4chan is against Net Neutrality

>>133459856
Let's archive it
https://archive.is/BmPcT

I'm against bots, yes

"A spokesperson for 4chan didn't immediately respond to a request for comment." who is it gonna step up to the plate

>>133460252
Hopefully its an online chat with Hiro and they put the choisest Hiroisms on the TV.

File: 1484616615236.png (443KB, 438x525px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 438x525px

>>133459856
wow the post does terrible reporting, net neutrailty is the work of Jews not any political side. They really failed to even google the 2 people behind the big push.

File: 1482524254136.jpg (14KB, 265x265px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 265x265px

Look at the bill itself and decide GROW THE FUCK UP DON'T BE SHEEP

>>133459856

Fuck off shill:

> 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.

Kick the faggot OP a kick in the nuts by writing comments supporting Net Neutrality:

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

>>133459856
well yeah, we all about be anonymoose

>>133462309
and please, Norge-bot, keep your 'tism in check, no need to archive this one.

>>133462309
Building botnets, implementing mass surveillance and creating degenerate content is not innovation.

>>133462438
>insulting nordbot

opinion discarded

>>133462309
>Getting mad at Norse archive anon
Take that flag off and fuck off kike, you aren't fooling anyone.

>>133459856
the 4chin mods were also against Gamergate

John Oliver and Barrack Obama love net neutrality.
No warning signs there.
T. (((Jewgle)))

>>133462438
>no need to archive Washington Post

Kill yourself.

>>133459890
I love (you)

>>133460252
nigger nigger nigger

niggers tongue my anus

net neutrality is the only way the internet will function, its an all or nothing system.

>>133459856
>4chan is against Net Neutrality
I am not sure that is what you are meant to say.
this article implies we are against the plan to remove it. So we are for net neutrality.

>>133459856
>/pol/ is so retarded that they'll vote against their own interests just to disagree with libruls

Surely 14D chess will repay itself soon

>>133465345
>b-but Drumpf
People like you are the reason this board is against NN

>>133465428
>I'll shoot myself in the foot, that'll show you
yeah you're sure showing the kikes anon

>>133465428
Holy shit this board is retarded. You do realize that Trump is just a businessman who doesn't give a shit about nationalism? I want all of you T_D cucks to kys. And you are cucks in a literal sense, because you betray your beliefs just to please your neocon daddy.

File: 1413017211432.png (1MB, 1106x1467px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1106x1467px

>>133462438
>no need

>>133459856

No

Government = shit
Private = not as shit

>>133465345
Even if you voted for Trump you can still disagree with some of his actions, its not all or nothing. Removing Net Neutrality only hurts the consumer and only helps big companies.

>>133466520
>big companies

Better than big government.

>>133466520
>only hurts the consumer
Net Neutrality has only been around since 2015. The internet was perfectly fine before 2015 and it'll be perfectly fine after Net Neutrality is removed.

>>133466605
Who do you think big gov works for?
I rate this comment downsyndrome/10

>>133459856

another example of fake news

>>133460252
my peanus weanus will

As long as Comcast owns the lines, you're better off with Net Neutrality.
Have to do commie shit to make those lines how they're used in Europe

>>133466674
We will see goyim. All of the shekels will belong to us's!

>>133461809
Don't need to look at it, Obama put it in place and every single thing that nigger and Reagan did should be 100% undone to the very smallest detail.

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

78KB, 1150x841px

>>133466985

How to spot a human with negro level of intelligence:

>I'm against Net Neutrality!!!
>WHy?
>BECAUSE LEFTIS SAY ITS BAD SO IT MUST BE GOOD

Nobody sane would question net neutrality

>>133467068

>Oh shit everybody is against net neutrality
>Everybody hates us
>Guys i know lets make an advertisment where we say we are for net neutrality so people will like us more

Marketing 101

>>133466520
Because all the boogieman shit they're peddling was so rampant pre 2013

Killing net neutrality is a good thing because it stops shitty companies from forcing the gov to subsidize them, with trump killing regulations so he can go all in on infrastructure competitors will be able to start laying their own cables.

>>133465964
>trump is a neocon

Lol no. Kys faggot. Keep sucking that sand nigger's cock.

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

234KB, 800x1000px

>>133467151
>people not liking us will hurt us so lets support something that will hurt us

k

What should a true ancap's opinion on this be?

>>133467494
Net neutrality is necessary with the isp monopolies as they are. If the government would break up the monopolies and punish collusion then it wouldn't be as necessary because the free market would take over.

>>133467396

>people not liking us will hurt us

How is this possible kid if comcast has in many regions a monopoly ?

>so lets support something that will hurt us

Changing the definition of hurt it seems to support your braindead argument.

If net neutrality is confimred Comcast will lose nothing but because of their advertisment people will have a slightly better opinion of comcast.

If net neutrality is broken comcast will not fuck everybody in the ass right away but wait few months and than say they need to change because costs ( bullshit ).

Like i said: You need a subhuman intelligence to be against net neutrality

>>133467699
>Net neutrality is necessary
Then why did we not have it for 30 years and the internet worked fine?

>>133467759
>How is this possible kid if comcast has in many regions a monopoly ?
Then why would they bother making an ad based on everyone hating them you fucking retard? Great argument.

>>133467759
>a few months
They will lose SO much money if they do that they wont

>>133467840
As technology progresses, things get more jewed.
Take a look at video games. Back in the day all you did was buy a cartridge you were set to go.
Now developers sell you an unfinished game, then the skins for 99 cents each, $15 dlc which isn't even as good as old expansion packs, not to mention paying for multiplayer

>>133466137
>ancaps are this retarded

>>133467494
"hurr durr what's an economics"
You should probably stop being ancap.

File: who is this 4chan.gif (1MB, 250x333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x333px

>even 4chan is against net neutrality

What? Isn't the maynstreem meteor strawman version of 4chan this ultra anarchist hacking community that is against everything oppressive?

>>133459890
This bot does God's work

File: Soaron-solo.png (610KB, 1432x1056px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 1432x1056px

>>133459856

>Browsing /pol 3 days in a row
>First 2 days, no mention of net neutrality
>3rd day
>Gay "muh net neutrality" threads all over the place, phrased (and spaced) in reddit fashion

headlines today: "4chan is against net neutrality!"

There are people on 4chan right now who work for these TV networks and sit here to learn about or behaviors, then report back elsewhere with what they found.

It's like those shitty meme pages on Facebook that sit here to collect memes yet post nothing.

Fun fact: Those Facebook pages that have thousands of subscribers and dump memes all day are actually social engineers that talk to other page owners and discuss shit.

>>133467888
It depends m8. Where I am comcast is the only option for speed. I can go with at&t if I want literal early 2000's dsl speed.

The cable monopoly needs to be broken the fuck up, but (((they))) won't let it.

You faggots are working against your own interests for the sake of being contrarian, not so different fron the left. You will one day regret letting yourself be so easily swayed.

The current push on the right will not hold unless you get your shit together and start rational conversation.

>>133464966
>The enemy of my enemy must be my friend
>Anti soviet warrior puts his army on the road to peace

Let's have a quick look at cases that already exist involving net neturality:

>In 2007, Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, was found to be blocking or severely delaying BitTorrent uploads on their network
Certain applications can and will be blocked based only on their protocol

>that it (Comcast) had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software because it throttled the bandwidth available to certain customers for video files
ISPs will have the ability to block sharing of certain file types


> Cox Cable disciplined users of virtual private networks
>Comcast blocked ports of VPNs
The above blocks were only in place unless you paid a "premium" for them to unblock those ports, despite it requiring no additional service over what they already provide.

