Net Neutrality

>>131458055
Because im a lazy fat american that sucks down a liquid ton of jew cum everyday.

>>131458055
Photoshopped picture faggot. In reality these girls probably have all been BLACKED. Such is the lot of the modern white woman these days.

>>131458055
What's wrong with net neutrality? Comcast shouldn't be blocking my servers.

File: 1498526432196.png (434KB, 940x1028px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 940x1028px

>>131458055

>>131458055
I just jizzed myself

>>131458055
Because there is no need for it. If we allowed the internet to be federally controlled then if we retaliated against it we would have the military to deal with instead of the PR department at Comcast.

>>131458055

Because Net Neutrality is most definitely NOT a Trojan horse to faggoty federal government regulations over all internet activities.

Plus I totally trust the government anyways!

>>131458832

Read some current events, faggot

>>131458055
Redpill me on being against net neutrality? I want as free a web as possible, I want the Internet to be seen as a utility and not just a service, so someone redpill me on this shit.

>>131458603
It's photoshopped retard. You jizzed yourself to girls that have already been stretched out by Tyrone's BBC.

>>131459181

Red pill is in the vid in the OP

Internet was unregulated until Feb. 2015 when Obama's white house (ahem) gave FCC regulatory authority over the internet.

Only governments can enforce "speech" laws. If private ISPs tried, there would be a revolution by next morning. For examples, see Germany (locked up 30 people for thought crimes recently), Canada (using unapproved pronouns can land you in jail), Britain (speech laws).

>>131459650
>Internet was unregulated
Okay, but in my opinion, it's a good idea to keep companies in line on some level. The Internet is more or less required for our daily lives nowadays, so I would argue that it being entirely in the hands of private corporations is a bad idea.

I understand the concern with speech laws and whatnot, especially with extreme cases such as Germany, however, the United States' law is based almost entirely around the constitution, which has free speech included, whereas Germany and Canada don't really give a fuck about free speech.

>>131459168
What the fuck are you talking about? You should stop watching the Talmudvision, your brain is saturated with paranoia.

>>131458832
KEK

>>131460091

> be me
> love internet
> read 1984 by George Orwell
> read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
> Net Neutrality

>>131460835
>be you
>love internet
>watch tv
>think you understand what net neutrality is because john "current year" Oliver told what it is
>get on 4chinz to talk from anus about what the talking picture box said
>get pissed when someone calls you out for being a good goy

>>131458055
How can any sane person argue against net neutrality, wtf is wrong with you americans.
I can't believe i'm saying this but I'm agreeing with Oliver here, OP video was the most openly shill i've ever seen

>>131461263

>think you understand what net neutrality is because john "current year" Oliver told what it is
Video: Why John Oliver is Wrong

Reading comprehension

>>131461853
Apparently you and I have had a miscommunication. You told me to read some current events as if my assertion that net neutrality was bullshit was wrong. I responded under the assumption you were for net neutrality.

>>131458832

Yeah, this is exactly why we need to meme against it.

>>131462071

Current events comment was because they are PUSHING FOR net neutrality all over the place lately. Your comment seemed to imply that Net Neutrality wasn't an issue. Now we've got a chance to get rid of it (was passed under Obamgroid's white house in 2015), but the propaganda is HARD CORE all over the place.

>>131458055
>since no internet provider has attempted to perform extortion before it should be legal for internet providers to perform extortion
........what?

>>131462416
What is net neutrality policy, exactly? I'm a network engineer who is about ready to blow your shilling white ass right out of the water if you're wrong, so answer wisely.

>>131462416
>Your comment seemed to imply that Net Neutrality wasn't an issue.
I'm not sure how. But I agree that the current trend of pushing for this shit is getting out of control. Most of these dipshits have no idea what the fuck they are arguing for, just what the same corporations they are always railing against are telling them to argue for.

>>131462563

My position: I distrust government inherently. Distrust everything about it. See recent happenings in Germany (locked up 30 people for "unapproved speech"). Canada has "pronoun laws" which can lead to police intervention. etc.

Net Neutrality represents the U.S. Federal Government granting regulatory control (to the FCC) over the intertubes.

As for the current implementation of Net Neutrality via the FCC, I can explain what it does, but it will change over time. It's a Trojan Horse the government will exploit at some time in the future. My biggest conern is, of course, freedom of speech online.

I'm also a network engineer.

>>131462938
> Most of these dipshits have no idea what the fuck they are arguing for

And this is exactly why I'm here.

>>131463038
>See recent happenings in Germany (locked up 30 people for "unapproved speech").
>Canada has "pronoun laws" which can lead to police intervention. etc.
There's some fucked up shit going on in Europe, but consider that it is largely driven by corporate greed, who wants their cheaper, less solidaritous workers to feel welcome.
>but it will change over time
As it should.
>It's a Trojan Horse the government will exploit at some time in the future
Are you pretending that the legislature won't just jump in and do the same when, not if, it profits them, or that allowing private entities to discriminate is somehow inherently holy and righteous?
I wasn't at all interested in your feels btw. I was interested in the answer that net neutrality is the principle of non-discrimination among lawful traffic.

>>131458055

"Opposes Internet Censorship" <-> "Supports Net Neutrality"

"Wants Faster Internet" <-> "Supports Net Neutrality"

Don't even know what a Net Neutrality meme ball would look like

>>131464043

> largely driven by corporate greed
Corporations don't control the guns; the military, the police. Government enforces.

> Are you pretending that the legislature won't just jump in and do the same when, not if, it profits them

The legislature can't jump in if the internet remains privatized. The post office charges different prices for delivering mail, why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to do the same?

>>131464043
Your entire post implies that the federal government is completely separate from corporate interests when it comes to revenue. Pro-tip; it isn't.

The difference is the way we can retaliate depending on which entity is in control. With the federal government we have to directly deal with military and police enforcement. With the corporate world we at least have the power of boycott and legal proceedings with a FAR higher chance of success. If the corporate interests then fall back to the federal government for "assistance" we can cross that path when it comes but why the fuck would we go straight to that if we could try and avoid it?

I can't fucking believe /pol/ is anti NN. Holy fuck you're retards
>b but only government can control speech! Better to be privately controlled
Not if your country has an actual constitution whose first amendment deals with literally this exact issue
>corporations can't do evil because there would be muh riots
Implying that they would be so stupid. Of course they wouldn't overtly do evil. They would placate us with "money saving features" to Jew us into overlooking the fact that we can only access 50 websites if we want to have internet for <$95 a month. What will happen is the internet becomes like cable TV and the telecoms work with politicians to economically nudge people towards only the normie sites, lest they pay out the ass to visit some redpilled media org's site. THIS is tyranny. Pure Orwellian nightmare. Literally net neutrality is the last thread of power and "democracy" we have. For the love of all things holy heed these words.

>>131465011

You want faster internet speeds from innovations? Why should ISPs spend money on Research & Development if they can't make a profit from faster speeds? Net Neutrality removes the incentive to innovate.

File: IMG_3313.gif (59KB, 300x321px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 300x321px

>>131465011
Oh okay, nigger. Let's just hand control of the internet over the federal fucking government because we all know what great things they do for us. Right, goy?

>>131465325

You just committed a thought crime friend.

File: edggj9z4az5z.png (79KB, 1022x471px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1022x471px

>>131465325

I'll get my shit together and brainstorm some shit tomorrow. Gonna be an uphill battle to convince the normies.

pic is part of mass propaganda we're up against

>>131465212
>You want faster internet speeds from innovations
Nobody needs muh innovations. All we need is real buildout.
>Why should ISPs spend money on R&D
There is no R&D to be done to get muh faster speeds. ISPs all just buy their shit from vendors who build according to an industry standard, and allocate a certain number of channels to data.
Also, municipal utilities are always cheaper, faster and more reliable than private franchisees. Internet is a commodity and corporations can't have that because of their muh self-esteem.
>Net Neutrality removes the incentive to innovate.
Give me one good reason that you corporate shills shouldn't just neck yourselves on a livestream right now.

>>131465917

> Give me one good reason that you corporate shills shouldn't just neck yourselves on a livestream right now.

Principled free-marketer, distrust of gov't. It's not rocket science.

Agree with you about municipalities being a solution to the ISP monopolies. I truly hate those fuckers.

>>131465917
>Also, municipal utilities are always cheaper, faster and more reliable than private franchisees.
And because they are under municipal control they have the capability of being shut down by those in control of them whenever they feel it is necessary. Do you really think that something like the internet with all of the avenues for dissent it has is going to be treated the same as electricity or water? If those were shut down people would literally die so the prospect of that happening is slim to none. But nobody needs the Daily Stormer to survive. If they deem that to be "unconstitutional" then they can turn it off like flipping a fucking light switch and nobody will do anything about it under the threat of police and military force.

>>131465325
>got
Try to run that frontal lobe in more than one gear, buddy. You realize we've had NN all this time and it has resulted in the death of the pseudo state-owned media? I mean this fucking site got a tv personality in the White House. CNN is irrelevant. Alex Jones is a more trustworthy source for news and half the time he's 100% larping and he doesn't exist as we know him without NN. If you want to see what the world would be without open internet just look briefly at CNN and the kike/oligarch owned newspapers.

NN was (((their))) BIGGEST fuck up without question.

>>131464567
>why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to do the same

Don't they already? I thought the net neutrality shenanigans was over the fear that websites would charge for different speeds on top of ISPs? Am I wrong?

>Am I the only one who has started to feel like a useful idiot defending the big 5's riches? What we have now isn't a neutral net. We're complaining about traffic shaping by ISPs, while big 5 are shaping it already, deciding what we read, what we can download, and who we mingle with.

