Net neutrality

Time is running out.

Other urls found in this thread:

theregister.co.uk/2016/03/16/tennessee_kills_muni_expansion/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Television_Cartel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_River_Steamboat_Association
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cartels
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I thought Americans hated such communist concepts as government regulation of companies

Americans love being fucked by companies so if net neutrality disappear then everyone wins except communists

Won't it just fuck over netflix and google. Why should anyone care if corporations get torn down by others.

Net neturality never really existed in the first place.

It is more of a gentlemen's agreement between major telecom companies back in the day before Web 2.0.

Ever since video streaming and other media started to eat away at old media. It was natural for old media to buyout and/or put pressure on teleco industry to give up the "gentlemen's agreement".

The old "wild west" internet is long gone Sup Forumstards you just haven't woken up to it yet.

They won't be able to get away with this kind of stuff in Europe though, they are far stricter with this kind of stuff.

Hopefully Americans will follow suit.

Net neutrality is not what you fags think it is. We need less government regulations not more. You have much more leverage against a corporation than a government entity. This is a government power grab and all you little commie bernie voters eat it up like bernie's cummies.

>Won't it just fuck over netflix and google

no

...

>Won't it just fuck over netflix and google
no, the exact opposite
they will become stronger as smaller alternatives to their services die out

If you post that on Sup Forums this might work.

I'm starting to think this is pointless. People don't give a shit. Why should I care for them?
>but you're affected too
Not really. Not a US citizen. I don't really use internet based services because they're all pretty damn shit.
The biggest concern is the freedom of speech aspect but I value internet media extremely lowly. Anyone who browses sources of information that rely on their popularity to float might aswell just look at another set of lies.
>it didn't exist
>It's gone now and you just don't know it
Contradictory statements. Only a moron couldn't stay consistent in less than 2k characters.

The title II reclassification never went into effect, that's what he is referring to.

youtube is hosted in the US tho is it not? but google have data centres in the EU so are non US IPs served data from the US or the closest mirror?

>Communism

>not communism

Fucking bump for justice

...

Good. Let it run out.

Net Neutrality is a solution for a problem that does not exist and have never existed.

thisYou'll have to pay to view shit that isn't owned by Google,facebook, etc. the big companies will probably come with a *basic* plan

Canada agreed to never do this so welp. I look forward to even more tech companies coming up to Vancouver and Toronto.
We already got a massive injection of them when Trump became president. Our economy is doing better and better and even Blackberry isn't failing anymore.

Livin' the good life.

Why because you saw some meme on reddit that said you would?
The moment an ISP did that kind of crap, they would lose business almost immediately and people would boycott the services that colluded with them.

You trust consumers to be smarter than they actually are. Mobile companies are already doing this and nobody gives a fuck.

>they would lose business
No they wouldn't. Look at cellphones and shit. There are only like 4 major ISPs. People don't have the option to just not use the service. They'll pay up. And if not? Well, they're stuck with their *basic* plan

Not if they all do it at the same time. Every single ISP in US sucks because they aren't even trying to compete.

>You trust consumers to be smarter than they actually are.
If they suddenly had to pay to use Google or their Facebook, they would go insane.
You cannot fundamentally change the internet to [pic related] without extreme blowback and abandonment of these services in favor of free alternatives.
It's so insane to say that this scheme would work in 2017, there are dozens of ISPs, alternatives to landlines in grandfathered areas (satellite internet, 4G internet) which themselves are losing their "grandfathered" monopoly privileges.

The number of companies (I.e. Websites, ISPs, etc) needed for the collusion needed is almost unthinkable and rest assured, not all of them will collude because they will have the opportunity to grow their company by not colluding.

Even idiots are more intelligent than you think, especially whenever their wallet is on the line.

And ISPs would be retarded to paywall Google and Facebook. They won't. They'll paywall everything else, and offer extra gigabytes for precisely Google and Facebook so you get linked to more shit and feel the need to pay up.
Remember, businesses are smarter than you think too.

Of course there will be massive panics. That shit will settle down after a few days. People will start paying.

I hope you're right, but you give way too much credit to the masses. They'll gladly fork over money so they can post pictures of themselves all day, I bet you that.

Government control of the internet will end in disaster and censorship. The "net neutrality" topic is a meme meant to mobilize the masses into agitating for their own censorship.

The FCC is not your friend, being unallowed to say certain words on the radio is bullshit, and the net neutrality law that Google and friends are supporting specifically OUTLAWS some types of speech online.

