WHAT THE FUCK 4CHAN

File: 1496604660.wildtalon96_beebee.png (18KB, 686x601px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 686x601px

>>133449811

4cuck

i hope net neutrality occurs.

>>133449811
See you guys, stay on your sinking cuckship of a website

>>133449811
Perhaps we won't be here forever.

>>133449811
>net neutrality goes away
>internet providers start receiving hate for LETTING racist on the internet
>oh wow, I havn't seen this befor-(youtube/twitter/twitch/facebook/reddit)
>internet providers decide to kill off top racist sites
>they get praised for not allowing that shithole 4chan on there service
Tell me again why your in favor for letting company be a gate way to what we can see online? Holy Fuck

>>133449811
Are you dumb? 4chan wants to stay in business, for that Hiroshimoot needs Net Neutrality to continue being in effect.

>supported by comcast and soros
looks like a patriot act attempt

>name something positive but is total opposite

makes sense that redditors spam this shit like robots without ever reading it themselves

I am anti net neutrality but I have seen quite a few people who are unironically supporting it. Sad!

>>133449811
how much is (((comcast))) paying you shill

File: hannity.soros.jpg (130KB, 775x788px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 775x788px

just give up fools
soros always wins in the end

>>133452461
If you don't support the movement then you clearly work for the bad corporations, not the good ones like us.

Without the net neutrality laws that were put in place 2 years ago, the decades old isps will definitely probably censor and destroy everything because reasons.

Remember, support it or get blown up by terr- I mean no 4chan.

>>133449811
Hiro probably doesnt know any better. A lot of sites are bandwagoning not knowing what it is.
I saw Tom Fulp (Newgrounds) doing it, too, even though people in his announcement thread were telling him the same thing we're saying here. They just dont seem to know what's going on and think that it's purely a Comcast vs Netflix issue.
>implying Netflix shouldnt pay money for using more bandwidth anyway

It should be obvious that "net neutrality" regulations are called such just to fool you.
These rules wouldnt even solve the issue that brought it up in the first place and would be used just to shut sites like 4chan down or deprive them of users, or rather, not allow us to access these sites.
The deception is real. Think of all the people writing congress or other elected officials "dont kill net neutrality pls" not knowing which "net neutrality" is being referred to.

>>133452051
>"net neutrality" rules are put in place
>actual net neutrality is now gone
>your post happens
Google and Facebook are backing the new regulations. That in of itself should be a red flag.

>>133453222
Google and Facebook have always fought for Internet freedom. They didn't back Pipa sopa or any of that trash
Also you should use your own brain, not just check who's backing who.

Do you feel there is something wrong with the internet right now? If yes, then you support change, if not, then you don't support change which makes on the side of 4chan.

I hate change.

>>133449811
alright if soros is for it , you know it's bad for us.

File: james-woods-soros-dilebeast.png (1MB, 1178x884px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1178x884px

Be Net Neutral(tm) goys!

>>133453554
Google and Facebook censors and manipulates the internet at the highest rates.

>>133452051
Because it means giving the GOVERNMENT control over what we can see online.

And they don't give a fuck about competition from other providers they will ban places like 4chan if they can. Look at how many shills this place is flooded with you don't think they'd jump at the chance to simply turn this place off?

>>133453851
And we don't need more of them.

Again, I hate change. I want my internet to be free, with all that means, including the facebook and google manipulation. I feel the internet is free right now, I don't feel like it needs to change.

So I support NN, because it keeps things like they are right now. I don't give a shit who is backing what, I'm smart enough to have my own opinion.

What is this about? Give me a quick but enlightening rundown, please.

>>133449811
If reddit shills for it, it's shit. Just like Hernie Panders

>>133451819
Nice.

>>133449811
T-Mobile already lets you listen to Spotify and watch Netflix without data caps.

This wouldn't be possible with net neutrality, which proves that the entire argument is flawed and people actually enjoy it.

>>133454319
In 2015 we decided to regulate ISPs in a different (and more strict) way.
>broadband growth slowed
>monopolies forming & worse than before
>but Netflix doesn't have to pay for using up all the bandwidth, yay?

>>133454653
The FCC was supposedly about to crack down on them for doing that, too.

>>133454757
Why dont you guys just delet netflix?

File: 1469502020826.png (71KB, 274x243px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 274x243px

>>133449811
>4chan is promoting it
It's the shills who are promoting. Have you learned nothing these past years? Even 4chan moderation is compromised here. That said, I still sent a letter telling your Congress about why traps aren't gay. Hopefully that'll get one of /ourguys/ there.

>>133454757
Can you give a run down on what each sides means

And then give me the /pol/ version on which one jews supportt

File: anarcho anzu.png (532KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

532KB, 1000x1000px

who gives a shit about net neutrality? Why should the government have the power to tell internet companies what they can and cant do with their own damn internet?
fuck that. the fall of net neutrality is not a bad thing

>>133449811
Murder.

File: anri.png (545KB, 960x1036px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 960x1036px

I want a rule where ISPs must not interfere with or data-mine packets passing through their network. I also want a rule where ISPs are not responsible for what is passing through their network. Why should I not support the concept of net neutrality?

File: 572 million comcast and telecom shills.png (263KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1080x1920px

>>133454319
>VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
>AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
>VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
In 2015, we put a stop to this bullshit. Creating a law called "Net Neutrality", which is how the internet has worked since its conception, the law explicitly says ISPs will not rape their customers to death like videogame companies are allowed to do to their consumers.

Today, the government is now trying to make the law we made in 2015 to stop abuse from corporations void. Allowing them to anally rape our children to death. And as we all know, if America does it, every other country in the world will follow suit fast.

Also be very aware of who participate in these threads. Because some people are putting a lot of money to make the 2015 law void.

>>133453222
>>133454075
There isn't any new bill out there expect for the roll-back of an existing bill, what the fuck are you talking about, things will continue on the same way if the roll back fails, you act like a new set of laws have been put forth

>>133455170
because the taxpayer paid for a good chunk of the original infrastructure including the internet itself?

Since this is and lauren southern are the only things anyone is making threads about:

I know govt likes to name stuff the opposite of what it actually does. So is net neutrality the plan to throttle traffic of websites who don't pay up, or is net neutrality the plan to prevent ISPs from doing that?

>>133452968
>the good ones like ((((us))))
I'm sure you're just trolling though.

File: gun rights cake.png (275KB, 745x3141px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 745x3141px

>>133455565
It's called increasing government overreach. You have to fight it now or it will just continue to get worse and worse.

It's the same reason people are vehemently against ANY gun control. Look at pic related but apply it to government control over the Internet.

>>133449811
hello AT&T

don't worry I paid my bill this month

I get to post 25 more times this month!

Have you considered that companies hate ISPs as much as we do? The people are probably thrilled to be able to shit on the ISP companies who are the ones who actually benefit from this, not websites

>>133449811
who cares

File: valid.png (9KB, 331x331px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 331x331px

>>133449811
>We all know that this movement is bankrolled by Soros-funded groups, in an attempt to censor the Internet while disguised as the exact opposite.

