Net Neutrality

>>133413661
CAST YOUR VOTE
http://www.strawpoll.me/13420739
http://www.strawpoll.me/13420739
http://www.strawpoll.me/13420739

>>133413661
>tfw you will only be allowed to visit 4chan if you pay $20 monthly more to the jews

Net Neutrality didn't exist before 2015 and none of the dystopian bullshit libtards are scaremonging with ever happened.

Germany has Net Neutrality and they block thousands of conservative websites.

Net Neutrality takes the control of the internet away from multiple competing private companies and gives it to the government.

Confirmed to support net neutrality: Obama, Clinton, Soros, Microsoft, Google, Reddit, Facebook. Really makes you think.

>wah wah libtard cucks
>pay for your website packages to stop the jews

>>133414398
Net Neutrality didn't exist before 2015 and none of the dystopian bullshit libtards are scaremonging with ever happened, retard.

File: f.png (126KB, 709x480px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 709x480px

>>133413661
Name one of these sites that is not cancer

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

>>133414448
Net Neutrality existed for decades, in a different form, Shlomo. At least put some effort into your lies. Repealing NN would give ISPs a new power they never had, effectively making them above the law.

File: competition.jpg (403KB, 767x592px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 767x592px

>>133414062
>competing

Look at all that overlap where they compete. Oh wait there is none.

America consumes more data than is aloted

>>133414474
the EFF

>>133414580
No it didn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

>>133414448
that's because it's going to happeneing soon

>>133414588
>95% of ZIP codes have at least 4 ISP's

>>133414474
youporn,pornhub,soundcloud

>>133414448
Net neutrality is literally a name for the internet being open, retard.

>>133413661

>Preventing the government from interfering in private industry is straight-up Socialism

wew lad

>>133414588
Do you want 6 different utility poles running along every street?

But yes, I agree Comcast needs to go.

>>133414791
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

>>133414651
Wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

>>133414474
Everyone I know uses github as part of their job.

>>133414580
net neutrality existed for decades - Net Neutrality is the government's solution for fixing what ain't broke

>>133413661
>true libertarians stand back and let their jewish masters create more parasitic rents

>>133414062
>>133414062
FACTUALLY INACCURATE. FRIENDO. ALSO STOP TRYING. TO REPEAT YOUR STUPID POSTS.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/verizon_blocks_messages_of_abortionrights_group/
https://www.cnet.com/au/news/verizon-wireless-to-allow-abortion-rights-messages/

OTHER NEWS SITES THAT REPORTED THIS WILL JUST GET >GREENTEXTED
SO I WILL NOT BOTHER WITH THAT.

https://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-really-does-block-bittorrent-traffic-after-all/

ADDITIONAL INCIDENTS

SO ON AND SO FORTH.

CORRUPT MONOPOLIES PUSHING AGENDAS. USING THEIR MONOPOLIES. IDIOT. TRY USING THE INTERNET. FOR SOMETHING BESIDES MAKING BAD POSTS.

crowd fund an isp that is heavily competitve after NN is removed why isnt anyone doing this

File: 16508412_10209997536988290_6788788862972065224_n.jpg (25KB, 720x470px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 720x470px

>>133413661
>If you are a libertarian conservative you should support more government oversight and regulation

You should fucking die in fire.

>>133414945
>CROWDFUND

>>133413661

NO, CITIZEN, NET NEUTRALITY KEEPS YOU FREE AND SAFE.

This message brought to you by the National Security Agency's Internet Data Gathering division.

>>133413661

what must be remembered is that it isn't just about traffic shaping for specific websites, but protocols too.

bittorrent, crypto, any other distributed system. if some powerful organization doesn't like it, they just grease the isp to slow it down little by little.

>This is strait up Socialism
Anon...

>>133414805
>le ebil government
Go live in some libertarian paradise like Somalia

>>133414588
>There are only two ISPs
Just like there are only two restaurants - McDonalds and Burger King. We need Burger Neutrality to make sure consumers aren't fucked over by the two and only two restaurants that exist anywhere in the country.

>>133414896
github is cancer. absolute cancer.

>>133414896
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/25/github-hires-notorious-social-justice-warrior-to-work-on-anti-harassment/

>>133415050
EXPLAIN.

>>133414676
That figure is absolutely bullshit.

File: Untitled.png (116KB, 849x1073px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 849x1073px

Have fun trying to browse /pol/ when you ISP blocks it.

File: thisiswhatyouwanted.png (65KB, 1440x866px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 1440x866px

>>133413661
government regulation of the internet will kill off actual dissenters. It will "mainline" the internet.

>>133415044
that's what i'm unironically trying to say desu

>>133414945
One of many, many example articles describing why:
https://arstechnica.com/business/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

>>133414904
Muh free market, muh roads, muh schools, nothing wrong with monopolies

>>133413661
>>133413085
On one side: Fake news and liberal media corporations want to turn the internet into TV where they can nickle and dime everyone and destroy websites that don't play ball with their narratives.

On the other side: Technology sector megacorporations who want to use all your searching and browsing to drive advertising revenue and sell you products and spy on you, which they can't do if there's only 30 internet websites in existence.

>>133415035
Somalia is a post-socialist failure shithole. They used to be socialist but then it collapsed. You dumb fucking libtard.

File: Tim-Farron-Nicola-Sturgeon-question-time-debate-927295.jpg (30KB, 590x393px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 590x393px

>>133415105
>breitbart

>>133415035
>Somalia
niggers also this>>133415231

>>133414015
>consumer choice in a free market

This is worded badly. ISPs have become close to monopolies now

File: History_Speeches_2050_FBI_Strikes_Waco_TX_SF_still_624x352 (2).jpg (38KB, 624x352px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 624x352px

>>133415035
The Federal government is full of Satanic Jews
>>133415240
>bongland

File: IMPLYING STATISTICS.png (157KB, 797x929px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 797x929px

>>133414676
>IMPLYING

>>133413661
>hurrrr government control is the only fix to society's problems
How about breaking up the ISP monopolies, and only giving you money to the one that doesn't sell your shit and make you pay extra for content/censor.

I know this concept is foreign to public school indoctrinated youths like yourself, but it's indeed how the US has succeed in innovation and wealth.

>>133415169
There are hundreds of ISPs in the US, some big, many small, some broadband, some DSL, some satellite, some mobile, hell there's even a few dial ups still running.

The idea that there are only two or three options is absurd, especially considering nearly every city and town in the US has at least a couple alternatives to one of the big companies.

>>133414940
All that you linked happened AFTER the provisions that Trump will abolish. Really makes you think

>>133414945
NN wasn't around for literally decades.

We still developed regional monopolies.

NN might do nothing to solve the problem, but it will at least stop the bleeding by keeping those monopolies from abusing their power.

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

85KB, 600x600px

>>133413661
>>133414037
>>133414062
>>133414398
>>133414448
>>133414474
>>133414580
>>133414588

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 agency 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. They are corporativists and the regulations will kill the market competition and just partners of the state will prevail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Civil_Rights_Framework_for_the_Internet

Quick analise of the effects:
http://www.ecipe.org/app/uploads/2014/12/ECIPE_bulletin614_dataloc_brazil.pdf

>>133415138
Fucking this listen to this man

>>133415124
have fun trying to open /pol/ when the government outphased hate speech.

>>133415124
>Have fun trying to browse /pol/ when you ISP blocks it.
Why don't I just move to an ISP that doesn't block it?

>>133414062
Holy shit nigger you're fucking retarded

>>133415124
The saddest thing is that there will be nowhere on the internet to view the rage and regret of the people who voted against their own self-interest.

