Why do some of you guys hate net neutrality?

I'm not supporting either side. Just curious why.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I
reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-fcc/u-s-fcc-chief-unveils-plan-to-scrap-obama-era-internet-rules-idUSKBN17T34W
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Don’t regulate the internet, that’s why

why user?

Because I don't use all the Normie Shit like Netflix and Twitter that NN forces me to pay for in its plan

How does NN force you to pay for Netflix or Twitter? Do you think your ISP will reduce prices once it's repealed?

Sup Forums and Breitbart will get shut down forever if it gets repealed, shota.

I'm a cucked good soyim Trump voter who thinks that tax cuts for billionaires and corporations will trickle down so yes I do think corporations will definitely lower prices if we just do what they ask. They totally won't be greedy or anything.

How can someone be agaisnt the net neutrality?
It's fucking retarded

they're paid to be

It baffles me how much Jew cock Sup Forums has been sucking lately. I swear they would castrate themselves if they knew it would mildly discomfort Soros.

Like how they were shut down from 2003 to 2014? Oh wait. Sup Forums was never shut down and being on NN was a bigger threat to Sup Forums than Comcast ever was.

Pro-NN camp is just piss poor fags that expect government handouts.

Libertarians who don't believe that monopolies and cartels exist or some idiots who just want to go against whatever reddit says without engaging their brain.

They are Jews who want hide memes behind paywalls.
He who controls the memes, controls the world.

Fuck off kikes.
youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I

>thinking net neutrality stops monopolies instead of creating them

That’s just retarded

Can you give us some examples of how NN stopped new ISPs starting up?

>I'm not supporting either side. Just curious why.
I am paying for bandwidth, not concepts and ideas. The internet must remain totally devoid of an opinion, and cannot and should not be controlled. I don't feel like using a name brand application to access custom content tailored for my budget. Fuck that. I hate ads. any more of them, and I will quit the net.

just use adblock

You all realize that having no net neutrality would actually give ISPs a greater right to cut off connection to sites they don't like, right? Having telecoms regulated by net neutrality rules would:
1. Prevent them from fucking consumers in the ass
2. Actually give us greater freedom of speech protections for once

The truth is, we don't know what's going to happen. Either it will drive competition driving down prices and improving services or it will be an utter shit-storm where we'll start seeing the beginning of authoritarian control over information available online.

Now if your an educated man then you'll already know that there are better ways to get information other than the internet. But also that the internet is an empowering tool that can help is turn an idiot into an educated person.

So who knows what's next. All I got to say is that the most important tool we've got is between our ears and not at our finger tips.

well the additional 150-200million dollar cost to broadband providers is a start.

How can you speak of greater freedom when they limit your options to the ones they want?

Broadband providers are still free to indiscriminately limit and load balance traffic with NN in place. Where did you get the $150-200M figure?

What exactly do you mean?

Tell me more about this senpai

Chop.

Today there are thousands of smaller Internet service providers—wireless Internet service
providers (WISPs), small-town cable operators, municipal broadband providers, electric cooperatives, and
others—that don’t have the means or the margins to withstand a regulatory onslaught. Imposing on
competitive broadband companies the rules designed to constrain Cornelius Vanderbilt’s railroad empire
or the continent-spanning Bell telephone monopoly will do nothing but raise the costs of doing business.
Smaller, rural competitors will be disproportionately affected, and the FCC’s decision will diminish
competition—the best guarantor of consumer welfare.
This isn’t just my view. The President’s own Small Business Administration—apparently acting
independently—admonished the FCC that its proposed rules would unduly burden small businesses. The
SBA urged the FCC to “address[] the concerns raised by small businesses in comments” and “exercise
appropriate caution in tailoring its final rules to mitigate any anti-competitive pressure on small
broadband providers as well.”62 Following the President’s lead, the FCC ignores this admonition by
applying heavy-handed Title II regulations to each and every small broadband provider as if it were an
industrial giant. As a result, small providers will be squeezed—perhaps out of business altogether. If
they go dark, consumers they serve (including my parents, who are WISP subscribers in rural Kansas)
will be thrown offline.

Unsurprisingly, small Internet service providers are worried. I heard this for myself at the Texas
Forum on Internet Regulation. One of the panelists, Joe Portman, runs Alamo Broadband, a WISP that
serves 700 people across 500 square miles south of San Antonio. As he put it, his customers “had very
limited choices for internet service before we came along. The big names, the telcos and cable
companies, when it comes to rural areas such as the areas we serve don’t see the value and won’t invest
the capital (at least if it’s their money) to build infrastructure and bring service to the people that live
there. We, and thousands others like us, have found a way to do it.”63
What does Joe think of Title II? He thinks it’s “pretty much a terrible idea.”64 His staff “is pretty
busy just dealing with the loads we already carry. More staff to cover regulations means less funds to run
the network and provide the very service our customers depend on.” Bottom line? Title II will just
impede broadband deployment—especially from WISPs like his.
Other WISPs feel the same way. Take Galen Manners, in my hometown of Parsons, Kansas. He
runs Wave Wireless, a WISP that delivers Internet access to residents of rural Labette County65—
including my parents. I can tell you from personal knowledge that folks back home have few options.
Google Fiber isn’t building there; other major ISPs wouldn’t bother either.

