>cable monopoly forms
>BTFO by streaming
>cell phone monopoly forms
>BTFO by t-mobile
>internet monopoly forms
>guys we need the government to have total control over the internet to stop it even though their regulation makes start up costs impossible for the average small business owner
Other urls found in this thread:
Won't happen, ever. Now quit jacking yourself off to horrible shit happening you Defeatist dumbshit.
there is already no way for a small new ISP to startup in areas already serviced by one of the big ISPs
Fuck off reddit shill. If there was actual competition we wouldn't need net neutrality. The fact is, if you try to start an ISP in your home town you will be sued into bankruptcy by the big ISP's until you just give up.
NO TO NET NEUTRALITY
YES TO LAST-MILE LEASING
>NO TO NET NEUTRALITY
>YES TO LAST-MILE LEASING
solve the problem through harnessing free markets by reducing costs to start an ISP instead of enshrining existing ISP monopolies and pretending cosmetic regulations won't be later easily subverted, all the while distracting from allowing FCC to censor and control internet like they do TV
I'll bet you don't know why
Then why not solve the real problem, fool
Absolutely this.
OP doesn't see that we're cucking for the FCC for all the wrong reasons. Deregulation, as it is currently being proposed, will only serve plutocrats and will be a workaround that pesky constitution (something that the Federal Communications Commission cannot do). You need to look at this through nightmarevision-goggles and consider the worst possible scenario. This is not pro-free market.
What we need is more thorough deregulation that crushes the current monopolistic ISP market and we need concurrent regulation that sets a number of rules to ensure they can't simply ignore constitutional rights.
Can we just gas all of reddit already? Purge the magapede retards.
Because of the government which it should get out of the way for that. But thats not what will happen. isps get their monopoly and no limits either.
If these repealed their monopolies too then it would be alot better
ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS NET NEUTRALITY IS A JEW SHILL
youtube.com
Holy fucking shit, this video drops hard fucking redpills.
Net Neutrality is jewish in nature and brainwashes our children.
Enjoy being docile human beings for the rest of your life.
Get fucked niggers
Net Neutrality is inherintly anti-fascist. We need digital fascism to prevent the populace being brainwashed by useless information.
You're the ones LARPing as a """"Fascist"""" and then when someone takes your stupid little internet away you cry like a big stupid baby. Get fucked nigger
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Telcom Companies setting up different Internet Deals. Afterall it is annarcho capitalistic.
Go back to plebbit. niggers
>a small business owner can create on his own a global communications network that relies on satellites and underwater optical fiber cables that cross the oceans
Isn't that what regulation in a capitalist society is supposed to do?
Well that and occasionally force us in a direction that the society wants to go, like incentivizing space technology because we decided to go to space as a people.
This really proves reddit really can fuck up everything and just to think they had a chance, they blew it. Sad!
You're working with the assumption it will work the way you intended it to be used. Give it to someone else's who doesn't share you're ideals and suddenly I'll find your hypocrisy.
I'm on my phone, otherwise I'd make an image illustrating my point, but think of the economy in a capitalistic system as a pitcher of water. With no regulation at all, if you pour it on the floor it will just spill everywhere and make a mess. Depending on the height you pour it from or which way the wind is blowing, that water is just going to go where it's going to go. Regulations act like a funnel for that water. It takes all the same random and violent forces of the free market and forces them into a preferred direction.
>>cable monopoly forms
>>BTFO by streaming
>>cell phone monopoly forms
>>BTFO by t-mobile
>>internet monopoly forms
>>guys we need the government to have total control over the internet to stop it even though their regulation makes start up costs impossible for the average small business owner
you literally have no idea what you're talking about. Sorry.
Go fuck yourself. When you are able to set up your very own local ISP and do business, that will be the day when I will agree 100% with you. Just crushing NN accomplishes NOTHING.
You're a dimwit if you don't see this Jewry as the half-measure that it is.
fuck off suburban retard
Comcast doesnt give a shit about customers these days because they have a monopoly in the ISP industry, along with u-verse ATT.
