Net Neutrality is Bad

Give me one good reason why you support it.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/wQtiIazfoQM
youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=B03eByZia5I
arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/
reason.com/blog/2017/11/22/pro-net-neutrality-graphic-makes-argumen
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

youtu.be/wQtiIazfoQM

youre welcome

I don't!

I donno. Looks bad to me.

I'm surprised to hear that Democrats are against Net Neutrality, and astonished that Trump hasn't fired that Poo who's behind it.

Horrible argument.

I'll just switch to a different one.

They don't want that to happen, so they'll make sure they don't play favorites.

>has been a rule since the internet started
it was created in 2015

>it was created in 2015
the video is literally from 2014
you might want to check your date.

Because I want the FCC to censor the internet. I'm tired of so much Russian propaganda everywhere.

Nope. ISPs were classified as common carriers and the first 400 pages of regulations were written in 2015.

...

Free porn

let me break down the timeline for you:

NN was the rule enforced by the FCC since forever

ISPs hated this because they couldn't throttle and block the internet in ways that would make them the most money

ISPs sued the government claiming it lacked the authority to force them to follow NN rules

The courts agreed with the ISPs and ruled that unless the government decided to classify ISPs as common carriers under title 2 then the government cant force ISPs to follow NN rules.

The Obama administration classified ISPs as common carriers under title 2 so that the FCC could resume forcing ISPs to follow NN rules (2015).

Trump gets elected and ISPs are trying, again, to get NN rules removed.

NN is a good thing that forces ISPs to show you all web sites you want to see at the same speed you pay for. You pay for 1gig/sec then no matter what site you choose to see is seen at the speed you paid for.

NN does not stop web site hosting companies from shutting down sites they host on their servers. (stormer shut down) ISPs are not the same thing as web site hosting companies.

Nice Reddit copy pasta. Doesn't change the fact that the entire hooplah is about the FCC voluntarily revoking power given to them by the Obama administration in 2015 when broadband providers were classified as "common carriers".

When you establish a framework for ISPs to abuse, they will abuse it.
Without the framework, it's free market all the way.
Net Neutrality only served corporate interests by defining the boundaries within which they could scheme.
Without the NN law, they risk class-action lawsuits for the tiniest calamity.

Since they acquired complete regulatory control over the internet, another plus is they can remove dangerous Russian propaganda. That's the best part IMO :)

You don't seem to have a good grasp on free market economics.

>Reddit copy pasta

dude its the thing I personally typed up for the last thread


>FCC voluntarily revoking power given to them by the Obama administration in 2015 when broadband providers were classified as "common carriers".

yeah, obviously. The Trump administration is allowing NN to go away by directing his administration to stop enforcing the rules.

Penis

Except that Obama handed over control of the WWW from the USA to a committee of UN member states, spearheaded by Saudi Arabia.

The bait is strong with this one

The reddit spacing is unnecessary.
>yeah, obviously. The Trump administration is allowing NN to go away by directing his administration to stop enforcing the rules.
The Trump administration is allowing the FCC to give up power they believe is too much for 5 unaccountable bureaucrats to have. I personally disagree. I think we need 5 bureaucrats creating all of the rules for the internet behind closed doors, especially if it results in the elimination of Russian propaganda when a future democrat takes over.

>Avoiding my initial response this hard

wew lad

less of a platform for porn

Implying we the consumer will notice a difference. Mostly 4 streaming niggers will hate this and only Burgers are affected so get fucked

We're talking about regulatory control in the USA. The FCC were given complete, unlimited regulatory control over the internet in 2015. That means there are 5 altruistic bureaucrats who will be setting the rules for us unless the current FCC pussies out. I personally can't wait to see what rules they come up with. I bet Putin is shaking in his boots at the thought of us keeping Net Neutrality.

>discriminate
>equal
>neutral

buzzwords used to pull at the heart strings of young retards

youtube.com/watch?time_continue=13&v=B03eByZia5I

ITT: Russian shills want America to have blocked non-neutral internet like Russia.

>I'll just switch to a different one.

arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/08/us-broadband-still-no-isp-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/

unwittingly this

Well said. Just imagine how pissed Putin is going to be when the FCC starts removing Russian propaganda. It's going to be hilarious.

i don't.

in fact, they should remove all regulations for ISPs, too. pretty sure atm it's still really hard for new companies to get into the ISP business, especially in the US

or it's not and i'm just uninformed

it is really hard to get into it, pretty much impossible actually.