>>133415430
>All that you linked happened AFTER the provisions that Trump will abolish. Really makes you think
Which means you don't have anything to complain about. Companies will ignore the regulations anyway. Let's all leave them in place and move on.

>>133413661

I think you meant fascism, when the government and big corporations collude. Socialism is the government providing the service.

>>133415430
NET NEUTRALITY. WAS FORMALLY RULED IN 2015. ALL OF THOSE INCIDENTS. WERE BEFORE 2010.

RETARD ANARCHO-CAPITALISM POSTER.

>>133415124
most of those are mobile ISPs which are exempt form NN

File: Toll Road.jpg (159KB, 678x725px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 678x725px

B-but charging someone by use is unfai--

>>133414015
>Network neutrality is the belief that all data, traffic, and sites on the internet should be treated equally
Why stop at that?
Why don't people get to be treated equally on the internet?
We should really stop the hate on internet forums.

>>133415448
>comparing the US to a third world shit hole like Brazil

Don't fall for this meme. If Fb is supporting something, run the other way.

>>133415564
They probably did it pressured by Obama's FEC.

Why would an ISP be anti-abortion?

>>133415124
If the ISP you have isn't providing the service you pay for, you fucking sue them. The government getting involved will not solve a damn thing.

>>133415124
Which is easier? Replacing which company you choose or replacing your government?

>>133415138
MUH EBIL CORPORATIONZ

>>133415138
No, it's the corporations that have been censoring everything. The US government isn't allowed to censor free speech and you have genuine avenues of dealing with it via courts which you don't have against corporations.

Net Neutrality ensures we can continue to access 4chan.

Getting rid of it means the left-liberal media conglomerates who OWN most of the internet service providers, can begin colluding together and censoring the internet as they see fit.

The only ones arguing against net neutrality are anarchocapitalist retards and shareblue fuckwits.

We've been 100% fine with net neutrality since the existence of the internet. There is only one reason there is any ruckus over it now and that's because the media conglomerates want more money, and they want more power and control to censor what you read and see online.

>>133414676
You are beyond full of shit. Let's take me for example. I live in a major US city (3.5 million+ metro area) and I have 2 options because I am not counting AT&T's DSL an "option"

>>133415654
IT WAS IN 2007. IDIOT.

So I just googled NN because I wasn't too highly informed on it. Got the relevant talking points I was looking for, but naturally, because everything on the internet is a left/right and race issue. They had to have an extra talking point about why NN is important for black people! Seriously! WTF! It's not about race, why are we trying to make it about race!?!?!

>>133415570
yeah! Just like how socialism gives means of production to the workers in every country it exists! xDDD

>>133415630
do bits consume the cables faster when they pass?

>>133415668

it'll prevent you from having to sue them

>>133415498
Because you will, at best, have 3 ISP's in your area, and all three will be colluding together to ensure you can only read their fake news.

How fucking naive are you?

>>133415490
>A big post of "REE I'M RETARDED STOP POINTING OUT HOW STUPID I AM"

Dunning Kruger effect in action, I see.

>I'M A PROUD ANARCHIST WHO DON'T NEED NO STATE. I CAN BUILD A ROAD OR START AN ISP. WOW SO HARD. 5TH GRADE MODELING IS ALL IT TAKES. SOURCE: MY FIFTH GRADE EDUCATION

Yeah, you sure fucking think that, never having left your mother's basement. You genuinely sound like a retard. You sound worse than one, you sound like the people who think roads can just go up overnight with no foundation or preparation work.

You genuinely think that you get a bag of cement titled "Road", and just pour it on a flat dirt slab.

That's why you're fucking stupid. That's why you should just kill yourself you inbred shitstain.

NN is true equality
being against NN means you want equity which is pure cancer

>>133415758
What city? Say the name and I can find at least 5

>>133415799
There are limits, its actually a good analogy for network congestion.

>>133415754
Please don't fucking type like this.

It is a massive eye sore on an ib.

Also, go back.

>>133415835
>Because you will, at best, have 3 ISP's in your area
ah HA! You've just walked into the solution to all of this: break up the regional monopolies, and offer choice to the consumer.

You just threaded your own argument.

>>133415448
>because they cant control the traffic distribution anymore
Net neutrality is about setting flat rates for particular bandwidths. It doesn't prevent companies from throttling their customers trying to go over those bandwidths.

You shouldn't need to fucking control the traffic distribution if you set your god damn prices properly and actually have enough infrastructure to provide the service you are selling all of which is the responsibility of the ISP in the first god damn place.

>>133415835
AT&T > the Feds

http://nypost.com/2017/06/28/cnn-boss-in-crosshairs-if-att-time-warner-merger-approved/

>>133415482
>implying the government won't monitor and censor the web either way

You're basically living in shit, and then asking for more shit to be dumped on you right now

>>133415668
>If the ISP you have isn't providing the service you pay for, you fucking sue them.

But you wouldn't have grounds, you're getting what you pay for. They just won't offer a payment option for you to access 4chan or breitbart. Oh well. Maybe you can try the other ISP that ALSO doesn't let you connect to "far right websites"?

No? Well I guess you're out of luck. No more 4chan or alternative media and news outlets for you.

File: Untitled.jpg (109KB, 842x548px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 842x548px

>>133415358
>breitbart

>>133415668
You can't sue ISPs. When you sign the contract there is a clause that says they are making "their best effort" to provide the services they promise, and aren't liable if that service doesn't work.

File: 1495336100147.png (367KB, 973x1400px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 973x1400px

>>133415630

it already is charged by use you faggot

>>133415938
THAT IS WHAT. MOST PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY ACTUALLY WANT.

NET NEUTRALITY IS THE COMPROMISE. THAT THEY MAKE WITH THE PEOPLE WHO MAINTAIN THE MONOPOLIES. BECAUSE THEY WON'T BREAK THEMSELVES UP.

>>133415799
Higher bitrates and higher bandwidth's degrade this country's already rotten communication infrastructure even faster. But does the government you trust so much force the companies to update it? Nope, they give them billions of dollars to develop a theoretical 'plan' to do so in the 'future'

>>133415921
there is no thing as network congestion as long they use standard protocols just slower speeds. also congestion is balanced by the TCP protocol itself. it's not like ISP have to do it manually

>>133415668
You can't sue your ISP without NN in place. They're not obligated to provide you anything. They can block or throttle whatever the fuck they want.

>>133413661
whats up with all these net neutrality threads today? did the congress vote on something earlier today or what did i miss? I was here for like an hour at lunch and there was at least 6+ threads I noticed.Now that I'm home from work I see that these haven't let up at all.

>>133415938
That ISPs need to be busted the shit out of doesn't really change the fact that leashes are still a good idea until then and after.

no matter what happens (((they))) win either way

File: bin-that-knife-700x466 (1).jpg (80KB, 700x466px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 700x466px

>>133416026
Why do you even care what American ISPs do?

>>133416017
Haha yeah, I am sure that Net Neutrality is being pushed by Obama, Clinton, Soros, Microsoft, Google, Reddit, Facebook because it's good for the alt-media

Meanwhile Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Trump want it gone because they want to see the alt-media gone!

>>133416072
Also this.

>>133415976
This.
Companies already throttle and impose data caps NOW. Anyone thinking that they need to do any more is either a useful idiot or a retard.
Then again, we had plenty of retards last thread. Including a guy who thinks he can just get a shovel and start making a road which 40+ ton trucks can drive on or dig 400+ miles of fiber optic cable of which to start an ISP with. So the levels of stupidity in these threads shouldn't surprise me anymore.

