Net neutrality

>>133468620
It's weird, maybe just trying to get some points?

>>133468751
Fuck off Shlomo

If the average joe has to pay extra to access sites like Amazon guess what that does for their bottom line.

>>133468620
Because ISPs will FUCK high traffic websites without it.

>>133468620
They rely on revenue streams for open internet users. People don't realize this. They aren't the good guys here but, the ones also seeking an agenda for profit.

>>133468620
Because "net neutrality" is actually Swamp control. They use trick name to fuck with our minds.

>>133468620
I rather take advice from pornhub then a random anon shill from /pol/
One of them has a good track record of delivering the goods.

>>133468620
Because it benefits them. If opposing net neutrality helped them they would. None of these companies support it out of the goodness of their hearts.

If you dumbfucks really can't look at net neutrality yourselves and figure out that opposing it is retarded then I hope Trump's FCC does kill this website because a bunch of mongoloids have taken over

This is the most mischaracterized, lied about, disinformation bullshit that nobody on /pol/ understands.
It's like a magician making you watch his right hand while he produces coin in left

If you only dislike something because people you don't like like it, you must a massive tool.

>>133468620
>I detest
because you're an idiot.
the only good thing about NOT having Net Neutrality is that after they kill 4chan we won't hear from dopes like you again.

I like porn, pirating, and reddit, so I support net neutrality!

>>133468620
Web-based corporations benefit from net neutrality

Infrastructure and service providers will lose with net neutrality

Fuck off retard

>>133469356
You mean making a marketing move to switch to HTTPS years too late because of hysteria surrounding net neutrality? They used the justification that it's dangerous "now" that ISPs can spy on you even though they already could, obviously.

>>133468620
I don't give 2 fucks about this. I want to see these companies get fucked.

will all the social media sites like facebook instagram and twitter be blocked? if so im all for it

>>133468620
Why are you posting on 4chan if you hate it so much?

>>133468620
you would probably stop breathing if Soros said that it's good for you...

It'll be great if they try to do this

People are going to attack the sites that pay ISP's for priority

>>133468620
That's your confirmation bias in play.
In reality, every company in support of net neutrality runs their business on the internet (as you might expect).

It happens to be a (((coincidence))) that every company you hate happens to have the majority of their business on the internet.

>>133468620

Need to see the package.
There's probably something in there about opening immigration to millions of migrants and refugees to fulfill the worker needs.

>>133468620
Apparently the current NN rules may also somehow prevent ISPs from being investigated for crappy internet speeds... which *may* be a factor in comcast flipping their view...

>>133474342
4chan is shit now if they block this site ill be happy too. let it all burn

>>133469364
That's a good ol fashioned reality check

>>133468620
>be one one of the many ISPs in the US
>don't slow down traffic to sites like a retard even though it's legal now
>everyone switches to your service and you make gorrillions
the free market will solve it.

>>133468620
I don't really like the idea of taking out net neutrality because it would not only be a hassle for these big kikes, but also to me. I would like to see them crash and burn though, and will get to see new fresh stuff to come out.

File: 1498340329142m.jpg (117KB, 683x1024px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 683x1024px

>>133469356
>pornhub
>not sadpanda
Get out.

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

71KB, 1024x599px

>>133473504
ISPs also seem to think "net neutrality" is great. Hmmmmm

>>133468620
It's disinfo you dumb fucks, 4chan has led the pro-internet platform for years. The jews are just trying to take it over so the MAGApede redditor posers oppose it because they're literally so new that they actually think net neutrality is a new concept.

anyone claiming that without net neutrality consumers will have to pay more for less doesnt understand the issue

infrastructure needs to be paid for, it either gets paid for by everyone (by taxes), by web companies (charged by the isp), or the ISP customer (in your internet bills)

the ISP wants to be able to charge companies on the internet so they dont have to charge their customers. if the ISP puts up their prices to pay for infrastructure they lose business, if they charge companies for the infrastructure then they dont have to put their own prices up, but instead the web companies have to charge their own customers

Amazon and other fake stores on the internet are communist. They are worse than snowflakes... first, brick and mortar had to deal with big box cheap junk, now we have to deal with totally fake internet stores... it's a fucking war.. you a fucking communist stooge if you buy anything off the internet. Red pill that mother fuckers.

Wayfare is fucking anal warts cancer and charges 2-3x actual retail.

If you see "free shipping" on the internet that is a flag for fake store that drop ships from factory or wholesale.

Amazon started off like wayfare but turned into a criminal shithole... sort of like eBay..

>>133475205
That won't happen, Anon.
Remember, most ISPs have a monopoly in their particular areas so there is no one to switch to.

File: 1490679046593.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>133475480
>You are a communist if you participate in free trade and buy consumer goods you want to have
>This company trying to maximize profit in a capitalist manner is communist as well!
>If they conduct measures such as "free shipping" to have a leg up on competition it means they are communist!

>>133475480
>paying money for goods in a servace that is completely better than brick and mortar in everywhere
>brick and mortar naturally starting to die because of this better service
>communism
Sure.

>>133468620
4chan is and always will be for Net Neutrality (remember that)

i'd rather side with big jewish corporations than faggots on reddit desu

>>133475985
Sounds like you should be solving that problem instead of this made-up one

>>133476289
the better question is why do any of us outside of the USA give a single shit?

>>133476390
hmm what country is google stationed at?
I wonder?

>>133469123
ISPs already fuck us why are websites exempt from being fucked?

>>133476390
oh wait you are a leaf...
the western equivalent of the manlet

>>133476390
Because net neutrality fucked in the US. Means that servers hosted in the US could theoretically be throttled for users outside of the US as well by the ISPs those servers are connected to if the website hosts don't pay up.

Can you imagine websites/services just denying IP connections from outside of the US simply to same some money? Absolutely absurd but that would happen with smaller websites/services. And the bigger ones would just cough up more money to maintain current connection speed meaning they would have to raise prices on to someone (which will probably be the end-user such as you or more advertisement etc etc)

File: 1483432680683.jpg (41KB, 208x206px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 208x206px

>>133469356

>>133476467
So what? They already give away information at the drop of a hat

>>133476389
There is no fixing that, Anon.
The free market's natural state is monopolies.
Once they're established, they're there forever.
Its beautiful.

>>133476601
>Because net neutrality fucked in the US. Means that servers hosted in the US could theoretically be throttled for users outside of the US as well by the ISPs those servers are connected to if the website hosts don't pay up.
Thats a huge stretch. Commercial servers are going to continue paying big money for unthrottled speeds.
>>133476567
>says fucking NEW ZEALAND
lmao m8.

>>133468620
Because without net neutrality both the content providers and consumers get fucked. The only ones who benefit are the monopolizing ISP's.

>>133469123
This. They're just protecting their own financial interests, nothing more.

File: net-neutrality-fullpage.png (327KB, 808x1600px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 808x1600px

>we're actually for this thing we were against before goyim
>we must stick it to that guy drumpf
I'm getting to feeling it's fucking nothing at all

>>133476680
They are not natural monopolies, but rest on cable franchise agreements made with local governments.

Remove your flag immediately.

>>133476680
Be careful, some people won't catch the sarcasm and think you're serious.

