Net Neutrality

Hello Zuckerberg

Good luck, the jews are at full force right now

>>133420257
Why would net neutrality hurt smaller companies?

>>133418748
FCC chair talking about how regulations are hijacked by large companies to destroy competition and new entrants into the field.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28&feature=youtu.be

File: 1491841741048.jpg (92KB, 375x500px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 375x500px

>>133420257
/this

No Net Neutrality!

>>133418748
NN is a meme being used to distract us. (((They))) win either way. The fuck are we going to do, boycott the internet?

>>133420621
Costs a lot to comply with regulations.

>>133418748

(((weird)))

File: YTV.jpg (21KB, 517x364px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 517x364px

>>133418748
>Keep it weird

God, that brings me back.

>>133418748
Trusting the govt with anything right now, nah nigga, nah.
They are trying to ship ICANN over to the UN already, fuck them.

File: 1497415526001.png (8KB, 363x383px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 363x383px

>>133420365
what you just said is fucking retarded

>>133418748
Please note how every bill the government passes does the opposite of what it's title states it will do. Patriot act. Net neutrality.

The golden age of the internet is officially dying. Our choices are government regulation or private ownership, when before no one knew there was anything there. Either way, the internet can't go back to just "existing" and being weird

File: 1490268984886.gif (2MB, 300x164px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x164px

>>133418748
please go back to your kekistani fag containment zone

>>133420855
Well ISP would prioritize whichever company pays more. not necessarily smaller companies.

>>133420621
Favouring different connections over any other ones. Example for non-Premium Users get the shit of the stick

>>133420933
In lost profits maybe. but ISPs are making good enough money anyway.

File: 1477892067361.png (89KB, 750x750px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 750x750px

>>133421010

>Shrink kikes revenue
>force them to make pay per content
>Stop consuming said content because not gone pay
>lose grip on a big chunk of populations data
>lose advertisers
>lose more Shekel
The goy wins.

>>133421329
If there is a cheaper competitior, they will get the company's business then.

>>133421332
You get what you pay for.

>>133418748
Agreed.

File: 11001646.jpg (11KB, 199x194px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 199x194px

>>133421074

>>133421532
Not when the company owns all the infrastructure. and cant afford to rent it from competitors

>>133421617
No you don't. You pay for what you get, or you get nothing. That's being held hostage, not freedom.

>>133421421
Jesus Christ - the point is that smaller companies can't afford to comply and go out of business - that's why large isps are lobbying so hard for net neutrality.

>>133421617
And prices will raise for all of us because of your retarded "muh free market"

>>133421699
Net neutrality prevents newcomers from building their own infrastructure - why google is having trouble laying google fiber in areas where old isps already have infrastructure.

>>133421743
The majority of people are in favor of Net Neutrality. How are all ISPs supporting it. And as ive said the small companies dont own the infrastructure.

>>133421733
Do you realize without these companies you wouldn't be using the fucking internet at all right now?

>>133422105
The internet doesn't rely on ISPs. ISPs rely on the internet.

>>133421971
>>133421971
Then change net neutrality law but dont abolish it.

Well you cant rip up infrastructure. I cant see a small mom and pop business paying for the permission to law miles of data cables.

>>133421801
This is completely illogical. In a market - prices are much cheaper because there are many people competing to provide the service.

>>133421699
Ah, that company sounds very much like the company called "The US Government"

>>133421667
Posting pictures without text is not an argument.

>>133422266
This. They provide a service and want to fuck us over because of the power they have. Ultimately freedom for companies to do as they police will result in people being fucked up. Look at china and india.

>>133418797

More like Suckaturd

>>133422021
Most people are fucking stupid and don't read beyond the title of the bill. If you read the bill and look at who supports it, you'd realize that you're getting shafted.

>>133422266
Please inform me as to how you plan on accessing the internet without one.

>>133422417
And whats wrong with the government owning vital utilities. Companies will fuck us over given the chance for a quick buck.

>>133422644
You're the only one who seems to think providers would stop existing somehow.

>>133421074
Absolutely worthless contribution to the topic. Just call him a retard while providing no facts or evidence to support your argument. You should seriously consider suicide.

>>133422474
It's not a coincidence that the internet has been the most prosperous area of the economy for three decades and the least regulated. The organic growth is the result of politicians not stealing the wealth. They are trying mightily to change that.

>>133422417
At least the government is accountable.

if beta cucks and sjws are reeeeeee reeeeeeeeeing for net neutrality then it has to be bad

>>133422972
Because we want all data to be treated the same. Net Neutrality has to be in affect otherwise companies will charge more for their services. This regulation needs to stay, keep in mind net neutrality didn't stunt the growth of the internet.

>>133422731
Government isn't sensitive to market demands and thus provides terrible service and doesn't innovate. The government granted Bell telephone a monopoly in the us (govt corporate collusion like nn) and telephones in the us didn't change at all from 1950 - 1980 until technological advances made the monopoly irrelevant.

>>133423123
This is the logic of libtards on this board.

>>133422892
They wouldn't. The market would be open to more new companies and innovation - prices would go down. Both business and consumers would benefit.

>4chan never existed before 2010

>>133423030
Troll?

>>133418748
What the fuck brought this up today? Seriously, there's been dozens of these threads. Is it (((MSM))) coming here creating these to say, "look! Even /pol/ thinks X!!!11"?

>>133423123
Correctum.

>>133421421
>Lost profits
You're a complete dipshit if you think it's not gonna be rate hikes, both for compliance costs and the hidden tax used to fund federal enforcement.
This shit is always, always passed to the consumer. Internet service is the only thing you can currently purchase without regulations being 80% of the cost that shows up on your bill.

>>133423454
How do you figure?

>>133420257
this

The new Trump appointee for FCC chairman, Ajit Pai is /ourguy/. He's going to roll back the FCC changes obama put in that fucked up the internet. Details of Pai's proposal and a link to a feedback form are here: https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom

>>133418748
Agree

>>133423754
how did obama fuck up the internet?

>>133422444
He was pointing out that there was no argument to respond to you stupid piece of shit.

>>133423567
FCC chairman is trying to get a large chunk of nn legislation repealed (title 2).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s1IzN9tst28&feature=youtu.be

Redpill me on why we dont need it. The market will be booming and you degenerates will read a book or go outside instead of playing games or watching muh anime

>>133423030
Good joke.

Private companies are accountable;le because if they fuck up people can just leave and get another service, thus tanking their revenue and forcing them to change practices.

For government the equivalent is literally moving to another country.

>>133423538
No.

File: image.jpg (93KB, 1199x648px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1199x648px

>>133418748
I bet people who think Rick and Morty is the epitome of humor love NN.

>>133423567
Wouldn't be surprised.

>>133423030
You are fake news

>>133424115
Companies depend on internet service to do business. They have no way to just get up and move to another provider. In many cases, there are no other providers with the infrastructure they need. What you're suggesting is the same thing as saying "move to another country". It's not realistic or even possible for most people.

