Net Neutrality

Hey Sup Forums explain to me why Net Neutrality is a good, or bad thing.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/oAy5n
archive.fo/oAy5n
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
reason.com/blog/2017/05/18/fcc-vote-isnt-the-end-of-net-neutrality
i.imgur.com/F6Fh79C.gifv
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>government accepts corporate money
>corporations HAVE to give money to them to survive
>gov wants more control over the internet and paints the corps as the bad people
>masses believe them

Just support no regulations, NN is a smokescreen

Without net neutrality internet providers can choose to reduce your internet speed when connecting to websites.
This is a potential conflict of interest if the internet providers offer a product like e.g. movie streaming that has competition from other companies like e.g. Netflix.
The fear is that an ISP might choose to offer you a "movie package" that includes their streaming service for cheaper than an "unlimited package" that would give you HD access to e.g. Netflix.

Somehow the internet survived before NN. Now it's a matter of life or death according to libs.

Support: You want government control of ISPs (could do stuff to your internet)
Don't Support: You want ISPs to control it (could do stuff to your internet)

It worked just fine without the government for 30 years. We've only had 2 years with the government in the middle.

Do you trust the government? At all?

bad for burgers, good for everyone else on the planet

Bad. The whole 'website package' meme gets thrown around a lot. The real problem is it's going to limit information flow. All you're doing is putting more power into the hands of private corporations. Right now now nobody has that power. As it exists, they can't differentiate between types of traffic or destination. That power does not even exist. We are not getting government out of internet, we're just giving more power to major corporations. Corporations aren't good or bad but they do act in their own self interest. The internet will slow to a crawl because the major websites now will never have any competition. It will be legal for them to block a startup that threatens, say, Twitter's market share.

Proponents say we should get the government out of the internet. The problem is the government is not exercising any power right now. They're in fact keeping anyone from exercising power. Abolishing Net Neutrality actually creates power where there was none and gives to major corporations, who will use it to further their profits. I have yet to see a single argument that demonstrates how giving this power out will improve the internet experience.

...

How is that problem? Fuck Netflix. Sounds like they have a shitty business model. I mean fuck, a steel factory has to pay more for electricity than I pay at my house because they use more electricity.

Either why, corporations will fuck the people over. It just depends on what websites you can go to (without NN) or the price of the internet usage to go up (with NN). This shit didn't matter before, but now everyone needs internet so the corp. are going to screw everyone.

BIGGEST LEAK IN 4CHIN HISTORY
archive.is/oAy5n
archive.fo/oAy5n

ROTHSCHILD LEAKS
These Rothschild satanic child sacrificing ADRENOCHROME PRODUCING fuckers EXPOSED

Thats a terrible analogy. For starters Netflix's internet bill is obviously not the same as yours, they have to pay more because they use more.

The internet speed wouldnt be capped on their end but on yours to make the ISPs own services more enticing.

anytime facebook, google, twitter and democrats support something, run away as fast as you can!

They already intercept, decrypt and archive everything. What more could they control? Just sound like greedy exploitation to me. I think it really sucks. Would hope for a boycott, but too many cucks

Which could also cap us here because many people hate us out in the world.

Because it lessens competition. ISPs right now are essentially selling a pipeline but this would give them power to tell you how you use that pipeline. They can come out with their own Netflix knockoff for $5 a month but charge you $25 a month for Netflix. And we will never get a true competitor to Netflix because anyone that wants to start up a competitor is now going to have a much larger overhead because not only are people going to have to pay for their service but they're going to have pay the cable company extra to gain access to it.

Look at the way every liberal website censors shit. Reddit, Twitter, Wikipedia, FactCheck. Reddit and Twitter shadow ban anyone from disagreeing to push a narrative. Now you've got ISPs who can do the same thing. COMCAST CEO wants people to vote liberal? Well, now FoxNews.com and Sup Forums cost $50 a month.

And don't get it twisted. Outside of the major metropolitan areas ISPs don't have competition. The smaller ISPs buy their access through the larger ones.

>letting the government or major companies control the flow of information in the first place

T.J. was right when he warned us of this in the days of FidoNet.

