The arguments in favour of net neutrality are not hypotheticals. They have come to pass in places where there are no net neutrality laws, and before the introduction of such laws.
Net neutrality does not affect your privacy. it does not give the government total control of the internet. It does allow the FCC to regulate the ISPs effectively. This is good for the consumer who then doesn't have to pay additional prices to access websites he likes at reasonable speeds, and small businesses who do not have the resources to broker such deals with ISPs.
The ISPs are not doing this to improve bandwidth. If they were attempting to improve bandwidth, there are easier and more effective ways to do so.
The FCC is acting in an undemocratic manner and prioritizing ISP lobbying over the rights of the consumer, the concept of a free market and consumer choice, and the ability of small businesses and start-ups to thrive. It should be highly suspicious that Ajit Pai was a Verizon lawyer.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Honestly, idk what to expect. Sup Forums is populated by NEETs, animefags, idiots, Sup Forumsfugees, and hobby programmers who think they're hot shit because they know Python.
Carson Cox
Yes, you are right. Please, go back to /r/eddit where you and your friends can circle jerk around your updoots and dank memes. This place was not meant for you.
Cameron Green
That, and the corporate shills busy sucking off the ISPs.
Asher Perry
>le logical fallacy meme
Logan Carter
> literally linking plebbit you have to go back cucko
Nathaniel Turner
>Not sure if troll or just retarded.
Andrew Peterson
Would you prefer if I just copypasted shit?
Jaxson Cook
always notice this patter that the pro NN shitters always complains about pol every sec they can, don't even try with your bullshit anymore is too obvious now
Parker Thomas
I would prefer you leave and never come back
Christopher Stewart
No amount of propaganda threads is going to influence the decision. Fuck off back to your reddit circlejerk.
Daniel Howard
At least I'm not shilling for Verizon. Also, if you're implying that I'm trying to be political, I'm talking about the general low level of discussion there.
By the way, most of those anti-NN blogs you see? They're funded and made by the ISPs.
Owen Phillips
Shills secretly want to end their own miserable existance even though they wont admit it. Problem is they are taking the rest of us down with them.
Eli Clark
>What is ad hominem. :~/ >ISP shillery isn't propaganda. Go such Pai's cock somewhere else.
Nolan Rivera
yeah and you know that hacker called Sup Forums? he is a russian hacker that changed the elections too!
Ethan Wilson
>What is ad hominem. :~/ >anti-NN shills just fuck off and die already retard
Aiden Collins
>Sup Forums is full of all these people i don't like >i wouldn't even come here if i wasn't getting paid to do it So get a better job, and then go back. Fucking stay there this time.
Isaiah Carter
Shills need to try living somewhere there's no NN. Let them enjoy accessing non-ISP-approved websites at dial-up speeds. That includes Sup Forums, by the way. ISPs only didn't do this before NN laws because they were considered common carriers, and the FCC would rule against them. Verion's lawsuit and Paijeet being in charge fucked that. Since you retards are low-iq to not be able to browse websites, I'll post the relevant comment here.
Angel Morris
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
Isaac Davis
>Shills need to try living somewhere there's no NN. Australia?
Jason Stewart
Also for anyone who tells you that "Net Neutrality is solving a problem that doesn't exist"... or anything along those lines:
Here's a brief history on what the internet companies were doing that triggered Net Neutrality to be put in place:
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
Gabriel Barnes
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
Now will you retards stop supporting the transformation of teh internet into some ISPs designated shitting street? Australian internet is just awful. However, it's dishonest to compare the too because there's much less of an ISP monopoly in Australia.
Ethan Nelson
The USA has significant cable TV network which the cable companies now use to provision internet access. These cable companies act in a form of cartel to give each other artificial monopolies. The end result is that if cable internet you only have one provider. If you don't want cable internet, you're going to get ADSL2.
This is a problem because monopolies are the worst case scenario for the consumer. If you have no other options then the monopoly can charge, or do, whatever they want and you have no real option but to pay them money.
In Australia, one of the only good things the ACCC did was make it so Telstra had to sell access to their telecommunication network at a wholesale price so this meant that if Telstra did something that you didn't like you could go to a competitor (my understanding is that they fucked up in other areas, so don't buy a cheer leading outfit for them)
Joshua Lopez
The thing is that it's only an ad hominem fallacy if you think that calling them retards invalidates their arguments.
Luke Rodriguez
...
Ryder Martinez
Same here, m8.
Connor Barnes
>Australian internet is just awful. However, it's dishonest to compare the too because there's much less of an ISP monopoly in Australia. It's also because there are strict corporate laws at set out by the Australian Securities and Investment Commision (ASIC), which stipulate that no business can act in a way that directly hampers another entity to perform their business. Creating internet plans that directly and negatively affect a website/business/corporation's ability to earn an income through visitors/customers is in direct contravention to this. The US and EU have nearly identical laws.
