Net Neutrality

File: DF4iWmCUMAAnSLN.jpg large.jpg (27KB, 634x331px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 634x331px

>>61635860
People who oppose net neutrality are mostly people who don't understand it. They think that it's one of those situations where a bad concept has been given a nice name, like the "good air for our kids to breath" act, or something.
In reality, NN is about putting in place laws that would prevent ISPs from deciding what you can and can't use your internet for.
Think about it like this: If the power company wanted to step in and start charging you different rates depending on what appliance you had plugged in, or block certain types of appliances all together, wouldn't you want the government to step in and say "no, that's illegal", this is almost exactly the same. If you honestly oppose NN, please respond to this post with your reasoning and I will personally respond to you in an attempt to help you understand.

I'm someone who has worked in telecommunications industry for 10+ years at an executive level. I have more understanding of how all this shit works than most. I'll be around for a couple hours and I'll come back tomorrow. I will honestly respond to any question you have.

>>61636161
>If the power company wanted to step in and start charging you different rates depending on what appliance you had plugged in, or block certain types of appliances all together

of all the analogies from liberal shills i've read on this subject; this is the dumbest fucking analogy any human has ever made. god have mercy

>>61636206
I'm actually a republican, and republicans should recognize the issues with a lack of regulation of ISPs this way the most, unfortunately, a low of astro-turfing and bot posts has used buzz words and spammed the idea that republicans and non-liberals should be opposed to NN, when in reality the far left would be the ones to benefit the most from a lack of NN, since websites that promote things like the KKK, Nazis, etc. would be some of the first to go if ISPs were allowed to decide.

It was a quick metaphor, one easy to understand for the most people, it's simple, yes, by design. If you have an issue with it, you should refute it instead of making yourself look stupid by saying it's wrong without proving it. Otherwise you either come off as someone baiting replies or someone too stupid to think for themselves who is engaging in perceived political identity.

>>61635860
I would oppose NN if internet networks (fiber, cable, dsl...) could be installed by any startup company anywhere without restrictions. The theory is that in a true free market there would be no need for government intervention because a company would profit from the desire of a neutral internet. The free market will balance itself, at least that's the true libertarian approach and the typical argument I hear on FOX NEWS to criticize NN in the media.

Problem is that would be a mess, local governments need to put regulation on who can install that kind of infrastructure to avoid a clusterfuck. So an ISP will always be an oligopoly, with or without NN. People against NN usually don't understand that concept, they believe the internet market will be more free without it. Or they are for a plutocracy, usually because they work for, or are associated with, an ISP.

They aren't trolling, just ignorant.

>>61636606
The recent reclassification as title II allows startups to use the pre-existing infrastructure, however, this hasn't really helped as small companies that do this are quickly bought out by larger ones.

I used to have a local ISP here that charged low prices and had great speed, time warner bought them out and the service has suffered and the price doubled. Like you said, allowing smaller companies to lay cable would help, but would, again like you said, also be a nightmare.