Why the sudden push for """Net Neutrality"""

File: 1492142127279.jpg (24KB, 746x750px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 746x750px

who cares

File: b7d.png (66KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1000x1000px

>>60134971
hmmm

File: piodMdrMT.jpg (196KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 2048x1536px

We had net neutrality for centuries

File: d05.png (22KB, 165x115px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 165x115px

>>60135026
whoa

File: ice-seizure.jpg (145KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 640x480px

>>60134959
Because we need to have "Federal Throughput Monitors" installed on every ISP's server rack. Don't worry, the government won't be using it for spying, or to throttle/block sites themselves!

>>60135143
> Because we need to have "Federal Throughput Monitors" installed on every ISP's server rack

China has that and their internet is fine.

>>60135258
t. has not been to china

>>60135274
I have been to China. As long as you don't want to browse porn or unapproved news sites or foreign sites that compete with native ones, you're fine. The internet is too important to leave to private enterprise.

>>60135143
This. I don't know why people keep falling for the NN meme. It's so obviously a clumsy power grab.

because we've actually informally had NN for a very long time, with only small instances where someone broke it. now they're breaking it more and more so it needs to be set in actual writing.

>>60135408
Name one website you can't access because we don't have NN encoded into law.

And how would it be enforced?

>>60134959
>internet flourished without net neutrality
I'd like to know what time you think this is.
>>60135456
>because we don't
We do though.

File: 1407848903988.png (75KB, 211x173px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 211x173px

>>60135357
>As long as you don't want to browse porn or unapproved news sites or foreign sites that compete with native ones

>>60134959

Because big ISPs had a semblance of competition in the past. That's gone now. ISPs have since been gradually fucking people over in more and more markets with throttling and selective bypass of arbitrary wireline data caps.

>>60134959
>Why the sudden push for """Net Neutrality""" when the internet flourished for decades without it?
Because for a long time we had Net Neutrality but as the Internet became increasingly commercialized it has slowly been taken away.

>>60135641
No we don't. It was literally never law or even enforced by executive regulation.

>>60135714
Oh yes, I remember when there were so many alternatives to using dial up over AT&T phone wire. You could read a book instead or even just go without internet entirely.

>>60135725
Why do all the websites I visit keep working? When do they finally get taken away?

>>60135784
Because you don't live in Australia or the UK yet.

>>60135357
This is a really high quality shitpost

>>60135784
The fact that you can watch all the TV and On Demand you want without triggering your data overage fees, but can't do the same for Netflix/Hulu/Torrents, even though the former all just data over IP these days, is a violation of net neutrality. If they don't want to charge by data usage or throttle for their paid services they shouldn't be allowed to for anyone else's either.

File: hmmm.png (22KB, 621x379px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 621x379px

>>60136020
Ah, so that's why Netflix is dying.

File: c4jt321.png (310KB, 580x282px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 580x282px

>>60135357
>As long as you don't want to browse porn or unapproved news sites or foreign sites that compete with native ones, you're fine.

please be bait

>>60136020
I wouldn't know, I've never bought those Comcast/AT&T upsell packages. Although, for the good of the people, maybe those types of packages should be banned. Some products are too dangerous to exist.

File: 1492414737789.jpg (14KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 250x250px

>>60136070

>he's got corpcock jammed so far up his anus, he thinks it's about keeping companies alive

>>60136197
> argument blown to fucking bits
> "damn dude you're like a cock rider why you gotta ask for evidence man just hand over the keys to the fed dumbass"

TV originally had no commercials. The internet originally had net neutrality.

>>60136875
thank god the FCC stepped in and fixed TV and made sure naughty words weren't said when children might be watching

>>60134959
It's because of retarded liberals who are obsessed with "equality" wherever they think they can force it in order to virtue-signal their friends. Trump is already getting rid of it though.

>>60137105
this reads like word salad, please see a doctor immediately.

>>60135761
You mean back when there were literally hundreds of ISPs that offered competitive prices because phone lines were open to any company to use?

>1997
>Don't like AOL? Use Juno. Don't like Juno? Use NetZero. etc.

>2017
>Don't like Comcast? Eat shit.

>>60135456
Just because it's not in law doesn't mean that it doesn't exist

>>60134959
The Internet wasn't nearly as relevant, ubiquitous, and significant as it is now.

