Ideal Situation without net neutrality: New company starts selling

But don't you have local monopolies that don't allow new companies to compete in these areas?

>>133425888
Then get rid of the monopolies, people are freaking out about the wrong issue

>>133425971
>people are freaking out about the wrong issue

totally agreed

>>133425971
You can't argue that the free market will fix it when you don't have a foundation for it.
Before you kill off net neutrality the monopolies must be broken up or those monopolies will only abuse their power for more gibs.

>>133426525
Go gas yourself, it's your fucking fault America does shady jewish shit

>>133425642
With Net Neutrality => Only government can censor your internet. Without Net Neutrality => Government AND private companies can censor your internet.

Inb4 muh freedoms: You are fighting for the 'freedoms' of like 10 companies (the 'freedom' to censor people) at the expense of millions of Americans. Should be the last thing a libertarian should give a shit about.

Inb4 Giving government power always = bad: Protecting freedom of speech, gun ownership and freedom of the press, although considered inalienable rights, are all recognized and backed by government power, this was not 'bad'.

Giving government the power to protect freedom isn't bad you sperglord libertardian fuckheads.

>>133426525
The free market would fix it if there was a free market. Net-neutrality is stupid in any scenario though.

>>133427060
Not if we made a law banning the government from regulating it ;^). Honestly the first amendment should be changed to freedom of information.

>>133427126
I am all for a free market.
Ok how would you currently stop ISPs from abusing their power when you can't vote with your wallet?

>>133427556
but you can vote with your wallet because this isn't a fucking corporate zionist oligarchy like your shithole you've been so indoctrinated into.

>>133427850
Let's say I live in an area that is a local monopoly. How do I vote with my wallet? Stop using internet as a whole? Move out? Kill myself?
Please.

>>133428313
No you get rid of the retarded fucking laws causing the monopoly not create new ones to stop people from fucking you over even more and will just cause even more trouble down the road.

>>133428313
The laws you would need to enforce net-neutrality are the same kind of laws that cause the current ISP situation in the fucking first place.

>>133428749
Then fucking do it.
Currently you have these monopolies which lobby huge amounts of money to remain monopolies.
I really want you break up those monopolies, but I'm not seeing it happening.

>>133429208
If so I'm wrong and you're right.

>>133427060
with Net Neutrality => government can censor the internet. Your internet or my internet is the same.

without Net Neutrality => you can change ISP to change the kind of ban

>>133430025
>change the kind of ban
until someone makes an ISP that doesn't have any or a product better than the current internet. You guys assume the internet will stay the exact way it is right now forever with this and that's pretty damn ignorant.

File: 1499580589924.jpg (14KB, 329x345px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 329x345px

>>133430025
with Net Neutrality => government can censor the internet. Your internet or my internet is the same.

How? how does a law preventing ISPs from censoring the internet grant the government new powers to censor the internet? WTF are you talking about? I've already asked like twenty libertardians here and not one of them can explain this. The conversation always just stops or they just repeat this like a mantra. EVERY TIME. No explanation.

> without Net Neutrality => you can change ISP to change the kind of ban

And the government still has the same powers to censor the internet as it does today and as it would have with net neutrality and without it. The only difference is that now you also have public sector censoring the internet.

So WTF?

>>133431244
Because there is no way to enforce net neutrality without government intervention. There's nothing stopping ISP's from doing that shit right now but noone does because they would lose customers and there would be riots int he streets.

Making your own ISP isn't easy in the current situation. Look up how the internet works. You gotta communicate with tier 3 networks. Whitch Jews own.

>>133431457
Even before Obamas order the internet was pretty much the same now in functionality. Killing regulation will lower internet cost by charging the streaming websites instead of the user. It also opens up new internet plans and bundles. Fuck obamas subsidized socialism.

>>133431743
Sucks to suck kid

>>133431798
This

>>133425642
Oh yeah some random dude is just going to open a ISP company out of nowhere and its going to work incredibly reliably with incredible speed and quality. Sounds like a fairy tale rather than an actual situation.

In either way you have the monopoly problem, but i feel like the monopoly problem is lesser when you dont have to pay for something that you used to own 2 days ago.

