Trump will end net neutrality and his minions will defend him

Trump will end net neutrality and his minions will defend him

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/10/hillary-clinton-vs-donald-trump-on-broadband-she-has-a-plan-he-doesnt/

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>wanting more government regulations
Fuck off commie.

> Thinking a rule that says no regulations isn't a regulation

One is more, one is less.
What point are you trying to make?

I will never understand this. Whats the point of defending some billion dollar corporation?

I'd rather they have to jump through a few hoops before I get fucked in the ass.

Won't lie, it has me pretty worried. Netflix tax and throttling of competing services here we come.

>mfw amerifats get their p2p throttled down to 5kbps and can't download their midget gay porn

>Enjoying Netflix DRM cock up the ass
>Complain when it cums inside

Wow another thinly disguised /pol thread

Net Neutrality is Doublespeak for Government Control of the Internet.

Netflix will probably be fine since they're pretty big now. They can make deals with the ISPs to ensure they get preferential treatment, maybe the arbitrary bandwidth caps are lifted for Netflix.

Then when a competing service comes that tries to be less of a shit, it won't have enough capital to make the same deals Netflix did and will get throttled and bullied into bankruptcy.

So Netflix can reduce its library even more, introduce even more shitty DRM all while maintaining their monopoly position.

This is bad news for all but the large corporations.

...

The internet only got shittier since net neutrality came into law in 2011.

Before that law it was the golden age.

Fuck you fascist communist scum.

Not like there's a decent alternative in most cases. I watched through ST TNG, DS9, and Voyager over the past few months. Do you have any idea how much space all that would've taken up or how long it'd take to download and seed back fully? TNG alone is ~2TB, all three series is like 4-5TB altogether. I could fit that on my NAS, but just barely…

fyi 99% of trumpcucks on Sup Forums are from reddit

Explain how it's bad because I'm really not seeing it. With NN, your ISP doesn't get to say what you can and cannot do. Without NN, your ISP gets to write the rules. What am I missing?

The government made pirating illegal.
Private corporations like Napster made it easy and encouraged.

op is dumb as fuck and can't even comprehend this.

My isp has regularly told me what I can and can't do even with net neutrality.

Tell me what was wrong with the internet in 2005, or 1999. Net Neutrality is not neutral.

But ISP oligopoly and non competition are a direct result of strict laws. Without government control over that, I would just tell x ISP to fuck off just like if I dislike a restaraunt I go to a different one faggot.

With net neutrality gone your ISP can charge you for individual websites. For example you frequently use netflix? Well pay a monthly subscription or a Netflix tax to visit that individual website.

If ISP's have their way this is the future of the internet.

Explain why ISP's sending notices for pirating only became common after net neutrality became a law and almost never happened before it existed.

>implying large corporations don't cooperate to eliminate new competition

20 bucks a month for Sup Forums. Plus 40 buck problematic content tax.

>can
No it can't as long as ISP isn't supported to have no competing ISP's.

Just because something is legal does not mean a company can do it and stay in business retard.

For fucks sake people got so pissed they started passing laws against it and you think it wouldn't be suicide?

Dumb as fuck statist.

Unrelated to net neutrality, it's caused by MPAA and RIAA lobbying because 'muh lost profits'.

Net neutrality going away means your ISP can block or charge for individual websites- the internet could go the way of cablet TV where you have to pay for 'packages' of sites, and can't access anything else.

Right now Sup Forums could legally do that. How strange that it fucking doesn't right? I mean it's not even illegal!

>implying major telecom companies don't already collude to eliminate competition/pricefix/etc
>implying they wouldn't collude to ensure this works out when it would so obviously be so profitable

user are you really this stupid? The web existed a long time without this faggot law and the web was fine,

>implying that's legal
So if they already break the law at will...
Like I said you are retarded.

If that happened, other than because laws make it impossible (statism), NEW ISPs would appear advertising how they don't fuck you in the ass.

We have this thread every day, sometimes more than one.

Trump is killing TPP and all you can bitch about is pure conjecture at this point

Can't wait. This will lessen the American shitposting.

