"Net Neutrality"

Why should the government decide who ISPs and content providers can peer with?

Why are people surprised that pro-freedom politicians like Rand Paul and Donald Trump are against "Net Neutrality"?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Clear_Channel_memorandum
twitter.com/AnonBabble

They only pretend to like freedom. If they really cared about it, they would have done something to give me actual freedom of choice with regards to ISPs offering similar tiers of service (no, satellite is not as good as cable or fiber) of which I have none.

>i love some corporate cock in my ass
Comcast shills please.

Why should the government give you fast internet if the free market has decided that it is not worth deploying cable/fiber in your rural redneck town?

I live in Denmark.

You shill for your corporate overlords.

>give you fast internet
Nice strawman
>the free market
Local monopolies are not free markets.
>rural redneck town
Just because you're flyover, doesn't mean that I am, too.

Perhaps free market capitalism is not a good system.

Shh, you might trigger some 12 year olds into a hissy fit over a dysfunctional economic system that can't allocate wealth effectively among the members of the society.

>pro-freedom
>likes getting raped by Jew corporate cock
Republicucks everyone

The problem is that they don't really understand how the Internet works.

Only when you literally make analogies to snailmail do they seem to understand. Most of them agree that if your mail delivery company deliberately and physically prevents mail originating from another mail company to arrive on time, this is something that should not be allowed.

Did you also make this: Because if you did, you apparently don't understand what your own net neutrality laws say.

nah, people themelves lend ISPs their butthole
if you don't like it - don't buy it
if enough people refuse, ISP will change their ways

statism, plain and simple
if you want actual freedom get supplies ready and wait for when the jewish oroboro catches up with it's tail

Free market capitalism is good. Laissez-faire free market is not.

The former just means that the government stays out of unbiased markets. The latter means that governments doesn't intervene in even biased markets.

The problem in the US is that it isn't really a free market. FCC regulations on some areas (and lack of regulations on others) has created a situation where large cable companies have a monopoly as service providers and have a clear conflict of interest.

Comcast owns TimeWarner. Comcast offers IPTV. Why would Comcast not prioritise their own services over streaming companies such as Netflix if they are allowed to do what they want without any form of regulation?

Not all regulations are bad.

You mean pro-givememoney politicians like Rand Paul

>government allows rape-monsters to exist (on purpose)
>comes up with ways to cockblock some of those monsters (just for show)
>people become even more obedient and dependent on government
torch the monsters along with government!
anarchy!

Okay OP. I will put it in very simple terms.

kill net neutrality -> internet becomes like cable TV

End of argument.

The point of democracy is that 1) you don't elect leaders that allow rape-monsters and 2) you have transparency and a free press so that you'll easily detect corrupt leaders that want to conceive such a ploy and 3) that you have checks and balances that don't put too much power in any single leader.

I want Sup Forums to leave.

You probably think it's good that i can be a woman(man) because it's freedom.

None of that happens in practice. Niggers just vote for Obamaphones and Cletus votes for authoritarians like Trump.

Restore absolute monarchy now!

>None of that happens in practice.
It does in countries with real democracy that have a high degree of transparency.

>Niggers just vote for Obamaphones and Cletus votes for authoritarians like Trump.
Problem in US is gerrymandering (which ensures that representatives are rarely voted out) combined with a low voter turnout.

that would be neat, but somehow #1 failed, #2 has failed, and #3 is on life support

Prolonged distribution of wealth which eventually leads to government over-stepping boundaries as people vote in further establishment powers rather than less.
Capitalists trying to tighten their grip around the neck of the dead horse while simultaneously still trying to beat it via abstract crypto currency on top of fiat currency on top of precious metals.

This is what killed Rome, the Chinese, etc.
If Net Neutrality does eventually die, watch history repeat itself.
First to go will be access to weaboo content, just like those wood carvings in the past.

Use your amendments to force leaders to do what you want then.

Net neutrality and censorship are sometimes related, but in reality they really are two different kinds of issues desu senpai.

> the fucking feel when you know someone who's nicknamed "Cletus" that is a pro trump to the core

> my sides

Thanks user, for making my day.

All regulations are bad. The regulations that make it so I have to actually put milk in bottles labelled 'milk' is killing my business and is authoritarian communist garbage.
This is why I donate to Rand paul so he can get rid of such annoying regulations like that.

>The regulations that make it so I have to actually put milk in bottles labelled 'milk' is killing my business and is authoritarian communist garbage.
lol'd

Here is the Netherlands ISPs are seen as public utilities. Just like your electric power company cannot charge you more for installing a 1000W gaymer PC, an ISP cannot charge you more for faster access to certain websites, or throttle traffic from certain protocols

well if you piss in your milk, people will stop buying it

Well, the odds for anyone actually named Cletus being pro Trump is pretty high though.

