Explain net neutrality to me you stinky niggers
Explain net neutrality to me you stinky niggers
Ayden Brooks
Other urls found in this thread:
reason.com
law.cornell.edu
laweconcenter.org
for.tn
wired.com
fcc.gov
nyti.ms
theatlantic.com
theverge.com
wired
archive.is
theatlantic
unvis.it
theverge
unvis.it
breitbart.com
youtube.com
apps.fcc.gov
twitter.com
Jordan Cruz
silicon valley companies don't want to pay. they're hiding this through a campaign of "consumer rights"
Jose Nguyen
netflix uses 50% of all bandwidth but with NN verizon and comcast can't threaten to slow-lane them unless they pay up
Sebastian Young
^this. Arm yourselves with Knowledge, Anons.
reason.com
law.cornell.edu
laweconcenter.org
Josiah Cox
imagine EA is your ISP
Colton Jackson
.
.
jesus fuck
Owen Lee
...
Christopher Mitchell
The way I see it,t his whole "5 dollars for these sites, another 10 for these ones, plus addition 5 for these" is a theory. It's not real.
Even if it was real, You don't think companies would keep things the same as they've always been in order to gain all the customers that otherwise hate the subscription system? Would you like a company that is just like pic related or would you prefer someone that gave it all to you for 50-100 dollars a month?
Net Neutrality is basically government interference in the internet, therefore democrats influence ISP's to censor conservatives.
Brayden Kelly
i was never the sharpest tool in the shed so i don't quite understand what it is but LIBTARDS support NN so imagine how TRIGGERED r*ddit is gonna be when we repeal it lmao
also le based goy emperor wants to repeal it so it must be some sort of online gommunism and you're a cuck if you're against repealing it
Leo Brooks
How rude user
Thomas Roberts
This thread will soon be flooded by potatoes brain contrarian poltard' defending net neutrality destruction.
I can't tell you how much I enjoy this situation, from my point of view Burgerica deserve to endure more excruciating and purifying pain before we can forgive them for all the evil shit they've done.
This is a good start.
Cooper James
EBT but instead of poor people it's small websites
Jack Parker
here you go
Brayden Long
>lets do internet like they do in europe
ye nah
Juan Davis
it's like poetry
Jaxson Howard
ay hol up
>stomps feet
so you sayin
>peacefully immigrates to a white country
that we wuz
>smacks lips and whistles
uhhhh..
>steals your wallet
you sayin that..
>starts a rape gang
you sayin that we wuz....
>peacefully immigrates to another white country
you sayin that we wuz internetz an shit?
Jayden Taylor
Super generalized: Net Neutrality means that Internet Service Providers treat all the information that comes across their lines as equal and puts them under the same Title II restrictions as a public ultiliy. So they can't discriminate between users by charging certain users a higher price to access certain services.
ISPs are owned by the cable broadband companies and they want nothing more then to throttle services like Hulu and Netflix and try to force people to their cable services instead. They are trying to throttle their competition, as they have proved time and time again:
2007-2009 - AT&T: Blocked Skype and other VOIP services which competed with their cellphone plans
for.tn
2011 - MetroPCS: Tried to block all streaming except YouTube
wired.com
2012 - Verizon: Demanded Google block tethering apps on Android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction.
fcc.gov
2012 - AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
nyti.ms
2013 - Verizon: Literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
theatlantic.com
2017 - Verizon: Caught throttling customer data in direct violation of FCC Net Neutrality rules
theverge.com
Benjamin Scott
whoops
William Diaz
Please archive it
>wired com/2011/01/metropcs-net-neutrality-challenge
archive.is
>theatlantic com/politics/archive/2014/07/on-net-neutrality-verizon-leads-push-for-fast-lanes/456891
unvis.it
>theverge com/2017/7/21/16010766
unvis.it
Elijah Davis
You pedophiles suck at this.
Isaiah Bell
Like all liberal ideas, its rooted with good intentions but is awful in practice. There is nothing neutral about it, why do you think every tech company and monopoly is for it.
The fact that Soros is actively shilling it also should scare you, he is interested unless its about control.
Of course most redditors read it beyond, neutrality = good, that must mean its good.
>liberal scare tactics, pay 2 go site, packages
Yeah none of these happened before Title 2, if they do happen after Title 2 it will effect big companies like netflix and google who will foot the bill. For censorship talk, google, twitter and facebook already censor and they all support net neutrality. Your ISP can already block you from accessing certain sites.
>MUH COMCAST, ISP monopoly no choice
This is a local issue, not a federal. There are plenty of towns that worked together to get fibre and better internet. Maybe people shouldn't vote in corrupt local politicians who would take the deals with comcast in the first place, so they can afford to protect illegal immigrants. It's local politics cronyism, net neutrality being introduced did nothing to stop these monopolies.
