where does pol stand on Net Neutrality?

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

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

282KB, 725x427px

>>133428066
Because it's basically it's a farce.

>>133428128
This. /thread. Op is gay with his scare tactics.

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

105KB, 931x806px

>>133428213
>>133428128

>>133428360
wtf I hate bandwidth usage now.

>>133428213

ugh, never saw it that way. These posts are supposed to red-pill people

>>133428322

not going around pointing fingers like a faggot

>>133428128
NO NO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE MOVEMENT THE ENTIRE INTERNET WILL BE DESTROYED!!!!

File: 1493255507347.jpg (110KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 640x640px

>>133428066
We need net neutrality.

>>133428128
>an cap retard is defending net neutrality

Who'd have thought

>>133428066
>pro net neutrality
>more pro trump then pro net neutrality
>guess we'll just have to suck it up if we want the wall #MAGA

>>133428066
People don't actually think they'll do this right? Or that they'll charge you money to do things? Are people really that extreme in thinking? So pessimistic. What's the good things about this guys?

>>133428677
Read again man.

>>133428677
It's ironic because the actual libertarian party is neither republican nor democrat, and they are neither liberal nor conservative.

>>133428677
>kekistani doesn't understand that net neutrality is how it currently is and my post is against it
who'd have thought

>>133428128
Such stale copypasta.

>>133428066
the FCC literally employs people known as "censors"

the FCC has been fining people for decades for saying bad words over the public airwaves

I do not want these people in charge of the internet. This is why I am against so-called net neutrality.

>>133428360
Looks like Netflix should just create it's own internet instead of hogging this one.

>>133428360
I would like to see web browsing broken down into Facebook vs everything else

>>133428128
The idea of net neutrality has been around since the 80's. A professor made it popular in 2005 and Obama made it a law in 2015. Pretending this is a left vs right issue is insulting.

>>133428771
My corporations are the good guys. All the other corporations are the bad guyz.

>>133428066
Please fuck off with this shit
Most of us lean pro Neutrality (including me), but
1. We don't really care
2. see >>133428128

File: Mercy.png (418KB, 606x720px) Image search: [Google]

418KB, 606x720px

>>133428128
>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.
I don't think I fully understand this part. So companies with large bandwidths pay the same amount as companies with a small bandwidth?
Can you explain to this to me as if I was 5?

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

50KB, 1880x342px

Pretty simple

Net neutrality allows us to reach websites like 4chan.

Otherwise the ISP's - who in most cases also own the fraud news networks, would just censor everything they disagree with by preventing people from accessing certain websites.

There is absolutely no reason to ever want to get rid of net neutrality

It doesn't prevent market competition - all it does is prevent ISP's from overcharging and censoring the internet.

How anyone can seriously argue against net neutrality boggles the mind.

I'm 100% positive there's a concerted consensus cracking attempt on net neutrality so the fraud news can push their internet censorship plans through.

Net neutrality exists RIGHT NOW, and it isn't preventing you from reaching the websites you like. It was put into place BECAUSE ISP's were starting to cut off websites and throttle connections.

As soon as you remove net neutrality you're going to get a censored internet that effectively works like television.

>>133428736
you wouldnt be able to be on this site with out net neutrality
trump wouldnt have won with out net neutrality

File: 2.png (25KB, 1878x226px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1878x226px

>>133429388

I wonder who could be behind net (((neutrality)))

>>133428977
You are implying that the alternative is any better.

>>133429299
It's an idealistic hippie pro government control movement vs realist conservatives who believe in less government.

So yes it's a left vs right issue.

>>133429461
You are right, for many people the alternative is not much (if any) better. I will always opt for private control over the internet, if only because I'm afraid of handing government more power.

>>133429365
Google pays for the bandwidth they use.

Let's say 100gpbs connection for $1000/mo

You pay for bandwidth you use, as well. Let's say 1gbps for $100/mo

Without net neutrality, the ISP who is being paid by both google and you, can now go: "I'm sorry but you can't reach google.com unless you pay an extra $20 per month" and to google, they can go "If you want 10,000 people to be able to access your website at 1mbps, you will need to pay us $1000 extra per month. For 100,000 people it will be $10,000,000 dollars extra per month."

On top of the $1000 or $100 you and google are already paying for your internet connections.

Anti-NN legislation ONLY helps the fraud news networks who want to control what you can see online, and what you can say/think/do online.

Net Neutrality protects you from the likes of CNN, Time Warner, etc. controlling the internet.

>>133429599
Conservatives also believe in free speech. Also my point was that you are saying Obama to try to trigger people.

>>133429850
It's not "handing the government more power"

It's "The government preventing ISP's from censoring the internet"

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

304KB, 3000x1500px

net neutrality vs "net neutrality"

They are basically conservative.
Fiscal issues>Social issues. (and most libertarians came from the republican party)

>>133429299
>liberal professor
>shitlib president

You're right, it's not left or right at all.

The internet should be more like Walmart.

I fucking love that place.

>>133429365
netflix abuses current internet regulation by not having to pay anything despite being responsible for an obscene percentage of bandwidth usage

comcast attempted to explain when this all started that companies like netflix were passing extra costs over to ISP customers by not paying a higher amount for their site performance

netflix teamed with google, amazon, Facebook, and the regular shill groups to turn it against comcast and make liberals believe ISPs would charge per website when ISPs wanted to charge the corporations responsible

this is why all the mass consumption websites are shilling against it. 4chan is such a drop in the bucket that it wouldn't pay shit

>>133429879
How have we made it through 20 years without all this shit? Seems like the Netflix and others don't want to fucking pay "their fair share" when they suck down more than anybody else, why should everybody else have to pay for their usage?

>>133429940
>ISP's from censoring the internet
which did not really happen before the law was in place. competitive companies do not want to create a market demand that they cannot fill themselves.

>>133429850
>I will always opt for private control over the internet

It depend on the thing. We've already seen what mega corporations will do and how they charge.

File: [024934].jpg (96KB, 800x1100px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 800x1100px

>>133429365
I like that Mercy, have one of mine

File: IMG_0413.jpg (136KB, 896x899px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 896x899px

ITT: useful idiot good goys

>>133430080
>people using the bandwidth they are paying for

Oh no, what a terrible turn of events.

It's Walmart time. Fuck it.

American Globalism wins all the time, every time.

I can't wait til every Walmart builds an apartment complex next door so I can work and live in a Walmart.

America, fuck yea.

File: Girls.jpg (95KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1024x576px

>>133430080
>>133429879
Well now I'm torn.
Who is right?
Is it good or bad? Both these cases seem reasonable.

>>133429943
>The government would never censor the internet in the ways we fear corporations would.

At least I can make the choice to get my internet elsewhere.

Eat a dick.

>>133430359
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963782/Welcome-Facebook-City-Mark-Zuckerberg-plans-waterside-development-10-000-staff-near-firm-s-San-Francisco-HQ.html

>>133430388

>>133429879
is a reddit shill and that's the complete opposite of how it works.

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii
http://www.netcompetition.org/corporate-welfare/netflix-net-neutrality-corporate-welfare-plan-part-10-of-a-series

>>133429442
That's a big strawman

>>133428128
THIS

break up the ISP monopolies. Problem solved. No need for leftist government censorship -- which is the point of presenting the false dilemma.

>>133430477
That's what I'm talking about!

Corrupting the economy from the inside out!

Perfect! Great find, chief.

We need net neutrality, with what the media has said about 4chan, internet providers would try to block it

File: the truth.png (535KB, 1691x1692px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1691x1692px

>>133428066
Fixed your bullshit meme for you. No need to thank me.

>>133428066
Sage.. Fuck off larper!