>>133416072
>BECAUSE THEY WON'T BREAK THEMSELVES UP.
Right that's why we have monopoly laws.
We've already thought of this. We don't need the FCC to take over content regulation lol

>>133415764
>NN is important for black people

Should tell you everything you need to know about (((who))) is pushing this garbage.

>>133415638
>The market works different in Brazil, they dont have allocation of resources

>>133416088
>They're not obligated to provide you anything.
What are contracts you stupid nigger?

>>133415799
Can hogs degrade speed and experience for everyone else?

File: Screenshot 2017-07-12 at 23.56.18.png (28KB, 824x404px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 824x404px

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

>>133416086
i blame the government for that. no one needs faster internet. 50/20 is fine

>>133416042
Those two anime kikes are clearly Fuyutsuki and Gendo

>>133416072
The 2015 NN law does nothing, absolutely nothing to break up the monopolies. If anything, the increased regulations and requirements for ISPs will drive even more of the smaller competitors out of business.

File: 1487621696802.jpg (143KB, 1334x1334px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1334x1334px

>>133413661
You know the real fucking problem is the fact that people are willing to pay for this shit, let's say they passed this law and everyone said "fuck it no more internet, we lived without it for years. Who cares" the companies trying to fuck everyone over would probably just set things back to normal, it's the same with internet on the consoles, if people just took stand against microsoft for ripping people off with xbox live they would of just gotten rid of the pay wall but no, everyone cucked out (myself included) and now everyone has to pay for the internet on the ps4 as well.

It's not the government and companies that's the problem, it's the fucking people paying for this shit.

File: 1490565753303.jpg (61KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 480x480px

>>133415938
Yeah, except:

1. It isn't happening and has never been on the table regarding any of these law changes
2. They'll reform monopolies down the line anyways, as this is always the end result of capitalism in the market long-term

Wake the fuck up and stop being a useful idiot for the people who want to censor, control, and kill you.

>>133416100
>leashes are still a good idea until then and after.
It would be if the government was trustworthy with said leashes.

But alas, they are not. So, not gonna work. Sorry.

>>133416072
Fucking finally someone pointed it out.

>>133415764
Most people are too stupid to not think of something as either a right or left issue.

It has to have a side. It just so happens that this one has the left side.

Don't blame Liberals for it. Fucking idiot republicans solidified it as a liberal issue back in 2008 when Stevens gave his "Series of Tubes" speech and showed the world how little the right knew about the internet.

I'm saying this as a republican.

>>133416206
>we reserve the right to limit or terminate service at any point for any reason

File: less vague.jpg (85KB, 646x471px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 646x471px

>>133416221
http://www.strawpoll.me/13420739

>>133416206
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best-effort_delivery

No need for the racism, friend.

>>133416249
YEAH. THAT'S BECAUSE THE FCC. ISN'T RESPONSIBLE FOR BREAKING MONOPOLIES. OTHER PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT ARE. AND THEY WON'T DO IT.

how is the "free" market going to fix this? these corps dont have real competition, they use other gov regulations to strangle any upstarts. they fuck their costumers on other products and they're gonna fuck people on this

>>133416285
1. It can happen if the public cares enough. Your solution is unacceptable. Mine is, so push mine instead.
2. Then they get broken up again. Very simple.

>there's only 2 ISP's!

in Dallas alone:
vergent, siren, spectrum, DC, hotwired, NI, vUnity, MTM, Bacon, Equinix, DMD, CoreXchange

>b-b-but I am too dumb to do my own research

>>133416380
Yes I have seen your poll with misleading questions.

>>133416154
But seriously why do these fucks want NN so badly? Seems like no NN would produce ISP competition ala Romania

>>133416246

i'd love to know the source. it looks hilarious.

>>133416249
It doesn't break them up, but it prevents them from censoring websites like 4chan because they don't like the site owner or whatever.

Come the fuck on man. How can you find it so fucking difficult to put two and two together. You are literally fighting and arguing for the sake of the fake news media to control what you can see and hear on the internet.

>ISP blocks content
>people start using Tor
>Tor becomes norm
>spooks on suicide watch

Whats the downside?

>>133415938
Local municipalities do play a big part in restricting competitive access but until that happens I don't feel compelled to submit to duo-or worse monopolies.

The EU system seems be working fine, least I haven't heard otherwise.

>>133414037
they'd probably block it completely

File: Untitled.jpg (107KB, 842x548px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 842x548px

>>133416142
Because I want you to stay free.

>>133416469
>inability to get valid information to normies and mainstream society
That's a problem. because they vote.

>>133416154
>Haha yeah, I am sure that Net Neutrality is being pushed by Obama, Clinton, Soros, Microsoft, Google, Reddit, Facebook because it's good for the alt-media
so that's your argument for it? The people behind it are people you don't like, so the issue must be something you don't like?
For one, that's an association fallacy, for two: it completely misses the actual reason they're behind it: Because Net Neutrality is a huge millennial issue, and they want to gobble up the hip, young voting block.

>>133416450
internet companies want net neutrality because it allows them to surf on the cable infrastructure at little cost

File: merkel freedom.png (330KB, 384x568px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 384x568px

>>133416475
>The EU system seems be working fine

>>133416567
No, there's a shitload of arguments against it: >>133414062 besides that one, you disingenuous bastard

>>133415482
Literally the point of NN is to stop that from happening

>>133415498
78% of Americans have no other choice in ISP

>>133416469
Tor is made illegal
Decentralized technology is made illegal
The legal alternative doesn't allow free speech

It's pretty fucking obvious what the downside is.

I wish full retards would stop fighting for the interests of the fake news mafia to silence and censor online dissent. Which is what the net neutrality discussion is really about.

>>133416301
I trust the government more than I trust ISPs.

At least the government is simultaneously evil and incompetent.

ISPs are just evil.

>>133416469
TOR isn't set up for speed or ease of access.
You want netflix or your latest blacked.com porn? You better get used to usage fees, because if everyone jumped to TOR; we would be back in the era of the 56K in terms of speed.

File: Untitled.png (17KB, 731x200px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 731x200px

>>133415895
I did the work for you

>>133416450
Holy shit, why do you think cable companies fucking want to NN you retard, it's so they can charge you for packages and shit.

They are too grounded to be overruled by some other new ISP

>>133416630
>>133414940

>>133416634
>78% of Americans have no other choice in ISP
Right, that's why the problem is the ISP monopoly cartel. It needs to be broken up. And whatever company decides not to fuck over their consumer base will pull in the most cash. Welcome to the free market. It works.

>>133416431
>Dallas
>big city
Most of us don't live in big cities you flag hiding nigger

>>133414037
Oh no, you wouldn't even be able to access 4chan, period.

>>133416154
Net Neutrality is good for them because it keeps ISIS propaganda flowing

You think a major ISP is going to allow you to access jihadi websites?

The rising nationalism is something they have to deal with as a consequence, by doing shit like, I don't know, flooding our boards with absolute fuckheads who will post anything and everything for $12/hr.

>>133413661
I don't think anyone cares what some retard who can't even spell "consumer" correctly. Fucking burger schools at their finest.

>>133416681
>using some shitty website that probably only has 3 options loaded

Say the city, I found more than 10 in Dallas

>>133415938
Ok, now you have 100 ISPs that still don't compete with each other. good job.

>socialist

read a book you fucking retards :')

>>133416664
>I trust the government more than I trust ISPs.
You don't need to trust ISPs. You only need to trust that and ISP would want money. Because in a situation of actual competition, the consumer will flock to the ISP that's not fucking them. So there is incentive to not fuck your customer base. Very simple.

