Net Neutrality

what does Sup Forums think of net neutrality, should it go or stay

Other urls found in this thread:

infrastructurereportcard.org/)
freebeacon.com/issues/report-net-neutrality-leads-higher-prices-less-innovation/
fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom
fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

idgaf

why would you fucking answer then you faggot

You stupid fuck faces the companies are gouging you worse now than the 90's early 00's.

so stay then?

>inb4 the ISP shills and retarded anclaps come flooding end demanding we all get fucked by the ISP monopolies.

keep it. It encourages innovation and is a net positive for economy.

Stay. A bit because it's actually good, but mainly just to annoy the (((anarcho-capitalists)))

>muh.. muh free market!

The only people who want net neutrality to go away are the (((officials))) who stand to earn money from its absence.

I don't know, you tell me? Do you want it to stay as it is or do you want microtransactions, complete monitoring, pay-to-access for different types of content, etc.

aren't you an an-cap?
i feel like this is more on the side of what you guy would want

ideologically at least

let the free market sort it out? no?

It already is a free market.

Maybe he's reasonable on this particular issue?

kek

i see, so net neutrality maintains the free market
gotcha

stay. they already jew us enough as is.

>isp monopolies start throttling competition
>indeed destroys the market
An AnCap who's actually true to his market principals instead of just screeching "muh big gubment". You have my respect.

>what does Sup Forums think of net neutrality, should it go or stay
We don't have it. We have net federalization. The federal government is not a neutral party, and is just as if not more capable of censorship than private corporations. Nothing short of an entirely new corpus juris will result in net neutrality.

It's Democrat censorship, fuckshills.

>ISPs notice certain websites use more traffic and threaten to throttle them if they don't pay gibs
>Silicon Valley oy veys and runs to Obama
>Special policies put in place that keep the internet "neutral" aka controlled by leftists
>???
>Hate speech? To the gulag with you!

There is literally no rational defense for net neutrality provisions.

Net Neutrality is a meme pushed by democrats to prop up their literal censorship of other news sources. if the market wants an internet alternative then it'll arise but as it is i have no issues with losing access to parts of itnernet i dont care about such as CNN and the like

net neutrality is an important idea.

But its totally unnecessary if they went after the telecoms under anti-trust.

Which trump should do if not just because everyone fucking hates the major telecoms, and most poeple have no alternative.

this

/thread

fpbp

From an ancap position, antitrust litigation against Google or Faceberg makes about 100x times more sense than net "neutrality".

This truly is one of the most retarded tinfoil-hat posts I've read in a while. Good job.

Ding ding ding

China's blocked off 'net is "net neutral" for them.

Net neutral here just means government controlled compared to private controlled. Both can be shit and both can be good. There's no difference other than private by design having more options to choose from, so you can choose the less shit.

>explaining why net neutrality is bad is tinfoil
>"muh Jewish ISPs!!!" isn't

Spotted the shill

Appropriate flag for this hare-brained understanding of the issue

It's almost beside the point - the big telecom companies in the US should be broken up under anti-trust laws. "Comcast" should be 10 to 15 different companies, for example. But I doubt Trump has the balls to do what should be done.

>democrats and leftists are behind everything!! Fucking Obama!!
>you're just a shill!!
You truly are a braindead stormfag. Fuck yourself.
(You)

Top kek what a dunce

Netflix: uses massive amount of bandwidth more than pretty much any other site or service by a huge margin

ISP: shouldn't they pay for that?

Liberals: THEYRE TRYING TO CENSOR US!!! NET NEUTRALITY NOW

>bill nye image
You're not helping your case, idiot. Did you come here from reddit?

>Netflix should also pay for the bandwidth that customers have already paid for
This is just ISPs trying to legalize an extortion bracket.

Quite a few ISP's have their own movie streaming services. They could use this act to strangle Netflix / anyone else's but put theirs on the "fast lane" and thus make their service better / kill comp.

This act benefits no one but the ISP's corporate. It should be shot down on that basis alone, will it is anouther story.

Note for your boss: Get better shills.

>Consumers should pay for that instead

Literally a backdoor for socialized media.

This desu. Net neutrality is a solution but not the ideal solution. All the broadcasting and cable companies need to be broken up but (((they))) won't allow it.

I wish this autistic 'shill' meme would die off already. For fuck's sake, it's just a buzzword to deflect criticism now.

>consumer paying for service and receiving service is "socialized"
>consumer paying for service and supplier paying protection money so consumer can receive his service is okay
This is just basic capitalist behaviour. How is it "socialized"?

>ISP shill! ISP shill! ISP shill!
>What do you mean I sound like an SV shill on internet censorship day? What are ya some kind of conspiracy theorist?

Forcing me to pay higher internet prices so commies can Netflix and chill *IS* effectively socializing the large social networks.

