(((NET NEUTRALITY)))

>>60318082
lol the matrix is my favorite movie too XD

I like eff too and am against the nn provisions. It seems like they are divided on the issue but the liberal camp won

>>60318082
>Redpill me
Why can't you go to your own board, and stay? We've discussed the topic to death on /g/, and yet you retards come here with your illiterate phoneposter opinions as if they're fact.

The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open internet for everyone.

>>60318093
>>60318106
Did my words trigger you? Should I have asked for a quick rundown instead?

Also>>60318106
>illiterate phoneposter opinions
I haven't even express an opinion. I'm asking for opinions. Holy shit this board is even more cancerous than /pol/.

>>60318123
The best part is the bot that's spamming that shit isn't even trying to hide it.

>>60318148
Oh so you're a shill that pretends to be pol and shits up other boards

fuck /pol/

>>60318153
That's because its a false flag by pro nn soros people

>redpill me on this, /g/!
>oh, I'm already "redpilled", I just want you to confirm my retarded opinion on this because I'm a retard

Net neutrality makes sure that companies treat ALL WEB TRAFFIC the same. The lies about how net neutrality is bad are unfounded. Net neutrality has basically been the default of the internet. Removing net neutrality means a company can throttle access or force you to pay more money to visit specific websites or access specific services. Here's what net neutrality actually protects you from:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

NET NEUTRALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A "POWER GRAB" OR GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP OF THE INTERNET
IN FACT, REMOVING IT MEANS A COMPANY CAN LEGALLY RESTRICT OR IMPEDE ON YOUR ABILITY TO ACCESS THE INTERNET

COMCAST OWNS MSNBC

TAKE THE REAL REDPILL

SAGE AND ALL CAPS BECAUSE FUCK YOU, NIGGER

>>60318082
>>60318094
>>60318123
Hi Comcast.

>>60318183
Dude did you just have that ready so you could defeat your own strawman? Cool

>>60318183
Don't forget
2017 - Time warner throttles league of legends players

>>60318183
Truly land of the free

The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years. The plan currently under consideration at the FCC to repeal Obama's Title II power grab is a positive step forward and will help to promote a truly free and open internet for everyone.

Internet should be a utility, plain and simple.

File: thealtrightinanutshell.png (239KB, 434x428px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 434x428px

>Red pill me on x

>>60318178
/pol/ actually wants NN, surprisingly.

>>60318213
Obama's title II power grab... What power is he exactly grabbing for himself here? Go on, I've got the day off troll.

>>60318228
According to you soros shills sure

>>60318219
Why?

>>60318228
Thats the old /pol/. Too much trump dick suckers there nowadays. Even the backlash agianst when he bombed syria got quickly silenced

>>60318165
What am I shilling exactly?

>>60318183
Thank you for the actual information, despite the salt. So what does Title 2 classification have to do with all of this. I've always thought the problem with all of this is that broadband is treated differently than dialup. A service rather than an utility.

>>60318219
This would be nice. Does what is going on now help or hinder this cause?

>>60318242
Kys comcast shill

>>60318206
I can get unlimited gigabit fiber basically anywhere in my state, don't write off the whole country.

>>60318270
Im not employed by anyone at all. Im neet. Who do you work for?

There is no reason the internet should be in the hands of irresponsible private companies.
Existing fiber should be nationalized, and the government should build up it's infrastructure to ensure 99% of the country has access to fiber. It's ridiculous that the most wealthy country in the world is so far behind on such an important issue

>>60318256
I guess neocon is fun, when it's come with a meme potus.

>>60318183
There is only one problem with all of those things: state enforced monopolies. Most local and state communities sign deals with ISPs that make them single or near single providers of services giving them virtual monopolies on service. My hometown was only allowed to have 1 cableprovider ( Mediacom ) and one DSL provider (Verizon).

Net neutrality would be a non issue if competition was allowed to happen, however it's the GOVERNMENT (who you're shilling for to 'protect' the internet) who creates the environment for most of these issues anyways.

>>60318251
Because it is ingrained in our daily use now, society today cannot function without it. It is almost comparable to a basic need. Almost... Financial transactions, information, socializing, you name it, we use the internet for it.

>>60318285
I agree, I would much rather the goverment be in complete control. What's the worst that could happen?

>>60318203
hopefully porn is next

>>60318304
Society can't function without food either, should that be nationalized? Would you prefer to stand in a breadline? What makes you think that he government would do a good job with anything internet related? I work for the Air Force and the the DoD is FUCKING TERRIBLE at providing a stable internet connection and IT services

>>60318242
Id rather not have to buy the "reddit meme" web package to browse this website.
>>60318256
Because when that happened, t_d went full shill mode, plus numerous subreddits were also raiding. Believe me or not, /pol/ has their criticisms of him but do support him still.

>>60318298
Are you actually saying that because local city governments are allowed to do that shit, that means that the federal government is all of a sudden at fault?

>>60318328
So you would rather be beholden to both a corporation whose board of directors literally take an oath to squeeze every last possible penny out, and the government, rather than just the government.
Yep, sounds like a /pol/tard

>>60318328
Well they already spy on all of us and individual websites censor non PC content, so you can't use that as an excuse... Free speech and privacy are non existent on the webs because it is the owners of the servers that hold those powers.

I'm against it solely because of racist John Oliver

>>60318355
We heavily subsidize farming, what are you fucking stupid?
And what you are complaining about is bureaucracy... Not my problem

>it's another episode of /pol/ showing how tech illiterate it is on /g/

>>60318430
>it's another retard shills forget that anti-competitive behavior is already illegal episode

>>60318430
>it's another episode of /pol/ showing how tech illiterate it is on /g/
Yes. Unfortunately, you guys don't seem to know much better than me.

File: lol-2.png (10KB, 558x223px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 558x223px

>>60318430
they are always the best types of threads

>>60318430
>implying /pol/ hasn't already had these threads

>>60318461
>shills for MSNBC's parent company
>calls other people shills

Is /pol/ too busy with Trump's impending impeachment to bother with net neutrality today?

>>60318628
Talk about two things that will never happen...

File: DONALD S CHERRY.png (453KB, 1500x1425px) Image search: [Google]

453KB, 1500x1425px

>>60318649
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/10/politics/flynn-subpoena/index.html?sr=twcnni051017flynn-subpoena1036PMStoryLink&linkId=37455690

>>60318082
Every bit should be treated equal.

You upload something, someone else downloads it, its going to be as fast as it can possibly happen.

without net neutrality, comcast can own its own on demand service like netflix, throttle netflix to sub 100kbs per line making it unwatchable unless they pay for this new tier of ultra fast access to the internet that costs 50 times what they were paying before, but comcast's service will always have priority.

THAT is what everyone should be concerned with, but you got fagots reeeing about bug government imposing regulation on new startup isps, not taking into account that there are none.

File: 1487556000852.png (620KB, 1140x881px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 1140x881px

>>60318668
>CNN

>>60318684
Damn you said faggots you must be an oldfag

>>60318684
No they can't you retard because throttling is already illegal. NN wasn't set to go into effect until December 2017. Literally nothing changes. They can't throttle, they can't tier or wall off arbitrary parts of the network.

>>60318700
what do you call retarded people who are overly obnoxious with their shit other then faggot?

>>60318720
You

>>60318718
funny thing is, it's not illegal, net neutrality sees that it is, otherwise you give priority to what you want over everything else instead of treating it all equally.

>>60318740
That is anti-competitive behavior that is already illegal under FTC jurisdiction.

>>60318766
except it isn't if you don't treat every bit the same, which it what nn enforces, providers even with net neutrality try to throttle and block shit all the fucking time, but at least you have grounds to sue them so long as net neutrality is in place.

Hey, guys.

Just came her to say..

..enjoy it while it lasts...

..because this too shall pass.

>>60318228
Old /pol/ was neutral to net neutrality, nu-/pol/ loves gargling trumps balls deep into their mouth.