>>133416072
>how is the "free" market going to fix this? these corps dont have real competition, they use other gov regulations to strangle any upstarts. they fuck their costumers on other products and they're gonna fuck people on this
Get rid of regulations.

File: IT IS LITERALLY A RACKET.png (389KB, 687x678px) Image search: [Google]

389KB, 687x678px

>>133416380
>FREE MARKET
>FREE

>>133416424
My "solution" already exists you fucking moron. It's what the internet is, RIGHT NOW.

>>133416221
>138 votes
Im glad /pol/ isnt falling for the consensus crack attempt

>>133416444
>misleading questions
that's rich from the guy equating a concept that's been around since the 1980s with a piece of 2015 legislation.

There's a reason legislators called the bill Net Neutrality, it's so you it's easy to mislead people about what it means. "Oh, net neutrality means all data should be treated equally? That sounds great. This bill is called Net Neutrality? Oh well it must do exactly that!".

Just because I call my terror bombing campaign 'Operation: Smiles and Rainbows' doesn't make it any less appalling.

>>133416706
Or they will all just do it and people will have to pay more for the same monopoly.

How fucking naive are you?

We can't let this bullshit happen

>>133416794
>Ok, now you have 100 ISPs that still don't compete with each other. good job.
I don't know what you're trying to say. If there are 100 ISPs then it's likely one of them wants to corner the market, thus would offer a system that doesn't censor or fuck over the customer. If corporations are greedy, then they will do this, as it would be the route to obtaining money.

>>133415976
You dont understand how this works. You cant sell a product and dont deliver it. The bandwidth are different to each type of package/use and the price can be low because this a type of allocation of resource, if you use a regulation to kill that distribution the prices will go up to everybody because now its not property allocated.

>>133416810
meant for
>>133416406

>>133416860
>It's what the internet is, RIGHT NOW.
Cool! I like its. So you're saying keep the FCC away from it and keep the government regulations away? I'm with ya.

>>133416810
>REMOVING REGULATIONS INCREASES COMPETITION

IDIOT.

>>133416353
>>133416384
Well if you dont like the terms then dont sign up

>>133416706
Why would an ISP try to compete with another ISP in a small town?

>>133416713
Yes, you don't even live in America, shithead

>>133416879
>since the 1980s with a piece of 2015 legislation.
I really don't think anyone is confused about what is being asked here. It is a simple fucking question

Reminder that the government serves the will of the people and the people are overwhelmingly against this.

You can make the libertarian free market argument on ideological grounds but in reality it's going to hurt us the consumers until local municipalities start treating the internet like a utility and expand access for competition.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/19/these-are-the-arguments-against-net-neutrality-and-why-theyre-wrong/

>>133416469
Even with Tor content can still be blocked. There's a reason pirate sites change what country they're based in every few months/years.

Anonymity is a lot easier for users than it is for content providers who by necessity need to be easily found.

File: salt maga.jpg (66KB, 540x700px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 540x700px

>>133416883
>Or they will all just do it and people will have to pay more for the same monopoly.
Well then someone like me will simply start and ISP that doesn't fuck over the consumer and enjoy instantly cornering the market.
Though somehow I feel like the other ISPs might figure that out before me.

lol

>>133416664
But the profit motive cuts through the bullshit. At least with companies you can follow the logic of what will make someone the most money. With government you're subject to the whims of evil social engineers and a bloated, evil bureaucracy.

>>133416804

what if the government bribes the ISP to do what it wants? it would be a lot easier without net neutrality.

>>133416930
Why do that when people will still pay for internet with all of the greedy shit in it.

Unless a sudden ISP titan emerges with wide coverage and a good service, then it won't fucking change.

>>133416827
>gay sex with hats on

File: 20170119netflixusers.png (81KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1200x900px

>>133416630
That argument fucking sucks, though. EVERYONE pointed out how awful that argument is, as you can see from the replies.

>Net Neutrality didn't exist before 2015
It didn't exist because it didn't need to exist. No one was thinking about changing the way sites were accessed or who was or wasn't allowed to access certain users before now.

It's become an issue because of how razor-thin the bandwidth margins are for certain services. Netflix wasn't a popular website before 2015.

http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-subscribers-chart-2017-1

It was less prolific than Youtube. Look at that jump in 2015. That's what ISPs wanted to stop, Netflix now accounts for most of the web traffic in North America along with Youtube.

The only time you heard about it is when ISPs wanted to fuck over Netflix. Using their monopoly over the end users to throttle bandwidth of a company because it was competing with their cable subscriptions.

Again, your argument is fucking terrible and ignores the facts of the matter. If it's censorship you're worried about, you'll be happy to know that Net Neutrality also prevents the government from ordering certain websites limited-access at an ISP level. They can still seize domains, but they can't prevent you from connecting to that domain.

>>133416995

Dope argument my friend!

>>133416034
>>133416088
But that's wrong since Time Warner is currently being sued by its customers in NY for purposely providing poor service to things like League of Legends and Netflix.

The system works fine. I don't know why adding the government, who is literally the
WORST at getting things accomplished, will do anything

>>133416995
Yes?

>>133416406
>these corps dont have real competition, they use other gov regulations to strangle any upstarts
>lets give the government agencies they lobby and control even more power to strangle the competition!
It's like telling an informant "the mob owns the police, you can't trust them, you should turn yourself into the police, it's the only way you'll be safe".

>>133416995
Anon...are you retarded? Ad.hominem I know but... Is this bait ? I hope it is. It must be, right?

>>133417019
>Why would an ISP try to compete with another ISP in a small town?
Because if one of them doesn't fuck the consumer, it corners the market. Thus driving both to not fuck over the consumer and instead try to lower prices.

win win

>>133417147
Archived it
https://archive.is/Hfq9i

The issue isn't weather the government should control the internet vs if ISP should, it's about weather access to certain content on the internet be controlled by the ISP. Currently under the law passed in 2015, the ISP is not allowed to deny or limit your access to anything on the internet, at all.

You might say, well, wasn't it always that way? Yes, prior to 2015, it was. We passed it into law because the ISPs were beginning to do exactly what we didn't want: deny access or limit what we could access. So we lobbied to have Net Neutrality put in place to protect our freedom.

Currently, Pai is trying to repeal of the NN act because ultimately it benefits the big companies like AT&T and those companies tend to have political sway.

Anyone still confused on the topic?

I'm personally FOR Net Neutrality. I pay for the unlimited access to the ENTIRETY of the internet at the speed I feel is good for what I need. So if I pay $120 a month for 80GB bandwidth because I'm a gamer, then just because I'm on 4chan, and not playing a game, doesn't mean my bandwidth should be less. I paid for that speed regardless of what I'm using it for.

>>133416946
>You dont understand how this works. You cant sell a product and dont deliver it.

But you can refuse to sell a product, for example, access to 4chan.

"We're sorry but that website is not available in our packages due to complaints and illegal material"

You won't even get to visit any website that runs contrary to the media narratives.

People arguing against net neutrality are literally trying to fuck themselves over.

>>133417099
Yeah okay, good luck with that

>>133416380
Nice spin faggot.

>>133414676
90% of all internet service in America is served from 2-3 ISPs.
https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/measuring-broadband-america/measuring-fixed-broadband-report-2016

Nice "Free market at work" there, you anarchist dipshit.

File: 1493235539161.gif (2MB, 275x154px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 275x154px

>>133413661
>government control over the internet is libertarian and capitalistic
>market control over the internet is authoritarian socialism

Your problem is not in the internet. Its in lack of regulations on monopolies and you are distracted from it, because all your politicians are brought and paid for by said monopolies.
Worst form of government supported corporatism.

