Reminder comcast is not your friend

Repealing net neutrality is the stupidest thing we could do.

Other urls found in this thread:

reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-pew/over-half-of-public-comments-to-fcc-on-net-neutrality-appear-fake-study-idUSKBN1DT297
corporate.comcast.com/openinternet/open-net-neutrality
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf
pewinternet.org/2017/11/29/public-comments-to-the-federal-communications-commission-about-net-neutrality-contain-many-inaccuracies-and-duplicates/
washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/28/twitter-is-part-of-the-problem-fcc-chairman-lambastes-company-as-net-neutrality-debate-draws-heat/
unvis.it/washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/28/twitter-is-part-of-the-problem-fcc-chairman-lambastes-company-as-net-neutrality-debate-draws-heat
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

We're already censored and shit on, fuck off. Make Google pay through the nose.

It's funny because the adpocalypse lost them billions from elsegate and now repealing kike neutrality will cost them tens of billions. Don't fuck with taylorchan.

reminder that net neutrality doesn't exist

>We're already censored

NO WE AREN'T

You can go on Sup Forums

Guess what happens when you have to pay 20.99 for your Malaysian image board?

Comcast ATT and Verizon are going to fuck you so hard that you wish that you were communists.

Internet needs to be the commons

It's a monoploy, so we need the government to nationalize the internet so I don't have to be fucked over by these big telco companies.

GOVERNMENT
REGULATION
IS
ALWAYS
BAD

...

reminder that this is all about slavery do not pass go do not collect $200 go directly to jail

can someone edit this so TRANSPARENT is also in bold?

I worked in telecom for over 7 years. I don't see a single positive of repealing net neutrality, from the end-user stand point.

The ISPs on the other hand,.. oh boy!

/r/ing "people for NN vs. People against NN" pic plz

I have read all of the BS posted on Sup Forums about the down fall of the net if NN is repealed and you are all wrong.

All and ISP has to do to charge you more for anything is disclose and you agree.

What you all num nuts are not paying attention to is the CBRS which is where competition is enabled and how Mike O is killing it for competition and making so Big Biz like his friends at AT&T want him to do.

There is nothing an ISP can do to you now with NN that can't do after.

What can be done now is price controls by the Gov, declaring what is and is not legal content.

With competition you can go to another ISP you are happy with, without, you are stuck with AT&T.

Google CBRS and stop crying about NN which is a distraction to the real problem.

Neither is Google or the government, dumbass.

>Muh Comcast.

>Net Neutrality
Supported by a nigger Democrat.

>repealing Net Neutrality
Supported by Trump.

This isn't hard.

Same picture.
Same argument.
Same Google/Netflix shill.

It's called Title II. Its not NN.

The rules state an ISP cannot call itself NN compliant if they throttle and sell package deals like "family website plans"

Perfect loophole for liberals to avoid the 1st amendment. Just replace family plan with a political agenda and bam. Instant controlled media.

Repeal Title II

We've had net neutrality since Day 1 of the Internet. Why let Comcast, Verizon, AT&T change things?

Things have already been changed, it's just the monkey did it so plebbit didn't know or care.

>Same Google/Netflix shill.

Same Verizon/Comcast shill

>Things have already been changed
How so? There are no "fast lanes" yet. ISPs currently treat all internet traffic equal.

Net Neutrality threads are spam, primarily because
>they have been massively spammed, six simultaneous threads at a time
>they are almost all one-line one-posts or personal army threads
but also
>YOU TRIED EFFORTLESSLY COMMANDING US TO ADOPT YOUR OPINION SIX MILLION TIMES. THE RESULT IS THAT WE WANT YOU TO SHUT UP AND GO AWAY. NEXT TIME TRY WRITING A THOUGHTFUL AND SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT, YOU PAID SHILL.

>come join us on reddit and help us save net neutrality

Neither side of this is our friend, shill. Stop with the false dillema bullshit and break up the god damn monopolies.

Trump supports repeal, you fucking shill. That means supporting repeal is the only correct position.

>We've had net neutrality since Day 1
net neutrality was introduced in 2015

I was referring to the ISPs not being our friend, and the FCC not being our friend. Of course repeal is the only way because it allows for the real solution to prosper.

No. Net neutrality regulation by the government was introduced in 2015. Net neutrality itself has been around since the beginning.

correct. and it was only introduced to prevent jewry by t-mobile and other kike enablers

Why are you fighting for (((Google))) and (((Facebook)))? Don't fight for anyone. This is a jew versus jew fight. Whoever wins, the goyim lose.

