What is seriously wrong with getting rid of net neutrality

Charging more for people who use more internet sounds great to me. It would drive down the price of Internet overall. The price for internet is so high because it's a socialist system currently. You extra pay so NEETS can download tarabytes of data daily. Under a no not neutrality system the NEETS would pay for their own download use saving everyone money. It's a more capilist system. I seriously don't understand how you people are against repealing nrt neutrality.

>I want a fucking toll booth because i'm a faggot

kill yourself.

Ya I would like to pay less because I use less internet. I hate paying more because of you NEETS

Capitalism is cancer, thats why.

you got rekd in every thread on this topic today. go to bed

How is it cancer

Libertarianism is cancer.

Wrong, its the chemo for the real cancer, communism and socialism.

are you retarded? It's not "charging more for people who use more" it's censoring what they don't want you to see so everyone becomes special snow flakes

A R T I F I C I A L
S C A R C I T Y

Where does it say they would censor anything? Or do you mean censor for making you pay for content commie

Clayton Bigsby

Its a moot point either way, nothing anyone says ANYWHERE on the web or media is going to change the vote from 3-2. Elections have consequences... remember you leftest faggot saying that after obama won? Well eat shit and die. NN is going to die in 27 days. Nothing will change it.

user know this: aussies and kiwis will call you "jew" and report this to mods.
Those traitors want NN gone so they don't have to deal with Americans anymore.

they can decide what sites they want you to pay for or just out right block it

I want net neutrality gone also though. I agree with people paying more for using more internet

you don't like to get the down/up speeds you pay your ISP to deliver?

It's true. But it will eventually spread to here if it goes into play for you

I don't have a problem with that. The internet is still highly unregulated and there's tons of illegal shit going on like pirated movies, drugs, and other shit.

I would like to pay less for my internet speeds while people who use the internet more pay more.

this isnt about using more internet, its about isps charginging you for everything, you will be charged for using ,apps , websites and services like streaming. Another thing is that ISPs will have the power to crush competition , so if INFOWARS is talking shit about the globalist comcast they can slow down is website on thier service if not SHUT . IT . DOWN

are you willing to pay to access Sup Forums? Will it be a one off payment or will the jews make it a monthly part of your bill.

I would welcome it so I can finally free myself of shit posting on this website

>I would like to pay less for my internet speeds while people who use the internet more pay more.

and you think repealing the rules that keep ISPs from picking and choosing what web sites load fast is going to do that?

yeah, because all this shit was going on two year ago before NN. Fucking sky is falling shills.... fuck off.

NOTHING WILL CHANGE THE 3-2 vote in 27 days. Its going to die, nothing you say here or anywhere on the web will change it.

There's people who download shit way more than the average person and isps pay for it which makes everyone pay more not just the offender

>Not a bugman
>Don't use netflix
>have a life outside the internet
>stopped consuming all pedowood media months ago

please meter all bandwidth

>There's people who download shit way more than the average person and isps pay for it which makes everyone pay more not just the offender

and letting ISPs pick and choose what web sites load fast (or load at all) is going to fix that problem how exactly?

this is good for bitcoin

I just did a search for net neutrality on Google and it brought up a bunch of news articles that lead the reader into what the author is thinking so I can see why so many of you are biased and for net neutrality. I'm betting most of you are sheep and do logical thinking on your own, much like Reddit.

>don’t have a problem with censorship

Charging people who download a whole lot more than average people will drive the offenders price up and everyone else's price down. It's basic capitalism. The internet is in a communist system currently

>Skype and discord too slow for you?
>Try Comcast TV™ and Comcast Communicate™! only for $14.99 per month! :^)

Yeah, nah. Getting rid of Net Neutrality is going to do dick all.

I don’t know how you pay for internet in your Russia, OP; but in North America almost all accounts are priced on speed and caps. So usage = Price. If you use more of the pipe, you pay more.

Which has nothing to do with net neutrality. You really should google what the term means. But I’m guessing putin won’t allow that.

>I would like to pay less

than don't fucking use the internet if you're a plebian poorfaggot, I want you pathetic normalcucks off my fucking nets.

>hurr durr rekd xdd

fuck off kike.

>Charging people who download a whole lot more than average people will drive the offenders price up and everyone else's price down.

and why do ISPs need to be able to make some sites load slowly (or not at all) in order to charge people for the data they consume?

think

Show flag you nazi larping faggot.

For one thing it was the Obama administration that brought about net administration. The internet did just fine before the big government net neutrality rules were improsed. Just watch the priced of internet go down when net neutrality is repealed. I think the problem here is alot of people are misinformed and get their information from Reddit or news sites who want you to come to the same conclusion as the news article without making it obvious so they can still call it news and not opinion.

>The internet did just fine before the big government net neutrality rules were improsed.

what if I told you NN has been the rules ISPs have had to play by since 1996 and you've never lived a day in your life (probably) without NN internet?

