Why the fuck is everyone on Sup Forums so fucking retarded when it comes to net neutrality?

why the fuck is everyone on Sup Forums so fucking retarded when it comes to net neutrality?
i get that this is a """"contrarian board""""" but holy shit you would think Sup Forums of all places would understand the importance of net neutrality

and before you retards come here and start to spout the same shit:
NO, net neutrality isn't causing censorship you stupid fucking monkey, it makes ISPs treat all packets the same, which makes it so they can't (legally) stop you from viewing a website just because they want to. if net neutrality is gone, comcast could just decide to stop servicing Sup Forums and that would be it. the site is dead for anyone who uses comcast (a fucking lot of people).
NO, net neutrality is not stopping competition. ISPs like comcast and verizon are the ones who stop competition by absolutely crushing anyone who tries to start up an ISP that offers prices and service that aren't totally fucking dogshit, and they are ALSO THE ONES WHO WANT THIS BILL TO PASS. if getting rid of net neutrality would encourage competition, why the fuck is the monopoly trying so fucking hard to get it through?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/OlYu5
archive.is/Ixr4V
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

If you built a garage, and I ran my business out of it, and decided that all garages should belong to the public, would you be OK with that?

The fact is, AT&T and other phone/cable companies pay bucket loads of cash to maintain the internet infrastructure, and companies like Netflix are basically delivering basic cable packages without the overhead of infrastructure costs.
It would be fair if Netflix started dragging their own fiber lines so they could maintain their own infrastructure.
As much as the internet is "free", the physical cost of the internet depends on other companies, who should be able to push that cost over to the high volume corporations.

Shitty bait faggot leaf.

We all knew the internet before 2015, we all know that the jewgle and jewflix hysteria you're spouting is bullshit.

what does
>We all knew the internet before 2015
mean? net neutrality laws, while not necessarily under that name, have been in place in the US since the early 2000s

Net neutrality is corporate rent seeking by bandwidth hogs like google or netflix. It is *not*--nor does it have anything to do with--content neutrality, as twitter, FB, google etc. have all begun to police content on grounds of TOS agreement and other extralegal means. Go fuck yourself and let us hear no more about so-called net neutrality until you learn the facts, OK? OK!

The Net Neutrality Scam: Government Control is NOT the Solution archive.is/OlYu5
-
The Net Neutrality Scam archive.is/Ixr4V

lolbertarians are mentally challenged idiots

what the fuck is with all these anti NN retards posting the same 4 articles in every thread?
i KNOW net neutrality isnt about stopping corporations from censoring people on their own platforms - and while i understand and agree that is a problem, that doesnt mean that we should let ISPs have that power too.
just because NN doesnt stop companies from censoring people on their own platforms doesnt mean that it doesnt have value

>lolbertarians are mentally challenged idiots
Still smarter than the soy-drinking homos who think 'net neutrality' is anything other than corporate rent seeking.

i agree with the leaf.
internet needs to be managed by a federal entity. its the equivalent of a digital highway, and our highways are managed federally.
Internet should not be a for-profit endeavor any more. it should be something in the public domain

"Net neutrality" was only a concept after 2015, retard.

All of the shitty scaremongering never happened in the several decades before that.

>MUH X WILL HAPPEN WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY

fuck off, it never happened before. The FTC and FCC can in any case ban many business practices.

NET NEUTRALITY is the new TRUMP WILL PUT FAGGOTS INTO CONCENTRATION CAMPS. I look forward to it being revealed and your screams dying down as you appear nobody cares and nothing happens.

sage

>NN doesnt stop companies from censoring people on their own platforms doesnt mean that it doesnt have value
It has no value. None. Other than to subsidize bandwidth hogs like netflix or google so that ISPs are forced to pass those costs onto moron idiot mouth breathing window lickers like yourself, you crayon eating mouth breather.

>internet needs to be managed by a federal entity. i
Still not an argument for 'net neutrality,' dumbfuck, as someone still has to pay for the delivery whether consumers, or taxpayers. Should some products get free freight whether by road or by rail to your grocer? If not, why not?

>i KNOW net neutrality isnt about stopping corporations from censoring people
That's literally the entire basis of your OP argument leaf

yeah, because there's no way that wrongthink can get hit with massive slowdowns

well, luckily there is no cost to delivery, only infrastructure. kinda like maintaining a road that runs without vehicles after it is built

before I read what you have to say

let me redpill you on this goy.
net neutrality is all about who has jurisdiction more than anything else.
yes, in theory, the ISPs can dick you, but at this point, who gives a fuck? Who suffers? kike-owned bullshit that sucks bandwidth mostly.
this is not about the ability to just deny access to sites, to maintain safe harbor status, they can't do that.
what they can do however, is slow down bandwidth hogs like jewtube and kikeflix

The real issue is, as stated before, jurisdiction. Who gets to decide that an ISP is being "neutral"? Right now it's the FCC, which is a small panel, easily fucked with and they can literally decide what is inside that definition on a fucking whim. Yes, they can decide "welp, hate speech doesn't get to be neutral" and it's all shut down. Kill net neutrality and it moves to FTC jurisdiction.