This makes nonsense and is a semantic trick. Net neutrality is entirely based on FCC regulations. Stop trying to pull some Jew shit and confuse the issue.

They're not, but they're being held accountable and now are required to be completely transparent, that's why they made this statement.

>This makes nonsense and is a semantic trick. Net neutrality is entirely based on FCC regulations. Stop trying to pull some Jew shit and confuse the issue.
You're wrong. Net neutrality is when ISPs treat internet traffic equally. It has been like this from the beginning.

More than 90% of comments posted to FCC in FAVOR of keeping Net Neutrality are FAKE or bots
>For example, “Pat M” was listed on 5,910 submissions, and the email address [email protected] was used in 1,002 comments. TV host John Oliver supported keeping net neutrality earlier this on his HBO talk show.
You're arguing with Soros drones who are being paid to flood our site. Remember that.

>reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-pew/over-half-of-public-comments-to-fcc-on-net-neutrality-appear-fake-study-idUSKBN1DT297

Those in favor of keeping net neutrality:
>(((Soros)))
>(((Bildebergs)))
>(((Facebook)))
>Other pro-censorship entities with a stake in controlling the narrative to the public
That should tell you all you need to know about why it needs to be eliminated. It's not a hard conversation but it's been had 100 times in the past day.

Redpill me on net neutrality. Why do the google kikes love it so much?

let them try to change things and they will be the next AOL or Compuserve

>repealing a law from 2015
>from the beginning of the internet

kill yourself, you jew faggot

tell us.. in what way did the FCC have any control of the interwebs before 2015

So they are always guaranteed unlimited connectivity no matter what ridiculous things they do. All the burden is on the ISP instead of them.

so they can hog bandwidth

Compare the differences between this pic (April 2017) and corporate.comcast.com/openinternet/open-net-neutrality

Easy to see what Comcast is planning.

Until 2015, the major ISPs followed net neutrality and the FCC didn't need to do anything.

Net neutrality has only been a thing since 2015 guys (actually made federal law***)! We should repeal it. I can't explain why allowing Comcast to go back to being able to throttle what I do legally is bad. So my entire argument is "b-b-but George Soros and Obungo!!!".

Cable is dying so why on earth would ISPs want to be able to charge different packages based on what you do online? I see no benefit to giving them this power! Anyone who disagrees with Trump's poo in loo is a shill!!!

The largest users of internet bandwidth are (((Netflix))), (((Youtube))), and (((Pornhub))). Normally, ISPs charge these companies extra for transmitting a a large amount of bandwidth. With net neutrality, these companies can push as much degenerate content as they want and can't be charged extra.

You're right, we should have the FTC enforce antitrust law instead.

>lawful content
This is the key term, Amerimutts
If you ever see anyone whinging about "muh Daily Stormer" and how it got banned under Net Neutrality, remember:
The Stormer had to be PROVED, in a COURT OF LAW, to be an ACTIVE DANGER to the public good, in America
WITHOUT Net Neutrality, there will be NO proof needed, NO procedures; Sup Forums WILL be banned without NN, because ISPs can just do it on a whim to score points with liberals
And they will. In 5 years, redditors will be chuckling to each other about how at least THEY survived the end of NN, and at least all those "dangerous hate sites" are gone.
JUST BECAUSE THE JEW RUNNING COMCAST HATES THE JEW RUNNING GOOGLE DOES NOT MAKE EITHER YOUR FRIEND

another reminder that a company's PR department is far removed from actual corporate polices. a PR department's job is to respond to the current climate and push messages that make the company look good. the average consumer's memory is short and susceptible to manipulation. right now this is comcast's message, but when the changes come they'll be trying to convince you that any changes aren't drastic, and in-fact, they are in your interest. they operate on a slippery slope. changes will be small and gradual so that most people don't even realize that their un-lubed asshole is receiving inch after inch of veiny corporate cock. the idea that competition will prevent this is a faggot lie. a corporation's responsibility is to make the most money possible, and if the repeal of NN presents loophole opportunities to do so, then you aren't going to see new altruistic ISPs. you're going to see a gradual increase of corporate degeneracy in a race to see who can fuck the consumer best while tricking them into thinking they're getting a better product.

the benefit of looking at ISPs as a utility is that there's a bare minimum standard for quality. consumers aren't prepared to vote with their dollar in concern to their internet providers, because the internet is that incredibly crucial to navigating the modern world.

if NN dies, I don't think we'll be sorry next year, I think we'll be sorry 15 years from now because that's how long it'll take the general public to realize that they've let ISPs fill their bowels with a viral jizz load.

