12th July Internet-wide Day of Action for Net Neutrality

Tomorrow's the day.

Will it be worth anything?

How screwed is the burgernet right now?

Other urls found in this thread:

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-61A5.pdf
digg.com/2017/comcast-net-neutrality-fake-comments
freebeacon.com/issues/john-olivers-net-neutrality-campaign-filled-bots-fake-comments-racist-attacks-fcc-chairman/
law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-fiber-in-the-united-states
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

god i hope this works. fuck pajeet pai and his plan to blow up net neutrality.

also fuck AT&T for pretending to support net neutrality while also paying for lobbying against it. pricks.

You mean today's the day.

Net Neutrality is a meme though. I mean there is already a shit ton of censorship with it.

who the fuck cares just let the stupid americans cuck themselves while believing they are free

Neutrality was the custom before Comcast and others broke it. What we have now is not actual neutrality, but a custom in the process of being lost through lack of regulation.
Seriously, burgers, grow up. You can still get porn via the Post Office and you could still get porn if the Post Office became the national ISP.

What we had before was Title I, information service, which can trace its roots back to the Clinton administration and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005.

>Title I, information service
Which is not only what allows the censorship we see today, but also in no way supplanted the observance of the custom of net neutrality that was commonplace before...
>upheld by the Supreme Court in 2005
Just before Comcast was caught tampering with torrent connections.

Right, so what dos this day of action entail, besides changing my Facebook profile picture?

Crying into your latte about how unfair the world is.

We're gonna
HACK
THE
WORLD

calling senators, representatives. emailing the FCC. sending letters. anything and everything, man.

sure beats being an apathetic faggot lazily doing nothing.

HACK THE PLANET!

The principles of net neutrality itself is supported by FCC Chairman Pai, Commissioner O’Rielly, Republicans in Congress, and broadband providers. They all support a free and open internet. The real issue at play is the Obama-Wheeler government takeover of the internet known as Title II which re-classified broadband service providers in 2015 as “common carriers” from the 1930’s. The net neutrality debate was never about “maintaining a safe, free, and open internet” as President Obama messaged it to be. It was about ensuring the one thing Democrats always want – control of the internet and to help their crony friends. Under these regulations, government bureaucrats can decide what websites they can prioritize or punish and what broadband infrastructure investments are worth.

Source? Because Pai made it pretty clear that his idea of "open and free" means that ISPs are allowed to do what ever the fuck they want

>"open and free" means that ISPs are allowed to do what ever the fuck they want
So this means nyaa pantsu's ISP can do whatever the fuck they want. This is good.

>government bureaucrats can decide what websites they can prioritize or punish and what broadband infrastructure investments are worth.
Because corporate decisions are always in favor of the customer, right? Kill yourself, Orwellian script-flipper.

Fuck what they want. What about what I want?

SOURCE?
SOURCE?
SOURCE?
Pathetic, you are being used as a pawn of corporations for their benefit. The reality in what should really just be called “The Title II Debate” is that businesses using the networks which ISPs operate want to make sure their information pipeline into homes is as cheap as possible. Instead of building their own networks, with the exception of Google on this point, (which failed, because rolling out fiber across the US is fucking expensive, it turns out) cronyism is their tactic. And to reach that end they are demagogueing ISPs. Instead of regulating how broadband service is provided, Congress, the Federal Communications Commission , and governments at all levels should promote competition by making more spectrum available for commercial use and by reducing barriers to deploying wireless infrastructure. But that story wouldn’t help the activists raise money online, generate fake FCC filings, or advance their big government agenda. Your playbook has been fairly easy to forecast since it’s a recycled act, but that doesn’t stop you from spreading your false talking points and hate to feed off of a lack of knowledge in this technical issue.

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-61A5.pdf

>businesses using the networks which ISPs operate want to make sure their information pipeline into homes is as cheap as possible
For some reason, lifting the SMTP and HTTP(S) blocks so people can run servers at home isn't even part of your calculation.
>generate fake FCC filings
Yes, let's talk about those. digg.com/2017/comcast-net-neutrality-fake-comments
Why aren't you killing yourself?

Unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats shouldn't have the power to decide such a large, and far reaching issue as this. This should be decided by Congress, which is duly elected and accountable. If it were such an important issue, a law should be passed. But when you make a power grab, such as the take over of a multi billion dollar economic sector, through regulation, the next executive can come in and wipe all the previous rules out. Classic Obama era over reach, which is part of his legacy, which 90% has been destroyed by executive order.

Pass a law, not a government regulation, because that's the heart of the issue, not the "concept" of NN.

>more competition
Yeah, keep believing that's Pai's agenda. It's not like he used to be a corporate lawyer before or anything. It's not like he already made statements about how there are a lot of cable companies in murica and therefore a lot of competition. It's not like smaller isps have come out against his plans or anything like that.

>Unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats shouldn't have the power to decide such a large, and far reaching issue as this.
You mean, like corporate executives?
>This should be decided by Congress, which is duly elected and accountable
Only to their donors. If you actually believe this representative oligarchy bullshit, you're more part of the problem than you can even imagine.
>take over of a multi billion dollar economic sector, through regulation,
Don't raise the ire of regulators, and you won't need to worry about political risk.
>Pass a law, not a government regulation, because that's the heart of the issue, not the "concept" of NN.
In what fantasy world do you live where new laws actually benefit the people? Pic related.

freebeacon.com/issues/john-olivers-net-neutrality-campaign-filled-bots-fake-comments-racist-attacks-fcc-chairman/

There is nothing stopping you from getting a business account, it's $10 extra for me. You didn't pay for the ISP's infrastructure, you don't own it, or have any right to use it as you see fit.

>killing myself
Thats what the left wants folks, the death of reason.

Pai specifically let small ISP flount all the rules in a bid to help them.

Government cocksucker, all you are doing is letting Google, Netflix, and AT&T out. These are the large corporations that you are supporting, not me. It's their agenda you are supporting.

>There is nothing stopping you from getting a business account, it's $10 extra for me. You didn't pay for the ISP's infrastructure, you don't own it, or have any right to use it as you see fit.
Maybe that's the problem. ISPs should be nationalized.
>Thats what the left wants folks, the death of reason.
Kill yourself, liberal, but look up liberal before you do so that you know why you're killing yourself.

>Government cocksucker, all you are doing is letting Google, Netflix, and AT&T out. These are the large corporations that you are supporting, not me. It's their agenda you are supporting.
Their gain is none of my concern. What about my gain? Which policy is going to be more likely to get EVERYONE the ability to run servers at home, rather than this tiered bullshit? When people have their own mailboxes on the sides of their own homes, there is no reason to pay Mail Boxes Etc. a fat fee. Do you see where this is going, or are you paid not to?

>wanting the government to continue intervening
>wanting the government to continue allowing area-based monopolies

are you Sup Forumsuys retarded or?

>You didn't pay for the ISP's infrastructure
i damn fucking did pay for that copper

It's the shills for net neutrality throwing a shit fit like the babies they are, what did you expect? Except this time their tantrum isn't going to work.
Any time there is a mass hysteria, be very fucking suspicious.

If you enter into a contract, you have agreed to the terms. You agreed to let the ISP block certain ports, (which happens to be a huge security issue) in exchange for a smaller bill. Don't like it? Choose another option.

Show me the bill.

I used to be all for net neutrality until I realised it was all a crock of shit to censor the net and allow monopolies.

Hysteria is the surname of the media in the UK, I have a mental block on that shit.

City hall is different from the Fed. You and a few neighbors can go down to city hall, drag some miscreants from their offices, and tar and feather them if necessary. Not possible when the gov is several hundred miles away.
State-level governments that won't allow municipalities to offer internet utility service are another matter.

>If you enter into a contract, you have agreed to the terms
>pacta sunt servandum
Fuck off, nigger. You are not entitled to government enforcing the terms of your contracts if they contravene public policy.
Get the fuck back to Sup Forums and stay there.