> AT&T, as a cable operator, warned customers that using a Wi-Fi service for home-networking constituted "theft of service" and a federal crime

>In 2007 it was discovered that Comcast was blocking people from sharing digital files of the King James Bible and public-domain song recordings.
No sharing of non copyrighted material, your ISP said so

>Netflix charged that Comcast was restricting access to popular online video sites, in order to promote Comcast's own Xfinity TV service
No sharing of things that the ISP didnt provide at inflated prices

> AT&T blocks use of apple's FaceTime to customers that didnt pay for premium services
Not even the ISP's own product, but they'll nickle and dime you for it anyway

> blocking common service ports, such as port 25 (SMTP) or port 80 (HTTP), preventing consumers from hosting web and email servers unless they upgrade to a "business" account

These are not issues that are speculative, these are all things that ISPs have done in the past and will continue to attempt to do.

>>133468755
It's very hard to enter certain markets, while marginal costs remain low as hell, which leads to natural monopolies.

File: wut.jpg (46KB, 861x960px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 861x960px

>>133459856
>4chan is against Net Neutrality

>>133468551
This. For (((some))) reason, there were tons of threads on the front page about it while before that no one talked about it.

>>133468564

>>133464966
They breathe oxygen too. Are you going to tape a plastic bag over your head just because libruls breathe oxygen?

File: 1479950678165.png (735KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 800x600px

>>133466137
>(((Private))) = not as shit

Good goy, let us control your speech

Is this proof that /pol/ is simply a contrarian board?

>>133460794
>having open internet is the work of the Jews
>including allowing to exist /pol/
kys

>>133459856
>WaPo

Time to die, scribbler.

>>133459890
Based NorBro

File: w47jiyz.png (294KB, 499x499px) Image search: [Google]

294KB, 499x499px

>>133470307
You still mad that they took down Nixon?

>>133470193
/pol/ is proof of how retarded ancaps are.

File: IMG_2103.jpg (36KB, 636x358px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 636x358px

>>133459856
>Donald Trump does not support net neutrality. Actually, he thinks it will lead to the censorship of conservative media. “Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media,” he tweeted in 2014.

File: 1479269308935.jpg (161KB, 1359x723px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1359x723px

>article links directly to a 4chan thread on /g/
>404

newfags never cease to amaze me

>>133470363
Nixon literally did nothing wrong

>Unironically posting meakoopa

You did though. :^)

>>133467840
If it is working fine why change it?
Why the need to go back?

>>133470574
>Nixon literally did nothing wrong
Yet he admitted guilt.

Some of you guys are so retarded
>hurr durr the lefties say it good so we must oppose it

Fools, you're becoming exactly what you hate the most, people spouting opinions without solid basis except being against it for the sake of being against it

>>133467016

> The level of intelligence of anti-NN people

>>133459856
I'm against anything that Kikebook and Jewgool is for

>>133467151

Everyone is for net neutrality you dumb fuck

>>133470873
Exactly

>>133470281
the government will ensure "FAIRNESS FOR ALL" by its benevolent oversight and legislation and uniquely neutral enforcing. how the fuck are you this gullible, and how the fuck are you so scared of corporations.

>>133467345

> Bring up /sg/ out of nowhere

Get help, Evapolack.

>>133470648
There wasn't any need to change it.
Obongo changed it.

File: 1478826455326.jpg (27KB, 480x443px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x443px

>mfw know nothing about the bill other than the name and what people have said

I'm not going to argue for or against it though because I'm not a retarded faggot.
A very common mistake

>>133470898
no we're not you dumb fuck, it's not a first amendment it's government enforced equalty

>>133467016
>the worst kind of brainlet

File: 1499533816016.jpg (215KB, 500x514px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 500x514px

>>133470943
So why change it back?

>inb4 hurr durr becuz obomo didnt need to change in the first place

>>133471010

> Oh boy! I sure love my ISP to tell me what I can and can't visit! That's exactly what I want from MY internet!

KYS Ancap tard.

>>133470943

Obama didn't change shit. He codified what was in practice.

File: jew trump.jpg (592KB, 1238x1500px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 1238x1500px

>>133470884
You fallen little on your head, didn't you?

File: 2635.jpg (8KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x250px

>>133459856
This internet stuff is so boring.

When are we going to have debates weather the US president should be allowed to freely launch nukes.

>>133470744
Abstract concept desu

>>133471267
>When are we going to have debates weather the US president
>weather

File: jude.jpg (424KB, 2092x1270px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 2092x1270px

>>133470937

But it's okay to have the big, Jewish-owned corporations decide what sites to throttle?

Are you retarded? Do you remember this image? Which ISP is one of the largest and most monopolistic and what sort of owners do they have?

>>133471267
>American
>"weather" instead of "wether"

Fucking drink motor oil you disgrace to your countrymen

>>133465964
>Non American thinks he has ANY idea or say in what the president does
Eight years baby.

>>133471359
You make sure to drink what he can't get down.

>>133471359
>wether instead of whether

kys

>>133470937
>half a dozen companies will compete fairly and keep a market as prone to natural monopolies as this one free from collusion.

File: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (95KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 800x800px

>wahingtonpost
>4chan

We mainstream now.

This timeline.

>>133471115
Do you seriously not see the difference between the proposed goal of legislation and what it will actually do. I swear to god we are back in 2007 or something. Im not ancap, also your quote does not even make sense since there is no "MY ISP" unless the government forces one on you. government monopoly on violence, remember? gullible fucking retard
>I sure love my gov/law telling me what I can watch! Surely we can keep that clean with the magic of democracy mob rule!
fucking kys, we're not in natsoc germany unfortunately and the gov is paid for by those same corps you hate. They'll oppose it now, then buy their way in within 5 years

>>133459856
How can someone not support net neutrality?

Basically anyone who opposes the concept of net neutrality is a freedom hating pinko.

>>133471010
>government enforced equality
>of bytes
>"No but you see Comcast should be able to charge more for 1s and 0s coming from website A as opposed to website B because those electrons are heavier or some shit"
>its not just a ploy to jew you out of your gold
>hey guys come buy our tulips some are arbitrarily more expensive than others
>woops gotta go invite more Muhameddians to fuck my wife up my long, narrow, twisting staircase
>hoho wee pushed em right down
>better shitpost on /pol/
>tfw can't even keep Chocolate Waffle Niggers in my "country"
fuck off colgate

>>133471526
Trump is a freedom hating pinko?

>>133459856
I dunno, I talked to an actually rational anon about this and he made some good points about how these regulations kill start ups.
I thought no one would want to actually make start ups for internet services due to infrastructure cost, but he made a compelling argument that localized internet companies would have more flexibility due to lower operating costs and would force major ISPs to get their shit together.
I was a pretty staunch supporter for net neutrality, but now I'm kind of on the fence about it.
I really wish there was a third option.

>>133462309
>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.

This has to be bullshit

File: 1499933687114.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>133459890
You may be a bot but you have the soul of a saint.

>>133471466

>I sure love my gov/law telling me what I can watch! Surely we can keep that clean with the magic of democracy mob rule!

... except the law literally does the opposite. It guarantees by itself that it cannot tell you what to do.

This level of argument is like: FUCK THE FIRST AMENDMENT, I'LL PRACTICE WHATEVER RELIGION I WANT, BY TELLING ME THAT IT WON'T INTERFERE IN MY RELIGIOUS RIGHTS IT'S INTERFERING IN MY RELIGIOUS RIGHTS

Like nigga what.

>>133465058
The Mozilla Foundation is not the washington post, even if they've been cucked after getting rid of Brendan Eich.

>>133471441
>prone
you smug fucking bastard
>no no goys, THIS market will destroy your rights as humans unless we step in!
Democratic consensus? no no we're talking about (((basic human rights))) here. In fact, why don't we nationalize the entire thing?

