Why is it that only stupid commies support net neutrality

Why is it that only stupid commies support net neutrality.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mFwtrPCYP4Y
youtube.com/watch?v=le2R2Ps58pQ
qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/
unvis.it/qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

hello i am your net neutrality unpaid shill , stop wasting your time in this good forsaken board , if you are truthfully interest in this GET OUT OF THIS ECHO-CHAMBER and go and publish on all your social media about this , don't feed the trolls here which who only want to wasted your time ,i will spend my time here countershitposting the paid shitposters .

paypal.me/iamnoting

What?

I'm full natsoc and i support net neutrality.

regulating the internet 'as a public utility" means that an ISP can't throttle your data and then tell you if you want better service you have to buy into their "internet fast lane"

or block access to specific websites under cable style internet packages.

>inb4 hurr then competition would arise

how many major ISPs do you think there are?

You also underestimate how comfortable people are. they dont give a fuck about any of this, so long as they get their fix of whatever they want to do online.

it would be incredibly easy to sell that to boomers, who only really use and facebook and email, and millennials are more than comfortable with setting up automatic monthly payments for services.

net neutrality isn't what you think it is. it isn't some magical evil law. It's basically just a set of principles that keep the internet a free, wild west that ISP's have to treat equally at all levels, and gives the FCC power to regulate that to make sure ISP's aren't jewing you for data.

Net neutrality legislation should be written by libertarians.

>I'm full natsoc and i support net neutrality.
Of course commies and socialists still support net neutrality.

Competition would increase because of de-regulation of local exclusivity in cable providers. Not net neutrality, but having the internet in the charge of a few ISPs is still better than having it in the hands of the FCC since those companies need to compete with each other and keep there customers satisfied enough to renew their subscription next month.

i support nearly free market with basic regulation for the sake of sustainability amd net neutrality repeal is stupid
but, my voice is lost here. you dont care what i say.

>can't throttle your data and then tell you if you want better service you have to buy into their "internet fast lane"

this is a made up talking point

it screams of political activism

>Competition would increase because of de-regulation of local exclusivity in cable providers.

holy shit are you really this much of a shill that you believe this

>having the internet in the charge of a few ISPs is still better than having it in the hands of the FCC
wow seriously? the FCC sucks balls, but they are at least fairly hands off. As long as you don't show any balls on national TV.

while ISP's are private companies who can censor the internet as they see fit, and claim it's within their rights to display what content they please.

Especially when they are big multinationals. You saw what happened when we gave control of the DNS to Icann right? Let Ted Cruz remind you

youtube.com/watch?v=mFwtrPCYP4Y

And let ME remind you that immediately following that, a bunch of websites, like youtube and facebook changed their terms of service so they could freely censor their websites without repercussion.

And you trust big multinational companies to look out for your best interests? At least the FCC is still bound by the first amendment.

>since those companies need to compete with each other and keep there customers satisfied enough to renew their subscription next month.
oh you mean like Apple and Microsoft totally compete with each other, and totally aren't a two-party monopoly.

Sure, there are tons of smaller ISP's out there. but many are small regional companies, and don't offer the best service, if they even offer the likes of fios. Many are still DSL or dial up for super cheap.

AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner are the big hogs of the ISP world. And they all want to fuck you over equally bad. And when they get the chance, there's nothing you can do.

it's not the Government you should be afraid of censoring the internet. It's private companies, who when there's "outrage", will be "kind, sensitive, caring companies" who will block "hateful, disgusting content" and are within their rights to do so, because it's their service.

>the socialist supports net neutrality
Somebody stop the fucking presses

Suuuurrre it would be. We "believe" you

Agreed. I'll be the first to sign, but I'm using a match.

way to parrot Google and kikebook talking points. You might not know but cell phone networks aren't regulated by net neutrality and none of this is happening on them

There is nothing to gain from increasing internet regulation other than headaches, and losing public interest in global communication.
Net neutrality would probably cost billions of theoretical dollars. We need less government involvement not more. If anything the cable companies need dividing.

the reality is we're fucked either way, and the only solution is distributed decentralized highly encrypted TOR-like networking on a worldwide scale.