>you are just a corporate shill!
there are more companies actively shilling, you don't think zuckerberg, netflix and google are salivating at all the free shilling they get thanks to reddit
I'm not against a company enfocing net neutrality for itself, but whenever governments and monopolies interact, its always bad
breitbart.com
youtube.com
Keep in mind when you shill for net neutrality, pic related is what you are supporting
Nolan Walker
netflix was a mistake
Samuel Myers
Ajit Pai, the Chairman of the FCC (And former head consul for Version), 2 Republican FCC commissioners as well as most of the Republican Party are billing this as "ending restrictive obama-era regulations and "freeing the internet". It makes sense that the conservatives want it, its anti regulation and pro small government; they say that it will help spur more investment in the industry, which will lead to more growth of internet infrastructure throughout the US and help rural communities get easier access to broadband. If you bring up that ISPs will use this as a catalyst to charge customers more for certain services they mostly respond with "the free market will sort it out. "
The 2 democrats FCC Commissioners, as well as most liberals and hopefully most of the internet see it big cooperations trying to put anti-consumer regulations in place for more profit. It allows ISPs to slow access to certain sites with no FCC pushback. The pic in the OP being a very possible, but very extreme example.
The way I see it is that private investments in the internet and telecommunications industry have fallen since the Net Neutrality rules were put in place (According to Ajit Pai in his FCC statement cited below ) so now they are leaning hard on their lobbyists and friends in government to get them removed. All 3 of the republicans on the FCC board have either worked or lobbied for a major telecommunications or cable company at some point in their career.
If NN passes there will now be no guarantee that ISPs wont block or throttle your access to certain sites and there is no guarantee that these companies will actually help put more internet infrastructure in the ground. The problems they are supposedly "solving" by introducing this bill will come at the expense of hundreds of millions of people across the US.
Michael Murphy
Here's the conservative view:
This is a summary from Ajit Pai's (The chairman of the FCC) Press Statement (apps.fcc.gov
>Background: Over twenty years ago, President Clinton and a Republican Congress established the
policy of the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for
the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” For decades, Commission policies encouraged
broadband deployment and the development of the Internet. That ended two years ago. In 2015, the
Commission imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulation on Internet service providers (ISPs). Since
then, broadband investment has fallen for two years in a row—the first time that that’s happened outside a
recession in the Internet era. And new services have been delayed or scuttled by a regulatory
environment that stifles innovation.
>This Declaratory Ruling, Report and Order, and Order would return to the bipartisan consensus on light-
touch regulation, ending utility-style regulation of the Internet. This will promote future innovation and
investment. And more investment in digital infrastructure will create jobs, increase competition, and lead
to better, faster, cheaper Internet access for all Americans, especially those in rural and low-income areas.
>What the Declaratory Ruling Would Do:
• Restore the classification of broadband Internet access service as an “information service”—the
classification affirmed by the Supreme Court in the Brand X case.
• Reinstate the private mobile service classification of mobile broadband Internet access service.
• Clarify the effects of the return to an information service classification on other regulatory
frameworks, including the need for a uniform federal regulatory approach to apply to interstate
information services like broadband Internet access service.
Charles Perez
>What the Report and Order Would Do:
• Adopt transparency requirements that ISPs disclose information about their practices to
consumers, entrepreneurs, and the Commission.
• Restore the Federal Trade Commission’s ability to protect consumers online from any unfair,
deceptive, and anticompetitive practices without burdensome regulations, achieving comparable
benefits at lower cost.
• Eliminate the vague and expansive Internet Conduct Standard, under which the FCC
micromanaged innovative business models, along with the bright-line rules.
What the Order Would Do:
• Find that the public interest is not served by adding to the already-voluminous record in this
proceeding additional materials, including confidential materials submitted in other proceedings.
Ryder Allen
This literally answered all my questions on this matter and now i know i stand against NN. Trump always knows what's best and i would follow him to hell and back.
Logan Ramirez
And here's the liberal view:
Taken from FCC Commissioner Clyburns (Who along with 3 other commissioners and Ajit make up the FCCs leadership team) Press Release:
>What is Net Neutrality?
Net neutrality is the concept that consumers and businesses should be able to reach the online
applications and services of their choosing without interference from their broadband provider.
In other words, that all data and all legal traffic that travels over the Internet should be treated
equally. This has been a bipartisan bedrock principle for more than a decade.
>What is Commissioner Clyburn’s position on Net Neutrality?
Commissioner Clyburn has been an unwavering champion of robust, bright-line net neutrality
rules that protect consumers against the anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices of
broadband providers. The Commissioner continues to believe that the 2015 rules adopted by the
FCC are the best way to protect consumers and small businesses while promoting innovation.
>Is it true that Chairman Pai’s proposal would eliminate Net Neutrality?
Yes. It eliminates all prohibitions against blocking and throttling (slowing down) applications by
broadband providers, and enables them to engage in paid prioritization and unreasonable
discrimination at the point of interconnection. It ignores thousands of consumer complaints and
millions of individual comments that ask the FCC to save net neutrality and uphold the principles
that all traffic should be created equal.
Austin Mitchell
>nazi flag.
>can't understand a basic concept such as Net Neutrality.
Nolan Harris
Pai may be a poo but he's /ourpoo/
Dominic Young
The Jews want this gone so they can charge more, why do you think Comcast donates so much to repealing it?