Hunter Lopez
>The arguments in favour of net neutrality are not hypotheticals. They have come to pass in places where there are no net neutrality laws, and before the introduction of such laws. Another example is straight censorship.
In 2007, Verizon blocked messages sent by abortion rights group NARAL, saying that their content was too controversial. The law that forbids common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages. nytimes.com/2007/09/27/us/27verizon.html
>The law that forbids common carriers from interfering with voice transmissions on ordinary phone lines do not apply to text messages. Title 2 makes broadband a common carrier, therefore making censorship illegal on the internet. Without title 2, Verizon can censor anything on the internet, even for political reasons.
Nicholas Powell
>undemocratic
That's what administrative agencies are by design. They are meant to be experts on some domain, do what is best, shielded from non-expert mob behavior of the populus.
Brandon Ross
Reddit trying to use meme arrows. Always pathetic are the results.
Jose Brown
>Verizon can censor anything on the internet, even for political reasons.
Oh gee, I am so glad Verizon will no longer be able to censor Google, Youtube, Reddit, Twitter and Facebook who, as we all know have NEVER censored users for political reasons.
wtf i love freeze peach now
Blake Williams
>muh ebul ISPs will fuck over internet users and censor the internet for shekels >only the FCC, run by literal telecom ex-lobbyists, can save us with its regulations >better give the government a tighter grip over the internet. that'll surely prevent censorship Imagine being this fucking retarded. Back to plebbit with you, bud.
Jason Parker
Fuck off back to Sup Forums You can't even read properly
Kayden Collins
>Shill has no argument only deflects How does one become a shill? I'd kill myself before falling that low.
Aaron Reyes
And anti-NN's arguments is literally just "reddit..."
Carson Moore
Oh, look. The redditor learned that people post Chinese cartoon images on 4chin. Well done, that'll surely earn you a bonus.
Ryan Martinez
>no argument You're outright lying, though. I'm still waiting for you to explain why you're shilling for telecom corporations cronies to "regulate" their puppeteers, and why you think that giving government more control over the internet counteracts censorship. What kind of brain damage produces this kind of doublethink?
Liam Carter
>linking reddit >What happens I other countries will happen here >All these assumptions
Luke Hill
Seriously though, we can't let him have access to the nuclear codes.
Kayden Johnson
OP here, who're you talking about?
Asher Rivera
In any location you typically have access to only 1 or 2 with decent speeds.
Brandon Price
The problem is that with regards to ISPs the laws are enforced inn a different manner, as shown by the list of examples I copypasted.
Logan Gutierrez
Yeah, except when they're busy sucking corporate cock.
Brody Gonzalez
Surely you mean small business which happen to have websites? The big ones will be affected the least, m8, since they can pay for the fast lane.
Jose White
I want NN to die so I can watch burgers taking it in the ass even more than today.
Andrew Green
That's not me, m8. Did you even fucking read the shit that I posted, or do Sup Forumsfugees have the reading comprehension of a flea?
Nolan Nelson
It'll affect the rest of the world too, because many tech companies are based in America and would affected by anti-NN legislation.
Brandon Bell
No it won't, we mostly don't use servers based in your shithole so it won't change a thing. NN in Europe is here to protect customers unlike yours, your shitty companies won't be able to do anything.
David Watson
The raison d'etait of Europe is to have a single market, it wouldnt be possible to have a single digital market without NN. Europe will not copy all the stupid bullshit the US does. NN here will probably even be expanded to prohibit zero rating eventually.
James Torres
why do people fish for comments this desperately and claim feminism?
Ethan Rogers
I should've mentioned that the picture's unrelated. Your internet will be worse without American start-ups.
John Sanchez
>prioritizing ISP lobbying over the concept of a free market You really have no idea what you're talking about. Not having NN is more pro-free market than having it, it's a market regulation. You can argue that it's a good market regulation, like forbidding lead paint in toys, but the idea that having it makes the market more free really shows your ignorance.
Austin Diaz
Ok, thanks for letting us know you have no clue what you're talking about and just swallowed up the boogeyman tale reddit told you.
I live in Portugal, we don't have net neutrality. Literally none of the bullshit hypothesis presented as consequences of getting rid of NN happened here. I have fiber internet, and probably much cheaper than you.
Jeremiah Johnson
>Your internet will be worse without American start-ups. No it won't. I try to stay as far away as possible from burgers companies. Nowadays you produce nothing of value, everything you do is done better by someone in Europe or India/China. I know you don't like it but it's the reality we live in.
Juan Robinson
Portugal has NN due to EU regulations, m8.
Joshua Robinson
>implying they are not just some retarded trolls
Joshua Hill
>Browsing Sup Forums. >Having decent opinions. That's an oxymoron.