You can't throttle if you have no idea where the data is, who is downloading what, or even what sites people go to.

hourly reminder that net neutrality forces ISPs to upgrade infrastructure so we end up with better performance and reliability. without it they never upgrade hardware and limit bandwidth by selling only to the highest bidder and constantly raising prices.

t. communications engineer

>natsoc is the same as communism
and here I always thought American Education really being that bad was just a meme...

>You can't throttle if you have no idea where the data is, who is downloading what, or even what sites people go to.
>implying ISP's OR the government are gonna allow that

you're right about one thing though, we're fucked regardless, since Im pretty sure one of trump's platform points was to kill NN.

So really there's no point in arguing about it regardless I guess.

>how many major ISPs do you think there are?
how many governments are you trying to have regulate them?

It's clearly not just a meme since you obviously don't know how to read, dipshit.

just to be clear
you are AGAINST monopolies yes?

>Be me
>Canadian
>Stronger Pro-Net Neutrality laws
>Even more government regulation of ISPs so they can't fuck with consumers, services, or access.
>Be notably more free on the internet than the US
>Imageboard that benefits greatly from Net Neutrality is ironically filled with cucks that are against it
Sometimes... I just can't even fathom the unironic retardation.

>using the word wide jew
Hello... Its 2017, the year of usenet

implying ISP will not also say the same thing and not have your interests in mind,plus sell you data to russians,and chinks .

>government regulation of ISPs so they can't fuck with consumers, services, or access.
data caps?

expensive internet with data caps

>one of trump's platform points was killing NN
>Donald Trump
>the first US president in forever to actually follow through
I forgot all about that when Hillary was talking war with Russia. Fuck, I wonder if Mitch McConnell will even listen.
No! Nononono not the Aussie treatment!

Net neutrality is bad. Of course internet providers need to charge me extra and double my monthly fees, silly communists.

It can get expensive, but it's first-world internet with options for non-data-capped usage.

Why do Ameritards think dropping NN will do anything to hinder the NSA?

>with options for non-data-capped usage.
didn't know that, neat

I am against monopolies. But I also understand that even our current monopoly laws are outdated and just weren't meant for 21st century cleverness.

Microsoft and Apple, are a monopoly. Not monopol-IES, monopol-Y. Singlular.

They are both in on the joke. They cooperate.

Back in the day, when Apple was failing and they brought Steve Jobs back from exile to lead the company, Apple got a massive investment from Bill Gates. Everyone laughed and thought that was real funny, the two rival companies working together, but the real reason Gates did it, was because if Apple went under, Microsoft would become a monopoly.

So since then, Microsoft and Apple compete lightly, but they have entirely different markets so that they never really step on each other's toes. Apple markets to artists and "people" and markets itself as a way of life for the "individual", while Microsoft is the go-to office software provider. Many people use a Windows PC at work, then go home to their Apple laptop.

This way, there is still legally competition, but at the same time, there really isn't.

Go ahead, use Linux, use any of those alternative OS' out there, they'll tell you. Go ahead, if you can manage without Apple and Microsoft's convenient user interface. it's not like they teach you how to use a command line in school. Most people these days wouldn't know how to operate a computer from the early days before Windows.

Well, it was a republican idea to kill NN. probably because most of them are getting pocket money from the likes of comcast and verizon.

They were only against handing the DNS to Icann, because there's no money to be made, so they are allowed to actually care about the first amendment.

Since Ted Cruz, the same guy who stumped the head of Icann when he asked him if Icann was bound by the first amendment, is the same guy that seriously said, (about NN) "Internet should not go at the speed of Government" when NN isnt going to magically slow the internet

This shit is confusing.
Can one person from each side explain it to me asif I was 5?

>"Internet should not go at the speed of Government"

that's a pretty slick meme desu

You failed economics course.

Net Neutrality = Ban ISPs from implementing Price Discrimination

Net Neutrality has nothing to do with competition which is limited by barriers to entry, which is very high in the telecommunications industry.

Because they want to control it. You can put down dissent on TV, but not the Internet.

