Net Neutrality

>>133401779
Honestly?
Net Neutrality = more government control

The first few shillings weren't going successfully, so this year they really amped it up.

A little backstory:
Netflix, which streams a fuckton of data, was overloading internet services, and drowning out regular traffic.
Their provider said "fuck that", and throttled them.
Commie shills are angry that they can't get their superfast internet & movies at the same time.
Net Neutrality will use the government to force all providers to provide the exact same internet service to everyone, regardless of content or context. Internet Communism, really.

>>133401779
Your internet is going to be Molyneuxed and INDIVIDUAL because everyone knows that FREEDOM means you have to pay for shit that once was free.

You came here asking why you should be against it? Well. Net Neutrality is a socialist collectivist (and some how liberal in an extreme sense) thing. Because it basically means that people everywhere have acess to everything. Buuut.. what if.. we could like TAX them... ehm.. I mean make them Voluntairly Pay to visit oh.. say an Indo-Peruvian Carpet Tailoring-trade-for Anime Board online?

Net Neutrality = Gubment control.
No Net Neutrality = Gubment control but now you pay for it lols.

Pay to win fgts.

File: m.jpg (269KB, 1113x688px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 1113x688px

>>133402598
Would I have to pay money for the same things that I have now? i saw pic related and got really worried.

>>133403248
No.
Anyone with a little technical background knows this is false.

Right now, you can make an account with AWS and not only pay almost nothing, but you'll have full access to the entire internet backbone and their load-balancing services.

If you want to set up your little webserver in your closet, it obviously won't be that fast.

>>133403248
Companies want the most money possible, doing that would give them more money and the only thing that stops them from doing it is net neutrality.

Basic human decency would stop you from doing it but i doubt any big companies have any left seeing how they started doing exactly the same thing with video games a few years ago.

>>133403248
The answer might be no if the more than half of the U.S. population had access to more than one internet provider. As it stands however, there is no competition whatsoever due to backdoor dealings, so companies will raise their prices, charge for specific sites, outright ban every politically dissenting site they can to virtue signal, etc.

I really do not understand why people are in favor of handing the internet over to a cabal of jews that don't even want to hold the pretense that they aren't fucking you over.

>>133403551
How slow or what speed we talking about? And what is AWS I'm not tech savvy aside from some basic networking classes but things like setting up servers confuses me.

>>133403551
its entirely possible

no matter how you cut it or what trick you propose, bottom line is that your data is going through their servers, and 99% of people who use the internet do not have the ability to circumvent it.

>>133403248
do you honestly think your pic is gouing to be a reality?
the only way I can see this happening is if the govt imposes some overarching monopolistic law that had good intentions but too many uniintended consequences
like net neutrality (((regulation)))

File: 1494944875754.png (213KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 500x400px

>>133402598
Literally none of this is true. Stop sucking jew cock and kys, globalist shill

>>133403662
>the only thing that stops them from doing it is net neutrality.
source?

>>133403744
>I really do not understand why people are in favor of handing the internet over to a cabal of jews that don't even want to hold the pretense that they aren't fucking you over.
I too am against the state adding more red tape.

>>133404181
Source: common fucking sense and basic critical thinking.

>>133404145
>globalist
the entity you are attempting to have do something for you, has enabled globalism on a scale never thought possible

File: thx.jpg (73KB, 670x224px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 670x224px

>>133402598
>>133403169
>>133403551
>>133403662
>>133403744
>>133404096

>>133404431
ok reddit. your doomsday scenario is not going to happen, unless you are naive enough to let the government spray more "good intentions" on your face

>>133403822
There's a lot of pricing, but here's a full rundown:
https://aws.amazon.com/pricing/
For example, from what I can see, you can pay $0.09 per gigabyte, for up to 10 Terabytes per month.
That's really fucking cheap.

>>133403866
You forget a fundamental thing about the internet.
It's getting fucking optimized every day.
Pro Net-Neutrality advocates will never be explicit about one thing: what's being throttled.

As a "consumer", your download speed will stay fast and get faster.
"Producers", or what the infographic >>133403248 slyly avoids mentioning, will keep getting their upload speed faster.

As a consumer, you're almost never uploading anything. You upload speed will be throttled.
The producers, on the other hand, have terabytes of data to give you, so they need it as fast as possible.


>>133404145
Good one.

>>133402598
>Net Neutrality will use the government to force all providers to provide the exact same internet service to everyone
You really don't know a damn thing about this, do you?

>>133404319
>>133404096
>b-but muh government
In what possible case does not allowing anyone to fuck with internet data fuck you over? Unless there is some part of the regulation I'm unaware of.

>>133401779
By giving corporations control of the government, we are giving the government control of the internet.
Someone slyly said to me that why bother if we're being spied on anyway, I gave the analogy of the fbi looking at you through a keyhole when it comes to them spying on the internet. You wouldn't want to give them the keys to the door?
The whole other side is having to pay extra for something for no reason other than greed. Which, in a capitalistic society isn't necessarily wrong, but since most people can barely afford life right now, it would be a tough sell to the American people, unless you're retarded or something.

>>133404873
Corporations control of the internet*
Typo

>>133401779
Kys, kraut faggot, different flag won't hide you.

File: 1440806427315.gif (2MB, 441x329px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 441x329px

>>133404818
>You really don't know a damn thing about this, do you?
You clearly know less.

>people itt are willing to get censored and fucked by corporations because of "muh internet communism"

Reminder if this goes into effect 4chan will become inaccessible

File: IMG_1311.png (125KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 256x256px

What's the point of this? Eventually everything is a buisness in the near future. Net neutrality just slows down the process. Can't wait for shills to get off websites slowly because of this

>>133405057
It does get rid of /r9k/ and tons of /b/tards and shills on this board

>>133404714
thats not what this argument is about, or what people are worried about

People are worried about the fact that companies would have the ability to create fast lanes or even block access to certain sites for a fee

you have to be a pants on head retard to think that they would not be tempted to do this, and probably will if it goes through

bottom line, you NEVER give people in a position of power a tool to limit you, because they WILL abuse it and will never give it up.

>>133404845
You just don't get it

Theyd rather get censored by corporations instead of accepting a government policy that protects their ass because "gommunism"

>>133404181
Well, net neutrality means that they have to treat all traffic the same, doesn't matter if it's coming from youtube or a mongolian basket weaving forum, but without it, they could slow down certain websites, and then ask you to pay to bring them back up to the normal price.

They will of course claim that they will only ask money to speed it up even further, but why would they do that if there's no competition and they can just jew you like i explained before?

>>133401779
Why would the ISPs give a fuck about throttling small websites that don't use hardly any brandwidth and couldn't afford to pay fees anyways? That's not how it worked before net neutrality and it won't afterward. Without net neutrality, the massive companies that use tons of brandwidth will be forced to pay for what they use. People like myself who could give a fuck less about Netflix will pay much much less.

File: Onslow.jpg (84KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 400x300px

So it's either selected websites package or australia tier speeds for everyone?
Some future.

>>133405137
Unironically, it's the massive influx of redditors.
Every year for as long as Net Neutrality has been a thing, they've had cute "protests" about how the internet is a God-given right.

>>133405233
But it also gets did of everyone else because guess who doesnt want to host a niche board of rightwingers and weaboos

Hint: every fucking isp

>>133401779
the picture you posted depicts how things are today. corporate internet is a multitude faster than residential lines.

so, propaganda like the picture are pure bullshit.

File: file.png (271KB, 601x415px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 601x415px

>>133401779
>even 4chan woWZERS!!!!
why does the media not know a fucking thing about us?

>>133401779
>build a road
>have a special access lane
>this is supposed to be illegal

>>133403248
Why should this be illegal?

>>133402598
by the way, their provider did not "throttle them" in ways that violated the net neutrality as it was known till then.

They just refused to let them connect more servers for cheap. It has always been industry standard, that you negotiate with parties you connect with. comcast used this freedom to keep netflix out, yeah, but they didn't violate what was known as "net neutrality".
Netflix then redefined what net neutrality means because the traditional NN was not useful to them here.

>>133401779
If there wasn't actual conflict /pol/, wouldn't have the quality of always being right. Debating the issue and sizing up each position is how you find the right path.

Right now, we're in the middle of that process.