Of they are so powerful why does net neutrality exist?
It must be that Verizon/Comcast/Dish/ATT like it because it creates a barrier to entry to their market, you useful fucking idiot.

>tfw I'm unironically regretting not voting for Hillary right now.
I knew Trump was an authoritarian, but I really thought he'd just leave the internet laws how they are now.
At least Muslims won't throw me off a building though, so that's good.

>tfw Bernie went full cuck instead of running third party and saving us.

The current political climate is basically just each side jumping to the next extreme. The concept of one side being right while you are wrong is absolutely unheard of to most and frankly, it is disgusting.

I supported Trump. And now I'm starting to get depressed because it looks like Trump is going to crash conservatism and the movement to reform the party with no survivors, while leading the country into hell.

I don't give a shit about most things, but if Trump is going to kill net neutrality, I don't know if I'll have a will to stay in the United States,but I question if I'll be able to afford to leave.

I have heard good things about New Zealand.

Government Control of the Internet is _duckspeak_ for Lack of Corporate Control of the Internet.

>when user didn't even read 1984 and he starts trying to into newspeak
That's doubleplusungood bellyfeel, my nigger.

Ill take more expensive internet over millions of rapefugees and Mexicans anyday. Single issue voters like you are part of the cancer that is our modern political system you bitch about.

>corporate control
Corporate control is always exerted through the law, not the private market.

Obamas chief of policy for the FDA is a Monsanto Lawyer, for example.

You're a retard and you misread an easy book.

>NEW ISPs would appear advertising how they don't fuck you in the ass
you think big ISPs pop out of thin air you dumb faggot? you think people would invest money into defying the biggest media and telecommunication conglomerates in the world (comcast, warner, AT&T)? microsoft is hoarding the shit out of everyone's info and there's not a single company to offer an alternative that could potentially become popular

amazing how retards like you twist reality in an attempt to justify your political dicksuckery

>Of they are so powerful why does net neutrality exist?

because it's imposed by the government you imbecile. you think those companies agreed out of free will to net neutrality? you think an up-and-coming company can even compete with those? you think they're scared of small time competition? are you legally retarded?

you think pharma companies stop pushing fucked up meds because of competition or because of goverment laws?

>I'm suddenly a single issue voter because I have opinions
Fuck you're retarded.

I live in Colorado. Those issues, although important to me, are not directly impacting me. You know what's a bigger deal than a less than one percent population increase? Taking even more freedom away from the citizen of the United States in the name of corporate interests. It's a slippery slope from net neutrality.

Fuck, it's always MUH BROWN PEOPLE with you retards, and then the neoleft isnt any different. There are bigger cards in play rather than LE IMMIGRATION MEME. Second amendment, currency manipulation, nationalism vs globalism, energy, Healthcare, and the fucking Supreme Court Justice. Have fun saving your country when you are more concerned about California and New York being flooded by Brown people vs the last bastion of free speech

There were much less people on the net so much less lost profit to go after or be conscious off. Are you really going to deny the ballooning number of internet users throught the 00s has nothing to do with this?

You are going to leave the country over NN, drama queen. Have fun getting NZ citizenship, and paying double taxes if you don't.

...

>implying large corporations that hog the majority of bandwidth won't be the primary beneficiaries of net neutrality enforcement

>>>tfw Bernie went full cuck instead of running third party and saving us.
wouldn't matter even if he ran as a third party, the media would've given him even more of a cold shoulder. If you're running for office and you're not a democrat or a republican you're fucked

>Have fun saving your country when you are more concerned about California and New York being flooded by Brown people vs the last bastion of free speech
The funny thing that as a Californian, I can tell you that we really don't mind brown people coming in because there's already plenty here and they're not hurting anything. It's all flyover country getting themselves in a knot about a state they don't even live in

Because I'm not going to stick around and watch more and more freedoms be stripped from me?

Ill fight it to the bitter end. I'd rather pussy out than watch my country concert itself into a dystopia. It isn't about net neutrality. A population that would let this happen cannot truly care about freedom.

since when did Netflix bandwidth become a personal freedom issue

You ain't ever getting a permit to move anywhere else amerifat, you're going to die in the county you were born in. This is the future you chose, now deal with it.