Fuck off shill.

You would be wrong then. It's amazing what sheep you pro AND people are

I can see why all of you are so brainwashed. Every news article out there is pro net neutrality, there's not even a debate. That's communism at it's finest.

This has nothing to do with libertarianism since you still cannot create your own ISP with NN.

nice quads

The can block whatever they want already faggot.

>You would be wrong then

Telecommunications Act of 1996 Section 706

upheld in 2014 by the supreme court

I see both sides of the argument, so I'll play devil's advocate:

They can already do that. That's what data caps do.

Nice term for someone who uses his bandwidth to its fullest... offender. You are just salty your interest in life translates to less that 1gb per month.

Making pay you more for certain content is a form of censorship.
It's the illusion of freedom, everyone has access to it you just need to pay 30'000$ dollars.
You don't have 30'000$ then stop being lazy and start to work, it's not hard. Of course you don't have 30'000$ if you spend then all in iphones.

libraries in America have free internet access
so does the government employment places.
your idea of censorship is out of whack

So a Sunday paper costing 1.50, while the weekday paper costs 1.00, is a form of censorship?

You are imagining things again. You try to find some logical reason, but bosses of ISP companies change and their way of thinking changes based on money they receive.

If your ISP has data caps, people who exceed those caps already pay more. Most people pay for access to a pipeline which can transport a certain amount of bits per second. If you don't need very many bits/second you can pay for slower speed. If you want more bits/second you pay for a faster speed. You have absolutely no point because you don't know what you're talking about.

What is an 'Open Internet'?

Sometimes referred to as "net neutrality," "Internet freedom" or the "open Internet," these rules protect your ability to go where you want when you want online. Broadband service providers cannot block or deliberately slow speeds for internet services or apps, favor some internet traffic in exchange for consideration, or engage in other practices that harm internet openness.

How do FCC rules protect the Open Internet?

The FCC's Open Internet rules protect and maintain open, uninhibited access to lawful online content. The rules specifically prohibit:

Blocking: Broadband providers may not block access to lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices.
Throttling: Broadband providers may not deliberately target some lawful internet traffic to be delivered to users more slowly than other traffic.
Paid prioritization: Broadband providers may not favor some internet traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind. Internet service providers are also banned from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

The rules also put in place standards going forward to ensure that ISPs cannot engage in new or different practices—outside those three prohibitions—that would cause similar harms to the open internet.

Anyone who believes this description of net neutrality should be euthanized.

This is why customers mostly wanted ADSL with higher download than upload, but OP wants speed that changes based on things he downloads or weather.
ISP shouldn't care what type of data or from what site i download. If i want to download from North Korean site, then i will download.

are you trying to say the internet wasn't open and free before 2015?

The rules also put in place standards going forward to ensure that ISPs cannot engage in new or different practices—outside those three prohibitions—that would cause similar harms to the open internet.

The rules apply to both fixed and mobile broadband service to protect your internet access.

In May 2017, the FCC initiated a new proceeding to assess whether the current rules are the best approach to Internet freedom.

Doesn't make any sense, go for lower speed, that puts your cap lower
We used to have data limits before and now we don't because there's plenty of bandwidth so If you want to save go for cheaper plans

>What is an equal learning enviornment?

>Sometimes referred to as "No Child Left Behind," "Common Core," or "an equal learning enviornment," these rules protect your ability to learn the same thing as everyone else. Teachers can not teach more advanced students ahead, or deliberately neglect slow children. Everyone must learn at the rate of the slowest student, and do so in a way that intelligent students find infuriating.

This is how you sound to someone who is "middle of the road." It's essentially arguing that carpool lanes shouldn't be allowed, and everyone should have to go as slow as the slowest car.

I'm not in favor of Net Neutrality, nor am I opposed to it. But these arguments as though one side is nothing but good, and the other side is nothing but bad, is intellectually dishonest.

FCC rules require broadband providers to be transparent about the services they offer and to provide sufficient information to empower you to make informed choices – including choices about speed, price, and network management practices. The rules also require that providers' information about their broadband service must be accurate and truthful.

>But these arguments as though one side is nothing but good, and the other side is nothing but bad, is intellectually dishonest.
The only reasonable argument against net neutrality is that if Netflix wants to subsidize a fat pipe for Verizon then they should be able to benefit exclusively from said pipe. Markets, etc. It's not even a bad one.

People moaning and bitching about Obama and "not actually net neutrality" and censorship and Soros and free data are either wildly fucking stuipd or trying to sell you something.

That's literally not it. Netflix, Jewtube, Amazon, these sites are a cancer & they clog up the internet -- their users should pay shekels if they want to sit around like retards all day streaming.