Net neutrality means giving the government additional control of the internet and what people can use it for.

inb4
>muh Netflix

So can someone just use tor with a configured bridge, so that ISP has no clue tor is running, and browse .onion sites? if so, fuck NN. Let the people suffer while I continue browsing :^)

>there are people against net neutrality

laughing my ass off, hilarious. Enjoy your "internet" jjajajajjajajajajaj

>he wants this

>Net Neutrality is a solution for a problem that does not exist and have never existed.
because it's a preventive measure you retard
>people still get murdered so we might as well make murder legal since people still do it anyway

you are lumping government control into one big boogeyman
it places restrictions on isps favoring certain traffic. it does not give the government any authority over what can be on the internet.

>muh netflix
Every time

>thinking businesses are a monolithic entity
Businesses aren't working hand in glove with one another to screw the consumers as much as they can.
They have competing interests and such a scheme as you described would be disastrous for most ISP customers on the proposed plan and they consequently would seek business elsewhere. Since there is a ton of money to be made from people wanting the traditional model, there would be an ISP offering the old scheme which would capture significant market share from companies, right now, from dominant players. It would be a business mistake for large ISPs to enact such a plan because they would lose their dominance in the industry, which in time would be far more costly.

If what you described was a viable model, why didn't it occur before "net neutrality" regulations were in place?
Once again, net neutrality is a solution for a problem that does not exist.

it's not gonna happen. I'm resigned to a future controlled by google, apple, MS and facebook. They will decide which legislation works for them

>If they suddenly had to pay to use Google or their Facebook
they would paywall EVERYTHING BUT the biggest players, user. they'll reinforce de facto monopolies, hinder every possible competition (anyone below #1), trim the landscape of the internet down so it's easier to manipulate everyone. they'll be hindering smaller players who wont get much of a fight

>pay for basic internet
>pay for extra video package
>just to be able to then pay for netflix

Replace them with what? There is one ISP in my area. ONE. If they decide to say "lol no more anime waifus on Sup Forums for you" then there isn't really much I can do about it.

>Businesses aren't working hand in glove with one another to screw the consumers as much as they can.
>what is price fixing
have you seen the price of ram lately? plenty of sellers too

>he thinks net neutrality and content policing are the same thing
net neutrality is about forbidding content policing by ISPs. you pay for a data rate and volume, what that data is exactly is nobody's business and they cant justify charging you more or less based on what it is you consume. that is what nn is about

if a commodity is expensive due to collusion, someone outside the cartel will want in on that cash and undercut it

of course nobody can provide a RAM factory out of his ass but the market will find a way

>They have competing interests
Is this why we have antitrust laws against market collusion?
> such a scheme as you described would be disastrous for most ISP customers on the proposed plan and they consequently would seek business elsewhere.
It may bother them but you'd be surprised how few people make the choice to switch. Remember "customers don't know what they want". Most will accept the new scheme given enough incentive.
>Since there is a ton of money to be made from people wanting the traditional model,
Since when? Most traffic goes to 8 or so sites. People want an internet connection, few are demanding specifically an uncapped unrestricted connection. Ask around.
>It would be a business mistake for large ISPs to enact such a plan because they would lose their dominance in the industry, which in time would be far more costly.
You can't lose when you have the monopoly, backed up by state laws to top it off.
>If what you described was a viable model, why didn't it occur before "net neutrality" regulations were in place?
Mobile plans were the testing ground. Why did data caps start appearing in the recent years and not since the internet opened up?

>If what you described was a viable model, why didn't it occur before "net neutrality" regulations were in place?
because back in the days company had SOME sense of ethics and just didnt think of something as disgusting and unjustifiable as making people pay more or less based on what the content of their consumed data is

One leads to the other, you retarded

Isn't that shit already happening with people being forced into bandwidth-limited plans but are able to watch netflix without having to worry about they monthly data allocation?

explain why the majority of people in the us only have one choice for high speed internet

>because it's a preventive measure you retard
Sounds like a crackpot belief to think such widespread collusion by thousands of businesses on a scale never before seen, which, would run contrary to economic incentives (why the fuck wouldn't another ISP just pop up and just offer traditional internet?).
It's a "preventative measure" for something not can't exist.

>the market will find a way™
it will be 100 years before someone can overcome the anti-competitive behavior
some markets are so consolidated that nobody will join in. it's a dumb risk.

because the government has ensured nobody can compete, unless they have billions like google

>of course nobody can provide a RAM factory out of his ass but the market will find a way
argument of divine intervention by your own admission

>because the government has ensured nobody can compete
how?