How did obamas net neutrality help the end user? If it gets taken away, how big is your loss really? Lot of loud out of nothing I think. American politics is full of same type of manufactured outrage, arguing over things that barely make any difference.

Because it enables a lot more than just "pay for more bandwidth." As other anons have pointed out, of course there is the problem with "companies being able to pay for favoritism." Netflix can pay for more bandwidth, or can pay to limit traffic to Hulu. This punishes smaller websites dramatically, that look to take a piece of the pie.

This is something that would probably happen with news media on a much larger scale. The constant competition to competing for clicks for their shitty clickb8 article will lead these websites to try and gain another edge over each other.

Something I believe DON'T gets discussed enough if the power this gives to ISPs. If not well regulated (Which I doubt it would) it just lets ISPs become all seeing powers over the content, and decide what to throttle. Throttle Netflix and promote your shitty cable services at gouging prices. Flatout throttle most internet traffic not related to "high load" internet websites. (Even though there is plenty of data suggesting it doesn't cost them anything, and they are just being kikes.)

Finally, the 1984 situation. This opens a door the government can use to slide in and gain another tool to censor the internet and collect more data. It's easy to silence wikileaks and the likes with pesky net neutrality out of the way. The government has shown questionable ethics when it comes to the media. The last thing they need is another avenue.

the correct answer is to break up the monopolies and force actual competition, not more government control. especially with that last 1984 scenario. forcing a marriage between government and local monopolies is a recipe for disaster.

The industry will fix itself. And with net neutrality out the door this will happen more quickly.

>People actually want packaged internet and throttled speed
>On Sup Forums where they claim to be tech savvy

this imaginary scenario wouldn't even exist if ISPs were forced to compete

ban all non-compete clauses and these retarded net neutrality memes go away

>the industry will fix itself
no it fucking won't, not while the oligopoly is in place

that doesnt make any sense. why would someone spend the vast capital to run lines just to get into a lowball war with a different isp?

>Mfw Europoors can't even download midget porn because it's banned

exactly, its why they started non-compete clauses to gauge prices

Good, fuck off then. If more retards would leave this place would be far easier to fix.

>what is eminent domain

you guys are arguing for government intervention in all the wrong ways. If ISPs are forced to compete, and your provider start throlling something unnecessarily, you switch and they lose money. the current collusion between government and local ISP monopolies is the only reason these "packaged internet" hypothetical scenarios are allowed to exist. otherwise competition would weed it out

the non compete clauses arent going to do shit.

explain to me why someone would spend millions of dollars to bury fiber just to have to lower their prices?

Sup Forums as a whole is full of underage kids from /r/The_Donald now.

because thats how capitalism works

theres a market to be exploited, you provide a service and compete with other companies for those people's business

Why would any other business blow millions of dollars putting up a store if they had to compete? this is a nonsense argument

Because if you don't, you lose.

no it doesnt, there is no reason someone would want to spend the money to do that shit. they would simply continue doing what they are doing, with different isps simply agreeing to stay where they are not compete with each other. you act like these companies would actually risk getting into a bidding war when they can just hold where they are

welcome to the real world

>no it doesnt, there is no reason someone would want to spend the money to do that shit.
except thats what happens now all the time

If you don't try and take advantage of another market, you lose. Currently they purposely don't compete to solidify their profits which is called collusion. In many states you can walk across town and have access to only one ISP on each side with no in between.

By breaking up their trusts and deregulating the huge fucking barriers to get in you'll find many more ISP's popping up that can compete and by instilling newer, more modern regulations that punish non-competing entities you spur the market.

This has been the way for ever. You think Good Year won't compete with Michelin because Good Year had to invest in a tire factory to seed another market only to compete? you're fucking stupid go read an econ 101 book

That's what he means. The anti-immigration people don't get that the immigrants will all flock to the cities anyway, which are already swarming with immigrants and is considered just normal.

>new companies can't form and become large, and lots of small companies can't exist.
It's you who's retarded.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
The chair of the FCC worked his whole life as a fucking lobbyist for the companies you think his policy is hurting.

