The U.S. Without Net Neutrality: How An Internet Nightmare Unfolds

>Trump’s team hadn’t been explicitly clear about its policies in this area, but it just recently picked fierce net neutrality opponent and former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai to chair the FCC, the federal body that oversees Internet regulation.

>In addition, both the new president and some of his closest allies have expressed both a strong opposition to net neutrality and a profound ignorance of what the concept actually means. This includes Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), a vice chair on Trump’s transition team’s Executive Committee, who received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the telecommunications industry before introducing a failed bill that would have reversed FCC rules and allowed internet service providers (ISPs) to self-regulate their customers’ traffic. The Republican Party platform, authored in 2016 while current Trump Chief of Staff Reince Priebus was chair of the party, strictly condemns net neutrality, describing it as “plans to turn over the Information Freedom Highway to regulators.”

>In what’s believed to be the only time he addressed the subject personally, Trump himself tweeted in 2014 that “Net neutrality is the fairness doctrine,” a former FCC policy that required TV stations present dissenting views, a comparison that simply doesn’t begin to make sense.

>So what would the internet look like without net neutrality? Internet providers would likely start using it for a business advantage, said Gigi Sohn, a recently-retired FCC senior official who advised former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler on net neutrality rules.

>“They’re in the business to make money,” Sohn told Vocativ. She pointed to CBS CEO Leslie Moonves, who said in February 2016 that Trump’s candidacy “may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.”

>“I mean, they have their own political predilections, but they pray at the altar of money,” Sohn said.
...

>To start, internet providers not burdened by net neutrality could begin by offering deals and exclusives for their content. Comcast, consistently rated one of the most hated companies in America, is owned by NBCUniversal. NBC owns streaming rights the Olympics through 2032. Without the FCC’s rules, NBC could choose to only allow Comcast subscribers unfettered access to the games. People who used Spectrum to get online, for instance, would maybe have to pay for a special Olympic pass. Or if NBCUniversal wanted to get really nasty, it could bar anyone but Comcast subscribers from viewing their Olympic stream, period, daring customers of other providers to switch to Comcast.

>Streaming video sites could balkanize even further: Hulu might cut an exclusive deal with Comcast while Netflix inked one with Verizon, meaning no one could get access to both. And if you’re one of those unlucky Americans whose neighborhood is only served by a single provider? Hope you like whichever service it struck a deal with, because that’s all you’ll be able to legally get.

>Internet providers could also squeeze websites, instead of consumers directly. Verizon could start a bidding war for streaming video services, for instance. Since YouTube is owned by Google and has a lot more money than Vimeo, YouTube could pay Verizon for faster or even exclusive service. YouTube would have an effective monopoly on streaming video for Verizon companies.

>But even then, those costs would eventually be paid by the consumer, according to Matt Wood, the policy director at the nonprofit tech policy group Free Press.
...

>“No matter who the ISPs hold up for more money, it’s all going to come back to their customers who’ll have to pay more to somebody in order to gain access to content,” Wood told Vocativ.

>A total lack of net neutrality would enable internet providers to slow down or fully block access to any site it didn’t like. Most of the internet’s most popular sites are free to access for anyone who’s got an internet package and don’t mind those sites collecting their personal data. But just because Facebook and Wikipedia don’t charge you to use those doesn’t mean that an ISP not bound by net neutrality rules would refrain from adding, for instance, a $5 monthly “convenience fee” to view them.

>In theory, a lack of net neutrality could bring true censorship. ISPs in several countries, like China and Russia, already block politically sensitive sites by government order. In a nightmarish political scenario where American companies existed in genuine fear of their government, ISPs could choose to block access to sensitive sites. If Trump’s current feud with NBC escalated to absurd lengths — and Trump is already able to send a company’s stock into free-fall with a single Tweet — a craven NBC could block access to, for instance, a Washington Post investigation that revealed improper Trump business ties.
...

>The good news for consumers is that even though Trump will almost certainly have a majority-Republican FCC — traditionally, the five-member FCC is made up of three members of the president’s party and two of the opposition — overturning net neutrality rules is no simple task, especially because a U.S. Court of Appeals so recently ruled in favor of them.

>“They’d have to show to a court that circumstance had changed, within the space of two years, as to warrant the re-reclassification of broadband to a deregulated information service,” Sohn said. “They can’t just snap their fingers and say ‘ok we’re now deregulating broadband.’”

>And while a united Congress and President Trump certainly could pass a law to kill net neutrality if they agreed to it together, it would likely face enormous public opposition. After a campaign led by numerous activist groups including the Center For Democracy and Technology, Free Press, and Fight For the Future, and bolstered by a viral video from John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight, more than four million people wrote in to the FCC when it considered net neutrality rules in 2014, a number exponentially higher than any prompted by any other issue, including Janet Jackson’s exposed breast during Super Bowl XXXVIII.

>To date, even ISPs that push the boundaries of what might violate net neutrality have never expressed anything remotely like the political censorship described above. A more realistic fear, Sohn said, is that a partisan, Republican-majority FCC could simply decline to enforce net neutrality, despite the rules, because only the FCC would ever stop them.
...

>“What they especially want,” Wood said, “is enforcement without any kind of teeth.”

>That, at least, stands a good chance of being the reality under a Trump administration — minor, relatively harmless net neutrality infractions like a Verizon allowing visits to a partner site to not count against a consumer’s data cap.

>Sohn hopes that if the situation gets worse, the public will respond in kind. “My sense is that a lot of people who voted for Donald Trump didn’t vote for a complete and total deregulation for the communications sector,” she said.

>>>/pol/109082234

Good post.

>>104157
What's the point of linking a /pol/ thread? Trump has position A so naturally they're going to defend position A.

My sense is that a lot of people who voted for Donald Trump are just plain dumb and deserve what they got.

It will be fun watching them deny what he does and accept his alternative facts as their lives visibly worsen.

Some people just want to watch the world burn, and the fires will be set by Trump voters and their ilk.

>>104188
That's kinda funny considering all the fires currently being lit by liberals.