>>133423633
Net Neutrality is a thing. To my knowledge rates didnt take a huge hike when it was implemented. Not abolishing it wont change rates otherwise it would have happened already. "Hidden tax" explain. because net neutrality laws exist. The internet has made huge leaps in progress.

ISPs do not have the right to perform deep packet inspection and violate your privacy to charge you more for the same amount data.

>>133424017
How ironic.

>>133423973
That's not an argument either.

>>133423232
If you have an open market - people charging unfair prices will lose business to newcomers or business that are charging better prices.

>>133423123
Yeah probably.

>>133424227
What?

>>133424115
What is a monopoly?

>>133424344
Small companies do not have the power to charge lower prices if they dont own infrastructure.

>>133424456
the government
>suddenly you arent against monopoly

>>133422345
We have a winner.

>>133420257
>Even Comcast supports net neutrality
In word, yes. Not in action.

>>133418748
4chan doesn't deserve to be free. same with porn and any form of real degeneracy. you dumbass kids need to go outside and play. and pedophiles don't need a safe haven. you realize that by defending this stupid bullshit you are allowing pedohiles to continue to operate, you are allowing the distrupution of CP on boards like /b/ and people are allowed to view if for free without real reprecusion. you are allowing terrorist orginizations, killers, rapists and anyone like minded to have a place to discuss things for free. these things are not good things, in the sense that they do not benefit anyone trying to strive for better. fuck your free internet bullshit. and you don't deserve to have free games and music and movies. people work hard to make those and you just dont give a shit. SAGE

>>133424294
Enforcement takes a while. Bill takes a while to take effect. Economic collapse takes a while. NN changed internet regulatory authority from FTC to FCC - they needed to build regulatory infrastructure from scratch.

>>133423935

>from the fcc article i linked to earlier
"From passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 until 2015, the Internet underwent rapid, and unprecedented, growth. Internet service providers (ISPs) invested approximately $1.5 trillion in building networks, and American consumers enthusiastically responded. The Internet became an ever-increasing part of the American economy, offering new and innovative changes in how we work, learn, and play, receive health care, create and enjoy entertainment, and communicate with one another. During that time, there was bipartisan agreement that the Internet should be free of burdensome regulation so that it could continue to flourish.

Two years ago, the FCC abruptly changed course. On a party-line vote, the FCC applied 1930s-era utility-style regulation ("Title II") to the Internet. That decision appears to have put at risk online investment and innovation, threatening the very open Internet it purported to preserve. Requiring ISPs to divert resources to comply with unnecessary and broad new regulatory requirements threatens to take away from their ability to make investments that benefit consumers. The lack of clarity around what Title II requires ISPs to do further appears to harm investment and have particularly harmful effects on small ISPs."

Net Neutrality will fuck 4chan over, and free speech as a whole.
>b-but it doesnt work! People still get blocked all the time!
Netflix. Discord. All competition will be completely decided by the ISPs. That is indesputable.
>b-but free market!

ISPs are not giants to competition. They are Titans. They have all the money, broad coverage, infrastructure and people know of them. Any competition that arises will have little to no chance.

>>133424290
>They have no way to just get up and move to another provider.

Yes they do. For example, say someone is running a webshow and their internet is constantly shitting out because their company's upload speeds suck. They always have the option of changing companies or switching to fiber optic, it isn't prohibitive.

For a government example, say it's the same thing, but instead of the internet itself it's their power that's always cutting off because the infrastructure in the area is terrible. That person doesn't really have any option at all except to up sticks and move areas to somewhere with more consistent electricity, they can't change to a different electric company.

>>133424577
Because the people choose the government.

>>133424788
I don't want freedom, the post.

>>133424788
I sure do love a good strawman.

You need to seriously kill yourself and save the world from another fucking one of your opinions.

>>133424884
This. I love you

>>133425081
ill sacrifice my freedom for the sake of others

>>133425081
Dont feed trolls moron

>>133425030
Forced to use the government.

ITT meme flags

File: 1489859568351.png (32KB, 238x220px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 238x220px

How could this happen to America, the land of the (free) ?

>>133424982
No they don't. It's too expensive in terms of both money and time for most companies, and furthermore 90% of the country is underdeveloped and does not provide alternative service options capable of supporting the infrastructure that businesses need.

>>133425102
what strawman? you must be new if you've never witnessed CP on /b/ before. been happening since I discovers this shithole back in 08
pirating music, movies, and games is a strawman? I'm pretty sure the majority of users here are neets with computers. tell me what my strawman is

>>133425223
What you on about?

>>133425322
"Muh free market"

They don't understand this

>>133425342
Wah, child porn exists therefore banning people from the internet will totally stop it.

You honestly don't know how child porn rings function if you think an ISP being able to block traffic to sites will stop the distribution of cp.

File: dklooiehere.png (246KB, 1014x817px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1014x817px

>>133418748

Daily reminder that if you believe in net neutrality you support government regulated censorship and telecom monopolies.

>>133424788
>He thinks /b/ is some sort of pedophile haven or serious distribution network
>Muh Piracy

How to show you're a normie who found 4chan this year: the post.

>orginizations

File: 1355380063267.png (6KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 429x410px

>>133418748
http://www.strawpoll.me/13420739
http://www.strawpoll.me/13420739
http://www.strawpoll.me/13420739

>>133425387
he thinks it's possible to put the u.s. government out of business without communists replacing it with another government.

>>133425556
>Daily reminder if you are against Net Neutrality, you support ISP regulated censorship and telecom monopolies.

>>133425565
Nice framing on that question. I'm surprised anyone voted for "grant a federal agency more authority" at all. Seems there's at least hope for some small portion of /pol/ who realized that was actually the better choice of the two.

net neutrality has been around for less than five years. the entire idea of net neutrality was hamfisted into place by obama and liberals are shaking in their boots now that republicans and the fcc are getting rid of it.

it's corporate welfare that passes the cost of internet usage down to the customer. there's a reason companies with large bandwidth usage like google, Facebook, netflix, and r*ddit are the ones shilling for it, because they don't have to pay a fair amount of money for their operations. as a result, cable companies raise the rates of the average joe customer to subsidize them.

the only argument FOR net neutrality is a strawman or slippery slope which claims that if the government doesn't protect us from the ISP boogeyman, they'll move to a pay-per-view model (which doesn't even exist in cable tv now) and charge per website. or you'll pay $1000 to visit 4chan. or you'll pay 50+ for each website genre. the internet existed for 20+ years without this regulation and none of these fallacies took place.

now tell us how great net neutrality is without a fallacy

>>133425322
If that's the case then what is the difference? You're taking the freedom away from people with the option to chose for the sake of people who are already locked in, it's irrelevant.