>someone outside the cartel will want in on that cash and undercut it
So you expect some capital owner to throw billions in infrastructure to compete in a tight market? It'll take decades to even get a return on that investment. There's not that many people willing to be entrepreneurs, and with the credit capabilities to fund such an infrastructure dependent business.
And let's not even talk about the patent monopolies, like the one making x86 a forced duopoly where not a single new company can legally get in.

Because people don't have the money, expertise, or any of the other thousands of things you need in order to make a competing ISP?

That and these same ISPs generally get municipal competitors made illegal by bribing legislators.

literally how?
>"hey ISPs, you cant do any form of content restriction like making people pay more for bytes sent to social media that isnt facebook"
>they comply and make their service neutral, i.e. you pay for rate and volume of data flow and no other factors apply
>???
>as a result you cant say nigger anymore
anti-nn muricans are fucking delusional

lobbying from the big boys. Here's a small example

theregister.co.uk/2016/03/16/tennessee_kills_muni_expansion/

agreed, that's a shitty patent that should not have been granted in the first place

The solution to that isn't less regulation. The solution is throw corporate executives in jail for the rest of their lives for bribing people and/or send them to the firing squad.

>you retarded

unfortunately lobbying (i.e. bribery of public officials) is perfectly legal, you can't throw people in jail for it. What you can do is ensure that the people being bribed can't do what Verizon wants them to do

Additionally not only the people that actually did the bribing, but generally the heads of the companies should also be imprisoned or executed even if they had nothing to do with it, along with the top shareholders. That is an incentive for them to behave.

>offer traditional internet
what you call traditional internet IS neutral internet, it's what nn tries to preserve by telling everyone they have to keep their nose out of exactly what data you consume

Every other day with this shit.

God, I want them to kill net neutrality just so I don't have to see the million fucking petitions about it.

Good news, we can make it illegal.

well good luck with that. I believe it's easier to block government from blocking small ISP than it is to make the Dems and Reps kill themselves financially

My German mobile ISP throttles VoIP so severely, it's unusable. I'd have to resort to VPN on my phone which drains the battery faster

I hate these threads
>OP posts "NN is dying!"
>Doesn't define what aspect is dying
>Doesn't post any article or any info to clarify stances
>Nobody else in the thread does either
>Everyone has some vague misunderstanding of what may or may not happen
>So let's get the government involved!
>Let's trust every company involved to do the right thing too!
>Let's obfuscate what's going on and if you oppose, you're a retarded commie bootlicking fascist!

Legislation in the US for NN is not the same as what the EU has for NN.

Must be an american thing, I will only start to care if they try it again in Europe

>Legislation in the US for NN is not the same as what the EU has for NN.
you guys need to get your shit together as a country then if an anti-neutrality law is being passed around under the label of neutrality and benevolence

Network Neutrality supported by the same people who think
online bullying
hate speech
revenge porn
fake news

are all problems that can be fixed with government intervention. NN is the path to a china web in America and you retarded liberals buy it because you don't want liberty its antithetical to your dogma.

So how do you plan on doing that when the big ISPs will just bribe legislators to prevent it?

maybe you should actually look into what NN actually is
it's anti-isp control, not pro-government control

it would be very difficult but not even 5% as difficult as it would be to outlaw lobbying altogether. I guess you'd have to rely on congressmen getting their money from outside the telecoms business

wont happen, eu is more benevolent than that

>Is this why we have antitrust laws against market collusion?
Then what would be the need for net neutrality regulation if such laws exist?
Your response that they do not have competing interests because "then why do we have antitrust laws" is also non-sequitur and extremely simplistic. We are talking about literally 1000s of businesses. They have different interests. We're not talking about a few rail lines or a few big banks.
>Since when? Most traffic goes to 8 or so sites. People want an internet connection, few are demanding specifically an uncapped unrestricted connection. Ask around.
Since they first started paying their fucking internet bill.
A change in the scheme of payment for some packaged internet plan would be extremely bothersome for most people.
>You can't lose when you have the monopoly, backed up by state laws to top it off.
There isn't a monopoly. Once again there are dozens of ISPs and it is possible to form new ones.
One would break ranks simply to capture to the market longing for the traditional internet plan.
>Mobile plans were the testing ground. Why did data caps start appearing in the recent years and not since the internet opened up?
Because if everyone used unlimited data, there would be major slow downs on the network. Capping was a natural response with the advent of much more demanding webservices, HTML5 and javascript rich websites, video streaming, etc. There is a capacity and inherent scarcity in radio transmitted data. The capacity of any one tower is limited. It costs ISPs next to nothing for data via internet delivered through broadband/cable/fiber optic lines.