>>133429209

It's probably disgusting Jew size numbers

>>133430747
>internet providers would try to block it
then break up the internet providers and get a company that wouldn't. they'd make the most money, thus it would happen.

File: MercySweater.png (219KB, 800x1131px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 800x1131px

>>133430493
So if net neutrality is removed, will I still be able to access various porn sites and online gaming without paying a fuckton every month?

>>133430895
No one can give you a factual answer, but honestly doubt it.

>>133430747
And this is a bad thing?

This website is a cesspool of unrecyclable garbage.

Nothing but spam.

I'd much rather this ocean of piss turn itself into a pile of ash.

/pol/ is a Walmart.

>>133430597

why don't they break up the monopolies first and then get back to us?

and what do monopolies have to do with internet neutrality in the first place? haven't been able to get a straight answer about this one.

>>133430597
>break up the ISP monopolies
Like that will ever happen.
Maybe once Trump gets done with all his fixing of "Obama's legacy" he might be able to work on that since he is in support of a free market.

Reminder that we're being raided by shills and to not listen to anybody. Search for information yourself and form your own opinion.

>>133430895
your bill will double or triple for the same access you have now.

in theory, since we have no such thing as a free market for internet, it should be something everyone wants

The problem comes from the fact that in practice what we will get is something called 'net neutrality' that just gives the (((fcc))) regulatory power over the internet

>>133428066
So what's stopping them from doing it now?
And what's stopping the government from doing it after we implement this?

Globalism is for our protection.

Net neutrality does nothing but hinder human evolution.

You're already a slave, and there's no end in sight, give up now or increase your inevitable disappointment.

>>133428128
Popular services aren't somehow responsible for an ISP's bandwidth costs. ISPs are already jewing as hard as they can with this by imposing data caps when timed throttling makes more sense, proving that their issue has nothing to do with usage and they're just trying to milk customers in a very uncompetitive environment.

Getting rid of neutrality is just a gift to ISPs that already refuse to improve infrastructure and hurt consumers more every passing year.

>>133428360
No source

We need higher taxes for faster internet.

Don't you understand!?

>>133431568
>Getting rid of neutrality is just a gift to ISPs that already refuse to improve infrastructure and hurt consumers more every passing year.

correct

File: Screenshot (9).png (160KB, 1003x564px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1003x564px

>net (((neutrality)))

>/g/ a board of people who are actually interested and at least in concept educated on the subject of computers and the internet are heavily in favor of net neutrality
>/pol/ a board that serves as an echo chamber of people complaining they don't like the left and making all there opinions based on how they can vote opposite the boogeymen on the other side of the political spectrum with no knowledge of the actual subject at hand other then that the side they doesn't like wants it, is against net neutrality

Gee I cant imagine who is more likely to know what they are talking about

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

59KB, 818x460px

>Having mega corporations control the internet is the best thing ever.

So many corporate shills tonight.

>>133430895
if net neutrality is removed
>corporations focus on retaining current customers
>corporations start offering contracts again
>corporations charge corporations like netflix what they deserve to be charged
if net neutrality is removed and ISP monopolies are broken up
>a t-mobile esque company enters the market and internet rates hit a record low
>fiber expansion
>likely unlimited upload/dl promos just like cell service
if net neutrality remains
>same shitty service
>random rate increases so ISPs remain profitable
>more mergers
>republicans try again in a year
>

>>133428128
>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

These places use so much bandwidth because that is what the ISP's customers are paying for.

If you have a problem with netflix users using up too much of your internet then you should be happy to pick an isp with data caps

>>133428066

Only happens when govmnt tells provider to do so.

(((Netneutrality))) gives govmnt that power.


Net (((neutrality))) is the same as (((equality)))

It gives the government total power over the internet.

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

Just a lil wakeup call fot ya'll..

>>133429879
>We have Net Neutrality currently
>We still get throttled by the big corporations
>Fearing the smaller corporations will throttle you, in this "what if" doomsday "No Net Neutrality" scenario

>Anti-NN is pro fake news
>This is why CNN and Comcast (both owned by Time Warner) want NN
>Wait a minute.
>Search anywhere "why" and "what" Net Neutrality is
>It's favored by "big telecom companies"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_in_favour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_against
>realize two of the biggest monopolies, AT&T and Time Warner, are doing battle via Net Neutrality
Oh shit.
>Soros and Obama favor Net Neutrality
Oh. Shit.

I'm willing and able to pay twice as much as I already do for the same internet service as long as I'm guaranteed (((protection))).

>>133428128
You're fucking retarded. First off, we pay more for our internet than most other 1st world nations, and have shittier internet than all but Australia. How can you justify opening your asshole to corporations like this when they can't even provide a service like Japan's, Germany's, South Korea's, or even Poland's?

Secondly, this is not what net neutrality is about. It's about stopping companies from using anti-competitive practices. The Internet being a utility just like water and electricity makes sense. You wouldn't want whoever owns the water supply to be able to shutter water to people he disagrees with and provide lower costs to those who serve him.

Getting rid of net neutrality is one of the few things I disagree with the Trump campaign on, and it's just going to fuck him over in the long run. It's a bad idea to get rid of all around. King nigger already fucked up enough with the internet during his terms.

>Net Neutrality stays
>Punish ISPs and Consumers by passing costs down
>Net Neutrality removed
>Punishes corporations and Consumers

Either way we're screwed

>>133430895
>Less porn
This is a good thing

Net neutrality means tumblr or rather their parent company can't fuck with 4chan.

>>133431936
Obvious shill is obvious

>>133431936

it's a law whose only purpose is to keep ISPs from fucking everyone over.

>>133431840
Cut this shit out. Neflix doesn't "deserve" to be charged anything just because people use the internet plans they already paid for to their full extent. This is ISPs trying to jew customers out of the service they paid for as an excuse NOT to improve infrastructure.

>>133432182
No it's not.

>>133431473
>We should want more government control
>Because the internet totally wasn't a free market before NN
I'm mad.
>But NN gives the (((FCC))) more power
You got that right.

>>133431047
>This website is a cesspool of unrecyclable garbage.
>It's Wal-Mart
Which is it, woman?

>>133431840
Accurate.

Pay more for internet service.

Get the same amount of content.

Sounds legit.

>>133432289
Aww poor baby can't function without his cummies
Get a woman faggot

>>133432154
Keeping net neutrality is the best option because it allows for internet startups to still exist because companies shoulder the costs. They don't have to increase prices. They already provide a highly sub-standard product, compared to elsewhere in the world, are protected by state laws, and make massive profits. They only want to get rid of net neutrality so they can support their own programs, like HBO Go over Netflix, or whatever that shitty streaming service Verizon has.

You idiots are falling for their kike tricks and licking their balls just because other kikes are getting screwed. YOU are the good goyim.

Wait, what is it all about? In my country the government is the one banning websites left and right (like sites about drugs, political opposition sites, terrorism, certain Ukrainian sites, prostitutes, torrents, etc.) It only started recently with the adoption of Internet censorship laws, like before 2012 or so you could be placing Al-Qaeda videos on your VK/Facebook page and nobody would give a shit.
The ISPs are the ones who are interested in keeping your web browsing safe and private, BECAUSE YOU ARE THEIR CLIENTS.
We had relative freedom in the IT sector right until Putin's third term began, because of this we don't have shit like Comcast and our Internet is fiber-based, cheap and fast.

>>133431840
>>corporations focus on retaining current customers
They don't need to. Your ISP is determined by your region. You can't switch. They have a monopoly on it so they wont improve.

>>133430747
This. Arguing against net neutrality should earn you a perma-ban from 4chan. Because without it, 4chan would be blocked by most ISPs anyways.

>>133432405
Do I look like a singularity?

>>133432513
> internet startups
Whew lad, you almost had me believing that the internet was valuable.