>>104188

I think it's more that network neutrality was never an issue for Trump voters. On the grand ranking of issues, net neutrality was probably near or at the bottom for them.

Not everyone is a single-issue voter. Even for bigger issues, you can see breaks between Trump's policies and his voters, for example you can see disagreements on the ACA/Obamacare (Trump voters are more likely to lose coverage during a repeal). This just means that those Trump voters have to pay close attention and make sure to voice objections when these disagreeable policies are brought up.

Of course, this might be why Trump keeps bringing up these small, pointless controversies like crowd sizes and torture; he probably wants to distract those voters (both his supporters and opponents) so they don't notice when he fucks them up. It's probably also why he wants to dismiss everyone who disagrees with him a sore loser liberal, lumping in his own voters with the opposition is easier than accepting that not all of his ideas are popular.

"Net Neutrality" is Roe v. Wade for the internet; the internet should not abortions.

>>104193
Where are the shitposters from the last thread about net neutrality? It's been up for six hours now, are they all sleeping?

>>104202
They're busy spamming /v/, /tv/, and /his/. Why did /pol/ have to go and recruit from autism hives like reddit?

>>104088
Welcome to "Network 23." That old Max Headroom show was kinda prophetic in a way. Oligarchs controlling the media and information.

>>104226
Well they got the BlipVerts right at least.

>>104088
Honestly the same thing would have happened under Clinton. She would have spinned it from a different angle though.

The real villains here are the reps and lobbyists who push this shit every year, and never get flak for it. As an example, Mitch McConnell constantly wants to repeal net neutrality stuff but the state of Kentucky doesn't give a shit. Probably because Kentucky only exports car parts, whiskey, and white/black trash.

>>104234
>Honestly the same thing would have happened under Clinton.
No it would not have. Both Dems and Repubs were for Net Neutrality until about 3 or 4 years ago when SOPA was in the news and Ted Cruz started telling people NN was "Obamacare for the internet". Dems are still for Net Neutrality, Repubs are not.

Is this news? I don't see a single link to the bill that would remove net neutrality that's currently under consideration, all I see is a bunch of fearmongering in an attempt to get the public so sick of hearing about it that they won't care when an actual bill comes along since the wolf cries have been going on for months.

>>104226
Im aiming to be a blank when the time comes.

>>104278
They don't need a bill at all if the FCC, the agency which enforces net neutrality, declares it null and void to begin with.

https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet
This is going to go away very soon...

>>104239
>No it would not have.
lmao
have you actually read anything on clinton?
he's by far the more corrupt of the 2 candidates.

you'll be hearing about it soon anyways when they open the investigations on the voter fraud & clinton foundation as a whole (which btw has already has had some action, but for some reason the american media doesn't deem it newsworthy at all)

>>104327
The well publicized illegal use of the Trump Foundation is why the Clinton Foundation will never be investigated. Besides, many of Clinton’s ex-donors will now be suckin’ up to the Trump regime.

>>104192
Even if Trump voters were vocal on issues they disagree with, Trump wouldn't even give them the time of day. He keeps using "I already won" and "they don't care" as reasons he won't give anything to his opposition. He legitimately thinks his opposition doesn't matter now that he won presidency. He seems to think the mainstream media does not reflect the opinions of any real people in the US and that he doesn't have to validate them. Anyone who criticises him gets lumped in with this imaginary demographic that has no representation of the American people and hold no real power. Ironic, that this is exactly why he won presidency in the first place, because nobody though his demographics had any voting power, they all assumed any trump supporter was "deplorable" and therefore didn't matter and didn't have valid opinions

>>104362
This. Remember how the Clinton foundation mysteriously dried up overnight? Those "donors" didn't just withdraw their money, that's not what you do with an investment. They reinvested it, and although I can't support this with hard evidence, it shouldn't be hard to guess where that money went and what the "donors" interests are in

>>104327
I don't know how to politely point out that you're full of shit, so I'm just going to say you're full of shit
Oh wait, I'm sorry. You're full of "alternative facts" lol

>we should regulate the internet like a telecom
>The FCC should be the ones to do it
>This will keep us safe from corporate influence,
>So says the former agent of corporate influence on government and ex telelcom lobbyist who was running the FCC at the time
>look at these scary charts with pricing plans that have no basis in reality, isn't the idea of having to pay extra scary?
>now pay for these extra taxes on your internet we levied now that we're reg-, er "keeping the internet neutral".
>Thank you Netflix for pointing out your traffic wa' being throttled!
>"Acutally this isn't what we wante-"
>TOO BAD YOU'RE WELCOME PAY YOUR TAXES

>>104192
>Of course, this might be why Trump keeps bringing up these small, pointless controversies like crowd sizes and torture
>Torture
>Pointless controversy
Oh man. You people are huffing some good shit.


>>104362
>The well publicized illegal use of the Trump Foundation
[citation needed]

>many of Clinton’s ex-donors will now be suckin’ up to the Trump regime.
[citation needed]

Any other unabashed, unsupported claims that barely have anything to do with Net "Neutrality" anyone like to add or can we stop circle jerking?

>>104388
I'd rather pay the FCC than Comcast

Without Net Neutrality service providers have no reason to innovate or improve our infrastructure since they can increase profits more easily in other ways.

US network infrastructure is among the worst in the developed world. Businesses are already leaving because of it.

>>104388

Network neutrality is basically maintaining the status quo. All those "fear mongering" charts are just a potential future where it doesn't exist, and you can tell is quite possible just by looking at how crazy TV is, with all the channel bundles and other shit. When some cable providers advertise "choose your own channels" as a feature, you know shit is fucked up. In addition, there have been several examples of ISPs cutting off websites before newer FCC rules, namely trying to silence sites protesting them. That "fear mongering" future was well underway.

Also you didn't give a single example of the FCC breaking neutrality via their regulations, nor have you shown which regulations are harmful to the internet.

>Oh man. You people are huffing some good shit.