Why the fuck is there this bullshit going around against net neutrality.

Of all places, 4chan should be supporting net neutrality, because otherwise large corporations will fuck you even more than they are already doing, by limiting and controlling your access to communications and information.

A simple way you can be fucked, is if net neutrality is removed, mobile companies start offering free or super cheap data plans for specific services (eg. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, etc). But requiring you to pay a fuckton for other bandwidth.

Think what that will do to the masses, you'll be stuck getting fed the same shit, your information will be even more mined to sell you more shit. You are not exposed to any competitors so innovation in general decreases.

Government is already fucking you (spying, etc), now you want the massive soulless corporations to join them by restricting your access?

>>60318804
you said swear words and seem aggressive with your opinion. you persuaded me

>>60318766
That's if the FTC finds it anti competitive and the ISPs would just plant puppets or would bribe them.

>>60318781
There is already grounds to sue if deliberate anti-competitive behavior is taking place. NN has never even been enforced because it's not needed. The epic shit fit everyone throws at the slightest mishap in service keeps companies in line. This apocalyptic scenario where Comcast is going to lock down the entire Internet and feed it to you in tiered parcels, just because you think they can without NN, is about the most retarded idea ever.

>>60318288
We had 2 shit options, one would will fuck us hard, one may fuck us hard and we hedged our bet on the maybe over the will.

He may be shit, but he is at least entertaining shit unlike the cunt who would have had full support from one side 24/7 we got one with no support from either side, which thankfully puts us in effective gridlock for 4 years at the very least.

>>60318828
see
>>60318183

>>60318828
ISPs would be more subtle at slowing down or censoring conservative news websites.

>>60318258
>what does Title 2 classification have to do with all of this
Verizon won a lawsuit for the right to selectively throttle traffic under Title 1 oversight (because preventing that behavior falls outside the bounds of what Title 1 permits the FCC to do). Title 2, being stricter, preserves net neutrality at the expense of more restrictive oversight. That's the trade-off: either the FCC is allowed to do its job and protect consumers, or service providers can exploit their monopoly as hard as they want and you, the customer, get to pay for the privilege of letting them do it.

>>60318846
Did you miss the part where companies where fined millions of dollars?
>>60318850
Then prove it and sue them because that is already illegal

>>60318258
title 2 makes it so its strictly regulated and they are forced to hit standards if not exceeded them.

lets say for instance, in the past there were providers who offered high speed internet that was 50kbps down 20up, and the government decided that you needed 300 down and 50 up to call yourself high speed. they would have to either increase their speed, or lose the ability to call themselves high speed, title 2 would force them to either step the fuck up or get fined.

Without net neutrality we'll get bullshit like:

Internet packages: Base package with all the news and media sites that are under the ownership umbrella of the ISP. Want access to other sites then buy an addon package. ISPs could completely block sites that aren't in your package.

Bribe based throttling: Your favorite streaming site didn't pay your ISP for a fastlane? Enjoy streaming throttled so badly it won't even work.

Censorship: Your ISP doesn't like a site, a person, a rival corp? Your ISP now blocks their site and claims it's "fake news" or some other such nonsense. Or blocks it and doesn't have to say anything because they don't have to justify controlling what flows through their routers.

>>60318886
millions when they make multi billions, year i'm sure that hurt them to the point they don't constantly fucking do it over and over and over and over again.

All of which are because net neutrality was in place to some extent, it just wasnt title II. shit skin in charge wants to remove all net neutrality laws.

>>60318904
>things that will never happen

>>60318886
>Did you miss the part where companies where fined millions of dollars?
Pocket change to these giants. They're not scared of the FTC and they're actively fighting for right to throttle. Get that corporate dick out of your ass for 5 minutes.

>>60318917

Don't be a dumbfuck idiot. ISPs will absolutely do everything they can to implement shit like that. And they'll do it under the guise of MUH JOBS. Profits over people is the American way.

>>60318917
See
>>60318183

>>60318285
I don't agree with 99% of the country having fiber, its just not possible due to how spread out it is, however, every place could easily get a 300mbit up and down line over the existing copper, that I am in favor of with a potential wifi/cell service that hits every place else that can't get fast land lines.

>>60318911
>>60318923
>>60318929
kys commie scum. If you don't like a corporation then don't give them any money, it's not that complicated

>>60318828

This exact thing has happened where ISPs have blocked applications from functioning on their networks. Whether it's mobile payment apps like Google Wallet, or throttling torrent traffic. This HAS been done in the past and it has been well documented. Classifying them as Title II would allow the FCC to bring the hammer down on them if they try it again.

This isn't some idiotic 'uhh hurr the internet is fine we dont need to do this', and just because you have an attention span of a goldfish and can't remember this shit happening 10 years ago doesn't mean it's not a real issue that needs to be addressed

>>60318937
>2013

>>60318082
NET NEUTRALITY IS THE GOOD ONE
GETTING RID OF IT IS BAD
NET NEUTRALITY = UNBAISED ACCESS TO THE INTERNET IN THE INTENDED WAY
WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY, WEBSITES' ACCESS WILL BE THROTTLED BY YOUR ISP, INCLUDING 4CHAN

>>60318373
>>60318328
The government will block certain content and censor, a business will squeeze you for every fucking penny they can on top of the government forcing them to block and censor.

I will give control to the government before I get fucked up the ass further.

>>60318950
I bet you would defend dumping raw sewage into our rivers ancap faggot.

>>60318968
>getting rid of something that never existed

>>60318950
>Profits over people

Here one is right now

Do they really make sense? My understanding is that net neutrality prevents ISPs from profiting off of their auxiliary businesses, which he claims hurts small ISPs and therefore internet prices. Extra businesses are a large ISP thing, so I don't see the connection.
Please do explain.

>>60318968
caps have been used. the consensus opinion is agreed upon.

>>60318969
then you're a retard then because you will have both fucking your ass even harder because america is an oligarchy

>>60318355
yes, I would very much like heavily subsidised crops to make healthy food cheaper than the unhealthy food.

>>60318183
>edit
hello rebbit

File: 1492061635694.jpg (6KB, 150x150px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 150x150px

lmao, what are you guys going to do about it? Cry on the internet about it?

Shut up and take your masters dick up your ass like the disposable fleshlight garbage you are.

All you hacker dweebs thought you ran the net, now it turns out you don't. You're about to get you noses shoved in shit like little puppies.

You didn't think they were going to let you get away with it forever, did you?

>>60318968
Now tell me that millions of people will die because congress "repealed" Obamacare.

>>60318979
learn English faggot
>>60318973
because free Internet should be a basic human right, right guys? Fucking retard

>>60318992
dude, the government already is on every isps ass, the only difference when it goes over to the government would likely be it gets cheaper because it's now subsidized by taxes instead of 'well shit, we laid all the lines with tax money, and we built all the infrastructure, let's give it to comcast so they can make money now'

>>60319024
because they're so efficient at everything else...

>>60319018
Don't you have another anti piracy thread to be making, corporate cock sucking cuck.

>>60319024
so give the government who layed dark fiber and forgot where it is in the ground control over the internet? you're a special kind of stupid

>>60318461
what's anti competitive? they offer you access to the competition, but they own the lines you are using and the competition didn't pay their tax to use it, its not they they are being anticompetitive its that the competition doesn't want to compete.

>>60318950
>just boycott ISPs you don't like!
because everyone can choose from more than one, right?

>>60319038
i pay for 100mbit down and i get fucking 20, the government can't be fucking worse then I already have.

>>60319016

I've got epilepsy and I make six figures now, but if I was 19 right now I would be completely fucked if the ACA was repealed. But keep pretending that people unlike yourself are just a made up conspiracy.

