Net Neutrality

>>133424809
No one.

>>133424809
10/10 bait

>>133424809

I am unironically with you for the same reasons.

>>133424809
This thread is stupid.

>>133424809
Then that's something I agree with liberals on.

File: stay mad cucks.jpg (14KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 225x225px

>>133424809
wow, its almost like net nutrality highlights the fact that liberals and righters are not really that different, but they let their dogmatic views of politics get in the way of thinking rationally

interesting

File: rHg5lW1.gif (1MB, 400x643px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 400x643px

Dis gun be a bad thread

File: 1476155815049.png (352KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 512x384px

>>133424809
The fun thing is that rednecks look at this an think this is some sort of virtual Trump wall

You're probably being sarcastic, but I legitimately feel that way. I was all for Net neutrality until the censoring leftists started pushing so hard for it. Now I think there's some kind of catch.

File: ancap2.png (782KB, 793x794px) Image search: [Google]

782KB, 793x794px

It's government regulation. It needs to go.

>b-but ISP bullies!
>b-but prices!
>b-but my favorite sites!

There are less than 15 cases of those things from the 90s to 2015. If 2007 4chan can survive, what makes you think 2017 4chan will be killed? Nothing. They're not out to get your favorite sites, and if they do, you can get another ISP that serves you better. The ISP has to give you the best service for the cheapest amount to even get your fucking money in the first place. Think of phones services. Do we see a $99 paywall for contacting someone with another provider? No, so why would that happen with the Internet?

>>133424809

I am against it for rational economic reasons.

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii

It is better to get rid of it.

>>133426268

Leftist tears is just a bonus.

reminder that 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

>>133425273
At the the very least
>reasons for net neutrality
0
>reasons against it
liberal butthurt

>>133426988

Eat a dick you ugly fat faggot.

>>133425606
The government can't censor the net even if they wanted to. TOR is a thing, you know?

>>133425273
>net nutrality highlights the fact that liberals and righters are not really that different

maybe on this one issue

the rest of the time they're bleeding heart statists and fag-hags.

>>133425075
/pol/ has been pure stormfaggotry cuckservative retardation ever since it was brought back for the 2016 election. it's a psyop. half of all posts are automated shillbots.

>>133424809
NET NEUTRALITY
>i am sorry can i use this site pls?
>sure bro everyone can no limits,only hardware capacity is the sky and maybe your bandwidth that YOU paid.

No™ NET™ NEUTRALITY™
>Hey you! You almost violated the NAP™ of this super big corp that wants to use all the bandwith and leave you with 1 kbps.
>i-i am s-sorry
>If you want to use youtube™ you have to pay the Cuck™ package which includes 10 videos per day and 5 comments per vid.
>it only 2000 BTC™
>o-kay sir
>

>>133427164
they can criminalize looking at illegal content

>>133426241
that's all theoretical, the free-market will sort it out, crap.

you know they're just gonna monopolize and jack up the cost more so than they do already.

>>133427352
((NET NEUTRALITY)))
>the Feds can regulate ISPs
No NET NEUTRALITY
>the feds can go suck a dick

>>133424809

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.

>>133424809
No kill yourself counter-signaling maggot
A contrarian is as much of a moron as a sheep.

>also don't forget to sage in the options field, nu-figs

>>133425606
That's exactly how I feel. When Redditt and Spotify are telling us to fight for net neutrality I'm naturally like, what's the real reason? So skeptical. Thx /pol/

>>133427450
it's not theoretical because the internet existed for 20 years before net neutrality. your fallacy laden "muh pay per click", however, is theoretical and is some /x/ tier shit

>>133427551
well the alternative is giving corps the rights to the internet.

i may not like the feds having the power but the alternative bodes much worse.

>>133424809
>Who's with me?

Me. Once John Oliver endorsed net neutrality - which I never would have heard about if the shills hadn't pimped it on /pol/ - I 100% noped out on net neutrality.

If he's for it, I'm agin it. (Plus the actual policy reasons for being against it.)

File: History_Speeches_2050_FBI_Strikes_Waco_TX_SF_still_624x352 (3).jpg (38KB, 624x352px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 624x352px

>>133427727
Nobody is worse that the Feds faggot

File: 1412026409453.jpg (97KB, 685x600px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 685x600px

>>133425606
>>133427674
A broken clock is right twice a day
tripleniggers

>>133424809
t. shill

>>133427698
was this not during the time when adsense wasn't a thing and google was merely a search engine?

>>133427367
They can't catch you if you're on Tor. Everyone who got busted on Tor for CP or drugs fucked up in some way or another. The protocol itself is bullet proof.

>>133425606
This. I'm not agreeing with a goddamn thing some of the complete faggots with 'RESIST' avatars are whining about on kikebook.

They're wrong about literally everything else, this is probably just another one.

I'm supposed to believe that mega corporations wont nickel and dime you. Even though they are already doing it.

>>133427894
whats your point? google is one of the largest corporations backing net neutrality because it saves them money

>>133426241
I'm with you, but you've got to admit ISPs are monopolized in the US. For instance, the only choice in ISP I have here is ATT, or satellite internet, and no one wants that shit.

What needs to happen is to completely axe all telecom regulations, let anyone become an ISP for only the cost of the infrastructure, no bullshit license fees paid to the FCC.

>>133427880
>t. shill and/or troll

t. meme war vet

>>133427878
Please tell me why we needed NN back in 2015?

>>133427537
>((NET NEUTRALITY)))
>the Feds can regulate ISPs
>No NET NEUTRALITY
>the feds can regulate ISPs, while you pay extra.
ftfy.

>>133427698
You know how the internet was used 20 year ago and how it's used today are totally different. We also weren't close to ISPS becoming monopolies.

File: 1496861453638m.jpg (96KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 1024x819px

>>133425606
>some kind of catch...
>but I'm too fucking dumb/lazy to actually explain it or research it for myself

>>133428013
im saying corporations weren't gaming the net for ads and monopolizing; before the bubble it wasn't lucrative and regarded as a place for wonks and no real potential

>>133428137
They couldn't before
That was the entire reason for them classifying them as a common carrier

File: Marines.png (182KB, 288x252px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 288x252px

Well, if the internet does go corporate are we even still gonna be here in 4chan soon?

File: 1453059051085.gif (3MB, 200x180px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x180px

>>133427904

>They can't catch you if you're on Tor.

Frankfurt CIA, pls.

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

145KB, 899x907px

For those of you that may not be shills, what has the government unconstitutionally involved itself in and improved that makes you think this is a good idea?

>>133428336
Where we here in 2015?
If my ISP shuts down 4chan then I will support NN
Until then fuck off

>>133428297
If the Government wants to regulate something, they WILL find a way to regulate it. Removing net neutrality isn't gonna give you any protections.

>>133424809
Fuck liberals. Fuck Big Government. The government has no right to interfere with the dealings of private businesses.