Muh free internet!!!
>twatter proceeds to ban any conservative
Muh paid bundles internet
>facebook twitter and jewtube stop being profitable because the goy refuse to pay ISP for their usage of those websites
>people stop using liberal indoctrination social media

Where are the cons?

Anti-Net Neutrality side wants the government to have less power regulating ISPs. Aka Less government regulation of ISPs (and therefore the internet by assumption)

Pro-Net Neutrality wants the government to not allow ISPs to get away with underhanded business practices. Aka more government regulation against ISPs (and protecting consumers by assumption)

>expensive package with monthy recurrence
>equipment is "rented"
>ads everywhere
>news are manipulative and ads are shown in between

truly jewry knows no bounds

He said "explain it to me asif I was 5", not an autist spewing trash at him.

repost my OC

Government has a set of rules that prevent ISP's from jewing you and running the internet themselves like kings. Since the Obama administration, there's now been a push to make those rules into a more concrete law that doesn't rely on laws from before the internet existed.

ISP's are lobbying Republicans to kill net neutrality, so they can run the internet how they see fit, which means jewing you however they like, and managing content however they like.

now, the reason you'll see the likes of netflix AGAINST killing net neutrality, is because NN forces ISP's to treat all internet traffic equally. Which means Joe Blow watching a billion movies on netflix over the internet, is treated the exact same as Jane doe sending a small email or checking facebook.

ISP's obviously dont like that, because shit's expensive. And they want to be able to say to the netflix user, "ok, since netflix takes up a lot of data, you need to buy a special plan for that. Your basic internet plan no longer supports netflix and it's data demands. upgrade to our PREMIUM internet service for that.

or, even more simply, allow comcast to artificially throttle your internet speeds to dial up tier, then tell you it's just congestion, and if you want to avoid it, you can buy into their "internet fast lane!" for an extra monthly fee, when all it is is letting you access what their speed should normally be like.

there's also questions regarding censorship.

Since on the one hand, with NN, internet content is at the mercy of the FCC, which is bound by the first amendment. whereas without NN, content is at the mercy of the ISP, and they can do whatever they want to prevent you from accessing, say, Sup Forums, by choking your download speeds while you browse it, or sending you a massive bill, saying that's not a website that they allow in their basic internet package and you have to pay extra for access to it, because of "high traffic and adult content"

>because the goy refuse to pay ISP for their usage of those websites

you are retarded if you actually believe that would happen

>1974 - 2006: net neutrality
>2006-2014: rise of wireless and claim that broadband / wireless is not covered by common carriage rules of phone lines
>2015-2017: net neutrality

lol, you niggers sure are dumb. You've had net neutrality forever, and now that telecoms that want to SCAM you are calling it "GUBBERMENT CONTROL OF THE INTERNET" you eat it up. You've had common carriage of mail, phone, parcel service for over 100yrs you dumb sacks of shit.

fuckin eh you americunts are kikewhiped

You should get a business degree. It would help a lot with framing your thoughts.

Apple and Google are an oligopoly and the reason they don't "compete" is exactly what you mentioned, market segmentation. They compete in different segments and therefore are not 1:1 rivals. In addition, the reason why there are only a handful of big players in the OS industry is because of incredibly high barriers to entry including R&D costs, patents, etc.

Capitalism means private ownership of the means of production (capital). Capitalism does not mean competition. Rather a highly competitive market is one form of capitalism, in fact an extreme end and the other extreme end is monopoly. Oligopoly is somewhere in between, and that is the situation that ISPs reside in.

You failed english, read my post again. I said that net neutrality would not increase competition, but further deregulation would.

this is false. Cable is not [heavily] regulated by the FCC which is why those problems exist. And Net Neutrality is action to prevent ISPs from making the internet resemble cable.

