Is net neutrality a good thing Sup Forums? I haven't seen any argument against it yet

Is net neutrality a good thing Sup Forums? I haven't seen any argument against it yet.

The left wants it so how good can it possibly be?

Giving the government MORE power is never a good thing. The problem can be solved by competition. Unfortunately we have already given the govt too much power and big companies have already paid to put up barriers to entry that hurt competition.

The cable companies own the infrastructure, they can do with it what they like. Don't like it? Start your own cable company.

broken clocks, etc.

Monopolies=bad.
Giving government control of the internet=REALLY bad.

The solution is just to encourage more competition. How that can work since companies have to own the infrastructure in the ground, I don't know.

red pill me on net neutrality, why does minecraft shill for it?

N.N. isn't about government control over the internet. Any more than utility regulation is about government control over your water, electricity, etc.

It's about putting a counterweight on the ability of a monopoly to use its status as a monopoly to seek rents. You think cable companies will use these rents to invest in infrastructure? No, they have no competition and no reason to invest in a better product. They're a natural monopoly. The barrier to entry in this market is just too high (no, government isn't at fault here).

This really is basic economics.

There is a lot of disinformation on "net neutrality".

"Net neutrality" has actually been the state of things, and Netflix didn't like it. They complained and called their whining a "net neutrality" issue.

it is a good thing if you like the internet

It's not about torrents and netflix, it's about the control of information.
Control the info and you control the people.

Without net neutrality they can block whatever they don't like.
An end to net neutrality could be an end to dissenting voices

Only ISP shills want to end it.

>The left wants it so how good can it possibly be?
Nice, and predictable.

Put another way, imagine the massive amount of capital required if you were to start up a company designing and building commercial airliners. It would be a huge, huge investment.

This. I won't pretend that I understand the issue, but I'm wary of government intervention just as much as I am of monopolies.

This.

Basically, under a N.N. framework companies have the ability to throttle your speed, cap your data, etc. but what they can't do is treat packets of information on their network differently. They can't throttle specific websites, like Sup Forums, and allow speedier access to websites that pay for the advantage, like Youtube.

Imagine you wanted to start a video sharing website, we'll call it Kekvideo. The cable company would allow your service to be as ''fast'' as Youtube, but only if you paid a lot more than just your subscription fee. Can't pay it? Enjoy being in the slow lane.

What, specifically, don't you understand?

N.N. basically says that cable companies cannot discriminate between the information sent over their networks. They can't approach a company and say, ''hey, if you give us more money we'll let customers get to your website faster and throttle others.''

Under, N.N. information is information. There is one lane. It's not about government control, anymore than your electric or water is controlled by the government. There are regulators that say ''you can't have a 500% rate increase.'' But is that tantamount to control? The government controls the military. The government controls the IRS. The government doesn't control your power company.

I guess the polemics is really what makes it messy. Everyone likes to compare this to the fairness doctrine.

NN basically means the cable company cannot dissect the data you send over your cable and omit some of them, interfere with how they would normally be sent etc.

At least this was the traditional meaning of Net neutrality. Netflix also thinks if they have to pay high fees for feeding into a cable network, it violates their net neutrality...

Idealistic fool. You know damn well the internet isn't the same as the other utilities.

The same cable companies can own telephone poles and have entire blocks where only they can give you internet. They need to be broken up. I am talking about the US ones because there are really only 3 for the entire US and they all are terrible. Our infrastructure is 50 years behind the rest of the world and they refuse to upgrade.

It's not a complicated issue. Government control over the internet is used as a scare tactic. Do those same outlets also cry about government control over the rate you pay for water and power? I doubt that.

It's supposed to be good, but like every government program it doesn't do exactly what it intends. Instead, we have the industry leader ISPs basically dictating the rules and even ignoring them at times. People will say "oh but we've had a few examples of throttling brought forward and stopped" but it hasn't stopped them from ignoring rules and regulations and has stopped new ISPs from entering the market.

