Net Neutrality

How do Drumpf niggers defend this? It basically makes one or two people richer and everyone else's lives shittier.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso
youtube.com/watch?v=cAStVnqD53U
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6857092/
ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7179439/
youtube.com/watch?v=wWeNR7WIkDs
youtube.com/watch?v=aJ7bCKYJZJI
budde.com.au/Research/Somalia-Telecoms-Mobile-and-Broadband-Statistics-and-Analyses
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because for the very very very very large majority, government intervention and regulation is bad

is there anything the righteous can't fuck up?

why wouldn't you support getting rid of arbitrary data caps and outrageous rates?

more regulation = less competition = bad time for average joe

>very very very very large majority, government intervention and regulation is bad

Which is why Trump lost the popular vote, right?

They're either retarded or being paid to defend this.

A couple years ago Sup Forums supported the fuck out of Ron Paul and Net Neutrality.

The way I see it:
>isps put in the data priviledges for big companies
>some jews create a "net neutral" isp that doesn't do that
>everybody flocks to them
>they make mad cash
>most isps follow suit and we get some self-imposed net neutrality due to popular demand
People are too used to using the whole internet. There will either be OWS-tier protests or aformentioned scenario happening and in the end nothing will change.

i would only support this if it was legally mandated for there to be a minimum number of providers in all regions. ontario had a massive internet monopoly problem and we largely fixed it by legally forcing them to rent out their lines to 3rd party providers.

>Which is why Trump lost the popular vote, right?

What?

piss poor uneducated argument

RID NET "NEUTRALITY"

REOPEN AND AWAKEN THE MINDS AND IMAGINATIONS
OF THE AVERAGE JOE

End suppression

>some jews create a "net neutral" isp that doesn't do that


Hahaha, oh, you poor, naive, cuck. Existing ISPs don't compete and the cash threshold required for a new ISP is insurmountable for any upstart business.

youtube.com/watch?v=0ilMx7k7mso

Is this a joke?

lol can we get over this "jews love money" meme.

jews love POWER. money doesnt mean shit to them compared to completely dismantling all websites that allow truth. this "fake news" shit isnt a coincidence. the internet is the last bastion of true free speech.

not like hillary would have done any different if she won though, we just wouldnt be hearing about it.

Romania disagrees with you anti market idiots.

youtube.com/watch?v=cAStVnqD53U

>implying google will settle paying crippling fees to Viacom or time warner jews, instead of creating and shilling their own net neutral isp to use the google searc engine fully
They will literally win mad cash be the "good guys" in the people's eyes and expand their already xboxhueg corporation. I don't see why this wouldn't happen

From my experience every service provider I've been with already doesn't fucking do this.

I don't see how this will affect me in the slightest.

>lol can we get over this "jews love money" meme.
"jews" is used figuratively you tard. I mean people with money.

There is no and has never been a compelling case for net neutrality regulations.

For as much as liberals love to say they are pro-science, there has never been any academic research that showed the benefit of NN regulations. In fact, existing research has concluded the exact opposite.

Instead of taking this evidence or lack thereof into account, and instead of debating this issue, Obama's partisan FCC decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater, reclassifying the internet as a utility and miring the entire industry into a decade of regulatory uncertainty.

There is a reason why telecom infrastructure investment is up since the election, and this is one of them.

Again, they should be gutting voter rights first and foremost.

It has nothing to do with startup costs.

Local governments grant cable companies exclusive rights through franchise agreements.

Why not solve the root cause rather than clinging to the regulated Comcast model we have now, which everybody already hates?

We don't have a market you corporate shill.

There needs to be competition for there to be a market.

>In fact, existing research has concluded the exact opposite.

Citations please

what bothers me is providers use my bandwidth to show me ads I don't wanna see

They hear the term "big government" and get triggered.

The fact is by gutting net neutrality you're allowing for ISPs arbitrary to decide (in infrastructure terms) whose trucks gets a priority pass on publicly funded roads, and how much you charge on said roads with no requirement to build additional lanes if there are traffic jams or to provide any real capacity for civilians who don't have corporate $$$.