I think it's time to dust of the ol'
>implying
for this one.

>>133452051
Because i'm a cuckservative, and when I see "leftists" attacking BASED corporations I MUST rush to the defense of the corporate machine, lest I be called a commie

>>133455934
Net Neutrality is already in place. What you look at in the internet is the result of net neutrality. Do you like it?

Because the government is about to tear it down, they will remove net neutrality, so they can block certain problematic websites from being accessed. You know, like 4chan.

>>133455999
>government overreach

This is about rolling back the original bill that has been a massive pain in internet providers backsides, the one that makes it illegal to process websites different from each other.

The only people who would win are the internet providers if the bill is rolled back, if you think this will create competition that will lead to better service, well fuck sure, but then again, they could pull stunts like blocking porn sites or things deemed racist to better there corporate image

Like EVERYOTHER FUCKING COMPANY RIGHT NOW

>>133456650
>net neutrality stops the government from blocking things

It stops private corporations from blocking things. The government can exempt itself from any of its laws.

if net neutrality disappears, so does 4chan
dumb inbred nigger

>>133455520
>>133456650
Ok, so repealing NN will result in ISP throttling, shutdowns, and anal rape-age of our children to death..

Are they voting on this tomorrow or something? Why is it all over /pol/ in 5 different threads?

>>133456912
Traffic can be masked through a VPN. Imagine a 4chan that normies can't access because they can't figure out how to get around Comcast's blanket ban on "racist websites."

File: 1484035679908.jpg (783KB, 6250x5475px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 6250x5475px

>tfw no more normalfag americucks will ever use 4chan again

why is this a bad thing again?

>>133449811
Why the Soros focus? You want to take down a pyramid, where do you start? Btw, it is neither the base nor the apex.

>>133449811
The users don't run the site, senpai.

>>133449986

IT ALREADY EXISTS

File: IMG_5313.jpg (34KB, 185x199px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 185x199px

>>133449811
Are you retarded Op? How the fuck is this to censor the internet? Also why the fuck is everything George soros related to you guys? The man isn't god. He doesn't have enough money to fund every single thing that threatens us.

You're retarded. To be against net neutrality shows you have no clue what the stakes really are. Or you're fine with paying more money to the Jews who run the cable and Internet companies. They're the only ones who profit from this.

Seriously you'd be a fool to believe our prices would go anywhere but up if net neutrality ends.

Time to spice the subject field up for this shit.

>>133453222
>"net neutrality" rules are put in place
>actual net neutrality is now gone
>your post happens
Except we have neutrality now and it's working out just fine. How is working for Verizon?

>>133457090
That would be a dead 4chan.

>>133456912

>if you think this will create competition that will lead to better service

But it won't, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the infrastructure regulations that led to the monopoly/duopoly system that 90% of the country deals with.

>>133457358
thisthisthisthis

Why are there so many shills here tonight?

>>133454075
>Because it means giving the GOVERNMENT control over what we can see online.
No it doesn't, provide proof.

>>133457470

The disinfo is fucking WILD tonight.

Like, levels that I haven't seen since pizzagate threads.

>>133457067
>why do we have so many threads
Because /pol/ is retarded and thinks NN is bad, when it was made to keep the internet like it has always been.

This is what the government is trying to do
>(a) In General.—The rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in GN Docket No. 14–28 on February 26, 2015 (relating to broadband Internet access service), shall have no force or effect, and the Commission may not reissue such rule in substantially the same form, or issue a new rule that is substantially the same as such rule, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act.
>The rule adopted by the Federal Communications Commission on February 26, 2015 shall have no force or effect, and the Commission may not reissue such rule in substantially the same form
They are trying to remove the law that makes us, consumers, be able to sue ISPs if they try to block you from accessing a website, or deny you internet service for whatever reason.

We have to keep this law in effect, and for that we have to oppose the change in the law. The banner thing is for you to send a letter to the congress telling them to keep the law in effect, because Net Neutrality is important (it is). If it passes, then there is going to be no rules at all for ISPs. In the absence of any rules, violations of the open internet will become more and more common.

>>133456978
Yeah, sorry I got mixed it up a little bit.

>be America
>have literally the worst internet on the entire planet
>living joke compared to countries like Japan, South Korea, etc
>desperately cling to some irrelevant "net neutrality" security blanket while the rest of the world continues to pass you by
ok have fun with that burgs

File: 1499925011051.jpg (98KB, 656x1024px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 656x1024px

>>133449811
>We all know that this movement is bankrolled by Soros-funded groups, in an attempt to censor the Internet while disguised as the exact opposite.
Hello Time warner, comcast and verizon. I'm totally willing to trust you, after all you support my favorite (((real))) news stations, like CNN.

>>133452051
Then people don't use there service becaus they can't provide content that's usable

Free market at work fag

>>133457703
We're going to have the shittiest internet AND it will be throttled to any website that isn't approved by our ISPs.

>>133457876
>we can't allow American internet to become like the rest of the world that is vastly superior to it!

>>133457851
That would work if we had a free market. We don't.

>>133457851
That would be true in a perfect system where every ISPs offer services in every towns. This isn't the case. Plenty of areas in the US have only one or two shitty ISP.

File: 1456758190985.png (67KB, 331x304px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 331x304px

>>133457563
>"WASHINGTON — The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday released extensive details of how it would regulate broadband Internet providers as a public utility, producing official wording that almost certainly sets the stage for extended legal fights."

>"But the full text of the new order also raised uncertainties about broad and subjective regulation. One catchall provision, requiring “just and reasonable” conduct, allows the F.C.C. to decide what is acceptable on a case-by-case basis."

http://archive.is/jPAKV

Shit works NOW there is no problem but you guys want to solve this non-existent problem by handling control over to the government AS IF THAT HAS EVER WORKED EVER.

>>133457999
And now the door will be opened for more that will instantly win customers who want to jump ship from their shitty comcast, just like our country which has no "net neutrality" but 20+ nationwide ISPs all competing to offer the best fastest service.

>>133455520
Sorry but valve haven't raped me more then my isp
Your argument is invalid

>>133458211
Valve doesn't make games.

>>133458158
The door has been open forever and it hasn't happened. The country is huge and it takes a lot to build the required infrastructure. It's the same in Canada.

>>133457999
I'm one of them and I simply don't use shit that I can do my normal stuff on.
Common fucking since

If it won't work why have it

>>133458135
It works NOW because RIGHT NOW we have net neutrality. The drama is over a bill to repeal it, try and keep up with what is actually happening.

>>133457876
Losing customers is a shitty business model.

>NN fails
>all the burgertards and TD cucks get purged from this website
>/pol/ finally becomes 'great' again
I don't see the problem here

>>133457586
>/pol/ is retarded and thinks NN is bad
Honestly, I would understand if a new bill was being backed by comcast or something, but this whole thing is over the FCC rollback, nothing else.
>when it was made to keep the internet like it has always been.
I feel sane again
>>133457703
>worst internet on the entire planet
Maybe in terms of speed and data, but most of the western country are starting to censor their internet, so it's the best of the worst situation possible, at least the constitution will apply to an FCC government regulated internet, meaning free speech has a chance at surviving whatever fucking nonsense comes out of the progress west.