>>133424809
Yes, when companies with large bandwidth usage like google, Facebook, netflix, and r*ddit are shilling for it you know something is up.

>>133428497
>If my ISP shuts down 4chan then I will use a different ISP
ftfy

File: newsmanready.png (13KB, 294x401px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 294x401px

>>133428069
>meme war vet
holy shit that's one pathetic "no u" coming from the lowest common denominator of this whole fucking board
Are you like a 35 yr old fag or underage? Because you gotta be a fucking newfag to still prance around this place going LE MEME WAR VETERAN eks deee

Ancapnigger is right
this type of counter signal thread can only either come from a shill or a subsaharan IQ tier quintuple nigger

>>133426856
If only there was an actual market for ISPs, rather than having 1 maybe 2, or 3 if you're really lucky choices for any given area in the US.

Personallly I'm in support of it becuase I don't want to buy the "unfuck my Internet" package so I can watch netflix

>>133428297
>They couldn't before
How is /pol/ this retarded. They have ALWAYS been able to regulate the internet, the only difference between title II and no title II is the rules that they decide to enforce. The FCC could decide to shut it all the fuck down tomorrow if they wanted to regardless, it's in the mandate given to them by the Communications Act of 1934.

>>133428504
>the government doesn't respect the constitution so lets just give them everything
Wow its just like all of those shitty gun grabber facebook memes that get posted here

>>133428230
>>133428190
your ISPs already have all the information they want about you. they'll have that with or without net neutrality and tor is the only solution for it. getting rid of net neutrality will make corporations pay what's expected of them to run their services.

what makes more sense?
>netflix having to pay x amount to an internet service provider to ensure their customers receive quality service

or

>load netflix and a giant pop up shows up demanding $1000 for a premium package

one is a fallacy and one is how the internet used to work

>>133428129
We needed the 2015 version because federal appeals court struck down the previous FCC rules in 2014.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/technology/appeals-court-rejects-fcc-rules-on-internet-service-providers.html?mcubz=0

This did not start two years ago.

File: 1493526786005.png (301KB, 468x494px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 468x494px

>>133428572
>a different ISP
Good luck with that for most Americans.

>>133424809
holy shit its not like they cant spy you or take your browsing history already its not like they can control you what to see and what not with or without your consent.

>>133428672

https://archive.is/1am89

>>133428572
probably could
I can shit post from my phone just fine

>>133427698
Nah, the internet so far has been operating the principles of net neutrality. Now is the first time that there is a debate to change that. Obama just wanted to legislate the existing status quo in detail for the future.

>>133428497
"When it's too late and 4chan is shutdown I will support NN"

>>133428572
How do lolbertarians not grasp the fact that the vast majority of the US has only 1 choice for ISP

>>133428747
Probably should, since what you previously planned is both unconstitutional and immoral.

>>133428497
Have fun moving since its a utility. And as you know, a utility is just statist jargon for De Jure Monopoly.

>>133428654
>the only difference between title II and no title II is the rules that they decide to enforc
*unconstitutional laws they decide to enforce
>>133428672
>We needed the 2015 version because federal appeals court struck down the previous FCC rules in 2014.

and what was the problem in 2014?

>>133428217
Hey cocksucker not all of us are NEET losers who can sit around all day and read about how they'll have to spend 10 more dollars to use the internet. Go fuck yourself faggot.

>>133424809
In my city (Bucharest), I can get with under $15/month a 1000Mbps. How? Because we have actual free market internet and not (((Net Neutrality))) bullshit.

>>133428720
They aren't supposed to. Without NN they will have the free right to do it.

>>133427164

That's not what I meant. A lot of the sites pushing for Net neutrality censor right-wing content. Tor doesn't help for something that's not even there.

>>133424809
>Affordable...
>... Neutrality
>Common Sense...
>Smart...
>Fair...
>I You Don't Support This Idea You Are Against...
If people are going to continue to fall for these types of retarded political gimmicks than we absolutely deserve to all die by the hand of retarded Leftists

>>133428670
>make corporations pay what's expected of them to run their services.


so are they getting subsidized currently? Why wouldn't they jack up prices to cover the cost, offloading the burden to their customers?

why wouldn't it be both? Or netflix then charging more to cover the cost of their access if not the ISP?

>>133428919
>Unconstitutional
How?

File: think more friendo2.png (145KB, 433x420px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 433x420px

>>133428572
Most areas of The US are dominated by one ISP, much like most of The US only has one local cable provider. Until some big equalizing force comes along and offers national coverage like Satellite TV did then most people will be shit out of luck and be forced to just accept whatever their provider blocks.

>>133429040
ISPs are not commerce between the states

>>133428877
There are a lot of people, yourself included, that are concerned about ISPs censoring or blocking things or putting them behind pay walls. If such a situation occurs, then the free market will fix it, as there will be a demand for an ISP that does not do this, so such an ISP would be created.

If your grievance is that the state does not allow the creation of ISPs, or impedes it. Why would you support the government taking even more control?

>>133428667
>the government doesn't respect the constitution so lets just (give) them everything

Please you've been letting them get away with it since you were born, stop acting all strong and virtues now.

File: flat,800x800,070,f.u2 (1).jpg (59KB, 582x800px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 582x800px

>>133424809
Why the fuck do liberals want net neutrality? Are they actually so detached from reality that they don't know that this is under-handed thought control which in turn will be the fascism they constantly whine about?

Absolutely stupid cunts.

>>133426241
this whole saga started when they started trying. we responded with the common carrier ruling, which is honestly a pretty common sense view of how the internet should be considered. now they're trying to repeal that rule.

They wouldn't be trying to repeal it if they didn't have plans contrary to it. All they're trying to do is make more rents.

>>133428025
I agree. I will be writing my congress repersentive my thoughts on the matter.

>>133428497
Why does everyone think they'll shut down sites if corps get in control? You'll just see more adverts. That's about it.

>>133424809
I have no fucking idea what this is and have no desire to find out.

Yup then the left wing will just slow the traffic here and then we're all screwed.

>>133427352
Keep seeing normies say this shit.

Who in thee fuck would pay for jewtube or kikebook?

There are already usage policies with every ISP so I just don't fucking understand it.

>>133429133
It didn't fix it for cable. Most areas are still dominated by single providers. The only alternative for most was waiting until Satellite was invented and put into mass use.

>>133428672
>>133428919

tl;dr: 2010 rules from FCC struck down because court said ISPs were not utilities and therefore not subject to given regulations.

The history of attempts at net neutrality regulation goes back further than 2010. Were you not paying attention for the last decade or were you too young to care?

>>133428667
Net neutrality doesn't change what they can and can't control you utter fucking moron. It's just there to make sure all traffic is prioritised equally. Before Net neutrality most ISP's would slow down p2p filesharing because of pressure from the movie and music industry wanting to stop their media being torrented. With Net Neutrality they can't do that anymore and if they do can get in trouble for it.