>>133471526
pinko here, you're an idiot if you think we oppose net neutrality you goddamned autist

>>133471466
>there is no "MY ISP" unless the government forces one on you. government monopoly on violence, remember? gullible fucking retard

wew lad. This is how we know you toothpaste motherfuckers are ignorant about American life.

ISPs in the U.S. are heavily monopolized. Local governments have to approve them to build cables and/or to access them. This leads to most Americans having little to no choice of ISP and building an ISP being cost prohibitive.

I have 1 ISP where I live because of a local municipality mandate. They're, thankfully, benevolent dictators, but it's one ISP nonetheless. And I live in a county with the density of Miami, so it's not a rural area, either.

Plenty of other Americans have the same issue. To say we don't have to purchase service from an ISP is true, but then we'd have no internet.

Realistically, net neutrality is needed right now until competition is allowed to thrive. We have no competition, so allowing a monopoly aided by the government to strangle the consumer is absolutely idiotic.

>>133471567
He's vulnerable to lobby pressure and (((them))) as any other POTUS, or so has he proven in my eyes.

>>133471423
>>133471386

>missing a letter while typing fast to keeo up with thread
>suddenly using the wrong word gives him power over keyboard missing a tap on "h" key to call me out

Fuck me 4chan is this what youve became?

>summer'17

Almost done

>>133471706
>whining after calling someone else on a fuckup and then fucking up

kys

>>133462438
I'm almost certain everyone posting with the dixie flag is a leaf in disguise. Either that or the so called "based south" really is full of inbred retards.

>>133471526

Internet has existed for 30+ years without any of the bullshit people have been crowing about happening. The bill itself in the current form turns the internet into a utility, which means the government has more control and can levy regulations and taxes upon it. The problem for Internet in America (and much of the world) is ISPs having a monopoly and the prohibitive costs / regulations for establishing competition.

Most burgers are tards though and are unironically supporting it from the ISP trying to retain a monopoly angle.

>>133466674
>Net Neutrality has only been around since 2015
man you stupid niggers never cease to amaze me.

File: Untitled.png (6KB, 686x251px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 686x251px

/v/ almost unanimously approves of Net neutrality and has concluded that the 200 people who don't are /pol/ shills and cucks to corporate dick

If you don't support NN you are an enemy of 4chan

>>133459856

Why are they so surprised? Anonymous came from here too. Stupid normies.

>>133471598
but it does tell you what to do, it tells you that you have to buy from ISPs that guarantee fairness. i understand that you think the analogy with the first amendment is very strong and apt, just like most of the other retards in this thread. "why wouldn't you want to legislate a fair playing field???" Also yeah practicing religion clashes all the fucking time and we still haven't figured out how we can enforce that sort of thing even hundreds of years after the constitution. Did you hear about the gay cake? Fuck outta here with your ideals of leavemealone. It's the fucking opposite. This is not the fucking first amendment, and the first amendment is about what the government can't do, not just a fucking guarantee of your ((human rights)). I swear to god i'm back on reddit.

>>133468564
You can't socially engineer autism. Or even hope to reverse engineer it

>>133471078
Executive orders are unconstitutional anon.

>>133471583
Why don't they start appearig now, then? NN going away will in no way help them compete except by providing a better "package" of premium sites. In the end, most people in here would rather have it apply to all of the internet, because we're not Netflix watching faggots.

>>133471359
kek, you fucking goofed.

>>133459856
Just fucking deregulate the entire market. Do you want to provide internet? Just fucking do it.

>>133471766

Title II was invoked in 2014. He's a year off, but prior to that, it wasn't a thing.

>>133459856
Yeah because anyone who actually supports NN on here is likely some dumb contrarian t_d redditor who shouold probably kts for being such a failure in life.

>>133466868
t. economicaly illiterate

>>133471768
Nu/v/ consists of reddit and neogaf posters looking for memes. All the decent posters left in 2014.

>>133462438
Fuck off, Nord-bot is a hero.

>>133471730
Go back to 9fag

File: youtubepolicy.png (40KB, 739x544px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 739x544px

>>133470450
>it will lead to the censorship of conservative media
Sure, which viewpoints have every major internet-related company so far been more likely to censor: left or right?

>>133471768
>>133471874
/g/ has also voted and they unanimously approve of net neutrality 90%-10% against

Literally only /pol/ thinks it's a good idea, fucking corporate jew dick suckers

>>133459856
I thought we didn't have Net Neutrality a couple of years ago?
Why is this even a big deal?

>>133471884

>t. emasculated faggot

>>133471735

You can remove prohibitive regulations while not repealing net neutrality. Sorry, you don't need to make me pay extra to browse 4chan to run an ISP.

This is a false dichotomy.

>>133459856
>>133459890
>WaPo quoted a /pol/ post calling (((internet service providers))) out
kek

>>133471706
>missing a letter while typing fast to keeo up with thread
>keeo

>>133471670
i know about all of that you moron, you are trying to legislate yourself out of a situation that has already developed because of government destruction of the markets for ISPs. locals have to approve everything, and they fuck it up, so now we will simply MANDATE that "everything has to be fair", and we'll worry about the oversight organs and strange situations we'll get when multiple ISPs have parallel infrastructure later.

>Realistically, net neutrality is needed right now until competition is allowed to thrive.
you better be real sure of that boy, because what i'm seeing is the final nail in the coffin of government co-opting of the internet.

>>133470937
>and how the fuck are you so scared of corporations.

The government is bound by free speech laws, corporation are not and frequently clamp down on hate speech. CNN and other big companies can pressure ISPs much more easier to take action against 4chan than they can pressure the state.

if it'll get communsit/leftis and kike ridden shitholes like 4chan shut down Im all for it.

>>133471909
It's only ancaps who are against it.

>>133471627
So your main argument is "people I dislike like this"; I'm sure that will serve our interests in the long run and not fall victim to subversion.

>>133467096
Nobody sane would question free market

File: 1499902347001m.jpg (71KB, 1024x599px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1024x599px

>>133471909
Surely Comcast is deeply concerned about your rights as a consumer and totally didn't benefit from Obongo's "net neutrality".

>>133459890
You are like Obi Wan, Ive learned so much from you yet you remain enigmatic

>>133471952
>you better be real sure of that boy, because what i'm seeing is the final nail in the coffin of government co-opting of the internet.

We've had this in place for 3 years. The entire call against removing net neutrality is just trying to keep the status quo you numpty. The internet hasn't been co-opted by the government yet, so keep your Breitbartesque predictions to a minimum, Polder Pot.

>>133470937
Cause the government does not own the infustructure, the mega ISPs do. Along with institutions that don't directly sell internet to the home. ISPs barely have to compete with each other and tend to have their own monopoly areas. You either go with the monopoly in your area or you go with the shit competition (if there even is any).

>>133471627
Prone is a pretty standard english word, you should use it sometime.

I like how someone from the dense and tiny nation of Netherlands is schooling us on how to internet. Density = cheap infustructure = fast speeds. Something the US does not have. So monopolies just naturally form. Unlike Netherlands where internet is super cheap.

>>133471597
SEMON
DEMON

>>133471987
I don't even know how you took that away from my post, but my main argument there was that "THIS is the market that will destroy your human rights unless gov fixes things" is a commie-tier argument

File: 233883.jpg (35KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 640x480px

>Comcast has plants in the FCC and government
>Want to hand over control of the internet to the government
>A government controlled by lobbyists from corporations like Comcast
>To reduce the control of corporations and their unfair practices, we should hand over control to the government that is bought and paid for by those corporations

Seeing some little issues here, boys.

