See guys? It's not so bad, you're just over reacting. Net neutrality is bad for the consumer...

See guys? It's not so bad, you're just over reacting. Net neutrality is bad for the consumer, competition is good! Big companies would never lie to us! They care more about the consumers than they do money, see!

Other urls found in this thread:

businessinsider.com/russia-trolls-senate-intelligence-committee-hearing-2017-11
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

Only if you're able to tell me when a narwhal bacons XD
(It's midnight LOL!)

>trusting comcast
Why are idiots allowed to be on the internet again?

>against lawful content
Who's in charge of deciding what belong in that category, though? Because the last time they were, they blocked *all* torrent traffic.

> against lawful content

We can do anything that we want and anything we don't like will be labeled as unlawful.

Also
> Comcast

I'm pretty sure everyone that wants to repeal NN on this godforsaken website is an ex-Redditor trying way too hard to distance themselves from it. Fuck the 2016 election and the scum it brought.

>lawful content
*blocks torrenting*

>Comcast
>not Jew city

>lawful content

Sup Forums is not lawful and in fact stuff like CP and gore gets posted here, they should block it.

That's why they've spent millions lobbying again the laws that prevent them from throttling/blocking legitimate content?

This thread brought to you by Comcast® Xfinity™.

...

...Take my upboats.

>how does repealing net neutrality benefit consumers?
hurr go back to r3ddit soros shill cuck n*ggers MAGA
>how does repealing net neutrality benefit consumers?
its gonna epic troll le SJWs xD
>how does repealing net neutrality benefit consumers?
jewgle violated muh free speech so we have to punish them
>how does repealing net neutrality benefit consumers?
um, like, its a government regulation and those are bad??
>how does repealing net neutrality benefit consumers?
do you want the GOVERNMENT to CONTROL the INTERNET you fucking COMMUNIST???
>how does repealing net neutrality benefit consumers?
Netflix and Google are abusing ISPs they need to pay up *rubs hands angrily*
>how does repealing net neutrality benefit consumers?
Your 1-2 available ISPs might lower the price of your Internet service if they feel like it.
>how does repealing net neutrality benefit consumers?
Nothing bad is going to happen, stop asking dumb questions goy!

How is Google abusing NN exactly?

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.

>not bring able to recognize sarcasm
I think you guys might be autistic

They're not. Its really weird Libertarian propaganda that actually makes no sense every time you think about it. Google has a lot of fucked up shit but pretending it doesn't have a lot of competitors is annoying.

You do know that current regulations are making it almost impossible for Google to break into the ISP market, right?

go back to Sup Forums.

No, that's AT&T suing and slowing down their process. I feel like Google Fiber would have happened by now if it wasn't for the lawsuits.

Wat?
Libertarian propaganda? What the fuck are you rambling about? I honestly don't know what you are trying to say

What is with the talking point that Netflix needs to "pay their fair share" and shit? If the ISP sells a million people 100mbit lines when it can't actually handle all those people using their lines then that is the ISP's problem. It's not up to Netflix to subsidise greedy kike ISPs that oversubscribe their services.

Boomer retards, aka nu-pol, don't understand networking.

And people don't think Sup Forums is the worst board

Good
Stop being a nigger

People do know Sup Forums is the worst board.
Sup Forums doesn't contain many of those, though. It's mostly mental minorities.

Oy gevalt goy, yes, we lobby so hard and throw our reputation under the bus only to change... absolutely nothing!
Nothing will change! Nothing at all! What, you think we want the rights to throttle and segment the internet however we want to USE them?

Haha, silly goy! Oy gevalt! If anything, we spent millions of $ so we can make the internet CHEAPER for you! Yes goy you heard that right, we want to make LESS money! HEHEHEHEHEHE

what I don't understand is why the local ISPS in other first/second world countries aren't doing all the awful things the american ISPs will do if NN is removed?

Why aren't BT, long known to be one of the worst fucking companies in existence when it comes to shitting all over their customers, blocking or throttling competing services? I mean hell, they privately own the damn infrastructure itself so they'd be well within their rights.