>>133417098
That's for content that is illegal.

>>133416791
Of course a city will have multiple ISPs but I can assure you not all 10 ISPs are often in every single zipcode in Dallas. For the record my city has 9.

>>133417198
Thank you!

>>133417115
>what if the government bribes the ISP to do what it wants? it would be a lot easier without net neutrality.
That's the problem we have right now. The big corporations and the government are a symbiotic relationship. The point is to destroy that in several ways. One of which is why it's important to limit how big the government is. The other is to ensure there are no monopolies so someone like me can just come in and take over the market by simply offering the customer a product they want: uncensored and cheap internet.

>>133417147
>Net Neutrality also prevents the government
Germany has Net Neutrality and they block thousands of conservative websites.

>b-b-but muh netflix

>>133416706
>And whatever company decides not to fuck over their consumer base will pull in the most cash.
I'm not entirely sure you have any idea how architecture works, but busting up a regional monopoly doesn't magically create multiple sets of cables in the same geographic area.

>>133417147
Read. This. Post.

>>133417099
no dude, corporations are like, evil and shit. They will try to fuck you over just because they enjoy it.

File: Carl seriously.png (114KB, 680x439px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 680x439px

>>133417240
>Yeah okay, good luck with that
Not an argument

>>133417037
>I really don't think anyone is confused about what is being asked here
The fact that 90% of the threads discussing this on /pol/ and /g/ the last two days have been full of people who either have no idea what the bill being debated entails or think Trump is repealing a 30 year old piece of legislation suggests otherwise.

>>133417337
>Germany has Net Neutrality and they block thousands of conservative websites.
Source.

>>133416154
why havent you realized trump is a controlled shill yet?

>>133417264
So 90% for 3, that's 33% for 3, and 10% for everyone else

A monopoly is 1 company with >90%

>>133416621
Non-sequitur
What does Title II have to do with the NSA?

>>133417006
>Well if you dont like the terms then dont sign up
Yeah, cause that's how utilities should operate.

>>133417147
>The only time you heard about it is when ISPs wanted to fuck over Netflix.

Netflix feels entitled to use the ISPs infrastructure for their service.

Cable company has to lay down cable then they can sell TV.
Netflix just lets the ISP lay the cable lmao

>>133417434
because I actually follow the news closely, dipshit

>>133417194
Not when it costs a lot of money to expand into that corner, more than you'd make back without a monopoly in that area.

Someone give me a tl:dr on this I can't quite wrap my brain around all of it
Can I prevent this from happening in any way?

File: 1499799604137.jpg (109KB, 600x753px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 600x753px

>>133417198
Obligatory

I understand any of these fancy internet words.

Just let me know right now: how much harder will be to get CP with this net neutrality thing?

>>133417457
Fair enough, but my point stands the government is not trustworthy with controlling internet content. It's not a solution.

>>133417210
One of the few common sense posts in this thread

File: 1499359842673.jpg (108KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 640x640px

>>133417264
Its also heavily regulated.

>>133413661

net nutrality is a socialist policy.... a good one...

what the government wants to allow ISPs to do is more like capatilism in free market, less regulations, however its very bad for the internet

>>133417435
>WHAT IS A TRIOPOLY.

>>133414062
gonna be fun getting fucked by elite controlled regional monopolies once this happens, jew-sockpuppet , this website is going to die

>>133417337
Germany has a statute that specifically censors the internet that is NOT net neutrality. The fact you're trying to say Net Neutrality caused this is a red herring and massively shows that you haven't read at all on the subject.

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/FreeExpressionVsSocialCohesion/germany_policy.html

>BUH BUH BUH MUH FREE MARKET

>>133413661
>Socialism
Net Neutrality is actually socialism (redistribution of traffic resources equally to all parties).

Not supporting Net Neutrality is capitalism.

That said only a moron (or someone with a significant amount of stock in an ISP) would be against Net Neutrality.

>>133417337
Also another thing Germany has that we don't: Hate speech laws.

>>133417391
>lol not an argument I win

No, I'm not arguing, I'm saying good luck with your business venture of starting a wide ranging ISP that no-one will hear about cause you'll be covered up in ads for a new website package deal.

>>133413661
>The government is going to allow isp's to slow down certain websites

I think you're a bit confused their champ.

Go huff some more coal fumes from your pickup truck and make take your truck gun, point it at your head, and pull the trigger.

>>133417260
That's what the debate is over: Do we let things continue as they have for the last thirty years and trust the market to enforce network neutrality on its own, or do we need to give the government more authority to impose a standard of service on providers?

That's not an opinion - that is literally what the debate is over. Change or don't change? Regulate or don't regulate?

>>133414651
tehy always had a law that makes you anonymous on the internet

THE godamn net neutrality was them taking what they alredy had before 2015 and calling it the same thing again and trying to fuckign DO THIS GODAMNNN

FUCK THE WORLDS OVER THE LANGUAGE WILL BE JEWED IF THEY DO THIS

and you STUPD GODAMN JEWS WONT EVEN EXPLAIN NOTHING OH THEIR GOING TO DO
BLANK

THE INTENRET IS COMMUNICAQTION

NOT YOUR LITTLE CRYBABY OR THIS OR THAT BULLSHIT

FUCK YOU GUYS FUCK YOU YOUR ALL A BUNCH OF GODAMN RETARDS FILLING IN THE ANSWERS TO THE STUPIDEST QUESTIONS EVER, ON 4CHAN

OH DUR IM SOMEHITNG SPECIAL NOW FUCKING IM A MONOPOLY WOW HOW SPECIAL I AM

WE NEED TO DO IT CAUSE OF THE MONOPOLY GOOGLE HAS THAT WAY NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT THEIR SPYING ON SITES AND SCANNING THEM WITHOUT ASKING

IF I DO THAT I GO TO JAIL. JUST ASK MY ISP

WHY IS THAT?

>>133416621
It's not as if your internet isn't already being analyzed by the government. Germany hasn't never had free speech. Then you have slav shitposters next to them with none of that censorship bullshit.

Net neutrality isn't about your freedom of speech. That is protected under your 1st amendment.

Repealing net neutrality however will ensure you ISPs, who happen to be owned by the same corporations who on MSM, will get more say over what you are able to see and say on the internet. But hey! Its a free market and that connection is the property of those private corporations so don't be a fucking liberal communist goy!

It was nice seeing you burgers here.

Reddit is fighting against it, therefore I support it

>>133416630
you are either a shill or a troll, you are retarded

>>133414062
>Germany has Net Neutrality and they block thousands of conservative websites.
Then it is not neutral....

COMCAST SUPPORTS NET NEUTRALITY BECAUSE IT HURTS SMALL COMPETITION
>COMCAST SUPPORTS NET NEUTRALITY BECAUSE IT HURTS SMALL COMPETITION
COMCAST SUPPORTS NET NEUTRALITY BECAUSE IT HURTS SMALL COMPETITION
>COMCAST SUPPORTS NET NEUTRALITY BECAUSE IT HURTS SMALL COMPETITION
COMCAST SUPPORTS NET NEUTRALITY BECAUSE IT HURTS SMALL COMPETITION
>COMCAST SUPPORTS NET NEUTRALITY BECAUSE IT HURTS SMALL COMPETITION
COMCAST SUPPORTS NET NEUTRALITY BECAUSE IT HURTS SMALL COMPETITION

Useful idiots shilling for Comcast, Soros, Obama, Clinton, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Reddit

>>133415621
you are a fucking moron

>>133417435
Oh, so until it's only 1 company for the vast majority of users, no one can complain about a monopoly?
Here, let me help you :
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/duopoly.asp

>>133417515
>Not when it costs a lot of money to expand into that corner, more than you'd make back without a monopoly in that area.
It is currently too expensive, yes.
But after destroying all the regulations the ISP lobbies have bought, it becomes much more feasible. One of the reasons people talk about over regulation being a problem is the fact it helps monopolies maintain their status and cut out competition. Smaller business and start ups can't deal with the manpower and costs of over regulation.

