Anti - Net Neutrality thread.
tl;dr Internet will be the same as it was from 1990-2015 (no NN in these years)
2017+ the internet will still be the same. Don't fall for plebbit scare tactics.
Nobody will even notice or care that NN is gone so that's why plebbit is working overtime (and for free) to shill this.
Other urls found in this thread:
cnet.com
fortune.com
wired.com
businessinsider.com
washingtonpost.com
freepress.net
savetheinternet.com
pcworld.com
rt.com
en.wikipedia.org
broadcastingcable.com
techcrunch.com
gizmodo.com
twitter.com
>1990-2015 (no NN in these years)
t retard with no clue or context for what he's posting about
yeah.
>finally upgrade from dial-up in 2013
>sites are faster, use web as I always do
>2015
>title 2
>nothing changes
>14/12/17, NN repealed
>nothing changes
I have not seen any changes to my experience, or the experience of most anyone but a few users, and when ISPs have overstepped, consumers have been quick to take notice, complain, and ultimately reverse the abuse. All of the recent attempts, such as ISP attempts to block/favour PSTN/Cellular service over OTT VOIP providers (and subsequent reversals) have been well documented in the media thus far.
It appears the consumer feedback loop is not completely broken, and the ONLY thing NN will bring, is government _censorship_ of content on the Internet. That's the one side NN shills don't tell you about.
The FTC is more than capable of reining in attempts at anti-consumer/anti-competitive practices. The FCC should simply stick to technical regulations.
t. an Internet and Web user
also, pretty much puts a nice cap to the whole debate:
>"Net neutrality has always been the status quo on the internet precisely because no monopolist has been able to shift the market equilbrium in a way that changes the situation. Making net neutrality dependent on the FCC, which can be readily co-opted by the targets of regulation, allows the market as a whole to be manipulated at once by an organization that actually *does* have a monopoly.
>-2015
oh so when major isps were blocking access to Sup Forums and other undesirable websites
Literal sheep. Keep shilling for your glorious orange leader.
>Nothing will chang-
>2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it. cnet.com
>2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
>2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. fortune.com
>2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. wired.com
>2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. businessinsider.com
>2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. washingtonpost.com
>2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money. freepress.net
>2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place. savetheinternet.com
>pcworld.com
>2017, Verizon caught throttling customer data in direct violation of FCC Net Neutrality rules - rt.com
Enjoy your rupees, shill.
>mad plebbitor has no argument
>luvs his king nigger law
go the fuck back you stupid piece of shit
Most of those aren't even true.
So basically you only have around 8 fake happening? That's all you can come up with?
fucking this. everyone is fear mongering again as usual. fucking libtards who don't know SHIT about how technology or the internet works. they literally cannot block off websites because like they so claim that they "might" (notice they have no concrete evidence that they will) because then the internet would literally be only gmail, twitter, netflix, etc. as opposed to... the internet. and the retarded image circulating of portugal internet is also FAKE NEWS. your home internet is unblocked and that image is for MOBILE 4G internet where it gives you extra data for streaming video or music or whatever. other european countries are doing this too but it's mobile only and although shitty, it's not "blocking" off sites like the libtards claim. literally nothing will fucking change for the US. verizon was already doing a similar thing with their "4K mobile streaming" package upgrade. why does everyone have their panties in a twist again? oh right because they're too retarded to actually do research. i'm sick of seeing all these false accusations and fear mongering.
T. Things that never happened
>let's remove something with not negative effects in a the hope that the stuff it prevents will stay gone
HHHHHMMMMM
Look at brazil OP.
Nice FAKE NEWS defense with no real countering points. Classic trumpster.
All I have to do is look at China and Germany if I want to know what it's like for the government to control the internet.
Here you go:
blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/media-botching-coverage-netflix-comcast-deal-getting-basics-wrong.html
>fucking libtards who don't know SHIT about how technology
How stupid are you?
en.wikipedia.org
>The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was an office of the United States Congress from 1972 to 1995. OTA's purpose was to provide Congressional members and committees with objective and authoritative analysis of the complex scientific and technical issues of the late 20th century, i.e. technology assessment.
>Congress created the Office of Technology Assessment in 1972 through Public Law 92-484.[1] It was governed by a twelve-member board, comprising six members of Congress from each party — half from the Senate and half from the House of Representatives. During its twenty-four-year life it produced about 750 studies on a wide range of topics, including acid rain, health care, global climate change, and polygraphs.
>Criticism of the agency was fueled by Fat City, a 1980 book by Donald Lambro that was regarded favorably by the Reagan administration; it called OTA an "unnecessary agency" that duplicated government work done elsewhere. OTA was abolished (technically "de-funded") in the "Contract with America" period of Newt Gingrich's Republican ascendancy in Congress.
