Reddit:
>Dude fuck corporations! Comcast is evil! Capitalists are evil! Abandoning net neutrality is pure late stage capitalism, therefore we perish at the thought! Praise PornHub, Google, and Mozilla, they're on OUR side!
The fact that this is what reddit believes, with a straight face, makes me question their narrative.
Give it to me str8, /po/:
Is net neutrality good or bad?
Other urls found in this thread:
nationalreview.com
twitter.com
Look it up and decide for yourself :)
Take 5 minutes and read this article. It's the best I've seen: nationalreview.com
>FUCK CORPORATIONS
>Gets all of their news from six international megacorporations.
>ladies will never woman-up and rape you
>pol is actually in favor of destroying the internet because people they disagree with politically are in favor of not destroying it
the idea that a board that is so heavily in favor of a free market wants isp's to be able to pick and choose who can and can not take part in the biggest free market in the world, the internet; is a level of double think so deep that it actually seems like parody at this point
I say get rid of it. See just how terrible it truly is with out it.
Yeah, makes me shudder just thinking about going back to the dark ages before 2015...
the simplest way of explaining this is the internet was created by the government the fiber optics and highways already established and companies that sell their service will throttle anyone getting in their way net neutrality basically saves us
Free Trade Net would work if there were more than 2 companies.
The reality is that current law prevents them from merging or setting up any kinda bananas rules they want.
Please understand, if we had 4 or more comcast-like providers, i'd say give it a try. If the government went and split up current comcast i'd be behind it.
Protecting net nuetrality NOW means competition can emerge LATER. The regulations are the only thing making freed trade possible. If comcast wins its the end of civilization, well be back in the 90s only more gay and more divided.
I hope they get ride of it and Chinese moot kills this place as a result. It's to good to happen desu
did you read the article? net neutrality was a common practice before the FCC made a power grab to "secure" it, with very very few minor instances of going against neutrality in the entire history of the internet.
using FCC regulations to "save" net neutrality is like using a nuke to take out an anthill. the few minor problems pre-2015 were quickly worked out between the interested parties or with FTC intervention. and in the meantime the FCC regulation has resulted in measurable harm to the internet in the form of falling investments
Reddit censors T_D (and other things), yet claims to be for net "neutrality". Fuck those cucks.
...
...
>crying when you're about to have the best sex of your life
My on-again off-again gf gets like that, I could overpower her, but it kills the fun.
You lucky fuck. Id live in bongland for sex like that
Overall the options we have in dealing with Telecoms, Net Neutrality has the best tradeoff. It removes a good deal of potential abuse from the corporations (and multinational parent corporations) that own our internet while granting the US government an insignificant amount of regulatory power. Given how powerful our media companies are currently (both in the US and worldwide), it is extremely unwise to allow them anything but a "dumb line" when we've seen who owns these companies and the kinds of agendas they have. While they may not have done anything previous to Net Neutrality's passage, it's clear that Leftism has progressed to a virulent level and we're only a stone's throw away from these people finally eschewing political neutrality and going full propaganda and globalist shill mode.
The tradeoff as mentioned is a very minor one. The only regulatory power the FCC gains is one that allows it to decide whether or not an ISP is artificially modifying traffic in order to either block, slow, or speed up the connections to specific areas. This effectively allows the FCC to penalize any ISP that dares to say drastically slow down your connection to Sup Forums, drudgereport, or whatever websites they dislike. So, overall it's a beneficial thing until broadband/fibre op infrastructure gets to the point where you do not need to be as large as Comcast or AT&T to provide internet access and we can once again allow free market to solve these issues.
That's not actually the only regulatory power that the FCC granted itself.
>Under Title II, the FCC can regulate the rates that ISPs charge, using its supervisory mandate to dismiss as “unreasonable” or “unjust” any business models of which it disapproves; it can partially regulate the capital investment of existing companies, and regulate which companies (if any) can enter the ISP market; and it can impose taxes on Internet use, such as those long imposed on telephone service (the “Universal Service Fee”). What’s more, the nebulous “Internet Conduct” standard that the FCC applies as its metric for assessing abuse is subject to amendment at any time, for any reason; there is no certainty that today’s decisions will also be tomorrow’s.
>reddit having a popular opinion that isn't fed to them
every few weeks a new mod is outed for having taken money to shill an opinion
at least our staff are so disconnected we have no power over them
remember to change your filenames often
OP is baiting but the fact that there are actual people who will form their opinion about an issue based on whether or not liberals support it is peak idiocy.
Anyway, so long as ISP companies hold regional monopolies over internet service, net neutrality is necessary. Although there does need to be additional legislation to prevent the government itself from censoring the internet.