But regardless, the market will find a way if allowed. After all, you'd agree corporations are greedy. If there is money to be made, and the market is open to companies able to provide a product and service the people would choose over the current offered service via monopolies, they will. And they will thus reap the most profit.

Government's entry into the equation was the cause of the problem. They helped create the monopolies. More government is certainly not the solution.

>>133417702
So they aren't going to allow them to do that?
Oh wow, well I am relieved. Would you mind showing me where ya found that?

File: lmao.png (301KB, 584x465px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 584x465px

>>133417792

Wait no, I don't get it.

What does Reddit support or not support? I'm not sure which side i'm supposed to be on

>>133417833
Monopolies are bad. Monopolies are born when there are no market regulations. The only way to prevent monopolies is through government regulations.

Take an econ 101 course sometime.

>>133414945
URP URP URP THOUGHT FREE MARKET WOULD GIVE THEM THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY NEED OH I KNOW DONATE TO BILLIONAIRES SO YOU CAN THEN BE CHARGED MORE FOR YOUR SHIT

THIS IS LITERALLY THEIR NEW IDEA TO GET MONEY FOR THEIR COMPANIES MORE ALL OF THIS BULLSHIT THEYVE BROUGHT UP, SINCE 2015 AND KEEP PUSHING IT AND THEY CALLED IT PRECIESLEY SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY THERE BEFORE.

LIKE THE WWF AND WWE, THEY TOOK AND STOLE THE WWF'S NAME AND CALLED IT, THE SAME EXACT THING.

THIS IS WHATS BEEN DONE WITH NET NEUTRALITY>>133417738

File: 1496619612728.jpg (137KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 803x688px

>>133417337

>>133417487
>Netflix feels entitled to use the ISPs infrastructure for their service.
That's because they fucking are.
Are you 'entitled' to use the ISP that you paid for you make that post? If you say no, you're the biggest pussy on this board.
>Cable company has to lay down cable then they can sell TV.
Maybe that's because the cable company is an ISP while Netflix is just a service.

If you think Netflix 'deserves' to be penalized because it can compete with the cable company, then you are anti-free market.

>>133417756
>Repealing net neutrality however will ensure you ISPs, who happen to be owned by the same corporations who on MSM, will get more say over what you are able to see and say on the internet
Well we can either give more say to the government or more say to the ISP. The ISP is easier to get rid of.

PLUS we can break them of via monopoly laws, and allow companies to come in that would offer censorship free internet at a fair price. Simple solution and no need for the FCC to take over. Unfortunately, the government is not trustworthy with power. You'll have a hard time convincing me and many other it is.

>>133414062
So youre siding with globalist corperate shills because Obongo doesnt agree corperations should have control of speech

Obongo also said that colleges have a free speech problem so I guess anitfa is in the right

>>133417982
False. Show me a monopoly not enforced by government regulation.

>>133417792
>BUZZWORDS AND EYECATCH-POSTING

>>133417895
>TWITTER

HEY REMEMBER. WHEN COMCAST SENT A BUNCH OF CEASE AND DESIST LETTERS. TO PEOPLE WHO WERE POINTING OUT UNETHICAL NET NEUTRALITY OPPOSITION BOTSHIT.

File: donald-and-hillary.jpg (39KB, 800x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 800x500px

>>133417506
LOL did you see the saudi arms deal? how about his trip to israel? you're a clueless faggot as to who runs this country

>>133417895
>didn't read the article where they say they """support""" it, but still think it needs changes

>>133417788
oy vey the democratic people's republic of korea
is not
democratic
for the people
and not even a republic?

oy vey oy vey

>>133417982
>Monopolies are born when there are no market regulations.
That's incorrect. They are born when competition can't compete. Simple as that. And right now they can't compete because of government regulations making it impossible to break into a market.

>>133417756
Conservatives make up half the population and >90% in most rural areas. When those people start looking up information about nigger IQ's and find everything blocked, a huge incentive to compete will rise.

>>133414945
>Crowd fund an ISP
The same reason no one crowd funds a road
Why would you pay for something that's never going to service 99% of the people who are funding it?

>>133417210
I completely agree, I like to have as little government inference as possible, but the ISP market can never and will never be a free market because of lack of competition. So what if someone who disagrees with us supports it, are we so stupid that we have to disagree with everything they have to say. When it comes down to it ISP have so much power without net neutrality, the situation makes them a tyrannical government censoring what we choose to read, and watch.

>>133417286
It's not a good situation that internet access is in the middle of right now

But Net Neutrality is basically a leash on corporations that prevents them from limiting access to websites because they don't like the content of that website / the website competes with the ISP's services.

Then we have the issue that the market isn't a free market. It's a virtual duopoly/monopoly in about 80% of the country, and many of these service providers also run television media companies that have shown no qualms with outright lying to the public and trying to subvert public opinion via """impartial""" fraud news networks.

Removing net neutrality isn't even necessary to increase market competition, and the shills advocating the removal of net neutrality never even mention the fact that the ONLY way it could even BEGIN to be a good option is if the major ISP's were collectively fucked up and balkanized, in order to destroy their monopolies.

And those monopolies will only be created again further down the line, except this time there won't be any net neutrality laws in place to protect freedom of speech on the internet.

Don't fall for the fraud news propaganda, net neutrality maintains freedom of speech on the internet, and getting rid of it would destroy the only legal protection ensuring it.

>>133417732
how about we, come kill you

File: rage.png (276KB, 550x537px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 550x537px

>>133416804
>Because in a situation of actual competition, the consumer will flock to the ISP that's not fucking them.
My city has 2 50 mbps providers. One is a regional company with notoriously shitty service because they barely have enough customers to stay in business, let alone keep their shit working properly. The other is Spectrum.

We used to have 5 10 mbps providers back when that was the cap. 3 of those providers are no longer in business and have been replaced by other regional providers that couldn't keep up with the architectural improvements of a company at the scale of Spectrum.

My house isn't in the 50 mbps provider that isn't Spectrum's service range.

FUCK YOU IF YOU THINK YOU WILL EVER CONVINCE ME THAT WHAT ISPS NEED IS A LACK OF OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION

>>133417221
Then another competition come and sell it. If will have a regulation to that, will kill it, because little companies cant stand anymore, and the big ones become partners of the state. Now the regulation agency (like brazil) can ignore the clients because its a monopoly now.

File: COMCAST.png (1MB, 1168x676px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1168x676px

>>133418077
CORPORATIONS SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY
>IT'S A NO BRAINER, IT HURTS THE SMALL COMPETITION
GLOBALIST SHILL

CORPORATIONS SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY
>IT'S A NO BRAINER, IT HURTS THE SMALL COMPETITION
GLOBALIST SHILL

CORPORATIONS SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY
>IT'S A NO BRAINER, IT HURTS THE SMALL COMPETITION
GLOBALIST SHILL

CORPORATIONS SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY
>IT'S A NO BRAINER, IT HURTS THE SMALL COMPETITION
GLOBALIST SHILL

CORPORATIONS SUPPORT NET NEUTRALITY
>IT'S A NO BRAINER, IT HURTS THE SMALL COMPETITION
GLOBALIST SHILL

>>133417332
>One of which is why it's important to limit how big the government is. The other is to ensure there are no monopolies
Destroying monopolies is an act of big government. Your ends oppose one another.