maybe you should actually learn the difference between rhetoric and the actual law that gets implemented.

nn tells ISPs they cant do policing

thats not saying the govt can do policing in their place

you idiots will call literally anything "govt intervention" to have a reason to oppose it

>Businesses aren't working hand in glove with one another to screw the consumers as much as they can.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Television_Cartel
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_River_Steamboat_Association

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cartels

I don't think anybody knows what it is supposed to be here in the US. They use a convenient name for the title of the regulation, but nobody knows the details or conveniently leaves out the nuances of the legalspeak that makes it horrible.

>hurr durr let's just remove power from giant companies that have huge lobbying power but getting rid of that lobbying power is too hard hurr duuurr

I don't care if there are multiple ISPs in the country. There is one ISP in my area that I can use. So, if I want an internet connection, they are the only choice.

How has NN been implemented in ways that give the government control of online content? Give me a hard example, not a theoretical one.

>hurr durr muh ISP monopoly hurr durr

and you idiots will gladly accept totalitarianism if it screws over the corporations man. What policing do the ISPs do? Never seen it myself. Have seen FBI and DHS take down web pages and I have seen Australia ban small tit woman on the web. I have seen UK government block free speech on the web.

You aren’t wrong but people are easily fooled by rhetoric. Net neutrality is nothing more than a power grab and the first step to a Great Firewall (gotta make sure all the traffic is “fair”, right?). 99% of them don’t know what QoS is or Zero rating or how that intersects with NN.

Lemmings on this board should be calling for the breakup of monopolies like Comcast instead.

Trumpcucks will literally be the end of this great nation.

>he still lives with his parents and hasn't bought internet himself before: the post

its up to you soros lemmings who work against America to save it

That was a bad way of him explaining it. ISPs dont care about policing, but they do care about milking every dollar they can. They will provide lower speeds at higher costs if NN is repealed.

I live in Europe bitch, I can choose between 4 providers

It was never fully implemented.

So please tell me how I can get another ISP in my area when there are no other ISPs in my area? I'll be waiting, fucktard.

Net neutrality is specifically about doing shit like QoSing the hell out of folks going to sites outside of your network. It's basically like health insurance bullshit. On that note, along with ISP executives, health insurance executives should also be shot.

>we dont have a monopoly here so obviously those amerifats are delusional hurr

>his country didn't fight with monopolists
this is what you get for living in a shithole

It won't change anything because we don't have net neutrality as it is.

Straw man.
If you read the post, it is clear that I didn't mean a few firms but businesses in general, the very narrowest you could bring what I said down to would be the number of businesses that would need to sign on board for the packaged internet scheme to work, which would be in the thousands.
Once again, sheer numbers alone, they have competing interests.

The scenarios you linked serve as an absurd comparison.
These were cartels that involved a few firms over industries with extremely high barriers to entry, where their interests coincided.
There is only one ISP in your area because of local government zoning laws that granted them exclusivity.
Rest assured, there would be another ISP if these grandfathered zoning laws did not exist.

>fight against monopolists
>come in here and complain about us fighting monopolists

>(why the fuck wouldn't another ISP just pop up and just offer traditional internet?).

Because ISPs own the physical lines. You need a gorillion dollars to string up new broadband lines across the US, Google fiber is going at a snail's pace and they have the money. They still can't cut through local regulations being exploited by ISPs to argue that google fiber can't run on the same poles. The laws of physics prevent anyone but a mega-corporation from competing.

This used to be the case for utilities...until they were deemed utilities. You can't choose from 10 different water suppliers simply because you can't have 10 different pipelines running to your home, hence regulations mandating that the lines must be open to anyone who can pay a lease. The same is true for power companies. And dial-up providers, in the late 90s every town had a dozen local companies offering dial-up, because AT&T didn't monopolize the phone lines anymore

> fight positions you don't ever understand because big daddy cheeto told you too
honestly at least when comcast erases Sup Forums from their "basic" plans I won't have to talk to mouth breathers like you

>Hopefully Americans will follow suit
America is a country of leaders, you scum cowtowing European serf.