>>133432636
You had me believing you were actually intelligent and not a corporate shill. Good one, faggot kike cocksucker.

>>133428066
ISP's basically admit that ending this is going to make them a shitload of money. They rationalize this by saying "oh yeah, we'll use some of it to build more infrastructure and shit". And I'm sure they would.

Any website which doesn't generate a large enough profit is going to be pushed out the door. Every single website MUST be profitable, or be throttled (if not blocked entirely). Everything now must have a pricetag on it.

This would be like granting owners of the highway the ability to allow people to drive different speeds based on how much they pay. Gold subscribers can go 75 mph, silver subscribers 55, and bronze subscribers 30. And if you don't cough it up, sorry, you're shit out of luck.

>>133432693
I'm the baddest corporate shill there is.

Don't fuck with the people stealing your income.

File: PJs.png (335KB, 565x945px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 565x945px

>>133432509
>Get a woman faggot
Already have one.

>>133431954
>>Soros and Obama favor Net Neutrality
Whelp, that settles it.

>>133431822
>>/g/ a board of people who are actually interested and at least in concept educated on the subject of computers and the internet are heavily in favor of net neutrality
No they are not

>>133432636
>Do I look like a singularity
I have no idea what you mean by this

You talk like an out of Control woman
Stop being a faggot

>>133428066
1. It sounds like there are other issues that arise from Net Neutrality existing, hence them wanting to eliminate the law in question
2. Some people have suggested that taxes can be raised by as much as 4 billion a year to keep it alive
3. The internet has gone years and years without net neutrality laws existing just fine
4. The fast/slow lane things seems like more the kind of thing that would affect businesses rather than consumers
5. I don't see why they can't get rid of the other rules and then just keep one that prevents the whole fast/slow lane thing

I agree that the fast/slow lane issue is a problem and something worth fighting for, but it isn't the only issue at hand.

>>133432597
Abolishing NN is a start on fixing this issue, but you're right. San Francisco area, and many others, are cucked to keeping Comcast as their only ISP. All other companies refer you to them and claim they "don't provide service in the area", which is a total lie. They're bought out and can't compete with Comcast.

>>133428128
suddenly leftists understand slippery slopes

>>133428066

>Keep the Internet... awesome

It that what it's supposed to be now?

>>133432782
3d>2d
Fight me

>>133431954
>AT&T
So does AT&T not want NN?

File: 1498756439778.gif (480KB, 141x141px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 141x141px

>>133428128
Voice of reason here.
Damn it felt alone for a while.

>>133432843
Maybe it's because I lack a cuntroller.

Maybe it's better that way.

You wouldn't want me to be in control, because I would make sure that Walmart never gives their employees health insurance.

>>133432931
You're a faggot.

File: IMG_8416.jpg (55KB, 540x556px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 540x556px

Can anyone explain if and how will this affect other people in the world and the sites that they visit?

>>133432739
How about we just break them up and reign in local governments that drive up the costs for network creation and require kickbacks to grant access to only monopolies.

Why don't we start there instead of granting the FCC power to censor conservative speech?

So, let me get this straight.

>Libturds and plebbit support net netruality because of muh freedom of browsing whatever we want
>Comcast and ISPs want to control whatever sites you browse for a fee

>>133432775
And why should we trust a filthy kike like yourself?

>>133429388
>>133429446

Listen: This is going to come across as autistic as fuck but some of what you are saying does not make sense

>Net neutrality allows us to reach websites like 4Chan

WRONG. Factually incorrect. Net Neutrality has -nothing- to do with our access to the website. And even if we assumed the owner of ISPs were super evil big bads, why would they hide one of the sites that generates news stories for them? Your story only makes sense if the people are actually literally evil.

You are being so much of a cuck that you have not considered the equally viable option: Remove net neutrality, slap companies on the wrist when they abuse their power...like we do with literally everything else.

Com cast blocks 4chan? THEN have the government step in. Not like a fucking soccer mom trying to prevent their son from getting ouchies on their knees who's over protection not only leads to stunted growth of their sun but a concussion when he slips on his elbow pads.

I think you are so busy being a faggot and deep throating the narrative that you have failed to realize that the government can step in at any time. You seem to think, "Oh Comcast just blocked 4chan for no reason. Looks like 4chan is gone forever. The government can't step in and force comcast to serve 4chan like the government has stepped in and forced companies to do things in the past."

Fucking idiot

>>133432941
AT&T recently said that they will support the NN protests going on today, but still take issue with portions of the FCC stance on the subject.

File: 1498786405742.png (72KB, 449x498px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 449x498px

>>133433130
They want to be able to charge more for their services. I'd be for net neutrality if there was a ruling saying they don't own the wi-fi/satellites/cables, etc. That way other ISPs could pop up and fuck them in the ass if they wanted to try anti-consumer practices. As it stands, getting rid of net neutrality would mean the kikes that own the ISP/multimedia conglomerates wouldn't even need lube to fuck us in the ass.

But of course the retards here would support those greedy kikes just to spite liberals. It's mostly just idiotic An-Caps and lolbertarians, but I see plenty of idiotic Kekistani fucks falling for it, too.

>>133430543
uuuu

>>133433135
I wouldn't even trust me, wtf are you high?

I calls it as I sees it.

Your community is now a Walmart.

>>133428066
<This mess?ge h?s been blocked by your ISP>

File: 1493628276808.jpg (82KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 600x600px

>>133433217
No, you idiot, net neutrality has EVERYTHING to do with our access to this website. Without neutrality, they would be able to throttle this site into the gutter, or just straight up block it. Not to mention they really don't like this place because of how relatively conservative it is to the rest of the internet. It doesn't take them being evil for them to be greedy and judicious.

Yet you're here defending them, because you believe kikes have your best interests in mind. The Government couldn't do a damn thing if ComCast, or TWC, or Verizon decided to block 4chan. There is no law saying they can't (without net neutrality). We need to put one into place, but let's do that before opening the floodgates you idiots.

>>133433245
I can only get Time Warner(Spectrum) because of the region I'm in and AT&T came door to door selling fiber optics. We signed up for it and they came and dropped off a bunch of equipment at our house and said they will send someone to hook everything up and start our service and no one ever came for a week and then we had to fuck around with them on the phone for hours and we ended up cancelling the plan and going back to Time Warner. They never connected shit and just left all the equipment at our house. It's still in my truck rn. They seemed professional and nice and everything but for some odd reason they didn't deliver and had terrible customer service over the phone.

>>133433015
No u
When you jerk off you are getting sexual pleasure from a man (heh more like a kid)
And since that is the irrefutable truth You are verifiably a homosexual pedophile

>>133433527
><This mess?ge h?s been blocked by the FCC>

>>133433047
If it's being handled at the ISP level, the only danger comes from setting a precedent. Brazilian ISPs have tried to push for monthly bandwidth caps using "global trends" as one of the main arguments, nevermind that the quality standards backing these global trends were embarassingly above and beyond what those ISPs could provide.

>>133433646
That's not what the FCC does you moron

File: Canacuck.jpg (25KB, 321x324px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 321x324px

>>133433582
Oh shit never seen the original

>>133433013
>I would make sure that Walmart never gives their employees health insurance.
>Some kid thinks that being this practical is edgy
Ha

if you're wondering what ISPs will do if net neutrality is repealed, we already know.

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. https://www.cnet.com/news/telco-agrees-to-stop-blocking-voip-calls/

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. http://fortune.com/2009/04/03/group-asks-fcc-to-probe-iphone-skype-restrictions/

2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. https://www.wired.com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge/

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. http://www.businessinsider.com/verizon-blocking-google-wallet-2011-12

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money. https://www.freepress.net/press-release/99480/att-blocking-iphones-facetime-app-would-harm-consumers-and-break-net-neutrality

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place. https://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/09/18/verizons-plan-break-internet

>>133428066
>if you like your internet, you can keep your internet
Where have I heard this gimmick before?

