I know it's been done to death, but let's talk about Net Neutrality...

I know it's been done to death, but let's talk about Net Neutrality. We've all heard the countless arguments against the removal of it, but what are some reasonable arguments FOR the death of it.

Other urls found in this thread:

reason.com/blog/2017/11/22/pro-net-neutrality-graphic-makes-argumen
youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I
youtu.be/csK3KspB-6A
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The DailyStormer got banned from the "internet" during "net neutrality."

There is no "fair" internet. Dotcom companies who don't own fiberoptic hardware or space satellites don't want to make less profit.

Net neutrality is promoted by software, server owning dotcoms who don't want to give main street telecoms more money to use their hardware.

AT&T CEO: "Okay Silicon Valley faggots. You've been getting a free ride. You want your snowflake faggot SJWs to get their content, pay up."

That was web hosts. It wasn't banned from the internet. If the Daily Stormer hosted their own stuff, they could still get whatever internet coverage they wanted, and there's surely plenty of web hosts they could go to, it's a market with no form of monopoly.

Meanwhile ISPs have duopolies and monopolies in the vast majority of the US. It's a completely different situation.

ISPs had nothing to do with the dailystormer going, it was because of their webhost which are different from ISPs.

...

the daily stormer was hosted on private servers who ended their terms of service. The Government was nothing to do with that as their regulations apply to ISPs, and not website hosting. Some ISPs offer web hosting, but none were willing to host the Stormer. Please educate yourself.

faceberg and joogle cry like a bunch of little pussies. thatd make me lel

>free market
>the duopoly use the government to enforce non-competition
>this is somehow a free market
activates almonds

Nobody favours the death of net neutrality though. The question is if you need to classify internet as a utility and make it government regulated.

exactly. It's the webhosts who ban people for anything. It's organization like ICANN and Cloudflare who have virtual monopolies who want the protection.

ISP can fuck over webhosts.

"We're SJWs here. We hog up a lot of bandwidth and we can control what you see. But please don't let the telecoms charge us money for using their copper wire, fiber optic, and space satellites."

The fall of net neutrality decentralizes power and this is good.

Basically, NN says no matter what information you have coming down the line, whether it's gaming or social media, it's treated and charged the same. There's no technical difference between megabytes, so why should the ISPs be allowed to treat them as such.

Also your ISPs are an awful syndicate system. I mean certain ones avoid each other so they never compete. That's just fucked up

ISPs have nothing to do with webhosts and have no power over them. ISPs are the gateway to the internet, people who own the servers were sites are hosted are different.

You can host your own website if you want, you won't be able to start up your own ISP.

the ISP can throttle traffic to a webhost, to a website.

It can outright ban it.

ATT CEO can think Buzzfeed sucks a ton of dicks and have traffic to Buzzfeed on his hardware throttled.

"ISPs have no power over them"

if they block access to servers of dreamhost for instance, then the host is more or less useless for most internet users

so they certainly have some power

NN has nothing to do with webhosts. At all. The ISPs are trying to end NN so they can tell you that gaming costs more than social media. Or more than a Mongolian basket weaving website. That is bullshit in so many ways.
Ending NN will not effect private webhosts choosing to not allow certain sites on their servers. Please fucking educate yourself with non American websites.

It is neutral only by name. Also Obama wanted it, so it's most likely bad.

The same people who want net neutrality are the same people who blocked "a la carte" cable because the majority of customers when given a choice would not pay for an LBGTQ cable channel unless it was bundled with Fox Sports.

>so they can tell you that gaming costs more than social media.
this is a slippery slope

what actually happened was that to ensure big swaths of data can only be delivered with high quality if the company sending them will contribute to the infrastructure

>Internet Service Provider
>free market

You can't lay an infinite amount of fiber in the ground, you fucking idiots. There isn't a free market for something that literally gets buried under the road and under your yard and into your house.

Saying "the free market will fix it" for an industry that ISN'T free market is the dumbest shit of all time.

>just start your own electric grid user

>These people liked it so it MUST be bad
Have you ever considered looking at something and then forming an opinion rather than looking at who supports it first and then deciding you hate it. NN stops your ISP saying your Sup Forums browsing should cost a different amount from playing online games. NN stops ISPs throttling your connection artificially. If you think NN being removed is good, then you're officially cucked by your ISP.