>>60137144
They still are. I use Sonic.net (a great ISP which acts like a dumb pipe) which goes through AT&T lines. There's over 4000 ISPs in the US. The vast majority of Americans have the choice of multiple ISPs (no, this isn't just a meme). I also use T-mobile for wireless LTE internet and I appreciate its zero-rating on my most commonly used apps so I still have bandwidth to use the rest of the internet without worrying about my cap.

So far I'm seeing a lot of "we need NN because bad things are going to happen, JUST WAIT", but not a lot of actual harm.

>>60137176
THING was incredibly successful with minimal government regulation.

Better regulate THING.

> I use Sonic.net (a great ISP which acts like a dumb pipe) which goes through AT&T lines.

DSL or dialup user. Either way, opinion disregarded.

>>60136577
Nah, it's just that zero rating is anticompetitive to all businesses, not just Netflix. As it stands, no new streaming TV service could ever compete with a zero rated plan from an ISP, and that's bad for everyone except the monopolies. It's pretty stupid to shill for a company to make more money at your own expense. Do you owe anything to these companies more than what they already bill you?

>>60137211
If we give them all of our money, they'll give some of it back to us.

~ECONOMY~

>>60137075
but racist words are still OK

>>60137236
Reminds me of when my dad made me suck his friends dicks for money. Having an allowance was pretty sweet.

>without it
Well, not that clear cut when you look into it.
Also you have to consider that there's tons of things that haven't been issue because there haven't been an effort to abuse. It may be wise to make things illegal up front, for instance the nuremberg trials were a pretty big sham. What's deemed war crimes was simply whatever the axis did that was morally bankrupt that the allies didn't do to any admitted extent. But I don't think people disagree that they needed to take place. You can avoid these situations by establishing laws up front.
Alternatively these transgressions may take place without there being any real hope of stopping it. Especially given how ISPs can cut off selective parts of what is most peoples primary way of finding out about this.
I understand the general assertion about "if it ain't broke don't fix it" but I don't think it applies here. It'd be difficult to have the same arguments concerning murder/manslaughter and how self defence cases get messed up because you have to determine if it's actually a murder. It's an inconvenient collision.

Because ISPs weren't trying to turn the internet into something like TV channels where you pay for various service tiers until now.

If they'd just fuck off and sell us internet like always, then maybe we wouldn't NEED net neutrality, but they just have to fuck around and try to jew people even harder, so now we need it.

File: net-neutrality.jpg (486KB, 1516x740px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1516x740px

Is this going to have to happen for you idiots to realize supporting Trump was bad for the internet? Is seeing going to have to be believing? Are you idiots *that* fucking oblivious?

From the ISP's point of view, why WOULDN'T it be in their best interest to shake down high-bandwidth sites or their customers for more money, else they start degrading service to specific sites? Why wouldn't they prioritize their own services over others?

>>60137389
>shake down high bandwidth sites
I don't think this is most people's concern. It's the little guys that you're most concerned with.

But certainly if you take a larger cut out of youtube you'd certainly cause the service to suffer. I don't want my ISP to determine how much bandwidth they deserve for me.

>>60137180
>They still are. I use Sonic.net (a great ISP which acts like a dumb pipe) which goes through AT&T lines.
You live in the fucking bay area. Don't fucking lecture us about what choices you have for ISP's.

Where I live, there are two choices, the horrible cable company, or the worse DSL company. I have fiber at my house from the DSL company, but I literally didn't know that's what they were giving me until they got to my house and started installing it. Turns out, it's their internet of last resort if their double-bonded DSL doesn't work.

I work a few blocks away, so naturally I told people at the company about my fiber internet. They called up the company, but because double-bonded DSL did in fact reach my work, they refused to sell fiber to them. Refused. To sell them fiber. To a business.

These are the kinds of companies we're dealing with. So you can take your snowflake ISP and go fuck yourself.

In any case, without some sort of "common carrier" laws like Network Neutrality there is nothing that mandates that AT&T share its lines. And starting your ISP by laying your own infrastructure is so expensive and has such bad returns that even Google, which has more money than it knows what to do with, stopped rolling out fiber.

Infrastructure. That's a good name for it. We have it for power and water. Why not treat the ISP's the same way?

>>60137389
For the last time, that image will never happen.

