Trump FCC Boss Calls Net Neutrality 'A Mistake'

Nice job faggots, now we have to buy tiers to get to Sup Forums.

dslreports.com/shownews/FCC-Boss-Calls-Net-Neutrality-A-Mistake-139057

Other urls found in this thread:

motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/comcast-may-be-infringing-net-neutrality-with-shady-hbo-go-deals
petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prevent-repeal-or-dismantlement-net-neutrality
internetprovidersbyzip.com/
internetprovidersbyzip.com/internet-by-zip?field_postal_code_value=84141&field_business_value=0
internetprovidersbyzip.com/internet-by-zip?field_postal_code_value=10040&field_business_value=0
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
inmyarea.com/internet/84111/providers
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_L._Roberts
lawinsider.com/usage/time-warner-cable-inc-uses-in-non-competition-clause
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

i'm not gonna lie, former moly cult member here. this is fucking hilarious watching moly crash and burn.. but in all seriousness we can't let this man get a hold of the nuclear arguments

Trump let this stupid fucking pajeet owned by jews into his admin.

hmmm really makes me fucking think

Does Trump sit around with manipulative jews or something?

"is this a good candidate?"
"yes trust me"
"this is a good candidate"

The idea of net neutrality is good. But the Far-Left's idea of trying to create net neutrality through legislative brute force, giving a government agency the authority to regulate online traffic, runs counter to the very concept of net neutrality.

Net neutrality has been the de facto law of the land, not because of government regulation, but because consumers aren't willing to put up with anything less. We've seen Comcast, Time Warner, Mediacom, and Charter get constantly BTFO by angry customers for the slightest hint of bandwidth throttling or traffic favoring.

We haven't needed the government to maintain net neutrality for the last 25 years... why do we suddenly need to give the FCC broad and sweeping regulatory powers over the web?


If you don't like your ISP, pick a new one.

you can't pick a new one in my area you stupid fuck. if they kill NN I'm fucked.

it's not the big city urbanites that will be hurt, it's everyone in rural areas that you trump dickriders love so much.

>We haven't needed the government to maintain net neutrality for the last 25 years
The technology to throttle individual websites and still maintain network integrity hasn't existed before the past 5 years. Not to mention the merger of many large telecom companies in the past 10 years. Are you really this blue-pilled?

all that will happen is ISP's will form some peering agreements to share traffic and reduce costs

That would absolutely be true if it weren't for the state legislature that essentially permits monopolies. It's pretty similar to the old railroads situation actually.

Adult package for porn sites is only an extra $40 a month.

>Shilling for jewcast

Fuck off faggot.

Bullshit. Even in areas where the cable industry is dominated by a major ISP there are always small competitors - or in the worst case scenario you can find a satellite internet provider and avoid local ISPs altogether.

Sure, your speeds might not be as fast and you might have to deal with less reliable service, but if that's the cost of net neutrality, so be it.


Are you telling me you guys are willing to give a government agency whose job description includes the censorship of 'indecent' or 'inappropriate' content on radio, broadcast, and cable networks far-reaching regulatory power over the internet, but you aren't willing to just pay an extra $5 a month to another ISP instead?

Monopolies are a matter for the FTC, not the FCC.

I need fast internet for my work, so satellite is a no-go. I live in a rural area, there are no small competitors. Seriously.

>Are you telling me you guys are willing to give a government agency whose job description includes the censorship of 'indecent' or 'inappropriate' content on radio, broadcast, and cable networks far-reaching regulatory power over the internet, but you aren't willing to just pay an extra $5 a month to another ISP instead?
The net neutrality regulations are pretty specific about what is required. I don't really care about government regulation (/leftypol/) and think we need more of it and it can be done in a smart way. But clearly this pajeet wants the ISPs to be able to charge more money and fuck over sites like Sup Forums. It's probably not going to happen, I agree, but people should know about this asshole.

baka desu senpai the internet was a mistake.

HBO Go is on Playstation 4 streaming—except for Comcast users.

motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/comcast-may-be-infringing-net-neutrality-with-shady-hbo-go-deals

>If you don't like your ISP, pick a new one.
Topkek, where the fuck do you think we are Korea? I have one ISP to pick from, shitty Centurylink. Acting like we have options, why don't we get rid of electrical utility regulation too.

>I have one ISP to pick from
Bullshit - what's your zipcode?

Another isp will start up to compete you dumb fucking anti capitalistic nigger

You do not have a fucking constitutional right to stream HBO Go on your PS4 - find an ISP who offers the service you want, or find a way to live without it.