In reclassifying broadband access as a public utility, the legal authority of the Federal Trade Commission to police anti-competitive practices was immediately cut off. Good job helping out large corporations, cocksucker. Now it's just more of the same bullshit, but now government approved bullshit.

>Which policy is going to be more likely to get EVERYONE the ability to run servers at home,

So, electricity neutrality should be in effect as well. Shouldn't matter how much electricity a home consumes, everyone is entitled to it and to use it as much as everyone...

Cuz I got a lot of unused boxes I wanna turn to servers, bandwidth ain't what's preventing me

>Pai specifically let small ISP flount all the rules in a bid to help them.
Yeah, and to normalise the death of nn. Not to mention these smaller isps can easily be used as fronts for big isps.
And he seem to be permitting some mergers to make big ISPs even bigger.

If Pai really cared about competition, he'd do stuff like force big isps allow new ones to use their lines and repeal laws forbidding municipal isps. It's funny how the only way he can come up with to foster competition is also the way that helps the big isps the most.

>Show me the bill.
state websites have a long running habit of every other fucking resource going 404
but in wisconsin, we paid for bell/ameritech/sbc/att and time warner/spectrum copper

ISPs run by municipalities aren't profitable in the least. Unless you want your city to pay off the infrastructure over hundreds of years, by which time it will be obviously inadequate. Your communist dreams are never based in reality.

They force commercial ISPs to compete though.

if you use less, you pay less

>Before net neutrality
>American internet is shitty because controlled by monopolies
>After net neutrality
>American internet is still shitty because controlled by monopolies

Net neutrality is a fucking meme.

Sounds like what Net Neutrality is preventing... Why are we for that shit??

>In reclassifying broadband access as a public utility, the legal authority of the Federal Trade Commission to police anti-competitive practices was immediately cut off
Common carriers are not public utilities. Good job, shill.
Let's talk about the half trillion dollars you corporatist cocksuckers got from the government to build out the national information infrastructure. What has that gotten users?

>ISPs run by municipalities aren't profitable in the least.
So what? They're there to perform a service, not turn a profit, you Ferencgi cuck.
>Unless you want your city to pay off the infrastructure over hundreds of years
Fiber doesn't have to be upgraded every three years, you corporatist cuck. I'd sign up for a 1% sales tax increase to build a municipal ISP that almost certainly would provide better than the 15/30 I have now, and cheaper.
If municipal ISPs were such a bad thing, why would Verizon and Comcast and others have to lobby to get states to prevent them? Die in a house fire, shill.

>use less
The marginal cost of a kilowatt-hour is non-negligible. The cost of a marginal kilobyte is negligible. Are you really that much of a burger that you can't conceive of a world without meters and coin boxes?

disqualified

Basically every time the normalfag mainstream internet blows up on a moral crusade, assume there is faggotry involved.

I just want an answer :(

>you Ferencgi cuck
Shill detected. Only reddit faggots use western fictional sources as metaphors or references.

you asked an invalid question

If the shoe fits, wear it, nigger.

There is always faggotry involved in policy. See for Pic related. The question is which faggotry inures to more public and consumer benefit.

If the top10 websites would just stop working and showing something like "this is what happens if net neutrality is fucked" contact your reps now, then the US would never have a problem with anti netneutrality guys ever again.

>Lets change the issue
No, lets go back to title II, net neutrality,and the public utility—including a return to the Ma Bell days of regulated rates, services, and artificial barriers to entry.

law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-fiber-in-the-united-states

2/20 actually made enough money to cover the payment for the infrastructure. Municipal broadband, run by local idiots, who will no doubt raise your taxes to pay off the millions in infrastructure that no one uses enough to actually pay the bills, much less make any type of profit.

NN was never actually a thing, it never went into effect, cleetus.

...

>If the top10 websites would just stop working and showing something like "this is what happens if net neutrality is fucked"
The internet would be a better place, faggot. It would lead to an explosion of new sites.

