someone red pill me on net neutrality
pros
>ISP cant discriminate traffic
>no real competition in ISP's
>therefore leaving your ISP for another provider not an option
cons
>restricts businesses with regulation
>profits are allocated towards greater innovation
>gov't has no say in a private entity
If competition existed then it wouldn't really be necessary. But running an ISP has a huge barrier to entry so competition is rare at best. The big ISPs that do exist try not to compete with each other so they can all maximize profits.
Letting ISPs determine which traffic should have priority would be like letting UPS or FedEx decide how long they feel like letting your package sit in a warehouse until you pay them ransom money to actually put it on a plane, after you've already paid for shipping and they've picked it up.
>Comcast says anything, ever
WTF I love net neutrality now
Remember free internet?
isp's can't compete because of the way the land is zoned out by the gov to different cable companies, its monopolized.
the answer to too much gov isn't more gov
Do you think the government is neutral?
lmao that picture
Comcast ain't wrong on this one
Sounds like big government regulation to me. I'd be happier with massive censorship, a pay by the minute system that pushed out most users entirely, or even better an absolute shutdown.
Its only used for degeneracy - from porn to facebook vanity to kike banking. Its the only way to save women and weak men.
>problem was nearly non-existant before government granted itself powers to regulate neutrality in 2015
>since then, investment in net infrastructure has decreased noticeably
>technical monopoly concerns are shrinking, and will do so even more when 5G starts going mainstream
>in the meantime, anti-competitive activities should be handled by the FTC, not under a near-century old piece of telegram legislature
I dont like net neutrality because i dont like the government interfering with the internet.
ISP's wouldnt straight away turn internet into cable because the customers would go elsewhere.
Google, facebook and other jew companies want net neutrality because right now they dont have to pay their fair share for the amount of bandwidth they use. just like they dont pay taxes.
Yeah its not the cost of equipment and going up against an already established incumbent. It's "muh zoning".
>Jews infest anything in America, why dont we give them ability to legally censor traffic at provider level, lest goyim end up on a wrong resource and learn something they shouldnt
As expected from good shabbos goy like Trump.
>in the meantime, anti-competitive activities should be handled by the FTC, not under a near-century old piece of telegram legislature
Ok, now we're getting somewhere. Can you explain this a bit more? Is gov't systemically part of the problem? I see zoning is mentioned.
>Google, facebook and other jew companies want net neutrality because right now they dont have to pay their fair share for the amount of bandwidth they use. just like they dont pay taxes.
Every website pays for this in some capacity, no? Servers cost money.
Australia is the best example.
>Government only allowed a single company to build infrastructure, this means they have a complete monopoly and other ISP's have to pay to use their wires, which drives up costs
>majority of the country still using 100 year old copper network.
>fibre network is costing a fortune due to government contractors and selling off the NBN co.
Is Alex Jones to be trusted on this issue? He was trying to spin NN as more censorship or something.
And ofc I know that inforwars is wrong all the time and biased but I just want to know if he has any basis in reality with regards to NN.
Kek
>When the strawboy becomes a strawman.
I should also add, the company that owns the infrastructure use to be government owned. they sold it for billions and part of the deal was that they wouldnt allow other companies to build their own networks.
And I want to say that the real solution to this problem is cheaper access to space. IF it were possible for multiple companies to create their own satellite internets then we could have competition in the market. I believe Musk was talking about creating a constellation of internet sattellites in low earth orbit, but what we really need is an effective spaceplane like what the shuttle should have been, but the downside to that is that space technology can be weaponized and destablize MAD.
The only group that has enough power to create a monopoly is the government.
Same thing happened her at some point, privatization of the phone company at the same time the internet became a thing followed by quick regulated monopoly.
Company went from CTC to Telefonica.
No, he is not.
Here's how I see it:
If the FCC Takes control:
>Whichever party is in control determines what is and isn't allowed.
>Libs shut down all non-progressive discussions
>GOP shuts down porn and forms of "degenerate" entertainment
ISPs control Internet
>Continue getting fucked by Comcast or whatever you have because they're the only fucking game in town (Don't even try to compare Cable speeds to DSL broadband, that's a fucking joke)
>Cable companies continue to kike you on things that use up more bandwidth that you're already paying for (Hulu, Netflix, etc)
And in both cases, you get fucked hard if some douchecanoe sniffs you on a torrent in a lapsed moment of VPN security.
solid post
At least there are ways of to counter this such as TOR and whatnot. At the very least we will still be able to communicate.