Why shouldn't ISPs be allowed to extort Google? Give me one good reason.

This is the real issue. Net neutrality is just the jews trying to save shekels and brainwashing the good goys to back them up.

>oi vey, goy, the government will slow down your vidya and porno, goy. you don't want that do you?

The reality is net neutrality is like not taxing trucks on the highway. The trucks carry goods for jews, and the goys pay for the roads. Without net neutrality, companies can set up toll booths for the roads and charge the jews their dues.

57.5% of ALL INTERNET TRAFFIC is jewflix, jewtube, and kikebook. Remember that when you're defending the jew and preaching "net newtralitee" like a good goy.

>Forcing me to pay higher internet prices so commies can Netflix and chill
Are you actually so retarded you think your internet bill would go DOWN if this went through

Why is Sup Forums advocating it then?

>>ISPs notice certain websites use more traffic and threaten to throttle them if they don't pay gibs
The users of the web site are the customers of the ISP using a service the ISP sold to them.
Why does the ISP get to say they want more money from the web site because it's highly used?
The ISP already got paid from their costumers that access the internet by the ISP.

The ISP are already being paid to sell access to the internet. The ISP all use public right of ways or pubic wireless frequencies so they are subject to public rules.

The ISP should be told they could reduce their costs by taking their most popular internet services and co hosting them to reduce load on the backbone connections and save their use fees if they all of a sudden don't like actually having to provide a service they sold to their customers.

ISP are using public property for private profit and crying that they don't get enough. Fuck them.

it's a question of how easy it is to either remove the people in the government responsible for subverting the internet unacceptably or remove the people in a multinational corporation for doing so.

The weakest choice is the correct choice.

I don't know all the specifics on the subject of net neutrality to make a judgement call on it so i'll refrain from that aspect of this discussion.

However I would like to voice some gripes I have with how internet service is handled in this country. Where I use to live here in Arizona the best internet speed we could get was 25mbps down and like 10mbps up (((even though it never reached those levels))). My father called our ISP (century link) to see if they were planning on improving the connections that we had in the area. Long story short their response was that we would have to move to a different area to get the higher speeds. We were already paying the same amount as other people in the state that were getting higher speeds, and its not like we lived out in the boonies or anything we were in the suburbs with a moderate population density.

Through out many parts of the US there are usually 3, 2, or, in extreme cases, 1 ISP company in control of handling internet service. Now I don't know about you but that sounds like a monopoly to me. They have the technology to provide speeds up to 3 times the current national average internet speed but they refuse and show little willingness to change. They've only shown some amount of effort in the last couple years because of Google fiber becoming a possible threat to their strangle hold on the market.

One final point I want to make is that America's current infrastructure rating is a D+ (infrastructurereportcard.org/) which includes our internet connectivity. Despite this fact we have not seen any push from the ISPs to give a helping hand in this regard.

I'm not 100% percent sure about making our cyber infrastructure a government handled utility but I can sure as hell see that the free market has not done a damn good thing for it and they more than likely won't after all is said and done.

>Netflix: uses massive amount of bandwidth more than pretty much any other site or service by a huge margin
>ISP: shouldn't they pay for that?
Why? The ISP customers are already paying for that access, and paying near to 20 times the bulk rate.

Net Neutrality is communism of data consumption, the average consumer uses very little bandwidth. Large companies consume most of all the bandwidth and pay the same amount as anyone else. It is the residential class of user that subsidizes the cost of larger companies through monthly bills. Without NN rules in place you unshackle ISP's and force them to compete at the same time. Without NN rules in place you create a situation where every company is going to be looking to offer the better deal to try and sap customers from each other. Not only with that you create an situation where an ISP can come in and offer special data services that could result in cheaper internet access for specialized lines of service that can be made to fit the needs of residential customers and business customers alike. It doesn't even have to be based by targetting a specific website but more the type of data being transmitted itself. ISPs can already see the type of data passing in their own networks and can already prioritize it by type rather then site.

14 year olds on an armenian sausage origami site are easy to brainwash?
They should read a paragraph or two about what it actually is, instead of listening to "they will slow your internet down, goy" Having internet slowed down or taken away really "REEEEEE"s this generation. They can't turn their head from the jew media titty.

Hiro doesn't speak English

freebeacon.com/issues/report-net-neutrality-leads-higher-prices-less-innovation/

That objectively doesn't happen, and it doesn't make sense why it would.

Why is it okay for Silicon Valley to systematically censor conservatives, why is it okay for the EU and Germany forcing them to self-censor themselves even FURTHER.

>But for some reason I'm going to feel sympathy for Jew tears that they might have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to local industry.

FUCK that shit.

The cartel business model of ISP means they will never compete with each other meaningfully. It's far more profitable to collude than compete.

