Something about this doesn't feel right. On the one hand

Honestly, it does not matter what normal people think, do, say, or share on Kike Media walls. Those who want to restrict the internet will do it one way or another. $$$$ will dictate the outcome.

But you normies keep sharing on Kikebook and CarrierRaven like it will do some form of good.

>>134072923
Net neutrality, or the loss there of, will allow ISPs to charge Facebook and Netflix and Amazon a bunchnof extra money. Cost of goods will go up. That is all you are missing.

File: 230598230589.jpg (45KB, 609x343px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 609x343px

>>134072923

>Why is /pol/ shilling NN?

Because nu/pol/ is incapable of conceiving of the consequences of anything that extends 5 minutes beyond the range of the immediate moment.

With all these BASED JEWS supporting NN, it can't be wrong, amirite centipedes?

File: 1500159599995.png (216KB, 1402x555px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1402x555px

>>134072923
>Why is /pol/ shilling NN?

Because everyone who isn't a retard's been for net neutrality since the start. Even all the way back to SOPA and PIPA.

File: counter nn.jpg (190KB, 1286x289px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1286x289px

>>134072923

File: 1499924546955.png (166KB, 1863x950px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1863x950px

Here's a bunch of examples for why people fought for Net Neutrality in the first place:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>http://www.pcworld.com/article/169079/ATT_Blocks_4chan_Stirs_Internet_Hornets_Nest.html

>>134073352
>Want to oppose giving government control of internet under SOPA and PIPA
>Let's give government control of internet under NN
Being against the Net Neutrality bill is not the same as being against network neutrality.

>>134073490
>unarchived shill
>https://wired com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge
https://archive.is/LwLMM
>http://businessinsider com/verizon-blocking-google-wallet-2011-12
https://archive.is/YlqZs
>https://washingtonpost com/blogs/post-tech/post/fcc-fines-verizon-125m-for-blocking-tethering-apps/2012/07/31/gJQAXjRLNX_blog.html
https://archive.is/MzqNt

>>134073352

Doesn't the fact that reddit, kikebook, twitter, and every other insufferable liberal social media platform, as well as nearly all the top jews in technology, economics, and the media support NN at least raise a red flag?

>>134073490

And you think FCC "net neutrality" solved this? Are you retarded?

>>134073490

B-b-b-but muh free market!!!

>>134072923
Sigh. Website/content creator Jews VS ISP Jews. That is all.

File: 9.png (170KB, 1891x282px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1891x282px

>>134073364
>The rise of smaller ISP's

But that's wrong: The ISP's have been creating more and more monopolies; there hasn't been an explosion of small ISP's at all. There's been a steady decline as more and more counties, states, towns, and other municipalities get locked down by contracts and laws bought and paid for by monopolists.

Contrary to what anti-NN proponents will claim, the actual market regulations and market distortions causing the monopolies are these contracts and laws being bought by the monopolies.

Net Neutrality itself has absolutely nothing to do with market competition and never has. This is the red herring that the shills always drive for: They try to equate Net Neutrality with market regulation.

Net Neutrality just means data has to be treated the same no matter where it comes from or goes to.

Beware the people who try to "inform" you with lies.

>>134073490
All of these cases were resolved with the powers and regulations available to the FCC prior to the 2015 bill. We didn't need to grant them a massive overhaul of scope, power, and authority to "protect" the internet, the internet was fucking fine.

Sick to death of Canadians, Brits, and Germans ragging on the US for not wanting to give government more control over internet when their own governments are fucking fining and arresting people for tweets and shit.

People in glass houses, nuck.

File: images-29.jpg (5KB, 300x168px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 300x168px

>>134073535
And comcast is owned by a jew, what's ypur fucking point? Sometimes you can't pick sides to an issue by just counting the jews.

File: 20.png (28KB, 1880x241px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 1880x241px

South Korea doesn't have net neutrality and here's what has happened to internet services like youtube as a result:

http://www.azimuthblog.com/2016/07/some-thoughts-on-net-neutrality/

>>134073604
they either had to stop these practices or face fines. I'm sure they are fucking us over other ways, but yes, it kinda worked

>>134073502
How do you propose we prevent shitty asshole companies from fucking around constantly?

Also don't forget how the government gave telecoms millions in early 2000s to roll out improved infrastructure and never did.

This was because the federal government was going to use that money to pay contractors to do it. Instead att etc just pocketed it and never had to answer for it.

File: 15.png (30KB, 1877x293px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 1877x293px

Here are bandwidth costs around the world, surprise surprise the places with the highest bandwidth costs are the ones without net neutrality legislation where monopolies have formed.

https://blog.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-costs-around-the-world/

>>134073776
This. Competition in isp's is low because of barriers to entry in building infrastructure. Getting rid of net neutrality will probably not increase competition and will probably fuck over consumers.

