FCC Republicans vow to gut net neutrality rules “as soon as possible"

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/fcc-republicans-vow-to-gut-net-neutrality-rules-as-soon-as-possible/

Fuck -yes-

How can one party be so based? I can't wait for all you sobbing trolls to get fucked as your Internet fees skyrocket beyond your paltry means while your service diminishes to nothing.

Not to mention Sup Forums is a prime example of a website which has high traffic but makes shit for profit. Like hell will they be able to afford buying "premium" connection speeds. This awful board will finally die.

Every shitty third party forum from here to the dark Internet is finally going to be crushed. The future looks glorious.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=izXnCkrfjO0
youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Sup Forums is dark Internet

Dude what?

Maybe when I'm saying

>from here to the dark Internet

I'm actually implying that 'here' is not the dark Internet, and I'm trying to convey the breadth of distance between the two.

Maybe you're an idiot who thinks I'm trying to say:

>From here to here

>implying net neutrality is good in anyway
>implying you should kys immediately

Nothing is going to happen when they remove net neutrality, it was a fucking sham to begin with. that's why they called it net neutrality, because its the opposite.

from poo in loo what you expect

Good

>that's why they called it net neutrality, because its the opposite.

Let's get a source on that, from something reputable though. Not state media like Breitbart.

Explain your reasoning.

My roommate works in Networking and thinks Net Neutrality is a big deal and HATED Trump's stance on it.

I can't debate him on this cause I don't know shit about net neutrality.

I don't trust the government to keep the internet fair DESU

I trust competing companies more than a political body

>competing
>companies

L O L

We're talking about cable companies you dumbshit.

youtube.com/watch?v=izXnCkrfjO0

Wtf does net neutrality mean?

We need media neutrality rules ASAP.

In it's most basic sense it's the idea that Internet service providers should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services.

Without net neutrality corporations and the like can buy access to bandwidth, making their websites faster at the cost of decreasing bandwidth access from competing websites.

So, for example, imagine there was a new online retailer that wanted to compete with Amazon in some niche market. Kind of like newegg with electronics. With net neutrality both websites would be seen as equally fast to potential customers, creating a more equal playing field between the two corporations as they attempt to sell their products.

Without net neutrality Amazon could purchase increased Internet bandwidth, which implicitly means less bandwidth for competing companies unless they can fork up an equal amount of money. In this scenario the customers looking at the two websites to buy a product would experience very slow page loading times on the new competing company.

Attached is an image which describes how slow page loading times is directly related to people abandoning the website altogether.

imagine being this blue pilled

the only "competition" will be how much ISPs can out-jew each other

Are you my roommate?

>I can't wait for all you sobbing trolls to get fucked as your Internet fees skyrocket beyond your paltry means while your service diminishes to nothing.

No, but what will happen is Google's/Facebook's/MSFTs internet fees will skyrocket.

Don't know why libtards want to subsidize literally 5 largest companies in the world with this net neutrality bullshit.

>I trust jewish companies more than the mostly white government
L E L

As an addendum to this
No net neutrality would also mean shitty loading times for every non profit, public, or non-profitable website.

Sup Forums would be a prime example of a non-profitable website which would be shafted with shitty loading times without net neutrality.

If that's the price you have to pay to keep welfare draining immigrnats out. Then so be it.

The left is at fault for creating this situation we are in, this situation that forces people to elect Trump.

Nope, I am in CS though.

>In it's most basic sense it's the idea that Internet service providers should treat all data that travels over their networks fairly, without improper discrimination in favor of particular apps, sites or services.

In other words, they can't charge Facebook more than myshittywebsite.com for the same speeds. (ie absolutely retarded policy, that ends up subsidizing Kikebook at the expense of myshittywebsite.com)

>I can't debate him on this cause I don't know shit about net neutrality.
I love the attitude of wanting to attain knowledge for the purpose of contradicting someone who already possesses that knowledge. i.e. you want to argue against net neutrality, most likely because Trump admin supports it, not because you've formed an educated opinion about it one way or the other.