File: 41512.jpg (42KB, 600x375px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x375px

>>133405137
way to be a cuck
>>133405354
>>133404714

imagine if you will, that your electric company came to you and said they it was going to start monitoring what you use your electricity on and you would not only have to pay for the electricity, but for the right to charge your laptop, or power your computer, as thats an extra fee

>>133405354
Enjoy being ducked and not being able to use your internet for anything because you believe that da fwee mawket is the best solution to everything, cuck

>>133405279
>People are worried about the fact that companies would have the ability to create fast lanes or even block access to certain sites for a fee
And you're an idiot that has no idea how the internet has worked.
It's been like this forever.

You know what? The free market works.
When a company does that, people hate it.
Then another company shows up who doesn't do this, and they get a fucking boom in business.

The OP pic isn't even that accurate in certain regards.

Imagine an era in which Netflix could never exist because Blockbuster bribed your and other ISPs enough to throttle traffic headed in their direction, and we still had to go to brick and mortar stores to rent DVDs (or at the very least pay the same exorbitant rates to rent them digitally.)

Imagine a world in which online retail is a shitshow where you can connect to certain vendors and not others, and prices rise across the board to factor in these bidding wars.

These are the sort of things that can and will happen when net neutrality is not a thing. It stifles competition, progress, and creativity, because most Americans (and indeed much part of the world) have no choice in what internet provider they use and thus there is nothing to stop price gouging and general assholery from service providers.

>>133401779
Who cares? Internet is what lead to the (almost) irreversible downfall of society in the first place.

File: IMG_0977.jpg (2MB, 900x9794px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 900x9794px

>>133405452
True. Almost every damn board will be a wasteland except for /biz/ and maybe /g/ because they have money

>>133405354
I do agree that Internet isn't a given right, but net neutrality just delays the given chance for corporations to make the internet like TV. It isn't bad, but it is a lot better then literal bums on the internet

>>133403662
They have already priced the internet subscription as high as possible in monopoly regions - so high that further additions wouldn't be paid by the customers. So it probably doesn't change a whole lot.

>>133401779
Every isp worldwide has cdn boxes plugged straight into their cores - thats fast lanes for facebook, google, akamai

Every isp has a transperant cache / proxy so they dont need to load the facebook logo ten trillion times a day

Anti trust against large isps is a far more effective tool than anything else - net neutrality should be an anti trust issue instead of you fuckwits protesting shit you have no understanding of

>>133401779
Literally a Jewish scheme to make more money off the internet that they've already destroyed. That's basically it.
I'll give anyone 6,000,000 years to show me one thing that Jews have improved instead of destroying or just one shred of evidence that shows they aren't the reason we can't have nice things. I'll wait...

>>133405753
What's actually happening.
>build road
>build slow lane
>put everybody in the slow lane except for Mitsubishi cars because Mitsubishi payed you the most, tell them that they can go on the normal lane if they pay your special 50$ fee.

>>133405823
>Then another company shows up who doesn't do this, and they get a fucking boom in business.

I know, its not like companies such as comcast have the congress in its pocket with its army of lobbyist that strangle new isp's from starting up and gaining any power

kys, you say people dont know what they are talking about and then say some retarded ass shit like internet providers play nice.

>>133405782
You do realize that everything will become a monopoly and that we are only slowing down the process to this. It's better for the internet. it makes redditors practically fade away

>>133405753
>Why should this be illegal?
to prevent monopolization by certain websites

>>133405753
>Big companies built the internet

Next you'll tell me that (((Google))) built (((Youtube))). And you're trying to educate people? I hope you're gassed.

>>133405530
(((they))) know they lost control we the jews now. they now have to resort to pretending its what we want to get their way.

>>133401779
Net Neutrality FAQ:
>1. Who supports NN?
Reddit, (((4chan mod team))), Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, Snapchat, AirBnb, Spotify, etc. Notice how all of these groups are leftist.

>2. Will anti-NN legislation "bundle" the internet?
No, this is a commonly repeated Jewish lie like "communism works". NN only came into effect in 2015 and there were no bundles before then. If NN is repealed, there will still be no bundles.

>3. Are they going to block/restrict/slow down 4chan?
No. They have the technology and legal basis to do this right now, but they aren't doing it. Anti-NN legislation won't change a thing. This is just another Jewish fiction designed to cause panic.

>4. We need to fight for NN or the internet will go into the hands of the evil corporations and Republicans! Keep the internet free and independent!
The internet is already not free. Obama already gave control of the internet to the United Nations in 2016.

>>133401779
This place is full of contarians. Guarantee if the leftists were against Net Neutrality, more people here will be for it since they won't want the Jewish controlled telecom companies to have more power.

>>133405823
>Then another company shows up who doesn't do this, and they get a fucking boom in business.

If you don't live in a major city, this is the opposite of how it works. Your town has probably made some stupid fucking agreement with one of the major players who has basically unlimited license to skullfuck you because your alternative is having no internet at all.

It's all (((astroturfing))) shills.
>inb4 free market will stop throttling
What free market? There's usually only one fucking ISP in an area and do you really think the areas with more won't have ISPs (((colluding)))?

>>133406084
And this should be illegal why?

>>133406180
And why should this "monopolization" should be illegal?

>>133406175
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_System

monopolies are illegal. companies that are big like comcast play a cat and mouse game of not being considered a monopoly

>>133405987
>I do agree that Internet isn't a given right, but net neutrality just delays the given chance for corporations to make the internet like TV.
Jesus christ, they won't make it like TV.
Enacting Net Neutrality laws will.

>>133406280
That's the government, engendering a monopoly.

In a proper free market, you wouldn't have to jump through gov't hoops to build your own ISP.
In today's world, you need to give out so much money, only the big players can afford to play the game.

>>133405823
When every company has the ability to make money by slowing shit down and charge for access, nobody is going to make a business based on the opposite

I except someone like you to care about free speech and expression, but no I guess da fuhwee mahrket is better than not being cucked by your overlords

>>133405349
>Without net neutrality, the massive companies that use tons of brandwidth will be forced to pay for what they use
They already pay for this, it's called their internet bill. Same as you or me.

Get that wallet out fatty

>>133406386
I really hope you're baiting

>>133406440
>giving corporations direct access to influence websites and media won't make things like television
You are the result of inbreeding

>>133406460
>When every company has the ability to make money by slowing shit down and charge for access,
How stupid are you?
Do you know what their business model is?
Selling you fucking internet.

Internet is not like food. You can go without it. If slow it down and make it expensive, people will stop buying it.
This is fucking Econ 101. Have you gone to college?

>>133402598
Netflix doesn't even give a fuck anymore. They print so much money that Net Neutrality would only help their competitors.

They used to defend it and now they are barely on board. As far as I'm concerned, let companies tax the fuck out of Netflix, Amazon, and Google. I don't give a fuck.

The market will correct itself (i.e new companies will spawn to take the place if people give a shit)

/pol/ poll

http://www.strawpoll.me/13420194

>>133406635
I really hope you have an argument.

>>133406238
>NN only came into effect in 2015 and there were no bundles before then. If NN is repealed, there will still be no bundles.
This is one of the main lies of the jewish shills. NN is actually the keeping of the status quo. Without NN, ISPs will, for the first time in history, be given freedom to deny you services as they want. It's allowing ISP censorship.

Enjoy paying an extra $20 a month to be given permission to access 4chan.

File: IMG_0186.jpg (208KB, 1231x934px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1231x934px

RON PAUL SAID DONT GIVE THEM POWER OVER THE INTERNET SO FUCK OFF

>>133401779

there is no split on pol about net neutrality. no one wants corporations to have yet more control, especially over the last bastion of true free speech.

ISPs having a monopoly is the problem. If there were more options then net neutrality wouldn't be an issue. As it stands the choice is between corporate greed and government mismanagement.

>>133406386
Stop moving the goal post, i was correcting your analogy not telling you it should be illegal.
I do think it should be illegal though, it's massive fucking jewery, and the first thing that would probably happen is some feminist fundraiser to pay comcast to throttle 4chan to the point where it takes 2 hours to load a single thread.

>>133406720
>(i.e new companies will spawn to take the place if people give a shit)
If only.
Google tried.
Turns out, a government sponsored monopoly is pretty tough to beat.

>>133406018
underrated post

File: 1499892457070.webm (1MB, 960x663px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x663px

OY VEY GOYIM! WHY ARENT YOU SUPPORTING NET NEUTRALITY?