>>60319050
You seriously think that ISPs had no say in making the government unable to properly utilize their fiber infrastructure? gb2 Infowars

>>60319042
My ISP routinely provides over the quoted speeds I'm paying for with zero downtime. If I didn't like their service, I'd switch, not cry on the internet about it because some British faggot told me what to think

>>60318889
Is this the same as the fabled Utility classification? What I'm confused about is that Obama's law seemed to go down a different path of regulation than what would have actually fixed any percieved problems. Similar to Obamacare, it seemed to be only addressing optics, not creating meaningful policy.

>>60319050
do not care, if its between government incompetence and corperation refusing to upgrade infrastructure while they make profit and I get fucked I chose incompetence

>>60319066
so they can't even reign in companies and you want to them more power in order to do so? you are a very special person

File: 1493751714999.jpg (21KB, 323x323px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 323x323px

Net neutrality currently makes sense BECAUSE of govt regulations. There is no free market in the telco industry because it's so highly regulated that the barrier to entry pushes out the startups that would ordinarily promote competition.


NN is needed right now because of the lack of competition. It says Comcast can't slow down youtube and netflix because they want you to watch their service Hulu. It says Time Warner can't get money from facebook to slow down or block access to competing social media sites like reddit or new startups. The ability for a corporation to stifle startups and competition in the market is what's anti-free market and NN currently protects us from that.

It would be like if a company owned the roads to your store and WalMart paid them to drop the speed limit by 70% or not fix potholes on the roads to your shop.

Yes, a free ISP market with competition should protect against anti-consumer behavior like this, but we don't have that. Until we do, NN is a good rule. Whenever there is a true free market and govt protected monopolies are no more, then NN won't be needed.

>>60318950

Except you can't avoid them if you want to have a normal life, because they control the supply, distribution, services and to some extent even demand through massive campaigns and commercialization of every aspect of life.

You are basically saying we should let corporations do whatever the fuck they want.

The funniest part is your pleb ass will be fucked just like the rest of us, if net neutrality was completely removed.

Yet here you are arguing against it, maybe you should think about it a little bit. All of these companies and corporations are NOT really separate entities, they don't really compete like you might think in your imaginary world. There are massive visible and hidden monopolies in every aspect of life. If any minor company ever threatens that existence, it gets acquired, challenged or simply changes within to follow the status quo.

Remember Google and do no evil, how quickly it got scrapped when they saw the Chinese market.

>>60319070
Lots of people don't have the option to switch you asshole
>inb4 durrr just move xD

>>60319066
Wow. How did you even live before Obama came and saved us?

>>60319104

I wouldn't have lived. That's the point.

>>60318886
>prove it and sue them

>go to court against a huge ass corp

You are a parody of yourself.

>>60318950
don't have a fucking choice, there IS NO SECOND PROVIDER WHERE I LIVE unless i'm willing for dialup speeds.

>>60318203
>NN regulations in place
>it keeps happening
Hmm..

>>60319099
Remember how they back NN and remember how governments are the most notorious net censorship bureaucracy

>>60319070
i'm paying for 5 times the speed i get and have literally no other option with daily multi hour long down times.

>>60319116
>these ISP are egregious monopolies that are raping everyone!!!!
>no case in court

>>60318274
>live in based state
>get based services
We really need to return to this whole "state competition" thing. Everything has gone to shit since we left it.

>>60319132
what ISP?

>>60319147
charter, funny enough a few months back they were really good about speeds and ping times, but they are at best offering me half what I pay for and at peak times 1/5th.

>>60318359
No, but perhaps the federal government should worry about issues that allow such problems to flourish in the first place? Seems to be their job, no?
Nah better just give them more authority. That'll solve it for sure.

>>60319101
>>60319132
>>60319118
>>60319132
>implying NN would improve this situation and not make it worse

File: 1492999897892.jpg (33KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x480px

>>60319115
Then how are you here? Are you 8?

>>60319118
>I don't have a choice
>Well actually I do, but I don't want the other option
amazing

>>60319194
>literally implying that dial-up is an acceptable alternative to a broadband connection

>>60319194
The illusion of choice doesn't mean you have a choice.

I hope net neutrality gets repealed soon so faggot Americans like OP get blocked from posting on 4chan.

>>60319170
Probably wouldn't, but if they are throttling me, that would be illegal under it, if they are throttling content, it would be illegal, and if they are found to do something that is fucking me over, the hammer would come down on them.

Why should I want corporations to not have consequences when they fuck me over?

If they regularly provided me with what I play for and better service, I would probably argue for letting them do their own thing too, but mine fucks me daily.

>>60318969
>government forces company to do something
Cute, but that's not how it works. You see, the largest companies get the government to force the smaller companies to comply with regulations, while using those same connections to avoid complying themselves.

The government provides a service, to who is the ultimate question. The lack of privacy protection should tell you that the service is not provided FOR the people, at least.
So who else could this service be for? Easy answer, friend:
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Letting a centralized government have full control is letting the highest bidder win. Everytime.

>>60319215
reported for using swears

>>60319216
Which won't be enforced

>>60319216
sounds like a personal problem

>>60319077
utility classification would allow for municipal internet, which when its made in america, comes in at 5th fastest world wide, but because comcast and other big players lobby against it, they are forced to charge what comcast would charge for that speed, instead of the 30$ they were, and it bars other municipalities from making their own too.

>>60319064
>government can't do worse
Underage detected. Things can always get worse, especially when the watch dog is blind.

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

486KB, 1516x740px

this is what anti-NN cucks are defending, btw

>>60319259
That will never happen because it is already illegal

>>60319249
literally can not get worse.

>>60318183
>2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
literally why?

>>60319259
>inb4 cable packaging analogy.

>>60319275
not if NN is repealed

keep on gargling comcast balls though faggot

>>60319259
i don't want to be a cuck. I better believe your imagined scenarios

>>60319207
If you're talking about internet for "basic human right" functions, then it absolutely is. Or do you feel entitled to HD porn streams too?
>>60319211
OK, so NN shills have resorted to metaphysics now. This is neat.

>>60318804
>government is already fucking you
>so let them fuck you more by letting the bigger corporations fuck you more

>>60319275
>It's illegal if the government thinks it's illegal and corporations are good boys who would never break the law.

>>60318183
Hah.
Imagine paying for the internet the way you pay for cable.
"That'll be $95.99 for our Deluxe package, which includes Google, Facebook and YouTube."

>>60319171

I was hospitalized when I was 25 and covered by my parents under Tricare due to the ACA. If I had been 19 at the time where I had shit money and worked a shit job because I lived in a shit town, things would have been different, I would have been responsible for paying for my own health insurance with a pre-existing condition while I cleaned dishes at the local diner in my population 1200 hometown making $8 an hour.

Assuming I could have afforded health insurance, it wouldn't have covered the preventative treatments that would have identified the medication I needed to have been on. When the grand mal seizure did hit me, I would probably have died because I was living by myself at the time and had it in my sleep. With the ACA I was able to get the meds I needed beforehand, resulting in a morning where I just woke up with a splitting headache and went to the hospital where they identified what happened and told me that I likely would have permanently lost motor functionality or worse if I hadn't been on meds.

You aren't 'on to something'. You're just wrong.

>>60319289
you are a cuck for shilling things that are against your best interests

cuck

>>60319066
If you don't have insurance, many hospitals will not treat you period, regardless if you have the money or not.
You have a pre existing condition, your insurance will not cover it at all.

Now you have hospitals that won't help you because you don't have insurance that will cover it and you can't get insurance that will because preexisting conditions.

>>60319288
NN has never been in effect and wasn't set to be until December

>>60318082
Net neutrality primarily stops:
1. Throttling of specific services or access to particular websites or traffic from some areas. Important since ISPs could outright ban BitTorrent or TOR
2. ISPs selling data. They already did this but now they don't need your permission. Every ISP collects traffic for years so law enforcement can use it

Counter: this is an issue of government intervention.