This.

>big swaths of data can only be delivered with high quality if the company sending them will contribute to the infrastructure
this is a slippery slope


what actually will happen is that right-leaning sites and opposition will be put in premium programs separated by the big five who will make private contract to be featured in the base plan from the ISP.
What better way to neuter the overly large reach of the internet by making people pay for it?

Under net neutrality that is illegal and it doesn't happen. Without net neutrality they can block or throttle

agreed

in europe, the monopolies are now often pressured to allow access to the fiber and other infrastructure

so it's the same fiber but you can choose isp and whether there will be net neutrality or not will depend on the isp, the low level infastructure can't intervene at that level

>this is a slippery slope
No, it is what has happened with netflix

they were never throttled, they were never banned

they were sending more data than their connectivity allowed for though

NN is our biggest card to play against (((silicon valley))). They want to ban people for wrong think? They want to attack the people who make their platforms viable? Fuck them. Digitally assured destruction.

>they were sending more data than their connectivity allowed for though
sauce?

What you're saying is that an ISP somehow allowed Netflix to use more bandwidth than they were allowed to use

I don't believe it, because the ISP controls the physical cables.

If you can't sauce this then you're literally a shill

>some reasonable arguments FOR the death of it.
Libtards get really butthurt
Less poors and bots spamming the internet to create the illusion of a majority to sway public opinion
Fuck lib sites like facebook google and reddit.
I think this is more than enough reason to oppose net neutrality.

They were. There's evidence to show that one of the companies that were in talks with them were throttling them until they agreed to a deal.

Mate, that's webhosts, who are not ISPs. Private webhosts have their own terms of service and are not covered by NN in any way. At least in the way it's currently legislated, although that would be an overreach of the US government and the FCC.

>What you're saying is that an ISP somehow allowed Netflix to use more bandwidth than they were allowed to use
what I mean is that netflix had a number of lines and not more of them, they were overloaded because the demand was higher than what they could push out to the cable companies

This was a physical limitation and of course, cable companies didn't sell them cheap lines to extend their infrastructure because they were still able to use their market power

>believing the charade to show you how the poor ISP are affected
lmao, implying that nbetflix doesn't sleep in bed with ISPs.
If you can't see the plan to create a base internet made only out of facebook, google services, amazon, netflix and mainstream media
enjoy paying extra fees to browse Sup Forums

just to make sure, "Netflix is slow" =/= violation of net neutrality

if their line is at peak it will drop packets in a neutral network

>Libtards
They're actually protecting you. without NN ISPs could say that if you want to browse Sup Forums and they don't like that, they could block the site or throttle your connection to it. With NN, browsing any site is the same speed and the same price. The equivalent would be to have your natural gas cost more because you're cooking pasta, compared to making soup. It's the same base product coming down the pipe.

>lmao, implying that nbetflix doesn't sleep in bed with ISPs.
Netflix will work with ISPs but they hate each other in a petty way, because they have to make deals each one of them tries to screw the other party over.

In this case, ISPs wanted Netflix to pay a premium to send their traffic and Netflix tried to go around specific contracts altogether

No, it's YouTube, Twitter, Facebook as well as services like cloudflare. All of which are hilariously kvetching that a loss of NN would make the internet succecptible to censorship which they've claimed as their own crusade. They want to be kings of the sandbox, so I say we cut our losses and keep the keys out of their hands.

that's not what I meant, but sure. As it is, most of what people are complaining about when talking about NN, is more to do with ISPs being jerks and a lot less to do with what NN actually is.

Damn, elves look like THAT?

YOU mean like how Twitter decides who I can hear from? Or how youtube decides who I can listen to? Or how cloudflare decides who can or cannot have a platform?

>still believing the set up
Yes, they sure (((hate))) each other goym, they won't start working together once the right rules are in place
Do you also believe everything you see on BBC?

cool conspiracy retard

so in your opinion, ISPs are actually in favour of nt neutrality being pushed into law? Since netflix was a main campaigner for this.

exactly, but now the ISP can join and downright make you pay extra if you want to see anything outside this sites, so better suck up the censorship or pay the extra 100$/month for the "darknet"

>Youtube
Private video hosting site with it's own terms of service that you must agree to, to use the service.
>Twitter
Private social media platform with their own terms of service with own terms of service that you must agree to, to use the service.
>Cloudflare
A private file-sharing website with own terms of service that you must agree to, to use the service.