>I'm not in favor of Net Neutrality, nor am I opposed to it. But these arguments as though one side is nothing but good, and the other side is nothing but bad, is intellectually dishonest.
this is what bothers me the most about all this
the people that are pro-NN think the world is going to end and that the ISP are going to go all north korean on the internet if the FCC rolls back the 2015 Title II regulations that class ISPs as utilities.
what was so bad about the internet before 2015? what exactly was censored because i can remember

The fear is the internet is going to be carved up like cable tv. You want porn? Pay extra for it. Sup Forums? That's a premium.

I have no issue with people who have no interest in streaming/visiting certain sites giving up their freedom to do so in exchange for savings on their monthly bill. The ONLY reason I'm not outright in favor of repealing Net Neutrality is due to the lack of competition. In many regions, you would essentially be giving monopolies the freedom to fuck customers over even harder. That said, if everyone had 10 providers in every single area of the US, all offering real competition, I would be in total favor of repealing Net Neutrality. As it stands now, I'm neutral, as I can understand the arguments from both sides.

Netflix argument is stupid, since Netflix decides in which country they going to have business. Countries can block Netflix on government level, but unlikely. If Netflix speeds are low that's entirely Netflix's fault. Why do they have low speed is not my concern. They might have low speed because they have bad ISP or bad computers. And right now we discussing bad ISPs, so might just be they would like better ISPs. What goes really behind Netflix only Netflix knows.

The providers care because video streaming clogs up their lines. The viewers need to pay if they want to do that.

Irrelevant if one were to use a VPN.

Nothing in net neutrality prevents ISPs from charging people who stream 50 TB/day 50,000 times more than people who use 1 GB/day. Please strongly reconsidered whatever source you're using to learn about NN.

Net neutrality used to be a thing until it was struck down by a court for not actually being within the FCC's authority. In 2015, the FCC's authority was specifically updated to fix this. If you remove the update without overturning case law, the internet does not return to its former state.

I agree that monopolies or quasi-monopolies are one of the problems. It's why people sometimes say the internet should be treated like a utility: natural monopolies form very easily.

What I mean by this is that if you live in Bumfuck, Nowhere and want to have Netflix, it would normally be in the interest of Netflix to build you a faster local internet connection so you could pay them for their service. But if it's not legal for them to make sure your pipe prefers Netflix, and you could just take their faster local internet connection and use it to stream torrents instead, that is an incentive for them not to build it.

Madison River blocked Vonage
Comcast blocked P2P and throttled Netflix
Telus blocked a labor strike website's server
MetroPCS planned to block video streaming from everyone except Youtube
3 ISPs blocked Google Wallet
Verizon blocked tethering
AT&T blocked FaceTime
etc, etc.

Because internet works fine. Why change it?

Do you mean data caps, op? Because they're already doing that.

Whoop de fucking do, they'll just charge you more for traffic that goes through a VPN, just like how Tor and all the sites you actually want to visit live in Platinum Tier internet. Problem fundamentally unsolved.

wasnt most of that resolved before 2015
because we still had laws to protect against that

But in 2015, startups, Internet freedom groups, and 3.7 million commenters won strong net neutrality rules from the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The rules prohibit Internet providers from blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—"fast lanes" for sites that pay, and slow lanes for everyone else.

Not true, cables run underwater, under the sea, it's connected, it's everywhere, they only care about blocking accounts which their Jew lords don't want to allow. They want to serve us only corporate sites, which you can free to download terabytes of it, but i like to know what's beyond the created political approved bubble. Is Sup Forums in this political approved bubble? That's then for ISP to decide. Note that Sweden doesn't has net neutrality and they have cases where Swedish guy can't open a link, it just says that link was deleted, but from my country i can see the link and it's not 404 or anything like that. Then there's this issue what Google blocks, since they might not display a site in search results, that's a totally separate issue of blocking sites. ISPs want to block sites, but Google already does, so does Facebook. How many layers of filters do we need? As few as possible.

It used to be that if you had a tv, you could tune into all your local tv stations. Now, you have to pay for any particular package, and for premium packages, if you want cable. The internet will go the same way. Save, we've had a taste of freedom already.

>I agree that monopolies or quasi-monopolies are one of the problems. It's why people sometimes say the internet should be treated like a utility: natural monopolies form very easily.
Publicly owned utilities are not immune from this problem. Example: for the past 20 years, the people voted for candidates who promised artificially low rates in my small town. What happened? Artificially low rates led to the town burning through the treasury, and eventually taking out debt. Debt that must now be paid back, or we risk defaulting on that debt. Last year, our towns electricity went up by 30%. This year, it went up by another 30%. Starting in January, they are going up another 30%, and that still doesn't touch on the fact that trash and water have been operating at a loss for even longer.

Feel free to prove that claim.