>>133415630
That is not an accurate picture. This is analogous to broad based bandwidth restriction based on usage, like having a mobile phone with "unlimited" data up to 5gb.

A better analogy would be having a road but being unable to use the exits unless you pay a higher fee. Like I want to get off at exit 105 but that is a premium exit and unless you want to pay more then you have to use exit 110. Also you could be driving one day and suddenly the transit authority has removed your exit because the town didn't pay a premium "exit tax".

File: (((mere coincidence))).jpg (285KB, 1000x666px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1000x666px

>>133418130
clueless. faggot.

>>133418274
>FUCK YOU IF YOU THINK YOU WILL EVER CONVINCE ME THAT WHAT ISPS NEED IS A LACK OF OVERSIGHT AND REGULATION
But that's been the case so far during the internet's history. I don't need to convince you. It's already a proven fact.

File: soros-and-bathhouse-barry-1024x576.jpg (91KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1024x576px

What is the best way to support net neutrality? Been online since 96-97, and was warned by professors that govenments/corporations would eventually try to clamp things down, once people got addicted/accustomed to using it.

>>133418365
>HAS REVERTED TO SHITTY EYECATCH-POSTING.

THE GRADUAL DECAY OF A MAN.

>>133418365
autism

>>133414015
there is not choice in this "free market", when some people only have one or two isps in there area. I had bright house before the they merge with Time Warner and became spectrum, before it was 300mbs, now they only offer 100mbs and in gay ass bundles with tv and phone

>>133417732
Considering what happens when we allow conglomerates to run media themselves - see CNN, MSNBC, et al

You have to be a goddamn fool to think letting THE VERY SAME CORPORATIONS THAT OWN CNN, ETC TO NOW DO THE SAME THING THEY DID TO TV, TO THE INTERNET

My god this isn't even difficult to pick between

Do I choose the "free market" that instantly becomes a duopoly/monopoly controlled by 6 corporations who collude together and censor speech they don't like

Or do I pick the government ensuring these corporations cannot censor speech on the internet?

COME THE FUCK ON, HOW IS THIS EVEN A FUCKING DEBATE!?!?!

>>133418214
but theres no competition because of regional monopolies especially in rural areas, you are literally too stupid to understand the issue here

>>133418365
Found the jew

>getting so desperate you only post in flashy shit

>>133418479
Punishment!

>>133418396
>ISPs have always been poorly regulated and shit's great
Are you fucking high?

The USA has some of the shittiest internet in the world outside of Australia.

>>133418214
Its not going to be blocked. They'll just make sure the information they get from the search is 100% in line with the interests of the company (((owners)))

>>133417982
Except almost no one has been prosecuted under those laws since Reagan wrecked the nation. Go read more u fucking inbred hick. Sincerely, 11b Tennessean .

>>133418375
>Destroying monopolies is an act of big government.
Laws aren't necessarily regulations. But this is a tangent. Monopoly laws are good laws. The regulations ensuring Comcast has a cornered market are bad regulations.

>>133413661
Socialist here, net neutrality is good, you're a retard even if a good-intentioned one.

The idea that companies can bend services over isn't a socialist idea, we'd limit the corporate parasites at every turn if you let us.

>>133413661
>letting people do as they see fit with an infrastructure they own is socialism
>a libertarian conservative you should support regulation of private infrastructure
you're a dumb nigger

>>133418161
Yes?
Just because an asshole regime calls itself democratic does not make it so. But your argument is that democracy cannot work because a country calls itself democratic but isn't.

That is retard logic.

By your logic I would be justified in never eating an apple because I don't like the cereal Apple Jacks.

>>133418580
>The USA has some of the shittiest internet in the world outside of Australia.
We didn't 20 years ago. What's changed is government regulations and the rise of ISP monopolies build off these regulations.

File: image.jpg (221KB, 1200x1500px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1200x1500px

MAGA, right guise?? xxxDDD

>>133418554
I'm pretty sure this is the work of the jews, they are trying to invade so they can get their website shill packages

>>133418030
>Maybe that's because the cable company is an ISP while Netflix is just a service.
netflix is like the uber
offering a service without offering any of the backbone required for it

they try to sneak their way around the big cost

>If you think Netflix 'deserves' to be penalized because it can compete with the cable company, then you are anti-free market.
Yeah you're right that cable companies are scumbags as well

But, Netflix paying more when their service is know to put a lot more strain on residential connections, would be normal. They want to put servers at the ISP and then flood the infrastructure at very little cost. essentially using the broadband as if they were using a TV cable. Most other services don't do this.

>>133418192
The government regulations preventing new ISP's from competeing in the marketplace

ARE NOT NET NEUTRALITY REGULATIONS, YOU COLOSSAL DUMBFUCK

The major ISP's are fucking over municipalities with contractual agreements enforcing the fucking monopolies in the first place. It isn't even goddamn government regulations, the ISP's are BUYING the "government regulations" that prevent competition

HOLY JEESUS HOW DO PEOPLE STILL NOT GET IT

HOW DO YOU NOT SEE WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON

>>133413661
I prefer having a free market, so I want NN to stay, at least 'till we find a way to ensure that the ISPs are no longer monopolies.

Either make Infrastructure public, or, ensure all major areas offer at at least 5 competing high speed ISPs.

>>133418624
>Laws aren't necessarily regulations
Uh
>The regulations ensuring Comcast has a cornered market are bad regulations.
That wasn't a regulation. That was just a fact of the cost of building and maintaining internet architecture is high as shit so there isn't actually that much room in the market in the first fucking place since the cost to buy in is ridiculously high and after that you still have to secure enough business to stay in or else get bought out by your direct competitors.

File: COMCAST.png (761KB, 1155x676px) Image search: [Google]

761KB, 1155x676px

>>133418494
>>133418565
I was told thread after thread that Comcast didn't want NET NEUTRALITY by you, fucking globalist shills. You told me I was paid by Comcast for defending the free market against government tyranny.

And now I found out that (((THEY))) want it to, it's a no-brainer that you are being paid by someone.

All the globalist shills want Net Neutrality, Obama, Clinton, Soros, Microsoft, Google, Reddit, Facebook and EVEN MOTHERFUCKING COMCAST, the one that's supposedly being "hurt" by le freedom fighters.

So tell me, how much is Comcast paying you to shill for laws that hurt small competitors?

File: alphathreat.jpg (71KB, 851x478px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 851x478px

THE BULLSHIT NET NEUTRALITY EXPLAINED
>>133417985
>>133417738
https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/fcc-internet-freedom-net-neutrality/
i havent even read it all yet so i cant be sure its not a HIT piece but scanning it, it seemed legit

THey started trying to steal the name of what theinterent is internet anonimity to push their bullshit.

I dont even know where NET NEUTRALITY CAME FROM

>>133415240

What's wrong with Breitbart?

>German flag on most of the posters shittalking NN
>Germany has shitty NN

Someone's angry

>>133418682
>But your argument is that democracy cannot work because a country calls itself democratic but isn't.

Well my argument is only because it is called "Net neutrality", doesn't mean they will try to sneak in objectively un-neutral stuff in the future.

>>133418810
>ARE NOT NET NEUTRALITY REGULATIONS
That's correct. I'm offering a solution that doesn't require divergence from the current open and free internet we have. Your insistence on the FCC taking over control of it is a divergence. I'm explaining how such a risk is unnecessary. I'm asking you to poke holes in my solution, which you have been unable to do and are simply telling me how it's not like net neutrality laws.

duh.

