Nobody should be paying to view a website. Net neutrality is the idea that the internet is open to all users, and is free to browse at your will. However, many big cable companies are conspiring to control your online experience. This can lead to website blocking, censorship, and extra fees. Sign the petition and keep the internet free from greedy hands
https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/
Sorry guys but I've been giving this some thought and if the USA ruin their internet it might give Britain some purpose post-Brexit.
So as much as I'd love to show solidarity I don't think it's in my best interest.
>>156440
I'm sure you understand.
After all so many of you supported Brexit purely because it would weaken the EU.
Have a nice day.
>>156435
>Nobody should be paying to view a website. Net neutrality is the idea that the internet is open to all users, and is free to browse at your will. However, many big cable companies are conspiring to control your online experience. This can lead to website blocking, censorship, and extra fees. Sign the petition and keep the internet free from greedy hands
>https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/
There is not a single sentence in your statement which is correct. Please go watch some TV and have a cookie whole the adults who actually know what's happening fight for liberty.
I cant believe i had to search this much to find anything about this on here.
Why does almost no one care about it?
If this bill passes, everyone is gonna start whining "how could this happen" "why didnt anyone do anything"
We dont appreciate what we have until its gone.
With no net neutrality, ISP's can control the internet how they want, for money and power.
For example: blocking 4chan, throttling netflix, make website packages like social package, gaming package etc, like cable providers do with tv channels.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K88BU3kjZ-c
>>156435
>he thinks a petition will do anything
laughing_girls.jpg
Every time Pai has ignored the overwhelming response from average citizens and done what his corporate overlords want. This is not a democracy, it's a plutocracy.
>>156630
This.
Pai has made up his mind. But I guess we should still go and post our concerns on the FCC's site for him to ignore.
>>156554
Who cares about the americunts , they had it coming and they let it .
>>156473
>fight for liberty.
Top kek.
Enjoy your government sanction corporate controlled internet, Burger.
I won't miss you guys when 4chan is too slow for you to use.
>>156440
We're already ruining our internet. killing net nutrality is chickenfeed compared to censoring and great firewalling
>>156689
Because America is the core of the internet. What happens to it there affects all other territories
>>156770
>What happens to it there affects all other territories
Indeed. This should create marvelous opportunities for the rest of the world. Sorry but the schadenfreude is too delicious for me to do anything but laugh right now.
>>156949
Hes shitposting m8
>>156473
Asperger detected
>>156435
The edge in this thread, man.
>>156689
It's a domino effect, if it happens there, then it'll make it's way to other countries.
It's hard not to feel defeatist. The cable companies have unlimited time and money to lobby against net neutrality. Even if they fail this time (which is seeming unlikely) they'll just mount another attack in a few years time again and again until they succeed.
>>156973
we need campaign finance reform and to reverse Citizens United ruling
Btw, does anyone here knows the date when the FCC is gonna make their final decision?
>>156554
>For example: blocking 4chan, throttling netflix, make website packages like social package, gaming package etc, like cable providers do with tv channels.
What's the money to be made in that unless people actually want some of it?
Can anyone help lay out what the FCC regulations do?
>>157191
Like seriously. Websites like Netflix or Youtube are some of the biggest salesmen for ISPs. Why would they limit them?
If you are saying they are going to limit websites like Vimeo because YouTube pays them, couldn't that be tackled with antitrust laws?
>>157191
>What's the money to be made in that
Because some major ISPs like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and CenturyLink are also cable companies. Netflix is a major competitor that has been absorbing their customers. It would be in their interest to degrade traffic from Netflix to make their own services look more appealing.
>what the FCC regulations do?
They simply require internet service providers to treat all traffic equally, regardless of the source or destination, preventing something like the above scenario from occurring.
>>156473
Sure is gonna suck when your torrents slow to a 10kb/s crawl
>>157278
How is that contradictory? We want restriction on what providers can do so that the internet will remain free and open. Without restrictions they will enact policies that will make the internet less free and open.
>>157280
You don't understand how "free" and "restrictive" are contradictory?
The internet was already free and open long before the catchy term "Net Neutrality" came around. Why do you just assume ISP's will all of a sudden enact policies making the internet less free and open when they had never done it before? How does that even make sense for their bottom line?
The day the start blocking sites like netflix or 4chan is the day they start losing users and therefor money.
>>157281
>Why do you just assume ISP's will all of a sudden enact policies making the internet less free and open when they had never done it before?
Someone doesn't remember AOL
> How does that even make sense for their bottom line?
The day the start blocking sites like netflix or 4chan is the day they start losing users and therefor money.
Because if they have a competing service, like video streaming, and they either charge you more to access a competitors site or just degrade the quality, it will drive you to use their service, which makes them more money.