>>133476615
all im saying is that when net neutrality goes out of the window whats to stop a company from intentionally slowing down a site for the sake of revenue. In this state of the internet Net Neutrality is one of the last true defences of free speech and freedom of information of the internet

>>133476511
Well, they'll just pass the fucking on to the consumer.

File: 1499418931149.png (807KB, 688x551px) Image search: [Google]

807KB, 688x551px

>>133476738
how many Muslims in new Zealand compared to yours
how fucked are we compared to your country
at least our leader is not a cuck (just stupid)

What about low bandwidth users like me, who just browse the web ? Should I oppose net neutrality on that basis ?

>>133477057
nah it would go from shit to unusable

File: 1498480125634.jpg (93KB, 400x323px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 400x323px

>>133476844
>>133476803
Wait a minute

>>133468620
>havent payed any attention at all to net neutrality because ultimately powerless to change such things

i know its bad, im sure it will pass, and know that when it does pass (or doesnt) i know comcast will fuck me more. if this shit gets me off 4chan and sets me free in the streets that would be a blessing in disguise, thats for sure. at the least no more solving captchas to train AI for google anymore.

>>133477057
Scrapping net neutrality only benefits large ISPs. There will be no benefit to you whatsoever.

>>133475451
>they just want to charge the companies goy
>it won't effect you at all
Yes then not only will small business struggle in real life, but online too. Not to mention online shopping will likely no longer be cheaper than big box stores since the cost will just be passed on to us that way instead. No thanks.

Puts control in the hands of the government, who are already on the lobbyists dime in the first place.
So your options for who holds the reigns are ISPs, or ISPs with (((government))) oversight.

Good luck America, kek.

Isnt net neutrality dead long time ago?

They just make it now official.

ffs its the internet, developed from goverments for research till complete mind control whole country's..

>>133477057
It would lead to longer loading times like in the late 90's/early 2000's. It will also lead to more advertisements on websites and higher prices for services.

The only way you personally might benefit from it is if you own stocks from a big ISP service since their profitability would go up. But for everyone BUT ISPs it will be a big step backwards. Will probably hurt the US economy as well since it would ruin the online economy more than the extra profit the ISPs will get out of it.

>>133477276
>Australian
>saying good luck America, kek
>in relation to the internet
Isn't your internet legendarily shitty?

>>133473504
Yeah thats why your ISPs are so poor and cant deliver good servicen..

File: ronaldo_thinker.png (166KB, 425x408px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 425x408px

>>133469364
>ACLU
>EFF
>several other non-profits
>benefit
Really gets my bits shifting

File: 1499389393106.png (127KB, 342x339px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 342x339px

I'm retarded, so can anyone tell me if I have to flee the country for my past shitposts or not?

>>133477434

Yeah but our internet being a ditch fire is just status quo.

Yours is going down hill either way.

>>133477435
They don't deliver good service because they don't have to.
Things tend to fall apart without competition.

>>133477549
you and all reddit scum will suffer

>>133477549
No you don't have to worry about that.

You WILL have to worry about your torrents only being 5kb/s though. Say goodbye to downloading porn or any niche shit you might like.

Remember the times of you pausing a youtube video and doing something else for 20 minutes while it buffers? That's going to become the norm for 90% of the internet traffic without net neutrality.

File: 1497682700262.gif (2MB, 300x365px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x365px

Can somebody rational give me a quick rundown on what net neutrality is before I support one side for no reason

File: 1470076749386.gif (2MB, 330x166px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x166px

>>133468620
Supporting net neutrality is retarded.

It's like if the phone company argued they should be able to accept 100 million dollars from Pizza Hut to not provide any service to other pizza companies in a region. If you want a pizza you'd have to call pizza hut or drive to the other pizza location yourself to order.

>>133477435
>We at Comcast need to make more money, this Net Neutrality is killing out profits.

Meanwhile in reality
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_purchase_of_Time_Warner_Cable_by_Comcast
>45.2 billion

>>133477743
>looks at flag
>Realises that they are out of touch with reality

>>133468620
it's funny that people think the internet is neutral
sure you can start your own website, but that doesn't mean you'll get a fair treatment

just google image search for white american couple
or read up on the censorship on sites like facebook, twitter, reddit,...

>>133477743
Except its the exact opposite of that.

File: rare_molyneux_1.jpg (55KB, 811x554px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 811x554px

>>133477827
not an argument

>>133477721
Net neutrality means that your ISP has to treat all your internet activity in the same way no matter what. Without it, your ISP can decide to impose limits or additional costs on visiting certain websites or using certain services.

For example, they can gouge you or Netflix for extra money if you're a Netflix user.

>>133475383
At&t paid half a billion fighting against NN it you fuck.

File: 1496616106818.jpg (16KB, 271x271px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 271x271px

>>133477884
Whats an argument?

File: 500px-Trollface.svg.png (34KB, 500x397px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 500x397px

>>133477924
Now we know why they are struggling, they need to abolish NN because they spent all their money trying to abolish NN.

>>133468620
You would trust Comcast and Verizon over these guys? It's simple, streaming sites have a financial interest in net neutrality. It's not some conspiracy.

>>133477904
This is correct.

And in many places in the US especially, there is only 1 service provider because they don't compete with eachother like they should.

If the gov broke up their monopolies then Net Neutrality wouldn't be such a big deal since you could switch to a smaller provider that didn't manage traffic like that.

>>133477904
Now I understand thanks

>>133477884
but, seriously though look through the last argument I had with a leaf

>>133477161
I don't get what I pay for right now anyways, you faggots.

>>133477838
Obvioisly Google decides what comes up first, but NN is really just about speed.

File: 1499139642874.jpg (64KB, 713x341px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 713x341px

>>133476076
>be an ISP
>have a 100GB data cap per month
>own a video streaming service
>give free data for streaming with the ISP companies service instead of competition
>have a ISP monopoly in your area
What could go wrong.

>>133477721
Net Neutrality
>Lower costs for websites and internet services (which means less advertisements and lower costs for you the end-user)
>Faster internet speed
>ISPs can't block certain websites (such as netflix because it hurts their cable branch)

No Net-Neutrality
>ISPs become more profitable because they can charge individual websites and services
>Lower internet speed and higher costs for internet services to the end-user
>ISPs will get the legal ability to block and throttle any website that might hurt their personal income such as Netflix/torrents maybe even facebook/twitter if they don't censor complaints against the ISPs

You should only be against net-neutrality if you own ISP stocks or work for an ISP.

>>133468620
They don't want to be the ones paying additional fees so their data or traffic doesn't get throttled. All the memes about "google premium 30$" bullshit is just that, bullshit. The ones who will end up paying far more are these companies. They deal with a lot of data usage and traffic to the point where ISPs would suddenly have the freedom to tell them to give us money or get dialup speed. The end result is the same though potentially, the consumer of these products suffers in some way or another.

File: disgusted.jpg (68KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 400x300px

>>133478112
So because of that you want to get even less?

File: what-is-net-neutrality-isp-package-diagram.jpg (208KB, 1113x688px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1113x688px

>Trump ends Net Neutrality
>ISPs throttle what is not profitable for them
>SJW banshees shriek on twitter about nazi ISPs allow rayciss sites
>ISPs fold like all big business do, bans 4chan
>all amerisharts banned from 4chan
>amerisharts relegated to consuming Good Goy content
>trumptards on VPN still defend ending Net Neutrality
Mark my word, within two years no amerishart will have access to anything more offensive than you'd find on cable TV.

