look like coprorations want to control everything https://w

>>60110056

net neutrality has only been around for two years. cuck.

>>60110056
Archive of the story.
https://archive.fo/736hv

>>60110056
>look mom i spammed it again!
fuckoff democuck
you lost a rigged voting system
now go cry about it elsewhere faggot

>>60110056
lmao triggerd libtard detected

>>60110056
>a government which has already been co-opted by google should control the government

You google cucks really do want everything to be controlled by them dont you?

>>60110056
Literal Communism.

Net Neutrality is against freedom.
The problem with removing net neutrality right now though is that monopolies are allowed to exist in the ISP market.

A perfectly free market would prohibit exclusivity contracts for ISPs in certain cities/state whilst removing this 'net neutraility' bollocks that only hurts consumers.
Unfettered access will continue to exist by the simply virtue of people wanting it - it's a niche that won't be left empty.

>net neutrality is kill
>"neutral as a feature" ISPs pop up
>make loadsamoney
>old shitty burger ISPs lose business
Invisible hand or something

>>60110627
The problem is that some cities and counties have exclusivity agreements with certain ISPs - so a competitor can't actually exist.

Otherwise, I totally agree with your post and the removal of NN.

>>60110056
>ALL BITS ARE CREATED EQUAL
>unless of course I copyright them, then you have to pay me, goy

>>60110675
>some cities and counties have exclusivity agreements with certain ISPs
why is that a thing
why can't this be forbidden

>>60110675
Damn really? How is that legal?

>>60110056
kek
that's what happens when you vote for drumpft, fucktards.

File: ajit_pai.jpg (19KB, 990x400px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 990x400px

Seems reasonable, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q5_oV4JB10

>>60110778
Implying we all wouldn't be dead by now if shillary won

>>60110056
>living in EU
feels good man

muricans are primates in comparison

Man, ISP shills have taken over /g/.

>>60110953
How?

>>60110700
>>60110703
It shouldn't be legal, but it's usually under the idea that telegraph poles and underground conduits should only be built once and not endlessly duplicated, but the companies that own the poles and conduits aren't required to allow others access.
So you have a situation where only one company is allowed to build poles(or conduit) and won't allow anyone else access, prevent anyone else from starting services in the area.

Google has had all sorts of issues building out Google Fibre due to this.

>>60111023
A few years ago everyone thought net neutrality was a good idea and around the same time trump said he was against it there began a sudden major push to get everyone against it. The complete 180 is not natural.

>>60110700
Under last fcc head they tried to do something against it but it lacked power. Essentially what they tried to do is make it so cables networks can always be rented out so competition can work they're way in in a similar manner to lesser cellular companies practices. Though both companies have to sell on a similar rate based off equipment.

>>60111047
Many of argued the same back then - Net neutrality doesn't at all guarantee an unlimited transfer quota - but under such a system it makes it impossible for some data to be cached and unmetered.

Having lived in Australia when many ISPs had Steam Content servers unmetered, whilst still having datacaps (them undersea cables aren't cheap) I can attest to how much better it was having the freedom of choice to choose an ISP with such value added services or being able to choose a barebones ISP.

We DON'T have those choices, but we SHOULD.
Net neutraility was stupid, exclusivity contracts that allow ISPs free monopoly status are even worse.

>>60110627
Net neutrality provents privitization of content which is something spectrum, Viacom, and Verizon have been looking into since the start of the 2010s. What that means is to sue companies distribution of data of their exclusive sites as well as throttling content you did not pay for in a plan and site they own no exclusive rightes to.
Open internet prevented that in 2010s and had similar rules grandfathered into nn

>>60111083
We wont have those choices in us regardless in general as the attempts they have made for those systems actually pushed more people into dsl and dial up since they reported rate increases and lack of service improvements expcially on cable networks. At some point the tested company without nn was compying the one with nn.

>>60110953
A lot i have more background with eff and tw because of disputes in the us but moving back to pre open internet is fucking stupid i can understand moving nn back and touching it up again but the fact is nn protects content providers a bit more than consumers. Consumers are not in the interest of the debate most of the time when the topic of net neutrality is discussed. Open internet and nn still can be more flexible than pai and alex jones understand. Most the purpose of its purpose in the us was protection of content providers and prevention of cabel monopolys through putting them under telecommunications act. Under net neutrality you still can throttle if its reasonable to finances of the company and this is protected.

>>60111123
I don't think a check from a single ISP for exclusivity would make up for the lost users desu. I can't see any major company going for that.

>>60110056
Hey ISPs, can I consume 100%| of your network capacity? No? Too bad.
t: Facebook, Youtube and Netflix

>>60111387
I believe it's users who are consuming network capacity. Users pay to have ISP deliver those packets to them, and the ISP does deliver.

>>60110056
>look like coprorations want to control everything
Wow who would've thought?

>>60111407
>I believe it's users who are consuming network capacity.
Yes.
>Users pay to have ISP deliver those packets to them, and the ISP does deliver.
Yes.

But Netflix are asking the ISP to make connections to THEM.
That's not how it works either, If your hosting a website, you don't expect ISPs to make concessions to connect to you, you have to ensure that you've got enough bandwidth to serve your viewers, not that that every ISP has to ensure they have enough connections to you.

>>60110611
When will it get through your skull that a perfect free market is just as delusional as the communist ideal.

>>60111895
I don't have to, it's an ideal not a reality.
The best reality is the mixed market economy.

File: 1476298114564.jpg (86KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 600x600px

>ISP doing anything above OSI layer 3

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/exclusive-fcc-chairman-pai-need-open-free-internet-21st-century/
guy seems pretty based

File: damage control.jpg (137KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 650x650px

>>60110216
>>60110364
>>60110572
>>60110611

File: 1467880131056.jpg (74KB, 521x869px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 521x869px

>>60114442
>breitbart

>>60110056
>all bits are created equal
wrong

>>60110778
piss off, loser

>>60114716
take corporate cock up your ass

If hillary or obama would have made this pol would be raging but they are so cucked now that they accept everything

>>60114780
take tranny cock up yours faggot

Never put a street shitter in charge of anything important