FCC Dismantling Net Neutrality

Great job, retards. Pic related, who was appointed by Trump, is tearing down the very thing that allows Sup Forums to exist in spite of the controversy.

Can't wait to pay Comcast more shekels every month so I can get the "premium" speeds.

Trump doesn't know shit about the internet except about tweeting. He and pic related have put our free access to information and entertainment in jeopardy.

Won't you feel stupid when Sup Forums is unreachable because Comcast (who owns NBC-Universal, btw) no longer connects to these servers and there's no legal recourse against it.

Other urls found in this thread:

tomgpalmer.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/myths_about_markets_ii.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Net Neturality is the most important thing ever so we should vote for the party that otherwise despises us to their very core.

>I'm willing to sell out the first amendment pending the fact that my guys win and not your guys

Cutting off your nose to spite your face

>I don't actually know anything about the 1st Amendment

>Hi, we're Comcast and we own the only viable internet service and infrastructure in your area
>what's that, you want to access Fox News?
>why not try MSNBC instead? It loads in half the time and has all the same content!
>a corporation preventing access to information is not a 1st amendment issue

>>a corporation preventing access to information is not a 1st amendment issue
It literally isn't. It certainly violates the principle of free speech, but it doesn't infringe your 1st Amendment rights.

As much as I hate Comcast, Mediacom, and all those other faggy ISPs... this user is right.

First amendment only protects against government violation of free speech. Private entities can do whatever they like.

If you don't like your service provider, find a new service provider.

Hell, even in your little fantasy there, said corporation isn't preventing access to anything. And I'm saying this as a net neutrality proponent. Stop making retarded arguments.

Except that was the whole purpose of creating common carriers as they related to phone lines. It was determined that if a phone company were to stand in the way of you completing a call to anyone, regardless of their phone plan or provider, they would be infringing upon the 1st amendment right to open communication.

In other words, if you're going to use government provided infrastructure to connect people then you can't tell them what they can and can't do with the service, provided it's legal. Slowing down traffic to one website in favor of another is unequal access and goes against the standing of common carriers, which I know isn't legally the case with the internet in the US yet but it should be listed as a CC.

>I don't want to have to pay for faster internet, everyone should have the exact same speeds REEEEEEEEEEE

gtfo commie

Again: I know you're a fucking idiot, but maybe you can get that concept through your thick skull you fucking nitwit.

Good. Lay your own infrastructure and maintain it if you don't like it.

Where I live my choices are Comcast and Century Link. There's nothing else and both of them pull this shit and will continue with their shenanigans now that Trump's federal govt. is taking off the leash.

please do not talk about issues like net neutrality when you have no idea what you're talking about thanks

OP you're right the appointment of that fucking pooloo is more detrimental to the country and more ironic than Trump's appointment of Goldman Sachs fuckers after saying he was going to drain the swamp.

"Oh cool, the internet pretty much single handedly let me win, time to give them the middle finger"

That's the downside and as a Trump supporter, I've been letting my elected officials know that I support net neutrality. But that isn't a fucking core issue, so I didn't vote on that alone.

Comcast was given their infrastructure on govt. subsidies. They operate in conjunction with other mass comm utilities. They didn't pay for much of it and should be held accountable to the public as far as keeping open and untampered communication lines.

Why are so many of you loathe for any govt. intervention? A free and open internet is far more important for all of us than Comcast's profits. In this instance, at least, govt. should be the answer to ensuring the internet remains open to everyone equally.

>please do not talk about issues like net neutrality when you have no idea what you're talking about thanks

You over there in the usa,you should fucking wake up to that trump is a fucking plant.Literally nothing happened its been now nearly 2 months,killary still laughing,podesta still laughing,everyone is laughing and nothing happens.No drain the swamp,nothing.
The world is lost and you cheer for it.

get satellite senpai. no one needs to be on the internet so much anyway.

And the only cable provider in my county is Mediacom, and they suck. So I stopped using them. Switched to a satellite internet provider.

First rule of capitalism - if you don't like the product you're getting from one provider, go to another. If you keep paying for the same shitty product, or expect the government to come in and make it less shitty, you'll never see any progress made.

I live in south-central Pennsylvania and I have Centurylink with my only other option being satellite providers. Centurylink denies it of course, but I've already had to deal with them throttling websites like YouTube down to speeds where streaming is near impossible. I have to use proxies half the time just to get popular sites like that to load.