That guy doesn't know shit about it either. Net Neutrality isn't a problem if you have competition in the market. But in various areas of your country there's no ISP competition, so it's likely going to be a net negative for most people.

hes right imo.

without it, jews can charge you for using Sup Forums at whatever rate they want.

guess how much Sup Forums is going to start costing?

Let me rephrase this: removing Net Neutrality isn't a problem if you have competition, but your country doesn't have proper ISP competition, so removing Net Neutrality will be a negative for most people.

You just want attention so damn bad.

You took time to try and trigger responses and you sit here hitting refresh just so you can reply.

You're the basement liberal and you've crossed into our basement. Now fuck off!

oh no i might have to go outside

it already has shitty loading times you fucking cuck

What a redneck

Demands we give government power over internet.


Realizes what the hell we were all talking about when we said do not give them a single millimeter of power over the internet the instant someone they dont like takes over.

The true danger of net neutrality is that it allows for and in fact encourages cities to create their own broadband service. This destroys choice even further (now you can only buy internet AND health care from the government :^)), destroys jobs and the tax base that they create and drives more normies into the hands of Microsoft and Google because by being so heavily subsidized they can afford to give away their bullshit """free""" services.

It's not a good thing.

>Government creates """anti-trust""" regulations in 1900s
>As a result of those creations, largest monopoly in the history of the world is created - "American Telephone & Telegraph" (AT&T)
>Government gets paid by google lobbyists
>Government creates net-neutrality
>Government says "ooops, can't get rid of net-neutrality now" there are all these monopolies.

Just...

By the way, if you want competition, all you have to do is repeal the communications act and bunch of legislature that makes it impossible for you and me to start an ISP company.

You've got it backwards, first: Internet bandwidth is a constrained resource cable companies like Comcast fight tooth and nail to prevent from being updated.

It's why Google has met such limited success with their attempts to roll out Google Fiber.

Now back to Facebook and myshittywebsite.com, this is kind of a gross oversimplification but imagine you have a total Internet bandwidth of 100mb/s.

Both Facebook and the shitty website get a dedicated 50mb/s for both their sites, because with net neutrality they should be treated equal.

Facebook however says they'll pay three times as much as myshittywebsite.com for increased bandwidth, to which the cable company heartily agrees. The total bandwidth remains 100mb/s, but because Facebook is paying three times as much as myshittywebsite their bandwidth should be three times more.

Giving Facebook a bandwidth of 75mb/s while myshittywebsite's bandwidth gets cut to 25mb/s.

Do you get it?

>internet fair
>I trust competing companies
TOP KEK

>The true danger of net neutrality is that it allows for and in fact encourages cities to create their own broadband service. This destroys choice even further

>more choice is less choice
I'm sorry, but what? Cities creating their own broadband service = more choices.

Do you really think both will happen at the same time? It's way more likely for action to be taken to remove net neutrality first before regulations and bureaucracy are removed so that it's easier to start ISPs. In the mean time (if it ever happens that regulations in the field are reduced), people will be exploited. This may happen for years.

Yeah, and it's going to get that much fucking worse.

>city broadband MASSIVELY subsidized by city taxes and city official corruption, run through city owned cables that they will NEVER FUCKING EVER let anyone else use without a law forcing them to because they're city property
>"""choice"""

>competing markets
>staying in their own separate markets

tl;dr It prevents cable-TVifying of the internet

Cities wouldn't be forced to do that if actual competition from private companies existed. But they decided to be a cartel instead so such things are necessary. In many areas of the US people only have 1 provider available to them.

>he thinks the government is mostly white
>he doesn't know the jews are actually in control

It's almost like corporations would have to provide an improved and cheaper service to remain competitive.

Do ou work for Comcast though? Our cable companies actually collude by cutting up regions so within a region there's only one internet service provider.

