Without mentioning numales, soyboys, reddit or cucks...

Without mentioning numales, soyboys, reddit or cucks, can you explain how the death of NN was a win for anybody except a tiny minority? On a related note, why do you believe a new ISP is a viable solution?

Other urls found in this thread:

congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2692/text
freepress.net/blog/2017/12/08/congress-needs-stop-ajit-pais-net-neutrality-repeal
forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2016/03/25/netflix-finally-admits-to-secret-and-discriminatory-internet-throttling/#6de24b16bf50
youtu.be/-Fyiv1LvR-A
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The internet should not be regulated by any entity

Pepe is against net neutrality?

>OH NO, THE INTERNET IS LIKE IT WAS FROM 1986 - 2015.
>AUSTISTIC SCREETCH
Sage dumb fag

I See Only Libtards On Both Columns

>American web companies can't/don't want to pay for fast lanes
>Moves to a based Europa for freedom internet

You guys just boosted the economy of an entire continent. How is that a tiny minority?

Work on broadband infrastructure slowed down when the Net Neutrality rules were put in place. ISPs will likely open a lot of that work back up with them being rescinded.

Then neither should your power or gas company right?

So ISPs should be allowed to deny you materials they don't agree with? You realize new ISPs aren't coming, right?
>not answering the questions.

Yes, but it requires that you read a little bit and use some critical thinking rather than parroting what the media/celebrities/Goybook tells you to think.

>Link that is mentioned in pic related:

congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2692/text

If the internet were regulated like electricity or water, those who use more bandwidth would be charged more.
Electricity (in commiefornia at least) also has tiers where you pay less per watt if you are under a certain threshold.

Abolishing NN will allow smaller ISPs to start up.

Intresting. Will look into that.

Facebook, Google, and other web based entities are already doing the same. What's the difference if ISPs start?

>those who use more bandwidth would be charged more.

They are, my ISP sells a tier based service.

>open a lot of that work back up
Except that infrastructure will only be for their approved content.

It exasperates the problem?

it fucks with the bugmen

Best case scenario.

Nice shilling telecomfag...

Because I can go to different content providers than FB/ Google / etc. If I don't like YouTube? I go to LiveLeak.

But i don't have a choice in high speed broadband. not without making serious sacrifices.

The internet of 2018 is the internet of 1986-2016. Why did you hate the old internet so much? (To be honest, personally I wish you never got on it - you stupid commies literally ruin everything).

I find it highly unlikely a new ISP will take hold. It would be way more expensive and it's only selling point would be freedom of content which most Americans don't care enough about to pay for.

This is fear mongering. You cannot regulate industry based on "What might happen." Please provide examples if ISPs threatening to censor content The only time I ever see it mentioned is pro NN rhetoric.

>he questions NN so he must me a literal fucking communist
Holy shit, get a fucking grip. Fuck communism. I just don't see how killing NN did my tax-paying ass any good.

That's not the ISP's fault. It's your local governmnet's doing. They sell access to the "last mile" to ISPs. Maintenance isn't cheap. That's why Google Fiber could never take off. You should do some research on who is at fault before assigning blame.

I don't think losing NN is serious in the big picture. Rather, the real problem is a lack of competition in this field which prevents the consumer from making a meaningful choice if they disapprove of the service provided. Big telecom has aggressively lobbied at the state or local level to prevent competitive ISPs from starting and that's where all this shit stems from.

The fight over Net Neutrality is a fight between Googlebook and Timecast Warnerlink, either way with the current structures in place America continues to lose.

Net neutrality only protected the internet itself. Stupid faggots who claim new ISPs now have a shot forget to take into account the physical burden of setting up shop in physical locations, which the dominant ISPs are infamous for guardian like rabid dogs to keep out competition.

Agreed but getting big telecoms to fracture doesn't seem possible.

There is no competition because the regulations that are required to start a new ISP are costly.
No regulations/stupis fees to start ISP + unhappy Comcast customers = profit

Exactly. New ISPs aren't happening without serious gov intervention.