>>133457938
Thanks net mutuality

>>133452968
>Without the net neutrality laws that were put in place 2 years ago

The world would be a better place if stupid people like you were fucking SLAPPED any time you said completely wrong shit

Why is it that stupid people who don't know shit about anything are the ones that talk the most directly about shit they dont know?

File: 1449259159199.jpg (15KB, 579x405px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 579x405px

>>133457586
Thanks for all the running downs

>The FCC's new proposal — titled "Restoring Internet Freedom"

>Pai has argued that the 2015 rules have slowed the telecom industry's investment in building out broadband access and introducing innovative products, and specifically weighed on smaller Internet providers.

That comes from NPR (i know), but is there any truth to that, iyo?
http://archive.is/ru9vi

>>133458318
Because no one can compete with the existing services thanks to your anti-freemarket regulations. And keeping "net neutrality" around as nothing more than a bandaid for your shit infrastructure is not a wise use of regulations. Fix your shit instead, like your president wants to do.

>>133458333
That article is from 2015 supposedly when the "net neutrality" law was put into place. Does he Internet seem any different to you? Did it NOT work back in 2015?

>>133453554
>Google and Facebook have always fought for Internet freedom.
Holy fuck, you unironically believe this? This has got to be the most stupid thing I have ever read in my entire life

>>133458403
Cool argument. Why are you shilling for the company that owns CNN?

>>133454155
>I'm smart enough to have my own opinion.
Your posts say otherwise

>>133452051

>4chan and other websites banned from the Jewternet
>we bring BBSing back

My body is ready. BBS was far superior to this shit anyway.

>>133458353
>Americans get banned
>site dies because it lost 50% of its traffic and not even ads can cover the cost anymore
A Pyrrhic victory is still a defeat, anon

>>133458333
We don't have Net Neutrality you spastics. That was only the FCC declaring the internet to be a public utility so it could be taxed and given away free by the government to those deemed worthy (minorities who spend their money on smart phones and red vines and malt liquor)

>>133458461
It worked fine in 2015, and it works fine now because the bill was passed and we have neutrality now. Again, this is over a bill to repeal neutrality, which is being funded by Comcast, Verizon, AT&T and Time Warner, who owns CNN.

>>133458477
>>133458531
>same guy
>his posts contain nothing but trash
>he couldn't even concise his thoughts into one post, had to make two
lol

File: 1498508921069.jpg (384KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1000x1000px

>>133449811
>being this cucked by trump
>still begging for daddy trump's cummies on your tummy

this place is officially garbage, thanks trump

This is like being against the First Amendment because it's the government regulating speech.

>>133449811
holy fuck, net neutrality literally means the ISPs must provide an unbiased connection for ALL websites... it HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CENSORSHIP

The only censorship that will go on if net neutrality is repealed is that ISPs will """censor""" Netflix and turn the internet into a Cable-like purchase model, like you buy websites like channels.

You're all retarded.

>>133458574
>We don't have Net Neutrality you spastics.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/06/12/net-neutrality-takes-effect-today-heres-how-it-affects-you/
Yes, we do.

IT'S ALL FUNDED BY SOROS!!!!!!!!!!!111!!

>>133458725
Please archive or screenshot
https://archive.is/hhios

>>133455170
>who gives a shit about net neutrality? Why should the government have the power to tell internet companies what they can and cant do with their own damn internet?
>fuck that. the fall of net neutrality is not a bad thing

how many high speed internet choices do you have where you live?

>>133458696
>use google
>click link
>insert coin
Yeah best model ever

>>133454075
It means the government stops business from interfering with the internet. The government has a hands-off approach with the internet aside from that.

Look at all the big social movements going on in your country. Companies firing whites for "diverse staff", companies advertising faggotry, companies offering jobs to refugees over citizens, and so on.

Who's the problem there? The government or the businesses trying and succeeding in shaping public opinion?

>>133457199
This. People who use US servers as hosts in general get fucked over easily anyway. What's the difference if this gets passed or not?

>>133458696

You're correct, it's not censorship it's just to stop monopolies, so anybody who can't pay is blocked and only (((websites))) that can pay are available

>>133458696
>and turn the internet into a Cable-like purchase model
Why in the name of fuck would anyone want that?

>>133458601
The problem is it sets the stage for the FCC to gain further and further control of the Internet. This runs the risk of turning the Internet China-tier and the fed censoring places like 4chan for hate speech.

Also your "these big companies are for it so it's bad" logic doesn't pan out. Net neutrality is supported by a bunch of other shady companies such as Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

>>133458616
I was replying to two separate posts you dunce, I saw and replied to them at separate times

Besides, if you think Facebook is for internet freedom while they simultaneously delete harmless meme pages for "hate speech" then you are a delusional nigger. Full Stop.

>>133449811
[A 4chan Gold Account is required to view this post]

>>133457851
>free market

But the internet providers are already monopoly's, this would give them the power to have favored status with internet corporations like netflix and youtube, how in the fuck would new providers compete with multi million dollar already well established internet providers?

Where are the new computer operating software firms? Where are the ""new"" Microsoft's? Things like this don't work when the market is this fucked already

Internet providers suffer far more then the consumer's with net neutrality, getting rid of it would be a fucking mistake

>>133458913
Because the GOP supports it.

>>133458981
You can link to two posts at the same time, look >>133458531, it isn't hard. You can even do it three times! >>133458477
>you have posted 100% pure trash in this thread and has contributed nothing to any side

File: 1472698097930.jpg (22KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x480px

>>133458913
Which is why im wondering why the fuck you retards are making a bunch of threads "DUR HUR MUH GUBBERMENT GUNNA CENSOR MUH INTERNET WIT NET NUTRALIDDY"

I like trump, but accepting that this would be a risk of his presidency was something I took in stride, the fact that people here on /pol/ think that Net Neutrality is a law that allows the government to control the information that is sent through the wires just shows how mis-informed some of the people here are.

File: 1472143835608.jpg (89KB, 499x562px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 499x562px

If you wish to see Net Neutrality destroyed you are either being paid to spread those views or you are a fucking mong with a wet chin.

>>133459151
But anon, we already have net neutrality in place.

>>133458827
>"The government has a hands-off approach with the internet"

Have you SEEN the amount of shills on this site? Yes the government is very much a problem and even now is fucking up my Internet experience far more than Comcast ever has (and don't give me any bullshit about Internet privacy concerns compared to the fed).

I fucking hate Comcast but despite how evil they are they haven't been financially motivated to fuck over the Internet for everyone. Net neutrality was never in danger it's a fucking ploy made up to get people to agree to handing the Internet over to government control.

You idiots are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. This is how we got into our giant mess of a healthcare system.