If you're complaining about these sites, you didn't read the ToS. If they want to censor stuff there's nothing to stop them, that is not what NN is about in any way. NN is about making sure your ISP can't charge you more or less for different internet traffic. So browsing Sup Forums, is treated the same as if you're playing games online, or browsing normiebook. If you want to pay more for identical internet traffic then you're cucked by your creepy syndicate ISP system and you want them to bring out the really big toys to use on your partner

>thinks his favorite storm faggotry was censored by an ISP
>being this retarded
just kys

See
I though this site liked free enterprise.

If my choices are a risk an ISP MAY potentially do something maybe or I give the keys to the shitposting kingdom to people who think I'm a compromised Nazi Russian agent who is subverting democracy I'll take my chance with the IS. They speak money, not ideology.

>Also Obama wanted it, so it's most likely bad.
>not an argument
Get that cock out of your mouth and do some reading user

yeah, google, twitter, facebook love a "free market" on the internet, they know they will reign supreme in these conditions

>netflix is pro net neutrality
lmao, believe what they say retard. They are putting this show on for the people, like a circus. It's not like the gov can abolish it regardless of what people put on their kikebook walls. When it's over, they will cry a bit over it while they work to separate the mainstream net from the net, basically widening the psychological gap that normies already face in getting away from the mainstream media hugboxes with money
you don't get to choose, you get both

The argument for it is very simple:

Telecommunication companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying congress not to fight its repeal. Those congressmen want money. Therefore they should not fight its repeal by passing laws that ensure it.

Those tards at Silicon Valley support NN user. It isn't about what gets posted it's charging users for access to different types of content. NN requires all typse of data are priced the same or it's all put together in a bundle package. It's bullshit though cause it's actually slightly cheaper to buy things individually instead of a bundle and without NN you don't have to buy everything if you don't want everything.
reason.com/blog/2017/11/22/pro-net-neutrality-graphic-makes-argumen

weev on net neutrality

youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I

>cabal of California kikes censor everything right of Marx
>hey stop that
>haha if you don't like censorship so much make your own platform
>okay
*gab delisted by Google for being nazis*

And so then Google, twitter, fb and Soros living Netflix get free rides to not pay their share of bandwidth and continue fucking us in the ass? So they can pretend they give a shit about a "free and open internet" while a Stalinist sense of thought policing takes hold regardless?

post more night elf tiddies

No one's getting a free ride

You can leave twitter though and join gab or a host of other social media sites. Try running to another ISP that won't fuck you over.

true, but silicon valley is very butthurt about this

You're complaining about a commonly used private search engine. Would you like to try that argument again? I mean unless the US government want to tell this private corporation they can't de-list things from their own search engine. I thought you wanted less Governmental intervention, not more.

>You can leave twitter though and join gab or a host of other social media sites.
we all know twitter is the only one with real publicity. Gab is almost as bad as sending mail to each other in terms of influencing the public

yeah, just imagine when any site remotely non commie/gov bootlicking/corporate shilling gets put in a special package.
Now imagine the weight Sup Forums managed to obtain in the last years vaporized when we won't be able to share resources with the average joe because he has to buy a premium packet to access blogs or see youtube "controversial politics" subdomain that will be created when this thing will fall
do you understand that giants will collaborate right? Do you understand that the kikes will get the actual free ride and enter in special base packets since this is what every retard wants from heir internet? That the premium fee won't be to access twitter, but to access *chans and anything else that's non standard.

This is like the fucking obvious trap in horror films and you niggers are all stepping into it thinking you're getting rid of the problem

Net Neutrality is anti white, Sup Forums is against anything that gives handouts to shitskins that they shouldn't have. Do you support (((them))) or not? Are you one of us or do you support white genocide? Remember these things when you attempt to sign those redditor petitions in support of Net Neutrality.

Like how Google removed Gab from the play store? Or how Apple removes anything involving guns? Try running to another mobile OS. You can't. It's a duopoly. This is a bullshit excuse I see repeated ad nauseam

The internet would be more affordable in doses people want to pay for rather than having to buy it all in a bundle package that costs more. A lot of today's services are loaded with spyware so they want you to have everyting while paying more money to the telecommunications companies.