>Has only read the words "Net Neutrality" and hasn't read anything about what it means.
"Clearly anyone opposed to 'Net Neutrality' means they want full control of the internet. I haven't read what is actually involved, but the name speaks for itself! Please vote for Hillary."

I think the initial capital investment dwarfs the cost of lisenceing and that investment is the main barrier.

...

Hmm...no responses to this well-written, detailed & sourced argument....

Now this REALLY activates my almonds.

Isn't there an amendment that guarantees freedom of information exchanges?

I'm reading it. It's not short and I'm on my phone.

Dude it's over. I can't believe you can't just move on.

Wow because of the image in OP I am definitely against NN. I want to be associated with real men and not soyboy numake duck nigger spic Jews lmao shadilay brothers praise BASED kek Trump

It was a loss for all, but that's the point. Our small loss, versus enemy's much larger loss.

This post needs to be turned into a copy pasta

Net neutrality didn't go anywhere. The FTC will be handling any anti-trust issues now

Ok, I get the picture here. NN left a backdoor for gov to squash websites under an anti-espionage pretense. Sinister, I agree.
Well, now that it seems we escaped the tyranny of federal thought police, what should be do about telecom monopolies?
Surly, they too wish to control what we see.
Did we put the cart before the horse in repealing NN?

Take an active role in your local government. They sell the access to the last might rights.

*last mile rights

>hurrr I won't read your argument in a thread asking for arguments
>openly admitting to being a phone poster
GET THE FUCK OFF MY Sup Forums YOU CANCER NIGGER SCUM.

S
@
G
E

hey, look what happened to ma bell

>Well, now that it seems we escaped the tyranny of federal thought police
>freepress.net/blog/2017/12/08/congress-needs-stop-ajit-pais-net-neutrality-repeal
Not so fast Citizen!

>Google blocks YouTube from the Amazon Firestick and nobody says anything

>Twitter bans people they don't agree with, nobody says anything

>Comcast tells Netflix you have to pay for using more bandwidth and people lose their minds

You people advocating for more government regulation and control should be up in arms about private companies curtailing access and speech the same way you do about ISP's

Wtf damn guy, I read your shit and agreed with you. Look up like 2 posts.

>slavgollian
>calls people mutts
Hahaha

The actual fears about ISPs overreaching and abusing their control of the market should be addressed with antitrust law not with the FCC which has historically shown to be incompetent and overreaching themselves. Meanwhile the so hated ISPs have shown no great abuses in the more than decade before Net Neutrality. It's also been shown the Netflix intentionally throttled their service to bolster claims against Comcast.

I've made this point to people and I get met with
"hurr durr you aren't forced to use them
but muh lack of ISP CHOICES"

Soooo fucking true.....most people have no idea that Netflix admitted this.

>You people advocating for more government regulation and control should be up in arms about private companies curtailing access and speech the same way you do about ISP's
I agree.

I hate how we've politicized the freedom of speech to the point where it isn't a culturally held belief now, just some law that only applies to daddy government.

How do we get the freedom of speech back as more than just a protection against Government, but a real American value? These fucking private entities have been getting away with far too many abuses of this loophole, and it's downright unamerican.

Agreed but I don't have much faith in anti trust legislation. Look at railroads.
East of the Mississippi, there were about 30 rail networks 80 years ago.
Today there are 2 and soon to be 1.

Yep
Netflix (Finally) Admits To Secret And Discriminatory Internet Throttling

forbes.com/sites/fredcampbell/2016/03/25/netflix-finally-admits-to-secret-and-discriminatory-internet-throttling/#6de24b16bf50

If Twitter does some book-burning, it's easy to start up a competing platform.
If an ISP does it, you're fucked unless somebody has the requisite billions to start one.

>If Twitter does some book-burning, it's easy to start up a competing platform.