>>133452051
Net neutrality has no rule against refusing to host someone in the first place. Any ISP and just add "no hate speech" to their TOS net neutrality or not.

>>133459151
>Just shows how misinformed people are
Oh shit, you just noticed, you fucking burger shartstain?
We've had 1 law and 3 bills come in Canada news that you 80iq faggots don't understand and constantly meme about
>Hur dur dog blowjobs
>Hurdur pronouns
>Hurdur much child stealing
The only one that is as bad as they meme is the anti islamophobia one

>>133459281
Isn't this whole sha-bang because they're voting on whether or not to continue to keep it in place?

File: 1498268654816.jpg (34KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x600px

>>133454653
> T-Mobile already lets you listen to Spotify and watch Netflix without data caps.

What does this mean? If you have connection in the US, do you pay for what you Look at? As in you have a data cap per site?
What if you have an unlimited connection?

Wtf.

>>133459095
what part of "I saw and replied to them at separate times" do you not understand?

Do you actually have any argument against what I've said or are you just going to continue to complain about the way I posted like a fucking braindead moron?

>>133459408
Yeah, the government wants it gone. You should want it to stay, because we don't need Comcast fucking us over again

>>133459369
>The only one that is as bad as they meme is the anti islamophobia one
What kind of retarded leaf are you? The Islamophobia one is the only one that is NOT as bad as the meme, considering now law was passed and the only thing that was passed was a "motion to condemn islamophobia" which means nothing

>>133457999
The issue is a lack of competition for last mile. That's where the legislation is needed. Net neutrality is only good for big companies like Apple, Google, and Netflix.

>>133459438
>4 posts, and all are absolute shit
This is turning out funny.

>>133459369
>burger shartstain
Ha, I'll take solace in the fact I don't live in canada.

>Ban 4chan
>The ultimate autist containment site
What can possibly go wrong?

>>133459438
>Trudeau won't remove net neutrality
Haha, so much for based meme president Trump you alt right Nazi retrad cucks.
America btfo forever

>>133458566
Tbf, that would be the best excuse for me to finally get the hell out of here after so many failed attempts.

>>133459485
so why are you correcting me? we're on the same page.

>>133459583
Nothing for them, because they can ban any website we go to.

File: 1498619532359.jpg (133KB, 796x1051px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 796x1051px

>>133458135
>regulate broadband Internet providers as a public utility
meaning, internet traffic originating from any one particular source cannot be discriminated against
all packets are treated the same, like a utility such as water, or electricity, rather than a service such as tv

>>133454757
>>133454933

What the fuck does this even mean?

Are people Mad about not being able to browse Facebook at the same Time as watching netflix? Just get a faster connection...

>>133459601
I thought you were correcting me. Kek, you see? This is why the whole board is in shambles, people are arguing among each other.

>>133459299
>I fucking hate Comcast but despite how evil they are they haven't been financially motivated to fuck over the Internet for everyone.
But they have been
http://archive.is/qcg9C
>Net neutrality was never in danger
Yes it has
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
>it's a fucking ploy made up to get people to agree to handing the Internet over to government control.
It's the government saying discrimination of internet traffic is illegal. Nothing more, nothing less. We've had it for years.
>You idiots are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist
See the above link.

>>133458725
So wapo fucks up again. So did Salon and a bajillion other media outlets. All that happened was the FCC declared it a public utility.

>>133456386
kek

>>133459526
Reminder that non penetrative acts of bestiality are legal in only 10 Canadian provinces, but full bestiality is legal in 12 American states including based texas

>>133459685

>government has declared water from this source unfit for public safety

>government has declared content from this website unfit for public safety

>>133459695
No, it's people getting mad that if this is repealed companies can artificial slow down connections to websites they don't like or outright censor them. There is a reason verizon, comcast and time warner (Who own CNN) are spending fucktons of money trying to repeal net neutrality.

File: 5171eca289f0bfee2c23e80b21adc4054d457f8c45da05f485666d495407842c.png (166KB, 503x448px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 503x448px

>>133454757
if not to Netflix, then to somewhere else, it could even be thousands of sources if the user in question is torrenting or running crypto nodes

>>133459828
>10 Canadians provinces
10/13 = 76%

>12 American states
12/50 = 24%

Hmmmm

>>133459769
>We don't have neutrality!
>w-well all that happened was the FCC declared it a public utility.
That's right, meaning they can not discriminate against traffic, which is exactly what I've been saying.

>>133454075
There is a reason darknet markets ship their drugs through USPS instead of private companies.
It's because although the US government can have too much power, it's still heavily restricted by the Bill of Rights and so they can't open drug packages without a warrant.
Likewise, the US government is limited by the Bill of Rights and can't restrict free speech and hence can't restrict content online.
Ergo, we've already restricted the government's power, and as a consequence, having the government manage public goods, whether it be postage or the internet, is actually safer than relying on the private sector.

>>133459629
Doing that would just piss off everyone because most sites neither want us or want to get banned because of us. Literally all we have to do is hop from one site to another until people get fed up.

File: Entering Darkroot Garden.gif (3MB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 240x240px

holy shit dude there are some things that I understand why 2 sides can't agree on but this is definitely something we can all say no to.


I don't understand why it being ((your guys)) makes everything okay. I don't get it at fucking all.

>>133459891
>government has declared content from this website unfit for public safety
Violation of the first amendment.

>>133449811
You almost have to admire the propaganda campaign so effective that it causes normally skeptical denizens of /pol/ to run to mommy and daddy begging for internet regulation. And to continue to look right through the obvious Orwellian doublespeak of the fucking name of the piece of shit.

>>133459891
That's why we need to get rid of government meddling in our speech! Repeal the First Amendment!

>>133460022
Nearly 1/4 of America is fucking animals.
3/4 of Canada simply has the option of not getting arrested for peanut butter on penis

>>133460081
Not to mention that the USPS does a damn good job too, which is why Amazon relies on them more than on Fedex or UPS

>>133459925
So get your Internet from a better provider? If My Internet gets slow I Call the ISP and conplain about it, say that if I dont get what I'm paying for I Will change companies. Five seconds later they have fixed the issue.

Once net neutrality goes down for burgertopia, we'll be seeing lots of non burger proxies on 4chan. They'll need to embrace the leaf to continue watching their blacked cuckold porn

>>133460257
>So get your Internet from a better provider?
In most of America, there is only one provider to choose from.

File: 1490619982803.jpg (21KB, 428x371px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 428x371px

>>133459891
In order for that to occur, it would either need to raid the machines serving the content, which it already does for pedos.

Or, it would have to force ISPs to play a wild game of whack-a-mole blocking the originating servers, and the third-party relays that will continually arise. Which... They could already attempt to do in theory, but it is utterly pointless to try.

>>133460333
Include me in the screencap

>>133459432

T-Mobile as you might have guessed is a mobile phone provider. These often have plans that have aggregate data caps limiting monthly usage.

They exempted some popular data hungry services as a marketing effort to be more hip. This isnt neutral to other music and video providers.

