Net Neutrality is a non partisan issue. We all use the internet and if any sites are at risk it's definitely Sup Forums...

Net Neutrality is a non partisan issue. We all use the internet and if any sites are at risk it's definitely Sup Forums. The only reason why we're trying to get rid of net neutrality is because a bunch of rich Jews want to make more money. This hurts all of us here on Sup Forums Every person who sees this thread.

>Hurr but if verizon starts fucking up my internet I'll just switch to a company that doesn't do that.

There's only 6 cable companies in the US and sometimes there's only one ISP available for you, you stupid fucking niggershithead

Debate this

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Internet_access
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>current year
>still paying for cable

>Net Neutrality
>There's only 6 cable companies

What the fuck does net neutrality has to do with cable? Am I getting this wrong or something or do you consider internet provider the same service as TV?

The election was in 2016, nigger.

If we pass Net Neutrality we will not be able to make our monopoly CEO's even richer. We worship our monopolies and Oligarchs since they are just like us the little people even though we mostly do not know their names or anything about them.

If we do not defend them to our own detriment out of our complete ignorance, our friendly radio and TV hosts we hear everyday will say we are Communists or part of the lunatic left. We can't have them looking down on us or our friends that listen to them look down on us. No, can't have that.

Cable just refers to the wiring. Cable is copper wiring.

>Recently, both have seen increased competition from fiber deployments, wireless, and mobile networks

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cable_Internet_access

source on the pic?

these are those girls who have another pic circulating on here with them standing in front of a cabin in the snow

>Let's fuck over a few mega corporations because a shitload more mega corporations said so!
Get fucked. Net neutrality is just Silicon Valley protecting their monopoly on the public mind. Notice how all the progressives are spinning up paranoia about ISPs blocking liberal, commie, and other goodthink sites? Nothing like that even came close to happening before Net Neutrality.

Good, I hope it passes just to watch you pussies bitch.

you sound like you're straight from reddit

We have net neutrality now. They are talking about removing restrictions placed on ISPs that use our internet infrastructure.

>willing to get fucked by ISPs just to spite others

intelligent guy

It sort of is. NN advocates point to the need to regulate ISP behavior because there is a virtual monopoly on high speed service in many places. But this monopoly is underpinned by the cable monopoly in those places and rather than solving that problem they pick imaginary doompaul scenarios to try to preserve the regulation that enables it.

this is them too. I need to know who they are

Start killing politicians until they get the idea.

For once I agree with them on this topic. The Conservatives/Libertarians normally are able to back up their opposition to a topic with philosophy and facts. On this subject however I am not seeing that and they are behaving like the zombie left with instructions right out of the think tanks. They oppose but cannot backup their opposition. That little blurb in my first comment is the retarded behavior I am seeing from people.

The monopolies have spent 157 million lobbying, trying to convince suckers to support data discrimination (slowing down Internet speeds or blocking some content and charging a fee for fast lanes. Without net neutrality, monopolies will be able to pay for the fast lane, while regular people, small businesses, sites like Sup Forums, political activists, churches, libraries, hospitals, schools, or local governments would not.

Since I seem to understand this topic no worse than most on here, I'll chime in.

Net Neutrality has the following advantages:
Avoiding Bandwidth throttling,
Keeping the internet content from being censored by ISP's.
Protecting consumers against local internet monopolies.
Protecting smaller websites from being throttled for inability to pay.

Disadvantages:
Sets a precedent for govt to control ISP's.
Sets a precedent for govt to control internet content...allowing govt censorship instead of ISP censorship.
Does not account for the significantly higher--and everyday increasing--bandwidth needs of sites like YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu, as well as services like Pandora and Spotify, forcing ISP's to pay for infrastructure without any commensurate rise in revenue.

All the disadvantages are legitimate concerns, which do lend support to negatives. If it weren't for the very real local monopolies which exist today in the ISP sector, I'd be against this. The only reason this has any traction at all is because of local monopolies.
As such, in light of the current situation, I am forced to give my support to net neutrality. The only other option would be to break up the monopolies and force actual competition in the sector.

Libertarians seem to be caught up in a bind here. Do they break up the monopolies, or do they regulate the monopolies? They are between a rock and a hard place here. But the hard place is paying them, and the rock is paying their opponents, so they vote hard place.

There's something in the Nordic water

Alo i can say is that no other business in the united states operates under this thing called "neutrality"

Why id the internet getting an exception exactly?

Why is it that the internet providers shouod NOT be allowed to control and sell their shitty product whichever way they choose. Somebody please answer me this.

