Wait we support it?

Wait we support it?

Other urls found in this thread:

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/twitter-slapped-by-fcc-chief-amid-wider-swipe-at-silicon-valley
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_L._Roberts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Cohen
youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

the media is telling so, so it must be true, goy

>I already pay for the medium
>I already pay for third party services
>Those third party services also pay ISP costs to give me my content
>Some kikes think they can charge me twice for the same traffic
>Some kikes think they have a right to deregulate while squatting on our utility poles and cables that our taxes paid for
>The services are already shit and the ISPs show no interest in improving them
>Speeds are already sold in tiers, so there is no legit reason to throttle

every board other than Sup Forums are lefties and they support it because they need to download their trap porn

>believing the ((((media))))

There's no reason to be pro-net-neutrality.

bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-28/twitter-slapped-by-fcc-chief-amid-wider-swipe-at-silicon-valley

It's furthering our goals. The companies that censor us are the most vocal about net-neutrality. Even if net-neutrality ends up being detrimental for us it would end up benefiting us more because we would take down all these SJWs companies with us. THEY TRIED TO FUCK WITH VIDEO GAMES, NOW THEY PAY. WE HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING TO FUCK THEIR LIVES UP.

>Wanting to let the government control the internet
Why is this Sup Forums so cucked?

I support net neutrality. You really think monopolies are a good thing?

who is the cuck known as Sup Forums?!?!?

I support it.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube already have monopolies

With no net neutrality even bigger monopolies.

I am Sup Forums. I support it.

/thread

Shills blanket board with shit and then media writes about it as fact. Our opinion was proudly sponsored by big business. We all democrat voters now.

Want an onion?

This is probably the only legit reason. NN is necessary on principle but as a trade-off for controlling what Facebitch and Twatter can censor it might be worth it.

Companies have no business regulating what you can or can-not see. Imagine that, them being able to control what content you see and what politicians you can have access to, their content, by censorship.
Why are the ones most at fault for doing just this up in arms over the government letting ISPs do what they do best?
Really makes the sodium channels activate

>implying having 2 choices for ISP as an average in cities isn't already a monopoly
>implying those 2 choices don't price fix with ever increasing prices and neither improve their service because there's no competition

Yeah, NN really is stopping monopolies. Fuck off

This site always supported it before you newfriends showed up. Most still do.

I saw a strawpoll on here that was about 60-40

People care too much about what Sup Forums thinks. I've seen several instances of liberals sort of bittersweetly rejoicing over the pain that evil 4channers will feel once Net Neutrality is gone.

Only amerimutts

>we
kill yourself nigger

We mostly did the first time it was discussed several months ago and until the massive influx of shills.

>I want to be censored by the companies AND by ISPs, praise free market
>implying if they go down (they won't) other similar companies won't take their place

The part that doesn't base their actions on a knee jerk reaction to whatever leftists support, yes. You're retarded if you're against net neutrality.

They're not throttling you, they're throttling websites.

>yes goyim, we need to repel net neutrality, everyone needs access to the internet

We have like 10+ providers but they all miraculously have around the same prices. Same with telecom, there's no competition anyway.

>implying those oglipolies can't fuck you harder when NN is gone

State should control everything basically so yes. Provided it's state monitored/controlled anyways.

FUCK NET NEUTRALITY

DONT TELL ME I SUPPORT THAT SHIT

Soros backs the net neutrality law though.

no we aren't what

fuck these kikes

>bong education
>"it's called net neutrality, therefore it makes the internet neutral"
>meanwhile social media platforms and youtube can remove you for wrongthink
>neutral

neutral for who, fuckwit

CEO of comcast is a Jew.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_L._Roberts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Cohen

Always do the opposite of what the Jews say

>Wait we support it?
Of course we fucking support net neutrality. The swell of support for the Repub's plan was either shills or mndless MAGApedes.

Social media has nothing to do with net neutrality.

...

Either way we are screwed. This is just an argument over which jew gets the best discount.

Pretty much. There's a reason the Jews at Comcast and Verizon don't want this.

>Sup Forums is one person
>and this person is Murican

hahahaha muh net neutrality

I'm a bit split on this topic.

Are they going to target us or redditors?

I mean. We got Trump, Putin and duterte on our side.

R Right?

Omg just like mcdonalds and burgerking and taco bell! Or its just a stable market and thats what fucking happens

Sup Forums unironically voted for this. Now you're throwing a fucking tantrum because Trump betrayed you. Trump has been a coorporate shill his entire life. Now you're surprised that he's giving cable companies exactly what they want? Why?

Who is more likely to target you, every isp simultaneously, or the government?

Neither of those have the same prices though.

i fucking hate Sup Forums
fucking retarded niggers don't understand that net neutrality is good

i hope you all fucking die you pathetic virgins

> The same vague, loose organisation that always systematically rejects censorship and limited internet freedom, will reject censorship and limited internet freedom.

> Somehow this is news.

NN has nothing to do with ISPs targeting people.