Affordable Neutrality

>>133428066

>this site has been blocked by the government

>>133433688
>The FCC doesn't regulate content in media
wat?

>>133433582
Don't forget, any site for torrenting would be gonzo

>>133433742
oh shit, and I forgot the archive links, thanks to that guy who posted them in my thread

>https://wired com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge
https://archive.is/LwLMM
>http://businessinsider com/verizon-blocking-google-wallet-2011-12
https://archive.is/YlqZs
>https://washingtonpost com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html
https://archive.is/MzqNt

File: YourMotherWasAHamsterAndYourFatherSmeltOfElderberries.png (21KB, 527x600px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 527x600px

>>133433641

Even if you're a retard and can't be bothered to read up on both sides of the situation (like everybody who is pro net neutrality apparently)
It's like the same way they shoehorn in bullshit like NAFTA and TPP.
FREE Trade
>You're not against freedom are you?
Trans Pacific PARTNERSHIP
>You're not against partnership are you?
Net NEUTRALITY
>You're not against neutrality are you?
Why don't they just call it
>Internet regulatory framework
Because then that makes you ask questions.

>>133433800
>At least we did what The Current Year Faggot told us to do

>>133433815
They don't, they don't censor comments on the internet at least. They don't have an obligation to.

With countries like Germany trying to fine companies like Facebook or Youtube for "hate speech", they would just implement algorithms that IMMEDIATELY censor "hate content" for all of their users. That means that Germany could fuck over America again.

>>133429162
Seriously, kikeflix causes comcasts service to catch fire and then they lobby the government take make comcast a public utility. Its kikery of the highest degree

>>133433742
Anti-NN goyim need to see this post.

>>133433688
>being this retarded

File: anti-nn.jpg (147KB, 1280x303px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1280x303px

>>133429388
>Net neutrality allows us to reach websites like 4chan.
Then why was I able to access 4chan a full 12 years before Obama's Net Neutrality bill was signed into law?

Gee, it's almost like network neutrality as a concept existed perfectly fine without the need for broad, overreaching regulation of the internet.

I'm so close to just breaking the internet completely.

I really want to care, but none of us belong here.

>>133433955
>They don't have an obligation to.
They certainly will. Again, Hillary Clinton was already suggesting it in saying sites like Breitbart have no right to exist. Don't be naive.

>>133433986
Because Comcast provides a shitty service. Again, they make far more money than most ISPs in other countries, provide a lower quality service, have horrible customer service, and still have the gall to charge more money. Oh no, their profits won't be so obscenely high, they'll have to be pro-consumer. What ever will we do?

File: download (16).jpg (12KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x168px

>>133433844

That's right
You totally struck out!

>>133434139
So you're going to give Verizon and TWC the ability to censor Breitbart just so the Government doesn't have the potential to after hard fought legal battles? Because outcry won't stop the ISPs from censoring sites, they don't need to be elected. Politicians do.

>>133429388
fuck. LEAF. LEAF. STOP. STOP BEING...YOU. Just stop. Stop....existing. Go walk into the tundra, and dont come back. Its for the best of the earth. Maybe with enough of you gone, Canada can start a road to recovery.

>>133432133
Fuck you

>>133428066

Reminder that no matter how many petitions you sign the based pajeet at the FCC is going to end this shitty reddit meme once and for all.

>>133433955
Oh they don't?
Well, I guess that means they never will.
Hey let's give them more power!!
Government is great we need moar government MORE MOOOOOOOOOREEEE
MMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEE

>>133428128
.... why wouldnt you just make netflix pay more instead of make the customer pay more? netflix can raise their own prices after if it hurts them that much. this makes way more sense.

>>133434269
NN puts the internet into a place where it is subject to the regulatory body. If this doesn't bother you then you are a fucking retard who doesn't understand legalise and there's no point in me even explaining it to you. You are just going to continue being a worthless ignorant fuckwad spewing horseshit strawman arguments and bullshit fake infographics everywhere.

>>133431120
It can. The monopoly situation rests on the cable monopoly situation, so if people address that, the other will fall.

Even if they keep eating that shit up, I'm about 10gb / month of landline traffic about my cellphone's always rising tethering limit. With some belt tightening I could switch now if I had to. Cell network capacity is growing like crazy and is pretty competitive today.

And if none of that works out there's always SpaceX's satellite network going up in 2019.

Oh and then the government.

>>133434158
Ive had 3 isps in my life and comcast has by far been the best service i have had so far. Fastest and most reliable. I had cox and it was horrible, and att was stable but slow as fuck. So shut the fuck up you are wrong

>>133434399
The games not over til the government is a Walmart.

Welp, now it is!

>>133434249
Moonman's still at it? Good.

We need to end the monopoly that the 3 big ISP's have and then remove net neutrality.

>>133434269
No, I'm suggesting we break those companies up and expand the market to allow for companies that will corner the market by providing a service the people wish for.

File: 1496190741735.jpg (129KB, 330x495px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 330x495px

>>133433582
Listen. I think you are too high on PCP in order to understand the very simple point i am trying to get across.

In your hypothetical dooms day scenerio, ISPs, "COULD" block a website. They "COULD" make users pay for the gold internet package that includes facebook and youtube for the low price of an arm and a leg. (((COULD))).

If you spent more than 5 minutes skimming this site you would of learned by now that (((they))) are the ones pulling strings in government. So at best, this is (((us))) vs (((them))). Your scenerio does not properly hold water. But that is not even the primary reason why I am saying it has nothing to do with this.

The FCC, can, right now, pass a regulation that blocks 4chan tonight. The GOVERNMENT HAS the power to do what you are shitting over ISPs for.

Why would Comcast or AT&T decide to just randomly block a political site and suffer lost shares and heavy backlash when they can do the exact same thing by pulling their strings in the FCC? You don't get to fucking use the Jew argument as "lul Juze did erry ting" window dressing while ignoring the fact that there are easier ways to accomplish this goal without losing a billion dollars in the process.

>>133428213
>>133428066

to be honest.. either option can turn around and bite us in the ass.

Net Neutrality is a complete farce promoted by Netflix and Google shills. Read up on Title II of the Telecommunications Act and the FCCs intent to regulate the internet under it.

>>133434676
Basically this.
There's two components of law.
Acts and Regulation.
An Act requires a bill to be passed to be changed.
A regulation can be changed on a whim by the regulators. Literally. Over night. They can just say. "no eebil nazi 4 chan k".

>>133428066
The notion that anyone has a right to the internet, let alone a "neutral" internet, is retarded. I support ending net neutrality.

Wow, since I started posting in this thread my internet service has been getting slower.

I think they're just doing (((maintenance))).

Totally fucking this shit up right now.

File: 1480296818973.png (198KB, 922x882px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 922x882px

>>133428066
I'm just happy leafs don't have to deal with this shit.

File: average_american.jpg (61KB, 399x400px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 399x400px

>>133434328

>the internet is important to me
>b-but daddy trumplet doesn't care for the internet??? that means I don't neither!
Actual cuckolding in action

File: Goverment issued car.jpg (59KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 700x525px

>>133428066
I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT!

Why stop at the internet? Government can do so much more!

The Government should be in charge of:

Music & Art!

All vehicle manufacturing!

All Jobs and Employment!

Can't wait to go to my assigned government job, in my government assigned car, all while listening to government selected music on the state mandated radio station!

I kid. Government cars do not come with a radio as this is considered a driving hazard.

If NN stays in place, you're looking straight down the barrel at metered internet usage or neutrality compliant data caps. .50 per GB or that $100/mo only covers the first 250 GB thereafter. It's funny that Silicon Valley and big media was all for throttling the shit out of BitTorrent. Now the prospect of that shoe might be on the other foot, (((they))) scream bloody murder.