I'd rather you post your reddit reaction images instead of you failing to partake in big boy discussions bud

Are you a leftist? Yes. Are you mad that you lost the election? Yes.

This.

1st amendment: government can't stop your free speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom of the press.
You can still say what you like.
Media can still say what it likes.
This has nothing to do with the first amendment at all. Any one who thinks it does should go get their GED.

>Sup Forums can't even agree on what net neutrality is or what this will even mean

1) let them break net neutrality
2) come down on them hard for monopolistic practices

You could always file a petition, ask your senator to fix it, or firebomb their offices.
All practical options, though the last is a tad violent

Except this is one instance where govt stepping in would be beneficial.

Do our phone lines not work exceptionally? Why can't we apply the same logic to internet access?

Why the fuck should the consumer be forced to find work-arounds when the ISPs are clearly the ones at fault here?

Ajit Pai has stated that he supports the four principles of internet freedom (according to Forbes). Here is what's getting everyone riled up: Pai is advocating for the removal of certain restrictions on ISPs, specifically the requirement that they share detailed information with customers (rates, speeds, etc.). He reasons that ISPs will be able to divert funds that were used for such logging/reporting towards expanding their service (bringing internet to more people). However, this does not mean that ISPs will suddenly cease to be transparent. It only removes government interference where it shouldn't have belonged in the first place. If a consumer cares about ISP transparency, they'll subscribe to an ISP that's transparent. Free market & competition.

This. Also I thought Trump was aware and taking steps to overthrow monopolies like Comcast

>has laid out reddit talking points
>but i'm the reddditor
Listen, I know you're new here and think just saying something about reddit automatically discredits whoever you'd like but it doesn't work that way. Net neutrality is not a 1st Amendment issue, if you had anything but the most basic understanding of both, you'd know that. But like OP, you're an idiot and think if you just cry "muh rights" without even understanding said rights, you'll get what you want.

Itt Reddit cries over muh Netflix

If comcast no longer connects to these servers I'll switch to verizon, or some other isp.

Whoops, this was supposed to ref

P.Ajit is now literally in charge of the internet

i hate this fucking timeline

But the problem is that most ISPs are media conglomerates that have virtually monopolized vast areas of the country. There aren't alternatives for the consumer and there aren't any mom and pop ISPs who support net neutrality on the rise. And there won't be as long as Comcast can charge what they'd like for shit internet and pay to lobby Congress and Trump's FCC to allow them to restrict content and lower speeds for their users.

Also, they are not going to spend more money on R&D and improved infrastructure. Get real. That money will go to high-end stockholders like it has ever since Comcast got big.

Not quite that simple, see, as utility companies are necessarily govt sponsored. The govt cannot allow every single company to dig a trench under the road whenever they feel like competing against the established companies.

Same with the electromagnetic spectrum - there's a limited amount of it that one can use.

I can not give financial support to companies. I have no recourse with federal net neutrality and I am way past the point of trusting the Feds with anything

>I'm willing to sell out my 2nd ammendment rights because (((they))) say my first ammendment right is threatened

WTF?!

I hate Trump now

no, posting reddit reaction images automatically discredits you

If the big ISPs stop supporting net neutrality, other ISPs will arise that do and take their business. There are very few consumers who don't have a choice in ISPs, and it's unlikely that big ISPs can secure a monopoly large enough to prevent virtually all competition.

Again, keep reddit posting instead of contributing to the grown up discussion. For example, you haven't actually addressed how it's a 1st Amendment issue. OP did, but because he doesn't know what he's talking about discredited his own argument. Step up your game faggot.

>taking redditors seriously

why would i do that

>All the isps block conservative news
> LOL it's okay they're just corporations not government
> so what if this inevitably leads to the death of conservatism
> so what if this results in literally Big Brother but instead of the government it's called a corporation so it's totally fine

Ancaps need to be thrown from helicopters just like Ancoms

>Except this is one instance where govt stepping in would be beneficial.
The problem with the pro-net neutrality argument is that it assumes companies have agendas that they will push in the absence of federal oversight, but argues that the government (FCC) does not and would not. You guys argue that in the absence of government interference, companies will jack up prices and throttle services and sites they don't like, but a government agency is just as capable of doing the same. The courts have, thus far, given agencies like the FCC a wide latitude in applying censorship and 'decency standards' to radio, cable, and the internet. They've remained relatively hands-off in previous administrations, but there's nothing to guarantee that would remain true under a different administration.