1. Small government policy says that the government shouldn't be forcing companies to provide the exact same service to every person regardless of what they're willing to pay. This hasn't really been an issue and people claim that the current laws have stopped this in the past as an argument in favour of bringing in new laws.
2. When government forces ISPs to store data for years, they're forcing them to take on a financial burden. ISPs sell that data they're collecting. I'm not sure what's changing here. I think the only thing changing is ISPs don't have to tell you what data of yours they're selling.

I think the wiki page has rebuttals from either side

>>60318823
So adding another layer of government agency will fix the issue of corruption in government agencies?
This is how you create bloat. Leave it to /g/ to not understand efficiency and structure.

>>60319304
against your best interests
kys

How is getting rid of network neutrality supposed to improve competition when:

1. Running your own brand new infrastructure is so expensive even Google - a company with more money than they know what to do with - stopped their fiber roll-outs.
2. The Common Carrier provision of Network Neutrality, which forces infrastructure companies to share their lines, is going away.

Unless somebody can answer these two questions with something other than word salad about government regulation, assume they're bullshitting you.

>>60319309
>NN has never been in effect and wasn't set to be until December
it's been the defacto policy of every ISP

Are you even allowed to post here without paying $149.99 for the 4chan posting package?

File: comcast_416x416[1].jpg (14KB, 416x416px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 416x416px

>>60318123
hi there

>>60319325
mobile technology will provide gig speeds within years

>>60319314
NN is a simple yes or no question, did you or did you not throttle speeds or discriminate packets. It will only be anti competitive if it's in the eyes of the FTC. Mark my words ISPs will find a way to argue it's not anti competitive to kill websites they don't like.

>>60319303
Wow. You sound insuffereable. Maybe you should have died?

>>60319234
sounds like 90% + of american internet users problems.

>>60319322
So you admit to being a comcast shill then?

>>60319331
And it will remain so because it's what consumers want. Not every corporation is Scrooge McDuck

>>60319356
that wasn't me. probably one of you coworker shills. I will use a trip and timestamp with FB link to prove I'm not a shill. You wouldn't do the same because you are one.

>>60319353
bullshit
>>60319356
no, I admit to wanting the completely incompetent government to fuck off and stop trying to encroach where they're not needed

>>60319294
websites are 3+mb each now, and dialup is 5kbs a second.

so this website took 10 minutes to load, oh look at that its a click through site, now I have to load another site that is going to take 10 more minutes +

after 3 hours I may have just found something useful, wow the joys of dialup internet, ho and the best part, it disconnects sometime in the middle of that 3 hours and they don't allow direct linking so you have to redo every thing.

>>60319061
Maybe fixing that issue should be more of a priority, right? Seems no competition is why shit is so bad in the first place.
How does NN bring competition to the ISP? That's the big question on everyone's mind.

>>60319342
Handwavy bullshit that doesn't actually address either point, but assumes that the advancement of technology will somehow save us.

>>60319376
>government stop interfering with my ability to fuck over consumers pls!!!!
confirmed comcast shill

These dubs say John Oliver is our guy.

>>60319216
>and the hammer would come down on them
But what will you do when it doesn't, because they paid their bribes?

>>60319122

Valid point, but only because some of their base would destroy them if they went against it and perhaps some of the old timers there still have a bit of no evils left.

Remember the backlash for godaddy.

>>60319399
at least there is the fucking chance of it happening opposed to no chance at all.

>>60319385
it's not bullshit at all. My mobile LTE was consistently faster than my old DSL provider
>>60319390
>gets fucked over
>keeps coming back for more
cuck confirmed

>>60319382
>5kbps
You've never used dialup before, have you?

>>60318968
HOW DOES NET NEUTRALITY BRING COMPETITION TO ISP SERVICES? HOW DOES IT ALLOW FOR NEW ISPS, AND THUS MORE COMPETITION?
>it doesn't
Thus the problem will remain.

>>60319422
dialup runs at 5kbps, maybe up to 10kbps if you get a second line and duplex the connection.

>>60319331
What? Are you retarded? What does this mean?

Why the new regulation that was introduced in December and set to become active in February if it was already magically the protective force in the past?

>>60319428
we already have monopolies, why strip the few laws making them tolerable.

>>60319428
Common Carrier, which is a part of Network Neutrality, forces infrastructure providers to share their lines.

That took me approximately .02 seconds to google. You have no excuse.

these government barriers to entry will surely not reinforce the artificial monopoly

>>60319428

NN isn't about creating more ISPs, it's about making ISPs treat all data the same. To accomplish what you want we would need to separate the monopolies, but no one is willing to do it.

If we had 1000 different ISPs available to everyone, we wouldn't need NN. But there are a only a few major players and everyone else is a wholesaler.

>>60319448
Free market cuck, net neutrality makes it harder for ISPs to free us from government tyranny.

>>60319359
then the ceo will be fired and put in jail for not maximizing profit, are you stupid on how the world works?

File: 1494294630012.jpg (29KB, 252x291px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 252x291px

>>60319418
Uh oh goy, looks like you've made several http posts to boards.4chan.org without having the Comcast Reddit/4chan meme subscriber package. Unfortunately, to cover our bandwidth costs, we have added a charge of $4.99 to your account for each post.

But don't worry, FCC killing anti-competitive government regulations like net neutrality means we can now give you the meme subscriber package for the low price of 95.99 on top of your regular internet fees. Thank you for choosing Comcast.

>>60319276
You are posting, are you not? Seems you are connected.
Literally can get worse for you.

>tfw no antitrust gf

>>60319477
Eat shit I'm switching to CenturyLink

>>60319434
Really, you've never heard of a 56k v90 modem?
Why lie anon?

>>60319441
because the NN regulation in 2015 codified a policy that was already considered de facto before. Are you retarded? Do you know know how the legal system works?

>>60319485
ask me again in a few hours when my daily fucking down time occurs.

>>60319441

NN has already been the policy in most cases, the argument here is to implement it as a whole. Because with each new case, ISPs could chip away at it.

But now you got a president that thinks that entire NN policy should be scrapped. You will get fucked if that happens.

>>60319476
>publicly traded ISPs are LITERALLY HITLER

>>60319490
CenturyLink has the same bandwidth costs goy, but their meme subscriber package costs $110

FCC repealing net neutrality made it possible for us to compete with them and give you these low prices :^)

>>60319476
>it's illegal for ceos to not maximize profit
And you talk about understanding how the world works.
Top kek.

I would rather be forced to pay a subscription to post here, it's more free than government regulation.

>>60319281
because they don't want to provide you with bandwidth, because it costs them the money you paid them to provide it and they lose that much more profits.

>>60319500
Already illegal, David

>>60319475

Free market doesn't work, no true free market exists. It's a dream just like communism, you need limits and regulations.

>>60319508
Remember that you will have to pay an additional fee for every website you want to visit that isn't in the base subscriber package (google and youtube)

sorry goy, but we have to cover our bandwidth costs somehow!

>>60319348
So NN seems to be just another strip of red tape corporations have to pay their way through?
Seems about right.

>>60319530
>jews lying again
shocker

>>60319520
It's illegal because net neutrality is a thing.

Without it, companies can charge to not throttle/block you from certain websites.

>>60319418
and you get all of 20gb before it throttles or you have to pay another 10$ for 1 more gb.

>>60319520
Keep gargling down that penis, don't worry your ISP overlords paid the FTC to turn the other cheek.

>>60319546
NN wasn't set to be a thing until later this year. It has literally never been enforced

>>60318355
>implying it isn't
muh XBOXHUEG corn subsidies beg to differ

>>60319561
So your solution is to repeal it in order to allow ISPs to do whatever the fuck they want and throttle anything they like? good goy

>>60319325
>starting new ISPs is so restrictive the biggest Internet company couldn't do it
>biggest Internet company is younger than the youngest big ISP
>regulations stop Google from being able to afford ISP roll out, but Comcast and friends can manage it
Really makes me think. Maybe we do need more regulations for the big boys to not follow.

>>60319576
THEY. CAN'T. FUCKING. DO. THAT. ALREADY.