>>133469493
People who bemoan others' misunderstanding without suggesting better information are fucking worthless

File: DC4ggupVwAAZO0y.jpg (131KB, 1200x635px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1200x635px

>>133478112
>I don't get what I pay for right now anyways, you faggots.
What do you mean. And legalizing you getting screwed, since you are already getting screwed, is not a good objective in life.

File: 45-Best-100-Robots-in-Film-Robot-Necron99.jpg (232KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 500x350px

>>133478172
you do a good service keep it up

>>133478189
No, actually the ones who will pay for it is their customers. No business eats the cost. And Premium accounts certainly are not bullshit. They want premium accounts like OPs want dicks because their TV profits are declining because people are canceling their 120 dollar a month cable contracts.

File: jovial seller.png (396KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 800x450px

>>133477161
>2010-2014 media: "net neutrality is bad"
>2015 Obongo pushes net neutrality after jew companies that use over 50% of all internet bandwidth and traffic complain about ISPs
>2017 media "net neutrality is good"

Really made me think.

>>133478250
With NN now I don't get the speeds they sell me. NN is a nothing burger does jack shit.

>>133468620
Someone please tell me what the FUCK giving my info to this gay link embedded here will do to end net neutrality? Like what the fucking shit will that accomplish?

Is it legal action? NO
Is it protests? NO

What would be the actual most effective method to stop this shit. FUCK YOU KIKES YOU WILL NOT RUIN MY INTERNET

>>133478142

I have Tmobile and none of the data I stream from netflix or youtube counts against my data. Tmobile also gives me cheap movie tickets and pizzas.

>>133477743
Retarded analogy. I love how the retards against try to equate internet access to phone lines or roads because they don't understand how it works. It's simple. NN says that an ISP can give preferential treatment or faster access to their own services or services that pay extra for it.

Example: Verizon has it's own streaming service. They charge more for Netflix but less if you use their own, because it nets then more money. And if you don't pay extra, they slow you down on Netflix.

On Verizon Wireless they're already testing this. They offer you "perks" (it doesn't affect your data limit) if you use their own streaming service and not Netflix.

>>133478172
>people will use ISPs that block the sites they use
>nedderlands education

>>133468620
Because it's not net neutrality. It's FCC control. The FCC was created by FDR to create and protect monopolies and does so to this day. These major businesses are in on the game.

File: retard 4.jpg (52KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 480x480px

>>133478465
>This nigger keeps punching me in the face, I know what to do, Ill call a nigger so he will punch in the face harder, that will fix this situation.

>>133478112
>ISP's fuck me over already so why not let them fuck me over EVEN MORE!?
Fucking genius

>>133469123
This regulation did not exist before 2015.

>>133478492
Same. But Tmobile is the exception. And Wireless has a lot more competition than broadband.

>>133478590
>ISP's fuck me over already
then what is the regulation for.

File: 1486035874675.png (262KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 600x600px

>>133478500
Net neutrality is what prevents ISPs from throttling certain sites. Stupid niggers like you are why were gonna lose the internet.

>>133478611
And many ISP's were known to throttle things like torrents and peer to peer networks as a result of this lack of regulation.

>>133468620
You realize 4chan is exactly the sort of low-revenue, high traffic site that needs net neutrality to survive, right? This may as well be a campaign to kill 4chan.

>>133478513
>people have a choice in what ISPs they can use
>Murican Education

>>133478385
>Be ISP
>Have option to charge extra to the consumers
>Have option to charge A SHIT LOAD more to big popular websites for the same speed with net neutrality.
>Have option to charge A METRIC FUCK TON more to big popular websites for better speed than currently available
>ISP does all three
We're going to pay for it in some way, these companies wanting it to stay as is could literally be bankrupted by it. That is my point.

just few years ago we would be waging war across the entire internet in favor of net neutrality.
now these dumb fucks from the_donald are actually shilling against it.

>>133478532
FCC control by mandating no preferential treatment? What exactly do they control with this? They already mandate how the internet should be regulated.

>>133478665
To keep them from destroying the internet as we know it - which is what they would do. They would turn it into some bullshit scam where you have to pay for packages to access certain types of websites, like cable TV. Want to visit gmail? Pat $10 for the cuckmunnications package. Want to visit 4chan? Pay another $40 for the EdgyAdult package etc.

File: rHIxg87.png (262KB, 526x519px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 526x519px

>>133478465
With or without NN, makes no difference in your case as NN is not about that. Usually in your customer agreement, they have you agree to a minimum of 80% of your advertised speeds. If you are below your advertised speeds you should call them and tell them that.

What company? What Speed? Cable/DSL/Fiber?

>>133478667
Dude, I'm for NN.

>>133478513
You realize that geographically 98% of America only had one cable provider, and that alternatives like DSL and satellite are literally up to 3000% slower, right?

>>133468620
Yes, I trust them over ISPs.

>people actually asking what NN is
how new are you fags, we've been through this whole thing twice before already, net neutrality is good

>>133478783
Like AOL which died out. People will stop buying.

>>133478750
Im not buying it. All businesses claim that then they turn around and buy their competition out for 40 billion dollars or spend 500 million a year on their CEO, etc. Fuck those lying sacks of shit. If they go bankrupt, new companies will form.

>>133478747
I have 4 choices. 7 if you include LTE. Not my fault you're rural NEET.

>>133478500
NN says that ISPs can't*

>>133478940
LTE is entirely different thing. But good for you. Plenty of other people aren't that lucky.

>>133478880
Comcast has paid shills shilling hard. This time around.

>>133478920
Like >>133478858 said, most people don't have options. I live in one of the biggest cities in the western world and we only have two major providers who are in cahoots with one another. You either get cucked or you don't use the internet at all. Those are your options without net neutrality.

File: 1493569911301.jpg (65KB, 604x468px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 604x468px

>>133468620
I mean think about jews and bolchevism, say you have a functional law system for X, then these people want to make it into Y to improve it for the little guy and everyone will be better off!
Now you can bet according to paragraph 6c in the law of Z, the new wording in Y, since X became Y, CLEARLY states this and that! The shekels goyim, remember 6c.

>>133476794
>I'm getting to feeling it's fucking nothing at all

pretty much this.

>>133476511
checked. now pay $0.50 per youtube video load after you stream 100 mb for free. no refunds if it buffers

>>133478880
Most of these faggots are shills or children, they don't know the fight we've had on 4chan for nearly as long as some of them have been alive. It's depressing, they've been programmed to be on the side of companies that will milk them dry by propaganda that is almost as old as they are. They never had to buy a cable package for television, they don't even understand what a glorious thing it is to have literally every website they could want for one simple price. Why would they want to undo that? Why would they want to pay more for the internet when such a decision only benefits literally four major providers at the expense of every consumer and internet company and website in existence?

>>133478781
This is a foot in the door for the FCC. Under Title II, they have the ability to set rules for ISPs. All of those big corporations and media outlets act like the FCC would only ever use the power to set rules for good. In reality, they have frequently used this power to establish and protect monopolies under the claim it's good for consumers to do so.

