So, the debate over Net Neutrality is pretty one sided...

So, the debate over Net Neutrality is pretty one sided. I've just recently been reading up on what it means for Net Neutrality to take effect, and for equal access to the internet, but I have a few questions in opposition to the idea.

One, doesn't NN mean that the government has far more control over the internet, i.e., the exact opposite of what NN folks want? Wouldn't the US government need to install more hardware and software to 'monitor' and 'control' the bandwidth speeds and usage? Isn't that really fucking dangerous?

Two, wouldn't the government control of the internet effectively end the free market dynamic of online trade/shopping? With government and politicians effectively in control of selling of goods and services (even MORE than now...), isn't that, you know, really fucking dangerous?

Three, if everyone is charged the same for the same internet speed and access, how is that fair? If my grandma who uses the internet once a week to print a crossword puzzle is charged the same price as, say, a Sup Forums user who is torrenting a metric ton of anime porn every other day, isn't that unfair? Because the NN wants to treat the internet as a public utility...

Finally, the government already allows discrimination in traffic. ISPs are built to prioritize traffic, right? The current language of NN is so ambiguous that it allows them to define the terms however the fuck they want.

Restriction to knowledge: is it always a bad thing? Note that I don't really know, and I'm sort of playing Devil's Advocate here. I want to hear both sides. Seems it's awfully one sides.

Other urls found in this thread:

fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet
knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

NN is shady as fuck. Anyone who says otherwise is an idealog.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks it's a little fishy. It seems like NN folks want so much security in their freedom... that they're willing to give up said freedom.

Of course, like I mentioned, I'm not sure. Considering this thread as an opportunity to learn and debate.

1) The government wouldn't need to install monitors, literally just have a way to report violations.
2) See above
3) Your grandma could pay for lower speed internet, say 3mbps while the Sup Forums user pays for a gigabit.
4) The whole point of NN is to stop ISP from prioritizing certain traffic over other traffic.

>Wouldn't the US government need to install more hardware and software to 'monitor' and 'control' the bandwidth speeds and usage? Isn't that really fucking dangerous?
Does the US government need cameras in your home to enforce laws against rape and murder?

>Seems it's awfully one sides.
The debate is one sided because the anti NN side never brings facts or sources to any discussion.

>One, doesn't NN mean that the government has far more control over the internet, i.e., the exact opposite of what NN folks want?
NN just gives the fcc to set standards over the Internet, like what constitutes broadband speeds or what isp are and aren't allowed to do with your private data

This

>Sup Forums is now against net neutrality because trump is

I fucking hate this website. Remember when everyone on the internet was 100% for it, and there were campaigns for it?

Nobody is, retards are anti-nn because they think that it's some kind of government Obama care of the Internet because they don't know how it works

daily reminder

What the fuck was operation payback?

Why don't you go back to 2003 to show when Sup Forums started as a baseline?

God I hate Sup Forums

You forgot about Sup Forumseddit too

>Three, if everyone is charged the same for the same internet speed and access, how is that fair? If my grandma who uses the internet once a week to print a crossword puzzle is charged the same price as, say, a Sup Forums user who is torrenting a metric ton of anime porn every other day, isn't that unfair? Because the NN wants to treat the internet as a public utility...

Treating the internet as a utility might imply a lot of things but it does not necessarily mean everyone pays the same rate. Electricity is a utility and it's metered, people who use a lot pay more than people who use very little. Internet is not metered. People who use a lot and people who use a little pay the same flat rate to start and then the ISPs *might* charge an additional rate on top of that if you go over a monthly allotment. If internet was metered everyone would probably pay less overall because bandwidth is fairly inexpensive.

Net-neutrality is literally, all traffic on the internet gets equal priority regardless of origin. It has nothing to do with consumer plans.
It's about facebook and youtube get the same treatment as some random dude's video sever.
We currently have NN, and companies want to get rid of it, and go back to how shit was with AOL.

>wanting to go back to the AOL age
Fuck that, fuck paying 5 cents a minute to be on the Internet that shit was gay as fuck

>gamergate

Nobody came to this site for gamergate. The icloud leaks happened at the same time. Label your shit better.