I mean, I would guess that well above 90% of all Cletuses eligible to vote would have voted Trump, based on where they're from.

Not if I use toxic materials that make piss taste like milk.

Not censorship per-say, just removal of content distribution.
They're both just different ways of controlling supply and demand really.

In the past there were far less options for approaching excuses to prevent or expand on distribution of a product. Wouldn't surprise me if it becomes as easy now as just saying is more important than .

The annoying thing about the pillars of globalism is that they're far too easy to pull down when greed takes over. People believe anything.

Now you're really putting on that anarcho capitalist thinking cap!
(I'm not joking, it would probably work).

I see, and I agree.

Sorry our pro-freedom opinions hurt your SJW feelings.

>You probably think it's good that i can be a woman(man) because it's freedom.

Degeneracy != Freedom

You don't need net neutrality, what you need to do is kill all the bullshit regulation that makes it impossible for new ISPs to startup.

>calls something bad that isnt net neutrality net neutrality
>"so why do people like net neutrality?!"
nigga pls, im getting tired of this fucking bullshit. go learn what youre talking about first before trying to talk to adults, yeah?

>i think ISPs should be allowed to arbitrarily block or throttle traffic based on its content for any reason they want
if that rephrase sounds bad to you, then congrats, you actually want net neutrality

>Donnie Trump
>Pro-Freedom

This only works when the free market is a real thing. The USA has no "free market" it has corporate socialism. Many cities have laws on the books that enshrine monopoly status for providers by making it illegal for competitors to set up shop. When the country has a real free market get back to me.

fuck your freedom
fuck your rights
fuck your life

the internet is one of the best things to happen to humanity

you are NOT free to fuck with it for personal gain

if it were up to me, you would be executed along with all those fuckers

>you
>not a retarded faggot

damn you sure showed him

>the free market ceases to function when companies have monopolies
>ISPs have local monopolies like utility companies do, so people want ISPs to be regulated like utility companies to keep them from fucking their customers without repercussions
>b-but muh freedom to get fucked by monopolies MUH FREEEEEEEDOMS BAODIRAOBWUEOIALK
Any consumer who is against net neutrality is an idiot.

No they won't, people are fucks. People still buy fake aloe Vera from Wal-Mart

>Busting trusts has never happened before in American history
>We should keep regulations that don't allow for more competition in the ISP field
>Regulating the Internet like cable TV or the radio won't result in the censorship of the Internet, just like it's happened on both radio and television
Net neutrality is a bandage on a gaping wound. It will barely solve any problems and lead to even more down the road

>>Busting trusts has never happened before in American history
>>We should keep regulations that don't allow for more competition in the ISP field
So how do you suggest breaking up regional monopolies without having the government seize ownership of infrastructure that currently belongs to ISPs? Simply splitting up large ISPs will not solve the problem of local monopolies.

>>Regulating the Internet like cable TV or the radio
Those are regulated in different ways from each other, and there's quite a jump from ruling that ISPs must treat traffic equally and ruling that ISPs must censor what content users can access.

>So how do you suggest breaking up regional monopolies without having the government seize ownership of infrastructure that currently belongs to ISPs? Simply splitting up large ISPs will not solve the problem of local monopolies.
Lower the barriers of entry to the ISP market, albeit locally. The more people that enter the market and form the infrastructure to provide services locally, the more competition will be necessary on the local level because no doubt people are going to enter the ISP market, even if it is a gradual change. The best way to do this is to get rid of the various telecommunication regulations that aren't related to safety, since they practically prohibit anyone but those that can afford the fines to compete in the first place.

>Those are regulated in different ways from each other, and there's quite a jump from ruling that ISPs must treat traffic equally and ruling that ISPs must censor what content users can access.
Not really. When ever you give control of a form of media to a bureau, no matter how small, they do manage to essentially control the medium as a whole. This is exactly what happened to the Radio, where basically anyone could create and share content in the 1920s. With the introduction of the Communications Act of 1934 which enstated the FCC, whose purpose was to:
"make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." So essentially radio neutrality.
they essentially controlled the flow of information via the radio and later the television. The thing is it lead to the radio essentially being sanitized like in the early 2000s when certain songs were banned from the radio for them either "having unpatriotic messages" or "possibly inciting terrorism". The point is giving control of any medium from the hands of corporate executives to the government is a net loss, because at worst corporate heads just seek a profit. The government (especially the type of Post-Reagan neocon/neolib) will happily take any power that the people give it and abuse it almost immediately

>Lower the barriers of entry to the ISP market, albeit locally. The more people that enter the market and form the infrastructure to provide services locally
Cities aren't going to let a ton of small companies constantly tear up ground to lay their own fiber, your plan falls flat right there.

