What actual effects is the total disintegration of Net Neutrality going to have realistically?

What actual effects is the total disintegration of Net Neutrality going to have realistically?

I mean other than Sup Forums's servers being limited to 6GB of Comcast Priority Traffic™ a month.

Other urls found in this thread:

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

inb4 that one libertarian user

so much for no lobbyists.

so much for drain the swamp.

(((Eisenach)))

We're fucked boys.

Ideally if you broke up monopolies like Comcast and Verizon you would have competition. Competition would drive pro consumer policies with isps

Hey, Americans now get to FULLY experience what it's like for Canadian internet.

The head of out telecom watchdog is a former executive for Rogers.

>everyone has been warning about what will happen without any net neutrality
>no laws ever passed
>10 years later
>'any day now guys it'll happen we have to stop it'

Here in Canada we basically did the same thing, the CRTC is currently run by someone who used to be either on the board or the CEO of Rogers, the countries second largest ISP.

Under his rule of the CRTC, the amount of counter-monopoly shit has plummeted and these are the kinds of packages we get to see from our telecoms now.

I don't think you're really going to have one internet anymore. You'll have The XFINITY Speedway™ which will have a few NBC First Party™ sites on it that will not be available on the AT&T Advantage Network™. One will have Netflix, the other will have Hulu and shit like that. Both will only have news sites that tow the company line for whoever carries them.

What the fuck are you talking about? The FTC under Obama declared the Internet as a public utility and imposed strict limitations on how ISPs could hinder their customers' access. It's 100% illegal for ISPs to offer preferential faster connections to one site over another to the extent that T-Mobile was successfully sued by the state of California and when they tried to make certain music streaming sites exempt from their mobile data caps. In what way could you possibly characterize that as "no laws ever passed?" What the fuck does that even mean?

You have no idea what net neutrality even is do you?

Top kek, are you confusing net neutrality with global warming?

>The FTC under Obama declared the Internet as a public utility and imposed strict limitations on how ISPs could hinder their customers' access.

You think Trump won't make undoing that agenda #1 for the FCC?

No I think he definitely will.

Actually let me clarify that. I think Trump knows less about computers than his 10 year old son because he literally said he does. I don't think he's going to even see the FCC's agenda. The people he appoints will do all the damage and I don't think he gives a single fuck what happens to this country.

I know this is unrelated but Sup Forums seems to hate indians so I just think you'll really enjoy knowing that sea level rise has already displaced an estimated 25 million Indians in the last 5 years alone. Those IT workers in your office you hate so much have families and if those families aren't already refugees living in your city they will be soon.

For a moment i thought i was looking at Australian plans. You're not alone brother, you're not alone /hugs


Telstra has cucked us since the dawn of time in Australia, they own all of the lines and all of the towers. Worse yet the company was built with tax payer dollars directly as it was originally government owned to build an elaborate Internet/phone communications infrastructure but now it's half owned by private "investors" but really the company's main purpose and literally it's motto is "Keeping Australians cucked". I wish i was joking about this


Just kill me already

Absolutely nothing.

Also

EVERYONE in this fucking thread should read this IMMEDIATELY:

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

>Hey, Americans now get to FULLY experience what it's like for Canadian internet.
Canadian internet isn't that bad at all.

I'm with teksavvy and my internet is cheap as fuck.

Idiot.

>Canadian internet isn't that bad at all.
>I'm with Teksavvy

So you're paying around $45 for fucking 25Mbps, 2004 sends its congraulations.

Are you retarded?

Those prices went up the very fucking moment the government banned 3 year plans. Prices used to be much cheaper.
This is the fault of regulation.

Also fuck rogers, who is dumb enough to go with them?
They're so expensive.

Try wind.

>This is the fault of regulation.

HAHAHAHHAHA

Yes and that's why countries with higher regulation, hell even PROVINCES IN CANADA with better regional regulation have better speeds and no caps, right?

There's nothing wrong with this.

What do you expect, the infrastructure to be built overnight? They can't give you more than this or they will LOSE MONEY.

Canada is a large country.
There's a reason why internet is cheaper in places like europe.

>Yes and that's why countries with higher regulation
Literally not an argument.
Different regulations do different things.

In this case with banned 3 year plans it forced companies to raise their prices to stay afloat.

You literally have no argument, kill yourself.

Everyone please read this shit before you turn into a leftist cuck that wants the government to monopolize the internet.

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

Oh look, it's the libertararian user

Why is it always people who are economically illiterate retards want the government to increase regulation and control over our daily lives.

Who the fuck would possibly want the FCC to take over and censor the internet?