>One, doesn't NN mean that the government has far more control over the internet, i.e., the exact opposite of what NN folks want? Wouldn't the US government need to install more hardware and software to 'monitor' and 'control' the bandwidth speeds and usage? Isn't that really fucking dangerous?
>Two, wouldn't the government control of the internet effectively end the free market dynamic of online trade/shopping? With government and politicians effectively in control of selling of goods and services (even MORE than now...), isn't that, you know, really fucking dangerous?

I believe the FCC relied on complaints from customers and companies to determine when to mediate disputes. The FCC wouldn't just oversee everything.

Those stats are old. Currently traffic is sitting at 220M connections per month, not the ~140M it was when that picture started going around.

>One, doesn't NN mean that the government has far more control over the internet, i.e., the exact opposite of what NN folks want?
That's not what NN supports want. NN support has never been about advocating for less government influence. The core tenet of NN is, indeed, the addition of government regulation.

>Two, wouldn't the government control of the internet effectively end the free market dynamic of online trade/shopping?
NN does not affect the sale of goods or services over the internet at all, just the sale of access to the internet.

>If my grandma who uses the internet once a week to print a crossword puzzle is charged the same price as, say, a Sup Forums user who is torrenting a metric ton of anime porn every other day, isn't that unfair?
Your grandmother would be charged a common rate, not a common amount. Your anime porn would still cost you a lot of money.

>Finally, the government already allows discrimination in traffic. The point of NN is to change what is allowed by government policy.

I miss the days when phone posting wasn't a thing.

I don't know, maybe after years of NN and no appreciable change whatsoever to the internet , maybe peoples view has evolved on the issue? Maybe the hype didn't meet reality?

Literally not a problem before NN was dictated a few short years ago, now its suddenly a problem?

Yes, the content of shit dramatically rises with the type of keyboard used.

>and no appreciable change whatsoever to the internet
BECUSE THAT WAS THE POINT OF NET NEUTRALITY.
Jesus fucking Christ people are uninformed.
>now its suddenly a problem?
Yes, because now ISPs have been abusing it. In an ideal world, you wouldn't need laws on NN, just as you shouldn't need to have laws against theft but as it turns out the law is necessary.

Yeah, you're right. Now that Ajit Pajeet will try repeal NN and other consumer protection laws we can have true progress. Ma Bell, welcome back.

What the fuck do Indians have to do with NN going away? Do you just like putting as many memes into a sentence as possible, you illiterate nigger?

>I don't know, maybe after years of NN
It's only been in effect for less than two years.

fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-strong-sustainable-rules-protect-open-internet


>Have quasi-net neutrality under 2010 open internet order
>Verizon takes FCC to court
>Courts ruled that Verizon(and other ISPs) do not count as a communications service because of an earlier deal which reclassified them as information services
>Court actually recommends reclassifying ISPs under title II to remedy the situation
>FCC debates about how to BS their way through this *without* reclassifying them
>John OIiver compares Tom Wheeler to a dingo tasked with babysitting an infant
>Millions of people send complaints to the FCC telling them to reclassify ISPs
>Tom Wheeler apparently becomes a supporter of title II classification giving the US net neutrality

You don't know who Ajit Pai is? Why are you even in this thread if you don't know the latest Trump memes?
>nigger
Fuck off.

It wasn't a problem pre, and it won't be a problem post. A solution in search of a problem.
Your analogy is shit. Unconvinced.

Keeping up with politics is the most normalfag thing I could think of. NN is important, but I don't let it be the only thing I care about.
>>nigger
>Fuck off.
You're giving Sup Forums more reasons to think they're being fursecuted.

Same thing at this point.

How much worse can it get at this point?

Net neutrality is the least of my fucking concerns...

I wanna know why the fuck I'm paying for Obamacare, social security, medicare, pensions that will all be bankrupt in a decade or two...

Millinals are literally being raped by the Boomers and GenX er's

This a technology board

>I wanna know why the fuck I'm paying for Obamacare, social security, medicare, pensions that will all be bankrupt in a decade or two...

