What are the pros and cons of Trump ending Net Neutrality? Will we be worse or better off?

What are the pros and cons of Trump ending Net Neutrality? Will we be worse or better off?

From what I've heard, it'll turn internet plans into TV plans, where you have to pay extra to access more sites, such as YouTube, Steam, Facebook, etc.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=UOed-P0qmc8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

and that's exactly what the liberals want you to believe, so good job goy.

sage.

the main pros are that it will create tons of jobs and limit the proliferation of degeneracy.

I dont think there are any cons, unless you are a degenerate of course.

antisemites are not welcome here, achmed.

fuck you faggot. I was asking a serious question. Unless you're just a retard sliding this thread

The latter.

There are no pros.

Well it will be up to the providers to regulate your access slightly but you will still be able to browse whatever you want. It's just that some types of activities might require you to pay a bit more but this is what a free market should be.

you will also get better service, and it will decrease the risk of subversive activities carried online, so better domestic security.

I know it sounds retarded, but I'm kinda blind when it comes to Net Neutrality and what it entails, so I have a question:

Will it affect things such as Video streaming, downloading, and online multiplayer?

((4 posts by this id))

nice try shlomo

and to answer your question yes, it will introduce content throttling mostly at company level, but possible consumer level.

Your isp can choose to make certain content load faster or slower and a company can or will have to pay for the services to not be throttled by the ISP

so if videosite1 paid money to your ISP its content will always load better than videosite2

net neutrality was just enacted a few years ago, the internet is the same now as it was before, quit being scaredfags

>pros
Free Market, always a nice thing.

>cons
Unregulated ISP decisions.

You tell me what that means.

>Tiered internet
Yes, that's likely to become a thing. They don't like having to serve the whole internet to customers, so instead they can limit bandwidth (i.e. throttle) to other, assumedly deal-made domains.

>What does this mean for the avg. consumer?

-probably going to pay more for the same service (as in, extremely likely)
-probably going to receive inferior service going forward (likely beyond a reasonable doubt)
-places like Sup Forums will become even slower than before, not on the part of the webhost or the client, because there will be a new bottleneck added.

>t. I.T. consultant partnered with a few companies

Ask more.

that's bullshit. I really hope Trump doesn't follow through with this. It'd really hurt my opinion of him.

We are pol now, deal with it

>Free Market, always a nice thing.
The free market isn't needed in an industry that maintains a monopoly
How could the American people benefit from the Free Market if the monopolies that dictate the speed that information flows work together to ensure that everybody pays more than they need to

There's a reason why internet is faster and cheaper in other countries

it's free market, i know you don't like it but maybe you can start a drum circle about it

How does it allow them to charge more for the same exact service?

I said nice not useful.

Also

>There's a reason why internet is faster and cheaper in other countries

For two reasons actually; the first is that the government typically provides the infrastructure(what is roads), and the second is that labor prices relative to ours is lower, while materials are relatively the same, and education is cheap there.

So please, enlighten me more about monopoly law. Have you heard of the smaller ISP companies? Do you understand IXP's? Anything actually pertinent or are you gonna shit on about it?

Cause yes we can use capitalism and a free market, but we should reimburse companies for creating infra, not proactively fund them for a promise.

Also you described a hegemony, not a monopoly. There's many small ISP companies, typically in the resale business.

pros: - less shitposting from Americans.
cons: - none, it's not my problem.

i was never really for Trump but if this happens i'll hate him instantly.

literally the only thing i really care about in terms of a president is what their plan is for the internet on a national level.

here i was hoping it would finally be declared a public service like water or electricity and maybe stop using the same infrastructure for lines that we've been using since the AOL days but to privatize it even more is just ridiculous.

Free market argument doesn't apply here dummy. People aren't going to start home based ISP's.

Trump needs to leave this one alone.

Even the EU abolished net neutrality.
Just accept that this is the future of the internet, it was nice while it lasted.

>People aren't going to start home based ISP's.

