Net neutrality going down in flames as FCC votes to kill Title II rules

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/net-neutrality-goes-down-in-flames-as-fcc-votes-to-kill-title-ii-rules/

Thanks... thanks Sup Forums

Other urls found in this thread:

ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/broadband-connectivity-competition-policy/v070000report.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=cyyhwkyJ-Oc&t=7s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

internet 2.0 is ready,

Just help out those commies building gnunet

This is what 'muricans have chosen

>hollywood, big media, cable/telco
>silicon valley

- who wins?

> jews in a circular firing squad

Wont affect us.

bump

Fucking gay, unfortunately it was either this or voting for someone who probably would have done the same shit on top of banning """hate speach""" but this is still fucking gay.

Could someone give me a tl;dr on this article?

Sucks to be American I guess

what that merrikan said makes sense tho

keeping telling yourself hillary would've been worse, you know it's a lie

If they're undoing the clusterfuck from 2015 that had nothing to do with net neutrality I'm all for it!

less gov regulation is always good, nigger

>mfw its totally legal to download all the kikery for free.
>in Switzerland
Jews fucking hate us for it. :DDD

>FCC ends regulations on what ISPs can and cannot do
>right thinks it will lower the prices, get the economy going
>left is 'fraid of the consumer getting assfucked by ISPs making them pay extra for the internet access we have now

Basically and from my own limited comprehension what may happen is the ISPs will give unlimited access only to whichever sites pay the most, then make you pay extra for or limit the additional stuff, like with restricted bandwith.

So it's literally nothing.

If things get bad enough people will stop paying for it, or a better alternative will come around.

>then make you pay
retarded, anyone who thinks this is retarded

who they would make pay extra is companies, not consumers, which is why companies like netflix are starting meme campaigns about freedom and shit for retards (you) to hook into

the real focus, in more than just """net neutrality""", belongs at the more local level where isps are allowed to run fiefdoms. Lobbying the federal government for every little piece of bullshit is how you get retarded problems like hoping you won't get unilaterally fucked in the ass in florida by a corporation incorporated in california

>Republican spiel
No. Laws that prevent internet companies from throttling at will, and charging more to do so, are a good thing.

>you need a law to prevent any bad possible thing from happening, because otherwise it will happen into perpetuity
kill yourself

Considering my area is limited to a single ISP service for miles. Yeah, I've kind of seen what happens when there is zero intervention.

>who they would make pay extra is companies, not consumers,

HAHAHAHAHA

Hopefully it reduces the number of American posters

ISP's have county monopolies in almost every state where you HAVE to chose them as they are the only option, therefore they don't have to try as there's no competition so they suck and overcharge. There's Comcast monopolies rampant in the south and many other companies too.

Also, if the (((ISP's))) control what sites load fast, they could basically lag the shit out of Sup Forums so we couldn't use it anymore if they really wanted.

BUT MUH EMAILZ

Since when did being a lolbertarian also make one a corporate shill?

Hahaha, keep sucking that gov' dick, retard.

Why do faggots like you insist you can dictate prices of the free market? How much should TV cost, nigger moron?

Not sure what you are going on about, but even the slightest hint of regulation caused ISPs to settle down (while they plotted the current events). Even Google fiber slowed down during this time, when Americans were begging Google to continue extending it.

Go back to facebook and cry over your Bernie Sanders memes, you fucking retard.

>who they would make pay extra is companies, not consumers
BWAHAHA!
You are too fucking stupid to give anyone a lesson on economics. Fuck I would believe you if you told me you literally have down-syndrome after a statement like that. You need to talk to some grown ups about how money and business works.

kill yourself shill rat

>less regulation

That "regulation" is what's preventing some brain dead Christfag puritan at Verizon or Comcast from blocking YOUR access to Sup Forums.

With net neutrality gone, ISPs will be able to censor whatever they want, and act as even more effective propaganda machines. Many of the largest ones also own, or are owned by, media companies.
Comcast will be able to favor access to their own news and services from MSNBC, and make it harder to access news from everywhere else.

>b-b-but competition! we'll all keep the them in line by voting with our wallets!
No. ISPs already have monopolies or duopolies in most parts of the country.

Its not free market if there are substantial barriers to entry permitting collusion among providers to add charges while limiting bandwidth/access for no other reason than they can and you have no choice. That isn't free market at all...faggot.