>>133428488
Roads.

File: 1492113984639.jpg (18KB, 310x286px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 310x286px

>>133429404
>It didn't fix it for cable, people just gad to wait until it was fixed

>>133429324
Basically do you want to be looked over your shoulder by the government or by corporations

>>133429487
It is just one more thing those dirty little kikes at the feds got their claws on

>>133429502
Yeah, for around 30 years.

>>133428919
>what was the problem in 2014?
the problem in 2014 was that ISPs said they were no longer going to support Net Neutrality, which was voluntarily in place for the last 20 years while the Internet developed.
There is no good reason for them to go against it.

>>133429177
What does net neutrality have to do with thought control?
>>133429133
If the customers think that regulation is better for them, then that is also the free market fixing it.

>>133428488
>everyone that disagrees with me is a shill
drop dead please

>>133429618
Wait no, Satellite TV wasn't in mass market the second it was invented. It's more like 40 years before it became marketable.

>>133426241
>while they weren't allowed to do it they only tried 15 times, surely when allowed to do it they won't try again

>>133429115
Comcast operates in 40 different states.
The big cell carriers operate in all 50
Internet businesses sell goods across state lines.
That statement is utter bullshit.

>>133429563
No one is looking over your shoulder because of net neutrality. Quite the opposite. It's the "dumb pipe" principle where all data is treated equally by the ISP.

>>133426241
>you can get another ISP that serves you better. The ISP has to give you the best service for the cheapest amount to even get your fucking money in the first place.
That's just not true. You have to get the ISP that serves your region.

>>133429755
The board has been flooded with shill threads like >>133418748 for some time now, sweetie.

>>133429693
>the problem in 2014 was that ISPs said they were no longer going to support Net Neutrality
OK but why should I support more regulation before it actually become a problem?

>>133429822
You fucking moron, net neutrality ("Title II") was put into law in 2015.

>>133429895
>You have to get the ISP that serves your region.
Why is this the case? I know the answer, but walk me through it because it will really activate our almonds.

>>133426241
>Muh free market

Except the high barrier to entry to being an ISP, coupled with the established giant companies, makes entering into the industry as a competitor impossible.

50% of Americans have choice of ISP. 30-some percent have only two choices. Americans pay more for slower internet service compared to the rest of the world. ISPs can also make switching services prohibitively expensive. The notion that "the free market" will force ISPs to follow net neutrality principals is laughable. What will happen instead is you'll get access to the 1000 most popular web sites, unless you're willing to pay significantly more per month. Every ISP will do this. Different ISPs will make deals with different content providers (google, facebook, etc) so that your internet package only allows you access to one type of content. They will rape you for ever cent they can get while cutting lucrative content exclusion deals with other companies.

>>133429693
Because in 2014ish suddenly people started using Netflix and jewtube for high def content and so there was a bunch of faggots streaming fuckloads of content. So ISP says 'hey netflix pay more, you're responsible for like 30% of the internet traffic' and Netflix jews say 'nuh uh'.

So everyone gets charged to pay for Netflix and jewgles jewery and now leftist scum are whining about 'their voices'. If I thought killing this bullshit would silence those fags forever I would be even more in favor of it.

>>133429831
ISPs are not the internet
They are access to it
States are perfectly able of regulating them

>>133426856
The fcc is only trying to get rid of it because there is currently an ex lawyer of Verizon appointed as chair of the whole thing.
By the way, Verizon and Comcast were very vocal for Net Neutrality; both trying to monopolyze the ISP market; very unamerican. Fuck them.

So what reason could a company have not to block 4chan, most porn websites, all torrent websites, and the websites of their opposing providers?

File: Screenshot 2017-07-13 at 01.59.33.png (28KB, 820x407px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 820x407px

poll

http://www.strawpoll.me/13420194

>>133424809
I am against it, but it doesn't have anything to do with what liberals want, though I gotta admit, it does sweeten the deal.

>>133430002
Why do these big bad companies have so much power? Who could have enabled them to be so powerful?

>>133429617
Okay, fine. If you see this purely as federal overreach, and that matters to you more than any of the other concerns, you have a valid reason to oppose net neutrality. But then that should be your argument, not that net neutrality has served no purpose, or that there was zero concept of NN before 2015 and we were fine then.

>>133430125
Lose customers.
State regulation

>>133429897
That gives you the excuse to call everyone that disagrees with you a shill.
>please go back to hanging out with you blue haired, smelly trans-cat, SJW friends

File: 1498706640174.jpg (8KB, 221x201px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 221x201px

>>133424809

>>133430222
>that net neutrality has served no purpose
but it didnt serve a purpose
my internet worked fine 2015

>>133428670
also, when was the rule put in place before?

>>133430314
You seem pretty mad that I suggested shills exist.

>>133430236
State regulation might work.
4chan users and internet pirates likely don't make up a majority of the internet though. They'd defiantly lose customers for dropping porn, but I'm sure they could drop 4chan whenever the next "Muh Scary 4chans tricked people into cutting for Beiber" story pops up and never let it back on.

>>133426241
ISP are government sanctioned monopolies, I cannot get a different cable company because government makes it illegal to do so. I would agree with you if the restrictions on running cable or DSL and people hooking up local networks of houses were lifted.

>>133429994
The idea is that because people can technically switch to dial up, an ISP like Comcast wouldn't have a monopoly even if it was the only provider in the area. But nobody can afford switch to dial up anymore because this is 2017 and people are creating computers that run all their application wirelessly, and dial up isn't going to cut it anymore, so it's pretty much a scam.

>>133430411
No im just mad 4chan is filled with idiots like you now.

Hey, guys, I have an idea.
Instead of giving Government control of the internet (what could possibly go wrong?) because of the theoretical possibility that Ebil Corporations might charge more monies for... whatever, why not wait until something actually happens to justify it?
Or do you bedwetters have your legs sawed off on the theoretical possibility you might get cancer in one of them?

>>133429133
The free market can't fix monopolies that arise as a result of a lack of market regulation

>>133430487
>State regulation might work.
Why wouldnt it
>They'd defiantly lose customers for dropping porn, but I'm sure they could drop 4chan whenever the next "Muh Scary 4chans tricked people into cutting for Beiber" story pops up and never let it back on.
So the only site they are going to block is 4chan for some reason

>>133430573
>"You can just switch to dial-up"
>"You can just switch to antenna tv."

File: 1492063654092.png (379KB, 724x597px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 724x597px

>>133430205
All the blue areas have data caps.

>>133430354
I have an assignment for you, anon. Sometime today I want to you follow one of the links someone sends you about net neutrality, and then read it.

>>133430624
The monopolies are a result of market regulation, not a lack of, sweetie.