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

25KB, 1878x226px

Here is Telus cutting subscriber access to a union website because of a labor dispute:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-to-pro-union-website-1.531166

>>134073796

All that changed was classification as common carriers correct?

Lots of companies are regulated this way without complaint or infringement.

>Why is /pol/ shilling NN?

Because giving ISPs the power to regulate content will be the death of the internet as we know it. Net neutrality affects all of us, from Zuckerjew all the way to you OP.

>>134074078

I think the issue comes from telecoms necessarily owning the same routes they carry through, unlike say a postal service

I think either way we are in trouble. The gov't and the corporates are equally as capable of fucking up the internet.

I'm not sure which turd sandwich I'd rather eat.

>>134074227
You're absolutely right. Right now the internet is akin to a public utility, and companies like Comcast want to turn it into something similar to cable.

>>134073776
>The ISP's have been creating more and more monopolies; there hasn't been an explosion of small ISP's at all.
Smaller, low-speed (1-10 Mbs) networks have started up in a lot of cities and small towns, satellite internet was barely a fucking concept 10 years ago, and mobile internet is growing exponentially as smart phones and tablets continue to grow in popularity.

>Net Neutrality just means data has to be treated the same no matter where it comes from or goes to.
No, NETWORK NEUTRALITY means data has to be treated the same no matter where it comes from or goes to, and it's a perfectly good de facto standard. NET NEUTRALITY is a bill that the Obama Administration pushed through Congress in 2015 and while it grants the FCC an enormous expansion of power to regulate and impose standards on ISPs, it does absolutely fuck all to deal with the real threats to network neutrality - the violation of anti-trust laws by larger ISPs (which is a matter for the FTC, not the FCC) and the growing influence and power of their lobbyists.

>Beware the people who try to "inform" you with lies.
Beware foreigners from countries whose governments already censor and obstruct free speech on the internet who try to tell you how much "better" it is letting the government control their internet.

>>134074227
Don't electric companies have the same thing? Same with phone services?

>>134072923
Net Neutrality is a clear case of fucked if you do, fucked if you don't.

Do you want to give control of the Net to the government? No
If you don't then we will fuck up your shit. Well, fuck

>>134073796
You don't get it shill

For the past 20 years, Net Neutrality was the de facto law. Everyone followed it because it was how the internet worked, you HAD to follow it for the internet to function the way it does without massive fractionalization and walled gardens everywhere.

Well, then VOIP and streaming came onto the scene and the ISP's - the same kind of companies running cable TV - decided they didn't like that.

And instead of competing fairly, they throttled their competition's services in order to kill them off. This is what happens when you follow the retarded "free market" bullshit and think every regulation is evil regulation (unless it's done by a corporation).

Effectively the corporations regulate the market, kill off the competition, and create monopolies.

When people saw what was happening and realized it would destroy the internet and actual market competition as we know it, we fought to change Net Neutrality from a de facto "law" to a de jure Law.

And now paid shills like you come here to try and convince people to fight against their own best interests.

>>134074078
That's correct

>>134074177
Kill yourself shill faggot
Net Neutrality give control of the internet to the FCC you statist lying cunt

Tbh I think everyone agrees fuckass companies with monopolies and shitty practices need to get launched intoe there is just disagreement on how.to do it and whether govt regulation and scope of it is needed

just let 4chan and reddit die nothing of value will be lost i mean even moot got out before this bs

>>134074314
Repealing Net Neutrality isn't going to help - you need to actually start anti-trust lawsuits and lobby for the government to break up the monopolies, not fight to remove common carrier status from the ISP's.

>>134074402

Yes but electricity is classed as a utility, like water. They're not common carriers.

>>134074498
All content is treated equal. Including 4chan. What's not to like about that?

File: 1381418485304.png (352KB, 545x583px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 545x583px

>>134074419
>>134074314
Simple, keep net neutrality and institute laws that let consumers sue the fuck out of anyone they can prove is throttling their connection to specific sources. The gov't no longer has total control and neither do the isps, why no one hasn't done this, I don't fucking know.

>>134074543

How do you propose we fix the monopolies if we remove all regulation? We should at least break them up first because the free market is not real in a Monopoly situation

For one,I support the death of 4chins.

>>134074556 >>134074615
The biggest problem with monopolies is when big companies lobby for ridiculous regulations to keep newcomers out of the market by creating obstructions and minimising chance for this investment to pay itself.

>>134074302
Which is easier? Switching to another ISP or a mobile internet provider or electing a new government? Just because *this* administration wouldn't be inclined to abuse the new authority of the FCC doesn't mean the next administration won't. Once you give powers to the government they're almost impossible to take back or curtail.