I do not trust corporations, but corporations have to compete without government protection. The FCC is far more insidious because it can serve as that government protection on a national level.

>>133479018
I know it's summer, and you're heading to 9th grade. But poo is right, this shit happened 2010-2014. Media was REALLY against net-neutrality.
Obama sided with the mega-jew internet companies in 2015 to write NN privisions, which were instated. (nothing changed). Now media is REALLY FOR NN. Should tickle your almonds.

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

32KB, 453x500px

>>133468620
>net neutrality falls
>internet gets "liberated" to honorable and trustworthy (((corporations)))
>mfw 85% of the lolbertarians suddenly stop posting


I don't know how you can be anti net neutrality and have the audacity to call others cucks at the same time.

>>133478935
New companies will form, you're right. It won't really affect us that much unless you've got money invested or profit from the internet in some way or another. The point of OPs post though is asking why companies are shitting bricks at the idea of a free market internet. I personally don't want ISPs to get any more power than they already have.

>>133476390
Because there's a chance it will spread, you short sighted nigger.

I dont even know if I should be for against this. Every thread I look into I see so many conflicting answers as to what NN is and if it is a good thing or a bad one. Almost any other issue I read here has a clear cut set of sides on the matter.

>>133478920
AOL died out because broadband was faster. We've got fast enough internet, there's no new tech that the government is funding which will replace the telecom monopolies (except the fiber project we paid them 400 billion for that they never built). Google has more money than damn near anyone and they're struggling to build a sizeable fiber network.

>>133475451
ISPs already overcharge. Feel free to name a single recent innovation that has improved everyone's internet access that would warrant charging even more than they already do.

To be honest maybe we should just let net neutrality die and rebuild the internet for the professionals rather than this surface web bullshit we have today. At least we wouldn't have to deal with normies like yourself.

>>133479343
How does it not get more clean cut than >>133477743 's Pizza analogy?

ISP are the new insurance companies screen cap this. Obama care

>>133479404
That analogy is fucking retarded and that poster has a low IQ

>>133479343
>wahh wahh why can't /pol/ spoonfeed me
think for yourself retard

File: 1499411061603.gif (422KB, 464x260px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 464x260px

>be butthurt deepstate
>lost election because internet intefered
>create new bill to ban problematic sites
>call it net neutrality, nobody would be against it
>push it, knowing nobody will read it
>now nobody will disturb status quo again

It's like creating a fascist organization, but naming them anti-fascist :^)
The perfect crime

>>133478935
They won't go bankrupt you dumbass. The internet is critical for day to day life, people have to pay for it. In my area, we've only got one high speed ISP, I pay or I am cut off from the world.

File: 1477335046209.png (171KB, 500x498px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 500x498px

>>133468620
It's actually really disappointing how many conservatives i know that don't fall for other things but they fall for this shit. It should be obvious.

They're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist with law that can't be seen until it's passed.

Just fuck my shit up.

>>133479247
I dont give two fucking shit what the media is for.

>>133479291
I was only disagreeing with the part about any of the telecommunication giants going bankrupt. They already won the game but thats not enough for them.

>>133476787
>>133469123

except if you know how the internet actually works, you wouldn't say that, because big corporations have their own internet exchanges and have very different contracts with ISPs than we do

https://www.internetexchangemap.com/
https://peering.google.com/#/

it's the ISP's privilage to have google on their network, not the other way around

Big corporations just fear that milking the goyim any more than they already do, might hurt business

File: 2017-07-13 04_51_40-E-Hentai Galleries - The Free Hentai Doujinshi, Manga and Image Gallery System.png (1KB, 229x33px) Image search: [Google]

1KB, 229x33px

>>133475278
>tfw too many hentai points

>>133479343
Net neutrality is a good thing. If it's not broke don't fix it. It's not broken and it's currently fair across the board. ISPs do not need more power than they currently have. Why would anyone want to let themselves be fucked into paying more for the exact same shit we already have?

File: 1481081986821.gif (2MB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x500px

>>133479376
Somebody answer me what the fuck these petition signing will do? Seems like nothing's gonna fucking come from it. These cunts in the FCC are set on abolishing NN.

TELL ME HOW WE COMBAT THIS. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE CAN DO ANYTHING.

>>133479343
The only thing you can do is actually try and read up on it.

I might look biased if you read my posts in the thread but it's just that being against NN is just really REALLY bad for everyone except ISPs that it's almost impossible to be against Net Neutrality if you actually know what it is.

From wikipedia: "Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.[1] "

This should already give you the idea why it would be bad as FUCK to remove Net Neutrality.

4chan would also not exist in a world without Net Neutrality so everyone here should be in favor of Net Neutrality by default.

>>133468620
becuase you are a government shill
who will suck a niggers dick if Trump said it was for the good of the country

>>133479486
Is English your third language? Read that post again.

>>133479343
If net neutrality goes and your ISP doesn't like 4chan you can either say goodbye to the website or the gold member account meme will come true. That also applies to other websites that your ISP might not really like. Net neutrality ensures accessibility to every website on the internet.

>>133468620
Why can't the Internet stay like it was?

>>133475394
this

File: 1130-cbsn-nancypelosiwins-1189262-640x360.jpg (58KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1200x630px

whatever her stance is you should be the opposite.

>>133479485
You realize that's not how any of this world at all, right? Like, it's literally the opposite of how this works? Net neutrality doesn't give the federal government oversight of the networks, it requires one thing- that all traffic be treated equally, period.

>>133479458
none of these threads have been making much sense to me on the subject

for every post like >>133477743

I see posts like >>133477827 >>133477855 >>133478500

So I never know what to believe.

>>133479404
That analogy is fucking retarded. Are you really so fucking stupid that you think it makes sense because he used the word pizza and television?

File: ca4.jpg (126KB, 600x688px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 600x688px

>>133478920
AOL did not own any of the phone lines. You bought a phone service, so you could call a local AOL modem, which would then connect you to the internet. But then the phone companies started selling their own dial up (and then DSL) services and were often cheaper and/or faster than AOL. Killing AOL.

Unlike AOL, these phone companies did have a monopoly on phone lines. And so could only look to cable for internet if you were lucky and wanted to get away from DSL.

File: net neutrality.png (23KB, 841x309px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 841x309px

>>133479676
proof?

enjoy going to prison for 2 years for creating memes

File: The room is only a quarter full .jpg (59KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 640x480px

>>133479633

>>133479677
If you don't know what net neutrality is then you're in the wrong place buddy. This is a place to debate on things you're already informed of, or to be made aware of things that you need to do outside research on. /pol/ is a terrible source of information.

>>133475451
so instead of just handing over regulatory powers to government
or taking their hands off internet regulation

why don't the companies just tell any business that is hosted online that they need to pay extra if their business involves streaming or massive amounts of downloads

why do they need to put this into law, when they can , with much more ease, just write it in their terms of service?

>>133479538
Specialised infrastructure, for example Netflix caching reduces the costs to the ISP. It's not exactly the same issue as this.