>>133449811
Best attempt yet shill - ask for a raise.

>>133460082
>Literally all we have to do is hop from one site to another
Which would be awful for us, and a lot of people will be left behind in a limbo. Without a place for us to organize the piss off won't be felt as much as one would like either.

Living as criminals on the internet isn't the ideal way to spend your free time bro. Maybe its better if we don't risk ending up like that and just show support to the already established law that works fine as it is, and makes all of us happy.

>>133460257
We don't exactly have that option and for some reason people think repealing net neutrality is going to magically allocate funds to non-existent start up companies to start laying the infrastructure needed to provide internet to a country that's over 3000 miles wide.

>>133453554
>Google and Facebook have always fought for Internet freedom. T

hahaha

the freedom to do as they please

File: 1379579411784.jpg (16KB, 200x303px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 200x303px

MUH NET NEUTRALITY just sounds like more alarmism bullshit like global warming to me.
Notice how everyone jumps on it fanatically with broad claims of how horrible things will be if we don't follow suit.

>>133460269
I think charters contract goes till 2023 leaf.

>>133455170
Christ - it'a measure of how sucky your cause is that you pump out such shit arguments.

>>133449811

Fuck off Time Warner

go back to pouring billions into your professional fake news empires while I post at blistering fast 192 kbps, the fastest speed in my shitty commercial city area

>>133457428
it would be deader than the infinity chan

>>133458913
Americans are fucking retarded.

They support repealing Net Neutrality because either they don't understand the concept and think it's government censorship, or they just hate anything that Liberals support. Hence OP's leaking shithole of a post about muh Soros. Anything the Left wants, regardless of how beneficial it is to society, is a Democrat MSM Soros-backed Globalist Jew cuck scheme. So they'll cut off the nose to spite the face.

The only reason I don't support Net Neutrality is that Americans are literal retards who don't deserve the access. Pretty much all of /pol/'s and 4chan's problems would be solved overnight if Americans couldn't use this site anymore.

>>133460333
Sounds like a pretty dank bussines opportunity. Or is this some regulated shit too?

We have about 5 big ones and a few smaller ones. You cant go into a small without neeting at least one or two people trying to sell you better prices, sometimes they even haggle. I do this once a year to push my prices down and connection up.

>>133460503
Better 2 websites doing as they place than 2 Internet Providers.

You can ignore the websites, for many people, you can't ignore your Internet Provider.

>>133455497
Also, without net neutrality companies can double dip - charge consumers for consuming, and charge producers for producing.

>>133449811

This is why Republican voters will forever remain the dumbest motherfuckers.

>>133460654
This
Americans are the worst posters on pol but because there's so many of them it's easy to blameshift to lesser countries and shout them down

The ISPs provide me with internet.
Why should I be against them?

>>133460745
really hope they figure it out

>>133460403
Here an ISP and mobile phone company are the same thing.

>>133460682
of course

the argument was: because google and facebook have such a great track record of respecting everyone, them supporting net neutrality is the right thing to do.

I don't recall facebook being based, ever

>>133457586
>>why do we have so many threads
>Because /pol/ is retarded and thinks NN is bad,

No, /pol/ itself has reacted strongly pro-NN, it's just an onslaught of shills.

>>133460669
>Sounds like a pretty dank bussines opportunity.
A startup can't compete with a multi billion dollar moloch that also owns the infrastructure.

>>133460257

ISPs here pretty much own large swathes of monopolized coverage across the US, and for the most part, haven't really upgraded those pathways since the fucking AOL years.

So unless you live in a major metropolitan area, it's common for your option to either be dial-up/broadband speed or satellite internet that is even more unreliable/not much faster.

Rural and country folk have it even worse.

>>133460780
We turn the Rake upon the gardener, Comrade!

>>133460846
>My employer/customer provides me with a job why should I be against them
Because you're a drop in the water to them they won't hesitate to throw you under the bus

>>133460695
I've seen people argue in favour of that though. "Waaah why shouldn't Facebook pay more because their customers must use lots of bandwidth for VOIP?" Well, because customers have already paid for their bandwidth consumption, and Facebook has already paid for theirs. In fact, such a large company probably has an extremely expensive peering and colocation agreement with certain ISPs.

>>133449811
>Fuck 4chan for agreeing with the left
>Fuck dude I can't complain about this on 4chan because comcast won't let me go on the site

Retardation does grow online.

>>133449986
Here, write a comment to the FCC to that effect:

https://advocacy.mozilla.org/en-US/net-neutrality-comments?subscribed=1

Make the shills sorry they even tried.

>>133460978
>In fact, such a large company probably has an extremely expensive peering and colocation agreement with certain ISPs.

it's all relative. of course theirs is expensive when they're so big. Per unit it probably isn't even that expensive.

Still, why pay something when you can also get mostly around it?

>>133460490
Why not Just 4/5G Internet? You only need the Towers then.

I cant think of a place where I havent got 4G connection In the last 2 years in Finland and I go on long hikes and camping every now and then.

>>133460846
it's a good idea to bite the hand that feeds you. You should try it out sometime.

>>133460780
>Canada
you guys have the dullest sense of humor though, it's not a lie that leafs consistently make some of the lower quality posts that don't grab anyone's attention, and I think it's because of your hybird mix of nationality's, along with your culture norms, you guys just arn't interesting on the world stage, I can't be the only one who notices this right?

>>133460669
Americans have shit infrastructure.

Repealing Net Neutrality will have ripple effects for pretty much any industry that uses the Internet.

Think of any startup that wants to do a streaming, financial, or whatever other service is offered by an Internet provider. That provider obviouslu doesn't want competition. So they would throttle the startup's Internet speed, and charge high prices to improve it. That shit already happened in the past, and is what Net Neutrality is preventing.

John Oliver does a great job at explaining it. Inb4 (((John Oliver)))

>>133461215
Downsaged

>>133449811
>We all know that this movement is bankrolled by Soros-funded groups,
thats why we want to stop it and keep in mind soros is anti-israel which is good because we need to stop funding israel.

>>133460669
>Or is this some regulated shit too?
yeah

even where it's not regulated the cable companies managed to get a deal with many apartment blocks to only use their service

this is a downside of unlimited freedom of markets

File: 1459715872802.jpg (247KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1200x800px

>>133461174
Yeah but Finland only needs 11 cell towers.

>>133461174
It's crazy common to have reception problems. Significant parts of the country don't have coverage at all, or just 3G.

It's been a real undertaking just to get most of the country by population in good enough range.

>>133458353
>>all the burgertards and TD cucks get purged from this website
wtf I hate net neutrality now

>>133461215
Too fucking bad Americuck, once your Net Neutrality is gone, we shall rule the board.

It's analogous to a meteor wiping out dinosaurs and giving reign of the earth to mammals.

You are a biological dead end; you're extinct, Burger.