>No, lets go back to title II, net neutrality,and the public utility—including a return to the Ma Bell days of regulated rates, services, and artificial barriers to entry.
Stop reeing, ISPcuck. I don't give two fucking shits about your barriers to entry to build a second set of infrastructure on public easements for your private use. I care about what, as a member of the general public, I can access and what services I can provide to others.
>2/20 actually made enough money to cover the payment for the infrastructure. Municipal broadband, run by local idiots, who will no doubt raise your taxes to pay off the millions in infrastructure that no one uses enough to actually pay the bills
>the bills
>implying that public services should be profitable instead of useful
>implying that people shouldn't pay the actual cost of the service they use rather than subsidize customer acquisition
>implying
ISPs should be nationalized and their owners summarily executed. How does that make you feel, ISP owner? You are a fucking parasite. Get the mother FUCK out of my way.

>Amazon prime day is probably drawing attention away from this

THEY'RE TRASHING OUR RIGHTS MAN

I think I will cancel my comcast tomorrow, because fuck it I need to do it anyway.

Or maybe the propaganda machine they're using is old and busted after they ran on a certain election last year.

This is part of an aggressive campaign by advocacy groups whose true goal for over a decade has been the re-regulation of the communications industry in all its forms. These are the same advocates repeatedly quoted in stories that distill President Trump’s Internet policy from a single 2013 tweet and, now, just as absurdly reduce Commissioner Pai’s entire career to a groundless and irrational animus toward net neutrality. The campaign is no secret. As the Ford Foundation, which supports all of these groups regardless of their names, freely acknowledged in a celebratory blog post after the public utility order was passed, the goal of its Internet Freedom campaign has been to use net neutrality as a populist wedge to push for public utility treatment for the Internet—if not outright nationalization of private broadband infrastructure. Which I believe is the true goal- government control of the internet. Each time Title II advocates have had the opportunity to pass enforceable net neutrality rules without turning ISPs into utilities, they have balked.
And now that a new Administration is likely to do just that, public utility proponents are turning up the volume on their rhetoric to eleven, hoping to confuse the media and consumers into believing that what is at risk here is the very survival of “the Internet as we know it,” whether it be from the Trump White House, Congress or the FCC’s Chairman.

I don't buy the electrical utility example. With electricity, I only pay for what I plug in to the wall. See argument against:
.Paying per kilobyte downloaded only works if I only have do download exactly what I want. I didn't ask to see ads, so I don't want to pay for them.

A lot of people think that ISP monopolies are bad. Perhaps NN rules could be removed if people like me had a choice between more than one ISP. Then I, the consumer, could simply use an ISP that better suited me. Given that many people do not have such a choice and that the likelihood of breaking up big ISP monopolies is low, NN is the best we have got.

As the misrepresentation of Commissioner Pai’s views illustrates once again in painful relief, any effort to return Internet regulation to the successful model that left engineering decisions largely with engineers--a bi-partisan (or, rather, non-partisan) policy that began during the Clinton Administration--is characterized by these groups with increasing histrionics. Objecting to utility treatment for access providers is somehow turned into a direct attack on the open Internet and everything it stands for, including freedom of speech, democracy, and free content and services. But stripped of the alarmist rhetoric, consumers might actually see that what’s at stake has little or nothing to do with almost completely uncontroversial neutrality principles, and everything to do with preserving the legally fragile and economically disastrous application of public utility regulation to ISPs. BUt perhaps there is an economic case to be made for upending twenty years of successful Internet policy, but if so there is no effort to make it.
What’s unfortunate is that so many media outlets have fallen into the net neutrality trap, a function of over-reliance on a very few sources with a clear agenda to turn the conversation away from anything that requires facts and analysis when emotion will do the job.
The sky is still not falling for the open Internet—not with a Trump election, not with Congressional legislation that would enshrine enforceable net neutrality rules, not with a return of enforcement power to the Federal Trade Commission. And not with Ajit Pai as FCC Chairman. The closer we get to a permanent solution to Internet governance issues that really matter to consumers, unfortunately, the louder and more desperate the pro-utility lobby will become.