>>133405753
>>133406386
what a retard

Net neutrality is communism and it degrades the quality of the internet.

People who want to watch Netflix or porn or watch twitch all day don't like the idea of paying a subscription, which is why they support net neutrality, because it forces average joe who uses the internet to list stuff on Craigslist every now and then or look up some business on google to pay for the brandwidth usage of some weeboo who lives with his parents and plays World of Warcraft all day.

Without net neutrality, everyone's internet service cost will go down, and no, you won't get a fucking pop up from Comcast that says you need to pay 49.99 more a month to access twitch, instead Comcast will bill companies like pornhub and twitch and you will see these companies start charging monthly subscriptions to use their websites. These websites will then be forced to start increasing the quality of their service because theyll actually have to start competing with smaller porn or video game streaming companies that use little brandwitdth and don't charge subscription costs subsequently.

Boom, now you see why these massive companies like Reddit and YouTube and Facebook are shilling so fucking hard over this shit right now. Because they have been raking in fucktons of advertising revenue for a long time without having to pay a dime.

>>133406751
do you like having a choice when you buy a certain thing?
a monopoly doesn't give you that option.

>>133406698
You're forgetting that this only works if there is competition. ISPs in Burgerland are a monopoly. If your ISP blocks access to your blacked porn, then you just get another ISP, right? Wrong. There are none. There will be none. ISPs make sure to strike down any possible competition.

You obviously have not finished high school.

>All these government shills.
NN is the reason for shit like data caps.

File: 1499457449961.jpg (59KB, 605x457px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 605x457px

>>133401779
Oh boy, here we go.
Against.
>Doesn't break up cable monopolies.
>Doesn't eliminate bandwidth or data caps.
>Puts short-sighted restrictions on one of the most powerful technologies in history
>Unclear or ambiguous restrictions on private business owners.

>Turns regulatory authority of the delivery of Internet content over to an unelected bureaucracy
>Everything the bureaucrats touch turns to shit
>See post office

>>133406175

everything you just said is fucking terrible and wrong.

>>133401779
So just to be clear this will only affect American right?
Meaning there'll only be less American posters?

>>133402598

> Net Neutrality = more government control

I was actually on board the Net Neutrality bandwagon several years ago...

...when it was a push for a constitutional amendment.

As soon as the FCC was mentioned, and the mere mention of how the FCC has been the government's censorship arm, it became very clear that Net Neutrality was a psy-op to convince people to vote against their own best interests.

Fucking sheeple.

>>133405753
>cuts the entire country in half with your road through the use of public land and public funding

>want to play by your own rules

here. Now do the world a favor and kill yourself.

>>133406440
>Enacting Net Neutrality laws will
We already have net neutrality and that hasn't happened, shill.
[Citation needed]

>>133406698
People arent going to drop internet when most of their life has revolved around internet

Most of the country revolves around the internet, so you mean to tell me making the only choice pay shittons of money or drop their entire plan?

And even then, what happens to all the websites and speech? Damn, this place is criticising internet freedom pretty badly, lets cut them down

>>133406982
>comcast will suddenly stop fucking their customers in the ass
You must not be subscribed to them.

>>133407029
You're right, they wouldn't need data caps if you had to pay 20$ to have access to ebay.

>>133406763
You know why it came to this though? It's because the ((internet companies)) couldn't ever get enough.

And now it's either all or nothing.

Verizon DID NOT VIOLATE NN when netflix was slow.

Net Neutrality was REDEFINED very recently by NETFLIX to include Netflix welfare.

>>133406698
>the most useful and widespread invention in recent years, which 87% of Americans use every day
>people are just going to stop using it
Electricity isn't like food either. Why don't we just stop all regulations on that too?

>>133406982
This. They're denying the inevitable. It's like they believe everything should be free and be paid by taxes. I can care less if it means 4chan dies, but I'd gladly like to see less and less people go on the internet all day. Could fix the problem of our generation maybe

>>133407083

fucking this right here

>>133406874
This. Removing net neutrality has merits IN THEORY, but in practice our government is so in bed with big business that it would make the internet worse for everyone. If fucking Google can't enter the market you know you have a problem.

>>133407029
Damn those data caps

Thank god I can pay extra to access basic shit now! Dog bless Ameriga

>>133407021
ISPs are not a monopoly. Just because your local government engages in cronyism with Comcast doesn't mean there's no competition. Even in areas with only one cable company, there are competing technologies available besides cable. It's not 2007 anymore.

>>133406982

net neu·tral·i·ty
noun
the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

FUCK OFF

>>133407175
It will allow Comcast to start fucking the people they really want to fuck. Their customers have just been a fleshlight.

>>133406982
You don't understand technology. Bandwidth is a very small component of cost.

If you argue against Net Neutrality you're basically saying water companies should charge you different rates on how you're using the water like brewing coffee or making spaghetti.

>>133403744
Pretty much this

The very thing that allows the internet to become a haven of rightwing ideals free of the tv media monopoly is about to be shit on by the same republicans it helps get elected.

>>133407477
You're a fucking fool if you believe regular internet users will get any sort of a discount.

>>133405823
Are you fucking retarded? My city basically made it illegal for new ISP's to start up because they put some many regulations on new ISP's coming in.

>>133407477
Imping they'll stop using the fleshlight just because they can now start fucking that sweet google pussy.

Woah, honestly I'd expect people on /pol/ to be more in favour of freedom since half of us are americans.
Meanwhile there's a lot of people who see nothing wrong with their internet providers censoring their internet.
>Trusting the corporate jew
Sad!

File: WP_dailysanctuary-com_2015_03_RP004.jpg (97KB, 650x854px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 650x854px

>>133407393
How exactly does Net Neutrality address that? It's local governments who are blocking new networks and competition.

>>133401779
This ad campaign comes up every time some bill goes through the senate.
My question is, won't the free market fix this?

Any new internet companies popping up?

File: 1491288616043.jpg (377KB, 1160x599px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 1160x599px

>>133406982

This is incorrect.

The only reason there are such costs already is because communications companies all get together and agree not to sell their services below a certain amount, so they all make money and the people buying those services have no other options

It's called an oligopoly.

Net Neutrality stays

>>133406857
>not telling you it should be illegal
>I do think it should be illegal

But WHY?

>throttling
Why is that something that should be illegal? If Comcast isn't violating contracts, it's their network. You know what's worse? The internet being considered "public" and feminazis blocking hate speech with government regulation.

>>133406982
Except the same exact fucking people are paying for WoW too, retard.

And the average Joe who uses Ebay isnt paying much because they don't use the internet at all.

Do you understand how internet works dipshit

>>133407695
It's corporate jewery on both ends, but one is slightly more in favor of the consumer.

>>133407695
For Americans, the most important freedom is the freedom of corporations. Corporate rights are more important than human rights.

File: 416786820.jpg (211KB, 1265x843px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1265x843px

>>133402598
I don't get it, if your require high bandwidth don't you pay for that?

If an ISP has trouble supplying you with adequate bandwidth they should not accept the contract.

What am I missing here? Is shit different in the US? My ISP literally got sued because it prioritized business contracts of private contracts, they took on more than they could chew and got greedy and then got punished.

God bless the consumer protection act.

>>133403662
>service provider charges money for certain sites
>everyone stops using it and starts using one that doesn't
Fixed desu

>Big ISPs can fuck us over since they've got the Government in their pockets so we need the Government to regulate them

>>133407695
I'd rather trust a corporate jew over a commie bureaucrat jew.

>>133407695
Well, I'd say we should keep net neutrality, but it just continues to have these leeches in society. If you make people pay for their "precious" Netflix and jewtube, it could make liberalism die out. Meanwhile, if you are running this buisness, you can get some profit from those who actually pay. It's a win/win for us

>>133407580
Maybe the person who takes a 15 minute shower should pay a tenth of what the person who takes a 15 hour shower pays.

Net Neutrality is a trick.

It is basically communism for bandwidth.
Bandwidth is a limited resource.

Stuff that uses more bandwidth like Netflix should be paying more if they want the fast access to stream their services.
This certainly would increase the price of Netflix subscriptions but the alternate is ISP increasing prices for all consumers because they would be unable to favor certain data over others.

Effectively those not using Netflix would be subsiding those who are.

>>133407695
It's all just shills trust me. They see that we hate kikes and then brand net neutrality as some "big jewish conspiracy" in order for us to hate it.