>>133472003
Yes Comcast have made adverts saying they're pro-NN. They've paid a lot of money advocating against it for a long time, but hey their marketing division would never lie.

>>133460252
PM in your inbox

>>133471925

Yeah, but as i said, 30+ years and none of the negative things this bill is supposedly protecting American netizens from have occurred. It's a boogeyman to get people to hand over more power and more control to the government, which is (to me) more terrifying than corporations seeking more shekels.

30 years of internet without net neutrality, everything worked fine. 2 years of it with, a stepping stone towards more centralization and power in the hands of the government. Now if it's gone, suddenly it's the end of the world? Fuck off.

>>133471813
Because they're forced to adhere to regulations devised for large companies. Or even possibly devised by large companies through lobbying to quell competition.
Like I said though, I'm on the fence about this. I wish we could incentivize start ups while still holding major ISPs accountable, to guarantee competition.

>>133471998
>free market
it's a meme

File: IMG_2819.jpg (119KB, 1242x1417px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1242x1417px

>>133459856

"Even 4chan"

4chan is the last fucking bastion against censorship. Reddit and John Oliver say they want a free and open internet but in reality they want to limit speech and ban people like us.

They just don't like being subject to that abuse from their corporate buddies. Fuck them and their hypocrisy.

>>133468820
All this needs to happen for a Freenet to be born. All Net Neutrality does is give a false sense of security that allows the government to snoop on everyone.

File: Screenshot_20170713-020730.png (59KB, 1377x276px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1377x276px

>(((internet service providers)))
Good job publishing that Washington Post

>>133472101
I'm sure an FCC stuffed with ex board members from Comcast will make sure they do the right thing.

>>133472094

Yeah, your totally inaccurate portrayal of let's-not-change-what-isn't-broken sure is.

Do you realize the FCC CANNOT BAN ANYTHING BY LAW?

>>133472131

Except the exact opposite is true. We've had 30+ years of net neutrality. ISPs never had the right to tell you what you can and can't watch.

>>133472041
Thanks for the post burgerbro, I really do hope that you're right that this is the one monopoly situation where the american government should step in. I see a lot of fear of corporate abuse, a lot of love for government and a lot of faith in fairness laws itt. The exceptional state of how things currently are is being trot out as a reason for this law. I don't believe it will work, and I don't believe your monopolies form all that easy considering the value in the internet. But it's become clear that the burgers (and redditors) have spoken and NN is going to happen. Good luck

>>133471909
Popularity has brought the wrong kind of people to /pol/. There are one too many edgelords like that toothpaste who just get their thrills by being contrarian. If you don't pick your battles, you will burn out before it's due.

Sadly, taking NN is something (((they))) will be able to pull easily

>>133462407
I seem to remember anonymoose larping in vendetta masks back in the day trying to keep the net neutral, or was this just a dream?

>>133466674
No it won't. We had net neutrality before it became law because of precedence set. If we remove the law now, we set new precedence. We will be fucked. Not that we aren't fucked now too.

Fuck all you assholes who fell for the fearmongering 2 years ago and let them introduce the shitty shitty law. Now we are fucked forever no matter what we do.

>>133471766
It's only been explicit law since then. Before that it was just standard practice of the FCC to enforce it and the courts sided with the FCC because of precedence.

>>133460794

>jews are pushing to make less money

are u retarded

>>133472199
>We've had 30+ years of net neutrality.

You're a mongoloid. In this discussion 'Net Neutrality' is a specific bill introduced by the Obama administration in 2015, that's what's getting repealed.

I don't oppose the concept, but i oppose the implementation, and as you point out, even without the bill we've had it for 30+ years.

So why the fuck is this bill, that literally means the US government can fully regulate, control and levy taxes upon the Internet (because it's now a Utility, rather than a Service) ACTUALLY changing? Nothing. It's giving more power to the government and as anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows, both sides of the US government is incompetent as shit.

File: wheeler2.jpg (1MB, 3164x2082px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3164x2082px

NN is a power grab. The issue is not "treating each byte the same as the next byte" but whether the government should have the power to unilaterally classify broadband service Title II. Unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats shouldn't have that power, only the Congress should. Make a fucking law, don't regulate.

File: hyperventilation.jpg (74KB, 315x450px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 315x450px

>>133472003
Not sure what you are trying to say, At&t has spent half a billion railing against NN. Yet they were are openly for NN yesterday. I know it's hard to believe but ISPs might like the ability to block VOIP from competing companies in order to make more money. Or not count data when you are using a streaming service from your ISP, yet count the data when you stream from somewhere else. Nice way to make a profit no matter what the ISP customer does.

And you seem to be a good goy!

So many shills against Net neutrality on pol the last few days. Sad thing is, people are falling for it :(

>>133459856
this is a chatroom made up of many different people, it doesn't have an opinion on it's own.

I'm canadian, I'm not even a part of the debate you americans are having.

>>133472031
Yes yes I realize you want to maintain fairness and this is supposed to do it, since that's what it says on the legislation. Also the past 3 years the government has co-opted pretty much all mass media on the internet as well, and the war for social media and youtube continues. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that it's been smooth sailing the past 3 years and this is basically a formality. Every big website feels government pressure right now, but you seem convinced that this is the anti-government legislation? Or is it anti-corporate? What when they cooperate? Anyway I'm out, nobody is making any headway here. The whole thread is people shouting about muh rights and muh ebil monopolies. I really hope you're right mate

>>133459856
/pol/ would do anything the opposite of what jon oliver supports, even if it means killing their freedom and rights

>omg le ebin britbong asks us to fight for net neutrality
>hahaha lets tell him to fuck off, who cares if net neutrality goes down and our isps start throttling 4chan itself
And you know whats worse? These faggots like to muddy up the discussion by adding irrelevant "facts" like "hurrrdurr google and facebook already knows your info anyway, NN doesnt exist at all so why keep it"

I am so fucking glad I am not an american living in the usa

File: noggi is a joggin.jpg (64KB, 563x279px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 563x279px

>>133459856
(((bots))) shill for hours on 4chan as anti net neutrality

4chan now reported as anti net neutrality by (((MSM)))

>>133472347
>>133472329
What bill? What law? It's a regulation, enacted by (((Wheeler)))

>>133472389
It hands power back to the existing ISP's by going back to a law made in 1934 that led to the creation of the telephone monopoly.

>>133472395
>this is a chatroom
No it isn't. Fuck off.

>wp managed to think that a small weaboo imageboard somehow singlehandedly elected the president of the United States and leader of the Free world
The fuck? 4chan isn't even that popular? Otherwise people would be in line to fucking buy it.

>>133462309
>could could could could could
epic hypotheses but let's see it in practice, dumb headcanon poster.
https://mises.org/library/net-neutrality-scam

File: a9e.jpg (32KB, 453x500px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 453x500px

>>133459856
>net neutrlity falls
>internet gets "freed" for honorable and fair (((corporations)))
>mfw 85% of the lolbertarians suddenly stop posting
It might have some bright sides

>>133472347
We didn't have 30 years of net neutrality, we had 30 years of companies trying different ways to monetise and monopolise the internet. Google won btw, but telcos haven't given up.

>>133472469
Whatever the fuck you want to call it. We can't get rid of it now. Because that will set new precedent and the FCC won't be able to tell ISPs to stop fucking doing the shit they've tried to do in the past.

>>133472474
it literally is. all anyone does here is talk

>>133462309
I agree with you, but
>Without net neutrality, big companies could censor people and perspectives online.

The big companies for net neutrality already do this en masse. Big dotcom companies that have international reach like Facebook or Google have way more ability and inclination to affect content than any regional ISP provider ever could.

