You cuckservatives seriously can't defend this shit right?

You cuckservatives seriously can't defend this shit right?

this is the most anti-consumer bullshit I've ever seen I thought republicans were the party of the people?

Other urls found in this thread:

appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-share-of-internet-traffic-in-north-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes
youtube.com/watch?v=gS6HZv4GXj8
youtube.com/watch?v=Rx6keHpeYak
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

muh net neutrality, good way to trick yourself into more censorship.

Nice argument, I'm convinced.

this won't change anything. things are already shit

what are the big companies paying for if everyone else they connect to has shit internet?

that picture isn't even what net neutrality is about

It makes a good ancap meme, though

it will. your internet is going to get worse unless you pay to visit popular sites like Sup Forums, reddit, youtube, twitch. its literally going the way of cable TV where you have to pay for channels.

internet access as it is now

sure but it gets the general point across. They are going to throttle our normal access into smaller "lanes" i.e: make normal sites slower. or you can pay for access to their special bundel that includes google, youtube, facebook ect to get the speed european countries have had for 10 years, all while charging 5 times as much

How can you be stupid enough to think that the same FCC that approves every media and telecom merger and whose chairman is always a telecom or media insider is going to protect your internet from da big ebil corporations? The FCC and the media conglomerates are practically indistinguishable. Internet is fucked no matter what happens.

Explain how net neutrality leads to censorship. I'll wait.

If ISPs wanted to do that, they'd just get their FCC puppet to approve it and he would, because that's how regulatory agencies work. Who do you think grants ISPs and cable providers local monopolies in the first place?

>popular sites like Sup Forums
4chan is the tip of the iceberg

How does FCC regulations prevent tiered internet if ISPs wanted tiered internet? What would stop the FCC from altering the regulations to benefit the telecoms at the behest of their powerful lobby and their FCC insiders?

So what's stopping them from doing it now? Why have we effectively had net neutrality all this time, and if it's so easy to circumvent, then why are they lobbying to have it removed instead of just doing what you said?

Wouldn't those paying for more access have an extra highway built?

Objectively not true. otherwise "fast lanes" would have been approved years ago so big internet could rake in more cash, they've been trying for years.

really makes me think, if it's so easy to do why is it only now with a republicuck congress who have traceable paper-trails to verizon, comcast time-warner that it happens?

>If ISPs wanted to do that, they'd just get their FCC puppet to approve it and he would, because that's how regulatory agencies work. Who do you think grants ISPs and cable providers local monopolies in the first place?

That's exactly what they're doing.

Now, Yes, thats how it works now. if you wan't a different highway you pay more money for faster download speeds.

In the new world, you pay for speed on a per site basis, like paying for TV channels. now if you want to "watch" espn.com you can buy the sports website bundle for 11.99* (with a plethora of hidden fees) to get 50mb/s speed to those s ites. and if you didn't you'd only get throttled 5mb/s :v)

>neets about to get BTFO because they are used to getting so much for free

LOL

>So what's stopping them from doing it now?
Nothing other than they don't want to do it, probably because it would be more of a hassle than it would be profitable.
>Why have we effectively had net neutrality all this time
For the same reason we had it for the twenty some odd years before the net neutrality meme came into existence.
Get it through your head, the agency that's approved every media and telecom merger, has granted countless local monopolies and is packed full of industry insiders is not your friend or a friend of consumers.

Comcast and Time-Warner don't donate to Democrats as much as Republicans now?

It's incredible how they were able to convince these absolute cucks that getting rid of net neutrality is in their best interest.

Have fun paying $50 more to browse Sup Forums and having your access to "problematic" websites like Wikileaks blocked. Useful idiots, I swear.

Wouldn't there be multiple models available? Why do you think that everything would be limited to a subscription model?

Maybe I want to buy a $5/mo subscription that limits certain sites for my kids, and then a more expensive VPN open to the general internet for myself.

Funniest thing about this is it'll end up censoring right-leaning sites like other corporations are doing. Now a bunch of cucks can email Comcast and demand they block Sup Forums because it's racist and they'll legally be allowed to do it.

I'll never pay for espn, bet, nbc, cbs, reddit, again!

>I'll wait
please leave our board

Right wing sites are already being censored by private corporations and government does nothing. Because net neutrality is worthless meme that means nothing, regulatory agencies aren't neutral.

>"our" board
nu/pol/ detected

Net neutrality is retarded, companies should be able to charge differently if a service uses more. It would be like the post service charging the same amount for a letter as for an anvil.

This board is being flooded by shills when it comes to pro-net neutrality shit.

It'll just lead to downstream obfuscation.

Bring it on.

OP's pic has literally been implemented in I95 in MD and VA for years. People pay and it makes traffic less horrible.

OP btfo

>it will. your internet is going to get worse unless you pay to visit popular sites like Sup Forums, reddit, youtube, twitch. its literally going the way of cable TV where you have to pay for channels.