>>134074453
>You don't get it shill
Says the fucking leaf who presumes to tell the US how their internet should work while his own government enforces internet hate speech laws. Fuck off.

>>134073296
Any reason it is bad besides Jews not wanting to be outjewed?
Because I don't mind being on their side for this.

A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in civil law systems,[1] usually called simply a carrier) is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and that is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport.


Seems like isps can fit under this

>>134074543
The thing is - what does removing net neutrality actually accomplish?

All it does is remove the common carrier classification that forces ISP's to treat data equally. So the "Free market" theorists idea of what will happen is competition will keep the internet from getting locked down with censorship.

But it's still possible for the corporations to start censoring. There's just the assumption that everyone will use different ISP's if it happens. That's retarded.

You don't need to be able to fuck with information transfer just because you don't like A website or B user, in order to compete. The removal of net neutrality only kills off our legal defense against that kind of bullshit. It's like saying, "Corporations should be allowed to engage in physical violence with each other, because it's a new way to compete and market regulation is always bad." Well that's fucking retarded, maybe we'd like a society where murder, or in this case - censorship, can't happen to start with, ever.

>>134075107
>All it does is remove the common carrier classification that forces ISP's to treat data equally.
The 2015 bill is over 300 pages of new regulations and regulatory powers for the FCC, it does a helluva lot more than just approve a common carrier classification.

How about you fix your own country's internet policies before you presume to tell us how to fix ours?

>>134074849
>Which is easier? Switching to another ISP or a mobile internet provider or electing a new government?
depends on where you live. Tons of people live in places where only one ISP is avaliable

>>134072923
Because this isn't a partisan issue

>>134074750
Net Neutrality is a red herring for this,

The shills want you to believe that Net Neutrality is market regulation making smaller ISP's noncompetitive with bigger ones - that's a bald-faced lie. They say this only because they're shilling for the big ISP's.

The actual cause of the big ISP monopolies comes from these ISP's signing deals and contracts with local and state government that says something to the effect of "Only 1-3 ISP's can compete in this area" and what happens is you get 2 spin-off ISP's who ONLY provide dialup service but never high speed internet, and the big monopolist ISP who controls the gateway to high-speed internet.

Which creates the appearance of a "competitive free market" on its face, but isn't in actual practice.

In order to actually stop the monopolies, we need to attack the cause: Big ISP's purchasing laws/regulations that prevent competition.

The lack of market competition is not coming from Net Neutrality.

File: at least 2 isps.jpg (70KB, 723x388px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 723x388px

>>134075401
>Tons of people live in places where only one ISP is avaliable
This is a map of all the towns in the US with at least two ISPs - according to the FCC

File: at least 3.jpg (69KB, 730x379px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 730x379px

>>134075682
This is all the towns that have at least three

File: at least 4.jpg (99KB, 735x375px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 735x375px

>>134075714
At least four

>>134075598
Neither was the Paris agreement until /pol/ stepped in. It's not about policy or sides. It's about being a contrarian.

File: at least 5.jpg (105KB, 731x378px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 731x378px

>>134075735
At least five

>>134073535
That would be like not fighting against toilet paper dispensers (wipe your ass for just ONE dollar!!) just because liberals agree it would be bad.
You're either an anti-NN shill, or a kekistani retard from r*ddit. Either way, I hope someone you love dies in an accident

>>134075682
>>134075714
> implying it matters considering you can just get satellite in any state / place

>>134075682
I can tell you for a fact that this map isn't presenting the whole truth... it's probably covered by zip code where if a single property in a zip code is serviced by 2 ISPs, it's painted as 100%.

>>134075766
>mfw too many major carriers competing near me
>pay for 25mbps down
>word that my city could get Google Fiber before most others
>get 100 for the same price
They really are shaking in their boots.

>>134073535
You forgot to check his flag

File: 11.png (22KB, 1876x175px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 1876x175px

>>134075682
>>134075714
>>134075735
>>134075766
These are the maps that the ISP anti-net neutrality shills always try to trot out to confuse people about market competition.

See: >>134075604

The detail they always leave out is that it's 1 big ISP offering high speed, and a couple smaller ISP's offering almost dialup speeds.

It's basically designed to make you think there's competition when there actually isn't.

File: 1498715774402.jpg (200KB, 1280x738px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1280x738px

>>134072923
Saves Silicon Valley money so they have more shekels to censor us and less competition.

Anyone screaming ancap or muh Comcast is a shill.

/thread

>>134075824
or mobile - between Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, T-Mobile etc there's plenty of options

>>134075984
>These are the maps that the ISP anti-net neutrality shills always try to trot out to confuse people about market competition.
THEY'RE FROM THE FUCKING FCC!

>>134075682
>>134075714
These two look exactly the same are you sure you uploaded the right pictures?