The reason you don't have options is because of net neutrality dumbass. I bet you like Obamacare too

you're clearly retarded

>what is the massive cost of installation for an ISP

>ISPs get constantly BTFO

Oh you are actually retarded, my apologies

Show me a city in the United States which doesn't have either
a) At least two internet service providers
b) Access to satellite internet providers

>people only live in major metropolitan areas
>food comes from the supermarket

crew plz

>what is the massive investments into isp infrastucture that will flow in when regulations are rolled back and net neutrality is killed

if you don't like comcast, get verizon. if you don't like that, get comcast

If I'm paying for x upstream and y downstream, I shouldn't have to pay yet again to have my actual connection speed always be x upstream and y downstream depending on where I connect, I ALREADY FUCKING PAID FOR IT.

Hey faggot, it was only in 2015 that some kind of shit called "net neutrality" started to appear and in all the years prior there was nothing at all resembling what you warn of.

Sup Forums is pretty low bandwidth. Just get dial-up if you need to shitpost. Worked fine back in the early 00s.

1. Get rid of net neutrality, it was only based on unsubstantiated fear mongering anyway.
2. Declare all last-mile connections to be a public utility, and mandate that they must be leased to any ISP.
3. Watch as the ISP business flourishes, less regulation to be loopholed, competition drives prices down, and if you don't like tiers, you can switch ISO's no problem.

Are you such an underage faggot that you fail to realize net neutrality did not exist prior to 2012 yet you act like the internet didn't exist without it?

That kind of ignorance pisses me off something fierce.

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prevent-repeal-or-dismantlement-net-neutrality

Relevant.

But the government!!!! Will save me!!! I'm too stupid to find alternative broadband providers so there must be no choices.

This is precisely what's happened. He's easily led.

constitutional right, no, but is it a violation of FCC and other guidelines? arguably so

Didn't say a major metropolitan area. I live in a town of

Net neutrality is a "solution" to a problem that doesn't exist. It preys on the natural fear people have that a system will turn to shit if someone isn't regulating it. But even with the shit competition we have in the U.S. ISP provider space (thanks, government), we don't get certain websites throttled to any noticeable degree. (Outside of certain types of traffic getting priority, like video packets, out of necessity.) There is no problem here, only a "solution" created by people with the desire to regulate the fuck out of the internet the way they regulate the airwaves and television.

Look at the wording of proposed Net Neutrality legislation and notice they specify no "legal content" will be throttled under their proposed laws. Why do they say that? Because "net neutrality" is just SOPA/PIPA in new clothing.

We have a country run almost entirely by lawyers. Always parse what they say with that in mind. They want to leave themselves with their asses covered but also with possible loopholes to help their lobbyist friends.

>If you don't like your ISP, pick a new one.
That's the problem. Often, you can't pick an new ISP because there's only one ISP in town. In other cases, there's two and they both suck. Remember, the cable company owns the poles and who's allowed to use them. A bad ISP can survive just by buying up infrastructure and refusing to sell.

It's not just access to sites it's how fast it loads. So non-normie sites will load slower unless you pay more.

internetprovidersbyzip.com/

How good are satellite providers?

I could drop both my ISP and cell provider (given there are apps that function like a phone and text with actual phone numbers).

Without net neutrality, your ISP can decide to throttle Sup Forums and give preferential speed to reddit.

With net neutrality, all internet traffic is treated the same.

This is a very simplified version but you get the idea.

Anyone who doesn't support net neutrality is a shill or a fucking moron. Ending net neutrality doesn't benefit the average end user in the slightest, and you should hope that fucking Paki doesn't go through with it.

Ending net neutrality would let companies throttle access and basically any website with "hate speech" so corporations have more control over the flow of information. So the internet would the MSM 2.0 with alternatives being made harder to reach.

It would also let companies Jew you out of your money through various ways like subscription services, and because of corporate monopolies, it would be almost impossible to stop.

Blame the government for allowing the few ISPs to have a monopoly.

That's one of the few government responsibilities people of most political stripes can agree on: they're supposed to stop monopolies from forming. But they don't. So why are you trusting them to fix this problem with more legislation? You're being played.

>net neutrality
>regulation

?

ISP having tier internet vs complete government control

>If you don't like your ISP, pick a new one.

The FCC didn't even HAVE any net neutrality/open internet guidelines until 2015. That didn't stop the internet from being open and neutral for two and a half decades prior.

