I just want to know your view

can anyone explain me why you're against net neutrality with arguments that doesn't have to do with emotional reasons? (reddit hate train, normies, triggering people cause it's just fun) like seriously, i don't usually watch Sup Forums, but i would like to have a brief summary of why do you agree to pay extra for services that are already free.

Other urls found in this thread:

investopedia.com/ask/answers/032315/what-are-most-famous-monopolies.asp#ixzz51G0CO4F2
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Concisely: it's not the role of government

That's a weird way to spell "inadequately"

so... you're just letting the internet provider take their own decisions about internet distribution because you're afraid of the goverment?

I'm negotiating the services I purchase or don't with my service provider and not the government, just like in any business

You do realize we will lose bargaining power?

Yes, in the long run I find it in my interest to oppose government overreach even when I'm the customer

well it's just like anything. not happy? don't buy. i was unhappy with smartphone prices. so i'm using a samsung s2 from 2011 with no plan, only using the wifi from the house. i negotiated this one pretty well. don't be a big government cuck

GOVERNMENT
REGULATED
INTERNET
COMMODITY

Clear enough?

I disagree with your premise that currently free services will begin to cost money.

I'm pro-net neutrality.
I believe in the free market with the only caveat that monopolies are broken up. If monopolies aren't broken then they become the de facto government (read: racket) and I'd rather a little bit of government oversight to keep the business competitive.

Don't want Government controlling anything that has to do with free speech. Its not free if Government can tell you what you can and can't say.

As for providers controlling content..... don't buy the service from such a provider. Speak with your dollars.

cant wait for comcast™ to throttle this site

No Monopoly has ever been formed without government invilvement

You require to read the full document to understand the scenario.
For example, the throttle meme has its own article where gov can enforce companies to not throttle/sabotage competition.
It also has something about internet censorship from Twitter. What a twist

I can make up facts too

Yes they are, they're the first governments...
there's also the trade of black market goods like drugs...
Literally anyone who has a bigger stick can form a monopoly

The most famous monopolies, largely for their historical significance, are Andrew Carnegie’s Steel Company (now U.S. Steel), John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company and the American Tobacco Company. From the late 19th to the early 20th century these organizations maintained singular control over the supply of their respective commodities. Without free market competition, these trusts effectively set the national price for steel, oil and tobacco.

Government regulation was initially absent. However, the creation of antitrust regulation in the United States, in the form of the 1911 Sherman Antitrust Act, led to the dismantling and restructuring of Standard Oil and American Tobacco in the same year. U.S. Steel was challenged but not found to be the sole supplier of steel to the U.S. market, though it continued to possess considerable market share. In 2014, U.S. Steel was the 13th largest producer of steel in the world, according to the World Steel Association.

Read more: What are the most famous monopolies? | Investopedia investopedia.com/ask/answers/032315/what-are-most-famous-monopolies.asp#ixzz51G0CO4F2
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

What does that have to do with net neutrality whatsoever? No one likes monopolies, and it's government regulation that has caused these monopolies in the first place. If you go back to when telephones came out you see how companies like at&t got the government to strong arm all their competition out of the way by only giving licenses to build to them. This paved the way for the monopolies in place today.

How you think we need more government to fix the problem is beyond me. It's like saying, "Oh no! I doused my house in gasoline and now it's on fire! I'm going to keep slinging gasoline everywhere in hopes that I can smother the flame!"

Aside from war, there's not a single industry that a government has not crashed by forcing themeselves into it

>can anyone explain to me why government regulation is bad?
commies kys

as if they won't take advantage of consumers

they are a monopoly or near monopoly. free market works when there are options, there are little to no options and no incentive to create options

Net neutrality has nothing to do with neutrality. Its the name of a law that gives our federal government control over our internet. Its a new law; the internet was fine without it.
Obama gave US control of the internet away to the UN but used NN to ensure they could regulate our access to information

You should advocate for the govt to break up ISP monopolies then, NN doesn't claim that as an objective

>anarchist supporting NN
>kys
Goy! Take this sign and stand on the corner. Make sure to tell the reporters "grass roots."

Remember that every one of those monopolies enforced its status through government. Literally zero monopolies in US history were established without federal force

All these sweeping statements.
Net Neutrality could create monopolies of thought because no one will want to provide service to support backwater dodgy sites like Sup Forums.
I honestly think you're a shill by the way.

