Can someone please redpill me on this whole net neutrality thing? why is it a big deal again?

can someone please redpill me on this whole net neutrality thing? why is it a big deal again?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1121/DOC-347868A1.pdf
newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/826873?section=ChristieLeeMcNally&keywords=george-soros-free-speech-open-society-foundations-net-neutrality&year=2017&month=11&date=17&id=826873&aliaspath=/Manage/Articles/Template-Main&oref=duckduckgo.com
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

It's just another way of saying Jew Reality.

(((Net Neutrality)))

basically big corps want cheap bandwidth at your expense

yes but what is this new threat?

if there was no net neutrality you have to pay extra for shitposting on 4 chan.

if there was no net neutrality you cant access web pages jew companies dont want

This is all you need to know

>meme flag
whatcha doing /leftypol/?

I think that's what they call the opposite of true

>Obama
>FOR net neutrality

How fucking stupid does one have to be

comcast has a 97% profit margin, they essentially just take our money, and actually have been laying people off. Our internet speeds lag behind countries like France and Britain overall and we pay 3 times as much monthly for the same speeds.

Donald Trump empowered/selected a former lobbyist for verizon to forge a deal which would make companies like comcast have more power and have to do less.

People are highly mobilized and this is likely a distraction from the bigger con, healthcare/tax reform which they will try and rush through.

go to Sup Forums Sup Forums or Sup Forums and see how they feel

>Zionist puppets, some roasties and Sargon
I'd rather take my chances with the left side desu.

Woah that convinced me

in 2010 i was taken by the police and "interviewed" when i threatened to kill obama over net neutrality.

no charges laid but i bet there's a big red underline on my name somewhere

Sup Forums is stuck trying to out reddit each other over the ea lootbox pay to win shitfest

>reddit supports it
You know where we stand.

Sup Forums IS net neutrality

...

If Reddit supported breathing, would you be against that too? Anyone on Sup Forums who doesn't want net neutrality is a turkey voting for Christmas.

Essentially it means that if we lose net nuetrality an increase in traffic for Sup Forums could kill it.

EPIC meme, Fellow magapede xD! Mind if i share this on the_donald? :^)

the only reason to oppose it is to spite liberals

god forbid we agree on anything, even when overwhelming common sense is in the way.

The only one fucking up is Trump and his shit is not conservatives or liberals problem, thats his failure and his alone.

>we
Everytime

A solution for a non-existent problem.

Soros worked for the Nazis when he was a teenager. I guess that must mean the Nazis really were the bad guys after all.

>we
wow, so based magapede

Not an argument

notice how the anti-NN crowd (ie paid Verizon shills), aren't posting any arguments just poorly made shitty memes.

The special interest from 2015 is colliding with the special interest from 2017. In the end the average joe will suffer no matter which of the two chairs gets picked.

The money doesnt mean he's wrong, it just makes his voice louder.

You wanna google how much verizon and comcast have spent to get aij into the FCC? Soros is the drop in the bucket here. They have outspent him. Where is Soro's puppet in the FCC?

yeah well but what's bad about it?
i mean the whole net neutrality thing sounds extremely suspect, it's supposed to protect consumers from a very unlikely scenario, but i fail to see what's actually bad about it

This is a false-flag designed to make anti-NN people look retarded and partisan.
Do not fall for it.

Reddit is against drinking bleach so you better start chugging.

is there a reason why the US only has 3 service providers ?
because it's the main issue here

net neutrality = government control
no net neutrality = free market

but with 3 shitty provider there's no free market so in both cases thing are kinda shitty

He was working against them from the inside

>b-but reddit!!
>b-but soros!!
Instead of posting who supports it why don't you actually tell us why it's bad?

Drumpfkins would literally eat their own shit if Soros was against it.

Are there non-partisan reasons for us to be against net neutrality? I haven't heard any.

Gov has rules to not inhibit free speech.

Companies have set precedent the last two years of mass censorship as legal if it violates their terms and services, which has been used to effectively censor opposing political views on entire platforms.

When Democrats were in power many of them wanted to ban NN, now that republicans are in power, they want to ban it.

Why?

Whoever bans it first can write the rules and get the greedy ISP's to agree to anything they want. It can be used to censor via blocking wide ranges of sites.

It's a social nuclear weapon and the first to control what is censored by ISP's wins forever. It's extremely dangerous. The internet must remain free and protected.

Really goes to show you that even they know this is going to be the straw the breaks the normies back.

the fight going on right now, for which most normal people arguing and screaming about it have no idea what they are fighting for....