Why aren't ISPs in sweden, norway etc doing these things?
Why will american ISPs immediately block access to everything and why won't a competing ISP then start up who simply says "We don't block because we want your money" and then instantly get rich?

>wants to consume content without being locked into proprietary software, expensive subscriptions, constant monitoring, fucktons of ads, being cut off from my content whenever the company pleases without reason because it's in the EULA, and shitty business practices
>is considered a nigger
You probably click "express installation" on all your programs, don't you goiym?

So it's be in Google's benefit to have them removed?

>when a competing ISP starts up
Ahaha, when? With all the lawsuits and lobbying money they spend to keep competition out, they're basically trying to force a monopoly. A law that kept any single company from owning too many coporations was voted to be repealed by the fcc and ISP's.

>be American, in 2030
>net neutrality is gone, 50 bucks a month for Verizon UltraSpeed(tm), with extra MountainDew(tm) Gamer package.
>after a long day of work, finally sitting down and wanting to play some vidya
>Mid game, just about the receive a Assassin's Creed 16 lootbox.
>PC shuts down, no power
>go to the electricity meter and see what's wrong
>"Warning! You used your monthly electricity cap for the PC! Please pay 30 dollars to renew."
>Fuck it, go to sleep
>brush my teeth, want some tap water
>water is 10 dollars a gallon because it is summer

>At least Hillary didn't win the election!

No, its framing Google as wanting to keep net neutrality because its the reason they own a monopoly because of Android. It makes no sense.

There are people who actually welcome that future because MUH FREE MARKET. There are people who think water shouldn't be free ever not even if you ask for it.

>Why aren't BT, long known to be one of the worst fucking companies in existence when it comes to shitting all over their customers, blocking or throttling competing services?
Because then customers would just change to a different ISP, thanks to LLU anywhere there is BT infrastructure you are probably going to have your choice of a large amount of ISPs.

>I mean hell, they privately own the damn infrastructure itself so they'd be well within their rights.
BT Openreach != BT, it's also heavily regulated so that all telecommunication companies are guaranteed equal access to it.

There are laws preventing new ISPs from being created, even small-service ones?

I see. But again in the same vein as what I said earlier, what is stopping an existing american ISP from simply not blocking anything and raking in all the customers who leave the ISPs that DO block things?

>losing NN will make water expensive

>There are people who actually welcome that future because they don't live in the country it would happen in and they'd like to see American taken down a peg

>So you start information war to make the country destroy itself by polarizing the public

businessinsider.com/russia-trolls-senate-intelligence-committee-hearing-2017-11

BT might "own" the infrastructure but in reality they can't do jack shit with it unless the government agrees. If they had free reign, they'd literally hold a monopoly on British internet, and you wouldn't have any other ISPs available.

>There are people who think water shouldn't be free ever not even if you ask for it.
hooly shit, how retarded do you have to be to think a basic human right should be charged for?
What's next, breathing tax?

I mean its fairly obvious tribalism wasn't this heated years ago. The fact that people who defend AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon exist now really says a lot even when presented with a lot of evidence to the contrary of their ethics.

Ok but the UK doesn't have the same NN rules as the US does so why aren't they doing that?

Yes, it's almost like the fires of tribalism are being fanned by certain actors who don't have a stake in Western Civilization

no, but the same arguments for NN can be made for water, gas and electricity

I love how its now just far right vs. far left. What happened to the degrees in the political spectrum? What happened to moderates? They don't exist now. The most powerful tool that America has ever invented to get where it is now, the compromise, has been made invalid via tribalism.

Why are they calling themselves centipede ladies and shit?

Because the government will disagree. The ministers set up internet the same way they set up the gas and electricity market in the UK: public pretty much owns the infrastructure and then leases it to providers for front facing services. The providers then scramble between each other for a larger percentage of the market share. If any one of them gets too big, like BT did once, they get forced to break up. End result: endless competition that at least works a little to drive down prices.

This is the basis of the idea that UK doesn't need NN legislation, because it's kind of forced on everybody by default. But who knows in the future because Virgin is already testing what they can do with their mobile packages.