The notion that net neutrality stifles competing companies is deeply flawed because it ignores the other more significant barriers to entry into the ISP game. If you want to be a competitive ISP, you need to lay your own cable, which is extremely expensive. This is also compounded by the fact that dominant ISP companies have inked deals with local municipalities to prevent laying of new cable. You need to invest hundreds of millions in legal battles, fighting red tape, and laying cable before you can serve a single customer.
And here is the ugly end of the capitalist stick: Consumer or die.
>posts continuing to ignore the fact that neutrality was (essentially) a non-issue before 2015
Putting that aside, the answer to antidemocratic activities or barriers to entry is to police the activities through the FTC or to remove the barriers, NOT to give the FCC sweeping powers over the internet
>tfw you are too strong to be raped by a woman.
>ISP fucks over people
>other ISP is /comfy/
>hey lets go to that ISP
It's really pretty simple. But the CEOs of ISPs have a nicer car than you, so fug capitalism.
We have neutral net too
>ISP fucks over people
>ISP has a monopoly on their area
>lol if u don't like don't buy nerd, free market
Sorry, that should be "anticonsumer" not "antidemocratic".
fucking sauce on image??
Nothing is stopping them from ganging up and saying "hey, let's cap our prices at X, and take turns fucking the goys".
Hi Kim
The FCC did not classify the whole of internet under Title II. The final rule update only included sections 201, 202, and 208. The first part of your objection is technically correct but the way your phrasing it makes it sound like they have the ability to actively regulate the pricing of ISP's, which they don't. ISP's will obviously fight any kind of pricing regulation if it's obvious bullshit and ISP's will have the resources to win those fights unless the FCC is actually right, at which point you have the ISP actively overcharging its customers anyway.
As for the rest of it, none of that is actually provisioned in the sections of Title II that ISP's were placed under.
>tfw when your g/f likes rape play
>nothing is stopping them
>mfw a libertarian has never heard of anti-trust laws
What dark ages? I would have known about them if there were any...
>response continuing to ignore the fact that leftism has gotten so insane that 90% of our media is now actively campaigning against the right, promoting propaganda, and that it's members will use any tool available in order to fulfill globalist agenda and the destruction of right leaning politics.
You need to fucking wake up now. This isn't the 90's.
...
i just recently started seeing a girl that wants to eat my ass and have me hit and choke her during sex
is it a trap? she hates condoms too
>posts continuing to ignore the fact that neutrality was (essentially) a non-issue before 2015
Laws were built up as net neutrality was challenged. That's pretty standard.
Net neutrality as a concept has been a thing since the 90s. The FCC adopted the freedom without regulation standards in the early 2000s. The first real challenge to net neutrality was in 2007 with Comcast throttling bittorrent. The ruling on that case formed a legal framework for net neutrality. There were other legal cases following that.
Net neutrality only became a real issue when ISPs tried to challenge it with trying to make Netflix pay extra for bandwidth. This happened at a particular time for a few reasons. ISPs at this time were consolidating regional monopolies and had no fear of competition. This was also when streaming was becoming a big thing, and suddenly everyone on the internet is streaming HD video on Netflix and youtube, creating a bandwidth issue that hadn't existed before. At this time internet companies were becoming increasingly corporatized which would make them more amenable to deals over bandwidth and content favoritism.
tl;dr net neutrality wasn't a big issue before because ISPs had no real reason to challenge it. That has changed.
And you can remove all the red tape you want, laying cables still costs hundreds of millions and takes multiple years. That's a hard barrier to entry that cannot be changed. The only real solution to the ISP monopoly is severely fragmenting existing companies, which the FCC/FTC currently has zero interest in doing.
(it was sarcasm, that's the joke)
What does leftist media have to do with ISPs competing for customers? Is Comcast just going to start blocking right-wing sites and assuming that they won't lose billions of dollars?
>net neutrality
its an American cancer thing. Nobody even even dare talk about it here in Denmark.
You pay to have data transferred over the internet by your provider and that is all.
In the US some cunts have tried to say that not all data should be transferred by the same rate/speed and you should pay if you want not just a fast internet by fast by product to product. So you could end up having to by a "Face time license" or a "Youtube stream certificate" to get your service provider to move that kind of data for you. Absolute cancer.
The fact that you burgers might let the idiots fuck you over with this is amazing to watch.
The no condoms part is worrying but everything else might be ok as long as you don't leave serious wounds/marks.
51% of Americans have access to only one ISP. 38% of Americans have access to only two ISPs. The "the free market will fix it" answer is irrelevant because ISPs do not operate in a free market.
Why is it that Asia's shitty internet is 100Gb/s but ours is like 2Mb/s? What's stopping the US from having good infrastructure?
