Nothing will change if NN is removed

What reddit thinks will happen:
>net neutrality removed
>ajit "pajeet" pai comes to the global internet switch
>turns off everyones internet forever
>forces everyone to pay 10 gorrillion dollars a second for 1kb of data.
>making new ISPs becomes a crime, you have to use what you have, can't break the contract
>every single website except facebook and cnn get blocked
>forced to suck off the CEOs of Comcast and Verizon everytime you want to access your 2kb an hour internet

What actually happens:
>neutrality removed
>"muh ebil coporations will 1984 us all!!1!!"
>single isp blocks/throttles/overcharges for a website
>every customer leaves
"b..but what if all isps decide to implement censorship and throttling everything"
>hundreds of faggots starts group funding nu-ISP projects
>"new throttle/censor-less ISP! only 10 shekels a month"
>every customer leaves their shitty ISP in favor of new superior ones
>problem solved
>those corporations go bankrup because nobody wants to come near them

Ladies (male) and gentlemen, I present the average American citizen.
>doesn't understand how free market works
>doesn't understand how monopolies are regulated
>calls themself "economically-educated"

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>every customer leaves their shitty ISP in favor of new superior ones
except they can't because there's these things that exist called
R E G I O N A L
M O N O P O L I E S

>I dont want to switch from fiber to DSL and thus regional monopoly

Regional monopolies are not a written law.
It's simply due to the expenses of digging up cable and the time it would take to build a new system of data infrastructure that ISPs are "regional monopolies".
Trust me, when literally everyone boycotts ISPs due to the supposed "mass-censorship/throttling", they'll be more than happy to bend over and get ready for new policies.
Unless of course the American system is so cucked that ISPs have power over the government.

>WAAAHHH WHY CAN'T YOU JUST SWITCH FROM AN OBJECTIVELY FASTER SERVICE TO A MORE SHITTIER SERVICE!!!!!!!!!!
(You)

>every customer leaves their shitty ISP in favor of new superior ones

The existing companies have been blocking off new companies from getting started in areas for years by paying off legislators. They're not going to magically appear.

that moment when you can't even do that because you're one of over half the total americans that only have **one** ISP

>hundreds of faggots starts group funding nu-ISP projects.

This is literally illegal in many states due to lobbyied regulations.

>people want revolution, change, whatever
>when push comes to shove they just want things to never change
Pottery
You'd switch to DSL until either new company adopted fiber or until company A decided to stop what it was doing cause all customers went away or until (you) and others made your own regional fiber ISP

What if I told you that to get something you want you have to sacrifice something else in exchange you literal retard.
>government policy is removed
>things are shit temporarily
>gets better
>WAAAAH I DON'T WANT TO GIVE ANYTHING AWAY.
I thought redditors liked change.

>regulations
>free market

>gets better
how does it get better if you have a shittier service?

no one's gonna actually boycott ISPs you retard

please take microeconomics 101, read on decreasing maginal cost and so forth. Certain sectors tend towards natural monopolies.

see

Look at other countries that don't have net neutrality. Portugal comes to mind..... it's literally all lies just to jew money out of you. I don't know if you're trolling/retarded or just really fucking ignorant but get our shit straight nigger.

Yes nigger, removing NN will not remove state regulations on ISPs

>no one is going to boycott ISPs
Well Einstein, now that you say it, it makes sense that if ISPs increase the price of internet connections to $1000 a month (as reddit believes), people would just pull out their credit cards and have that kind of disposable income.
They would boycott them involuntarily.
>brainlets

It gets better after new ISPs are established through new projects you mongoloid.

>Reddit
>NN
>Reddit
>NN
>Reddit
>NN
>Reddit
>NN
>Reddit
>NN
>Reddit
>NN
>Reddit
>NN
>Reddit
>NN
>Reddit
>NN
>Reddit
>NN


Jesus Christ, I am so sick and tired of you edgy contrarian faggots (Shills?)
>every customer leaves their shitty ISP in favor of new superior ones
What new ISPs? The vast majority of USA has access to a single ISP
Do you have any idea how retarded that is? I have 7 ISPs in my shitty-ass ~2 mil people country.
Just look at it the same way that DDR4 RAM is being handled. None of the companies want to incur losses, so they decide not to undercut each other. Prices rise more than twice and there is literally nothing an average pleb can do about it.

