Is this a bad thing?

>>59444231
No, it promotes competition and drives down prices.

>>59444231
The ISP that doesn't introduce this automatically wins.

>U S A
>S
>A

>>59444231
do people actually pay for this

>>59444231
>massive 1000MB

kek

>>59444293
Yes

>trump picked pai ajit
>paid corporate shill against net neutrality
>pai ajit
>pajeet

JUST

>>59444231
Extremely.

Considering that the alternative is to allow the government to censor and control the web, yes.

>>59446282
Spotted the Republican.

>>59444231
>use vpn
>access anything
epic!

>>59446377
>implying they wouldn't throttle the shit out of VPNs in order to make more moneys
It's called inverse totalitarianism, anon. And the US is on the fast-track towards it.

>>59446392
i don't think that would work out. too many people require VPNs to do actual work.

>>59446406
>do actual work.
Oh, you want the business plan then!

>>59446420
>someone working remotely from their home needs to pay $300/month for a "business plan" in order to work
not happening

>>59446438
My sweet innocent summer child...

>>59446282
So now we can have companies censor and control the web and you get to pay for it too!

Alt righters everyone

>>59446438
This is retarded. In rural PA I was paying exactly that for 'business class' cable, because the normie tier was like 1.5mb down.

>>59446510
>Alt righters everyone
Actually, they love to cry foul when private companies like Facebook or Twitter "censor" their opinions and "violate" their first amendment rights.

>>59446531
>rural PA
Where do you mean by this?

>>59444246
>yfw prices go up
Ever heard of corporate collusion? Google the Phoebus Cartel.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

File: idiocracy-tv-dvd[1].jpg (76KB, 784x439px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 784x439px

>>59446392
>>implying they wouldn't throttle the shit out of VPNs

not if you install their ads streaming plugin. free first month. kek

>>59446535
At least on this I have some sympathy. These are large public platforms for people to express themselves on, and wildly popular. It raises the question whether such private entities should uphold standards of free speech, even though they're private.

The principle of free speech after all is one of the fundamental bedrocks of a functioning society. Its only alternative, violence.

>>59444231
yes daddy trump told me less regulation is good

if you dont like it you must be a leftist cuck traitor CTR shill

MAGA

>>59446576
Fucking phoneposters.

File: free_speech.png (52KB, 566x577px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 566x577px

>>59446658
>we need to seize the means of social media because muh freedom of speech!!! nationalize facebook!!!!
Fuck off with this communist faggotry dude. Social media isn't a public utility, jesus christ.

File: OicEnPK.png (317KB, 600x849px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 600x849px

>>59446710
Learn to separate the principle from the law you vacuous mote of dust.

>>59446710
>Social media isn't a public utility, jesus christ.
Then so isn't the Internet. Verizon should be able to ban you from the Internet if you post something dumb.

>>59446755
>muh principles
Nobody is financially obligated to provide you with a platform for your asinine opinions, you blowhard.

Quickest way to get Twitter and Facebook classified as utilities: ban @realDonaldTrump.

>>59446658
Free speech guarantees your right to host your own opinions, not to force Facebook or Twitter host your opinions.

>>59446673
Why does this sound exactly what they would say?

>>59446776
>I can't tell the difference between a telecommunications company and a social media company
why are you even on /g/

>>59446811
Telecommunications company is a private company that owns a mean of communication between two or more people.

Social media company is a private company that owns a mean of communication between two or more people.

>>59444260
not if they are the only isp in a certain area

>>59446796
>Free speech guarantees your right to host your own opinions, not to force Facebook or Twitter host your opinions.
Maybe you should re-read my post and this >>59446755

Pay specific attention to this line:
>It raises the question whether such private entities should uphold standards of free speech, even though they're private.
Read it until you get what I'm actually saying.

>>59446816
>I don't know what the legal definition of 'common carrier' is
Seriously, why are you even here?

>>59446820
We understood what you were saying, it was just stupid and unfounded. Why do you think other people should pay bandwidth to host your opinions?

>>59446778
>financially obligated
When did Twitter and Facebook become services you have to pay for? Are they charging my accounts?

Holy shit.

>>59446869
They're businesses you retard, you're just the product, not the customer. They don't owe you shit.