As has been pointed out before, NN isn't something that's always existed with the internet, and where it exists elsewhere in the world it doesn't stop the government from blocking sites or sites selling data.

>>133424884
An isp has every right to sensor a company if it wants - I doubt it would stay in business very long. Current FCC chairs says there were NO examples of this EVER occurring.

Most monopolies in a free market are the result of people providing a valuable service at scale for very low cost and are thus a net benefit to society. The only time monopoly is harmful is when government (a monopoly on force) is used to strangle out competition from coming in and proving consumers other options.

>>133425545
>>133425563

I know it wont stop it, and you're creating strawman to think that I think its the end of CP distribution because of this net neutrality crap. it just wont be so easily accessible, it wont be so easily views. im trying to say nothing good ever came from 4chan, so putting a pay wall in front of it only hurts kids looking for free porn, losers looking for easy CP and neets looking for scams and easy way to get things free. which is a good thing. and it's a start.

>>133424982
I live in a major city, I have TWO choices. Both suck major dicks. Do I really have a choice, or do I just take the smaller dick?

>>133425342
>discovered this shithole in 08
NEWFAGS GET OUT

>>133425322
So you want to support a bill that makes it nearly impossible to install new infrastructure?

>>133425787
daily reminder "net neutrality" defines "net" including AND limited to ISPs. by this definition fedbook and jewgle aren't "the net" and don't get regulated. the new changes ROLL BACK obama era changes and deregulate ISPs

>>133418748
net neutrality is a government regulation

why do you people love sucking government dick so much? fuck net neutrality

>>133418748
Am I the only one who really likes arguing with people on Reddit against whatever they're sperging out about? I support NN, but I like arguing against it and having people get really mad. Does that make me a bad person?

File: image.gif (3MB, 330x184px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 330x184px

>>133425125
You seem like a good guy. Want to kill degenerates with me? We'll sacrifice our (((freedom))) and their lives to make a better country.

>>133425387
You have no choice but to use the government if it is the only provider.

>>133425997
Dont think the founding fathers would be a fan of censorship. Its very different when small companies cant afford to foot the bill for expensive infrastructure

>>133425889
>b-but i can't live w/o my fedbookobamaphone

>>133425816
Please what part of the 2015 Net Neutrality bill is misrepresented by "en force a de jure standard by giving a federal agency more authority"

Would the bill not give the FCC more regulatory power?
Would the bill not enforce de jure terms and services standard on ISPs?

Don't get salty just because I didn't frame it as one sided as you.

>>133426116
you live in a major city, so you house large corporations that suck up all the bandwidth in the area while you pay high rates

try visiting a rural town without this problem and feel the world of difference. now question why google built """google fiber data centers""" in the shitty midwest with no local competition

>>133426401
equal protection under the law my nigger

>>133426177
Sources and evidence. And its impossible anyhow for anyone without the capital. What is the point in installing the exact same infrastructure in an area that already has it

>>133426116
What shit city do you live in? I'm in a rural area and I have like five choices.

Regardless, you still do have the option. You may consider it the "smaller dick", but both companies have to compete in order to BE that smaller dick and thus get your business. NN doesn't help you.

>>133425891
The difference is who gets to control it. I trust the government with my interests more than I trust corporations. Corporations have NEVER cared about small money. They only care about big money.

>>133426209
Evidence. this seems like FAKE NEWS

>>133426244
No because people get to see how retarded the otherside is (people against net neutrality)

>>133424739
Such a stupid fucking post, needed to reply

>>133418748
fuck NN
its time to use tech to address this problem not have this motherfucking debate every few years
P2P and VPN

>>133424191
This shit is so retarded. I still use some normalfag sites and they're all shilling for this "muh package" myth. If corporations straight up blocked sites like this, they would be committing suicide.
-> >>133422345

>>133426496
Companies pay higher rates you retard.

>>133426653
https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom

File: 1479252537118.jpg (437KB, 1508x1493px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 1508x1493px

>>133418748

>>133426401
I didn't accuse you of misrepresentation. Framing a question doesn't mean lying about it, it's telling the truth but doing so with carefully selected words that either ignore biases when they should be taking them into account, or playing TO those biases intentionally. You knew that most people here are alt-right or conservative, and would respond negatively to anything encouraging big government.

File: Net_Neutrality.png (304KB, 3000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 3000x1500px

I support net neutrality, just not "net neutrality"

Redpill on net neutrality: Republicans are dead right that Title II from 1930s was not meant to regulate ISPs and is ill-equipped to do so. Pass a new law and don't let the ISPs write all of it.

>>133426828
"Your package does not include Peer to Peer or VPN connections"

Please upgrade to the Ultimate package to access this content.

>>133426846
>>133427040
>27 posts by this reddit ID
>all fallacies
http://www.netcompetition.org/corporate-welfare/netflix-net-neutrality-corporate-welfare-plan-part-10-of-a-series
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii

why are you so obsessed with an event taking place in a different country?

File: 1486556433448.jpg (42KB, 326x236px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 326x236px

>>133426630
>I trust the government with my interests more than I trust corporations.

Fucking WHY?

You say corporations only care about big money, what makes you think that the government is any different?

Look at it from a historical perspective, government over-regulation and control is ALWAYS more of an impediment to a citizen's life than corporate interests. Point out to me any instance of a corporation fucking an individual over and I can point you to countless instances of governments doing the same thing on a much more massive scale.

>>133426358
They are providing you a service. You wouldn't have that service without them making the effort to install and provide that service. They call the shots because it's their business and they took the risk to start it. If they suck - you go to someone else or wait for someone else to bring service to your area.

>>133423030
The CIA says hi.

>>133427040
did you read my link faggot? ever heard of responding to multiple replies in one post? i know, reading's a lot of work. sometimes, though, if you don't read, you get BTFO

>>133418748
no socialism kthxbai

>>133427446
Because what you refer to as the government is you and me.

>>133427607
I wish, the CIA is cool. Jason Bourne is one of my favorite action heroes.

>>133426532
Title 2 of net neutrality includes onerous guidelines for installation of isp infrastructure. You install your own shit if other companies won't let you use theirs or if you want to provide a better cheaper service.

>>133426565
Phoenix, it blows dicks.

I really don't understand exactly what net neutrality would entail. On one hand, fuck ISPs, I would never support their monopolies or want to give them more power over what I do online. If I understand things correctly, no net neutrality means the ISP can charge sites more for allowing access, so basically we end up with a netflix and amazon only internet where all you can do is absorb talmud-vision like a good goy and indulge in rampant consumerism. On the other hand, I don't want the (((tribe))) in our government to be given power over what I access online. what do?

>>133426497
>what is crony capitalism
Hint: it thrives when bought politicians are in charge of regulations.

Title II =/= Net Neutrality

Stop it

>>133426846
Areas with companies that have leveraged government to drive it competition, like many urban areas, have much higher prices than rural areas where competitors are allowed to enter.