>>133472273
thrills from being contrarian? new? unironically fucking kill yourself you retard, this issue is huge no matter what the outcome will be. what kind of an attitude is it to just shout down anyone as contrarian/fear-mongerer/shill/corporate cocksucker? it's a tactic we're all very familiar with.

File: 1497502637421.gif (2MB, 330x250px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x250px

>>133470898
It doesn't really mean what it says. They never do. Or they do in a fun, twisted kind of way, like the Clear Skies act was really the All These Damn Trees Are Blocking the Sky act.
I'm sure other anons can think of other examples of this naming scheme in action.

>>133472469
The ISPs are already fucking people. Giving them more power is no good for the internet, this just gives them the ability to shake you for mire sheakals.

>>133472583

4CHAN IS AN ORGANIC BODY. IT'S CELLS THAT MAKE UP A WHOLE. WE ARE ONE ENTITY.

nah u rite we a glorified chatroom senpai

>>133471768
>>133471909

>corporate kikes and shills are on /pol/

Holly shit! We have shills here?

File: 1.5Mbit.png (53KB, 932x861px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 932x861px

>>133472224
>I don't believe it will work, and I don't believe your monopolies form all that easy considering the value in the internet.
> I don't believe your monopolies
Kek, this is what I pay for 1.5Mbit, current bill. Also not shown is the $4 "Broadband Cost Recovery Fee" from Centurylink.

>>133472542

So deal with them as they come. Implement more anti-trust, de-regulate municipal clusterfuck that leads to monopolies in the first place (within America).

You're arguing against potential throttling at the risk of potential censorship. That's what it all boils down to. And i think potential throttling can be addressed without that risk.

>>133472542
Before the "Net Neutrality" thing was introduced the FCC already enforced the basic idea of it. It had that power first due to some court ruling in favor of the FCC without knowing exactly what was going on. And in all alter cases by citing precedent.
If we repeal Net Neutrality it will set new precedent. And the FCC won't be able to enforce what it was able to before Net Neutrality.

Again, fuck all you assholes for falling for the fearmongering 2 years ago and taking us out of that comfy grey area and into the new black and white.

>>133472611
But if regional isp providers gain the ability to throttle speeds and block sites against (((their))) interests, how is that a good thing.

File: Capture.png (86KB, 363x260px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 363x260px

>>133472576
We will all see our broadband bills increase. Billions of dollars will now flow to the FCC. Now they have the regulatory authority over all the ISP's infrastructure. They can tell when, where and how the ISP should make improvements to the network. Or not at all. This will destroy competition for small ISP's, and lead to a greater monopoly. I know your canuk, but I don't want my cable;e bill to raise.

>>133472767
>still paying for POTS
why

>>133472749

They've had that ability since the inception of the Internet. They don't do it because it's a bad business decision. Maybe i'd agree with you if we actually saw cases of this happening prior to the implementation of these laws, but we simply didn't.

>>133472732
We're arguing against censorship you dolt. Telcos refused access to sites before oboonga implemented his regs.

>>133472867

Which telcos, which sites.

>>133472722
it's like being robbed but they are upfront about it.

>>133472722
Oh i believe you have monopolies alright, and i blame your local governments for em. There's 0 competition, It's fucked up. I was talking about the FORMATION of monopolies.

>>133472837
We fucking did on small scale, they were pushing the boundaries, do some fucking research.

>>133472652
No, part of the definition of a 'chat room' is only pleb faggots frequent them that produce cringy memes

>>133472101
yeah sure thing buddy. pls show us this propaganda against nn. i never saw anything against it. the only article that covers it is this:

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/05/18/the_ugly_truth_about_obamas_net_neutrality_110247.html

>>133472944

Which telcos. Which sites.

And if you say pirate bay i'm going to laugh at you.

File: wheeler1.jpg (1MB, 3164x2082px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3164x2082px

>>133472867
Pai has consistently supported the basic principles of net neutrality—the common sense view that ISPs should not be allowed to block specific legal websites or devices, intentionally slow some traffic to benefit others, misrepresent their network management practices or otherwise behave in conduct long-considered anti-competitive in American law. The reality in what should really just be called “The Title II Debate” is that businesses using the networks which ISPs operate want to make sure their information pipeline into homes is as cheap as possible. Instead of building their own networks, with the exception of Google on this point, cronyism is their tactic. And to reach that end they are demagoguing ISPs.

>>133472894

Comcast used to throttle Netflix and torrent websites prior to 2014. Netflix paid them to stop the throttling and that invariably gets passed on to the consumer.

>>133472767
Yes. We lost this fight 2 years ago. Whatever way this plays out this time, we are still fucked.
There is no way to go back to the pre-2015 unfucked days.

>>133473007
Literally posted examples up here
>>133468820

In addition we had comcast's DNS blocking archive.org just a month ago.

>>133459890
Fpbp based norbro

>>133472935
>i blame your local governments for em. There's 0 competition, It's fucked up.
Local governments have been banned in most areas from building infrastructure, so only one that can build are ISPs.

>>133472767
Some sense! How did they fleece even the lolbertarians into viewing NN as the second coming of the first amendment? We got completely fucked by precedence in 2015 and this thread seems like a bit of a dumpster fire of ideas, with the pro-NN crowd convinced anyone against is a shill.

>>133472972

So 4chan then. Half of what's posted here is either cringey, cringey stormfag propaganda, or just uninformed teenage faggots who think they understand the world.

Once in a while a meme comes out of here that's worth spreading.

>>133473189
approval, not building

>>133471904
That has jackshit to do with NN. In fact, you could at worst have a couple ISPs not service """problematic""" sites. It just adds a layer of potential disruption.

>>133472909
>it's like being robbed but they are upfront about it.
They advertise $30, and hide the recovery fee. But then it raises to this after a year.

File: 20017745_393973770999419_5519082376102954145_o.jpg (137KB, 1113x688px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1113x688px

This is the future of the internet

>>133473111
>>133473092
Well half of them are illegal torrenting services and the other half could easily be fixed by consumer protection / anti-trust laws without handing over control directly to the government. Still, interesting and i'll look into these before continuing to post.

My reservations come from hearing people bitching about FCC censoring shit since i was a child, and now people want to hand the internet to them? I don't think it's a good idea.

Glad i don't live in America i guess.

So this is what a sea of shitposting looks like. I thought I had an opinion on this issue, but after reading through some of this, it turns out I have no fucking clue what this shit actually means for Internet except that this will be shitty no matter what happens next.

File: 1498076662623.png (308KB, 492x419px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 492x419px

>>133473217
It's also anonymous, there are no accounts, and I can call you a stupid fucking nigger faggot without getting b&. 'chat rooms' that are moderated by normalfags reach tiers of autism and cringe that could never be achieved here.

>>133467298
Competitors running their own cables, are you really this daft.

>>133473219
You have some sources of this mass rejection to ISP building? Often times the local governments don't own the power lines, nor the telephones lines. Both of which can be used to string fiber and don't really need any approval.

File: serveimage.jpg (2MB, 3164x2082px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3164x2082px

>>133473111
I see no legal path for the FCC to prohibit paid prioritization or the development of a
two-sided market. As the NPRM frankly acknowledges, section 706 of the Telecommunications Act “could not be used” for such a ban. And while the NPRM resists saying it outright, neither could Title II. After all, Title II only authorizes the FCC to prohibit “unjust or unreasonable discrimination”and both the Commission and the courts have consistently interpreted that provision to allow carriers to charge different prices for different services. Indeed, I have been unable to find even a single case in which the Commission found it unlawfully discriminatory to offer a different (faster) service to customers at a different (higher) price. For another, the legal consequences of moving forward with net-neutrality regulation are sure to wreak havoc on the Internet economy, no matter which legal path we take. If we are to take the D.C. Circuit at its word, section 706 grants the FCC virtually unfettered authority to encourage broadband adoption and deployment. So if three members of the FCC think that more Americans would go online if they knew their information would be secure, could we impose cybersecurity and encryption standards on website operators? If three members of the FCC think that more Americans would purchase broadband if edge providers were prohibited from targeted advertising, could we impose Do Not Track regulations? Or if three members of the FCC think that more Americans would use the Internet if there were greater privacy protections, could we follow the European Union and impose right-to-be-forgotten mandates? And because section 706 gives state commissions authority equal to the FCC,every broadband provider, every online innovator, every Internet-enabled entrepreneur may now have to comply with differing regulations in each of the 50 states.

