So famalamas...

So famalamas, what are you going to do after the president-elect brings about the death of net neutrality and Sup Forums gets iced?

No self-respecting ISP would allow you to browse 4chins.

Other urls found in this thread:

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

"net neutrality" is shit.

>he still thinks "net neutrality" actually means "neutrality",
>just like "affordable health care act" meant "affordable",
>and "patriot act" is meant to protect "patriots",
>and "marketplace fairness act" is actually "fair" for businesses
>etc

>He wants a bastion of complete freedom to get snuffed just because even though it allowed him to further his beliefs to the point of getting them into the highest office achievable

You're the idiot suggesting things should change.

>Net Neutrality is currently being protected
>The possible next head of the FCC really wants it dead and thinks Trump is going to nuke it
>wanting things to stay as they are is change
substantiate your claims

4 chan exists. You are arguing that unless politicians pass new legislation, 4 chan won't exist. It's a non sequitur.

Where the hell do you get that?

I'm arguing that current regulations protecting net neutrality may get snubbed, and then Sup Forums may be in danger of not existing as it does now.

>I'm arguing that current regulations protecting net neutrality may get snubbed

What regulations?

There's currently a ban in place forbidding the blocking of lawful content and the practice of hiding certain sites behind additional packages like the OP lists.

Trump may actively work against this. There are certain benefits to an axed Net Neutrality like improved internet infrastructure, but are you really comfortable with corporations being able to control what you view on the internet?

Google, Bing etcetera already control what you can view on the internet. These in turn are controlled by the same people that control the gov.

Honestly, the whole tier'ed internet thing seems more like a Democrat thing to do.

"Muh freemarket" Republicans would probably want to leave the option open for new companies/ideas/and business models to arise, which couldn't happen in a tiered-internet environment.

What do you mean by "ban"? A "ban" isn't a legal term. And it's obviously false that private companies are forced to provide access to anything that is legal. So I'm not sure where you get this idea.

We will start "Freenet" it will be just like the internet but not fucking aids.

FCC Order from 2015.

You'll have to cite where it says that ISPs cannot fail to provide access to any legal content.

>ITT fags that conflate end-to-end of networking with government manipulation/intrusion aka taxpayers paying for Google's and Netflix bandwidth bills.

You need to learn peering agreements work.

>transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

the requirement to allow customers to access lawful content of their choosing is cited multiple times in here. ctrl+f lawful

Taxpayers also pay for the upkeep of roads that private companies use to transport materials/products by truck. It's not correct to conclude that taxpayers are paying for Walmart's "road tolls".

Hey, you're right. Thanks.

>paying for vital infrastructure is the same the share of the bandwidth bills for datahoglike google and Netflix.

we going back to dial-up BBS?

brb resurrecting an old PC from the 90s outta my basement.

Nothing going to happen user unless we hit peak spectrum which isn't likely.