Thread to End the Net Neutrality Question

File: risitas.jpg (319KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 800x800px

>>60299423
> can we have an informed discussion
you sure forgot were you are for a moment, didn't you?

>>60299423
>Most conservative sources, such as the WSJ, that typically favor the functioning of the free market much more than liberals do, are outspoken that "net neutrality is burdensome government interference" and would destroy the free market. How could this possibly be?
Those sources stand to benefit from ending net neutrality. There's a very clear conflict of interest here.

>>60299541
I imagine it's an ideological thing, as not every writer for such newspapers can making money off of net neutrality going away. I think it's more likely they're just cucked ideologically somehow.

another thing the us ruined, thanks a lot

>>60299908
If you're not American then you shouldn't care much.

>>60299423
So I'm going to take a shot at what I keep seeing the other side who wants Title II gone are saying.

Regulation kills competition and doesn't allow for new ISP to grow and restricts Current ISP from...idk.

The problem is, the head of the FCC isn't talking about making it easier for New ISP to be show up, he's mainly wanting to get rid of Title II. The dude doesn't have a plan for after that. So getting rid of title two let's Internet fuckery, that we've seen before, start up again and be totally legal.

I constantly see those in favor of repealing title II use false equivalents in how this compares to other business competition in the real world, but they fail to understand that this fucks with access to competing business and isn't about the businesses themselves.

Net neutrality keeps ISPs from "adding value" by violating the OSI model. It hasn't gone into effect yet, but critics are crying about lost value.

Adding value can mean one of many things:
-mining customer data and selling it
-throttling bandwidth from new internet-based technologies that threaten existing streams of revenue (ex: cable companies limiting bandwidth because people are cord-cutting and going to Netflix)
-giving their own services an advantage over competitors, like Verizon zero-rating its Go90 video streaming service (which still flopped because it sucks dick)

All of that and more adds shareholder value!

In the long run, what the ISPs want is for you to buy "internet access" that costs them nothing to provision, but instead of actual internet, you get the Apple(tm) Walled-Garden(R) experience(c).
That will likely be a type of fixed-wireless access so they don't have to invest in to-the-premises infrastructure. Useful wireless spectrum is not infinite, which means they will charge per gigabyte and make extra money doing it.

value++; //From lower capital costs
value++; //From overage fees
value++; //because you're spending money in their walled-garden

You know who's already doing that? Google "Fiber"

>>60299908
The US created and should be the sole owner of the internet.