How can you be a journalist and be this fucking clueless about how a hugely popular website like Sup Forums works?

They're within pennies of eachother if differing at all
Targeting Sup Forums, not the individual. Kind of the implied plural form of you, I wasn't clear

It's not about targeting sites either.

No. Net Neutrality is retarded

>having equal access to information is retarded

But you can target sites.

I think it's fair to say that we are divided and Shia has failed us.

>Actually believing this

Yep, retarded

Muh free market muffugga

heres your (you)

You are a fucking subhuman.

Not an argument mr. Cohen.

>all of Sup Forums is Sup Forums
fucking christ and I thought Sup Forums being the dominant board was bad

>Even Sup Forums is

I don't need to read anything else. The funny thing about this site is anyone can spam and shill a few threads and call whatever stance they're pushing as "Sup Forums's opinion" regardless of how many anons actually hold the same views or not.

All articles, anywhere, at any time, that mention Sup Forums are nothing more than clickbait. Even the ones back in the day about shit we pulled, there's far more newsworthy things than simply rigging online polls.

The way I read what little you have posted, Sup Forums joins facebook etc. In opposing the repeal.

It's due to the open-peering contracts that we snow niggers created since we own half the worlds international fiber paths (Telia International Carrier). It is commie-based system as everyone agrees to share network bandwidth for free* (you only pay a monthly port fee to the switch matrix all the isps are on in the internet exchange).

youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then I'll venture a guess that it's a duck. So because I don't like the smell of net neutrality and everything that surrounds it, I'm not going to support it.

Netflix is a national company and the globalists want foreign companies to compete with it. We need to subsidize it
>Anybody who has ever dealt with internet lag should realize that bandwidth is a finite resource. Like any other economically scarce commodity, the price and profit mechanisms of the market serve to direct the allocation of this resource as efficiently as possible. This is why people pay more for faster speeds or larger data caps.

>The economic reality of bandwidth scarcity is the source of hostility between companies and consumers. When cell phone companies started limiting the amount of data their customers could consume each month, many people were outraged. But data caps were the natural result of internet use shifting away from computers and onto mobile devices. The change in prices reflected a change in demand. By limiting data, bandwidth provided through these companies was rationed so that customers could enjoy higher speeds.

>Do you keep your phone connected to wifi when you’re at home to conserve data? That’s the beauty of the price system as a rationing mechanism. It’s similar to taking a detour in your car to save the cost of tolls on a more direct route. This prevents congestion and enhances user experience (even as the customer is outraged at no longer having unlimited data . . . or toll free roadways).

>Economists love to divide goods into different categories according to the characteristics of “rivalry” and “excludability.” Most goods are considered “private goods,” meaning that they are both rivalrous (consumption by one person affects to ability to be consumed by another person) and excludable (we can prevent people from consuming the good). Economists typically consider the internet to be of a different category: a “club good.” This is a good that is excludable, but non-rivalrous — meaning that consumption by one person does not affect the ability for another person to consume the good.

We aren't Sup Forums, most of the anons of the largest boards never come here, and the only thing they know about net neutrality is that image that manages internet like a calbe service.

Why support NN when the problem isn't that, it is the lack of competition. My biggest beef with the whole NN talk is they on one hand want to say "well Twitter is private company they can ban ...blah blah blah" but fail to see that ISPs are also private companies to :) You can't play the private company card in one hand and be ok with banning shit while preaching about free and open internet. Stormfront was a bunch of shit heads but unless they were doing illegal shit, they deserved their spot on this "free and open internet" when places like tumblr exist.

Don't fall for the Jewish trick. Subsidising American companies is redpilled
>But this classification reveals the internet ignorance on the part of economists. Internet bandwidth is absolutely a rivalrous good. With cable internet, I share access to the same cable line as all of my neighbors. If we are on the internet simultaneously, we are vying for bandwidth. This is precisely why the internet tends to be slower during the hours of high-usage; if bandwidth were truly non-rivalrous, there would be no variation in speeds according to consumption. All internet service providers deal with this scarcity.

>Because of this consumer rivalry, internet providers have started discussing the possibility of throttling certain services or charging companies extra for priority treatment. Netflix, for instance, is responsible for nearly 37% of all internet traffic. The other 63% of internet traffic now has to compete with a single website for bandwidth. With the popularity of Netflix, it is no wonder that the idea of charging the company a premium for its access to bandwidth is upsetting to people, but this is little more than an innovation in the way these resources are allocated.

>The traditional model of allocating bandwidth is to charge the customer for certain tiers of speed. But with certain websites like Netflix accounting for such a dominant portion of this consumption, the internet consumer who does not have a Netflix subscription is effectively subsidizing the consumption habits of the Netflix user. The idea of charging companies like Netflix a premium is a way to levy the cost of such high traffic websites on the people who actually use them, rather then spreading them across all users whether they consumer these services are not.

