This is what anti-Net-Neutrality kikes want

> This is what anti-Net-Neutrality kikes want.

Prove me wrong.

Inb4 "muh free market". There's no free market when (((Comcast))) and pals literally write state laws preventing telecom competition.

Other urls found in this thread:

multichannel.com/news/finance/comcast-adds-32k-video-subs-q3/408670
youtu.be/pA8DdkM2Wqo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Comcast is a great place to work you should come join us

I've heard it's miserable. You're forced to make every interaction with a customer to be a salespitch.

LMAO don't work in the call center get a real job

I don't work for Kikecast. I'm just saying what I've heard. That shit also applies to field techs that come to your house sometime between today and next week between the hours of 7 AM to 6 PM.

I was a "field tech" for 3 years. That isn't true and never was true. We also have had 2 hour arrival windows for 5 years now.

These packages and locking out content behind a pay wall is exactly what is killing cable. All this would do is create a demand for an alternative and the cycle would repeat itself. Creating regulations so the old industry can monopolize the new seems quite anti-capatalist to me.

>paying the ISP for services they don't provide

You're a fucking retard m8

>killing cable

what am i looking at m8?

Comcast provides internet too dumbass. Cable is just one of their services.

multichannel.com/news/finance/comcast-adds-32k-video-subs-q3/408670

Telecom wishlist of what they want the Internet to be like in the U.S.

A bunch of legacy T.V. execs want to sell access to websites in bundles like they sell access to television channels in bundles.

This would essentially let (((Comcast))) and co decide what websites you're allowed to see online.

>Comcast has paid shills shitposting on Sup Forums
Whoa

Except that isn't how the internet works.

Want to use fb? Pay fb, not your goddamn ISP. In turn fb pays ISP for increased network load.

Honestly this is the best thing for the internet.

Imao people would simply move to free versions of the site.
Youtube costs money? Go to Dailymotion
Google costs money? Go to DuckDuckGo
Goyimbook costs money? VK
Its that easy

>isp throttles your access to these sites so they're all slow as shit until you pay then

Herein lies the problem.

I'm not talking about peering fees that ISPs pay to each other.

I'm talking about what incumbent ISPs *want* to do as they become bigger monopolies with more market power. Net Neutrality would bar them from doing this no matter how much power they get.

Check the fine print on the primary fee. It's a 500MB limit to access other sites.

That's why OP is retarded and why the ISP won't he the one charging you for content.

You'll pay the same amount (or less) to your ISP and then pay YouTube a fee to use their service. They will then pay the ISP for the network.

People migrating to a new service like daily motion won't mean anything to the consumer as they will end up paying DM a fee as well, BECAUSE DM will have to pay the ISP for their network usage.

Shit will likely work with subscriptions or micro contracts. Both would be cheap as fuck to the consumer.

we alredy had this. you would pay a certain amount of money for a certain amount of mbs, now the free market pushed it for unendless internet. How can we go back, the free market wont allow it, unless of course they come up with some gay laws.
how does this work? we are not in china yet

you already made this thread over at 8/pol/, now that they handed you your ass, you want to shill this shit over here, too? Goyim, I...

i think i get it now, thats super fucked up.

are they taking concrete steps to make it happen?

>you have to pay in order to buy shit
OOOOOOOY VVEEEEEEEYY

Not really. As it stands now, we all carry the weight of Netflix, Youtube, Facebook, etc...

They are making a killing because of it. If we ended net neutrality, they would have to pay for their actual use of the network. Which means costs are split from them and their customers. So, people who don't use those services end up not paying much for Internet.

Netflix basically pays the same as anyone else, yet they use far more network resources than anyone else.

Idk

Comcast has already taken affirmative steps towards this end by implementing data caps in the least competitive wireline markets. As Comcast gets more market share (protected from competition by state laws that Comcast and pals wrote), they'll expand data caps to even more markets.

And then will come the nightmare scenario in the OP.

No, you'll pay your ISP. If you're paying the website as well, that'll be *after* you pay your ISP the extortionate toll road fees on top of your normal fees that you already pay.

It'll be shitty as fuck for the end user and result in people not having the freedom to go to the sites they want to.

Hell, given that NBC owns Comcast, I'd wager they hate Sup Forums with a burning passion after what happened in the 2016 elections. Do you really want NBC to decide who is allowed to access Sup Forums?

>amerifats have a cap on their internet

AHAAHAHHAHAAHAAAHHA

There are billions of websites. You can't just lump that shit in a few convenient packages and call it good. Stop thinking in terms of fucking television, to which the network pays the studios to carry content. That isn't how this works.