>>134072923
Zuckercuck, jewgle and the associated tech giants fear the possibility of relinquishing control of the Internet to a gouvernment agency whose sole purpose it would be to gouvern the web's new traffic rules.
When the Internet is net neutral, they can continue their slow marathon to total and complete control over everyone's online interactions.

If you'd liken the internet to an economic market, you could call this an effort to form a monopoly.

>>134076128
this
> you can use your phone for isp 3kek

>>134073804
>>134074725
As a chink maybe you should think twice before commenting on issues that you are not aware of. No one cares ISPs, "muh throttling" is a scapegoat by Democrats and censorship Jews.

>>134075810
Leftwing retard.

If the Internet became censored and stopped us from using 4chan and other such sites, what would we do? How do we diy internet

>>134075984
>Leaf defending censorship

Imagin my shawk

File: 6.png (9KB, 1677x125px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 1677x125px

>>134073535
No, it doesn't

Because repealing net neutrality and common carrier status could completely fuck over all the media platforms and major tech companies.

Repealing net neutrality is basically being in favor of market "deregulation" that could potentially kill off half of one of the biggest markets in the US - the technology sector. Google's search is only useful if there's hundreds of thousands of websites to search - with NN repealed, that won't be the case, it'll be like cable TV.

Facebook, twitter, youtube, netflix etc. offer particular services, and if the ISP's don't like those services (e.g. they compete with the ISP's own) - then without net neutrality the ISP can throttle their connections and make their service unusable, killing off their competition (and this ALREADY HAPPENED SEE: >>134073490 ).

Anyone trying to tell you that repealing will increase market competition instead of decrease it, is outright lying to you.

I don't like facebook, I don't like jewgle either. But their interests here are the same as mine. I don't base my decisions entirely on the name of a company.

Although if you want to talk names: Who do you think owns the ISP's?
I'll give you a hint: It's the same companies that own the fake news networks like CNN.

Do you really think they're not going to censor the internet the second they get a chance to do it?

>>134076365
Net neutrality doesn't censor anyone or anything.

File: 1455566813646.png (1MB, 1079x967px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1079x967px

>>134076370
>Because repealing net neutrality and common carrier status could completely fuck over all the media platforms and major tech companies.
>Repealing net neutrality is basically being in favor of market "deregulation" that could potentially kill off half of one of the biggest markets in the US - the technology sector. Google's search is only useful if there's hundreds of thousands of websites to search - with NN repealed, that won't be the case, it'll be like cable TV.
>Facebook, twitter, youtube, netflix etc. offer particular services, and if the ISP's don't like those services (e.g. they compete with the ISP's own) - then without net neutrality the ISP can throttle their connections and make their service unusable, killing off their competition (and this ALREADY HAPPENED SEE: >>134073490 ).

There are literally no downsides to ant of this minus the cable tv lie, which is an ironic thing to be concerned about when you're literally defending Kikeflix.

>>134076361
mesh networks, but good luck

And it'll be like regressing two decades as far as latency and internet speed goes

>>134076425
The companies which benefit from it do

>>134072923
What we need is corporate neutrality enforced on the media. Net neutrality can fuck off.

>>134076184
And you are misconstruing what they actually mean.

3+ companies in each county offering internet service, where only 1 of them offers high speed internet, isn't "fair market competition", it's the false appearance of it so that nobody attacks the big ISP's for being monopolies.

And they know this. It's a fucking smokescreen to avoid anti-trust lawsuits, you dingus.

>>134076561
> implying 16 billion feminist websites censored would be a bad thing

File: at least 5.jpg (102KB, 723x380px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 723x380px

>>134076187
My mistake - you're correct.
>>134075714 at least two
>>134075735 at least three
>>134075766 at least four
and pic related is at least five

I would at that according to the FCC site I got these from, this is JUST based on availability of cable/DSL, it doesn't include satellite internet coverage or mobile. You'd have to look up Verizon/Sprint/etc 3G and 4G coverage maps for that info.

Point is - this "myth" that 90% of the cities in the US only have one ISP is horseshit.

Here is how censorship works - First you ban something, then you wait out the shitstorm that follows. Eventually it burns itself out and it becomes normal for the people it suppresses; should it get that far then it wins.

This is why Net Neutrality is such a major issue - People are too fucking lazy and weak to defend what is theirs, so they let people trample all over their rights because they just don't fucken care.

Any red-blooded human being would drag anyone who dares suggest such a thing as internet censorship out into a back alley and blow their brains out, along with Leninists and advocates of political correctness. They are the worst people this world has ever produced.

I dare say that I would go apostate, I would make a deal with the devil for the sole privilege of poking Mark Suck-a-dick with a sharp pointy metal stick for the rest of eternity for the virtue of him being an utter cunt.