>while ISP's are private companies who can censor the internet as they see fit, and claim it's within their rights to display what content they please.
When have they ever done this?

go away shill nigger

Internet service in the United States is provided by a handful of companies called ISPs (internet service providers). The gist is that you can pay one of these companies to hook you into their network and they will allow you to send information and receive information at a predetermined maximum rate based on how much you are paying them. This rate is what is known as "bandwidth", it's the bottleneck that determines your overall internet experience for a number of sites. The ISPs have the power to bottleneck your connection however they choose, if they wanted they could slow your speed when attempting to connect to any site that isn't Facebook, or even forbid access to some sites altogether. They could do this to create "packages" similar to how cable TV works, where you have to buy subscriptions to get access to different websites. Currently, an internet connection gives you unlimited access to the entire internet. The ISPs can legally only offer you varying speeds, but they can't moderate the content you have access to, because Net Neutrality forbids it.

There are trade offs, but overall Net Neutrality provides more benefit than harm to consumers. Without it the internet would've been turned into something resembling cable TV, where to get access to anything outside social media and other normie sites you'd have to pay 3 times more.

well to be fair, the thing is, right now, the pro NN people want to canonize net neutrality into actual law.

Before, Net neutrality was just an assumed principle, that iirc, was enforced by the FCC by simply demanding that all ISP's treat all traffic equally.

And now that that's on the table, the opposite push is on the table too

But are we sure that the FCC will follow the first amendment and not censor sites they don't want? I'm reluctant to have the government take control with the basis of "They will follow the first amendment" since they didn't follow the 4th amendment with the Edward Snowden fiasco

You fail at logic.

1. If Net Neutrality will have no effect competition then deregulation, which is the removal of Net Neutrality, will have no effect on competition too.

2. As I said, Net Neutrality is designed to stop price discrimination to increase their revenue, which the ISPs will implement in a market with no regulation.

oligopoly, that's exactly the term I was looking for. That clears thing sup nicely.

>You should get a business degree. It would help a lot with framing your thoughts.
I've considered it, but I seriously can't math, and I know finance is a big part of business studies

>what is facebook
>what is google
>what is youtube

ISP's don't. But you have a prime example of how it would look when you look at those companies and see how they block content they don't agree with.

They haven't because they're not allowed to. But you can look at social media as an example for what censorship will look like if you remove Net Neutrality. Any even slightly off-mainstream site will be outright banned eventually.

read price discrimination, specifically 3rd degree price discrimination.

ISPs want to chop the internet into packages like Sports, Social Media, Streaming, etc. websites not because

>ISP's obviously dont like that, because shit's expensive.

but because it allows them to increase the price of the service. So it's a revenue issue, not a cost issue.

There are more regulations than just price controls at play.

Let me say this: Cable ISPs are granted legal exculusivity in who can lay cables usually down to just 1 or tow ISPs in a county. This grants enourmus power to companies like comcast since it is in many cases ILLEGAL to compete with them in providing cable.

If you get rid of this then the whole issue of price discrmination and lack of competition is greatly reduced since now new ISPs will have an easier time entering the market, and even though it will be difficult, it still would be a potential threat that would keep ISPs on their toes.

that depends on how you define "slighly off-mainstream". If you offer something that isn't on traditional media, it can fuel the interest and benefit your service.

nice tripdubs
4th amendment has been a moot point since Bush signed the patriot act into law and authorized the government to spy on it's own citizens.

the first Amendment is the one that the federal government still absolutely HAS to abide by. It is literally the most important one, and the one the entire nation is founded on.

Sure, administrations may try and underhandedly try to get around it, but it's still there, and if the government was caught censoring the internet through the FCC, there would be hell to pay.

Only the most high-end schools focus heavily on math. Although at a certain point math becomes really important because it illustrates these concepts. I suck at math as well (well I can get straight As in calc but I suck at proofs) and I am doing well.

Even if you don't get a business degree. I would highly recommend learning intro marketing, intermediate micro and macro econ and maybe even a strategy class. It helps a LOT in understanding these issues.

just to make it clear, the ISP will never admit to offering access to these sites, but they will gladly let customers pay for doing so

le kek

>Cable ISPs are granted legal exculusivity in who can lay cables

That's because the ISPs make DEALS with the local governments where they promise to lay down line (for free or at reduced costs) and in exchange they get excludability. This is the complete opposite of regulation and is in fact an example of free market economics. Regulation would be to prevent this type of practice.

