Ok, so I can't seem to find any rational discussion about net neutrality that doesn't devolve into "autistic screeching". I have no horse in the game here, but I simply don't trust what is being pushed out there so aggressively from places like Reddit that make a living on free bandwidth. What are the arguments for it for devil's advocate purposes. I see that one of the biggest arguments for it is that the internet will magically turn into an a la carte system even though is wasn't one 2-3 years ago, prior to NN. My counter argument to that is that the free market will do its job and make people take their money elsewhere to places that do that. Which then they counter with, but my monopoly. Buy if there is truly a monopoly, what's to prevent ISP's from simply doubling their current rates in the US? Or to moving to a metered system and charging like $.25 per GB?
Ok...
Other urls found in this thread:
motherboard.vice.com
unvis.it
twitter.com
ISPs declared in court they intended to block and throttle websites that competed with their own content services if NN gets repealed.
It was on an NPR broadcast today with Nick Gillespie, so seemed legit.
But why do they not reserve that right? Let's say compared to YT or FB. It's the one thing that really chaps my ass on this subject is that Google(YT), Facebook, Reddit, and the rest that make money on gobbling up bandwidth are decrying that this is a violation of free speech, but back anti-election season, when it was proven that they were censoring pro-right/GOP content, they general reaction was "well, 1st amendment protections don't apply to businesses, you can't tell them that they have to remain neutral to speech/content"
The reason why so many people, myself included, are against the end of net neutrality is because in many places, people have only one option for their ISP, especially in rural communities and small towns, etc. If there is only one option for your ISP, then that ISP can censor and restrict your internet however they want, which will probably lead to them trying to maximize their profits by censoring anything that goes against their chosen narrative. They will choose whatever stance is most popular and by extension most profitable (rn probably SJW/feminist, etc.) and censor anything that goes against that or criticizes their business, probably including Sup Forums and similar. In more populated areas where there are several options for an ISP, there is nothing really stopping those ISPs from meeting behind closed doors to make "agreements" about raising prices and censoring the internet, etc. also if all the products end up sucking, it will take the free market a long time to correct that, and in the meantime we probably won't be able to access things like porn, Sup Forums, real news, etc. Basically everyone looses and since the ISPs will control what news you see, they can control what people think about current events.
Three letters.
VPN
This kills the debate.
>meeting behind closed doors to make "agreements" about raising prices and censoring the internet, etc.
But there are already laws against this (for all markets)
if the isps kill Sup Forums and the backup then the faggots may actually get /fit/, buy guns, etc
That is true, but signing non-compete agreements is still legal, and even if these companies went so far as to break the law, they could simply censor the news of that ever happening. also it is completely legal for all the different ISPs to just coincidentally be equally terrible.
So, we need a new law (actually a repeal of an executive action) to make sure people don't break the law?
what exactly are you referring to?
Collusion is already illegal, so it seemed as though you were arguing that NN is necessary because without it ISPs will collude to jack up prices (which NN does nothing to prevent) and censor content they don't like.
even without collusion, ISPs will legally be allowed to censor content and jack up prices. Even if nothing changes at all, getting rid of NN would mean that ISPs aren't being watched as carefully, and that kind of power would be too easy to abuse. also, I'm pretty sure that it is perfectly legal for two companies to sign an agreement to not compete with each other (correct me if I'm wrong) and thus full-on collusion isn't really nessicary
Net Neutrality is anti white, Sup Forums is against anything that gives handouts to shitskins that they shouldn't have. Do you support (((them))) or not? Are you one of us or do you support white genocide? Remember these things when you attempt to sign those redditor petitions in support of Net Neutrality.d
My opinion is that NN is terrible, but no regulation at all is just as bad. I think there is a good compromise that could be found that would prevent heavy handed censorship, while reducing the burden of things like Netflix on ISP's. The whole reason that NN came into existence was because in 2013ish Netflix accounted for nearly half of all US traffic and was bogging down networks. And ISP's basically told them to pay up or be throttled. Don't get me wrong. ISP's are still bony-fingered jews and wont apply any extra sheckels to improving the network, they'll only line their pockets.