File: DB0KPgcXoAIF6F9.jpg (97KB, 995x1013px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 995x1013px

>>133415008
>>133414062
>>133415034
>>133415138
>>133414904
>>133415448
You fucking ingrate ancaps are so scarred of muh government that you're willing to give up 4chan and all conservative media to be put behind a media/hate tax by globalist corperations with monopolies that only want your money

You think that the ligerals are trying to take away your speech when COMPANIES HAVING CONTROL OF MEDIA IS TAKING AWAY SPEECH

I'd call you all shills of you werent the level of stupidity I except from ancaps

>>133418699
>What's changed is government regulations and the rise of ISP monopolies build off these regulations.
You're a fucking retard. The internet is poorly regulated and those monopolies didn't rise from regulations, but from the actual cost of doing business.

>>133418522
There's more options than just the big three or four ISPs. Between local startups, satellite internet, and mobile internet there are a lot of options available, even for small or isolated towns. I live in Iowa, a town of less than 2000 people. I've got Mediacom if I want a big company, a local satellite internet provider, and access to four different mobile internet providers. I go with the satellite service - it's more expensive, but it's reliable, good speed, and I don't have to deal with any of the bullshit from dealing with the larger companies.

Yes, not every alternative is going to be able to offer the same speed or the same price or the same type of connection, that's what the free market is all about - YOU, the consumer - get to decide what's most important to you and what you're willing to pay for it.

>>133413661
doublethink.thepost.jpg.mkv.txt

>>133418849
Anyway, so we can have the major ISPs broken up, and then smaller ISPs can come in and offer services the consumer wants. The end. No need for the FCC.

>>133418978
they will not*

>>133418879
HERE IS A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER COMCAST SENT TO A PRO-NET-NEUTRALITY SITE. USING BULLSHIT REGULATORY LOOPHOLES.

>>133418991
Dude read this link i posted i tried to figure out what this is abuot

SOmetime around 2015 or something with that nigger obama they tried, to do this, and it wasnt what it was always before, >>133418881
>in my link

>>133418991
> I'm offering a solution that doesn't require divergence from the current open and free internet we have.
NN has been in place for 2 years. They're talking about removing it.

Fuck off.

>>133419031
Anyway, so we can have the major ISPs broken up, and then smaller ISPs can come in and offer services the consumer wants. The end. No need for the FCC..

File: COMCAST.png (180KB, 1184x687px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1184x687px

>>133418879
>>133419081
FORGOT MY FILE.

>>133418708
>comcast shill lurks /pol/ for a few minutes
>sees a reddit hate thread
>hmm these goyim like to use xDDDD a lot...
> >>133418708

>>133419118
No actually the regulations haven't gone into implementation.

>>133418699

People keep talking about the monopolies. There is a reason internet and utilities are almost always monopolies. They have huge economies of scale and huge sunk costs.

No one is going to build a second power grid to compete with an existing one because that'd be a huge amount of cost.

Economists call situations like this natural monopolies.

In cases like this you need regulation to stop the natural monopolies from charging a shit ton. That's why utilities' prices are almost always set by boards with public oversight. The company is given a fair return on investment (in theory, sometime politicians squeeze them too much to get votes, sometimes they let them rape the public to get money).

Unfortunately most of /pol/ never got past undergraduate econ at a shit tier school so they don't understand this.

>>133418879
>THEY SUPPORT IT NOW

sounds like someone hasn't learned about damage control.

AT&T is doing the same shit, saying they """""support""""" NN, but think it does need changes.

Also
>German flag

Don't take your hate out on our NN cause yours sucks

>>133415630
Yes, now you have to pay 15,00 for 2-axle you retard

>>133418978
Yes, it does. Net neutrality means that ISPs provide access. That's it. They do not choose what you get access to, or how fast you get it.

>>133419016
>you're willing to give up 4chan

this is a retarded alarmist strawman, it wont ever happen you fucking redditor

>>133418365
No shit corporations support NN ingrate

You know who doesn't, the big ISP monopolies that domonate the fucking markets. The people who will have control of your speech and news intake

You will be the death of the internet and free speech

>>133418978
Sure, and that we should absolutely be vigilant about. "Net Neutrality" ABSOLUTELY has the potential to turn into government sponsored censorship.

What we should all be striving for is having a truly fair and neutral internet. ISPs will absolutely NOT do it on their, the government has to keep the ISPs in check and we the people need to keep the government in check.

>>133419031
what MONOPOLY YOUR REFERING TOO< GOOGLE
is what IS CALLED BREAKING THE LAW
MONOPOLY ON WHAT EXPLAIN?

ILL DO IT FOR YOU YOULL NEVER COME BACK ANYWAY

IF I DONE WHAT GOOGLE DONE, SCANNED PORTS FOR IPS AND SCANNED THEIR INFO, SAY PORTS ANYTHING DONT MATTER 8080

THEN I CATALOGED THE IPS, AND MADE EVERYTHIGN SEARCHABLE,
THEN SOLD SHIT TO MAKE MONEY FROM IT

ID BE PUT IN JAIL

GO ON AHEAD EXPLAIN GOOGLE MONOPOLY IN THIS FREE MARKET INTERNET

BY THE WAY GOOGLE SHOULD BE JAILED

LETS JEWIFY OUR HOLD ON EVERYTHING SAYS TEH US GOVERNMENT THEN THE RETARD MORONS IDIOTS SAY DUHH OK OHOKOHOKHOOK IDIOTS

>>133419235
I'd like to try breaking up the monopolies first before buying into your black pill. I trust in innovation. I don't trust the government.

>>133419304
>SAYS "big ISP monopolies that domonate the fucking markets" don't support NN
>COMCAST DOES
EPIC, JUST EPIC

File: __tanya_degurechaff_youjo_senki_drawn_by_hiba_p_p_purin__sample-f482cc7abb7942a44fac0767ebc45e77.jpg (134KB, 850x676px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 850x676px

>>133414015
>US ISPs
>Free market
It isn't a free market if only a select one or two companies are allowed to run cables in a given area
Your options for a provider are a joke compared to the UK

File: -Att_history.jpg (41KB, 609x438px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 609x438px

>>133419071
>Anyway, so we can have the major ISPs broken up, and then smaller ISPs can come in and offer services the consumer wants. The end. No need for the FCC.
Breaking up a business doesn't magically give that business multiple copies of its infrastructure.

Having monopolies across smaller regions wouldn't change that they would remain monopolies. And even then it's only a matter of time before they reform.

>>133414062
>Net Neutrality didn't exist before 2015

Lying piece of shit shill

>>133419282
Yes it will

You think the big companies that control the flow of the internet want 4chan?

>>133419275
not now. Net Neutrality is done by FCC and government. They can change requirements in the future - and the way it works with government is typically, to add more regulations.

they've done similar things to TV and radio

>>133417332
>That's the problem we have right now.

how will getting rid of net neutrality fix that?

>>133419436
Paid shill detected

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

>COMCAST JEWS BTFO

>>133419033
Unless it's not provided. In which case you only get to choose between what's offered. That is not a free market. That is a monopoly.

>>133419388
>HE BELIEVES TWITTER OVER ACTUAL LEGAL ACTIONS COMCAST ACTUALLY DID.

>>133419016
>you're willing to give up 4chan and all conservative media to be put behind a media/hate tax by globalist corperations with monopolies that only want your money
We'll use another ISP.
>monopolies
The whole point of net neutrality is ending monopolies.