I like trump but I hate this pajeet he put in the fcc

File: 1480719647811.jpg (40KB, 604x604px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 604x604px

>>133420257
Surely Comcast has our best interests as consumers in mind!

>>133424115
You realize that in a lot of American districts, there is only one high speed internet provider, right? I have one choice: Cox. If I decide I want to stop sucking Cox because they piss me off by charging me to view 4chan, I have literally no internet. Without net neutrality, I'm a captive audience that will be forced to pay whatever they demand.

>>133426938
Mein nig.

>I want the government to have more power
Fuck off, shills.

>>133427919
>this isn't bait
I think I died a little inside

>>133427040
Or change providers.

>>133428409
You didn't like those movies? Come on.

>>133428122
That is literally what we are talking about though. Go read the 2015 FCC ruling and then get back to us.

whatever we have now is what we should keep

>>133428478
I did, but don't you think those programs were a little fucked up?
Funny thing is they probably actually happened.

>>133428122
All people are greedy. Why would you trust the government - a group of people with a monopoly on force - more than businesses that want to get your money by providing you something of value?

>>133425556
There is zero censorship- the ONLY thing net neutrality does is guarantee that all internet traffic and websites are treated the same. It censors nothing you fucking retard. As to "telecom monopolies," they are the big ones behind the push against net neutrality and the ONLY group that stands to benefit from its repeal, as it will allow them to control what traffic is served and at what rate, if at all. You want to game, you'd better buy their gaming package. You want to use Facebook? Better buy the social media package. And on the other end, they'll force every tech company to pay them just to get equal treatment. It's literally doing nothing but enriching the existing telecom monopolies if NN goes down.

Unbelievable shilling going on ITT on the part of telecoms, fucking insane that 4chan has become this overridden with scum. We wouldn't have stood for your shit 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago. Now it's like a bunch of kids that don't remember the start of the fight are taking the side of Big Telecom because it's 3edgy5me.

>>133418748
So wait. Is the restoring internet freedom act bad or good?

File: net_neutrality.png (282KB, 725x427px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 725x427px

>>133418748

>comcast shills itt
I mean it takes a bootlicker to know a bootlicker but fucking hell.

>>133428703
So many leftie virtue words in here in tempted to think it's bait.

File: cnnanchor.jpg (15KB, 247x375px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 247x375px

>>133418797
Fpbp

>>133428701
Net neutrality does ONE thing- forces the treatment of all websites to be the same. That's fucking fine you retard. The government isn't forcing anything aside from Comcast to not extort money out of people both downstream and upstream of their networks to give them money or else have their access cut off.

>>133428804
Comcast doesn't operate in my area. I also have great internet with competitive providers.
Pretty interesting.

>>133428713
Most bills do the opposite of what their names indicate they will do.

File: 1473900208647.png (144KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 512x512px

>>133428703
>As to "telecom monopolies," they are the big ones behind the push against net neutrality and the ONLY group that stands to benefit from its repeal
Then why are companies like Comcast and AT&T deeply concerned about keeping net neutrality?

>>133428859
>ISPs should treat Netflix and their massive bandwidth usage like their customers' relatively tiny usage.
Why?

>>133428859
>Communism does one thing - forces the treatment of all pepple to be the same. That's fucking fine you retard.

>>133418748
>we still need to protect net Neutrality
no we don't

>we'll start paying to go websites like 4chan and many others
>implying ISPs are free until now
you niggering monkey

>>133428701
because I see exactly what will happen here. They will give the majority of bandwidth to mega sites like Youtube and throttle down smaller sites unless they cough up serious money.

This would destroy the web as we know it

>>133428703
Government doesn't do the censoring, it keeps silicon valley in power which does the censoring for them.

>>133424859
>believing what the salesman tells you
I bet you're the kind of guy that takes pride in being a gullible idiot.

>>133428804
>comcast bootlicker

vs

>reddit, soros, facebook, netflix, amazon, obama, ... bootlicker

hmmm

>praises pinochet and free market
>hates this

>>133429110
The irony in this post is mind blowing
>don't trust that salesman!
>trust this one

>>133428942
That's what I thought. I saw Totalbisuit's video. I was confused by this thread. More shills it seems.

>>133427960
I guess I should add. There is no competition, they offer the same prices for about the same speed wise. They are essentially the same company.

>>133428650
desu I really don't care about the CIA, I'm not a threat to them

File: hungrycommie.jpg (48KB, 541x599px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 541x599px

>>133429018
to be fair, communism does manage to treat all people the same
through a race to the bottom
instead of sharing wealth unequally, communism ends up sharing poverty equally
which indeed is not fucking fine

>>133428713
Repealing the 2015 FCC decision is a good thing.

>>133429384
but the web is more like a public medium. Like a public forum or something

>>133427829
A vote and a dollar are functionally the same thing in terms of accountability, except that a vote's only purpose to a politician is to facilitate the accumulation of more dollars anyway.

If either a corporation or a government lose enough money and votes to the point at which continuing their practices becomes prohibitive, they're forced to change. The only difference is government is, in it's net effect, worse at it in every conceivable way, for a myriad of reasons. This is why planned economies and socialism have failed in every country they've ever been tried.

Anytime you think that government is better than a corporation try and recognize that a totalitarian corporate dystopia has always been relegated to the realms of fiction while governmental totalitarian dystopias can and have and DO exist in reality.

>>133429371
Of course you aren't, you sit by and do as you are told and don't interfere in their drug smuggling operations.
Unlike you, however, some of us don't particularly enjoy the influx of drugs and illegals, so the CIA is kind of not a good thing.
Let's not allow the FCC to gain similar power.

File: 1494329754183.jpg (15KB, 242x238px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 242x238px

>>133420855
>You either enter the market being able to provide for everything, or you don't enter it.
That's how it's been since forever. Small ISPs in the US can't grow because the largest ISPs have monopolies on the physical lines (paid for by taxmoney) and can literally bar any competition, so competing ISPs have to build parallel infrastructue from their own pocket while they get fought tooth and nail in the courts. That's why google has basically stopped expanding their ISP business.

>>133420257
Of course, if net neutrality is removed, the ISP providers that support it will act on the dystopian bullshit to make it look like the preferable option.

File: bandwidth.jpg (105KB, 931x806px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 931x806px

>>133428049
It's more like sites will have to worry about compression once again

>>133428859
You have no argument so you use ad hominem. ISPs are businesses and are allowed to control their service. If you don't like how they do business you choose someone else. Regulation like this always leads to unforeseen consequences and is used by government officials and established businesses to extort money and to maintain unfair market monopolies.

Netflix can't pay Comcast to stream their content faster now.

>>133429137
>let me eat this other pile of shit

>>133429025
But that never happened for like forty years already.

>>133423567
Funny you should say that. The Washington Post ran an article today claiming "even 4chan supports net neutrality."