>>133435014
Reading your post gave me a ceasar of the means of prdocution.

>>133434967
Yeah, you guys have a lot of other shit to be dealing with right now

File: FB_IMG_1498787459335.jpg (39KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 540x960px

Im old enough to remember when the internet was a loose collection of independent servers. No ISPs, html hadn't been invented yet, & bbs systems were rather crude. If "muh gommnt" thinks it can be 'regulated,' then they underestimate what determend people can do to protect themselves and remain anonymous online.

>>133435091
Zomg but the snarky infographics told me the opposite! Surely the infographics aren't lying to me!? I can't be bothered to actually read up on both sides of this. And you don't have a snarky infographic.

I bet porn is about 90% of the other streaming services.

Do what China did and remove porn completely from the internet, people will actually fuck each other then and create more babies

>>133433742
Maybe you are retarded, but ALL of those issues were resolved without the need of net (((neutrality))), correct? So why in the fuck do we need net neutrality? To prevent an unknown that was resolved in like a day from happening? To prevent a company from breaking anti competition laws which are already illegal, which are illegal without the regulation that is net neutralty?

So you listen me 5 examples of companies fucking their customers that was fixed without the help of net neutrality, and 3 examples where net neutrality did not help at all because technically these were anti competitive practices, not anti net neutrality practices.

I see these of example of a system working without net neutrality.

>>133428066
/pol/ is against free speech.

>>133435011
>I need big daddy government to stop everything
cuck

>>133435347
Ew gross

Walmart is building a startup ISP.

It's called Wallnet.

Thanks Trump!

>>133435091
>throttling the shit out of BitTorrent
That's the opposite of what net neutrality means though? Are you actually paying attention here or just being another GOP shill?

>tfw you're one of the few that remembers the SOPA shit from years ago, and how saving NN that day actually helped to keep your torrent speeds stay high
/r/T_D will deny this however, enjoy watching their awful replies, such as the one below

>>133435430
>I want to allow multi billion corps to walk all over everything
shill

>>133428066
Net Neutrality FAQ:
>1. Who supports NN?
Reddit, (((4chan mod team))), Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, Snapchat, AirBnb, Spotify, etc. Notice how all of these groups are leftist.

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

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

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

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

>>133433632
... Hm. That is odd. All of the larger ISPs do seem like they don't give a shit if they have your business or not but for them to just drop off equipment and disappear like that is very strange.

>>133430895
Net Neutrality as it currently exists, prevents ISP's from fucking you and making you unable to access your favourite porn and videogames and shit.

ANY new changes to the laws will probably only fuck you. You have to look at them extremely critically and without good information, reject the new laws.

don't listen to the anarchocapitalist shills telling you the extra laws are going to help increase the free market. These shills are in favor of corporate regulations that kills competition while removing the regulation that prevents all the shady gestapo bullshit the ISP's want to start doing.

>>133435430
The government developed ARPANET the predecessor to the internet you literal retard

>>133435569
>HURR GOP SHILLS HURRR SHILLS EVERYBODY THAT CHALLENGES THE PROPAGANDA I'VE ACCEPTED WITHOUT QUESTION IS A SHILL HURR SHILLS
>SHILLS
>HURRY YOU'RE ALL SHILLS.
Tell me. Give me the legalise of Net Neutrality. Off thet op of your head.
Oh. Wait. You can't. That's right. Because you don't even know what you are actually advocating.

>>133435347
KYS

>>133434676
>Reasonableness coming from a faghomo.
Damn.

File: what does it mean to be a good dog.jpg (84KB, 666x510px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 666x510px

>>133435406
/pol/ is completely for free speech, which is why a lot of us are fucking terrified at the prospect of giving the federal government even MORE control over one of the last few relatively free mediums, and completely baffled at the support this is getting, especially in light of the kind of shit we've been seeing in countries with that level of government control over the internet, like the UK and Germany where people are now being actively fined and prosecuted for shit they post on twitter or facebook.

>>133435645
>this fake talking point again.

>>133435594
>NN only came into effect in 2015 and there were no bundles before then. If NN is repealed, there will still be no bundles.
people need to stop saying this over and over. nn went in to effect at the time it did precisely because isp's finally had the idea to do bundled shit. the first nn was to prevent it from happening, and it did.

not that nn is perfect. its actually pretty shit. but its better than no nn, i assure you all.

>>133435817
>citation needed
Pro tip: You don't have one.

>>133435714
>omg, that guy mentioned the phrase "gop shill", a whole 9 characters!
>that lets me act like a retard in my reply instead of giving an actual response!
kek

>>133434094
Everything about this post is thread/
END OF FUCKING DISCUSSION

This bullshit is all based on hypothetical nonsense

>>133435645
OR to put it another way:

The internet is currently under net neutrality laws. You can still access everything.

Changing it from how it is now, will almost certainly mean YOU get fucked.

And watch out, because the ISP's know that people are in favor of net neutrality, so they've been trying to push THEIR bullshit under the SAME label as Net Neutrality.

They're trying to trick you and everyone else and do an end run around what people actually want.

And what people want is what they have right now. Unregulated access to the entire internet. You don't have to buy packages for certain websites. You don't have to pay extra for every person over x number that visits your site. Everyone pays for their connection, and there is no traffic shaping, there is no censorship.

Beware the shills playing word games to get you to think otherwise about what net neutrality does. It DOES NOT control what an ISP charges you. It DOES NOT force the poor ISP to lose money. What it ACTUALLY does is prevent the monopolies from price gouging the fuck out of you and controlling speech on the internet.

>>133435923
Because people have broken down the legalise for you retards in this thread a million times but you still chew on that whole
>muh bundles
shit biscuit. Even though it has absolutely no basis in reality.

Net Neutrality is like expecting to generate energy from a river without using a mill.

Build a fucking dam that's also a bridge or find another river.

Don't go chasing waterfalls.

>>133428066

I live in a country with actual competition and innovation between ISP's so I don't give a fuck.

>>133435817
>i assure you all

Well thank Christ. I was worried for a minute there.

>>133435662
The internet isn't a policy you double nigger

>>133435014
Nice Messerschmidt. Do want.

>>133435643
>that is very strange.
Yeah, I'm still wondering why they were selling it door to door if they weren't able to deliver on it.

File: it was real.jpg (9KB, 257x196px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 257x196px

>>133435985

>>133430461
Lucky you. Literally the options for me are: To pay Comcast, pay thousands to get new wiring to my building, or move.

>>133435967
Please explain how NN prevents monopolies from price gouging and controlling speech.

>>133435797
>/pol/ is completely for free speech, which is why a lot of us are fucking terrified at the prospect of giving the federal government even MORE control over one of the last few relatively free mediums

We aren't giving the government control of the internet you fucking dunce.

We're preventing the corporations - the SAME ONES that are using the mainstream media to lie their fucking asses off - from taking control of the internet.

The US has, written in constitutional law, free speech protections. You have recourse if the government starts trying to censor shit that you wouldn't have against corporations.

And if the government goes full 1984, they could be doing that regardless of what the corporations say.

This isn't goddamn rocket science here. Net Neutrality only helps everyone who wants a free and open internet.

>>133435569
I'm bring up the former practice of BitTorrent throttling to illustrate how corporate proponents of NN are hypocrites. They were almost all for throttling before but now that it might affect them then it's all about "muh freedumbs".

>>133435985
>HURR MY BUNDLES HURR BUNDLES EVERYBODY THAT CHALLENGES THE PROPAGANDA I'VE ACCEPTED WITHOUT QUESTION IS A SHILL HURR BUNDLES
>BUNDLES
Please reddit, don't try arguing like this in the future, all it does is stop giving people a reason to give you an actual response

>>133436181
>AND THEN THE CORPORATIONS ARE ALL CORPORATIONY
>AND THEN THEY MAKE MONEY.