Net Neutrality is digital egalitarianism.

I oppose all egalitarianism. Some data is more valuable than others.

Is this copy paste shilling? They were even careful to avoid "reddit spacing" to the point that it looks like shit.

Here in SG having no net neutrality means certain ISPs can have deals with other services. One ISP for example provides free mobile data usage to Spotify. None of them would dare throttle Internet usage because competitors would jump at the opportunity to offer their services.

A few years back the big ISPs were charging 300+ for 1GB fibre. Then a competitor appeared and offered it for 70+. Suddenly the big ISPs are scrambling to match their price. Today you can get 1gb fibre for 40-50 bucks. If you're pro NN you're anti free market.

Is Digg even around still?

There are Jews that hate net neutrality.
There are Jews that love net neutrality.
Sup Forums doesn't normally realize they have to pick one Jew over the other and it's caused massive drama.

digg.com

The policy imposes title 2 regulations on broadband, which gives pole providers the ability to charge broadband providers the cable pole attachment rates instead of the ones they pay now. The result is a 150-200million increase in cost of broadband coverage over a service area.

Because George Soros is spending millions to convince people that we should keep it.

That looks like a cable TV offer lol

>literally copying and pasting bullshit from a politician

A small internet provider can, right now, provide you with a limited bandwidth and a limited data cap if they don't have the infrastructure to support large amounts of traffic. NN is a regulation which does not force them to do anything by default other than ignore the source and content of network traffic when applying load balancing.

That's great and all but here in 'Murica there are like two big ISPs that collaborate to avoid competing with each other and who lobby local and state legislators to create laws making it prohibitively difficult to create an ISP. There is no legitimate competition.

>WISP

I love my 200 ping 1 kbps connection.

no, retard, its the FCC dissent. You know, the fundamental argument for why this policy needs to be repealed. something I know you aren't aware of because you're a shill, but is actually important to the actual debate so I thought I'd put it out there for the people saying "hurr the NN policy helps competition"

ironically enough the "net neutrality" policy that everyone is defending actually classifies the internet in the same way as cable.

This. I pay $45 a month to my local ISP and get a 80Mbps connection with a 200GB monthly cap that charges me $5 per 50GB if I go over.

better than nothing

because liberals support NN (just like any sane consumer) so some people here think they need to be anti-NN just to stick it to them.
It's kind of sad honestly.

Then people should be mad about the free trade stifling policies that prevent competitors from popping up, not NN.

Seriously man, I hardley know shit about NN from your stand point other than the basics BS. Can you drop some info on me that could help me understand what to expect? How worried should we all be when the time comes?

Sure. Fix that then. In the meantime we need net neutrality to defend us from what is functionally a legally enforced monopoly.

>literally copying and pasting bullshit from a politician
FCC are beaurocrats, not politicians. Its also better than copy pasting bullshit from reddit shills.

>A small internet provider can, right now, provide you with a limited bandwidth and a limited data cap if they don't have the infrastructure to support large amounts of traffic. NN is a regulation which does not force them to do anything by default other than ignore the source and content of network traffic when applying load balancing.
You're wrong. read the fucking policy before you comment on it. Reclassifying the internet under title 2 is not JUST about ignoring source and content of network traffic when applying load balancing.

Every day NN exists is a violation to the principles of free market trading. If this motion fails it'll probably fail in the future again. Once the people understand suffering under the yoke of monopolies they'll shout for an open, free market.

Its all politics, the left has nothing to do, therefore they are going to shill against whatever is the next anti suposent freedom thing is.

the right is drunk on victory after victory so they dont know what to do.

Me personally Im not the smartest person. if God emperor wills it I will be the last Patriot who may stand in his way of his mission to fix things.

>Reclassifying the internet under title 2 is not JUST about ignoring source and content of network traffic when applying load balancing.

Nobody's arguing that the legislation itself can't or shouldn't be simplified or modernised. The problem is that allowing the ISP to act as something other than a dumb conduit is going to let existing monopolies run wild and completely abuse their power.