One of the first signs that a society is disintegrating is the restriction of expression of thought. No matter how righteous it may seem it is always a tell-tale sign that a nation is going to hell in a hand basket. Europe is quite literally being thrown to the niggers right now because we're too fucking cowardly to stand up for what we believe.

>>134076561
Net Neutrality prevents companies from enacting censorship.

>>134076689
If they were doing that...

>>134076789
Explain YouTube and Twitter then

>>134076881
> they will be charging websites for services websites don't pay they get shit internet which leads to them going away

>>134076881
You dont have to use jewtube or twatter

>>134076675
Then the solution is anti-trust lawsuits, not the Democrats censoring the internet.

>>134076881
That's outside the scope of net neutrality.

Net neutrality deals with ISP censorship preventing you from even reaching a particular website in the first place, not individual websites censoring people.

>>134076881
That YouTube is the largest and most populated video platform doesn't mean that other video platforms have to enforce the same rules YouTube does.
Fuck, if some people had the means to develop a video service just like YouTube but had the rules of this board, they're free to do so.

Same with twitter. Don't like their censorship? Gab is an alternative.

>>134076985
Net Neutrality doesn't censor the internet, it prevents the ISP's from censoring the internet.

It enacts common carrier status; that isn't censorship.

It's amazing how many times it has to be repeated and you still don't get it.

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

304KB, 3000x1500px

net neutrality vs "net neutrality"

>>134076979
You don't have to use [x ISP] either.

Don't bother explaining the "difference", you're just pro Silicon Valley censorship.

>>134077020
>That's outside the scope of net neutrality.

Okay, then I don't support net neutrality. You're an obvious shill btw.

>>134077123
But it allpws the pro-NN companies to censor the internet, ya dingus.

>>134077086
>Don't like Comcast? Get another ISP.

"But that's different John Oliver said we have to do this!!!!"

>>134076789
>Let's prevent censorship
>By giving a government agency that's already allowed to impose decency standards and other forms of censorship on television and radio greater control of the internet.

>>134077020
>That's outside the scope of net neutrality.
For the moment - regulations change all the time, and they can be changed pretty readily by their corresponding regulatory agency. What happens if the next administration decides that certain types of sites and services aren't conducive to an open internet? This is the danger of granting the government more power - even if you agree with what the government is going to do with that power NOW, you may not agree with what it decides to do with it LATER... and it's much, much, MUCH harder to take that power back once you've given it.

>>134077204
>But it allpws the pro-NN companies to censor the internet, ya dingus.

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with any websites or what they say/do. It literally never even mentions them. It has nothing to do with them. That's "allowing them to censor" in the same way that Net Neutrality is allowing regular businesses at your local mall to ban you from their stores.

You can keep repeating lies over and over - it's not going to change the truth.

>>134077332
It's less about the government agency part and more giving substantial assistance to the tech companies so they can censor us more harshly on behalf of the government.

Shills like leafcuck always dance around that point so you can tell it's true.

>>134077391
Literally all I said is that pro-NN companies censor the internet which is true. You have absolutely no way to refute this.

>>134077332
False equivalence. Net Neutrality doesn't enact any kind of censorship, it enacts common carrier status which prevents censorship.

>What happens if the next administration decides that certain types of sites and services aren't conducive to an open internet?

People have to option to sue the government for violating their freedom of speech. The US government has a very hard time enacting any kind of censorship thanks to the first amendment. Corporations on the other hand - you're just simply fucked if they start censoring you.

>NN repealed
>pressure from soccer moms and low add revenue mean a lot of ISPs drop 4chan from standard packages
>Parents of most /pol/yps can't afford thay
>4chan restricted to specialist crowd in US
>No more "le god emperor Trump praise geg xd fellow centipedes" sub 80 IQ underage retards
Why are we opposing this again?

>>134077278
We're in the same situation here.
Want good Internet? Only one provider.
The state-mandated alternative is typically shit, and the smaller private alternatives borrow the bigger network for their services, they're not truly independent.
Doesn't change the fact that of you don't like Twitter, there are alternative social media sites.

This is what gouvernments should be looking at, competition in the ISP market.

>>134077086
>If you don't like YouTube just use another service like Dailymotion or Vimeo. Sure they may not be able to offer exactly the same service, but if YouTube's policies are a serious enough problem for you, they are viable alternatives.

>If you don't like Comcast just use another ISP or satellite or mobile internet. Sure they may not be able to offer exactly the same speeds, but if Comcast's policies are a serious enough problem for you, they are viable alternatives.

>>134072923
Paid shills are spamming any conversation about net neutrality. They keep spamming this shit about ISP packages, calling everyone a shill, talking about how only evil capitalists are against net neutrality etc.