>>133406982
The US consumer already gets fucked on broadband pricing considering the typically sub par speed and reliability of it. You also can't use 1990s era internet usage patterns as the example of "typical" internet usage. The guy occasionally posting things to craigslist is an anomaly and there certainly isn't going to be a reduction in the amount of data being transmitted over the internet in coming years.

>>133406939
>Jews support net neutrality because there is literally no risk to them either way if they do
>therefore, I should just be a contrarian rather than thinking for myself

Let's review how a tech company should do their PR
>don't support net neutrality
>If it stays, massive negative PR from all their users, losing them shekels
>If it doesn't stay, massive negative PR from all their users, but they can fuck the remaining ones

>support net neutrality (in public at least)
>If it stays, PR boost because you "saved" net neutrality
>If it doesn't stay, get to fuck over your customers and say "well we tried"

man I wonder what most companies are choosing

>>133407130
>increased prices
>less competition
>throttling
>data caps
>literal ISP lobbyists controlling the law regarding ISPs
>somehow this is in the consumer's best interest

Are you retarded?

>>133407954
Hello Goldberg

>>133401779
Libtards like it, therefore I will vote against it, that's all I need to know

File: hiro_reads_the_v_sticky.jpg (152KB, 390x400px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 390x400px

>>133401779
I'm going to be as unbiased as possible, whether you believe me or not is up to you

The Issue:

ISP Companies want to charge services extra metered data for pushing extra amounts of information across their networks. This has never happened before in the internet's history, and don't believe anyone who has said so. Speed has become such an issue that every last bit of it is saturated, and demand is only going up. ISPs are trying to leverage this to get more money out of services by using a medium which they served (The internet) in which they were only the gatekeepers at one time. Now they're trying to be the gatekeepers, service providers, and meter content on the side.

FOR Net Neutrality:
-The internet is faster than ever
-Which means services require every bit of speed in order to function
-Even a miniscule blip in service can mean that something is unusable, IE: Netflix
Therefore:
-When Companies try to charge these services per megabyte served, that doesn't go over so well when these services are pushing multiple gigabytes across their networks
And
-Customers get double screwed because instead of being able to choose between services that they can use on the internet, the only true unmetered service is going to be their ISPs offering (IE: Comcast cable, AT&T U-verse, etc). Everything else will either come with an addition usage fee or extra transfer fees for the service provider. Either ways someone is paying extra to deliver information from that service you might use to you on the basis that it's a very popular service.

AGAINST:

-The FCC is a terrible company who has rarely ever done anything right
-Classifying ISPs as Title 2 serves the same purpose anyway
-This opens the door to the question on if the government is the true gatekeeper of the internet
-The FCC's approach is more of a sledgehammer approach than a surgical approach

There it is, take it or leave it. It's up to you. Spread it around if you want, help fight disinfo.

>>133408118
This. Plus you can weed out people that shouldn't even be on the internet

>>133407954
>Being this short sited
Wait untill the Dems get back in office and they start censoring our sites.

File: WP_dailysanctuary-com_2015_03_rare085-190x300.jpg (18KB, 190x300px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 190x300px

>>133408082
shalom

>>133407938
Holy underrated post

>>133407973
Do you actually think banning NN will scare people away from the internet and make it a safe haven for rightwingers

>>133407918
that would be fine if everyone had access to all ISPs. and you know full well that that's not the case.

>>133407918
>everyone stops using it and starts using one that doesn't
>except wait, it doesn't exist, the only ISP around is a monopoly
Fixed that for you. You're in favor of giving dictatorial, irrevokable powers to ISPs.

>>133402598
>Net Neutrality

We already have it dumb fuck. We've always had it. The internet you're using right now is with Net Neutrality. How the fuck do you not know this? You must be retarded.

>>133407695
the government is more of a monopoly than any of the existing ISPs, and when they "censor" sites they wont be slow due to greed, they'll be blocked

>>133405948
Don't tarnish the swaz with retard posts like that. The internet filled a void in Western civilization that rotted out about 100 years ago.

>>133405848
Yeah basically, this.

>>133403551
>Right now, you can make an account with AWS and not only pay almost nothing,
lol until your ISP blocks/throttles the shit out of your AWS gateway

good goy, keep shilling for ISPs

>>133407804
>But WHY?

Because i don't tell people what they should think, i present an argument for my side and hope it convinces you.

>You know what's worse? The internet being considered "public" and feminazis blocking hate speech with government regulation.

But that's exactly what net neutrality is stopping, the isp gives you a certain amount of data to use, and fucks off, you can download anything with it. Without it, the highest bidder (SJWs) can block whatever they like.

And throttling should be illegal because it's the method they would use to block websites, sure, technically it's not blocking, but it might as well be when it takes 10 hours to load a single image.

>>133408281
Yes, and no. Liberals will either find some loophole, or protest the living shit out of it because it harms their precious netflix, but it gives this site a larger right wing audience. Only problem is that a lot of boards could end up being dead, especially /sp/ and the weeb boards. And mods will get payed, ending the "he does it for free" shit

>>133406998
How does that mean it should be illegal? Why does being the only seller mean there's a crime committed? And how does banning alleviate the lack of other sellers anyway? Ever thought of market saturation?

>>133407996
You actually think the ISP is only going to take control of companies and not the people using products by then

>hey, see you've been using YouTube more often this month, looks like you need to pay your entertainment fees

>whats that? Browsing one of those hate websites? Pay up

>>133402598
fpbp

>>133408285
I live in the country outside a small town. I have a choice of 3 cable companies, 4 cellular networks, 2 phone companies with DSL, 1 fiber network (private company) and satellite if I really want to do something stupid.
This is because my state and county don't engage in cronyism and don't shove out competition.

>>133406939

Big internet corporations support Net Neutrality so you know its bad

>>133408285
What you fuckers forget is that most of the internet is entertainment and thus it competes directly against other forms of entertainment, I.e. Going out in the real world

Ending net neutrality will literally make the world a better place with less pasty lardasses sitting inside all day

>>133406982
>implying Comcast won't turn around and double-fuck the producers and the customers

>>133408218
Thanks for a clear explanation. Every bit of info about the whole struggle feels like propaganda from either sides desu.

>>133407136
>public land
So land no one owned and have no business in.

>public funding
No taking is not giving. None of the public's business.

>>133404818
that's totally wrong.. you should actually read about it.

>>133408556
You know most of those people are fucking rich, right?

>>133407918
>service provider charges money for certain sites
>everyone stops using it and starts using one that doesn't
>they realize that they won't make money unless they charge for every site
>they block every new site that pops up and tries to replace them
>internet becomes the equivalent of tv with only a dozen or so websites

>>133408712
This is a genuine rarity in the US though friendo. Huge amount of regions (tens of millions of people) literally only have access to Comcast and nothing else. That's why you see autists sperging out about Comcast so much, they have no other options so Comcast is able to buttfuck them with no losses.

>>133408725
But big corporations are also against Net Neutrality.

>>133407083

NN does not address the problem of ISP, mostly cable companies, doing pay offs to local governments so you can only get their products

>>133408754
This. It ends weebs and neets all together

>>133401779
Net neutrality has a serious negative in prohibiting prioritization. This, unless the massive capital investment is made to dramatically upgrade pipes to the point of future-proofing, certain uses that NEED he absolute priority to function will not be able to operate.

A key example I've seen is remote surgery, in which a surgeon in one place controls a robot in another place to perform surgery. This allows highly specialized skills to be deployed rapidly to remote areas. There have been successful tests, but as you can imagine, if this service had to be treated equally with your shitposting, any potential choke point, so to speak, would be far more detrimental to that procedure than your shitposting.

File: 1490576045911.jpg (54KB, 563x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 563x500px

>>133405530
>WaPo
>shilling as though 4chan has a single opinion
>shilling that 4chans opinion is what would give globalist corporations absolute control over individuals' access to the web.
>shilling that 4chan supports giving globalist corporations the power to kill people's access to 4chan
>>133405753
You have to give them credit, they're learning. Their shilling is improving, they aren't just doing the spray and pray, 2c per post bullshit any more. It's specific and targetted misinformation, but it's still so fucking obvious.
I genuinely can't believe that they've managed to create a debate out of this, here of all places.
Stay frosty faggots, shlomo is watching, don't fall for his bullshit.

