How is it that a policy introduced under Obama that if repealed would cause corporations to start charging for specific...

How is it that a policy introduced under Obama that if repealed would cause corporations to start charging for specific websites.

Why didn't these "greedy corporations" do that before net neutrality was passed? After all it only passed 2 years ago. This seems to be the crux of the "keep the internet open" argument.

Also, we know competition lowers prices. Businesses compete against each other to get a customers business. It makes no sense why a company would charge you extra to use lets say youtube per month when another company could just give it to you and make 100x more sales than you. What am I missing on this subject?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/nqJDW_s93rc
youtube.com/watch?v=dh8sVHb5oOA
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1214/DOC-348261A1.pdf
congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2692/text
congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2943/text
wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

Anti free market hysteria from Reddit. Just laugh.

>It makes no sense why a company would charge you extra to use lets say youtube per month when another company could just give it to you and make 100x more sales than you. What am I missing on this subject?
I'm opposed to NN, but there is a valid concern around this. Some service providers, in order to justify the cost of setting up the cables and whatnot with which to provide their service, convince local governments to give them exclusivity rights within their jurisdiction for a number of years. This effectively creates government-enforced mini-monopolies whereby there is only one ISP.
The FCC has the responsibility to ensure that the ISPs don't exploit these contracts. Eventually, the contracts will expire and market forces will govern ISP behavior.

>I'm opposed to NN, but there is a valid concern around this. Some service providers, in order to justify the cost of setting up the cables and whatnot with which to provide their service, convince local governments to give them exclusivity rights within their jurisdiction for a number of years.
Then maybe this is what we should be going after instead of 'net neutrality'. I can't see this as anything other than anti-competitive, since it becomes the only ISP for many rural people in particular.

>people on twitter telling the fucking PRESIDENT that he doesn't know what a certain congressional issue is
fucking fearmongers

>Trump didn't know what Net neutrality was
>but then some dumb cunt on twitter made a displeasing post against him on this topic
>so he decided he would repeal Net Neutrality if he ever gets elected president

Good job, whore.

>2014
>president
dumb animeposter

We didn't have as much streaming content back then. Now that major networks are angling to distribute over the internet rather than a cable package, it actually is a possibility and probable. The trick is that they are trying to make it sound like a bad thing, and they are trying to convince people it will affect sites that make no sense to.

Or Both.

It's not an all or nothing situation.

ISPs can still compete for your service just like cell phone companies.

The ISPs don't compete against eachother, many places in the US only have one ISP for the area. They are effectively monopolies and if you had a leftist CEO in charge of one they could just unilaterally block websites they don't like.

It wouldn't be a problem if there was real competition in the market. Would you want the CEO of CNN deciding what websites you should be able to access?

We should also take into account how many people are going to be working from home soon.
Estimates by 2020 over 80% will work from home in some capacity.

Internet is quickly becoming a utility not a luxury.

>"why didn't the carriers start charging more for decent bandwidth for specific sites?"

They did? Jesus wept, do you have the memory of a concussed goldfish or something? Google "Verizon traffic shaping 2014". Want me to do your homework for you as well?

>Trump tweeting about NN in 2014

B-But I thought it diddn't exist before 2015?!?!?!?

It's almost as if that entire talking point is bullshit!?!??!

youtu.be/nqJDW_s93rc

nothing stopped them from doing it anyways, even with the law in place. Did anyone read the bill? or simply think they have a PHD in armchair politics because the buzzword of NN allows them to procrastinate fear and allegations.

They did.

Fair enough, didn't see that.Thanks senpai

there are some local legislative rules that prohibit competitors in the same area as well

youtube.com/watch?v=dh8sVHb5oOA

the tweet is from november you stupid fuck. it didn't go into effect until 2015. i literally didn't even/not going to look that up, because it's obvious as fuck. go ahead, confirm it for me.

>why would a company charge more
Because every major player at the table has agreed to, and smaller companies nearly don't exist because the cost of entry is too high. Also, larger companies swing their weight around to chokeslam people with litigation, see; all those towns that got sued into the ground when they tried to install fiber as a utility like water.

This ffs

They did, there's no real competition with ISP in the USA since they usually have a regional monopoly

...

>blacks on boys becomes your home page tomorrow.

Thinking the government needs to regulate the internet like a utility for that reason is fucking retarded on so many levels

they didn't just repeal the rules from 2015

They repealed everything we've built on since the 1970s.

>Why didn't these "greedy corporations" do that before net neutrality was passed?

But they tried to, which is why NN became a thing in the first place. they have constantly been poking more and more on how far they can go. Its like saying you dont need burglar alarms in your house because even when your neighbours have tried to break in multiple times, they haven't found your safe yet.

Yes, everything we built relied on a law that didn't even last 2 years.

there were rules and regulations in place before 2015, you tard.

This


Why would you let the gov levy regulations on a critical body that is already operatikg correctly?