I phrased it wrong, I meant "shit that has already been settled and doesn't need to be brought back up," aka a distraction issue. America already settled the debate on torture, which was "don't fucking do it, it's against our values." Trump was the only candidate during the election to bring up torture, and he's the only guy in government who is pro-torture. The only reason to bring it back up is the either rile is his base or to cover for other shit that he's doing (or just maybe to make his buddy Vladimir not look as bad by comparison).

>>104089
>Trump’s team hadn’t been explicitly clear about its policies in this area, but it just recently picked fierce net neutrality opponent and former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai to chair the FCC, the federal body that oversees Internet regulation.

Yes, this is bullshit.

I voted for Trump but I'd like to think he's just talking out his ass on this issue and won't actually do what he says, because there is absolutely no benefit for the American People to repealing Net Neutrality, it's a straight-up hand over to corporate Wall Street, whose bottomless greed will kill the Internet goose that lays the golden eggs.

>>104088
People really think net neutrality problem is pic related?

>>104449
I have no fucking idea man

This issue is so muddled

>>104449
How is it not that?
>>104452
Maybe if people bothered to read the article...

>>104410
Net Neutrality was going away no matter who was in charge, but with Trump it will just go away faster. Which makes it much harder to stop. He doesn't care, and the people whispering in his ear don't either. Those Wall Street rich are going to love Trump. Hell he put a few of 'em in top positions.

I don't even know what to do. Call my reps, protest? It only works for so long before it's steamrolled over or ignored.

>>104483

>Call my reps, protest?

Besides helping to organize other people do the same, these are literally your best options. Remember that representatives and senators give a much bigger shit about constituents who bother to call or mail them; it indicates that the constituent is involved enough that they could be the key to influencing other voters in the congressman's area. Plus it adds that personal touch, polling and voting on party lines don't have that.

The hardest part is getting enough people in enough states and districts to do the same, which is where the organization comes in. It can be as little as just talking about it wherever you go (when it's appropriate, of course, not everyone you meet wants to talk politics) or as big as trying to organize a rally. It's a constant struggle, because until this becomes precedent or goes to the Supreme Court (which settles precedent) net neutrality is up in the air and at the mercy of legislation.

>>104483
>Call my reps, protest

Contact Trump via his Twitter account;

https://twitter.com/Writeintrump

If enough people give him shit about trying to repeal Net Neutrality, he'll more then likely listen and change his stance on the issue.

The guy is a Populist if nothing else and knows his success and legacy depends on average Americans supporting him.

>>104483

>tfw your rep is fucking paul ryan of all people

>>104393
>I'd rather pay the FCC than Comcast
As in, you want the FCC directly controlling distributing internet access? Don't be fucking stupid. If the FCC had that kind of power we'd still all be using dial up.

>Without Net Neutrality service providers have no reason to innovate or improve our infrastructure since they can increase profits more easily in other ways.
What reason do they have now, where the infrastructure is all owned by the same few companies who all have a revolving door between themselves and the government which creates a wonderful monopoly for themselves?

>US network infrastructure is among the worst in the developed world. Businesses are already leaving because of it.
And more government is not going to fix that. More taxes, more fees, and rampant subsidization are only going to drive up costs and prices.

>>104397
>Network neutrality is basically maintaining the status quo.
So, the same few companies who own everything, including a revolving door between themselves and the government which creates a wonderful monopoly for themselves. Cool, exactly what we need.

>All those "fear mongering" charts are just a potential future where it doesn't exist, and you can tell is quite possible just by looking at how crazy TV is, with all the channel bundles and other shit. When some cable providers advertise "choose your own channels" as a feature, you know shit is fucked up.
Stop making shit up.

Bundle packages came about because different people have different needs when it comes to cable TV- namely they rely on it a lot less and don't feel like paying out the ass for a bunch of channels they're not using. Offering cheaper cable subscriptions with less channels- sometimes just main news/weather stuff, isn't a bug,it's a side effect caused by cable TV going the way of the telegraph.

>In addition, there have been several examples of ISPs cutting off websites before newer FCC rules, namely trying to silence sites protesting them. That "fear mongering" future was well underway.
[citation needed]

>Also you didn't give a single example of the FCC breaking neutrality via their regulations, nor have you shown which regulations are harmful to the internet.
It might be because said regulations have only been around for a little while, and spent the first several months hidden from the public after they had already been passed.
I'm sure the extra taxes and red tape are doing wonders, but you haven't posted anything in support or any examples of Net "Neutrality" in action either.

>Trump was the only candidate during the election to bring up torture, and he's the only guy in government who is pro-torture
Seriously, what are you huffing? First you're pissed at bringing up torture as a distraction tactic, then you go off on Trump's opinion torture to distract from the rest of your post.

>>104449
Net neutrality is what PREVENTS pic related.

>>104571

The status quo of "all websites get equal speed and accessibility." Network neutrality was never about government or corporate monopolies, that is a wholly separate issue (which is a side effect of the internet being provided by phone utilities, but I don't want to go into that now).

>bundles

Regardless of my knowledge of TV history, you agree that such a system would be fucking bullshit for the internet, right? The idea that you can pay-gate or segment the internet to promote certain websites while eliminating others is something that will greatly harm the internet.

>[citation needed]

Fuck I can't god damn find it. It was either Comcast or Time Warner blocking the site of some strikers years ago (2004-2010). Or maybe it was a Canadian company, since I think I was up in America's hat when that shit was going down, and therefore this example is irrelevant to FCC regulations.

>regulations

Right now there's nothing regarding red tape and extra taxes, unless you count "you can't give preferential treatment to certain websites" as red tape. Nothing that the FCC has proposed requires any extra funding.

>Trump and torture

I was trying to interpret what you meant by
>Torture
>Pointless controversy
...which I figured implied that I wasn't taking torture seriously enough. I then tried to clarify my point in my original post, which was that Trump was bringing up random shit (either settled issues or pointless garbage) to distract from things like network neutrality. That entire post [>>104192] was just a response to [>>104188] and how Trump voters could disagree with their own candidate on some issues, and not really to the topic as a whole.

>>104570
Every time I see someone make this complaint about net neutrality I have to ask, do you actually know what net neutrality is?