That's why GAB has been banned by both Google and Apple app markets...so easy though to start them

That's why I think ISP's should be forced to lease off their last mile market infrastructure to companies who want to compete for your internet service. That's the only government regulation I would welcome.

If you look at how Google has struggled setting up their ISP service it has been hell and extremely slow because of the existing companies (Comcast, AT@T, Verizon, Time Warner, etc) and also because of local regulations. The initial investment is too huge and you might not even rollout your network like you planned to. Just look at Verizon Fios, rollout came to a halt in the few markets they were in.

ISPs sued the FCC in 2015 when they were regulated under title 1 because they thought the rules which the FCC had been enforcing were not legal. The ISPs won that case and the judge said:
"You have demonstrated these traffic blocking and throttling practices are a threat to the open internet, but you are unable to enforce the rules as you have been under title 1. However if you reclassify these ISPs under title 2 communications providers you can continue." which the FCC immediately did.

So actually the idea that the internet worked differently prior to 2015 is false. The reality is the ISPs sued the FCC regulators because they wanted to throttle and block. The ISPs felt the exact same pre-2015 net neutrality rules which were being enforced under title 1 the FCC did not have the authority to enforce, so they changed the rules so they COULD enforce all the same pre-2015 rules.

>Hurr durr muh pre2015 internet worked fine.
No, the net neutrality rules were being enforced pre-2015.

>That's why I think ISP's should be forced to lease off their last mile market infrastructure to companies who want to compete for your internet service.

This is why people need to get involved on a local level. Local governments have a shocking amount of power over regulation.

>Just look at Verizon Fios, rollout came to a halt in the few markets they were in.

Verizon also sold one of their larger Fios markets to Frontier.

Would the ISPs not be required to offer all Internet content to the last mile owners for them to compete effectively?
If so, isn't the last mile owner just a superfluous middle man?

Still man, that's just one site. A book-burning ISP is a way bigger threat to speech than any one site, even if it's a search engine.

The won't "censor" content, but they sure will slow content they don't like down. Off course it won't be transparent and it will be throttled down over time.

And I can give you a very good example. In 1999, I got my first cable modem, it was blazing fast, especially between cable modems. But then Comcast took a big shit and realized "Oh shit, people actually USE this bandwidth we provided them" and started placing caps on speed.


Anybody here who actually trusts that your ISP won't take this and fuck you in the ass with it, is an idiot.

The last mile owner create monopolies because they control which ISPs have access to the consumer.

>it was blazing fast,
What speeds did you have n 99?

Linus Tech Tips

When you say "which ISPs" I think you're talking about as few as 2 or 1.

Google has more power than Comcast.

Depending on the municipality yes. But the FCC doesn't regulate how your city decides who is allowed access to the last mile.

It's young people who are for it vs. living fossils who are against it. This is because millenials understand the internet while boomers do not. This is not a left vs. right issue fool.

Disagree.
I can see how one might make this argument, seeing as how ubiquitous Google got, but, at the end of the day, Google doesn't decide what you even have the ability to access, your ISP does.

Google is an ISP.

I don't think anybody is "deciding" which ISPs we have access to. Their structure was built decades ago. Now we just have a choice of ISP based on who bought what all those years ago.

This is true. While Google is a juggernaut of the search engine world, there is tons of competition (and the bar for new competition entering the market is a hell-of-a lot lower than for ISPs), and switching "provider" in this case is as easy as a few mouse clicks and key strokes. Not so much for ISPs.

Technically yes but as somebody pointed out, they can't hold a candle to the old ISPs that secured infrastructure decades ago.

Keep moving the goalposts

Google is more than a search engine....

How is NN being in place not a tiny minority? It only benefits hogs, just like any other socialist system. And now less things will be censored by Google/Twitter.

I'm not trying to "win" here. We're all anonymous. My point is that new ISPs being the savior of free speech on the internet is unlikely. Google's struggle to establish themselves is evidence of this. incentive for ISPs to censor and throttle content is obvious. It seems like we're just kind of hoping they won't.
And before somebody says "they didn't before", that was only because they were (erroneously) restricted under title 1, as somebody pointed out.
Now, with the NN repeal, there doesn't seem to be anything stopping them.