...? And when were those repealed.

>"cars are not needed for survival so government should not regulate driving and roads in any way."

Just recently along with NN. You think this repeal only took away Obama's stuff from 2015?

>back then
It was two fucking years ago. Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, Twitch were already well established.

SIMPLE, cable cutting wasn't a thing. Now it is and it's hurting Comcast. So now they are trying to monopolize the streaming market by making deals (money for speed) with Netflix to cause Netflix to become a streaming monopoly and they get a cut of that monopoly. Netflix will keep getting more and more expensive because Comcast is gonna rape them and rape you too. Government sponsored monopolies sometimes are necessary, but they must be regulated.

>they didn't just repeal the rules from 2015
Objectively wrong. The entire point of the repeal was to return to pre-2015 regulatory standards.

>mfw Trump could see it for what it was,

market trends dumbass

Because prior to 2015 they WERE throttling competition, AT&T was throttling skype, Comcast and Verizon were throttling Netflix.

also, something you might not understand is that in burgerstan, local governements gave cable companies and telecom companies local monopolies for building infrastructure under the town/city. So there is no competition in ISP's.

would be funny to see you attempt to run a business

So why did they also reverse policies that were up since dial-up was a thing?

problem is that's a city by city, town by town, county by county process. The FCC was able to promote free market ON the internet in one fell swoop by declaring all ISP's to be a public utility.

It'll take decades to get competition amoung ISP's, in the meantime competition for content online will be stiffled by ISP's throttling anything that competes with what they offer. It's as anti-free market as it gets.

>What am I missing on this subject?
Nothing m8, Australia has no net neutrality laws and none of the exaggerated fear mongering happens here.
Its just a reddit virtue signalling tantrum

FCC Net Neutrality did not give the FCC power to prosecute ISPs for throttling, dumbass. That is a power of the Federal Trade Comission and it ALREADY EXISTED prior to 2015.

What policies? Please list them.

False. Netflix couldn't prove they were being throttled in court, and in fact inadvertently suggested they throttled themselves.

Nobody cares about you criminals.

>PATRIOT Act

>Affordable Healthcare Act

>common sense gun control

>Net Neutrality

You may not have noticed something...

But your brain did.

Because net neutrality existed before 2015. It was a series of laws and regulations.

In 2004 for example "Network Freedom" was what it was called.
Freedom to access content
Freedom to run applications
Freedom to attach devices
Freedom to obtain service plan information

were the rules


then Madison River popped up, google that.

Eventually the rules evolved over time protecting what you now call net neutrality until they mind a clear statement calling it net neutrality

Basically since the late 1990's we've had net neutrality.

This reversal by the FCC essentially turns it back on everything the internet stood for. Which was open source, open access, open market.

TLDR We just got fucked.

>*reddit space*
You have to go back

...

How exactly does net neutrality prevent an ISP from unilaterally blocking any site they wish? That's not what NN is about at all. They are still free to block whatever the fuck they want as an ISP.

not sure what you're getting at here, but the patriot act was a bipartisan effort that's existed since 2002.

You are retarded. The only major thing the repeal did was reverse the title II classification.

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1214/DOC-348261A1.pdf

If postal companies are allowed to charge different amounts for different packages and are allowed to charge more for 'express shipping' of packages, why can't isps charge people more to stream movies and shows from certain streaming services or more for certain tv shows and movies made by different production companies on the same streaming service or more for videos from certain youtubers than from other youtubers?

What's wrong with a Time-Warner Cable Postal Service charging more to ship Sports Illustrated than Time magazine?

It's their company. Why can't they do that if they want? What's the big deal?

Why don't you say what title 2 classification was?

Let everyone know

And of course, that the spine of the Net was built with US tax dollars, via the ARPA/DARPA and public Uni connection structures and systems. For that investment alone, the peoples' right to use that system should take precedence over unregulated pricing. It's a last mile problem in reverse - we the people fund 99 miles of it, and the ISPs showed up with pre-existing networks, which were also subsidized, and which the gov't spent money to engineer the 'internet over phone' and 'internet over cable' protocols and tech, and said 'we spent all the money we need all the profit.'.
Subsidizing private profit with public dollars just plain sucks. Especially since the public still ahs to carry all the costs of calamity, just like with the oil pipelines, though the level of calamity is usually far far less, and more about downed lines and transformers. (but still, that's all deductible for the corporation at tax time.

But fairness doctrine was a good thing

The more likely scenario is that ISPs would go after Google, Apple, Facebook, Netflix, Amazon, etc directly to extort a toll to their network. In the case of free services it would come out of their ad revenue. Paid services might hike their subscription fees.

because with the postal service there's competition, you can choose UPS, or Fedex.

With ISP's you can choose... ..... cancelling internet service altogether.. or.. moving to a different town that might have a different ISP.