>The thing is it lead to the radio essentially being sanitized like in the early 2000s when certain songs were banned from the radio for them either "having unpatriotic messages"
>things that never happened

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Clear_Channel_memorandum

ISPs do not operate in the free market, theyre a natural Monopoly.

Thats why they need to be regulated. Since you can't have 5+ companies running wire to your house.

Clear Channel Communications is a privately owned corporation, try again.

>Why are people surprised that pro-freedom politicians like Rand Paul

hardly pro-freedom and more like anti-regulation of any kind.


>Why should the government decide who ISPs and content providers can peer with?
NN was never about who you could peer with.
It is all about treating all network traffic equally.

So that comcast doesn't treat its own video packets better than say netflix video packets.

In the short term consumers might win with free offers and shit like that, but in the long term it takes away consumer choice.

Damn people on Sup Forums actually against net neutrality. You think they'd let a website like this be available for subscription? Retards lol

it's called conduit dipshit. you dig once, put conduit and later on companies rin their cabling through it. fuck off comcast shill.

>people on Sup Forums actually against net neutrality
When the discussion was about adding a law for net neutrality, Sup Forums was all for it.
This now is just Sup Forums leaking all over Sup Forums. After all, nothing that Trump does can possibly be bad.

sounds like a regulation requiring conduits..


But how many people get their internet through DSL or Cable ? which has been in place for decades now.

This. This so much.

With net neutrality:
You pay for bandwidth and speed. Your ISP treats all traffic equally. With a low tier plan you can access everything, but more slowly. With a high tier plan you can move more data quicker, stream higher quality video, etc.

Without net neutrality, it becomes more like cable TV:
Base package includes email, Facebook and your ISP's own streaming video and music services. Add $10/month for access to Reddit, Digg, Yahoo and Tumblr. Another $10 gets you access to Youtube, Spotify and Netflix. New small sites have a very hard time getting started because they have to sign contracts with the various ISPs so people can visit them.

>fuck off comcast shill.
Why would Comcast be for net neutrality?

Do you seriously trust companies like Comcast to treat all websites equally?

Corporations don't have our interests in mind any more than the government does, and at least with the government we have some nominal control over them through democracy. That doesn't exist with corporations - they can do literally whatever the government allows them do, and the people can't do anything to stop it. ``Corporate freedom" just means taking away the freedom of ordinary people and giving it to an elite which isn't the least bit answerable to the common man.

Why should one worship the free market as the Absolute Decider if the decisions it makes aren't in your best interest?

That only causes change in the long term, and furthermore, only works if the entire population does it. You'll end up going for years without internet at all, if you boycott the only provider in your region.

All functional societies are statist. Trying to create a non-statist society is like trying to compress Windows 10 to fit on a single 80-column punched card. It's just not going to happen.

How is absolute monarchy supposed to increase freedom?

Labeling things as ``degeneracy" is just a way to justify curtailing freedoms. If you actually had an argument for why forbidding these things led to the greater good, you wouldnt' need to use spooky words like ``degeneracy".

Why wouldn't I think that? Let's set aside uselessly subjective emotional responses and look at it objectively:

You'd be making a choice that affects only you. I am in no way hurt by your lifestyle choice. My taxes aren't paying for your choice. Allowing you the choice gives you more freedom to live as you please, and it doesn't affect me or how I've chosen to live.

More freedom at little to no cost to others is a good thing. Alternately we could force you to live the way I think you should. This is a dangerous precedent because someone else might try to force me to live the way they like.

>Why are people surprised that pro-freedom politicians like Rand Paul and Donald Trump are against "Net Neutrality"?
I'm not suprirsed but lmao @ at the idea that pro-corporation = pro-freedom

giving too much power to big businesses is just as anti-freedom as giving too much power to the state. I want freedom for the individual, not the freedom of either corporations or states; they're can both be a means to oppress individuals and their freedoms

>check Alexa
>they now rate Sup Forums as the 87th most popular website in the US
I hope moot is fucking happy with his 30 fucking pieces of silver he got for this site.

>corporate socialism

hey child,
corporatocracy =/= corporate socialism

Lolbertarians need to be gassed.

>at least with the government we have some nominal control over them through democracy.
Nigger, do you know who owns 90 % of our politicians?

I think Rand Paul is just honestly misguided on this issue. He is actually a good man and I just don't think he understands how much freedom the isp marketplace actually lacks.

Free market ideals and the like are nice assuming an actual competitive free market place. The isp market is not that.

He's one of the only, probably the only, politician I even trust just a little.

Words can't hurt you, unless you can read them. Don't play that game.