>>60319522
Don't bother. Most of the cucks here think that a capitalist system can do no wrong and don't realize that a large part of why capitalism was so effective in the 50's and 60's was due to a good post-war economy and strong regulations on capitalism by the government. To them it's either you're a true blue capitalist or a commie.

>>60319504
you will be booted as ceo, and its against the law for you to fuck over said corporation so likely going to criminal court if not at the very least sued into nothing by shareholders. Its like you don't know why all corporations manufacture outside of america when its an option, or why all corporations seem to fuck everyone over everywhere and every time they can.

>>60318355

Do you realize how much regulation surrounds the food industry?

Without it corporations would kill everyone for profit and some already have until they got caught.

>>60319418
>it's not bullshit at all. My mobile LTE was consistently faster than my old DSL provider
You're not getting the point. New technology is new technology, but the problems of monopoly ISP's remains the same. Infrastructure is expensive no matter how you slice it.

>>60319410
Both scenarios are equal in probability, friend. The only difference is the illusion of change.
>change you can believe in

>>60318684
>not taking into account that there are none
Yeah, there's no such thing like Google Fiber that was thwarted by ISP monopoly regulations...

>>60319491
which will get you 5.6kbps what the fuck are you trying to argue?

>>60319590
Because of net neutrality, you realize this right? Net neutrality is what prevents them from doing that.

>>60319595
No naughty words allowed in this thread tough guy

>>60319599
landline Internet will be extinct within the decade on a consumer level. The majority of Internet users today are already mobile

>>60319590

Because they get challenged in court, but that would all be removed if we make policies against NN instead of making NN a standard policy.

Seriously, how do people not understand this.

File: fda-logo.jpg (183KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 2048x1536px

>>60318355
Christ, how can you people be SO FUCKING STUPID?

>>60319612
No, because of FTC oversight. Same as Google and Facebook. NN has never been enforced, and wasn't set to be until December 2017. Literally nothing changes

>>60319595

Yeah I get it.

Same reason people think you have to be pro-trump or pro-hillary, fuck both of them.

Capitalism is both the best thing that has ever happened and the worst.

File: nn.png (439KB, 968x548px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 968x548px

Good goy, remember that government regulations are bad and preventing those innocent little ISPs from making $5 for each website accessed by a customer is interfering with job creation

>>60319448
Common carrier is the reason second rate ISPs can barely provide their services. Tell me, if Comcast owns the lines, and manages the lines, why would they treat their leased lines the same as their own ISP lines?

You say NN solves the issue, but it does nothing of the sort. It doesn't stop the big ISPs from treating other ISPs like shit, because the other ISPs legally HAVE TO use their lines.
So in effect, common carrier means all the small ISPs are bound to whoever owns the lines. The problem of Comcast and Co still remains.

>>60319622
You're continuing to stumble past the point. You're just trading one set of oligopolies for another.

>>60319622
sad world we live in where people will get raped in the ass by moblie prices when land lines as inflated the cost they are, are vastly cheaper.

>>60319655
>what are antitrust laws

>>60318082
Net Neutrality is bullshit. It's a government mandate on internet speeds to make the net neutral. I don't see why any American would support it...wait...Liberals aren't American...and they are barely intelligent enough to be considered people. Figured liberalism would be dead, since the US won a legit war against them in the 1860s.

>>60319639

I think you are missing the point, because you think that any type of regulation is some how against your imagined "free market".

>>60319600
so do nothing for a guaranteed nothing in return, or do something for at least a fucking chance?

>>60318082
Someone in here is shilling for these big corporations.

Trust me - the Telecom are exquisitely evil. An AT&T VP visited my uni to talk about how AT&T setup a research lab to help build the future. He basically presented a list of projects that AT&T started and that he claimed were unique and cutting edge. All the projects however were direct ripoffs of google/apple/microsoft/etc products and projects. At the end, I asked him why AT&T helps the US government spy on American citizens. He claimed that AT&T absolutely fights all attempts of the US government to pressure it to spy on American citizens.

...Which NSA documents 100% disagree with....

Biggest irony - they had a prize raffle... and I won.

>>60319668
I'll take the oligarchy I can willingly leave

>>60319638
>NN has never been enforced
you're wrong, it has been enforced since 2005-2007

Point out the relevant FTC regulation that prevents ISPs from giving "preferential treatment" to bundled content and blocking/throttling all other unsponsored content. I will wait.

>>60319611
t. child who never used dialup in his life

>>60319693
FOR TWO WHOLE YEARS WOW

>>60319473
Creating more ISPs brings competition to the market. Competition means that Comcast and friends will naturally be unable to continue unsavory business practices, because costumers will leave.

As NN is now, it forces small ISPs to effectively become customers of comcast. Worst part is that the small boys have no choice, because they need access to the lines to do business. They are exploited and used, and this is why the industry is so shit in the first place.
All NN did was get some protection for the silicon Valley giants to insulate themselves from the practices of the big ISPs. It is selfish legislation, and legislative "time" should be spent solving the real poison at the source.

You start by breaking the control the old ISPs have on the lines. Until then, the industry will remain cancerous and broken.

>>60319494
>complains about daily down time
Imagine if you had to coordinate around your daily uptime. It can always be worse.

>>60319714
>reading comprehension
SINCE 2005-2007, not from

you're pretty bad at this, I hope comcast doesn't pay you good money for this

>>60319693
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws

>>60319475
There is no free market in the ISP space because running your own infrastructure is so incredibly expensive that it's not worth it for new companies to do so. There's also no guarantee that the existing ISP's will let you use their lines to offer a better product.

>>60319715
Without NN small ISPs can't start either because of protectionist laws in many municipalities, NN has nothing to do with the real issue. The only way you fix the problem you want solved is for government to force a sale of the infrastructure to a neutral third party that all ISPs can buy from.

>>60319729
And where does it say in there that ISPs can't block content that subscribers haven't paid for? By your logic, the FTC ought to go after cable companies because they make customers pay for channels

>>60319715
>Creating more ISPs brings competition to the market
Creating your own ISP is prohibitively expensive, as running new infrastructure is so expensive that even Google gave up.

>You start by breaking the control the old ISPs have on the lines.
That's exactly what the Common Carrier status of Network Neutrality is designed to do.

>>60318082
Net Neutrality is simply legislation made to protect silicon valley jews from the larger ISP jews.
A real solution would actually fix the insane control the old ISPs have in the game, but instead we have this halfass legislation designed to allow the jewery to continue at our expense, but not at the expense of google or facebook.

>>60319746
Which will never happen, because antitrust laws in America have been weakened to the point of being meaningless.

>>60319708
dialup is 56 kilobits, that translates to 5.6 kilobytes
what in the actual fuck do you think dialup was? did you think it was good? hell if it was faster then 5kbps down I would have been able to deal with it for longer than I did,

>>60319443
The regulation existed in function for about 5 days

The reason is that when you enforce regulation on precisely what services you can provide then there's no incentive for these companies to expand infrastructure

>>60319762
>Creating your own ISP is prohibitively expensive, as running new infrastructure is so expensive that even Google gave up.
They gave up because backing NN was the cheaper option. NN also did nothing to help aleviate or fix the extremely broken market the ISPs have set up.
The only reason Google cared in the first place was because Comcast and friends were trying to control them and profit from their success. All NN did was protect Google, and other internet companies (as in, strictly digital content), from the schemes of Comcast and friends.

NN does not fix the underlying issue of Comcast and friends controlling the entire industry, and profiteering from every aspect of it. In fact, NN gives the impression that the problem is fixed, when in fact it is still a very large issue.

So creating an ISP is expensive? Perhaps we should revisit the regulations that cause it to be so expensive, and then work from there. To fix an issue, you must address it at the source.