Its all about who controls the internet....the government and censorship, with potential for making everything legally hate speech, along with government doxing over comments OR....give the control all to the two internet companies in america and let the slow your internet to streaming sites unless you pay a subscription for fast lane internet access...thus getting their cancelled cable tv subscription money off you streaming vs using their shit tier over priced entertainment.


There is only one win. get rid of net neutrality then shatter time warner and comcast into the hundred pieces. That option is off the table.

Basically its government vs monopoly fighting over control of the internet and whipping up sheep to their side.

COMCAST are thieving cunts.
these THIEVING CUNTS want to steal even more money, for doing fucking nothing, by further abusing their near monopoly position to decide what you can and cant see on the internet.
NATURALLY, the things COMCAST will let you see, is the same things that pay Comcast to get seen. And those that don't pay Comcast? They can block them.
OH, they can also charge you more for viewing only those things they want you to view.
AND anyone who is against is this is (naturally) a redditor, etc.

You need to be 18 years or older to post, retard

3 providers just like left vs right it's Jew vs Jew

I'm a photoshop expert and authority and I call that picture bullshit.

I have no idea what's going to change and neither does anybody else. What's going to happen is going to happen no matter what. Stop making threads about It and deal with the situation as it unfolds.

bullshit you fkn jew

As an industry insider this entire debate is absolutely BAFFLING to me.
Because no matter what the outcome it will have zero consequences.
You can already buy fast lanes. And ISPs are already blocking each others services.

Sorry was in an exam. It's a bit of a convoluted answer but here's the reasoning behind why net neutrality in it's current incarnation is awful. So net neutrality specifically refers to treating all traffic in terms of QoS equally WITHIN a service providers network, really says nothing about when packets egress. But the current debate over it started when Comcast and Netflix had a peering conflict contractually because Netflix consumes a huge portion of overall internet bandwidth and thus needs their content delivery networks to run on special carrier interconnections that they pay for, basically a tap into their fiber backbones. Well when you're talking about the tier 1 to tier 2 level of the internet, a lot of the stuff I and this team called DNT Core works on at my work for example, you have to make sure the traffic balance between major tier 1 and 2 providers is fair. Basically level 3 is handing off an equal amount of traffic to Comcast and so on. This is why you have to enter into an interconnection contract with these providers, because it's a careful traffic balancing act. Well when Comcast and Netflix had a dispute about their interconnection agreement, Netflix ran to Congress and said it's a violation of net neutrality. And all of these media outlets were showing graphs about how Netflix is being slowed down... When that wasn't the case, all that happened is their higher tier peering agreement ended and customers were accessing their content delivery servers through the public internet and the QAM/DOCSIS cable system. So obviously performance suffers because it's like Netflix opens a firehose to all of these very small pipes going to customers homes. They framed it as a net neutrality argument when it wasn't one, all of that was a none issue in the first place.

>But the free market.

so it's basically the money jew vs the controlling jew ?
why don't we just kill the jews ?

>why don't you actually tell us why it's bad?
Because in the time i bothered shills would make 50 new threads shilling it and my explanation would be buried.

Soros backed + shill threads across the entire fucking website = enough for any reasonable poster here to realize something is screwy.

Now it's extremely unfair to the ISPs and tier 1 providers that have pre-existing contracts that are, in a free market, MUTUALLY beneficial because, for example, Charter can provide a fat pipe to customers homes for Netflix if they pay us and we both make money. It would have been like you're forcing ISPs to give large customers Interconnection which everyone else pays for but they don't. Basically, a very basic analogy because I don't know how well I explained that, is that in a free market people can pay to use the HOV lane. If you open the HOV lane to everyone the people that paid get no benefit. It was a devastating ruling for our industry.

Heres your raw red powder, for surface area.

It's NOT a big deal.

Net neutrality as a policy and a mechanism has existed since the dawn of the internet. However, in TYPICAL Marxist tactic, when Obongo and his cronies moved for the FCC to oversight internet communications in 2015 decided to 'borrow' the term to the new asset, in order to shift meanings and make the debate harder on the new government overreach.
Pretty much how Marxist define 'abortion' as 'pro-choice' or 'illegal aliens' as 'refugees'. It's an age old trick.

Internet existed and worked with net neutrality before 2015, and will continue to do so.

T.: someone who does high level backend engineering for a living.

Not feeding the poor for one week would solve the poverty problem.