>>133429480
so fucking what?
does being public magically make it run on fresh air and fairy farts?

>>133429735
but the amount of data you can send between two points in any given time has mostly to do with the infrastructure that's built to support it.

That means things like fiber optic cable, transmission towers....things like this. If one company owns the only fiber optic cable, this is not a scenario where there is competition. They have a monopoly. They can squeeze the consumer for all they're worth

>>133418748
Implying I wouldn't want to be saved from this hell of a website.

>>133429025
That won't make them the most money. There is a price you charge where you maximize profit. Hindering internet usage decreases the usage of bandwidth. You're inviting competition to come in and blow you out of the water with a newer cheaper service.

>>133429632
How do you figure the FCC could ever become equal to the CIA?

>>133426832
>If corporations straight up blocked sites like this, they would be committing suicide.
Which is why they'll just gradually charge you more and more for it. You're not even denying they will have the power to do so, you're just presuming they won't go full Shkreli.

>>133430055
but we don't want them to maximize profit. We want to provide a good environment for people

((((((((((((((((((((((((>>133420257))))))))))))))))))))))))

>>133429935
In the interview with the FCC head posted earlier he specifically talks about getting rid of regulations prohibiting the building of towers and open access to the pipes, which would allow more companies to invest in infrastructure and compete in that sector.

If you only have the option of one ISP, start up your own. Obviously there's a market for it if you and other people are being unfairly treated by the current ISP. Oh, it turns out it's really expensive? Gee, maybe that's why your ISP is squeezing your balls in the first place.

>>133427552
Their networks (which they upgrade at a glacial pace) have been funded largely by tax money, so that argument doesn't fly.

>>133430293
The CIA started somewhere, no? Plus the more realistic result is the CIA gaining influence over the FCC, and this become their proxy for internet control.

>>133430458
But we don't want hundreds of competing towers, this is not a good solution. We don't need this. We only need a few towers maximum.

It's like, we don't need hundreds of competing roads to go between two points. Just one, maybe two

>>133429734
That's kind of trite when any bandwidth shortage is entirely artificial.

>>133429935
They can! And will! Until some other provider pops up to provide competition. That's why nn is so bad - it severely restricts the ability of small isps to grow. Increased regulatory burden is easier for well established businesses to deal with.

>A large portion of /pol/ is actually against net neutrality

So much for free market fair competition. Don't forget goy, monopolies are a great thing and allow for even better services to be provided to you

>>133429609
First, I respect you for making the strongest argument for libertarian ideology I've ever heard. However, I'm not altruistic enough to believe that corporations would be less corrupt than the government. If anything, history has shown us that corporations are far more greedy and irresponsible than the government and care next to nothing for the welfare of nations or the preservation of indigenous cultures. You're asking me to turn a blind-eye toward centuries of colonialism and globalism, all made possible by guilds and banks. I can't do that with a clear conscience.

>>133430580
Tax breaks are not "funding the network". Stop it with the stretching of truths already.

>>133418748
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.

>5. How does NN help big companies like Netflix and Google?
The big tech companies use the most data per second, which is expensive for your ISP to transfer, compared to home users like you. Under NN, this cost is transferred to you because all data is treated equally. If NN is repealed, your ISP has leverage over Netflix to make them pay for better service. Note that your ISP is still a Jew, but it's the lesser Jew and doesn't make fag/refugee propaganda.

>>133429735
I literally can't choose someone else, we have ONE cable provider in my area. Only 2% of the United States has access to more than one cable provider. My choice is pay or have no internet. And that isn't fair when ISPs built their networks using taxpayer dollars, not private investment money. Furthermore, in my state it is ILLEGAL to establish a second cable provider where one already exists, as the state didn't want to pay for redundant networks. Telecoms can't have their cake and eat it too by having a monopoly and being allowed to extort people downstream and upstream of said monopoly that they built with government dollars.

>>133418748
the reason there has been so much division created amongst the populace internationally is because they need to get to a point where they can control this global communication medium so they can continue advancing their one world, one government agenda that its being created before your very eyes

see it yet?

>>133430751
But it doesn't seem like a huge regulatory burden. It seems like a fairly simple rule

>>133424739
https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20170711/09523137764/att-pretends-to-love-net-neutrality-joins-tomorrows-protest-with-straight-face.shtml

mildly relevant

>>133430824
Tax cuts are not "building networks with tax payer money".

>>133430751
>That's why nn is so bad - it severely restricts the ability of small isps to grow.

Smaller ISPs are already fucked by the regional monopolies of the big ISPs

>>133430690
Let's agree to disagree. I'm not as convinced as you are that the FCC is somehow going to turn into big brother.

>>133430784
Whoa dude, stop sucking Comcast's dick so hard or they might finish early.

>>133430334
The best environment is provided by an open market with many competing services. Everyone is trying to provide you the best service for the cheapest price. The profit motive is the only real motivator for people so you must use it to your advantage - not pretend it doesn't exist.

>>133430784
>who opposes net neutrality
a bunch of capitalist free market fucktards

are you really so sure you're right here?

File: commiecarebear.jpg (1MB, 2486x1906px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2486x1906px

>>133430777
don't you know?
to commie fucks, moneyz that's not stolen from businesses amounts to gibsing those businesses moneyz

>>133430974
Because federal commissions do so well at avoiding corruption and scandal.
I would rather you not vote our freedom away for government control. We don't need another Patriot Act.

>>133430999
>The best environment is provided by an open market with many competing services.

But allowing ISPs to pick and choose which sites get to have quicker access based on ability to pay inherently benefits bigger companies which can pay the fee and smaller companies would be shit outta luck

>>133430695
He stressed access to the underground network more than towers, but I really don't see your point.

Why NOT have many competing towers? Hell, why not have many different roads? If you've got like six bridges across a river rather than two that's going to cut down on congestion massively.

>>133430999
but they make the most money by throttling to limit competing services. That's how you get monopoly prices.

If you want to go to non-mainstream websites, you have to pay a fee. Now instead of a flat rate for browsing the web, anyone who deviates from the masses will be penalized for it

>>133431045
>hike up taxes
Don't worry, you'll get tax breaks, goy!
>disagree with them
Oi don't forget we paid you!

>>133430580
This is false. Private isps have spent 1.5 trillion on internet infrastructure.

>>133431206
>Why NOT have many competing towers? Hell, why not have many different roads?
Because it's inefficient, wasteful, and harmful to the environment

File: young-black-male-isolated-on-a-white-background.jpg (43KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 300x450px

>>133422444
And yet you do knew what he meant

>>133430982
>immediate ad hominem
Gee, I wonder who I should believe.

>>133430695
Then figure out some other method to transmit em signals. The beauty of market innovation.

>>133418748
>I'm fucking retarded and will trust the government with being neutrality the post.

Fuck you retard.