The end of net neutrality is the end of the Internet (in the States) as we know it. Ridiculously enough, this will probably cause tremendous profit non-American hosting providers.

Communications infrastructure is a closed industry; There is no real competition. You can't just get venture funding for a startup and begin digging up people's front lawns to lay fiber.

The logic behind net neutrality is just calling a spade a spade and regulate the existing monopoly as a public utility instead of collectively shoving our heads back up our asses and pretending anyone is competing or that an actual market exists while comcast continues to swallow up regional ISPs and foist their shit service on everyone.

Bad move. This will hurt a lot of people.

>We don't have a market you corporate shill.

someone didn't watch the video.

>There needs to be competition for there to be a market.

Yes, which is nowhere near existing in America. All the FCC should do is maintain the records of who owns the rights to which radio bands.

>The fact is by gutting net neutrality you're allowing for ISPs arbitrary to decide (in infrastructure terms) whose trucks gets a priority pass on publicly funded roads, and how much you charge on said roads with no requirement to build additional lanes if there are traffic jams or to provide any real capacity for civilians who don't have corporate $$$.

Yes, and the solution isn't the glorious clusterfuck that is net neutrality, it's privatizing the roads.

>[explain huge problem with severe implications to normal people]
>Yes, the solution is to allow them the full freedom to do just that
What the fuck are you smoking? Do you not know what happens when you give full power and practical monopoly (the expense of building the infrastructure is insane) to corporations on utilities and infrastructure? You think they'll expand the capacity according to demand, given they can charge what they want? That's not what they did in South American countries. Why do you think this is any different?

What happened to the IT user from the midwest who used to visit these threads? I remember he posted pics of his qt wife one time.

This will automatically make any ISP responsible for all content since they will move for Carrier status to Content Provider.

>What the fuck are you smoking?

Whatever it is, it's better than your stuff.

> Do you not know what happens when you give full power and practical monopoly (the expense of building the infrastructure is insane) to corporations on utilities and infrastructure?

I know this isn't really a question, but I'll bite. A state of monopoly becomes impossible without government intervention granting privileges to some providers over others. They will, as history has shown, compete with each other and generate an infrastructure that is actually more reliable and secure than that created by the monopoly service provider because it will be decentralized and have fewer points of failure. Prices will be forced down by competition and the consumer will benefit.

>You think they'll expand the capacity according to demand, given they can charge what they want?

They can charge whatever they want. Doesn't mean consumers will pay it. This thing called competition exists in markets, it incentivizes a firm to deliver a product that is better than a competing firm's at a lower price. You should look it up.

>That's not what they did in South American countries. Why do you think this is any different?

I don't know what happened in South American countries user (but you can probably bet that government meddling, incompetence, and corruption were involved) but that isn't even my frame of reference for "what I think is different". My frame of reference is what happened in Romania and the system there like i posted in and how utilities worked in America before the progressives fucked it up and granted government monopolies. It wasn't uncommon to have multiple telephone, electric, and water companies within a few city blocks even.

Newfags don't understand that blind support of republicans is just as bad the other side.

>tfw pol really is just a bunch of /r/the_donald users

Because they're all paid fucking shills "occupying" this site.

>They're either retarded or being paid to defend this.
Ding ding for the second answer. They're paid fucking shills and corporate crocs.

>A couple years ago Sup Forums supported the fuck out of Ron Paul and Net Neutrality.
Then the shills roamed on in.

>A state of monopoly becomes impossible without government intervention granting privileges to some providers over others.
I'm glad you ignore the cost of building a competing infrastructure to even enter the race. It's not like that's a show stopper... no wait, it is.

>They can charge whatever they want. Doesn't mean consumers will pay it. This thing called competition exists in markets, it incentivizes a firm to deliver a product that is better than a competing firm's at a lower price. You should look it up.
All predicated on the cost of building a competing infrastructure not being practically impossible.

>I don't know what happened in South American countries user
Aaand into the trash it goes. You're a typical talking point parroting ignoramus truly worthy of that flag above your post. I'm only disappointed in myself in that I allowed myself to be surprised by your ignorance.

