Redpill me on net neutrality Sup Forums

Redpill me on net neutrality Sup Forums

Why is it bad?

Other urls found in this thread:

breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons-net-neutrality/
forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/05/19/why-net-neutrality-is-a-dumb-idea
wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122602308
reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/the-fcc-just-voted-to-regulate-the-inter
transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Because it is all about censorship. It has absolutely nothing to do with "muh competition". For fuck sakes the people pushing it say they want to shut down drudge report (must shitlibs dont know what a news aggregator is)

If you shill for this cancer you have no business posting on Sup Forums

There are way too many Americans on the internet.
Your internet access should be restricted more.

the internet is american, you're lucky we even allow foreigners to use it

Says the retard that lives below sea level

This

>you're lucky we even allow foreigners to use it

You didn't.

We hacked our way in.
But now we need to split the internet in two: one part for Americans and one part for the rest of the world.

The internet doesn't have a central point. The internet would continue operating with or without the US.

Source?

How does net neutrality allow for censorship?

Net neutrality prevents censorship. Getting rid of net neutrality allows censorship.

If the government is regulating a "utility", it can regular how that utility is used and what is done with it. Kinda like how the FCC regulates what you see on TV and how you can't even cuss on the radio.

Anyway, the thing with net neutrality.

Basically, net neutrality is the situation where internet service providers are required to treat all internet traffic with equal priority. Each site is given equal preference, yada yada.

With the removal of net neutrality, internet service providers would be able to charge extra to provide certain websites with extra speed, allowing internet browsers to enter, navigate and enjoy the contents of that site more rapidly. This would be achieved by slowing down all other sites that don't pay for this privilege.

This would, in theory, allow for censorship by ISPs draining priority speed from "undesirable" websites and offering "good" websites with extra speed for a discounted rate.

That's what I thought but OP seems to be implying the opposite. Perhaps this was the plan?

The internet consists of individual networks connected to each other at internet exchange points (IXP).

The IXP's are essentially the heart of the internet.
And all the big ones are in Europe.

>that comic

Literally me, but instead of Obama it's John Oliver. Fuck you ugly britcunt shit-eater, I will do the opposite of what you advocate.

The internet is a network of interconnected networks.
If you take out the US all the other networks are still interconnected, there would be less routes but the internet would keep working.
I can't give a source since it is the basics of how the internet works.

>source
lmao education is the source m8

>in theory
ah so it wont even happen and we have to pay more taxes for more bureaucracy that does nothing
weeeeee

Websites like this place will become essentially inaccessible once its permitted for corporations to control who can use the internet on the basis of pricing.

it isn't bad.

Basic logic. Your country while powerful, is sadly not the centre of the world. You need to realise despite your meme education making you believe that your country is the only one that matters, there are other countries which might not be as successful like your's, but are just as important. And so, even if USA stops to use the internet tomorrow, nothing will change, because sooner than later a new country will take up the mantle that USA holds right now

Because it allows companies to dictate the content you view. Oh, you wanna view youtube cats? That'll be $29.99 extra, thankyouverymuch.

Do you like Wikileaks, maybe? Because it won't exist once international Jewish corporations control the internet. Nothing that poses a problem for Jews or corporations will exist. This place will be shut down instantly, so will Ocho-chan, any torrent sites, any place Jews don't control the message people see will be forced out of existence with the end of net neutrality.

Now this is confusing, people here say that net neutrality prevents censorship but at same time some people argue that it doesn't. If I have understood this correctly, this is a case of corporate vs. government censorship?

> Because it is all about censorship.
You have no idea what net neutrality is. Next.

They won't be forced out of existence.

They just won't be accessible in America.
For the rest of the world not much will change, just less Americans ruining forums and image boards which is nice.

There is no inherent censorship in net neutrality; the only people who say otherwise are lying; it's not government regulation.

net neutrality is basically fraud, they promise a certain internet speed but then randomly decide they are going to lower it because they don't like you downloading games from steam or whatever

No, saying net neutrality is government censorship is just a tactic.

It's not real but it spreads confusion and fear, which makes it easier to abolish net neutrality.

You clearly have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons-net-neutrality/

On Monday, President Obama announced that he would be pushing the Federal Communications Commission to begin enforcing “net neutrality” – a policy by which internet service providers would be forced to load all web sites at the same speed. While the internet works just fine as is, President Obama believes we’re mere moments away from the system breaking down barring massive government intervention:
We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online.