>>133407938

we need an ancap-style smiley for this

>>133408679
It's a shill that posted this you fucking retard. He started the thread and then quickly switched ip's with his big explanation. Some ISP is trying to get conservatives against net neutrality so they hired shills.

File: 1484214331988.jpg (59KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 960x540px

>this thread
American corporations would rather spend money on shills rather than better infrastructure so they can ream their customers some more to the sound of clapping because "freeee market"

>>133408864
Right, but what exactly does Net Neutrality do about the lack of competition and states allowing monopolistic territorial control? Fix those problems. Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem that no longer exists thanks to technological advancement and competition.

>>133408606
>Why should monopolies be illegal
wew

>>133408622
It would make no sense for them to go after their own customers when they could just go directly at the company. Why make themselves look like shit when they can make Netflix look like shit instead

>>133408848
Yes, but I'm talking about those who go on reddit and tumblr that like to spew shit that is beyond comprehension. Be honest with yourself: You think that they'll be able to afford all the internet they use from their dads money for several years? I don't think so

>>133408954
Which is why you need to make sure you have the cheapest, slowest Comcast connection available for your remote surgery.

How mentally damaged are you? Did a remote brain surgery go wrong on you because of 4chan shitposting?

>>133408118
>oy vey! vote for us we arent tha liberahls!

>>133409038
The problem with that is is if NN is removed the only thing really stopping individual ISPs from really fucking over their customers monetarily speaking with throttling and shit like that is if they have competition, which isn't that common currently.

>>133402598
No, that's not what it means.

Basically, companies like Verizon and Comcast want more control over the internet.
They want to charge you for the service and for the websites you visit.

Think of toll roads, they're bullshit.

>>133406982
>People who want to watch Netflix or porn or watch twitch all day don't like the idea of paying a subscription
Which is exactly why those people pay for an internet subscription and a Netflix subscription lmao

>>133408336

keep up with the news. Netflix redefined what net neutrality means a few years ago

>>133409015
Happens all the time. They spent billions lobbying politicans on all levels to repeal net neutrality. They fuck us over so hard.

HERE'S ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW:

1) Democrats NEVER do anything that actually helps the American people.
2) Democrats are shilling HARD for net neutrality.
3) Therefore, it stands to reason that net neutrality is a shit sandwich that you should oppose on general principle.

>>133401779
Without net neutrality there is no 4chan basically

>>133408533
>the highest bidder (SJWs) can block whatever they like.

haha, sjw are never the highest bidder. Theyr'e just the highest squeak

>>133409115
Tumblrtards are the richest of them all

They're the ones that can afford to gender studies their way out of college

Do you think theyre going to leave

>>133408118
you are the worst representation of voters

>>133409339
We've always had it. It's never been totally absent. This is a fact. A lot of people are implying it's some new regulation being voted in to try and be communist when it's been a thing forever and is what's maintaining exactly how the internet currently works, and the vote is on whether to repeal it.

>>133401779

Internet should be accesible to EVERYONE as it always has been. This change is done in order to restrict people's access to information, as well as communication. ((They)) want to push the masses into the already existing misinformation media (TV, press, radio, social networks... whatever you can imagine is in hands of the enterprises and the elites in power)
Te goal is to make even more money, and subverse the people into a state where we can't fight opression. They want silence, political correctness (the state and ultimately the big bussinesses decide what is legal or licit) and erase all the freedom we enjoy as individuals. Savage capitalism at its best. Que os follen, perros sarnosos y becerros conformistas de cerebro lavado. U just can't support this.

>move to a new house
>go to buy internet
>only one ISP, Comcast, in your area because 'muh competition'
>see its only $50/month for a 100mbit connection
>"great!" you think, that's plenty and cheap
>click the link
>add $25/month for streaming services OR you can add the Fox™ Super-Deluxe™ Streaming Package brought to you Comcast© power by XFinity™ for only $10/month!
>similar 'deal' for every type of internet service, from game services, to sports packages, etc.
>bill comes out to be $290/month if you want to use all of your typical third party services, only $150/month if you use all of the Comcast partnership services
>then they slap you with a 50GB/month data cap to add insult to injury

Good thing those commies didn't get net neutrality past!

>>133409248
You forget that internet is entertainment and competes with other forms of entertainment I.e. Going out in the real world

>>133409399
A broken clock is sometimes right you shill. Even the Democrats can be right sometimes.

>>133409097
Theyre going to go after them because they can make more fucking money off of the people as well as the website host

Why stop at charging Twitter for having a large userbase when you can also tax the people contributing to that userbase

>>133405057
This

People won't realize how serious this is until it's over. FUCK ALL OF YOU!

Bitch ass mother fuckers think you know shit but you won't bother taking this bitch nigga shit head on, fuck you all

>>133409571
How's that relevant to ISPs being monopolies? I frankly agree if it limits people's access to internet shit it's a good thing but that's not what I'm arguing.

>>133409399
You're asking people to sell out to corperate kikes because democrats don't want to be sold out

Youre the shilliest of shills

>>133401779
Should we even care about this issue? How will affect poor fucks like me who pay for shit internet and just go to /pol/ and watch baseball?

>>133409484

The new component of net neutrality regulation forces cheap contracts for partnering companies, it has nothing to do with priority over packets

Since Netflix asked for too much cable companies are now trying to throw everything out when there's a chance including things that were in place forever

>>133409332
Twitch doesn't charge a subscriptions and neither do most porn sites and if you had any comprehension you could infer that Netflix subscriptions would go up you pedantic fuck

>>133402598
Net Neutrality already exists, preserving it by labeling it as a utility would leave the internet alone. You wouldn't notice anything. It stays competitive, and can be regulated to be more so.

The alternative is anti Net Neutrality, that ISP's gain monumentally more control. They plan and have already pushed for, blocking most of the internet and selling you packages to unlock parts. Want social media? That's $29 a month, and only includes Social Media giants. Want sports? That's more money, want games? More money.

You will notice paying 2-3x as much for smaller internet caps, fewer sites, and most importantly, start up content can be throttled. Since large companies will have to pay to be part of groups or have certain level bandwidth, the internet can become prohibitively expensive for small companies.

AS it is, any company can create a website by buying a domain. But with Net Neutrality destroyed, the ISP is under no obligation to give you good bandwidth unless you pay premium. What's a site worth to a company? If they can squeeze places like Amazon to pay tens of thousands a year then that's what you'll have to pay for your home wood working website.

Abolishing Net Nuetrality will very likely wipe out a large number of smaller players by throttling their bandwidth.

This is an issue because supply and demand. ISP's don't want to invest in more internet backbone, but demand is going up. They want to find ways to lower bandwidth use and increasing price is the most profitable way for them to do it.

If net neutrality is destroyed then expect to pay over $300 a month for exactly what you can get now. Chances are you'll buy some minimum package and have to cut off lots of websites.

IMHO whatever it takes to preserve Net Neutrality is worth doing. It only benefits extremely rich globalists to abolish it, and will hurt small and local business.

>>133409717
You get charged more for social and possibly hate speech tax

>>133405279
>People are worried about the fact that companies would have the ability to create fast lanes or even block access to certain sites for a fee
you honestly think people will just take that lying down?
I think that there will be torches and pitchforks

File: gibs_us_internet_pweas.jpg (76KB, 702x463px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 702x463px

>>133409499
Yes, the Internet is a basic human right.

>>133403248
If there's a glut of competition you don't have to worry about this.

However, there is not a glut of competition. Most people have one provider. It's basically a monopoly situation similar to utilities. In this case you're going to want government control/regulation just to prevent obscene price gouging and what you see in your image.


Basically, net neutrality is okay, but no net neutrality + lots of market competition, would be better.

HOWEVER, no net neutrality + market monopolies, would be SUBSTANTIALLY worse than what we have today.

If you want to fight against net neutrality, you need to be fighting to break up the provider monopolies to increase market competition amongst internet providers.

Otherwise YES, you are going to get what's in that image.

This is why it's a confusing issue - there are good and bad points on both sides.

>>133407918
>everyone stops using it and starts using one that doesn't
>implying there is one that doesn't
In most countries, and especially the US, most people have access to 1 or 2-3 internet providers. There is no real competition

File: hold your diddly.jpg (8KB, 256x197px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 256x197px

>>133402598
Why are you lying and how much are you getting paid to lie?