Do you work for CNN?

Yes, its good.

Only boomers, ancappers, and contrarians oppose net neutrality.

And thinking government enforcing the same net neutrality standards that have basically existed since day one of widespread public net access will lead to censorship (because your a retard that doesnt realize the FCC is not just the bleep naughty words bureau) is like saying laws against homicide mean the door has opened for the government initializating The Purge.

Net Neutrality is the exact opposite of acess to content discrimination.

lets make it clear what NN is about

Its Comcast vs Netflix.

Netflix is using NN to be a leech.

on the other hand if NN falls so will Sup Forums and anything conservative on the internet

Whoops. Just pretend that was >greentext.

real world example of NON-neutral net would be many campus networks. some services simply don't work, and that's not because the internet is overloaded. It is active and goal oriented interference (for example dropping everything torrent related)

youre a fuckin idiot, net neutrality is a reflection of the basic principles that all men are created equal.

Stupid burgers, let competition solve NN and not the State fucking red scum

>I base my decisions on how others politically align themselves.

I think companies should have the right to do things, even shitty things, like this, considering they're in charge of the service. The solution is that, if there's enough demand, a number of companies will keep net neutrality and steal away the customers, similar to what Netflix did to cable TV.

hit the nail on the head though. Anything that gives the government more power is a bad thing, and the country's gotten to a point where any competition for a company like this is blocked before they can even get started. I think that the issue here has less to do with net neutrality and more to do with monopolies and the government's relationships with these monopolies. As far as net neutrality goes, I think it should only be required at the discretion of the states, but that's how I feel about basically everything.

Ideals and policies don't mix well, buddy.

One downside is that it prevents companies from competing via certain product bundles. For example, if Facebook wanted to build a wireless internet system and allow users to access only Facebook and certain other websites (that presumably pay FB), that would be illegal under most NN proposals. Obviously this reduces the potential gains from the investment, so they might choose not to build the wireless system in the first place. Nobody really knows what *potential* benefits might get killed by NN, so it's a difficult policy topic to discuss (the costs, on the other hand, are visible and focused).

The market should be free.
Net neutrality should not be enforced.

not until maga

You can't make a reasoned response. Why are you even here, go read a book. The issue isn't hard to understand.

''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.''

If you agree with this, you are in support of N.N. If you disagree with this, you don't support it.

Yes, some ISPs will step out of line and make deals that go against N.N., that's why there needs to be accountability. Just because a few companies do shady stuff on occasion isn't justification to toss out the rules or say ''well, since you won't listen to us we'll just let you make the rules now, we're done.''

Yeah that is what has happened. Netflix has managed to include their welfare into the "Net neutrality" term and they are now indistuingishable.

Policies are ideals tho

I've heard good arguments for and against net neutrality that are largely hinged on specific protocols that would require more bandwidth or unique circumstances like emergency calls. Sadly I don't remember everything in great detail.

and then we have people like who are clearly false flag "lol just pretending to be stupid" trolling

shut the fuck up

So the only instances where government enforcing net neutrality was bad was when they failed to enforce neutrality?

And it isnt a "program", its a legal framework. The lack of infalibility of government on an issue is no argument for anarchy on that subject.

The free market argument fails for anyone who actually pays for internet service. In my state the most reliable and affordable ISPs are the quasicorps owned by the city councils by large or majority share. Comcast and Time Warner suck ass even when they both cover the same area.

Just make it illegal to do extra jewy shit as an ISP like throttling competitor websites. Why is that notion so god damn controversial?

Brought to you by the same people who gave you "the affordable care act" and "the patriot act" if they are calling it "net neutrality" they intend it to be the exact opposite.

>this thread is a platform for netflix hate trolls

you guys should tell your bosses to make some interesting fuckin' content and chill on the advertising and stop trying to strongarm the gov into allowing a trust.

I'm sorry your feeling got hurt, snowflake. Here's your 5 shekels from AT&T

All we have to do is review the "benefits" of "too big to fail" corporations to understand that we're just fine.