Well, the good thing is Obamacare might be bankrupt in a few years. So, you got that going for ya.

>Millinals are literally being raped by the Boomers and GenX er's

THANKS OBAMA!

>ITT reddit jumps on any opportunity to whine about Sup Forums

>It wasn't a problem pre, and it won't be a problem post
Did you miss the bit where Verizon was actually trying to abuse the lack of laws?

Net Neutrality seems really suspicious to me because of who supports it:

For:
-Google (Spyware/Porn Aggregator)
-Twitter (Bix Nood Mufugga WORDLSTARR)
-Micro$oft (Spyware)
-Amazon (Probably their TV division)
-Netflix (Cuck porn or something)

Against:
-Broadcom (Hardware)
-IBM (Hardware/Software)
-Cisco (telecom)

Sounds like entertainment companies are getting too comfortable having their 4k streaming of dumb TV subsidized by companies that use the internet to do actual work, and now they're scared that they are going to have to pay market rate for the enormous bandwidth that they use.

reddit is Sup Forums, my dumb frogposting friend

>Complaining about the cancerous mobilefags that are killing Sup Forums is whining about Sup Forums.

jesus christ I feel your frustration bro, people on Sup Forums are fucking stupid

take it to the containment board

>One, doesn't NN mean that the government has far more control over the internet
Yes. The FCC would have greater authority than it currently exercises. I believe it technically has the authority now however.

>Wouldn't the US government need to install more hardware and software to 'monitor' and 'control' the bandwidth speeds and usage
What? That's now how net neutrality works, even the meme versions of it.

>Two, wouldn't the government control of the internet effectively end the free market dynamic of online trade/shopping?
There is no free market dynamic. Many areas have government mandated monopolies. It gets even worse at local levels where municipalities have been sued to prevent them from creating their own ISPs. It's practically impossible for any new ISPs to form either thanks to ordinances that got pushed into law by big name ISPs with the sole purpose of killing potential competition.

>Three, if everyone is charged the same for the same internet speed and access, how is that fair?
That isn't net neutrality in any sense of the term. No one wants that for obvious reasons.

/thread

No you dense fuck, NN will hurt us.

>The report(Zero Rating), issued in the last days of the Obama administration, took issue with the way companies like AT&T and Verizon exempted their own video services from wireless data caps, effectively making them cheaper to stream on phones and tablets than rival services such as Netflix.

You see, Verizon was giving you free shit, and NN is going to fuck it all up where you have to pay full price for everything. It's shady as fuck, and FUCK more government

Net Neutrality is not a NEW thing, it was here from the BEGINNING.

Like the American constitution.
Maybe people get it now.

People thoght of Net Neutrality as a way to empower everyone in the same way.

Like how every person has exactly one vote, when he votes for a candidate, no mater what ethnicity or skin color.

Imagine a futuristic world, where people travel with tubes (like in Futurama) and all the tubes to Walmart are much faster.

Not just that. Imagine that Wal-mart owns the tubes, and due to their influence, not only are the tubes to Wal-mart intentionally made faster, the tubes to Target are intentionally made *slower*.

That's what happens when net neutrality isn't enforced. Seriously. Comcast was choking the life out of Netflix streams in an effort to wring more money out of them, and speeds went right back up as soon as an agreement was reached. It was shameless, and it single-handedly demonstrates why you retards are wrong and NN is an essential part of a viable internet.

knowmore.washingtonpost.com/2014/04/25/this-hilarious-graph-of-netflix-speeds-shows-the-importance-of-net-neutrality/

>Stopping companies with near monopolies from abusing their positions is bad
You are in no position to call anyone dense. If you don't see the problem with the example you yourself brought up then I don't know what can be said to you.

They let their subscribers have free stuff. What's the problem with giving a product you own away? Tell me why that's fucking bad.
I can choose from multiple vendors if I want cell service also, fuckface.

Do you think you are convincing anyone here of anything?

You are a liberal SJW numale cuck shill.

Funny, I didn't see the word "incorrect" in there anywhere!