And even if the monopoly problem were to be fixed net neutrality would still be a better option because as ive said above, if starting an ISP company was that easy, wed all be doing it.

File: 1493456690390s.jpg (10KB, 206x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 206x250px

>>133431457
> Because there is no way to enforce net neutrality without government intervention.

That's true but "government forcing about ten gigantic corporations to not censor" does not equal "government controlling the internet". You do understand this don't you?

> There's nothing stopping ISP's from doing that shit right now but noone does

Well, they probably shouldn't. People should be able to access the internet freely. Why on earth would you or anyone else feel the need to protect like ten corporations from some law that would just be a minor inconvenience to them but would ensure uncensored internet for hundreds of millions? Doesn't make any sense to me.

> because they would lose customers and there would be riots int he streets.

Twitter, facebook and google censor shit constantly and nobody is rioting. I think libertarians are projecting their idealism into the world and not using empirical data to proceed here. People in general are perfectly comfortable with censorship. If the private sector did this they would be fine, as long as they can read Washington Post, Salon and watch Netflix.

They could probably create a 'free ISP' funded by some globalists that would only allow people to access specific 'approved' websites and censor everything else. Great way to create epic zombie population.

>>133432413
Google was manipulating search results for awhile now and nobody did shit besides post a few pictures.

>>133432575
Exactly. I don't get this libertarian idealism. They think creating an ISP is like opening a lemonade stand.

>>133433480
Just trust me man, personal nukes, how can that sound bad?
Im just kidding however. Yes every form of left leaning anything is more and more deluded the more left it goes. Theyre under the impression that humans are just ready to go out and fight for justice. If that was the case none of us would be here.

File: 1478947565221.jpg (235KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 900x675px

>>133436024

File: 1478947501647.jpg (142KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 900x675px

>>133436070

File: install2.jpg (213KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 900x675px

>>133436122

File: install.jpg (208KB, 900x675px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 900x675px

>>133436164

File: 1498419400049.jpg (16KB, 316x239px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 316x239px

>>133425642
Stop shilling.

>>133430025
Net neutrality has nothing to do with government censoring anything, it's a parallel issue.

Net neutrality says: don't touch bandwidth usage, just provide a means of transfer.
If we're talking about government censorship then we are conflating net neutrality with something else, literally strawmanning, as it has nothing to do with net neutrality.

>>133425642
i dont care either way these companies do have monopolies and none of this shit will ever change if i even say anything or call anyone so whatever

>>133432575
>a wrong goes unpunished
>see? we should get more wrongs go unpunished, what's the issue?
neck yourself

>>133437006
>thirsty

File: 1353588625664.jpg (20KB, 300x360px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x360px

qt

>>133436938
You are an imbecile that cannot read or comprehend what hes reading but seeing as blacks average IQ is much lower ill try to explain.

Shitlibs are in this imaginary world where every human is ready to go out protest, be heard, start some shit the second something unjust is happening and thats not the case at all. Even things they disagree with they wont organise and go out on their own. It has to be a protest organised either by a group that has existed for a while or your friend soros has to fund it, no other option. People simply leaving their house cause they agree, and theyve never met before, that doesnt happen.

File: binary.jpg (214KB, 652x401px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 652x401px

>i'll just leave this here
https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom
The FCC has proposed to return the U.S. to the bipartisan, light-touch regulatory framework under which a free and open Internet flourished for almost 20 years. The FCC's May 2017 proposal to roll back the prior Administration's heavy-handed Internet regulation strives to advance the FCC's critical work to promote broadband deployment in rural America and infrastructure investment throughout the nation, to brighten the future of innovation both within networks and at their edge, and to close the digital divide.

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.

>>133425888
>>133425971
of course, they're helping the isp monopolies stay right where they are by supporting this "net neutrality" bullshit. we're fucked. everybody is stupid.

>>133437274
>Internet service providers (ISPs) invested approximately $1.5 trillion
of your tax money, not their own. this is a lie. stupid spreading it, you fucking traitor.

Is this the guy who said Marisa is the best Touhou?

>>133425642
>Ideal Situation without net neutrality:
>
>New company starts selling internet for cheaper with access to more/better movies and faster internet to your house for cheaper with new invention. Netflix and Comcast go bankrupt because they have no customers.