So what is next after this? If net neutrality goes then how can we even have a functioning Internet here in the States? I mean not to sound hysterical or apocalyptic or anything but it basically sounds like this will fuck over pretty much every site that isn't run by a megacorporation, which means bye-bye Sup Forums.

The problem leaf, is you don't know those few guys who are gonna be massively wealthy once net neutrality is kill. Trump does. See no problem.

This is a paper from a conference I went to several years ago:

ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6857092/

and here is another one from as early as last year that argues in support of fast lanes:

ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7179439/

This is, of course, restricting the definition of net neutrality to paid prioritization only.

There are also recent articles in ieee that excoriate the policy for ignoring the engineering complexities of the internet. I will see if I can dig them up later.

>This thing called competition exists
no, it doesn't. not in this case. educate yourself on this fucking issue retard.

>I mean not to sound hysterical or apocalyptic or anything but it basically sounds like this will fuck over pretty much every site that isn't run by a megacorporation, which means bye-bye Sup Forums.
Yeah, for you guys. The rest of the world still gets to enjoy dem dank memes and freedom of speech.

>Yeah, for you guys.

Well yeah, duh, Pasi.

>1 post by this ID
>DRUMPF
They were elected by congress not Trump you fucking mong.
Saged

This seems to come down to two things:

1. You believe the cost of providing the infrastructure to support the internet is so great it can only be provided for by granted monopolies.

2. I am American, ergo I am retarded.

In response to one:

Watch the fucking video I posted in it isn't unusual for people to operate small, local ISPs from out of their garages in parts of the world. The massive infrastructure costs follow the monopolization user, it isn't the other way around.

In response to two:

At least I'm not a leaf.

youtube.com/watch?v=wWeNR7WIkDs

compliance with the stupid regulations results in higher charges and other retarded nonsense.

The only scary thing about the FCC is that it's pretty much always been run by social conservatives who love nothing more than to make porn illegal and probably bring back anti-blasphemy laws. That being said, as long the y'allQuada don't fuck it up, it's 2016 and the internet is public utility. It's not 1998 anywhere.

Comcast has done nothing but good for your nation. They want to protect you from the Chinese.

I'm going to watch the video, because I'm a reasonable guy. But so help me God if your
>small, local ISP
equals some faggot leasing the bandwidth/etc from the actual owner of the physical infrastructure, this conversation is over, because you do not have high enough IQ to continue this conversation.

Either way, you got point two on your side, so that's good.

the point still stands, they dont care about money, they care about control.

Majority rules is a mob rule. The best democratic presidents have said that such a rule alone is fucking bad for a nation.

>inb4 b-but muh democracy
We live in a constitutional republic. That is not ever going to change just because you and a bunch of dumb liberals wanna throw a fit about it, and stand in the way of actual progress. Fucking deal with it or move out the goddamn way. Champions adjust. Losers procrastinate.

>The only scary thing about the FCC is that it's pretty much always been run by social conservatives who love nothing more than to make porn illegal and probably bring back anti-blasphemy laws.

It got most of its predatory powers under the Roosevelt New Dealers who wanted to silence criticisms against them being made by amateur and small time radio broadcasters.

Yep, those small ISPs WERE leasing their bandwidth from the owners of he physical infrastructure.

Given that in the States they are owned by private corporations, why on Earth would they allow private entities low-level let alone cheap access to said infrastructure?

The whole premise in the Romania use case was the government ownership of the physical infrastructure.

I hate to repeat myself, but jesus fucking christ, you're ignorant beyond belief.

Saying we're a republic and not a democracy is like saying "I don't use a faucet, I use a spigot" the two aren't mutually exclusive. All democracies are republics, not all republics are democracies (I.e soviet union, China, etc). It's 2016, not the 1770s. You guys just started spouting this shit and getting hung up on the words because people started voting overwhelmingly in favor of this, such as gay marriage.

Read the actual letter and not the outrafeous spin that the author of this article produced.

Btw, Ars Technica and Reddit are both owned by Conde Nast.

You fell for fake news, OP

Thanks, Sup Forums.

Because that's exactly what isn't going to happen, retard. Data caps and throttling will limit people's access to content. What happens when Comcast starts preferential treatment for their content platforms while throttling the shit out of Netflix, et al? How is that fair?