>>104474
I am accustomed to ignoring walls of text online.

Make you point succinctly or it aint getting read.

>>104607
Get out

>>104410
>I voted for Trump but I'd like to think he's just talking out his ass on this issue and won't actually do what he says, because there is absolutely no benefit for the American People to repealing Net Neutrality, it's a straight-up hand over to corporate Wall Street
You... haven't been paying much attention to the people he's been appointing to his administration, have you? He's surrounded himself with wealthy Wall Street fatcats who contributed to his campaign along with a few token establishment Republicans to keep congress happy.
This is a dude who tried to cheat on his wife with a married woman and openly boasted about it, but instead of treating it as an indicator of his character you treated like a fucking meme- "Grab her by the pussy, HURRRR".
These next 2-4 years are gonna suck, but at least I'll enjoy the schadenfreude of seeing Trumplings like you slowly realize they voted for a snakeoil salesman. You reap what you sow.

>>104646
And then >>104651
I rest my case. Only retards need paragraphs.

Government interference is why we have such shitty internet to begin with. Get rid of the government regulations that are holding the internet back, and you'll see so much more innovation and improvement.

https://youtu.be/u38zsVC2dMs

And internet is not a necessity or public utility, it is a want. You do not need internet to survive like you do with water, so regulating it is even more ridiculous (though regulating necessities in general is counterproductive since it drives up costs and drives down competition and service).

>>104088
subscribe netflix?

>>104651
>Trump won't do nuffin! He a good boi!
>>104656
>Get rid of the government regulations that are holding the internet back
Holy shit, there is no way you two can really be this stupid. You have to be paid shills.

>>104741
>You have to be paid shills.

Please remember that half of the population have an IQ less than 100.

>>104741
I'm confused. Did you just read the quote in >>104651 and think it was part of the actual post and not the person it was responding to? Or did you just reply to the wrong post?

>>104088
>the abstract concept of net neutrality, an idea that has always been hard to explain and usually even harder to get people fired up about.


not to fucking abstract and certainly something people consider as a given freedom, otherwise this wouldn't have made the news.
It's why the inventor of the worldwide web didn't patent the www domain.

>>104188
>It will be fun watching them

no it will not. None of this will be any fun and don't end up in the other side of the spectrum i.e. making your opponents bitter being your political criterion.

>>104309
he has a point however. Even in the OP it says that it had to be solidified in court. Maybe there's something I don't understand

>>104570
>If the FCC had that kind of power we'd still all be using dial up.

but the FCC apaprently does have that power and we a re not using dial-up anymore.


>What reason do they have now, where the infrastructure is all owned by the same few companies who all have a revolving door between themselves and the government which creates a wonderful monopoly for themselves?

how the hell don't you think that COmcast and Verizon are an oligopoly (which is the right term) themselves?? You just want the guys at the top replaced, not even multiplied.


>ore taxes, more fees, and rampant subsidization are only going to drive up costs and prices.

as opposed to advertisments, special ad ons and viewing fees "FOR ONLY $1.99" that will decrease the costs, right?

>>104651
>This is a dude who tried to cheat on his wife with a married woman

wow man, what's wrong with that??? how is being against monogamy an indication of vileness?

>>104600
>Network neutrality was never about government or corporate monopolies, that is a wholly separate issue (which is a side effect of the internet being provided by phone utilities, but I don't want to go into that now).
Because admitting the telecom monopoly that exists currently would only be exacerbated by the FCC puts a hole in your theory of the necessity of the FCC's Net "Neutrality" regulations.

>Regardless of my knowledge of TV history, you agree that such a system would be fucking bullshit for the internet, right?
Yeah, but since Cable TV and Internet work completely differently and such package ideas like in the OP don't work that way on the internet, you appear to be technologically ignorant of both.

>The idea that you can pay-gate or segment the internet to promote certain websites while eliminating others is something that will greatly harm the internet.
It's also completely impossible and fear mongering only further drives your technological illiteracy home. The internet is not a series of tubes you can block and reroute, nor is it an amalgamation of the kind of broadcast signals from dozens of different cable TV stations that are put out on coaxial lines. They still cant even shut down The Pirate Bay for good, and you think they can turn the internet piecemeal?

>Fuck I can't god damn find it.
Probably cause it doesn't exist.

>Nothing that the FCC has proposed requires any extra funding.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/03/13/net-neutrality-is-setting-the-stage-for-internet-taxes/#79721bab5451
http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/13/fcc-chairman-says-net-neutrality-wont-me
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/despite-promises-new-internet-fees-are-on-the-way/

>>104605
>Every time I see someone make this complaint about net neutrality I have to ask, do you actually know what net neutrality is?
Do you?
Tip: Net Neutrality and the FCC's Net "Neutrality" are not the same thing. Labeling something as such doesn't make it so.

>>104656
>why we have such shitty internet to begin with

speak for yourself, 486 user.


>Get rid of the government regulations that are holding the internet back

...slay the dragon of Avalon, retrieve the excalibur from Morrigan and THEN rebuild the kingdom of Mercia. Solid strategy
>And internet is not a necessity or public utility, it is a want


hurrrr hurrdurrrrr haaaaaaaa

what is a necessity anon? What the fuck is a "want"? Where does utility come from?
And do you even know what regulating means? Please, finish highschool first.

>>104741
>Holy shit, there is no way you two can really be this stupid. You have to be paid shills.
Excellent refutation, you're not triggered at all are you?

>>104750
>Please remember that half of the population have an IQ less than 100.
Yes, we saw them marching in the streets for a day with their pink hats, we know.

>>104854
>but the FCC apaprently does have that power
[citation needed]

>how the hell don't you think that COmcast and Verizon are an oligopoly (which is the right term) themselves?? You just want the guys at the top replaced, not even multiplied.
You don't even now what you're talking about so I'm gonna leave this alone. Study up on how monopolies are formed, and what power structure needs to be in place for them to maintain their status, Also, key search term: "revolving door." Then come back here.

>as opposed to advertisments
Cost you nothing and can be blocked/filtered easily.

