What are /pols/ opinions on net neutrality?

What are /pols/ opinions on net neutrality?

>Good for the overall internet?
>Bad for (((them)))?

Discuss below

>pic related

Other urls found in this thread:

money.cnn.com/2014/08/29/technology/netflix-comcast/index.html
attpublicpolicy
youtube.com/watch?v=k-xSP_T0VqU&t=314s
eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Pai is a boss who is calling out the faggots like Cloudflare and Twitter for being the arbiters of approved content based solely on their personal opinions and ideologies.

Literally Orwellian some animals are more equal than others commie bullshit

good for us because twitter will get fined millions if they ban us for calling someone a nigger

>trump for net neutrality
>pol votes for drump

thanks a lot.
you voted for a racist and sexist AND some one who hates internet freedom

As someone who knows how to build an entirely new internet.

Doesn't bother me either way.

Especially now that the CFPB is under Trump's control.

Jews want NN, don't fall for it.

>government regulation
>ever a good thing

Net Neutrality

> Gives the kike controlled government a foot in the door for the internet.

> Allows said government to regulate service providers and terms of service.

> Has only been in place for two years

No Net Neutrality

> Free Market regulates prices

>Monopolies fall as people don't want to pay more so they either switch or a new provider comes into existence.

Pretty much this.

>In February, Netflix reluctantly agreed to pay Comcast to directly connect to its network. Prior to the direct connect, Netflix delivered its videos to Comcast customers via third parties, including Cogent Communications (CCOI).

3rd party ISP that Comcast has no control over and no control over their Infrastructure was giving Netflix a deal where they had large download and upload speeds for a lot cheaper than Comcast.

>But Comcast customers experienced abysmal Netflix speeds -- among the worst in the country.

Comcast saw their Bullshit and called them out with throttling.

>"We had to do something to make the congestion stop," the company added.

So what did they do?
> Hastings said that Internet users will "never realize broadband's potential if large ISPs erect a pay-to-play system that charges both the sender and receiver for the same content." He has called on the FCC to ban broadband companies from charging content providers like Netflix to connect to their networks.

Seems like we had a system where both of us paid but Netflix said it would be better if we the consumers paid instead and let them get near free internet. Not just Comcast though

>After its February agreement, Netflix speeds have soared on Comcast's network. The company has since entered similar deals with AT&T (T, Tech30), Verizon (VZ, Tech30) and Time Warner Cable.

>The Internet companies counter that Netflix plays an outsized role in network congestion, accounting for around a third of data consumption online during peak hours, and Netflix should therefore help foot the bill for delivery.

Comcast even called them out yet people are fighting for Netflix.

2014 article

money.cnn.com/2014/08/29/technology/netflix-comcast/index.html

>net neutrality
It is both what it is and also a dem bill introduced in 2015. They named it this on purpose so they could prey upon the idiocy of the general population as protection for the bill. Before 2015 it didn't exist but we never had any problems with the internet. Also this chart that is being thrown around all the time is really old. Like almost a decade old. There is no evidence at all to back up that this would happen.

Don't forget about all that unused bandwidth that would be better recycled! Hence the "throttling" argument.

I find it funny that the Pro Net Neutrality shills keep scaremongering about tiered internet service or website packages when the 2015 provisions doesn't even protect you from that. All companies have to do is openly advertise their policy and system and they can do any tiered internet package they want.

attpublicpolicy .com/consumer-broadband/the-surprising-to-me-narrowness-of-the-d-c-circuits-title-ii-decision/

>According to the concurrence, which was written by Judges Sri Srinivasan and David S. Tatel (the same judges who wrote theunderlying decisionbtw), “the net neutrality rule applies only to ‘those broadband providers who hold themselves out as neutral, indiscriminate conduits’ to any content of a subscriber’s own choosing,” (quoting the underlying decision). The concurrence goes on to say, “the rule does not apply to an ISP holding itself out as providing something other than a neutral, indiscriminate pathway – i.e., an ISP making sufficiently clear that it provides a filtered service involving the ISP’s exercise of editorial discretion.”

>I was surprised by this, though I should not have been since the FCC’s own lawyer implicitly conceded this point during oral argument. And even supporters of Title IInow appear to agreethat the scope of Title II is limited to ISPs not offering a “curated experience.” However, in the past, supporters of Title II often alleged that without reclassification, ISPs would be free to block unpopular opinions or viewpoints that they disagreed with. In the understanding of the D.C. Circuit panel majority, it seems that the Title II order does not touch such practices as long as an ISP clearly discloses its blocking plans to customers

pol is a bunch of dumb ass virgins who can't think for themselves so they need a "leader" who is just as dumb as them (ie blumpf)

>how much do you get paid?

>fcc release P.83
>Comcast verizon
>Wont throttle legal content
>Choose one

Simple explanation of net neutrality

youtube.com/watch?v=k-xSP_T0VqU&t=314s

many very good people have been studying and fighting this issue for a very long time

start here.....eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

Watched about a couple minutes of that and will rebut with: I don't want gore or CP to run rampant on the open internet.

So fuck that commie net neutrality bullshit.

>Open internet
>Have to use TOR to access CP and extremely hardcore gore

You would.

...

Yea, there is always work arounds, which is why I don't really care either way.

I just think that google shouldn't return any relevant results for searching shit like that. Which to a libtard or democrat, whatever, would blow a whistle saying its censorship and violating freedom of speech.

Pick your battles carefully, you might just learn something.

I agree, but i get enough gore from REKT threads on Sup Forums
I dont search for CP, but i doubt it comes up on the surface web

Don't worry it won't be back on the internet. Anything that will cause harm to a person in real life won't be available on the internet except for going through TOR like he said.

>when you shill for NN not realizing you're helping the jewish corporations pay less for their traffic and bandwidth usage

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy

Deduplication algorithms will help reduce the memetic effect of "illegal" content that has been previously flagged, etc.

I will say I may miss the piracy to some degree and may actually stop if the only way to do so is with TOR / vpn and shit.

Bump because I don't know shit about this but am very worried about the fact that there are millions who don't know anything either but are adamantly campaigning for NN. Where there are sheeple there is always someone leading the herd, and this worries me the most. Whether or not NN is a good thing, the vast majority of people have already made up their minds.
We don't have NN in the UK apparently and things are fine, so I don't know.

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

The change won't be too drastic causing in uproar, mostly little changes like adding more suggestions to your homepage or something of the like.

i am more worried about the ISPs deciding to go SJW like the domain name registers did.

ISP's will not be an authority by any means. Net neutrality or not, ISP provides internet access and nothing more.

I also believe anyone and everyone should be able to register .gov domains.

Net neutrality is good for (((content tech companies))) and bad for )))physical companies(((

It forces )))physical companies((( to provide bandwidth to (((content tech companies))) at their own expense.

Net neutrality is about economics, not censorship.

What is needed are laws that protect legal content from being censored by (((tech companies))). The )))physical companies((( do not discriminate against us.

though the fact that the domains were able to shut done sites like stormfront proves that Net neutrality does not protect free speech at all as it only applies to the ISPs.

>It forces )))physical companies((( to provide bandwidth to (((content tech companies))) at their own expense
>at their own expense
Why is this?

...

...

...

NN means ISP can't be authoritative by government regulation.

Without NN an ISP that tries to be authoritative gets boycotted where more fair ISP's can emerge in the market.

Either way you can rest assured that there will be a balance,

...

...