I'm trying to make since of this. Between the autists on each side of the argument it's very difficult. Here's the best I can come up with:

Currently, with NN:
>Only been in place for two years
>FCC deems Internet service a "utility" under title II of the 1934 comms act
>Requires ISPs to maintain and provide Internet at reasonable cost
>ISPs cannot have a bias on traffic: it's all or nothing
>Remember, you use Internet to go to Netflix, Netflix uses Internet to go to you, it's a two-way road
>Violations are dealt with by FCC

Without NN:
>Go back to the ancient times before NN of 2015
>Government has no regulatory control over the Internet
>ISPs can now throttle traffic depending on the site for any reason
>This means they may charge Netflix more to use Internet or...
>...they may charge you more to use Netflix... or both
>The big hypothetical is "$5/mo to use social media sites, $10/mo to use Netflix/Hulu/etc." or whatever

tl;dr

With NN you have government oversight and ISPs can't pick and choose how to use their bandwidth. Without NN you have no government involvement (mind you, anti-trust and monopoly laws are still in effect) and ISPs determine how bandwidth is allocated.

Everyone is worried they're gonna have to pay more for sites like Netflix to load quickly or that other sites might out and out be banned because they're controversial or competitive (that, at least, won't happen without serious repercussions).

What will actually happen? No idea. FCC wants to step away and let the market deal with itself. Congress can always step in and require regulations.

My two cents: less gov't control the better. Especially if it's a bureaucracy relinquishing control that is not enshrined in actual law (but rather "rules" that they assume fall under their purview).

I honestly don't think much will change either way. Your online experience will remain the same and you may just have a different pricing model, at little to no extra cost.

>le 2 years meme
It's been a law for 20, Obama only made it federal 2 years ago

>Soros Backed
BS you fucking lying COMCAST shill.
fucking kys.
Fucks sake sheeple - IF FUCKING COMCAST WANT IT, HOW THE FUCK CAN IT BE GOOD FOR YOU? jeezus.

>since

sense*

God damnit.

Mostly, NN is something republican representatives only oppose because of what is essentially bribes to their affiliated organizations, campaign offices, and charities. I doubt there is a boomer in D.C. that really knows what it is.

I've never met anyone over 40 that could even describe TCP or a three way handshake and I work in web with many boomers. Not one, even ones claiming to be web developers, have ever passed my interview questions. What's more, they haven't ever gotten a single question right. They max out what it means to be technologically illiterate. They do not even try to learn it either. Instead they will mismanage a site into oblivion, or blow millions on a failed campaign, then brag about their number of years of experience despite it being nothing but a history of obvious failure and incompetence. They will have an MBA but claim to be a software developer when all they ever did was use a content syndication tool on a template site someone else coded. Their resumes confuse browsers and OS's. One we hired as a Sr dev said he was very good at programming for MS platforms... turns out he had merely learned some DOS prompts and fucking sued us for age discrimination when we fired him after he could do literally none of his work tasks.

The crazy thing is, the whole lot of our country's leadership is even further removed from technology than these idiots. There isn't a single member of the house or senate that had a single course of formal education about any technology. Most went through college using a typewriter.

The people in Washington determining our fate are the same people that call the IT help desk during a power outage.

My disappointment in my representatives is beyond my linguistic finesse to express. Boomers' mendacity is beyond reason, they are imbued by hedonistic pleasure seeking, possessed by greed, and display a flagrant disregard on how their actions are destroying our future. I utterly detest them.

why don't they bring a ladder ?
do they somehow just want people to sty poor and depended on government help ?

Here's the pill. youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I

Its almost like Ethics is a dimension of society that cannot be dispensed with.

Fuck

Because pic related is what an internet without net neutrality would look like. This is what the internet was like before Net Neutrality was a thing, and Trump wants to take it back to that state.

That is the point of the comic.

Confirmed NN is Soros Trojan Horse

>GET THE FUCKING NOOSE READY

The founding fathers would shoot you Socialist scum in a heartbeat.

nobody cares outside USA because we don't have local cable monopolies

Damn, let's go at it again.

NET NEUTRALITY was a word to describe a policy that has ALWAYS EXISTED in modern Internet - simplifying to the extreme (A LOT), it means that intermediate nodes carrying a packet, would not try to open it to determine its content and then act on the base of said content, but just deliver it as a best effort service.

Democraps borrowed the term and applied it to FCC regulations deeming internet access an utility like electricity.

Net Neutrality as an implementation policy HAS ALWAYS existed. And no, in modern internet (let's say post America Online) no provider was ever dumb enough to try to regulate traffic according to content of the packets, for various business and technical reasons.

This is just about government oversight and control over the internet. The worse thing is that the same people up in arms against this are often the same bastards that are all in favour of the NSA and other alphabet soups snooping up everywhere.

Wow. Shills our in full force. I must have hit a sensitive spot of soy boys.

State backed ogliopolies want to increase their revenues by removing the restrictions they accepted while getting state backing to allow them to pit internet content providers against eachother in bidding wars for faster/zero-cost bandwidth. These companies are making huge profit margins already and the reason they do not improve their infrastructure is lack of incentive. Creating a scheme where they get more money the crappier their infrastructure is, is fundamentally bad for consumers and the greater internet.

