Why is Trump trying to kill Net Neutrality while Democrats are pushing for better internet in rural areas?

Why is Trump trying to kill Net Neutrality while Democrats are pushing for better internet in rural areas?

Other urls found in this thread:

muniwireless.com/2006/01/31/the-200-billion-broadband-scandal-aka-wheres-the-45mb-s-i-already-paid-for/
fcc.gov/general/connect-america-fund-caf
fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-next-step-toward-2-billion-rural-broadband-expansion
cnet.com/news/the-strange-resurrection-of-net-neutrality/
wired.com/2014/02/oh-cries-net-neutrality-comcast-time-warner-merger/
ncta.com/whats-new#colorbox=1114
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Trump=shill=jewbot=death to middle class

Why don't you ask Facebook why it's trying to bring internet to the entire world instead of bringing it to the US first.

Where does that 40 billion come from?

"Democrats are pushing for better internet in rural areas"

Sounds like a colossal waste of money. What could possibly justify spending that much against the opportunity costs?

"Democrats are giving 40 billion dollars in subsidies to telecom ogliopolies. Which have never in the decades this legislation has been tried have ever met the goals of said legislation and have always pocketed the money"

Rural America is White. The Jews make sure nothing is done for Main Street.

Why do rural retards vote against their own economic interests?

>Where does that 40 billion come from?

Where did the 700 billion from the military budget they just passed?

Democrats and Republicans push for corporate welfare and free gibs for internet companies to burry cables in remote areas.

Trump wants everyone to read his tweets.

Loans

Look guys, last time the Clinton's promised internet improvements, like a mass rollout of fiber-optic, it only cost 200 billion

muniwireless.com/2006/01/31/the-200-billion-broadband-scandal-aka-wheres-the-45mb-s-i-already-paid-for/

This time it only costs 40 billion! What a steal!

From taxpayers pissing their pants over North Korea.

>Republican's disarm FCC and make it toothless in all aspects.
>Fucking Liberals oh god I'm choking on rainwater my IQ is so low.

It always has and always will be republicans sole responsibility for why our telecoms are in the toilet.

>millions more suburban and rural retards posting on the internet, shitting the place up for the rightful high-iq urban beneficiaries of the internet
Are you sure this is what you want, dems?

Just make it easier for local municipalities to build and service their own ISPs. A lot of cities do this if they can beat back all the lawsuits from the local private ISP monopoly.

By 'rural' the shart queen meant 'white'. The opposite are 'inner city' people, who are immigrants.
Only a floppy shoed clown with Pom poms on his toes could give it a literal interpretation.
You're a bit of a silly aren't you?

On one hand: republicans don't care about poor people.

on the other hand: if poor people get better info, they'll be more likely to vote democrat.

>Man damn republicans making the FCC toothless so telecoms can exploit any government spending kicked their way
>Grumble grumble
>I'll show them by shoving tens of billion dollars at the telecoms

:DDDDDD

It's not a colossal waste of money! The internet access just HAPPENS to be set up by one of the friends of Sen Joe Manchin III (D). Sure, OTHER companies could do it for, like, 1/100th of the price, and the other companies MIGHT do it more competently, but Joe knows these guys and they do good work. They helped him set up his wireless network at his home that he can finally use his cellphone on the toilet and get 4 bars!

the best internet provided by democrats would be no internet.

because net neutrality allows the tech companies to function as monopolies protected by the government and will destroy any future development (and cheapening) of the internet in the future

>because net neutrality allows the tech companies to function as monopolies

>muh free market
>muh let's censor websites we don't want cause freedom

>Better info

The government wants to farm info from everyone. So a big investment is necessary

One can only guess, but likely insidious. Satellite internet is not super expensive and works well enough for rural and suburban retards like myself.

the censoring would be done by the private companies

its their right to do that

new tech will pop up and provide non fucked with internet if thats what people want in the future at cheaper price


it already is censored btw

>Why is Trump trying to kill Net Neutrality while Democrats are pushing for better internet in rural areas?
Libtards HATE rural America. They would never willingly do anything to help it unless they were scheming for something far more diabolical in exchange. The only people who would fall for something like this are total retards like you, for example.
sage

Delete this post.

LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT
RIGHT
LEFT
RIGHT

>its their right to do that

this is what morons actually believe

b/c net neutrality is communism

You mean democrats want to steal from one group to provide for another. Hmmm, this can’t be. They would never do that.

b/c that's the very definition of patriotism

NN allows faggot social media to ban accounts for political means, shutting out half of the fucking country. Without NN, social media has to follow the fucking laws of the FTC which protect us.

The loans mostly come from US citizens and companies looking for a safe place to keep their money.

what

Because Republicans are always against the lower middle class, they're all kike puppets and Trump is the worst of them all. Rural retards "Voting Against Their Interests" isn't just a meme.