>special ad ons and viewing fees "FOR ONLY $1.99" that will decrease the costs
Example? Or just pulling things out of your ass, like most FCC fanboys?

>>104857
>speak for yourself, 486 user.
Ohoho, look out now peasants, I name dropped a common SIP. Bask in my superiority.

Dink.

>...slay the dragon of Avalon, retrieve the excalibur from Morrigan and THEN rebuild the kingdom of Mercia. Solid strategy
Not an argument. Acting incredulous like it isn't well documented that nearly everything government touches turns to shit isn't going to help here.
Reddit might be more your thing if you're gonna be this kind of person.

>what is a necessity anon? What the fuck is a "want"? Where does utility come from?
What are complete sentences? What is a flowing and pleasant to read line of syntax?

>Please, finish highschool first.
Finish your hooked on phonics before you throw grammar stones, scooter.

>>104856
>since Cable TV and Internet work completely differently

how so? We are talking about the right to provide. Same fucking thing with every good.


>such package ideas like in the OP don't work that way on the internet,

because of fucking net neutrality


>you appear to be technologically ignorant of both.


oh the ironing


>admitting the telecom monopoly that exists currently would only be exacerbated by the FCC puts a hole in your theory of the necessity of the FCC's Net "Neutrality" regulations.


I really wonder, do you have a stake/shares in internet provider companies or do you just like to piss people off? "Admitting" the "telecom monopoly" would actually enhance his argument, since -as the anon themself wrote- net neutrality has nothing to do with corporate monopolies, but it has to do everything with not letting those companies dictate which sites/channels/ phone numbers you can use. It's that simple.


>http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/03/13/net-neutrality-is-setting-the-stage-for-internet-taxes/#79721bab5451
>http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/13/fcc-chairman-says-net-neutrality-wont-me
>http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/despite-promises-new-internet-fees-are-on-the-way/


whatever, I 'd rather pay extra to surf the internet as I like.
>Tip: Net Neutrality and the FCC's Net "Neutrality" are not the same thing. Labeling something as such doesn't make it so.

jsut because you claim they are different things, doesn't make it so.

>>104859
>[citation needed]

did you read the OP?

>>104859
>You don't even now what you're talking about so I'm gonna leave this alone. Study up on how monopolies are formed, and what power structure needs to be in place for them to maintain their status, Also, key search term: "revolving door." Then come back here.

yeah ye, you 're welcome for learning the term from me. It will improve future discussions hopefully.


>Cost you nothing and can be blocked/filtered easily.

they are in the bill, it's a cost that comes with the price.


>Example? Or just pulling things out of your ass, like most FCC fanboys?

are you serious right now? how do you think they will operate?

>>104860
were you even alive when 486s were a thing?

>>104861
>how so?
...really bruh

>We are talking about the right to provide. Same fucking thing with every good.
Not all goods are produced and distributed the same. For example, I can't deliver oranges through an Ethernet cable. (Yet)

>because of fucking net neutrality
[citation needed]

>"Admitting" the "telecom monopoly" would actually enhance his argument, since -as the anon themself wrote- net neutrality has nothing to do with corporate monopolies
It has everything to do with corporate monopolies when the corporate monopolies are the ones who get to decide what's "neutral".

>but it has to do everything with not letting those companies dictate which sites/channels/ phone numbers you can use. It's that simple.
And that is exactly what they are going to be able to do given the current nature of telecom monopolies and their revolving door with the government. It's THAT simple.

Remember how the ACA was sold as a threat to healthcare companies, despite them having helped write the bill and the massive jump in their stock prices after it was passed? Guess what, sweaty.

>I 'd rather pay extra to surf the internet as I like.
And you're free to do that, voluntarily, to ISP's of your choice.
Instead of being a selfish baby who wants the government to make everyone else pay extra at gun point so they all have to surf the way you like too.

>jsut because you claim they are different things, doesn't make it so.
And North Korea being called "Democratic" doesn't make it so either. Have you even read the FCC's NN regulations?

>>104860
>like it isn't well documented that nearly everything government touches turns to shit


[citation needed] my wiki masturbating friend ;)

>>104864
>It has everything to do with corporate monopolies when the corporate monopolies are the ones who get to decide what's "neutral".


oh shit man, you might need a smart pill. You have neutrality when you can go to any site you want and call every number you want. You don't have neutrality when you can only visit sponsored sites and only are able to call numbers that belong to your telephone line provider.

>>104864
>Not all goods are produced and distributed the same. For example, I can't deliver oranges through an Ethernet cable. (Yet)


no, but paying for shit and choosing which shit you want to buy is pretty much the same and an analogy can be made.


>And that is exactly what they are going to be able to do

how? are you afraid they will only direct you to SHILLARY and LIBCUCK sites to read FAKE NEWS? top kek, relax.

>>104088
>>You can't legally watch it
You do realize in this case that I'll just break the law in question right?

>>104088
>the internet is going to get a lot more expensive and harder to use.
No, net neutrality is only a few years old. The internet worked just fine without it

>>105065
Liberals also tend to forget that the internet is privately owned, and that ISPs should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with it. If Comcast suddenly decides to pull everyone's service and only give access to a handful of people, then that's their prerogative because they're the ones who invested and obtained the rights to internet in the first place.

>>105066
Oh that pesky free market again lol

This is actually the biggest thing I disagree with Trump about. I have no regrets voting for him but getting rid of net neutrality is a bad idea.

>>105078
>I have no regrets voting for him but getting rid of net neutrality is a bad idea.

So what if he gets rid of it? What will you feel then?

>>104656
>internet
>want

Anon although we may waste our lives on 4chan, a robust and speedy internet improves the nation as a whole by allowing for faster commerce, start-ups, learning, and communications. And this is ignoring the fact that the number of devices that use the net is going to grow exponentially in the next decade.

Could you live your life 100% without the net now? Sure, it may be painful in places. But anyone with fucking eye sight can see that as things become computers with wheels/freezers/etc the internet infrastructure will become critical to US interests if we want to continue being number 1.

>>104474
>>104572
No, it's not. People are retarded, but there are enough of them, that will not fall for "website packets". It wouldn't work either.