>forced companies to raise their prices to stay afloat.
You can't actually believe that the company was going to go under if they didn't raise their prices, did you? ISPs and Cell Phone companies are making record profits.

These are scumbag companies who will squeeze out the highest profit if they can. Look at what Verizon did to the state of New Jersey with the govt sponsored money they received to renew their architecture. They pocked the money, built a few cell towers and got their lawyers to write some shit that made it look like they actually did the work they promised.

I can't believe that people are against government regulation. You understand that we went through this in the 80s with land line phones right? You understand that the pricing was absolutely absurd with only one company with no one ready to step in and push their shit in. Don't move the goalpost either, don't pretend that regulation concerning monopolies is going to be a thing either.

Keep on pretending that your paper thin libertarian beliefs work on anything but paper. But i guess we'll see when our retard of a president tears down years of progress and we're stuck paying 5x the price. You won't even budge then though, retard.

>T-Mobile was successfully sued by the state of California and when they tried to make certain music streaming sites exempt from their mobile data caps.

That's interesting because T-mobile is trying the exact same thing here in the Netherlands now.

We used to have net neutrality but the EU recently abolished it.
T-mobile wants to test if EU law indeed goes above national law, if so we're utterly fucked.

>Oh look, it's the libertararian user
Oh look it's the economically illiterate user.

This board cares about freedoms.
If you don't like this board you can always leave.

>You can't actually believe that the company was going to go under if they didn't raise their prices, did you?
If they're selling at a loss, eventually they will yes.

>These are scumbag companies who will squeeze out the highest profit if they can.
That's why we need to increase COMPETITION, not regulation.

We need to abolish local monopolies and other laws which grant these companies effective monopolies.

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

>I can't believe that people are against government regulation.
I'm not against it entirely but you'd have to be a fucking retard not to see when it fails miserably.

>Keep on pretending that your paper thin libertarian beliefs work on anything but paper.
They work in reality too.
Remember when you retards were SOOOOOOOO upset when the government broke up Ma Bell and it turned out to be a very good thing for the economy and society?

>But i guess we'll see when our retard of a president tears down years of progress and we're stuck paying 5x the price.
More like 5x lower the price.

I can't wait until Trump destroys local monopolies and large fiber companies can grow and compete, lowering prices.

>Trump destroys local monopolies

Never gonna happen, kid.
Why would he?

>muh free market muh regulation
What these retards don't realize is that the current situation isn't going to change because these are entrenched monopolies that the government has no desire to break up. So the only alternative is to regulate them so they don't do shitty things like prioritize their own content providers. It isn't the ideal economic libertarian utopia situation but it's the best outcome we can hope for.

>let's just have seven different cable services going everywhere, and dig up the ground every time a new one pops up.
It's that joke about libertarian roads, with ten going the same way.

>Skips right over the provincial part because it destroys his argument

Do they pay you directly or take it off your bill, Bell shill?

Yep, that's exactly why the infrastructure should be owned by the government.

Corporations punish people when governments don't give them what they want. When the people get mad that can be directed back at the government. We literally all just watched that happen in America with insurance premiums. We're so ready to blame the government we're somehow willing to believe that the corporations don't want to charge us more, they're just forced to by the evil regulators.

>Yep, that's exactly why the infrastructure should be owned by the government.
>literally wanting the internet to become one giant botnet

Fuck that.

>. We literally all just watched that happen in America with insurance premiums. We're so ready to blame the government we're somehow willing to believe that the corporations don't want to charge us more, they're just forced to by the evil regulators.

That is literally what happened though you moron. When you force a business to provide a service to a group of people that are not profitable it will drive up the cost for everyone else.

What socialist retards like you don't understand if that regulations just enforce the existing monopolies and prevent competition from EVER disrupting them. You are so economically illiterate it's astounding.

It's not about being socialist or being anarchist. It's about trying to improve the current situation in a pragmatic and realistic way considering the amount of bureaucracy and red tape that exists. Obviously the ideal situation is if there were lots of competing ISPs so if one did prioritize traffic you could just switch to another ISP. Please tell me how you are going to achieve this in the current climate without turning into an ayn rand jerkoff.

God bless Brexit

Nothing, because what we have at the moment is no net neutrality.

This is a government-enforced monopoly. Someone thought it would be a bright idea to get regulation on the ISPs to stop the monopolising regions, and then let the fucking ISPs write the regulations.

The internet already is one giant botnet, pay attention. The NSA literally pays the ISPs to put data centres on all the big traffic pipelines and data collection rooms in all the ISP buildings.
It already IS one giant botnet. Least that could happen is it be cheaper.