>>133418748
You guys need to seriously stop worrying about this. Things are happening, like blockchain security, and encryption, that are going to totally revolutionize what you thought the web could be.

Its going to become impossible for any government, even the UN to control soon.

The "internet" is learning at an exponential rate .... it will become "self aware".

And I use those terms because no word has been invented to describe what is going to happen, not like an AI machine, but a cumulation of human minds.

Soon all your personal data will be only stored on your machine, and your machine will be its own server, and your public key will be blockchained and only those yuou give it to will be able to read, only what you want them to see.

>>133431366
>cellular plans intensify
Anyone else notice the ISPs got their shit together when cellular service got good?

File: IMG_8415.jpg (89KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 900x900px

How will this affect people outside the USA, that is the sites that they visit.

>>133431126
Sorry, I just don't think your predictions make any sense and you haven't given me any reason to change my mind.

>>133430937
Read your fucking bill. All of those taxes that are attached to your bill are for the infrastructure spending the government did for cable companies. It totals $400 billion since broadband taxes were initiated, all of which was poured back into infrastructure. On top of that, companies were given tax breaks to spur spending, which results in net government revenue loss and essentially has the same effect as government spending, but without having to pass as many laws and regulations.

>>133429007
They already pay for the bandwidth. Why should they be forced to pay a second time at completely arbitrary rates?

>>133431366
the market isn't really concerned with innovation as much as squeezing every penny out of it's customers

>>133418748
I am fucking sick of these faggoty net newtrality threads, like 30 an hour popping up every fucking time

NOT YOUR PERSONAL ARMY

YOU FUCKING TARD

GTFO of /pol/

>>133431478
You are ignorant, then. There are ample examples in recent history of the federal government overstepping their duties, which is why so many people want to strip their power.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is no getting around this.

Net (((neutrality))) is the same as (((equality)))
.
It gives the government total power over the internet.

U peeps need to know that.
Seems too many on 4chan didnt even look at it but took just at the label like dumb libtards do.

Just a lil wakeup call fot ya'll..

Might be better to improve antitrust laws.

>>133430762
If you look into most of those atrocities- they were committed by government or government run monopolies, not companies whose very survival depends upon their consumer base and reputation.

>>133431203
It wont matter soon.
ISP's wont be able to distinguish traffic from large or small networks, or even individuals.

The days of centralized computing are ending. These government idiots, as usual, as so far behind the curve its unreal.

>>133431697
Not really. It's just a rule that ISP's can't throttle certain websites over others

It's like saying that a store can't charge different prices to different customers (if a wealthy businessman walks in, they can't charge him a higher price). Prices must be uniform and homogenous across the board.

You have to have net neutrality when there are ISP monopolies. Until such a time as at least 2 or more competing ISPs are available nationwide, you have to regulate the monopolies

>>133431500
>we paid them
>but we didnt
>well, we might as well have paid them!
We don't live in a communist nation, fortunately. What you are suggesting we do is highly illegal.
>>133431504
They paid to consume over the bandwidth, not sell over it.
Perfect example is software free for consumers, but not for businesses. Why should the business profit off of the backs of others?
Do you think those cost are free?

File: C4ALdmGUcAAlxIk.jpg (34KB, 704x396px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 704x396px

>>133430937
>it's not tax payer money when you avoid paying taxes

>>133430824
First - ISPs spent 1.5 trillion building most of the infrastructure in the US. Second - if you don't have another provider coming in, it's because the local government is preventing new businesses from coming (lobbying) in or the area you live in is very rural.

>>133431226
>1.5 trillion

nigga pls
they haven't done jack shit in 30 years throughout this city.
most of the cable was strung in the FUCKING 1980s and hasn't been touched since but the gouging has probably cost that much to the FUCKING CUSTOMERS for SHITTY CHANNELS OF CRAP

SO FUCK YOU TO DEATH WITH A CABLE BOX

>>133431830

It may perhaps be ending, but that future isn't here yet. We need things implemented for the now as well as looking towards the future

>>133432009
>we gave them tax cuts, so they owe us
You obviously don't know how our taxes work, so you don't know what you are talking about. Typical euro.

Alright, so the narrative is that "net neutrality" is only achievable through (((government regulation))).

At the same time, it makes sense when they claim that (((ISPs))) throttle the bandwidth of certain companies selectively to gain profit.

Who do I believe /pol/? I'm legitimately indecisive in this issue.

Give the (((government))) or the (((ISPs))) more power over the internet?

>>133418748
>>133420257
A redditfag posted yet another cringey john oliver video as proof of why net neutrality is good. Now I'm against it just to spite these babbies
Don't let them influence you

>>133430824
>I literally can't choose someone else, we have ONE cable provider in my area. Only 2% of the United States has access to more than one cable provider.
It's amazing how tone deaf half this thread is to this very simple fact. Makes you wonder who is posting.

>>133431796
I really think that's taking a narrow view of who was involved. Government has always depended on production, and production during the colonial era at the start of industrialization depended on capital created by banks and guilds. Private ownership, even though it didn't technically exist back then, was already sowing the seeds for control and undermining the autonomy of nation states. It was short-sightedness on the part of world leaders at the time, and the framers of this nation's constitution, that allowed for things to get this far out of hand.

>>133432276
Not a federal issue. We have tiered government for a reason.
My internet is perfectly fine, and I live in a hurricane zone. What's California's excuse?

>>133423306
As I'm scrolling you haven't won me over just yet but thanks for all this

>>133418748
I used to think there was nothing wrong with net neutrality until this wave of shills started pushing it on /pol/, and that made me suspicious enough to dig into it a little.
thank you shills, you made me see there is another side to this coin.

I guess bad publicity is still publicity after all...

>>133431975
>Perfect example is software free for consumers, but not for businesses.
That's a licensing model based on copyrighted creative work, what the fuck does that have to do with bandwidth?

>Do you think those cost are free?
They're already getting paid. The costs are already accounted for.

>>133430784
>NN only came into effect in 2015
Where in the fuck are you getting this?

>>133429854
Fucking cunts

>>133432657
They are getting paid by moving the cost to the end consumer, hence the stupid pricing models in some parts of the country. Know why?
Because they legally can't charge Netflix more. Why is Netflix allowed to operate a business that takes advantage of the regulations upon another?

>>133424859
Did that monkey do ANYTHING right? Seriously asking.

>>133432552
They must be from reddit. the same people who never learned how to take "no" for an answer

>>133432763
He's confusing the 1995 ruling with the 2015 one. The shilling is in favor of the 2015 version over the 1995 version, by the way.

1995 version is wonderful in its scopes and protections. 2015 one is a gross overstep of executive power.