>>60319772
Thanks jews

File: 1490560788546.jpg (270KB, 750x728px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 750x728px

>anti-NN shills trying to convince us that dialup is good and fast
you can't make this shit up

>>60319815
THEY HAVE NO INCENTIVE RIGHT NOW EITHER THEY HAVE MONOPOLIES AND REFUSE TO COMPETE ALREADY
THEY REFUSE TO UPDATE INFRASTRUCTURE
HOW ARE YOU THIS FUCKING STUPID?

>>60319810
The size of webpages were considered back then, so the speed of your typical site was more or less the same, except for photos and videos obviously.

The slower speeds really forced developers to be considerate of glut back then. Today they don't have to, which is the prime cause of sluggish websites now a days.

>>60319671
largely unused since Bell was split up

>>60319754
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=19072

>>60319443
>we already have monopolies, why strip the few laws making them tolerable.
Because you will also be stripping the laws that make them possible.

>>60319810
>>60319837
Sorry, point of the reply was to say:
>dialup was easily tolerable back then, because of...
Makes little sense as it is.

>>60319837
yes and no
a major part of the sluggishness comes form scripts, these things usually cached on computers back then, not sure if they do anymore, and with the scripts getting bigger and bigger the sluggishness feels worse and worse, not necessarily that the infor gets to you slower but the execution of the scripts takes time and in youtube's case, is so fucking bad scrolling the page with page up and down is broken for me, and the rare comments I make, i out type the fucking input, which for me who barely does 20wpm is a feet in and of itself.

File: ronnie-jones-video-games-wea.jpg (245KB, 786x800px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 786x800px

>>60319715
>>60319816
OP here. This whole fucking cancerous thread and finally someone gives an answer that helps me understand this mess a little. Thank you sir.

>>60319841
>The FTC is barred from regulating common carriers, a classification that has applied to AT&T's phone service for more than 80 years under Title II of the Communications Act. But AT&T has various lines of business, some of which are not classified as common carriage, and the FTC said it could punish AT&T for transgressions related to its non-common carrier businesses

>>60319898
>finally, someone confirms my pre-existing viewpoint
lmao what a joke you are

>>60319902
... like Internet acess

>>60319816
THERE IS NO REGULATION THAT MAKES IT EXPENSIVE

The cost of laying hundreds of miles of lines makes it expensive, the cost of the equipment makes it expensive, so on so forth, regulations aren't shit compared to the infrastructure cost.

the current companies got the infrastructure largely given to them and the patch it every now and then.

>>60319911
t. current year man

>>60319911
>>finally, someone made an intelligent argument one way or another instead of parroting media shills or government shills or sub-meme tier kindergarten ideologies about economics.
ftfy

>>60319951
t. retard

cant wait until net neutrality is repealed and all the retards like you can't afford to post on 4chan anymore

>>60319848
Unless the united states takes back the infrastructure they gave them, its not happening.

>>60319879
Yeah, that as well.
I was mainly trying to highlight how developers are less conscience of efficiency and general glut compared to how they use to be. The speed is great and all, but it does have a way to encourage laziness.
>>60319898
To be fair, I didn't really put 2 and 2 together until I looked at the timeline of both Google's ISP and NN. Considering the type of growth Google had, and how they (as well as all internet companies) rely heavily on the ISPs, it really feels like the most plausible explanation for all of this.

If you follow the timeline, it effectively paints the story of
>internet companies; led by google
vs
>big ISPs
Google rolling out their ISP was their gambit to cave the ISPs, and NN is the result of their successful gamble.
It is much cheaper for Google to continue using the old ISPs than to fund and maintain their own, and the ISPs get some more legislation that they can continue using to bully the market, which is what caused this problem in the first place.

So all in all, NN resulted because Google (and friends) grew too big for the ISPs to continue bullying. This still seems to not address the underlying problem of the ISPs bullying the internet market/industry into submission, though, and this is why I think I'm still not too happy with NN.
Would much rather a complete rehaul of the entire industry. The big ISPs need to be audited.

1) Repeal Net Neutrality.
2) Send all Comcast, AT&T, Verizon jews and shills to the gas chambers.

Problem solved.

>>60319995
yeah i'm sure 2) will happen and they won't just use the repeal of net neutrality to get richer :^)

>>60319974
So only poorfags should worry about this? Makes sense

>>60319816
>They gave up because backing NN was the cheaper option
If that was the case, then why aren't they starting up again?

>Perhaps we should revisit the regulations that cause it to be so expensive
If you're talking about state-level regulations that promote ISP monopolies, the only effective deterrent to that would be federal regulation that prohibits such monopolies. Trying to slay the hydra a city at a time is a fools errand.

Other than that sort of blatant regulatory capture, the real costs that ISP's run into are the actual laying of the infrastructure and legal costs due to incumbent ISP's suing the pants off of you. The costs are in labor, both in the workmen laying the infrastructure and the lawyers to fight off those lawsuits.

>>60320003
And anyone who doesn't live in a large city

>>60320016
Because better Internet service will magically appear out of nowhere when the government takes over

>>60319950
>The cost of laying hundreds of miles of lines makes it expensive
It's not that expensive to hook a small town up to the national network. At least, it shouldn't be.
In reality, there are many regulations that the ISPs must first meet before they can lay their own lines. These regulations are restrictive enough to where it becomes more economically viable to just lease the lines from the older ISPs.

This is the scheme they have created, and it literally the source of all issues, including the ones "solved" by NN. The cost doesn't come from laying the lines, the cost comes from rules the big boys set up to prevent competition.
It happened in electricity
It happened in gas
It happened in oil and coal.
Why wouldn't it happen in internet utility as well?

>>60319898
Dude literally has no idea what he's talking about. See >>60320013 - the actual costs of starting your ISP is in the labor and legal fees.

There are regulatory problems, but they're at the state and local level, and federal regulation is the only effective means to combat it.

>>60319816
> NN does not fix the underlying issue of Comcast and friends controlling the entire industry, and profiteering from every aspect of it. In fact, NN gives the impression that the problem is fixed, when in fact it is still a very large issue.
> So creating an ISP is expensive? Perhaps we should revisit the regulations that cause it to be so expensive, and then work from there. To fix an issue, you must address it at the source.

So let me get this straight.

Because NN doesn't fix ISP monopolies we should just repeal any NN policy or stop follow defacto standards related to NN.

Because this will surely fix things.

Also we should divide monopolies in the ISP space.

You expect Trump or pretty much anyone in US government to go after these monopolies? It will NEVER happen, and their argument isn't for that at all, you are twisting facts. They want to remove NN, on the ground that it is unfair for the monopolies...so they can charge you whatever they want and control service.

Look no major developer, hacker or innovator is against NN. There is a good reason for that, because it will fuck innovation on the internet, restrict service, increase costs and make these fucking monopolies even bigger.

If NN didn't exist at the start of the internet, imagine how fucked we would be now. NN has always been an internet part of it, always. The only time it wasn't was maybe in early days of BBS, when you had to pay more for long distance to connect.

>>60319981
The government just needs to stop playing favorites with them, but we need some serious anti-lobbying efforts to make that happen.
There is way too much money flowing directly from ISPs to politicians.

>>60320028
no dipshit, comcast is the only ISP available in some rural counties in the US

>>60320002
Which is why we will keep it until we can get somebody who can perform 2).

>>60320002
Then we do it in reverse.
>gas the jews
>repeal NN
You only take the bandaid off after the wound has healed, correct? Same principle.

>>60319994
>Would much rather a complete rehaul of the entire industry.
This likely won't happen. I don't see Trump going trust busting anytime soon. But do you think Fagit Pai is doing a good thing reversing NN?

>>60320093
>But do you think Fagit Pai is doing a good thing reversing NN?
no

>>60320041
>reddit spacing
>reddit speech choices
Look, can you be concise with your argument? I really don't have time to be reading your essay just to get
>i disagree

And yes, passing what is typically known as "bandaid reforms" is definitely going to fix the underlying issue.
On the other hand, allowing bandaid reforms to continue to remain in effect when the underlying issue can be fixed via other means, is equally as foolish.