It's easier to have ads instead. Some 60% of the people on social media couldn't afford a subscription, regardless of whether it costs them a penny in some cases. So the user base would go down, and those people would flock to alternatives while criticizing the new draconian business model.

At most, I could see heavily limited data, because that's on the isp side of things. Also fast lanes.

Why are you talking like a reddit shill?

No, it'd be like company mail going through overnight and your mail taking a week.

Your analogy is garbage and so is your flag.

You mean it will purge the newfags who can't VPN and drive them into internet ghettos for easy redpilling?

ETERNAL SEPTEMBER IS FINALLY OVER

I can't wait for the 20$ charge to visit Sup Forums it might finally improve the quality of the board

Net neutrality allows corporations like Netflix to take up the majority of the bandwidth and pass the cost onto the consumer - they don't pay any more for what they use. Cable companies are barred by law from privileging any bandwidth over another. So children's hospitals that need to transfer enormous image files must do so at the same speed as everybody else.

Sorry, friendo, all net neutrality BS is a fight between two monopolies - the cable corps and the tech corps.

There is no good guy, and in the dominance of either you find the submission and exploitation of the consumer.

Cuz I'm sure those huge trucks would have made traffic easier if it was all on the same road. Bad analogy

Why are you talking like a massive faggot? You belong on Reddit if you think ISPs being able to wantonly block access to sites like Sup Forums is a good idea.
>Oy vey this Sup Forums place is full of hate speech, shut it down!
>implying this won't happen

And now you want to give those private corporations even more power over what you can look at online.

Harley, just tired of Reddit teir posts.

>literally defending corporatist pseudo-monopolies

What in the actual fuck has Sup Forums become? Are some of you so anti-liberal that you will defend legitimately anti-competitive corporate welfare?

The ISPs are shilling at all time high, explain me Mr sholomo the following points
1) You pay 20$ for you internet, you use to it watch horse porn on Netflix how is it your ISPs business
2) ISPs were payed billions of dollars since the 80s in tax cuts to improve their infrastructure when will they stop crying the muh bandwidth

Fuckin plebbit comes with the most retarded narratives

The only thing worse than a redditor is a leaf desu

monopolies are a myth, kike.

Oy vey. Select all VEHICLEZ

1) Not sure what the point is.
2) ISPs are paid to grow into areas where there isn't an economic incentive to do so. Laying fiber is one of the most expensive possible economic activities on the planet.

That's funny, I only have one choice in internet provider and it seems that nobody else can get the public funding to establish a network infrastructure. Pretty convenient...really makes you feel bad for that one provider thinking about how oppressed they are by net neutrality.

Look, nigger, the internet today exists to shove more ads down peoples' eyeholes because their cutting cable. They're not going to do shit to make it more complicated for dipshits to be bombarded by ads and voluntarily giving away their personal info for market researchers.

Also, these private companies already have all the power, what makes you think government is going to protect you when the government and the corporations are indistinguishable? Oh, they won't block anything else, there's no merger they don't like, no monopoly they won't grant, but they're going to protect your internet because of an alliterative buzzphrase?

Facebook and Google are anti-competitive. Recently they started a media campaign to deny ISPs the ability to sell consumer data, despite that being one of the most lucrative things they themselves - Facebook and Google - do.

Not a word was said about Facebook and Google selling your data. Only that ISPs shouldn't be able to do it.

I am not pro-ISP, but it is clear that this is merely two monopolies fighting to maintain their positions. Google and Facebook are just more media savvy, so you've got all these teenagers who don't know what they're talking about defending net neutrality, when it is clear there are pros and cons.

not an argument 90% of internet traffic is already just a handful of websites

They would just throttle your internet without telling you and give you bullshit excuses when it doesn't work.

>republicans were the party of the people

lol no, the only reason i vote republican is to help the family corporation thrive.

Isn't that why anyone votes red?

Literally believing muh last mile narrative fuckin under age Plebs I tell you, do you have any idea how Netflix and YouTube have caching and are practically intranet in your country continue being bluepilled

Assuming your argument is correct, how does denying net neutrality fix anything? Do you really believe that ISPs should be given a federally-mandated tool to further establish their dominance of an already uncompetitive market?

so these private companies are not going to do anything different but have been lobbying for over a decade to get rid of net neutrality for no reason?

you're allowed to disagree with trump on a single issue. you can still fap to him at night if you're pro net neutrality

Caching still has the same problems. They'd have to put a private server in every home to avoid the problems that come from the sheer amount of data that netflix uses.

>for over a decade
"Net neutrality" hasn't been a thing for over a decade. And how is the FCC in anyway a neutral arbiter?

well, facebook and google dont charge you
you're already paying the ISPS

I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THIS
FUCK
DON'T FUCK WITH MY Sup Forums
FUCK

Not only do ISPs stall on laying new fiber lines, they also stop municipal and communal projects from doing so themselves.