They fucking hate competing, so they don't. We're offered only one choice and we have to pay out the nose for a shitty service as a result.

That's a pretty good analogy actually.

Competition doesn't exist in this sort of situation which is why nearly all municipal broadband initiatives are smacked down in the first place. Just like communism, net neutrality might sound good on paper but in practice it doesn't work.

You honestly think this is better?
Or are you being paid to post?

I almost supported Net Neutrality. At first it seemed good. there were 7ish paragraphs about new additions to regulations to companies. These first 6 regulations sounded pretty decent like prevention of throttling and allowing all types of content on their providers. However, the 7th paragraph was so broad that it made me sick. I especially got more paranoid once I did a little bit more reading and found out that the government are in charge of heading these regulations. The 7th paragraph is very general for the goal of preventing "unreasonable interference or unreasonable disadvantage" for any Internet user on either end. Its goal is to provide protection against other ways of preventing censorship by companies. However, it offered no specific way of battling or operationally defining these "disadvantages". These disadvantages can arguably be subjective, as they apply both the companies and the users, and subjective is bad when it means that the government is more likely to pay attention to the complaints of the louder voice(more company power=more voice). These disadvantages of preventing "interference" are so broad that it could lead to many situations of government and/or company regulation by extended definition due to the open-endedness of data caps, fines, and such for overuse of data. Overuse of data can easily fit into the category of "inconveniences" to a company, which may lead to actual censoring of websites, such like Sup Forums and other news outlets, that companies/government can easily deem as "overbearing" and thus shut down and/or fine heavily due to fitting in the very general definition of "interferences". I would fully support Net Neutrality solely for the first 6 additions of regulations, but the 7th is just asking for a police state and behind-the-doors censorship.

>We're offered only one choice and we have to pay out the nose for a shitty service as a result.

So just like with your water bill and most of the time with your electric bill and natural gas bill because they're all government controlled utilities, just like what net neutrality wants to do to the internet. Go look up Title II and tell me if you think that it's okay for the feds to entangle your internet access in the same net that they hold the electric companies and water companies in.

>libs want to block "fake news"
>but also "claim" to want net neutrality
Lies

I am sorry? You think corporations would offer public utilities at a cheaper rate? Are you nuts?

Listen, this might come as a shock to you, but corporations only care about -making a profit-. You shouldn't trust a corporation to care about anything else.

That means given the opportunity they'll cut expenditures where they can even if it's vital to the integrity of a product (see VW) and will destroy any competition to create a de facto monopoly to jack rates sky high (see Comcast).

You're either a deluded cuck, an uncle tom to corporations shafting their customer base, or being paid to espouse this opinion and care because it's your job.

As usual, Sup Forums wound up cucking themselves.

I bet you love watching daddy trump take the cable company's BBC.

>Sup Forums shut down forever

Good, maybe I can get a life then.

of course they would, because of competition. They can't make a profit by jacking up their rates when timewarner^2 offers it for half price. Title 2 eliminates competition which eliminates free market price discovery, and giving a monopoly to whoever the government decides should administer the only infrastructure allowed

>You think corporations would offer public utilities at a cheaper rate? Are you nuts?
oh god, its retarded.
go look up craigslist gasoline during hurricane sandy

>BBC
pay your tv license goyim, dont you want tv neutrality

Don't forget, it also prevents ISPs from outright blocking certain websites.

I wonder how many companies will decide Sup Forums doesn't gel with their code of ethics.

And in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, Monatana, where there's only one ISP? Who's gonna stop them? The only reasonable competitor right now is Google Fiber, and the Big ISPs are doing everything they can to legislate them out of existence.

Retarded ancaps ITT doesn't realize that ISPs have monopolies over areas and can do whatever they want to fuck over their customers. Net Neutrality is a necessary piece of regulation to protect the users from buttfuckery.

>And in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, Monatana, where there's only one ISP? Who's gonna stop them?
the montana ISP that springs up the second you try, nigger

>because of competition

You do realize corporations hate competition? That the ultimate realization for any corporation is a monopoly.