The "net neutrality problem", is going against what have been practised for decades.

The internet works thanks to peering between level 1 and 2 network providers –these are ISPs for ISPs, they manage connections between continents and countries. To peer with someone, you usually have to pay them, to connect to their network, and they can also pay you – it depends on how much traffic you generate for them, and how much traffic they generate for you. Now, smaller companies, like server providers, connect to such networks, and they charge their clients depending on what extra packet they want. For example you can pay more, and get guaranteed connection speed from Europe, to US, with many exit points – it decreases ping and increases availability for your website, often must-have for game servers and streaming services.

Now, the second kind of breaching "net neutrality", is making deals with smaller ISPs selling internet service to individual clients, and connecting your datacentre directly to their network, or even having servers in their network. If you were like YouTube in its early stages of development (think 5-10 years back), it's really beneficial to have caching servers directly connected directly to national ISP networks. You can then host French-language videos in France – this way you improve service to your users that are most interested in this content, at the same time saving money.

The third thing is something like QoS – a technology used to change priority of some traffic, which you can often configure on your very own home router to, let's say, make sure that your torrents do not use all of your bandwidth, and you still can use the web. Very similar thing is practised by mobile internet providers, where they allow you to browse some services without charging for data.

>>105088
Now, why this wouldn't work with internet, like it works with TV packs.

TV stations *charge* your cable providers for having access to their channels –some charge more, some less. That's why usually things like HBO are in the premium packets, there are dedicated packs for sport, science, or kids channels, and in the basic pack you only have the most basic content, like national TV and some news stations – often serving many ads. As you probably could notice, the free channels are full of ads, while the most expensive ones can lack them completely, with exception of only advertising their own channel content (like incoming premieres).

Now, the internet works different. Just like you have to pay for internet, so does have Google, Facebook, Netflix, 4chan, reddit, or your local catholic forum – any internet service you know of. Now, to make it possible for your ISP, to charge *you* more depending on content you use, they would have to have excuse, to charge you more. And they can, in form of, for example, "gratis" Netflix subscription with your internet packet. But it requires cooperation on Netflix's side. Google for example doesn't charge for their search service, you don't pay to access Google, and your ISP doesn't even know you visit Google – given you use DNS with encryption not provided by your ISP (you can change that in your router and PC settings), and you visit websites over HTTPS. The most they can tell, is that you browse web, and not play MMO.

>>105078

>...is a bad idea

opposed to legalizing torture?

opposed to banning muslims and only allowing christians?

opposed to moving the US embassy to jerusalem for LITERALLY no other reason than a middle finger?

get fucked, you mong. go back to whatever flyover state you crawled out from and KYS.

>>105066
>Liberals also tend to forget that the internet is privately owned,
The internet is NOT privately owned. Where did you hear that?

However, Americans do tend to forget that the internet is not American.

>>105088
>The "net neutrality problem", is going against what have been practiced for decades.
Objectively false. What you are leaving out is that Tier 1 & 2 never prioritized traffic from someone they considered to be a "preferred carrier" before. This is contrary to how the networks are supposed to work and how the internet is supposed to serve traffic. By getting rid of net neutrality, the ISPs have stopped being gatekeepers to the rest of the internet and have become toll booth operators.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#5f81e1bf4c7f

>>105130
Good article. Pai seems pretty based.

>But Pai’s 67-page dissent from that decision (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A5.pdf)—which, in nearly 400 pages, itself said almost nothing about net neutrality or consensus on the rules themselves—was devoted entirely and sensibly to problems with the FCC’s process, and authority. It focused on the certain negative unintended consequences of former Chairman Tom Wheeler’s decision to abandon what Wheeler himself described as a simple “blueprint” provided by the courts for getting the rules enacted in favor of public utility “reclassification.”

>In reclassifying broadband access as a public utility, the legal authority of the Federal Trade Commission to police anti-competitive practices was immediately cut off. That removed what had been an active and often aggressive “cop on the beat” for consumer protection, and likely the reason actual net neutrality concerns always remained theoretical during nearly two decades when the FCC had no rules of its own in place.

>If there is anything implied by the pledge to “revisit” the 2015 proceeding “more broadly,” it is clearly the public utility reclassification that is being referenced (known in the law as “Title II”), not the net neutrality principles themselves, in whatever form.

>>105124
What makes you think it's not privately owned? The technology isn't, but the internet itself pretty much is – it's just owned by many unrelated people.

>Tier 1 & 2 never prioritized traffic
But they did and do sell different bandwidths, and different data caps. As an ISP, you can pay more or less, depending on how much you need, and you get how much you have paid for.

>ISPs have stopped being gatekeepers to the rest of the internet and have become toll booth operators
Haven't they always been? They sell different download and upload speeds, some of them are with data caps (hello "1st world's" Americans).

Why do people fight for net neutrality, like it's something that yet has to be lost? There is already very heavy geographic content censorship. You can't use most of services, before they decide your country is "allowed". States are blocking websites serving content infringing copyright in the given country, they also block pornographic websites, who knows what will they block next?

Some content having higher priority is not a real problem, and not one that we can expect anytime soon.

On a side note, did you know that most ISPs block email traffic ports? Isn't that what you call breach of net neutrality? Because it's happening since 90s.

>>104855
Adultery indicates a complete lack of loyalty and self-control and therefore degeneracy

>>105065
>>105066

>these posts

you guys should learn something. You never fail to stun with your disregard for history and facts.

>>104191
like the mosque in Texas right? destroying religious houses in the land of the free where you were allowed from the beginning to practice any religion you want is something only liberals would do. Deflection at its finest

>>105164

I work at an ISP

1) its not privately owned, see below.

2) prioritizing traffic isn't the same as having bandwidth or data caps

3) ISPs aren't gatekeepers because your internet goes through the same infrastructure regardless of which ISP you pay to manage your data. You could set your own ISP up with you as the lone customer and manage that line how you like. It's just copper or fibre at the end of the day, you'd be buying interconnects from distribution networks but those aren't ISPs. Level 3 isn't an ISP; they just route your traffic.