The government put a verizon LOBBYIST as the head of the government panel meant to regulate it.

The only reason you aren't legally retarded is you slipped through the cracks.

>The anti-immigration people don't get that the immigrants will all flock to the cities anyway
The pro migration don't get that either, at least here in Europe. They try scatter them all over the country evenly, but they always end up moving towards the big cities.

Ending net neutrality is a good thing you cuck! Now i'll pay for only the websites i browse! Why should i pay for millions of websites i never visit?

Fucking libtard thinking the government should decide how the internet should be run. Cry more Shillary.

you are literally talking like you are on thanksgiving break from econ 101

what i am telling you is in the real world companies will make silent deals with each other to make sure they are making as much money as possible.

its like talking about letting medical insurance companies compete across state lines, you are fucking delusional to think they wont find a way to keep prices up

>bait

t. Berniesandersforpresident poster

Bait harder next time.

I wonder if the same people who complain about billionaires not paying their "fair share" in taxes are the same ones who cry about data caps and internet packages.

The Chairman of the FCC worked his whole life as a lobbyist for Cable and Telecommunication corporations.
The Chairman of the FCC worked his whole life as a lobbyist for Cable and Telecommunication corporations.
The Chairman of the FCC worked his whole life as a lobbyist for Cable and Telecommunication corporations.

Stay mad regulator cucks.

the sad, sad thing is that its true.

>False dichotomy the post.
Try harder, user.

Thats what happens now because:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler
The Chairman of the FCC worked his whole life as a lobbyist for Cable and Telecommunication corporations.

He was extremely good at it.

and because of that he convinced a huge number of retards that net neutrality (government control of the internet) is a good thing.

When in fact what it does is give Verizon and ATT a reason to collide and get their best lobbyist as chair of FCC so they can dictate the market via the power and might of the US federal government.

You libs have great hearts. I ravage you and you keep trying, but you are too stubborn. I am not wrong.

*collude
And they'll never be fucked with for colluding because their fucking guy is the chairman of the FCC.

thanks Obama

Everything is tilting towards cities. The majority of the US population now lives in cities and this trend is accelerating. By the time I have grandkids everybody is going to live on the coasts while all the land in between is reduced to wilderness and cowtowns

Same was going to happen regardless of who won, name one candidate from ANY American party this election cycle that was for net neutrality. Exactly.

Fuck off back to Sup Forums where you belong.

That's probably what is going to happen unless we get some weird technological advance.

The farmers and the ranchers feed the cities.

Try to start an ISP you fucking idiot. Before you register your shitty little llc you will be buried in legal issues caused by the ONE other ISP you are "competing" against. Go ahead. Try it. If it works, I win because we will finally have some competition(even then your service would be shit compared to your competitions), if you fail(probably) I win.

I win bitch.

>buy a philips coffee maker
>try to fill my coffee maker
>the tap only dribbles
>the water company has an exclusive deal with keurig

I can't because it is not a competitive market since corporate socialism has taken hold of it.

In a more free market, if Verizon and ATT fucked it's customers as hard as it could, ISPs that didn't would be preferred.

They can fuck their customers because their guy is the chairman of the FCC appointed by Obama.

This poster doesn't realize that he is illustrating my point.

Fuck off, we're full

You voted for him you mong now deal with it

Lol
>implying you could have started an ISP at anything before Obama.

Try harder bitch.

It's true that this issue goes beyond Obama.
In no way does that refute me.

>I would just tell x ISP to fuck off just like if I dislike a restaraunt I go to a different one faggot.

LMAO. If you think there would suddenly be multiple options for ISPs in yours or anyone's area I got land in Florida to sell you.

>implying that if I can't do it, no one can.
I missed the compliment thank you user.

>law prevents corporate control
>user thinks getting rid of it is a bad thing

I already own good land. You probably do not.

It does not in any way prevent corporate control. The president can appoint lobbyists as the regulators, which he did in this case by making a decades long Telecommunications Lobbyist the Chairman of the FCC.

Allowing corporations to engage in anti-competition and anti-consumer behaviour can only benefit them