This. Plus, in April, Comcast changed
"Comcast won't block access to lawful content."
to
"We do not block, slow down or discriminate against lawful content."
so they may just slow Sup Forums down to a crawl instead of blocking it so they won't get accused of censorship.

What is the argument for changing something that works fine? Title II hasn't harmed anybody but the big media conglomerates and ISPs, who gives a shit?

inb4 nigger obama
inb4 muh small government
inb4 kikes

Also, Trump is a faggot that only cares for himself and his kike friends in the deep state. For him to repeal this is just a handjob for the jews that own the ISPs.

That is LITERALLY fake news. It's the other way around, the comments in favor of REPEALING net neutrality were fake or bots. Get your facts straight, you indian cock gobbler.

That is completely false. They pay their access charges by the meg just like everyone else in wholesale.

inb4 shill replies >B-but NN isn't about that

>hand icann over
>no one cares

>net neutrality
>everyone loses their shit

>TDS had to be proved in a court of law to be a danger

How fucking retarded are you

>forced to choose between fucking evil isps and fucking evil content providers
Honestly, fuck this gay Earth.

Your pic is pure bullshit. Stormfront.org loads just fine.

It was down for a month after Cville

How retarded are you?
Here's the fucking equation: your 1st Amendment protects against government censorship. That means that, under NN, websites can't be fucked with unless the government signs off, and they can't do that without a very good reason.
Without NN, the Jew that runs your preferred ISP can just shut down a site whenever he feels like it

P-people don't actually use this retarded argument do they? I-it's just trolls, r-right?

>We need to regulate the corporations
>But not the corporations actually doing the censorship

I will never understand this argument.

Nothing to do with net neutrality or ISPs.
Their stormfront.org domain name was locked by the registrar.

>that's fake news!
prove reuters wrong faggot. We'll wait. screaming "fake news!" isn't a valid source sorry.
>Over 6,000 spam pro-NN emails/comments from emails like [email protected]
>b-b-but it's the other guys
Go shove another dildo up your ass you lying kike

Is your Jew master at Comcast paying you by the post?
Yeah, there isn't enough regulation. The solution isn't to tear down all regulation stopping big Jew just because what we've got now doesn't stop all of their tricks

"lawful content"

This is the phrase that will allow them to do as they please.

>Until 2015, the major ISPs followed net neutrality and the FCC didn't need to do anything.
almost seems NN wasn't needed

>Nothing to do with net neutrality or ISPs.
>Their stormfront.org domain name was locked by the registrar.
shill deflection

>if you oppose democrat censorship you're a Comcast shill

Here's your .02cents

...

a) lawful content is decided by legislatures, not comcast dumbass
b) hate speech from anyone has already been deemed protected under the 1st amendment unanimously by SCOTUS last year
c) if they do something unlawful, anti-trust laws come into play.
In the past 25 years all ISPs have cracked down on are CP and obvious drug dealing, why would they magically change now after a quarter century? Explain it. None of you pro-NN faggots can.

with FCC control, they decide who can be on the internet. That is why Obama wanted it in the first place.

That's not how it works at all. The 1st Amendment protects against government censorship. When you are prevented from using a public utility, you can challenge the government in court and WIN.
When your ISP decides they don't want to let their customers use a site anymore, you are shit out of luck.

How many of you guys actually read the plan?
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf

hate speech is unlawful (content). hate speech is also saying anything positive about the white race. thoughts?

>The 1st Amendment protects against government censorship
really? ever heard of the FCC? Ever wonder why there is no porn on network TV? Ever wonder why words like FUCK are bleeped out?

That's when you switch to another ISP. This shit isn't rocket science and you shills keep regurgitating the same shit script every time you make these threads. You youngfags act like you don't even know how to internet. Even with the same ISP there are ways around that.

pewinternet.org/2017/11/29/public-comments-to-the-federal-communications-commission-about-net-neutrality-contain-many-inaccuracies-and-duplicates/

>2.1 million pro-net neutrality comments
>5.5 million anti-net neutrality comments
>tfw it actually is the other guys

The numbers don't lie, faggot. BTFO

everyone remember how excited liberals where when NN was going to get passed. they where giddy with the idea that the FCC would have the power to keep InfoWars from reaching consumers.

the only ISP available where I live is comcast. What should I do?