>>131467016
>I mean this fucking site got a tv personality in the White House.
Go fly a Kekistani flag if you are dumb enough to actually believe that retarded shit.

>If you want to see what the world would be without open internet just look briefly at CNN and the kike/oligarch owned newspapers.
And if you want to see what the world would be without a government that looks out for its people but instead looks out for the entire world just look briefly at the federal government. There is a far greater method of Kikery happening within our legal system than their is in the private world. At least in the private world we have last ditch efforts we can utilize to allow them to decay. We have seen numerous (((corporations))) come and go but have always had the same power structure in our own legal system.

We don't win in either scenario but we cut our losses by not letting the courts and the senate dictate what we can and cannot access for information.

>>131465212
I thought the innovation was stopped because new cable is a pain in the ass to lay down thanks to regulations, that aren't net neutrality related...

Also, wtf? This board was all for NN and freaked the fuck out about it like 1.5, 2 years ago. What happened?

>>131467016
> You realize we've had NN all this time and it has resulted in the death of the pseudo state-owned media?

We've had NN since Feb-2015. The internet was regulation free from it's inception until that time.

The main point being, NN is a trojan horse for further regulations (speech laws, approved thoughts, etc.) down the road.

>Net Neutrality is about putting ISPs under Title II. Dark Fiber is under Title II. I still can't get fiber optic internet. Did you know Mongolia and Romania have faster internet speeds than the USA? Rural Japan has fiber optic internet, but I can't get it in metropolitan areas of the US. Title 2 sounds like a horrible idea to me.

>>131468190
> This board was all for NN and freaked the fuck out about it like 1.5, 2 years ago.

Didn't see that, but if true, this board was normie land and bought the deep state propaganda. Time for /pol to take the red pill on NN.

The American government has a speckless track record for keeping the internet open and unfettered.

Your ISP wants to stop this because it intends to wring you for more money. Anyone who's against it is in favor of taking a sledge hammer to something complex that they barely understand in the name of
>MUH FREE MARKET!

Google fiber literally cannot come soon enough. Our dogshit isp companies are totally unprepared for the storm.

>>131468601
> but I can't get it in metropolitan areas of the US

Same. Wasn't google rolling out fiber in major cities a while back?

>If you buy a Google Home, you're basically fighting an uphill battle to use something other than Google Play music, right? If you have Comcast, then they make using Netflix a battle vs Comcast's own on demand video, how is that different? Why should Netflix get special treatment? It seems like Net Neutrality is less about fairness and competition and more about King making.

>>131468944
> Anyone who's against it is in favor of taking a sledge hammer to something complex that they barely understand in the name of MUH FREE MARKET

You really think unelected bureaucrats at the fucking FCC understand the network better than the fucking engineers at the ISPs? Smoke more pole, faggot

>>131468944
>>131468944
>The American government has a speckless track record for keeping the internet open and unfettered.
That's because they never touched it until niggerboy gave control of it to the FCC in 2015. Then he said "Look, we didn't do anything to the internet. You can trust us with it now, you fucking simpletons."

>>131469141
Are you too much of a consumerist nigger to run your own services?

>>131469141
How do you fix it without the brute force solution of introducing government regulations? My answer would be municipal ISPs at the local level. Someone has to manage the pipes.

>Who doesn't want Net Neutrality? T-Mobile. The EFF said their Binge On service which gives poor people unlimited streaming video was bad for Net Neutrality. Who wants Neutrality? Rich white people who want cheaper cable services. 20% of the US has mobile-only internet access, mostly poor and disadvantaged people. Net Neutrality hurts those poor people. Net Neutrality is literally class warfare in favor of the rich white people who have enough already, and want to exploit the poor even more.

>>131458055
No thanks kike, I rather like the free internet.

>>131469326
He gave "official" control of it to the government after a big kerfuffle over Comcast blocking some cunts.
The FCC is a safe and fair organization to entrust net neutrality to. The internet is a utility, and preventing ISPs from discriminating against particular sites is something that a huge, sprawling industry relies on.

You're not doing what you think you're doing. You're choosing the most corrupt and incompetent corporations in America to take care of this really fucking important thing, even though they have every single reason to abuse that power to turn a quick profit.

>>131458055
Net neutrality is good, you dumbfuck. Corporate monopolies shouldn't be allowed to dick over their customers with the only other option being "lol just move to another city and get a new ISP bruh".

File: IMG_3242.gif (1MB, 300x174px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x174px

>>131470292
>The FCC is a safe and fair organization to entrust net neutrality to
Oh yeah. Sure thing, goy.
>even though they have every single reason to abuse that power to turn a quick profit.
Are you implying that the federal government won't literally do the exact same fucking thing like they always do? How deluded can you be? This is the same pork barrel slush fund government that is taxing its own citizens to replace them with turd world morons who suckle at the tit of big brother and will do anything (cast votes) to stay on that tit.

>>131469844
>this guy implying poor people can't afford a cheap broadband connection in most developed states.
>implying he's not lobbying against public ISPs, which would provide much better service at a fraction of the cost, because he's shitting his pants at the idea of competition that isn't hellbent on fucking fleecing those poor people with outdated and overpriced infrastructure.
Oh, I'm laffin.

>>131470346

>I want cheap cable service. Make them give me cheap cable internets. Whaaaa whaaaa.

Net Neutrality equals gibsmedats. There are plenty of other ISPs available nationwide. Sprint, T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, and Dish just to name a few.

>>131470292

Your argument is sound. You could convince me to change my mind. Aren't the big ISPs supporting NN? I know all the big websites (google, facecrook, et.al.) support it - obviously because they are anti-competetive.

If you can convince me the gov't won't abuse it, the giant (((corps))) won't behave anti-competetively, and my other concerns, you may be able to sway me.

>>131470292
>The FCC is a safe and fair organization to entrust net neutrality to.
They are LITERALLY the commission who gets to decide what is and isn't censored in the US (despite the 1st Amendment) through any method of communication under their oversight. Are you fucking insane?

>>131470835
>Are you implying that the federal government won't literally do the exact same fucking thing like they always do?
No, you retard. I'm implying that they'll do what they've ALWAYS done, which is do what they can, when they can, to develop this network and keep it open.
What issues I have between how our government handles the internet have absolutely nothing to do with this particular issue or the fcc.

>>131471025

>implying he's not lobbying against public ISPs

So let me get this straight. You want an ISP fully controlled, monitored, and censored by the government? No wonder you're in favor of Net Neutrality.

File: Head_up_ass.jpg (27KB, 350x394px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 350x394px

>>131458832

U R a Dumbass

>>131471053
Who said anything about price? I just want the same speed I pay for across all sites, you fucking kike.

>>131471238
>what they've ALWAYS done, which is do what they can, when they can, to develop this network and keep it open.
They haven't done a damn thing. It has literally been the (((ISPs))) who have developed, competed, and kept things open this entire fucking time. The federal government has had no part in the development of commercial internet other than staying out of the way.

I trust the government to oversee my roads, races, healthcare, education and safety. Why not the Internets?

>>131471620
What an argument. Take your acne riddled fat ass back to Plebbit with the other electric Jew watching dipshits content with their college loans and Hebrew Box Office subscriptions.

File: agreement sheeple.jpg (21KB, 251x301px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 251x301px

>>131471717
A Republican Mark

File: 2a asian chick 1496622915479.jpg (73KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 540x960px

>>131458055
>>131458440
somebody should have told my internet about your nertzi TPP
and so cocks
https://youtu.be/alm2TC8ZagM

File: IMG_3747.gif (48KB, 392x200px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 392x200px

>>131471877
>implying I'm a republican

File: dumpster.jpg (89KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 800x800px

>>131471984

"You are a John Cena mark."
"So your saying I'm John Cena."

File: IMG_2800.jpg (54KB, 570x587px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 570x587px

>>131472321

File: 1394075332777.gif (222KB, 500x692px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 500x692px

>>131458055
I support net neutrality though.

>>131458055
fuck you, i have a 100k+ job and money to waste i don't care poor fag

>>131471065
Google and Facebook support it because they have industries that stand to lose from some cunt like Comcast throttling traffic and then demanding that they pay up to get unthrottled (this happened to Netflix, iirc). If and when Google's isp project takes off, rest assured, there's no competition between Google fiber and any other existing American ISP.

The only thing I can point to saying that the government won't abuse it is that there's no way "for" them to abuse it. It's a flat law, applied throughout the industry, saying "you cannot do this thing to your customers". It actually prevents certain large websites from forming pacts with certain isps to throttle other, competing websites.
>>131471097
Not true. They don't decide that. They simply enforce it. The FCC has no ability to censor a broadcast simply for point of view or politics.
They do have a legal mandate to censor certain "indecent content" on TV broadcasts, such as pornography and slurs. None of these have been enforced on the internet (as far as I am aware).

>>131458055
Net neutrality is a big reddit meme

File: 01wrong.gif (1MB, 480x287px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 480x287px

>>131472700
>there's no competition between Google fiber and any other existing American ISP.
WRONG

File: brain-meme.jpg (39KB, 590x410px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 590x410px

>>131472700

You brain well... but your talking to Foxnews Sheep.

>>131459969
>Okay, but in my opinion, it's a good idea to keep companies in line on some level
We already have a regulatory body to deal with companies doing shady shit. It's called the Federal Trade Commission.

We don't need to give a completely unrelated department (the FCC) broad, overreaching regulatory powers over allowed content and service terms and conditions to do what the FTC is already authorized to do.

>>131471711

>I like the way things are at my ISP
>I don't want anything to change
>So let's change the rules for ISPs
>I'm not sure what Title II is
>I'm not sure why we need to change the rules
>I just don't want the way things are to change

Uhhhm..

