Red pill me on net neutrality

Red pill me on net neutrality.
I hear it's going to be used to censor the web because it's more big government control. But I also hear not having it will censor the web because of preferential treatment of websites.
What should I believe??

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

net neutrality is the opposite of censorship. it ensures that tiered internet and pay per view sites do not restrict content and access.

But the current definition is not NN friendly.

Under the hood they are creating Fast Lanes.

You will have to purchase packages now.
Sports
Local News
World News
Healthy Living
Music Sites
Concert Sites
Vacation Sites

All terrible but the big fuck you , it their ability to define what constitutes XYZ.... that is a filter on the world net.....

The point is that while those sights exist, so do free alternatives and NN ensures that those sights aren't throttled in favor of the pay sights.

I see how against Reddit is so I assume it's a good thing

A series of tubes!
youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs

Show me a big business that isn't run on sql server. The rest besides Amazon are completely speculative. Wouldn't touch those with your dick.

If your ISP abuses you then you can get another ISP.
If the government abuses you, well then you're just totally screwed.
On balance, you're better off without net neutrality.

Who is going to sign up for an ISP that has such an annoying payment model?

>If your ISP abuses you then you can get another ISP.
Don't most americans have only two choices at the most when it comes to ISPs?

>If the government abuses you, well then you're just totally screwed.
I guess the paranoid right wingers should just turn their guns in then

People that don't have a choice?

There are not a lot of choices in ISP in the US, especially rural areas. In if there was a competitive ISP market then yeah, we might not need NN, but as it is now its what Comcast and AT&T?

someone that has virtually no choice between alternate providers

If you have few choices and they become terrible then guess what? Somebody new now has an incentive to enter the market!
However, I don't understand how you can be worried about having few choices in the market if you think having exactly one choice in the government would be fine. Explain it to me if you can.

Most places in America have one or two choices for ISPs, and when one makes a change, the other follows suit, because they can just get away with it and don't care.
Net neutrality is literally just trying to keep the flow of the internet neutral without ISP interference, anyone telling you otherwise is one of (((them)))
It's almost impossible for a new isp to open up, google has all the money they could ever need and they still get roadblocked on local and state levels when trying to set up shop.

>Somebody new now has an incentive to enter the market!
it's expensive as heck to start your own ISP and you will likely be crushed by the existing monopolies lol.
You're living in a fantasy world.

Don't you think the legislators in an area would tire of crummy internet at some point?

what incentive is their for the new isps to be only slightly less awful?

to not be*

>Somebody new now has an incentive to enter the market!
have you been living under a rock?

the infrastructure of these giant companies was payed for by the government

>Somebody new now has an incentive to enter the market!
The cost of entering the ISP market is prohibitively expensive, it won't happen. Even Google said it was too costly for them

But ISPs are already paying companies like Netflix and Google to use local caching around the country in order to reduce network strain and decrease search time/the speed you need to watch videos.

"Net neutrality" isn't needed when the ISPs are being forced to pay the companies. The idea behind it was to prevent the opposite from happening, which hasn't happened in the first place.

They get money to keep other isp's from opening.
So no, they don't give a shit.

It depends on who lives there and what their needs are. Some people are fine with slow internet. Others aren't. Some people can't be bothered to switch providers for a marginal speed increase. Other people always want the best. Etc.

Would you give up decent internet for money?

Do you think legislators care about decent internet? Or anyone that gets heavily lobbied cares about whatever they restrict?
>hmmm do i want thousands of dollars or this thing i never use anyway

lolololol
Now you're really reaching.
It's true there might be some legislators somewhere that don't use the internet, but they have children and grandchildren who want good internet.
Besides, it's not like moving to another town is an impossibility. We aren't peons in the Middle Ages stuck to the same land forever.

I would like to know why you don't see the FCC restricting free speech on the internet as a much greater potential concern.

it's not that they don't use it, it's that they don't care if they have to pay more for the same service when they're being given money from lobbyists

I disagree with that other user who says the legislators just won't use the internet. What'll actually happen is ISPs will gift "fast" internet services to legislators under the table like any other lobbying so that they aren't affected whatsoever.

I mean, you've got to think from the perspective of a multi-billion dollar corporation in a capitalist society. They want to make money. Fucking over the general public makes them money. Paying off the people in power costs less than the amount they'd make by fucking over the general public. So that's the route they'll take.

Is your primary concern that you might have to pay for the bandwidth you use instead of other people paying for it? Am I understanding correctly?

You're really reaching if you think the kids/grandkids of politicians who have any say in things like NN aren't sitting on millions of dollars and looking at millions more from future lobbying.
Restricting free speech by the FCC is a concern, but you know what else is? Restricting free from the ISP you pay money to use the internet because they decided you shouldn't go to that naughty site or because they have a competing site.

Anti NN is pro censorship, slippery slope.

I see your concern but whereas there are many municipalities you could live in, what do you do under NN if companies buy off the FCC?

If everyone does it, then there is no choice. And theyveasily can because a lot of places only have one or two options. It won't be all at once. They'll take shit and keep phasing it in like EA.

That model might work for EA because their customers are people who don't mind wasting their precious time on video games anyway.
It's going to be another story if businesses and people with responsibilities can't get good internet.

I'm not really sure what you're asking here.

There are lots of concerns. Net Neutrality is a multifaceted issue. It's a financial one ("just move somewhere else" is a luxury that only a small % of people have, you shouldn't dismiss shit just because you can say "oh well, this doesn't affect me, so I don't care" imo), and it's also a power one. IMO it gives way too much power to corporations that already have an extreme amount of control over the media we consume.

my primary concern is that we get fucked in the ass from government mandated monopolies

internet service in the US is already more expensive from the bandwidth you're getting than the rest of the civilized world

Why is it not more concerning to you that the federal government might restrict your choices than that a local government might restrict your choices?
Do you understand how much harder is it to escape the reach of the federal government than it is to escape the reach of a local government?

> muh Capitalism