I don't support Trump, he pussed out. And I've always thought net neutrality is a meaningless meme when what it really amounts to is FCC regulations and the FCC is anything but neutral.

Don't kid yourself, net neutrality is the default state of the internet. Anything opposing that is, by its very nature, corporate welfare that has been paid for by lobbying on behalf of these ISPs. Congratulations on becoming a shill my dude; at the very least I hope you find economic gain in supporting these welfare queens.

The pros to getting rid of net neutrality would be:

1) Google, Facbook and Netflix charged more money, alleviating costs (slightly) for consumers
2) Netflix data put on lower-tier (netflix users have to wait longer to stream their TV shows), other services put on higher tier

cons:

1) Medium sized and small businesses not able to compete with what Google and Facebook are able tp purchase, suffering from slower speeds
2) ISP dominance (ISPs I believe are less pro-social than tech companies)

FCC has been enforcing it since 2005

It's hard to argue with that.

>facebook doesn't charge you

Promoted Posts? Suggested pages? They don't charge your bank account they charge your attention span for ad revenue which brings in all those tasty shekels

Correct, they are actually making money off of you

Monopolies gonna monopoly

>They'd have to put a private server in every home to avoid the problems that come from the sheer amount of data that netflix uses.
nokia has considered this and has come up with a solution (nokia makes a lot of telecommunication equipment now):

you simply attach a caching server to every node in a fiber-to-the-node install. you can get 20 ms ping to anything your ISP decides to cache, and considering how most people watch the same things at the same time (think netflix), it's easy to cover most use cases.

if you need to cache more info, put a few more storage devices in.

ITT: People who have never worked in IT. You cannot tell the fucking sysadmin how to do his fucking job. Full stop.

>Google, Facbook and Netflix charged more money, alleviating costs (slightly) for consumers

Any numbers to support the assertion that these people are costing my ISP (who has cornered the market in my region) enough money to raise my rate? Because otherwise it seems that they're already paid for by ads (barring my $10/month subscription to Netflix BAW GAHD)

It seems like you just have it out for the internet companies because they are more "popular" than ISPs.

Admittedly, I'm not sure what I expected from some of the chaps perusing this board.

>using Kikebook

>what are the big companies paying for if everyone else they connect to has shit internet?

The idea is that people will gravitate to the big companies paying for preferential treatment because their services will be faster while the rest will get slower.

In reality, the opposite happens. ISPs look at the "power users" of content providers and charges them for faster access. You can also get consumer benefiting stuff, like access to certain providers not counting on your bandwidth limits or whatever.

Though this is currently getting shot down... an ISP in Canada was offering music on demand counted out of phone data limits for people with plans over 50$ or something, and this was ruled to go against net neutrality due to lobbying by their competitors.

So now consumers will have to pay for their music on demand and have it count on their limit instead of getting it for free.

I remember in the early 2000s, when I still had hard and small data caps that I would be happy to have Steam not count on data caps, but I guess this would also go against Net Neutrality.

So yea, Net Neutrality is stupid. Just have good regulations instead. Don't stifle the free market.

>Net Neutrality is stupid
>Just have good regulations instead

I seriously fucking hate Canadians

>All these nonarguments

it makes it harder for smaller companies to compete if they have to pay huge sums to get on the internet fast lane. that limits innovation and amounts helps create monopolies which hurt consumers

are you fucking retards seriously arguing against net neutrality?

Fuck off you tool. Net Neutrality as it is isn't an "ideology". It's SOLD as an ideology, but it's a set of regulations, some of which are good, some of which are bad.

I'm saying that instead of trying to sell us a blanket set of regulations under some nebulous ideology, just make good regulation, and get rid of the bad.

Is that simple enough for you?

See? This is why we don't need progress. Just turn it around and things are good.

>[...]just make a good regulation

How about the half-dozen ISPs in my country have to just provide me with an internet connection (as advertised) and I'll decide whatever the fuck I want to browse at that connection speed? How is that unfair?

appleinsider.com/articles/16/01/20/netflix-boasts-37-share-of-internet-traffic-in-north-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes

i don't have it out for internet companies. They use a lot of data and don't pay extra for it. Imagine being on a road and every traffic jam was caused because 1 out of every 3 cars was a wal-mart truck. and when the owner of the road says, "maybe we put all the wal-mart trucks on their own lane" the government, owner partially by wal-mart, comes out and says that this is an affront to freedom. and then some of the drivers are viewing billboards that say, "wal-mart trucks in their own lane are against freedom". so while they're stuck in traffic some stupid fucks who read these billboards start yelling at other people stuck in traffic saying, "don't you dare suggest the things causing this traffic jam are put in their own lanes!"

it's fucking madness. of course, the people who own the roads are not good guys either, and would abuse their position if given the option to put wal-mart trucks in their own lanes.