/pol/ didn't support SOPA, PIPA and /pol/ didn't support net neutrality because why the fuck would you? There is a reason why everyone loved Ron Paul, because he has the common sense to not support any of this shit. Now the shills are here and they are trying to reverse it, they're pushing this angle that if you don't support net neutrality you must be supporting SOPA and PIPA. It makes no fucking sense, but look at the posts being made. Look how often these people are pushing this angle.
In every single net neutrality thread there are at least 3 people who say that not supporting net neutrality is like supporting SOPA. These people are trying to create a negative reaction in people when they hear of someone being against net neutrality, because no one has any idea what net neutrality is. They want you to think ''oh, so net neutrality is like anti-SOPA'' every time someone pushes back against the insane pro-net neutrality shilling.

>>134077668
See
>>134077646

>>134076881
private corporations can do what ever they want with their content.

>>134073213
This. Nothing else. It is just this.

Plain and simple. Money. Abolishing NN will fuck them over financially.

Stop with the anti-NN shilling already. We know you're a bunch of shills who need to die.

File: 13.png (6KB, 683x91px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 683x91px

>>134077622
It's more likely that Time Warner, AT&T, Verizon, etc would just prevent people reaching 4chan altogether. Especially after the fake news campaigns, memes, and attacks on CNN.

See image - they already did it once before.

>>134077561
you said it ALLOWS them to. It does nothing of the sort, it's a completely different issue. That is an issue of what a corporation is allowed to do with their own data. Which has nothing to do with net neutrality.

>>134077679
>/pol/ didn't support SOPA, PIPA

Yes we did. /pol/ was almost unanimously in support of it. So was the rest of 4chan. 4chan was so unanimously in support of it we actually got blocked by a few ISP's for it. See the image here: >>134077771

>>134077614
The FCC regulates speech all the time by banning nudity and cursing.

Canadians love centralized control apparently.

>>134077917
Gonna stop playing word games, shill?

>>134073490
I don't understand this passion for forbidding companies of doing anything wrong.

We complain about monopolies but how are you going to get competition if the ones winning never fuck up?

>>134078014
And Americans have their rights protected by the first amendment. If there was enough push you could get the bans on TV and Radio regarding nudity and cursing removed.

They're barely even enforced anyways, to be honest.

>>134073535
>jews like something therefor it is bad and we FUCKING MUST TAKE THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE POSITION JUST BECAUSE MUH JEWS

Wew lad, I didn't realize some of my fellow /pol/acks really are this retarded. Maybe the fact that almost everyone is against it is a sign that it is actually is bad thing?
Christ, get a grip.

>>134078014
I heard somebody say "fuck" on the radio yesterday.

Nobody seemed to care. I guess I'd rather people have some decorum on the radio but literally nobody cared.

>>134074708
>Moron
All content is equal. Some is just more equal that others.
When unapproved content gets too much traffic, NN will throttle that content (I.e. /pol/, genuine Christian content, hate-facts, ethnonationalism, etc). And NN will promote the opposite of those ideas, so that the net is neutral. NN is based on the "fairness doctrine." NN is bad.

>>134077771
And you think a public entity controlled by Hillary Clinton wouldn't fight 4chan?

>>134072923
I'd like to see Net Neutrality protected under the FTC rather thant he FCC. But we need Net Neutrality.

>>134072923
Net Neutrality.

99% of people on the internet don't know what it means, or it's implications.

They only know the liberal propaganda pushed by Reddit and Google.

>>134077614
>Net Neutrality doesn't enact any kind of censorship
No, but it grants the FCC an enormous overhaul of the scope and power of its regulatory authority over the internet in order to enforce what it currently defines as an open internet, and those powers will become incredibly difficult to repeal in the future.

Again, just because the current administration won't rewrite the regulations to promote censorship doesn't mean future administrations won't.


NN is signing the government a blank check and naively assuming they won't fuck you over in the future.

>>134077614
>People have to option to sue the government for violating their freedom of speech. The US government has a very hard time enacting any kind of censorship thanks to the first amendment. Corporations on the other hand - you're just simply fucked if they start censoring you.
Yet here you are defending censorship when I point out that the pro-NN corporations are the biggest perpetrators of it.

>>134077646
I have more than one ISP here, and you can always move. You leftists like playing with semantics to overshadow how much more hegemonic sites like Twitter and Google and how much control over the internet they have. If you were consistent, you'd be calling for anti-censorship laws against them before you shill for """net neutrality""".

>>134077679
Well said. They also call you an ancap as a shaming tactic.

>>134077741
Why does that not apply equally to ISPs? Double standards and agenda-pushing is why.

>>134074725
Connects TO will not be throttled, uploads FROM will be throttled. And more relevantly, search and advertising algorithms will be (much more) skewed against content that is not approved by NN admins.

