Red pill on Trump's stance on net neutrality? Should we

Your browsing history will be available to anyone that knows your social security number.

File: 148272701572086.jpg (7KB, 150x104px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 150x104px

>>34407233
so you're saying my mom could look up my entire browsing history?

Trump doesn't have a stance on it, one of his cabinet members does though, and it's unclear if anything will happen to change as it's not that big of a deal.

Basically, the more you pay, the faster your internet will be. So big businesses and corporations will have faster internet while poorer people will have slower internet.

>>34407356
FCC poo in loo hates it so it's probably done.
>Basically, the more you pay, the faster your internet will be. So big businesses and corporations will have faster internet while poorer people will have slower internet.
That's already true. No net neutrality means ISP can serve different content at different rates and speed up slow down what they want.
So comcast news and streaming might be zero rated and very fast while 4chan is slower and netflix has to pay premium to not be slowed down.

Is he gonna ban porn too?

>>34407390

I really don't know why the ISPs don't already do that. It seems to make more sense businesswise. Is there a law or something preventing them from doing that?

They only have so many servers. More money site has = more money to spend on faster internet = Dedicate more server power to those guys first

>>34407451
There was/is rules about it from fcc.
>>34407423
Probably not but he did pledge to aggressively enforce obscenity law regarding pornogaphy and children which would include loli.
Maybe US based sites with loli content lie sad panda will get taken down.

>>34407356
>Basically, the more you pay, the faster your internet will be.
GODDAM I HATE YOU RETARDS SO MUCH THAT IS NOT WHAT NET NEUTRALITY IS.
it's because people think this^ that it has support, because that would make sense. Net neutrality is if I own some autism video game that I sell with a server it will get the same data transmission rights as Facebook. Of course Facebook pays more /now/ because they transmit more. A lot more, it's just not faster, their servers are faster, but not he transmission.

>>34407556
>Net neutrality is if I own some autism video game that I sell with a server it will get the same data transmission rights as Facebook
Which is good.
No net neutrality makes it way harder for new comers to compete since you'd need lots of capital or ties to isp to get competitive service.

>>34407451

It would indeed be a benefit to ISPs' bottom lines.

It would be a huge detriment to anyone that runs a start-up, because Comcast et al could just throttle the startups bandwidth to basically nothing if they felt the startup was a threat to one of their businesses.

In other words, we wouldn't have Netflix streaming, we wouldn't have Amazon streaming, we wouldn't have torrents. We'd have to wait on hold with Comcast for 5 hours just to watch a glitchy stream of America's Got Talent, because that's what they want you to watch.

So if you are against net neutrality you are on the side of every chad businessman at Comcast that treats you, its customer, like complete shit.

If you're for net neutrality then you're for consumer choice, at the detriment of cable companies' profits.

So pick a side.

>>34408024
cont'd

As a consumer, I'd rather pay (for example) $10 more per month to allow Comcast to buy more servers (routers, actually, and maintaining the infrastructure costs way more than equipment anyway) and remain neutral than pay the same and be forced to watch whatever C* wanted me to watch.

(Or pay $10 more for Netflix, $10 more for Amazon, $10 more for VPN, $10 more for 4chan, etc. which is far less desirable.)

So if you're so concerned with the bottom lines of telecoms then maybe you should overpay your bill every month and fuck off of this website.

>>34408024
>we wouldn't have Netflix streaming, we wouldn't have Amazon streaming
We'd have these since they're big enough to get on the fast lane (for a price).
We wouldn't have the next amazon or netflix or any other small operator.
It'll just stagnate at large tech company services and services from isp, yay!

File: images.jpg (10KB, 229x220px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 229x220px

>>34407181

I still can't believe this isn't illegal in """freedom""" land.

>>34408081

My point being they weren't big initially.

Yes, Amazon and Netflix had significant revenues prior to streaming content, but if Comcast (and I'm just using them as the example) said,

>If you start competing with us we'll kill your bandwidth for your core [DVD rental/book sales] business as well
>unless you pay .. oh I don't know .. $10M / month

Netflix / Amazon and any other players would find the barrier to entry too high.

Even if it weren't too high, who's to say Comcast couldn't raise their rates to untenable levels at any time? I'm sure WhateverStreaming.com could lock in a 10 year contract, but at what price? $50M?

Fine, MAYBE Amazon/Netflix could've afforded this sort of thing, but what about WhateverStreaming.com, the new startup with fantastic content? They're dead before they even start.

>>34408416
I was agreeeing.

it's over

you memers fucked up