The difference is that if the federal government has the final say on internet content and service standards, you don't have a second option if those standards suck. With a free market you can always look for another provider if the one you have sucks.


>Why the fuck should the consumer be forced to find work-arounds when the ISPs are clearly the ones at fault here?
Because that's how capitalism works: If I'm buying apples from Farmer A and Farmer A starts making his apples too expensive or starts giving me shitty apples, I go buy apples from Farmer B and Farmer A either lowers his prices or gives people better apples to stay competitive or he goes out of business. This is basic economics.

>ISPs block Fox news
>lose a large portion of their customer base and have to deal with suits from Fox
Yeah, that seems smart. Let them do that and see what happens.

That's basically the case right now.

It's not coincidence that Comcast has started introducing data caps with all the phone companies doing the same. The idea is to make people pay by the byte and then allow better access to in-house services.

There aren't really any mid-level providers. This is a case where free market collusion is at work and there needs to be govt intervention to ensure ISPs do not privilege content and throttle speeds to less than the consumer pays for.

Comcast just bought their biggest competition and now that Wheeler is out of the FCC that's sure to go through. They are already working on a near monopoly and other telecoms are on the same page with this shit. It's about putting profits over free access to the most valuable tool of the 21st Century.

>I don't actually have any points, I'll just say you're from reddit, I win lol

Again, I support net neutrality, but there isn't a violation of the 1st Amendment happening. Learn to read, chucklefuck.

Well said, but you could have made it simpler:
>don't expect the public sector to provide better service than the public sector
And
>governments are always at risk of corruption

Yes goy we need more government intervention and regulations!

>This is a case where free market collusion is at work and there needs to be govt intervention to ensure ISPs do not privilege content and throttle speeds to less than the consumer pays for.
There was and it didn't help.

You guys act like media companies colluding with each other is some kind of new thing - it's not. Companies like Mediacom and Comcast have been doing this kind of shit for as long as the internet has existed - and the FCC has done nothing to stop it. The only reason the efforts of these companies to chop up or throttle service has been customers threatening to cut off service if they do.

It's been long understood that even places of public combination have to give way to the speech of others in some extent.

And even when they don't have to that the state has the right to force additional accommodation and accommodation. Cable providers and not constitutionally required to include local programming but it is constitutional for the federal government and the state governments to force cable providers to include local programming.

This argument goes beyond the bear procedural minimum of the First Amendment. You're not quite the First Amendment Advocate if you're trying to only have the absolute slightest amount of speech protection that the constitution will technically tolerate.

How is it not good policy to force isps to not filter or throttle websites based on the fact that they might politically object to them?

Fuck off with your free market argument. The internet has never really been a genuine free market. Most places in the country still only have one or two viable ISPs. If they both screw you over your theoretical infinite number of choices of Alternatives aren't feasible.

Between obstructing access to alternative ideas and speech and the somehow sacrosanct status of a corporation, most people should opt for the slight molestation of a corporation rather than the complete ravaging of non mainstream liberal thought from ever being able to facilitate.

Capitalism dies in a monopoly market, and that's what the isps are doing. They're Ma Bell all over again. They need to be broken up.

Unless, in your scenario, farmer A sells you mushy apples until you've had enough and switch to farmer B.

Only to find out that farmer A used his headstart on farmer B to buy him out so even buying from farmer B gets you mushy apples. And farmer C can't find anywhere to build his stand because farmer A controls most of the local apple market and gives money to support local leaders.

Even still, I don't think govt intervention will be needed. These kind of things should sort themselves out. I can't see people being content with Comcast throttling internet speeds, some popular action will be taken and then Comcast will rescind the throttle in order to keep its business.

If customer satisfaction got in the way of Comcast profits then Comcast would never have customers.

What part of regional monopolies do you not understand?

Either stop buying apples or grow your own. Small ISPs are sprouting up around the country because of the abuse the major ISPs constantly dish out. Great time to jump into the market and get a loyal customer base.

tomgpalmer.com/wp-content/uploads/papers/myths_about_markets_ii.pdf

See #3

Are you aware of the concept of regulatory capture?

More uninformed libtards in this thread

Net neutrality has been dead for a long time

Clinton was even more opposed to it and Comcast was a major donor to her.

The only conservative candidates supporting it were eliminated vwry early in the campaign.

This was coming no matter who won.

The part where you need the federal government to crack down on regional issues, instead of your state and local government.

Enforcement of anti-trust laws to prevent a monopoly market or price fixing or consumer abuse is a job for the FTC, not the FCC.

