Redpill me on Net Neutrality

What are the pros and cons of it? Does Sup Forums support or hate it?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu
youtube.com/watch?v=FJt7gNi3Nr4
youtu.be/c5Gf0VKXk5Q?t=4m21s
ok.ru/video/1703019998
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>pros
free speech
>cons
data not found

an AMWF Hapa Tim Wu (Chinese father and White mom) invented the term net neutrality. He also ran for Governor of New York.

Isnt it amazing how the children of AMWF parents turn out so great while the opposite is Elliot Rodgers?

>an AMWF Hapa Tim Wu

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu

He is also married to a really smart white girl who clerks for the Supreme Court.

>cons
side effects of regulations always make things worse.

It's basically like asking for pros and cons of free speech. If you're a sheep or you would be into being a slave, you don't need it, I guess.

Half of the replies here will satirical and half will be genuine. See if you can tell which is which!

...

I am against net neuterality because i thikn jews do not control the internet enough.

No. I see it as freedom of speech vs a corporations right to charge what ever the fuck they want for a product/service. It's really fucking with me. This is one of those issues that really bothers me because I'm a full Libertarian.

Two things I really believe as a Libertarian is Freedom of Speech and Autonomy of Business. This is the ONE issue that truly conflicts with my core beliefs. Sup Forums doesn't seem to be helping.

I am for net neutrality and i am half jewish, i've been informing people about it, i've tried to making people stop using botnets (e.g. windows) and since i program in my free time i make sure to open-source it, it may not be world changing but i try to contribute as much as i can in the fight for net neutrality

Leave it to a chink to make Net Neutrality about a Hapa.

just look at who is for and against it that should tell you all you need to know. The large ISP and wireless telcoms are for it being they want to make a tier base system. Even when they are only the pipes, not the content.

does anyone but people making money off them really agree with anything comcast and Verizon do as companies? Does Comcast do anything but bend people over and fist them? I mean come on now, it's like putting big oil in charge of the EPA.

Look at the data caps comcast rolled out for no other reason than to cock block future streaming tech. All they do is abuse their near monopoly of being the only highspeed ISP for many people. If they are for something odds are it's NOT good for consumers, at all.

this, they obviously choose these for (((their))) advantage, they don't care about their customers, as long as they are making money and the customers have working wifi they couldn't care less.

also they sell your internet data to 3rd party companies which prove they couldn't care less fucks about their customers

just stating the facts about the guy who coined the term Net Neutrality

>>This is the ONE issue that truly conflicts with my core beliefs

Why? You don't play your ISP to be a content provider, they are pipes that deliver content from others to the end users. They should not play ANY role in deciding who/what/when/where/how that content, from others, is delivered to the final user.

Look at all the throttling issues that keep showing up. Where a person notices a site is slow. Then they run an VPN and all of sudden data from a given site now flows at full speed again. HOW in any way is that sort of action ok for your data provider to do? That should not be their call, at all. It would be like if your local water or power company decided this action was ok but this other only got you 1/2 power or 1/2 water because of their subjective reasons.

then it even gets more BS when you see how say Comcast is an ISP and also a content maker. Owning so many networks and so on. So now when it throttles netflix but lets you stream comcast content at full speed, as they did in the past, that's a huge anti-biz issue. No this whole issue comes down to one side being good for everyone and the other being only good for telcoms. Yet telcoms will win being they have the most money

this, i couldn't agree more.

pure judaism. Net neutrality is a false choice between monopolies of content providers (jewgle, kikebook) and cable companies.
I'd prefer it it the feds would do their fucking jobs and break up fucking monopolies.

all jews aren't like that, but some, yes.

Hold on tho. Say I own a bridge. You have a 16 wheeler. I charge you more to use my bridge because you're gonna move a lot slower than passenger cars and slow down my other customers. I'm gonna use the extra money to widen my bridge in the future so that more cars can pass at the same time.

Would it be fair for you to refuse to pay more? Why do you expect me to charge you the same price as a passenger car when you literally take 3 times as long to cross my bridge?

In fact, bridges do charge more for bigger cars. Like GW Bridge in NYC.

Net neutrality = the government ruling the internet.

bad metaphor. you're paying for bandwidth. More bandwidth, more costs.

No net neutrality is like charging extra on your 16wheeler, despite having payed for a 16wheeler, just because you are driving to *not your bridge constructors approved destination here*.

The feds ARE a monopoly and government originates all true monopolies.

I guess my problem with Net Neutrality is that, I am a firm believer in a business having the right to charge whatever the fuck it wants to whoever the fuck it wants. In a true capitalist society, new companies should spring up to snatch away my customers if my prices are too high.