>>133436145
Sounds like a you problem. Get satellite if you hate it so much

>>133436181
>we
>leaf
What is it with you people

>>133436220
>Fagistan flag
>accuses others of being reddit.

>>133436034
>build something
>have no say in how it is used
Great rational you have there.

The internet isn't broken and never has been. We don't need to change or fuck with it.

>>133428128
$5.47 dollars has been deposited in your account.

> AnCap
> Shilling for big corps

Doesn't surprise me.

>>133428066
This is not the fight we should be fighting. That fact that the internet can be controlled at all is the main problem. We need a completely open source and point to point communication medium. Be it 56k or 1TB is irrelevant

>>133428128
Fucking retard. Your arguments are so stupid.

>>133435645
>>133435967
>>133436181

Rake when?

>>133436062
I'd say it sounds like a scam to test your home security but they left the equipment there. That's the weird thing about it.

>>133436302
Are you really this new?

>>133436212
Corps are still all about throttling though, literally none of the companies that worked against BT are part of this latest NN push.

>>133431936
This has to be a paid ISP shill. No one could be this retarded.

>>133436480
You are.
Stop hiding behind reddit:the flag, my "based black man"

>>133436407
You faggots are literally blindly shilling for Microsoft, Amazon, Google, et al. who are pushing for Net Neutrality. Literally the biggest names in Silicon Valley are pushing for it. And that doesn't really make you think one bit?

>>133436147
90% of the US population is in an ISP monopoly/duopoly situation. We're dangerously close to a handful of corporations - like Time Warner (e.g. CNN) being able to collude with other media companies to control what websites people visit. Without Net Neutrality they can charge you an extra $40 a month to visit 4chan. They can charge 4chan an extra $40,000 a month for visitors over x limit. They can simply refuse to provide access to 4chan outright.

There isn't any real market competition and even if you ripped up all the net neutrality regulation THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE.

Because net neutrality has nothing to do with the regulations causing these market monopolies.

IN FACT: It is the ISP's themselves who are BUYING THESE REGULATIONS. They sign contracts with municipalities to ensure they are the only ISP able to provide service in an area, and nobody else can compete with them, and the municipality enforces that.

The ISP's are trying to tell you that market regulation is strangling them, but it's pure bait. They're making sure the regulations strangle startups. They're making sure new regulation will let them make more money and price gouge like I outlined above.

It's NOT THE GOVERNMENT, IT'S THE CORPORATIONS THAT ARE INTRODUCING MONOPOLIST-CAUSING REGULATIONS

MONOPOLIES ARE WHAT THEY WANT
CONTROLLING WHAT YOU SEE AND HEAR ONLINE IS WHAT THEY WANT

THAT IS WHY THEY WANT TO GET RID OF NET NEUTRALITY

>>133428066
It's not an issue of politics, this (no net neutrality) doesn't benefit you in any way unless you have a high position at an ISP company.

>>133436576
Read this reply I made earlier, change the word bundle to flag: >>133436220
After doing that please just off yourself, or at least refrain from these low quality posts.

>>133428128
no corporate welfare is not providing equal service to each website or service, corporate welfare is giving an advantage to certain companies or websites.

this already occurs through peering arrangements and isp throttling semi legally and much to the detriment of subscribers.

now it is being inscribed in to law as being permissible.

the government needs to ensure the quality of products in the united states is comprable to the rest of the world and people are not being ripped off.

its not a sense of getting something for nothing its a sense of the company advertising something having to provide you with what they promised you by law which is fair and not a pale imitation.

Look at american "cheese" when companies won the right to call anything cheese, americans started to see kraft singles and spray oil based cheese spread turn up.

no one in their right mind would consider that to be true cheese.

cheese is a regulated product, there are certain things you have to do if you want to call your product cheese.

the same should apply to the internet.

unless you are some dumbass who likes the taste of butter cheese oil and jpegs that load at 1.5kbps then go ahead and be dumb.

>>133436181
>A FUCKING LEAF
And yes, it is giving the government control - the powers and regulations in the 2015 NN law give the FCC broad, far reaching authority to enforce whatever standards it deems.

The real concern is power - it's very easy to give a government more power, and almost impossible to take it back, once given.

Maybe it won't be used against us today - but agendas change, and the standard the FCC supports today may not be the same as the one it supports 5, 10 years from now. What if they decide certain kinds of services threaten network neutrality? Certain sites? Constitutional rights don't stop the FCC from imposing decency standards on broadcast and cable television networks - why would it stop them from doing the same to the internet?

You can say bye bye to URL's and tabs.

Modern browsers are going to go obsolete when websites are forced to make applications and the Internet as we know becomes one giant paper weight.

Welp, looks like it already is.

>>133436658
>We're dangerous close
>we
>USA
>leaf flag
>we
>leaf flag
>USA

>>133428322
> $1.43 dollars have been deposited into your account

>>133431840
if net neutrality is removed and ISP monopolies are broken up
>a t-mobile esque company enters the market and internet rates hit a record low
>fiber expansion
>likely unlimited upload/dl promos just like cell service
Got any proof that'll happen bucko? I don't see how massive companies are gonna get broken up and have competition that easily.

File: elmo.gif (2MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x281px

>all these ancaps implying that if net neutrality is removed they wouldn't just keep the current bandwidth speed and just make you pay for more of what you have right now
what you say sounds good but will never actually happen IRL because corperations like money

File: 1491779295579.jpg (166KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 533x800px

>>133436469
soon

>>133436609
>people who contribute to the success and development of internet services care how it is implemented
Really makin me think

You're going to get less bandwidth whether it comes from the ISP throttling NetFlix or from lag as bandwidth use maxes out. Its coming whether you want it to or not. NN won't change that. I'd rather all the people using NetFlix have to pay more for all the strain they put on existing network infrastructure. Maybe NetFlix will go bankrupt. That'd be nice.

It's just like car tags. Large commercial vehicles pay out the ass to get plates compared to passenger cars. Why? Because they put more strain on the infrastructure.

Internet. The place dreams go to die.

Ok so I guess the best course of action is to ignore every Ancap/Gadsden flag because they are shilling for their ideology hard.
Are there any well-leveled arguments for and against this backed up by sources and facts?

>>133436609
And the biggest fraud news media names (Time Warner/CNN, Comcast, Verizon) are pushing against Net Neutrality

It's pretty easy to see why Google et al are in favor of net neutrality:

Google is a search engine
Google cannot make any money if there are only 50 websites on the entire fucking internet

NO SHIT google is against net neutrality. It basically destroys their business overnight. Meanwhile the fraudnews companies can continue to survive as ISP's whether net neutrality regulation exists or not.

The anti-net-neutrality legislation will actually HURT business AND increase monopolistic power AND result in price gouging of customers. NOBODY wins except the fraudnews companies.

How can you still fail to understand this?

>>133428066
Near as I can tell, it's a kind of "don't fix what isn't broken" issue. If you really want to fix it, repealing NN is probably not the best place to start. I'd go after the monopolies first, that way if all the doomspeak about a non-NN future does come to pass, at least competition will be there for the free market to do its job.

>>133436718
Why should every website get equal service?
Youtube is literally guzzling down billions of gigabytes per hour. Why the fuck shouldn't they be paying network operators more? Because guess what. It still costs those network operators money to handle all that traffic.