>Often, you can't pick an new ISP because there's only one ISP in town.
Everybody in this thread keeps telling me this, but I've yet to see this mythical town everyone keeps referring to that has only one ISP. I'm convinced it's a fucking statistical myth like the wage-gap or 1-out-of-3 women being raped in college.

Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T - they've all floated the idea of preferential speeds and ala carte internet for 20 years and none of them have ever gone through with it. Were they stopped by net neutrality laws? No - because they didn't exist. Every time it even leaked that a company was discussing the idea they get fucking bombarded with customers threatening to terminate service and the companies promptly killed the idea because it's commercial suicide.

>We've seen Comcast, Time Warner, Mediacom, and Charter get constantly BTFO by angry customers for the slightest hint of bandwidth throttling or traffic favoring.

This is where you're wrong, you fucking retard.

AT&T doesn't count traffic to their own services(DirecTV) against users' data plans.

Net Neutrality is already being LEGALLY violated. Now you're taking handcuffs off and they're going to start swinging the other way... not only favoring their own content providers, but PUNISHING other content companies.

I am all for free market, but when it comes to utilities that we are dependent on(electricity, water, internet) then we have to draw the line and admit that it is almost impossible to have a free market in these areas.

It's impossible to have everyone who wants to start an ISP just start digging up roads and laying their own cable. There's just not enough room in the ground to have a free market competition like this, when the cables need to run directly to customer's doorsteps.

m8 you're insane. All net neutrality is, means that all internet traffic is treated the same so companies can't give preferential treatment to certain websites.

Without net neutrality, companies could throttle access to Sup Forums and prevent most people from accessing. Not only that, but they could threaten website owners that if they don't do something, they will throttle access to their website, giving companies like Comcast and Viacom ultimate power over everything.

Also you know what happened when the media was deregulated a few decades ago? It created the modern MSM we know and love, with CNN, NBC, ABC, all controlling the flow of information, and all being owned by the same megacorps. Which is barely even relevant to net neutrality anyway, all NN does is prevent corporations like Comcast from regulating everything and destroying the internet.

Removing NN would be even worse than SOPA/PIPA.

>regulation

what else would you call a bill that's hundreds of pages long that "regulates" something?

I'll say what I've kept saying all thread - show me this mythical town that only has one ISP.

Not an anecdote, not a "well everyone knows", give me the name of a town with more than 10,000 people that doesn't have at least two internet service providers.

Net Neutrality is literally just that. It's an extension of Common Carrier which prevents telecommunications companies from blocking access to their competitor's networks.

More importantly. smaller companies that can't afford premium speed would end up dying out. This would kill the internet's potential for startups.

what is the regulation

I don't care. The World Wide Web was a mistake.

>satellite ISP don't exist
>the technology isn't growing at a fast rate
>this won't cause intense competition
>this won't lower costs to consumers

> OMG THEY COULD TOTALLY DO THIS THING!!!

But they don't, leaf. It's not to their benefit at all to provide shitty service that upsets their customers.

If this is such a big problem, why are all the arguments that this COULD happen? Because it's not happening unless you're using a ridiculous amount of shared bandwidth pirating gigs of shit continuously. In which case you're fucking things up for everyone else.

And if it's not happening without legislation, why do we need legislation to prevent it from happening? Wal-Mart COULD poison all its customers, but they're not going to.

It is to the government's benefit to regulate the internet. Don't make it easy for them. Because THAT'S how a site like Sup Forums becomes unavailable, due to "hate speech" or some other fashionable bullshit cause. The free market is your friend. The government does not love you.

Verizon and Time Warner Cable are literally the only two ISPs to choose from in my neighborhood.

Go fuck yourself

>Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T - they've all floated the idea of preferential speeds and ala carte internet for 20 years and none of them have ever gone through with it. Were they stopped by net neutrality laws? No - because they didn't exist.

Yes, actually.

Comcast has tried to throttle speeds and implement caps on how much data you can use in a month to sabotage their competition like Netflix while prioritising their own shitty service by not slowing speeds or capping data. The only thing that stopped them from doing this was net neutrality laws and they were still able to keep the data caps in many places.

Prove it - what's your zip?

Nah you're just a shill who's butthurt that information you don't like is being spread.

Things were way worse when only a few newspapers and TV networks controlled all the flow of information.

If you remove "net neutrality" and DO NOTHING ELSE, it's a fucking disaster because because regulations and corporate/gov't collusion has choked it like a dirty little bitch.