>>133468620
Not an argument. That's pretty much the same as ad hominen. Just because you hate them or because they are imoral doesn't mean EVERYTHING they do is not beneficial to society

>>133479677
why would you rely on secondary opinions on a thing when you can read about the thing yourself?
google net neutrality and read up, instead of relying on other peoples opinions
btw that analogy is absolutely retarded

>>133479804
>makes a joke about quarters
>thats a pile of rubles

come on son

The average person knows fuck all about the internet so to them when you say net neutrality it just means "keep the internet neutral" which sounds great, I mean why wouldn't you want the internet to stay neutral?

That's the kind of person you have to convince either for or against it so let's hear your arguments.

>>133479677
Net Neutrality is the data equivalent of the passage in the Declaration of Independence that says all men are created equal. So you figure out for your self if you support it or not.

>>133479343
Because people read on le reddite that its bad, jewtube says its bad, jewgle says its bad, jewflix says its bad, kikebook says its bad. It must be bad, goy, all these media titties normies suck say it's bad.
>"oi veeey, you goys dont want your vidya and pornos slow, do you?"
What are ISPs going to do? Hoard bandwidth? People are really this stupid. jewflix, kikebook, and jewtube ALONE use about 57% of ALL internet bandwidth. They should pay for it, not ISP customers. Ever wonder how they are so profitable? Because their service rides infrastructure YOU pay for DIRECTLY. Really good business model.

>>133479881
>proxy?
Those are dollars, and maybe some pesos.

>>133479946
Must be a millennial, he has never seen American psychical currency before.

>>133468620
It allows everyone to spread propaganda, including us.

>>133479908
The saddest of truths. Luckily those people usually have a low voter turn out.

>>133479564
We thought the same thing last time. We signed petitions and it worked. If it doesn't work I'll literally take to the streets, fuck these Jew monopoly holding cunts. The internet is my home. It's the only thing I really give two shits about. I wouldn't fight and die for my country, but if they turned off the internet tomorrow you'd better fucking bet I'd fight and die for the internet. If net neutrality falls, 4chan falls with it. This site has too much traffic and barely struggles to stay apart, it can't afford millions in charges to keep functioning. So too with many of my other favorite sites- I don't use all these bullshit corporate websites (fuck YouTube, Facebook, etc) but I do frequent a lot of popular fringe communities that will die when NN dies. And if they kill my communities, well... Fuck, my life's mission will be to fuck ISPs until the end of days in every way I can.

File: 32.jpg (41KB, 600x477px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x477px

>America has like 2 viable ISP options
>our tiny ass country has like 6
I thought America was supposed to be a advanced country

>>133479829
What the fuck are ISPs going to do if they won't pay? If they blacklist popular sites then they'll just be shooting themselves in the foot and pissing off their customers. Without NN though? Well, it's suddenly legal for them to say you get dialup connection if you don't pay up. Customers get pissed not at the ISPs but, at the websites that refuse to pay up. See the difference?

>>133479933
>Declaration of Independence
The people that wrote that did not want any part of the current government at the time.

>>133480069
Muh free market.

>>133480069
We have several ISPs. The problem is in many places, it's a government forced duopoly, so only 2 or so operate in those areas.

>>133479828
/pol/ is the perfect place to get information from actually, everything gets distilled down to their basic elements with no fluff or other king of shit and it makes things easy to understand and to make an informed decision rather than just believing everything cnn or fox tells you at face value

>>133479603
>>133479584
>>133479933
>>133479941
That seems to clear a lot of shit up for me. Thanks

>>133479830
Relevance?

>>133480117
>pissing off their customers
>implying they will care

File: CMAOk-AWwAEjxbH.jpg (33KB, 575x556px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 575x556px

>>133479941
Why do dense idiots like you don't understand that if the internet is not neutral companies like AT&T are gonna jew you in every way they want. They can block your skype and force you to pay extra for their services that you don't need/want. They are gonna force you to pay to enter this website or completely block 4chan if they don't like the site. Why do you so desperately want to get cucked by the corporations?

>>133480052
What if there is a slow transition away from NN with gov provided benefits to small isps until it's cut cold turkey.

>>133480117
>pissing off their customers

I get the impression that Comcast really does not give a fuck about this.

>>133468620
from those, I use/buy from
>amazon
>netflix
>GitHub
>adafruit (nice Arduino clones)
>abp

why should I support/be against net neutrality?

>>133480052
You can show your support by buying a 4chan gold pass with all the money you will save not subsidizing silicon valley.

>>133480052
I've got a better idea: If Net neutrality is ended, we doxx Ajit Pai, find where he lives and administer some justice ourselves. Someone will fucking pay if I can't access 4chan and that is a promise.

>>133479797
It's the same thing wothout net neutrality fucking faggot.

>>133480199
They care about making money right? Why the fuck would they want to lose money then? That's why they care. You don't even understand capitalism yet you claim to support an-cap. Dumb shit.

>>133480190
in what way is it government forced? Those faggot megalomaniac ISPs buy out everyone else.

>>133480117
It wont be websites paying to the ISP but the hosting provider of the websites, in turn the cost increase to hosting may go up for all clients of the hosting service. No website is gonna be blocked, most that would happen is if a website refused to pay to its hosting service they wont have a website much longer now huh?

>>133480069
Population has its perks, in the form of cheap infrastructure per potential customer. The United States on the other hand is not very dense. Also, ISP usually don't have to share their lines with other companies like parts of Europe.

>>133480190
>The problem is in many places, it's a government forced duopoly, so only 2 or so operate in those areas.
What are you talking about.

>>133479797
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

Read Title II yourself. It's pretty fucking straightforward.

>>133480117
>paying extra for Goybook and JewTube
>Hetting my "Hate" websites blocked by my ISP
No thanks anti-NN

>>133480203
>things that never happened

>>133479343
The first thing you need to understand is that the FCC regulation is not net neutrality. Actual net neutrality is a good thing for virtually everyone. The regulation is the FCC seizing power under the promise they'll use said power to promote net neutrality for all time.

Anyone who trusts the FCC based on their 80+ year history to do just that is a rube.

File: ....jpg (57KB, 335x938px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 335x938px

>>133480349
How will their customers being pissed cause them to lose money if they're the only service in the area?

>>133480224
They'll really give a fuck if people suddenly stop supporting them or giving them money. Right now people tolerate getting dicked in the mouth every month with shit service and poor internet.

>>133480194
All information is also scrutinized by hundreds of different viewpoints until only meaningful knowledge is maintained. Its hard to bullshit on /pol/ for longer than a quick reaction.

>>133480228
Support net neutrality.

>>133480228
You should support NN unless you like paying to enter 4chan.

>>133480035
I dont use {paper}

I use my parents cards.

>>133480069

The issue at hand here is that America is fucking hugenormous. And unlike Canada, the bulk of the population isn't clustered into just a few small areas. Your country the size of a postage stamp or with a largely centralized population can easily build infrastructure because it costs fucking nothing to do so. The US needs literally a thousand times the infrastructure to get to even half it's population, and the costs of doing so are out of this world. Even Google has mostly thrown in the fucking towel after seeing just how expensive it would be.

>>133480451
If they have a monopoly or operate a cartel with other ISPs, it's either them or no internet at all.

>>133479941
you do realise that no net neutrality only benefits the ISPs and at a stretch the normies who only use the internet at a surface level
having to pay extra to use skype, to use discord, to use google, to use 4chan, to play online games etc is the most retarded thing any person can want

>>133480451
People tolerate them because they have no feasible options in many places. My location has two and the other one has a cap of around 300 gigs. Which just wont work. It would take a lot of customers to quit for Comcast to give a shit. Being a monopoly is pretty nice.