The FCC chairman is a fucking verizon shill, neither he nor his cronies will be implementing any laws that stop ISPs from fucking over consumers to get money

similar laws to the current net neutrality were in place before 2015, they just werent called net neutrality. the concept existed, in its current form it did not

I like how you cut out the part where i said "on their platform".
fucking moron.

>>listening to a leafs opinion

>well, luckily there is no cost to delivery, only infrastructure. kinda like maintaining a road that runs without vehicles after it is built
Fantasy-land dwelling dumbshit fuck-face actually believes there is no cost to servicing, maintaining, and upgrading, technical infrastructures, or that net infrastructures require no electricity or other utilities to maintain. You are too stupid to live you utter and complete waste of skin.

Those regs still exist. The NN deregulation is removing power from the FCC granted in 2015.

It's absolutely nothing.

>yeah, because there's no way that wrongthink can get hit with massive slowdowns
There is actually competition among ISPs; not so much at the infrastructure level.

i clearly stated that once you build the infrastructure the only cost is maintaining it. the data that traverses it does not cost to travel such as a truck.

Trump is against it so the board is against it.

where the fuck do you live in america where there is competition between ISPs? I have lived in 4 different US cities for my work and I have never had an option between more than 2 ISPs

You are confusing costs. Netflix and you pay their bandwidth costs. Where do you think your money goes when you pay for internet?

there is no competition among ISP's.
Nearly every region is service by one ISP. any addition ISP leases the infrastructure from another ISP.

I oppose net neutrality because I want americucks off my internet

>i clearly stated that once you build the infrastructure the only cost is maintaining it. the data that traverses it does not cost to travel such as a truck.
Oh Jesus bloody hell you're stupid. Net neutrality is about bandwidth, dumbass, the 'data that traverses" the infrastructure as you put it so inelegantly, so if you honestly believe that then net neutrality is a non-issue and you can find some other non-issue to entirely misunderstand, misinterpret, and beclown yourself by trying to advocate for a position that you can't even articulate.

>One ISP leasing infrastructure to one or two more ISP's is not a monopoly, I have a choice and they are competing for my business!

Your ISP can't do jack shit to you if you use a VPN

Why do you need so-called "net neutrality" laws when the end user can so easily circumvent any abusive behavior by using a VPN?

and i never mention net neturality once faggot. learn to read. you come into this thread talking all this shit and insulting everyone and you cant even read what the fuck they are saying

>where the fuck do you live in america where there is competition between ISPs? I have lived in 4 different US cities for my work and I have never had an option between more than 2 ISPs
I cannot account for your poor life choices though. Please forgive me.

>similar laws to the current net neutrality were in place before 2015, they just werent called net neutrality. the concept existed, in its current form it did not

Sounds like Obama wasted his time doing wasteful stageplay then, when the laws were similar and he only changed their form.

Anyway, this is the first time I have seen this claim. Always before, "Net neutrality" has been referred to by leftists as something Obama created, not that he simply changed the form of existing laws.

Where is your source of:

a) all these prior laws that existed prior to 2015

b) a list of the specific practices they banned

c) a reliable source showing that all of those laws will be repealed as well?

Anyway, this is literally the first time I have heard someone claim that net neutrality was law before Obama.

>and i never mention net neturality once faggot. learn to read. you come into this thread talking all this shit and insulting everyone and you cant even read what the fuck they are saying
Oh just shut the fuck up junior. Go back to bed or something you useless fuck.

>Their platform
what does this even mean. you mean on their end lines? so then people will buy something else. like 4/5G or wimax if it came to that. but this wont happen anyway.

i was making good money and living well in those places, they just happen to have shitty ISP options. I don't have a huge choice where i move for work, and my the competition between ISPs where i am moving is really not the biggest concern

truly you are the epitome of uneducated. You cant properly read what is written in front of your face so you resort to insults.

I mean on censorship on facebook or on google or w.e, as opposed to being completely blocked by the ISP

> makes it so they can't (legally) stop you from viewing a website just because they want to.
No ISP does that. It's a left-wing boogeyman, an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem, an excuse for more government control over the internet. Once we have net neutrality, then it will be universal internet IDs, no anonymity, everything you go on gets posted to facebook, Social Autopsy, basically FCC regulations over the internet. All of this stuff will be done in the name of "anti-bullying" and "net neutrality", so anyone who disagrees is just really evil and stupid and there's nothing more to it, just like the left tries to claim about all of their positions.

Everything you claim to fear because of the lack of net neutrality, could happen because of net neutrality, but I understand you don't care and will continue to say it's great.

FTC vs FCC. FTC was the body that had the regs, Bama did some fuckery and gave power to the FCC.

The repeal of the FCC regs doesn't remove what the FTC can already do/ enforce.

>Once we have net neutrality, then it will be universal internet IDs, no anonymity, everything you go on gets posted to facebook, Social Autopsy, basically FCC regulations over the internet.
what makes you say this? honestly I think net neutrality is just a buzzword being used to push an agenda, but it really seems to be more about ISP's wanting to charge premiums to allow access to certain services online

>thinking the government would make anything "neutral"
Whatever the government acts upon it controls.