Ideal Situation without net neutrality:

Ideal Situation without net neutrality:

New company starts selling internet for cheaper with access to more/better movies and faster internet to your house for cheaper with new invention. Netflix and Comcast go bankrupt because they have no customers.

Ideal Situation with net neutrality:

Comcast lobbies government to only allow their websites on the "open internet" because other sites are "transphobic/racist" or some shit through the new government agency created to enforce open internet. Noone can create new internet because all the laws are centered around the current protocols and comcast owns the patents on ipv4 or whatever. New protocols/creations are quickly deemed illegal by new agency.

See what FCC did to TV/Radio or what the ATF did to firearms. Theres no way to enforce the open internet without the creation of one of these either. You don't know if there will be something that does everything a computer or the internet does but better will come out tomorrow.

Other urls found in this thread:

fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom
strawpoll.me/13420194/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

But don't you have local monopolies that don't allow new companies to compete in these areas?

Then get rid of the monopolies, people are freaking out about the wrong issue

>people are freaking out about the wrong issue

totally agreed

You can't argue that the free market will fix it when you don't have a foundation for it.
Before you kill off net neutrality the monopolies must be broken up or those monopolies will only abuse their power for more gibs.

Go gas yourself, it's your fucking fault America does shady jewish shit

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.

The free market would fix it if there was a free market. Net-neutrality is stupid in any scenario though.

Not if we made a law banning the government from regulating it ;^). Honestly the first amendment should be changed to freedom of information.

I am all for a free market.
Ok how would you currently stop ISPs from abusing their power when you can't vote with your wallet?

but you can vote with your wallet because this isn't a fucking corporate zionist oligarchy like your shithole you've been so indoctrinated into.

Let's say I live in an area that is a local monopoly. How do I vote with my wallet? Stop using internet as a whole? Move out? Kill myself?
Please.

No you get rid of the retarded fucking laws causing the monopoly not create new ones to stop people from fucking you over even more and will just cause even more trouble down the road.

The laws you would need to enforce net-neutrality are the same kind of laws that cause the current ISP situation in the fucking first place.

Then fucking do it.
Currently you have these monopolies which lobby huge amounts of money to remain monopolies.
I really want you break up those monopolies, but I'm not seeing it happening.

If so I'm wrong and you're right.

with Net Neutrality => government can censor the internet. Your internet or my internet is the same.

without Net Neutrality => you can change ISP to change the kind of ban

>change the kind of ban
until someone makes an ISP that doesn't have any or a product better than the current internet. You guys assume the internet will stay the exact way it is right now forever with this and that's pretty damn ignorant.

with Net Neutrality => government can censor the internet. Your internet or my internet is the same.

How? how does a law preventing ISPs from censoring the internet grant the government new powers to censor the internet? WTF are you talking about? I've already asked like twenty libertardians here and not one of them can explain this. The conversation always just stops or they just repeat this like a mantra. EVERY TIME. No explanation.

> without Net Neutrality => you can change ISP to change the kind of ban

And the government still has the same powers to censor the internet as it does today and as it would have with net neutrality and without it. The only difference is that now you also have public sector censoring the internet.

So WTF?

Because there is no way to enforce net neutrality without government intervention. There's nothing stopping ISP's from doing that shit right now but noone does because they would lose customers and there would be riots int he streets.

Making your own ISP isn't easy in the current situation. Look up how the internet works. You gotta communicate with tier 3 networks. Whitch Jews own.

Even before Obamas order the internet was pretty much the same now in functionality. Killing regulation will lower internet cost by charging the streaming websites instead of the user. It also opens up new internet plans and bundles. Fuck obamas subsidized socialism.

Sucks to suck kid

This

Oh yeah some random dude is just going to open a ISP company out of nowhere and its going to work incredibly reliably with incredible speed and quality. Sounds like a fairy tale rather than an actual situation.

In either way you have the monopoly problem, but i feel like the monopoly problem is lesser when you dont have to pay for something that you used to own 2 days ago.

And even if the monopoly problem were to be fixed net neutrality would still be a better option because as ive said above, if starting an ISP company was that easy, wed all be doing it.

> Because there is no way to enforce net neutrality without government intervention.

That's true but "government forcing about ten gigantic corporations to not censor" does not equal "government controlling the internet". You do understand this don't you?

> There's nothing stopping ISP's from doing that shit right now but noone does

Well, they probably shouldn't. People should be able to access the internet freely. Why on earth would you or anyone else feel the need to protect like ten corporations from some law that would just be a minor inconvenience to them but would ensure uncensored internet for hundreds of millions? Doesn't make any sense to me.

> because they would lose customers and there would be riots int he streets.