The real negative outcome though will be if they go after streaming video services. Imagine if they throttle kissanime, how would NEETS afford to worship their waifus.. :'(
At least anime is somewhat watchable at low resolutions and there are ways of sharing files through decentralized means. Imagine if people start actually sharing media with thumbdrives.
What you tards don't realize is that internet regulation is aleady in effect, in terms of becoming an isp.
NN would be bad if the internet isp space was a free market. It isn't. You've got mustard and ketchup goyim.
>Profits allocated towards innovation.
No, allocated towards ways to make datacaps like how things are for australians.
All ISPs are jewish. And all anti-NNers are shills or from plebbit.
>And in both cases, you get fucked hard if some douchecanoe sniffs you on a torrent in a lapsed moment of VPN security.
VPN isn't useful for anything in this regard.
VPN protects against third party, but your ISP will always obviously know what you're doing on the internet.
What you don't understand is that we have had NN for years and nothing bad has happened
>giving comcast what they want
no thanks
""""Net Neutrality""""" was just created in 2014-2015.
Before then we have 2 decades without "net neutrality".
Nothing like the fearmongering happened in all those years.
>Google, facebook and other jew companies want net neutrality because right now they dont have to pay their fair share for the amount of bandwidth they use.
Net neutrality does not concern the backbone that companies like google and facebook are directly connected to, which everybody pays by the amount the use, but the final run from the cable company to your home.
Net neutrality is some monopoly state bs. People fear mongering about companies having control (when they already do). It's like trying to hold on to the old bell phone land line infrastructure with operators or some shit.
You are fucking retarded. Do you know how bad satellite internet is? No matter how much the tech improves over the years there will always be 500+ ms ping
Don't forget without Net Neutrality ISPs would get bought out by political donors to filter and promote their agenda, since they legally would be able to do fuck ever they please with your data. They can block their political opponent websites from your view and more. Political parties are waking up to the power of the internet, GOP donors are already saturating the web with propaganda bots and ads. Once they realize they can just buy out ISPs and not even bother with the bots, things will move very quickly, same thing already happened with television and "news" like CNN, Fox.
Like customs then.
Imagine having to pay $10 extra a month to access sites not in the US.
>Don't forget without Net Neutrality ISPs would get bought out by political donors to filter and promote their agenda
See my post above:
""""Net Neutrality""""" was just created in 2014-2015.
Before then we have 2 decades without "net neutrality".
Nothing like the fearmongering happened in all those years.
Your specific brand of fearmongering is:
>Don't forget without Net Neutrality ISPs would get bought out by political donors to filter and promote their agenda
Your specific brand of fearmongering and paranoia did not take place in the decades up to 2015, in a time without net neutrality.
Oy vey. Kill yourself commie, these companies are a cancer for you and me and the gov allows it. What the fuck is a data cap?
...
Good meme. Reminds me of what I've said about net neutrality
>inb4 reddit fag. Fuck off.
/r/Conspiracy and in fact most of the internet that isn't controlled by the Globalist Elite (Neo Cons / Neo Libs owned by Soros for example) is fundamentally built on what Net Neutrality outlaws. Please read and look at how they completely outlaw trolling, memes, hell even trash talking on the internet or any form of communication over a telecommunication device. If you want the internet to have any chance then we need places like Conspiracy and many other great places that don't censor everything we read and everything we watch.
Something that never gets talked about in these Net Neutrality astroturf threads (look at the upvote to comment ratios) is that Title II Net Neutrality applies censorship laws to the internet. Notice how the pro-Net Neutrality posters always talk about the possibility that Comcast or Verizon will "censor" certain content. What they fail to mention is that the Law that the FCC reinterpreted and applied to ISPs in 2015 and called "Net Neutrality" actually contains obscenity laws and speech codes that explicitly censor "obscene" or "annoying" content. What the FCC is calling "Net Neutrality" is actually just a massive regulatory move that will give the FCC extremely high control and authority over what kinds of communication are allowed and disallowed on the (until now) open internet. Let's not forget the FCC's horrible track record on our First Amendment rights.