>while Democrats are pushing for better internet in rural areas
that's literally what Trump's FCC chairman is doing.
He said it was his top priority back in like January.
fcc.gov/general/connect-america-fund-caf
fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-next-step-toward-2-billion-rural-broadband-expansion

Also, 'net neutrality' is a scam you dumbass. Ask yourself why they keep repeating 'MUH BIG BUSINESSES ARE AGAINST IT' when every single big business is actually _for it_

>10 billion for wall
OMG THATS SO EXPENSIVE HOW WILL WE EVER PAY FOR THAT?!?!?!!!?
>40 billion to get some rural retards faster internet when there's already Hughes
OUR SAVIORS!!!!!

The problem is that regardless of who you vote for you're voting against your own interests in one way or another.

Here's a lie I bet you believed:
Verizon did not ever once censor Netflix. Not once — never ever.
Netflix purposely routed their traffic in ways to make it seem like Verizon was censoring them to 'shame' Verizon into paying for Netflix's costs.
cnet.com/news/the-strange-resurrection-of-net-neutrality/
> And at the same time, Netflix also announced that exclusive new "Super HD" and 3D content would only be available to Netflix customers whose ISPs signed on to Open Connect.

>Using a loophole in the FCC's rules -- which restrict only the business practices of ISPs, not content providers -- Netflix was perpetuating precisely the kind of consumer harm the rules were intended to prohibit.

wired.com/2014/02/oh-cries-net-neutrality-comcast-time-warner-merger/

>While many were quick to assume that broadband providers were throttling Netflix traffic, the explanation could be far simpler: The company simply lacked the capacity to handle the “Super HD” video quality it began offering last year.

ncta.com/whats-new#colorbox=1114

>In fact, recent analysis by Sandvine confirms the exact opposite – that is, the strategic routing choices made by Netflix have a significant effect on the performance a customer receives. By choosing to send large portions of its traffic down routes that were ill-equipped to handle the load (and by choosing not to route through independent, available transit providers) Netflix’s performance on those routes unsurprisingly declined. As network analyst Dan Rayburn recently commented, “Netflix chose to create, and use, paths that they knew were congested, simply because they were cheaper than using paths that were less congested.”

You guys are getting fucking played by the companies that use ridiculous amounts of bandwidth(Google, Netflix, Spotify, etc.,)

Everyone but rural and suburban retards knows this is retarded. That's the point. Pull repub votes over to dems when this gets shot down by republicans.

except rural broadband expansion is almost guaranteed going to be part of Trump's infrastructure proposal

Rural and suburban retards don't give a fuck lol. they are going outside irrelevant.

This Net Neutrality nonsense is just Netflix not wanting to pay a metered-rate on bandwidth isn't it? Because the greedy Kikes want to serve 1000YB of data for free.

>lives in cities
>calls rural people retards

KYS faggots

He doesn't want his voters getting smarter

It's basically nothing more than the government forcing ISPs to front the costs for internet content providers.
It has nothing to do with any type of 'neutrality'.
Just like the FCC rule repealed earlier this year was stupid because it only applied to ISPs and not the companies that are actually spying on you(faceberg, google, etc.,)

Because democrats realized they fucked up with identity politics and desperately need any olive branch for WYPIPO
Too bad they already fucked up beyond belief.

>pic
fucking kek. I used to love having extra-duties do ridiculous shit like mopping the parking lot and sequentially numbering and lining up rocks.

this so much

>rural and suburban
Leaves inner city toe rags

uhm he didnt add 700 billion to the budget. are you retarded?

>2006
It's almost like technology gets cheaper over time

This. Onboarding more humans into the global network allows them to harvest more data and expand their neural web for AI awareness. This isn't about altruistic information access for the masses. This is about controlling the masses and making them into the product.
If the distribution mechanism for this can be subsidized by the taxpayer, then all the better for the global intelligence firms (Google, Facebook, Twatter, etc.)

You're not wrong that the advent of CDNs means that network neutrality de facto died years ago.

Super HD content is pushing a 25mbit bitrate and I could see it easily overwhelming telecom networks just because of the sheer amount of data Netflix pushes. The issue is ultimately that companies that use rediculous amounts of bandwidth, Google, Netflix, Spotify, and really the latter isn't in the same league as the other two, is that they actually push demand for better broadband forward. Them causing massive congestion creates an incentive for telecoms to reinvest their earnings into their infrastructure. One wants to actively discourage the rationing of bandwidth and encourage investments in infrastructure. The internet doesn't have an issue with the customer base literally not giving enough money to the telecoms to get the service the customer base demands, the problem is more that it's hard to convince a telecom to invest in their infrastructure instead of a scheme like share buybacks. This is worth the risk of companies like Netflix and Google increasing costs for ISPs resulting in costs being passed onto consumers.

Furthermore, if your goal is to reduce congestion on networks, considering IIRC Netflix literally takes up a plurality of all data on the internet, the open connect program is actually a good thing because it results in the content netflix is serving being closer to customers. Resulting on it needed to be routed over congested lines less. This decentralisation is more efficient than centralised server farms. It does have the odd effect of making network neutrality legislation seem antiquidated though, a few big companies like cloudflare (You're on a site using them right now), google, netflix, and amazon now have their own private "Internet fast lanes" by having equivalents to these "open connect" servers all across the globe.