>>59446820
>Read it until you get what I'm actually saying.
What the hell do you think I said? Free speech guarantees you the right to your own platform. It doesn't guarantee a private company hosting a forum should let you host your opinions on their servers.

>>59446377
how the fuck would it be different than accessing the websites directly? the vpn traffic would still count as "non-peering"

>>59446869
You don't pay for them. They pay for you. Server time doesn't come out of nowhere.

>>59446889
Out of curiosity, where have I disputed this irrelevant fact?

I'm merely calling into question whether or not private entities should uphold the principles of free speech on important and wildly popular public platforms that allow for the free exchange of ideas.

Is there some sort of delusion preventing you from understanding this?

>>59446936
>I'm merely calling into question whether or not private entities should uphold the principles of free speech
Would you let any random stranger from 4chan use your computer to host high traffic websites at your expense? No? Why do you hate freedom of speech?

>>59446965
Depends on what I'm wanting to achieve. If a public service open for all, then why not?

Why not?

Why?

Faggot.

>>59446936
>I'm merely calling into question whether or not private entities should uphold the principles of free speech on important and wildly popular public platforms that allow for the free exchange of ideas.
>Is there some sort of delusion preventing you from understanding this?
Yeah, I've got a delusion.
There is no "principle of free speech" where a private company needs to allocate bandwidth and pay for it for you to post your opinion. A principle of free speech is to hold your own platform to host your own opinion.

It doesn't matter if the platform in question hosted by the company is "wildly popular" or not. Popularity doesn't guarantee your right to post on their platform.

This won't happen if they just stop regional monopolies.

>>59447004
>needs to allocate bandwidth and pay for it for you to post your opinion.
They allocate it for me to browse their site regardless. What an utter asinine argument when we're already talking about a service that's supposed to be open for all.

You people will be the end of civilization, I swear.

Of course it matters whether a large and wildly popular platform allowing the free exchange of ideas and public debate adheres to the principle of free speech or not. Nothing could be more important.

What happens when certain groups of people aren't allowed their voice on this important platform simply due to their opinions? Do they magically disappear? No, they will radicalize themselves in echo chambers and eventually commit acts of violence in a desperate cry for having their ideas heard.

Fucking bandwidth, lol. kys

>>59446965
You're basically arguing that everything is of equal value.

If Last.fm bans Richard Spencer for being a neo-nazi, what is the impact? Probably quite small.

If Twitter and Facebook ban Richard Spencer for being a neo-nazi, what is the impact? Probably quite big. How many of this current followers will move to follow him exclusively on his blog or Last.fm page?

If AT&T Verizon ban Richard Spencer, what is the impact? I'd say massive, since it makes it considerably harder for him to access Internet in the United States.

>>59446991
>businesses need to be nationalized now for the good of the people!!!
sup marxist

>>59444231
Yes.

ADSL should be outlawed.

>>59447104
Twitter is ubiquitous to the point that they are capable of shutting down freedom of speech.

You can keep spouting memes, but we're talking about reality.

>>59447098
>>59447098
I don't care if you want to circlejerk over your faggy Nazi boyfriend or whatever, just do it on your own servers

Let me spell it out for you since you're especially stupid. Twitter and Facebook are not public utilities, no matter how much you wish they were. If your message is distasteful to advertisers or you are a net loss to a company by driving away users with your Nazi dicksuck loser parade, you're gone. You aren't owed shit and you certainly don't have a "right" to anything.

If you don't like it, maybe you should move to a country like Venezuela or North Korea where free enterprise is frowned upon and companies get seized by the government "in the public good"

>>59447194
>If your message is distasteful to advertisers or you are a net loss to a company by driving away users with your Nazi dicksuck loser parade, you're gone.
And is there no limit? Can Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile ban Richard Spencer from being a customer because him being an asshole on the Internet through them is a major PR loss? Can the power company cut off his house when they get boycotted?

File: 1453222529727.png (1MB, 1242x2208px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1242x2208px

>>59444340

>>59447221
This was already addressed like 20 posts ago you mongoloid, look up the FCC common carrier rulings or don't waste my time.

>>59447194
>Twitter and Facebook are not public utilities
They should be treated as such though.

