Supporting net neutrality means that data hoarders who download insane amounts of random shit just because they have nothing else to do in their meaningless lives get to pay the same bills as casuals and moderate people who just download things they'll actually use/see.
If net neutrality is repelled, Internet will get cheaper for the 99.999% of people who make reasonable use of their connections, and neckbeard virgins will pay their fair bill.
Can't tell if it's a weak b8 or if you're actually retarded.
jealous of my 4tb stash of stuff I've watched all of it
I'm working on more though just started last year
>trumpftard damage control
yes that was the argument a decade ago before streaming video
Point out anything controlled by a government that ever worked.
Do you also want the State to wipe your ass? Let companies compete without anti-progress nanny rules and technology will improve exponentially.
At least politicians will loose their jobs if people scream enough. Giving corporations too much power is far far worse.
>Point out anything controlled by a government that ever worked.
Every single day you are surrounded by a lot of government-built infrastructure that "works" (well enough for society to be stable), but even pointing this out is besides the point. Government sucks, corporations also suck. Both are extremely bureaucratic, centralized messes that just want to make as much money off of you as they can. Both are so intertwined it's hard to distinguish one from another.
>Do you also want the State to wipe your ass?
The existence of a market presumes the existence of rules to different degrees, even the very property law that allows market exchange to exist at all is a "nanny rule" (see: the intellectual property laws that protects unfree software). Corporations and governments are both responsible for building the laws and norms that govern any particular market.
You cannot stop the existence of rules (even fully anarchist societies have rules), what you can however is try to make sure that the rules that are in place (whether established by the government or by private parties) are just and/or favor you. And net neutrality certainly is both just and favors all of us consumers.
>Let companies compete without anti-progress nanny rules and technology will improve exponentially.
Simplistic libertardian hogwash - this depends entirely on the market in question. There are externalities, information assymetries and other market failures that can make ""free competition"" (a pretty nonsensical concept btw) turn into a race to the bottom if they are not properly accounted for in some way.
roads and bridges
>implying people that use more bandwidth are the problem with the current state of the internet infrastructure in the United States
I personally use more bandwidth than probably my entire small town combined
The current infrastructure is run by a oligopoly who refuse to upgrade their infastructure in the ground and providers like AT&T avoid it to the extent that they would rather buy providers with wireless infrastructure (DirectTV) than upgrade their copper in the ground.
I would be more than happy to pay for more bandwidth but it should be provided much like Electricity the infrastructure should be able to provide me symmetrical gigabit and if I max it out I will pay for the usage much like using more power to run more electronics in my house
>data hoarders who download insane amounts of random shit just because they have nothing else to do in their meaningless lives get to pay the same bills as casuals and moderate people who just download things they'll actually use/see.
Am I actually supposed to give a shit? Fuck off
jetpacks and hovercrafts
>net neutrality benefits me personally
>i should feel bad about it because [reason]
>i should embrace this change that doesn't benefit me because [reason]
pure ideology, user
smugstirner.webp
The military. The post office. The library of Congress. All 100% controlled, owned, and operated by the federal government.
All made and "maintained" at exorbitant costs.
> a wild Sup Forums enters the board
> wat do?
Why not both? Offer variations of internet connection types and market this difference as the "feature" that is priced separately instead, eg. reserved, free-roam, etc.
Highest speed would exhibit no net neutrality.
Medium speed allows it.
Slower speed allows net neutrality, and is free.
Slower speed could even just be unused airwaves converted into free internet. There's plenty of unharnessed ones that use to be for old tech, or for war times, that can still be rebooted into action.
So it's free and preserves net neutrality because it's reception is the same as old TV, patchy in some areas and not as reliable as the other speeds...but still there as an option.
Why do things always have to be "one or the other"? Stick to having multiple options.
>internet packets are a finite resource
>(you)
No they don't. They just get hired by the private corporations they worked for as "consultants" and then they use their political connections to connect the corporation to the next politician who is willing to do work for them.
>muh roads
dont you have some boots to lick, statist Steve?
>Military
Inflated budget with funds going into black holes
>Post office
Inefficient bureaucratic nightmare with massive overhead
>Library of Congress
>Implying other institutions can't archive data by themselves
>If net neutrality is repelled, Internet will get cheaper for the 99.999% of people
At best, prices will stay the same. Businesses only lower prices due to competition or a lowering demand. The demand for internet service will never lower, and most ISPs have local monopolies, so they face no real competition.
You're fucking insane if you think they'll lower the price they charge for internet service.
Nice bait though
Sup Forums is too smart to fall for psy ops.
I would keep the Library of Congress merely because a universal archive makes it easier for institutions to be accountable.
>Internet will get cheaper
HAHAHAHAHAHA
If net neutrality passes, internet will get more expensive, and if it fails, internet will also get more expenisive.
State is nothing more then communal/pubic ownership of the land. Government's pubic authority is nothing more then State's public authority. When you say that you wanted replace the government with Private powers. That's a just call back to Monarchy, Feudalism, other Tyranny rule.
Bandwidth is basically free, lad. Your Internet bill is a few times higher than what it should be, if last mile providers didn't have an oligopoly over the market.
Even if everyone started streaming shitloads of 4K video monthly, the ISPs would hardly be affected.
Are you saying abolishing net neutrality is socialism?
This. And that is why this discussion is moot. "They" are going to end net neutrality one way or another. In the past they tried it via the big media conglomerates (SOPA, PIPA...), now they're going the government route. Make no mistake, it's the same interests that are behind all of it.
Same with the discrediting of youtubers by the big (comparatively tiny) newspapers. Whomever "they" might be, the consequences of their actions point towards the same general direction.
Imagine being this afraid of boogeymen
>data hoarders who download insane amounts of random shit just because they have nothing else to do in their meaningless lives
They now hire bitter gramps as shills?
Gee, phones sure were cheaper before Ma Bell got broken up weren't they?
Down with regulation!
>on Sup Forums
>not hoarding data.
Just get the fuck
>he doesn't saturate his connection 24/7
what the fuck are you even paying for then?
Every so often, Xfinity shoves its malware in my browser on top of any website it wants saying "You have reached 90% of your limit (1024 GB) for this month. (3/29/2017) Do not exceed or service may be cancelled.)
>use 3-4tb a month for years
>no complaints whatsoever
>suddenly 1tb cap comes around
>have to pay a extra $50/mo to not be bothered by them
I don't really mind paying it, but it's still bullshit