesn't will fucking crush the ones who do and make them go out of business.
Stop fear mongering, OP.

>>59263799
>berates conservatives because he thinks they resort to name-calling and "foam at the mouth"
>literally proves the opposite by doing the same thing himself

Maximum trolling or just pure lack of realization to losing an argument. Either way, doesn't matter now. Trump is president for 4 years, nothing you can do about that until then.

What the hell is the appeal of net "neutrality" anyways? Metro PCS tried to offer free youtube, but it was struck down because the government thought giving consumers choices was bad.

You retards act like all the Pajeets in silicon valley are going to buy off ISPs so that only BLACKED is available unless you pay six trillion shekels a month to get access to other porn. What's really going to happen is that ISPs offer lower cost packages that only covers the most common websites while your regular internet package stays the same price with the same offerings. Why shouldn't Netflix be allowed to pay ISPs to upgrade their infrastructure so that they can access more potential customers?

>>59263299
It's almost like people affected by American industrial labour being moved overseas and have lost their jobs/have to work 60 hours per week are more likely to vote for Donald Trump. Weird.

>>59263158
What is Trump going to do? Reverse Comcast vs. FCC? ISPs will always be common carriers.

>>59263829
>When exactly did we have net neutrality again?
The Obama administration classified ISPs as public utilities, which effectively enforced net neutrality. Some ISPs did try to violate net neutrality, but they were prevented from doing so.

New(not really new) shilling technique.
Subject of discussion is diverted by a false flag Trump post, following responses about leftism and shitflinging by "both" sides, that are actually working together to destroy the discussion.

Internet freedom is already worse than in the OP image but people aren't forced into few site bubbles, most of them do not know any better.

>>59263170
> >implying true /g/entooman rely on any of these websites or services in your autistic picture

The point here is that anything that is not pictured would not be accessible at all because only hackers and paedophiles would use those sites.

You aren't a hacker or a paedophile, are you anon?

>liberals are on average poorer than conservatives
>liberals won't be able to afford access to all of the internet, more and more websites will become majority conservative
>implying there's anything wrong with this

File: 71268659.png (27KB, 248x236px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 248x236px

>>59263158
>It'll fail because people aren't going to pay for that shit
>They do
Stop it. This is why DLC and pre-ordering exist.

File: 1464372120242.png (855KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

855KB, 960x720px

The only websites I use are 4chan and youtube, wikipedia, and google really.

If each of these were 5 bucks a month and it made my internet bill 20 bux I'd have no issue provided speed stayed the same.

>>59263158
Not our place to dictate to private companies what they can and can't do with their services. As a consumer, I won't necessarily be happy with tiered internet but that's the way it is and we have to accept it. The free market wouldn't be bringing us here if it wasn't right.

>>59263416
I'm not even an amerifat

But enjoy being burdened with a student loan that you can only escape by dying just to get the entry-level internships

>>59264173
I'm a hacker

>>59264283
People will reply to this false flag.

>>59264292
>i disagree
>hurr, better reply with memes

I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond, but here's your (you). Which part of the above did you specifically disagree with? Oh wait, that would require thought and effort on your part. Nevermind.

We have this discussion here every single day. You can't just make everything literally 100% pro-consumer, the economy would collapse. The gov't can't just step in and try to micromanage the internet, it just doesn't work. It's been proved time and time again that the market works best when it's the consumers who correct it themselves.

I don't like using the term "Net Neutrality" because it's basically a liberal buzzword, but if the market does abandon it, it's because that's whats best. And if "Net Neutrality" was ACTUALLY a good thing anyway, then consumers will vote with their wallets and the ISPs will reintroduce it themselves, without big gov't interference.

>>59264387
Not him but I'll bite.
Companies will try and get away with whatever is profitable. It's natural selection, companies who fail to make money and their practices go out of business.

It's up to consumers to dictate what's acceptance or not by voting with their money. If people don't like something and don't buy it it'll go bankrupt and go away.