However the bandwidth aspect has become somewhat irrelevant since it really became a big deal a decade ago because companies like cloudflare which you're using right now, google, amazon, and such have setup CDN networks. These are decentralized caching servers all over the globe that allow you to connect to a site like Sup Forums instead of going through the entire internet to a central server, going a much shorter distance. This is a sort of "fast lane" in itself yet completely dodges network neutrality regulations.

Nonetheless being in favor of removing network neutrality regulations still makes you a corporatist cuckold being tricked into deregulating against your interests because you have an ideological bias against regulation. Pic related is Portugal where you are sold packages of websites you can access for a low price.

How about i just give you the sauce for this whole thing rn

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1121/DOC-347868A1.pdf

it's only 1 page, very brief, no reason why you shouldn't read it.

NN has got to go its old and useless
it made scene when the internet first came out, but now that you can stream 4k ultra HD cuckold porn, while downloading all the harry potter movies in the background while you look for teslas old patents on the deep web posting on Sup Forums at gig speeds were being held back by lack of competition in the marketplace.

Additionally, contining to enforce network neutrality regulations, due to a court challenge by Verizon in 2015, now means enforcing network neutrality increasing the amount of regulatory power the government has over the internet GENERALLY which makes people a bit spooked.

Not that the NSA wasn't already fucking making the entire internet into a botnet but it's something worth considering.

Pros: NN would give internet to the poorest of the poor.
We’d have tiers of internet
Each tier granted you how much internet acces you have, just like buying tv channels. Each package has certain channels.
You’d see higher quality internet and sources
You’d see lower tiers for the public access. Etc.

Cons: you’re a poor loser who can’t get premium packages
You’re poor
You’re a poor fag.

Yes, that surely happened before 2014, right?

MORONS.

I shouldn't even care this much, after all this about Burgers, but I'm pissed off at seeing people being this ignorant or willfully misleading

This is a GOOD answer.

>pay more for Netjew propaganda
Good. Hope they burn.

The only shills here are the ones against NN. Just look at this shit , it.

I could still see you, reddit

>NN would give internet to the poorest of the poor.
NN is literally just about ISP customers having to foot the bill for megacorps though.

and which package be Sup Forums in?
>oh we dont carry that one, sorree!

scene? fuck i meant -
sense*
this 4k ultra HD Virtual Reality piss porn has really got me distracted...
oh and we're***

>reddit bla bla redditt
change the record SHILL

>Potato nigger
>trustworthy
No thanks.
>supporting status quo
>4chinz

>unironically wanting pic related to become a thing

What's it like being such an emasculated beta male cuckold?

facebook and youtube are the only websites you can visit in Drumph's vision of a Judeic America

>Imagine a world without autistic manchildrens
Seems good to me.

2.5 years ago net neutrality didn't exist. Nothing was different. Stop this fucking shilling.

Now imagine that but add that Mark Zuckerberg is in charge of what websites you are allowed to view at all and can block access to anything he decides is fake news or hate speech with no oversight or voting at all.

ISP's are not government and they are not obligated to protect free speech at all even if the vast majority of modern human speech now goes through them. they are not even obligated to show you the truth. They could edit the text on anything they want. You wouldn't even know what's real anymore.

What was the $18 billion really for? It's sure wasn't antifa fags! newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/826873?section=ChristieLeeMcNally&keywords=george-soros-free-speech-open-society-foundations-net-neutrality&year=2017&month=11&date=17&id=826873&aliaspath=/Manage/Articles/Template-Main&oref=duckduckgo.com

This. It's boomer facebook mom tier bad.

Ah yes, exactly how things were in early 2015 before net neutrality existed.

>flag
>calling me a nigger
Don't make me use my Amerimutt folder.

Honestly that would be the best thing that ever happened to the internet.
Will teach people how to torrent and keep them off social media and the mainstream shit sites.

It will be awesome. Burgers will be cut from 4chsn and 4chsn will probably have its servers and domain moved.

>no Sup Forums? that'll be $5 extra per month
take my money, hell, make it $10

Can you fucking make a technical argument or counterpoint based on, you know, history, precedent or domain knowledge, without resorting to made up images referring to fantasy-land?
I guess I should be thankful there's no harry potter reference in that stupid shit. Fuck off, and be braindead somewhere else.

>a law forcing jewish companies not to censor the internet didnt exist because they werent doing it yet
FTFYKIKE

we need to keep the same few companies in power who have a monopoly on all the eyes of the lambs of the world

the same companies who now dictate what political beliefs you must have to play-ball