Certainly, charging wal-mart more for their massive usage would allow the road owner to build more roads. but then again, they are a monopoly, so there's no telling what they'd do.

>>Though this is currently getting shot down... an ISP in Canada was offering music on demand counted out of phone data limits for people with plans over 50$ or something, and this was ruled to go against net neutrality due to lobbying by their competitors.

this has nothing to do with net neutrality. net neutrality is about limiting access, not the opposite.

>I remember in the early 2000s, when I still had hard and small data caps that I would be happy to have Steam not count on data caps, but I guess this would also go against Net Neutrality.

again, no. if an isp restricted access to steam and then tried to charge you money for it, that would be "against net neutrality".

At&t blocked Sup Forums a while back.

>this has nothing to do with net neutrality. net neutrality is about limiting access, not the opposite.

The fucking ruling to block this specifically stated that it went against the net neutrality regulations.

"Net Neutrality" is a much broader net (pun!) than you believe it is, and it doesn't do you only good.

Shit's never that simple.

The default state of the internet was the 35 years prior to the net neutrality meme.
>corporate welfare
That would be the granting of local monopolies, the constant approval of mergers instead of trustbusting, and the bestowal of generous taxpayer funded subsidies, done by the very agency and state that you want to be a neutral arbiter.

i don't see how lifting a general data cap has anything to do with net neutrality.

The only people who benefit from this is the service providers. They now get to double dip their earnings from the consumer as well as the people providing content.

Considering how few and how large the ISPs in USA are, it's nothing but abuse of their monopoly.

youtube.com/watch?v=gS6HZv4GXj8

youtube.com/watch?v=Rx6keHpeYak

So long as there's one ISP that does unlimited as standard, then all of them will continue with it.

If they competed (they don't)

The examples I gave go against net neutrality because it gives preferential treatment to certain companies by taking them off the data caps, meaning consumers are incentivize to use those over alternatives still on the data cap.

You believe net neutrality is only there to avoid throttling certain small companies, but it also prevents the opposite, which is taking certain companies off the caps. ANY kind of perceived preferential treatment goes against neutrality. Even an ISP giving you uncapped access to it's own content goes against it.

consumers pay for internet access, not internet companies. Charge the consumers more for their data if it's causing issues (it's not).

Your argument is assuming that, currently, these monolithic ISPs are somehow "limited" by the technology they possess. You're assuming that if I paid more for my Netflix usage that Comcast would somehow have an epiphany where they would greatly increase my service in other areas if they had the income to compensate for Netflix's usage of my network.

In reality, they just want a piece of the cake. They want money from someone who just happens to use their infrastructure that I AM PAYING A MONTHLY FEE FOR. You're making the claim that you understand that ISPs aren't a "good guy", but you don't seem to understand that ISPs will literally just make more money and do absolute fuck-all with their networks if they are able to charge Netflix for their traffic. They won't make an "extra lane" for Netflix, they will just make it cost more for you to use an internet service that just happens to be popular. As it stands, the networks are already comically expensive and inconsistent given the technology they have access to; the problem is that there is not a lick of competition in the ISP market to prevent them from sitting on their hands and just leeching more money for using an infrastructure they didn't even fucking pay for in full.

>Charge the consumers more
They will. Providers like Netflix will also charge the consumers more to offset their added costs. I expect this to happen on a global basis no matter if they have to pay extra in other countries or not (they won't).

It's anti consumer and monopoly abuse, brought to you by heavy lobbying.

Net neutrality is a meme that means whatever the retard spouting it wants it to mean and whatever the government agency that claims to be enforcing it says it means. But, no, the governments that lie to and betray us on literally everything else can be trusted this one time because muh alliterative buzzphrase!

if what you say is true, then i will gladly deal with data caps as long as they exist if it means retaining net neutrality. regardless, data caps won't go away if we get rid of net neutrality anyway.

so comcast can't give steam preferential treatment so game downloads don't count against their monthly data cap, big deal. i'd much rather have to "deal" with that than being charged another fee for a "gaming" package that includes steam or a "media package" that allows me to stream netflix at 1080p or whatever the fuck.

the idea of handing over the reigns of the internet to the likes of comcast, at&t, etc etc is honestly horrifying.

So you believe that ending net neutrality will fix the issue of monopolies that we agree is the primary issue with internet service today?

I would be perfectly fine with privatized roads that charged per use. The big corporations that overwhelmingly benefit from transportation infrastructure would finally be paying their fair share instead instead of the way it is now where the commoners who drive one car a few places pay the lion's share and the big businesses whose huge fleets of trucks in constant use really wear and tear the transportation infrastructure.

This seems like it doesnt matter, as long as porn is illegal idc.