Nah m8. I had shit to do after I posted that thread so I couldn't respond much to it. Last I read, more were agreeing with me than disagreeing.

Tell that to the old television execs that own Comcast and Verizon and AT&T. They want to turn the Internet into television, essentially.

ok thats about the US. what about Europoors?

Okay sure dude, but you're completely fucking wrong.

I was in that thread and I agreed with you. Do you think you'll get more legitimate responses from this place than 8/pol? I just hate cross board shitposting more than anything, spells shill like nothing else.

Depends where. Europoors have other idiocy to worry about such as the European Commission pushing for Copyright liability for sites that host a link to Copyright infringing content. It'll fuck over a bunch of forums and cripple Google and make it so search engines other than Google or Bing pretty much go away for Europoors.

Citation needed.

Different people read the thread and responded to it. 4/pol/ and 8/pol/ don't have a complete overlap of posters.

The idea of net neutrality is literally to prevent exactly that.
It's the keep the internet from being privatized and sold like a common product.
Where the fuck do you get your information?

Of course they don't, only faggots like you and me. I'm just saying that that it's settled, nobody wants to prioritize certain Internet traffic routes over others, it's the same logic as letting Jewbook decide what's fake news.

Read the greentext again in the OP.

It says that's what ANTI-Net-Neutrality cucks want.

The wonders of capitalism, good job

>tfw I can have cable for like $135 a month
>or I could have Amazon Prime, Netflix, Hulu, Crunchyroll, Starz, and CBS All Access combined for $46.25

But telecom Kikery had that moral panic several months back conflating Net Neutrality with the old 80's era media Fairness Doctrine. A bunch of people on here who didn't know what Net Neutrality is were successfully rused by InfoWars and pals.

>free market
>laws that aren't the NAP

0/10

>First post is a Comcast shill

>Current market of cable TV bundles dying fast
>Try using same model on the entire internet

It's like they're not even TRYING to make more money.

Youd think these assholes would figure it out by. I can't seem to fathom why they think the business model that is failing with channels will work with internet?

>Inb4 "muh free market". There's no free market when (((Comcast))) and pals write the laws
>So let's ignore the core issue and push more unnecessary regulation
Net neutrality wouldn't be necessary if government didn't give ISPs monopolies over their region and the courts blocked these multi billion dollar mergers.

what was Infowars shilling for? Weren't they against this shit?

8/pol/ has a mod that works for Comcast. Go ahead and say something bad about comcast over there. Posting CP is less likely to get you banned.

They were shilling against Net Neutrality. They were labeling it as the "modern day Fairness Doctrine" a.k.a. telecom propaganda. Alex Jones has no idea what Net Neutrality actually is.

I've had threads on Net Neutrality hotpocketed far quicker on 4/pol/ than 8/pol/. This thread is an exception.

Not just Comcast, did you get into the redpill thread that got anchored? What kind of standard does that set, the epitome of Sup Forums posts getting shut down. I'm not defending the mods, just that cross posting obvious topics that have clear Sup Forums conclusions is kind of redundant.
Well, I expect nothing less from Jonestein. You'd think he'd see past that shit. Weird, but (((alt-right))) e-celebs are ideologically inconsistent (globalists v Jews) for a reason.

Of course, 8/pol/ mods need b8 to ban any poster committing wrongthink and speaking poorly about comcast.

>Comcast
>Founders: Ralph J. Roberts, Daniel Aaron,Julian A. Brodsky
The only possible unconfirmed Jew is Daniel Aaron, and he's unlisted. Rest are kikes. Oy vey!

Alex Jones would have to pay more if we got rid of net neutrality. I'm sure he knows what it is.

Net neutrality is good except when applied to 3rd world. We need a walled garden around the civilized internet.

Given his anti-Net-Neutrality shilling a few months back falsely calling it the modern day "Fairness Doctrine", evidently he doesn't know what it is.

OP is a faggot talking out his ass dont even bother wasting your breath

>not already using DuckDuckGo

youtu.be/pA8DdkM2Wqo

DuckDuckGo was founded by Gabriel Weinberg, an entrepreneur whose last venture, The Names Database, was acquired by United Online in 2006 for $10 million
Go look in the archives for the Internet privacy threads on 8/pol/, duckduckgo isn't as great as the alternatives. There was one that you could only run on Firefox, had a green globe for its icon. Heard good things about it, but I forgot its name.