>>133401779
We have paid poo in the loo shills trying to persuade Americans to hate Net Neutrality because it will "hurt da librulz"

Here is an easy analogy for anyone confused on the issue:

Without net neutrality you're going to be forced to buy internet DLC to keep similar speeds you have today for an equal access to all websites.

Yes, that's right, you're buying internet DLC that costs an extra 29.99 or 49.99 a month on top of your existing bill to keep the same speeds if you allow net neutrality to die. This, essentially, is the ultimate scam.

They are pretending something that isn't scarce is scarce.

>>133408864
In Finland some rural villages have teamed up and paid for building a super fast fibre cable internet themselves because ISPs won't do it. Build your own roads.

Whatever Google, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook etc want? I want the opposite of it. Fucking jews.

>>133409839
But no one would pay $300 a month for "exactly what you can get now". Even in the strictest free market model, this just wouldn't work. That or the internet will just become a luxury for the rich.

>>133408954

the ISP oligarchs are trying real hard with these thought experiments lol

before the surgery thing they argued you need internet to make a 9-11 call because these things are IMPORTANT
lol but in many parts of the country their internet is down 30% of the time, great 9-11 call equipment

>>133401779
A big company fucks me over now for internet asshole so 4 chan will be gone? good

File: WP_dailysanctuary-com_2015_03_rare047-2-1.jpg (47KB, 650x511px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 650x511px

>>133409955
>Too much government control has resulted in monopolies.
>The only solution is more government control

>>133409917

Nothing more to argument, you brainwashed fuck?
Your ISPs are the ones being blocked, not mine. I hope you all end as blind as a north korean.

>>133402598
fpbp

>>133409097
Because Comcast is already Americas #1 hated company and they have no reason to give a shit?

>>133409905
Americans have been sitting down and letting their rights be taken away for decades now and you think they'll suddenly decide to get off their asses now ayy lmao

File: WFxhU1H.jpg (502KB, 600x1335px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 600x1335px

>>133409717
Social sites like Pol may be a special extra internet package, sports are already proposed as an extra package. It could double or triple what you pay.

Everyone's reaction to ending Net Neutrality should be, "Fuck no"

Don't be talked into hating it just because preserving it requires the gov to label the internet as a utility. Individual companies will continue to handle it, but NN prevents them from abusing it to extort us.

>>133408533
I know you think it should be illegal, tell me the WHY.

File: thuglife.jpg (73KB, 750x494px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 750x494px

>>133410094
Not an argument.

>go to 4chan
>"This website isn't included in your Spectrum© Internet Package, you have activated your 1GB of free third party internet. You will be billed $14.99 per gigabyte of data that exceeds this cap.
>Thank you for choosing Spectrum©! *even though they were the only option in your area*

>Idiots on here actually advocating for this...

File: 1495225825197.gif (1MB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 450x450px

>>133405848
>because most Americans (and indeed much part of the world) have no choice in what internet provider they use and thus there is nothing to stop price gouging and general assholery from service providers.
because a lot of municipalities sign exclusivity contracts
>roll out infastructure in exchange for exclusive access to our entire population
>5 years later eveyone's getting dicked by jewcast because there's no other option

>>133409917
Yes, it is.

Just like communicating with people around you is a basic human right.

The internet is an extension of that. If we lock it down like you'd want, we'll be a corporate dystopy full of worker slavedrones in no time flat.

>>133410047
Good luck getting the retards here to comprehend that

>>133410049
this so much
redpill guys like trump cruz foxnews and pewdiepie are against NN so im againts it too
fuck being a sheep

>>133401779

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzuvGzK48wg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gh0NIQ3yd0

>>133409652
Because it means Comcast isn't going to start charging you $200 a month just because net neutrality gets repealed. Your argument is that "they're going to start charging you to use your favorite websites and you won't be able to go to any competitor because they're the only ISP in some areas of the country" but by your logic they could just start charging you $200 more dollars a month right fucking now, NN or no NN, because they DO have a monopoly. So your argument makes zero sense.

>>133410192

PNDNFSDPKSDNFSNF I can't believe you are this stupid

>>133401779
Here are some honest pros and cons:

PROS:
>FCC control means FCC prices, large ISPs can't just charge a shit ton for services, which is especially relevant since (I think) 40% of the country has literally no options when it comes to service.

>You get the whole internet at the same speed for the same price

>Nothing really changes in the way you use the internet

>Companies can't censor sites or reduce bandwidth BY LAW

>Large businesses are more successful because they pay basically the same as anyone to have their data sent through the tubes.

CONS:
>Cable and satellite TV is dying and being replaced by streaming. You want your TV to buffer? didn't think so.

>Netflix takes up nearly 40% of ALL U.S. bandwidth, yet many of us don't use this service. Is it fair that ISPs raise prices on the rest of us to upgrade their lines to provide a service from a private company?

>There's always the "the government shouldn't be in control" argument

>Getting rid of Net Neutrality *could* increase competition across ISPs, creating incentive for companies to put down lines in new territory.

>Small business have an easier time because they get to pay less than larger businesses, and they can grow with demand, paying more as they get more website users.


Let's get rid of some misconceptions right off the bat:

Some people (>>133408336) have been saying "the internet right now is NN"

While this is technically true, the laws putting the FCC in the position they are now in were implemented in Obama's second term. This is what many people have a problem with. Before these laws were passed, there WAS some restrictions on what ISPs could do, but as it's been noted a few times in this thread, Comcast throttled Netflix and demanded more money for costly upgrades (before this bill was put in place). (cont.)

>>133410178
Good explanation based anon. Next question: Is net neutrality already dead? Or what are the politics of this issue? Does the GOP unanimously oppose NN?

File: WP_dailysanctuary-com_2015_03_rare026.jpg (49KB, 650x538px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 650x538px

>>133410208
>I haven't read the Net Neutrality regulations, but I saw a meme on Facebook that led me to believe they would eliminate data caps.

File: e91aa1fe85f3376d6af0a411d97d090e9c8a636c398fe2df1ba191543e3e1e4d_1.jpg (90KB, 640x590px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 640x590px

this entire thread is proof were being invaded by shills

>>133401779
No Net Neutrality means the death of this entire board and most right wing websites and forums. Not sure if the braindead faggots here can comprehend that but I suppose that's definitely something Antifa would love to see.

>>133407973
>Well, I'd say we should keep net neutrality, but it just continues to have these leeches in society. If you make people pay for their "precious" Netflix and jewtube, it could make liberalism die out. Meanwhile, if you are running this buisness, you can get some profit from those who actually pay. It's a win/win for us

You have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and need to leave the thread.

>Leeches in society paying for
>their
>"precious" netflix and jewtube."

Are you seriously going to argue that the people across the street streaming netflix with the 40/20 connection they paid for is somehow causing you to pay more?

fucking
lol

>>133410088
>Too much government control has resulted in monopolies.
You might want to take a beginner's course on economics.

>>133410047
>Build your own roads.
Yeah Comcast is the kind of company that would refuse to build the infrastructure needed yet would still make sure to stop any other company that attempted. I think thats really the base of a lot of peoples hopes with net neutrality. They just really fucking hate their local cable company and hope this will either improve things or at best not make them worse.
Cant blame people for it, Comcast are the biggest assholes I've dealt with compared to any other services and utilities I pay for.

File: netneutralpricing2.jpg (136KB, 666x485px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 666x485px

>>133410066
Right, so people will cut whole types of sites from their package and lower their bandwidth caps in order to keep costs down. Getting unrestricted internet with high caps in the hundreds of Gigs will cost a lot of money but since we already have that and it's clearly already very profitable for them, why should we give it up?

>>133407083
>>Puts short-sighted restrictions on one of the most powerful technologies in history
Honestly, this point alone should turn you against this motion.

>>133410208
benny g is against NN
would you dare to doubt him?

>>133409432
you're insulting the flag

Don't make the same mistake that we have here in Canada with the government regulated telecom. They basically stopped Sun News from starting a conservative TV network because they didn't like their content.

If you are using alot of bandwidth, then you should be paying more for it. That's why the large companies like Reddit and Google are shilling so hard for it. They don't want to be charged for all the data they use up.

Leftists hate free speech - there is no doubt that when they get back in power they will curtail that right.