We are talking about america, correct?

Ok. So how would you feel if you opened a business and a bunch of people boycotted and you and DEMANDED you sell your product a certain way without exception? Tell me how this is ok in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Yeah, tell me how corrupt the big isps are. Tell me how they run a monopoly. Tell me how they will put your favorite anime streaming site Behind a paywall. Its all a bunch of shitty excuses you guys make up to justify your stupid ass position.

You're wrong. Its wrong. You may not like it but its fair. No business in the united states should have a "neutrality" clause that prevents the owners from doing what they wish with their fucking product.

I don't like it. I want nothing more then to keep it as is. I dont want to be nickled and diked but these greedy faggots who WILL no doubt abuse this and no new isp is going to magically spring up because that would cost billions to even do and years of red tape along with construction and laying down the poles and wires.

I dont support this shit but I understand that my feelings are selfish. I can make all the excuses you all are making to justify the stance and i have before, for years. But to be honest, putting an end to net neutrality is the most american thing that could happen.

NN is an SJW issue. If you think "equality" needs to be enforced by the government by limiting freedom, you're an SJW. If you think this counts as "neutrality" you're mentally handicapped.

girl on left dates shitskin

>implying you will be able to load posts on pol

She looks like a shitskin her selves so who cares. What about her royal hotness that's number two from the left? Is she available and is there nudes?

I'd say because of the infrastructure problem there is no reasonable way to break up the monopolies and incentivize competition between more providers. And as long as infrastructure is needed to provide these services it's reasonable that there are the statewide regulations that currently exist which explain how you're supposed to lay lines down, how far you can dig, the extents of what you can do with your equipment, etc.

So there's a small number of ways to deal with this issue:
a) Have the state buy the infrastructure from the Telecom's and lease it out to providers at market rates (counter point, lobbyism will artificially raise what the government considers "market rates")
b) Beef up anti-trust laws as it pertains solely to Telecommunications and proceed to shatter the current telecoms (counterpoint - likely a very temporary solution which would eventually be ignored the way it is today anyway)
c) Go all in and classify Internet as a utility (counterpoint - this has the absolute highest risk of governmental abuse. classifying internet as a utility has many benefits as per price controlling and actual advancement compared to the stagnation of technology currently, but with the Left crazier than ever we cannot trust the government with this kind of power)
d) Cut regulations either deeply or nearly entirely (counterpoint - I'd love to suggest this, but Telecoms are so powerful currently that even without regulations to cockblock the smaller guys they have every ability to fuck over the competition. The pathetic thing is that certain state regulation already is the only thing pressuring Comcast and AT&T to actually improve *anything* about their dismal service.)
e) Leave things as they are (counterpoint - Given the other solutions this seems more reasonable than you'd think, but we're in a situation of artificially inflated high pricing and dismally low innovation and improvements to service)

name?Instagram?

The issue is with government control over communication technologies. They are the ones that enable the monopolies.

>title II
>neutral treatment of transmission
Stop confusing these two concepts. You are handing the government near total control of the internet and all the scare jews erected at ISPs will be in government power to do with little recourse.

Because internet is a necessity in the current year? You can't just start your own water company and provide random shitty water to people, you must abide by regulations.

This user has the best summary of the situation. There is no easy out, but other than the big three, telecoms are losing money and merger/shakeups are due soon that will change the market. Frontier is dying with no current offers tendered, they, CenturyLink, and other lower end players are paying completely unsustainable dividends and the breaking point causing new competition is ripe if barriers could be safely removed.

The water company can also have its fees set arbitrarily and you have little recourse against them when they fuck up badly, see flint.

Why do we have any say on this? We own nothing, the net is not ours. We should expect nothing.

He's right you retarded leaf nigger. Saying "hurr durr reddit" is not an argument.

No, he's a copy pasta machine as that exact comment has been in every thread for at least 8 hours.

...

>Advocating something thats bad for you because its "fair"

Top cuck

I believe the FCC attempted to enforce neutral treatment of transmission without title II...and were beaten in the courts, as they did not under law have any method to demand neutral transmission. So, they used Title II with some forebearance.

I agree, americans shouldn't have net neutrality.

found it,her name is Thea Drilsvik

No, appellate court said it was possible. There was rumblings of making a new bill for be tech as we should have, the king nig decided executive was needed ti save the day and FCC said MINE! Title II allows all the shit they're saying will happen to be done by an unelected body staffed by former executives of the companies they want people to hate, based on legislation from 1934 meant for phones, tv, and radio.