>>131472700
>The FCC has no ability to censor a broadcast simply for point of view or politics.
No shit, Sherlock. Do you really think they are going to come out and say that they are going to block content due to political reasons? Do you really think the Supreme Court is going to come out and say they are going to allow faggot marriage due to political reasons? Do you really think that Trump is going to come out and say he is attacking Syria due to political reasons?

>None of these have been enforced on the internet
So you really want to bank the future of the internet and its openness one one single entity (versus numerous ISPs) that has a track record of infringing on our rights under the guise of "national safety" and "justice?"

>>131472860
All of America's other ISPs are fucking horrendous.
Google Fiber is a sweet, sweet dream. Look at this shit.
"For $70 a month, Google Fiber provides Internet that's roughly 100 times faster than the national average for broadband. Customers are also given the option of basic Internet on par with other broadband service for free, after paying a one-time fee of $300, or $25 monthly for 12 months."
Everything else is such a fucking JOKE in America, Comcast is coming in and offering for $300 what our current isps charge you upwards of $70 a month for.

>>131473334
I'd rather bank on the government keeping a rule that says "you cannot block web traffic" than bank on corporations to behave themselves after said rule is removed, yes.
Every post you've made just implies that you don't have the slightest clue what we're talking about here.

File: Slippery-Slope.png (51KB, 273x329px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 273x329px

>>131473334

Note: Slippery Slope is not an argument. Its a fallacy.

But it is good to see that your position is ultimately based in crazy tin foil hat Foxnews sheep paranoia.

>>131473719
The internet was just fine for nearly 30 years before Obama signed the Net Neutrality bill. Network neutrality may not have been the de jure rule, but it was the de facto standard and every ISP knew it.

>>131473719

>after said rule is removed

There's no rule being removed. It's literally

Net Neutrality: change the rules that worked for decades.

No Net Neutrality: continue on with the current system.

>>131458955
Its a balancing act between total government control and total commercial control

https://streamable.com/4j78e
https://streamable.com/4j78e
https://streamable.com/4j78e
https://streamable.com/4j78e
CNN IS FINISHED!!!
CNN IS FINISHED!!11

File: IMG_3217.jpg (29KB, 403x395px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 403x395px

>>131473719
>Every post you've made just implies that you don't have the slightest clue what we're talking about here.
And every post you've made just implies that everything you know about net neutrality comes directly from the same faggots on TV that are constantly deriding anything that goes against the status quo as hate speech.

>I'd rather bank on the government
is the dumbest thing you've said in this whole entire thread. Perfect job sounding like a complete boot-licking supplicant.

File: 1498276527434.jpg (69KB, 606x606px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 606x606px

>>131465736
Go back to Plebbit.

>>131473923
It was just fine after it too.
>Network neutrality may not have been the de jure rule, but it was the de facto standard and every ISP knew it.
And now it's the de jure rule. There isn't a reason to circumvent it or desire to see it circumvented.

>>131473923

>The internet was just fine for nearly 30 years before Obama signed the Net Neutrality bill

...that never went into effect. Net Neutrality was a rule change. Trump stopped the change. The liberals are now screaming to be in charge of the government, even though they lost.

File: 1488494604700.jpg (78KB, 500x347px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x347px

>>131458055
You fucking retard. (((Guess who))) owns these ISPs?

Whose websites won't get included in your new "only the best of the web" internet packages? How much extra is it going to cost you to see them? And even then, they're going to be capped at dialup speeds.

Why would you want to cut the legs out from under our greatest communication medium for cultural change unless you're a shifty jew?

>>131473906
>Slippery Slope
I wasn't making a slippery slope analogy, I was comparing the situations, not as subsequences to each other.

>Fox News
Nigger, I don't watch that dumb shit. Just because I disagree with your retarded opinion doesn't make me a republican nor a Fox News watcher. Go to Yiddit with that shit.

>>131474160
>boot licker
I'm half convinced that you're a comcast shill, to be frank.
Sorry, sugar tits. I'd rather lick the boot I can vote for.

>>131458055
That hat isba shoop

>>131474525
>I'd rather lick the boot I can vote for
>he thinks democracy means he has choices
That's fucking adorable!!!

>>131474636
Is it as adorable as memeing with a flag from a hostile regime?

File: sweating.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>>131458055
>that pic

>>131474848
Nigger this is 4chinz. I also post with the faggot flag too.

>>131458055

Video is horribly biased and deceptive. Net neutrality is literally the idea that your ISP cannot rip you off by selling you a service and then not providing it unless someone else bribes them to, and then sometimes not even then because the thing you want is competing with some other product they sell.

Let's say you buy 100 mbit internet, you'd expect that you could download anything on a website of your choice at a speed of up to 100 mbit or whatever that website offered, whichever is higher. Currently, your ISP is throttling that website to a lower speed, not providing 100 mbit on your end, because they didn't get money from that website, or because that website is Netflix and they want you to buy overpriced On Demand video from your ISP rather than watching Netflix.

Killing Net Neutrality is bad, and it's going to bite Trump in the ass when he goes to get reelected if he doesn't back the fuck off. It's the fastest way to make the internet more expensive and kill off any and all free services that currently exist.

>>131475205
Nigger, your John Oliver tl;dr is beyond pathetic.

Go to Plebbit with that simple minded garbage.

>>131462563
>I'm a network engineer
no you are not.. or you are 12 yr old engineer. Net Neutrality is not that old. NOBODY on 4chan thought NN was a good idea when it was first proposed but all you newfags are all for it.

>>131475345

Nice rebuttal

>>131476051
It was the same quality as your shitty post, faggot.

>>131474373

You are making Foxnews arguments. Sadly.

Try to get over your paranoia. No one in government gives two shits what proles think. Its 100% about money. Comcast can make money by making the internet shit and then making people pay so that it isn't shit. Do you even know what throttling is?

>>131476182

LOL, LGBT Nazi calling me a faggot.

>>131465011
>I can't fucking believe /pol/ is anti NN. Holy fuck you're retards
NN is government control. Name one thing controlled by government that isn't fucked up or severely disabled.

>>131458055
>/pol?
GTFO summerfag

>>131465011
This guy is correct, if net neutrality goes you will regret it big time. You will be looking back on these days fondly and wishing it could be this good again

>>131476345

Net Neutrality is NOT government control of the customer, it's government saying that ISPs can't double dip by charging twice for the same service, and can't monopolize your connection such that you can't use services that compete with them.

How much did you guys get paid to come here and shill against Net Neutrality?

>>131467584
without NN, isps could charge netflix more money for the bandwidth they use.
In my remote area I already have slower internet at every evening because Netflix users are hogging the limited bandwidth available.

>>131476345

Better corporate overlords than any sort of government? But that just makes the corporations into the government. If you abandon regulation entirely, then your local ISP is the one making the rules, and they'll rape you for every penny they can and give shit service.

>>131476606
>How much did you guys get paid to come here and shill against Net Neutrality?

The worst thing is, I think these posters genuinely believe this stuff. The internet is screwed. Its only a matter of time even if net neutrality stays for now. There was no way the corporations would let it stay open, it was good while it lasted I guess

test

>>131476882

>My ISP sold me and the 300 other people on my street 50 mbit internet and only provided one 500 mbit pipe for the whole neighborhood, clearly this is someone else's fault...

You're literally fucking retarded, or a shill.

>>131468190
>This board was all for NN and freaked the fuck out about it like 1.5, 2 years ago
nobody was for it when first word of it came out. nobody as in users like us. Netflix and Google loved it.

>>131476263
>Its 100% about money
No. It's 100% about control because control is what makes money. Of course ISPs want money and so does the federal government. Your assertion that ISPs will throttle down internet speed so you have to pay more money to speed it up is the paranoia here. That is simply speculation at this point. But the federal government has a bona fide legitimate track record of clipping away our rights all under the guise of "national security." What makes you think they won't do that in his case if given full control through the FCC (which literally has the authority to control information communication)?

File: republican-cri.png (39KB, 540x252px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 540x252px

>>131476606

The sad thing is... is that the fuckers aren't paid. They are dumbass marks or paranoid "gubernment is evil" loons. It would be so much better if they were paid. That would at least mean they were capable of recognizing their own self interest.

>>131477008

It's too easy to track and show that your ISP is throttling site x and pushing site y, when you hate y and want x. There will be backlash, even if they win in the short run.

>>131477060
It was, pretty much all of 4chan was

>>131468944
>Your ISP wants to stop this because it intends to wring you for more money
ISP can charge us now. NN stops them from getting money directly from Netflix ect.
If Netflix is going to use 50% of the internet bandwidth they should help pay for it.

>>131477247
>There will be backlash,

Will there though? How much will normies care as long as facebook and google works?

>>131470346
NN has nothing to do with monopolies retard

>>131477252

They do pay, BUT ONLY FOR THEIR FUCKING END YOU GODDAMN RETARD.

NN is the idea that the ISP connects you to the internet, Netflix connects itself, and you meet in the middle after you pay Netflix a low rate. The people against NN want Netflix to have to pay to connect to the internet, you pay to connect, you pay netflix 3x what you currently do, and they pay 2/3 of that to your isp to be allowed to connect to you.

Because obviously your ISP only wants you paying them for video, and they want to charge you $200/month for it.

>>131470292
>The FCC is a safe and fair organization to entrust
Just like Obama's IRS was a safe and fair organization right?

>>131477623
It is going to turn the internet into what cable tv etc. is now basically.

>>131477051
Have you read his post? It's not about the available bandwidth, it's about the fact that different sites and entities are charged different rates for their bandwidth, which is something that is currently illegal.
Hell, even 4chan could be at risk without NN, especially considering the nature of most of his contents.