Thanks Gingrich and republicans in general.
Neck yourself user.
That has nothing to do with anything, and inefficient program got axed boo hoo
The link you posted has absolutely nothing to do with what
posted. What are you doing?
relatively well-presented thoughts, which i will completely disregard coming from someone who had dialup until 20FUCKING13 HOLY FUCKING SHIT are you 60? do you live in a trailor park? or alaska? what the fuck? i have no respect for your tech opinions for this very simple fact that you found it acceptable to have dialup well into the 2010s
Death to capitalism.
libtard this, libtard that.
wew lad
>That has nothing to do with anything
Really?
>>fucking libtards who don't know SHIT about how technology
The OTA literally existed so congressmen from both sides of the fence could get impartial information about things they knew nothing about. Do you want your congressmen voting on things they know nothing about? Like NN? Or the economy?
>inefficient program got axed boo hoo
>>During its twenty-four-year life it produced about 750 studies on a wide range of topics, including acid rain, health care, global climate change, and polygraphs.
You didn't even read my post. Kill yourself.
OP, will you get a trip and then come back in a month or two to apologize?
That is if your ISP will let you come to Sup Forums.
how about you neck yourself and do better research than wiki-fucking-pedia?
le slippery slope fallacy
>tl;dr Internet will be the same as it was from 1990-2015 (no NN in these years)
>the way we use the internet hasn't changed during these years
this
Net Neutrality creates Walmarts of the internet, that's why the oligopoly supports it and why huge swaths of the internet died since the inception of net neutrality.
Net Neutrality is a barrier to entry and anti competitive because an end user using less bandwidth should in fact be allowed discounted rates compared to someone who doesn't.
If I want high speed internet that throttles netflix because I'm never going to use it and as a result costs less, the government shouldn't be stopping my mutual agreement with the ISP.
It's absurd to believe that classing the internet the same as TV cable is a good way to prevent it from becoming more like TV cable.
Net Neutrality didn't exist until 2010. It correlates with the internet turning to cancer, and certainly not with the internet as a boon of humanity as it was pre net neutrality.
>Net Neutrality didn't exist until 2010
>How to spot a paid shill in under a second.
Net neutrality has no impact on anything you just said.
>It'll cost less for something I don't use
>A for profit organization will charge me less for something I don't use
>The same companies that bundle cable packages of channels where someone is only interested in 4
Nigger where I live I have literally one option for internet that isn't satellite (which costs $100+ a month and about 15 mbps with 50gb data cap) and I'm still paying $70 a month for 35mbps so I can get throttled whenever I try to stream video or torrent (both legal and illegal). Something needs to be fucking done.
Net Neutrality is named like the Patriot Act. It's actual affect is nationalization of Broadband as a Utility service, under the iron-fisted control of the FCC.
You don't understand what it even is, and it's large corporations with paid shills that support it, who coined it in a thinktank, and got a bunch of retards to believe the doublespeak.
>We need to control the internet because of this non existent threat!
Sounds like any other power grab.
Yes, they will be legally allowed to customize contracts for specific use, you're a retard if you can't understand the benefits to that, and Net Neutrality makes it impossible.
>Right wing invasionist fucktards from T_D and Sup Forums are shilling to remove regulations that prevent Comcast from forcing people to only get their news from MSNBC and not Infowars and Fox
Anyone who opposes net neutrality is 100% a putin owned, anti-American, fascist troll.
Comcast won't do this because of public outcry, no law is needed. Some isolated incident that created a huge backlash can't go mainstream because of said backlash,
t. Useful Idiot.
>we don't need net neutrality, the isps won't fuck us over
>we don't need a wall, the illegals won't kill anyone
And there's anti-trust issues.
China has net neutrality.
They're obedient capitalist slaves. They will literally die for capitalism - until they realize dying actually hurts. We're talking about pampered upper middle-class white boys here who've never wanted for anything.
>Posts 8 different articles showing violations of NN, posts one article of something completly irrelavant.
>Thinks hes won.
Retard this will work on Sup Forums, but not here so fuck right off back there
You can't just decieve people by posting an article that looks semi-relavent to the issue at hand.
This is Chinese government tier lying. -∞/10
>hurr comcast blucks muh netflips!!
>gets proven wrong
>back to le Sup Forums is his argument
China treats the internet as a public utility and censors it like the FCC censors television and radio.
>It's better to be a government slave than a corporate slave.
It's one and the same.
No they don't you fucking retarded faggot. The Chinese government micromanages internet access worse than even corporations.
Holy shit the corporate shilling. I cum for the day I see google heads on pikes.