A couple of corporations were like "Hey, America, if you help us we'll build a series of tubes that'll connect you to the outertubes. But only we can use it, nobody else." ... Until a new form of tubes is invented, this will not change and we muricans need NN so we don't have to use normie shit and can go wherever in the tubes we want to go.

the biggest problems are going to be 1.It deincentivizes the expansion and upgrade of broadband systems by making making this more expensive since its now classified under the cable umbrella (this will also mean slower speeds overall), 2. Creates a extremely vague and nebulous legal standard that will be exploited by opportunistic lawyers, raising costs for internet (think healthcare), 3.Gives the FCC free reign to impose new taxes on ISPs (which means new taxes on you) under the guise of "openess fees," 4. Places the internet in the same legal framework as cable, meaning the FCC could regulate the same way. Licensing requirements, decency standards, etc...

The reality is the things people complain about in favor of NN would be better solved by increasing competition. These rules do the exact opposite.

the 2 year old policy needs to be modernized? Wow! that shit got outdated fast!

Your whole argument is based on the claim that the legislation itself is an inappropriate way to enforce NN, not that NN shouldn't be enforced.

Because they want burgerland to leave so they're excited for when burgers have to cough up shekels when they want to shitpost here.

Seen the EU lately? These NN kikes spout "equality" and "fairness" but they are wholeheartedly insincere. There is no equality under a government regulated internet, there is only the removal of right wing opinions and websites such as Dailystormer. There is only forcing companies to ban users who spout "hate speech" on their services under the threat of being taken to court, which Germany recently did with Faceberg and Twatter. Do you enjoy seeing "this video is not available in your country" on half of the youtube videos you see due do problematic right wing commentary which your government has banned from the internet? If you do then go ahead and support (((Net Neutrality))). There is nothing neutral about a federal body dictating what can and can't be discussed on the internet.

cause obama implemented it. everything that man touched he ruined.

no shit dumbass, since the FCC policy is what's actually up for debate.

Ok, so when this thing gets fully repealed instead of simply modified, what do you think will happen?

A ton of small ISPs all pop up within a few years and turn the whole industry into a well-balanced free market.

Or

The existing monopolies push it all the way in.

Kek, top article only has 16 "diggs." Someone should take Digg out back and shoot it.

I think the internet will be the way it was in 2015 when the policy first came to be.

>Because I don't use all the Normie Shit like Netflix and Twitter that NN forces me to pay for in its plan

There's countless websites on the internet, so without net neutrality will you be limited to an x quantity of websites you have access to, depending which package you buy? If you support that then that's pretty retarded, because you're basically limited yourself.

I hope you guys are ready to throw your shekels at comcast and verizon

limiting*

>Don't protect me from mega kike isp's fucking with my internet
Stop being retarded.

I'm sure you can trust a wholesome company like Comcast to resist the temptation for an enormous cash grab as the internet becomes more and more of an essential piece of infrastructure.

Literally every technology professional is in favor of it.

>Seen the EU lately? These NN kikes spout "equality" and "fairness" but they are wholeheartedly insincere.

EU doesn't have the same regard for freedom of speech as the US.

Corporations don't care all that much about freedom of speech either unless it starts to harm their bottom line. In many cases it won't.

> (((technology professional)))

>we have shitty regulations
>lets add more shitty regulations to fix the problems we caused with the other shitty regulations

And yet it's mostly non-Americans screeching about this when their regulated utility status internet is completely cucked. Ironic isn't it? This year has really made me grow to hate Europeans, they have become weak ineffective lemmings obsessed with America and the freedoms Americans fight for. What a disgrace the modern Europoor "man" is.

yes!!!!!!!!!!!!

MY INTERNET'S BEEN FINE FOR THE LAST 25 FUCKING YEARS BUT NOW SOME FAGGOT BILL WITH A NICE SOUNDING NAME SHILLED BY FAGGOT CORPORATIONS LIKE FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE COMES ALONG AND SUDDENLY IF I DON'T HAVE THIS KIKE FAGGOT NIGGER BILL IN MY LIFE I'M GOING TO BE FORCED AT GUNPOINT TO PAY 500 DOLLARS A SECOND FOR 14.4K DIALUP INTERNET

HOW ABOUT FUCK YOU

You realize Net Neutrality is what you have right now right?

NN is maintaining current regulations baka baka.

you have zero evidence that this retarded shit would be a productive cash grab.

either way, the solution is not to embolden monopolies as the policy does but to create competition.

Because if normies really care, that will create the demand.

I don't like how grandma has to pay extra so some kid can watch letsplays 12 hours a day when they are seperate households linked only by isp.

People should pay for what they consume.

And if normies decide netflix is now too expensive. Then less people will be couch potatoes. The health benefits of not using the Internet for unnecessary things because they are now not worth the cost is huge. This is why big tech loves NN

not even close to true.

>There is nothing neutral about a federal body dictating what can and can't be discussed on the internet.

The government does not have this power with net neutrality.

All net neutrality is saying is that data should be treated the same regardless of the source or destination. The federal government in this case is not dictating what can and can't be discussed.