>Why is it okay for Silicon Valley to systematically censor conservatives, why is it okay for the EU and Germany forcing them to self-censor themselves even FURTHER.

Are conservatives being censored in traffic on the internet? Or are private businesses that use the internet being biased?

So long as the connections treat traffic equally and so long as the price is the same that's NN working.

NN doesn't have anything to do with private services on the net.

If you don't want to be censored or regulated by governments don't do business in their jurisdiction.

>title 2 = Net Neutrality
This isn't the case at all. Pajeet just wants us to go back to title 1, which we were before 2015 when Obama made us title 2.
Are people just forgetting that everything was fine before Title 2?

I believe that without the dark side there is no force

I fucking knew there would be people advocating for monopolistic ISPs here. American Internet is already shit and filled with datacaps. Is this really the way you want to go? You're already bent over a barrel by ISPs, do you really want them to go balls deep?

>Are conservatives being censored in traffic on the internet? Or are private businesses that use the internet being biased?
Does someone have that webm of sweden blocking news articles? Seems pretty relevant right now.

>Large companies consume most of all the bandwidth and pay the same amount as anyone else.
kek
Google is not running their server off the 100 dollar a month unlimited plan that you watch porno with. They're already paying gigantic sums of money for Internet without a success tax on top.
Your article doesn't provide a single explanation of anything. It just makes a bunch of statements and then says we're better than Europe.
>local industry
Since when is a nationwide ISP corporation a "local industry"?
What you are advocating is big business fucking over other big business at the expense of everybody smaller, including you.

Ok I'm finally fully read on the subject. Here's the deal, some of it's good, some of it's bad. The problem is people are either all in cuz of MUH NEUTRALITY IT SAYS NEUTRAL SO EVERYTHING IN IT IS GOOD, and some see none of it as good because of government overreach. I used to be in the second camp.

Now I realize though that the bright line rules are pretty useful and I have no problem with these regulations, it's basically just internet freedoms:

>No Blocking: ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services.

>No Throttling: ISPs cannot slow down or degrade internet service based on the content, application, or service accessed by users.

>No Paid Prioritization: ISPs cannot accept payment to give content, applications, or services more favorable access to users.

These should just be made legislation and take away the FCCs power to modify the rules to whatever they see fit. What we don't need is the gigantic regulatory clusterfuck that is currently there with the FCC also having free reign to do whatever the fuck they want to regulate the internet.

what fucking difference does it make
the internet is already greatly censored
ISPs already throttle bandwidth

we need to get the cellphone niggers off the internet and poor trash white trash / poor niggers

I don't have a datacap, my internet is great.

>No Blocking: ISPs cannot block legal content, applications, or services.
But there's nothing in there stopping the FCC from doing exactly that.

Antitrust laws already exist. Current rules NN in place don't make it profitable to move in on existing ISP territory and what you eventually have happen as we have seen in the last 17 years is all the smaller ISP's started to get absorbed into the larger ISP's because expansion is too expensive so the smaller ISPs are forced to be bought out by the already larger existing ISPs like Comcast and Timewarner. Create an a market for people to compete in and people will compete, allow innovation to be driven by the will of the people rather then the government.

For now, net neutrality is a good thing as it forces our ISP monopolies to provide internet service without price gouging.

But it doesn't address the real problem: that our ISP market is controlled by monopolies. If there was actual competition in this market there would be no need for these laws because who the fuck would ever buy from Comcast or time Warner if they had other real choices,?

That's true, the FCC can revise their rules, but this rule is currently there preventing anyone from doing that. I think these three bright line rules should just be made into an actual law and then we can drop all the rest.

You do understand how that's not the same thing right?

Government censorship has nothing to do with NN, that's government policy and needs to be addressed.

Now if the government said to ISP if you suspect a user of your service is a conservative you can degrade their service that would be a violation of the idea of NN.

>it's okay when silicon valley does it because they're private companies
>it's not okay when ISPs do it because fuck you goyim, just bend over and take it

"Net Neutrality" is a fucking retarded term because if you ask 10 people, you'll get 12 answers on what it is.

I do not think ISPs should be able to inspect or manipulate content for commercial purposes going across networks - ISPs should be content-agnostic.

The internet should not be a public utility - otherwise, we will have a situation with ISPs like we now have with the postal service. Everyone pays the same price for a letter, but it can cost hundreds of dollars to deliver a letter to a remote location in Alaska, and everyone else gets to subsidize that, even in higher-density population centers where it costs much less to deliver a letter. If you live in Bumfuck, Wyoming on 200 acres, it shouldn't be our problem to run cable or fiber to your fucking compound to ensure you have access to the internet. That's your problem.

Depending on the companies agreement with the ISP and where servers used are located they actually could have no data cap and pay flat rate. Some areas have the benefit of that deal.