Also, if the FCC brings an agenda to the table, the people can petition the govt to have the leadership ousted, or even vote in a new adminstration to appoint new people, if they're so inclined.

With private businesses that control a whole city's access to internet, there isn't much recourse. You can't simply switch service, especially when the only other service is basically the same price and operates with the same unfair practices.

Govt policy can be changed with votes and outcry whereas not much can be done to make Comcast behave without the heft of the govt.

How is there no recourse when they need a permit from the city? Why must the federal government handle business the smaller governments should be handling?

I use comcast and have no issues. I'm sure I'd notice if my internet speed was throttled.

Yes, but I don't think that's what we're dealing with. Removing regulations doesn't always mean favoring big business. There are a number of smaller ISPs that can benefit from Ajit's proposal.

That doesn't apply here. We do not have a free market in the united states, especially in the isp sector. We have widespread duopoly and regulatory monopolies. This cannot be changed without the assisstance of the fed, because the fed helped build it.

And.... small ISPs can do exactly the same.
If there is NO legal barrier that stops ISPs from being complete Jews then they WILL be complete Jews for the sake of profit. That is capitalism. The new, smaller ISPs have no reason not to want to make more profit, and when those ISPs are profitable there will be --nothing-- that stops big ISPs from just buying them out. Nothing.

>LOL dude just stop using the internet or make your own internet.

Just give it a few years and I'll grow out of that extreme lolbertarian phase. Most of us went through it. Then most of us realized it's too easily subverted by cultural marxist interests even when it looks fiscally opposite of the degenerate left (i.e. having borders infringes on the free market; muh NAP is violated by having any restriction on abortions or requiring me to feed my white children)

>Can't wait to pay Comcast more shekels every month so I can get the "premium" speeds.
they already did this. my price has gone up every year, we got datacaps, we got throttling. MUH NET NEUTRALITY didnt save us from a single thing. and comcast msnbc retains its monopoly because they kept donating to democrats and shilling for them on msnbc news programs

You could atleast link to your shitty CNN article you failed shill

It's not realistic to tell people to stop using the internet. Reliable internet is essential for my job, just as it is for many people.

And starting my own ISP isn't as simple as planting an apple tree. Especially when any new ISP is going to face opposition from some of the world's largest and most enriched communications companies. They pay lobbyists more than the startup costs would be for a new ISP.

Can't you stupid fatasses complain? We complained and literally went to Congress. We won and our internet is kinda free

No its not. They will lose customers and contracts in favor of ISPs who actually uphold their end of the deal.
Not a lolbertarian, I just recognize how the expansion of the federal government is to blame for this whole mess, and I want to know why you fucks always run to the federal government instead of petitioning your local government.

And if your local government is too corrupt to deal with the situation, then perhaps you have a bigger issue to deal with first.

Tennessee is literally a monopoly market by law. Most fiber in the us was put down with government subsidies, given to a company, and that company is not required to let anyone else use it. It is in fact what we are dealing with here. We have some of the worst internet in the world because there have been high artificial barriers erected to keep competition out. They need to be broken up.

>With private businesses that control a whole city's access to internet, there isn't much recourse.
Find a different provider. I was sick of the way my city's only cable provider was fucking me over on rates and bandwidth so I found a satellite provider.

>And starting my own ISP isn't as simple as planting an apple tree.
You're right, it's simpler.

meant to also reply to

Honestly it has little to do with consumers. This is corporations squaring off against each other. ISPs want to extort money from companies like Google and Netflix because together they're well over half of all internet traffic. Google especially makes money by advertising, and so any threat that might lower their users is a serious problem to them. They spearhead things like net neutrality to shift the burden off of themselves and to consumers across all services equally. ISPs basically have a monopoly, so they're going to get the money they want regardless of whether it comes from Google playing ball or from their entire customer base.

Net neutrality is probably "right" in that a company shouldn't be able to extort another company like that, but we can't really pretend it's a win for consumers. Consumers lose either way.

Ajit's proposal is one step closer to a free market, which is apparently flawed cause monopolies
Start your own ISP, seems like there's a market for one in Tennessee

You say thay, but I have 3 local ISPs that all started at the city level and branched outward. They aren't independent from the big ISPs, as they lease lines from them, but they don't do any of the dumb shit the ISPs are known for.

And guess what the big ISPs started doing? They returned to fair business practices because they were losing customers to the small ISPs. Amazing how the free market works, right?