Twitter, facebook and google censor shit constantly and nobody is rioting. I think libertarians are projecting their idealism into the world and not using empirical data to proceed here. People in general are perfectly comfortable with censorship. If the private sector did this they would be fine, as long as they can read Washington Post, Salon and watch Netflix.

They could probably create a 'free ISP' funded by some globalists that would only allow people to access specific 'approved' websites and censor everything else. Great way to create epic zombie population.

Google was manipulating search results for awhile now and nobody did shit besides post a few pictures.

Exactly. I don't get this libertarian idealism. They think creating an ISP is like opening a lemonade stand.

Just trust me man, personal nukes, how can that sound bad?
Im just kidding however. Yes every form of left leaning anything is more and more deluded the more left it goes. Theyre under the impression that humans are just ready to go out and fight for justice. If that was the case none of us would be here.

...

...

...

...

...

...

Stop shilling.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with government censoring anything, it's a parallel issue.

Net neutrality says: don't touch bandwidth usage, just provide a means of transfer.
If we're talking about government censorship then we are conflating net neutrality with something else, literally strawmanning, as it has nothing to do with net neutrality.

i dont care either way these companies do have monopolies and none of this shit will ever change if i even say anything or call anyone so whatever

>a wrong goes unpunished
>see? we should get more wrongs go unpunished, what's the issue?
neck yourself

...

...

...

...

>thirsty

qt

You are an imbecile that cannot read or comprehend what hes reading but seeing as blacks average IQ is much lower ill try to explain.

Shitlibs are in this imaginary world where every human is ready to go out protest, be heard, start some shit the second something unjust is happening and thats not the case at all. Even things they disagree with they wont organise and go out on their own. It has to be a protest organised either by a group that has existed for a while or your friend soros has to fund it, no other option. People simply leaving their house cause they agree, and theyve never met before, that doesnt happen.

...

>i'll just leave this here
fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom
The FCC has proposed to return the U.S. to the bipartisan, light-touch regulatory framework under which a free and open Internet flourished for almost 20 years. The FCC's May 2017 proposal to roll back the prior Administration's heavy-handed Internet regulation strives to advance the FCC's critical work to promote broadband deployment in rural America and infrastructure investment throughout the nation, to brighten the future of innovation both within networks and at their edge, and to close the digital divide.

From passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 until 2015, the Internet underwent rapid, and unprecedented, growth. Internet service providers (ISPs) invested approximately $1.5 trillion in building networks, and American consumers enthusiastically responded. The Internet became an ever-increasing part of the American economy, offering new and innovative changes in how we work, learn, and play, receive health care, create and enjoy entertainment, and communicate with one another. During that time, there was bipartisan agreement that the Internet should be free of burdensome regulation so that it could continue to flourish.

of course, they're helping the isp monopolies stay right where they are by supporting this "net neutrality" bullshit. we're fucked. everybody is stupid.

...

>Internet service providers (ISPs) invested approximately $1.5 trillion
of your tax money, not their own. this is a lie. stupid spreading it, you fucking traitor.

Is this the guy who said Marisa is the best Touhou?

>Ideal Situation without net neutrality:
>
>New company starts selling internet for cheaper with access to more/better movies and faster internet to your house for cheaper with new invention. Netflix and Comcast go bankrupt because they have no customers.

How the fuck will they get us the connection young senpai?

Comcast owns the Cable lines and att owns the phone's, although the DSL is pro competition I can still only get 1.5 mb down with tech running to my house regardless which company I use.

You could argue Cellular but then we have muh ping and lag issues.

Cable doesn't have to share there line's with anyone and ATt is is horrendous at building out there higher speed uverse. I've been on cable internet since 98 and still haven't lived where I can get DSL faster than 1.5mb down. My current Comcast service is serving me with 180mb down and 25 up.

I'll keep my net neutrality and my 180 down but I still dream of Google coming to my town.

...

Yeah but what's your point? libshits are shit, good, any other fantastic retort, you dumb junglekike?

Everyone be aware that the anti net neutrality spam is a massive shill attack

...

>
>Everyone be aware that the anti net neutrality spam is a massive shill attack

I'd sure as fuck hope so.

...

you can dispute the number, but the point is that if ISPs are going to be treated as utilities then why not treat websites like google the same? you do know google is funded by and got its startup money from taxes right?

>ISPs being allowed to snoop my packets and perform mitm attacks is okay because drumpfs said so

rare

Because it is a very liberal idea to think that people will just fix everything by themselves without the government

_______

Ideal Situation without net neutrality:

Regional duopoloy/monopoly ISPs have a new rent to exploit.

Ideal Situation with net neutrality:

Things go on as exactly as they have.

All that is at stake here is the creation of yet another rent.