>already face censorship almost everywhere by private companies
>want more censorship by different private companies

>Last week, John Oliver made a plea to his viewers to encourage the FCC to impose Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality professes to regulate internet prices in a “neutral” way, as the name implies. This means preventing companies from throttling internet speeds for certain users or charging extra fees for priority service.

>But the reality of the scarcity of internet bandwidth cannot be legislated away. If Net Neutrality were to become policy, internet service providers will have to find alternative solutions for allocating bandwidth in an industry now contending with a disrupted price mechanism. Most likely, this would mean charging consumers higher prices for faster speeds than would otherwise be necessary, or placing data caps on home internet, as some service providers have already started to do.

>Murray Rothbard once said it is no crime to be ignorant of economics. Likewise, it is no crime to be ignorant of the workings of the internet. But (if I may take some liberty with his quote) it is entirely irresponsible to voice an opinion on Net Neutrality, while remaining in this state of ignorance.

>the companies already censoring the net don't want net neutrality
>this means net neutrality increases censorship

this is the kind of bad smell I'm talking about

Only the government is on our side lol, we should just abolish ISPs already and nationalize the internet, so the government protects us from censorship

>>Anybody who has ever dealt with internet lag should realize that bandwidth is a finite resource.

It wouldn't be, if they'd update their own infrastructure. And pay for it themselves, with their own profits, rather than telling assholes like me out in the boonies that they'll run better lines to my house if I pay $150/ft for a new cable all the way from them to me.

They aren't "censoring the net" at large they enforce the rules that they set for their own websites. You're free to use different sites if you don't like that.
Meanwhile if the Jews running your ISPs decide that they don't want you to visit certain websites you're LITERALLY shit out of luck and can do nothing about it except moving to a different country.

>All this bullshit when we have countries with good free internet.

Net Neutrality as introduced by Obama was a powergrab to hand over control of ICANN and other institutions to the UN.

Besides, treating every packet equally doesn't make technical sense, you treat packets according to their classification.

E.g. FPS games have low latency tolerance, streaming videos does not. Treat them differently according to class, and be agnostic regarding source/destination.

>free
No wonder south America is a shithole when even Chileans believe this mumbo jumbo

>You're free to use different sites if you don't like that.

Then why does Daily Stormer keep losing it's domain? Seems like there's a firm stance on de-platforming wrongthink. And the primary propagators of this mentality are now against net neutrality on the grounds of "freedom"

Still stinks of bullshit sorry bro.

2016 election ruined Sup Forums when corporate shills and foreign governments realized all they to do was shill endlessly and brainwash gullible retards into doing what they wanted. It worked like a charm.

You can read faggot, opinion is divided and Sup Forums at it's core is oppossing it if not baiting deus bulge mongrelli like you

I don't think Sup Forums as a whole is united on a single fucking issue, even something as basic as sticking you dick in the ass of a slender boy in a dress being gay is cause for disagreement from some here.

Do google and facebook do that? Somehow I doubt that.
How would giving ISPs more power to control the content you can consume help ds? If anything, ISPs may even ban TOR and VPNs so that even deep web option would become unavailable for ds.

>Republican

1. Net Neutrality prohibits ISPs from throttling network speeds to content which they choose.
2. The spirit of this law is that internet traffic should not be discriminated on grounds of content.

Anyone who opposes Net Neutrality in this form is a complete idiot.

this. It's beyond me how far retards can get shilled into stuff.
If pol ever was about anything it's net neutrality.
And not no net neutrality.
Suck corporate dick you mongrels.

Wait our memes arguably helped elect Dolan? WHY didn't I get paid for making them. I'm with her now

It's really, really clever of Google to act like they are against taking Net Neutrality down. This way idiots believe Net Neutrality *should* be taken down because big corporations support it.

This is just approaching the issue from an extreme stance (let the cable companies just do what they want).

IMO, before we do anything we need to make these telecom companies upgrade their fucking infrastructure. They artificially raise the price of service in this country by never improving the infrastructure of the services themselves.

Comcast or some company laid fiber optic lines years ago and only within the last year has AT&T offered limited fiber service in the area. My heart goes out to bum-fuck-all land where they may just be getting over DSL.

The media claims we've reached a consensus, which means this is the one thing we haven't reached a consensus over.

I can't tell if it's shills or nu-pol or some combination thereof.

But I can definitely tell you that a certain *chan which hasn't gone to shit INDISPUTABLY opposes NN, as do I.

So, we not Nazis anymore?

Fake and gay, we hate it.

You fucking retards. Do you even understand the corporate welfare argument against NN? Do you realize NN allows big companies to externalize traffic costs onto people who don't even use their service?

>even Sup Forums
Well fuck you too.

kek

what the fuck's it about then muh tiered fastlane is literally the only argument i hear about it

>Being this fucking retarded.

Yes. Only shills oppose NN because consumers lose money.
Shills btfo.

>corporate welfare
the welfare of corporations? wew, how jewish are you? Dismantling Net Neutrality will not disable their ability to externalize traffic costs even one smidge of a burnt cunt.