So trump killed the TPP and saved anime, thank god

So trump killed the TPP and saved anime, thank god.

But he's also about to kill Net Neutrality. Was it worth it?

Other urls found in this thread:

forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#2b605e8e438e
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>So trump killed the TPP

No he didn't, he didn't do shit.

>But he's also about to kill Net Neutrality. Was it worth it?

Along with pass Obamacare, push us into more troops in Syria, support Saudi yemen war.

>But he's also about to kill Net Neutrality. Was it worth it?
Yes. I'd rather have greedy corporations than government

>TPP

The Phantom Pain?

this

But the TPP was basically greedy corporations being worse than greedy government.

If he breaks up the internet monopolies then it might be worth it

Name 1 way that net neutrality has impaired your personal freedom.

>He's going to break up the internet monopolies by changing the rules to make the monopolies more powerful!!!!

made possible by government

>But he's also about to kill Net Neutrality.
Awesome!

Tax

I'd like to see some monopoly busting in general.

However, the internet is effectively a cartel of tier-1 poviders at the core, and it would not be "the" internet if it weren't monolithic. Ergo it seems to me that, like the power grid, some form of government oversight is needed in order to allow a necessary cartel that provides what has effectively become a public utility.

The entire economy is made possible by the government.

Competition is the solution to america's internet problems, not something that'll literally kill freedom on the internet eventually.

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with taxes.

Do your research.

Correct. The internet has become an essential utility for most businesses and individuals, and it should be regulated as such.

I did. Net Neutrality has nothing to do with taxes.

Net neutrality is the source of evil. It caused things like 37 different genders and pro refugee crisis.

Wrong.

Name 1 way that getting rid of net neutrality would improve competition between ISP's.

Everything you've said so far is wrong, so I'm not surprised.

...

stop using words you don't know

the FCC and the new chariman still defend the original meaning of Net Neutrality

Net was never neutral

Will other countries suffer as well?

I heard something about based Barack "Kikesmiter" Obama wisely delegating some authority over the internet to the UN. Did he manage to protect it from the zionist Drumpf?

>Everything you've said so far is wrong, so I'm not surprised.
Oho, and regulations doesn't cost a thing

Name a country without a government that also has a good economy.

Do you even have a country if you don't have a government? I think at best you would have some region of land that the rest of the world might or might not agree on a name for.

france

TPP = Game over.
Net Non-neutrality = DarkWeb/Internet 2.0

Losing the neutrality is very very bad, but could be worked around. TPP had no work arounds.

Well that's just not right at all.

The TPP was about taking greedy corporation and merging them with even more transnational greedy corporations. That's not what government should be doing. The overarching thing I see trump doing is breaking the monopolies Obama created thanks to government intervention. Now trump is using government intervention to un do them, i.e. Big Pharma, net neutrality, tax cuts on small businesses, repealing Dodd frank which killed small banks, killing certain government agencies like EPA and DOE which were used only to regulate businesses/schools that Obama didn't like.

Trump is bringing competition back to most aspects of daily life and that's a good thing even if it sounds scary to people who don't understand economics and think government has to step in and solve everything

>Do you even have a country if you don't have a government?

Exactly.

Trump like level of brains. One word answer. No follow up. #cunt

Name 1 way that getting rid of net neutrality improves competition between ISP's.

>#cunt
Really?

Because it shows the true colors of a given ISP, therefore Verizon for example might lose lots of customers when people find out that Verizon backs a bunch of liberal propaganda. I'm not exactly fully in favor it getting rid of it, but at the same time it encourages transparency in ISPs therefore encouraging competition between people who want to give their money to ISPs that align with their own beliefs

forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2017/01/24/why-is-the-media-smearing-new-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-as-the-enemy-of-net-neutrality/#2b605e8e438e

A lot of places don't even have more than one viable option. When broadband first became available to my grandparents, it was either that one ISP or keep AOL dialup. My brother can do satellite, dialup, or 4G -- discussion of whether to run broadband in the area has been going on for years but it hasn't yet been worth the costs to any ISP that has looked in to it.

So it's a nice idea, but it's not practical in a lot of the country.

>Because it shows the true colors of a given ISP, therefore Verizon for example might lose lots of customers when people find out that Verizon backs a bunch of liberal propaganda.

This claim is frankly baffling. I'm not sure how to even address it. Why would getting rid of Net Neutrality expose anything about Verizon that you don't already know?

>the same time it encourages transparency in ISPs

Net Neutrality encourages transparency in ISP's. Getting of NN does the exact opposite.

>people who want to give their money to ISPs that align with their own beliefs

This is silly. Many people live in places where there aren't many options for ISP and switching isn't easy either. There will not be any increase in competition. You, the consumer, will have the exact same number of options in terms of ISP's. The only thing that will change without NN is that now the ISP's will have much greater power to control what content you're able to access.