> The day the start blocking sites like netflix or 4chan is the day they start losing users and therefor money.
You would think so, except most (if not all) ISPs have a monopoly in their areas. I have no choice, I only have comcast, so if they decided to pull shenanigans, then I'm fucked.
And yes, ISPs have already been testing some of these things, with things like data caps and in-browser notifications (which means they are doing deep packet inspections and modify data).
>>157288
I remember the AOL story, but that's a pretty weak example to try and justify massive FCC regulations on an entire industry.
But to your second point, everything you are scared about is hypothetical. It has never actually happened. If it did, people would cancel their service and switch to an ISP that provided what they want. That's how the free market works.
And don't give me this BS about how ISP's have a monopoly over service. There is literally hundreds of ISP's all competing for your business. Sure, there may be only 1 or 2 cable internet providers, but there are plenty of other options such as google fiber, DSL, mobile 4g, and new technologies coming about every day. That's the beauty of the market. Where ever there is demand, somebody will fill the supply. The government doesn't do that.
>>157298
>but there are plenty of other options such as google fiber, DSL, mobile 4g, and new technologies coming about every day
Yeah, right. Give me a fucking break. Most people have 1-2 providers to choose from and that's it, and the current ISPs have done and will continue to do everything they can to block innovation and expansion of services like Google Fiber into new areas.
>>157298
>But to your second point, everything you are scared about is hypothetical. it has never actually happened
>hypothetical
IT'S HYPOTHETICAL PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING LEGISLATION OF THE NET NEUTRALITY. The only rason it hasn't actually happened was because they weren't allowed to. The end of net neutrality onl y lead to negative aspect the law was forbidding. Don't use that "hypothetical" logic when nothing good come out of deregulating something.
this is not a valid point.
>. If it did, people would cancel their service and switch to an ISP that provided what they want. That's how the free market works.
It's how it should work, but not how it does. he shareholder of those othe ISP will 1ask why they aren't making as much money as those who do it and they will put in place a director who will do it to if they refuse. It's how the free market work.
>Sure, there may be only 1 or 2 cable internet providers,
AND THEY ARE THE FUCKING ONE WHO WILL ACTUALLY SET THE RULES. ISP will easily bow down if the cash follow.
>That's the beauty of the market. Where ever there is demand, somebody will fill the supply.
Unless supplying something else bring more money, if you are not in the target market, though luck fro you.
I can(t even figure if you are a shill or are really rainwashed to thin that. The Free market isn't a magically self-controlled being. it's a fucking Wild animal, actinct instinctively and not alway logically or for the best. You sometimes need to put some bars if you don't want it to maul down people or hurt itself.
>>157298
>But to your second point, everything you are scared about is hypothetical.
Any hypothetical scenario that can bring cash and is only hypothetical because law forbid it will become defacto concrete the moment it is legalised.
>>157298
>But to your second point, everything you are scared about is hypothetical.
It' not. From time to time, even if illegally, cable operators have cured down Netflix, for example, as a way to pressure into some agreement.
It's very concrete.
>>157278
>when all net neutrality real is is a bunch of FCC regulations which are inherently restrictive.
They aren't. not an the globl level. they are restriciteve to Cable operator, but they provide more freedom overal for everyone else. it's stopping a business to abuse of its position, which is how things should be.
>>157281
>The internet was already free and open long before the catchy term "Net Neutrality" came around.
Net Neutrality was already there before Internet become popular, you uncultured swine.
>Why do you just assume ISP's will all of a sudden enact policies making the internet less free and open when they had never done it before?
Because
1. Net Neutrality prevent them from doing it.
2. they will get money out of doing that.
>The day the start blocking sites like netflix or 4chan is the day they start losing users and therefor money.
It's not blocking, it's giving priorities to other website because the mass doesn't care about 4chan and mass market is all big business care about and Netflix is in competition with an other service ready to pay more.
Net neutrality protect niche market.
>>156473
>I don't understand what the world wide web is. In fact, if I don't see it written in caps (World Wide Web) therre's no chance I will realise that's what the 3 w's stand for in the beginning of every URL
WHERE IS ANONYMOUS WHEN WE NEED THEM?!
>>157925
dead and gone. where have you been?
>government regulation has monopolised the internet industry by turning it into a utility, and creating massive barriers to entry
>I KNOW, MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION!
Fuck off
>>158187
Are you retarded? Lack of government regulation will hurt consumers. Companies WILL take advantage of an internet without net neutrality to make more money. You're naive if you see differently. Enjoy getting cucked, cunt
>>158187
>>WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION
>MORE
The fuck are you talking about? This isn't about making MORE regulation, it's about maintaining an existing one that has existed since Internet is popular.