>>131477116
>Your assertion that ISPs will throttle down internet speed so you have to pay more money to speed it up is the paranoia here
It's something that now CAN'T happen. Without NN it may happen, and if it happens once 20 years from now it will take decades to revert (if it'll ever happen, since at that point the entire market will readjust to the new standards and new lobbyists will arise).
Basically your analysis is pure propaganda that ignores every sort of hint you could have taken from how the governments and monopolies actually work.

>>131477552
NN has to do with a market and service that is currently controlled by monopolies, therefore it has to do with monopolies.

>>131477552

That would be true if you could pick between every ISP in the nation regardless of where you live, but most people have a choice between big company A and Bigger company B, both of whom want to rape them for $200/month for internet and video instead of $50/month for internet.

>>131477116
>Your assertion that ISPs will throttle down internet speed so you have to pay more money to speed it up is the paranoia here

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

They don't need NN to chip away at freedom. They have already done that and will continue to do that with or without NN.

As if a bunch of republicans are trying to do away with NN to protect your freedom! What a laugh.

NN just keeps fuckers like Comcast from jacking up their rates. You have bought Republican Foxnews bullshit. You seem to have a critical reasoning capability, but being critical means being able to see the bullshit from the non-bullshit. You have bought some serious bullshit here.

>>131477910
>Hell, even 4chan could be at risk without NN
For sure, I don't get how people aren't seeing where this will lead

>>131458055

This guy's retarded. Prior to a few years ago cable companies weren't competing with online streaming services like Netflix and Hulu. Cable companies started lobbying to undermine FCC regulations and stop the traditional "unwritten rule" policy of net neutrality, and the Obama administration saw that so they had Net Neutrality codified to prevent losing it.

Cable companies want Net Neutrality gone specifically so they can throttle netflix and convince people to buy bigger cable channel packages again.

>>131477910

He's blaming people overusing the local loop on everyone except the one group responsible for the local loop, shill.

Your ISP sold you the local loop, and they oversold it, like a fucking airline selling 500 seats on a 100 seat plane and hoping most people don't show up.

>>131472700
>The FCC has no ability to censor a broadcast simply for point of view or politics.
how naive. you can't even broadcast unless they give you a license.

If Internet Service Providers weren't all monopolies, yeah I would be against NN. But I would rather have my 4chins uncensored.

>>131478091
>You have bought Republican Foxnews bullshit.
I don't watch Fox News and I am not a republican. I'm just not a fucking TV drone like you who thinks because some suit and tie and their favorite comedian talks about how great NN is it must be the bees fucking knees.

You are buying the paranoia wholesale, much worse than any Trump giddy faggot who thought he was the great white hope.

Your Democrat overlords who tell you how dangerous it is to live without NN are the same tribe of traitors that tell you we need beaners and Somalians to help our falling demographic base because something something Medicare and social security.

>>131474356
is that how the internet was before 2015?

File: 1417373459287.gif (212KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 501x585px

>>131458055
>why aren't you sucking corporate cock? It's going to affect the shit out of them.

>>131475205
did your internet work like that before 2015 or are you really that new to the internet?

File: 1385800422328.jpg (359KB, 1162x850px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1162x850px

>>131475205
This. These faggots have their head so far up the Jewish capitalists asses that they'll never understand this. Keep sucking that circumcised cock /pol/. Maybe you'll get a shekel.

>>131475953
>implies 4chan is the world
Get out more, faggot.

>>131476606
I was on the internet before Windows was released newfag. NN is total government control.
think if you can.
before 2015 no control, no NN
after 2015 NN, control
yet your claim NN is not control. YOU are the shill.

>>131458055
we already created it in a grass roots effort. it took forever to get it implemented. and then trump comes in with an executive order and shut it down. We JUST got it passed and this happens overnight. not much we can do about it.

File: tipping.gif (595KB, 460x600px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 460x600px

>>131478601

Hmmm... okay maybe your a troll.
If so, I tip my hat. You are doing a great impression of a mark/tin foil hat who believes this shit.

If not, you got some serious brain damage. 4chan was for NN before any of the left took up mantel as folks here have repeatedly emphasized. If you don't believe it, check the archives and see for yourself.

The freer the market, the freer the people. ISPs have rights too. Don't like it? Make your own ISP.

>>131478849

Netflix and similar products weren't raping ISPs as bad last election cycle. Follow the money.

>>131479452

Or if you don't like it, support NN.

I do that... its easier than making my own ISP and cheaper.

>>131468351

we've had net neutrality as an unwritten rule/policy since the internet was a thing. It was only CODIFIED as law in 2015 because Cable Companies were beginning to undermine it, attempting to throttle streaming services, and telecoms were trying to throttle VOIP programs like skype because it competed with their long distance calling packages.

Look if you get internet service providers that do NOTHING ELSE but provide broadband internet access.. then maybe you don't need regulations to prevent your ISP from fucking you over.

But because our ISP's are telecommunications providers that also provide phone services (so they hate VOIP), or cable companies that provide entertainment content (so they hate streaming entertainment providers).. the only way to prevent throttling those services is to make it illegal for them to do that.

Before you argue about how you can just switch ISPs realize that almost ALL ISP's are controlled by Telecom or Cable Television. If you're lucky enough to have google fiber you're the exception. Everyone else, is getting their internet through their phone provider (including Verizon FIOS), or Cable TV provider., and those telecom and cable providers have lobbied in regulations granting them regional monopolies.

Before you argue "well they should undo those regulations to get more competition..." That's NOT what this Net Neutrality repeal is about. They'll repeal the net neutrality regulations which will free up telecom and cable companies to throttle the shit out of their online competitors , while keeping their monopoly regulations intact. It's a win win for AT&T and Comcast and a loss for all their customers.

If you don't think ISPs won't throttle their competition because they didn't do it in the past when their competition was much smaller you're out of your mind.

>>131477910
>it's about the fact that different sites and entities are charged different rates for their bandwidth, which is something that is currently illegal.
why shouldn't Netflix pay more if they are using 50% of the bandwidth?

>>131479410
>4chan was for NN before any of the left took up mantel as folks here have repeatedly emphasized. If you don't believe it, check the archives and see for yourself.
Nigger I couldn't care less what "4chan was for." The retards here that were for it were wrong because they were reacting emotionally to it like a fucking woman and not thinking about anything logically and rationally.

And there were plenty of us here at the time opposed to it because we knew full well that if the federal government were given oversight to the only open means of communication we have at the moment they would censor it the first sign it was turning against them.

>>131479708
If you want the tree of liberty to be watered that much sooner, I suppose that is a strategy.

>>131458340
Damn pretty good photoshop on their roman salute though you have to admit

>>131479075
>Windows was released newfag. NN is total government control.
>think if you can.
>before 2015 no control, no NN
>after 2015 NN, control
>yet your claim NN is not control. YOU are the shill.

>All control is bad, I hate the city taking care of my sewage and trash, I hate nontoll roads, I hate not having lead in my food, I hate corporations not being allowed to rape me

Ok, buddy, shill harder, you've almost got me convinced.

File: Sharo_Menu.png (1MB, 1024x1387px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x1387px

>>131458055
Net neutrality = Jewgle and Faceberg don't have to pay $100s of million to "evil SIPs" = bake the cake or die, faggot

POTUS was right when he called it the new fairness doctrine.

>>131479452

>Lay 50,000 miles of cable and fiber in your city, pay to light it up and maintain and market it, and somehow magically get your local city/state to allow it.

Ok, buddy, I'll get on breaking up that monopoly singlehandedly.

>>131458055

Net neutrality is a meme being pushed by Netflix and other content services that are being economic niggers fucking your connection then blaming the backbone built by proud white ISP owners

If you don't understand this you're an idiot.

>>131478696

ISPs have a lot more reason to throttle now, and they have been fined for throttling VOIP and streaming services in the past few years.

>>131480027
Cry about it, Commie.

>>131478274
>He's blaming people overusing the local loop on everyone except the one group responsible for the local loop, shill.
>Your ISP sold you the local loop, and they oversold it, like a fucking airline selling 500 seats on a 100 seat plane and hoping most people don't show up.
maybe if Netflix would have to pay for the % of the loop bandwidth they use, the loop could be improved.

>>131479075
>no control before 2013
https://torrentfreak.com/comcast-throttles-bittorrent-traffic-seeding-impossible/
"Control" started in 2007 when Comcast started interfering with torrents. Are you going to slit your wrists live on television or are you just going to fuck your white ignorant ass off of /pol/ and never, ever come back?

>>131479730

They aren't dipshit, their customers are. Their customers PAID for that bandwidth already.

Anti NN is like the government paying for a highway with your tax money, and then giving it to someone else to charge tolls on it, and then announcing that they're going to raise your taxes so they can pay for the road you already paid twice for. You'd have to be fucking retarded or in on the scam to go for it.

>>131478585
>But I would rather have my 4chins uncensored.
this is how the Jew scares you into supporting NN. Do you always trust the (((Jew))) this much?

>>131480153
>Netflix would pay their share of the local loop
Why not shake down their ISP instead?
>Amazon

File: 1492279942075.jpg (145KB, 899x907px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 899x907px

>>131480217
>white

>>131479031
>Get out more, faggot.
I've lived in more states than you've visited.

File: waco.jpg (107KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1200x630px

>>131479822
On the other end... the ashes of dumbfucks provide great fertilizer for the tree of government.

>>131480027
I have a better idea. How about letting my city do that instead of making state laws to protect your precious little cartel, shill?