Net neutrality starts to look kinda weird as soon as your realize that all arguments for it conveniently accept ISP monopoly.
Somehow people accepted it and they don't even realize they should be able to just change ISPs if they start doing dumb shit like that.

>>133459856
Why the fuck does every article I read from Washington Post come off like it was written by some imbecile markov chain?

>>133472642
Yeah because giving the government more power is such a good idea.

>>133473346
Its simple. Do you like the internet the way it is? Or do you want isps to charge you extra costs for access to certain websites that aren't as popular as something like Facebook.

If we get rid of Net neutrality the isps will be able to fuck you a lot harder than they already are.

Goys?

>>133473394
You can even find articles on this from lefty shitholes like wired and vice, since their internal compass is screwed on right when it comes to corporate fuckery. There are all sorts of regulations and state laws that can mess with a market without actually owning the infrastructure (i.e. be responsible for it, which of course they aren't now. Fuck you comcast!). It's not good that I would have to source state laws and procedure for ISPs. Of course, mind you, the lefty answer to all this fuckery is usually to federalize everything and put "the human right to free internet" somewhere in the constitution, so there's that too..

>>133473472
Its not giving the government more power though is it? It's just keeping things the same. You think isps want to be associated with a "racist" website like 4chan. Getting rid of net neutrality opens us up to corporate fuckery. Also you can actually vote out a government, whereas the corporations are unaccountable.

Goys??

>>133472749
I didn't say that's a good thing. I was merely alluding to the fact that even without possible ISP interference, the internet isn't neutral. It's already subjected to huge control from both governments and corporations.

>>133473524
It's simple. Do you want a 1934 law that created Ma Bell, or do you want a modern law enacted by Congress? It's not soley about NN, Chairman Pai agrees with NN, but the way we do things. Are we a nation of Laws, or regulation? This is a Title II fight, not a NN fight.

Current year man tries to get 4chan
Now I'm against NN. FUCK NET NEUTRALITY.

>>133473524
The internet did fine before net neutrality too.
"Greedy ISP's are gonna fuck us over!" is just a boogieman used to get morons to support the government taking over the internet.

>>133459856

>"The customers can't go to anyone else," another replied, "because there's little competition in large swathes [sic] of geographic regions of the country."

>swathes [sic]

>[sic]

washington post is a fucking rag, their journos have the vocabulary of children and believe any word they don't recognise must be made up or spelled incorrectly

>>133473404
YES! We should be incentivizing new ISP start ups. How I'm not sure, maybe investment tax credit?
Point is if we actually had competition, ISPs wouldn't be able to get away with their bullshit even without net neutrality. But everyone wants to look at this like there's only two possibilities.

>>133459856
they'll say anything to justify letting the FCC keep its greedy hooks into whatever they can to remain relevant

>>133473264
With or without net neutrality laws?

>>133473061
>Instead of building their own networks
The last century of american business history is just a list of ways in which larger companies have found ways to fuck smaller ones over. Here's how it would (and has when people tried) gone down:

Attempt to start your own ISP
Enter into negotiations with the local authorities, and either
A) You are blocked outright as they see no need to shift over
B) They offer to take it to tender when the current contract runs out, the larger corporation can better afford to undercut you in the bidding process and promptly does.

The end result is the same, the biggest problem that the US has in this field is that there is absolutely no enforcement of anti-monopoly laws as those are considered to be "anti competitive".


>>133473342
>Enforceable consumer protection / anti-trust laws
>America
The FCC is fucked, however, as much they may try to mandate they have no real technological capability to effectively implement any mandates they might make (Good luck stopping different DNS's, VPNs, Proxies or Tor with paper). The ISPs however control the last mile connection with absolutely no workarounds, they can and have throttled or blocked connections (often by spamming ack packets, which when used by not an ISP constitutes a DDoS attack).

I'd rather a toothless tiger of an FCC shouting for unenforceable bans left right and center than the very real sharks of the ISPs being left to bleed people dry.

Net Neutrality is communism. Everyone who is pro NN is a communist and doesn't belong on here. NNNNOOOOOORRRRMMMIIEESSS GTFO RRRRRRREEEEEE

>>133473342
We've got it so much worse, Telstra owns all the infrastructure here, if the US moves away from net neutrality we will be next and with rampant sjw media groups in this country and a fucked govt. When it comes to freedom of speech we will be looking at the internet through the great feminist firewall of oppression.

>>133473740
Incentives are great but they assume the government has a better eye for start-ups than the market. How about we start with deregulating on the state level instead of worshipping a federal fairness doctrine with incumbant FCC powers?

>>133465204
Wtf snek? Why you step?

Hey GUY FAGS,go organize your shit somewhere else. Reddit seems to be on your side. Go spam reddit, here no help awaits. Mybotswill not fight for Netflix, amazon and other jews

>>133473820
Your right the internet was created by the US govt. At tax payers expense we should hand over this public created thing to telcos to make money out of. I'm not a communist, but telcos didn't create it, they don't own it.

>>133473696
>>133473706
You fucks don't know your own best interests. If isps can slow down or block access to certain websites, how the fuck is that good? It's anti free market, its bad fot innovation and most importantly it's bad for internet users.

I suspect people here are only against NN because people on the left support it. Don't be a retard tribalist.

File: (you).png (29KB, 478x627px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 478x627px

>>133462438

>>133459856
>opposing
>Republican plan
that's a double negative, and 4chan is running banners right now in FAVOR of NN.
reminder that WaPo is Jeff Bezos' Talking Anus

>>133473804
And yet, literally nothing in this Order will promote competition among Internet service providers. To the contrary, reclassifying broadband, applying the bulk of Title II rules, and half-heartedly forbearing from the rest “for now” will drive smaller competitors out of business and leave the rest in regulatory vassalage. Monopoly rules designed for the monopoly era will inevitably move us in the direction of a monopoly. 50 states, 50 rules, 50 regulations, 50 taxes. Small ISP's just won't be able to hire enough lawyers to deal with the red tape.

File: Dv5zBJB.jpg (324KB, 1314x2048px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1314x2048px

>>133473656
If you own the poles, you can do pretty much anything with them. The only thing they can reject, is underground trenching as that would be city property I guess. And trenching would be the most expensive form of infrastructure compared to just stringing fiber on poles. So the most expensive form of fiber could be blocked. And if the city owns the poles (which they rarely do) then they can lease out the poles to anyone and everyone.

But if you are a city in desperate need of fiber, there is no real possibility of it being blocked unless the local government was the one footing the bill. If the ISP is being blocked from putting in fiber, they could put out a cheap flyer in mail saying that your local government is blocking us from providing you and your neighbors with fiber. The shit storm would be real. As everyone is desperate for fiber.

>>133466674
>internet was perfectly fine before 2015
I remember bittorrent traffic being throttled by comcast and netflix being slowed down by isps.

It became a bigger issue after people quit watching tv and the cable companies lost subscribers to the internet. They started throttling services like netflix to compete.

Jesus CHRIST fuck off with your Walls of Text. Go build the real wall.