Think of it like roads. Let's say you want to take a drive to the bar, if you pay the road toll you get to go there. With net neutrality they must treat all traffic and cars the same as long as they pay the toll.

Without net neutrality, the ISP can decide whether they will let you go to said bar or whether they are able to prioritize traffic to a different bar. This essentially gives ISPs . Repealing net neutrality gives ISPs the kind of power that totalitarian governments currently enjoy in regimes like South Korea.

I'm pretty sure that a significant number of the people on here are paid anti-NN shills. The internet companies understand how at a fundamental level internet communities like Sup Forums wield considerable power in shaping opinions, something the Clinton election campaign failed to take into account. They're likely trying to neutralize our impact to safeguard the passage of this regulation.

A few years ago almost everyone on Sup Forums, except for a few libertarians, was pro-net neutrality. I see no reason to think this has changed since then.

2 year old regulations

I don't "hate" net neutrality.

I just don't think it's necessary at all and does very little good, and everything else equal I lean against government regulation, so in sum I lean against it.

Meanwhile, the sociopathic monster horde of leftists are screaming to have it -- and not only that, they are using every form of lie to achieve their goal.

On the balance it should be pretty obvious to oppose it.

That's pretty much it.

Commies are for NN and Trump says its bad, thats good enough for me

>The government does not have this power with net neutrality.

it does with the law you're shilling for.

>Sup Forums and Breitbart will get shut down forever if it gets repealed, shota.

Net neutrality was enacted in 2015: reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-fcc/u-s-fcc-chief-unveils-plan-to-scrap-obama-era-internet-rules-idUSKBN17T34W

Nothing like what you say happened before.

Why do leftists always lie all the time? Why can't they be human, other than the absolute worst and least human?

When will you realize that the people arguing for net neutrality DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THAT? They literally just want to keep it regulated as a common carrier under the FCC. THATS FUCKING IT
AND ITS ONLY FOR SHEKELS AND POWER
STOP FUCKING SUPPORTING THEM YOU MORON

Then change the law. Don't throw the baby with the bathwater.

This site is going to get fucked within a few years if this thing passes.

I'm not sure how you could come to Sup Forums and want to get rid of NN, I guess burgers really want to leave huh?

So back up a complete lie

With a nonsensical argument attempting to play on common Sup Forums ideas

Why is this the sole internet package meme that is constantly posted? Are there no others?

> They literally just want to keep it regulated as a common carrier under the FCC.

They listed it as common carrier because Verizon sicked their Harvard educated Jew lawyers on them in 2014. The court ruling was the FCC had no authority to enforce net neutrality unless they listed the internet as common carrier.

Verizon forced their hand now their bitching about this.

>AND ITS ONLY FOR SHEKELS AND POWER

Guess what the entire world is about shekels and power. The ISP side is about shekels and power too. Neither side is innocent. Neither side are the pure good guys.

Time Warner (ie CNN)
Comcast (owner of msnbc/NBC)
Verizone (owner of tumblr)

Once you have declared something as a public utility in need of regulation, you open the door for further regulation.

There are good arguments to treat different data differently. Netflix and Google are drowning in cash.

The FTC already regulates trade practices. ISPs could not do what they wanted without net neutrality.

>Repealing net neutrality gives ISPs the kind of power that totalitarian governments currently enjoy in regimes like South Korea.

Complete bullshit fearmongering. If any ISP was abusive, sure, there would be some period of shit, but fairly soon other competing ISPs would arise, even 4G data, and the ISP would receive a massive backlash and lose shittons of money.

Hence from my perspective, I would rather say you are the shill. What you say is completely unrealistic, fearmongering with no reasonable basis.

^THIS

This is fucking dumb.

I’m most certainly on the far right of the political spectrum, and I agree that companies should be able to charge what they want. That being said, I am not irrational.

If companies can charge what they will, they will charge the most they possibly can. So, why should I help enable companies to charge me more than I am already currently paying? That is absolutely irrational.

Muh freedoms and muh economic principles are all well and good in theory but I operate as the world is and not how I would like it to be.

Regulation is needed in many different areas of the economy. I work in finance and can tell you the average person would be unequivocally fucked if many of the rules, regulations, and red tape didn’t exist. Whenever an industry is rife with asymmetries and the potential for large profit, things would get 100% fucked without regulation.

Don’t just be anti NN because the libs like it or Trump hates it. Act in your own self interest.

Yeah lets have corporations regulate it with abandon instead.

IT'S ONLY BEEN IN EFFECT FOR 2 YEARS SHUT UP LEAF NIGGER

THE LAW IS WHAT WERE TALKING ABOUT.

your little "net neutrality" abstraction is a diversion

Yes I'm sure ISP giants will allow for lots of competition