If this sounds suspiciously like the language President Obama used with regard to health insurance in his pitch for Obamacare – unlimited access and zero scarcity, as dictated by the government – that’s because it is. Free market economics generally create higher supply, lower price, and better service. But President Obama believes that markets inevitably fail.

Here are the top seven reasons government-enforced net neutrality is an awful idea:

breitbart.com/big-government/2014/11/10/7-reasons-net-neutrality/

I want to be on the american side. You other homos are way more retarded

I'm sure you can as long as you pay.

Thanks for the explanation, the government argument didn't make much sense to me.

The crux of the argument is between people who think Internet access is a form of protected speech, and shouldn't be limited to price levels, and people who think that Internet access is entirely the choice of the companies that provide it.

>kike website literally owned and run by Jews
Thanks, fatso.

>Begins explaining a topic by listing celebrities that endorse
Stay pleb

JUST BECAUSE THEY CALL IT 'NET NEUTRALITY' DOES NOT MEAN IT *IS* NE NEUTRALITY.

Congress has a long history of naming things in pleasant sounding ways that do the exact opposite.

The law banning Americans from ever buying a new automatic firearm ever again was called the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act."

They called a law to BAN CERTAIN GUNS the 'Firearm Use Protection Act.'

Do not let the name fool you. They call it one thing, but in practice it is very different.

>internet providers can just block you from anything they want
>can charge you extra for being allowed to access websites
>can charge websites so you can access them
>can just disable sites if someone else pays for it, meaning that (((they))) can just buy out your provider and all you will see are things that are part of their agenda
>I'm in favour of this because those lefties are against it
Good goym

Backdoor to censorship by allowing FCC to have jurisdiction over the internet, when it shouldn't, and it was good PR by internet companies who locked out any competition from telecoms (Google can use all your data, but an ISP can't?). Also, the whole thing was predicated on hypothetical scenarios that was just fear mongering.

>the internet is american, you're lucky we even allow foreigners to use it
You don't have a fucking clue how the internet works, do you?

I agree with cencorship. We need to censor destructive behavior. Sup Forums is just full of it. This website should be done away with

Hello Wikipedia

Hello shill

Except that would piss off their customers, which is why none of those scenarios ever happened.

Any privacy efforts should apply to all internet players, not just ISP's.

But the actual policy does make it neutral

>Google can use all your data, but an ISP can't?
Why should an ISP be allowed to use your data without your permission? If they wanted to do whats best for everyone they would've made it so google and others needs to ask permission to sell your data. Instead of just giving ISP's the right to snatch it up aswell.

I thinking we should start bombing countries who dont pay us an internet tax? how bout that cuck? whacha gona do? not shit

yeah all the shitty websites

do you know anything about net neutrality whatsoever?

Wouldn't be necessary in the first place if America wasn't such a corporate cumguzzling hellscape that only allows 2-3 ISPs to thrive.

Antitrust, deregulation and day of the rope for lobbyists never.

If Kikebart is against it then it's probably in my best interest to be for it. Thank you for that informative article.

>Without your permission
Someone didn't read his ISP's terms of service agreement

>Why should an ISP be allowed to use your data without your permission?

Because you signed a contract allowing it. You did give them permission. That's what a contract is.

forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2014/05/19/why-net-neutrality-is-a-dumb-idea

wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122602308

reason.com/blog/2015/02/26/the-fcc-just-voted-to-regulate-the-inter

youre welcome, my olive skinned black haired brown eyed 5'-8" 120 lbs of muscle pure aryan frend of the internet

We don't have net neutrality right now aussiefag.

What does that have to do with net neutrality you spastic retard?

>can't tell if shitposting
Australians don't have net neutrality...

Basicly its giving government power over the internet they dont have now. It will always work out super awesome and government never shows favoritism or goes after Ron Paul facebook group leaders with the IRS.

I don't even have the problem as ISP's here aren't allowed to sell data whatsoever. But in lots of places in the USA they don't have a choice over their ISP. There is no reason why there shouldn't be an opt-out or opt-in clause for what any company can do with your data.

Yes we do. You can tell because you don't have to pay an extra $50,000 a year to look at this website.

Comcast shilling so hard this morning.

Well i good for you for not having a choice then i guess.

fucking this. there's literally nothing preventing ISPs from throttling bandwidth to certain sites for consumers today.

this whole debate is some astroturfing shit by huge corporate interests, and libshit blowhards are taking the b8

>doesnt know how internet works

so what you are saying is that TV and radio are GOOD mediums not destroyed by regulation/ infiltration?

