Net neutrality thread for non-(((shills)))

i understand both the pro- and con- arguments for net neutrality.

anti-net neutrality is being pushed by the infrastructure providers (ISPs, e.g.), because they want to expand their businesses beyond more than just providing dumb pipes. the anti-neutrality argument is the classical economic argument that regulation inhibits competition and innovation.

pro-net neutrality is being pushed by the major tech companies (google, netflix, amazon, for some). they argue that a loss of net neutrality will lead to a "productization" of the internet, whereby it ends up being treated like your cable package. in reality, i think, the major tech companies, all of which have increasing started pushing bandwidth-intensive streaming video, are fearful of a loss in profits due to having to negotiate agreements with the ISPs to make sure that their data transfers don't get penalized.

now, to dissect these arguments a bit:

1) the trend across all of the US economy has been towards greater consolidation and monopolization
2) ISPs, especially at the "last mile" tend to be monopolized
3) revoking net neutrality, especially as far as consumers is concerned, is therefore unlikely to lead to competition and innovation, just outsized profits for incumbents
4) i think it would be a mistake to assume that the pro net neutrality movement, which is being astroturfed by the big tech companies, necessarily has consumers' best interests at heart. these companies are as ruthless, evil, and self-motivated as are the pipe providers.

so, i end up not really sure which stance to take. help me out, famalam?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The internet should be wide open and free from extra charges for fast lanes and certain content. God I miss the internet of the 90's.

Net neutrality is not good.
Removing net neutrality is not good.
There are no good options.
Net neutrality means less privatization and corporatism controlling the internet, but instead the government and related organisations do instead.
No net neutrality means the opposite.
We are fucked no matter what.
There is no such thing as a free or neutral internet. We only get to decide who controls the rope we hang ourselves with.

I generally agree with you user, but as terrible as the ISPs are, the tech companies are worse, and if ISPs try to start paywalling and shit won't that just push for greater decentralization of the net, or spur competition? That's a potential outcome at least.

how does the desire to get rid of net neutrality tie in with the existing politics of ISP peering agreements? i do sort of feel like there is a "double counting" issue here

If you like internet how it is right now then you like NN. If you want it more complicated than that, then you're against NN

the internet right now fucking sucks. cell phones and social media are cancer. which camp does that put me into?

I don't know either, as it seems more issues than the surface issue is at stake when you start to dig down. My feeling is that that's just too convenient for some special interest. It sounds like 'freedom'=Goverment or corporate control. Which is weird. Do we mandate everybody having the same radio quality? Nope. Is something broken about the Internet now? No. Obviously I'd shit on corporate censorship, but outside Google I'm not seeing it. NN seems like one of those laws that's exactly the opposite of its name.

NN was a bill that was made out of retalliation for gamer gate. It hasn't been passed through congress. Don't believe the shills that say it is because it's not. NN will destroy the internet and the world as we know it

>Obviously I'd shit on corporate censorship, but outside Google I'm not seeing it
>outside Google I'm not seeing it
newfags gtfo

The fact is that we shouldn't leave it to the government. However we should have net neutrality. This is however, something that should not be left to the fucking government. They can already weaponize the IRS, which should be an impartial organization. It's obvious that this will be weaponized to throttle political dissidents.

Youre complaining about the way rubber snells during a ford and Chevy debate.

If you are thinking of ever making a website on the internet you need to be for it. But since nn has been put in place it seems all the big companies are censoring all opinions right of center. I know one thing for sure we are never going to get this back if they repeal it. We fought tooth and nail for it and it was a grassroots campaign.

let me see if i'm grokking this properly. peering agreements get signed "upstream". someone like google, who both also owns a lot of its own fiber, will sign a deal with a backbone provider, who has a peering agreement in place. this, under current law, is all that needs to be done to ensure that google's traffic reaches end-users without being penalized.

the "last mile" ISPs also have peering agreements in place. for sake of simplicity, lets assume that our network goes:

Google -> Backbone Telco -> Last Mile ISP -> (You)

the Last Mile ISP has a peering agreement with Backbone Telco. this agreement was signed knowing what kind of traffic it would need to route, including, but not limited to, the bandwidth intensive stuff from Google

but now the Last Mile ISPs of the world aren't happy with the contracts they've signed. this is because their relatively smaller pipes are being flooded by streaming video bandwidth from google. this could potential crowd out bandwidth from other content providers. HOWEVER, Last Mile ISP knew what it was getting into when it agreed to peer initially.

Without NN we still get censored opinions but now with internet toll roads on the way to censored opinions.

Its a pretty shit proposition just so Verizon can lord over its lines in the ground.

I can't answer that, I simply just don't know.
I would have to guess that if there was a product and I granted access to that product. It would be better for me if I could choose what and how much access (you) could have and at what extra price.

As long as they are using telephone lines and public property to bring you their service, they should be classified as public utilities.

This line of argument strikes me as similar to the middle class family, well under the threshold but misunderstanding the issue, complaining about the estate tax because it has been so well spun by Republicans as a "death tax" that affects anyone with some savings.