How the fuck will they get us the connection young senpai?

Comcast owns the Cable lines and att owns the phone's, although the DSL is pro competition I can still only get 1.5 mb down with tech running to my house regardless which company I use.

You could argue Cellular but then we have muh ping and lag issues.

Cable doesn't have to share there line's with anyone and ATt is is horrendous at building out there higher speed uverse. I've been on cable internet since 98 and still haven't lived where I can get DSL faster than 1.5mb down. My current Comcast service is serving me with 180mb down and 25 up.

I'll keep my net neutrality and my 180 down but I still dream of Google coming to my town.

>>133437161
Yeah but what's your point? libshits are shit, good, any other fantastic retort, you dumb junglekike?

>>133425642
Everyone be aware that the anti net neutrality spam is a massive shill attack

>>133425642
>>>133425642
>Everyone be aware that the anti net neutrality spam is a massive shill attack

I'd sure as fuck hope so.

>>133437396
you can dispute the number, but the point is that if ISPs are going to be treated as utilities then why not treat websites like google the same? you do know google is funded by and got its startup money from taxes right?

File: 1437958505958.png (226KB, 620x670px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 620x670px

>ISPs being allowed to snoop my packets and perform mitm attacks is okay because drumpfs said so

>>133437451
rare

>>133437453
Because it is a very liberal idea to think that people will just fix everything by themselves without the government

File: 1462826072424.jpg (213KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 900x900px

>>133437805
_______

>>133425642
Ideal Situation without net neutrality:

Regional duopoloy/monopoly ISPs have a new rent to exploit.

Ideal Situation with net neutrality:

Things go on as exactly as they have.

All that is at stake here is the creation of yet another rent.

>>133437943
>bbc stallman
kekek

>>133425971
basically the options are let the normies have the internet and just turn the shit off. or fight for net neutrality. well we already did fight for net neutrality we won and this pompous faggot is going against the will of a nation. nobody wants net neutrality gone but trump and his media cronies. You have to remember he is a tv personality after all. this is one thing we need to fight trump tooth and nail on.

>>133425642
Holy shit you guys are fucking speds lmao

>>133437826
Can't disagree.
It seems I did not read properly in the first place, I apologize, buddy.

>>133438077
i want net neutrality gone

File: NSA-Santa.jpg (252KB, 713x696px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 713x696px

daily reminder that net neutrality isn't neutral

>>133425642
CAP DATA USAGE OR RATE. NOT CONTENT.

You are literally retarded if you oppose this

>>133438241
then you are trump or one of his cronies or a redditor that thinks getting 4chan banned is worth losing what makes the internet good. user created content.

>>133438367
if you want to stop the nsa get rid of the patriot act. simple as that.

>>133438384
you're confused. 'net neutrality' is just another leftist legalese word. it means 'free bandwidth for streaming video companies.' ISPs aren't incentivized to throttle sites like 4chan, who use bandwidth efficiently. they're more likely to throttle sites like youtube and netflix just like they do torrent users. all the new FCC director wants to do is deregulate the interwebz. the market can handle it far better than uncle sam.

>>133438526
this

>>133438077
Normies want net neutrality genius. They want free streaming at their wifi hotspots coffee shops. They want people who pay for internet to subsidize the bandwidth for them not the internet streaming companies.
>>133438384
4 chan wont be banned. Network neutrality is a totally different matter. God theres so many idiots so easily brainwashed by these streaming and social media giants.

>>133425642
>
die net neutrality die

>>133438862
>brainwashed
ikr. most of them mean well. they just need more info. it's confusing.

>>133438862
>Normies want net neutrality genius.

Normies don't know crap about shit, first and foremost.
Second, you are a shill as only a shill would cuck for more cohenberg control
Third, net neutrality is the internet as it is, If you were patrician of mind you'd understand.
Fourth, gas yourself you useful idiot

>>133438845
it does not, netflix has to pay out the ass for the bandwidth they use. us as a consumer pay for our DL bandwidth its why we only get 10 percent upload speed. this in its self should raise red flags for you. we already only get 10% upload speeds, it indicates that they do want a DL only type of system.