I canceled my comcast recently and gave them a big fuck you by switching to unlimited wireless hotspot via. t-mobile. $70/month. I used to pay 30-35/month for phone and ~35-50 for internet. Now I pay less because this is how freemarket is supposed to work. This is why I do not support NN
I've been thinking about that but the fine print said they might nag you if you were in the top 5% of bandwidth users -- currently about 30gb / month.
How much do you use?
Setting up ISP is a separate issue. If you want to be an activist against regional ISP monopoly, than go be an activist when it comes to that issue. Progress when it comes to removing Net Neutrality shouldn't be hindered because people are too lazy or incompetent to strike down regional ISP monopoly.
using 70gb-100gb a month
I got some throttling here and then but nothing unbearable.
lowest throttiling speed I experienced was around 2mbps.
>Setting up ISP is a separate issue.
It absolutely is not. To claim otherwise is disingenuous. Current government regulations are precisely what foments the monopolistic practices of ISPs, if you ever attempt to establish a competing business you will be priced out of the market. So, if the argument against Net Neutrality is a pro-free market one, you cannot disregard the fact that you will never be able to set up a local ISP as "a separate issue". What a nonsense thing to propose...
Good. So we're forcing the issue. When ISPs overreach, people will finally act rather than accepting just-bad-enough service.
It seems I didn't get to this thread yet.
Gonna start off by showing how much the anti-net neutrality shills are spamming the board right now.
...
...
...
...
...
...
Here's the story:
>Corporations don't want competition, so they use the government to have a monopoly.
>Lack of competition causes rising prices and shit internet
>"WE NEED MORE GOVERNMENT TO STOP THIS!"
>Advocate for more government, when it's government causing these problems in the first place
You see the fail here?
We need to get government out of the way, and bring in competition and the free market.
It's true, anyone that cheerleads for NN is a plebbit faggot that thinks Rick and Morty is the funniest show ever and wants to punch Nazis, but is afraid to hurt their wrist.
>labeling the internet a utility like water and electricity is absolute government control
fuck off kike
Net Neutrality has NOTHING
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
To do with the market monopolies that the ISP's THEMSELVES have created.
Net neutrality only ensures the ISP's cannot censor the internet and create a locked down system similar to cable television with it's fraud news networks.
I just commented something similar on Phillip de Franco's net neutrality video.
You don't understand faggot.
The reason why ISPs can censor the internet is because they have a monopoly.
Look, if we had more corporations and more choices, we could have companies that don't censor at all, have better services, at lower prices.
This is ALL caused by lack of competition.
And government is the problem, not the solution.
It does exactly what you say until it doesn't.
>social security can not be tapped for general funds.
>the EPA only exists to stop deforestation and ensure safe drinking water.
>if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
Every big company that can afford lobbyists is in favor of net neutrality and it's not because they desire competition.
hows your water and electricity doing? any black or brown outs? do you live in Flint? Can you light your water on fire?
>The reason why ISPs can censor the internet is because they have a monopoly.
Look, you're a reasonable sort, and I understand this position, I don't even necessarily disagree with it.
But I 10000% percent disagree with doing ANYTHING to net neutrality BEFORE we've btfo these monopolies and introduced market competition.
Again, I don't disagree with you directly on this, I just don't want us to fuck ourselves over by removing the only leash these fucksticks have and then we're left high and dry WITH the monopolies AND the censorship.
Break the monopolies FIRST
THEN talk about repealing net neutrality
Help me understand what your point is.
I think you're dropping the "mono" off your "poly." See, the word itself infers one company with the vast majority of control.
>Break Monopolies first
>Then talk about net neutrality
Exactly. Where do we disagree?
It's a bad point. He's saying the government fucks up everything it touches.
Fuck google, fuck amazon and netflix, and FUCK you. Go suck a nigger dick.
There is no plural form of the word monopoly when discussing a single market sector.
>Every big company that can afford lobbyists is in favor of net neutrality and it's not because they desire competition.
Every big company except ones that compete with Netflix and other streaming sites ie cable companies. Which is why this became an issue in the first place leading to the 2015 decision and why we should be pro nn. This would have no impact on monopolies because exclusivity agreements exist.