Explain this. I've read articles and generally don't think I'm a dumbass, but how is changing things keep it the same? Obviously I'm not talking about political bias. If I understand it right, NN prevents corporations from speeding up or slowing down traffic and download speeds. Not politics. My basic fear and argument is that laws like this will lead to more laws. And one day the isp's will be restricting your Internet in general by government mandate. A precedent has been set for government influence, even if its firstly a 'freedom' law. Maybe I'm a lolbertarian here. I get it. But where are they actually doing what you want to protect against, preferrential treatment of download speeds? Seems like a weird hill to plant your flag on, even if the first premise is good.

A decent NN thread.

Your right to be WEARY of fascistbook/Joogles motives behind NN,

BUT....

This doesnt mean NN is bad. It just means we have to make sure the FCC isnt subverted/used as the internet content police

Without NN were FUCKED. Consumers dont have any power over these monolpolies.

> b.but muh free market

Yeah you were LIED to. there is NO real free market dummies. There is a kike controlled market.

contrariwise: ever hear the saying that the power to tax is the power to destroy? similarly, the power to throttle is the power to destroy. due to the Saul Alinsky tactics of the left, the free market can be just as vulnerable to suppression of speech as can a government regulated market.

Here are just a few examples
>Infowars, when leftists systematically attacked their advertisers and got them dropped. Remember Alex in fucking tears shilling because he thought he was going to go out of business?
>Breitbart, when leftists systematically attacked their advertisers and got them dropped
>Daily Stormer, who was dropped by every company it tried to relocate to

>but user, private businesses have the right to chose with whom they transact.
Not the fucking point, mong. See left, #12. Private business is arguably MORE susceptible to infringing your speech than is the government. The Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is constitutionally protected. Try posting similar speech to Facebook, Youtube, etc. and see how you fare.

bump

Honestly i'm generally confused by your post. Not trying to be an asshole. Where are isp's throttling up or down our internet connection to a specific website? I don't see any evidence, and it doesn't make any rational sense for them to do so outside a media deal. Make those inside deals illegal instead! Maybe that's what they are doing with NN in a top heavy way, but I've seen 0 evidence that that practice is happening.

I'm talking about if NN were revoked

We are currently being raided by share blue. don't listen to ((them))

will my rule 34 be affected in any way

Well shit. Shows you how far behind I am. I thought it was still being debated.

Just select the Deviant Pornography package :)

The whole argument comes down to REACH they need it and we need it. Paywalls and literal distance and routing get all fucked up if the ISPs who own the lines start fucking with things. It limits the reach of the little guy, costs everyone who relies on it money and puts artificial barriers up.

Ok shilling gets more expensive, social media loses influence great, it also means yelling about niggers and trying to find out just how many Swedes have been raped more expensive. It means whole countries might get priced out of service because your electrons have to make it to the USA and back. We are absoloutely ripping off the ISPs with all this cheap communication but without it we might as well be on shortwave radios hoping to bump into someone from another part of the world. What we do now would be completely broken. I remember those days and they sucked

Also, one thing that gets lost in the void is that this discussion has always been constrained to the Web. What about non-http(s) traffic? What about stuff like Tor, IPFS, etc?

before you go ahead a go against NN just remember to save cash for when u have to buy the pornhub package and the Sup Forums internet package

>access to pornography gets restricted
wtf now i love anti-NN

Net Neutrality can be guaranteed through stronger consumer protection laws.

The idea being that if the ISP gatekeeps the service they are using discriminatory pricing policies and misleading and deceptive conduct in failing to guarantee a consistent service for all paying customers.

If you hit them where it hurts they'll back off quick smart. Consumer protections are consistent with Constitutional protections so an attack on consumer protection is an attack on the Constitution.

I don't see any negative to legislating to protect net neutrality however it expands government oversight into another area of law that is not explicitly covered by the Constitution and therefore lays the groundwork for future abuses.

In other words the Jews are banking on victory by either party.

Until the Trump administration removes ISP anticompetition laws, I support net neutrality.
Right now, thanks to those laws, I have two ISP options: Cable One and CenturyLink (not including the resellers).
I'd rather not be forced into paying for access to 4chink at normal speeds, when it's been proven that ISPs like to fuck over their customers.
That's why NN was passed in 2015, amongst other things. Unless they were classified as Title II, they could get away with speed inhibition and selective blocking thanks to this lawsuit: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)
Now I'm gonna go copypaste this into the other hundred NN threads that are in gross violation of the sticky.

Even p2p uses the physical lines which means its not safe from meddling.

is anyone working on a wireless meshnet that uses cryptocurrency to reward routing? would be the shit

As a Canadian, siding with ISPs is probably the worst idea. These Jews fuck us royally and we have no say because the government allows them to have a quasi monopoly on the market.

Frankly If i'm going to choose the lesser of two evils i'm going to have to side with the pro-net neutrality kikes over the anti kikes.

So seems like we need net nutrality to fight the corporations

up