Do we really need it?
Red pill on Net Neutrality
Other urls found in this thread:
hightechforum.org
transition.fcc.gov
wired.com
nbcnews.com
highbeam.com
digitaltrends.com
twitter.com
99.9 a month for Sup Forums. You decide now.
We need air, water, food, and shelter. Equality is nice and makes optimization easy, but it does not lead to optimal outcomes. We'll survive. The system will evolve. Some of its less necessary limbs will be severed, and new ones will grow. Some of us will end up better off as a result. You probably will not.
Ho no. Verizon your provider doesnt like Sup Forums. Say good by to it. And btw vpn are illegal now... And yea your netflix? You have to pay your rigth to have it, plus your account... Now you tell me if you like microtransaction in games. Now imagine ea but its your internet provider.
You, as in "Americans" don't need it.
The more Verizon and Comcast will charge you for Sup Forums, the better it will be for everyone here.
No, it is a bad and dangerous thing which, like all leftist lies, is actually the very thing that would bring about the things they claim will happen with out it.
the internet existed before 2014. Obama era regs rolled back, that's literally it.
at least it makes the libs assblasted
id pay 200 a month just for that shit
This is the biggest load of shit I've seen since I went to the bathroom an hour ago
Can you pathetic fucks go back to your containment website?
>memeflag
shill
The shills have changed tactics. They are now pretending that Sup Forums is against net neutrality because Sup Forums is in favor of the retarded things they were claiming net neutrality would cause.
The truth, the reality, is that these things are never happening.
NN has been in place since 1996 as per the telecommunications act
Not even a leftists/conservative issue m8
You got absolutely, utterly, totally fucking punked by Comcast. You were made into a complete bitch. The guy who implemented the regulation is making videos on Youtube shitting right inside your mouth and literally laughing at how powerless you are about the whole thing. He's openly taunting you and you can't do shit other than pretend that you don't care. You can't even pretend that you don't care and that you're only doing it to piss off leftists because this will affect your life in such a fundamental and dramatic way that you would have to be mentally challenged to not give a fuck.
You paid for the infrastructure with your tax money and now some dude just stole all your internet. You can't even revolt because you don't have the tools to do so. Some dude now controls 100% of the information that you will have access to for the rest of your life.
You are somebody else's little bitch. The least you could do is admit it. You trying to pretend like you won something and that you're somehow in a different boat than the liberals just makes you look desperate and clueless. Admit that you fucked up and that you're an illiterate piece of shit who got played due to his own stupidity.
Not a big deal if you aren't a poorfag. Just bought the Verizon+ package that gives me unlimited access to Sup Forums, twitter, reddit, and youtube for only $9.99 a month
The original paper that introduced the term 'net neutrality' literally recommends tiered metered internet as a means to pay for what net neutrality entails.
No. You see, once again you're trying to rationalize the whole thing and pretend like you're one of the “winners” and that you're somehow pissing off liberals. This issue is so much bigger than the extra 10 cents a month that you'll be paying. One guy has full control over all the information that will be available to you for the rest of your life. You and the liberals are in the same boat. You were all punked. Unless you are the CEO of Comcast, you got punked and made into a bitch.
That's simply not true. Nothing in that bill created even a framework for net neutrality. That's why Congress was trying to push a bill that did from 2002-2010. It never happened and the FCC finally pushed through NN in 2015.
There's a coalition of states suing the FCC right? Would they really make a difference?
Actually you're wrong. The internet was classified under title 1 after the passing of the telecommunication's act, making it subject to section 104. Nondiscrimination Principle. What happened in 2015 reclassified it under title 2 but it was always subject to section 104.
...
Source? The text of the bill isn't abundantly clear. It's also not clear how the FCC could remove restrictions set in place by Congress.
>the internet existed before 2014. Obama era regs rolled back, that's literally it.
This whole argument has been going back and forth for several years, the Net Nuetrality regs (which are so much more than that, effectively acting as a barrier to entry and enabling local monopoly service providers) were just the latest round in a battle between the Feds (both FCC and FTC) and the abusive monopoly ISP's (mainly Comcast and Verizon)
I can't see much changing anytime soon and it will all depend upon how reactive the FCC / FTC ends up being after Net Neutrality is confirmed as repealed.
My view is lets wait and see. If Pai is prepared to stand by his repeal with actual action and actually empower new entrants in marketplaces which have little / no competition then repeal will probably be justified.
TL/DR - This is just a political football.