But killing NN will not make it any easier.

It's impossible for new ISPs to get into the industry, so we need five bureaucrats on the FCC to have complete, unlimited regulatory control over the internet because the government enforced monopolies are going to implement bad policies and charge us extra money for things.

>arstechnica
fake news. only 6% of america has 1 ISP choice, and that WAS falling but some areas just love regulation

Net Neutrality is a joke issue. The reality is that no US company will get close to what (((Reddit))) fears any changes will effect businesses and best of all Senators and Congress. Imagine being Speaker Ryan, he's got a family and he obviously has internet access at home like everybody else. What they want you to believe is that your going to have to buy a package similar to a cable package yet the internet is so massive that no system like that would work. Yet Speaker Ryan and co will be subject to said packages. Therefore they will have to include some kind of unlimited option. This would immediately become the most popular option outside of a few random instances. It's then just bad business practice to offer something that nobody will buy. The only outcome will be costs of internet going up. Thats it. Nothing else can realistically happen.

I posted a source that blows you the fuck out and you have nothing

get fucked.

>Believing rules and regulations ever do what they say

I bet you think the Affordable Care Act has made healthcare more affordable, or that the No Child Left Behind Act improved education, or that the Patriot Act was in the spirit of the Constitution.

Fuck off. Politicians have their own interests to serve, and everyone writing the rules and regulations is an industry lawyer or a lobbyist anyways. You are just gaping your mouth wide and accepting whatever turd slides in.

>Net Neutrality is Bad
Pai is going to fix it.

“Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades," said Pai. "Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet. Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.

Title II is fucking over the internet

I don't care about any of that shit. I just want the FCC to have as much regulatory power as possible so they can censor Russian propaganda. Maybe we can avoid another Drumpf getting elected in the future.

“Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy.

this
and if i read one post by a memeber of Putin's cyber-army of Russian trolls asking why we cant just have the FTC come in and break-up the monopolies, im going to lose it
IT WAS HER TURN

>we need to remove the restrictions that make ISPs follow NN rules but its not because we want to end NN and we don't have an answer for why, other than to end NN, that those restrictions need to be removed.

people are believing this?

The different alternatives that pop up will cost more you 40 IQ mongoloid

Well said. Some of us know that there's alternatives to giving the FCC full regulatory control over the internet, we just realize that FCC has a history of censorship and thus has a far greater chance of removing Russian propaganda. The last thing we need is more Russian interference in future elections.

If there's any reason there are no new ISPs, it's that cable is prohibitively expensive to bury down and glassfibre startups get bought and nuked by the big boys.
The few alternatives that survive are either subpar or extremely local, and in the case of the latter we have a history of mergers merging with other mergers into a bigger company under the wing of LibertyGlobal.
At least that's how it works here. We only have proper competition in the mobile sector, but looking at all the mergers lately even that's consolidating into a monopoly.

>NN has been a rule since the internet started
No it hasn't you fucking troglodyte, it was only introduced a few years ago

>ISPs are not allowed to pick favorites with...websites
Well I can give a huge sigh of relief knowing ISPs can't give priority to certain websites people access most frequently like netflix, Sup Forums and google over my favorite websites at goatsedot(cx).

YOU ARE SO RIGHT.

Until 2015, under the guidance of the one TRUE AMERICAN, Barack Hussein Obama, no neutrality on the internets tubes ever existed.

Then, with a wave of the Wookies' Magic Penis, all the internets became all neutral and shit.

So, we should get rid of LITERALLY HITLER, and re-instate THE ONE TRUE KENYAN.

Then, peace and fairy dust will once again rule the internets.

Yay.

>If there's any reason there are no new ISPs, it's that cable is prohibitively expensive to bury down and glassfibre startups get bought and nuked by the big boys.
Google's obstacles have been legal, not financial or a lack of size.

The media's attempt to control the media has fallen apart. CNN has realized that there is a new wave of media outlets and they are trying to destroy any credibility they have.

He's right you know

LOLs
we all know there was no free internet before 2015 and you had to pay micro transaction for every website you visited and that IPS block 99% of the internet
this is what brainwashed redditors think

>un-ironically believes that net neutrality didn't exist before 2015

this is the timeline

its going to fuck up niggers lives far more than it will mine.