The ideal is to return internet to its libertarian origins, but removing net neutrality and doing nothing else is game fucking over.

you can get ATT uverse thru a phone line

Yes, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, twitter, those are all beneficial to mankind.
Face it, the current Internet deserves to die as much as mainstream media.

You must live innawoods, or be stupid. I live in a small town and have six choices, not counting satellite. Satellite has 3 local providers. That's nine choices, user.
I can't believe you'd only have one choice. I lived in the middle of nowhere, az and still had 3 choices (all satellite)

>I'm libertarian
>we need more regulation

>It will upset the customers!
It isn't the 18th century faggot

ever heard of planned obsolescence
>they don't now
Because they can't

You're a fucking cuck fuck off

10040

>Everybody in this thread keeps telling me this, but I've yet to see this mythical town everyone keeps referring to that has only one ISP.

Found one
internetprovidersbyzip.com/internet-by-zip?field_postal_code_value=84141&field_business_value=0
EXEDE doesn't count since it's satellite only and that's extremely expensive.

>Libertarians are opposed to all regulations meme

Let it all crash. Something better will take its place.

so whats the regulation

good question

I'd love a lawyer to go thru all the weird intricacies of it with me
no telling what all is hidden in those those 400+ pages

maybe I'm just being conspiratorial but I don't trust giving the government more control and reach into the Internet than they already have

Well, there's Earthlink but considering the load speed for their website, I don't think that's an option.\\internetprovidersbyzip.com/internet-by-zip?field_postal_code_value=10040&field_business_value=0

what control and reach is that

>It's not to their benefit at all to provide shitty service that upsets their customers.

Yes it is. They make more money.

And because of corporate monopolies, most people won't have the option to switch service, or they won't bother. Everyone loses out in the end, except corporations like Comcast and Viacom. Fiber is too expensive to install, which also prevents competition.

>If this is such a big problem, why are all the arguments that this COULD happen?
Because it WILL happen. The only thing stopping it is net neutraliy laws.

>And if it's not happening without legislation, why do we need legislation to prevent it from happening?
But you do have legislation. Net neutrality is what we have right now, which keeps companies from fucking us over.

>It is to the government's benefit to regulate the internet.
They don't regulate it. Again, all net neutrality is is the principle that all internet traffic is treated the same. It's what we have right now.

>The free market is your friend. The government does not love you.
Megacorps don't love you either. In fact, they hate you.

Time Warner
Earthlink
Exede
Verizon Fios
Xchange Telecom
CornerStone
Optimum
MegaPath
Satellite Internet
Level 3 Communications
XO Communications
HughesNet
Broadview Networks
Windstream
Towerstream

here's the bill

I'm too dumb to process most of it

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

This doesn't happen except for in major cities because start ups do not have the infrastructure and its not worth investing in it unless you have many potential customers in a small area.

If you live in a more rural location you are totally fucked and can only choose between the one cable company in your region or satellite. And just so we are clear, when i say rural i don't me on a farm in the middle of nowhere. I live in a college town outside of Atlanta. We only have access to Charter or DirectTV

petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/prevent-repeal-or-dismantlement-net-neutrality

Facebook and Twitter won't die. They will be given preferential treatment by ISPs that now have more control over them because of politcal corruption and financial interests, while sites that threaten the establishment will be throttled.

so, actual internet or dial-up

The telecom industry exists within an insanely broad, complicated regulatory and administrative system, with thousands of regulations. Why do you think the telecoms always target this one regulation? HMM, I WONDER, MUST BECAUSE THE JEW LAWYERS, POLITICANS, AND CEOs ALL BELIEVE IN THE FREE MARKET.

I would love to get rid of the net neutrality regulation, but not unless you get rid of the rest of the shit first. That won't happen because the rest of that shit PROTECTS THEIR PROFITS.

Net Neutrality says that ISPs cannot discriminate between different types of traffic. Its a regulation.

Except varios ISP are already throttling Netflix traffic, even with the regulations in place. Removing them will make it get much worse.

Why does "net neutrality" legislation always specify that "lawful content" won't be throttled? Because it's a backdoor way to introduce SOPA/PIPA-style regulation. You know the big content companies aren't giving up that fight. I submit this is just their next move.

Why would our mendacious elected officials be so concerned about passing these laws we haven't needed BUT TOTALLY WILL SOON TRUST US? Don't kid yourself. They don't give a shit about your internet-browsing experience.