Internet service should be treated as a utility the same as access to phone lines. No matter who your carrier you should have full access to the breadth of sources and information that exist out there.

Not to mention it sets a bad precedent. Sup Forums is only for it because Trump is at the wheel. But it's a very myopic view to take when you consider he won't be in power forever.

What happens when the next ruling party decides that Sup Forums is a seditious political group and blocks access to Sup Forums? What if ISPs decide that they don't want to allow open access to porn because won't someone please think of the children?

Just like with climate change, net neutrality shouldn't be a partisan issue but you assholes continue to apply Fascist logic to essential services.

Fuck you cum guzzling Trumpfags. You'll swallow anything without thinking.

>inb4 some bullshit about how Hillary would be worse.

As you're all keen to say, the election is over. Trump won, so quit making excuses for his harming our internet.

>from the actual owner of the physical infrastructure,

This still seems to be your hangup. The vid touches on this. The system was decentralized. Like I said earlier the massive costs come AFTER a single firm has to pay them because they were granted monopoly and are the only player. Competition between smaller firms generates 1. a decentralized infrastructure with less of a likelihood a single point of failure would take down the whole thing. 2. competition and said decentralization drives down the costs. This is also true of telecoms in Somalia. They are totally decentralized, as there effectively is no government to grant a monopoly. People from Djibouti steal internet and use cell service from the failed state next door because the telecoms are so much better,

what is google fiber user?

why do you think dropping net neutrality will somehow also stop comcast from lobbying local governments from cockblocking anyone who wants to lay cables for a competing isp?

I love how you think which every side has the white house, every aspect of the government must be as well. And if by predatory powers you mean attempting to find German or Japanese spies, that would of been in the hands of law enforcement. Quit making shit up faggot.

Ikr :D

>This still seems to be your hangup. The vid touches on this.
You are absolutely right.
>The system was decentralized.
It was not, the core network was provided by the state ISP.
>Like I said earlier the massive costs come AFTER a single firm has to pay them because they were granted monopoly and are the only player.
No. The difference between the massive costs to the consumer via the gov ISP vs the actual costs when small "sub-ISPs" is a result of the monopoly on the core infrastructure AND the gov ISP not knowing the actual cost of the product of what they're selling. Of course when there are no competitors, you don't need to know the costs. The core difference here is, private corporations ALREADY own the physical infrastructure in the States.

>Competition between smaller firms generates 1. a decentralized infrastructure with less of a likelihood a single point of failure would take down the whole thing.
Literally nothing requires the owner of the physical infrastructure to allow decentralized infrastructure to exist.

> 2. competition and said decentralization drives down the costs. This is also true of telecoms in Somalia. They are totally decentralized, as there effectively is no government to grant a monopoly.
No competition because the physical infrastructure and rights to said infrastructure is all within, what, 2 companies that are about to merge? There is no need for government-enforced monopoly when only few companies own the infrastructure to begin with.

What does Trump losing the popular vote have to do with the free market?

Fuck. Well, goodbye Sup Forums I guess.

Holy shit, that's a good point. I didn't think of that.

>Buy a European VPN with "priority pass"
>Access the normal Internet
>???
>Profit!
Holy shit, I think I should start a company that provides VPN for Burgerstanians.

Fucking this. I'm a Trumpfag, but this is BS. NN is what allows the internet to be the internet. Get ready for the "fake news" sites to be slow as shit, and that's just the first thing.

Most VPNs are slow as shit, plus the end of NN could easily allow ISPs to block VPNs without paying a huge fee. That and the EU tends to follow US laws like this, so it's only a temporary measure at best.

so happy the dnc fucked over sanders so they could nominate the only democrat in america capable of losing an election to a clown like trump right now

>plus the end of NN could easily allow ISPs to block VPNs without paying a huge fee
Hence VPN with "priority pass". If you're implying that end of NN means the end of rerouting your traffic, the implications of the end of NN are more fundamental than anyone could have imagined.

>protip: this means the end of mirrors and CDNs (this is far more fundamental than a non-software guy imagines)

>That and the EU tends to follow US laws like this
No, just no. We did NN before you did.