>>133460946

you can at least rest in comfort, people outside of cities are fucked almost everywhere. Nordic countries are an exception because in many cases the people actually were willing to sacrifice something to get connected. In most parts of the world - city internet, good cheap - rural internet, slow or doesn't work

>>133449811
Go back to Russia

>>133461275
(((john oliver)))

>>133460946
And if i got this right net neutrality means they all agree (through federal legislation) to keep it shitty for the sake of "fairness"?

>>133461433
Day of the leaf comes

>dude just let the government regulate it and add a currently unknown amount of cost to your utilities lol
Literal goyim.

>>133455133
>falling for the intermet jew
>not using fabinacci sequenced smoke signal
BAKA FAMPAI

File: kimjon.jpg (6KB, 227x222px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 227x222px

>>133460962

>>133449986

.. and here's the effect the lack of NN will have, per Mozilla and the EFF:
> Net neutrality is fundamental to free speech.
Without net neutrality, big companies could censor people and perspectives online. Net neutrality has been called the "First Amendment of the Internet."

> Net neutrality protects small businesses and innovators who are just getting started.
Without net neutrality, creators and entrepreneurs could struggle to reach new users. Investment in new ideas would dry up and only the big companies would survive, stifling innovation.

> Net neutrality allows consumers — not big companies — to choose what they watch & do online.
Without net neutrality, ISPs could decide you watched too many videos on Netflix in one day and throttle your Internet speeds, while keeping their own video apps running smooth.

All we love we leave behind.

>>133461275
>John Oliver does a great job at explaining it.

the proof you should be against this keeps stacking up.

>>133461275

regardless of how you look at it the argument is over who should let the government subsidize their industry. If the Cable companies win and get 'net neutrality' repealed they will push the costs of bandwidth onto the content providers. The higher costs will reduce some competition, but this won't end the world. What it will do is pressure innovation to reduce the costs of data transmission or spur the creation of the alternet.

If the content providers win then the result will be higher ISP service charges since you will be paying for the content, or paying in higher regulation as the US govt ratchets down on ISPs as 'public utilities'. Personally I would rather have the first option. I can choose my services. If I can't get netflix I'll find some way around it or I'll deal with the alternative. Or (gasp!) I'll go back to torrenting like I was before. Letting the govt get its nose under the tent is the worst of all plans to help make the internet affordable and free of repression.

>>133461275
Would it not just be better if everyone in the u.s stopped being such greedy selfish cunts

Freedom comes at the price of everyone being free to fuck you over

>>133461379
Fuck, it's almost as if capitalism didnt Fix everything

>>133449811
Fuck off kike go push your censorship and racked up prices agenda somewhere else.

>>133461503
Yes, that's the gist of it at this point in time.

Also: Net neutrality does NOTHING about slow rural lines. In fact, it doesn't even do anything about the defacto monopoly in the states where ISPs have suceeded to be the only allowed company.

>>133461563
Literal retard, we already have neutrality.

>>133461740
>Would it not just be better if everyone in the u.s stopped being such greedy selfish cunts
The problem is Comcast, AT&T, Telecom, Netflix, Time warner, Verizon, are all owned by jews.

They want net neutrality repealed, so they can jew some more.

>>133449811
>Soros happens to be right about one thing so I automatically have to be against it.
Dumb nigger.

>>133461645
Seriously what is wrong with the u.s no where in the world is legislation like this nessecary

You pay for internet you get internet should be as simple as that

>>133461958
Please point to where I said we didn't you gay retarded redditor.

File: 1417073594597.jpg (92KB, 500x555px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x555px

>>133462013
>The Jewnited Snakes of Israel

File: 1491377913804.jpg (323KB, 480x953px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 480x953px

the real question is
>what will all anons do when chans are kill?

>>133460535
This.
Right now little ISPs can't rise up in the US because it isn't economically feasible to do so, they have nothing to offer to compete with the big companies. IF the big companies start throttling or censoring content, that gives the little companies a wedge and customers will quickly jump ship. It will take no time at all for numerous "we're the FREEDOM company--we DON'T censor your content!" ISPs to start popping up everywhere. And the big boys DON'T want to lose any customers to this, so they'll be forced to compete or start hemorrhaging customers. Free market works, regulations don't.

Just wait till leftists hold power when NN is gone. Everyone's browsing experience will be BLACKED and brain washing.

>>133461843
gabitalism only worked so well because the workers formed a union and extorted the capitalist lmao

>>133460946
All of this is because of retarded regulation being put in place during those formative years that enabled the current ISPs to take control.

>>133461984
>implying Soros lets anything come down to chance

>>133462193
That's definitely correct, but due to other regulations keeping the barrier to entry into the industry extremely high even if companies started pulling shit start-ups may still not be able to compete outside of very localized areas.

>>133462193
It still isn't economically feasible, even if NN ended and Internet companies started throttling.

It's an infrastructure problem. You'd need to invest billions and billions.

Alright I'm gonna put this in retard language so you guys can understand.
Say you wanna order a pizza (use a website), so you call up you favorite pizza place, but your telephone company (ISP) has a deal with Pizza Hut (a shitty alternative). Removing net neutrality gives the telephone company free reign to redirect your call to Pizza Slut.

You guys really wanna eat that greasy garbage?

File: muh statist bootlicker.jpg (76KB, 958x575px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 958x575px

>dont worry goys, the free market will fix everything
>ignore the astronomically high infrastructure costs making it impossible for any new competition to come, this about the gubmint destroyng dah free market

>>133462435
And removing other regulations on top of that allows other telephone companies to steal your business from those retards.

>>133462368
>implying Soros is unbeatable
Poland and Hungary can resist his jewish tricks
can you?

>>133461645
>this mental gymnastics

>>133462193
>startup company: hey youtube, can we stream from your website
>youtube: we only allow that if you can pay the for it, see comcast/AT&T/Verizon have all payed us millions to prioritize service

Wow, can't wait to buy internet services that don't provide all the big sites because they couldn't pony up the cash.

When net neutrality goes away, deals will be made for who gets the priority for data transmission, do you think small company's can compete with that?

>>133462530
>hiding pro-DNC pro-Silicon Valley regulations as "combatting private tyranny" so you can troll libertarians and nazis at the same troll

I really hate Jews so fucking much.

so what exactly is all of this about? giving providers the ability to cut websites out of their net or giving them less bandwidth? if it's the latter then why the fuck is everyone crying about it?

>>133462544
Where do you these new ISPs are gonna come from? We're not a tiny euro country, the infrastructure needed is astronomically expensive.

>>133462530
>ignore the astronomically high infrastructure costs making it impossible for any new competition to come
Where do you think a lot of that cost comes from?
https://mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly

>>133462379
true. check this - Chattanooga offers 1Gb/s internet
so that would be 1000 Mb/s

http://chattanoogagig.com/

how did comcast react? They installed 10 Gb/s internet
Yes - 10,000 Mb/s. it seems to be easy when there is a need.

>>133462657
It's literally cyber global warming.

File: fvJR0gS.png (202KB, 480x719px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 480x719px

Bring it on ISP cucks.