>majority of people have only 1 choice of ISP
>the rest have a choice between the same 3
>no chance of competition because the enormous cost of infrastructure
this isn't a pizza parlor, it's impossible for a small business to BTFO the current cable plutocracy. even Google having a rough time entering the market should tell you something.
I read 'razor thin bandwidth margins' and stopped.
>total control
uhhh sure, whatever you say... either way back to teh donald with ya
Fuck CNN, Fuck Time Warner, Fuck MSNBC, and Fuck Comcast
I may not like google/youtube/etc but I sure as fuck can tell the greater evil from the lesser.
google et al's interests align with my own in this case, because without a free and open internet, they can't make money off site indexing and searching. I may not like them, but we BOTH want a free and open internet.
How many corporate dicks do you have to suck off every day?
It's amazing that the ISP's have people thinking they're running on the redline.
They're actually making so much money hand over fist right now it's ridiculous.
Actual decent market conditions would see $10 for unlimited bandwidth and 30mbps up/down speeds, and that'd be the bare minimum basic service.
AnCap is a natural enemy of NatSoc you fucking tard.
Under the current regulatory system, destroying NN does nothing but strengthen existing monopolies. New competitors cannot enter the market because of regulations, NN is the only protection consumers have to prevent these enshrined monopolies from exploiting them. Get rid of the other regulations, THEN get rid of NN.
We'll send Bernie to Canada so you can vote for him. I was replying to your comment "we must break up the monopolies," which is great if THEY were actually considered A monopoly. Otherwords, good fucking luck. It can't be done.
Reminder that every company in favor of NN has at one point or another has been BTFO by the FTC for shitting on privacy laws
When there is only one cable service provider in 98% of the country, each has a monopoly in their respective geographic area.
That's not true, though. Google entered the ISP game before net neutrality was a thing and the only reason the monopolies exist in America is because the FCC intervened with telephone companies back in the day. All of this was a problem made by FDR, somewhat alleviated by Reagan and then turned nuclear thanks to Bill Clinton.
Net neutrality is essentially socialism for Internet access. All it does is cause the ISPs and the FCC to become fuck buddies, and then the whole business becomes corrupt; it doesn't help the consumers at all. If communism tells us anything, it'll only make things worse.
You have to be a government or Netflix shill to support net neutrality. Imagine if a McDonald's was causing all this traffic on this street and so McDonald's forced the government to pay for and build their own special road on the side. Wouldn't that be fucking stupid? Well that's what net neutrality is, at best, and it's Marxism at worse.
fucking leaf
if corporations gain too much power and start exploiting their consumer base, normies aren't just gonna take that shit and will end up boycotting them. ISP technology and ways of providing internet service will be replaced by something better that doesn't require landline wires, IF THERE IS MARKET PRESSURE. There is literally no market pressure to make better competing technologies right now. With NN, market pressure continues to be non-existent due to resources being funneled to bureaucratic bullshit.
>posting in a shareblue divide and conquer thread
Character assassination is when you try to make a person irrelevant because you destroyed the perception of their personality. You try to make it so nobody likes them anymore, so nobody listens to them anymore. You do it when you see that person as a threat.
You can spot it when there's clear spam about a certain person, and asking who benefits from that spam. e.g. Sup Forums doesn't benefit from abandoning Lauren Southern. She is starting thousands of normies down the redpill path.
Shareblue/antifa does benefit. This is a shareblue character assassination attempt, using stuff they think will get Sup Forums to hate her. Lying about her being jewish is one way. Calling her a slut/racemixer is another. Calling her a coward or weakling is another. etc. etc.
It's to shareblue's benefit if every alt-light and alt-right personality gets entirely discredited so Sup Forums no longer has any big voices on their side, and normies stop getting redpilled, which is why they do it.
You cunts are here to try to neutralize Sup Forums and the other places you brigade before the 2018 and 2020 elections with your retarded divide and conquer tactics.
All that means is that nationalism is going mainstream, something that should be encouraged at all levels, and it also means you commie pieces of shit are losing bigger than shit.
Die in a fire.