>>131479452
If companies like google get cockblocked every mile they want to lay then how are you supposed to create your own ISP?

>>131480300
Do you always shill for private corporations this much, faggot? If getting jewed is built into the cake, I'm going to opt for the jew that is required by law to consider my comments rather than the one that exists only to please Wall Street.

>>131480503
Doesn't count if you never leave the basement.

>>131480027

You don't have to. Dark fiber is everywhere in the US. All you have to do is light it up and everyone gets 1GPBS. Oh. Wait. It's under Title II, so you can't light it up. Oh hai, let's put ISPs under Title II also, in the name of Net Neutrality. Surely that will be a good idea.

>>131480592

I'd love breaking up the ISP monopolies you fucking idiot, that was obvious from my post.

>>131480664
Not my business, I have no interest in starting an ISP. You'll have to do the research and work yourself, sweetie.

>>131480113
>ISPs have a lot more reason to throttle now, and they have been fined for throttling VOIP and streaming services in the past few years.
YES I know. Do you know why? They have to take into consideration that most of their users COULD all stream vidya at the same time even when they actually are not. They have to maintain that bandwidth overhead just in case.
Two ways to increase that overhead. Make your and I pay for it, or make Netflix pay for it.
If Netflix doesn't you will always have slow internet. Enjoy.

>>131480892
But it's clear that free market doesn't create competition on ISP market when companies like Google can't fight monopolies.

>>131481027
Neither you, your father, or his father ever lived in a free market.

>>131480781

Almost none of that dark fiber is in neighborhoods, sadly. I don't want more top level backbones, I want fiber to the curb ISP options.

>>131480217
Comcast isn't government

File: 1494373107025.jpg (61KB, 634x716px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 634x716px

>>131480851
Sorry fahm I meant
>>131480592
for this dildo
>>131479452

>>131481215
>Comcast isn't government
And, because you're a complete nigger, that's okay?

>>131481226
I am not advocating the creation of any law, sweetie. What part of "free market" did you not understand?

>>131480989

Or not sell 50 mbit internet when they can only provide 10 mbit, you fucking mongoloid. I want to download delicious trillions and trillions of 1's and 0's without anyone caring who sent them to me. That's what I paid for, and that's what they aren't delivering.

>>131458055
Why would anyone want to bolster the profits of an oligopoly/monopoly?

>>131480286
want to use roads for the analogy, fine.

we pay for a highway to use. great.
its filled with wall to wall Netflix trucks who pay the same amount as you, who are now stuck in traffic.

File: 1497158589423.png (490KB, 389x559px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 389x559px

>>131481331
The part where the logical conclusions start to get absurd.

>>131481482
because they want to get a job there when they get out of school
in other words >>131481490

>>131481490
I know you're a Communist, but you're just pretending to be extra retarded, right?

>>131480710
>Do you always shill for private corporations this much, faggot?
really? I'm advocating for the corporations to foot the bill you dumbass.

>>131480989

Our internet is not currently slowed down by Netflix dumbass

They're just buttmad that fewer and fewer people are buying 500 channel deluxe cable packages for $150 a month so they can surf through 500 channels not finding shit that they want to watch and instead pay $6 to watch a movie on demand..

Instead those people are getting basic cable packages for $14.95 along with a $30-$50 internet package and then paying $10 a month for netflix

That's all it is, they just want to sell you huge cable packages.

and they convince you to support overthrowing the regulations preventing them from throttling their competition and selling you overpriced tv packages by saying "the evil gubmint regulayshuns" and you fall for it every time.

Only way you should support undoing net neutrality regulations is if cable and telecom monopoly regulations are simultaneously undone... but there's no push for that, because nobody rich enough is lobbying to convince you to call your congressmen to make them repeal THOSE

Telecom and Cable companies want Net Neutrality gone, and monopoly regulations intact. That's the fucking redpill.

>>131480781
>You don't have to. Dark fiber is everywhere in the US.
no it isn't. in fact I don't even have access to cable internet.

>>131481595
I know you're a cuckservative, but you're just pretending like your shitty little life gargling corporate cum all day means something, right?
>>131481702
In other words, you're arguing for a new property right that doesn't yet exist. Can you give me one good reason why ISP users shouldn't come to your house right now and make a viral video with your head on a stick?

>>131481878
I'm not even a conservative. It's clear you have nothing to offer in conversation so I will take my leave.

>>131481369
>That's what I paid for, and that's what they aren't delivering.
if Netlfix (as an example of a large bw hog) had to help pay for infrastructure improvements maybe they would be able to deliver what you've paid for.
tell me again how that is shilling for corps so I can laugh some more.

File: gets it.jpg (12KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x225px

>>131481735
testify

>>131481735
This.

Frankly, I find this site more entertaining than what any cable package could offer.

I'm going to be opting-out of cable TV when my contract is up. It'll shave a good $30 off my bill for loads of boring crap I don't watch anyway.

>>131481482

You're fucking retarded. The Netflix trucks are hired by the taxpayers who paid for the roads, and are doing work for them. They also had to pay tax to use the roads. Also, to extend the analogy, we bought the road to get Netflix or a similar product, and the toll company is limiting netflix to one lane to put their competing service on the other two lanes and trying to charge us 10x what netflix does for the traffic in those 2 lanes. And then telling us that letting netflix use all lanes would be just terrible for us, because then they couldn't put their overpriced crap in the other 2 lanes. That we already paid for. That they want us to pay for again. Because that's what charging netflix is, every fucking penny netflix pays for the lanes comes out of the pockets of the people they deliver to, who have ALREADY FUCKING PAID FOR THE ROAD. The toll company literally promised me thirty lanes and is delivering 1, because they want to put netflix out of business and have us buy from them again.

>>131482055
ISPs always promise more than they can deliver for everyone. They buy just enough bandwidth that they can deliver that, on average, most of the time. Remember when you said
>They have to take into consideration that most of their users COULD all stream vidya at the same time even when they actually are not. They have to maintain that bandwidth overhead just in case.
Why not just drop packets on a fair basis and let the poor netflix users enjoy the skipping and stuttering?
Don't promise service you can't deliver, niggers. It's that simple.

File: 1478228494810.jpg (27KB, 504x415px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 504x415px

>>131481735

>>131481787
>fiber is everywhere in the US.
>no it isn't. in fact I don't even have access to cable internet.

It's there, its just backbone instead of fiber to the curb, sadly.

>>131481878
your comprehension skills suck senpai

>>131482469
>>fiber is everywhere in the US.
>>no it isn't. in fact I don't even have access to cable internet.
>It's there, its just backbone instead of fiber to the curb, sadly.
I'll let you know when they install a curb. I had to pay $23k just to get power routed 1700ft to my house. Too bad that was government regulated and I didn't have consumer choice in power companies.

If you're against net neutrality, you're a cancerous newfag, and you need to go back to r/thedonald. Seriously, get the fuck off of 4chan and kill yourself.

>>131480217
Not to mention that you can't really get a symmetrical connection in the US anymore. They don't want you hosting services or seeding torrents to they limit your upload bandwidth. I miss geocities.

>>131458055

If John "le current year" Oliver is against it, I will be for it. FUck you, SJWs, you made your bed now lie in it.

>>131482773

Well, DESU, looking at China's cities, I wouldn't want to deregulate the power companies. I'd fucking blow up every power plant I could reach if my city was that shitty polluted by unregulated industry. Shit's horrifying. Good luck with your rural dream home, though. Suburbs suck.

>>131458055
>that dislike ratio
Good thing most people are seeing through this.

No matter how hard corporates and their conservative ideologues try to push any dick-sucking shit down our throats, people know when they're being fed horseshit. They know damn well that this shit means Comcast et.al. gets a blank check, and gets to charge extra for shit.

Seriously, you neocon dick suckers aren't as bad as postmodernist/SJWs, but you're pretty close. Not all regulation is bad. Border control is regulation. Fucking hell, the police are there to enforce regulations.

The free market doesn't fix anything unless it's applied wisely. What we have now is just exchanging one tyranny for another.

>>131482336
The dude you're talking to is clearly a shill. Or just incredibly retarded. Probably both.

File: 1478851372478.jpg (16KB, 292x270px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 292x270px

>>131482870
It's like they expect you to know your place as a consumer, and shut up and don't dare try to produce anything. A net-neutrality policy would go some way to alleviating that, but some people ITT must be directly threatened by it and shitposting their pants in fear.

>>131482969
>i'll hold my breath until i turn blue
>brilliant logic of a four-year-old
<-

>>131481702
Sometimes, for the better of society as a whole, some people have to be made to sacrifice via regulation. Natural monopolies (which are still incredibly profitable) are a natural place to apply this logic.

The truth of the matter is that one group just doesn't get to control the concourse of our civilization. That's what the internet is. It's how all learning, information exchange, everything that can be converted to binary and sent over a wire, is going to happen in the future.

You wouldn't let McDonald's buy up all the universities, would you? (well, if you're a neocon you probably would) Normal people, who aren't ideologically possessed, and have appreciation for things in life beyond ideological purity and/or acquisition of money, hate this shit. Ask anyone who's seen what's happened to radio since the late 90s.

>>131458832
>>131471872
>if we retaliated against it we would have the military to deal with
Why is this how you retards think?
Is it the only way you can justify allowing private entities to control the internet over a system that you have power in?

>>131477623
>they do pay, but only for their fucking end you goddamn retard

If Netflix started charging 3x more than they currently do, they would see a huge loss in sales. Your ISP won't charge you more if they can get it from a big company like Google or Netflix. You wanna know why? They won't lose customers as long as they keep prices the same. Without NN, internet providers can actually compete.