>>133439306
this guy supports net neutrality you fucking goober.

File: 1431622386592.jpg (28KB, 340x462px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 340x462px

>>133439482
So do I

>>133425971
>Then get rid of the monopolies
This is 100% the problem. Laws should not be made in this situation when "Competition" consists of 2-3 super conglomerates offering the same average services.

Id imagine it is next to impossible to get into this market at this point, and I wonder if they are just stalling hoping for wireless in the future......

>>133439308
i stand corrected. it means free bandwidth for netflix consumers

>we
>they
>collectivist
when was the last time you tried negotiating an equal ul/dl ratio with your ISP? technically, it doesn't make any difference for them. again. let the market decide, not the government.

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

502KB, 600x1335px

>>133425642
That first one is a complete fabrication, internet backbone lines cost billions and the existing companies totally own them. You aren't going to have a start up lay a new trans pacific line.

without net Neutrality, even in an ideal situation, which is fucking rare as fuck, you are going to go through years of shit.

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

250KB, 704x1235px

Net neutrality is going to fuck us. There's no reason that the left would be shilling this hard for it if it was beneficial.

Lets see if we can get more votes. Right now /pol/ is strongly pro-Net Neutrality

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

>>133439308
an analogy:
>john flies from boston to nyc 2x/week
>jane flies from nyc to la 2x/week
WE NEED AIRFARE NEUTRALITY. ALL FLIGHTS SHOULD COST THE SAME!! REEEEEE!!!!

>>133439013
I know how to make is easy. Always do opposite of what Obama says
>>133439264
You are right they only know streaming services are cool and we should totally support them guyz "le smiley face" No control stays up either way but the consumer will save money if we appeal obamas open internet order. And thirdly no the internet was fine before 2015 and it will be after this.

>>133439660
>when was the last time you tried negotiating an equal ul/dl
I just did a "speed check" because I have had my net for a long time, and I remember fighting about upload speeds at the time......I was also drinking at the time lol..

Whats it mean:
Download: 82 Mbps
Upload: 93 Mbps

>>133437274
Shill words and a history lesson that has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Do you fuckers even know what net neutrality is? You are just spitting lies

I think the point is not to micromanage so much, there are so many things in life we split up payments for and shit, is it really a problem to have just an internet fee?

>>133439928
pretty much

>>133439951
it means you have a uganda tier isp

>>133439955
not an argument

Why doesn't McDonald's charge 100$ for a McChicken?

File: pepe sherlock.jpg (113KB, 882x731px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 882x731px

Why has it always been fairly simple to have phone companies that all use the same phone cables, allowing you to always have multiple options no matter where you live, but with cable internet, every individual provider needs to dig around and install cabling to each and every house that it wants to offer its own special cable options to independently?

>>133430025
Yes because everybody has a choice that isn't Comcast or TWC. I suppose you could use Hughesnet if you hate yourself and want to relive the glory days of dial up with a ping of 10 seconds.

File: 1497682053767.jpg (106KB, 654x862px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 654x862px

>>133439928
Is it part of your script to appeal to conservacuck right nostril - libtard left nostril politics?
We know both belong to the same nose, you know.

No, again, getting to dictate what at what speed we browse and what we browse is not a net win for anyone but the shekel shakers, please remove yourself from the premises.

>>133426973
The Jew is right on this one though.

>>133440363
>donation box

>>133440260
My only choices are AT&T and TWC.

>>133440538
how many affordable automobile manufacturers did the average american have to choose from before ford came along?

God help us all.

The autists in this thread have indirect contol of the worlds largest nuclear stockpile.

Maybe when the Americans finally vote to kill themselves economically, the world will have some stability.

>>133440676
plebbit

>>133425642
>create new
just stop
your little fantasy has nothing to do with net neutrality
you're being a cuck for comcast and the other ISPs who desperately want to get rid of it so they can punish users for actually using the data plans they paid for

>>133440336
What are you even getting at? Today isnt the fight to break up monopolies but to pick our poison. Just as electing Trump wont kill fractional reserve banking but hes better than Obama any day. Right? Right? Geez. And no ISPs wont throttle your speed but they will offer you the package you pay for which is what consumers want.