Furthermore, why should "all bits be equal?" For example, without traffic peering agreements, streaming video wouldn't work. Those packets HAVE to be given higher priority or no Netflix for burgers.

Net neutrality is big government fooling a lot of people by appealing to our natural desire for "equality/fairness" and our natural fear of "chaotic," unregulated systems. Systems which haven't failed us since the creation of the internet, but we're supposed to freak out about now because they MIGHT, even though we have no reason to expect they will and that it would be business suicide for the ISPs to try it.

When government tells you they're saving you from a "crisis" you didn't know existed, you're being lied to. Nobody has ever needed legislation like this before, and nobody can explain why we would need it now. Something else is going on here, and it's not your friends in the government trying to keep your internet as it is now.

>Zip code in the middle of Salt Lake City
>only has one internet provdier
Horseshit, the Salt Lake City area has 22 ISPs including Century Link, Comcast, Integra, Rise, and Versacity
inmyarea.com/internet/84111/providers

No net neutrality = Jews control the internet (even more than they already do with sites like Kikebook) without anything to stop them

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_L._Roberts
>Brian L. Roberts (born June 28, 1959) is an American businessman. Roberts is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Comcast Corporation, an American company providing cable, entertainment, and communications products and services. Under his leadership, Comcast has grown into a global Fortune 50 company uniquely positioned at the intersection of technology and media with two primary businesses, Comcast Cable and NBCUniversal. [2]
>Roberts was born into a Jewish family[3][4]

A town with three coffee shops in it doesn't magically become a monopoly just because I don't like the coffee at the other two shops.

Alternative choices exist, that doesn't mean all options are equal. The point of a free market is that you, as a consumer, prioritize what the most important things you want out of a product or service are.

>because start ups do not have the infrastructure
Yes they do, and the government paid for it. And then companies like Time Warner made it illegal for start ups to use that infrastructure that the government fucking paid for.

Net neutrality was a mistake!

What about it was a mistake, gifposter?

>Nobody has ever needed legislation like this before
Because the internet being a widespread thing is now more common than before dumbfuck, not everything is a government conspiracy.
Oh man that would be fantastic, IF ONLY WE HAD OPTIONS TO FUCKING CHOOSE FROM.

Everyone who's posted a zip code in this thread has been able to find at least a dozen fucking options.

Just because you don't LIKE the other options as much as your current service doesn't mean the options aren't there.


The real question then, is how important is net neutrality to you? Is it important enough to you that you're willing to live with a service that is a little slower or a little more expensive if it means having neutral and open access to the web? Or is it not?

lawinsider.com/usage/time-warner-cable-inc-uses-in-non-competition-clause

So apparently, Time Warner Cable, AT&T, ComCast, and Windstream are all subsidiaries of Century Link

Go figure.

>
The real question then, is how important is net neutrality to you? Is it important enough to you that you're willing to live with a service that is a little slower or a little more expensive if it means having neutral and open access to the web? Or is it not?

Um, Yeah. I'd rather have access to the entire internet vs the internet my ISP says I should.

>And then companies like Time Warner made it illegal for start ups to use that infrastructure that the government fucking paid for.

So like i said, start ups do not have the infrastructure.

>Trump posters: wtf i hate net neutrality now

Then pick an ISP that offers that.

This entire thread has been full of people who bitch about how much they hate companies like Comcast and Charter, but the moment you suggest looking into a smaller, slower ISP or a more expensive satellite provider they bitch and moan.

All true.


No one objects to paying for Internet- but we are getting utterly btfo as consumers over time.

Each chapter the telecom corps make a new explanation on why something is necessary. Typically one tries a new 'model' and gradually each other company adapts to the precedent.

Undermining net neutrality is the next 'chapter'

Anyone here recognize how shitty cable TV is? Pay the extra hundred and you get some better channels and a bit more and you get access to the good shit.

We will be in the same functional system as cable with the Internet. Maybe half of you will be able to afford access to Sup Forums once it changes.

And it will be the shitty half.

And the rest will be only able to access shitty websites with low tolerance for open discussion.


Net neutrality is about money, about control. But the seriously alarming aspect is the defacto censorship that will occur. The breakdown of the decentralized dynamism that allows the Internet to move so swiftly into new innovative territory.

It will be worse than obamacare was for the overall economy. The dynamic momentum will be permanently and irreversibly deconstructed and we will end up with an Internet "Hollywood" of producers that control all of the content and keep out the bottom up community that controls the Internet.

It is the metaphorical socialization of the current system with top down policies like distribution, price controls, and stifled growth.