Have you seen what the "free" internet has become under the basics of NN? 66% of Americans have no choice in ISP, and that's with regulations.

Netflix has an incentive for paying more for faster streaming service. They will get more customers than services that don't pay. Therefore, they will get more money. Right now, it costs Netflix the same amount to send their data through the tubes as it costs every independent website host. However, think about the millions of people who don't use Netflix. Netflix constitutes over 30% of all internet bandwidth, and non-users have to pay the same as people who use it. Rather than make people pay more for Netflix access (remember, ISPs don't want to lose customers/money), they will charge Netflix, who will comply because they don't want to lose customers to slower speeds.

It also opens up competition. Say another streaming service like Netflix wants to compete. Right now, they stand no chance. Netflix has more infrastructure and pays the same as any startup to send their information at high speeds. It has a huge customer base. Without NN, another company can come in and stream to fewer users under faster speeds, paying more as it develops its user base instead of paying the same as Netflix with fewer users.

>>131483710
The truth is, you can't be totally alone in the world. You can't isolate yourself, you can't keep all the profits that pass through your hands. There are always palms to grease, there's always inefficiency in any system. If it's not society as a whole who gets the kickback, it's some rando corporate power broker.

While I know you want to look at these Gordon Gekkos as an example you could follow, some proof that you can get away with not paying back what you take out of the world (and this applies just as much to the guy who buys 30 acres and expects to be "left alone" as the one who runs a corp), every action returns a reaction. You are not separate form the world, you are a part of it. Existence itself has unavoidable attendant costs. It's the same on nearly every level of analysis. If you don't pay for your own existence, you're forcing someone else to.

Power is what dictates who pays, and power accrues. The chances of *you* being the one who makes all the rules when the monopoly game winds down are so low as to be totally unthinkable. If society isn't wisely making sure that power accrues to itself, it goes into the hands of corporate power brokers. People who are obsessed with externalizing ALL costs. These people will destroy everything.

They, along with the pomos, are at the root of all of our society's worst problems. It's them who are letting the pomos have unlimited immigration, because it means new accounts with no existing debts they can give loans to. It's them who sell our cultural heritage because they can't figure out how to market it, it's them who convince the youth to amortize their future for cheap thrills because they're enthralled by ads and it's easy to manipulate their insecurities.

You are devils.

>>131477910
>>131477910
>4chan could be at risk without NN
4chan is currently at risk WITH NN. Your ISP can currently block access to this site if it starts posting illegal content, and they can send police to your home if you are caught posting illegal content (just like Piratebay, Silkroad, etc).

But no, you want the government to be in control of ISPs. Genius.

>>131485618
>Your ISP can currently block access to this site if it starts posting illegal content, and they can send police to your home if you are caught posting illegal content (just like Piratebay, Silkroad, etc).
4 is an imageboard of peace.

>>131473906
>slippery slope is a fallacy
It absolutely fucking isn't.

When a group wants to do something batshit crazy that society wouldn't support, they do it incrementally so that by the time society reaches the batshit crazy outcome they don't even realise it.

Slippery slope is not a fallacy, it's a successful strategy

>>131477910
Let me put it this way. Under NN laws, the government gets to decide ISP service rates (monetary charges, not internet speeds). What if someday the feds decide that companies that provide service to sites like 4chan have to charge more? Giving them control of the pricing system is like giving the Post Office control of UPS's shipping prices.

>>131480710
>do you always shill for private corporations over the federal government? How dare you anon, such treason! Government regulation and control should always come before the interests of businesses.

>dude what if we gave even more power to isp cartel.

enjoy paying special packs to watch YT without lag etc.

>>131485904
Exactly, you fucking CTIA cuck. I want to host my email and web presence at home, not pay twice for some fucking """"""service"""""" to do it for me. If killing the national ISPs means government control and regulation, I'm all for it. Anything to kill them.

>>131458055
Because unfortunately /pol/ has no other options.
Net Neutrality is awful, but Clinton would have done the same.

No one is fighting for the internet besides the IFF. Remember when all the politicians wanted to hand absolute power over the internet to the MPAA? Dems and Repubs both agreed on it.

>>131473719
>I'd rather bank on the guys that gave us USPS, public schools, and the TSA to govern the largest industry in the world.

Did the nice folks on TV and Jewtube tell you NN was good?

>>131486066
You're literally okay with a single entity that has already had problems with spying on your data now having complete control over not only your data but also the price you pay?

>>131485342
>66% of Americans have no choice in ISP, and that's with regulations.
This WILL NOT improve with the repeal of NN. Running network lines has so much overhead that any competition at all will make the business model completely unworkable for most of flyover country. Take off your ideological blinkers.

> Netflix has an incentive for paying more for faster streaming service.
This is a horrible plan. It will just lead to more comcast niggerishness. More markets that are completely uncrackable. Zero innovation.

>they will charge Netflix, who will comply because they don't want to lose customers to slower speeds.
No. No they won't. Let me tell you what will happen instead.

Comcast will come out with its own video streaming service. Probably with some obnoxious name like Xfinity. They will charge Netflix more than double what they pay for bandwidth, and drive them out of the market.

Once Netflix goes under, streaming services will be geographically locked. Torrents aren't an option because all the ports are blocked. Want to see the great new crime drama or animated kid's movie (you know you're fucking watching it yourself you weeb) that ATT U-Verse released? Well too bad, you're in a Comcast town! Maybe you'll get it a year later after the content exchange agreements are worked out, at the full price you would have paid on release day. Or maybe a friend will mail you a burned DVD they taped from the TV with a handycam.

Are your tastes more eclectic? Do you like to watch brazilian telenovelas, or african Alien vs Predator ripoffs? Too bad. There's just not enough demand to make that content available in your area.

Despite all our wonderful technology, we aren't any better off than we were in the 80s.

Great job. You broke it.

>>131486337
>No. No they won't. Let me tell you what will happen instead.

Hmmm, in the 30+ years without NN, none of the bullshit you said happened. Go Jew for big government somewhere else.

>>131485750
>>131473906
The formal "fallacy" isn't just an excuse to say that being afraid of setting bad precedents is unfounded. It's only a fallacy when it's your only evidence in support of a proposed outcome.

We have historical precedent. We have common fucking sense.

>>131486337
Also, Comcast already tried charging Netflix for faster streaming speeds. And Netflix payed without a consumer price increase. Funny how history says you're wrong.

>>131486486
Because it wasn't as large as it is now. Change.

Why do you think something like freedom of speech can be upheld by private corporations? I trust in this way more a government tied to a constitution than ISP tied to capitalism.

>>131485970
Google actually has servers colocated at many ISPs so they would probably be on the basic tier.

>>131486315
You must have missed that recent rulemaking that allows ISPs to sell my browsing data to marketers.
>muh control over the price you pay
Better than some corporate fucknut making up a deceptive (((introductory))) pricing game like they do now. At least I'll be getting something for my money other than a sense of self-righteousness.
You're 200% dispensable and your mother hates you. Get over it and get the fuck dead already.

>>131486486
The thing is, we've HAD NN this whole time. It was a power that the FCC had, but they never enforced it, because they never had to. The corps didn't want to force their hand and set a precedent until they were damn good and sure they could win if it were challenged in court.

>>131486615
You mean the recent rulemaking by....the federal government? Is there no end to you depravity?
>Muh I'd rather pay for the government to do their usual bang-up job

>>131486587
You can't honestly believe that's a sustainable situation, can you? Comcast has the last mile of wires going to customers' houses. They hold all the cards. If that shit were allowed to stand, they would slowly eat Netflix from the inside out.

File: 6af.png (92KB, 795x681px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 795x681px

>>131458832

>>131486624
>because they never had to
But there have been price increases on specific companies in the past, it's literally their entire business model. You're arguing the wrong side of NN. It's not about making consumers pay more for services, it's about making services pay more for consumers.

>>131486624
We had NN as an informal policy, never as a written policy until Wheeler's FCC. There was literally no reason to deviate from fair and equal treatment of all traffic, until Comcast began deviating from it at scale in 2007.

>>131458055
>>131477649

GET IN HERE

Fuck this slide thread

sage

File: 1482859970612.jpg (94KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x800px

>>131486743
>You mean the recent rulemaking by....the federal government? Is there no end to you depravity?
You lobbied for it, you little bitch, just like you're lobbying for this. When is your fucking shift over, shill?

>>131486794
>Comcast is the only ISP so they hold all the cards

If Comcast kept charging Netflix, eventually Netflix might have to drop Comcast. Most Americans have no choice in provider. You're telling me that won't create ANY incentive for another provider to build infrastructure? People want their Netflix, and they will be willing to pay more to get it, and Comcast knows that. This is called the free market, ever heard of it?

>>131486880
>supporting a growing federal government while calling others a shill
>"you" lobbied for more government JUST LIKE "you" are now lobbying for less government

Hey, you missed that part in elementary school where they teach basic logic. Where you by chance educated in the public school system?

>>131487016
>muh choice in provider
I want municipal ISPs so that I can go right down to city hall and give that son of a bitch a piece of my mind when they fuck up.
With the Post Office doing backhaul and obsoleting your shitty asses.
Private ISPs do nothing but subtract value for the average customer. Take your first-year econ and shove it up your ass sideways, because that's the only place it actually works.

>>131486624
>their usual bang-up job
Hey, dude, our system WORKS. Most people don't die of influenza or mosquito-borne parasites. The roads are smooth, with clear easily-to-read signage. Building codes mean that our houses won't collapse on our heads unlike in china.

This shit is fucking COMPLICATED. Do you have ANY IDEAD? And we still do OK despite assholes like you on both the left and right who want to destroy the whole thing. Show some god damned gratitude!