>>59447242
I'm not asking what the fucking law is, I'm asking what is the difference between private company type A and private company type B cutting off people from communicating on the Internet.

Basically you are drawing the line at an arbitrary point because at some point FCC decided to draw the line there and are giving absolutely zero reason as to why the line should be set there forever.

>>59447254
Why? Because you said so?

>>59447267
Sure why not.

>>59447263
>I'm asking what is the difference between private company type A and private company type B cutting off people from communicating on the Internet.
And I am pointing you to the relevant case law that demarcates this, but you are too stupid and obstinate to even read.

>Basically you are drawing the line at an arbitrary point
Yes, yes, it's all arbitrary friend, let's nationalize your house and your mother's asshole cavity while we're at it, alright? It's all relative right? :^)

>>59447068
>They allocate it for me to browse their site regardless. What an utter asinine argument when we're already talking about a service that's supposed to be open for all.

Here's the thing: it's not open for all. Why do you think they make you sign an EULA explicitly saying if you do something they don't like you're kicked?

>Of course it matters whether a large and wildly popular platform allowing the free exchange of ideas and public debate adheres to the principle of free speech or not. Nothing could be more important.

You also seem to be wrong there, companies don't host social media platforms "for allowing the free exchange of ideas and public debate". They do it for cash. You're the product. You're fed targeted ads in hopes you buy more. A "free and open world" is just the pretext they use to justify themselves.

>What happens when certain groups of people aren't allowed their voice on this important platform simply due to their opinions? Do they magically disappear? No, they will radicalize themselves in echo chambers and eventually commit acts of violence in a desperate cry for having their ideas heard.

They're allowed to host their own platform, which is what free speech guarantees.

ISPs had the chance in the early 2000s to make this the standard but they failed to recognize their opportunity

now people are so dependent on streaming media that zero-rates are the best they can do to make the market anticompetitive

they'll have another chance soon, though, because people have unknowingly embraced walled gardens again.

it'll start out with "get free internet access to facebook, google services, and spotify with minor advertisements" as they continuously alienate the non-dominant services and relegate them to high price tiers

>>59447298
>let's nationalize your house and your mother's asshole cavity while we're at it, alright?
Yes, because that is absolutely the same thing. The scale is exactly the same thing.

Internet Service Providers haven't even been classified as common carriers for two years now. You could be banned from the Internet entirely and you couldn't do a thing because you have absolutely no right to use the Internet and absolutely no right to demand service from a private company.

>>59447300
That's a convincing argument actually. Coupled with the fact that the free market (to some degree, Facebook/Twitter are almost monopolies when it comes to social media) can make people choose other platforms due to the lack of free speech on their current platform, I'm willing to change my mind on this.

I still think people who post this image are completely retarded though and should be executed in front of a live audience: >>59446710

>>59447354
>Internet Service Providers haven't even been classified as common carriers for two years now.
Man you are fuckin' stupid and hilariously wrong.

http://www.adweek.com/digital/net-neutrality-fcc-reclassifies-isps-as-common-carriers/

Retarded communists.

>>59447370
I'm going to keep posting it because it makes little Nazi marxist faggots like you intensely butthurt.

>>59447391
>Man you are fuckin' stupid and hilariously wrong.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/06/12/net-neutrality-takes-effect-today-heres-how-it-affects-you/

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=today+-+2015-06-12

You're welcome.

>>59447370
Hey, when are you going to let people use your desktop to host websites? Don't you support free speech? Give ssh access.

>>59447370
>to some degree, Facebook/Twitter are almost monopolies when it comes to social media
Facebook/Twitter isn't even the worst monopoly. Google is. Getting removed from Google is like disappearing from the Internet since Google search is the de-facto index of the Internet.

>>59447420
Your link is literally the ratification of the FCC ruling I just linked to. You linked to something that proved my point.

Are you actually retarded?

>>59447370
This (>>59447405) isn't me.

If you want to support the idea of a free and open idea exchange platform, you could support decentralized social media solutions. The only thing is that they don't have massive populations compared to Facebook or Twitter. You'd need to live in a crazy country with a dictator who blocks all outside media to create your own platform using that decentralized software to get some hardcore activity on it.