>>134078147
Contrary to your own ideology, what you are actually arguing for is a massive attack on a major industry in the US - the technology sector.

For the sake of internet service provider monopolies, because "Why can't we just let them form monopolies and fuck up???"

Rather than being against market regulation, you're actually arguing in favor of market regulation - The difference is that the market regulation in this case is removing the law that keeps the playing field fair, while refusing to get rid of the laws that allow for the market monopolies to form.

You are unironically arguing directly against your own ideology in every way. You just twist it around because you've got a boner for these ISP's vs regular customers, or the tech sector at large.

I really don't understand what runs through an ancap's head.
Air probably?

>>134078211
That's not anyone's only reason for opposing it, butthurt JIDF.

>>134072923
Reminder that every single company shilling for net neutrality was repeatedly BTFO by the FTC for violating privacy laws

>>134078585
Won't someone, anyone, think of the technology sector?

>>134078614
No, but it was his only reason. Retard.

>>134078296
If the government becomes totalitarian like that, do you really think corporations controlling the internet would prevent censorship?

Especially when we've got substantial evidence right now of the government/deep state pulling strings behind the scenes with all the major cable TV news networks?

Come the fuck on man.

>>134078197
So why doesn't a show like Game of Thrones end up on NBC or even FX or a paid cable station?

I don't think you know what you're talking about. The FCC still levies fines for violations. Also, where's the evidence to back up your claim that no one fines anymore? I think you're a Canadian shill poster with skin in this game, somehow, otherwise why the fuck would you care?

ANYTIME the federal government gets involved it means more power for the Beltway and less for the rest of the country. I'm not saying the internet companies won't limit access given the opportunity, but at least now everyone has a choice and the companies can innovate and compete. Pretty soon the bar will be so high that even if a company wanted to become an ISP the bandwidth necessitated by net neutrality would be too large for a small operation to scale to and make money. This is exactly what has happened to the telephone companies; yet another government regulated, overpriced and underperforming industry.

>>134077679
I trust the EFF on matters of protecting my rights online. They like Net Neutrality.

Also, have not seen a hole in it. The first amendment protects freedom of speech. Technology can protect the whiners that complain about their religious safe spaces being invaded by porn. The V chip the religious weirdos wanted backfired as it was the excuse allowing as much sex as theywanted.

This situation has not changed

>>134078258
is this true? have any document backing this up?

>>134078258
This is a fat lie. Give me the source or stfu.

>>134073213
this

/thread

>>134072923
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bmMl2OGVQ0

>>134078448
>you leftists
Oh fuck off you mong.
When the content providers (Twitter, YouTube, etc) have a practical monopoly, they can do as they wish. Because everyone's on Twitter, nobody wants to seek out an alternative. Not enough traffic to be commercially interesting, and too much of a hassle to get enough people you know to migrate with you to the alternative platform.

That's the entire context of my reply: "what about YouTube and Twitter then?"
You asked the question yourself.

Now you may have alternative carriers, alot of Americans don't, and like I said the only provider with quality Internet is the big monopolist conglomerate.
You say people can move to get better Internet, but that's a complete nonargument. Would you give up your job, your community and potentially expend more om your monthly costs just to have the option of better Internet? Fuck no.

As for consistency, there's a small problem.
Youtube, Twitter, Facebook are all based in the US. I can go to my own gouvernment and by any means necessary enforce a new law that mandates free speech and bans censorship on the internet, but that law has no jurisdiction in America so the big three and any other provider of any online service whatsoever can flat-out ignore my new law.
I'm not gonna tell you what laws to implement in your own country, because I'm not American and don't have any influence nor should I have some, but maybe you'd benefit from looking a bit further than your nose reaches and realise that America isn't the world.

And lastly regarding net neutrality, I've been watching these threads the last few days and for the life of me, I can't be arsed to start dissecting this shillfest on top of all the other cancer on this board.

You asked about private content providers. Pulling ISPs into that is disingenuous. Kanker op.

>>134078585

>what you are actually arguing for is a massive attack on a major industry in the US - the technology sector.

I'm arguing against outlawing apparent mistakes, because the government doesn't know what is a mistake and what isn't. If they knew, they should create a ISP themselves and get all the market, following their flawless regulations they should dominate the market, right?

>"Why can't we just let them form monopolies and fuck up???"

Never said anything about letting them form monopolies, that's your addition. Barriers of entry should be removed, that's what you morons should be asking for if you shills actually were genuinely interested in having good internet.

>Rather than being against market regulation, you're actually arguing in favor of market regulation

No I'm not, what the fuck are you smoking?

>The difference is that the market regulation in this case is removing the law that keeps the playing field fair

Removing laws is market regulation?

>>134078695
>If the government becomes totalitarian like that, do you really think corporations controlling the internet would prevent censorship?