.
>With the removal of net neutrality, internet service providers would be able to charge extra to provide certain websites with extra speed, allowing internet browsers to enter, navigate and enjoy the contents of that site more rapidly. This would be achieved by slowing down all other sites that don't pay for this privilege.

No this would violate the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust laws.

(((Net Neutrality))) would label your ISP as a common provider and allow the FCC to regulate speak they way the do to TV and Radio.

Net neutrality is bad because it's just more government regulations pushed by people like Hillary and Obama. Everyone you hate supports it, because it's not about opposing censorship and caring about access to internet. It's about censoring internet, taxing you and monopolizing the internet.

The reasons for supporting net neutrality are all bullshit. They claim that if you don't hand over all control of the internet to the government, somehow all companies are going to make their services worse for no reason and lock you out of the internet.
Net neutrality is pushed by pure fear mongering.
The worst thing is that we don't even know the details of it. People who have actually read the entire thing are claiming its just a government power grab. The people shilling for net neutrality have not read it, they're just pushing this idea that companies are bad and are going to increase prices and lower your internet speed if you don't hand over all power to the government.

Net neutrality is pushed by crazy feminists, SJWs , John Oliver, Hillary Clinton, Geroge Soros, the Young Turks and all other globalists.
Net neutrality is opposed by people like Stephan Molyneux, Paul Joseph Watson, Christopher Cantwell, Styx and Trump.

You should listen to the anti-net neutrality arguments.
It's another scam disguised as something that sounds good on paper.

Great. You've realized net neutrality and FCC control over internet is shit. What would be the best solution? Ensure competition by designating that all last-mile connections (already paid mostly by taxpayers) have to be leased to any ISP. Suddenly you will have competition, which will solve your fearful scenario.

Lets say Alice and Bob both have a computer. They contract Charlie to build an ethernet cable network between their computers so they can communicate. They both pay Charlie a monthly fee.

Charlie is smart, he knows that webcam streaming between Alice and Bob is very popular. Because of this he will charge a fee on top of the monthly fee for it and guarantees that it webcam streaming will always work, no matter how much porn swapping they will do over the network with 10GB uncompressed .avi files.

Now Dave comes in and tells Charlie that he is not allowed to offer this service.

It is bad because Charlie cannot do with his own stuff what he wants anymore.

wow what an powerful shill posts
Gustave le bonne could have written that himself.

transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

here is the document, (locate title II) that defines the parameters of net neutrality- title II of the communications act of 1934, which is/was being used to REGULATE the internet.

1934

because trump said so and all the major isp's need to start charging more so we can have quality service

How much are they paying you in that shitty warehouse call center in Indiana to shill? It can't be more than $12/hour.
Go back to school, user. You can get a computer science degree from a reputable college and make some real big boy money.

That would be true if you had a diversity of services to choose from and laying out new fiber optics was easy. But its not. In the US we have a monopoly on the internet connection, basically you can choose from only 2 or 3 providers. And good luck trying to set up new lines since the other companies will do whatever it takes to block you. Its basically crony capitalism. Net neutrality was put in place as a response to this crony capitalism. Its trying to fix a bad system. If you remove this fix your still left with a bad system with companies that refuse to upgrade their network and still charge you $40 a month for shitty internet.

What an argument.
Answer this, retard. Why does someone like John Oliver push for net neutrality, when what he does is in direct competition with the internet?
How does John Oliver benefit from providing a ''fair'' and ''uncensored'' internet to you?

Also have you read the 332 page document?

>Ensure competition by designating that all last-mile connections (already paid mostly by taxpayers) have to be leased to any ISP. Suddenly you will have competition, which will solve your fearful scenario.
And there hasn't been any hints suggestions of doing that, and would most likely get stopped by ISP lobbying at any mention of it. getting rid of net neutrality before putting anything in place to promote competition in hopes that they will introduce something afterwards is wishful thinking.

>That would be true if you had a diversity of services to choose from and laying out new fiber optics was easy
Ok, so you are going to shill for net neutrality, and now you have a complete monopoly (actual monopoly, not a buzzword you used). How is that helping you?
How is no more anonymity and higher internet prices going to help you?

I have a CCNA Routing and Switching certification, but sure dismiss it as Wikipedia.