I literally can't wait for Trump to tweet out "Ending NN to stop demented site Sup Forums from poisoning youth. SICK SITE #MAGA"
...
> government control of the internet that bypasses congress
> not negative
laffin
Exactly, because the corporations already own the government and pay them to act against the people's interests. There is no dystopian future. The future isn't even now. It was fucking yesterday.
>Posts irrelavant shit about something he doesn't know about as a means of deflection
>Gets called out on said deflection
>Hur dur why are you calling me a /poltard/
Fuck off
stay there.
By the way, how are rightest scum not government drones at this point? The "muh gubmint" argument sort of implodes when you have a blatantly corporatist puppet government.
all corporations lobby
with NN you're just siding with tech companies over ISP's
how about we don't pick sides, faggot
Fuck off shill
>inb4 reddit jews etc
good argument but brainwashed idiots will ignore everything you said by saying "no u"
When are people going to fucking realize that capitalism was an experiment meant for a society only consisting of a couple million people not 300 million. This net neutrality bullshit is just another example of these slimy fucks manipulating the populace to convince us to entrust them with our freedom and we'll fucking do it because people are too proud and too stupid to get off the bandwagon.
I don't. I want you all dead. Fortunately, mankind is exterminating itself and I won't have to deal with you vermin for much longer.
reminder to report all spam threads about net neutrality
/thread
>>It's absurd to believe that classing the internet the same as TV cable is a good way to prevent it from becoming more like TV cable.
NN classifies internet like a phone like.. nixxing NN classifies it the same as pay-for-package cable and makes it more like cable. why are you posting if you aren't even educated or capable of making coherent points? is making your inbred redneck daddy proud by booming throughout Sup Forums the shitty politics he raised you on that important to you?
>this is why we have Sup Forums for containment
Everything has already been changing for the past two decades. And all for the worse. Nothing is "happening". It already fucking happened. Google took over Youtube and ran it into the fucking ground, every single site in existence bloated themselves with ads, media sites started blocking people without cable accounts, etc., etc., etc.
Look at
It's a very existent treat, but yeah, the current NN law (the one created under King Nigger) is a shitfest
But Verizon's Poojeet will make it much worse and normalize throttling of services that aren't the ones from the ISP
this
Pay for package exist because of media companies not the cable companies dumbass. That's why they have programming disputes all the time, because they want more money from the cable companies and in the end the subscribers pay more.
Back to >>/reddit/
Net neutrality isn't siding with any corporation. It's literally the application of utility rules to internet, making it a dumb pipe that doesn't give preference to one kind of traffic over another.
>Contarian to the point where you'll spread your asscheeks for telecom shills if it triggers libruls.
i lived in a small town of no more than 7000, then moved away
Reddit wants NN
That's cute
The website that slows T_D intentionally
Reddit only wants NN for other companies
Not for Reddit
>the chinese government manages the internet
>net neutrality classes the internet as a public utility
same shit
Utility rules means pay per usage. Like water and electricity.
>Net neutrality isn't siding with any corporation.
Haha, then why are many of them for it. You know who they are.
>isolated incidents that people unanimously hate
>extant threat
2016-onwards marks the era where contrarianism is going too far
>can't show an example of NN having caused a bad thing
Who cares?
According to the FCC it destroys small ISPs. You useful idiots are protesting to keep legislation that kills any ISP that's not Oligopoly.
Maybe actually read about this stuff instead of blindly bandwagoning.
broadcastingcable.com
>then why are many of them for it
>why don't corporations wants ISPs to be able to throttle their services arbitrarily
Hmm I wonder
>The website that slows T_D intentionally
Do you really believe this?
>According to the FCC
>according to the FCC
>The ISPs pledged to continue to protect an open internet
I'm sure ISPs with no competition in certain areas aren't going to jew people more now that they won't have to treat data equally.
t. teleco shill
techcrunch.com
>stop ddos attack by temporarily blocking a website
>is considered censorship
If there weren't incredible barriers to entry in the ISP market then they'd be forced to because Joe Blow could make an ISP that doesn't jew people.
gizmodo.com
Liberal judges blocked the federal government's travel ban more than twice and just recently blocked an order to cut funding to sanctuary cities. Surely these hero judges will block this FCC bill.
The current Open Internet rules include a "general conduct standard" that allows the FCC to look, on a case-by-case basis, at practices that don't violate the brightline rules but could adversely impact the internet's openness and take action if they do.
"The General Conduct rule represents perhaps the worst of government regulation, the ISPs said. "It is so vague and open-ended that we are concerned that the Commission would invoke it to sanction conduct for which we have no advance warning. Moreover, the mere threat that the Commission may use the General Conduct rule to impose rate regulation affects our ability to obtain financing."
Supreme Court will overrule them.