They only compete when there's a regulator of the field that enforces the competition and prevents monopolies from forming.

I mean, shit, why would Comcast care about not jacking up their rates when Republicans let them merge with Timewarner, so there is no competition?

That being said, it's not like there's any real competition anyway.

youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso

>hurr monopolies are a bad!
>surely a SECOND monopoly is a good thing that will fix this
>this will in no way further distort our market
either you are against monopolies or you are not

So why not just use the company that comes closest to the rules as they are now?

>They only compete when there's a monopoly of the field that enforces the competition and prevents monopolies from forming.
heh

So why haven't they started charging 500 dollars a month for dial up speeds, hm? There must be some reason why..

oh, wait. Did you ever stop to think that they have to provide a valid deal in the first place? People will just not pay for internet if it costs too much and they'll leech it from anyone who does (Starbucks, Mcdonalds, the library, wherever) which will lead to the company being forced to lower prices to a sane level or risk going out of business because they just lost 3/4 of their subscriber base.

You're like a woman who keeps screaming "but think of the children!!!!"

and also goodbye to every small website hosting information on hobbies and skills

lol

yeah, this is great. let's turn the internet into cable tv. pay per website and game you want access to.

underrated
have a (you)

>the montana ISP that springs up the second you try, nigger
Oh yes, let's all start our magical ISPs. We all have millions of dollars lying around to start them up, right? And I suppose we can use the cables that magically sprout from the ground, like the Indians did.

>The future you coose

Base Internet - $50/mo
Imageboard access - Addl $20/mo
Steaming from non Comcast sources - Addl $30/mo
BitTottent Access - Addl $100/mo

It somewhat cripples online leftie brainwashing outlets like social media such as Youtube (and by extension, Google), Facebook, and so on; and news sites such as CNN.

It also somewhat cripples moral-degenerating outlets such as porn sites.

It does that by making it more expensive for them. They can't just propagate more of their degeneracy without it being more expensive, especially shit in video form.

The failing traditional MSM has been trying to slowly migrate to the Internet platform for years now. When Net Neutrality is gutted, it may become very cost-prohibitive for them as they'd get some traffic.

Advertising is their main source of income, and most of their business are supported by it. Their shilling won't be as effective behind a subscription paywall because the majority of people don't want to pay for news or any other thing (if possible), so they'll be forced to keep the ad revenue business model. The cost will be passed on to companies who wants to show their ads in MSM. But MSM reputation is horribly damaged so not a lot of people would want to see MSM anyways, leading to less views. Less views mean companies would only put a few ads because not only is it more expensive now but it's also not as effective to advertise via MSM. It will be a slippery slope for MSM, until they can repair their damaged reputation (which may not be likely). Ads will most likely go back to pics instead of vid ads too, to further cut costs.

As far as the content/propaganda itself, it will be very costly for them. Netflix and other subscription model, content-streaming services (and MSM, which also runs streaming services) will either eat the costs to remain competitive or they pass it on to the customers; the latter is more likely. When that happens, some of their subscribers will drop them. It would be "cord-cutting 2.0"

Overall, it weakens the liberal media significantly.

America gets most of its internet from satellites anyway

I didn't vote for any of these FCC republicans though

>regulator means monopoly

What?

Aint going to effect me one tiny bit so i dont give a fuck faggot.

Net neutrality is a Jewish trojan horse.

Disregard.

Now this I can get behind.

If it fucks up the internet the backlash will be greater than anything you have ever experienced in your lifetimes.

One does not simply break the internet for Americans.

Without net neutrality, the Internet is just Cable TV: total control by a handful of companies.

How can Republicans be so stupid?

"The Media" Owns the biggest cable provider in the country.

How innocently they wander into a field of hornet's nests.

>ACLU in favor

It's probably a mistake then.

Because lobbyists. Tbh even if it does get completely dicked into cable 2.0, the big boy companies are going to try and lobby back.