>>133432778

I mean even a few years ago a very large portion of at least the board I frequented at the time (/v/) was by and large a big supporter of the concept. Guess it's more contrarian to be against it these days so that's how it's gotta be

File: 1485918146606.png (1MB, 786x729px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 786x729px

>>133424444

>>133430762
I'm also not naive enough to think that corporations are free of corruption, but I do believe that the way in which they operate in contrast to government encourages less corruption overall.

If someone creates a bad policy that results in a huge loss of money for a corporation, that person will probably be fired because he's causing loss directly through his ideas. Not always, of course, there's always the element of nepotism that could be at play.

But in a government, if the same situation happens it's far more difficult to act upon. First of all the constituency needs to be well informed and aware of what's going on, understanding how and why there's some new legislation that's negativity affecting them - Very rarely do voters get the full information of who is writing what, or the exact specifics of any given bill or act, so it's harder to pin problem actors down. Then they need to vote him out of office, which can takes years because of the voting cycle and might not happen anyway because perhaps in some other areas that person is seen in a better light; He might have a terrible tax policy, but he sure does love animal rights, and if he's elected again it'll stop those terrible people on the other side from getting in, right? Furthermore, this is all dependent on corruption stemming from elected officials and not unelected government employees, who can stay in their positions from cycle to cycle. And of course, the nepotism issue is still at hand, decades of political families have shown that.

>You're asking me to turn a blind-eye toward centuries of colonialism and globalism, all made possible by guilds and banks.

But that colonialism and globalism wasn't made possible BY guilds and banks, they were side benefactors of it. It was government action that perpetrated such things. Even Columbus was financed not privately, but by the monarchy of Spain.

what actual cost is there associated with transmitting data?

Why should it cost more for Youtube to transmit data than my local restaraunt?
There is no logical reason why it is more of a burden to transmit data from smaller, less profitable websites than from larger, more profitable websites.

This is basically the ISP's looking for a shakedown. Pay us, or we'll throttle you

>>133432929
It was a very successful psyop. So successful they are trying literally the same thing hoping no one remembers last time.
Most people don't.

>>133432214
>my dislike for current year man determines my views on internet regulation

>>133432050
This desu. Mr. ancap over here is cumming in his pants about muh free market ISPs he has no idea that these dinosaurs are fucking greedy Jews who talk big and don't do JACKSHIT for the consumers

>>133433053
Bandwidth is finite. Lines have to be maintained due to things like accidents and weather. This cost money.
Why should YouTube and Netflix traffic be treated the same as my request to a mongolian knitting forum? Mine are many, many times smaller than that of Netflix and Google.

>>133433068
When was the last time current year man supported something not designed by (((them)))? It is a perfectly good reason to question something if he is supporting it.

File: 1499878761686.jpg (18KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x600px

>>133424788

>>133433255
Yes, but why does it cost less to transmit Youtube's data then to transmit data from a knitting forum? It is the same cost to transmit each.

it's like, it doesn't cost more for a train to haul 10 tons of grain or 10 tons of asphalt. It's still 10 tons.

>>133432050
My local ISPs redug the fiber in front of my house a couple of months ago because of weather concerns and latency issues. Didn't cost me a cent.
Why is his city being a corrupt shithole my problem?

>>133432038
>, it's because the local government is preventing new businesses from coming (lobbying) in or the area you live in is very rural.

Are you just spouting random buzzwords hoping some shit sticks to the wall?
that's not even close to what lobbying means.

Anti-net neutrality shills piss me off, you faggots don't have a case.
Net neutrality means you get a set bandwidth to use AS YOU PLEASE. That's it, that's all. There are no other regulations, no commie conspiracy, no bullshit.
The government doesn't get a say in how or what you browse, and neither does your ISP. That's what net neutrality is.

We've had net neutrality since the birth of the internet, just because it wasn't on paper doesn't mean it wasn't applied in practice.
Of curse you're gonna distort all this shit for whatever shilling business you're working for. Enjoy your blood shekels in your bank account, you subhuman heeb

>>133432038
They built it with 400 billion in federal funds plus 1.1 trillion in tax breaks that they would have paid to taxes had they not used it for infrastructure. Those tax breaks and funds were given with certain expectations.

>>133433387
It is of a significant magnitude more data, thats why. One person watching Netflix is the equivalent of thousands of users posting to a forum, except Netflix is making money by being the bandwidth hog.
Why is this ok?

>>133433518
>another shill repeating verbatim
Learn what title II is, then comment again.

>>133433602
Yes, more people visit some sites than visit others. But it doesn't cost less because more people visit those sites. It's still the same # of megabytes being transmitted

>>133432091
Had they not built the infrastructure, those taxes would have gone to pay for our military, SS, medicare, and all the other shit our government spends money on. Tax breaks come with expectations, they aren't a free ride.

>>133433518
this. hardcore shilling going on in this thread

>>133432805
>hence the stupid pricing models in some parts of the country
>implying they aren't completely arbitrary
all of my lels

Yeah, ISPs are upping rates and terminating unlimited bandwidth contracts because they're hurting for money so bad. That's also totally why you still have third world internet in most of the country. If only all content producers and providers had to pay completely arbitrary prices, then they'd finally have the money to improve their networks. It's just so unfair that the people who make the content that makes people want to use the internet in the first place aren't paying for access to do so.

File: 1499422535136.png (18KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 429x410px

>>133424859
So it's government BS. Good to know.

>>133432181
The government doesn't directly control anything, they just say "treat all traffic the same." How is that a bad thing for anyone that isn't an ISP?

>>133433573
>that they would have paid
No "tax breaks" would have been paid. That is literally one of the things that makes accounting such a relevant job. They would just have found other ways to write the tax off.
Go learn how our tax system works, please. Written off taxes are not "taxes you did owe but you don't now, but we can still blackmail you over it"

>>133425030

Less than 50% of the people are happy with the government at any given time. It would take years of enduring shit before you could elect someone else, then out would take years of negotiating and implementing to fix anything. You're retarded

Since /pol/ is the only board that want's net neutrality gone. Hiro should just start charging a premium to use this board. I'm sure the cuckservatives here wouldn't mind.

>>133433711
It cost the ISPs more because they need to upgrade to alleviate the line load thanks to Netflix and other steaming services. Netflix does not pay for this, and thus that cost is passed on to you, the consumer

I swear you redditors aren't the brightest bunch.
>>133433725
>i don't know about our tax system: the post

>>133433695
not an argument, big nose fuckface

I've been in this site for over a decade, and NOT ONCE have I witnessed a push or an argument against net neutrality before. It's only now that you shekel grubbing cunts have organized for a push. Do us all a favor and kill yourself, we're not buying the amorpheous bullshit you try to peddle as an argument

>>133418748
>all the evil big businesses don't want net neutrality
this is why I want it

>>133424859
Title II takes literally no investment to comply with. In fact, it would take investment to defy, as systems will have to be built to treat traffic differently in a post-NN world. The way the current system stands requires no investment, and it's the way things always have been. In fact, most investment in internet companies depends on NN, as anyone who is not an ISP will tell you, since these companies go in with the expectation that their traffic will be treated fairly and they won't have to pay a third party to get their data to the consumer. Essentially, by doing away with NN, we'll end up with ISPs charging startups, increasing the bar to entry and reducing growth and innovation on the internet. I literally can't believe that anyone on /pol/ that isn't being paid would find NN to be a bad thing- you've gotta be a shill to fail to understand how important it is to everyone that isn't a telecom company.