Cell phone companies do this though. Oligopolies aren't prohibited by law.
Shill cunt, kys
all isps in america have unwritten agreements with each other to not compete at all.
it's completely illegal and they still get away with it.
the us govt also gave them billions to upgrade the last mile links to people's homes to optic fiber, they took the money and gave everybody DSL instead, short changing every single american who paid for it....
>Is Comcast just going to start blocking right-wing sites and assuming that they won't lose billions of dollars?
>(((assume)))
There's literally 0 competition in most areas in the US. There is no alternative, and thus no revenue to lose.
has a way of working its self out, americas been around a while it will be around while longer. chill it dude.
I have DirecTV (ATT). They created new channels that shill FOR net nuetrality 24/7. Something is up
100% government control over internet is best way
Total control is needed
In an ideal situation one could purchase internet access in a free market. In the US, thanks to laws that surround cable and telephone companies, there is no free market. Since the government has and will continue to intervene then laws should make sure that interference is for the benefit of the common citizen and not a handful of private companies.
Either we have real free market, not crony capitalism or if that won't happen and the govt has to get involved then it should be done in a way to benefit the common man.
>government
>private
If given a choice, go with private. Government can be better, but usually not.
ISP companies in America have zero reason to improve their service. Americans pay more for slower internet compared to the rest of the world. Faster internet required infrastructure investment on behalf of the ISPs. Secure in their monopolies, they have no incentive to do this. ISPs are investing less and less every year into maintaining and updating their infrastructure.
simple fact is in asian countries they are closer to the internet, because they're closer together. here we might be in indiana but have the problem where we are getting internet from new york or california.
There ya go. That should be the end of the discussion. Sup Forums should be for net neutrality just for the sake of not shitting where they eat.
...
>The fact that this is what reddit believes, with a straight face, makes me question their narrative
I feel the same way user. This is the exact reason I started questioning (((global warming)))
rare
>There's literally 0 competition in most areas in the US.
1. That's not true (unless you're going by literal surface area, rather than population)
2. The FCC regulations are one of the factors holding back municipal ISP development. (There are others that need to be addressed also)
stfu
it's based on a hypothetical that has never happened and never will happen. It is purely government trying to seize control so that, over time, they can regulate a little more and a little more until they have the fucking authority to censor whatever the fuck they want.
THAT'S WHAT GOVERNMENTS DO
They get their foot in the door and then regulate the fuck out of everything to fucking death.
Time Warner owns CNN and has apparently not given two shits about CNN destroying itself to produce a narrative, why would they give a shit about destroying their product to create a narrative? AT&T and Comcast are also in the tank for the progressives when it comes to the national level. Why would either of them care about destroying their product for their narrative? There is no competition. They don't need to worry about customers cutting the cord. Literally no one worth writing about is going to stop using the internet just because a handful of sites no longer work on it, because there are no options that don't seriously impact the experience of it.
If you think these people care more about their business than their narratives, there are tons of progressives that are not giving two shits about what their activism is doing to their brands so long as the narrative keeps going.
our anti trust laws are ignored by our politicians
>tfw my first lucid dream was a woman manhandling me
People can't eat narratives. Go read Adam Smith.
Then the remedy is replacing our politicians, NOT granting the federal government more power.
>Net Neutrality made in 2015 by Obongo
>People uniroincally think that removing it will turn the Internet into some eternal hell
Ignore the shills. If comcast is defending Net Neutrality you know you're fucking retarded
Your pic literally only exists in a hypothetical that has never existed and will never exist, where there are (literally!) infinite alternatives. Protip: there are 0 alternatives in many areas. Only 1 in most areas (hint: collusion, perhaps you'd like too google about it as well).
Nice proxy
American education everybody
Here's what would happen.
The standard service that everyone already gets becomes the supposed "premium" service, with throttled speeds replacing the old standard.
Don't pretend this isn't true.
Not an argument
>the internet is the same as it was 3 years ago
>>If comcast is defending Net Neutrality
and why wasn't that the case for all the years before 2015?
...
Regulations are fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things when infrastructure investment requires multimillions just to step into the game. Most smaller ISP's are hurting badly because they can't keep up with the costs because of the major Telecoms will artificially lower prices just to fuck them over since they can actually afford to do so. Look at what happened when Google decided to do fibre at their rate. Suddenly, AT&T and Comcast could EASILY afford to sell people gigabit at $50ish. Notice how there's not nearly as much talk about Google internet anymore? It's because Google is facing the reality of competing with companies that will do whatever it takes to stop others from eating their pie, regardless of what they do in the name of business. So long as they can keep normies happy with video game internet and youtube and facebook and netflix and hulu and twitch tv and shit, ISPs can do whatever the fuck they want and people will still buy them while megacorps like Google even have trouble getting their foot in the door.