And net neutrality increases competition, not reduces it. That's why most corporations can't keep up in the first place.

Youd think people on Sup Forums would be for net neutrality considering this site would be one of the first sites to go on the slow lane since it can barely even pay for itself.

Wow.
You're a real sheep type huh?

>You can't make a reasoned response. Why are you even here, go read a book.
I love how you insult my intelligence then push this idea that NN is simplistic and will have zero major side effects.

You have a simple brain, guy. You think if your intentions are pure, nothing can go wrong. I'm not against the principle of NN, but you're a fucking idiot for just throwing your support for an idealistic idea and hoping the powers that be will make it all work out according to your wildest dreams.

Idealism is cancer and so are you.

yeah I LITERALLY don't know what to do about this

keeping censorship off the net without letting NetCux use crony capitalism to suck up all the bandwidth seems impossible

Sup Forums loves Jews, though. You can't be pro-Trump without being pro-Jew.

Sup Forums IS for Net Neutrality, this is a shill thread.

Net neutrality is a band-aid fix to the shit the government has essentially given the current major ISPs. Undoing the current system would require unprecedented legal actions.

Keep talking about removing that corruption, it's not going to happen. It's literally the same argument as "It's a perfect system it's just never been tried bro".

>treating everyone equally is bad if they all pay the same prices for the same service.

>instead lets create add-ons to a service they already pay for by grabbing their balls and saying if you don't well reduce the speed of such websites.

>this slowing down is based on monitoring your traffic.

First post worst post.

Literally all that Net Neutrality is, is that all data must be treat equally. That's it. Your ISP can't charge extra to access Sup Forums, or put jezebel.com traffic ahead of your chinese girl cartoon porn in traffic priority.

It's not a government power grab. The big government types are against Net Neutrality, because without it they have a great excuse to work with ISPs to slow down traffic to sites that promote badthink.

Reading comprehension failure much?

...

wtf I LOVE the left now

The thing is... there is no net neutrality.
It is socialism for the internet.

You have to pay for peerings.
Better peerings, better connection between providers.

Netflix is famous for doing this for example. They require a lot of high quality traffic. Should they be forced to give everyone access to their servers somehow? They pay a lot of money for that.

Then there is a good and necessary prioritizing of traffic.
Some providers provide IP-TV services and telephone over internet (voip) which has to be prioritized.

Basically being for net neutrality is virtue signaling on a technological level.

>making people hate the internet
I see nothing wrong with this

...

>No, they have no competition and no reason to invest in a better product. They're a natural monopoly. The barrier to entry in this market is just too high (no, government isn't at fault here).

This is not true. ISPs lobby the government to put up barriers to any competition, which greatly exacerbates the problem. Your proposed solution to the problem involves more government involvement, the goal of which is to solve a problem created by the government.

See:

except without net neutrality they could censor Sup Forums and all nationalists on the net
the arachno-crapitalists have tricked you

(((((((Net """"""""Neutrality"""""""" )))))))isn't neutral at all, things are fine now, i can go to any website and shit loads finem now if I go to some random website thats not popular it will take longer to load because of this shit

fuck offfff of my internet RREEEEEEEE

Where are these major side effects? N.N. has been the standard for some time, so there must be a book full of example, right? If it's such a horrible policy, surely no other developed country with higher speeds than us follow it, right? Truly, the cable companies wouldn't ever try to use this newfound power to throttle to extract more from their customers, no they're in this for the benefit of everyone =-).

What we need is media neutrality.

Neutrality has been the status quo for decades you dingus. Stop comparing it to elaborate welfare schemes.

Net Neutrality means you can not prioritize, throttle, or block content beyond adherence to existing laws such as actual illegal content.

You know how fucking progressive ISP owners can be. Would you really want an internet where conservative opinions and sites are practically hidden from public view?

Is muh free market worth handing over to the likes of George Soros and the Main Stream Media your one strong card?