I'd like to hope so, considering it's the straight truth.

What's going on is that Verizon is providing a service that competes with other, similar services. Users are given a fixed amount of data, and while those other services are counted against that amount, Verizon's services are not. That is an anticompetitive tactic, and is arguably illegal.

And you mention cell service, but wired ISPs do this too, and, at most, you're probably going to have two relatively respectable choices. If you have a choice between Comcast and AT&T in your area, good luck choosing the "ethical" one.

If you oppose Net Neutrality this is what your internet will look like:

Comcast owns Hulu, which is a rival of Netflix. Comcast throttles Netflix traffic down on its network, and gives Hulu a fast lane.

How is this good for the consumers is any way shape or form?

You might say well people can just leave Comcast. Yeah right, in many areas of the country Comcast has a significant hold on the market if not a monopoly. In some towns they've even lobbied to make competition illegal, and I'm too lazy right now to look up the articles from last year.

Honestly I feel like I'm living in a dystopian novel with the amount of misinformation about net neutrality. Nobody understands it outside of the tech industry, and the politicians just regurgitate lines that are fed to them by ISP lobbyists.

This misinformation is happening in real life right now and it's fucking crazy.

tl;dr
If you're a citizen, Net Neutrality is a *good* thing.

I'd also like to add to this that Verizon and other ISPs spend obscene amounts of money lobbying the government to let them keep zero-rating their own services. They're not doing that because they love their customers, they're doing it because they think that corralling users into their little services ghetto is going to bring that money back to them.

I reiterate: the fact that they spend this kind of money keeping zero-rating legal indicates that bribery is the only reason it's legal at all.

Sup Forums please don't be anti-net neutrality just because Trump is against it.

let's remind ourselves of the consequences of getting rid of net neutrality. It would be literally impossible to run a streaming site like Twitch or Youtube without paying for a subscription to it.

Who cares, not everyone here is murrifat.

net neutrality just means isp doesn't throttle your connection depending on which host you request and then makes you pay more for faster nigerian pottery web forum access

The only problem with Net Neutrality is that it prevents companies like T-Mobile from doing those offers where certain uses of the internet don't count toward your bill (i.e. unlimited music streaming.)

Actually, nn exists to subsidise high bandwidth consumers at the expense of low bandwidth consumers.
So really Google and Netflix get bigger profit margins.

The funny thing is that all the companies you listed that are for it won't really suffer at all without net neutrality because they would be able to pay whatever fee to get their traffic prioritized anyways. It's smaller net based companies and startups that would suffer the most.

>The whole point of NN is to stop ISP from prioritizing certain traffic over other traffic.
Which mean net neutrality is against free market
>literally just have a way to report violations.
and for more goverment intervention

Well the "free" market is allowing ISPs to fuck everyone in the ass so much the government has to step in.

>Which mean net neutrality is against free market
It means regulating the free market, yes. And unless you're a libertarian "muh invisible hand" shitter you'll realize that at least some regulation is always needed to avoid that corporations fuck over the little guys like you and me.

net neutrality can only exist with an objective state in an internal corporate network.
we're all fucked

Can't tell if low-quality bait, retarded, or paid shill. Congratulations.

>That is an anticompetitive tactic, and is arguably illegal.
I-is it? How so?

I see it as verizon offering a promotion on their internet services.
Like if ford usually sells ford brand motor oil for some amount but decides that everyone who buys a car in the next year gets 5 years worth of free motor oil.

>Which mean net neutrality is against free market
There's not enough competition for it to be free in the first place. A monopoly/duopoly is not "the free market."

>The only problem with Net Neutrality is that it prevents companies like T-Mobile from doing those offers where certain uses of the internet don't count toward your bill (i.e. unlimited music streaming.)
This. I have no problem with an ISP giving you free use of their service if you're accessing another one of their services. It's literally their hardware they can give free access to whomever they choose. Throttling competitors or people who don't pay extortion money on the other hand is not okay, and these are two completely separate issues.