Certainly. Precisely what allows governments to become totalitarian, in the first place, is the public idea that they should have a say on everything. I reject that, they shouldn't have a say at all.

>>134079720
I am much more concerned about Silicon Valley than the ISPs.

>>134078661
Wrong retard

>>134072923
>Normies are all in
That's about as much evidence I needed to do the opposite.

>>134073213
Those companies are bound to fall eventually, but NN could last a lot longer than them.

It's shortsighted to oppose net neutrality for that reason.

>>134078258
You don't know what you're talking about.

>>134080046
Wrong, retard.

>>134078258
>thinking NN is some kind of independent entity which can act on its own
Any NN thread is full of nigger tier thinking. SC already made content based throttling unlawful like 10 years ago. FCC are a bunch of bumbling idiots spread too thin as it is anyway, get them out of the regulatory game and put it back int he hands of the FTC

> 4chan and redddit get censored
so you're saying nothing of value was lost ?

>>134072923
>Why is /pol/ shilling NN

Because without NN 4chins doesn't exist.

And the only reason you find anti-NN people here is because they enjoy playing commander contrarian.

>>134072923
(((they))) are probably using it as a tool to turn the internet against Trump through his tech support Ajit Pai's "support" for anti-net neutrality. Remember the response to SOPA? (((They))) want that pointed at trump

Here's net neutrality explained with pictures since /pol/ still hasn't figured this out.

http://economixcomix.com/home/net-neutrality/

>>134080438
t. Google corporate officer

Not having net neutrality is a play to control and effectively kill novelty on the web and its future. It takes some power and possibility back from people. Having an open internet does make more encroachment of profiling data harvesters into more and more of people's lives though. If I'm Big Brother, I am for Net Neutrality and I control people in smarter and smarter ways.

>>134080254
>Moron. Fucking Moron.
Nobody is saying NN has to be independent body. More likely than not, corporations will redirect traffic to and from in accordance with their own NN guidelines. Jewgle and Faceberg, Akamai, Level 3, Comcast, will do the heavy lifting when it comes to making the internet content neutral, effectively minimizing the natural spreading of unapproved content.

>>134077123
>Net Neutrality doesn't censor the internet, it prevents the ISP's from censoring the internet.

It's amazing that someone whose government is completely screwing them wants to tell us how to vote on an issue. NN might save you, but does not save us. Allowing the government in now will give them all the power they desire later.

>>134075682

This map is BS. My friend lives in rural wisconsin and there is only one ISP.

>>134081136
More soft brained explanations from the soft brained. Why not include some Harry Potter analogies while you're at it? What is 706 of the communications act? What are antitrust horizontal agreement violations? What are FTC deceptive practice violations? A proper regulatory framework existed long before the FCC exponentially grew in size and scope

>>134082057
What is this word salad? FCC can only prevent throttling, arbitrary blocking, and pricing structure (things already protected by other laws and agencies). In now way can a government regulate what content a site chooses to use and promote

>>134083626
It's either we give the FCC some enforcement powers or we break up all the telecom companies with trust suits. Pick your poison.

>>134084515
eh just get rid of the internet

>>134072923

Its because the internet companies get fucked by the ISPs also. The ISP is in the middle. They dont even develop or install most of the physical internet just the 'last mile'. Essentially they want to hold you hostage to get more money out of them. Net neutrality stops this. So does encrypting all your traffic so your ISP cant see shit.

Comcast purposly fucked Netflix traffic for more then a year slowing down shit so customers watching netflix had a shit experience. Once netflix agreed to pay extra comcast stop slowing shit.

#1 remember comcast only owns the last little bit of wire between you and the larger internet provider.

#2 Netflix offers to put cache servers in the isps system. Essentially removing 90% of the traffic that would come from the larger internet provider because 90% of the stuff people actually watch can fit on that server. Netflix does not charge.

This is the kind of bullshit strong arm crap that net neutrality currently stops. It just so happens that you and the people providing shit on the internet would both get fucked by its removal.

Yes it is a government regulation of the internet but if the only option is to get rid of it and let a monopoly just fuck you I think it needs to stay.

What we really need is the government to own the hardware wire from your house to the larger internet provider. And then comcast or any other isp can provide you service on it. This will allow competition.

File: norway archive.jpg (109KB, 600x753px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 600x753px

>>134073533
Based

>>134078211
>my fellow polacks

No one is your friend here faggot, you're clearly not from here

>>134072923
(((THEY))) Dont want the ISPs to be able to slow or stop traffic to specific websites so that they can secretly run their encrypted child porn rings without any interference from the ISPs end.

Comcast may be shit but porn is over half of what all their customers are coming to them for. They recognize that fucking around with what people can access on the open internet is a BAD idea.