wait.....wut? how is NN anti-white? pretty sure it makes it so that the ISPs can't promote anti-white content over other stuff, or really anything like that
just understand that monopolies/oligopolies ruin everything, kill free market and fuck over consumers and any smaller enterprise - thats why they need gov regulation
and ISPs are oligopolies (~30% US households have no choice of ISP at all)
Yeah, I'd agree that any municipal law passed granting even semi-monopolistic benefits to ISPs should be illegal, but that doesn't mean that NN is correct.
I agree, at least in part. my opinion is that we need NN at least for now because if we give the ISPs an inch they'll take a mile. I don't really care about the financial situation of the ISPs, as they are already rich and greedy AF and even with current laws they are acting like jews in fort knox
Imagine how much better Sup Forums would be if you had to pay to access it.
>But why do they not reserve that right?
ISPs have taken monstrous amounts of public money over the years to build out their networks and provide broadband to underseved areas.
So Fuck them. They make tax payers pay for building the networks, then dictate (by pricing competitors out of business) what information they can access.
>rich and greedy AF
So are the content creators who vehemently oppose the deregulation though. I know it's whataboutism to a degree, but that doesn't mean it's unimportant.
Everything on the internet took advantage of those public works without returning anything on the public investment as well, how is it any different?
true, but not all content creators are rich, and I don't think any of them are as rich and greedy as the people working for the ISP companies. and even though you might not like some of the people who are pro-NN, we are all in the same boat for now. I think it is essential we keep NN until we figure out a better plan, and also until we get Ashit Pie out of his position as chairman of the FCC
>free market will do its job
Many ISPs serve a certain area that rarely is overlapped by other providers, creating a monopoly over their area. In many areas their is no free market to purchase ISP and you are stuck with whatever shit happens to be their.
Watch the Stefan Molyneux video on it. It is long but worth
Nn is a troyan horse, all about smuggeling in the phrase “but social platforms arent and thus can cencor all they want at free will. This is hereby the law“.
Not sure why nobody gezs this.
Aaaaalll the rest of the law is just smokescreen, the troyan horse, the suggar to make legislators swallow the poison.
Thank me later for explaining it so well and short.
Now pls explain it to others, so those threads can finally disappear and ppl finally get what that exploit was all about.
The reason ISP's have monopolies like how you only have one choice per service provider comes from deregulation on cable companies where cable is treated not like a utility and is rented by the cable companies to the ISP's so if your cable company only rents out your line to an ISP that sucks for you. This whole debate on why monopolies exist stems from these cable providers nor having any competition
The problem with competition when it comes to service is
a.) The natural monopolies that form around the weird market that is cable service
b.) The regulatory capture that happens in the FCC that raises barriers to entry so new companies cant come in to the mix
I would unironically like a state owned internet.
Actually, big telecom spent a shit ton of money to shut down the idea of municipally owned internet in Fort Collins with attack ads and big-money censorship.
When, I visited my brother in Ft. Collins a few months ago, and heard nothing, and didn't notice anything (I drank more than I interneted though)
muh article:
motherboard.vice.com
>I drank more than I interneted though
Hope you had a good time.
a state-run internet would only work if the government running it was truly benevolent, and since we already know that the NSA are being creepy bois and spying on everyone. I don't really trust the federal government with my internet right now. however, a city or county run internet service might actually work quite well, provided it was thought through very carefully before it was implemented
Do you think we could try this plan, see how it turns out, and if it's great than keep it-if it fails just go back?
I did, they have a good brewery scene.
Honestly I don't see any reason why not, there are no laws to this NN thing. I really don't think at the end of the day Comcast is going to censor whatever faggotry people post on Reddit. It's that it'll go back to the original thing...that they extort Netflix for money. It's somewhat needed though. The problem is that of the 100%, 70% will go to lube for executives, 10% for lobbying, 10% for marketing, and 10% for infrastructure improvement.