>n 1982, AT&T was found to be in violation of U.S. antitrust law while acting as the sole supplier of telephone services to the country. As a result, it was forced to split into six subsidiaries, known as Baby Bells.

>Aside from war, there's not a single industry that a government has not crashed by forcing themeselves [sic] into it

>railroads
>universities
>agriculture
>air crafts
>Jet engines
>college educated labour forces
>(for you) interstate high way, autobahns, motorways (sorry ancap roads are important)
>computers and the internet
>life sciences
>Nasa/ space travel'

You're just so, so wrong. There are some ways the government can touch the earth lightly by giving more people and businesses opportunities to grow and compete.

I am suspicious of government (government regulation) being able to solve a problem that was created by the government (government granted cable and communication monopolies).

AT&T became the size they are because of government regulation (Title II).
>1) lobby government to regulate the industry
>2) hire (((lawyers))) to make sure startup companies abide by the regulations
>3) profit

I just want to add that I'm not saying the government is perfect. There are definitely areas in which it should back off and I don't see government intervention as particularly healthy for a society.
However sometimes they exist to prevent the tragedy of the commons, to protect people from criminal or borderline criminal actions.
If we were cavemen we would kill the hoarders who didn't earn their keep. Modern government is sometimes the closest thing we have to the club that should beat those tyrants dead in the most legal and lasting way possible.
Sometimes, in the case of "gibs" they do the opposite, but in net neutrality's case I think that's something that should be maintained.

Do you agree with anti-trust laws?

OP, if they can BLOCK you from their site, why can't they charge you to go faster?

yeah but, is there any other way of making your free-goverment internet dream real? i'm just saying that going anti net-neutrality is kinda rushed and dangerous, it's the differece between lockpicking a door and smashing it with your head, one takes time, patience and no one gets injured in the process, the other one is fast, but now your door is broken and also yourself, why don't you take any other routes, why risk it all?
i understand that in any social scenario of any modern country there must be an equilibrium between goverment power and big-industries power, but right now i personally think that you're not going for that equilibrium, you're just straight-up giving the industries more power, and it's not even becuase "it will generate more jobs" or "will help the economy" or ant valid argument, i feel that is more like "we like money" and you're all like "ok i don't trust politicians, let's see where this goes"

cyka blyat *hard bass on the distance*

The Internet was doing just fine before Net Neutrality came along. Yes, the providers did "limit" their service in some ways, butt we had the option to jump to another provider. Free market rules apply. Having Government mandate things is not the way things should be.

We aren't giving the providers power. We are just stopping the Government from intruding in the free market.

A lot of people live in a place with only one network service provider. For example I can only access Sky and that's not even using a satellite. A lot of people live hand-to-mouth.

They'd have to either:
1. Use their limited time and resources to incentivise a new provider to come to their area.
Or
2. Create one themselves

All the while they'd be competing with an established brand, while they tried to gain a critical mass of customers to turn a profit, all the while the original provider temporarily cuts its rates to appeal a larger base of people who don't realise the long term harm of staying with the original supplier.
Aerofloat in Russia undercut its costs to beat the competition and became a monopoly in Russia

Yes. That's exactly what existed before NN started in 2015.

NN assures that you will ALWAYS have one ISP.

Anti trust laws prevent companies like AT and T from being the only competitor.

If you step back from all of this, maybe some of you will realise that Sup Forums users have the most to lose, if the internet starts getting censored.

The faggots that fill this board these days believe anything the shills tell them too. Thats literally all there is to it. Edgy teenagers and shills, thats the absolute state of Sup Forums these days. Its going to be hilarious to watch them freak out when Sup Forums is shoaed.

DID SOMEONE SAY HARDBASS

Where are anti trust laws for Facebook Twitter , youtube and Google ?

if redditfag bugmen are for something then I'm against it

these ass wipes say nothing about freedom when google, facebook and twitter censor the alt right, hypocrites

net neutrality benefits giant corporations with their social justice warrior business practices, not us here on pol

there aren't any, it's a big problem

you realize people on here use reddit, too? no wonder your country is falling apart to the muslims.

...

If this makes people more upset, isn't that what we originally wanted? An upset population is what we NEED right now.

CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!

>However sometimes they exist to prevent the tragedy of the commons, to protect people from criminal or borderline criminal actions.

This is why you DON'T want government managing resources.

So which one are you then?