If your company starts charging you to visit certain websites you could just move to another ISP company.. that's called competition.. Many companies are aware of the fact that they might lose customers if their service is like that so they won't even try it out.
It seriously would not be bad if local municipalities didn't restrict the very land usage and permitting that would allow mid-sized investors from creating usernets and network infrastructure.
you fucking dinguses can't even contact your local city council or state congress though. Good job.
`(i) Interconnection in accordance with the
requirements of sections 251(c)(2) and 252(d)(1).
`(ii) Nondiscriminatory access to network elements in
accordance with the requirements of sections 251(c)(3)
and 252(d)(1).
`(iii) Nondiscriminatory access to the poles, ducts,
conduits, and rights-of-way owned or controlled by the
Bell operating company at just and reasonable rates in
accordance with the requirements of section 224.
`(iv) Local loop transmission from the central office
to the customer's premises, unbundled from local
switching or other services.
`(v) Local transport from the trunk side of a
wireline local exchange carrier switch unbundled from
switching or other services.
`(vi) Local switching unbundled from transport, local
loop transmission, or other services.
Thanks for the link
I've already said the text of the bill isn't clear. Why do you think pasting the text to me helps your argument?
You asked, and I provided source. If you want me to clarify the jargon I can do that for you.
I hear a rumor that Comcast paid Cruz $36k to take a stab at Net Neutrality. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this?
Or if there's a place I can see Cruz's campaign contributions?
Thanks.
>If your company starts charging you to visit certain websites you could just move to another ISP company.. that's called competition.. Many companies are aware of the fact that they might lose customers if their service is like that so they won't even try it out.
I think Comcast and Verizon will try this in areas where they have an absolute monopoly and I think consumer reaction will be muted (since the only alternative is expensive satellite and 3G / 4G services)
It will be more interesting to see what happens if they pull this bullshit in competitive markets.
It will also be interesting to see how the FCC / FTC reacts.
>you could just move to another ISP company
How the fuck did those people brainwash you retards so badly?
I said the bill wasn't clear. The clear implication being that I had already viewed the bill. Can you explain to me the significance of the 2015 FCC reclassification if Net Neutrality had already been in place? I'd also like to know how the FCC can remove NN if Congress put it in place. Its also not clear what the legislative effort from 2002-2010 was about if NN was already in place.
Your argument simply doesn't fit with what I understand about net neutrality, and it's completely different than anything I've heard thus far.
No.
>corporations can fuck you in the ass as they please concerning bandwidth, website access, etc.
gee OP I wonder why anyone would want this to happen
Simply the legislation that occured in 2015 was to reclassify internet from a "bell" (best name i have for it) service, which is for things like phones, to the same classification that is given to "broadcast", which is for TV. This gave the FCC greater control of the internet and was pushed in response to several instances of ISPs throttling traffic in a way that wasn't clearly defined due to the limited language of TeComm 1996.
The FCC is the agency that enforces rules legislated by TeComm 1996 (the only legislative body actually at play here. Remember, all they did in 2015 was reclassify it under that same bill.) What's been ruled on recently re-reclassifies isps under title 1 which has proved inefficient for regulating "dump pipe" principles such as not throttling bandwidth in modern networks.
"dumb pipes"* excuse
I work for a major ISP. Canada has no net neutrality legislation and all of the shit you are worried about from ISPs has not happened here so maybe take a look around you to see how others are faring without regulation before you go full Chicken Little.
>I hear a rumor that Comcast paid Cruz $36k to take a stab at Net Neutrality. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this?
It's unlikely, since Net Neutrality contains both positives and negatives for Comcast, maybe they think they can win overall, but that remains to be seen.
If the FCC / FTC actually means what it says when it talks about breaking down local monopolies (primarily Comcast and Verizon) by removing barriers to new entrants then both companies have a lot to lose.
It all comes down to FCC / FTC enforcement, if that is shoddy or weak then Comcast might be right to have rolled the dice.
Its always a leaf. Here's your daily allowance of (You)s. Please spend it on something other than blocking hormones to fuck your kids for life.
It is easy to despise something you cannot get
You didn't need what was currently in place. IT was far from neutrality. Both the government and ISP want all the power for different reasons.
True neutrality is still here, you just stopped subsidizing Netflix and Youtube via your internet bill. Alarmists will just be alarmists, they're acting lik "MUH 6 GORILLIONS"
who knows, but why does Sup Forums keep,child porn up for hours?