>>133401779
Net Neutrality is and always has been the standard. It was just a defacto industry-consensus standard for many years, until very recently some of the megacorp ISPs (Comcast and Verizon) started fucking with it, forcing the FCC to canonize it. That was the last big Net Neutrality interner-activism event you may remember.

Since then (((Trump))) has taken office and installed a 'former' (((Comcast))) executive as the new FCC head, who he announced he'd be repealing the rules. It's all just about megacorp ISPs trying to create a new rent and more perfectly secure their regional monopolies by repealing very basic 'fair play' regulations.

>>133401779

You want to talk about shills? Basically anyone against Net Neutrality is a massive fucking shill, likely paid for by ISPs who have a vested interest in getting rid of Net Neutrality. Being the only game in town and able to fleece their customers with the alternative being no internet access is the ultimate goal.

>>133401779
I like how this assumes the road stays the same size because you're all fucking retarded.

>>133410257
Back to plebbit fucking leaf before the RWDS arrive.

>>133406982
That has nothing to do with net neutrality, that has to do with idiots paying for huge data plans when they can get by with 1gb/month.

>>133410088
The current monopolies are a result of natural market conglomerization. It is the end result of free market capitalism as has been pointed out time and time again.

Even so, I don't see you arguing for the elimination of these monopolies. You only want the rules removed that prevent the monopolies from destroying the internet.

It's not fucking rocket scientist bud. If you really want to make net neutrality go away, you also need to break up the market monopolies and give people substantial competitive options for internet access. If you don't do that, you will get exactly what happened with television: A bunch of tightly controlled and centralized TV channels.

File: https:--i.ytimg.com-vi-EYX2pmXe14U-maxresdefault.jpg (47KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x534px

>>133408973
>>133409065

>>133410381
>giving isps fill bandwidth control won't result in taxing people who use bandwidth
Shoo shoo pesky jew

>>133410047
>>133410280
>>133410448
you forget that rolling your own internet infrastructure costs shitloads of money
thousands alone in the magic internet boxes, and then thousands more for the miles of cable you need
then more thousands for a uplink to the actual internet
then thousands more to hire cable wranglers to fix shit when it breaks

File: 1497378626440.jpg (31KB, 296x296px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 296x296px

>>133406386
>>133406751
Companies that are monopolistic will artificially limit their offer of goods so that they may sell it to a markup price (for instance: limiting internet access) and make a higher profit. This will benefit the company of course at the price of the consumer. Since the price is artificially kept higher than the equilibrium of a market with competition less people will make use of the service/less people will buy the good therefore reducing the TOTAL benefits. (which is the sum of the benefit the consumer gains for making use of the product/service and benefit that the company makes from selling the goods)
>literally just need to quote basic economic theory

>b-but companies should be able to do whatever they want
No, that's abusing a position of power to interfere with the free market, we have laws against that, in the EU moreso than the USA which is also why I'm not afraid about the net neutrality issue when it comes to my country

>>133401779
there was a post a couple of threads back that explained it really well
it was in reply to someone asking if no net neutrality was good or bad
>Bad. The whole 'website package' meme gets thrown around a lot. The real problem is it's going to limit information flow. All you're doing is putting more power into the hands of private corporations. Right now now nobody has that power. As it exists, they can't differentiate between types of traffic or destination. That power does not even exist. We are not getting government out of internet, we're just giving more power to major corporations. Corporations aren't good or bad but they do act in their own self interest. The internet will slow to a crawl because the major websites now will never have any competition. It will be legal for them to block a startup that threatens, say, Twitter's market share.

Proponents say we should get the government out of the internet. The problem is the government is not exercising any power right now. They're in fact keeping anyone from exercising power. Abolishing Net Neutrality actually creates power where there was none and gives to major corporations, who will use it to further their profits. I have yet to see a single argument that demonstrates how giving this power out will improve the internet experience.

>>133410651
oh, I forgot the shitloads more you have to pay the FCC for licensing

>>133410494
Net neutrality has no effect on what content is legal

However, leta see you use the right-wing news source when you get taxed hard for it

>>133409717
not much will happen

if the government gets their way your speed may improve at the cost of future tempering

the "pay for sites" thing is disinfo

>>133401779
Listen, no one that's tech savvy is going to be against net neutrality, right or left.

>>133410494
Also if you love free speech why support something that gives corporations control of free speech

>Net Neutrality is bad because government control
>I rather be controlled by giant corporations!

Fuck all yall right now

>>133410494
The ISPs should have no problem providing service with the rates they charge in the US. They're just being greedy and generally shit because being forced to reinvest their profits into their infrastructure instead of pocketing it isn't the deal they want.

>>133406386
>And why should this "monopolization" should be illegal?
because competition is how we advance. a single entity or trust controlling everything would just stagnate. this is the entire rationale for capitalism in the first place.

There were some posts in this thread that were informative, on both sides. After the first dozen or so posts, the Antifa shills rolled in with their predictable BS, lowering the educational experience for everybody.

>>133409312
>Think of toll roads, they're bullshit.
And who runs the toll roads?

They could do the whole "website package" thing now but they don't.

Corporations without legal regulations on how they charge have chosen not to pursue they pricing model that you hate and the government has embraced

>>133409695
>20 posts in this thread
>calls ME the shill
I'm offering my opinion, and it's not even based on the merits of the issue at hand - I'm essentially offer an ad hominem attack as justification for my opinion.

Don't be a silly goose.

>>133409849
with the government, there is no hate speech tax. Everyone knows something like hate speech shouldn't have a price point and it should just go.

>>133406047
Jewish scientists are the reason you can sit there and post your bullshit on your mobile phone.

>>133401779
Since you're obviously new I will explain this place to you. I won't do this again though.

/pol/ is not one person
/pol/ does have shills
/pol/ has even more trolls just looking for (you)s

I hope that clears a few things up for you

>>133410753
>>133410852
I won't get taxed for it. Also you are evidently not interested in having a reasoned discussion about this topic, based on your previous posts.

File: 1499463524728.jpg (25KB, 641x530px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 641x530px

>>133410608
Actually senpai have you read my other comments? I absolutely have been advocating for eliminating monopolies. I'm all for a cable company break-up. But the monopolies are not a result of natural market conglomerization, they are the direct result of local and state governments in the US granting full exclusive rights to sell Internet service within their borders. Areas that don't have those laws do have competition.

>>133410012
the existing bill will go down

>>133410945
You're only post is telling people to support corperate globalism to spite libtards

Youre the shill here anon

>>133410941
>They could do the whole "website package" thing now but they don't.

No they couldn't, because they're not allowed discriminate between websites, they're required to give you the bandwith you payed for no matter what you're visiting.

That entire concept is called net neutrality.

>The FCC claims it was the target of a DDoS attack. New reports suggest that may be true—and that nearly half a million fraudulent comments may have been made in the FCC system in support of Chairman Ajit Pai’s efforts to gut net neutrality. Many of the victims of that identity fraud have sent a letter to the FCC demanding that fraudulent comments be removed and the source of the attack investigated.
HAHAAHAHAHAHA
Literal shills

>>133410945
That makes you more of a shill because you're spending so much time arguing. It's like you're getting paid or something.

>>133410355

For years, the internet existed with basically no regulation, aside from censorship of illicit activity. ISPs weren't subject to many restrictions, but the general understanding was that purchasing service meant access to anything on the internet at the same speed.

Some people think the FCC has too much control over the ISPs now. Some think the answer could be to just do the same thing many countries do with TV and healthcare: subsidize it and break the industry. Many euro countries have TV taxes, so there's no reason an internet tax couldn't work. Pay the internet tax, get service provided by the government. What could go wrong?

On the other hand, some people propose we get rid of government control entirely, allowing ISPs to provide the services they want at whatever price they want. This has some problems. As mentioned, many people don't have access to more than one ISP. They're *could* get absolutely screwed by their ISP. However, some say that ending NN will open up the internet to become more of a commodity. Didn't you ever think it was strange that ISPs are forced to provide access to literally every website, no matter if you use it or not? That's like having to pay for every single channel of cable TV (there are thousands), even though you only watch a few of them. Sure, the internet is free now, but why should companies be forced to push the costs of upgrading to support Netflix/Hulu, etc onto their consumers? This example is a bit unrealistic and not quite the same, but what if HBO not only raised their prices but the government also required you to purchase it? Again, this isn't exactly what's happening, but I hope you kind of get the picture. It costs money for ISPs to upgrade their service to support the growing demands of the internet. Everyone wants to stream in higher resolution, and nobody want's videos to buffer, and that all takes bandwidth.