You missed the point, even if you make a law preventing the -ISPs- from censoring content, you still don't prevent the -FCC itself- from doing the censoring. And even if you did, you can't just strip away all authority and call it a day, saying the law is set in stone forever. Like I said earlier in the thread, this sort of thing won't ever work without an entirely new constitutional corpus juris.

>we all get fucked by the ISP monopolies.
But what if we also remove the rest of the retarded regulations and the monopolies fall apart from the incoming competition?

>Antitrust laws already exist.
But are not used to end the cartel practices of ISP.

>Current rules NN in place don't make it profitable to move in on existing ISP territory
Explain why not.

It's not profitable because cartels make more money than competition.

>and what you eventually have happen as we have seen in the last 17 years is all the smaller ISP's started to get absorbed into the larger ISP's because expansion is too expensive so the smaller ISPs are forced to be bought out by the already larger existing ISPs like Comcast and Timewarner.

So break them up like Bell.

>Create an a market for people to compete in and people will compete, allow innovation to be driven by the will of the people rather then the government.
You haven't explained how NN stops competition or how having no NN will suddenly cause the government to use antitrust laws.

Oh and here's the actual proposal

fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom

Here is the 2015 order

fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order

Net neutrality is just a cover for internet censorship. It sounds nice but it essentially is the first step to radically recreating what the internet is.

More local than Jewgle and Faceberg.

The Internet is a utility. Twitter is not.

>attempt to talk about net neutrality on another forum
>"politics aren't allowed!"

>come to Sup Forums
>"lolwedontcare xD"

You truly deserve this.

It has everything to do with NN. NN makes the internet into a public utility, giving the FCC the authority to censor content under the 1934 Federal Communications Act.

>Internet is perfectly fine
>"We need laws to keep the Internet okay!"

It makes no sense.

But even if it did, people will just find a way around any impediment. The Internet is the beginning of a truly global, naturally occurring anarchy. It's not going anywhere, even with liberals attempting to Jew it up.

TITLE II ISN'T NET NEUTRALITY RETARDS
THE PAJEET WANTS US TO GO BACK TO TITLE I WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE UNDER PRE 2015
IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND
TITLE II IS NOT NEEDED FOR NET NEUTRALITY TO EXIST

S T A Y

If net neutrality goes they could slow down internet service to ANY website they like in order to reduce to access to it e.g bye bye Pornhub, bye Youtube, Bye bye Reddit and Sup Forums.

You'll never get rid of the ISP monopolies unless your government takes control of the lines and rents them out. or forces the monopolies to rent them out to any starter ISP company. And i doubt that either would ever happen because "Muh socialism"!

>No one's antitrusting the ISPs, therefore further cartelizing social media is acceptable

If I'm mistaken and NN does not cartelize the internet, explain why. The large companies have deeper pockets and thus stand far far faaaaar more to gain from not being throttled and extorted than Sup Forums or stormfront.

>muh muh utility

Nice socialist logic.

>But are not used to end the cartel practices of ISP.
So fucking advocate for it instead of this federalist crapheap! Jesus it's not that hard to understand.

ISP use public right of ways and public RF. If an ISP bought all it's right of way land as private property and paid property taxes on it that would be different.

However they don't. They use public property. The companies that use the internet are not in general the companies that provide the connection services.

It's like saying a company that owns a road should be subject to similar regulation as a gas station. A gas station might refuse service to a class of vehicle while the road should be required to accept any licensed vehicle.

You can take the internet off of title two classification and they wouldn't be under the FCC's jurisdiction anymore.

Tbh fuck it, the jannies ruined Sup Forums I would like nothing more than for this whole site to go to shit

I dont see the connection between this and banning them from extorting Silicon Valley...

Yes, which is exactly what repealing NN would do.

Oh well, fuck porn and reddit. Worth it.

It already gone long ago. Net neutrality was once so widespread that you could have Windows 98 and no anti-virus protection, since literally nobody was looking at internet traffic, not to mention break into systems, so ISPs also didn't filter internet by type of traffic and of course didn't think about limiting specific traffic when not virus related.

stay/expanded.

You have to go back

This is what is going on Now! goy pays ISP $80 for T3 internet ISP throttles Netflix and Youtube.
Bottom line you are not getting what you pay for.
like Digital cable boxes that block over the air channels (which the government allowed) and feed you 480p garbage.

Net neutrality is scam by google, amazon, etc to take out their competition. They own huge private networks that aren't regulated so they want to force regulation on their major competitors (comcast, verizon, etc)

monopolies are only allowed to exist because of govt intervention and now you want to give them even more control
kys, and when you reincarnate maybe read books on history and economics so you don't obsequiously lay the bricks of your own enslavement

Yes, you could do that ALONG WITH making those bright line items into federal law independent of title II