Give me a reason why not disabled twat, you're against government regulations but when you can earn a penny by selling out you start praising it, I hope you die of cancer from everything you smoke and you have to pay all that you earned with assassinating net neutrality to the hospital and then you have to sell your private army to the local McNukalds. I'm not a commie by the way. Like just look at Phillip de Franco, stealing net neutrality is thief, not taxes. You are only an ancap so you can earn even more money. Go die.

>plebbit spacing
>magical thinking
>Obama worshiping
>leftist hive-mind mentality
>not even the slightest clue on how the internet works

finally, someone with some damn sense around here

Theft*

I think Net Neutrality and the whole debacle are proof that the average republican is so retarded that you can sell anything to them if you tell them that liberals like it, no matter how transparently bad it is for the customer.

The ancaps hilariously going "lmao free market brah!" as if ISPs haven't been a monopoly that's impossible to compete with for more than a decade, too, are a riot.

THE EVIL ISPs will so down my netflix. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Net Neutrality. The rules is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the rules will go over a typical internet user's head. There’s also Obama's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his Title II l philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these rules, to realise that they’re not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike Net Neutrality truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn’t appreciate, for instance, the humour in Obama's existential catchphrase “Wubba Lubba Dub Dub,” which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev’s Russian epic Fathers and Sons. I’m smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Dan Harmon’s genius wit unfolds itself on their television screens. What fools.. how I pity them.

Well (((Google))) is neither small nor independent, is it.
I know there are legal quarrels as well, but even with those resolved and the nation open for business, the only new competitors would be the size of Apple, Facebook, and ofc Google.
And you know what? Facebook becoming an ISP isn't a mad idea at all. They already explicitly shared their ambition to bring the internet to African rurals through an AOL-esque, controlled and censored version of the Internet.

...

The FCC didn't even regulate the internet until the mid 2000s

nice

ISPs/Silicon Valley support NN desu
reason.com/blog/2017/11/22/pro-net-neutrality-graphic-makes-argumen

True, but so far I haven't heard anyone on either side of the wall consider the replacement law.
Obviously it won't suffice to simply strike through the law.
Nah instead people bitch about the terrible law America has, and how frightening it would be to not have that particular one.
Fuck them. Just amend the fucking thing.

I don't. It's a massive handout to the Silicon Valley content aggregators like Google, Netflix, FaceBook etc.

>Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet.
Translation: We're putting spikes on the dildo your ISP has been using for years. And you don't get any more lube.
>Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices
Translation: ISPs will be able to have to put exactly how they're going to fuck you somewhere in your service agreement in some form of what could pass for English if you have a law degree and a thesaurus
>so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them
Translation: So consumers can know exactly how many spikes are on that dildo coming for their asses that they can't opt out of because of regional monopolies.
>and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.
Translation: So ISPs can ream you for more money and then invest that money into more bandwidth that they're going to oversell anyway. The plan was "up to" 100 mbps, that means the 17 mbps you're getting counts.

Computer engineer here. Online privacy is an oxymoron. If you want privacy, air gap your computer and only use the internet from guest accounts at libraries.

>Nah instead people bitch about the terrible law America has
Fucking NN isn't healthcare, the only people getting hurt by it own fucking ISPs. There is no grassroots push to repeal it by anyone that has any idea what they are talking about.

>in fact, they should remove all regulations for ISPs, too
Deregulating monopolies is always retarded
>pretty sure atm it's still really hard for new companies to get into the ISP business, especially in the US
It's hard pretty much everywhere. There's a massive front end cost to build any network and if you don't get enough subscribers to start turning a profit before what remains of your coffers runs out after building all that shit you have to fold and sell what little you've built to your competition for pennies on the dollar. My town went from 5 to 2 cable ISPs over the course of several years because of shit like that and the 2 remaining ones basically stayed out of each others way geographically for a long ass time initially. Incidentally the 3 that went under were local operations and the 2 that remained are part of national scale operations that had enough liquidity to keep prices low until they could drive the other 3 out of business.

Basically unless an ISP has enough money to not only build a network and eat years of losses brought on by long term contracts and artificial lower prices from their competition meant to keep them from entering a market, they will not succeed. And the only ISPs that have the money to do that shit are major names.

Deregulation would fix none of this. There are specific instances where ISPs have lobbied local governments to basically make it illegal to compete with them though and those laws do need to go, but none of that shit is at the national level.