>bbc stallman
kekek

basically the options are let the normies have the internet and just turn the shit off. or fight for net neutrality. well we already did fight for net neutrality we won and this pompous faggot is going against the will of a nation. nobody wants net neutrality gone but trump and his media cronies. You have to remember he is a tv personality after all. this is one thing we need to fight trump tooth and nail on.

Holy shit you guys are fucking speds lmao

Can't disagree.
It seems I did not read properly in the first place, I apologize, buddy.

i want net neutrality gone

daily reminder that net neutrality isn't neutral

CAP DATA USAGE OR RATE. NOT CONTENT.

You are literally retarded if you oppose this

then you are trump or one of his cronies or a redditor that thinks getting Sup Forums banned is worth losing what makes the internet good. user created content.

if you want to stop the nsa get rid of the patriot act. simple as that.

you're confused. 'net neutrality' is just another leftist legalese word. it means 'free bandwidth for streaming video companies.' ISPs aren't incentivized to throttle sites like Sup Forums, who use bandwidth efficiently. they're more likely to throttle sites like youtube and netflix just like they do torrent users. all the new FCC director wants to do is deregulate the interwebz. the market can handle it far better than uncle sam.

this

Normies want net neutrality genius. They want free streaming at their wifi hotspots coffee shops. They want people who pay for internet to subsidize the bandwidth for them not the internet streaming companies.
4 chan wont be banned. Network neutrality is a totally different matter. God theres so many idiots so easily brainwashed by these streaming and social media giants.

>
die net neutrality die

>brainwashed
ikr. most of them mean well. they just need more info. it's confusing.

>Normies want net neutrality genius.

Normies don't know crap about shit, first and foremost.
Second, you are a shill as only a shill would cuck for more cohenberg control
Third, net neutrality is the internet as it is, If you were patrician of mind you'd understand.
Fourth, gas yourself you useful idiot

...

it does not, netflix has to pay out the ass for the bandwidth they use. us as a consumer pay for our DL bandwidth its why we only get 10 percent upload speed. this in its self should raise red flags for you. we already only get 10% upload speeds, it indicates that they do want a DL only type of system.

...

...

this guy supports net neutrality you fucking goober.

So do I

>Then get rid of the monopolies
This is 100% the problem. Laws should not be made in this situation when "Competition" consists of 2-3 super conglomerates offering the same average services.

Id imagine it is next to impossible to get into this market at this point, and I wonder if they are just stalling hoping for wireless in the future......

i stand corrected. it means free bandwidth for netflix consumers

>we
>they
>collectivist
when was the last time you tried negotiating an equal ul/dl ratio with your ISP? technically, it doesn't make any difference for them. again. let the market decide, not the government.

That first one is a complete fabrication, internet backbone lines cost billions and the existing companies totally own them. You aren't going to have a start up lay a new trans pacific line.

without net Neutrality, even in an ideal situation, which is fucking rare as fuck, you are going to go through years of shit.

Net neutrality is going to fuck us. There's no reason that the left would be shilling this hard for it if it was beneficial.

Lets see if we can get more votes. Right now Sup Forums is strongly pro-Net Neutrality

strawpoll.me/13420194/

...

an analogy:
>john flies from boston to nyc 2x/week
>jane flies from nyc to la 2x/week
WE NEED AIRFARE NEUTRALITY. ALL FLIGHTS SHOULD COST THE SAME!! REEEEEE!!!!

I know how to make is easy. Always do opposite of what Obama says
You are right they only know streaming services are cool and we should totally support them guyz "le smiley face" No control stays up either way but the consumer will save money if we appeal obamas open internet order. And thirdly no the internet was fine before 2015 and it will be after this.

>when was the last time you tried negotiating an equal ul/dl
I just did a "speed check" because I have had my net for a long time, and I remember fighting about upload speeds at the time......I was also drinking at the time lol..

Whats it mean:
Download: 82 Mbps
Upload: 93 Mbps

Shill words and a history lesson that has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Do you fuckers even know what net neutrality is? You are just spitting lies

I think the point is not to micromanage so much, there are so many things in life we split up payments for and shit, is it really a problem to have just an internet fee?

pretty much

it means you have a uganda tier isp

not an argument

Why doesn't McDonald's charge 100$ for a McChicken?

Why has it always been fairly simple to have phone companies that all use the same phone cables, allowing you to always have multiple options no matter where you live, but with cable internet, every individual provider needs to dig around and install cabling to each and every house that it wants to offer its own special cable options to independently?

Yes because everybody has a choice that isn't Comcast or TWC. I suppose you could use Hughesnet if you hate yourself and want to relive the glory days of dial up with a ping of 10 seconds.