>https://arstechnica.com/tech-polic y/2017/04/killing-net

>>59858147
Easy - they go with whichever one will fuck over american citizens more. You see, big corporations in favor of Net Neutrality aren't doing it out of the goodness of their own hearts, but their NN desires happen to line up with what's best for us consumers. It's a mere coincidence, but a helpful one nonetheless.

So instead, they'll side with the ISPs, because their position is beneficial to no one but the incumbent ISPs.

>>59858147
WHen Google and FB want something, you know it';s not good for you.

>>59858225

But what if AT&T and Comcast want the opposite thing?

>>59858286
it's still bad for you. Never trust any of them. Google and FB also want more H-1B visas.

>>59858360
>it's still bad for you.
Sure thing, buddy.
>>59858360
>Never trust any of them.
You got that one right.

Take comments from citizens and have studies done to examine the effects on the marketplace with/without net neutrality. Kinda like what the previous FCC did when they decided net neutrality was a good thing.

>>59858147
Fuck that orange kike puppet

(((PAI AJIT)

File: 1491276185821.gif (2MB, 275x275px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 275x275px

>>59858204
>NN desires happen to line up with what's best for us consumers

Do they? I think many people would benefit from having their netflix getting throttled to the point they'd have to find some other things to do.

File: 1485988754407.png (241KB, 650x468px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 650x468px

>>59861183
>>59858204

Pic related. It's the food equivalent of netflix. Can anyone claim it's good for consumers to eat these things?

>>59861183
Netflix wouldn't get throttled though, they have the money to pay for the fast lane.
Other video services would get throttled to hell and back, effectively making Netflix king forever.

>>59861285
Let them pay for the fast lane then. Netflix being more expensive is a good thing. Let the isp cartel squeeze every penny out of them.

>>59861498
You don't understand, Netflix can just increase their prices because they won't have any competition.

>>59861550
Yeah they can but people won't pay if the price becomes too high. You don't understand that netflix has no redeeming qualities, the less people spend time on it, the better.

>>59861590
The same could be said of this website.

>>59861605
True, but I'm not the one here defending net neutrality. NN has a value judgement built in, it's that all content is equal, clearly not true. There is wide variety of things online, from good to bad to harmful. Giving up on net neutrality would shape things different, not necessary to worse.

>>59861756
Net neutrality doesn't say all content is equal, just that content should have equal access.

And it would most definitely become worse in the long run, as ISPs seek to maximize profits they would eventually charge huge fees to content providers (of all stripes), effectively closing the marketplace off to everyone but the highest bidders.

Who fucking cares? Stop living in 3rd world shitholes you fucking faggots.

>>59861498
how much does comcast pay you?

just let net neutrality die so this site dies and all the retarded right wing idiots who shilled it only can access their news from comcast owned msnbc.com.

>>59861828
Those fees would be based on amount of bandwidth used since that's where the costs are. This would make internet a better place. Kill high bandwidth cancer like netflix and twitch, force developers to make non bloated websites. Everything would look like http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/