What neutrality? How can net neutrality go down in flames when there was never any to begin with?

THE ONLY REASON NERDS ARE CRYING IS BECAUSE THEY THINK THIS WILL MAKE IT HARDER TO HAVE ANOTHER SILK ROAD!

Not one nerd seems to understands how Title II works, or how law works in general. It prescribes definitions and roles to communication companies so as to bring disputes before the FCC to judge on. In other words it makes the FCC the court for the internet and NOT A REAL court. Title II is mostly about clogging a committee with petty squabbles between companies. Getting rid of regulatory authority means real courts can step in and make real decisions.

The trade is what is needed if any real neutrality is to exist. WE already have social media platforms censoring for private gains, infrastructure developments being stonewalled because of disputes between data-barons. Take the fucking redpill, this deregulation is in the right direction

EVERY nerd complains that the FCC is political, with a revolving door between the boardroom and the committee. This move takes away from such influence by making parts of the internet outside the FCC's jurisdiction. That's what freedom is about.

People don't seem to realize just how bad the monopolies truly are.

>but muh sherman-anti-trust

Doesn't do shit when it comes to monopolies in small areas, only the whole country. So They can just divide and conquer and both will fail to deliver quality service. Now if they can censor what they want, it will be harder to communicate with like minded people, unless of course you're on the ISP's political side.

Woopdie do. Title II.

You know, that thing that wasn't a thing till 2015, and even after 2015 you still had AT&T and Netflix throttling networks.

But since all you dumbfucks think Title II has been around since the internet, you think that's the only thing that protects Net Neutrality and completely disregard the net neutrality laws we will still have in place with additional FTC antilaws to punish those who throttle networks.

And don't give me that Reddit tier bullshit of the FTC not being able to do it. They have a whole policy on it. ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/broadband-connectivity-competition-policy/v070000report.pdf

Y'all a bunch of dumbfucks. Both the people who think Title II = Net Neutrality and those who think Net Neutrality is a bad thing.

These threads are nothing more than misinformation and shills posing as "Anti-Net Neutrality" anons just so they can screenshot their own comment and spread on Reddit and tumbler to gaslight more people into freaking out more and recruit more shills.

Kys

All of you Title II shills.

it's almost like i directly addressed that point you fucking moron

Fuck me. Meant FTC antitrust laws

>bernie sanders
lol

>you need to talk to grown ups
why the fuck would they charge individual consumers more when they don't make up the majority of their user costs

everyone that has replied to my posts have no fucking clue how any of this shit works, let alone what goes into investing and maintaining the infrastructure, how complicated it is, and how the relationships actually work

>ME PAY BILL ME GET SERVICE
wow good job, you have as much knowledge as fucking anybody about how isps work

for anybody willing to try and become less retarded about both sides of the issue I recommend this video, where both sides present their complaints

youtube.com/watch?v=cyyhwkyJ-Oc&t=7s

everyone else should just fucking kill themselves for commenting out of complete fucking ignorance

Who cares? Any faggot that doesnt use a VPN and throw away email is fucking retarded who fucking deserves to get caught in whatever illegal shit he is doing

>HURRRRR NET NEUTRALITY IS GOOD IT HAS NEUTRAL IN ITS NAME SO IT MUST BE GOOOOOOOD
FUCK REPUBLICAN PAY MY INTERNET

>HURRRR AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS GOOD IT HAS AFFORDABLE IN ITS NAME ITS GOOOOOD
FUCK REPUBLICAN PAY MY HEALTHCARE

Yep. I visit the UK occasionally and something I always notice is how they do a much better job over there of regulating ISPs and mobile providers.

In the US, you just have 4 main mobile companies, all of which offer shitty, overpriced service. The UK has something like 20 or 30 different companies, and they all offer better service than in the US, for a fraction of the cost, and without bullshit like throttling or data caps.

> Greatest country in the world

TOP KEK

the UK doesn't have federalism you stupid fucking piece of shit

stop posting

They would have been the same retard.

>stop posting

Nah, you seem #triggered so I think I'll banepost at you some more
Don't be such a hothead

John Oliver said it was good and so far everything that comes out of that fags mouth has been wrong

>commies
>building

hwat

>No. ISPs already have monopolies or duopolies in most parts of the country.

caused by...government

makes you think

That's one of the really retarded elements of Libertarianism, the idea that private corporations never do anything wrong/harmful unless the big bad government enables them to.

no libertarian ever asserts that you fucking retard

stop posting

This. Net """""neutrality""""" being a good thing was a literal reddit meme.

