Why would anyone be against net-neutrality?

Why would anyone be against net-neutrality?

Do they enjoy getting buttfucked by corporations? ISPs have regional monopolies throughout the United States and will gladly fuck consumers over.

Other urls found in this thread:

isidewith.com/candidate-guide/donald-trump/domestic-policy/net-neutrality
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

if it comes from their side, its okay.

I don't see any problem with that, it seems easy to understand.

>paying triple to get the same internet you get now
and you'll also see that no trumpets actually defend net neutrality, and they'll blame it on obama/the jews when, on day one, trump gets rid of it and lets internet companies do whatever they want with you.

Maybe if the companies get more money then they will be able to invest in infrastructure and give you a better service.

>Why would anyone be against net-neutrality?

Trump is because he's a puppet of Comcast.

You clearly don't understand that companies are just padding their pockets. They barely spend any money as it stands on infrastructure, and make record profits. This is basically trickle down economy thinking. Service will actually be worse with net neutrality gone, because internet companies will do everything in their power to shut down complete access to any torrent-related websites, and shut down free speech/any websites that don't pay them.

Because their bull Trump told them it was bad.

How dare you think for yourself, bad goy. I suggest you reread my previous posts and get used to your inevitable future.

ISPs are stingy, they'll only do it when threatened, which they never are, otherwise they'll just nickel and dime the shit out of you.

That's right goy, we wouldn't want competition to hurt the consumer. Internet is a utility that needs to be controlled by the government, like water. Don't you feel safer with fluoride in the water?

>we wouldn't want competition to hurt the consumer
The issue is lack of competition between ISPs would hurt the consumer. If net-neutrality was removed competition wouldn't show up regardless.

Jesus Christ how long is CTR gonna keep paying you?

but there is no competition with ISP's because of how they're regulated, so its a monopoly, which is why you'll only ever find 1-2 different companies in any given area, and no smaller ones. They aren't just going to pop up outta nowhere because of no net neutrality. Thats like if the only store around was a wal-mart, and the government said 'okay, now stores can charge you triple depending on what types of food you want to buy' but small companies won't be able to deal with it, mom and pop stores are at an all time low because of them being constantly bought out, same with internet providers.

So all the regional monopolies in America will just magically disappear?

What is the benefit from removing net-neutrality?

If this was the case, just drop home internet and use a library/public space. That, or forgo the internet alltogether.

Because its communist thing and lolbertarians belive corporations should be able to do whatever they like.

There is absolutely no benefit to removing net neutrality, if you're a fucking jew rat. Seriously, when did Sup Forums start shilling so hard for Israel? This is getting ridiculous.

>I have no defense
>jew card!
keep drinking that kool-aid

Net neutrality means that the thought police can do whatever they wan't whenever they want't.

Yes what could go wrong with giving the federal government control over the internet we know they will be fair and just like the FCC and IRS have been

fucking statist faggots

>hurr durr let's keep giving the government control of our lives
>haha you believe in the free market? What a homo lol
Fuck off you commie shit.

>just drop home internet and use a library/public space

what kind of horrible fucking person actually sees this as a solution

fucking faggot brit partitioning the internet.

You just get paywalls instead, spend an extra $5 a month to access Sup Forums

>free market
>when ISP's already have complete control over the market
enjoy paying 15 more bucks a month just to view Sup Forums and a few other sites.

>wanting to pay for services you don't use

Do you pay for TV channels you don't use? So why do it for the internet?

>doesn't want to pay a reasonable price for a service
>is offered a free alternative
>turns his nose up at it
So now you're Mr. Bigshot Collegeboy? "I'm too good to use the public library", kill yourself.

Because ISPs are big enough Jews to just increase the price overall, they have no competition so nobody can stop them.

>Do you pay for TV channels you don't use?
yea, you do. Do you want a paywall on sites you want to check out, and are forced to pay to even browse them? Do you want your favorite, smaller sites to shut down because they can't pay ISP's to get better connections? There is basically no benefit since overall unless you're going to only look at a couple of sites, you're going to spend more every month for less.

>mfw when people in the US get triggered by not having home internet

The government has no right to interfere with private businesses.

Internet access is a privilege, not a right.

I love how theres a suddenlink office a mile away from my house, yet there's no cables in my neighborhood so everyone is forced to get satellite TV and shitty DSL that only goes up to 10Mbps. They could get everyone on my block to switch if they put in the cables, but they refuse to do it because ???

>the market isn't open enough
>let's tack on more regulations!
Absolutely fucking brilliant.

So go get a bank loan and take them on. You can be their competition and take them down.

How am I going to jerk off to trap porn in the library, genius?

What happens to the monopolies then?

Yeah and every road should be a toll road and we should be allowed to to buy babies

>comcast makes over 75 billion in profits a year
>"just take a loan out and become their competition!"
thats like starting up a fucking dollar food store to compete with wal-mart

You aren't allowed to funnel your service through existing cables because the current ISPs own them and they basically pay off city zoning commissions or make it insanely expensive to put in your own cables.

Stable monopolies only exist because of government intervention. In a free market, if a monopoly overcharges or provides a sub-par service, competition will arise to drive down the price. If they provide a good service at a reasonable price there is no issue.

You've got to start somewhere. If you achieve local success then you could expand.

I think 4G tech is good enough now that you can skip wires. Vodafone in the UK have launched a home broadband service which uses 4G.

that alternative is literally less than shit, go fuck yourself

would rather be dead than be within 100 miles of Dominican Republic so it's like your thought doesn't even matter

Don't even bother. Libertarians are the right wing equivalent of communists and are equally fucking retarded.