People in my student flat actually did.
It was pretty awesome, having 100Mbit full duplex in the 1990's when most people had 1 or 2 down, and mere kilobits up.

youtube.com/watch?v=UOed-P0qmc8

>the first is that the government typically provides the infrastructure
Yes, and then the government was lobbied to stop providing infrastructure necessary to lower prices and increase speed by those monopolies

>labor prices relative to ours is lower, while materials are relatively the same, and education is cheap there
Not at all, and in the long run is comes out cheaper so there's literally no reason not to try for cheaper and faster internet

>Also you described a hegemony, not a monopoly
The term monopoly refers to control over a good or service and doesn't imply a singular owner

The term hegemony doesn't specify goods or services and can be lent to other non-economic practices, such as social groups

>Even the EU abolished net neutrality
source?

>From what I've heard, it'll turn internet plans into TV plans, where you have to pay extra to access more sites, such as YouTube, Steam, Facebook, etc.

That would be impossible to enforce. Anyone with a decent amount of computer networking knowledge could find a dozen ways to get around that with very little effort.

>pros
It is unconstitutional
reddit will be butthurt
>cons
none

>reddit will be butthurt
reddit is one of the most popular websites on the internet
If anything, it will be far easier to post there

Sup Forums however is hated by liberals and conservatives alike for degeneracy

Well, they claim to have ensured net neutrality with a new law.

But the EU's definition of "net neutrality" is very weak and means a huge step back from ours. - that's why I say they abolished it.

>From what I've heard, it'll turn internet plans into TV plans, where you have to pay extra to access more sites, such as YouTube, Steam, Facebook, etc.

Net neutrality as a law didn't exist before 2015

Do you remember any of that being the case prior to 2015?

There's your answer

The problem is 'internet' will no longer be a service in and of itself, but will become infrastructure for sale to the highest bidder.

So when you go to access Fagbook, your Snopes-approved video news will be stream nicely, but when you try to read Podesta emails you'll be waiting hours to read text.

No I am talking about redditors in general
Also reddit probably uses almost no bandwidth anyway

NN is a solution in search of a problem
Its a typical marxist tactic

Wait really? Then why is everyone shitting the bed about it?

Also, name some small ISP companies that have better deals and similar service as any of the larger ones

To give one example:

T-mobile in my country now offers a free music streaming service where they don't charge for the data use while they do charge for all other data including competing music streams.

This was explicitly illegal in my country, but they are confident the new EU law allows it.

Sounds like a farked idea, what side are the content providers like google, netflix etc on???

see
They just want a reason to take control of local isps

Fuck if I know. Probably to scare people into giving the government yet more control over the internet.

>then it must be wrong

wtf i like censorship now.

It's a pretty retarded idea, lets give kikes more money yay

>cons
>Unregulated ISP decisions.
It means more arbitrary data caps and prices so high you'll need a second job to afford a 56k connection capped at 1gb per month.

On the plus side though it will destroy the corporate internet and cause community run mesh nets to pop up and replace it.

>the main pros are that it will create tons of jobs and limit the proliferation of degeneracy.

Good goy

>t's just that some types of activities might require you to pay a bit more but this is what a free market should be.

Nope

They offer a similar service for music as well as video in the US.

It's funny because it is technically a violation of net neutrality (giving preferential treatment to music and video streaming services that are covered under the plan). But of course everyone looks the other way since most would consider it to be a benefit for consumers and for competition.

Well fuck. Dump that shit then. DOWN WITH NET NEUTRALITY. Kill that dumpster fire

See above

>meanwhile South Korea has $20 gigabit internet

It's okay, enjoy your restricted $80 20mbit internet. Remember, jobs! You don't want to be a.. degenerate, do you, goyim?

>I don't know how the telecommunications industry works the post

>ending net neutrality
>pros

You don't seem to understand how this works.

ISPs will be better off
Google, Facebook, Youtube etc will be worse off

as for the average person - your internet bill will be a few bucks cheaper, but that's about it. Although, you should personally get a satisfaction from not subsidizing left wing fucks like Google and Facebook.*

*Net neutrality was created so that Google, Facebook and others can't be charged more than the average content provider.

