Net Neutrality

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

147KB, 1280x303px

False. We've had a de facto standard of network neutrality (the idea of ISPs treating all traffic equally) since day one of the internet. In 2015 Obama's Administration pushed through what it called Net Neutrality, but was really just legislation giving the FCC a massive overhaul in regulatory powers over the internet.

Republicans want to repeal the bill because it's dumb, we don't need to fix shit that ain't broke.

Democrats want to preserve the bill because Obama's legacy and because it could potentially be a pathway for the government to start imposing European-style censorship of unapproved sites and news in the future.

Most of the big ISPs want it because the required minimum standards in the regulation will make it harder for competitors to rise up, the same way the FCC's 1996 Telecom Act did.

And of course, as always, 90% of the people making tweets and facebook stats about the bill have no idea what any of it actually entails.

>>133528298
depends on whether your older brothers best friend told that to... how should we know?

>>133528975
another CNN shill here, wow. they're really fucking trying hard.

>ending government control of the internet
>so the government (trump in this case) can control the internet

your brother is pretty redpilled desu

>>133529188
>CNN
>anti-NN
pick one and only one

>>133528298
The basic premise doesn't even make sense.
Trump is the one who benefits from the internet not being censored. The people who want the internet censored oppose Trump and pushed the whole ''fake news'' narrative to try and censor what is being posted.
I will not spell it out for you since the retards will just start screeching ''SHILL SHILL SHILL'', so just put the pieces together and you'll see what is going on.
Look at what is being said by the MSM and then look at who is actually benefiting from censorship, who is supporting what etc. You will quickly figure out which side is maliciously lying.

I just have a question that never gets answered in these threads.
>Why should I trust the government to not fuck me over with regulating the internet?
Also
>Why should I trust the ISPs to not fuck me over with regulating the internet?
This Net Neutrality business, from the start always seemed like a fight between two sides to see who gets to fuck the end user over

>>133528298
Your brother should neck himself.

inb4 muh netflix

Obama's "Net Neutrality" gives the FCC total licensing control over all content on the internet.

If Trump wants the government to control internet content so badly why would he not want "Net Neutrality"?

>Trump wants to feds to control the internet
>Trump doesn't the feds to control the internet
fucking choose one.

What are the chances FCC would license /pol/?

Net Neutrality is where the government is the only organization which can regulate the internet's content. Net Neutrality is what China has.

Net non-Neutrality is where companies regulate their own services, and they as private businesses can determine what they want to regulate.

So if you support Neutrality, you support the government taking over the internet to regulate political content (shut down Breitbart, 4chan, never allow another Trump-effect to happen).

If you oppose Neutrality, you support the continued practice of companies having the right to censor what they want for business reasons (competitors, shill products) or THEIR OWN political reasons (but this is less common, because consumers will try to jump ship to another ISP, although this is tough because the government has allowed broadband cable providers to function as a cartel, carving up America into non-competitive turfs.)

>>133528975
The ISPs do not want it. Are you retarded?
Just look at the FCC head (anti Net Neutrality) - he used to work with Verizon. That basically tells you everything you need to know about why they're trying to repeal it.

Also the 2015 legislation DID have a purpose, most notably that ISPs were testing the waters with breaking the principle of net neutrality by taking action against Netflix due to the high bandwidth usage that comes with streaming.

>>133529464
CNN is owned by Turner Broadcasting System, whose parent is Comcast.

Interest wise, they are definitely against net-neutrality.

>>133533312
So it's just a matter of who fucks over the end user?

>>133528298
Lies. Net Neutrality is communism and should be purged.

>>133533312
>net neutrality: the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

>So if you support Neutrality, you support the government taking over the internet to regulate political content (shut down Breitbart, 4chan, never allow another Trump-effect to happen).

what

>>133528975
KansasCom blocks 4chan because it has swear words
That's what the toddlers on here were railing about

File: net neutrality supporters and opposition.png (94KB, 1436x1332px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1436x1332px

>>133528298
(((Net Neutrality)))

>>133539154
(((Free Speech)))
niggerkike
Don't you feel American, (((now)))?

I am against being for pro-net-neutrality
AND THAT'S THE WAY I LIKE IT

>>133528298
By the way you talk op and your knowledge, you clearly are underage

>>133539154
Lold at Obama

File: 0e0346a7d7239c96176fe1dbc01f18fde4773e74_hq.gif (913KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 500x281px

Do NOT oppose the Neutrality of the Net!
TELL REDDIT YOU'VE GOT THEIR BACK
Vote with your shekels!

File: 333b6b94b0e021549dfc86e2f363ede314edab52_hq.jpg (40KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x450px

ALL HAIL INTERNET INTERNEUTRALITY