Net Neutrality FAQ:
>1. Who supports NN?
Reddit, (((Sup Forums mod team))), Google, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, Twitter, Snapchat, AirBnb, Spotify, etc. Notice how all of these groups are leftist.

>2. Will anti-NN legislation "bundle" the internet?
No, this is a commonly repeated Jewish lie like "communism works". If a company "bundles" the internet, another one will not bundle and get all the customers, just as the free market intended.

>3. Are they going to block/restrict/slow down Sup Forums?
No. They have the technology and legal basis to do this right now, but they aren't doing it. Anti-NN legislation won't change a thing. This is just another Jewish fiction designed to cause panic.

>4. We need to fight for NN or the internet will go into the hands of the evil corporations and Republicans! Keep the internet free and independent!
The internet is already not free. Obama already gave control of the internet to the United Nations in 2016.

>5. NN keeps us safe from evil corporations!
NN laws didn't go into effect until 2015 and things were fine before then. There were no bundles or packages, which is just a fictional threat invented by the Jews to control the panicked masses.

Why is everybody shilling so hard for NN all of a sudden? Didn't we already deal with this like 3 years ago?

wow no wonder Sup Forums is shit now with idiots like you running about

I don't agree with any of that but instead of pointing out why, let me ask you this: What is favorable about it? What good will come from it?

They are bringing it back. It's gonna keep happening till whoever lost wins.

I support net neutrality because it prevents rent-seeking behavior (i.e. extortion) on the part of ISPs.

imagine an internet where Sup Forums is censored, private sites get the 'dirt road' while corporate sites get the 'highway', and you have to pay way too much to get your premium pass. that's not what I want.

Also, you talk like a shill. Nobody brought 'Jewish lies' into this bullshit.

I honestly think ShareBlue is on here pretending to be Sup Forums and be in favor of this bullshit so we don't go out and fight it.

Then sites that use next-to no bandwidth will spring up.

Net neutrality is about heavy data users not wanting to pay for transit. All the touchy feely stuff is bullshit.

It's a bad thing because it prevents Verizon from charging me extra money to use Netflix and browse fake news . If we end it then there will be more competition among ISPs, just like how there was so much more competition and choice among media companies after the 1996 Telecommunications act was passed. Cartels and oligopolies will not form and start-up ISPs will easily be able to compete with multi-billion dollar conglomerates

NOTHING TO HIDE NOTHING TO FEAR

IF YOU'RE TOO POOR TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU USE CUT YOUR CONSUMPTION OR GET YOUR FUCKING PRIORITIES STRAIGHT


I HOPE THIS SHIT PASSES

This it's going to take a while.

they might find workarounds, but in a worst case scenario, they would find more ways to clamp down in a cat/mouse game.

you may be right. I could see scaling back net neutrality somewhat, but my concern is that the internet will slide down a slippery slope towards the scenario I described.

also, this seems to be a threat to torrents.

*slurping noises*

>plane white sites with black text only
Nice future you're imaginíng there

That's literally illegal I'm pretty sure. There were laws passed against this in fucking 1995.

muh jewflix kys

I dont know of any

Because ISPs would rather just throttle us than upgrade us to fiber. They're the ones not keeping up with the times because upgrading costs their bottom lines. The ISPs in America aren't competing with each other. They're all avoiding stepping on each other's toes.

They can just completely block them, not just throttle them. How long have you been using the internet? I remember downloading jaypegs of Jenny McArthy's tits and getting literally a line at a time.

>Ooh, there's the top of her breasts! I hope she shows them in this one!
Five minutes later
>Ooh, I see pink, I think her nipples are coming next!

Net neutrality is literally helping destroy Western civilization. Right now all the shitty cultural marxist propaganda companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Netflix, Reddit, etc. use far more bandwidth than they pay for. Banning net neutrality will decrease their reach by forcing them to pay their fair share, so they'll pass on the costs to their consumers by charging a monthly fee, which will discourage people from using those cancerous companies and getting brainwashed by their anti-West message. Everyone wins.

I wish a nigga would

Colour doesn't exactly have much of a bandwidth requirement.

Text is basically nothing in modern technology. Besides, as I said already, letting the routing and management be done by companies in the first place was the mistake that Tom Jennings warned everyone of.

2017 is the year of the Gopher.

That's because you're a 20 year old dumb fuck.

well cite them then lmao

If you think Trump is based, go ahead, i dont mind but for you to give the full reins of how the internet is handled is a fullest cuck you can ever be. The presidency and government changes every 4yrs in the USA. What will happen if a libshit will win? What will happen when a full throttle moralfag will take office? Take it into consideration.

Dial up was never that slow. A few KBs is plenty when images used to never go above 20KB for that very reason.

I agree fully, goyim.

my mind is not made up. net neutrality seems like a positive thing because it prevents the dystopia of 'premium access' and censorship. aside from the cat/mouse game of workarounds, there is some content (porn) which can't be reduced past a certain point.

that said, alot of anons seem to be saying that net neutrality is being used as a tool for leftist consolidation of power, in which case I'm against it.

this is tricky...

Good. It keeps the (((ISPs))) from slowing down other companies who aren't willing to pay extra shekels.
There are some retards trying to make it a partisan issue when literally anyone who watches porn or browses Sup Forums ] should be for it to some degree. Regulation is hardly ever a good thing, but in this case it is

>forcing them to pay their fair share
user, it sounds like you want to destroy Western civilization more than anything

Net neutrality is a massive bill to tackle a problem that doesn't exist while giving the government more power over the internet.
It's supported by everyone on the left, every globalist, all the big corporations and all the people who want the internet censored.
Net neutrality is pushed with fear tactics, talking about how ISPs are going to go insane and just start fucking with people for no reason. What is actually scary is what a batshit insane government can do when they have their claws on the internet with some 400+ page document that allows them to use any loophole in there or interpretation of any statement to do whatever they want.

The internet is not public utility, the moment the internet becomes public utility you can say goodbye to Sup Forums. It's not the lack of net neutrality that threatens Sup Forums, for fuck's sake.

>full throttle moralfag

The inquisitive "ban all birth control/condoms/divorce is a crime" type. Oh man.... I wish.

Its a nothing burger being masqueraded as an assault on the consumer to drum up political support for a floundering Democratic party.

Basically no one in congress really opposes the basic net neutrality rules they all realize it would hurt them politically. Even the ISPs and cable companies who ostensibly are the boogeymen behind deregulating the internet have expressed support for the basic concept of neutrality.

However there is opposition to the heavy handed FCC regulator powers that Obama set up to enforce net neutrality. Basically everyone wanted a net neutrality law; but instead of passing a simple law saying that ISPs have to provide equal service to all consumers and all sites Obama set up a bunch of new FCC rules which gave the government more power over the internet and are proving a pain in the ass for the broadband companies attempts to modernize the system.

So now you have the new head of the FCC and the Republicans trying to undo some of Obama's regulations and the Democrats are pretending that its going to break the internet because they know that it will score them political points.

Seriously? Mature up.
>Facebook, google, twitter and democrats believes eating shit is bad
Will i shit now? Cos im Right-leaning as fuck

ahh. this makes alot of sense if it's true.

It's a bad thing just because it gives the government more power over the internet. You might not like ISPs, but the government is much worse than ISPs. That's all any of us plebs need to know.

What? I distinctly remember the exact scenario happening to me. I remember it taking nearly an hour to download one MP3, and getting pissed off if someone tried to make a phone call and interrupted it.

This is the closest thing I could find and I cant find how my example would be illegal under this law

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996

Fucking statists....

But you are wrong. NN has been part of the internet since it's creation, the october 2016 obama net neutrality laws are entirely different you mongoloid

im sure you love using windows 10 too huh

>And don't get it twisted. Outside of the major metropolitan areas ISPs don't have competition.
>Outside of the major metropolitan areas ISPs don't have competition.
This. Expecting this shit to start in Russia anytime soon.

I'm a lawyer. Laws are illogical as hell. The more you specify a law, loopholes are made. When i said a full throttle moralfag, what if he censors anything violent? Well its a broad term right? It can mean to anime, rekt webm threads, etc. Anyone can take advantage of that. The world is not a black and white as you think.

Telecommunications Act of 1996

>the government has jillions of nonoctobites of random bullshit data by intercepting, decrypting and archiving everything

wew lad
e
w

l
a
d

>republicans moving to end net neutrality

oh lawd who could have foreseen this

It's all going to depend on the wording of any bill that is passed. The problem is most people my age (mid 30s) or older do not understand the internet at all, ESPECIALLY our politicians. It's extra confusing because they're calling 'Net Neutrality' but it doesn't seem to actually do what it sounds like it does.

What type of shit did Obama throw in there? This is the first I'm hearing of this but I fully fucking believe it with the way he threw all that unrelated shit in Obamacare.

I dont see how it would be illegal under that law as it was mainly directed towards enabling competition among ISPs themselves and not users of those networks.

it's almost like people here will do or say anything to push the "right is good left is bad" narrative

The government is trying to steal and paywall every single rare pepe

I think companies like Google and Netflix and facebook and pornhub are also concerned that they might end up having to pay more to the ISPs if things change because their sites in particular take up a lot of bandwidth. So to a degree its turned into a squabble between ISP and cable companies and the websites that use their services.

>What type of shit did Obama throw in there?

Here's an excerpt from an article Reason Magazine did on it.....

>During the Obama administration, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler tried to impose net neutrality—twice—only to have federal courts block both efforts because the FCC lacked the authority to exert such broad control over ISPs. In response, the FCC in 2015 gave itself the authority (after privately working with the White House) to impose net neutrality by reclassifying ISPs as a Title II telecommunications service. With ISPs now subject to the same federal regulations as so-called "common carriers" like telephone services, a third attempt at imposing net neutrality survived a court challenge.

"Title II involves the panoply of heavy-handed economic regulations that were developed in the Great Depression to handle Ma Bell, the telephone monopoly of the 1930s," Pai told Reason TV last month. "My previous colleagues imposed those rules on the internet, one of the most dynamic systems we've ever known."

In short, the Obama administration found a clever way to get around limitations on the FCC's regulatory power. Thursday's vote is the first step towards putting the FCC's regulations back within those previous limits. As Pai points out, we weren't living in a digital dystopia in the years leading up to 2015.

and here's the whole article if you're interested.

reason.com/blog/2017/05/18/fcc-vote-isnt-the-end-of-net-neutrality

You conveniently leave out that Netflix, YouTube, and Facebook take up the majority of the ISPs bandwidth.

They actually have to build special "tunnels" if you will, to keep up with the traffic.

The ISPs started demanding shekels because duh, who wouldn't, or suffer bottle necking like everyone else.

The social Jews went to the government and whined and the government, in all of their love and wisdom, put a gun to the ISPs heads and said "build the tunnels or else".

>there are burgers ITT RIGHT NOW who are against net neutrality

are you fellow burgers retarded or trolling? this shit doesn't benefit you in the slightest all it benefits is jew CEO's of ISP like Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, etc. Why would you ever be agains this?

>Obama set up a bunch of new FCC rules which gave the government more power over the internet and are proving a pain in the ass for the broadband companies attempts to modernize the system.

Give me a link, because you are full of shit.

>So now you have the new head of the FCC and the Republicans trying to undo some of Obama's regulations

No, they are trying to undo basic net neutrality or maybe you are just a fucking retard. They want full control of you. they want to brainwash you by blocking websites and information that don't support their narrative. you are cucked by the corporate fox news brainwashing engine to actually believe anything they are doing here is somewhat helpful.

Tell me, if net neutrality is killed, what will you or we as a people gain.

spoiler: nothing. ALL this does is gives ISPs control over what you see and allows them to charge you more for it. Also the government isn't currently doing this and if you say that you are retarded

im not retarded. im woke. the internet is a disease.

>republicans want to control you and your access to information

>by removing republicans control over the internet

nah man you are retarded

It makes sense if you substitute "for-profit corporations" for "republicans". Which is reasonable, cause they're the same thing at this point.

>Give me a link, because you are full of shit.


reason.com/blog/2017/05/18/fcc-vote-isnt-the-end-of-net-neutrality

>Tell me, if net neutrality is killed, what will you or we as a people gain.

Less power in the hands of the FCC.

>they want to brainwash you by blocking websites and information that don't support their narrative. you are cucked by the corporate fox news brainwashing engine to actually believe anything they are doing here is somewhat helpful.

Interesting. You're arguing that the FCC and the government should have more regulatory power to control the internet. Have you considered that its you who have been brainwashed to support more state power?

Then dont have to build special pipelines for those companies, they have to build them because their customers want to use them. If you cant consistently offer a certain speed dont offer it.

For the ISP it makes no difference if the customer uses his bandwidth to stream data from 100000 sites or just 3.

This is not the fault of Youtube, Netflix and co. but of the ISPs refusing to modernize their tech.

I can't wait for you faggots to lose Sup Forums

It's what you deserve for throwing in with a retard like trump lmao

Just let the free market handle it man. Goverment intervention is always bad.

This is the right answer.

Or let me phrase it this way, its not the fault of those "big data streaming" companies that usage is up, but that of the consumer.

And if you want to keep them as your customer you're going to have to modernize.

This is what NONE of them have answered. How does this actually help the common man? How does this help the user? How does this benefit ANYONE but the globalists in charge of all of these companies? It. Fucking. Doesn't.

This is the government saying, "No, you can't censor content under the guise of surcharges." This is one instance where the government involvement is needed. It's actually protecting the people by maintaining neutrality.

>wanting goybook and goygle to maintain control over the world
>not wanting internet 1.0 to crash and burn taking all the jews with it
good goya ' _> '

Basically, we should split up the ISPs and force competition. That's the real problem, that there aren't better options.

Thats the truth and what the Telecomm Act of 1996 had hoped to accomplish.

good luck accessing Sup Forums to shill more. you might have to pay a $50 monthly premium. I can access jewgle for free. I rather take google jews than ISP jews.

>Corporations aren't good or bad, but they act in their own self interest.

This is true, I agree, but Corporations need to be controlled when their self-interest doesn't align with the public good.

Fucking nanny state begging retards like you should be deported from this country. Preferably by getting thrown out of a helicopter you commie piece of shit.

They didn't have to build special 'tunnels' for this and I'm not sure what you're even talking about. They offer a certain speed to the customer to use as they will. If their pipeline can handle 10k users at 10mbps then they shouldn't be selling 20k users the same 10mbps package. It's like if I built a private bypass and sold it to people promising they could drive 90mph to work but I made the speed limit 50mph.

If they offer me 10mpbs, I should be able to get 10mpbs 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

this seems to be the right answer

the only reason they had to build "special tunnels" in the first place was because their initial tunnels were too shitty. Have you seen the internet in places like south korea?

That's what I've done, because I'm not smart enough to form an opinion of this intricate issue. I hate libs and they're wrong on everything else.

>implying jews dont love Sup Forums
buy some more passes and shut the f*** up

And if we give them the ability to prioritize traffic past normal QoS then we are giving them a ton of power. The internet's power is unrivaled in human history in the amount of information it gives to the common man. We set here every day and you can hear directly from someone on the other side of world how they view their government's politicians, social matters, and how big of a faggot they think you are. We are going to give the power to shape that information away to the very elite who are trying to turn us all against each other.

Btw, when I say QoS, I mean in order to actually maximize a customer's experience. Prioritizing traffic in network terms means that things like video packets get a bit higher priority than, say, a text, so the video runs smoother, because getting a text 1/2 a second later won't matter but losing 1/2 a second of video will fuck it up.

i.imgur.com/F6Fh79C.gifv
i.imgur.com/F6Fh79C.gifv
i.imgur.com/F6Fh79C.gifv

Incorrect. The major ISPs had to build special tunnels for streaming services and the big websites because they had so much traffic.

This are fact.

Fuggggg sauce on the right??
Muh dick

>I'm not even sure what you're talking about

Pretty obvious.

This is dumb logic, bandwith speed doesn't need to be generated like electricity, there is no limit to it.

-They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

- Sen.Ted Stevens

This is fact*

Damn phone.