What are Sup Forums's thoughts on net neutrality?

What are Sup Forums's thoughts on net neutrality?

Other urls found in this thread:

arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/
businessinsider.com/why-us-internet-services-stink-2016-1
businessinsider
unvis.it/businessinsider.com/why-us-internet-services-stink-2016-1
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I really don't care either way. Just fuck Google and Facebook one way or another and I'm good.

>I don't know what net neutrality is
gas yourself

Net neutrality is fucking gay hahahahahahahaha kys

For those that don't know, Net neutrality are (In it's most basic sense) basic set of rules revolving around what internet providers are and arn't allowed to do. It's what keeps companies like comcast and Time warner from fucking us.

i literally dont care, and if you're muh internet warrior who actually cares about having to pay to browse reddit FUCK YOU

It means your neighbor having to pay as much as you for internet even though he only uses Facebook and email, while you're busy streaming 4K hentai and playing online games all day

The internet should be free for all
Its basically a magical cloud of humanity connected.

>basic set of rules
You mean Federal Laws with massive government oversight and bloat intended to force private companies to do their Bureaucraticly regulated bidding?

Why not speak plainly sir? Why sugarcoat? Is your dishonest description have an agenda? What else you hiding in that red tape you shill?

Here's some of the times net neutrality. Whether you like it or not, net neutrality protects sites like Sup Forums

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 serverthat 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.

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.

Just because the government is involved or the left likes it, doesn't mean it's bad, Shill

I meant some of the times companies tried to infringe on the rights of free speach

Months ago I was merely against it, now I think all of its supporters should be killed.

fuck off ajit

If any of you are seriously against net neutrality, just get off Sup Forums now, your NEETbucks aren't going to pay off that easily and you likely won't even be using the same sites anymore

The internet is filth.
>they won't let me illegally download copyrighted media
>i cant tether my phone to 20 devices and steal internet
>my 200 calls to china got metered
Again you sugarcoat.

The internet is a double edged sword
It can be used for good and for bad.

jesus fucking christ you autistic blog writing faggot

Everyone fucking knows... we just think it's better to have as a de facto standard enforced by the market instead of a de jure standard enforced by the government.

One should always be wary of giving the government MORE power.

thanks you too, imma steel that gif though

Government regualion isn't always bad, and yes I completely agree with that government power and regulations should always be questioned and put in check. But holy the fuck can you honestly defend shity companies like comcast? Do you not know what it's like dealing with them?

If companies like Comcast are so shitty then why don't people change providers and price their shitty service out of the market?

New Zealand has access to at least a dozen ISPs anywhere in the country, we have access to gigabit fibre in every city/suburban area. We don't have net neutrality yet everything is fine over here.

So why is US so backwards?

arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

businessinsider.com/why-us-internet-services-stink-2016-1

Alternatively
>businessinsider com/why-us-internet-services-stink-2016-1
unvis.it/businessinsider.com/why-us-internet-services-stink-2016-1

Why you get a purebred and then cut his balls?
Let Net breed, be happy, maybe sell lil nets.
Snip his nuts, its just a lifetime of picking up shit for nothing.
#SaveNetsNuts

Fuck off Google shill.

So government regulations that prevent ISPs from starting up which leads to monopolies and shitty service because there's no incentive to improve without competition.

And advocates of net neutrality want to have more government regulations to solve the problems that the other regulations caused by having even less competition but forcing the monopoly to provide "better service"

You guys are fucked.

Don't worry. Government loves money. Eventually government won't be satisfied with company A's contribution and will turn things upside down once more. This has all happened before and will again.

In the long run it probably doesn't amount to much of anything.

Regional monopolies on internet service are dying with advances in tech. Before too long this won't even be a conversation.

This might be a tad optimistic. But I think we are going to leave behind the roads we've constructed to confine the internet on/in for airports pretty soon.
Internet infrastructure will look completely different soon. We occupy too much area and have regions that are too sparsely populated to hope for a wire or fiber connection to each and every person

Grants dry up.

Let's look at the other side of things - What if ISPs decided internet gaming shouldn't have any place in the world. It isn't a productive use of our time and energy so they constricted our data flow so much that we couldn't play WoW, XIV, Runescape, Overwatch, PUBG, Black Desert Online, CS:GO, Rocket League, Rust, or whatever or any other game in the way we do now. You bet your ass people would start destroying shit, rioting, or boycotting the fuck out of a company. The backlash would be massive

That's why I'm optimistic.

The backlash would be massive. At the end of the day, we put food on the table for those people.

In a free market we would not need it.

When government regulations prevent competition I'm for NN until we get a freer market in ISPs. Competition is always good so we should legalize local public ISPs.

I personally hope net neutrality gets stripped away so everyone can learn how much of a pain in the ass it would be to have to pay extra to use the things we currently use.

We need Net Service Political Neutrality. We don't even have that yet. People can lose their comm and even their income due to being politically on the wrong side of Goolag & friends.

From what I understand the bill being proposed is idealistically named, or misnamed.