Why are you bending over for corporations that don't want to help you, and only want to charge you more for a lesser service? Do you like being this cucked?

Always do the opposite of what Reddit and Google want.

So you're complaining about the ISPs fucking you. Not NN. NN is where the ISP can't charge you more for browsing Sup Forums compared to twitter or cuckbook. Unless you want to pay more for less service, in which case cuckbook might be more for you.

don't doses exist already if you pay in Mb instead of a flat rate? Do Sup Forums packets clog the wire more than twitter's? What right has the ISP to snoop on your Mb and charge differently depending whom you're asking from? If I pay for 50Gb per month they better deliver, not split them into packages.
Good fucking goyim, bend over for the jewish bull

No, I'm complaining about silicon valley soyim. Try to keep up schlomo.

Yeah, because they know that ISPs can use their last-mile monopolies to demand payment from peers and CDNs for special access. Or, worse, to squeeze out the competition in whatever market an ISP decides to dabble in (ex: streaming video).

Ditching NN is just going to line the pockets of big ISPs while simultaneously fucking over literally everyone else on the planet.

Net Neutrality started 2016. Online Censorship in USA was non existent before 2016. 2016,2017 FreeSpeech was RepealedAndReplaced with EU Code of Conduct Executed by Google Twitter Facebook YouTube after they adopted may 2016. Seems clear to me. Read 300 page policy All Headlines come from first few pages. Read between the lines

Right, you'know we don't have many jews in the Uk where I'm from.....I'm saying that removing NN does nothing to stop silicon valley, it mostly fucks with the end user and stops start ups from being able to have as much traffic as say an establish company that has made deals with the ISP. So for example, Myspace would get preferential treatment from ISP connection speed, and FB would be throttled because they haven't paid the ISP enough to not be throttled. That's fucked up and is anti-competition.

>Net Neutrality started 2016
NN started with internet shill.
2016 was the first time it was brought up in a court of law.
Good try sholmo

youtu.be/csK3KspB-6A

Yeah but they've jewed it by giving NN-based providers faster connection.

No, by definition it affects the highest volume sites. Obviously it COULD be abused in practice. But it would vary between isps. Instead of our current system where we 100% get fucked in the ass by tech monopolies and there is no recourse for us. I

this

In other words, ISPs are selling more bandwidth than they have and trying to force everyone else to foot the bill on infrastructure, which they will most likely pocket anyway and just throttle in order to free up bandwidth.

you're partially correct, the only thing you said wrong is that kikebook (or any other big service) will never get itself throttled if the thing pass. They will shill out the money. However, every small, counter-current site will get the axe, maybe even made inaccessible if you don't shill extra money
annonn put fucking subjects in your sentences because I have no fucking idea what you are trying to imply here
>Obviously it COULD be abused in practice.
I'm sure the ISP jews will be totally honest with us goy- I mean, user
>Instead of our current system where we 100% get fucked in the ass by tech monopolies and there is no recourse for us. I
so you want a system were everything stays the same but you also pay for the inefficiencies of the ISPS monopolies? Good goym

Well that's nothing to do with NN. That's to do with the ISPs being a syndicate in the US. That's not covered by NN and it's not even the domain of the FCC under these rules to govern that. That issue is covered by the business regulations. Why are you trying to make it easier for ISPs to abuse the system? NN makes it illegal for them to do that.

Yeah because giving Google Facebook Twitter and youtube free bandwidth to spread their cancer is totally gonna stick it to (((them))). Open society foundation totally hates net neutrality!

ISPs are an extremely important part of our society, whether the public realizes it or not. Giving these organizations more power, when we know that they've been eager to abuse what power they already have, has been practically proven to be detrimental to the public at large. This reason alone should be enough that NN ought to stay. One could make arguments abused on the abstract principle of free market, and if ISPs somehow agreed to provide fair service to their customers based on previously held contracts, then NN could be removed. But the only thing the removal of NN would do is allow them to abuse customers. There is no practical benefit to the repeal of NN.