You don't really expect to be able to utilize a system like the world's internet without being tracked or exploited, do you?
Are you people really that naive, to believe greedy fucks and sociopaths are just going to allow you to use such a powerful thing without getting all up in your shit?

Lemme clue you in Holmes.
Be it government, or companies, the internet will ALWAYS be used partly to crack into people's lives and make money off of them.
The very nature of the damn thing guarantees it will be used for such a purpose. It's like inventing an internal combustion engine and expecting no one to use it to power a set of wheels on a chassis.

I use the internet knowing what I'm getting.
Spying, marketing, and other assorted BS. I pay that price plus about $50/m for nearly unlimited information and for utilities to buy products. Small price to pay considering.

The underlying root of the cronyism is that taxpayers paid for those last mile connections. Those connections should be designated as leasable by any ISP that wants it. This will reduce the capital required to start an ISP dramatically.

Address the root cause, not the symptom, which is actually a backdoor to censorship in disguise.

jews want to charge you 60 dollars a month to access Sup Forums.

this is how the jews control the internet.

So you're just a defeatist who will go along with any corporate backed legislation so long as it has a friendly name?

This desu

>When you have no idea of how the internet works

1s and 0s are 1s and 0s. There shouldn't be a premium on where they come from. I'm sure heavy bandwidth users already pay a premium for a consistent and robust connection. If the problem we see is slow down, then it's on the ISP to use their profits to create more bandwidth, not throttle the innocuous 1s and 0s.

>allow the FCC to regulate speak they way the do to TV and Radio.
source?

How about coming up with something against my argument instead of attacking me.

T-thanks Finland. You truly are greatest ally.

removing neutrality is pushed by fearmongering
net neutrality doesn't outline anything about the specific content on the internet
first amendment isn't be challenged at all
it outlines the technical aspects of the content
it is like a regulation that states so many phone lines have to be present in a given region, this doesn't have anything to do with what is being said on the phone.
ISPs have to shift (since most are cable tv providers) and they want net neutrality out of the way so they can take advantage of it in order to reshape the market to their liking

the shit Sup Forums collectively comes out with
>obama and sjws liked it so its bad
>trump, molyneux and them hate it so getting rid of it must be good

there is a fucking sticky on Sup Forums that nobody ever reads anymore

>like how the FCC regulates what you see on TV

But that's wrong. A supreme court case already found that the FCC can't regulate the internet like TV because TV/Radio are considered "passive" (that is, you just have them on and stuff comes up) while internet is "active" (like magazines, you actually have to choose to open them and read them)

Passive media is regulated, because children could just randomly be watching or listening to one program, and a completely different one will come on later with no user input. Active media is not, because it's the parent's job to police what books they buy and what websites they go to. That's why you can't have porn on TV, but can on the internet, OR specially, subscription only TV channels.

This shit was decades ago, what stupid conspiracy shit are you reading?

So why is having an option so that they would have to ask for your permission to sell your data a bad thing?

how the goddamn hell did they convince you that net neutrality impedes anonymity?
that is grade-a fear mongering
net neutrality outlines how ISPs are to behave not the users

>Why does someone like John Oliver push for net neutrality
His whole entire job is pushing for certain political goals. It's called being a pundit.

While i usually don't agree with him, he is absolutely right in this issue

it isn't, infact most people would give it freely like they do to the google and facebook but it isn't going to change anything
if you want to protect your data then you have to protect your data, legislature isn't going to do it for you

The leaf answered your question as good as I could with double 7s as icing.

>net neutrality doesn't outline anything about the specific content on the internet

How the fuck do you know?
Post the entire document, all 332 or how many pages. Post it, retard.

This is simple
>no net neutrality
Nothing happens
>net neutrality
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS EXACTLY. All we know that terrible people support it, they don't want you to see what's in the document, they're flat out lying to you and the entire thing is dubious as fuck.

What the fuck is your problem?

>it isn't
Then why did people support getting rid of the option just because Trump wanted rid of it.

>legislature isn't going to do it for you
It still would've been a good thing for people to have some protections without having to jump through hoops just to have some semblance of control over their data.

My gripe is simple.
For all the shit Comcast does, they can't kick down my door and point a shotgun at my head and arrest me. Yet.

Every week though, we read stories about people being arrested in Europe by their governments, not their ISPs, for what they said on the internet. Like that guy with the pug.

Look it up yourself and engage in critical thinking for once in your life