>>133440764
you're being a cuck for google

>>133425642
>Expecting a corporation to be the good guys

You really don't learn

>>133440829
that implies any business is responsible for the users who choose to use their service with their internet plan
ISPs offered specific speeds and data limits and are now bothered that people are actually using them, pressuring them to update infrastructure to support it
there's nothing more jewish than that

File: 1495321967023.png (109KB, 501x504px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 501x504px

>And no ISPs wont throttle your speed
>Trust me goy

Also
>what the consumer wants
>look at all these fantastic deals
Could this shit be any more scripted, seriously, hop in the oven i got coke neutrality for you, all your jew bits will burn at the same temperature

>>133440538
Case in point.
People like OP have zero idea how much infrastructure is required to support something like the internet. AT&T/Bell had 14000+ microwave towers just for phone traffic in the 70s. The barriers to entry are insanely high, meaning OP's idea of ISPs approaching perfect competition is retarded to anybody who knows anything about communications.

>>133440635
The average american? None because the average american couldn't afford a car in the years before Ford. What is the point you are trying to make?

>>133441123
I'll add, I say this as somebody who knows how ass backward and money grubbing the FCC can be, and even they would be better than letting ISPs decide what packets you're allowed to see.

>>133440808


>>133441063

>>133441044
>>133441017
no it implies that ISPs are free to change their TOS as often as websites

>>133441229
supply and demand drive innovation and enable price discovery.

>>133425642
Net neutrality is irrelevant. The problem is the massive barriers to entry, often government mandated monopolies. Fix that and the rest doesn't mean shit.

>>133440829
everyone but the ISP's support net neutrality. everyone on the internet is fighting it that has any knowledge of what it is. Cable companies hate the open internet because it doesnt allow them to control the data flow of the internet. why should 3 giant media conglomerates be allowed to control what is accessible on the internet. we already know they attribute the their declining cable subscriptions to the internet. why would we allow them to control it like they control television.

>>133441459
>everyone supports
the fallacy you just committed is 'appeal to common belief' ...stopped reading after that

>>133425642

except this is all bullshit. it's a consumer protection law, plain and simple. anyone who argues against it is a shill or a gullible kekistani faggot.

>>133440174
>it means you have a uganda tier isp
Really? I got a few games for my kid on steam the other week, and they were fairly large. They didn't take more than a few minutes total.

Either way, It costs what I would expect to pay in Uganda lol. I am happy 100%. I don't stream shit etc. We don't even online game.

>>133440764
>"Punish users for actually using the data plans they paid for"
HAHAHAHAHA

You saying people will have to pay for a service? Shocking!

>>133441063
ISPs wont throttle your speed because they will be charging streaming companies for speedy service instead of charging the customer. Guess you are against cheaper internet since you probably dont even pay for it but rather steal wifi and engage in free stream viewing like all the normies.

>>133441445
Its already over. Think phone companies. the lines are laid when the city is being built. you dont get access to the4 conduits the cable companies installed so there is no way to compete without digging up streets. They just dont allow that.

>>133441423
>no it implies that ISPs are free to change their TOS as often as websites

????????

File: 1487207668954.jpg (65KB, 680x907px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 680x907px

>There are actual legitimate human beings supporting Comcast and other garbage ISPs

What the fuck happened to 4chan

>>133441563
ya I bet you would because EVERYONE and I mean EVERYONE that knows what it is supports it. Its a very simple concept. Make sure all data is allowed to flow freely on the consumer side of the internet. Uploading has always been regulated to how much bandwidth you can afford to pay for.

>>133425888
I've noticed the Jews are against all for net neutrality. That makes me think its a jew scheme of some sort. Obongo wrote the bill. That shits gotta go.

>>133441879
its paid shills man. if you dont know they exist by now you are retarded.

>>133441879
Gamergate happened. Feminists messed with our games

4chan was actually quite liberal (in the American sense) before it

>>133441625
>uganda
my mistake. i'm bad at math. mine's about the same.

>>133441972
>gets called out on fallacy
>responds by committing two fallacies
this time, another 'appeal to common belief' and then stepped it up a notch with 'appeal to tradition' ie. 'has always.' also, no, ISPs throttle users as stated in their TOS. example: torrents. example: wireless ISPs throttling during peak hours.