Whoah, bacon and gun want to save the internet world?

Why would anyone want to allow these fucks to throttle based upon protocol or target address?

Seems especially ignorant from someone on here... you think they’ll still provide access to far right sites? Fuck no. The electronic age in its current state is comparable to shipping and piracy in their hay days. With net neutrality being the basic rights of travel on the Sea...

By all means support Trump, he’s too left and Jew controlled for my liking, but don’t support everything he does just because he does it.

This site has and will always be for net neutrality. It’s essentially a doctrine for freedom of speech and our Jewish masters want to control what is allowed to be on here instead.

Do you have ANY evidence to support that claim that ISP's are slowing down content from websites that they don't like? Because if not then you're just fear mongering

Yes, but we're talking about their ability to cut you off from information, and if you're not using them as a search engine, the only way they can do that is if you're using them as an ISP.

Or am I mistaken?

This.
Can't wait until all the T_D faggots go back to school next week.

NN ensured that your ISP had to provide you everything, despite what they think of it.
Sure, websites could fuck with free speech but they're just websites.
There are "socialist" systems keeping poison out of your air and water too, you know.

>Do you have ANY evidence
No because NN rules have been in place
>ISP's saying they will slow down content
Do you think they will actually SAY that they do? Again it will be gradual, The only way you'll know is by testing it, which your average users' couldn't do

It wasn't uncommon to get over 1Mbs between other cable modems. Napster would rock.

Read

You're not.
And even mighty Google is struggling to become a big ISP due to a lack of available infrastructure space.
That should indicate what it's like to make a competitive ISP.
Unless you go "socialist" by forcing ISP fracture or "socialist" by enforcing NN, there is no guarantee of free speech.

The FTC has authority over that now. Your whole argument just went out the window. The ISP's sued the FCC because the FCC didn't have authority to regulate ISP's under Title 1 but the FTC does, including any anti-trust violations.

Also Act 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act which the FCC wasn't under prohibit illegal throttling and blocking of web traffic.

There was a video of the former FCC Chairman Robert McDowell talking with (((MSNBC))) host Ali Velshi about this specific topic. Educate yourself.

youtu.be/-Fyiv1LvR-A

I hope you're right and that the FTC has teeth.

Soooo people who use the internet vs ppl who couldn't tell you what a cookie is?

>Robert McDowell

Currently Chief Public Policy adviser Mobile Future

Yeah a trustworthy source.

I can not see the difference.
> stormfront is banned with NN in place
Why should anyone defend it then?

inb4 isp is not an isp

If left is sabotaging law enforcement and uses it selectively, that law should go. Left has to forget ever controlling anything.

Colleges must be closed and burned, (((scientific databases))) must be sold to snowden to publish, media conglomerates should be banned.

OK well if you don't believe him fact check his argument and provide an alternative based on legal arguments, not fear mongering "but what if" doomsday scenarios.

TRUMP MAGA MAKE ISRAEL GREAT AGAIN GOOD BURGER EATING GOYIM

His argument says that the Sherman Act will prevent ISP's from blocking content, however no case law backs this up. It's his interpretation of the Sherman act. In addition, ISP's wouldn't be stupid enough to block it, but they sure can slow it down effectively block it.

Lmao just look at that fucking image. If it's not satire then it's the handiwork of shills.

You speak of no case law regarding the Sherman Act but then provide no case law of ISP's erroneously slowing down or blocking content. How do you not see the fault in your reasoning?

I think ISPs desire to throttle content but didn't because of a false interpretation of title 1 under the FCC but now that NN is dead, we'll see them try unless the FTC does what you say it will.
They certainly weren't throttling content out of benevolence before NN.

AT&T blocked Sup Forums on their networks before NN. They'll do it again.

You played yourselves.