"useless" laws on the books can still be used in court to steer a case, and as such can be used by companies to protect explotative practices.
It is much better to address the issues NN is aimed at in the broader reform. This way you can create regulations that do not operate with excessive glut, which leads to loss revenue and general waste.

File: what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.0.jpg (298KB, 1113x688px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1113x688px

>coming soon

I believe the ultimate aim for internet providers is to have as much control as TV networks have. There is too much money to be made running the internet like this

>>60320029
The regulatory capture you're talking about happens at the local level, and the way you fix that nationally is through federal regulation. There's no other way to prevent that sort of chicanery, it's like trying to kill a hydra just by chopping one head at a time.

>>60320115

Repealing NN will cause monopolies to get even bigger.

How do you plan to fix monopolies by repealing NN?

>>60320093
>But do you think Fagit Pai is doing a good thing reversing NN?
Yes. From my view, NN is legislation created to give internet companies a leg up against the questionable practices of the ISPs, which are also condoned by the federal government.

So the practice of creating such laws is counter productive to the point of laws in the first place. If your law book is a list of 3 rules with 3000 exceptions, how is it suppose to work in practice? Best rewrite the rules to include the exceptions, and eliminate the need for such "amendments" in the first place.

To draw to a real life example, there is a reason the US constitution has relatively few amendments for the age of the document. A large list of amendments draws the initial document into question, usually.

>>60320115
Also I'm mostly from HN, never used reddit.

>>60320160
don't give the libtards any ideas

>>60320155
Repealing NN only returns internet companies to the mercy of ISPs. NN does not stop monopolies from growing, and it never will.
The solution is to reform all rules and regulations pertaining to internet commerce. It has been sorely needed ever since the internet became a thing, yet the only thing our government has done so far are these half-ass bills.

>>60320175
How will this happen after NN is removed? Trump administration isn't arguing for removing monopolies just for NN to be squashed.

Can any anti-NN shill provide one concrete positive example that comes out of removing NN? All I hear is "regulations are the devil" without saying what will actually be created and what regulations are keeping competition out.

>>60320168
Was mainly teasing. Just cut down on the excess spaces and "fluff". It turns some older anons against your post instantly, no matter the content.

>>60320196
Thankfully, my data is not limited yet thanks to strong NN regulation in my country so I can make my posts long.

>>60320195
MUH GUBMINT REGULATION
MUH OBAMA

>>60320191
So your argument is we might as well keep the fat since it is already there?
This is why I am against reactive, "quick" legislation in general. Once it is on the books, it is impossible to remove, regardless of if it has merit or not.

Point is that the entire structure needs to be reworked. NN was not this reworking, in spite of many people implying it is the exact rework we need.

That is why NN is dangerous. It was born out of dishonestly, and it will remain dishonest throughout its life. Such legislation cannot be allowed to remain, else it will cause problems in the future. This is common sense when it comes to creating law.

>>60320175
We still have boomers running our government unfortunately. Boomers can't understand technology, and we won't have any good laws regarding such until that generation retires or dies.

>>60320216
kek

>>60320224
MUH WIFES SON
MUH RACISTS

>>60320216
(you) are the cancer to this website, you know that right? Instead of participating in the discussion, you seem to only be able to fan the flame of conflict.
Why? Can you not word your opinion?

>>60320160
Yeah, you sound good on paper, but there is a reason why our system of laws in this country does not follow the same methods of constitutional amendments, and it's because absolutely nothing would get done if you let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Network Neutrality is not in and of itself a panacea for all of the ills of ISP's, but it is a damn good first step, and also something that could later be referred to as precedent for further improvements.

>>60320227
No, I'm just wondering how repealing NN would cause the monopolies to decrease?

You haven't answered my original question.

>>60320257
>he makes his post too long for your short attention span and you complain about reddit
>he makes his post short and witty and you get butthurt that he's being antagonistic
lolol

>>60320274
Well when you can't attack sound arguments or reasoning, the only attack left is on the person. The /pol/ special.

>>60320230
Boomer hate is misaligned, so you shouldn't dwell on it. It isn't their fault that the technology is younger than them, and you can't expect them to change on a whim.
But furthermore, all generations have their bad apples, including ours. Don't allow the boomers to become the catchall excuse for our generation, less our children will be saying the same about us.
>no good internet laws until they die
I don't think I agree with this either. Our law system is not meant to be quick to adapt, as is evident with the dawning of the internet. But in the same vein, we can't expect the law system to adapt fast, as that means our society is more susceptible to unrest.

Or to put it another way, the boomers would have been successful in tearing the nation down if it weren't for the lethargic nature in the change of our laws. This mechanism allows a nation to survive the flaws and failures of a single generation, so it is pretty invaluable.

>>60320289
says the guy who just used the term 'reddit spacing' unironically

>>60320263
How does NN solve the issue?
>it doesn't
If it isn't solving the issue, why does it exist in the first place?
>it shouldn't
Basic reasoning, no?

>>60320305
>he can't check for samefags
Oh i'm laughin.

>>60320320
NN solves the issue of monopolies further exploiting users however.

Removing NN doesn't remove monopolies.

Why not keep NN so we don't make it worse?

>>60320330
>he thinks he can deflect his samefagging with this

File: 1471480015154.gif (2MB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x282px

>>60320362

>>60320378
removing NN would be pouring gasoline on the fire

>>60320384
No, removing NN would be leaving the not-yet-burning chair in order to find an exit.

>>60320362
>NN solves the issue of monopolies further exploiting users however.
This is incorrect. NN solves the issue of the ISP monopolies from exploiting their business customers; people like:
>google
>facebook
>internet company #1342
The end user was already protected through other laws. The scare images such as
>>60320147
were never a real scenario, as ISPs already do that. They can't up the prices any more or else they will start losing customers.
Think about it this way: if they could raise the prices anymore, they would. So why don't they? It isn't because of NN.

NN simply protects the internet companies from being double charged by their ISPs because of the nature of internet business and large bandwidth. It has very little to do with the end user, and very much to do with the middle workings of business.

>>60320378
But again, I didn't get an answer.

How would removing NN help remove the monopolies?

Also can you show me evidence that Trump administration is even arguing for ending monopolies? It seems they are only trying to expand them.

>>60320410
>ISPs already do that
No they do not.

>>60320363
You accused him of being the author of my post. You are incorrect, probably because you don't bother checking for samefags. Are you new?

>>60320431
Yes they do, retard. Or are all of these stories of ISPs treating their customers like cattle just propaganda?

>>60320433
you are the samefag who got butthurt about "reddit-spacing" and "writing essays"

sorry my friend, but everyone with a samefag checker can blatantly see this

>>60320444
Find a single case of an ISP with a business model and pricing structure remotely similar to >>60320147

>>60320431
>>60320444
Just to further explain to retards like you:

Do you know how an ISP determines what speeds you get? They set them in their software. You can go from 1mbdown to 100mbdown in a few keystrokes on their end.
How is this different from the package plans in those scare images? The distinctions in those images are all fabricated, after all. That was the point of those images.

ISPs literally already do that exact same thing with the speeds they offer you. This is literally what gave some people the idea to make those scare images in the first place.

>>60320425
From what I understand, Trump FCC wants to try to create a more competitive environment for ISPs and the NN law has the effect (intended or not) of reinforcing monopolistic behavior.

File: inb4 no $.jpg (109KB, 1287x838px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1287x838px

>>60320466
>file name

>>60320482
>ISPs literally already do that exact same thing with the speeds they offer you
Except they do not offer preferential speeds depending on the content you are consuming, which is the whole point of contention.

>>60320498
>NN law has the effect (intended or not) of reinforcing monopolistic behavior.
That was a blatant lie, there was literally nothing in the fucking bill that would have impeded companies or catalyzed any monopolistic behavior

>>60320505
I thought the point of contention was that the ISPs are running monopolies, and were exploiting internet companies like NETFLIX by charging double for their bandwidth allocations.