>>133480522
Okay, out of curiosity, how does one become an ISP? Follow up: why are there only 2 major ones in the US?

>>133480446
>implying plenty of people don't already hate at&t and verizon but have no different choice
And on that though you can also forget a small business flourishing under your meme system without getting squished by the big players.

>>133479584
>4chan would also not exist in a world without Net Neutrality
While I agree real net neutrality legislation is a good thing, this statement is factually wrong on its face. 4chan was created in the US in 2003. There were no net neutrality laws at the time and there are no real net neutrality laws in the US to this day.

>>133468620

That alone is an indicator that we should be against it.

Multi-national corporations and international finance are at the masthead of economic globalization.

>>133480371
Correct. These hosting services and ISPs would also have the option to throttle websites into a payment plan they currently cannot do legally.
>>133480424
I'm for NN you dumb shit.

File: 1491172515955.jpg (46KB, 553x539px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 553x539px

>>133476567

>>133480218
I would be fine with a total deregulation of the system if it all happened at once and small ISPs were given the same financial benefits current ISPs got in years past. But this isn't that- this is the only defense consumers have against monopolies being destroyed while all of the other regulations that both established and protects current monopolies remain in place. That's fucked.

>>133468620
Either way we lose.
Stop arguing over pointless shit, you're feeding fake news.

I like alot of those companies on there (AdBlock, ABP, Vimeo)

I do not like any ISPs

>>133480451
People hate them but they don't have another choice genius.

>>133480657
I have it sarcastically, Anon.

>>133480267
Be careful about saying shit like that, (((they))) are listening.

File: kings16.png (177KB, 600x247px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 600x247px

>>133468620

The more I see about net neutrality the more I think of this guy from kinsmen and how much of a hero/villain he is/could be

>>133474085
I fucking hate the undeserving "YouTube star" that are poisoning our youth. In the past, when asked, there are a lot of kids that want to be a president and now, so many of them just want to be a famous.

>>133480427
>things that will happen
no net neutrality is a slippery slope


>>133480667
the internet is actually the masthead of globalisation
the MNCs and banks would have never reached this level if not for the internet
plug out from the internet and go live in a forest if you dislike globalisation, it's the only way

>>133480656
>Okay, out of curiosity, how does one become an ISP
They were the first ones to flourish when this industry was in its infancy

>Follow up: why are there only 2 major ones in the US
Because free market meme

>>133480522
This is a separate issue than net neutrality but, you're right. There is not a lot of options with a lot of areas when it comes to ISPs. Currently it takes big corporations like Google coming into the playing field with Google Fiber to create a new market standard.

>>133468620
It's pretty simple:
Net neutrality laws would mean state control.
Once the state has this control they can do whatever the fuck they want.

Pelosi Sends Letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai Opposing Proposal to Unravel Net Neutrality

>>133480548
It doesn't work that way pajeet, data is handled by type not particular website, being able to fine tune your bandwidth levels to set types of traffic has benefits to both save consumers of all levels money but and also ensure a particular level of service quality for those connections. Chances are if you own a router and have a family to share a connection on your proally using Quality of Service feature to ensure your streaming/gaming is not effect to much by users. Allow ISPs to do this and better quality can be assured and allows new market to ISPs offering special data services which in turn creates more competition and market growth which in turn helps lower prices further and increase the amount of ISPs that can exist and opens more job opportunity.

Game theory I suppose.
Support NN:
>good boy points
>raise status while we remain in status quo
>if NN goes can say they fought it
Oppose NN
>everyone mad at you
>if status quo remains your image may suffer
>will be resented if NN goes for hurting "Internet Freedom", true or not
Supporting NN (publicly at least) is a zero risk position, possibly favorable position for an internet based businesses from where I sit

>>133480640
>>133480737
See
>>133480854

I really hate github. Those sjw pieces of shit need to die.

>>133475098
Then why are you still here, commie?

>>133480868
Actually, Net Neutrality limits what the state can do . With no NN, a corrupt Politician like Hillary, could go to Comcast and request Britbart to be "upgraded" to a premium option in exchange for the swaying vote to let their Time-Warner merger to go through.

>>133480728
Keeping net neautrality is the least worst option.

>>133468620
Because even a blind chicken sometimes finds a corn. There's literally never been any argument against Net Neutrality.

>>133476601
Dutch companies can give discounts to host USA websites and services on their servers and make a neat profit.

>>133480897
sounds nice but it will never happen
giving ISPs the chance to discriminate based on data is a heavy risk, seeing as they are already cartelised and will just milk the populace for $$$ like every good business because the internet is required for literally everything in this day and age

>>133469184
Yeah, either I'm stupid and missing something or "Net neutrality" term doesn't represent what you'd initially think it represents just by hearing it alone.

>>133475480
Bumping with this. If people want our surroundings to be filled with nothing but a bunch of warehouses, or fullfilment centers. Keep doing what we are doing, and just kill all brick and mortar shops.

>>133480854
>This is a separate issue than net neutrality

Not entirely. A market limited to just a small number of options puts the ISPs in a much, much stronger position to take advantage of a lack of net neutrality, making it a much bigger problem.

>>133480954
I never said it wasnt a separate issue. NN in this market or a competitive market is a good thing. There is no situation where NN is a bad thing unless you own Comcast. Much like how slavery is only a good thing for the 2% of people who owned slaves.

>>133480868
State can't do whatever they want, shut the fuck up with your useless paranoid delusions about governments.

>>133480427
They literally used to do that dude. Back when internet calling first became a thing, cable and DSL companies started charging consumers to use voice if they didn't also buy voice through their provider. It was fucked, and actually was the first big battle fought for net neutrality nearly a decade ago.

>>133480954
And Google is pro NN.

>>133468620
>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 spent piles of money trying to ensure they can do 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.

ISPs have already shown what they want to do without Net Neutrality. All they had to do was not try to jew out the internet, and there wouldn't even be a Net Neutrality discussion. But that's too much much for them. Where there is a shekel that can be squeezed out, ISPs will swarm.

Get rid of the NN, burgers.

Don't you believe in a free market?

>>133480897
Except my internet is perfectly fine and I'd prefer it not fucked with. This is about corporations making piles of Jewgolds off of consumers, not about what is best for consumers.

>>133481080
Still hoping the merger won't go through :)

>>133480671
Hosting services are usually a different company from the ISPs altogether, the only-thing the ISP is gonna do is charge the hosting service more, if any throttling happens it will be a result of the hosting service itself not forming a package that can fit its customers needs it is a failure on the host, and if the websites do not pay their hosting it is the fault of the website for not paying the host its service fees, more parties are involved in this other then ISP and the end consumer. Currently the residential consumer subsidizes business class services with higher rates due to NN rules due to the fact the data handled by business has to be treated in the same way as of data of a residential user.

>>133481372
Google thrives on having a large complex internet for people to sort through . The establishment of NN could reduce the size of the internet drastically. If there are only 200 websites left because "premium" status killed all the competition, who would need google?