So from what I've read
>Net neutrality is good because companies will charge people too much without it
>NN is bad because it gives the government too much power

...

how about you read up on it and make your own decisions, just because nobody speaks against it doesn't automatically make it good
that being said I'm for it the moment the internet starts being regulated in such a way we will see a cataclysmic shift in the world, almost overnight

Even google themselves have trouble getting in lines due to bullshit at a city to city level. It is like a utility and needs to be regulated for the benefit of all.

It's the exact opposite of this. First of all, the problem you're positing is that companies have the ability to throttle speeds. This doesn't happen, because the first ISP to do it would go out of business and people would switch to one that doesn't fuck them. There is no reason for them to engage in this practice. It has never happened and fearmongering about it will not change that.

You are suggesting that the government would be less likely to censor information (when that is exactly what they do all the time) than private ISPs who have no history of ever doing it.

NN is literally nothing more than a "nice" sounding name for giving the government more power over private entities, to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

What the literal fuck are you talking about?

>things are fine now,
Because Net Neutrality is in effect.

The government runs anti competition regulations to stop start ups from offering internet and laying down cable in places that already have such services. It is a government sponsored problem.

>Some providers provide IP-TV services and telephone over internet (voip) which has to be prioritized.

Or they could actually provide the required infrastructure instead of slowing down one or the other.

...

...

>Literally all that Net Neutrality is, is that all data must be treat equally.
This is an ideal. Not a policy. Explain the policy to me. Show me debates. I'm not going to support something that a bunch of starry-eyed retards say is good because it's good.
>Government solves everything if we just give them an unwitting amount of faith.
Thanks Mexico for your input. And remember, none of the problems in Mexico are due to your or the Mexican people's mindset. It's all everyone else's fault.
You've revealed a lot in this response, nice.

So is that why they've sued the piss out of towns that try to setup their own fiber as a city utility?

>You are suggesting that the government would be less likely to censor information (when that is exactly what they do all the time) than private ISPs who have no history of ever doing it.

ISPs currently can't. They're lobbying for the ability to do so by eliminating NN. You don't think an ISP wants to limit traffic to competition? Or they won't actively work with their politician of choice?

NN prevents EVERYONE, from the government to ISPs, from fucking with traffic.

>must be treated equally
That's just wordplay, you fucking cuck!

If someone has control over something, it DOESN'T MATTER if his )))))intentions((((( were "GOOD" at the beginning.

Politicians, ALWAYS want to get some MONEYS for their own purposes. LEFTIES' METHOD is WELFARE and "CONTROL".

Leafcucks, you are next. You will suffer the hand of socialism yourself.

SAD!

>big business competing for internet speeds is bad
>government monopoly over internet speed is better
>government never abuses such powers

True talk

Nobody's going to read this.
Those who do will call you a leftist shill.

FeelsBadMan.jpg

It's true that allowing ISPs to treat traffic differently would be hard on some internet business models, but it would help others (and maybe create some new ones). It's not clear that the net impact would be a loss in competition or cause consumer harm.

NN is essentially banning price discrimination--nobody thinks it's awful when airplanes have first class and coach sections, so why is the internet any different? In fact, the revenue that airlines get from selling first class seats for more money actually enables the lower-margin coach seats. NN regulations basically prohibit internet firms from experimenting with these sorts of cross-subsidy business models that rely on price discrimination and market segmentation.

>Neutrality has been the status quo for decades you dingus.

How can we be sure it will not be stuffed and changed while retaining the original nice label?

Netflix has already started to include "fair peering prices" into it, something not present in the original definition.

You realize we're operating under N.N. now, right? N.N. has been par for the course for a long, long time. Government doesn't like N.N. because it doesn't give them an avenue to work with Comcast, etc. to say ''fuck this website, here is some tax money.''

N.N. is the antithesis of government control, because it stifles an avenue they'd love to exploit. Companies hate N.N. because they can't collect government tax dollars for promoting ''approved'' websites and more rent from their monopolies by making companies pay more to be competitive.