But somehow american ISP companies are except from this kind of jewery?
What the hell kind of bullshit is going on here. Is this active shilling against the customers' interests? Sure seems like it.

That Portugal image with website payments is a literal fucking joke.
If you can read in more than one language (sorry americans) then you can see that the prices are for PHONE DATA, it says so in the TAB THAT'S OPENED.

>It gets better after new ISPs are established through new projects you mongoloid.
remember how google fiber tried to get into various cities but failed because the regional ISP monopolies had deals with various cities to keep competition out?

There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated.

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007/09 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except YouTube. They actually sued the FCC over this.
2011/13 - AT&T, Sprint and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit.
2012 - AT&T tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money
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

Shills will argue that Net Neutrality is unnecessary because we've never had issues without it. I think this timeline shows just how crucial it really is to a free and open internet.

>phone data != internet data
(You)

Can't wait for NN to die so we can watch your shitfaces fighting.
Extrem liberalism is what caused the current situation. You reap what you sow, now bend over and take it in the ass by YOUR OWN gvt/companies.
Just burn your shitty flag your country is full of shit, you shouldn't be proud of it.

Are you disabled?
Phone data is the data (usually around 10GB) that you can use (3G, 4G, LTE).
Internet data is the amount of data for your HOME ROUTER (often unlimited if you pay for unlimited data.)
You pay for each one separately. Have you never paid an ISP bill? How underage can you be.

>No more amerigoblins on internet sperging out over race and promoting cuckholdry
What actually happens and it's beautiful.

Alternatively this.
In a sense if the mass-censoring happens and all amerifats have to deal with it would actually be superior.
It'll be glorious regardless the outcome.

>often unlimited if you pay for unlimited data
>burgers think this is normal
unlimited should be the only option.

that's not the majority of the population though
Ultimately the ISP would lose so many people that it'd have to change its policy of throttling etc or it'd go bankrupt

Honestly, after seeing some of the posts in support of net neutrality, I now understand where you're coming from. I mean it's really beginning to be apparent just how many inbred retards are online these days. Fuck it, let's start a petition to end the internet in America. Why subject the rest of the world to this batshit insanity.

>it makes sense that if ISPs increase the price of internet connections to $1000 a month (as reddit believes), people would just pull out their credit cards and have that kind of disposable income.

indeed even Saudi Arabia can't pump up oil barrel prices to $150+ otherwise there comes a point where other products/services become viable/preferable. Still they detain huge market power and can manipulate supply and prices quite comfortably.

Comcast is literally the only ISP in my town. If net neutrality is removed then it's either pay pajeet jews more money so I can access Sup Forums, or go without internet.

>bitches about net neutrality talk
>writes a diatribe about net neutrality.

BURGERS GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY INTERNET REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

GET RID OF NN NOW
>GET RID OF NN NOW
GET RID OF NN NOW
>GET RID OF NN NOW

BURGERS GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY INTERNET REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

Except most of those examples have to do with DRM and phone locking and don't even have anything to do with the Internet. Most of your examples of mobile carriers blocking services have to do with the carriers disabling apps on the phone hardware they sell/lease to consumers. NN has fuck all to do with DRM and app locking.

No one is dumb enough to buy your propaganda retard shill faggot. Haha

I don't bitch about Net neutrality talk. I bitch about bitching about Reddit talking about NN.
I hear redditors drink water. Consider cutting that out of your diet.

>What reddit thinks will happen:
But user, you are the reddit. What you think will actually happen contradicts what you wrote.

If ISPs really start charging for access to websites, Google and Amazon (supposed proponents of NN) will just start offering VPN service through the same servers that ISPs can't practically block.

>Is this active shilling against the customers' interests?
Yes. There is evidence that the FCC helped create fake comments in support of repealing Title II. Verizon and Comcast have been fighting to get Net Neutrality removed for years. The amount of money that has been thrown at conservatives to make talking points that their followers blindly repeat is astronomical.