File: 1499541044887m.jpg (148KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1024x682px

>>133428066
I swear to fucking god these pathetic maggot kek faggots posting the same topic in multiple threads, makes me want to fucking go Mr. Hyde on everything.
>CHECK THE FUCKING CATALOG
>SAGE THE FUCKING TRASH
CIANIGGERS, LEARN THE GOD DAMN BASICS. YOU STAND OUT.
>#CNNBLACKMALE
>#NETGENDERNEUTRALITY

corporate bootlickers pls go. Why the fuck do people want to get raped harder by ISPs. The fact that there are bandwidth caps is insulting. This is not a left vs right issue, you either support comcast's "bullshit data limit for $90/month" cock in your mouth or you don't, it's that simple. These shitastic ISPs operate like a cartel and it's horrible, stop enabling them. They will be first against the wall when the day comes.

>>133436943
>Google is just a search engine
What is this? Fucking 1997?
Are you fucking retarded?

File: wireless map.jpg (70KB, 723x388px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 723x388px

>>133436658
>90% of the US population is in an ISP monopoly/duopoly situation.
Only if you're one of those people who thinks any option besides the major ISP companies doesn't exist. Smaller low-speed startups, satellite internet, mobile internet, etc. There's a LOT of options. They may not all offer the same speeds or prices as the major ISPs, but they're still available to most Americans.

>pic related - US counties with two or more providers

>>133436789
rent-seeking is a concern, as always. the question is whether NN is keeping the internet free and open, or whether it's about leftist govt consolidation.

also, dat gif

>>133436951
That's a good approach.

Smash the monopolies first and foremost before even considering any kind of changes to net neutrality.

There IS NO MARKET COMPETITION for internet access right now. Don't let them take your freedom away passing this legislation and (((promising))) to break themselves up later.

Break them up now, and then after we've got well established market competition everywhere, we can CONSIDER changing net neutrality laws.

>>133428128
>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.
when you have a company like that you buy tons of internet lines and servers etc. they're already paying for their net. they didn't just get an xfinity home package to run a multibillion dollar company off of. they have a bunch of fiber optic business lines.

>>133434328
This reads like a triggered sjw post

>>133437165
Ok how would we break up the monopolies then?

>>133436609
Does Microsoft, Amazon and Google provide my internet? no.

File: 1497159977256.png (375KB, 605x541px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 605x541px

>2015: /pol/ fights for net neutrality
>2017: /pol/ filled republitards that eat up every bit of shit trump spews

what happened?

>>133436220
>using hurr and durr ad hominem
it only outs you as a leddit faggot who has been browsing /pol/ for maybe a month or two

>>133437261
By passing a regulatory scheme for the internet that gives google free bandwidth and doesn't do anything about the monopolies of course.

>>133428128
>pay-per-view model (which doesn't even exist in cable tv now)

where are you getting this knowledge?

FAKE FUCKING NEWS

>>133437316
because we all were being fucking lied to by a group of massive liars, backed by faggot liberal companies who win big on making money with it, pushed by the mainstream media who we found out were fucking biased as fuck and nothing more than a DNC/Liberal soapbox

>>133428066
I hope this passes, maybe you faggots will spend less time complaining about everything online and do shit IRL

>>133437016
Because most of the people on here don't realize that the internet isn't just magically free, and that mommy and daddy pay for it

>>133437314
They collectively control most of the software end of the internet. So yes. They do provide your internet. Your ISP just provides you with a physical entry node into the internet. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>133428066


"According to a new report (Nov 20, 2014) from Sandvine, a company that builds equipment for consumer internet service providers, Netflix has topped 35% of overall US internet traffic.

The streaming service now reportedly uses 34.89 percent of downstream and 9.4 percent of upstream bandwidth during peak periods on US fixed lines. Sandvine’s report suggests that Netflix is using a whopping 20% more bandwidth than the nearest downstream competitor, YouTube.

Netflix is second only to BitTorrent traffic for upstream bandwidth, with the torrenting protocol at a huge 25.49 percent. You might be wondering why Netflix uses upstream traffic when it’s not a peer-to-peer service; Ars Technica has a great report on why this is.

The last time Sandvine released a report in 2013, Netflix traffic was only at 31.6% of overall bandwidth usage in th US. The average home is now using 20.4GB every month for Netflix alone, according to the report..."

https://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/11/21/netflix-now-accounts-35-overall-us-internet-traffic/#.tnw_meC5N5Kr

>>133437354
If you actually read the post you'd see I was mocking some trumplet fags post, just like when I mocked yours.

Obviously I shouldn't have expected another trumplet to actually look into things like this though, even if it was literally shown one link away in the
post. That's way too hard for these idiots.

File: 1499383841423.jpg (33KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 625x626px

>>133428066
Has anyone else noticed that the only ones spamming this shit are the faggots of kekistan(redditistan)?

>>133437601
I know they do, but the ISP is the first on the list because I use THEM to access GOOGLE etc.

NET NEUTRALITY WILL PROTECT OUR INTERNET LIKE THE PATRIOT ACT PROTECTED OUR FREEDOMS!!!

Seriously, this is fucking good branding. Who wouldn't want to keep the net neutral? If by neutral they mean regulated by the government like a utility. Except last I checked our power and water wasn't also carrying a diverse range of additional services like youtube or Netflix. Or maybe I can get Perrier sent through my water line?

But sure, lets give the government more control over the net by keeping it neutral so they can eventually force internet licenses and push censorship.

>>133437261
We can start breaking up the monopolies by preventing them from creating contracts with municipalities that enforce a monopoly.

Let's take Littletown Ohio, pop 50,000
Time Warner says they'll provide internet service for the town if the town pays half the cost of laying all the fiber and shit, and Time Warner pays the other half - BUT Time Warner gets full control over the fiber and there can be no other ISP's able to offer service in Littletown Ohio.

The Municipality doesn't have internet access and desperately needs it. This isn't the best option, but it's what they've got on the table. They sign the contract.

5 years later a startup says, "Hey we can provide internet access for cheaper and faster than time warner, WE WILL EVEN LAY THE FIBRE FOR IT" and the Littletown mayor goes, "No sorry, we can't do that we're locked in with Time Warner"

THAT is what is happening all across the US right now. The monopolies ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY MARKET REGULATIONS THAT THE BIG ISP'S ACTUALLY WANT.

So if you want to start breaking up the big ISP's and seeing real market competition, you don't start with repealing net neutrality laws. You start with letting these towns get some actual fucking competition.

>>133437541
We're arguing against NN precisely because it isn't free. NN as it is presented is just a big corporate gibsmedat for Google and friends who refuse to pay network operators for additional bandwidth. It forces ISP's into an awkward corner where if it comes to a point that if there are costs to recoup they have no choice but to throw it onto consumers.

Let's say I built a website that legally and effectively centralizes all efforts of manufacturing Internets.

Why in the fuck would I share this with anyone?

Why in the fuck aren't massive corporations reverse DNSing my contact information and proposing offers?

It's because the Internet is garbage.

>>133432739
>drive different speeds based on how much they pay
>what are tollways

>>133437683
the_cuckold is supporting reddit in their crusade for net neutrality

>>133437618
>I was merely pretending to be retarded

>>133437016
>raped harder by ISPs
Fucking retard.
ISP's are pro NN because now everyone has to fit their exorbitant costs.
The last ISP's want is deregulation. NN is more regulation, that keeps the monopolistic status quo.

>>133437683
Yeah there's a lot of them.
It's definitely coordinated.

>>133437860
Not really

>>133428066
Poor people shouldn't have access to things.

File: 1486338475386.jpg (52KB, 750x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 750x400px

>>133428066
IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT.

STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY INTERNET GODDAMN GOVERNMENT.

>>133437721
Worry about net neutrality later and focus on breaking up the market monopolies.

There is ZERO sense in removing net neutrality before doing this. Because net neutrality legislation has NOTHING to do with the market monopoly problem and has NOTHING to do with market competition.