Public utilities have to turn a profit to pay staff, upgrade and repair the infrastructure, and set aside funds for emergencies.

>stay in your homes
>do not be alarmed
>big business is your friend

bonus greentext:
>pro-utility lobby
man what the fuck are you on about

>This is part of an aggressive campaign by advocacy groups whose true goal for over a decade has been the re-regulation of the communications industry in all its forms
Your paranoia bores me, ISPcuck. I already told you my preference is to have the USPS offering ISP services. I grant that the involvement of (((foundations))) is troubling, but we don't have to go exactly where they want us to go.

>public utility order
Common carriers are NOT public utilities, nigger. They are private businesses whose profit margins are unregulated and who have rights to determine their own services or lack thereof. Stop lying, wife's son.

>Paying per kilobyte downloaded only works if I only have do download exactly what I want.
It doesn't work even then. Kilobytes cost much more to meter than to deliver. May as well just not bother and let people enjoy the service they are willing to collectively pay for as a polity. Nobody is special, especially ISP owners.

Public utilities are still privately owned, and their profit is strictly regulated by public service commissions.
Municipal utilities cost what they cost, and they don't need to turn a profit from user fees once paid for.

NN enshrines already existing ISP's as the de facto monopoly.

Yes, letting Google and netflix have total control of the ISP's infrastructure is the obvious solution.
Title II does exactly that: classifies ISP's as a public utility, a relic of the 1930's. You'll go exactingly where they tell you to go after they get to pump as much dis-information and propaganda into your brain as they can shove through the ISP's lines, at no additional cost to them, and you'll love it. Pass laws to regulate ISP's and content, not legal nightmares like the previous regulation entail.

Is there a legal path for the FCC to prohibit paid prioritization or the development of a
two-sided market?

>classifies ISP's as a public utility
Common carriers ARE NOT PUBLIC UTILITIES. Show me where in Title II that corporate profits are limited and all lawful public access is not guaranteed RIGHT NOW, or fire up the live stream and kill yourself while we watch your shilly ass swinging in the breeze.

Title II only
authorizes the FCC to prohibit “unjust or unreasonable discrimination”and both the Commission and the courts have consistently interpreted that provision to allow carriers to charge different prices for different
services. I have been unable to find even a single case in which the Commission found it
unlawfully discriminatory to offer a different (faster) service to customers at a different (higher) price.

The legal consequences of moving forward with net-neutrality regulation are sure to
wreak havoc on the Internet economy, no matter which legal path we take. If we are to take the D.C. Circuit at its word, section 706 grants the FCC virtually unfettered authority to encourage broadband adoption and deployment. So if three members of the FCC think that more Americans would go online if they knew their information would be secure, could we impose cybersecurity and encryption standards
on website operators? If three members of the FCC think that more Americans would purchase
broadband if edge providers were prohibited from targeted advertising, could we impose Do Not Track regulations? Or if three members of the FCC think that more Americans would use the Internet if there were greater privacy protections, could we follow the European Union and impose right-to-be-forgotten mandates? And because section 706 gives state commissions authority equal to the FCC, every
broadband provider, every online innovator, every Internet-enabled entrepreneur may now have to comply with differing regulations in each of the 50 states. Tesla, Uber, Airbnb, and countless others can attest to the welcome that parochial regulators give to disruptive start-ups.

>NN enshrines already existing ISP's as the de facto monopoly.
i'm not sure i follow this. what do you mean? does forcing ISPs to provide equal bandwidth for all web services make being an ISP harder? it seems like the opposite would be true - if you had to inspect each packet or host in order to charge them differently, that would require more work on the ISP's end, right?