The censorship portion of the Law is under Section 223. But don't take my word on it, read the Law itself.
>(a) Whoever-- (1) in interstate or foreign communications-- (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly-- (i) makes, creates, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
...
>(C) makes a telephone call or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person at the called number or who receives the communications;
...
>(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Let's get something else straight: it's not just ISPs that have a dog in this fight. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Conde Nast, all of whom censor content, are pro-Net Neutrality. The idea that Title II will somehow prevent censorship is insane - we already have censorship on the internet and Title II will do absolutely nothing to stop Google/Facebook/Twatter/Conde Nast from censoring whatever they feel like censoring. In fact, the "Net Neutrality" passed down by the FCC does exactly what people say it's supposed to prevent - censorship - and it's important to cut through the bullshit and expose what's really going on here, which is one corporate lobby (websites) astroturfing public opinion to get a different corporate lobby (ISPs) to do them a favor by not throttling their traffic.
The FCC was already enforcing a version of Net Neutrality before Title II. Source Document Here, a memo from all the way back in 2005. Remind me why we need Title II with its censorship laws, to protect us from censorship, again??
Give me a fucking break. This is bait and switch - get a censorship Law applied to the internet and call it "Net Neutrality," fearmonger/astroturf until the public willingly accepts it. "OH NO! COMCAST IS COMING FOR MY NETFLIX!!!"
They could pass literally anything and call it "Net Neutrality" and people would eat it up like the idiots
>gov't has no say in a private entity
i confess that i just don't really understand what people mean when they say this. it seems to me that the state has enormous say already in private entities because it is what makes them possible in the first place. for instance, insofar as contracts are involved, it was classically thought, correctly i think, that a state is needed in order for the contract to be possible, as adherence to it requires that there be some kind of impartial, non-private third party which can enforce it in accordance with its terms. similarly, corporations, for instance, are possible only because there is a state which provides the conditions under which they can be made. so it seems to me that, on the basis of these kind of considerations, the state is instead quite involved in private entities and indeed in a non-trivial way, as it is the condition of their possibility. but maybe you can tell me what people instead mean when they say the state ought not have any say.
anytime corporations want to cuck your freedoms you bend right over yet the government wants to protect you from a corporation and you freak out like we're becoming the USSR
Just wait for the internet providers to merge with the media companies after get rid of the threat of net neutrality.
It will lead to cronyism. It means ISPs can cut smaller, more efficient businesses out of the loop so that friends of the CEO can have their website accessed without competition. Anti-NN is anti-competition.
Think about it. ISPs would not be clamouring for this if it wasn't better for them.
Its the opposite tard. NN means comcast needs to let people use their data for Sup Forums the same as they can use their data for Amazon. Without NN Comcast can put sites with discenting opinions behind paywalls.
Mfw corporations block all of the 'redpilled' sites (because we know ISPs are controlled by kikes) and perhaps offer them for the low low price of $500/mo
Mfw conservatards believe new ISPs will spring up overnight to stop comcast from assraping them. HAHAH
>either the government controls the internet or corporations control the internet
Whoever wins, we lose.
LOW EARTH ORBIT
What makes you think it takes light half a second to go 300km? Also latency is only an issue in gaming. You can still stream video with a high ping, which is the biggest worry about NN because the cable networks are losing money to Netflix and CNN doesnt like alternative journalism on youtube.
The reason current communications sattelites orbit higher is because it takes less satellites to do it that way but if space launches get cheaper then more satellites could be used in lower orbits. Ping gets high in geosynchrounous orbit but I think that the ping is high in current sattellite internet for other reasons as well which could be mitigated in the future.
The article says musk wants to launch 4k sattellites as opposed to the irridium constellation which has about 100 sattellites.
Stop pushing that false dichotomy. All NN means is ISPs cant put websites they dont like behind a paywall. This has nothing to do with state surveillance.
>it seems to me that the state has enormous say already in private entities
This.
If you think the state/Govt has no say in a private entity, please reeducate yourselves on the lack of "freedom of association" involving queers and cakes. Once the gov't says "This is protected/forbidden" they will strongarm any business, public or private, that dissents
People want both the Government and these companies to leave the internet alone since both want to fuck it up