Gigabit fiber 300 bucks a month sell wireless set up as adhoc. Sell 20 Meg's down for 30 bucks a month. Each fiber line supports 50people at 20mbs.
Would be amazing for apartment building
>ant-net neutrality shills
We call them Sup Forumsacks, leaf.
Two wrongs don't make a right. NN is in the interest of consumers, that it also helps evil corporations is beside the point. The other option is scrapping it, harming consumers while enriching evil corporations- do you want a positive and a negative, or two negatives?
Until your ISP bans the practice.
how does NN benefit evil corporations?
how is labeling the internet a utility bad?
most of the time is does but not here
How does everyone having the same Internet speed help consumers? It doesn't, but I'd love to hear your shill response.
Which is something they can do if the FCC is on their side. Which they are with net neutrality.
answer me you piece of shit fucking Mike99
Yeah it's pretty fucked to make your own content cheaper/faster/more available. I used to work in a brewery and we ran specials on our beers during happy hour. Outside beers cost the customers more. It's the same principle.
The problem is the bullshit a startup ISP has to deal with to get their infrastructure in place. AT&T has a 3' easement on their assets (wires), sometimes more depending on the size of the fiber. They also will not allow another company to touch their asset. This is why when google comes to town they get fucked by the companies already in place. I'm a civil engineer and deal with this type of shit on a daily basis. It makes it extremely cost prohibitive and it's regulated on the local level.
youre thinking inside the box.
The technology that replaces ISP is going to be wireless. Fuck the bullshit regulation associated with wire infrastructure.
They can force content providers to pay for people to receive their services, force advertisers to pay a second time for their ads to be displayed, and force consumers to pay more to access certain kinds of content. It's a fucking Jew's wildest dream. "You have to pay to see the content that a company already paid me to use my system that already exists and was paid for by government subsidies goy. Enjoy this paid advertisement goy, it is complementary for you with your Forum package."
My area has verizon, at&t, dish network, and Comcast. Soon to have google once they're done. Also had Directv until they were bought out. I guess I just don't feel it.
Why is nobody talking about the fact that the only problem is LITERALLY that the cable companies are failing to upgrade their cables/bandwidth capacity and are basically selling more resources then they actually are able to provide. This shit is exactly why your infrastructure is going down the drain.
Oh, and how it benefits the other side to exist is that Jewgle, Goybook, and Jewtube are free to spread their propoganda far and wide without additional cost holding it back. They can monitor your movements online and then get paid for spying on you while directing brainwashing content your way based on adsense data.
Oh no... I'm way outside the box which is why I'm against NN. I think there'll be a technology similar to block chain programs that will store bits of content everywhere.
Everyone doesn't hve the same internet speed you tard. You pay for faster internet already. NN ensures that all data is treated equally once it hits the pipes. This prevents a toll road effect that will result if NN is repealed, where telecoms are free to throttle information coming from any direction, essentially turning cable companies into highwaymen looking to rob anyone they see on the roads.
>Imagine if a McDonald's was causing all this traffic on this street and so McDonald's forced the government to pay for and build their own special road on the side. Wouldn't that be fucking stupid? Well that's what net neutrality is,
That's a very backwards analogy. McDonald's wouldn't be causing the traffic, it would be the legally-entitled users of the road going to McDonald's. If NN is not followed, then a tollbooth is set up in front of the road charging the user more money based on where they are going, even though it costs them no more if I'm going to Burger King or McD's. The problem is that the road is too narrow and the owner refuses to improve it, and is also protected from anyone else building better, competing roads.
so with NN you see less ads because of the increased costs?
the jews are already doing that and nothing is stopping them. how is that related to NN?
how does that work? can you give me a quick rundown on block chain programs?
You're missing the point of my post user, either unintentionally or on purpose.