The Internet would fare no better under Title I
I, and the consequences are likely to be even worse. Reclassification opens the door to actual access charges,tariffed charges that Internet service providers could impose on edge providers, content delivery networks, and transit operators without their consent One Title II option on the table would guarantee new Internet tolls by giving broadband ISPs no option other than access charges to recover their regulated costs. Not only that, but reclassification
means a broadband price hike for every
consumer in America: not exactly a move that will encourage broadband adoption. And alongside tariffed access charges and higher consumer prices, other Title II provisions: ranging from the disclosure of customer information to mandatory billing disclosures
would apply to broadband providers, edge providers, or really anyone in the Internet economy. And like section 706, Title II puts state regulators on par with the FCC, meaning there may be 50 sets of access charges to be paid, 50 different broadband fees to be assessed, 50 different privacy regimes to be complied with, and 50 different types of mandatory disclosures to be made. A Title II regime hardly lowers the barriers to competitive entry:starting a company doesn’t get you free legal services.

Remember, shit like "pay $2.99 to add additional websites to your internet" is a strawman. That would never happen, even if net neutrality were killed. If anything, I'd bet money that idea was spread by the ISPs themselves.

What's gonna happen is that eventually lawmakers will pass laws to "save" net neutrality. But what they'll ban is the blatantly evil strawmen. Meanwhile, because net neutrality is "saved", ISPs will be free to implement much more insidious practices: data caps, throttling, manipulating traffic. Things that are still bad for the consumer but can't be explained as easily in a single infographic.

Basically, be careful and don't lose sight of what net neutrality *actually* means.

this doesn't answer his question.

Yes, just ignore the blatant power garb Washington has tried to take. Just make the issue all about treating each byte equal to the next byte, and maybe people won't notice.
It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, to direct where Internet service providers put their investments, and to determine what servicc plans will be available to the American public. The only limit on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own
determination of whether rates are “just and reasonable,” which isn’t much of a restriction at all. Everyone loves the idea of NN, but let's get into law, not regulate, which offers no permanent, lasting solution. This should be a bi-partisan act, because regulations can be turned over by the stroke of a pen by the next administration. What we need is something new, not something from 1934, which WILL turn the internet into something like the existing telephone monopolies that flourished.

onsider that activists promoting this rule had previously targeted neither AT&T nor Verizon with their first nn complaint but MetroPCS
—an upstart competitor with a single-digit market share and not an ounce of market power. Its crime? Unlimited YouTube. MetroPCS offered a $40-per-month plan with unlimited talk, text, Web browsing and YouTube streaming. The company’s strategy was to entice customers to switch from the four national carriers or to upgrade to its newly built 4G Long Term Evolution network. Whatever the
benefits of MetroPCS’s approach, activists have said “there can be no compromise." Our standard should be simple: If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep
your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you. Economists have long understood innovative business models like these are good for consumers because they give them more choices and lower prices. To apply outmoded economic thinking to the Internet marketplace would just hurt consumers, especially the middle-class and low-income Americans who are the biggest beneficiaries of these plans.

It actually means FCC’s newfound control extends to the design of the Internet itself, from the last mile through the backbone. Section 201(a) of the Communications Act gives the FCC authority to order “physical connections” and “through routes,”meaning the FCC can decide where the Internet should be built and how it should be interconnected. And with the broad Internet conduct standard, decisions about network architecture and design will no longer be in the hands of engineers but bureaucrats and lawyers. So if one Internet service provider wants to follow in the footsteps of Google Fiber and enter the market incrementally, the FCC may say no. If another wants to upgrade the bandwidth of its routers at
the cost of some latency, the FCC may block it. Every decision to invest in ports for interconnection may be second-guessed; every use of priority coding to enable latency-sensitive applications like Voice over LTE may be reviewed with a microscope. How will this all be resolved? No one knows.

...

>It actually means FCC’s newfound control extends to the design of the Internet itself, from the last mile through the backbone. Section 201(a) of the Communications Act gives the FCC authority to order “physical connections” and “through routes,”meaning the FCC can decide where the Internet should be built and how it should be interconnected.
I see literally no problem with this.
>And with the broad Internet conduct standard, decisions about network architecture and design will no longer be in the hands of engineers but bureaucrats and lawyers
In what weeaboo fantasy world do you live where it isn't already? Corporate bureaucrats still decide where to offer service and engineers have no right of appeal.
> Every decision to invest in ports for interconnection may be second-guessed; every use of priority coding to enable latency-sensitive applications like Voice over LTE may be reviewed with a microscope
Good. It's MY Internet, little bitch, not yours.