>>133430781
>What was Bell Telephone Company

File: 1449866295357.png (42KB, 672x550px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 672x550px

>>133426241
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In theory, you should be correct. And in theory, the FCC should only be their to ensure that there is no foul play and that everyone gets what they want. So as a governing principle, NN makes perfect sense. The problem here is this super secret bill being rushed so that you can only read after being legislated into action. Trust us, guys, this will make the free market freer, I promise! Fuck that noise. It didn't work for the Patriot Act, it didn't work for Obamacare, etc. I feel like Trump is being hypocritical here. If he has confidence in said legislation, give it a month so that the people can read it and formulate their opinions. Either way, we lose, but fighting for NN right now is the right thing to do, anon.

Either they present concrete legislation or they can fuck off. So I am yet again agreeing with liberals for all the wrong reasons.

>>133424809
I'm against it too, but you're a retard

>>133430776
There were no problems in 2015 so why should I support more federal regulation
And for the record NN is actually pretty low on shit the Feds do that I hate but the butthurt repealing it will cause is the main reason I fight against it

>>133430843
>he dosent know that state and federal governments create locked area monopolies for utilities
The average democrat everyone.

>>133430002

Ahh the sky is falling the sky is falling!

Ahh!

Everything that has worked for the past 20 years is going to suddenly stop working because
>muh liberalism!

How do you even put your clothes on in the morning?

>>133430354
>>133428919
>>133428497
>>133428129
>muh 2015

All right, you fucking cunt, I will explain this ONCE.

There have been many attempts since 1995 to regulate how ISP's provide internet. The reason that those laws don't look like the net neutrality regulations now is because the Internet was a different place back then.

>>133430607
>Hey guys why don't we let the muslim jihadist's cut our heads off first before we start making radical accusations and defend ourselves.

>>133431036
>He dosent know that big corporations and banks pay politicians to create locked area monopolies for their own interests.
The average libertarian everyone.

>>133431036
>He doesn't know that Phone Service wasn't considered a Utility until The US broke The Bell Monopoly.
Are you sure you're not a leaf?

>>133431182
But there was no problem in 2015 so go gas yourself kike

This thread is full of faggots.

/pol/ was pro-Net Neutrality hardcore before you stupid ass Trumpkins arrived like cockroaches.

>>133426856
this

>>133424809
Liberals are also for breathing oxygen. You should be against it.

I don't believe anybody knows what it will mean either way. All this discussion hasn't lead to any answers and it's getting tedious

>>133427352
This is literally the opposite

Non net neutrality
>let this vidya player get his packet though, he only has one

Net neutrality
>wait behind the full load of Amazons datacenter migration because all packets are equal

File: 515344c9de0e33e394c33ca3b0f60e39.jpg (64KB, 360x640px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 360x640px

>>133431182
He doesn't care, anon.

>>133431315
Things just get politicized my dude. Natural way of things.

John Oliver in favor of net neutrality
Barack Obama in favor of net neutrality
Mark Zuckerberg in favor of net neutrality
Mods in favor of net neutrality

any one of these should be enough reason to be against it

File: 1499204688619.jpg (1MB, 1656x1242px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1656x1242px

>>133424809
Title II is archaic and should be rolled back to Title I with Congress creating laws to regulate ISPs in the place of Title II. However, Congress is useless and never passes anything regardless of who's in power, so Title II is the best we're going to get for now.

All in all, I'm for "Net Neutrality" (Title II), but it doesn't mean shit when ISPs will just jew you in a different way. Nothing is being done about the monopolies different ISPs hold in various areas or the data caps being implemented.

>>133431247
Actually yes
I just covered that with the "area locked monopolies". crony capitalism has been a sore for generations and expanding gov influence into comms companies won't help the situation.

>>133431305
That isn't true. We already knew that corporations gave your data to the NSA. Without with NN these corporations will have legal right to do whatever they want with your information.

>>133431315

let's be honest: we were pro-NN because Moot was pro-NN. nobody actually read the bill

File: DEk4E0RUwAA7LHP.jpg (78KB, 1150x841px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1150x841px

>without the bill ISPs will go rampant!


HMMMMM makey me big thinkey in head ball

>>133431242
I've seen some serious lack of critical thinking skills on /pol/ but this retardation takes the cake.

File: when you kicked the spine of the girl who cucked you so hard she spilled a long and sordid history of cucking others.jpg (171KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 1280x720px

>>133427138
Don't worry, OP, I totally get your ironic humour. You're doing God's work.

>>133431661
Just because we are against them on most issues doesn't mean we can't share a common interest in specific issues. The ISPs are at odds with the web companies over this, yes they fuck us in many ways but they will be fucked by this as well as us, which is why they are against it.

>>133424809
me, fuck (((net neutrality))) there aint nothing neutral about our internet

>>133431672
when you see it...

>>133431661
You should learn to think for yourself.

>>133431707
Well apparently they already have that right
IE: selling your info to the Feds

How could anyone on /pol/ think for a single second that MORE government control could be a good thing?
There haven't been any major incidents where an ISP was throttling a website but we know the American liberal is pro censorship.
Why would you give them more power only for it to be used against you later?
NN in ideal form is good (just like universal healthcare) but it can never work in practice.

>>133431753
no WE were and still are pro-NN because we want everyone to have access to the internet, Not just for wealthy people!

Inb4 "muh-freemarket" bullshit
Go wrap your mouth around McDonalds CEO's cock for some good burgers.

>>133431806
If you think that once it gets taken away. You'll be given another chance to get it back if the ISP's do decide to fuck you all over, you're a retard. You defend yourself before it's too late.

>>133431548
Amazon does migrations of that magnitude with a station wagon full of hard drives hurtling down the interstate.

https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2016/11/30/13797212/amazon-aws-snowmobile-snowball-cloud-storage-truck

>>133424809
This is the one thing I agree with them on. I like how it works now

>>133431756
>the original comcast (against NN) vs netflix is the sole reason it exists today
>comcast now for it
hmmm rlly makes u think

File: terramartin79_fd5be9.jpg (86KB, 640x810px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 640x810px

>>133427537
>thinking that the feds will ever go suck a dick
I love your optimism, anon.

>>133432248
mmm thinks

File: internet.png (202KB, 994x111px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 994x111px

>>133431756
>But as we have consistently pointed out, Title II regulation and net neutrality are not the same thing.
comca.st/2vcRfXr
>It's another "It seems like they're saying one thing but they're actually saying the opposite" episode
Also
>Trusting ISPs
>ever

>>133432121

N is for Nigger

>>133424809
Its the only reason neckbeard cucks like you are even allowed to have /pol/ so fuck off nigger

>>133432248
>comcast now for it
They literally aren't.

>>133432192
Because Internet is SO expensive.
Gosh, like $100 a month for cable tv and Internet.
Can't afford that on my min wage job I still have while I'm 40 because I'm a fuckup with no skills or life goals.