If a company is forced to use current hardware and infrastructure, basically pay the owners of it (the cable ISPs) then there isn't a reason to expect they can be competitive. If they need to lay new hardware the capital investment is too fucking high. Could Facebook and Google afford it? Sure. Could a local government afford it? Yes. These are established companies, though.

I'm for net neutrality because I really just want to spite Comcast.

Fuck them so hard.

I like how they mention everything but price. Oh yeah we'll offer faster internet speeds all right... for 100 bucks a month! Too much? Too bad, it's not like you have any other choice.

That is not how the internet works.

The internet is based around redundant peering.
Those peers are physical routes of fiber, that have to be paid for by the parties that are connected.

If you force companies in a way that this process is not profitable anymore they just stop doing it, slowing down the whole internet in the process by stupid laws.

What's wrong with the status quot?

>if NN falls so will Sup Forums and anything conservative on the internet

This is the most absurd thing I've heard in a while. We don't have NN right now, and we have never had it. Why does Sup Forums exist? You are literally suggesting that we should give power to enforce de-censorship. Do you even realize how fucking insane that is?

Yes

it's ISP power vs. government power

at the moment ISP power is greater though, the government proposals are still tame at this point in time.

>Comcast throttling all video streaming traffic unless companies paid them under the table is net neutrality
Legit

its easier to detect bias from a human speaker than by a cold data dump

This is the right question--nothing. Technology continues to improve, access continues to be expanded, products and services continue to be invented. NN is a solution in search of a problem.

Currently all traffic is treated neutrally. Your requests for mongolian throat singing board data is exactly equal to someone else posting about being triggered. Nobody, including the government or ISPs or anyone else, can treat your traffic differently. Even doing so requires spying on it.

Eliminating NN means allowing ISPs to prioritize or block traffic. ISPs have a track record of working with the government, and if you remove this restriction you can absolutely bet that the government will tell Comcast to slow traffic to websites they dislike and prioritize traffic to cuck porn.

NN is the idea that internet networks should do exactly one thing: move data packets to their destination and not fuck around with them in any way. Figuring out what to do with those packets should happen at the communication endpoints, the way the internet was designed in the first place. It's not granting the government or corporations more power, it's saying don't screw around with the way it's built because you'll mess it up.

No NN means data lanes and censorship and all of that will be possible, but from a strictly networking standpoint it's going to make things a hell of a lot more (and unnecessarily) complicated.

Mexico does not have net neutrality. It hasn't reach the bad levels but it still in entry phase

>Facebook and what apps doesn't use your data!!! !

x doesn't count as your data is anti net neutrality it a double edge sword. eventually things you have will be taken away and be given to as a feature.

>allways had p2p downloading

>take that away from people
>introducing new p2p download package!!!!!!

Ok, how to start my own ISP? Its also not like there is a "going off the grid" option like solar panels for electricity. Or at least there isnt one thats cost and energy effective.

>The problem can be solved by competition

Not always. It should be a truism and unnecessary to state this, but people seem to forget the early writings on capitalism. The state needs to interfere in cases where the voluntary cooperation of large bodies of people needs to be coordinated for a good used by many, but of which it would be impractical or impossible to build additional ones (e.g. Large infrastructure).

The state, to some degree which we can disagree on, answers to you. As we should understand in the western tradition of english law which gave birth to our countries and the most advanced civilizations ever, it is necessary for the people to retain sovereignty over public goods, not to yield it to private actors who historically have always abused the commons when it is not placed in a public trust.

Tl;dr, if you actually care about traditionalism and capitalism, you should be familiar with arguments in favor of state controlled public utilities and goods, as well as the role it plays and played in developing our societies.

It's one of the few things the state is actually good for

They and at&t have abysmally low ratings on pretty much every consumer review site. And nothing will ever be done about it.

There's nothing wrong with asking other people their opinions to formulate your own. I didn't assume that because there was no dissenting opinions that means it's good.