>If ISPs really start charging for access to websites,
that's the opposite of how these systems are being implemented in other countries

the reality is you will be capped on ALL data, and then you'll have SPECIFIC websites that do not count toward your data cap
this way the isp is able to control which services you're allowed to use, and charge you overage fees when you use what they don't want you to

there is no room for vpns in this scheme, the vpn is going to count toward the regular cap

Same shit. Google or Amazon or someone who is on the list of sites that don't count toward your data cap start selling VPN service and then none of your traffic counts toward your data cap.

then they'll be removed from the sponsored services list once people start using more than 5% of their possible bandwidth according to the line lease again

>>single isp blocks/throttles/overcharges for a website
>>every customer leaves
This won't fucking happen, every major ISP has a geographic monopoly on their own particular areas

If NN is all that is stopping ISPs from overcharging for websites, why don't ISPs already charge more for their service in general?

There is a limit to the power of ISPs' monopolies and collusion, and if they can't get away with charging $5 more for all their services then they can't get away with pic related. If they could, they'd already be doing it.

If you think the average consumer never leaves Facebook, trying leaving your basement once in a while. Consumers know that pic related is bad.

They do charge more. In America you pay a lot more than most other countries for shittier speeds. In areas where there's only one ISP (such as my parents) they get gouged out the ass by their ISP and random ass shit they tack on.

Your fallacious argument assumes that there are limits to corruption when in reality it's a very slow burn. Why do you think Comcast has been slowly rolling out caps across the US? It's because they can get away with it, and charge more for their service as you posit.

The wikipedia page dismantles all of the NN supporters arguments

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Like this choice quote:

"Sometimes Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will charge some companies, but not others, for the traffic they cause on the ISP's network. French telecom operator Orange, complaining that traffic from YouTube and other Google sites consists of roughly 50% of total traffic on the Orange network, made a deal with Google, in which they charge Google for the traffic incurred on the Orange network.[35] Some also thought that Orange's rival ISP Free throttled YouTube traffic. However, an investigation done by the French telecommunications regulatory body revealed that the network was simply congested during peak hours."

NN Supports BTFO
How can they ever recover?

Why don't they charge *even more*? According to you retards, ISPs should currently be charging you just under the cost of starting your own ISP.

or this one,

"Proponents of net neutrality regulations say network operators have continued to under-invest in infrastructure.[202] However, according to Copenhagen Economics, U.S. investment in telecom infrastructure is 50 percent higher than in the European Union. As a share of GDP, the United States' broadband investment rate per GDP trails only the UK and South Korea slightly, but exceeds Japan, Canada, Italy, Germany, and France sizably."

Devastating.
All of their lies are refuted by wikipedia.

I'm curious as to why you want to make such a fallacious argument.

I already mentioned how they're charging even more. They do things gradually and piece meal, so that you don't even know you're being charged more until it's too late to do anything.

Americans are already gouged by ISPs, so I don't know why you're defending such a greedy institution unless you're one of the shills.

so it's the communities fault that they are accessing a website that they paid for? It doesn't matter what popular website it is, that traffic WILL be used on other websites that will use the same bandwidth.

I don't know if you guys are shills or just plain old dumb.

>wikipedia
(You)

>so that you don't even know you're being charged more until it's too late to do anything.

When does it become too late to do anything? Why? What changes?

I don't know what American Internet price trends are like, but here in Canada where we have a similar monopoly/collusion system (worse even... most people still have data caps here) our prices have consistently been going down as long as I remember. And people who are grandfathered in must opt in to new plans, so ISPs cannot make changes gradually without people noticing.

People will notice when low-income Americans can't afford to use the Internet, no matter how gradual that change is. If prices are going up, that's not far away -- Internet is already a big chunk of expenses for people living paycheck-to-paycheck.

Okey dokey dumbo, consider these two closed systems,

1) NN. Cost of video streaming is $200 a month. You pay $200. Youtube pays $0.

2) Non-NN. Cost of video streaming is $200 a month. You pay $100. Youtube pays $100.

In your scenario 1, you pay more. In my scenario 2, you pay less and Youtube has economic motivation to use better compression and allow users to download instead of forcing streaming over and over of the same content.

1 is online only. 2 works offline after initial download.

Yes, now you realize how dumb you are.

> doesn't understand how free market works

Oh I understand it just fine. I just realize that the free market system doesn't work in the US because bribing is legal, thus allowing monopolies to happen.
Monopolies, in case you didn't know, prevents free markets from working, because a free market cannot be the choice between "one or nothing".