Anyway, decide for yourself. Do some research.

File: 1491868452728.jpg (56KB, 800x684px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x684px

>an error has occurred
>the website you are trying to access (boards.4chan.org/pol/) has been restricted by your ISP on grounds of hate speech and illegal anonymity

>>133401779
I like the internet as it is right now. Which side do I back in order to keep it as it is?

>>133411219
Opps wrong person kek

>>133410588
Come up with a real argument at any time.
I've already blown you the fuck out twice

>>133410753
I think way too many people here seriously don't get this.

Without net neutrality what WILL happen is companies like Time Warner (e.g. CNN) will throttle 4chan, breitbart, etc. and anyone trying to access these websites. Getting rid of net neutrality ENSURES censorship of the internet by fake news, UNLESS you break up those monopolies (and ensure they never reform in the future - good luck!)

Imagine if, in response to 4chan calling CNN fake news, CNN just had Time Warner disable service to 4chan for all Time Warner customers. In huge swathes of the country people have no other provider than time warner, if they want to access actual information - they're fucked, it's effectively censored.

Come on, you people have SEEN FIRST HAND how these media companies abuse their positions to push false narratives and lies. Don't be so goddamn naive and gullible to think getting rid of net neutrality would magically allow everything to sort itself out "hurr durr invisible hand of the free market" - it's NOT a free market. Internet providers in most areas are MONOPOLIES.

THE ONLY THING PREVENTING MASSIVE INTERNET CENSORSHIP BY LIBERAL MEDIA CONGLOMERATES RIGHT NOW IS NET NEUTRALITY

File: 1498066035137.png (302KB, 450x488px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 450x488px

>>133401779
Either way the Jews win

>>133410941
They can't do it right now because Obama's FCC rules making the internet a common carrier are still in place.

It be like your water company trying to charge you more for your water because you used it to fill a pool versus using it to wash your car. They can't, they can simply charge you for the water, they can't discriminate what its used for.

>>133411048
Excpet I am, most people here think that this will only effect Netflix and Youtube and not boomerang back, which is wrong

People think that it will get rid of data caps, which is wrong

People think that its giving the average Joe the burden, which is wrong

And then you think that giving coperations of all things the ability to control news traffic is free speech

File: Screenshot 2017-07-12 at 23.13.09.png (28KB, 816x407px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 816x407px

Anti-Net Neutrality posters BTFO

http://www.strawpoll.me/13420194/

File: HUE.png (118KB, 234x216px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 234x216px

I don't really understand any of this and I don't really care about the politics just gib faster internet that is unlimited for cheap. I need fast internet for muh game downloads. I'm sick of waiting a few days worth of downloading to play modern games on PC.

Compooterz were meant for porn and video games.

>>133411219
>nobody is passionate enough about a topic to write 20 short arguments

kek

>>133410666
this should apply on everything then

>>133410012
>They are pretending something that isn't scarce is scarce.

do the cables and the equipment install and maintain themselves?

>>133411327
Net Neutrality

>>133410854
the government lets them exist

>>133410469
>ridiculous prices for Facebook and youtube
>"free iTunes"
At least make it realistic.

>>133405530


They know. It's just blatent lies and propaganda now. Their readers are easily brainwashed and lied to. More fake news.

File: 1434071822488.jpg (56KB, 508x520px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 508x520px

>>133401779
>make a banner supporting NN
>they dont even put you in the list of supporters on their website

MODS = KEKS

https://www.battleforthenet.com/july12/#participants

>Tfw live just outside London and will always have huge choice in terms of ISP's.

feels good friends.

>>133401779
I'm so fucking tired of every piece of software and website I've opened today whining about (((net neutrality))).
You know what? Your fucking image is exactly what will happen if the bill passes, you dumbasses.

Note that we DO have net neutrality RIGHT NOW. The system works. Stop falling for this bait and stop listening to paid shills working for cable companies.

Which option will stop ISP's from agreeing with eachother to not compete in certain areas so you only have one choice of ISP in any location?
Neither?

>>133411327
Net neutrality is in place right now and removing it would be a change, so net neutrality.

>>133409571
Maybe the internet is entertainment for *you*. For many others it's a job, or a support group, or a research source, or any of a thousand other things.

>>133402598
>Net Neutrality = more government control

No. It means keeping up current regulations. Getting rid of net neutrality means that ISP's can engage in all kinds of cronyism.

>Net Neutrality will use the government to force all providers to provide the exact same internet service to everyone, regardless of content or context. Internet Communism, really.

Not having net neutrality means that one movie streaming service for example can pay your ISP to throttle down connections to their competitors.

>>133407973
>If you make people pay for their "precious" Netflix and jewtube
You mean that Netflix subscription they already pay for?
You mean that internet subscription they already pay for, and the amount of data a month they already pay for, at the speed they already pay for?

>>133409518
good thing people wont pay that thus that company will have to lower the price or risk losing business

>>133402598
1st post

clearly a jew ready to fire this up

>>133411327
None. They are both different, the government extends net neutrality and the corporations want to throw it out

it was sort of a gray area till now

>>133411287
Yes, because each time a new website pops up, ISPs are forced to spend resources to allow you to access it. How unfair to them.

Oh wait, that's not how the internet works.

net neutrality stops corporate greed

>>133411337
fuck off leaf
if NN is so bad why is trump against it?
Trumps not a liberal

>>133406175
absolutelyretarded.jpg

Getting rid of net neutrality would be like if democrats were given control of the water supply and decided to cut off water from all of the republican counties. Any right wing leaning websites are going to choke out and die.

>>133411556
yep this

sometimes the wolf is better than the intelligence service

File: kuruminha.png (85KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 600x600px

>>133402598
>>133403169
>>133403248
>>133403551
>>133403551
>>133403662
>>133387621
This is bait, dont go for that. Brazil pass a regulation in 2014 like Net Neutrality called "Marco Civil da Internet". We have a internet regulation org named Anatel and the prices of the packages goes up because they cant control the traffic distribution anymore. Now services like Whatsapp can be blocked to all country based on that. If you want compare the proposols of both and their effects, you will have an ample knowledge about that subject on pratice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Civil_Rights_Framework_for_the_Internet

>>133411454
No, but the ISPs aren't doing that on their own dime anyways... In most cities they get paid by the government to lay that line whilst simultaneously scamming the city into signing away their rights to it and giving the ISP that laid it exclusive access.

And even if they did... THEY GET PAID FOR ITS USE. People pay for internet, places like Netflix pay for fucking internet... No one is getting a free ride you dunce... This is just the ISPs trying to nickle and dime even more.

>>133411689
The argument goes something like "Under net neutrality, Google rules the world, so we need to let ISPs have more freedom to compete with Google by using your information just as shittily or more than Google does."

File: freedom.jpg (104KB, 780x766px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 780x766px

>>133411895
>God emperer cant do nufin wrong

File: History_Speeches_2050_FBI_Strikes_Waco_TX_SF_still_624x352 (1).jpg (38KB, 624x352px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 624x352px

>>133411689
>Getting rid of net neutrality means that ISP's can engage in all kinds of cronyism.
it means less regulations
Fuck the feds I will never support anything that they do

File: Georgia election covfefe.jpg (98KB, 909x759px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 909x759px

Here is all you need to know about Net Neutrality:
https://youtu.be/5Z_nBhfpmk4?t=1h9m36s

>>133411717

> People will stay without internet, in the year of our Lord 2017

Laughing stock of the west.

>>133411629
Yes neither, they have always done that and will continue to do that.

File: flint.jpg (33KB, 628x314px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 628x314px

Why not just let the internet be a public utility?

>>133411895
Trump doesn't know what the fuck net neutrality really means

If he knew it would virtually destroy his online support overnight, you bet your fucking ass he wouldn't be supporting it.

And that is exactly what will happen if net neutrality disappears. You think the media companies want to allow us to talk about and support Trump?

Wake the fuck up you ancap retards

>>133410666
>assuming perfect competition as a baseline
Infinite buyers and sellers assumes away scarcity. The market not being "perfect" is just going to be reality.

>>133407083
>see post office

What is wrong with USPS?

>>133412103
Well fuck me then