You don't deserve the Internet for being human
It's not a right, it's a service.
Just like healthcare or pussy.

>>133424809
FUCK NET NEUTRALITY

shits some patriot act level of labeling. no more government shit

>>133432639
It has nothing to do with price you fucking autist. Maybe read up before posting.

>>133432208
>We need a big Government Hijack solution to a phantom problem!
>Hurry, Goy, if you don't do it now, you'll never get another chance!
Liberals are really this retarded.

File: mcdonalds01.jpg (59KB, 818x460px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 818x460px

>>133432180
>There haven't been any major incidents where an ISP was throttling a website

Comcast throttle netflix.

http://www.multichannel.com/news/fcc/updated-netflix-gets-hammered-over-throttling/403606

>How could anyone on /pol/ think for a single second that MORE government control could be a good thing?

Because allowing mega corps nickle and dime you and then control what you search for is dumb.

>NN in ideal form is good (just like universal healthcare) but it can never work in practice.

It working so far.

File: 1497143121588.jpg (99KB, 680x1020px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 680x1020px

>>133424809
>Be 13 year old
>hate your liberal parents that want you to be a trans faggot that takes it up the ass since you were 4.
>/pol/ is your one escape from a liberal hell hole you were born into.
>liberal parents see a Time Warner commercial while they prepare you a kale avacodo sammich.
>"here at Time warner, we fight against hate and racism wherever it stands even on the internet!"
>"Our company will ban any racist website including 4chan and briebart free of charge! Help us protect your kids for a better tomorrow!"
>"Wow honey doesn't that sound amazing? I'm calling Time Warner right now!"
>Time Warner becomes a leader of ISP's because large liberal cities spend the most on internet.
>Hillarywonthepopularvote.jpeg
>Can't browse 4chan or any right wing website.
>Slowly become blue pilled.
>Become a tranny and take it up the but cause all your big city liberal friends are doing it.
>kill yourself because of regret and shame.
>Society falls because all white men become tranny faggots.
>mfw

AT LEAST WE PISSED OFF LIBERALS! AMIRITE MAGAPEDES?
You are all digging your own graves over identity politics.
Fucking kill yourself.

>>133424809
Logically makes sense seeing as the majority of their efforts are like those of snake oil salesman.

>>133432769
Read the comment I was replying to
He said everyone should have Internet, not just rich people.

>>133432740
It's amazing how dumb people are here. You know mega corps sold your information to the NSA and each other.

>>133432248
Everyone is conflating Net Neutrality with Title II, which comcast is using to its advantage to say "Net Neutrality isn't Title II". Telling the masses that "Net Neutrality is doomed" sounds catchier than whining about something called Title II

i'm wary of scare campaigns to try and get me to sign a petition about something most people know nothing about by telling me my anime websites are going to be blocked by The Man.

>>133432790
I thought Netflix was an evil Communist company trying to turn our children gay? You like Netflix?

>>133432458
But wait, there's more
>The scare tactics being pursued by some groups that ISPs like Comcast will block or throttle lawful content are simply untrue.

>You can have strong and enforceable Open Internet protections without relying on rigid, innovation-killing utility regulation that was developed in the 1930s (Title II).

>While some seem to want to create hysteria that the Internet as we know it will disappear if their preferred regulatory scheme isn’t in place, that’s just not reality.

>We’ll be filing comments at the FCC next week with a lot of detail on how net neutrality rules can continue to survive without the FCC using ill-suited and outdated regulations
They are literally announcing their intent to lobby against net neutrality regulations, on the day of protests against changing those regulations, with misleading ads designed to seem like they are a part of those protests.

I found the actual complete company position on net neutrality. And I know it's complete because the learn more about button literally links back to this page from this page.
http://corporate.comcast.com/openinternet/open-net-neutrality
>Comcast is committed to an Open Internet.

>We do not block, slow down or discriminate against lawful content.
>We believe in full transparency in our customer policies.
>We are for sustainable and legally enforceable net neutrality protections for our customers.

>>133431661
now. this is blind contrarian

>>133432888
There's literally no reason everyone shouldn't have internet.

>M-MUH BANDWIDTH SERVERS R HARD N EXPENSIVE!
They're not. They're cheap. Bandwidth at the scale of an ISP is a fucking myth and if you believe it, you're slaving to the connected jew.

File: stop bitch.png (177KB, 697x768px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 697x768px

>>133431661
You can agree with those shitfucks for the wrong reasons, anon.

>>133432639
>imply I cant afford that
>imply i don't have a full time career and cleared 113k last year.
Please is this the state of /pol/ right now you fucking mook

>You don't deserve the Internet for being human
Not understanding the internet is an extremely powerful tool for everyone on this planet now.

>Gosh, like $100 a month for cable tv and Internet.

Sorry im not a souless fuck like you, If other people cant afford it and need a little help in order to im fine with that. Im not okay with free gibz IE welfare,section 8, low income projects, ect but the internet is a different story you fucking unrealistic sperg

>inb4 OMG FUCK YOU COMMUNIST HURDURHUR
just because someone believes in some regulations doesn't make the a communist you dumb fuck, and yes i knew you were going to reply with some retarded ass remark like that based on your previous post.

>>133432740
>no more government shit
That position would have more weight if you weren't airing it with a machine powered by public utilities in the form of electricity.

>>133432971
>thought Netflix was an evil Communist company trying to turn our children gay? You like Netflix?

If you are trying to make a point you are doing a bad job.

>>133432893
>muh corporations

fuck big government overreach. fuck you plain and simple

>>133431661
>meteor about to strike the earth and kill everyone
>liberals: We have to stop this!
>you: GO METEOR!

File: yoshino_laugh.jpg (29KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x480px

>>133432893
So why not cut out the middleman is what you're saying?

>>133424809
You're retarded

>>133432740
We already have it dumbass. You don't even understand what you're protesting.

>>133433200
NN is adding a middleman, not cutting one out.

>>133433161
I think at the very least the mods and John Oliver would be pro meteor in that situation.

Maybe Obama too before Trump shits up his legacy too badly.

>>133433161
I literally would shout that. Liberals have made society and this planet not worth saving.

>>133432161
>>133432021
I love being told that this is something I agree with. Any time hardcore liberals are in favor of something that should throw up a red flag. The more I research this net neutrality the less I like about it.

>>133433489
Don't take this the wrong way, dude, but you might be an asshole.