>>133441879
>There are actual legitimate human beings supporting Netflix and other garbage internet corporations.
I fixed that for you.
Why would i support a streaming company that causes my internet bill to increase? Why would you? Thats right you dont pay for your internet.

>>133442286

GG was a goddamn mistake. It made /v/ even fucking shittier

>>133442470
>Actually believing that corporations are the good guys

>>133441654
>free stream viewing like all the normies.

>Trying to fit in this hard
You don't even know what a normie is, you reddit browsing piece of shit, get out of my board

>Support (((ISPs))) or (((google, kikebook, leddit, etc)))
How about fuck all of you. The internet was fine before obama. I have all kinds of choices for providers that i had back then and my current one is great. You fags in NY,TX,&CA can eat shit with your comcast, Cox, and TWC.

>>133442416
>He says, committing the fallacy fallacy.
Neck yourself.

>>133442728
Ive been over this there are no good or bad guys only sides. I pick the side thats for cheaper internet not pro streaming.
>>133442810
Only normies use wifi and phone post. Now get out of my internet you pleb.

>>133441879
Comcast supports NN though.

>>133443481
engrish is hard

>>133432084
DESU a new startup is providing internet in my area which is literally 30 times faster than my old internet, and at the same price.

>>133425642
>New company starts selling internet for cheaper with

So easy! Why hasn't anyone thought of this yet??

>Best case scenario is Daddy Trump just wants us to go play outside and talk to people face-to-face.

>>133443689
>Only normies use wifi and phone post. Now get out of my internet you pleb.

And that's the oooonly thing that normies use the internet for. No, normies surely wouldn't buy facebook packages en masse
Please, preach to me how only the [other camp] would be against getting cucked to shit by non neutral bandwidth, mr. noseberg.

Your tactics are shit, your shilling is shit, and you stink of reddit

>>133443689
You won't get cheaper internets.Companies with monopolies will just ramp up the prices and create packages, which is probably 80% of the cases in America

File: 1.png (50KB, 1880x342px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1880x342px

>>133425888

>>133425642
Have fun not having access to 4chan because it isn't part of your internet packages, you fucking idiot.

>>133445230
That's a shill

Maybe you haven't noticed but 4chan is getting shillbombed to try and get us to turn against net neutrality.

Call them the fuck out:
Point out the people who want net neutrality gone are the SAME people who run the fraud news networks like CNN and MSNBC.
Point out that net neutrality has NOTHING to do with market regulations causing monopolies
Point out that net neutrality DOESN'T allow the government to censor the internet

It's a fucking massive shill campaign going on right now trying to consensus crack this place.

>>133442470
Netflix isn't causing your internet bill to increase.

If Netflix's ISP thinks netflix is using too much bandwidth, they can increase the prices that netflix pays for their internet access.

But their ISP doesn't think that.
Because this isn't about netflix, it's about timewarner and the like censoring and controlling the content of the internet.

ITT: foreigners

File: memberberries.jpg (75KB, 888x499px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 888x499px

>>133445230
member when before '15 when obummer started net neutrality how isps blocked 4chan, vpns and proxies?

>>133428749
Is that your opinion of the sherman antitrust act anon?

>>133445955
ya those fucking net neutrality deniers are fucking kooks.

>>133445230
>>133446213
oh wait, that never happened

>>133429624
You especially should be cinsidering comcast is spreading like a disease right next door to you israelbro.

>>133446266
half the ppl ITT think we don't currently have net neutrality rules on the books

>>133446335
It was happeneing you fuck. isp's were traffic shaping and something had to be done.

>>133446213
Remember how the law was made because they were trying to do just that?
Remember when you came here a year ago for le trump meme war and post le memebase.com southpark images?
>>133446439
>ppl
You must be 18 years old or older to post on 4chan

>>133426525

Retard, monopolies aren't allowed in the US

>>133431244
Without more info to the contrary, i have to agree with the one saying libertardian.

If this is as its explainee, who knows, this could be an olive branch that shows us racist white cis nazis can actually agree with someone on another team.

Waahington post is already running that very article.