HTTP needs to be rewritten anyways. I for one welcome the new replacement protocol that incorporates encryption and routing in the same stream.

>>133462755
Comcast also reacted to Google Fiber's expansion in pretty much my entire state since Seattle is one of the hotspots they're looking into providing it to. Our speeds jumped up by a good 3x since then at the same cost.

Can someone explain why net neutrality is bad?

>>133462846
interesting

>>133462888
https://mises.org/library/net-neutrality-scam

File: ss+(2017-06-04+at+11.42.22).jpg (12KB, 273x286px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 273x286px

>>133458158
Reminder that because nobody completely has control of our internet we don't have censored porn. Have fun jacking it to pixel penis.

>>133462713
>muh government sanctioned monopoly
Or, and this is crazy, it could be that the fact the cost of laying down brand-new cable and fiber optics for everybody, in possibly conflicting areas, wouldnt be worth the cost, and Comcast or Time Warner will sue your ass for touching their cables?
Why would a company ever bother to do that and take the costs on the chin, when you can just set up a monopoly somewhere else?

>>133462013
I am pro-NN but why would a person who visits /pol/ once a day pay the same price as some NEET loser who watches Netflix/YouTube and streams music all day long?

/r/the_donald hates MSNBC but loves giving its parent company Comcast full control over the internet. Go figure.

File: Rake.jpg (46KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 1000x1000px

>>133459828
10 Canadian provinces is a fucking massive amount of land compared to 12 states. Good try though leaf.

>>133462969
Porn censorship in Japan predates the internet, they are completely unrelated concepts.

>>133449811
>4chan is one person

>>133463041
Sorry anon but I'm not going to continue responding to someone who values learning so little they won't even read the information provided before replying.

>>133457851
>free market meme

gas yourself

>>133452461
bingo!

>>133449811
I'm unsure if people unironically think net neutrality is censorship or if they're just shitposting.

It's kind of like flat earth. I'm just sitting here hoping none of you actually think this shit for my own sanity.

>>133457851
If there was competition, sure.
I have only one ISP available, if they did such thing I'd be fucked as fuck.

also people here say " HURR DURR google and facebook agree with NN so it must be wrong " yes and fucking VERIZON CEO and ATET ceo want to abolish it , i wonder who is the evil here

>>133452051
Better to have robotic corporations in control than politicians.

So someone give me a quick anwser.
Do we vote yes or no?

>>133453222
Google and Facebook can afford to bribe ISPs to get bandwidth and to fuck up any competitors

>>133449811
>(((4chan)))

>>133463316
people have this funny idea that "net neutrality" is the reason why internet service providers have a monopoly, and that by allowing them to throttle how much bandwidth you use from content provider sites, it will allow new competition into the market place.

That makes little fucking sense because it's not neutrality that's keeping the monopoly alive it's

>>133463041
>>133462755
>>133462530
>>133461275
>>133462384
infrastructure

File: 1499824617213.jpg (36KB, 223x349px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 223x349px

If net neutrality is just there to stop ISPs from fucking their customers, what's wrong? Where does the 'censorship' come in?

>>133463963
When Soros got involved in NN's marketing

>>133463485
Trump is for abolishing NN, right? Seems easy.

>>133463963
The same idiots who think Comcast should sell your browsing history also think Comcast should slow down the sites you visit.

>>133459695

It's about compnies being able to charge differently not just for the amount of data but for the type of data.

Many ISPs (rightly) think of it as unfair for Netflix --which competes with TV-- or Skype --which competes with telephone-- to piggyback off of the ISP's billion dollar investments and to pay the same as any other customer.

Why build faster lines if it's just going to benefit your greatest competitors? ISPs are just trying to uncuck themselves

>>133464151
I love the guy, but that doesn't change the fact he's a technologically illiterate boomer.

>>133460333

95% of zip codes have more than 4 ISPs to pick from.

>>133463713
Who determines "neutrality" and what is in the public's interest?
see
>>133462950

>>133457199
If they decide to ban the 4chan IP nobody is going to be using it you moron.

>>133454075
>m-muh government is always bad
>m-muh corporations solely interested in money are much more trustworthy

jesus christ I fucking hate you retarded libertarians

>>133461275

Except prior to 2015 none of that shit happened even without government regulation

>>133464260
>piggyback off of the ISP's billion dollar investments
Why should netflix be penalized because people visit their site more? It doesn't cost the isp more because people visit netflix over any other site.

>>133463963
>stop ISPs from fucking their customers
when did they?

>>133464328
95% of statistics are 100% fake

>>133464328
Yeah, I can get 15mbps with Frontier, or the exact same for the exact same price with 3 other providers. Great free market.

>>133464283
I'm pretty sure people around him arent.

>>133464458
>muh government controlled by the highest bidder (corporation solely interested in money) is always trustworthy
I'll take a corporation with the impending threat of another corporation stealing their business over a government controlled by both colluding any day.

>>133464151
So is Merkel btw :^)

>>133464628
I don't care about her. Or Germany.

>>133463089
>Thank god this FCC government approved panel has prevented comcast from having full control of the internet these last two years

It sure has been great, watching the government keep monopolies in check and giving more power to the people these last two years...

Oh wait

>>133464521
It costs the ISP not because of the amount of data but because of the type.

The problem is that streaming movies and shows directly competes with TV. And if comcast or anybody else doesn't want netflix competing against themselves on their own lines, they shouldn't be forced to serve netflix because the FCC said so.

>>133464623
How many times do we have to say infrastructure?
INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE INFRASTRUCTURE

The government makes ISPs wear a condom and you want to let them fuck you up the ass raw.

>>133464561
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Dunno what to tell you man. I switch providers every 2 years for a sweet discount, get 100mb for 100 bucks

what the fuck is that netflix argument?
Of course they fucking pay
>servers
>ISPs
>CDN

why would they pay more you dumb fucks? do you really think netflix is going to start installing cables because ISP are too fucking lazy to do it?

>>133461645
>Without net neutrality, big companies could censor people and perspectives online.
Funny. The very companies that support NN already censor. It's almost like they are getting their information powerhouse taken away.

>>133464947
Feel free to provide specifics on cost.

File: 1497411939382.gif (172KB, 550x400px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 550x400px

>>133449811
I was just gonna start a threa don this retarded shit https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/07/12/even-4chan-is-opposing-the-republican-plan-for-net-neutrality/?utm_term=.0307918302ad THIS IS JUST SHILLING INTENSIFYING RIGHT?

>>133464938
If comcast can control what happens on the internet, the government should break them up or provide the internet as a common good.

The internet is bigger than Comcast. And if they want to use their monopoly power to control the internet, the government should end that real quick.

>>133452051
4chan wont die just because you faggot americans cant visit it. Shoot yourself the world doesnt revolve around you degenerate inbreeding apes

>>133462193
No, most burgers don't know and don't care. If 4chan becomes unavailable to them, they will just figure it went offline.