File: 1499696774553.gif (773KB, 260x221px) Image search: [Google]

773KB, 260x221px

>>133432458
>same exact political groups which supported SOPA, ACT, and TPP also support NN
>flaggy-hiding Canadian globalist also for it
HMM makey thinking brain think

>>133432790
Comcast throttled Netflix once and suffered huge backlash for it. Proving you don't need a gov committee for open Internet.
>Mega corps nickel and diming you
Things happen with or with out gov oversite and will probably be worse under it
>working so far
Where?
Britain, where a gov stooge decided a white baby should die just because it was expensive treatment?
The USA, where insurance premiums rose by nearly 500%. Where white veterans have to wait nearly a year to see a dr at the gov ran hospitals.
Germany, where people who can afford it travel to the USA and pay for private healthcare.

Fuck off hill dog shill.

File: IMG_4232.jpg (33KB, 267x267px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 267x267px

I'm against it solely to troll liberals. But really the Jews win either way.

>>133433610
>flag-hiding
The US isn't part of the UN?

File: ed disgust.gif (880KB, 274x302px) Image search: [Google]

880KB, 274x302px

>>133424809
>Hello Ajit.

The ABSOLUTE STATE OF YOU.

>Hates liberals so much he is willing to give up 4chan.

File: 1379540220204.jpg (234KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 800x1000px

>>133432814
>liberals
>money
>with all that debt

>>133424809
>duh me hate liburuls huh huh huh

a prime example of the retarded faggots who never manage to get it but can't shut up either

look kid, why don't you just go play some rpg and leave the "le edgy redneck" stuff for someone else

>>133433633
>Britain, where a gov stooge decided a white baby should die just because it was expensive treatment?
Wasn't that because it was expensive treatment, the baby will die on its own without the treatment, and the baby will die eventually anyway with the treatment? And in the end the decision was to end treatment, not to directly kill the child?

People get pulled off life support all the fucking time. It's called being beyond hope with no quality of life.

If the parents want more time with their child they can call a taxidermist.

File: virgin branson.jpg (70KB, 600x401px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 600x401px

>>133426241
Yeah free market!

>Let's privatize everything.

The state of your OmniCorp boner.

>>133433125
Listen here BLACKED Mexico, I'm not gonna just give shit away at tax payers expense.
I don't care if it cost 2 cents, this isn't the People's Republic of Canada. Handouts kill innovation and economic growth, plain and simple.

File: 1499034670314.jpg (3MB, 3434x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3434x4000px

>>133433790
>NN was made in 2016 as Obama left office
>4chan was made in 2006

File: mudlip.png (215KB, 1024x1458px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 1024x1458px

>>133424809
You're fucking cancer, please an hero and you other nu-4channer the donald faggots. Go suck on donald trump and the 1%'s dick you cancerous shit 4chan was originally anarchist by the way. if corps get control of the internet say goodbye to 4chan and the donald and your free gay porn.

>>133433633
>Comcast throttled Netflix once and suffered huge backlash for it

No they didn't. Comcast won and Netflix pays them to not to throttle Netflix

https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

>Things happen with or with out gov oversite and will probably be worse under it

With NN there are certain things they can can't do. Without it mega corps have free range to charge you whatever they want for what ever they want.

>Where?

Here you or your parents only paid once for the use of all internet.

>>133426241
>If 2007 4chan can survive
Didn't moot have to sell 4chan because it was a massive legal and economic liability that wasn't worth the cost to support?

I mean fuck's sake, J-list pulled out. We've been circling the drain for a while now. The only thing keeping us afloat at this point is stupid Japanese entrepreneurs.

>>133429355
KEK.

You really dont know how muh profit works?

If they can charge you and own the monopoly for access, guess what? You are royally fucked.

Burger boys, your hate for muh liberals is either shilling or you cutting off your balls to spite your dick.

>>133433150
>113K
Yeah, in GBP.
Get fucked you poor NEET.
Also see >>133433957

>>133433532
>Yuropoor gloats he has better internet than the US >>133428963

>Hurdur if da liberals are for it, IT MUST BE BAD

Its a step in the right direction. But we really need a free market for ISPs, and not gov enforced monopolies.

>>133433957
Is there a single arguement against net neutrality that isnt just AnCap ideology? No one noticed a single change in the internet when NN passed. How is repealing it going to help me, a person that loves the internet?

>>133433532
>Any time hardcore liberals are in favor of something that should throw up a red flag. The more I research this net neutrality the less I like about it.

Ah, the ol' "I think thing is bad but I shouldn't have to give any reasons or evidence or sources get out of my face fucking liberals"

>>133426241
>Free market

You know there is no reason why AT&T can't make their own internet.

>>133434042
Wow, you're right. I'm so glad we have 4chan now because we didn't prior to 2015..

Idiot sensationalist.

>>133434192
>a person that loves the internet?

It's not. The truth here is no one can tell you what the internet will be like without NN.

File: 1444330561654.gif (3MB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 450x450px

>>133434192
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons-net-neutrality/

Here's little Ben's thoughts on the subject

>>133434321
>Wow, you're right. I'm so glad we have 4chan now because we didn't prior to 2015..

Why is a meme?

>>133434192
>we passed a law and nothing changed
>if the law is repealed everything will change
What's step three because we know step 4 is profit.

Holy fuck the shills.
This is like every manufactured "crisis" the left uses to give the government more control over your lives.
Like health care (Obamacare) Housing (The Projects) Education (Common Core).
Only this time they can't even find any victims' sob stories to assault us with. It's all just paranoid speculative fiction.

>>133434481
Legal excuse to fix prices.

>>133434481
AT&T wasn't trying to be a monopoly then.

>>133434200
>Wow, you're right. I'm so glad we have 4chan now because we didn't prior to 2015.
Thinking something will be around forever because a hostile monopoly hasn't bothered to destroy it yet is naive.

Look at Myspace. The only reason reddit hasn't bothered to destroy 4chan yet is they need our memes. Once they improve their own they'll be able to afford to pay off our Japanese overlords to close the site and they'll be jack shit we can do about it.

>>133434529
I just realized that NN is the Internet version of climate change.
>we need gov oversight to prevent something that wasn't happening

>>133432814
It's Spectrum now, Time Warner Cable is Spectrum.

>>133434614
I think you quoted the wrong person.

>>133434365
40 yrs old virgins

File: 1445492375663.jpg (49KB, 364x466px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 364x466px

>>133433957
Holy fuck, your string of posts is triggering as fuck.
Go suck a bag of cocks. This has nothing to do with cost or providing free Internet. If anything, that is only a secondary consideration, you disingenuous fuck. You know you're in fucking trouble when you need the Federal Communications Commission to ensure a modicum of Internet freedom. "Internet freedom" is not the same as "free Internet", imbecile.

This may very well be the biggest and most Jewey false dichotomy of the last couple of years, even most of /pol/ is missing the forest for the trees here. But fuck you for misdirecting the issue.

>>133434603
>then
In 2015?

>>133431155
That's some pretty solid reasoning there.
Try again, you complete embarrassment.

>>133434742
I in fact did.
>>133434614
was meant for
>>133434321
And while we're at it
>they'll be jack
there'll*

>>133434686
It isn't happening (anymore) because we already have net neutrality. Try and keep up.