>>133425888
Some markets have monopolies, some have some competition. Generally the shittier the area the less competition.

>>133446476
sauce

>pirate
>wants to fix things with more laws

>>133425642
I want a clean bill. The scary part of the net neutrality bill is its vast support allowing for additional provisions passing on a friday afternoon. Id like to keep this simple, and a regulatory agency would invariably be extremely costly with little benefit to government and consumers.

Simple laws for simple ISPs. Anything else is public-private frankenstein data brokers and boom we need to hit up libraries again.

>>133446501
see
>>133446830

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/186576-verizon-caught-throttling-netflix-traffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

>>133430025
Believe me, I would've dropped century link long ago if I had another option, now I pay 300 a month for awful 6 megabit web

>implying ISPs wont assrape you the second they can

>>133447263
>be in 1905
>this just in
ford caught selling less cars in boise even though boise dealership pays more for shipping than nyc

>>133447706
er 20 or whenever ford was new

>>133425642
you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

>>133447664
>implying i downloaded an mp3, now i'm going to smash a window and steal an mp3 player to put it on

Honestly this whole thing is just depressing. Even if NN stays they will just try to get rid of it in another 2 years, then 2 years after that etc. Until they get what they want

>>133425642
How about we all stop pretending we're able to actually understand the complexities of this shit?

I'm not going to pretend I can predict how things would be if we were to abolish it, it might be better, it might be worse, I don't fucking know as a consumer, this is literally the reason we have supposedly knowledgeable elected officials to make these decisions for us. I just don't get most of it, I'm not well enough informed to make a good decision.

>>133447182
>Everybody must be exactly what their vanity flag is

>>133447706
there are many many examples. I posted this one because they are still throttling even with current laws. Its obvious you are just going to keep spouting nonsense. because as we all know it is after all your horrible shitfuck of a job.

>>133448950
if there are many more examples and they are still throttling, what's wrong with getting rid of this FCC rule? what good is it doing?

>>133449332
they can get fucked for it right now. without the law they cant.

>>133449517
ok. i'll give you that it's possible that ISPs have throttled content based on politics for example and if they're granted special privileges by the government, for example, places to run cables, they should be held to a higher standard than companies that don't get special privileges. however, this is a slippery slope because when you consider all the IT companies that work with the government or get special privileges from it, they should be held to a similar if not higher standard, for example, google and facebook who have been documented working with the nsa/cia etc. no disrespect.

>>133449517
google/facebook/pornhub want to keep the current 'net neutrality' rules in place because they only apply to the ISP, not content providers. so comcast can't block 4chan, but google can delist 4chan. it's a double standard.

>>133450565
they dont apply to providers because they have to negotiate their own contracts with isp's. They already pay a predetermined fee to make sure their service works.

>>133451218
i assume you mean 'content providers.' i'm not talking about content providers' bandwidth fees. i'm talking about the government making rules stopping them from delisting sites or removing them from adsense or demonetizing youtube videos for political purposes. on the facebook side, hiding posts for political reasons. if ISPs must be objective in return for government handouts, content providers must be objective in return for government handouts.

>>133451690
pretty sure google doesn't get subsidies. and were back to the monopoly problem. you can use a different search engine or video site there are tons of them most people can not however change isp's because there is usually only one.

>>133451971
your training is incomplete. research google. i'm done talking about this for now.

>>133446645
>implying monopolies give a shit about laws against monopolies

File: NN.png (29KB, 634x139px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 634x139px

According to the FCC only half of Americans have access to more than 1 ISPs that provide 25 Mbps download internet
One in 10 not at all, and that balloons to 39% in rural areas
(see post image) pg 38
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-16-6A1.pdf

The Telecommunications industry is a "natural monopoly" because of the high fixed start up costs and local municipality barriers to entry thanks to legislative restrictions on accessibility which were ironically written by telecom lobbyists through the American Legislative Exchange Counsel in the late 90's.