I can't see this working out in the long run even for Verizon and such.

It's almost as though a bunch of sixty-plus guys teetering on senility aren't tech savy!

Protip: despite the commonly seen quote, the Internet is not just for porn. There are very few jobs out there that you can have without having an Internet connection. And no higher education whatsoever because you need access to the Internet to use systems like blackboard and complete assignment.
People can't just "stop" buying Internet for the same reason they can't just stop buying food.

With Breitbart being so deep in the cabinet and Trump's campaign partially relying on smaller websites I don't know if they'll be advising in favor of any kind of internet regulation. It's not going to pass quietly one way or another. The democrats need issues that are legitimate to fight Republicans on again instead of the collapsing hill of identity politics

>Sup Forums hates net neutrality now

What the fuck happened to this board?

>people wanting to get fucked in the ass by corporations

>What the fuck happened to this board?

Blind support for Trump without giving it any real thought.

>It somewhat cripples online leftie brainwashing outlets like social media such as Youtube (and by extension, Google), Facebook, and so on; and news sites such as CNN.

>Google
>Facebook

Are you nuts? Those are huge corporations, they'll jump at the opportunity to crush their competition and dominate Internet bandwidth.

I gave a small example here:
But what you could really imagine is Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, ect. paying fat loads of cash to take as much of the pie as possible. While non-profit and public websites or ones simply not profitable not Sup Forums and pretty much every other Internet forum try and get by with the base rate.

The 100mb/s total Internet bandwidth example would be cut up more like 90mb/s a second split between corporations spending far above the base rate for access, while every single other public, non-profit website gets relegated to 10mb/s.

You can kiss goodbye any opportunity for new corporations to compete online with those giants. The destruction of net neutrality would be a godsend for their bottom line.

It's slowly going to die though. Over time people change their opinions and the blind support will fade

>wtf Sup Forums loves X now
Hardly, it seems pretty contentious in this one thread alone to me

>the companies that exist now, with the help of the state
>will always be the only companies now and forever
this is why you lost to trump

Net neutrality threads are ultra stealth /leftypol/. (formerly JIDF)

this
All these shills are acting paranoid as if denying Net Neutrality that will catalyze some sort of movement among all these monopolies/companies that will start with them censoring/fining people for using certain sites, or start buying up bandwidth. By supporting Net Neutrality, you are supporting this 7th virtue that I mentioned earlier, which thereby lets government a direct hand in censoring sites through money/restrictions. Even if the service is shitty, I'd rather have the choice of a more flexible company that won't be universally censored by the government. Also, if there's the case of a monopoly where the bandwidth has been completely sold out to one company, I do not need internet as much as I love this board. Internet is not a necessity, and I'd rather explore and discover controversial views such as this than be legally censored by it via "net neutrality". Either they change this fucking last paragraph for net neutrality regarding "interferences" or I'm ok with paying slightly more money for a more tolerable internet but also more shitty internet service.

pol has turned into fucking retards voting against their self-interests.

Trump isn't an FCC republican so I don't see the logic in shifting the blame there when Sup Forums already hates republicans

Wow I guess I'm not voting for Trump now...

Middle ground sounds about right.. sux that too many retards rather give in to these giant IPS.

>People can't just "stop" buying Internet for the same reason they can't just stop buying food.

t. millennial who would hang himself if his iPhone broke

Google and co. have tons of money but certainly not infinite money. They'll have to start charging something somehow to justify the increased expense, which means that smaller sites will actually be able to compete with normies (we're slower but we don't charge you $9.99 a year to use email!) which leads to actual free market situations.

If you oppose this you're either a liberal state-slave or a moron who needs to be taken off his Netflix soma in the first place.

Sup Forums has always hated turning over control of the internet to the government you stupid faggot

I know some companies in the us think they can actually make bank out of this. But this is literally handing US internet to google on a silver platter.

If they try to jew users even more google will fucking curbstomp them and this will just open the market to google.