>>133434823
>literally was put in place in 2016
Why won't you acknowledge this you beautiful shining diamond?

>>133434603
Yeah ok, because there's no way to stop a monopoly other than allowing the gov, which passed laws to make them legal local monopolies, the ability to censor the net.
Maybe we should have super center neutrality too because Walmart may try to be a monopoly one day.

>>133434686
Except unlike climate change, NN is already in place and is basically free to enforce unless someone actually does something that as you said "isn't happening" as you put it.

At the very least it saves the government some money to not repeal since every governmental change has overhead.

File: bigsmokex-1.jpg (294KB, 800x659px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 800x659px

>>133426241
Ok, I understand that its government regulation, but it is helpful because the government failed all ready. Local Monopolies without government intervention die, but these companies are bolstered by the government. The government already failed so its too late to roll back anti-anti-consumer things like net neutrality

>>133434999
>which passed laws to make them legal local monopolies
They did not.

I'm not sure if you've noticed but a shitton of monopolies exist simply because lobbying keeps them from being addressed.

>>133434802
Only the last year or so AT&T has tried to merge with several companies like Comcast and Verizon. It did recently merge with Time Warner.

>>133434779
BLACKED Mexico and the other guy both brought up free access.
All I said was no free access, no censorship, no gov oversight.
You don't need the FCC to do anything. There should be cocks and tits on cable tv, not just HBO.
I'm sorry I trigger you but you clearly don't get it.

>>133424809
>Cut off the nose to spite the face

>>133434155
I think you and I agree but it's hard to tell

>>133434199
I actually don't have to give any reasons or evidence, but ok. I believe in the slippery slope that this will be used for broad censorship against conservative ideas and i don't support it.

It also doesn't matter if I support it or not, because this is not a referendum. Before today I've not given 2 shits about net neutrality because it doesn't really affect me either way, but I'm sure the doomsday scenario of us all loosing 4chan is unlikely, and if we all get banned it'll be be from washington and not the market

>>133434999
>Walmart may try to be a monopoly one day.

It world if it could. It's going to blow your mind when you find out that old navy and hottopic are owned by the same company.

>>133435401
It only recently did it after the bill went into effect?

>>133434916
It wasn't happening to begin with !!
You may as well have a law saying no walking backwards while shitting in the streets, by the proponents own admission, nothing changed when it was passed so why would something change when it's repealed?

>>133435541
>I actually don't have to give any reasons or evidence, but ok. I believe in the slippery slope that this will be used for broad censorship against conservative ideas and i don't support it.

I think letting mega corporations have control over the internet is a how we get massive censorship. Look at RoosterTeeth. The one of the owner in the past is big into Net Neutrality. Has spoken about it at conferences. Yet not a peep out of them today. Why, because they are owned by Fullscreen which is owned by AT&T.

>>133435229
If you live in the USA you live with local monopolies.
Every utility is a monopoly at some level because local gov didn't want our power lines to look like India's

>>133424809
I'm with you. It's legalized theft for ISPs wrapped in feel-good BS language. There's a reason AT&T is supporting it now. The whole thing needs to go including Title II.

File: 19430182_10213851119731552_590678950805839893_n.jpg (33KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 480x480px

>>133424809
NET NEUTRALITY IS COMMUNISM! DEATH TO COMMIES

>>133435566
Consider my almonds activated friend.

>>133431548
What the FUCK have you been smoking?

Bandwidth doesnt work like economics, equalizing the flow doesnt slow everything down for everyone

>>133435900
Your statements don't make any sense. How is it theft for ISPs?

>>133435904
What a well thought-out argument.

>>133435582
Yes, the new head of the FCC allowed it. The old head of the FCC was against this sort of thing. It's why they couldn't merge with Comcast last year.

>>133435974
Go figure the socialist doesn't like free market ideals.

File: U WOT M8.jpg (55KB, 548x535px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 548x535px

>>133435416
>You don't need the FCC to do anything.
I agree with you, I too want the FCC out of the Internet. But when we fought for NN back in 2015, it was solely because it wasn't defined as a public utility. This is the real redpill and the whole crux of the matter, anon.

And the problem with """deregulation""" right now is that we don't fucking now what non-NN Internet will look like. That is why you have people like me cucking for the FCC in this thread, because right now things are still working. Perhaps not perfectly, anon, but we can still shitpost our wrongthinks online.

I think you are the one that clearly doesn't get it.

>>133436128
Stop triggering me bro.

But on the real, if you're anti-net-neutrality, you're brainwashed by big ISPs who want to control how fast you can view content on the internet. I don't even care, I hope net neutrality crashes and burns and the internet turns into a cable TV model where you have to pay a premium to use youtube and netflix, just so you faggots suffer.

>>133435974
My statement makes perfect sense. The major telco companies have already sued to gut the rules. Now they want to keep them in place. Rah rah bad FCC, meme protests, FCC "gives in" - public feels like they won while we continue to get raped.

It's basic PR, this isn't anything new.

>>133434938
it wasn't a problem before because there was more competition between ISPs you fucking idiot

>>133436396
> The major telco companies have already sued to gut the rules
And have they succeeded? Citation needed.

Title II isn't gutted.

>>133424809
That's how it's been with most of the opposition to it outside of here. Scroll through social media and see shit like
>Not too sure what it's about, but if a liberal supports it, I'm against it!
Same stupid shit with the people bandwagoning because random people told them to.

>>133436182
>we don't fucking now what non-NN Internet will look like.
Of course we do. We've had it since the beginning of the internet, you fucking retard.

>>133436646
Any literally nothing about it could ever change! When cable TV started it was shit right from the beginning, guis. :^)

>/pol/ is willing to allow big corporations fuck them in the ass
You can't get more retarded, don't come crying when they block all your porn sites

>>133436482
It's a search away.
>FCC sued net neutrality
>FCC sued Title II

And Title II is legalized monopoly. Your idealism doesn't work in the real world. Why don't you go back to one of your NatSoc threads.

>>133436646
terrible post 2/10 made me respond

>>133437005
How is it legalized monopoly? It strictly prevents people from turning the Internet into a shithole where you get nickel and dimed to visit sites that you can visit today for free.

>>133436182
Here's the deal
Almost every time liberals pass a law or set a precedent it's used against them by the right.
Kinda like the whole congressional "nuclear option".
They never stop to think "what if someone uses this against me one day"
How about 8 years from now when middle ground America is fed up with the impotent RINOs and republicans who didn't keep their promises?
This Internet censor power will be in control of the very people who are right now trying to make opinions illegal and crush the 1st amendment.
We shouldn't be making a tool that WILL, not maybe but will, be used against us later.

"Haha! Got you, dumb liberul!! Do you browse 'The_Donald'?"