>Net neutrality used to be a thing until it was struck down by a court for not actually being within the FCC's authority. In 2015, the FCC's authority was specifically updated to fix this. If you remove the update without overturning case law, the internet does not return to its former state.
they want to rolling it back to Title I and give control back to the FTC
“The FTC stands ready to protect broadband subscribers from anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts and practices just as we protect consumers in the rest of the Internet ecosystem,”

Enforcing net neutrality means allowing the FCC to monitor all internet traffic all the time.
It's also akin to disallowing expedited shipping in the mail system.

I agree that public utilities are often run like garbage fires (even when they're not incinerators) but there really are a lot of people yelling about how if only the FCC disappeared we would all be able to choose from eight internet providers. The right way to deal with natural monopolies is a separate problem from the fact that they exist.

Nobody can prove actual claims about the future until the future is here, but the corporate internet people are dreaming of involves consumer internet being offered at low prices to access sites like Twitter and Facebook, and high prices for competitors like VoIP or everyone else (or even just things that could use VoIP).

Charging for selective pricing and then not putting VPNs into the top tier defeats the entire point of selective pricing. It would be like building an internet filter but then allowing proxy traffic through, or charging an import tax on diamonds but allowing people to import sealed boxes. It's just fucking stupid. Companies COULD do it, yeah, but I can't imagine why they would.

I seriously don't want Netflix, i can download any film if just 50 votes on imdb very easily. I know people from every country, from music shops, from film shops and they simply bake it and i download it. That ISP can't block, since i can package up a file in zip or any format i want and reconvert it when i get it, also this download isn't tied to any site. We are talking about ISPs want to delete encryption and tell you who is good or bad site, they want to politically use ISPs and they want corporate use ISPs. ISPs want to play CIA and steal my business information, so they can tell their big guys about secrets so they never die. You want to know what ISPs really want? They want your bank account, that's where this will eventually go.

I don't know the details on how every one of those examples were resolved. Some were violations of specific pledges made by the ISP, other infractions aren't even resolved by NN.

The examples serve to illustrate the behavior that ISPs have already shown an interest in perpetuating.

I want to pay for a goddamn VPN to access all of the internet. They're going to shut down back routes, and find a way to make you pay for every little thing. Through legislation, if not technology. That's how things go.

Not just expedited shipping. Weighted shipping, too. My "package," which consists of a crate filled with concrete blocks, has to cost the same as your letter, and both need to arrive at the same time, despite this cost.

The issue with this comparison, however, is that the USPS has viable competition. Many ISPs do not.

Unsubstantiated nonsense. Would be extremely expensive to implement and terrible optics.

Yes! Cable companies are famous for high prices and poor service. Now, they're lobbying the FCC and Congress to end net neutrality. Why? It's simple: if they win the power to slow sites down, they can bully any site into paying millions to escape the "slow lane." This would amount to a tax on every sector of the American economy. Every site would cost more, since they'd all have to pay big cable. Worse, it would extinguish the startups and independent voices who can't afford to pay. If we lose net neutrality, the Internet will never be the same.

>The right way to deal with natural monopolies is a separate problem from the fact that they exist.
I agree. That said, I don't think the solution to government-caused problems is more government, at least in theory.

A regional monopoly can fuck you on the price regardless of whether or not we have FF enforced net neutrality. Monopolies are a problem, and they have a well established solution.

Nothing in NN prevents packages from being classified by "size" and charged accordingly.

>Would be extremely expensive to implement
You can do this to your own household router in about ten minutes without knowing jack shit. It's really not that fucking hard to implement.

>Nothing in NN prevents packages from being classified by "size" and charged accordingly.
Consider me intrigued. Do go on, and substantiate that claim.

Repealing net neutrality is terrible optics, which is why it was done on a holiday. As it is, internet porn is big business, and if ISPs could cash in on that, they could make crazy bank.

Net neutrality prevents them to change size and change in middle of your contract and then you can complain to FCC to make them pay penalty. Now you can only complain to the sun. How perfect you want net neutrality to be that's up to you, how much you complain.

Stop watching that Crowder hack, because he has no idea what he's talking about on this issue. If you want "expedited shipping" you can pay out the ass for much faster upload speeds. But you're probably not a content creator, so you don't really need faster upload speeds, you need faster download speeds, and content creators like Netflix are already paying ISPs more for faster upload speeds. Also, everything on the internet is delivered in bits. There is no "crate filled with concrete" to "ship."

"Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication."

Specifically, this does not mean you cannot charge more for MORE data than for LESS data. It means you can't look at what's "inside" the data to figure out how much you should be charging for it.

>t.libertarian

>setting up a black list or white list for your router is the same thing as dividing all websites into packages, constantly updating the set lists, monitoring all the traffic of all your customers constantly, creating tools for allowing websites to gain a spot in lists and to allow customers to purchase packages and have their white lists altered dynamically, and figuring out how to sell this shitty system to people who will absolutely hate it