Your anarcho-capitalist utopia is unobtainable. If you and your ilk were put in charge it would be an unmitigated disaster.

>>131487154
>supporting a more powerful corporate system while pretending to be shocked at being called a shill
>"you" lobbied for more government JUST LIKE "you" are now lobbying for less government
You lobby for whatever government the telecom companies want.
Are you a stupid fucking nigger who just passed econ 101 and thinks it defines the whole world, or just larping as one?
Tell me why corporate shills and larpers shouldn't be shot on sight. One reason is enough.

shit,
>>131487340
was meant to respond to
>>131486743

File: LiveLeak-dot-com-b10_1489014005-excellent_1489014010.jpg.resized.jpg (10KB, 236x163px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 236x163px

We've had net neutrality so far!
So everything the internet has become so far is under the "yoke" of net neutrality.

What is it you hope will change to the better if ISP's gain total control of the data transmitted through their wires?

>>131476929
The corporations dont have a military they can use to force you at gunpoint to buy their product and/or give in to whatever demands they may have. If people stand up and say/do something to stand up to the corporations, the corporations dont have swat teams they can send after you.

>>131486486

30 years ago netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Skype, Discord, and mumble didn't exist.

If you wanted to call your relative in Australia you made an international call and it was like $100 for an hour conversation.

Now you can do it for free over Skype.

Do you not see how AT&T now has an interest in throttling internet speeds for certain content?

If you want to watch TV shows or movies, you ordered the big cable package in the 80's, because there was only one source of cable television in your city. You had to buy whatever packages your cable company offered, no competition except satellite which a rainy day could fuck up.

Now you can get a cheap as fuck Netflix or Hulu plus or amazon prime subscription and watch a shitload of syndicated TV shows and movies, some of them current/new releases, all on demand.

Suddenly Comcast and Time Warner are lobbying to end net neutrality.. I wonder why!

>>131487184
>I want municipal ISPs so my town can pick on me personally

>>131487242
>roads are smooth and building codes exist, so let's just forget about how shitty the post office was before FedEx and how terrible things like the TSA and public schools still are

>>131487340
>Are you a stupid fucking nigger who just passed econ 101

It's nice to see the summerfags back at it again.
>inb4 "I've been on /pol/ since 1978!"

>>131476606
Government control of literally ANYTHING is bad. Government, by its very nature, is bad.

>>131477219
You mean YOUR self interest, which I couldnt give a half a fuck about

>>131487620
Probably because they own the fucking wires and companies like Netflix and Hulu get to use them for the same price as you're uncle harry's child porn blog.

>>131487668
>The corporations dont have a military they can use to force you at gunpoint to buy their product and/or give in to whatever demands they may have. If people stand up and say/do something to stand up to the corporations, the corporations dont have swat teams they can send after you.
Tell Kim Dotcom that, nigger.

I don't think I got an answer: why does nu-pol think private company out for profit will uphold the freedom of speech in the internet better than government tied to constitution

>>131478091
If comcast wants to raise their rates, that is their prerogative. Competition will take their business. Done.

>>131487620
Also, if you haven't noticed, it still costs shit tons of money to call anyone in another country. That's because the phone companies are listed under the Telecommunications Act. Internet is not, but NN wants it to be. Can't wait for my cable TV to buffer when I want to watch HBO while I download music illegally.

>>131487839
>why does Malta think private industry will be less transparent than the government who gave us smash hits like Prism and the NSA?

>>131487840
>Competition will take their business.
There is no competition in a cartel lol

>>131479722
It would make more sense to write the law so that companies that provide phone service/television service are not allowed to provide internet service. Keep the industries separate. I am pretty sure there would already be something in currently existing antitrust/monopoly laws they can use for this purpose.

>>131488057
A cartel happens when someone owns the service and the means of providing it. That's not what we're talking about here.

>>131487979

Yeah, it does cost shit tns of money to call someone in another country, that's why I'm fucking glad I can skype them for free (outside of my normal internet bill), Oh and guess what service most cable companies offer these days... land line cable telephones.. so after Net Neutrality is gone and they throttle skype.. they'll push their cable lane line phone packages and international calling "deals" on me! I can't wait!

File: 1493247402572.jpg (9KB, 479x476px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 479x476px

>>131488054
Whataboutism isn't an actual defense nor an argument.

>>131488057
For instance, Google has a fucking cartel making me train their image AI for them doing all these fucking reCAPTCHAs because they charge me my internet privacy to pay for a service I use to give away my internet privacy. Seriously fuck this "find the car", "find the street signs" bullshit.

>>131488109

Good luck with that one.. ever since the internet's inception and spread it's been brought to your homes by cable or your phone line.

If you pass legislation like that the US suddenly won't have internet for 95% of the country except those lucky enough to have google fiber.

>>131487840
>Competition will take their business. Done.
>muh tooth fairy
Just shut the fuck up you fantasist.

>>131487979
>it still costs shit tons of money to call anyone in another country. That's because the phone companies are listed under the Telecommunications Act.
How much are they paying you to lie? Data is data. Data from overseas is still data and there is no fucking reason to tax it at the border. In fact, corporations will be pissed af if anyone even tried.
All you lolbert larpers need to immolate yourselves and put yourselves out of our misery.

>>131479722
>>131488109
Telecoms and cablecoms already had the physical plant and rights-of-way, if not the actual cables, so they had the ability to provide the service most readily. We can blame the Clinton administration for that decision.
It would make more sense to write the laws such that municipalities run the last mile for themselves and no slut lobbyist can tell them otherwise. It's fiber, the capacity should be comparatively infinite.

>>131487016
>Netflix might have to drop Comcast
That would never happen. Comcast isn't stupid. People don't behave according to predictable rules, they aren't automatons. They want to get an advantage. These aren't ideologically minded people like you... These aren't the good sportsmen that the industrial revolution era gentlemen capitalists were. They are people who want to crush their competitors. They are addicted to dopamine, probably addicted to cocaine, whose only motivation is to gain. Money no longer even has value to these people, it's just a competition. They are completely possessed.

And if you think "free market competition" will fix this, you're deluded. The system is only self-balancing to an extent... It's actually darwinian. People will keep trying different exploitation strategies until they find a way to get into a monopoly position.

All systems tend toward equilibrium, this is true, but there's no guarantee this state is going to be something desirable or good. There's no guarantee that after things settle, you haven't fucked our civilization so badly we're processing orphans into gasoline and filling the ocean with concrete to build apartment complexes.

You're placing your fate in the hands of forces you don't understand, and you have no intention of taking responsibility for the outcome.

You aren't as bad as marxists, because you at least believe in individual rights. But the kind of power you're cultivating, the kind of people you're cultivating, will make individual rights all but irrelevant.

>>131488175
Telling people they don't have an argument isn't an argument.

>ITT idiots and good goys
Net Neutrality is already in place, and some outside forces are trying to get you to rally against it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j668eaTvCrE&t=6s

>>131487636
The public schools are probably better run than comcast. And hey, about half of niggers can READ can't they?

You're making unfair comparisons. You're comparing public schools to a private education. Tap water to evian. Yes, evian is better, but EVERYONE has tap water. And it's fucking healthy. And except in the most corrupt hellhole cities, it isn't infested with parasites. I think that's pretty damned good!

The end result of your ideology has you living either in a mud hut starving to death or a wal-mart storage locker waiting until it's time for your shift to start.

>>131488389
But it shows their empty post for what it is. You couldn't answer it.
>>131488129
but it is.

>>131478601
>You are buying the paranoia wholesale
Comcast has already done enough to make me paranoid forever.

Op's video makes me cringe, any better descriptions of net neutrality and why it's a bad thing?

>>131487808
And if he tried doing something in America, what would happen? As he is not American, it would be treated as an invasion/act of war, which means he would be met with the full might and power of the US military. You seem to forget, we dont have a communist shitskin running the country anymore.

>>131478601
>Your Democrat overlords who tell you how dangerous it is to live without NN are the same tribe of traitors that tell you we need beaners and Somalians to help our falling demographic base because something something Medicare and social security.
And this is why they'll always get exactly what they want. Whenever the powers that be want more immigrants, they say it's all the democrats' fault. Whenever the powers that be want to assram you with corporate finacial sectory bullshit, they blame the republicans.

And both sides accept it all happily, as long as their ideological opponents are more angry about it than they are.

They have us all possessed by different demons. We are being consumed.

File: 1415648922155.jpg (108KB, 960x688px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 960x688px

>redd-, /pol/!
>muh net neutrality!
>obama loved us for helping to get this passed, remember?!

>>131481735
Preach it.

>>131487840

Except there are regulations in place that are NOT EVEN BEING DEBATED because the telecoms and cable companies are lobbying Republicans and Fox news to convince you about how bad they are.

These regulations limit competition over telephone line and cable line services. In most cities you will have 1 cable provider, and 1 telecom provider. Cellphones have partly blown up because there IS no regulations in place on their infrastructure, You can have Verizon, Tmobile, AT&T, Sprint, and some smaller companies all in the same town, and they actively compete with each other and the result is the packages got more and more generous until they're way better than landline calling plans and a lot of people don't even have landline anymore. In fact cellphones and their plans that don't factor in long distance for pricing have forced landline telecom companies to change their business model to stop charging extra for long distance too (though international is still ridiculously expensive)

>>131488770
No because it isn't.
>>131488532

>>131488328
You're telling me it doesn't cost more to make a call outside of the US into the US? Go to any phone store and ask them where you can get your free international SIM card.

I do agree, municipalities should be able to develop the infrastructure themselves. Until recently, my town had a deal with Charter (or Spectrum or whatever the fuck they call themselves now) that made them the sole internet provider. When that deal ended, ATT-UVerse came in and actually made them price their service competitively.