>>133436781
>When cable TV started it was shit right from the beginning
In all fairness it was. Talmudvision is one of the worst things that ever disgraced humanity. Creating a brainwashed audience of slovenly moving idiots content with letting the talking heads do the thinking for them.

But do you really think that allowing the federal government, who has the sole power through the FCC to determine what can and cannot be communicated throughout the US, should have the ultimate say over what we can and cannot access via the internet. They have the fucking armed forces to back them up. Comcast and Verizon have a fucking PR department.

>>133424809
Sage

>>133428960
>Hey why don't you educate yourself on this topic?
>Fug off I ain't no NEET!
Absolute moron

I'm against net neutrality because it's bullshit. Fuck all you retards dumb enough to fall for this.

>>133437098
If you say so. I was simply agreeing with OP, I'm not trying to prove anything to you. Go show up to a AT&T sponsored protest then, they might have even printed a signs to help you' fight the man' kek

Also this >>133437476

If you consider yourself a capitalist or follow a capitalist lifestyle then you should be against net neutrality, otherwise you're a hypocrite.

>>133424809
Shit is a false flag. Giving the FCC more power never helps anyone and the big internet companies (Google, Amazon, etc.) are only lobbying hard for this because it lowers prices for them. It is about dominating the market share they already got.

Sadly because leftists regurgitate any bullshit they are fed they will gladly pave the way to the road to tyranny without realizing what the actual fuck they are doing.

File: 1467587389720.png (216KB, 549x548px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 549x548px

You really think the competition between 2 or 3 ISP's is going to be enough to drastically cut costs and expand services? How naive are you people? They will conspire together and jack up prices like monopolistic shitbergs. Come on, stop being naive faggots

This is like privatizing roads or something. You're granting hundreds of monopolies all over the place, allowing a middleman perfect position to fuck the consumer

>>133428025
What we REALLY need is to ditch ISP's alltogether. We need some kind of distributed mesh net access to the internet making small hops from smartphone to smartphone incentivized by cryptocurrency secured by encryption. Then we don't have to worry about government regulations at all. We simply make them irrelevant. Government moves slow by design, all we have to do is outpace it with innovations.

>>133437894
>defending a vice like the internet
Internet should only be for getting information, we've abused it too much

>>133437192
You make a couple of good points that I will unfortunately ignore because: this is NOT a partisan issue and sometimes you have to agree with liberals for all the wrong reasons.

We both want deregulation. Fine. But I want to hear proposals, I don't want them simply to pass Mystery Bill #639283. Enough of that bullshit. We can argue about minutia then. In the meantime, this is not acceptable behaviour from the legislator.

>>133437192
The more apt comparison is every time liberals pass a law to "fix" a problem, it makes things worse thereby giving them an excuse to expand even more government control.
Look at how "civil rights" has been weaponized , or how Social Security became a massive vote buying Ponzi scheme.

>>133426856
Exactly the point I have been trying to make to people on social media. Leftists as always end up supporting the policy that hurts the people they claim to want to help.

>>133437620
Fuck off britbong

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-12 at 10.22.18 PM.png (18KB, 1048x48px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 1048x48px

no, competition between privately owned companies and public ISPs is enough to drastically cut costs.

publicly owned companies can
>merge
>sell internet at a loss
>charge high rates

now which city do you live in to prove you only have 2 ISPs?

>>133429489
Low wut? You ever been on a federal highway? In some parts of the country people have to fucking volunteer to fix the roads because the government is too incompetent to do it.

File: 1495513365987.jpg (22KB, 476x477px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 476x477px

>>133431315
correct. i have no fucking idea what's happened to 4chan. do these faggots who jack off to guro want their ISP to be able to do whatever they want with their traffic? absolute fucking mongrels

>>133431247
What the fuck? This is THE thing we libertarians talk about. The fact that you acknowledge this destroys the leftist position of expanding the government btw because if the government is corrupt then making it bigger doesn't make it less corrupt. That is the inherient contradiction of the leftists worldview.

I really want to know how most of 4chan got cucked into believing net neutrality was good. You know if liberals want it it isn't gonna be a good thing for freedom of speech.

>>133437552
I see that you have no argument, thanks.

>>133437317
I doubt it was as bad as cable TV is today.

Besides, title II didn't let the FCC "determine what can and cannot be communicated", it simply said that ISPs have to follow certain standards that we enforce on other service providers.

File: 1496158713878.jpg (17KB, 255x352px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 255x352px

>>133432192
>Go wrap your mouth around McDonalds CEO's cock for some good burgers.
kek

Liberals like to drink water and eat food so now im boycotting both

>>133439091
moot used to shut down the site for political activism and he was a lefty autist

>>133424809
Do you want regulated internet that gives equal bandwidth to all content? Do you want a federal internet authority that grants that power?

If you answer yes to both these questions, then you're all for net neutrality.

>Net Neutrality
Govt actually does something right for once and prevents ISPs from assfucking you for 100% profit on services that already cost them next to nothing and make shitloads of money.
>Non Net Neutrality
Muh regulation bogeyman

There are times for regulation and times for deregulation, you'd have to be retarded to think that businesses don't need anybody keeping them in check at times.

File: Screenshot 2017-07-13 at 03.31.36.png (28KB, 822x411px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 822x411px

>>133438996
It looks like its a vocal minority

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

>>133431661
I hate John Oliver as much as you but if John Oliver was against drinking bleach I would probably agree with him.

File: IMG_0244.jpg (250KB, 704x1235px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 704x1235px

I agree. There's some serious fuckery going on here.

Free market doesn't work when talking about ISPs. No one is going to put up tens of billions of dollars to do something that another company already does well.

File: ciatrolls.jpg (298KB, 626x486px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 626x486px

We are pro net neutrality and anyone suggesting otherwise is a CIA retard shill

>>133439502
>Free market doesn't work when talking about ISPs.
Probably because with the vast amount of Telcomm regulations there is no free market in the realm of ISPs. The answer isn't to add to the problem by regulating other markets further. That is how you get socialism and let (((((them)))))) have total control.

>>133424809

Look for anti alt right / "Trump supporter" news articles sourcing these threads in the coming weeks.

This is a campaign being waged on pol and you all are deep throating the bait.

File: 1486435068224.png (567KB, 644x626px) Image search: [Google]

567KB, 644x626px

>>133424809
The internet is not a utility normies!!!!
>So the feds can't control it and subsidize it like healthcare for low income family's.
>Feds fuck up everything else just one more thing to add to the list. It works for the Chinese government to suppress their people so it's good enough for us.

>>133439184
What argument? The FCC will back away and you will "win". Enjoy your hollow victory, brought to you by AT&T, Charter Communications, Comcast, Amazon, Google etc etc

>>133439301
Really? Sad

>>133430052
Thread

>>133424809
boohoo
just pick an ISP that won't throttle your internet
stop whining dumb americans