I don't know about other countries but here in Spain there are laws so that ISPs can't hold monopolies and fuck people over

The moderates let the 2007 crash happen and then pretended everything is fine, and still do, when nothing is fucking fine and under their glorious leadership we'd be on course for another crash fairly soon. They have no credibility any more, so it was time for the radicals to step up.

Ah, thank you for such a clear answer!
I was having trouble understanding because, obviously, if my ISP (TalkTalk) told me they were about to start limiting/blocking certain services then 35minutes later i'd be with a different ISP and just couldn't understand why that isn't the case in the US.

Thanks.

>2007 crash
>moderates let it happen
bankers let it happen

didnt know big banks were moderate...really got my mind going...

Not nevcisarily, but for one the cost of entry is extremely high. It's a big reason why airline companies have an oligarchy, because how many people can afford the infastructure for an airport and planes? Same with internet, you need a lot of money to lie down cables and many more. Plus there's the whole regional monopolies thing. Wherever you live you'll most likely have you pay for one type of Internet service, because they have better coverage in that area, and no oher company can get in on it. Plus, the lawsuits from ISP's. The main reason that Google fiber isn't being talked about anymore is because whenever Google tries to set it up in an area, the ISP sues the state out the ass in order to keep out competition. If you have money, and man power (which ISPs have a lot of) you can pretty much control the market, and even the laws.

The same bankers who paid for the moderates' election campaigns and then basically owned their asses. Like shillary, who has wall street's hand so far up her ass that when she's talking you can see the fingers flapping in her throat.

All the moderates in the US are best buds with wall street, where do you think they get their election campaign dollaridoos?

BT has no special access or control over the infrastructure as regulations guarantee equal access to all service providers. They legally can't do that, and as a result there's a lot of competition. I have 15 different providers in my area who offer fixed-line connections with a minimum speed of 20mbps. The problem in the US is that most people do not have this choice and are entirely at the mercy of the monopoly/duopoly in their local area.

Meant to reply to On mobile rn, fucked it up.

Good luck with that two-party system.

>hillary is now a moderate
do you enjoy just making shit up for fun or?

Compared to Bernie, yea she is

I knew you were going to make this argument, connecting Hillary to bankers. Guess what? She was not president in 2007/2008.

But yeah, good luck with Trump. And good luck with your health care. And good luck with your Internet. And good luck with your environment.

We will see how it goes.

I trust my ISP far more than I do google/twitter/facebook

Been with them for 15 years straight. Not one issue the entire time. It's a service that I pay for and enjoy. They have earned my trust, thank you.

So the crux of the problem is that companies like Netflix are using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth right? But as a consumer I have paid for my Xmb line, so why should I have to pay more for different services when what I am paying for is a set amount of bandwidth, why does it matter if I am using 90mb of Netflix or 90mb of porn?

This whole repealing NN laws stinks of ISPs who are over provisioning, which should be fucking illegal and now crying to the government about it. Also the level of either shilling or dumb fuck tier retards is through the roof on these NN threads everywhere.

>why should I have to pay more for different services
...you don't

>why does it matter if I am using 90mb of Netflix or 90mb of porn?
...it doesn't..

You realize there were no net neutrality laws before 2015, and nothing happened.

If they repeal it literally nothing will change, its just pathetic redditors crying about nothing.

I'm not even for trump, both him and shillary are a retarded choice. But yea she wasn't president in 2007, it was bush and he got his fair share of support from wall street too.

At the moment it doesn't, but the whole point of repealing NN is so that structured billing tiers can be set up, any costs of which will certainly be passes to the consumer and people are fucking dreaming if they think any savings will be passed onto them.

NN is pretty structured IMO

>we WILL lay cable if the government gives us another billion dollars
>like last time
>heh I think they bought it
>Is this still recording?

>Pay for bandwith/data usage
>Use however the fuck you want
>Structured

????????

Lawsuits are definitely a problem but there's an easy way to fix this shit. Awhile ago a few senators introduced "one-touch" legislation so that only one fiber line would be run and ISPs would have to share it. You can't go digging up utilities every time a new company wants to install fiber.

Why does the government give money to ISPs to build infrastructure instead of just building infrastructure themselves? Is that too "communist" for Americans or something?