>>133478224

Yeah, well they try to get us banned and censor us with varying results already. Go suck Google's or Zuckerberg's cock if you think they will protect your speech so much.

>>133480854
Its not a separate issue. It is a rather important detail that goes hand in hand with the argument.
If the majority of the US had 10 or more choices I'd be perfectly fine with it being gotten rid of. And would probably even actively support its getting rid of.
But that isn't the case.
Monopolies will never be broken up in [current year] onward so we must go on with that and Net Neutrality is the only thing protecting the consumers right now.

>>133478172
>>Lower costs for websites and internet services (which means less advertisements and lower costs for you the end-user)
hahahahahahahaahahahahaha
*big breath*
AHEHAUEHUAHAHHAEHAHEH

>>133481511
Not Establishment, abolishment.

There is no benefit whatsoever to getting rid of NN. You are being played by shills.

>>133468994
no. A lot of those sites also leaned left during the election, if not outright then through donations etc. go check it out.

You will know then through their actions. Being lumped in with the ACLU, Demand progress, fuck. a ton of those. It really shows how deep they have tried to extend their tendrils into the tech market.

>>133481291
Neck yourself, statist.

Does anyone know who is doing the anti-net neutrality shilling?

This is a worrying development, this is the first time I've see shilling of this intensity on an issue major corporations are the only ones pushing. It seems they've finally woken up and learned that 4chan is the perfect medium for brainwashing cucks. I want to know what company is actually carrying out the shilling and if they're doing it legally or if they're using slave machines that they hacked to get lots of IPs. If they're doing it illegally it's a pretty big deal.

>>133481149
Anti-trust laws already exist to handle these issues, the problem is even if you break up the big ISPs you still do not have a market friendly to smaller ISPs due to scale of economy. What will just happen is those small broken down ISPs will eventually be bought up again, give them a market to compete in and then break up the big ISPs. NN is not the way to resolve this problem, it only service to further the current structure.

>>133481511
You would rather have only 200 websites to choose from (all of which would no doubt be controlled by Jews) than let Google exist? You're fucking insane. The diversity of the internet is the input reason we're even having this discussion right now, 4chan would never have grown in a non-NN internet.

>>133481652
Got to be Comcast, AT&T or Verision. They are the Sign of the Best in the telecommunications market.

>>133481434
ISPs currently do not operate in a free market due to exclusivity contracts with states and municipalities. The FCC regulation, which is not net neutrality but instead a power grab under the promise of net neutrality, will only make this worse.

>putting the internet in the hands of the government

fucking why

>>133481764
exactly, the barrier to entry is fucking massive and repealing net neutrality will only widen the gap further

>>133481768
never lived in the 90's the post.

File: 1496463874846.jpg (91KB, 959x960px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 959x960px

>>133481652
There are plenty of people willing to believe it's best to be screwed by their ISP, and to think they are screwing the "libtards" in the process.

>>133481764
Antitrust laws would not stop this sort of bullshit, for the same reason it doesn't stop cable companies from offering "packages." They will bundle content and force you to pay for the bundles you want, that has been their stated goal since 2004, in addition to charging sites for free access to consumers.

>>133481652
Trumplets, since he opposes NN. And we all know our God-Emperor can do no wrong :^)

>>133481625
>With NN: all users pay for ISP infrastructure equally
>Without NN: super-users such as Jewgle, Jewflix, Jewtube pay more for using a collective 57% of all internet bandwidth

Yeah NN! Woo! NN is great! Ever notice how the ISPs aren't the ones talking about slow vids or banned sites? Because the jew shills and jew companies are lying about NN.

>>133481652
i think after trump, everybody has realised the importance of ideas on the internet
the information (or memetic, if you want to be a memelord) age has begun

>>133468620
Because they want to protect their individual profits and liberties you fucking mindless burger.

>>133481768
>4chan would never have grown in a non-NN internet
See >>133480663

It's like you people can't remember what was happening 5 seconds ago let alone 5 years ago.

>>133468620
>So why do all the businesses, organizations, politicians, political groups and people (Soros) I detest support net neutrality?

Cuz they are business that depend on the internet and would have to pay more to exist. Half of those are just websites or programs too.

You can make a "Trust us. Net Neutrality is bad" for ISP's who are pushing against it, since they're profit from it.

>>133481652
Apparently, the FCC is being flooded with very similar sounding anti-NN comments. There's no way these are being generated legally, but good luck proving that to anyone.

>>133481882
>putting the internet in the hands of the government
Can't they pretty much do what they want with it at this point?
How would net neutrality give them more power?
What woulc they do that they can't already do?

File: 1490161546940.gif (1MB, 250x233px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 250x233px

>>133481652
I was agaist it the first time. Its "ISP's should not be the gate keepers to the web".

Um... yes they should, they fucking built it. The problem is that its so hard to start an ISP and you will pretty much get fucked in the ass by the current legal system. That is the problem, net neutrality is just a band aid.

Also, even if new ISP's can't form and we just got the internet throttled and Netflix, google, and Facebook starts getting throttled or you have to pay the premium pack. Fucking good, Fuck kikebook, fuck wasting money on Amazon, fuck all of it. If its gets really bad, I just won't pay for internet. We would all be better off for.

>>133481483
>Currently the residential consumer subsidizes business class services with higher rates due to NN rules due to the fact the data handled by business has to be treated in the same way as data of a residential user.
This is a bad thing why exactly? What benefit do we have for companies being able to charge us for changing this and causing data hosting prices to drastically increase?

>>133481919
There are people who will never know the ecstasy of using Napster for the first time.

>>133481919
I was not only alive in the 90s, but was probably your age in the 90s. I don't want a small internet again- I remember what it was like when it was basically just made up of people with deep pockets and the cash to run servers. It fucking blew. Now imagine having porn throttled and a small enough selection of websites that you could swear it was 1995 again, that would fucking suck.

>>133481768
Your stupid and clearly do not understand how the internet or cable tv actually works since your making the comparison. All cable providers currently have to purchase broadcasting right from channels in order to broadcast them on their services. In no way is it gonna become that structure without NN rules in place that is stupid because it means less content that can be provided which in turn opens competing ISPs to offer access to said content. If it actually worked the way your comparing it to ISPs would be really fucked because that gives insane bargaining power to larger internet companies.

File: Luftwaffe_Flieger.jpg (218KB, 631x900px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 631x900px

>>133468620
Because under strict control, their profits would dwindle? I really don't see how anyone could misinterpret this, it's really fucking black and white.

At the end of the day, a company, regardless of the agenda they wish to push, exists solely to make money. So if something impedes their ability to make money, naturally, they will fight against it.

>>133482197
>Um... yes they should, they fucking built it
no they didn't, they just provide the bandwidth
that's like saying companies who make canvasses are artists

>>133481652
ISPs and their lobbying groups are paying large sums of money for anti-NN shilling. The companies pictured in OP and many others are paying large sums of money for pro-NN shilling.

The truth of the situation is that both the anti-NN shilling and pro-NN shilling are a ruse to distract us from the real issue — the FCC regulation is not net neutrality.

>>133481974
Except consumers will also pay. And everyone else on the internet. Literally everyone but telecoms will pay, not just fucking Jewtube. How the fuck do you expect 4chan to survive? It's one of the most popular websites in the world for fuck's sake, and runs in the red more often than not as-is.