4) 'Most ISPs' is a stretch. What you mean is 'Many public-facing connections like Wi-Fi hotspots or 3/4G masts'. Port 25 (SMTP), which is outgoing mail, not incoming mail is sometimes blocked to stop spammers abusing mail servers and getting our IP ranges blocked by public blacklists.

Mail is a shit example because it's just rubbish technology that most businesses rely on and is a nightmare to support, even when you're a network engineer a million miles from the end-users. If someone jumps onto a 4G hotspot and starts sending out spam and ends up on SORBS or something, almost every single customer ends up getting bouncebacks and floods the place with calls.

>>105065
>No, net neutrality is only a few years old. The internet worked just fine without it

>>105066
>Liberals also tend to forget that the internet is privately owned, and that ISPs should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with it. If Comcast suddenly decides to pull everyone's service and only give access to a handful of people, then that's their prerogative because they're the ones who invested and obtained the rights to internet in the first place.

I'm ^ above who works at an ISP.

'Net Neutrality' is only a few years old because it was never needed before.

Here's the deal with net neutrality: As I mentioned above, your ISP doesn't own absolutely everything, they buy (or lease) lines, portions of exchanges, interconnects etc. it is up to them what they can do with the data, but that never used to matter.

The problem is that there are so many things using the internet right now that they can't afford to lease the bandwidth necessary to support their users. This wasn't the case back in the day, even just over 10 years ago.

Your ISP might sell you a 'dedicated' bandwidth package, but it's all lies. You'll find that regardless of how much you're paying and how dedicated your bandwidth is, you'll still get packet loss if there's a particularly big event going on (Olympics, World Cup etc.) because the exchanges and their VPs (Virtual Paths) can't handle the data.

For someone like Akamai or AWS to come along and say to your ISP 'Hey, prioritize our traffic for this cash cash money money' is attractive, because everytime customers notice their internet is shit slow, they lose money and independent watchdog groups publicly scrutinize them.

Basically, net neutrality is attractive to your ISP because yer a greedy bastard using more data than they have and they want money to plaster up their financial holes when they're forced to buy more bandwidth to take on more customers.

Cont..

>>105365

Netflix do an interesting thing. We can basically 'buy' Netflix's servers which cache all content locally and deliver them to our customers without the strain on bandwidth.

https://openconnect.netflix.com/en_gb/

Net neutrality, is it fair? Not really. It is definitely caused by greed. You could maintain a dedicated customer base without needing content distributors slipping you cash to prioritize their traffic, but then on the other hand - can you really 'Maintain' customers? Do most businesses work like that? Nope.

The main, long-term solution here really is just expanding infrastructure and pushing technology further so bandwidth isn't an issue. When we're all on Terebit fibre links the net neutrality issue will go away because there'll be nothing to prioritize.

Basically, if you're worried about net neutrality - pick a good ISP you trust not to prioritize bandwidth and wait for the whole thing to blow over, because in time it will.

>>105367
>When we're all on Terebit fibre links the net neutrality issue will go away because there'll be nothing to prioritize.

Unfortunately, we're talking about the US. This place is still stuck on IPv4 for fuck's sake.

>>105395

We're all stuck on IPv4 pretty much still, IPv6 is a different issue really, the factors that influence its 'propagation' (for lack of a better word) are different from internet speeds and broadband technology. Half the UK is still running on Victorian copper literally older than your Nan's tortoise's favorite oak tree.

It's infrastructure that needs to be torn up and rebuilt ideally but it's expensive and in rural areas the oldies running the local Village Green Preservation Society don't want those ugly gizmo boxes on their streets and will fight their local parish councils tooth and nail to stop it happening (This is all while they complain to their ISPs about their slow speeds because they're trying to stream Amazon TV on their 6 iPads through a 1Mb/s ADSL copper line that runs under a small lake.

Terabit fibre was a bit of a comedic exaggeration. A Gigabit or two would probably be enough. The important thing is the fibre though because the emerging technologies are built on bending light in interesting ways and once the cables are laid you can manage all that from the distribution points. Ideally once that's in place the customers can kick back and pay a bit more for ridiculous amounts of bandwidth they'll never even use, but I'm a techy and I'll leave that to sales.

My predicition is that net neutrality will be argued and debated a lot more than it's actually implemented and then when 5G rolls out in a couple of years you'll find most devices will be juggling between 5G and their home Fibre/DSL which will ease off the need for ISPs to introduce it. It'll probably to-and-fro for a while, some will do it and get shit, others won't feel the need and as things progress it'll just be less and less of an issue.

>>105413
Ayup, I gotcha. I remember back in the day the CIO would check on us about moving to ipv6 because he didn't want to get caught off guard if the country finally switched over. No one from that original team even works there anymore lol, it's been that long.

Basically the entire argument finds no basis in reality other than 'I don't want it because I like what I have.'

>>104656
>And internet is not a necessity or public utility, it is a want.
Go back to the 80's grandpa, and take your past driven shit mentality with you.

>>105490

The entire argument is just a whole lot more interesting than the reality is or will ever be. It's the perfect soapbox for the capitalism vs not capitalism argument. It'll be a good opportunity for ISPs to fling shit at each other and companies who try and exploit the situation to get shit flung at them.

>>104188
You can vote for someone and not agree with everything they do or say.

Not having net neutrality enshrined in law would not be such a big deal if ISPs in the US weren't quasi-monopolies. Unfortunately they are, and that's why it's needed.
My country doesn't have net neutrality from what I know, but we do have a law saying that any provider must be granted access to its customers, i.e. it guarantees free choice between provider for consumers. This creates competition and is good for the consumer, because if some corporate fuckwit decides his ISP should throttle certain sites or give preference to others, all their customers will jump ship.
We also have like 80 ISPs in a country of 8 million. Land of the free and all that.

I find it amazingly retarded that Trump supporters, who CONSTANTLY rag on the mainstream media, favor regulations that would allow corporate companies to influence what content you can easily access.

>>104182
>thinking pol is a single person

fuck off reddit

>>106267
>What is the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine?