Most of it was really a false narrative spun by big corporations that had a lot to lose. ISPs would gain very little by trying to gouge people on access to places that make up tiny fractions of their load, but wouldn't mind doing it to the biggest drains that are causing them to enforce quotas on all users. Well over half of all bandwidth goes through Google + Netflix, and Google was a massive spearhead of net neutrality for that exact reason.

Google did a good job of marketing it as some bastion of consumer rights, but it ultimately was just corporate interest vs corporate interest, and the more powerful corporations won. The consumer gained nothing, and probably lost in the long run since it's just meant higher prices and stricter bandwidth limiting across ISPs. ISPs are shit in the US, but they also have a stranglehold. Instead of letting them choke Google, consumers got tricked into biting the bullet for them.

Starting up ISPs are fucking expensive you need to set up a ridiculous amount of infustructure, even fucking Google is still losing money in their ISP ventures. Competition just won't come naturally.

...

what does CTR stand for again?

If it's too expensive to start, where did all the current ISPs come from? Fuck off you retard.

I love paying $185 for business class so I can have no caps at 60Mbps because the 300Mbps plan is capped at 1TB.

>the 1TB exists for all speed tiers
>paying for a faster connection just means you hit your cap sooner than people with slower connections

What are the speeds in Mbps? If it isn't over 20 its not worth it.

>In a free market, if a monopoly overcharges or provides a sub-par service, competition will arise to drive down the price.

What actually happen
>competitor appear
>company who had monopoly massively drop price
>competitor doesn't have the financial ressources to decrease its price
>competitor go bankrupt and close
>company rise its price as it was before competitor show up
>rinse and repeat

They were big businesses beforehand, or didn't have monopolies to fuck them

>frog doesn't understand economics
Not surprising, France is Venezuela tier.

What's wrong with that? The weak should know their place.

Mergers out the asshole and local monopoly contracts.

most ISP's that are still big today started in the 60's and also use TV, not just internet. they also moved extremely slowly, which is why no net neutrality means that while competition might crop up, it's going to take them 20+ years to even be anything near a competitor.

>allow me to scoff from my beautiful island nation

Because ISPs are not commerce between the states and the Feds have no business regulating them

Basically this.

>local monopoly contracts
Those are cancerous, I agree. Giving the Internet up to unelected government regulators is not the solution however.

Control the Republicans

Because the monopoly can continue to offer bottom of the barrel service in exchange for crazy high prices with no regulation at all.

"We own the only water treatment plant in town and the reservoir it comes from. You can only get water if you pay us $100 per gallon."

and?

>t. communist

Move to China if you don't like capitalism.

You can start a new ISP
States can regulate them
There is no need for Federal involvement

It wasnt like that before net neutrality

The problem is burger pretend total unregulated free market would naturally produce competition and induce a drop in internet connexion price while in reality any competitor would be destroyed on sight and monopoly would stay.

But burger like to pay more than 100$ for an internet connexion limited in data and speed.
While in France the unlimited internet connexion with telephonic subscription+television is around 70$

enjoy having to pay more money for literally no increase in service.

At that point it becomes cheaper to import the water, which everybody will do thanks to enlightened self interest. Then the local producer will reduce his rates enough to make his business competitive (or even more due to the bad will generated by his bone-headed move).

not an argument

clearly explain how state involvement is in any way different than federal involvement

>I base my political beliefs on fake images by Occupy Democrats

the internet also wasn't nearly as popular.

enjoying being a slave to the state.

i paid $50 for 1 mbs 10 years ago
I pay $35 for 6 now

Getting rid of it would make sense if there was actual competition. As things stand now, ISPs have regional monopolies though, many of them sanctioned by local governments. Giving more power to them would just allow them to rape their customers.

One is legal under the constitution

2 years ago?

you'll just be a slave to the ISP, while they gouge you with prices.

Maybe I live in one of the houses, who knows. The thing is, I can survive there and do just dandy.
Not all Americans are as soft as you, but those that are get their jobs taken from people like Armaan, who has to feed his parents/cousins/sisters/brothers in India and has the literal hunger to succeed.

Mind you, this is about:
>one person saying not having home internet is worse than satan

Bet you had to look a bit for that image, eh? :) Those are the poor of the country. They are no better off than people in the suburbs of Detroit.

>Getting rid of it

It's already gotten rid of, stupid.

"You can't use the cables that already exist, they are owned by jewcast."

"Oh sure, you can put in new cables, but its going to cost you 10x more than jewcast had to pay because of new taxes and fees our local government paid off by jewcast had implemented."

"Looks like Jewcast is offering their services for $15 less than you now, oh you can't go any lower because of how expensive setting up your company and infrastructure was and them taking a loss is a minor tax write off? Sorry goy, free market and all."

I can always cancel their service

both are

Do you know literally anything about how monopolies remain monopolies,or are you going to continue being a retard?

....you can with internet now as well.

Too bad you can't import internet service.

Didn't the FCC rule in favor of net neutrality?

>our local government
change your local government instead of running to the feds to bail you out

ISPs are not commerce between the states

...

that is kind of what ISPs do now

>Why would anyone be against net-neutrality?
I don't like poor people having access to things.

has nothing to do with your initial point, or mine.

They never do this unless they're faced with competition, and ISPs almost never are.

Maybe cell phones and wireless companies. Actual good internet from ground cables is monopoly owned.

Isn't net neutrality a good thing?

>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.

Can someone redpill me on NN?

who i this internet monopoly?

isidewith.com/candidate-guide/donald-trump/domestic-policy/net-neutrality

Trump is against it. You should be against it too.