I know trolling but you are aware that they co opted the name net neutrality and shoved the exact opposite down our throats with its name on it? This is a good thing.

Still waiting for a response (not expecting one).

Comcast is a poo in loo company

Yeah let the FCC regulate the internet real good idea there genius.

>why do you think dropping net neutrality will somehow also stop comcast from lobbying local governments from cockblocking anyone who wants to lay cables for a competing isp?

Nothing. How does this support the idea that the system we have now is better though? If people can see the next town over hasn't had a monopoly status given to a telecom and their prices are lower, how would that be bad?

>I love how you think which every side has the white house, every aspect of the government must be as well. And if by predatory powers you mean attempting to find German or Japanese spies, that would of been in the hands of law enforcement. Quit making shit up faggot.

I'm not making shit up, and you seem to be putting thoughts in my head I don't have. I never said anything about German or Japanese spies, I talked about silencing the critics of the Roosevelt presidency. They were using the FCC to shut down the Alex Joneses of the 1930s.

watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=aJ7bCKYJZJI

>It was not, the core network was provided by the state ISP.

Watch the video again. SOME of it was, but he talks about buying bandwidth from outside the country as well until 2004 WHEN THE STATE TELECOM PROVIDER WAS ABOLISHED. He also touches on how the small providers were also (albeit illegally) installing their own infrastructure. He also mentions why they don't need net neutrality even thought they are totally unregulated around the 8:40 mark.

Almost all of your objections have already not only been answered, but there are real world examples of totally unregulated telecoms networks that function. Somalia, for example: budde.com.au/Research/Somalia-Telecoms-Mobile-and-Broadband-Statistics-and-Analyses

>but he talks about buying bandwidth from outside the country as well until 2004 WHEN THE STATE TELECOM PROVIDER WAS ABOLISHED
Yees, competition arose when the government-owned infrastructure was up for grabs. But wait, that's not going to happen in the States, because FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS
>PRIVATE OWNED
>R
>I
>V
>A
>T
>E
>L
>Y
>O
>W
>N
>E
>D
And if you think illegal networks are a solution in a country with +300mil people, you're fucking retarded.

End of discussion.

And seriously, bringing up Somalia unironically just makes me feel sorry for your parents.

Do us all a favor and KYS.

The fcc is a horrible horrible entity and I'll be glad that the internet is out of their hands as much as possible.

Except google was actually hedging their bets against this but don't need to anymore because of big daddy gubment.

Also amazon and other multibillion dollar companies have a huge interest in the internet not being throttled and capped.

The systems are "privately owned" but granted massive government monopolies. There are places where these providers are granted government exclusive rights to provide service. This is why the existing telecoms fought tooth and nail against google fiber and used government to shut them out of the places they were experimenting. The Romania and Somalia examples show that totally unregulated telecoms markets work. I want to get rid of the existing regulations. You somehow think that this won't work despite the fact that there is no reason it wouldn't. When you can build your own private infrastructure, which, like I said, is already heavily regulated, the fact a few telecoms already own a bunch of the infrastructure now doesn't matter. I never said illegal networks were the solution. I have very clearly stated that the optimal state is an unregulated telecoms market, and made an argument backed by evidence that they work, and yet despite this you keep misconstruing what I say and ignoring my evidence.

>And seriously, bringing up Somalia unironically just makes me feel sorry for your parents.

A failed state governed mainly by tribal law having better internet than countries with the system you want doesn't phase you? Even a little?

Arguments in a vacuum is nothing short of "what-iffing" on a societal scale. I'm posting from a sauna, hence ID change.

>Arguments in a vacuum is nothing short of "what-iffing" on a societal scale.

but that's basically all you did in

I've provided real world examples of how all your hypothetical problems a real world system would encounter have already overcome and you've chosen to ignore them.

Trump ran on a policy of government intervention. You think him sitting down with CEO and making them keep their production in the USA is free market?

No, all your arguments have hinged on cheap/open access on government ownership of vital infrastructure. Literally nothing you've posted is possible when private entities own the physical infrastructure and they're not regulated to allow low-level access to theur resources at a reasonable price.