23 States have "If-Then", "Minefield", or "Total Ban" laws that prevent cities from creating telecom infrastructures in order to prevent competition between government and industry.
See if yours is one here
https://roisforyou.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/tearing-down-anti-muni-broadband-barriers-in-2015/

Take Chattanooga Tennnesse for example, they have some of the fastest and most affordable internet in the urban core but were unable to expand this coverage to the surrounding rural areas by building their own local infrastructures outside the bounds of it's electric footprint -In the 90s this was about cable tv but has become a much bigger impediment to broadband and fiber networks.
Instead Chattanooga subsidized Comcast and AT&T $45 million of tax-payer money to extend their networks, lucky tax payers who then get to pay them more money for worse service.

>>133454637
Worse still thanks to this lobbying the internet is considered a luxury good and not a true utility which is priced through "ratemaking" (which is ridiculous and outdated since internet is an unlimited resource) essentially prevents government broadband companies from offering rates at below cost of service, meanwhile Comcast under no such restriction undercuts their price with a 10 to 100 times slower package.

In a case like Wilson, North Carolina who WERE able to build their own fiber network, competitor speeds increased and price dropped but they just jacked up the prices in neighboring jurisdictions they still had predatory control over to offset their losses.


Let's talk about utility poles, this is the front-line of competitive interests. If a new cable is to be strung from a pole others likely to need to be rearranged, each cable owning company has 60 days to complete their "make ready" work and can take months to years when laying a network over a whole city-an obvious impediment to potentially competitive new companies-during which time AT&T promotes a marginally better than current deal and locks consumers into multi year deals before the new business market entry.

The solution to this is "one touch market ready" which requires the owner of the utility pole to hire a single contractor to perform all the work at once. This is a huge hurdle that is currently being contested in the courts for all sorts of reasons:unions, jurisdictional authority, fear of competition, law suits etc.

Permits for digging trenches to lay fiber on public property is a whole other massive enchilada of impeding burecratic redtape that needs to be streamlined requiring local and state legislatures to take on telcos.

>>133454637
>>133454748
This impedes expansion, start ups and competition. This is what creates the environment for mono and duopolies to be formed which is what we currently have.
Until the landscape of competitive access is changed this is not a free market with consumer choice.Why don't we just repeal those laws then? This was attempted by FCC regulation in 2015 but was overruled by a federal court.

Did I mention?
Throttling (Comcast 2007)
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-183A1.pdf

Data Caps (AT&T 2011-2014)
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/141028attcmpt.pdf

Hidden Fees (Comcast 2016)
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db1011/DOC-341621A1.pdf


Side-bar, this isn't a fight about big government-privacy, spying, censorship or a slippery slope to socialism. You already live in and benefit from a democractic republic serving at the will of the people so act like it. This issue benefits a wide, seemingly contradictory range of actors from indsutry big and small, state and local governments, civilians to content providers. Seeing you all cannablize each other over pointing fingres at who's the biggest jew behind the curtain as if that settles the matter is laughable though I wouldn't expect anything less from this place.

>>133425642

So all the regulatory infrastructure statutes that created these monopolies and duopolies are magically going to disappear when NN is repealed?

>>133425888
Nice trips. Those "local monopolies" are wholly legislative. Hard to bring new comm tech to the market when federal agencies stifle it.

>>133454877

Long story short: You have to roll those back before you talk about rolling back net neutrality.

Otherwise, it's infinitely exploitable, and there is no recourse for the average consumer.

>>133438077
Honestly man, I hope the fucking internet gets ruined. At least then I'll be able to lead a normal life separated from this machine that does nothing but suck up your life for absolutely no return

Net neutrality is Internet Marxism. End of story.

File: goyimknow.png (103KB, 440x522px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 440x522px

>>133453108

>>133427060

>government protecting your freedom of gun ownership

Like in Waco Texas? Where they burned men, women and children ALIVE cause there MIGHT be a sawed off shotgun? Did they ever find it? Like during Hurricane Katrina where they confiscated legal weapons from legal gun owners?

Ever notice how the Constitution's Bill of Rights is to keep GOVERNMENT in check and LIMIT government's power? Government is what creates tyranny and monopolies. If we don't like how a business operates or how a farmer deals with people, we can boycott them and find alternatives/substitutes. Only government regulations keep monopolies in power.

>>133425642
The big ebil companies literally OWN the infrastructure. It is almost inconceivable now for someone to set up a "New" internet.