100% this

I know Soros and Google support it, so it's probably a bad thing. Probably a part of a plot to truly censor and control things.

You are right, that it wouldn't be an issue if local governments gave a shit about maintaining infrastructure instead of selling the people's property to the highest bidder.

But now that we are in this situation, it would be much more preferable to keep net neutrality.

Fuck you Donald, fuck you Pai, fuck you uneducated Americans.

Yes, they do assert that, though perhaps indirectly.

It's the only response they ever have when you mention monopolies, they just deflect and say "hurr the government is a monopoly" and imply that monopolies would never happen in their glorious ideal government-free Somalia-type situation

don't worry, if enough people get pissed they'll wake up to the monopoly and maybe they'll finally do something about it. this is the optimal long-term outcome instead of short-term bandages like net neutrality

this is necessary chaos

>If things get bad enough people will stop paying for it, or a better alternative will come around.

LOL they literally sue anyone who tries to build new networks in areas they have monopolies.

>but user, don't you remember two years ago when Comcast blocked your access to gmail and made you pay $10/mo to access Amazon?

stop strawmanning

Nice points user.

Might as well shut down the FCC and shut down anyone who voted against NN.

>muh Trump
>muh God Emperor

Yep. They've be digging their little dicks into snuffing it out for a long time. Get ready. All the Trump shit lets legislation pass right under the radar. I honestly hate Republicans for shit like this.

They're probably Libertarians. They're cunts and half the assholes that take advantage of a free internet with torrents will pay the price for voting for cunts that will approve everything in said states. Enjoy it. Poetic justice.

I think we are all for the abstract concept of of internet neutrality. But "NET NEUTRALITY (C) 2018 by Shlomoberg Inc." can die in a gas oven six million times. All these cucks shilling for net neutrality are actually shilling for sometginf pre-defined in the legal sense by nation-wrecking ashkenazi jews. No thanks. Let it die

Google Fiber is slowing down because it's financially unsustainable. Other ISPs are settling down because of a lot of M&A, which should never have been allowed.

> even the slightest hint of regulation
The problem is Obama net neutrality gave the FCC the ability to assrape ISPs with no notice and imposed a bunch of archaic rules written for phone lines with Title II.

Trump FCC's regulations are roughly as stupid, but in the opposite direction.

How does getting rid of net neutrality actually help anyone? Individuals I mean, not massive ISPs.

>getting rid of
the default state is no net neutrality
>how does it help anybody
by reducing costs for everyone but high bandwidth utilizing companies, including cost of entry

>Google Fiber is slowing down because it's financially unsustainable
how is he wrong

>This is good for the consumer!
>Corporations LOVE following the rules, this will drive down costs, trust me!
It's not like ISPs already have the country divided up into their own territories and have the prices jacked up for abysmally low internet speeds that the rest of the world laughs at.
I can't wait until one day you wake up and your ISP has Sup Forums blocked, Sup Forums. It'd be even better if they had Sup Forums behind a paywall too. That'd be fucking hilarious.

Net neutrality means all information must be treated equally. Without it, your ISP can do whatever they like. Google, facebook, twitter, reddit, YouTube, etc. will pay out the ass for your ISP to block out their competition and give them preferred access. You may use DuckDuckGo or some similar site because you hate Google harvesting your information. Well tough fucking luck, because now your ISP doesn't HAVE to let you access DuckDuckGo, you can only use Google because Google pays them big bucks.
Websites that don't want to or can't pay your ISP (Sup Forums, your autistic brony blog on tumblr, paheal, gelbooru, e621, furaffinity, kisscartoon, etc.) will either have ungodly slow speeds, or you wont be able to access them at all.
It's turning the internet from a competitive market to an oligopoly. Microsoft and Google and facebook all the big money-makers OWN your internet now. They will pay ISPs to have ultra-fast speeds and block out the competition. If you're a normie, this is fucking heaven. Now you can consume even more at unprecedented speeds. For 99% of the rest of the internet that isn't a popular normie-website, they'll wither and die.

We had the internet for a while, anyone could get on and publish anything. Big Media doesn't like that and finally got the power they need to choke out. Conservatives like getting back to the good ol' days, so this is the kind of move they like, shut down independent press who cannot be trusted to publish what they are told. MAGA!