Hell, most people stop searching if they can't find something on Google. They are intimidated by the Cyrillic of yandex, the long URL of DuckDuckGo and the old interface of Altavista.

>>133458534
Yes!

>>133464938
you guys are also forgetting to include the throughput of bandwidth that is sued by these streaming services. They have a lot more data per second than the average person, and even that average is shooting up with all the video media going through the net everyday. I'm not always pro isp, but I know that shit can strain your connections unless you have some big ass fibers being used at your local data center.

>>133465489
>or provide the internet as a common good.
yes goyim, government knows best

>>133449811
Maybe if it was the Y2K era I would care but the Internet is pretty much dead now.

>>133465610
Yes it does

>>133465845
Government enforces building codes, fire codes, highway laws, law enforcement, etc.
That can't all be bad, right?

>>133465894
drink bleach. Please

>>133465841
Then they shouldn't sell so many plans that they exceed their ability to meet their contract.

They're making a killing, monopolizing the service in most of the country, refusing to upgrade infrastructure, and now blaming users for using exactly what they agreed to provide. Trying to pin it on Google and Netflix is a smokescreen because at the end of the day it's the users who will suddenly have their service downgraded without compensation. Just like these ISPs have been doing with data caps.

>>133465841
Yeah, typically the streaming services are located next to the carrier pipes at datacenters, and it's literally the last mile from the trunk to your modem that ends up being the most expensive.

The honest truth is that people make out ISPs to be greedier than they actully are, their profit margins are relatively slim compared to the businesses that use their services

>>133466106
That is a problem, yes, but isps are dollar first, network downtimes second. It's frsutrating, but you also have to realize that the customers are whats asking for it. The problem is though that the internet companies don't want to build more for the customer, but pocket as much profit as possible. Kinda sucks.

>>133465271
Quick google search says $10 per sq ft
The US is 3.8 million sq miles.

The best we could get are small localized companies, and do you really think they could or would want to compete with corporate leviathans?

>>133449811
>having such misplaced trust in ISPs that you want to let them decide which sites you can access and which ones you'll have to pay more for

The whole reason the Net Neutrality debate popped up was because ISPs were trying to trying to limit the internet. Specifically, Comcast was crippling peer-to-peer traffic. The court ruling on that led to Verizon jumping into the fray and suing the FCC; which forced the FCC to try to reclassify ISPs from being considered an "information service" (birth of the modern "Net Neutrality" debate).

Years before that, Verizon was blocking access to sites like 4chan.

All the ISPs want to do is be able the censure or limit access to the internet at their discretion. It's what they've done in the past. And it's what they've spend piles of money trying to ensure they can do it in the future.

I remember having to use a VPN to "magically" get an instant increase in torrent speeds, or for the 4chan.org domain to suddenly start resolving.

>>133449811
>an anarcho-capitalist accusing other people of being jews

>>133466237
>The best we could get are small localized companies
That's actually enough once you start getting more and more of these niche companies popping up around the nation. Hell like I said in an earlier post when Google Fiber being in Seattle was even a POSSIBILITY Comcast immediately reacted by increasing speeds at the same cost.
People make the mistake in thinking start-ups have to compete head to head with big business when in reality only the threat of missing out on profit causes a shift in practices.
With heavy regulation that threat doesn't even exist.

>>133466873
This is what I want and will happen. I know we have better speeds cause the nearby college has five times my best speed. Then I found out it's cause they got a special deal through the internet company. Apparently, colleges are more reliable to get payment from and maintain. Fancy that as a reason.

>>133466873
Yeah that's net worth billions of dollars Google, and even they only have Fiber in a few cities.
No one is going to want to take massive entrepreneurial risk to directly compete with fucking Comcast.
Linking one city with even low-end services together costs millions. Something a lot of start ups don't exactly have.

Personally I think reddit has taken in years and years of propaganda on this topic, just like atheism, and there is no way we can stop it. They don't know much about net neutrality, but they figure it's some sort of magical government intervention to prevent abuse. It's odd but that's what they think, "keep the playing field level". Bizarre

>>133467342
>Yeah that's net worth billions of dollars Google, and even they only have Fiber in a few cities.
Google Fiber's scarcity isn't due to cost but Google's motivations. They've stated on more than one occasion they have no plans to become a serious competitor.
>No one is going to want to take massive entrepreneurial risk to directly compete with fucking Comcast.
Please re-read my post.
>People make the mistake in thinking start-ups have to compete head to head with big business when in reality only the threat of missing out on profit causes a shift in practices.

>>133467537
How exactly do they not have to compete while selling the same service?
Like you said, Comcast will just match them in speed and price, because they can. I'd like that, but who's gonna start the fire?

>>133467757
The great thing about having a small company is more flexibility. You can more quickly react and adapt to new technologies and changes in the industry that would be very difficult for a large established corp to do. All we would need are a few companies here and there picking up areas that Comcast is lacking in, and it starts to add up until Comcast is forced to change to preserve profit margins. It's not as if the companies die immediately upon this and Comcast shoots its prices right back up, there are many other ways you can maintain a consumer base especially when you're operating at a lower cost than your competitor.

File: 1498575462097.gif (2MB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 900x900px

>>133449811
It's unreal how many people here are taking the "ISPs are just pocketing the profits!" commie track and beg for papa government to step in and give us our "human rights" ("level playing field") so we don't get monopolies. Suddenly it's almost like we're back at babby's first redpill of how the government maybe should fuck off, and the whole reason shit gets fucked is that the monopolies form through government favors. Decades of rage against the crony capitalistic machine and now the corporations have finally found the one thing that people will believe is under attack by corporations, not the government. Fuck everything about this thread, you gullible fucking retards. The government has coopted all media from the printing press onwards, the corporations have to suck them off to get favors. There will be no fucking freedom, there will be GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT to MAINTAIN FAIRNESS. Remember that from somewhere?

>>133468017
Hmm, I'll think about this anon, you make good points.

Though I still feel there must be a way to preserve net neutrality while easing the regulatory burdens on start ups.

>>133468650
Like all other causes it has a good name and at face value claims to have your best interests at heart, but I just don't buy the alarmism behind how corporations are totally going to ruin everything we love unless we enact more regulations that the FCC won't even allow the public to read.

>>133468650
Net neutrality = wild west = no regulations = no burdens for startup = r edditors have to face their existential crisis of "do free markets / capitalists oppress and abuse and monopolize for profit, while government can save us from that?" Well, the government is certainly going to (((save))) you from a lot of crap, and we'll be arguing about what is appropriate for the next few decades. How did this utopian "equality" ideal sneak in as enforcable all of a sudden?

>>133468844
I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd prefer giving internet start ups incentives like investment tax credit or leniency in regulation for a predetermined amount of time after inception, while still holding the lager companies accountable. Don't really know the best way to go about this though.
>>133468913
I believe the burden for start ups is having to adhere to regulations devised for large companies.

>>133469608
>I believe the burden for start ups is having to adhere to regulations devised for large companies.
That's exactly it, but in many cases it's regulations devised BY rather than for.