>Then the remedy is replacing our politicians
like drain the swamp? oops that one didn't work
In this case, it actually is.
Not an argument.
Besides culture, the way you use the Internet has not changed for the last 10
years
Nope
>Point out facts
>DUR AMERICAN
Here's the options in my area:
Fairpoint
Comcast
Hughesnet(lol)
If Fairpoint and Comcast decide to treat some sites differently than others, I'm screwed.
then what the fuck are antitrust laws for?
Maybe that's what we should be demanding.
Breaking up monopolies.
Just one more natural monopoly to bridle. We've already tamed electricity and water to some degree. The infrastructure of all three of these things only allow for maybe one or two lines to run to every house without a clusterfuck, so we definitely need some regulation (gov fixed prices)/deregulation (ISPs would basically divest in transmissions and just sell access basically).
>Could easily google the history of net neutrality but chooses not to
>Doesn't realize the 2015 net neutrality rules were in direct response to Comcast and Verizon trying to make content providers pay for faster connection
>Doesn't realize that every ISP is smart enough to play pro-net neutrality whenever the issue comes up to avoid being labeled the "Evil ISP Company" by the public and the media
Read Economics in One Lesson, a book written in the 1940s, to tell you how to govern the Internet.
Or just look up NN on the Mises institute.
Sadistic Beauty, a webcomic.
...
>Is net neutrality good or bad?
Depends largely on what you think the net is.
If you connect to the internet and think that it's a lot like turning a faucet to get water or flicking a switch to get light, then you probably think net neutrality is a good idea. The water company doesn't get to choose what you do with the water and the electric company doesn't get to choose what light-bulbs you use (yet). They pretty much just sell you water and electricity.
If you think that the net is like a private thoroughfare owned by your ISP and that your ISP isn't obligated to maintain the routes between you and every single place you might want to go, but only the places that are convenient for them to maintain, then you're probably against net neutrality.
Look into Interplanetary File System (IPFS). If net neutrality gets bad it will create a demand for wide spread acceptance of a delocalized internet.
Let's assume that's true (even though that's not what was happening before 2015)
>the law right now doesn't set the price for the 'default' service, so presumably the price right now is the market price
>ISP can now offer super premium internet service for extra money (and presumably more profit)
>ISP can use this profit to invest in more infrastructure, improving the experience for everyone
>As an added bonus, if a poor person doesn't want netflix or other streaming services, the ISP can now offer them a cheaper package that doesn't include that
jesus what a nightmare
>locked behind a paywall
Never mind.
The reason why it's a law now is because a major ISP tried doing it and got shut down.
>The fact that this is what reddit believes, with a straight face, makes me question their narrative.
>ad hominem
Just because they're usually wrong doesn't mean that they're always wrong.
HD streaming didn't exist and ISPs never had pressure on their bandwidth streams. Now with more and more people streaming huge amounts of video, ISPs are in a situation where they need to improve their physical infrastructure for delivering the internet. This is very expensive. With net neutrality, they have to pay for this themselves. Without net neutrality, they can force internet companies to pay to not be throttled. Also in the years before there were not a lot of major internet based content providers who could be shaken down for bandwidth cash. It wasn't an issue before because ISPs had no motive to institute pay to play and no entities to charge for it. Also see Comcast and Bittorrent in 2007.
Absolutely. Also kill subsidies to big telecom and do something about the startup cost of new providers (generally they'll have to be resellers, so perhaps laws that forces "fair treatment": not enforcing their own laws on the line/center being leased). There is LOTS to be done, legally speaking, in this area. LOTS wrong that needs to be fixed. Net neutrality isn't one.
The thing that drives me crazy about this is that bad experiences with your ISP are so common they're kind of part of national culture.
Most people, at some point, have sat on hold for forty minutes only to get some Punjabi who's two streets down from a designated shitting street and doesn't really speak English. And then they switch from Comcast to Charter and it's somehow worse.
And these are the people they want to have unmitigated control of the internet. Guess I'll just pray for Google fiber
>Being this much of a stupid newfag
My head hurts
>ISP can use this profit to invest in more infrastructure, improving the experience for everyone
They have absolutely no reason to do this, no incentive whatsoever. You're missing the point. There's already a set amount of revenue to be generated from providing internet and they've divided it up among themselves. There is zero competition among ISPs.
You can find it on sadpanda.
It should also be noted that many of those smaller ISPs are downstream providers that rely on the infrastructure build by big upstream providers. They aren't competitive companies, they are corporate thralls.