>>59263207
Now you get to pay with your money too.

>>59264426
If ISPs wanted more money they could just raise prices.

>>59264283
>>59264387

Bro you are based as fuck. +1

Not a lot of people around here have the balls to accept that net neutrality is a fucking meme. In terms of /g/ redpills, it's just about the only one.

The part that I don't like is the part where young people think their way of using the internet is the only way you can use it. My grandma is awfully proud of her upvotes on Disqus. All she does is browse a single conservative website that uses Disqus, checks some email, Skypes. Can we take a moment to recognize how stupid it is that she pays the same $40/mo that you probably pay, when you download several TB a month from Usenet and Netflix?

In what world is that an ideal outcome? It takes some strength to recognize and embrace the idea that you are an outlier, but it's the truth. We use the internet differently than most people do. When considering the merits of net neutrality, we have to be honest about it. This shit is not reasonable in its current state. There's no reason my grandma should be paying more than $5/mo for her usage. Let the ISP throttle her from Netflix, she doesn't use it. Let them inject ads in her pages, she already installs plenty of adware on her own!

>>59264467

Jesus this is unreadable. Apologies for the scattered-ness, I am drunks on a Sunday night.

>>59264387
Just what kind of indoctrination program do you need to run to get this kind of spectacular result? Have fun correcting the market when you have a grand total of 2 options for your Internet service and they offer exactly the same package, as is the case for many if not most Americans.

>>59264415
I don't get how this is "biting" considering we seem to basically be in agreement. I guess the difference is you're assuming this will fail, I'm assuming it will work out. Most people aren't /g/, if 99% of the market would be fine with tiered internet then that's what we'll get, and it'll work out a lot better than the gov't artificially keeping the current system alive.

Really gets the old noggin' ticking, that /g/ takes a perfectly sensible opinion and assumes it's "false flagging." Gee, I wonder who's behind it.

>>59264467
THANK YOU.

>>59264387
>>59264479
>>59264467
>>59264490
Why are you responding to yourself? Are you the same person pretending to be from /pol/ as well?

File: Screenshot_20170306-022456.png (466KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 1080x1920px

>>59264503

Nope

>>59264520
>going out of the way to post on separate devices to hide blatant false flagging

>>59264532

> Diverting this far from the original topic, two posts in a row with no new argument

Heh it's nothing personell kid

>>59264532
Oh, you were just trolling. Great.

>>59263158
Might actually give me the kick in the ass I need to get active and social again, can't wait.

>>59264490
I'm not assuming it'll fail. I think it will definitely thrive. As you said 99% of people aren't /g/ and don't care, and they certainly won't go without the internet for any amount of time to protest.

If they start charging per site then single sites will start offering more services.

I'm not an americlap, they're just going to prioritse people who pay and give them more bandwidth to sites, right?
You can still visit sites you don't pay for?
Does this mean anyone can not pay anything and have low priority to everything?

>>59264569
Honestly, we don't know enough about how it will work to answer any of those questions yet. All we can do is speculate.

>You can still visit sites you don't pay for?
I'd be VERY surprised if they completely block websites that aren't part of your package, I could see it wind up being similar to mobile phone data plans where you get throttled or billed extra at the end of the month or whatever if you exceed your plan. But even that's pure speculation.

Personally, I think home plans are going to start looking more and more like mobile data plans, with the addition of tiers and website packages which wind up SAVING you money if you have a small amount of traffic to a small amount of websites. Honestly, taken on the whole, for the vast majority of people getting rid of this gov't regulation is probably a good thing.

>>59264664
How would that work? They would need to filter and cross-check my packet EVERY step of the way to it's destination. wouldn't checking packets to the ISP service be a massive overhead?

>>59264707
I don't know. Maybe it's not even economically feasible, which means net neutrality was useless anyway.

>>59264444
They would have to do this all at the same time and this would imply that they agreed on the price that they would go for, which is illegal
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing