Sup Forums is unironically shilling leftist drivel and garbage with their Net Neutrality banner

>Sup Forums is unironically shilling leftist drivel and garbage with their Net Neutrality banner
The faggot mods running this site are pathetic

Good Goy

Pre-order your Platinum Tier cable service now for an extra 2 Mb per month

Don't forget to call your Congressmen using your cell carrier's network and email your Congressmen with your cable company's bandwidth and tell them there is just too much freedom of information

The mods are compromised.

Please tell us how bad net-neutrality is without "it's bad because liberals like it"

I hear liberals like oxygen too, you should rebel against their breathing agenda.

Corporate control is better than Big Government control. We can fight back against corporations with our wallets.

But why would you wanna introduce a fight in the first place? Where is the fight now?

>"Fucking libtards and SJW's drinking water. (((They))) just want you to intake H2O to implant tiny Jewish chips located on the hydrogen atoms to monitor you"

Here's how I like to see this, NN is abolished and ISPs fuck over anything and continue to have their monopoly in the "free market" of internet service whilst also having the government to worry about.

NN isn't abolished and ISPs don't abuse their power whilst still having to worry about the government.

Would you rather have 2 problems or 1?

because that worked against Sony...

oh wait

why insert yourself into a discussion about an american problem you know nothing about? net neutrality has been around for less than five years. the entire idea of net neutrality was hamfisted into place by obama and liberals are shaking in their boots now that republicans and the bcc are getting rid of it.

it's corporate welfare that passes the cost of internet usage down to the customer. there's a reason companies with large bandwidth usage like google, Facebook, netflix, and r*ddit are the ones shilling for it, because they don't have to pay a fair amount of money for their operations. as a result, cable companies raise the rates of the average joe customer to subsidize them.

the only argument FOR net neutrality is a strawman or slipper slope which claims that if the government doesn't protect us from the ISP boogeyman, they'll move to a pay-per-view model (which doesn't even exist in cable tv now) and charge per website. or you'll pay $1000 to visit Sup Forums. or you'll pay 50+ for each website genre. the internet existed for 20+ years without this regulation and none of these fallacies took place.

now you foreign muslim fuck, tell us how great net neutrality is without a fallacy

>Net neutrality not even a thing until 2015
>Fags think it's the end of the Internet

Sorry, I'm only allowed to discuss Danish politics and events.

you should have an understanding of the event before trying to make someone feel stupid for having an opposing view.
>But why would you wanna introduce a fight in the first place? Where is the fight now?
would imply that net neutrality is the norm, which it isn't. other than the US (as of 2015) only nazi germany has this

Don't be rude. He didn't try to make anybody feel stupid.

Its just newfags and shills that support net neutrality, right? None of the oldfags here are this stupid and gullible, right? Jesus fuck guys, take this stupidity to Sup Forums.

>internet was fine before net-neutrality
this

dunno if any of you fags remember, but net neutrality was a frequently discussed topic here about a decade ago.

With Net Neutrality => Only government can censor your internet. Without Net Neutrality => Government AND private companies can censor your internet.

Inb4 muh freedoms: You are fighting for the 'freedoms' of like 10 companies (the 'freedom' to censor people) at the expense of millions of Americans. Should be the last thing a libertarian should give a shit about.

Inb4 Giving government power always = bad: Protecting freedom of speech, gun ownership and freedom of the press, although considered inalienable rights, are all recognized and backed by government power, this was not 'bad'.

Giving government the power to protect freedom isn't bad you sperglord libertardian fuckheads.

moot tried shilling for it too. i'm thankful that mootgook doesn't give a shit

and most were rightly in favor of net neutrality.

difference enough normies get pissed off it will actually cause damage as opposed to gamers

>the left hates it so I should like it
How about you stop being a contrarian and actually think for yourself you incompetent slut? Net Neutrality is the only way to go, otherwise you'll have to pay an extra 10$ to schlomo goldstein to post on this website alone.

Yes, Mr. Goldstein, we should definitely trust corporations because they only want our best.

My friend beat me to the BBS scene with his 2400 baud modem that sometimes could only pull a 1200 baud connection. But then I got a bitching internal 9600 baud and I was boss of the neighborhood.

I can't find myself clearly for it, but the world has changed a lot since then. With the internet central to society and economy, and with it getting cartelized as fuck, it does become relevant to discuss at what point treating it like a free market should be abandoned, and we have to wonder about some degree of regulation, whether that's in the mode of a public utility, or antitrust laws, or what.

Net Neutrality is good. "Net Neutrality" is bad.

Well it hadn't occurred to ISPs to start making the net 'non-neutral' 'til then.

yeah. this shit does not sit well with me.
Worst move since they banned Gamergate threads

Sorry that people have too much common sense here - we're not as dumb or biddable as our reputation (probably). GTFO.

Government solution to a private problem that is only a problem because local, state, and federal government policies have made competition in the internet market nearly non-existent.

SHUT DOWN Sup Forums
H
U
T

I
T

D
O
W
N

again, what does competition have to do with net neutrality? if anything, it will allow ISPs to pick favorites and stifle protocols that they or their benefactors do not like, including crypto currency, bittorrent and other decentralized protocols. net-neutrality is good for competition.

god that image is shit.
it uses the wrong colors in the bottom paragraph giving the opposite intended message.
>but the color of the 'net neutrality' at the bottom correspond with the color of the text at the top
you might say, but that's not relevant because your brain associated the dominating color (background) with each concept, not the color of the text.

>first come here in 2007
>remember when SOPA/PIPA tried to rape the internet
>all of Sup Forums united against it
>years later normies and facebook users flood into Sup Forums
>new republican president tries this shit again
>Sup Forums willingly advocates for its own throttling because of petty tribal bullshit
It's a silver lining that a minority of people here aren't this retarded but you all deserve to have 10 GB data caps if you advocate against this

>sugar-daddy Trump is against it so it must be bad!

wtf I love Google, Facebook, and Reddit now

wrong. you can not fight monopoly. you can, however, vote.

Flip a coin heads you lose Tails they win

If one cable provider is restricting internet access, all the other has to do to get their customers is NOT restrict access. If nobody is non-restrictive, then the market should be open enough for a new cable company to obtain all of the customers that don't want their internet censored.

Anti-trust laws should be enforced, of course. Those are actually pretty useful. Also, use a VPN.

Government mandated net neutrality has a couple of problems. First, the most likely group to restrict your rights IS the government, so asking them to be the benefactors of your internet privacy is spreading your cheeks for Uncle Sam's camera-shaped cock. Second, it establishes the idea that the government should be responsible for internet access, and I can envision a scenario where the only legal internet access must be obtained by a government or government-affiliated ISP.

Why wouldn't I support net neutrality?

>wrong. you can not fight monopoly.

Boycotting and supporting their competition. It's not hard.

Can someone give me a quick rundown? Ive watched a few videos and read some articles but people here still think ita a good idea?

Those are really good points but what option is there? If there's a threat of ISPs wokring together with large internet services like Google and Facebook to form a monopoly, then how are Americans supposed to fight it if there aren't really that many providers to choose from?

Monopoly by definition doesn't have competition. But the point is that in a situation where it's at best a small cartel in a lot of places, and sometimes a de facto monopoly depending on which possible service is realistic for your use case, the free market argument starts to rather fall apart.

Anybody that is against net-neutrality is sucking big corporate Jewish cocks. It is as simple as that guys.

>being this retarded about what a monopoly is

wow just go back to your common core faggot site

Nonsense. There will always be potential competition. All it takes is one enterprising person with an idea people like to topple a giant corporation with a stranglehold on a market.

Take this cartoon from 2008.

>idiots don't realize that the monopoly only exists in the first place because of big government

And infrastructure.

>We can fight back against corporations with our wallets.

No, actually you can't. ISPs are essentially regulated monopolies. When they post losses, the government will subsidize those losses.

Nobody should regulate the internet, period.

We don't need more gov't control of internet, we need less.

More competition in ISPs for starters.

Only unironic ancap retards and shills are against net neutrality Sup Forums would be one of the first places to go with it gone.

>boycott
So stop using the internet?
>supporting their competition
A monopoly doesn't have competition you retard.

>muh government will save us

lol as always fag

>big government creates a system where only a very low number of companies can participate in a market
>eventually companies decide to fuck us over
>the proposed solution is not abolishing government control over the market and letting the free market fix the problem but introducing more government into the equation and giving government agencies absolute power over the market
yeah because only ancaps hate big government right?

>A monopoly doesn't have competition you retard.

It will, eventually, in a free market system. Fuck off you worthless little kike.

The internet, and Sup Forums, existed long before "net neutrality", which is a "solution" to a non-existent problem.

>It will, eventually, in a free market system. Fuck off you worthless little kike.
A free market system which is set up soley on public infrastructure.

It's only a monopoly because of regulations in the first place
you're only getting fist fucked by companies because you put people that restricted the access to the market you dumb fucking kike

Good Goy

The FCC will decide if content is harmful to you or not

Its a monopoly because it sits on existing public infrastructure holy fucking shit, this is not difficult to grasp. Almost as if what it was built on was called a UTILITY POLE

Thats not what this does, the federal government already has the ability to censor the internet through shit like domain seizures, and their constant MITMing of american connections for spying.

Re: the 'muh competition' argument against net neutrality:

1. ISPs impose low data caps
2. YouTube pays ISPs to exclude their content from caps
3. Now no new challenger (Vimeo, etc) can compete with YouTube and they have a monopoly

Rinse, repeat.

Just consider how high the churn rate is on net companies: if this was 10 years ago you'd have been locked into MySpace, Google Video and ICQ or whatever.

>sits on existing public infrastructure
and that is a problem as well one that would be solved by the free market if only the government would allow it
you're proposing a government solution to solve a problem that was created by the government itself

>giving control of the internet to the agency that fines all media on the airwaves for saying words it decided aren't allow is perfectly risk free
yeah no

Hillary was already suggesting sites like Breitbart have no right to exist. Don't be so naive to believe that the government doesn't exploit every power given to it in order to control our lives more and more.

How the fuck are you going to run the lines or set up the antenna mesh or chuck a satellite into space or whatever?

Sure you could do clever small-scale things like packet overs shortwave or promoting ad hoc mesh wifi in places were there's enough of it, provide easy high power repeaters to put on the roof, etc. I'm all for innovation, but, like the power grid, there's a serious mass infrastructure problem for the bulk of the use.

Soros wants it. Kikebook wants it. Jewgle wants it. Reddit wants it. They've always cared about the little goy.

your argument almost makes sense except it's those huge companies fighting for "Net Neutrality"

My point is there is a fucking reason citys and towns have only 1 water company, it makes absolutely no sense to dig multiple fucking water lines to houses, especially since space is at a premium.

I would like to point out to you then, that this is not a law change thats being passed in congress, but as a change to how the FCC classifies service providers. What this means is that their is no expansion of power happening. It quite literally is already in the FCC's jurisdiction.

Now if only companies were allowed to use their own infrastructure instead of the government one

You're a fucking retard if you think the Gubmint gives two fucking shits about protecting freedom.

Has anyone else noticed how shitty ISP'S have gotten since 2015? I never had a data cap and speeds were awesome before. Now I'm throttled to dial up speeds (actually much slower during the day) and have a 150 gig limit (which I go over double each month). My bill with overages is $230 a month for DSL

>there is a fucking reason citys and towns have only 1 water company
Yes, government imposed monopolies

You know it costs tens of millions to get into fiber infrastructure, right?

That's the reason you don't, and won't, have competition in the field.

That's what I'm saying mate. How are you going to run the lines? Or how else are you going to get it to physical buildings?

good goy

Uhhhhh just pay no attention to that, goyim, we know what's best for you! We're /yourguys/ now!

Well, from YouTube's perspective they're doing just fine without having to pay off ISPs: why would they want to start?

It comes down to what level of competition is more important: the maybe 2 choices you have locally between ISPs, or the 4739373893738383 choices you have in 373763 industries of companies that provide services over the internet?

Not one person shown I identify with and I consider them to have no credibility. John Oliver? Bernie fucking sanders? AYSM?

>That's the reason you don't
No, the reason is IT IS ILLEGAL TO. That's what a government enforced monopoly is.
They could make their own retard

Yes, and I'm going to pay to have them bank up the sidewalk, shut off my water, reroute my water line, probably have to get the whole street to cough up the money for Water Company B to run a water main down the street, pay to get the sidewalk and maybe the road fixed back up.

Right.

It took literally decades for the street where I grew up to get CATV even though it was available down the main road the whole time.

>It quite literally is already in the FCC's jurisdiction.
How does that mean they won't use their jurisdiction to incorporate the same powers they have on the internet as they do on the radio/television? There is no mandate stopping them from doing so, so this jurisdiction needs to be taken away. It may not be "written" that way, but it does not eliminate the threat.

My point is it is not a worthwhile risk when we already have a risk free solution to the problem of ISP exploitation: breaking up the monopolies and ensuring local governments cannot play their kickback games with the monoplies, etc. The entire industry needs to be broken up and new companies able to come in and provide a censor free cheap internet. That's it. No FCC unchecked beurocracy needed.

Liberals dislike Israel, we should support Israel too...


Fucking retards, this is why Americans in this board end up denying evolution, think that flat earth is a thing, and suck Jewish dick.

They could make their own and put it wear? Snake it through the customers' back yards? Just go house to house and form a kool routing grid that way?

>Net Neutrality is defending the right of ISPs to have a firm control over the regions they negotiate with each other, firmly blocking out independent competition all while using taxpayer funded infrastructure.
A few ISPs divide up each area of the country to completely control and price-fix. You're a retard. Fuck you.

why would retard americans be against this? when most of you only got 2 major corporation ISPs to choose from?

Jesus fucking Christ, at that rate it's worth it to emigrate to Korea or something.

Except you just said that not having net neutrality would ensure they would NEVER have to worry about competition. And they're fighting to keep the internet (((free)))?
Holy shit Jews fucking Rock am I right?

There are huge companies on both sides. The Jew isps that will profit from this are the ones who want it repealed.

>why insert yourself into a discussion about an american problem you know nothing about?

>net neutrality has been around for less than five years.

>It took literally decades for the street where I grew up to get CATV even though it was available down the main road the whole time.
Now imagine in a small government road you could have contacted the company and proposed a deal where you would pay upfront for the infrastructure and have it discount on your service every month

see
Because there is one ISP they can charge whatever they want and it doesn't fucking matter how much pipe Netflix gets. THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE SIZE OF THE PIPES. THAT IS A FUCKING LIE.

dude we voted for bush twice, and now for Trump. are you really surprised?

That's what was done yearly until enough people finally decided they wanted to pitch in for it.

Lived on a small private road for a while. The water main needed replaced. We figured might as well get the damn thing repaved already, too. That was a bitch, but the need for a new water main meant we pretty much had to do it and do it soon.

see the post above yours
that argument doesn't make any sense because it is literally huge companies saying they prefer to have competition instead of having 100% control over the internet forever

>taxpayer funded infrastructure.
That's why the FCC wants it. Just another public utility they control and tax. Public utility means google and facebook get out of investing in infrastructure because the public will pay for it. It's a convoluted mess. Enjoy.

Somewhat similar to my grandparents. I don't think they had an opportunity for collective bargaining (yay cartels) but they didn't bother running broadband out there until they had enough prospective customers to expect a decent ROI.

Where my brother lives out in the middle of nowhere, they're getting closer to making a deal with one of the smaller local ISPs for building the infrastructure to their small town. But that's been going on for years and probably won't get there for years, especially now that they're getting 4G service and that's enough for minor use despite the dodgy lag and bandwidth caps.

That's a thing when someone eg wants fibre laid to their house. It costs a metric fortune, and you're stuck with that provider and whatever policies they cook up down the lines.

Of course mods are faggots.

Use adblock.

Without NN board member Schlomo Shekelberg at major ISP x casually pushes through a motion to stop giving all of their customers access to far right sites. His cousin, Murray Goldstein, who's a higher up at major ISP y does the same thing as Mr. Shekelberg and there wasn't even an explicit agreement between ISPs x and y. Similar actions follow at major ISPs z, o giving customers the only option of switching to some shitty DSL municipal service provider (assuming the small fries don't follow along with the major ISP's actions out of uniformity). Since far righters are such a minority they'll hardly make a dent in the (((ISP)))'s shekel intake.

What you're referring to is trust busting and i would literally cream my fucking pants in front of a live studio audience if our government, or president was ballsy enough to actually do so.

>so this jurisdiction needs to be taken away.
I agree, but you seem to be under the impression this anti/pro NN debate is between people supporting a freemarket approach and people supporting a big gov't approach. It is not. It is literally :

Should these government backed monopolies be legally allowed to operate in a manner which extorts the customers and businesses on the internet.
People for net neutrality say they shouldn't be allowed to money with customers and businesses.
People anti- net neutrality are A- OK with squeezing customers and businesses.

You're bringing up salient points about the existance of government monopolies. But thats not what the debate is about.