>I'll make the libtards pay
>by making them lose a small percentage of the money while annihilating every actual free independent site
fucking genius. Blow your brain off with a gun, there is a non zero chance that you may hit a kike with the projectile

No it's everything to do with NN. If the internet is going down either way, then the only viable option is to deal as much damage to silicon valley firms as possible. Killing NN will garuanteed do that and there's no guarantee its downsides will come to fruition. We got along just fine before it.

But that throttling would also kill of any smaller platform or business if it could not afford to pay, despite the larger companies growing under a system that treated all data equally. If a new platform was to come up to defeat FB or Twitter, then under that system unless they had an absolute shittonne of startup money (which most sites today did not have) then they would fail at the first hurdle, strangling competition. You will make it easier for ISPs and arguably (((them))) to control what you have access to. Why are you wanting them to take away your browsing freedom.

In the EU and UK NN is the law, and we don't have the government stepping in to block sites that aren't breaking the law (Pirate Bay, and the like) and even then they got pissed off that the ISPs wanted the UK to pay for their court cases against people who downloaded stuff they didn't want them to download. So now the government here has the rule of this: IF you are caught downloading something protected by copyright, then they will send you a warning, second time and another warning. Third time it's a final warning with it also saying that if the copyright holders find you after this, that you can be sued and that you've been fully warned of your actions.

When you're going down either way yeah. You take the pyhrric victory. You don't push your enemy across the finish line.

>Killing NN will garuanteed do that
guaranteed tickling, what a mighty blow
>there's no guarantee its downsides will come to fruition
except the part where ISPs daily cuck americans in a de facto monopoly
I seriously hope you're just a shill because I never saw such a big cuckold

Look how quickly these Jews respond.

No need to fight this war unless you're poor.

I don't know why you're replying to me, that's exactly my point. I really cannot imagine how those shill here are pretending to be dealing any fucking blow to the big kikes when their plan is to make them lose money, which they literally shit out every day

>going down
The internet isn't "going down". More civilised countries have NN by law, and what you guys do won't change what happens over here. We will be fine, YOU will be fucked.

If you want to change the rules so ISPs are better regulated then removing them from the purview of the FCC is the exact opposite of what you want. The FCC is the only thing keeping ISPs from fucking you harder with your actual service. If you don't like the syndicate style of ISP system then complain to the council for business.

Killing NN is like saying your gas company should be able to charge you more for cooking pasta compared with making soup.

So private business shouldn't be allowed to start small? You're saying all companies that use the internet must pay their ransom-I mean, their extra tithes just so that they don't have a throttled internet connection? That seems fucking retarded, as smaller business tends not to be so controlled by (((them))). You're making (((them))) stronger while thinking they will be weaker. That's retarded. Stop being retarded.

>you're going down
ok, you're just a cucked loser. Just fucking hang yourself actually, we have no place for faggots like you
it's not like we've been complaining about ISPs for fucking forever, but let just a couple of jews fight them for some extra money and everyone see them as the fucking holy grail. If tomorrow zuckemberg says that he actually likes having a dick some fags here would cut their own off

>say something wrong
>everyone calls you wrong
>this must be a conspiracy

>Jews want NN to control everything
I mean do you want to pay more for less service form you ISP? Because with NN gone they can and will do that. NN protects the idea that all data is treated equally. That your Sup Forums data cannot cost more or less than your twitter feed. That your connection to Info Wars costs the same as CNN. Imagine a world where Verizon says you can't connect to anything they don't want you to, unless you pay another $40 a month to get on the "Deluxe" package. Why, why would you ever want to pay (((them)) more than you do already?

user, read again my posts, I am arguing the same points as you. Like, the same side. Except if this is some brit sarcasm that's flying over my head

>NN started with internet

Well the FCC does not cover the business practices of ISPs, it only regulates what they handle. It would be like complaining that the food you got served in a restaurant was bad to the bank. That shit is not their department.

Go and complain to the business council and the appropriate authorities rather than making the internet shittier for all US citizens and giving ISPs more money than they already shift from you guys.

If you get rid of NN, then you chose to pay more for less. Which is retarded. Stop being retarded

Net Neutrality was a standard practice of ISPs ever since there were originally ISPs. When ISPs started making shitty business practices, then Net Neutrality was made an official regulation. It's like saying, "People never stopped murdering until laws were passed to make people not murder." Not-murdering was a common practice and most people never murdered. But having a few murderers in a society means you pass some laws against murder eventually.