>>133481974
Do you think corporations don't pay for the bandwidth they use?

>>133468620
Because it is already in place

>>133468620
Does anyone have a list of ''skeptics'' who support net neutrality?
I've already unsubbed from Styx. Molyneux is against net neutrality and I think Mike Dice is against it too.

>>133482348
>the FCC regulation is not net neutrality
what makes you say so?

>>133475480
>>133481222
Fuck off cuckservatives.

>>133482442
Why are you against net neutrality?

>>133482442
saw that to, fuck him on this one and the drug thing in Oregon.

>>133481645
Go drink a bleach milkshack you fucking retarded faggot fuck.

>>133482090
The internet operated in a net neutral fashion until the mid-2000s, when telecoms started losing money to internet companies and realized just how much money could be made exploiting the internet now that it was essential to everyday life. 4chan started prior to that transition, when the ISPs viewed the internet as gravy, free money in addition to the profit they were making off of cable and phone service. We're now in the era of the internet being essential- he who controls the tubes can essentially demand what he wants and get it, for a life without the internet in 2017 is hardly a modern life at all. That was not so in 2003.

>>133482585
I am done arguing with you brainwashed cucks. I just need a list of people to avoid.
You can really tell where someone's loyalties and their ideology stands when you look at what they support. You can tell which source of information spews crap and which ones have accurate information even though the accurate information they are spreading is unpopular.

>>133482497
The law governing Title II: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/chapter-5/subchapter-II

>>133478678
They're still allowed to throttle torrents and p2p under this regulation. It's an exception written right there in the regulation. Was noted as such back when the regulation came out. Also has exemptions for supposed "pirate" sites (seems convenient that these unregulatable file and information distribution platforms are one of the exceptions to the rule).

>>133482587
Fuck him on a lot of things. Every second video he is straight up foaming in the mouth masturbating while fantasizing about starting a war with North Korea.
>YEAH MAN WE NEED TO BOMB THEM YEEEE WORLD POLICE BABY, THAT'S ABOUT ALL PEACE OUT
What a fucking faggot.

>>133482442
>>133482767
>>133482587
Hi shills, how much are you getting paid to post?

>>133482655
That's some cool revisionist history and all, but we're talking about laws. There were no net neutrality laws in 2003, or 2008, or 2013. There's also no real net neutrality law today.

>>133482655
If net neutrality ends George Soros could buy up the Internet.

>>133482211
Downloading a single mp3 over 40 minutes, yeah, those were the days. I remember spending hours downloading custom Quake skin to use on my IBM Pentium 166 Mhz beast with a TNT 2 Ultra. Kids these days don't know how good they've got it, and I want NN to stick around so they never have to find out.

>>133482767
>I am done arguing with you brainwashed cucks.
Not an argument.
>I just need a list of people to avoid.
SJW shite.

>>133482870
Literally Soros allies support (((net neutrality))) but we're the shills if we want to undo an Obama Era regulation on the internet...

>>133482201
Because it is forcing the end consumer to subsidize companies profits. You pay more so they pay less, it is as simple as that.

>>133482870
>ask for a list of people who support net neutrality
>UR A SHILL
>SHILL SHILL SHILL
Kill yourself.
It doesn't fucking matter what I think about net neutrality, you retarded fucking brainwashed moron. Just list people in the ''skeptic'' community who support net neutrality.
If net neutrality is so great, you should be interested in such a list too so you would know which ''skeptics'' you should be listening to.

>>133482985
The only regulation is "don't be a jew".

>>133476794
>6 million
what did they mean by this?

>>133482342
um... no. They built the infrastructure. Its theirs and if they want to throttle your porn and facebook unless you pay more. Fucking good.

>>133481768
Google is the real gate keeper. They control what you see when you search for something. Whatever you want to look up, whatever fucked "wrong" opinion you have. Google will give you the search results that are less problematic.

The only think that could fuck this system of control up is an ISP. I say fuck it, let it happen. Let your internet get fucked. I hope you can't watch your dilation Tranny videos promoted by YouTube. I hope you can't be "directed" by google and amazon to buy some more useless shit.

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

304KB, 3000x1500px

net neutrality is worth supporting. "Net Neutrality" is regulatory capture bullshit.

>>133468994
That's why net neutrality is dumb. Amazon will pay Comcast direct for you to receive superior speeds on their site as opposed to their competitors. There will basically be two allocation so bandwidth coming into your home. The one sites pay for and the one you pay for. A packet is a packet and there is no reason why the free market shouldn't settle the costs of delivering such and allocate resources to those willing to pay the most for delivery.

This would all work out well if we had real competition. Unfortunately, net neutrality is still needed as the vast majority of consumers have only one choice of broadband ISP. So what will happen is Amazon will pay less per packet than you the consumer, because they are buying in 'bulk'. And then there will be the ugliness we already witness between cable and broadcast stations; Comcast will cut off Amazon to try and get more money. Amazon will cut off Comcast to try and get a better deal. And on and on it goes.

You just can't impose free market solutions on consumers when you already have monopolies running around unchecked.

>>133483127
>if they want to throttle your porn and facebook unless you pay more. Fucking good.
Seems arbitrarily malicious.

If net neutrality ends billionaires will privately own the Internet like they do the MSM.

>>133482256
Dumbass, listen to me- Comcast forced you to buy a Gaming Package if you want to use your PS4, at a cost of $59.99, what are your options? What incentive do they have to not do this? We only have one provider in my area, if they want that much money for me to hook my gaming machine to the internet, they get it. Back in the early 2000s, cable companies would force you to install connection software on your machines that monitored your activity and ensured you only used the number of machines your plan was approved for. Imagine what they could do with no net neutrality in an internet essential world.

>>133482655
I know right. I rather have google control what my search results are, and record everything I do so they can promote products to me, or promote the correct opinions.

File: 1450597095623.jpg (7KB, 255x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 255x200px

>>133482442
Styx is against it though.
He actually believes in the free market meme and that it will magically apply to isps without competition.
I specifically remember him saying in a recent video something along the lines of "They can't do x thing cause competition will simply not do x thing and get their customers."
Fuck I wish he didn't make so many videos so I could remember which one it was.

>>133483274
this

Right now we're all complaining about jews controlling the media, but if net neutrality is fucked the jews control the internet too

>>133482871
There were no laws because no company had attempted to treat data in a non-neutral fashion. Net neutrality laws were established because of trends in ISP policy that were going to lead to the exact shit we're talking about.

>>133483055
I'll bite.
>Calls me brainwashed moron
>Listens to this shit and gets mad when they don't agree with your own agenda
>Thinks I'm brainwashed and listen to the same dribble just for it not against it
I don't. You're a fucking retard who can't form your own opinion without some youtube nigger shoving his opinion down your dumb fucking throat. How about you think for yourself or is that too hard to understand? Net Neturality is great because I've been looking into the issue and understanding it for myself. I don't need some retard youtube faggot telling me why it is or is not good. I don't need the rundown, I just need myself you sniveling pile of shit.

>>133482256
We're talking about Comcast here bro. We all know how they work: Impose artificial scarcity to raise prices. It's been their corporate M.O. for decades now.

>>133483332
https://youtu.be/RzuvGzK48wg