> doesn't understand how monopolies are regulated

I also understand how monopolies SHOULD be regulated. The thing is, in the US they are NOT regulated precisely because bribing is legal.
Currently there are KNOWN monopolies going on in terms of ISPs literally owning entire cities, and even entire counties, because they bribed the right people into looking the other way. People have been pointing out these monopolies for YEARS, and yet nothing gets done because the people who are SUPPOSED to do something, ignores it because they're afraid of losing their monthly salary from Comcast/etc.


You really shouldn't speaking about others falsely claiming to be "economically-educated".
You clearly either don't live in the US, or are one of those delusional Trumpets who cannot see past their own religious worship.

>government subsidizes infrastructure used by large telecom companies
>regional monopolies form
>if you don't like it use another competitor :^)
>there are none

Yeah, but we should repeal NN, comcast obviously has my best interests in mind

>Cites Liberalpedia
>Supports MSNBC being force fed to millions of viewers
>Believes this is a change for the better
>Wants censorship through the suffocation of independent sources

Imagine what you have in Canada but far worse. ISPs can make gradually changes in America often under the nose of the average American (hence why data caps have become more and more common).

And the major flaw in your argument is that you seem to believe internet is a right, not a privilege. The right and the various interests supporting the ISPs have continually made the claim that the internet is not needed. They're laying the foundation for making the internet worse for the poor and working class.

That's because of laws for net neutrality, and this is a loophole to avoid the laws because the laws are poorly written

Of course the Internet is a privilege. That's why ISPs can't raise prices or people will stop paying them. Poor people can use the Internet in libraries, coffee shops, and their workplaces.

Muh netfkix

I don't have the option. There is literally just the cable company (charter). The other "options" don't count because they aren't even really broadband. A 5mbit DSL connection isn't broadband. Cellular isn't broadband because of absurd data caps, latency, and isn't much faster than DSL anyway. Satellite is slow, and high latency, so that doesn't count either.

So if I want 50-100 mbit connection, real broadband, I have ONE option: the cable company.

Almost everyone else in the USA is in a similar situation. There is no free market, and never will be.

We need net neutrality.

Internet IS a right. Society is built around it, and people have a right to participate in society.

I agree, but that's not the argument that the ISPs and the right is making.

>supports hollywood business model
>inefficient streaming, no downloads, no torrents
>watch twice? pay twice
>pay again to ISP because bandwith isn't free
>start NN campaign when ISP demands payment for infinitely growing bandwidth demands
>attract useful idiots who will argue Binge On is unfair to muh startups and freeze peach

I like entrepreneurship and small businesses competing on a level playing field. I like the idea of a small company, or a single person with a good idea, being able to leverage the Internet to compete even with big companies.

Net Neutrality makes that possible. It is in fact my commitment to capitalism and free markets that causes me to support NN.

lol
right on cue

That argument too is BTFO on wikipedia,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

Those in favor of forms of non-neutral tiered Internet access argue that the Internet is already not a level playing field, that large companies achieve a performance advantage over smaller competitors by providing more and better-quality servers and buying high-bandwidth services. Should scrapping of net neutrality regulations precipitate a price drop for lower levels of access, or access to only certain protocols, for instance, such would make Internet usage more adaptable to the needs of those individuals and corporations who specifically seek differentiated tiers of service. Network expert[212] Richard Bennett has written, "A richly funded Web site, which delivers data faster than its competitors to the front porches of the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way on an equal basis. This system, which Google calls broadband neutrality, actually preserves a more fundamental inequality."[213]

This. Given the mess we're in, it's the only solution, until someone figures out how to level the playing field. If shitters like Comcast were to make a comeback, so be it. As it stands the free market is a race between a legless man and a Ferrari.

That article corroborates my stance on the issue. I don't even know what you're doing. Making my case. Thanks, bro.

The economic freedom maximizing stance is pro-NN. It's a paradox, but some regulation in this case increases market freedom for individuals. This might be the first case ever, but the internet has opened up some new epistemological landscapes which our old economic theories don't quite fully account for.

>hundreds of faggots starts group funding nu-ISP projects
>"new throttle/censor-less ISP! only 10 shekels a month"
>every customer leaves their shitty ISP in favor of new superior ones
>problem solved
>those corporations go bankrup because nobody wants to come near them

Americucks have been complaining about their shit internet for ages, why didn't this already happen 10 or 15 years ago?

You literally cannot get beyond step one in your plan. There will be no new ISPs. There will be no competition. This is will not happen and it's been explained over and over again. We've got two or three threads going with details why this won't work.