>>60137366
yet you are okay with google and failbook selling your data to the highest bidder. ISPs want to compete with those companies while those companies themselves are becoming internet service providers.
ISPs need to compete and survive because if they die only thing you will gonna internet is whatever google or facebook allow you to internet.

>>60137736
>Facebook and Google
Point is you can opt out of these.
As I'm sure many do here on /g/.
With your ISP you more often than not don't have that choice.

File: df0efec7e5d62bda338fcc8db896f485.jpg (22KB, 240x320px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 240x320px

>>60137568
>Refused. To sell them fiber. To a business.
Fucking hell.

>>60134959

What is fueling the rage and driving the net neutrality push is not the net neutrality issues, it's all the other animosity people have with their isp. The plebs think NN is going to help when it doesn't.

You are still going to get charged monopoly prices, be forced to subscribed into cable or some other service along the way, have some services not count on the data caps some not, have terrible customer support. There is infinite ways of fucking you over outside of the net neutrality sphere of things.

>>60137784
You can opt out of personalized "news" and ad services but you can't opt out from their data collection program. Same goes for microsoft users. And yes, same goes for ISP users. But atleast your data is anonymized before it's sold.

But if you really care about ISPs collecting your data and use other services I mentioned above then you are a hypocrite.

>>60137568
>I work a few blocks away, so naturally I told people at the company about my fiber internet. They called up the company, but because double-bonded DSL did in fact reach my work, they refused to sell fiber to them. Refused. To sell them fiber. To a business.
And exactly how would NN fix a business being retarded? Do you plan on putting "no business may be retarded" in the NN regulations?

>>60135357
$0.50

>>60137568
NN isn't about AT&T sharing its lines. You have been GROSSLY misinformed if you think NN would solve a SINGLE problem you've encountered.

>>60137800
Things that never happened

I'd ask for evidence but there is none

>>60137810
>The plebs think NN is going to help when it doesn't.
Why do they think that? Who is telling them that and what do they have to gain?

>>60134959
Does it really matter, is there anything positive that could come from a lack of net neutrality?

>>60137825
>you can't opt out of their data collection
Sure you can. Block their services and don't use their services. It's dead easy.
With the ISP you can't block their reallocation of bandwidth or them preventing you from accessing content.
>if you really care about ISPs collecting your data
What? This is not what net neutrality is about. I do oppose ISPs collecting data too but as far as I can see that is very separate from net neutrality. At least legally.

>>60137389
That image is exactly why net neutrality has to be eliminated. The free market will fix it. Trump knows this.

>>60137900

I think it's mostly lack of knowledge. You got advocacy groups like Fight for the Future which campaign for net neutrality. I think what groups like these say and what people hear are two different things. Then you got politicians which blur things into campaign slogans like "free and open internet". The plebs assume it's about it's about issues they have when it's not. In reality it was about struggle between big internet service providers and big edge service providers, they just had to sell the bill to the voters.

>>60137979
>preventing you from accessing content.
I don't know what a VPN is and/or I actually think ISPs will ban VPNs and NN will protect me from that.

>>60137925
> Name a benefit of capitalism over communism
Gee, I tried really hard but I couldn't think of anything.

fucking jews

File: anarchy achieved.jpg (83KB, 1281x625px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1281x625px

>>60134959
>the internet flourished for decades without it
The Internet has never been without it, wtf are you talking about? The push is to keep it neutral, because governments are starting to wrest control over it.

Its actually the other way around. Net neutrality was the norm for years. But now greedy ISP's want new earning models at the expense of internet users, startups, and want streaming sites to pay double for the same bandwidth, so the net neutrality needs to be codified.

Where I live in the Netherlands net neutrality was already codified with 100% support from the parliament. And it also includes internet privacy from ISP's. So I actually didn't imagine Americans would portray it as such a horror scenario.

File: 182_63c742b67c403fd22efbfd50dfd8d388_75.jpg (38KB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 640x960px

>>60139848
I've been seeing traffic shaping and content restriction by geographic location for at least 10 years. Maybe you are on a good ISP and don't consumes foreign content, but the internet has certainly not being neutral for quite a while.

How do we take away ISP control from the cable lines so anyone can become their own ISP.

>>60134959
why are you against it?

>>60142043
>9001 "green energy" ISPs