>>59447405
The reason posting it makes you retarded is because nobody disputes the law governing free speech. Neither does anyone claim the 1st amendment shields you from criticism or consequences. It's always used as a strawman of someone's argument.

Stupidity will always trigger me.

>>59447447
Are you too dumb to count?

>Internet Service Providers haven't even been classified as common carriers for two years now.

>>59447449
Why do you think "right to free speech" extends to "right for other people to pay for batteries for your megaphone"?

Get over it faggot, companies don't want nazi faggot losers on their social media platforms because it's not profitable.

>>59447456
>The FCC classified Internet Service Providers as common carriers, effective June 12, 2015, for the purpose of enforcing net neutrality. Before that time, the Good Samaritan provision of the Communications Decency Act established immunity from liability for third party content on grounds of libel or slander, and the DMCA established that ISPs that comply with the DMCA would not be liable for the copyright violations of third parties on their network.

You're so stupid that this discussion isn't really worth continuing.

>>59447468
I have never stated that actually. Why do you falsely believe I believe this?

>>59447506
This discussion isn't worth continuing because you clearly don't seem to be on the same page.

>>59447468
Just curious, do you believe (like Hillary Clinton) that gun manufacturers are responsible for guns killing people?

>>59447568
I'm not a leftist you fucking retard, go suck Nazi marxist dick elsewhere

>>59447673
You sure sound like one though. Confused little libtard, lol.

>>59447710
Hitler was a faggot and I'm glad he's dead.

Shouldn't you be off fellating David Duke somewhere? I bet your grandfather would be proud.

>>59446658
>Government intervention should only be exclusive to my opinions or where I think it should be
Not how it works
>>59447710
>Anyone I don't like is an SJW
I hope you choke on your loss of obamacare Trumptard
The people who voted Trump were also the people that used it and now we get Trumpcare which is the same thing but at the cost of tax paying Americans

>>59447780
>Not how it works
Changed my mind. See >>59447370

File: tom jennings.gif (42KB, 344x373px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 344x373px

Miss me yet?

If the state of internet access in the US ever gets as bad as OP's image, I wonder if alternative ideas like localized meshnets would finally gain some traction.

File: 1488254150041.jpg (23KB, 248x363px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 248x363px

>>59448060
Sneakernets mite b cool. Half the people on /g/ probably hoard TB of data (ebooks, movies, etc) already

>tfw I still have net neutrality and the Brazilian government just outlawed data caps for home internet
Feels good living here sometimes.

>>59448162
If this wasn't a worksafe board, I'd post a dozen webms of people getting beheaded in your third world shitstain Brazil.

>>59448228
wow dude nobody has ever seen gore on 4chan before, youre so edgy and kewl

>>59448162
Doesn't really matter if you get shot in the streets afterwards. At least the off-duty cop will get him.

>>59444231

I dont know what´s Joost, Real Arcade, Emusic or Bebo

File: thepoint.jpg (5KB, 345x243px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 345x243px

>>59448243

>>59444231
It's only justifiable given the condition that if ISP's do this, they lose all monopoly rights in their region.
Naturally, no ISP would do this given the conditional.

>>59447009
>>59448479
>monopoly rights
Why aren't we fixing this, instead of looking literally everywhere else for opportunities to inject regulation?

>>59448544
Because ISP's pay give $$ to lobbyists

We need a new Internet. One that doesn't require an ISP.

>>59448585
You mean Usenet or Fidonet?

>>59448585
>>59448060
It is time for a fresh start. The Internet as it exists today is trying to fight off terminal cancer, and it's a losing battle.

Time and effort would be better spent building alternatives.

>>59447405
>Nazi marxist

Just get off the Internet and read books forever.

>>59444231
>Alt right implying this was be cheaper
All I see is corruption where there is only one decent choice for an ISP in an area, plus increased prices.

>>59448803
>alt right
wat

>>59448842
distraction

>>59444231
Nope. Choices are good for the consumer. Make Bell Great Again.

>>59444231
>things that will never happen

who gives a fuck at this point, the Internet on the whole is total shit

>>59446510
>>>59446282
>So now we can have companies censor and control the web and you get to pay for it too!
>Alt righters everyone

That's what Google, Facebook, and Twitter do every single day already you dumb fuck