Who gives a shit? Hasn't it already been repealed? It's only been around for a couple years anyway and everything was just fine before it.

Most of the people that support it are also the same people that want 1984 style surveillance of the internet (hillary clinton for example)

>be honest you had to look this up.jpg
What did I have to look up?

Is this the same breath in which you pissed your pants about jewgle owning the internet, or the next one?
Seriously, if the Internet becomes a piece of shit, a new one will be made. Dark fiber is a commodity.

Lame meme. Net neutrality was effectively stayed until overturned in 2005, when Comcast decided to start dicking with torrent traffic.

Yea but the president wasn't someone known for cashing in on whatever he can make money off.
See the deal with Saudi Arabia (and neglecting to ever add them to the no fly list), and his move allowing a paid service (Internet providers) to double dip and sell your data all because "its not fair that free elective services like facebook and google can do it!"
The idea of them making bank from cable television studios / cable providers to throttle competitors like netflix, hulu, etc to turn more profit isn't really that off the wall.

a day without normies on the internet im okay with this

>2017
>people on Sup Forums, on Sup Forums of all places are uneducated on this subject and side against net neutrality
There's no hope for Sup Forums, moot should have shut the site down when he left instead of selling it.

>muh corporate boogyman

>I used to be all for net neutrality until I realised it was all a crock of shit to censor the net and allow monopolies.
You what? All net neutrality does is force people to have an equal playing field.
It's like if roads were privately owned by companies. In that situation, the net neutrality equivalent would be believing that these companies shouldn't be allowed to stop certain people from driving on those roads because they might be competitors, giving themselves a compete monopoly and preventing anyone else from even attempting to start.
If you're an anarchist who doesn't want that, that's fine; but don't act like you're anti-monopoly when you're opposing the internet equivalent to antitrust laws.

If every company particpating in this, especially google, stopped running their websites for the entire day and just had a page up that explained net neutrality; then it would be over in an instant and legislators would get off their ass and do something about it.

You guys have no ides what you are talking about. We already have electrcity neutrality: Your power company can't charge you 50$ for using X amount of watts on TV, but 100$ for the same amount of watts on something else.

That's what net netruality prevents: That your internet provider can only charge you for how much you use, not charge you more or less based on what you use it on.

guys i'm scared
please explain what the fuck's gonna happen if title 2 is repealed

About time someone said it. Then again this thread is probably made by people from jewgle and friends to begin another internet psyop.
The last one was a gigantic success afterall.

Shush, Sup Forums.

>why don't people agree with me!
>you should be ashamed for not agreeing with me.
Gee, I wonder why no one is taking you serious.

>the shills are back from lunch, saddle up

t.google

>t.comcast

>Obama
>not cashing in on anything and everything
wew, someone doesn't pay attention it seems

WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO THE INTERNET Sup Forums?
I'M SCARED
ARE THEY GONNA BLOCK MY PORN AND MAKE ME PAY EVEN MORE THAN I ALREADY AM

So you are ok with trading one set of shackles for another? Typical.
>let's break the monopoly guys!
>by giving it to someone else! They won't take advantage of us, right?

>So you are ok with trading one set of shackles for another? Typical.
So you are ok with supporting a monopoly solely because some absentee landlord makes a profit? Typical.

Partisans, man. Cucks who don't know they're dead inside.

>I know you are but what am i
I guess this is what I should expect when I try to debate with a 12 year old. Keep sucking corporate dick, lad.

Wew. Keep pretending the dick you're sucking isn't just a different corporate dick, lassie.

I'm never getting anything through AT&T again because of this I canceled my phone service.

Net neutrality or Internet is kill forever and we riot in the streets until we are covered in luminati blood and reek of love.