>better let the government regulate it or else it'll turn into something that was caused by government regulation.

>I'm full natsoc and i support net neutrality.

everyone does. these dipshits are employed by by comcast's pr firm. Though a newfag, I've already noticed the trend of bots and twats trying to insert communism into every issue under the guise of nationalism

>If you get rid of this then the whole issue of price discrmination and lack of competition is greatly reduced since now new ISPs will have an easier time entering the market

Barriers to entry have nothing to do with price discrimination. If an ISP can price discriminate than they can enjoy higher profits than their rivals. So there is an incentive for all ISPs to price discriminate or they will go out of business / bought up by the more successful firms.

It's time for you to let go of these failed neocon theories and accept the truth. GOP is for the rich corp to fuck you over and you gotta fight against that.

>net neutrality gets repealed in US
>suddenly less US flags on Sup Forums

some are bots sure. but a lot are straight up shills that have drank the Kool-aid aka republican voters.

STOP USING FACTS AND LOGIC BASED ON EXPERIENCE YOU FUCKING COMMIE SHILL NET NEUTRALITY IS FUCKING BAD HUR DUR

>Of course commies and socialists still support net neutrality.
No, communism is opposed to individual rights like the right to view what you want when you want. or the right for a person to buy a utility.

Seriously, the pr firm kicking you down 11.50 per hr needs to up the pay so they can afford high school graduates rather than just renting chimpanzees

The ONLY people who will benefit are the Jews who own the ISPs. That is who will always benefit from deregulation. Look up who makes up the (((boards))) of these companies .
And of course people here takes the American approach of enriching the Jews because of repubs being lobbied hard.

Ahahah fuck again right wing is shown as high test as fuck

Where can I rent a chimpanze for $11 an hour?
Asking for a friend.

really the point should be
>can't distribute traffic through their hardware as they please

doncha know?
they gave the government a hammer to smash regional competition during the telecom fiasco last century, so now they want to give government another hammer to smash private companies into shapes that won't fall into the path of the first hammer.

I think we're fucked either way. With NN, the gov. will eventually be able to censor content that the party in control doesnt like. They will just call it "russian propaganda" or "fake news." Without it the jews at Time Warner will be able to run the internet like a cable company and force you to buy "bundles" and if they are paid enough by the gov. will censor shit as well.

yes - descriptive, neutral and to the point

most people wouldn't like if the parcel company opened up their packages and placed some items on hold lol

Yes, most people wouldn't route their mail through that parcel company.

Further there's no placing on hold. There is timing out packets. Time out enough the time to go through that particular ISP is long enough that a different ISP can service the route.

You could make an argument about snooping, but there's nothing stopping people from encrypting their packets, or moving to some more decentralized network or set of VPNs.

WEAPONIZE NN
youtube.com/watch?v=le2R2Ps58pQ

Price discrimination flourishes when competition does not or can not exist.

And your right GOP is for the rich, and the poor and the middle class. The rich may get richer, but at the same time and despite a wealth gap everyone else does get wealthier from a less regulated market.

qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/

I can't believe still think isps won't nickel and dime you on this.

Pic related this is what the internet is like in Portugal. A place that doesn't have NN.

Let's archive it
unvis.it/qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic

Only big telco shills are against net neutrality

Thank

lobbyist pls.

This is horrifying.

YES!!!!!

Because capitalists are always so busy trying (and succeeding) at destroying the world.

youre not just a shill, youre a desperate shill. FUCK net neutrality, what are we, switzerland?

Because commies want more regulation, they’re faggots.

Either way we're fucked. Private companies hate free speech and so does the government.

>ISP can't throttle your data
ahahaha

So does this mean American's won't be able to post here anymore as no ''sane''(leftist) company will offer Sup Forums on their internet packets they will inevitably offer, just like how it is already happening in Portugal like shows?

>let's give monopolies more power to jew us out of money, it'll be funny because fuck libtards and Reddit xd

wont this cause people to create their own internet? private internet companies and such?

Save this, someone