Net neutrality Bill

Yes nn is a power grab. The internet will become another bureaucratic utility.

>>134706257
Net neutrality is an organization to which you can complain if ISPs filter your internet traffic or stop your internet traffic in any way. That organization has no jurisdiction over carving up market in any way. Government aka international organizations always regulated/created internet, but now ISP wants to do everything.

>>134706489
We already have net neutrality dumbass.


The internet is the most bureaucratic utility you can think of. The military created it and it is the best spying tool because of the illusion of freedom and backdoors.


I want reddit to leave. We already have net neutrality, anyone saying otherwise is a shill or retarded.

it's no good turning the internet into another Bureau and it also gives browser systems monopolies such as google with this bill passed they can still legally sell and use your data to sell you stuff (which they already do), for example, I was looking up some eastern European comedy on youtube and the next week all my ads were Russian dating sites. The bill is a way to take away power from the free market and give it to the globalist elites.

>>134706257
Basically what you had before obama passed NN in 2012 was a wild west, NN was put in to give govt control over all the ISP's and is filled with restrictions on laying cabling, competition and mandatory services.

What that amounts to is Facebook and friends forcing ISP's through the govt to subsidize their obscene amounts of data usage which means ISP's (especially smaller ones) need to make up the difference somewhere else.

NN is being spun by liberals as muh big evil comcast but in reality it kills small and startup ISP's

>>134706981
we have it, and we are also experiencing major changes in internet censorship in the last few years.

Remember, the US controlled the internet until a year or so ago when Obama handed it over to a faceless international organization.
Why is that important? The US controlling it means the US laws (including free speech) apply. A faceless organization has NO LAWS, they can do WHATEVER they want.

The US is a bit slower in internet crack down because Trump got in office. But Hillary campaigned hard on UK style internet controls, including making an entire official campaign page about fucking pepe being a hate symbol.

If people were smart, they'd ditch controlled internet for an open platform or free market. But people aren't smart, and they will think net neutrality benefits them. Then someday sites like 4chan will conveniently be shut down by the international "internet police" organization.

>b-b-but the corporations will want that, they will charge more!
yeah, thats why every massive internet provider has said they support NN.
Comcast is already charging poor saps $150+ a month for internet anyway. You're already being gouged + controlled.

>>134707768
Ironically prices would go down if NN and a few other regulations that make it basically illegal to startup a new ISP were gone

>>134707348
>reality it kills small and startup ISP's
This, 100%
America's primary problem stems from the ISP monopolies. The easiest way to remove said monopolies is by having them bleed market share through smaller ISPs which can provide a targeted service the larger ISPs can not.

>>134708019
unfortunately people can't see the writing on the wall, they don't understand political maneuvering and thats exactly why it continues to work.

You just give them a boogeyman to attack, whether it makes sense or not and they will.
>duh patriarchy
>capitalism
>the 1%! (even though the 1% support everything we are fighting for)
>wite pipo
>corporations!
etc etc
Meanwhile its just another step in your 10 year plan to censor the internet.
But with everyone being attention deficit, theirs no way they will think about the implications 10 years from now.

>>134708948
The most annoying thing about it is basically everyone in charge of making laws are 100% ignorant of how the internet works

I'm willing to pay for it.

Imagine you build yourself a little shop front. You pay for the wood, the carpenter, the plumber, the electrician. Next you have to pay monthly bills for rent, water, electricity. You start selling sandwiches.
Along comes another sandwich seller who demands he gets to sell his sandwiches from your shopfront. He also demands you can't make your signage bigger than his or take up more space in the shop you built.
That's net neutrality.

But it's only really a problem because of government issued monopolies. Governments say only 1 company can actually string the wires from the public poles, like if they only allowed 1 shopfront to be built.

It's a government imposition to solve a government mandated problem.

>>134710577
Shits unregulatable unless regulations are limited to heavy monitoring and the publicating of harmful secrets.

Here's your freedom, if you fuck up, your new income is a lifetime's worth of shaming.

>>134706257
> Is being pro-net neutrality being pro Government regulations?

Yes. But the regulations are preventing private monolithic ISPs from setting up their own regulations regarding internet traffic.

It was to prevent a balkanization of the 90s net when AOL wanted to start setting up toll booths for non-AOL users to access AOL-hosted sites and content. Internet content creators collectively rose up and started blocking AOL ISPs as a response. AOL caved.

So net neutrality was a thing, but as time went on, the internet increasingly centralized. Now big data companies (that are based on the internet but do not own the underlying infrastructure) like Netflix and Google and facebook have more money then God. And now ISPs like AOL Time Warner have realized that they can just charge Amazon or Netflix an extra 2 billion a year in surcharges and not piss off a single end user.

It's really AOL-Time-Warner vs faceberg/google/amazon.

Take your pick.

>>134711864
It's going to be ISP's vs CDN's forever.

The gloves are off.

>>134711864
No the regulations are preventing small ISP's from existing while enforcing the large ones monopoly by killing their competition.

Read the damn law not what morons on facejew told you

File: IMG_0080.png (166KB, 605x328px)

166KB, 605x328px

People don’t really know what they’re paying for when they buy something. In their mind they pay their ISP for internet and Netflix for content. In reality, they pay their ISP for the last mile and Netflix for content and Internet delivery. Netflix and the other content companies are exploiting this misunderstanding and convincing people that since you already pay your ISP, your ISP should also pick up the tab for the Internet delivery of their content, and they are using the censorship boogeyman to scare people.

It’s never worked that way before so if it does come to pass your ISP is going to get a lot more expensive, and Netflix sure as shit is not going to lower their prices even though they wont have to pay for Internet delivery anymore.

The FTC has existed for many years and ISPs have tried to do anti-competitive shit like blocking websites and VOIP and shit in the past, but they get corrected pretty quickly. New laws are not needed to prevent anti-competitive behavior.

>>134706257
Not your fault, the Progressives have been very disingenuous in their arguments.

Basically:
>Net Neutrality has always been the rule
>It means the internet is treated like a public road
>You get on, you make your way through traffic, you park
>No one is special, it's first come first serve
>You only get there faster if you take a faster route

>A few years ago
>Big companies wanted to change this
>They wanted to turn the internet into toll roads
>The more you pay, the faster you get there
>Everyone lost their shit

>Obama said he would fix this
>So the FCC made ISP's "utilities" like power companies
>This added a bunch of rules
>Some of which further guaranteed net neutrality
>But also a bunch of other regulations

>In comes Trump
>New FCC head wants to get rid of the bunch of other regulations
>Democrats lose their shit
>Democrats say Trump's FCC will give the big companies their toll roads
>But
>Trump's FCC hasn't said they will do that
>Trump's FCC hasn't said what they're going to do at all
>Except that they will get rid of the bunch of other rules Obama added
>So no one really knows for sure what else will be changed
>Democrats use that uncertainty to try to resurrect the outrage from years ago
>Most people are left scratching their heads

So net neutrality is probably here to stay and this is a big nontroversy. But Dems want you to believe it's Trump turning fascist or something.

I'm waiting for the FCC to say what they're actually changing before I give a shit.