You as a consumer have the choice to ship with whoever you want. Hell you can even start a shipping company. With ISPs you cant. You have exclusivity clauses with local governments. How many cable companies serve your house?

...

man, net neutrality dying reminds me of luke skywalker dying at the end of the last jedi

>If postal companies are allowed to charge different amounts for different packages and are allowed to charge more for 'express shipping' of packages, why can't isps charge people more to stream movies and shows from certain streaming services or more for certain tv shows and movies made by different production companies on the same streaming service or more for videos from certain youtubers than from other youtubers?

But they mostly do, by selling different speed packages. This is more like a post office starting to charge more money for delivering your letter according to what is written in your letter.

I can choose between multiple shipping companies for the best rates. I can't do that with ISPs. I only have 1 serving my area

S.2692 - Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016
congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2692/text
And
S.2943 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2943/text

NDAA to page 1,396 (or 1,438 in pdf format).

That already happens. ISPs are allowed to charge more for a commercial location to have internet than a private home. But I think you have the metaphor wrong - You should be asking ' Why aren't package companies allowed to charge MORE for shipping Sony products than LG products of equal dimensions and weight?' because that's the correct metaphor. Imagine if Fedex suddenly has all its systems provided by Samsung, in exchange for it charging more for all of Samsungs' competitors products to be delievered. That'd be an equal case, and we don't allow it.
As for magazines, that particular case would also be a violation of freedom of the press.

Because the internet was built with public money and it's the public's

It's not the governments

It's like giving all the roads in america to businesses and saying it will work better this way.

It's bullshit. I explained long form there's short form for you.

Those sites would move their infastructure to other countries instead, basically making the US look as undesirable place for tech people as a third world country.

Nicely put.

...

Are we gonna get fucked even though net neutrality's part of the law?

How old are you again, OP? They did this shit in America for years

How are local governments even allowed to sign exclusivity clauses with private companies?

I've done very little research on it desu.
But as far as I know the FCC regulates the bandwith allocations for ISPs before 2015.
If I'm wrong let me know

Yeah, they reversed its utility/common carrier designation. Nothing big, right?

You dissembling fucktard.

Will this affect the rest of the world?

Yes. We spit on both their graves.

He won't even say it. That's why called him on it.

>"oh shit we fucked up

You're fucked. ISP's will charge american's more for visiting overseas websites. Meaning we'll visit less.

You're fucked

Well, I can pay $45 for 6mb/s down from AT&T or I can... not have internet.
Now they can further fuck me over if they so desire, or raise costs for services I use, causing them to push that cost on to me.

spit in my ass and lube me up instead gayboi

simple answer: 1954 it was given under Ukraine SSR jurisdiction without vote, without consideration or anything from a defunct government that most of you stupid fucks hate anyway. So why would anyone support Crimea being Ukraine, when even the Crimeans didn't want? especially since they voted more than once to leave Ukraine.

Only if you access any US-based services

Yeah, he's an obedient slave of Trump, and happy and proud to be so.

>regulating as a utility
>this is free market

Might affect it positively if tech companies transfer their infastructure to cheaper countries with more competitive ISP market. This is strictly only going to fuck over many different US companies just so one company could get little extra dosh.

wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

>isp can block unlawful sites

say goodbye to your torrents, but who cares, right?

Want the quick rundown on net neutrality? Net neutrality was basically Sup Forums (against) VS reddit (for). We won. Nice and simple.

You're right.
Government sanctioned monopolies are true Free Market

No, that'll move jobs out of the US. Not a help, and you can't have cross-border ISPs. Telecom has rules.

We don't have a free market for ISP's, so instead we have a free market online.

Now we don't have a free market for ISP's OR a free market online. We have only what our ISP chooses for us, and one ISP to choose from.

Want to make an internet based startup? Too fucking bad, you won't be able to afford the entry fees onto the fast lanes for each ISP to be able to compete with the larger companies.

>be Trump
>don't understand what net neutrality is
>don't even fucking understand what the Fairness Doctrine is

For fuck's sake, if you faggot Amerimutts still had the Fairness Doctrine, there would be LESS fake news because both sides of an issue would have to be given equal time to argue their position in the media, and the media would be mandated to devote some time to important issues instead of clickbait-tier news stories. I swear to god, if that's a legit tweet, I hope this orange nigger gets a heart attack.

Yeah.

What you aren't being told is that ISP's will start charging americans "distance" charges. Meaning the farther away the website is based like a canadian website they'll charge you more. Like international Phone bills. That means for the US person to see canadian websites we'll have to pay more. Which means we'll buy less shit and visit less canadian websites. Not only that the rest of the world will follow suit eventually because USA ISP's are international giants generally.

Everyone who isnt a rich ass stock owner of ISPs at this moment is fucked. I mean fucked... It will take pol another week or two to come to grips with this.

And look what it got us.

Thats what I said. This will fuck over the US but be a benefit for other countries.