>>133433861
>they would've found other ways to not pay tax so a tax break isn't actually lost tax money
Why do tax breaks even exist then? And who says they aren't take advantages of both tax breaks and creative accounting?

>>133433806
>terminating unlimited data
Where? Sure as hell no where around me.
>have to upgrade lines because internet streaming is a thing now, thus more bandwidth is needed to satisfy everyone
>the ISPs just eat this cost, and don't pass it on somehow
You are retarded. Do you even know where the ISPs are the worst? Big cities. Who runs big cities?
>democrats
Oh, but it's the republicans fault the ISPs are allowed to control the cities!

>>133434038
Regular corporate taxes go to the general fund, which is used to pay for everything, similar to income tax.

>>133434207
>Essentially, by doing away with NN, we'll end up with ISPs charging startups, increasing the bar to entry and reducing growth and innovation on the internet.

Did that happen in the forty years NN wasn't a thing?

>>133434220
So companies can lobby to get tax breaks or tax write offs. The IRS is pretty shit, and the current system allows for a lot of crookedness and kickbacks.
It is one of the reasons Trump is changing the tax system.

But I hate poor people?

Let's see what /g/ has to say:
>>/g/61341705

>>133433861
They wouldn't have written them all off, most likely. The assumption that corporations pay nothing in taxes is pretty unfounded, most of the ones that do do it specifically through tax breaks, not through clever accounting. Big Ag, oil companies, and old blue chips companies like GE are good examples of companies that basically pay no taxes because of tax breaks alone.

>>133434522
>>>/g/61341705

>>133434038
>Netflix does not pay for this, and thus that cost is passed on to you, the consumer
So you're suggesting that by making Netflix pay extra ISPs will then pass on the savings to the consumer, even though they have mono/duo-polies almost everywhere and they hike rates whenever they wish while doing nothing to upgrade their lines or even to deliver on the speeds they "promise"?

How stupid do you think we are?

>>133434058
>the ISPs being legally liable for what is transferred over their lines, if they were considered title II, which is the goal of this "protest"
>not an argument
You are retarded.

>>133434191
>What is Google, Facebook, Netflix, Reddit, Amazon, etc etc etc

Oh wait, these aren't "evil" big businesses because they vote democrat, amirite? Go fuck yourself, useful idiot.

>>133433695
Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 is the legal basis that allows the FCC to regulate "common carriers". Actually what is your point?

>>133434382
Written off taxes are not forgiven taxes. You can't strongarm companies over them having certain taxes except.
We have laws. Read them.

>>133434672
>he doesn't like net neutrality
even 4chan likes net neutrality
why are you here nerd

>>133434549
>they wouldn't have written them off
Literal retard who doesn't try to save money on his taxes. Just because you don't try and save doesn't mean others don't.

Amazing how pol will bitch all day about jews, and then take the side of ISPs.

>>133434473
So it's just an excuse to slush money into politician's pockets and have them get all buddy buddy with large corporations to enable their profits, instead of it disappearing in tax havens (which it already does anyway, my country is popular for it)?

>>133434587
There are many ISPs, who all compete. If one doesn't decrease fees then another will to gain customers.

>>133428121
>hurr durr i want complete ancap or no argument
lrn2 4d chess

>>133429110
>buying and selling is bad

>>133432876
he did a great job of fucking up the country

>>133433828
>meme flag
kys plebbitor

>>133434207
no the way things always had been was from '94 to '15 then came along obummer

>>133434924
these people that come here to maga can't think for them self and latch on to the popular opinion that's received 10 million dollars to stay on top of the catalog

>>133434706
It makes ISPs legally liable for what is transferred over their lines. Just like power companies MUST comply with police and help locate weed growing operations by monitoring strang e power consumption patterns.

>>133434905
You can avoid some taxes, you can't avoid all taxes. Unless you get a tax break.

>>133434654
elaborate or get in the oven, obfuscating the discussion will get you nowhere

>>133434924
We don't, it's just shills

>>133434998
In part, yes. It allows a lot of crookedness to happen, including strongarm tactics by government bodies via threats to tax exception and the like.
Hopefully it will be fixed up soon. Most of our tax money never reaches the programs it is intended for. It magically falls into politician pockets somehow

>>133434437
It didn't happen because there was an early assumption that companies would treat all traffic the same. The legislation was drafted because companies were planning to stop treating traffic equally due to Netflix and other streaming services eating telecom's traditional TV businesses alive. Prior to that, they were making enough on television that they didn't really have good reason to piss consumers off- it was likely that given increased internet rates, consumers would either drop television or drop the internet, as it was unlikely they would pay a great deal for both at once. Now, as the traditional television market has collapsed, ISPs started to look to ways to Cable-ify the internet to make up for the lost revenue on the TV side of things, since the internet did not generate advertising dollars for them and was causing a loss of traditional cable business. This led to a scramble to protect the internet as it stood, as cable companies were realizing the internet, which was a small side business at first, could become their new mega cash cow if they could milk people on both ends of the system.

I'm old, and I've been fighting this fight since the Bush administration, back when 4chan wasn't full of edgelords that bought hard into the Right party line (we know both sides are full of shit, you've just chosen to be cucked by the one that lets you rage harder at the normies). The ONLY winners in a post-NN world are telecoms. Literally everyone else loses- websites, advertisers, and consumers.

File: 1475939206679.gif (3MB, 700x285px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 700x285px

>>133435010
>There are many ISPs, who all compete

A broken clock is right twice a day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw

>>133434811
Gook moot is not 4chan. Go back to red.dit where you belong, confederate LARP'ing piece of shit.

>>133435276
>>133435205

>>133435214
Our tax laws are so complex we have an entire industry based on saving people money on their taxes (turbotax and the like). They save so much money that they do it for free, but just save you less money. It's pretty ridiculous

>>133435010
Right, because the average american has an abundance of choices when it comes to picking an ISP

>>133435010
>There are many ISPs, who all compete
>who all compete
Wow, you must really think we're all retards or something.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/

>>133435407
Leave commiefornia/sanctuary cities. As I've said many times itt, I live in a hurricane zone and still have cheap, stable, and fast internet. If that is possible, the rest of the country shou of be able to do it to. That they can't tells me there is a lot of local corruption people aren't aware of.

File: putin laughing.jpg (114KB, 745x745px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 745x745px

>>133435586
>muh larp
>muh reddit
you will never fit in anon-kun