>your internet bill will be a few bucks cheaper
How?

yeah they are Chaim

This.

You faggots are cool but you really are retarded sometimes, you're being jewed hard here, Trump needs to throw this shit in the bin unless you WANT to pay ridiculous prices.

Trump probably doesn't even realise how bad this is since his cabinet is full of such neocon retards that won't explain it properly.

They also live in homes the size of your closet
Last mile is what is holding back speeds because bringing fiber to suburbs is expensive

Yes, they won't slow down specific sites because you could just use a VPS or proxy.

More likely they will slow down all traffic, including to your VPS/proxy EXCEPT some privileged sites and services.
Your ISP could for example offer a music or video streaming service which will work much better than any competing service and won't be affected by data caps. - this is already happening in my country.

messing with people's unrestricted internet access isn't good politics, lets hope Trump realises it was social media that helped him get his message across to the public.

...

>Google, Facebook, Youtube etc will be worse off

So nothing of any value lost.

Inb4 normie ass rage

because they wont need to factor into your bill you might be torrenting 50 movies a day

'member when Sup Forums was pro free internet, anti-censorship, and against crony capitalism in favor of the free market? I 'member.

it's a good thing against monopolies.

no doubt trump intends to fuck the shit out of monopolies; like he's doing with healthcare; and conquer the end problem by different route

>net neutrality was just enacted a few years ago

How was net neutrality "just enacted a few years ago"? What does net neutrality mean to you?

>They also live in homes the size of your closet

Lol is that an argument? What about Indians, should I be happy that a shitskin has better internet than me at half the price and no kiking going on?

>You have been restricted for visiting the following websites:

>Sup Forums.org

Con: Sup Forums ends

Pro: Sup Forums ends

>unconstitutional federal regulation
>free market
Sup Forums has always been against the abomination that is wickard v filburn

Basically it means the speed of your internet connection will depend on how much you pay for it.

IE it fucking sucks and you cucks will be begging for net neutrality back soon.

>How was net neutrality "just enacted a few years ago"?
the decision was in 2015
>What about Indians,
again high density
>>You have been restricted for visiting the following websites:

>Sup Forums.org

states are fully capable of regulating ISPs if they become a problem

I personally know 3x startups that are doing this right now (not directly ISP, but they are working on brining internet access to developing countries).

So shut the fuck you retarded left wing cunt, just because people in your circle of friends aren't doing it (probably because they are all busy getting drunk, partying and getting 6 figures in debt to get some useless degree) doesn't mean it's not happening.

Part of the whole motivation behind net neutrality was companies like Netflix getting all butthurt. ISPs have seen data usage on their networks grow exponentially thanks largely to video streaming services like Netflix. They have to sink a ton of money into their networks to keep up with this demand, and so they wanted to charge services like Netflix for the disproportionate amount of traffic they're sending across their network.

Netflix gets ass-blasted by what seems on its face to be a perfectly reasonable request ("How dare they want to charge us more than Sup Forums?!" Because your service uses about 1000x the bandwidth Sup Forums does, dipshit), and like any pussy-ass business, lobbies the government to do their dirty work and force ISPs to treat them the same as websites that use far less data.

Anyway, it's definitely conceivable that your internet bill could go down if ISPs are able to force services like Netflix to help pay for the costs of upgrading their networks to keep up with the demand those services are creating. Although your Netflix bill would probably then just go up. But that's sounds reasonable to me, then only the people who are actually using the service and contributing to the large bandwidth demands are paying, not everyone on the ISPs including grandma and grandpa who only use 5GB a month forwarding chain emails with cute animals.

>>your internet bill will be a few bucks cheaper
>How?

The ONLY way that could work is by limiting your choices.

In the same way that taxing big polluting cars makes driving cheaper for you. (since you end up buying a cheap fuel efficient cuckmobile instead).

My ISP should not be able to give a fuck as to whether I point my browser to Sup Forums or Amazon.

You know those contract wars that cable companies and TV channels have, where they fight and argue and the channel gets blacked out until they can reach agreement in their negotiations? Why the fuck would I want that being done to my internet?

states can regulate ISPs if they become a problem

...