I said back in 2016 that it was a lose-lose election. Like many others, as it turns out. Which coloured boot do you want stamping on your face? Hmm, red today.

>citation needed

Listen, you are talking out of your ass. If this was an idea consumers would accept, it would have been put into practice a decade or more ago.

Let's say they do end up doing something like that. It will be something like what we have now being "unlimited" internet, and then a $29.99 a month package with Facebook and other social media sites along with wiki etc. thus lowering the barrier to entry. And that's at the worst case scenario

No. AT&T doesn't want to compete with a better service. Period.

sue them if they really throttled it in future

There it is again. "If they could have gotten away with it, they would have done it." Except they tried to in many different ways. The FCC stopped them. Fuck's sake, Verizon wanted you to use their stupid wallet services. What more is it gonna take than BLATANT EVIDENCE of what they're trying to set up?

>...it doesn't..
son, that's where repealing net neutrality does matter. comcast will gladly let you stream nbc without trouble.. but if you want that porn then it's probably lower quality.. even if you PAY for it from the "porn provider"

and since 2015 what happened?
the telcos released a wal-street earning report stating that their profits weren't affected by net neutrality laws?

it's fine. but when my lone cable provider starts throttling traffic and picking favorites I'm switching to my other broadband choice. It'll be like going back in time since the DSL provider offers 12 megabit service! at least I have choice!

never better to be a consumer.

Maybe in fucking 2006 mate, also gore isn't illegal

>Verizon wanted you to use their stupid wallet services
So don't use it

We have this in New Zealand and England. Yes, the companies who own the lines (Chorus and BT) are cunts, but at the end of the day they are only responsible for maintennance and laying new lines. In NZ, we can now get gigabit unlimited packages for just over 100 dollars a month, but I guess that's communism so whatever.

Why am I talking to a wall. THEY BLOCKED OPTIONS.

>$29.99 a month package with Facebook and other social media sites along with wiki etc
like I have now for $29.99 a month, plus every other website in existence?

welp.
better switch internet service providers. how many choices do you have?

>So don't use it

If you lived in a Verizon monopoly area you wouldn't have a fucking choice. Kill yourself libertarian moron.

One. Verizon.

>shill logic

>Maybe in fucking 2006 mate
t. CP poster

#Block4channow

>but if you want that porn then it's probably lower quality
>citation needed

>Why am I talking to a wall. THEY BLOCKED OPTIONS.
Who? Use a different service. I work in IT, bet you can't name what ISP we use. Here's a hint it's not Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon or any other ISP you can think of. Just in my city of 500,000 people there are 15+ ISPs

You have options, if you refuse to use them that's on you.

Are you calling me a shill for saying that framing Google as exploiting net neutrality makes no sense? What?

Sup Forums will never be blocked on account of all the normalfag trumpies invading Sup Forums. Soon as all those boomers die, and the russian bots stop posting, that's when it will be blocked.

>like I have now for $29.99 a month, plus every other website in existence?
Okay, and? That won't be changing. For your ISP guess that would be a $9.99 option then

In my city of 130k we have 1 ISP.

checkmate shill

>Just in my city of 500,000 people there are 15+ ISPs
>citation needed

Oh man, I sure will believe you, user. You sure fooled me. Where do you live, user? Yeah man, clearly, even though 30 small ISPs are asking for net neutrality to be kept in place, you're right. Even though the big three own what is essentially an ISP cartel, you're right. Even though Ajit Pai is a former Verizon lawyer who clearly is colluding with his former employers, you're right. Even though the big three pooled their money in lobbying to get this removed, you're right. Even though Ajit Pai lies about what an ISP does in that it transmit content, not produces it; you're right. Even though most people have only access to the big three, somehow you're right.

How about this? Fuck off, you lying cunt.

Many people only have one ISP choice dumb fuck.

>If you lived in a Verizon monopoly area you wouldn't have a fucking choice. Kill yourself libertarian moron.
>One. Verizon.
Bullshit. What city are you in? Wanna bet there are other ISP options? You probably have never even looked.

Name your city, now. Are you scared you will be called out? There's more than Verizon

I'm calling you a shill because somehow leads to

Pajeet shills BTFO