But I understand that infrastructure, like the information highway, isn't so open to competition because of extremely high start up costs. But still, it's a business. And my Libertarian side who keeps screaming hands-off businesses is making me favor scraping Net Neutrality.

I think the word you're looking for is "ruse."

shills have to pose their arguments this way because I blow them the fuck out on Sup Forums

...

Imagine wanting to go to a website, but you can't because you picked the wrong Internet providers.

Ok then, I'll switch my analogy a bit. In stead of you owning one 16 wheeler, say you own a trucking company. You have 100 trucks.

I offer you a discount for moving all your trucks through me instead of the bridge that's 1 mile up river. All other trucks tho, still have to pay the full price. Is this unreasonable?

Remember, net neutrality (or lack of) works both ways. I can upcharge or lower the charge per customer at my will. Yes it's unfair. Yes it sucks if you don't own a trucking company. But still, it's my bridge. Can't I do what I want with it?

>Net Neutrality
idgaf
The sooner the web turns into a passive TV like entertainment experience the better. Mankind is not capable of handling the depth and wealth of knowledge that could be transmitted and taught over the internet. As such, fuck mankind. Let it wallow in its ignorance and stupidity.

Then you switch providers. Just like if this restaurant can't give me calamari, I go to another one that does.

What is there isn't one? We live in the day of corporate consolidation.

The gov should own and maintain fiber optic cable as they do the roads because it's infrastructure and no one should (lets say) own the roads we all drive on, but then I think holy shit the gov being in charge of anything makes it worse so we would have to wait a week or even worse to have something fixed. So we are fucked with the corrupt companies and we are kinda fucked with shitty government the same government that caused this problem in the first place by selling out to large corporations.

TLDR corrupt companies, or shitty government run internet, fuck

I believe by law, every district has to have multiple providers.

But if there aren't multiple providers, then it's the govt job to break up the monopoly. But forcing the corporation to do something is wrong don't you think?

They govt, can't break up Oligopoly since it isn't against the law, but your ok with corporations not competing each other and generally having the same product.

nice flag and wallow you will

>forcing the corporation to do something is wrong don't you think?
No. Its high time corporations bent over and took it up the ass. They have received more then their share of welfare over the past several decades. Fuck corporations and the lobbyists and lawyers they road in on. Its time the people seized assets, a few certain persons that disagree get beaten to death in the streets and a new world order rises from the mayhem with the people on top of the pyramid and corporations sucking muck on the bottom where they belong.
>inb4 alphabet agencies, shills and retards

Fuck you faggot. The
>meme flag
was a mistake.
How you like me now faggot?

Antifa are not welcome at Sup Forums

>internet working out great, flourishing on it's own
>black president decides to solve non-existent problem
>useful idiots jump on board
>drumpf elected, literal hitler
>useful idiots still somehow think giving gubment power in the internet market is a good idea

>black president decides to solve non-existent problem

Some one doesn't read the business news.

Literally the opposite of free market capitalism. Can't believe everybody is shilling for it because they think it's a good thing.

Yes but it's opposite of free speech as well. Hence the dilema.

Don't be an idiotic first year economics student hans. In the real world market intervention is required for certain scenarios.

youtube.com/watch?v=FJt7gNi3Nr4

youtu.be/c5Gf0VKXk5Q?t=4m21s

The power of the free market lies in the consumer having a voice, and their mouths are their wallets. If we NEED the internet, and they're the only way to get it, the free market will fail us. We need to be able to leave the ISPs to die like we do with any other failing company, and that means independence from them. Either we build our own internet without them, or we boycott them and leave this tube behind to rot with them. If they don't fear those possibilities, they'll never change, and I don't believe the government forcing a company to change is ever a good idea.

I don't think it's an easy fix, that's for fucking sure. I hope a solution other than mine ends up ultimately working, because the severity of the solution that actually works speaks to the severity of how fucked we are right now.

The merchant's worst fear is when a customer is at their stand, asking themselves "Do I really need this?"

what's more important

>right to free spech
>right to make money

In free market capitalism with free speech
>both
ok.ru/video/1703019998

There's a reason humanity-destroying globalist corporations like Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Netflix support net neutrality. It gives them a monopoly in their fields, by letting them use a lot more bandwidth than they pay for, and they use that monopoly to promote the globalist agenda and silence nationalists. It's long overdue to get rid of net neutrality and force them to actually pay for all that traffic they use, cut into their profits, and stop allowing globalists to artificially suppress nationalism, so the entire human race can flourish once again.

who do you want to control the interwebs - the internet service companies or the government?