>>131488338
You're right, that would never happen. But I'd rather place my fate in the hands of forces I don't understand than place it in the hands of a government with a bad track record of industry regulation. If anything, I'd be more okay with this being a statewide issue, since it would allow individuals to actually have a voice in the decisions instead of having to wait 4 years to re-elect based on the color their state has been for the past 15 years.

>>131488598
>EVERYONE has tap water
Try telling that to Flint, Michigan.

>>131488819
>muh GOP
Can you give me a good reason that partisan shills of any stripe shouldn't experience the day of the rope in glorious 3DPD?

>>131488610
>it shows their empty post for what it is.
This thread is way to meta for you.

>but it is.
The cable companies own Netflix? Incredible! Never mind, I was wrong!

File: a5b3767452c3453ee092deafdcd315e6c817e508e754feb433bcfe278eb1eb46.jpg (34KB, 388x443px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 388x443px

>>131489000
>I DONT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT
Having a government is a sign that humanity is growing and expanding it's power. Our human organism is set to conquer the globe and then set out into the stars buckle up or get the fuck out of the way.

We weren't meant to homestead for all eternity.

>>131488057
If the cartel weren't constantly propped up by the government due to codependency issues, the cartel would crumble. Create competition that does not commit the offending actions, and they will take Google's business. It doesn't get any simpler than that.


And before you go on your "oh but it is hard to start your own business waaah waah" crying tangent, stop and think about it. Ask yourself: Why is it so much more difficult than it should be to start a business?

The answer: Government regulations.

>>131489115
Cable companies have a cartel. You don't have competition in a cartel. They all hike streaming service prices because they definitely won't build new infra.

>>131489000
>I rather not trust the body tied to constitution wrt freedom of speech to govern Internet but the crony capitalists fishing for buck.

that's funny coming from US'n person.

>>131489000
>with a bad track record of industry regulation
Bad for whom?

>I'd rather place my fate in the hands of forces I don't understand than place it in the hands of a government
Hahahahahahah! Kid, do you have ANY FUCKING IDEA how bad things can really get? You've always been safe, you've always had a roof over your head. You've never been homeless. You've probably never even been in a sketchy situation that had any possibility of going remotely bad. Like somebody dead bad. The worst thing that ever happened to you is you got your XBox taken away for getting a C on your report card.

And now you think you're the arbiter of human destiny. I applaud you! The psychological complex that could generate such arrogance is a complete work of art!

>>131488610
Also, if you want an actual answer to your "argument", why does leddit think the government will hold up individual rights better than private companies just because it's tied to the constitution? The NSA, very recently, was caught red-handed not telling companies about multiple hacking exploits so that it could utilize them. PRISM took data from the American public and stored it in government databases, but that's okay as long as we aren't spying on anyone in particular, right guys?

>>131489009
>>131489009
Oh, i believe all partisan shills should hang, including Hillary shills like yourself. But I am not a partisan shill. I prefer Republicans over Democrats, sure, but I am neither. And neither is our President. He ran as a Republican so he could win. Even the shills in the GOP hate him. So go back to your fucking kindergarten classroom you pedo kike shill.

>>131489372
Because they can still be held responsible for it because they answer to the constitution.

>>131463038
>Canada has "pronoun laws" which can lead to police intervention. etc.

This is not actually a thing here, and C-16 was blown out of proportion by right-wing media whose job is to profit off of your outrage at nothing.

Please don't speak for my country again you dumb American, thanks

>>131489461
>hillary shills
Bernie-or-Buster, thanks. Would you like to try again after wiping the drool off your mouth?

>>131489320
>that's funny coming from US'n person.
I can explain this. Basically our government is eating itself at the moment and so anything under it's control can suddenly change far right or far left the shittier things get. So the basic idea is that the less things that are directly in the government's control, the less things will be directly used against us a weapons.

Unfortunatly all this will do is cause a NuFeudalism where we all get to choose which corporation we are serfs to.

Boy I cant wait to go to war for Comcast against the burger king empire.

People don't understand power structures.

>>131489000
>Flint, Michigan
Ow, you sure got me there bud! I feel so stupid, maybe I should run away from this argument with my tail between my legs!

That you make this move shows what kind of a person you are. You are only interested in scoring points for your side. In your mind, there is nothing but the ideology, and you will sacrifice everything for it.

I specifically qualified that the statement only applied to places that weren't "the worst of hellhole cities." What's going on in Flint is an aberration. That it's all over the news, that it's something that has people outraged should tell you something.

In Mexico, the water has ameboid parasites in it, no exception. Don't drink the water while you're there. This is ROUTINE. And Mexico isn't even that bad! Look at fucking africa. Look at the old west for crying out loud. Even the romans with their aqueducts didn't have it anywhere near this good!

You have no historical perspective, yet you're trying to dictate how the world should operate. You know what I think, my dude? You need to sort yourself out.

>And now you think you're the arbiter of human destiny. I applaud you! The psychological complex that could generate such arrogance is a complete work of art!


Typical liberal tactic. Sounds to me like YOU think you are the arbiter of human destiny, what with your "government must control all" attitude. Not to mention all the assumptions you are making about somebody you have NEVER EVEN MET. You are trying to paint him as one way from things he never said in order to turn people against him. Classic shariablue tactic there.

>>131489372
Ok so let's just drop any pretense of accountability and just let those in power do whatever they want. Let's just irrevocably hand control of our civilization over to a party that doesn't give a shit about anything but marshaling their power. That can't possibly go wrong!

>>131489467
>because they answer to the constitution.
They don't though, that's the thing. The constitution is not a man. The constitution will not take up arms against the NSA.

Only men can do that. And men will not do that at the moment because we still have jobs and food. I just hope when shit finally hits the fan the people left will be intelligent enough to know the right direction to fire the bullets.

You live in a nice country so you might not get how fucked things are here at the moment.

>>131489951
For starters, if there's ever a shift in power the constitution allows them to be held responsible, unlike that of private company in this matter of free speech governing in the Internet. It's a better possibility than no possibility.

>>131490174
Well this whole argument is stupid in the first place because none of what these people are trying to convince you of is true in the first place.

See
>>131488532

File: never-argue-with-stupid-people-mark-twain.jpg (24KB, 605x372px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 605x372px

>>131489707
You can't win versus these republican marks. Foxnews has rotted their brain.

>shills start fighting against Net Neutrality
>retard Americans believe them because "muh fear of government" and "trigger John Oliver"
>end NN
>suddenly America's connection to 4chan is throttled because it's not a kosher site
>no more Americans spewing their shit and uneducated opinions everywhere

There is literally nothing wrong with ending Net Neutrality.

>>131476538
I can always get the pitchforks and storm the jewcast building

>>131490763
It's one way to rangeban burgerfats, I'll grant that.

>>131489775
I'm not a liberal. I'm a borders-language-culture conservative.

>control all
You're hallucinating.

My assumptions are borne of experience with people. People who are this desperate to defend an ideology generally only fit into one or two categories, unless they're some untrammeled genius who just enjoys fucking with people, and I have met a few people like that. They know they're full of shit and they're just playing devil's advocate for the fun of it.

I will say this though--you guys' arguments are generally internally consistent, and you don't really contradict yourself unlike radical SJW types. I enjoy dealing with you people much more. I at least have an idea of what you want.

But you really need to think your scenarios further through if you want to make a convincing argument. You need to really hash it out... Play it out in your head like Sun Tsu.

Netflix and Comcast have opposing interests, and asymmetrical competencies and abilities. Avoiding conflict is desirable. So maybe Netflix would make a deal with Cable companies, and become their "official" branded provider on their set top boxes. Maybe Netflix could become another optional content provider, like HBO or Showtime. Comcast might agree to this just to stave off the spectre of competition, or even government intervention*. Netflix agrees to continue existing in Comcast markets. That way, everybody wins.

That's a convincing scenario that isn't fucking horrible. I'm sure, if you really tried you could think of others.

*I'm sorry but you REALLY can't make the argument that it's at all practical for flyover country to support not just one but TWO cable providers, each with their own hardware, infrastructure etc... They have to pay for the infrastructure regardless of whether there's a customer on the other end of the wire. Some markets just can't support two service providers. Some can't support one.

>>131490420
I'm not trying to "win," really. I'm trying to maybe, hopefully, get the ideologues thinking. (Also to make my point to neutral third parties.)

I don't want to make them any less far-right, necessarily. I want to make them less retarded. So that if they do get political power someday, they've had someone in their past to temper them, make them realize that their ideology really can't solve absolutely everything. To make them less reckless.

I don't think I'm making that much difference, but hey, if a couple of other people think the same thing, maybe in aggregate things will be less shitty in the future.

One thing I really should have mentioned is that Net Neutrality basically turns the internet from a peer-to-peer system (both technically and in terms of creativity) to a producer-consumer system.

They want to run not only the interchange systems, but what kind of activities you take part in online. If it's some app or service they haven't thought of, they will do like Facebook is doing to Snapchat-- copy it and shut the original innovator down. Or just shut them down because they're too big to worry about small one-off niche products like that but they still don't want those things out there since they're a threat.

>>131492664
Also I'm american.

Thread's over, everyone's gone, nobody will ever read any of this anyway.

>>131492664
Stop projecting, burger.
NN does not create producer and consumer tiers. If anything, net non-neutrality does that.
You need to kill yourself.

>>131492791
Sorry, I meant repealing net neutrality does that.

>>131492791
Much better. Don't kill yourself yet.

>>131490866
You'll do no such thing. You'll cry about the god ol days and pay your bill a week late like you always do.