>Americans pay the most for internet but have the lowest speeds

RAAAGGHH!!!!!

net neutrality would of never stopped the telcos

for instance tmobile can still stream unlimited youtube and netflix and their own music service

but pandora and hulu cost data

this is legal with net neutrality

5ghz is going to be used in the next generation too which will be faster than the majority of async gigabit connections in the USA

It is important to understand that being opposed to the expansion of Federal regulation is not the same as being opposed to net neutrality. Virtually everyone on Sup Forums and the internet in general supports net neutrality. It's been the de facto law of the land for the nearly 30 year history of the internet and it's worked brilliantly as far as almost everyone is concerned. Where the division exists is between those who favor expanding Federal regulatory power and those who oppose it.

The Pro-Regulation camp argues that net neutrality must be preserved, and that the only way to preserve it is to give the Federal Government the authority to regulate and enforce service standards for internet service providers (ISPs). The Anti-Regulation camp argues that net neutrality must be preserved, but that it should be preserved by way of a free and open market. While it was true 15-20 years ago that many communities only had one service provider, that is no longer the case as the rise of services like low-speed ISP startups and satellite internet have given consumers a wider variety of options.

The Pro-Regulation camp fears the tyranny of corporations - the internet becoming economically tiered, sites and services becoming unequally accessible or served up ala carte. The Anti-Regulation camp fears the tyranny of government - government agencies exploiting regulatory powers to suppress sites and services that threaten or inconvenience political agendas.

The Pro-Regulation posters fear a world where they have to pay a premium rate to access sites like Sup Forums.
The Anti-Regulation posters fear a world where sites like Sup Forums are no longer permitted to exist.

it needs to be remade to include telecommunication or else itll never work

This is fucking amazing news though. This means companies wonton be bogged down by (((government))) telling them they can't charge for sites.

This means we can force companies to block libshit media so that we can control the narrative.

>everyone on Sup Forums and the internet in general supports net neutrality. It's been the de facto law of the land for the nearly 30 year history of the internet

nigga NN came into affect in 2015

75%+ internet users are mobile now so we should be fighting for that first

its also easier for a moble isp with less laws and restrictions and upfront cost of laying lines or infrastructure

We will see how it works out, but the day might come when Sup Forums will have to wage war with the ISPs.

>ISP's have county monopolies in almost every state where you HAVE to chose them as they are the only option, therefore they don't have to try as there's no competition so they suck and overcharge. There's Comcast monopolies rampant in the south and many other companies too.
Not completely true.

While it is true that in many places it can be hard to find another ISP that will offer the same speeds for the same prices as the largest provider in the area, it's actually very hard to find places which don't have at least one or two smaller, lower-speed ISPs and also can't support satellite internet.


Net neutrality has been the *de facto* rule for the internet since its inception. It's was only after around 2010 that you started seeing real support for *de jure* enforcement of net neutrality.

T-Mobile's "Binge On" feature that you're describing is a violation of net neutrality principles and, though it's allowed, it shouldn't be.

Their flimsy rationale is that it's not violating net neutrality because you have the option to turn Binge On off and let everything burn through data the same way.

>news article has an embedded video
>if it's a YouTube video, playing it doesn't use up data
>if it's some other random video player, then it uses up your data

>wikipedia only sources

>Net neutrality has been the *de facto* rule for the internet since its inception.
>hurr it was a rule before it was rule

This you fucking morons. Title II is not the solution you think it is.

>Ajit Varadaraj Pai

I have a feeling this guy is going to get hunted down.

The fuck is GNUnet?

This is a classic case of some one conflating the rule of law called "Net Neutrality" and the concept of a neutral internet. The latter has been the status quo, the former was implemented in 2015.

>de facto - not written law, but treated as common law or accepted practice
>de jure - written law, enforceable by agencies and/or courts

It's not a difficult concept: While there was no legal enforcement or regulation of net neutrality until a couple years ago, net neutrality as a concept has been around for decades. The idea of internet service providers treating all traffic, data, sites, services, etc equally is not something that magically came into existence two years ago, and the internet was not some kind of tiered or stratified system before 2015.

Utter BULLSHIT. You think your Jew owned telecom isn't gonna cut off the chans?

Not to mention cable companies will surely push and offer "free packages" for their own sites like Hulu, Rotten Tomatoes, Reddit and shit like that, and block their direct competion who is independent or owned by their rival company like Netflix, Sup Forums or IMDB.