>>106355
A mistake? Something that people who complain about overwhelming bias in the mainstream media should be upset about? Not sure what you're getting at.

>>104188
I wish they could get assraped while the people who hated him don't.

This is such a weak argument. The author assumes that a worst case hypothetical scenario will occur when we have no evidence that it is likely to occur. In absence of regulation, we have never seen such a scenario, so why regulate it preemptively?

>>106569
>In absence of regulation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

Also considering current events, we need to stop pretending that Trump doesn't mean what he says and does. If he has a position, we should expect him to follow through on it, to the bitter end. We should absolutely assume the worst case scenario, defending the internet from corporate influence should be a top priority.

>>106609

I mean "In absence of this specific regulation."

Second, i'm referring to the fact that we have no idea how market actors will behave in this unregulated environment. They haven't implemented the catastrophic scenario as of yet and we have no reason to believe that they will because it is against their self-interest as things stand.

>>106611
Proactive > reactive, why do you think we need to sit back and wait? It's not something that can be taken back once it's implemented.

>we have no idea how market actors will behave in this unregulated environment

1. We know exactly how they'll act because they've lobbied against net neutrality for years.
2. It's not an unregulated environment, there you go again. In the first line you claim it's "specific" but then you make a general claim again. Which is it?
3. They have no incentive to act in favor of the consumer because competition in most areas is almost non-existent, and they have a heavy incentive to act against the consumer because there's many potential new revenue streams.

>it is against their self-interest

Whose? Trump's administration? What makes you say that? Do you think the backlash will be hard enough to counteract all the lobbying? Even with all the backlash from the recent travel ban, Trump is sticking to his guns where any seasoned politician would have backed down. Like I said, it's better to take Trump at his word and assume the worst.

>>106613
*Regarding #2 I guess you meant a theoretically unregulated market? If that's the case I take that back.

>>106613
>Proactive > reactive, why do you think we need to sit back and wait? It's not something that can be taken back once it's implemented.

1. As formulated, the regulation could ban new behaviors that benefit consumers, just because we fear the possibility of bad outcome. Again we don't know what will happen without the regulation in place.

2. Most regulations ban behaviors that are already occurring.

>1. We know exactly how they'll act because they've lobbied against net neutrality for years.

Because it stifles their activity. It's not necessarily a sign of nefarious intent.

>2. It's not an unregulated environment, there you go again. In the first line you claim it's "specific" but then you make a general claim again. Which is it?

Read every statement as applying only to the proposed net neutrality regulations.

>3. They have no incentive to act in favor of the consumer because competition in most areas is almost non-existent, and they have a heavy incentive to act against the consumer because there's many potential new revenue streams.

A fair point, but this may be addressed with targeted legislation which deals with the monopoly problems in rural areas.

>Whose? Trump's administration? What makes you say that? Do you think the backlash will be hard enough to counteract all the lobbying? Even with all the backlash from the recent travel ban, Trump is sticking to his guns where any seasoned politician would have backed down. Like I said, it's better to take Trump at his word and assume the worst.

Business owners. They like to make money. For the most part, under the current law, businesses have to sell people things that they want in order to make money. Ergo, they provide consumers a benefit when they make a sale. Where competition is present, a service provider wants to provide their consumers with the best price/quality ratio for fear that someone else will take their customers.

>>106619
>we don't know what will happen without the regulation in place

Like I said before, why wait until it's too late? The internet has benefited tremendously from being an open and uncorrupted market. That's what you don't seem to understand, net neutrality is PROTECTING the free market. A lack of net neutrality will lead to larger entities shutting out and devouring smaller entities, leading to a concentration of power. If you want evidence, look at the conglomerates that dominate old media.

>Most regulations ban behaviors that are already occurring.

That's an oddly general statement. Are you saying the rule of law is irrelevant because criminals exist? There is a very wide gap between imperfect law and total lawlessness, they're far from equivalent.

>Because it stifles their activity. It's not necessarily a sign of nefarious intent.

"Nefarious" in this case would be the very act that net neutrality seeks to prevent, ISPs favoring certain traffic over others. Why would they lobby against the thing preventing them from doing a specific act if they don't plan to do the act?

>this may be addressed with targeted legislation which deals with the monopoly problems in rural areas

That won't happen and you know it.

>Where competition is present, a service provider wants to provide their consumers with the best price/quality ratio for fear that someone else will take their customers.

That's a general theory that assumes that
>there is enough competition present in the first place
>consumers are rational actors
>businesses will never seek to conspire (or silently agree) with each other to simultaneously implement anti-consumer practices in order to gain more profit

I think the difference between you and I is that I have dealt with Comcast on many occasions and have much less faith in an ISP's "good will".

>>106611
We can fairly easily extrapolate the worst from the current behavior of ISPs. They have deals which each other that strangle competition, they frequently lie and misrepresent their pathetic attempts at expanding our infrastructure so they can fleece tax payers of more money, they constantly block potentially initiatives that could compete with them like municipal wifi, and they're consistently voted some of the worst companies on America in terms of customer service. They have given every sign of being untrustworthy anti-consumer oligopolies. What basis do you have for believing they'll suddenly shape up and become model corporate citizens if the few restrictions placed on them are removed?

>>106702
They're only doing it because of government regulation.

>>107037
Not him but you can't be serious. Please free yourself from ideology, it has a stranglehold on your thoughts.

>>107046
What, and drink the left's koolaid instead?

>>108292
Are you a Christian because Islam is a worse dogma?

>muh net neutrality cucks

>>104088
How about pirate websites? They can't censor them all, can they?

>>104732
After their latest anti-white stunt? Hell no.

>I want net neutrality so I can promote partisanship

Idc as long as I can get to 4chan, reddit, pornhub, and youtube I'm pretty much happy

>>111597
It shouldn't be a partisan issue, it's a technical one. The American ISPs don't own the internet and shouldn't be able to dictate the speed of traffic on it to fit their corporate whims. Part of the problem is that the old men in Congress don't realize that the internet isn't American anymore for them to be able to control it.