Netflix upped the anti by making it a public issue. Do you even know how businesses operate? Or negotiate?

>>60320504
can't imagine how much those packages cost

>mfw 500mb/s down but a 500gb cap

>>60320504
Thats not the same at all, they aren't changing what websites you can access or at what speeds you can access them

>>60320410
You seem to be changing your argument.

But it's not correct. NN protects users, because it allows them to access smaller websites and internet services for the same price as any other service. Makes it neutral.

ISPs can raise prices, but they wouldn't just lose customers to someone else, many of the poor customer's wouldn't be able to afford internet at all.

With no NN, they could raise prices on data for specific sites/protocols, and lock users to the sites and services that pay the most, e.g. Google, Facebook, etc.

Bitcoin, IPFS, Bittorrent, Tor, etc, would not be accessible to most people.

>>60320505
You're right, they just throttle the fuck out of you and blame youtube/netflix/twitch when you take a minute to buffer 20 seconds of video.

>>60320524
>I thought the point of contention was that the ISPs are running monopolies, and were exploiting internet companies like NETFLIX by charging double for their bandwidth allocations.
No that was never the issue and never the reason NN was introduced

>>60320504
not the same thing

>>60320516
It does that very thing by establishing a "protected class" of company: ones that operate in digital services. The establishment of a protected class is the implicit recognition that there is a class that needs to be protected from.
Who is this class?
>the ISPs
If NN establishes a protected class, and thus implicitly recognizing ISPs control over the market (a monopoly), it can thus be further implied that the government is allowing the ISPs to conduct their shady businesses.
>>60320546
There is no physical limitation on the speed of your connection. The way an ISP gets you to your paid for speeds is by THROTTLING YOU.

How is that different from what NN was made to correct?

>>60320544
>ISPs (like comcast) exploiting internet companies like NETFLIX by charging double for their bandwidth allocations is not the reason NN came to be.
So you agree with this statement? Because that is what you are saying. I'm not whether this is what you are trying to say or not, but I would think not.

>>60320543
Established NN law would make such throttling illegal in most cases, without NN you have to fight case by case.

>>60320559
>It does that very thing by establishing a "protected class" of company: ones that operate in digital services. The establishment of a protected class is the implicit recognition that there is a class that needs to be protected from.
>Who is this class?
No it didn't do any of this. Did you even read the bill? this anon describes it perfectly.
>>60320533
>ut it's not correct. NN protects users, because it allows them to access smaller websites and internet services for the same price as any other service. Makes it neutral.

>>60320571
not the anon you were originally talking to

>>60320577
Except thats not what NN did. Did YOU read the bill? The protection to the end user is implicit, the protection to the middle business is explicit.

Seriously you fucks need to go learn how laws are created, and further what their implications mean.

>>60320594
Yea dude it protects the consumer from ISP's from unfairly discriminating on connection access.

>>60320559
>There is no physical limitation on the speed of your connection. The way an ISP gets you to your paid for speeds is by THROTTLING YOU.

>How is that different from what NN was made to correct?
NN was made to prevent ISPs from throttling you depending on what brand of content you consumed.

Seems like you don't understand what NN actually is.

>>60320590
Doesn't matter, the response is to you. I'm trying to understand it, but it doesn't make sense to me, so I wrote it as I am interpreting it so you can correct me.

So, is that not how NN came to be?
>>60320604
the internet company is a consumer of the ISP as well. The legislation was created to protect them, and the protection that ends up with the end user is implicit in the writing.
Think: what was NN created to address anyway? What issue caused this whole thing to explode?

I'm name dropping Netflix a bunch for a reason.

>>60320572
I'm pro NN, just saying that they already throttle the fuck out of traffic (though there's been crackdowns or companies pay up). Honestly the ISP business is basically built on underutilization of your actual connection (like airplanes always overbooking). Once tech giants that actually use a lot of their bandwidth 100% of the time node up they realize they're not making as much off of them.

>>60320559
> There is no physical limitation on the speed of your connection. The way an ISP gets you to your paid for speeds is by THROTTLING YOU.

When you buy a package agree the speed you will get, so that's fine. Not the issue at ALL. Also there are speed limitations based on hardware on top, go check docsis specs for example. You need certain modems, to get up to certain speeds.

The issue is if you are paying for say X megabits download/upload, but you can only reach that speed on certain services because of this throttling.

>>60320608
>NN was made to prevent ISPs from throttling you depending on what brand of content you consumed.
No, NN was created to prevent ISPs from charging multiple times for the same service. It became an issue because Comcast wanted to charge Netflix extra because of their bandwidth usage. Netflix countered by making it public, thus starting the NN movement.

It was always about the ISPs wanting to exploit the internet businesses, but the internet businesses used their consumers, who are also comcast and friends consumers, to pressure comcast to back down and agree to some terms, which involves the passing of NN.
NN exist to protect companies, not you.

>>60320623

Yes that is also true.

What they have been doing in the past is saying that stuff like bittorrent causes massive bandwidth issues therefore they should be allowed to throttle/restrict access, and yet they are still selling unlimited packages or people haven't even used their quota. (Most of this was a lie anyways, to prevent torrenting)

Strong NN regulation, will forbid them to do this in general. They could still do traffic shaping, like if you reach 1000GB they can reduce your speed by factor Y, but they cannot outright restrict certain sites/protocols based on bandwidth etc.

>>60320628
>The issue is if you are paying for say X megabits download/upload, but you can only reach that speed on certain services because of this throttling.
This issue is circumvented by ISPs advertising as
>"up to" x speed
Meeting that speed constantly is not in the contract.

I bring up this example because what started NN was Comcast trying to push similar packaging on to Netflix, in a move to effectively extort money out of them.

>>60320533
>poor customer's wouldn't be able to afford internet at all.
What is a library?

>>60320652
>NN was created to prevent ISPs from charging multiple times for the same service
???

I don't know where you got this from, NN is about ISPs not throttling traffic based on protocol or source/destination headers

>>60320682
>Strong NN regulation, will forbid them to do this in general.
But it won't. NN is not worded as such because torrenting is not a service of a intermediate internet company.
Seriously go read the wording. It is very explicit in its goals.

>>60320695
Getting defunded thanks to Trump.

>>60320707
Well, I hope Starbucks doesn't get defunded then. Their wifi isn't as good, but the food is better at least.

>>60320699
>NN is about ISPs not throttling traffic based on protocol or source/destination headers
Correct, but you are incorrect about who they were initially going to throttle for pay (or rather who they really were extorting under threat of throttling).
The wording of the bill reflects this distinction, so a lot of the end user rights NN supposedly protects is not exactly true. I said it earlier, but the end user protections are all implicit, and based on the "middle-business" protections.

>>60320652
>NN exist to protect companies, not you.

How could someone be so wrong, wait and see how things start to change if NN goes

>>60320732
>How could someone be so wrong
Look in the mirror, you see it every day. It is typically a result of not reading the legislation in question, or really just the general
>politics are lame
mentality in general. You are only given 40% of the reality, yet you are content with that. Why? Do you not want to know how the laws of your country work?

If NN is so good for existing ISP monopolies, why are they always lobbying against it? Are we just misunderstanding the honest corporations who just want to help the people and not trying to maximize their profits?

i remember when Net Neutrality was a big deal back in 2011 and 2012, you never saw people arguing against it on /g/ back then

must be the influx of all the /r/le_donald reddit faggots who will do mental gymnastics to defend their guy no matter what

>>60320301
>Don't allow the boomers to become the catchall excuse for our generation, less our children will be saying the same about us.
If we fuck our children over because we decide we know better about shit we don't even understand then they absolutely should say the same about us.

>>60320859
This

Net Neutrality was the one thing all corners of the internet were in support for.

Suddenly there is a huge surge of newfags into /pol/ and then the rest of this site and they are unironically arguing against NN.