*hinged on and/or

When a monopoly or trust exists you enforce the laws on the books and break it up you dumb fuck net neutrality is effectively corporatism while pretending to throw a bone to Reddit tier dipshits like you

>No, all your arguments have hinged on cheap/open access on government ownership of vital infrastructure. Literally nothing you've posted is possible when private entities own the physical infrastructure and they're not regulated to allow low-level access to theur resources at a reasonable price.

But both my examples, Somalia and Romania, both have totally free internet markets with private companies owning the infrastructure. Watch the video in in full and you will see the guy actually responds to all of your criticisms. Your just ignoring my responses to points you've made at this point.

Also, how about the studies linked in that show no ill effects of content prioritization?

>Romania, both have totally free internet markets with private companies owning the infrastructure.
That is not what is being said. He said the gov owned company taken apart. This does not imply singular private ownership, and that is make or break to what you're trying to argue.

>muh studies
Really, on Sup Forums? Women are better doctors than women, too.

Idiot.

>That is not what is being said. He said the gov owned company taken apart. This does not imply singular private ownership, and that is make or break to what you're trying to argue.

What the hell are you trying to say? Singular private ownership? Do you think I want one unregulated telecom?

Holy shit Sup Forums will say anything to suck trump/republican dick

What the fuck do you think will happen if there is no net neutrality? ISPs will magically appear that don't throttle your connection to compete with the ones that do? News flash morons: ISPs are already fucking terrible for a million reasons and absolutely nobody has appeared to challenge that except Google, in eight cities, with a handful more planned. Fucking excellent. That's one of the largest tech companies in the world trying to get into the ISP business, and they can't even make a dent. ISP Competition does not exist and it never will. The free market will not fix it. That's why we need regulation

>ISP Competition does not exist and it never will. The free market will not fix it. That's why we need regulation

There isn't any competition because of existing regulations you doorknob.

>There is a reason why telecom infrastructure investment is up since the election, and this is one of them.
[Citation Needed]

There isn't any competition for two reasons.
>1. it's fucking expensive
not even google has enough money to get off the ground quickly
>2. local government corruption
At the local level, there are plenty of laws granting exclusivity to ISPs, which is bullshit of course. That is an example of regulation harming competition.

HOWEVER. You are painting all regulation as bad simply for existing. Net Neutrality does absolutely nothing to prevent competition.

The existing regulations that stop competition in telecoms are entirely at local levels. Net neutrality existing or not isn't going to magically make new competition in areas bought and paid for by the town and county. Thats why it has to exist.

Also this

Idiots pushing for net neutrality are just wasting their time. Instead of fighting for net neutrality, you should be fighting to get rid of the regional monopolies that ISPs hold in the US, which is the only reason the idea of ISPs charging for faster access to certain websites is an idea in the first place.
South Korea is a shit hole, but we should look at whatever system they are using to have such high internet speeds for such low prices.
One solution I've read would be to make the fiber public and have the ISPs pay for access to it so all ISPs could be everywhere and start up costs for new ISPs would be dramatically lowered while allowing for more competition.

In what ways are the phone giants, like AT&T and Verizon, better than the ISP giants, Time Warner and Comcast?

>not even google has enough money to get off the ground quickly

Money wasn't the issue it was regulation.

>At the local level, there are plenty of laws granting exclusivity to ISPs, which is bullshit of course. That is an example of regulation harming competition.

Yes, and the idea NN must exist becasue there are bad local laws is ridiculous. It's like saying we need national prohibition because there's a dry county somewhere in Oklahoma.

>HOWEVER. You are painting all regulation as bad simply for existing. Net Neutrality does absolutely nothing to prevent competition.

It doesn't prevent competition, but it drives up costs and entrenches the existing telecom machine. It's totally unnecessary.

Ditto these points to Both of you watch this video.

I'm glad you're seeing the light on this issue, bud

DESU sites that support Trump will probably be fast, whereas sites against Trump will be slowed down. Now imagine how fucked this was if Hillary was doing it to right-wing news sites.

DNC needs a huge slice of fuck you