This is about trying to shift power to a branch of government that is way more lenient when it comes fines and pro-censorship. It's a 2-for-1 deal. If you were the head of an ISP or a large web company you'd be retarded not to support NN, especially when the FTC is fining you left and right for selling your customers' info to ad companies amongst other things. Let the FTC do it's job, because they're one of the few branches of government that actually does
My area has Cox, as well as Fronteir, but Fronteir is literally dial-up slow DSL (256k max, often slower, I was averaging as low as 16k many werks). Cox is the only true high speed provider- you can't watch Netflix or game on Fronteir, all it's good for is basic internet use, or porn if you're realllllly patient. The state actually makes it illegal for more than one cable internet provider to exist in a given town (they promised cable providers exclusivity in exchange for infrastructure development back in the day). So we've basically got a split monopoly, with Cox owning one half of the state and Comcast owning the other.
That's not what the FCC can even do.
You'll see just as many ads, but cable companies will profit off of all of them. There will be less startups on the internet because they won't be able to afford the fees for preferential treatment. Your internet will be slower and cost more, and likely be fragmented into many packages like cable is today (want to game? $19.99 to unlock the gaming package goy. Want to watch porn? $39.99 for the adult package goy. Want to watch streaming videos? $39.99 for the streaming package goy. All of this in addition to your basic internet package price of $59.99 and all the money you pay to use all of these companies' services already. Pay up goy!)
That's not something the FCC does you retard. Cable companies used to do it all the time back in the day, you would actually get charged per computer and if you didn't register a machine they'd charge you extra fees the first two times and cut off your internet the third. You're probably too young to remember the bad old days.
>cable monopoly forms
>takes 50 years to be "btfo" by netflix
>netflix still doesn't have the most popular shows on it
wow so true
Getting rid of net neutrality before we have an alternative is stupid. You're basically saying, "let's create an exploitative monopoly that is firmly entrenched by local regulations and has a captive audience because maybe someday we'll have an alternative."
I don't know exactly how it will help with internet speed or content but it basically stores bits of info across a network of user devices. I'm imagining if you want to see a YouTube video, the data that makes up the video will be stored across other devices. Your device connects to the other devices and downloads the video. What currently makes this science fiction is limited batteries, limited storage space, and unknown security issues. We would essentially be walking around with large chunks of the internet stored on our phone or computers and those chunks are sent P2P when requested by the user.
I love this idea
thanks senpai
So if Netflix somehow moved to a blockchain program then the ISP would never know that Netflix content was being accessed because it's stored across multiple devices.
It's increasingly obvious. The use of the term "net neutrality" skyrocketed at around the same time the shilling did, but among the shills there are also people pretending (with some success) to be "one of us" gaslighting the fuck out of everything. It's pretty easy to see, they're usually quick to anger and they don't have any argument other than "fuck you lol TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP MAGA based"
That sounds fine and good, but if ISPs declare Netflix to be violating their policies by circumvention, they can cut off all access to Netflix's main servers. This is essentially what happened to many of us torrenters back in the day, we were declared term violators because of our abnormal usage patterns and banned from our ISPs. The ISP could also just ban anyone they found to be sharing large amounts of data content suspicious of being blocked data.
>start up costs impossible for the average small business owner
Small ISP startups are impossible anyway.
ISPs are networks. They get to choose which other networks to connect to.
Let's say you start up a small ISP and get your whole neighborhood connected. Guess what? If you don't play ball with the big ISPs they're not going to allow you to connect to them, meaning your consumers can't access 99% of the Internet unless you want to lay a million miles of cable yourself.
I don't think you understand how long this has been an issue in Sup Forums. We were some of the most fervent fighters for net neutrality, precisely because this is the sort of high-traffic, low-revenue site that won't be able to pay ISPs for network use should net neutrality go away.
Pretty much. That's why equal treatment of data is so important.
I typically ignore NN but saw a defranco video on it. What side does shariablue fall on? I've been against it since they started pushing it around 2013-ish. ((They)) have pushed neutrality in radio since the 1940's. It's all about controlling content and once you hand that power over to the government you're not getting it back unless TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP MAGA MAGA MAGA!
I'll just leave this here:
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
No one is paying for the fucking isp or to access different sites on the internet stop with this damn meme already. Literally Yellowstone 2.0 this week. They call it net nutrality what they mean is the government can see everything you do and all internet data is mined constantly.
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
You're some delusional mother fucker of you think past Sup Forums was for anything involving the government.