>>133474101
New taxes, new regulations, new power is never good for the consumer. No one, not Chairman Pai, not me, not you disagree with the concept of NN. The way to do it with a modern law, not something from 1934, enacted by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats. You are getting hung up in one small part of the debate, while not seeing the big picture. Google, AT&T and Netflix just want the government to hand over control of the ISP's network to them. Good job supporting corporate interests, and not the rule of law.

>>133474142
So what is then your interpretation / explanation of the current monopolistic crappy situation? Surely it's not corporate evil, or?

>>133474101
Brit bong the introduction of nn has if not directly then has at least created a environment in which all competition has been erased. This happened by stagnating the market forcing mergers to the point where we are left with just 4 major providers. Guess (((who))) owns all of them.

>>133474142
Municipal broadband is a miserable failure. They can't make enough money to support the infrastructure. It's pure fantasy.

I thought jews would hate Net Neutrality, but Reddit is going ape shit over it. What the fuck is going on lads?

>>133474101
it's not anti free market because it will be the ISPs doing it, meaning they can perish if they fuck up. What destroys the market ist he government saying "hey guys, what you're doing there is bad for the market (and the people). You are arguing that the government (the people) knows better than the market, so we might as well bypass it. Let me ask you this: do you think the internet in the 90s was free because the corporations hadn't realized the profits and evil they could do?

>>133473895
I'm just worried start ups wouldn't actually happen without some sort of edge to give them a fair chance against corporate leviathans.
I don't see why the government would have to pick and choose which companies receive benefits with some well devised legislation. They don't necessarily have to be permanent, just give small start ups specifically for internet services a fighting chance to help break up the monopolies.
But yes, deregulation would be good.

File: picard-facepalm.jpg (23KB, 921x606px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 921x606px

>>133467840


>not have it
The Internet worked fine because Net Neutrality was the structure under which it actually developed. People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs agreed to this in the early 1990s. The argument started a few years ago when big ISPs said they were NOT going to follow it anymore.

>the """""free""""" market should regulate the internet
>the same """""free"""" market that means you literally only have one choice of ISP in many areas

american logic

>>133468513
They niggered up the title it would be more clear if it said "Even 4chan is opposing the republican plan for removing net neutrality"

File: 1490198898505.jpg (301KB, 700x1036px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 700x1036px

>>133471874
its almost entirely neofag now. Total shit-tier faggotry.

>>133474438
Reddit under schwartz was always pro net neutrality. Reddit still has those roots even though its turning corporate/shill infested.

Big corporations like AT&T say they are for it but are full of shit to sound good.
Also, it's mainly ISPs that are against it, since it's their pipes. Any other company would have to pay more if ISPs can throttle, so companies like netflix are for net neutrality.

>AT&T Pretends To Love Net Neutrality, Joins Tomorrow's Protest With A Straight Face
>https://www.techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20170711/09523137764/att-pretends-to-love-net-neutrality-joins-tomorrows-protest-with-straight-face.shtml

>>133474514
This 98%
The gov caused the monopolization they should be able to instigate the un-monopolization.

>>133474135
One step at a time m8, the behemoth of the ISPs stranglehold is a conjoined but separate issue to this. Net neutrality is needed until such a time as the US actually enforces its own consumer protections and anti-monopoly laws, else given the current trend of ISPs money grubbing, there won't be much of an internet left to contend for.

>>133474354
>>133474376
The way things are is fine why fuck with it and risk losing the internet as it is. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose if we get rid of nn.
>>133474448
That would be fine if people actually had a choice, in most of America people have between one and two isps to choose from, so if if they fuck it up th2 consumer has no choice but to take it. Take it right in the ass.

1. I don't read WP
2. I don't watch late night faggots

>>133474514
The David vs Goliath story of why monopolies form (apple/microsoft yeah?) is completely fucking retarded. Every single company that builds phones or other high-end electronics is a behemoth of such proportions that every commie in the 30s would squeal in horror. You don't want the government helping some startups overcome the big bad businesses that "make it hard to break into a market". This is really lefty anti-corporate thinking and is bascially just ideological in nature, since it's very difficult to be a start-up. Even given all this, we somehow still end up with a variety of enormous corporations, some of which gobble up smaller ones in terms of capital but keep them operational.

Look, the problem the r edditors in this thread have to face is whether they think the government is responsible for the current state of affairs or whether it's "corporate greed". You can not force a free market to produce something, you can only make it free. But that's no what the people in this thread want, they want government to step in and ENSURE that a certain kind of competition is the only allowed one. Because people will otherwise get abused, since even throttled retarded internets are monopolies (they are now). So, which is it? Is comcast / time warner shit because they are greedy monopolistic fuckwads that maintain the monopoly cause they're big, or cause the government helps them? And if gov helps them, why not STOP hepling them instead of adding legislation? I'm not even a big fan of the lolbertarians but rothbard and even friedman are spinning in their graves right now. Nazis are at least upfront about the government owning all media (infrastructure).

>Citing WaPo
>4chan is a monolith
Fuck the Washington Post, fuck the FCC, and fuck OP.

sage

>>133474524
>The argument started a few years ago when big ISPs said they were NOT going to follow it anymore.
Probably because they were not prepared for the millions of people running 24/7 P2P and crypto-currency miners. ISP's are out to make money, but they need a solution as well otherwise the government will force them to simply lower the bar so everything is slow and shitty

>>133474741
This will hurt small start ups the most. Institutions are not necessarily or even usually created to be socially efficient; rather they, or at least the formal rules, are created to serve the interests of those with the bargaining power to create new rules. NN helps the existing ISP's the same way the 1934 law let to telephone monopolies. Over 140 small ISP's wrote a letter to the FCC trying to stop the onslaught of regulation and red tape that will inevitably occur. Small ISP's will not be able to compete with the big boys now. Good job commie, now you've crushed free enterprise in favor of entrenched corporations.

>>133474741
Bro you don't know the mid American struggles. Top speed internet in my area is aussie teir with shit ping to top it off. There is no reason for them to modernize it because the environment under nn killed all competition. It's not all fine.

>>133473824
You will see how most people end up with cheaper packages that only include Kikebook and MSM outlets, with a sprinkle of porn and degeneracy.

You will try to reach out but your voices will be subdued by the (((ISPs)))

File: g2xvnEd.jpg (70KB, 640x852px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 640x852px

>>133474432
>Municipal broadband is a miserable failure.
And yet one near me has been doing great, having completed the vast majority of their fiber years ago. Even spreading the fiber outside city lines.
http://www.mmumo.net/internet.php

This muni ISP is actually illegal but was grandfathered in under new laws.

>It's pure fantasy.
So is your reading comprehension.

I was not even talking about Muni ISPs. We were talking about local governments allegedly blocking ISPs from building infrastructure, according to our wooden shoe friend.

Fake News Ron Paul said giving government power over the internet is bad idea.

>>133474864
>free market
ITT some Eurofag talks about *Free Market* in the Land of Government Enforce Monopolies

>>133459856
Yes, maybe not the gronkfarts over at /ptg/ but yes

>>133474932
yep, i remember when this came up a few years ago and the arguments haven't changed. It's commie REEEEing about the "rights" of people being trampled by monopoly + greed, where the monopoly magically came into existence cause that's how the free market works. They somehow abuse everyone, and the commies know what the people want (their needs!). So now government has to step in and ensure equality. It's all so tiresome.

>>133475024
Let me shit in your mouth you ignorant faggot

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-fiber-in-the-united-states

File: 1498389639897.jpg (32KB, 500x319px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x319px

In a free market this wouldn't be a problem but USA is not such economy.

Fix your system first and then you can nitpick about regulations.