Awesome, so the internet goes back to pre-2015 regulations.
I really don't understand the point you're trying to make.
This was your original argument, but it's clearly nonsense as the FCC "repeal" of NN was them moving it back to Title 1.
>ISPs block Sup Forums
>Reddit stays up
"durrrr reddittards are so mad lol lefties I knew Trump was right"
"Net Neutrality" would be more accurately called "Net Socialsm" so no, we don't need it.
I don't know if I can make myself any more clear. ISPs were reclassified to title II because title I proved insufficient for enforcing agnostic provider practices. Under title I regulations, ISPs now can leverage anti-competitive and thus anti-consumer tactics as they have before being reclassified.
Good. There are too many burgers here anyway. Purging idiots who can't figure out how to access a "blocked" site would get rid of you redditors.
That wasn't your original argument. You explicitly said that NN has been in place since 1996. That's demonstrably false. We're simply returning to pre-2015 regulations. I see no problem with that.
Who cares. Shills run this place for less than minimum wage plus commission per post. NN is dead and literally it doesn't matter because sheep and shills will bleet "lefty!" or "cuckservative" if a discussion regarding specifics even starts.
I have officially stopped caring because I personally can afford whatever is put forth. Tired of dealing with it for the last week. Maybe NN repeal is good because it will limit content and participation to people who actually have money to pay. Literally rather discuss things with people who have an income anyways. And glad that dailywire and crowder will be gone in the next five years because I love irony.
No net neutrality is great. It gives Europe a chance to offer internet services again. All that stuff was too dominated by American stuff.
Thank you, Trump, for Making Europe Great Again.
>Do we really need it?
You want government control. Don't complain about what government decides to do with it. Even if they say, nah, we don't want it.
Look at this stupid motherfucker. Not only did he get raped by Comcast but he's now happy about the fact that he can give them more money. He's openly bragging about the fact that he will send his money to the guy who punked him and his entire country. Can you imagine being this mindfucked?
>99.9 a month for Sup Forums. You decide now.
start another site, takes them years to find it.
Its not like Sup Forums is the only place to shitpost on the internets 1billion websites.
...
>One guy has full control over all the information that will be available to you for the rest of your life.
>government having control over the internet doesn't do the same thing
You are beyond fucked.
Europe will follow, most things trickle down to Europe from the US.
Monkey see, monkey do.
Though you might be spared as you're from the blessed east.
Title I was not sufficient for enforcing NN, and if you're still laboring under the delusion that things were fine pre reclassification allow me to disabuse you.
wired.com
please note the date.
>Canadian
>having any clue
And so are you.
hehe jobless leaf. Go testify in front of the tribunal.
You're in Sup Forums guy
You think any of these idiots know whats good for them other than >muh libruhls
>He said within the coming months, if AT&T doesn't open up FaceTime to all plans where subscribers have compatible Apple devices, he might demand the FCC's intervention.
So the rules were strong enough after all....
I don't think this would be legislation adopted on the EU level. It might be adopted by individual member states in some form though.
why are you butthurt though? You did get exactly what you wanted. You want government control and don't like what they did with it.
Please don’t just ask here and leave it at that.
Seek out an opposing point of view that makes arguments for it instead of “it’s good”.
I know Sup Forums likes to accuse Reddit/leftists of staying in a safe space so don’t do what you accuse them of. Look for opposing arguments, see if they can change your mind and form your own opinions.
I agree. This place is terrible. I'm going back to plebbit. You all should join me in this protest.
Please try to stick to one set of goal posts.
AT&T was never reprimanded for violating the law and without strong title II regulations they never will be.
This isn't even the only example of this happening prior to 2015
nbcnews.com
highbeam.com
The only instance of this happening post reclassification is a 2017 case with verison but at the time it was easily dealt with.
My goalposts are the exact same, you're the one who started out by saying NN was in place in 1996.
The regulations before 2015 were sufficient to prohibit this behavior. Whether or not they were enforced is an entirely different issue.
False. Kill yourself.
I just provided three examples proving you wrong. At some point autism is a choice.
Neither of your links help your argue. The first case is the widely publicized case where Comcast blocked p2p for a few months. The FCC forced them to stop.
digitaltrends.com
The second case is just a story about the FCC sanctioning an ISP for breaking the rules. Neither case supports your argument that pre-2015 regulations were insufficient.
>meme flag
typical tricks there schlomo
T. 11 year old