A corporation owns the road in front of your house. They get to set the tolls.
The owner happens to also own a Ford dealer.ship He sets the toll at $10 if you drive a Ford and $1000 if you don't. You don't have a choice of another road since there's only one. Is this a promotion, or is he now using his monopoly over the road business to regulate what car you can and cannot drive?

>I have no problem with an ISP giving you free use of their service if you're accessing another one of their services
There's no such thing as free. The cost is paid by someone else. They may be subsidizing their costs by upping your bill. They may be charging other content providers more. They're using their position to unfairly promote their content service over other competing services, when they should all be on an even playing field.

>The owner happens to also own a Ford dealer.ship He sets the toll at $10 if you drive a Ford and $1000 if you don't. You don't have a choice of another road since there's only one. Is this a promotion, or is he now using his monopoly over the road business to regulate what car you can and cannot drive?
I don't really see how this is an accurate analogy.

First, ISPs are not actually charging you any more money if you use netflex or whatever. You're not actually forced to pay any exorbitant amount to do what you want, no matter what that is.
If they were saying "hey buy a subscription to or your internet is $1000 a month" you might have a point, but they're not.

>They're using their position to unfairly promote their content service over other competing services, when they should all be on an even playing field.
Erm.. W-why senpai? Are companies not allowed to offer consumers incentives to use their services over a competitor?

Unless unfair, extortionate behaviour is taking place I don't give a shit.

>First, ISPs are not actually charging you any more money if you use netflex or whatever.
This is about them charging Netflix more. About them throttling your Netflix. About them capping your Netflix bandwidth.
If there's no net neutrality they can do whatever they want to content that competes with theirs to force you to choose theirs over anyone else's.

>This is about them charging Netflix more. About them throttling your Netflix.
As I said, I'm against this. But if they own some competitor and they don't count your usage with said competitor toward your limit that's their prerogative and I literally couldn't care less. They're not unfairly hampering netflix in that case, but rather leveraging their position as an ISP to make their other service more appealing. There is a distinction I feel.
In one case they're hampering your ability to use netflix. In another they're encouraging you to use their alternative to netflix. One is okay business practice, the other is not.

They're in a position to penalize others. Others have to pay their "road tax." Them upping that tax to then incentivize their service over those others is the same damn thing as the government taxing a company out of business.

Wait what you murricans have data caps? Holy shit burgers you are hella backwards.

Net neutrality is literally, "You cannot hamper."

>I understand literally nothing about what net neutrality means or how it works

Kill yourself retard.

As I've said, ISPs shouldn't be extorting competing services for money or throttling them or anything like that, BUT if they want to give you free access to something, anything at all, that is entirely their choice.

Look I'm not from the US (inb4 opinion discarded) but here some of the mobile providers don't count facebook usage toward your data cap for the month. I don't see this as anticompetitive or something that should be stopped, personally, but as companies trying to sweeten the deal for their customers.

tfw not American

>They let their subscribers subsidise their other services

FTFY.

Feels good man.

They can't give you something for free without charging someone else more.

>They can't give you something for free without charging someone else more.
That's actually not true, they could expect it will increase sales or make advertising easier and thus less expensive.
You're not very /biz/ are you?

They most certainly can, at their own expense.

>at their own expense
Where do they get the money to spend? Charging others.
They don't have money trees you fucking moron.

Most businesses have a profit margin they can dig into to offer promotions, specials, deals, whatever
That they tend to factor these things into their pricing doesn't discount the fact that they could finance them at their expense.

No, they get more money by gaining bigger userbase you dumb moron.

They can't offer it for free without charging someone else.

>You have a house
>You let someone live in that house, for free, out of the kindness of your heart
>you: W-what? You- You can't just give something away for free without charging -someone- for it. This is an outrage!

You work to put money into your house. ISPs have to pay their workers. Guess where they get the money from? CHARGING OTHERS.

You have literally never heard of the saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch"

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.

>You work to put money into your house. ISPs have to pay their workers. Guess where they get the money from? CHARGING OTHERS.
Data usage actually costs ISPs not-that-much and as long as you aren't fucking up their bandwidth they can pretty much give you more for free and not even notice the cost.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.