Are you a fucking goldfish? Democrats are the ones who gave you the FCC ruling Ajit Pai is about to get rid of. That was literally only a few years ago. It was major tech news, if you follow that sort of thing.

Net neutrality is the idea that ISP's can't discriminate based on what you use your bandwidth for. You will get the full extent of the bandwidth you pay for regardless of what websites you choose to use that bandwidth on.

Without net neutrality, your ISP can do things like throttle Netflix to a crawl in the hopes that you will continue to pay for them for them for a cable television subscription. Because you sure as fuck aren't going to be able to watch your netflix, are you?

Without net neutrality, your mobile phone carrier can do things like block google wallet entirely. Why would they do that? Well, because your mobile phone carrier has a competing wallet service, so why not block Google's and force you to use their own?

But why would anyone do business with a company which actively punishes its customers? If your ISP is throttling your Netflix, get a new ISP! Well, that's not really possible in the U.S. The vast majority of ISP's deliberately avoid one another's territory, and expand through mergers instead of laying more infrastructure. It's a series of regional monopolies, and customers are left taking it up the ass from the only guy around or going without highspeed internet. For whatever reason, it's a failed market. I suspect it's simply inherent to infrastructure-based industries - laying down infrastructure is expensive, and it's just not smart to do it where a competitor already has solid market control.

>Even Google fiber slowed down during this time, when Americans were begging Google to continue extending it.

Google Fiber got caught up in miles of red tape attempting to lay down lines in Illinois, specifically, Chicago. Comcast pretty much has a monopoly in Cook County and the Collar Counties and used their political clout with both Rahm and Madigan to stop Google from moving in.

Google supports the Title II Classification because it probably means they can move in and simply operate Comcast's existing infrastructure should ISPs be labeled a utility.

An individual consumer can change their service provider easier than they can change federal law.

Yes - companies can do things you don't like, or offer services you don't want, or charge fees you can't afford... when that happens, you as a consumer have a simple choice - "Do I want to continue paying for this service or find a new one?"

Will you be able to find the exact same quality of service for the exact same price? Probably not, but that doesn't mean alternatives don't exist. It is on you, as a consumer, to decide what your priorities are - is the exact feature, product, or service you want worth enough to you to put up with inconveniences or higher costs? If so, then find a new service. If not, don't. That's how the free market works and that's why net neutrality survived for two and a half decades without needing a government agency to enforce it - because it was important enough that consumers were willing to walk away from any provider who didn't play by that rule. Now with low-speed startups, satellite internet, mobile internet, etc there are more alternatives than ever before, so companies have more incentive than ever to maintain the status quo, lest their customers find a competitor who will.

Reddit and "I Can has cheeseburger?" could be considered the direct rivals of Sup Forums, reddit is owned partially by Discovery Channel who has a cable company, "I can has" is know to be tied with The New York Times, and one of the biggest investors in NYT is Carlos Slim who controls one of the biggest media/cable companies in the world.

Ending net-neutrality is a Libertarian position.

thanks libertarians

What is net-neutrality?

Canacucks like you would die without the government

Hey fagshit

In the 20+ years when there was no MUH NET NEUTRALITY, nothing bad happened.

Leftist retards are sperging out because they are retarded, about something that doesn't matter whatsoever.

You can't change providers because they have a regional monopoly, thanks to government rules. Generally the free market helps everyone, but it can't be expected to fix problems here where government has already interfered and given the telecom companies an advantage. I abhor government action, but it is required to fix problems caused by government action.

then say "neutral internet". at this point you're intentionally using confusing terms which now mean different things

it still wasn't net neutrality as we know it even if it acted like net neutrality. Also nice avatarfagging

I want to take you guys seriously but you're not making this easy. "net neutrality was the norm before net neutrality" makes no sense. Equal distribution of bandwidth, sure, but you can't play the semantics game now

Net Neutrality is government intervention, and a diversion away from the real problem everybody fucking ignores: these monopolies can't keep getting away with jewing us, and it's the same government that's enabling them

piss off, leaf

gov-enforced monopolies are what caused this mess. They're not going to be the one to make it better. We don't need lube to keep their internet rape train smooth ,we need to stop them from raping us altogether

>I abhor government action, but it is required to fix problems caused by government action.

Title II Utilization Classification does nothing to fix the regional monopoly situation though.