Government control and regulation of the internet will just make it more shitty and expensive just like it does with everything it touches like a Midas shit hand

Indeed. I want as little government as possible. But it is a necessary institution, one of the purposes of which is to allow the citizens to exert collective power over other collectives, like organizations.

I'm not suggesting the government run the internet. That would be silly. But it is legitimate for the citizens to decide to arrange for some body to regulate.

Just like the FCC is crap in many ways, but it's still better than the anarchy of having no FCC, considering you can't really just put up electromagnetic radiation borders everywhere as needed.

Name 1 way that net neutrality makes the internet more expensive.

He hasn't said jack shit about net neutrality.
I think he forgot.

Fucking Libertarians. Can you guys start a colony and all die off due to tainted water and drugs already?

If people became aware that they are getting discriminated against by their ISP for the content/sites they visit, they'll leave that internet provider. I also find it hard to believe that government mandated regulations (especially since they were mostly put in place by Obama) don't hide under the banner of "neutrality" but actually are biased in some way. If net neutrality actually did anything I'm pretty sure Twitter and Facebook wouldn't have algorithms built in that promote liberal media outlets and squish conspiracy/conservative media outlets all the way to the bottom where they get no views.
That said is trump even getting rid of it all together? I was under the impression his pick for FCC was only in favor of rolling back regulations not cutting them all together

>If people became aware that they are getting discriminated against by their ISP for the content/sites they visit, they'll leave that internet provider.

And what if they live in a place where there isn't another ISP? Or what if there are only 2 ISP's and they both decide to discriminate content? Furthermore, why should ISP's have the ability to choose what sites consumers are able to access in the first place?

>they'll leave that internet provider.
Only if there are other reasonable options. If I don't like Lowes, I can go to Home Depot, and each of them has 10 brands of power tools. If I don't like that, I can go to Ace, and then there are various non-chain hardware stores near me as well.

But if I don't like my city water company, it's not like somebody else is going to come run new water pipes to my house. I can chose who generates my electricity, but I can't chose the distribution company because nobody's going to come run a different set of lines to my house. Or I guess I could buy a generator to run 24/7 or an expensive solar setup.

I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with a concept known as "economic slavery." Sometimes there are no effective alternatives. Even relocating to a different locality might not be a reasonable alternative, economically or otherwise.

Other ISPs will expand their range and bring in more customers... driving down prices and increasing competition

Yeah but it doesn't HAVE to be that way. If there is a market/demand for a wider range of Internet providers then people will come in to fill that role

net neutrality was a lie.

It was just dems increasing the profit margins for their netflix/hollywood buddies. That's what it was about. Netflix and others won't have to pay extra to have priority service connections.

It has nothing to do with consumers and everything to do with sucking up to hollywood jews.

Only if it's economically viable for them to do so. Expanding infrastructure is a major investment and a gamble on returns.

When I was growing up, it took decades before enough people on my street were willing to pay for CATV service before the one and only CATV company in town was willing to run lines.

It's not quite like if you don't like Sup Forums's moderation you can just make your own alternate chan and then when it gets big enough worry about how to fund it.

...

Net neutrality makes zero difference in a world of crony capitalism. The state will just regulate them in whatever manner the corporate elites want.

Libtards still don't understand this and probably never will.

These goys get it

>Other ISPs will expand their range and bring in more customers

They are able to do that now. Net Neutrality does not prevent ISP's from competing against each other in any way. Getting rid of NN will not increase competition in any way, shape, or form. You, as a consumer, will have the exact same number of options in terms of ISP's. The ONLY difference is that now, what ISP you choose will have the power to pick what web sites you are able to access.

>Net neutrality makes zero difference in a world of crony capitalism.

It makes a huge difference, actually. Without NN, your internet service provider would be able to actually pick and choose which websites are able to access. Right now, NN prevents them from doing that. Everybody with an internet connection is able to access all of the internet's content.

But what happens without NN? Suddenly, ISP's will create new rules saying that only certain sites like Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc will be covered. You want more than that? There is an additional fee for access. Or in some cases, ISP's might choose to make a website completely inaccessible if it has a bad enough reputation (that is especially important for Sup Forums). Suddenly, the internet is a much smaller, less open space.

>the original meaning of Net Neutrality
Which is?

#rekt

Thanks for that article, very interesting.

I'd like some clarification, what's the problem with classifying the INTERNET as a public utility?

Obongo already sold it to the jews.

Good thing we live in a capitalist society so any ISP that does that will instantly lose 99% of its customerbase to its competitor and go insolvent in a week.

From the stories I hear, this will only happen where there's sufficiently capable competition. I know dozens of people who have to put up with absurd horseshit from their ISP, but they can't change because there's no one to change to.

You skipped dealing with the cronyism. If we made the artificial monopolies illegal NN would be a non-issue. ISPs would have to actually compete for business so they wouldn't be throttling service and limiting you to their walled gardens.

underrated