It IS wrong. Trump hiring someone who wanted x does not mean he wants x. He would truly be assassinated if he ever reached that point desu.

>"How dare they want to charge us more than Sup Forums?!" Because your service uses about 1000x the bandwidth Sup Forums does, dipshit

Under net neutrality Netflix is already charged 1000x as much as Sup Forums.
1000x the data -> 1000x the fee.

Let's say my neighbor watched 1 Netflix movie a month, at 4GB/month.
And I shitpost on Sup Forums all day every day, also at 4GB/month.
Right now we both get charged the same, but after abolishing net neutrality my neighbor could be charged more.

By ISPs, do you mean the bigger ones or the smaller ones?
Who is testifying in the name of the smaller ones?

> they wanted to charge services like Netflix for the disproportionate amount of traffic
I can understand that, but it's not as if the bandwidth increases after this deal.
Netflix pays more in order to be faster and the smaller sites that don't make as much money, but still need similar speeds as before, suffer

Introducing NN seems like the perfect way to control media
-Large corporations buy into plans
-these sites are far easier to use but are incredibly biased
-communications between people become harder simply because the people in control of where you go can control you a lot easier

It seems like those ISPs have more to gain than just fair prices
I'm more than willing to pay a few more dollars in order to keep the sanctity of the internet intact

>Trump hiring someone who wanted x does not mean he wants x
But it does mean we are more likely to pursue x simply because Trump doesn't specifically focus on issues concerning x

x being the removal of net neutrality

reminder that this cancer is killing america

fucking degenerate

Fallout universe computers don't have mouses.

By why should we let them get to the point where they could be a problem
And removing NN doesn't necessarily mean that states WILL regulate ISPs
Why let a personal service be regulated by the government if they aren't providing the service themselves?

This shit has been around for ages. Nothing fucking happens.

Pro: maybe you will go outside if you have to pay for crap websites

>why have locks on my door? I'll just call the police if a thief enters my home.

Net neutrality is an incredible simple rule to implement.
Why use a far more complex system of laws and government involvement?

>By why should we let them get to the point where they could be a problem
Why regulate something that is not a problem?
>And removing NN doesn't necessarily mean that states WILL regulate ISPs
But they can if the people want them too
>Why let a personal service be regulated by the government if they aren't providing the service themselves?
Because unlike the Feds the States have the constitutional authority to

This this.

There is nothing good about "net neutrality." It's a euphemism for sodomizing the everyman, restricting his speech and picking his pocket.

Pros: None

>I'll just call the police if a thief enters my home.
No I will shoot them
>Net neutrality is an incredible simple rule to implement.
That does not make it constitutional
>Why use a far more complex system of laws and government involvement?
Because that is how our republic was designed
lrn2 federalism

Anyone here remember when ISP's throttled bittorrent downloads?

What happened?

Yes.

For instance: Comcast is a major shareholder of Hulu.

So, without net neutrality, Comcast would be allowed to make Netflix run slower, and Hulu run faster.

>That does not make it constitutional

I almost forgot your constitution is only 25 years old.

Nobody cared
If I used one of those I might care but I dont

KYS corporate shill.

That is not how our constitution works
Read the 10th amendment

It's not a problem, nor will it be a problem, thanks to NN
It's pre-emptive strikes are necessary when we've seen the damage that current ISPs are doing in an age where the internet is the world's best and most major way of communication
Why risk it?
The benefits don't outweigh the incipient demerits

The government doesn't always do things that it's citizens wants them to do

Just because something can regulate something doesn't mean they should or must, that's not an argument as to why they should

>netflix facebook and google are not real evil corporations
>they are cool hip liberal corporations

Pretty much this.

Where is the source that this is happening?

wont barren tell trump that this is wrong, he is computer wiz.

.Sup Forums if officially trump shill board if everyone here suddenly hate net neutrality just because trump says so.

this is the corner stone of what Sup Forums is about, saving the internet, the more anti internet laws gets passed the worst it will be for us.

>Read the 10th amendment

Is that the one about self driving cars and augmented reality headsets?