They can pay off politicians.

But, let's not assume the worst. Let's assume Comcast, et al., are playing fair and not using their money to impact local and national regulation in their favor.

How is what you're suggesting, that local govt. step in, any different from having the Feds do it? Now we're talking a difference in orders of magnitude.

The reason the FCC (or FTC as another user said above) should be the ones to step in is because these companies have national reach. The only regulatory body large enough to realistically keep them in check, and keep an open internet that serves you the speeds you pay for, is to involve the largesse of the federal govt.

State and local govts can only do so much. We need a bigger mandate to protect net neutrality.

ISPs have contracts with local municipal governments that allow them to do business there. These local governments have a lot more pull over the Internet issues in YOUR LOCAL AREA than the federal government does.

Don't forget that the federal government must apply all policies equally across all states, so you might think the Fed is needed for your part of the country, but that same policy is going to fuck up my part of the country.
Like it does every single time the Federal government gains obscene amounts of power.

Also obligatory
>implying DC doesn't have the biggest lobbying of the nation
>implying the federal government is immune to corruption
>implying the federal government will have "eyes on the ground", and will do something other than create new policies
>implying these new policies will not have thousands of loopholes, thanks to the gigantic lobbying efforts in DC

Federal control is never the solution, user.

Exactly.

You can't. There's laws against it. It is a legally enforced monopoly. That is the problem here.

And another thing
>i need Internet for my job!
Then you should be trying to get the Internet reclassified as a utility.
This net neutrality bullshit was all just a successful propaganda campaign to convince people that we need a bigger federal government, and goes hand in hand with the rest of Obama's policies.

I'm tired of us selling everything to the federal government when they just shit on us over and over.

BASED TRUMP. No More Big Government Regulations!

Then advocate for change in the law. That's why our government works this way to begin with, will of the people and all that.

Sitting down and letting these people walk all over you will only make things worse.

WE DO NOT HAVE A FREE MARKET IN AMERICA. Free markets do not have problems with monopolies. We have a regulatory state. Major isps have latched onto our regulatory state to build themselves monopolies. A.pajit's plan would fuck us harder, unless he breaks up the isps first. That apparently is not in his plans.

I don't live in Tennessee. I was using it as an example to show how isps have legally enforced monopolies and duopolies. These companies need to be broken up.

Sounds like an issue for Tennessee, not DC.

Literally, the problem is government, so we need bigger, more powerful government to fix the problem, and then once the problem is fixed the government will give up it's power and shrink back down?

That doesn't change that major isps need to be broken up. That is a valid power of the fed. If you are a free market supporter, why do you not recognize that valid power of the fed?

The government can and has broken up monopolies in the past. Ma Bell in the 70s, Microsoft in the 90s. It is a valid power of our federal government to break up monopolies. The Isps are monopolies, they need to be shattered.

That's exactly what Obama and his administration were attempting, to reclassify the internet as a CC, and people on Sup Forums threw a shit fit about big govt., even though no one complains about govt intervention when their cellphone service works as expected.

There is no hope of having the internet reclassified now. We all know where this is heading and our internet will be capped, less accessible, and throttled to shit.

Even if competition arrives to offer net neutrality, it will take time for them to emerge and internet service in the US is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.

>cutting the weeds when they grow too high

Breaking up successful corporations will only disincentivize entrepreneurs. Monopolies are not the end-all like you guys are saying. They're not invincible without govt interference.

hope they make niggers using twitter to pay even more or that it clears off the fags from this board.


internet was better when it was less accessible by NIGGERS

How?

How does breaking up monopolies disincentivize competition?

Are people going to suddenly stop hating money because Comcast got what was coming to them? Trust-busting opens up vacuums where competition can re-enter into markets they've been barred from because too big to compete against companies no longer have a stranglehold on a particular market.

You're telling me that it the FCC shot down the Comcast-Time Warner deal that suddenly no one would want to step up and create new ISPs because they'd be afraid that the govt. would be after them next?

Microsoft was packaging it's own products with it's own products and using it's market dominance in one field (OS) to force out competitors in another (Explorer, Netlink).

ISPs are given full lockout control by regulation and local government shenanigans.

I don't think it's a valid comparison.

Nothing wrong with "collusion". That's how a lot of internet services work right now. Netflix has boxes at every major ISP to speed up content delivery. OH NO COLLUSION!!@!@@#!@# We must stop netflix from doing this because it's unfair or something.