Because it's not even remotely that simple. Poor decisions at the local government level have pretty much screwed that from ever becoming an option. Basically, contracts with municipalities.

its really simple

take what the major ISPs want and do the opposite

Exactly. Lack of foresight has painted us into a corner and the only option out is to walk all over that fresh new paint job and start again, with a plan.

Do you seriously think Youtube doesn't pay for the bandwidth they use?
You're not a shill. You're a complete and utter moron who let the shills win you over.

>ISP legally allowed to fuck you over
>thinks they won't fuck you over
Americans are so adorable

Healthcare
>hundreds of faggots starts group funding nu-hospital projects
>"new price gouge-less healthcare and pharmaceuticals only 10 shekels a month"
>every customer leaves their shitty health insurance and doctor in favor of new superior ones
>problem solved
>those old hospitals go bankrupt because nobody wants to come near them

Does't work for the same reason. An ISP isn't just a business you can "pull yourself up from your bootstraps and do it yourself."

you don't really understand how people access the internet, do you?
There's a reason that bell labs affiliates control telecomms, and thats because they own all the infrastructure since 1860.
You can't just implement a new ISP, it requires a huge amount of infrastructure

You'd have to charge up the ass in order to cover the cost of all your start-up fees

isn't the argument against net neutrality that the free market will fix all the problems?

-Net Neutrality
--Arguments against
---Counterweight to server side non-neutrality

>That article corroborates my stance on the issue.

The you agree with NN opponents. Welcome aboard.

Pretty much. sums it up.

ISPs will have the ability to charge you more, so they will. When was the last time you had a bill that went down because it could? I can't think of a scenario where a for-profit company chose lower profits to make customers happy, or because its the "right" thing to do.

Shit when I was a revenue manager for a hotel we literally charged as much for hotel rooms as we possibly could. Sure we could have lowered our rates, but why would we? The only reason we would lower rates is if we had to, never by choice.

Why are the ISPs funneling money into anti-NN legislation if it will destroy them?

It's like you retards can't possibly think 'hmm, these ISPs are lobbying for something, maybe if they get want they want it's positive for them.'

>hotel manager explains how the internet works

>1) NN. Cost of X MB is $200. You pay $200. Youtube pays $200.
>2) Non-NN. Cost of X MB is $200. You pay $200 + $100 for access to premium site. Youtube pays $200 + $10000000 for priority bandwidth, otherwise ISP will give priority to Hulu.

>revenue manager explains how the variable prices of goods work

Fixed for you my good friend

Hey burgers. While you're explaining net neutrality to the rest of the planet, how about clueing us in on health care and gun control?

Sure thing Muhammad :^)

>tfw $85 per month for 8mb/s
Thanks Comcast

Thanks Tyrone

Thanks, Cleetus.

shieet

based americans

go india!

I don't think anyone actually believes that the instant NN is repealed ISPs will start charging for access to websites.

The thing is that when NN was introduced it was done to head off the direction ISPs were going.

Yeah, what a horrible direction things have gone since. Look at what has actually happened.

T-Mobile created Binge On, an optional account setting that gives you unlimited video streaming at 640x480 resolution.
EFF sperged out about Binge On, saying it is "just throttling" and against Net Neutrality.
T-Mobile customers actually like Binge On, and don't opt out, because free video.

The world is ending. We must end this free unlimited video now! Net Neutrality depends on it!!!!!

>Binge On

Oh, awesome! So my start up company that does video will be eligible for this, right? T-Mobile users will be able to access my data without it counting towards their cap?

Nope. Only the giant corporations with the $$$ to bribe T-Mobile get to be on the special list of approved stream providers.

Competition has been reduced.

The market is now less free. Removing regulations actually made the market less competitive. The libertarian intuition has failed because it was created in a time before the internet, and hasn't been updated to account for this new paradigm.

But it is against Net Neutrality user. That is unfair to the small video streaming sites not included in T-Mobile's Binge On. You should pay more or those small sites might go out of business.

yeah sure. that's why we see Tucker cars driving along all these Fords and Chevys

retard

So, I'm supposed to pay more money to keep some startup I've never heard of alive?

No no no. Net Neutrality is about NOT paying more money. Don't look at what actually happened. Listen to our made up stories about what WILL happen!