>>133475096
That's my whole point you retard, the current monopolies are not free-formed on the basis of corporate abuse and greed

>>133475024
Sadly it will never get far past city lines teir 3 cities on a 5 true scale is probably the limit.

>>133474932

If what you're saying is true then big ISP's should love NN, or at least be ambivalent, since it crushes competitors. They don't

>>133474932
>>133474959
There are no small isps. The market is saturated and the big isps pretty much have a monopoly. Its the nature of the telecoms industry. You are being very naive if you think letting isps control the speed of your connection to certain websites is a good thing. Very naive.

>>133459856
Normies deserve slower speeds!!!

>>133462309
>?subscribed=1
nice try, schlomo

>>133474909
>Probably because they were not prepared for the millions of people running 24/7 P2P and crypto-currency miners.
Netflix and youtube are the biggest source of bandwidth usage. Your P2P statement would of been true back in the late 2000s but not so much anymore. Not to say P2P does not exist but streaming is just comfy to most people. Not sure why you even mentioned crpto-mining considering it's just a blip on the radar for what it uses.

I want the polar opposite of what AT&T wants because they are buying CNN so I assume whatever they want is idiotic.

>>133474864
wat

>>133475221
>not free-formed on the basis
so, what you are actually IMPLYING is that Corporations were dragged kicking and screaming into Big Gubbament monopoly set ups?
I seriously feel I am talking with someone whose political development comes from reading comic book versions of Ayn Rand

File: nihilism.jpg (174KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 750x600px

>>133469874
Interesting theory, Jewfag.
>But consider this:
>Jewish families were torn apart when their own members converted to Christianity
>Why would the Jews break up their own communities purposefully?

>>133475154
Damn dude show a little mercy to him

>>133475519
I don't think there should be legalization to protect telecom market share but I'm certain that the corporations don't mind.

>>133459856
Fuck net neutrality. Free market is the way to go. Leftist scum are just trying to suppress the rights of others under the guise of "free speech", as always.

File: wtfhappen.jpg (34KB, 391x400px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 391x400px

>>133472467
Really shakes my sprinkles

>>133475912
Mere pruning.

>>133472378
Surely Comcast and AT&T care about little customers like you.

>>133475310
It didn't used to be the nature anon. It's now just the only one you remember.

File: 1496891446569.jpg (174KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 800x600px

>>133475154
Your article fails to tell me if they trenched or if they strung the fiber. Stringing it between poles is super cheap, trenching is expensive as fuck. Especially when you own the poles like Marshall MO does, so they don't have to rent the poles cause they already own them and they are just existing infrastructure.

And then there's a local electric Co-Op that also provides fiber. As Co-Ops only provide electricity to rural folks, they provided fiber to all of their rural customers(who are also owners). 1Gbit to the home, for $100. They did it all on their own with no government help, cause they own the fucking electric poles.

http://www.co-mo.net/residential/internet-for-residential/

>>133459890

who is this mysterious norwegian?

File: rarewtf.jpg (2KB, 125x93px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x93px

>>133476448
The bot of bots, and the bro of bros.

>>133475519
It's nice to see you're able to look down on people with snark, but the mockery is kind of retarded in this case. No, corporations weren't dragged into it, they agreed to it or lobbied for it (at the exclusion of others). This is what corporations have done since time immemorial in order to get ahead over their competitors. It's crony capitalism, corporatism, everything your country has been devolving into for the past 300 years. That's ayn rand tier? Fuck off mate. It's about SPECIFIC corporations getting in bed with the government, or government favoring some (indirectly), that breaks a market, which of course you know.

>>133472484
>Let's fuck everything up before we decide how fucked we might be!

Great plan.

>>133468175
Back in the day all you did was shooting at pixels.

>>133473264
No more free stuff. Sad!

File: IMG_0593.png (230KB, 313x321px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 313x321px

>>133459856
OP is a weird shill libturd.
His mum is a weird humpback creature that lives in a compost heap feeding on turnip tops and shitting out deformed troll babies every full moon.

>>133459856
4chan is clearly divided on the issue, anybody saying there is clear support from 4chan for only one side is a fucking nigger.

>>133475310
>Its the nature of the telecoms industry.
it's cool how you're so confident of that especially given the historical record of the internet before, let's say, 2010. All of a sudden our current situation was inevitable from the start, and is the case even in the abstract.

>>133475290
Electrical co-op fiber is a thing, at least near me it is.

>>133475501
no u
We had this debate years ago as well

File: skep_dog-244x300.jpg (7KB, 244x300px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 244x300px

>>133466137
>Government = shit
you should know strayacunt, you got the worst government ever.


I hope you're not typing without your crash helmet on.
Why don't you try fixing yours before you fuck with ours?

>>133462309
>quoting a literal advocacy site
The cancerous confagerate strikes again
You might as well be quoting us some politician's campaign website during their election bid
Are you even able to evaluate credible sources or do you just vote for the person with the nicest website?
Lurk more

>>133476765
Naw mate here in Kansas the only competition is wireless and you know how cancerous that shit is when it only works 60% of the time.

>>133470939
>getting mad that he brought up /sg/

Fuck off /sg/

>>133474101
They don't get it, because they're so wrapped up in the "anything the Left says is good, must be bad!" trap. It's a trick that leads simpletons into being marks of reverse psychology. If you want these types of people to be pro something harmful to themselves, just say their enemies are anti whatever it is.

There's no hope for people like that. And many of us older fags here warned /pol/ about this type of thinking, but they won't and will never listen. Same thing the media pulled when they said Trump is "Anti Establishment". haha. It's so fucking transparent to anyone who knows how these people work.

A supposed democratic government censoring the net wouldn't be able to openly do so without massive push-back. But independent companies (who are working with and in the pocket of those who control government) can censor the internet, no one will be able to stop them or push them back.

It doesn't matter what they say, all of these big corps and the government are on the same page when it comes to which sites they want to block or slow down access to. And it won't be Facebook or frivolous shit like that. Eventually, they'll come for the dissenting sites.

If most "woke" people on here can't see this. Do you really think they're gonna win this fight? HAHAHAHA. They're digging their own graves with this and many other stupid decisions they're making to "piss off the 'Left'."

COMMON CARRIERS

COMMON CARRIERS

COMMON CARRIERS

>>133469756
kek

File: 4chanboardofdirectors.jpg (21KB, 320x256px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 320x256px

>>133460252

SUMMERFAGS

SUMMERFAGS

SUMMERFAGS

>>133476894
Cell phone data can be pretty shitty. I lived on that for 2 years with Alltel in a valley. If you want to get weak cell phone signals in your house, I'd look into getting a cell phone booster with an outdoor yagi antenna pointed in the general direction of a tower. My cell phone booster was shit with the standard antenna until I got a yagi.

Also have an a wireless ISP that operates on 900Mhz sending out wireless internet links. Not a cellphone company. They only sell 1-4Mbit and don't reach my house.

>>133476828
Can you articulate your point more concisely?
I'm pretty tired and having trouble understanding what you're saying.
I feel like your putting words in my mouth.
All I'm saying is help give internet start ups the possibility of success. Through what means, I'm unsure. In exchange, they help give Americans more options.
Thus, we wouldn't need net neutrality, because the market would weed out corporate fuckery.

>>133477392
I got a booster famalam full bars in house now. Thx tho famalam. Plus my community just jewed a wireless provider into install us our very own micro tower that's like 50 yards away. Gonna have to shill like 50 bucks for 8 up tho.

>>133471735
>bill itself in the current form
this bill, which I will assume is a Republican written bill, is what is commonly known as a poison pill bill. With corporate lap dog media that will not criticize or analyze it, it is presented to you as accomplishing the thing you want, while the devil-is-in-the-details actually denies it to you