>>157882
When did this happen? Do you have a source?
>>158250
Net Neutrality hurt consumers by making them pay more for high speed lines ISP's needed to put in specifically for Netflix.
>>158255
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403066,00.asp
>>158254
Literally more regulation.
>>158250
>companies dont take valid cost analysis and make decisions on how to charge their customers for access to creative content based on how much it costs them to provide acess. Since internet is now a utility, it gets special privlages, but only if they get the legal status.
>>158202
>shills reeee
Youre a socialist faggot (^:
>>158288
More like
>socialism reeee
Is the message shills for businesses have historically put out to make people afraid of government policies that could help them, but cut into companies' profits, even if those policies have nothing to do with social programs. Your tactics haven't changed at all.
>>158292
Comcast literally has one of the biggest mopolies of the market, low end income.
And it was given to them by federal government programs and special treatment.
Its a fact.
Enacting these kinds of rules will entrence these interests.
This just changes the king from Cable companies and utility companies to massive ISPs, and the people hurt the most are the consumers, especially low income persons.
>>156473
>I post contrarian opinions as bait
Back to /b/ with you
>>158288
>Literally more regulation.
WRRRROOOOOOOONGGGGGG
It is not MORE regulation if it is has been there from almost the beginning, moron. learn the meaning of "more", please.
Wanting an existing regulation to stay isn't "more regulation"
>>companies dont take valid cost analysis and make decisions on how to charge their customers for access to creative content based on how much it costs them to provide acess. Since internet is now a utility, it gets special privlages, but only if they get the legal status.
What point are you trying to make. Because all content being equally available on the internet is good for internet business allow access to everyone to their business.
>>158295
>And it was given to them by federal government programs and special treatment.
>Its a fact
None of that justify the end of Net Neutrality, though.
that there are government meddling that are bad doesn't mean all government meddling are bad. You still don't explain how Net Neutrality is more bad than good.
>>158295
>This just changes the king from Cable companies and utility companies to massive ISPs
Wrong. This make ISP the little bitch of Cable operators. All it will result in will be a transfer of monopoly, not the end of it.
>>157281
>The day the start blocking sites like netflix or 4chan is the day they start losing users and therefor money.
Not really. I've got the choice of a single ISP in my area. Internet is take it or leave it. If they choose to block something, I continue to have to fork over money to use a lesser service.
I honestly wouldn't have any problem with removing NN assuming there was a service that came with complete access to the entire internet at a reasonable speed available throughout the entire US and what came about was simply high speed lines to specific services (Such as Steam service that increased download speeds to 100 mbps) that you could buy on top of your normal internet. But as it goes, the power to remove access entirely or throttle data to a crawl on specific sites is too strong to allow any entity to have control over.
Even worse, the amount of laws that exist for preventing competition among ISPs (For example, my local town had fiber laid by a local ISP who now has sole license over providing internet in the city.) is too staggering to overcome without massive reform, and until it is, NN must remain to ensure we receive full access to the web.
>>158295
>And it was given to them by federal government programs and special treatment.
>Its a fact.
All the more reason to just nationalize the ISPs and treat the internet as a utility, the infrastructure for it was built with taxpayer money anyway
>>157298
And if they all heavily restrict internet access? What then?
>>158260
[citation needed]
From an international viewpoint, I have no idea how it's going to interfere with other countries' users. Since routes often hop through an ISP or two, will international users need to pay US ISPs in a world with a package system? If so, you're going to see a lot of internet-based businesses jumping ship to submarine cable connected countries like Brazil, Japan, or the UK. If not, I see a lot of international VPNs getting business from Americans.
>>157298
>everything you are scared about is hypothetical. It has never actually happened.
It hadn't happened for a long time because the internet was still new, infrastructure and customer bases were still being built, and there simply wasn't a lot of load on the lines or need for high speeds because streaming HD video wasn't yet a thing. And once the ISPs had established their stranglehold it DID start to happen with companies like comcast throttling streaming services like netflix, which is in part why net neutrality regulations were made official in the first place a few years ago.
> If it did, people would cancel their service and switch to an ISP that provided what they want.
You clearly have absolutely no idea how the ISP market functions. It's the furthest thing from "free" and no amount of deregulation will fix that. It has nothing to do with consumers or service and everything to do with the extremely prohibitive cost of entry into the market coupled with anti-competitive duopolies.
The "free market" is a mythical utopian ideal and has never been an actual thing in the reality of economics.
>>156435
net neutrality does not ensure everything online is free you retard.
>>159857
>I move my fingers before my brain: the post
>>159907
>>I move my fingers before my brain: the post
No, net neutrality it's the principle that all traffic be carried with the same priority. Nothing more. I instructed OP to have a cookie. You should join him.