Why would they decide that? If it is for business reasons, you can sue for anti-competitive behavior. If it is for shits and grins, that makes no business sense. All this is moot though if they have actual competition but they give them monopolies for running lines.

call dishnet, hughesnet or directtv. they all offer internet
you may also be in a wireless provider area.

Comcast is (y)our (((friend)))
Google is (y)our (((friend)))
Verizon is (y)our (((friend)))
Facebook is (y)our (((friend)))
AT&T is (y)our (((friend)))
Twitter is (y)our (((friend)))

Sounds kosher, r-riiiight guys?

That isn't remotely the same issue. For one thing, 9/10 times, that's a private network decision. For another, your preferred porn does not, I presume, routinely advocate radical political ideologies.
Except in half the fucking USA, there is only one ISP, because they routinely sign non-compete agreements

It's not unlawful, SCOTUS unanimously said it's not just last year. What part of that is not getting through your thick skull? It's protected under the 1st amendment. I don't even know why you used (content) because it doesn't matter if it's spoken or content on the net, it's protected. This has already been decided. Try to keep up with actual politics if you're going to post on a board about specifically politics, you ignorant pleb. You're an uninformed clown. Just GTFO.

comcast throttles me all the fucking time.

So the internet was neutral before all these regulations were introduced but now if they are repealed just 2 years later all this exaggerated fear mongering will come true?

Rly makes me think, also
>king nigger and the DNC passing laws that dont benefit kikes
Top kek

It makes perfect business sense. You get to come out as the good guy to all of the people currently wringing their hands on Reddit.
"Oh, see, Comcast are good guys! They're using their new control over their users to stop them from accessing dangerous hate sites like Sup Forums! Say, why aren't other companies doing that?"

>pewinternet is more accurate than reuters
sweetie just

Let us see...

Government regulations backed by bandwidth hogs in league with politicians vs. unregulated, anti-trust/commerce laws where Cable/telecom have their own group to political whores.

I choose the former while deregulating further, thus opening up to potential competitors and here is the kicker, tech creating alternatives.

People who shill for NN are government bootlickers who are poor/entitled/proud plebs

>only "lawful" content
Why are burgers so fucking retarded?
Is it boomers? No one can be so delusional to think this is a bad thing just because leftists also want it.

Are you one of those elderly 4channers?

>For one thing, 9/10 times, that's a private network decision
no, its law, enforced by the FCC

>Repealing net neutrality is the stupidest thing we could do.

But net neutrality isn't being repealed

just the ability for companies to censor people based on political beliefs

>That is LITERALLY fake news. It's the other way around, the comments in favor of REPEALING net neutrality were fake or bots. Get your facts straight, you indian cock gobbler.

it's actually both if you've even bothered reading. we're through the event horizon my dude, everyone is shilling everywhere and there's a good chance i'm literally just an algorithm programmed to astroturf

Being that no company has ever done this for that reason, what makes you think it would happen suddenly?

Who the fuck needs a reminder of that?

>Except in half the fucking USA, there is only one ISP, because they routinely sign non-compete agreements
sure.. that's why in northern Michigan, 40 miles from the nearest town, I have seven choices in ISP's.

>Pai, a Republican, said Twitter's own practices already violate the principles of openness the company espouses, accusing it of using a “double-standard” to police its own content. He cited the company’s recent regulation of “conservative users' accounts,” apparently referring to Twitter's recent decision to suspend and de-verify some prominent white nationalists and far-right users on its service.
washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/28/twitter-is-part-of-the-problem-fcc-chairman-lambastes-company-as-net-neutrality-debate-draws-heat/

If you can't see the difference between "stopping children from seeing porn" and "stopping political discussion from occurring", I have to recommend that you emigrate, because you are clearly too stupid to live in America.

Time for archive
unvis.it/washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/11/28/twitter-is-part-of-the-problem-fcc-chairman-lambastes-company-as-net-neutrality-debate-draws-heat

>I can't explain why allowing Comcast to go back to being able to throttle what I do legally is bad.
You cant explain it because it never happened

DOES EVERYONE NOT REALIZ there were two different NN laws passed at different times?? the last one passed by obama was destructive..this is turning it back .....he was just clever in not renaming it.

Yeah, it's both sides, but it's always suspect when one side shills more than another.