It's a red herring. The ISP's want net neutrality out of the way and then they will buy as many lawyers as it takes to prevent them being broken up.
They MUST be broken up first before any kind of changes to net neutrality should happen.

This isn't a difficult thing to go with even if you don't like net neutrality. The only people in favor of getting rid of NN first are the ones who would rather give more power to fraudnews conglomerates and monopolies who'd like nothing more than to censor the entire internet and push their own brand of narratives and websites on everyone.

>>133437743
Google et al, already pay for their bandwidth.

They don't get ANYTHING for free, shill.

>>133428213
Huh? Facebook doesn't want net neutrality. Remember that satellite SpaceX blew up on the launchpad? That was for Facebook to provide non-net-neutral (Facebook-favoring, obviously) internet service in other countries. And Google might like to suggest otherwise for PR purposes, but net neutrality's not good for them either.

A move away from net neutrality favors all the big-money players. It'll let them further entrench themselves and block alternatives like bit torrent, so they only have to compete with other billion-dollar enterprises.

The anti-net-neutrality pushers can only promote their position through lies. These threads are part of their astroturf campaign.

>>133438119
>Remember that satellite SpaceX blew up on the launchpad? That was for Facebook
fucking hell you took that banter seriously?

>>133437695
And google also uses their servers to provide content to you..and me...and anybody else who is along the same network pipeline. They don't even have to be on the same ISP. Hell, they might even be some australian looking at cuck porn. But you're the one paying your ISP. But that's fine. Because all traffic is equal right? So don't complain when some aussie's cuck porn slows down your web search.

>>133437899
>NN is more regulation, that keeps the monopolistic status quo.
as opposed to now? comcast already has a monopoly in some areas.

>>133428128
Youve posted the same exact post in other threads shill

Also
>I dont want to get fucked by the Chad Thundercock that is Google so I guess I need to get fucked by Tyrone Time Warner

File: 1490263607575.jpg (26KB, 351x364px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 351x364px

you goys are forgetting capitalism

if this really gets that bad, someone will just sell an 'open isp' and everyone will throw money at them

over reacting imo

>>133438102
prove it

my proof? comcast vs netflix where comcast won big and netflix went crying to their lobbyists to pass NN

>>133438036
It isn't government, it's business trying to buy monopolistic protections. They want to create a racket they can further nickle and dime.

The actual market regulations strangling startups in the industry are market regulations created and bought by the big-name monopolies. They aren't interested in competition and the net neutrality shit won't change that whether you are for or against net neutrality it has nothing to do with the real problem which is a lack of market competition.

The reason why I haven't been contacted is because maybe its illegal to extrapolate personally identifiable private information registered with a domain?

That would mean, in this one simplified instance, Net Neutrality is preventing my would be monopoly / oligarchy.

You decide if that's a good thing or not.

>>133437316
>2015: /pol/ fights for net neutrality
nice revisionism, but /pol/ was always split on the issue even back several years before 2015 when it was just a pet issue redditors argued for. It was split because most here had enough sense to see what Net Neutrality was really about and saw through the shilling.

>>133438236
And how does NN break up their monopoly? It doesn't. That's up to the anti-trust laws, which clearly have been skirted due to lobbying and corruption in government. It's an entirely different issue. NN doesn't fix it.

>>133438196
It wasn't banter, those were the facts.

Facebook was going to be the "anchor tenant" for that satellite, which was going to be used for non-net-neutral internet access heavily favoring Facebook.

>>133429599
Its more like an issue of people who want government vs people who want an oligarchy

>>133438393
Why would they waste billions of dollars for that when most normies almost exclusively access the internet through facebook? Your lies don't make sense.

>>133438323
/pol/ was never split on net neutrality, the anti-net-neutrality people have just always shilled like motherfuckers, because they're fighting over tens of billions of dollars.

>>133438246
This.
Of course, the response NNfags will have is a slippery slope argument

>>133438393
No, we were fucking joking you gullible tool.
Rockets are fucking hard as hell to make reliably. They fucked up a fuel line feed, which then ignited.

>>133438476
How about neither? Why not a proper regulatory framework that is based on what's best for the majority of the population instead of basing it on which corporate giant lobbies the hardest?

>>133429299
>>133429599

Checked and keked.

>pair of 9's
>5 high

>>133428066
>government wants to regulate internet
>large companies support it so they can lobby for rules that cater to them

are people really so stupid they don't get this?

>>133438544
Well shit. Where do I sign up for my shill bucks?

>>133428066
Net neutrality = FCC censorship and anti-competitive corruption.

Obama administration wanted to control and censor internet. FCC is perfect choice, just look at censored OTA.

FANG punished competitor telecom monopolies for trying to get more in peering dispute, plud blocking only them from using data.

Removing net neutrality will stop FCC censorship and stop anti-competitive practices by FANG, but it will not solve the telecom monololy problem.

The telecom shills love to try and make this a false dichotomy. But here's the real solution that they won't tell you about. Simply make last-mile connections leasable at a reasonable ratr. This would solve any "fast lane" boogeyman by allowing competition to bloom thanks to drastically lower costs to start an ISP.

We should support. Trump dismantling Net neutrality, but also meme last-mile leasing.

>>133438246
Tell me why a cooperation would turn down the ability to just do what AT&T does but cheaper instead of making everything free

Its almost like there is a reason these corps don't want everything fucking free

>>133428128
t. Shill

Corporations have everything to gain by stamping out net neutrality. Fucking wake up.

>>133438544

fuck off with your revision stupid leaf. Hell it was more split back before because of the greater influence of libertarianism and free market ideas.

>>133430119
>competitive companies do not
Never trust a post that contains these words.

>>133438656
as retarded as ancaps tend to be, he's not wrong.

File: 1497938387431.png (103KB, 745x1173px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 745x1173px

>>133428677
Read again faggot

>>133434422
thats not how business works. they have shareholders they are responsible to, so any increase in costs without an increase in price is a loss of profit. businesses will always raise the price on the consumer.

>>133438731
feel free to elaborate

>>133428066
is op pic a joke? its the exact opposite

>>133438824
They have yet to actually elaborate in any of the millions of threads they've made on the topic today.

>>133438656
Larger companies (ISPs) are against it. You're literally arguing to pay more for your internet you fucking shill.

>>133436445
refute them then

>>133438697
NN has been going on for 6 years and nothing has been censored because if it

NN has no influence over what happens online

This is a slippery slope arguement said by shills and cucks who suck corperate dick

I would sell my soul for fast free internet.

lol jk, no I wouldn't.

My soul is a plastic straw wrapped in paper.

lol jk, that's someone elses soul, poor them.

File: 1485669753488.gif (3MB, 374x348px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 374x348px

>>133438544
>the anti-net-neutrality people have just always shilled like motherfuckers
Have you ever stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, you're on the wrong side?
We've had non-stop pro-NN b8 threads all day.

No, any rational person doesn't want more government to "protect" us from the big bad ISPs.
Just like no one needs central government control to "protect" us from evil corporations.

>>133438697
>last-mile connections leasable
got any sites on this idea, Id like to know more

>>133438697
>Net neutrality = FCC censorship and anti-competitive corruption.

No it DOES NOT

The FCC can only prevent ISP's from CENSORING CONTENT.

You are literally calling white, black.

And the anti-competitive corruption is stemming from the ISP's buying the regulations that are enshrining their monopolies in law, NOT from net neutrality that has NOTHING to do with any kind of fucking competition between carriers.

>>133438036
But NN wasnt broken

>>133438875
>google (youtube)
>netflix
>amazon (twitch)

really makes you think..... I bet they ran cost benefit analysis and got to the conclusion it will be easier to bribe FCC officials than to pay the ISPs for priority access to streaming content....

use your fucking brain for once.