What are net neutrality supports even whining about anymore?

What are net neutrality supports even whining about anymore?
It seems like a big made up boogeyman now that has no basis in reality.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xGq7TaiikWc
mises.org/blog/what-true-internet-reform-should-be-plus-ron-paul-responds-fcc-vote
mises.org/blog/ditch-net-neutrality-now
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/30-small-isps-urge-ajit-pai-to-preserve-title-ii-and-net-neutrality-rules/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Bye burgers! It's been a hell of a ride. We'll be missing you (not really)

(((net neutrality)))

>it's really gonna happen this time I swear guise

So it's illegal for a company to compete with big ISPs and leftists think this is somehow a free market?

How fucking dumb are these people?

We have spent millions and years, corrupting our regulatory agency past the point of a joke in the process, to achieve Verizon and our stated objective of scrapping Net Neutrality in its entirety.

We, Comcast, support Net Neutrality.
>Yes, not only are we crooks, we're schizophrenic crooks.

If they're not going to change anything, why are they spending millions of dollars to force this change of legislation?

That doesn't make sense.

It's not leftists, it's people on the right who thinks this is somehow going to make a "Free market", except a free market can't work like this...

Look what happened to telecommunications faggot. Read into the history of MaBell

It's not a free market.

What we need is a free market.

Abolish local government monopolies.

MaBell, a government monopoly.

Sup Forums is not lawful content and should be blocked.

Why don't people want a free market in ISPs?

BuzzFeed will NEVER be blocked.
(BuzzFeed is LAWFUL content)
(BuzzFeed DOES NOT break Comcast LAW)
youtube.com/watch?v=xGq7TaiikWc
FUCK COMCAST. AND THEIR LAW.

My interest is in unlawful content.

Why does Net Neutrality have to include Title II? Comcast obviously has vested interests in not being regulated by the FCC, but so do I?

The FCC censors content on grounds of pornography and obscenity. They're the guys that made sure no bad goy could see a toilet flush in a movie until the freaking 70s. They're rats and control freaks, fuck them.

Just have a simple 4-12 page bill for Net Neutrality making it a federal offense to throttle internet based on content. What's wrong with that? Do you really want internet to become a fucking utility?

Is the current isp market free and if not why not?

>What's wrong with that
The problem is that the government enforces local monopolies.

ISPs should be a free market instead of a government monopoly.
We would get much better service and lower prices this way.

>Is the current isp market free
No

>and if not why not?
wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

>industry regulations means government monopoly
It literally doesn't, there's no government ownership involved.

I mean't government created monopoly
as in the government and their interventions(banning other companies from competing) is the cause of the monopoly

>Comcast obviously has vested interests in not being regulated by the FCC
Comcast and Verizon have 'vested interests' in not being regulated by an organisation that is so corrupt, its run by one of their lawyers and is now basically their federal lobbyist agency? Comcast are very interested in being 'regulated' by the FCC indeed - they spent as lot of money subverting these patsys to their aims. They have no interest whatsoever in the FTC getting interested in them, this is why THEY NEED the FTC, as (nominal) 'regulator'

>Do you really want internet to become a fucking utility?
YES, as thats the ONLY way to ensure an even slight measure of consumer protection from these thieving quasi-monopolistic fucks.

>Just have a simple 4-12 page
You could do it in a fucking .JPG - works for everyone else? ONLY COMCAST AND CO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. WHY?

>as in the government and their interventions(banning other companies from competing) is the cause of the monopoly
That has literally nothing to do with Title II and everything to do with local government and subsidised infrastructure.

Comcast doesn't really support net neutrality. They throttled torrent traffic.

>YES, as thats the ONLY way to ensure an even slight measure of consumer protection from these thieving quasi-monopolistic fucks.
HOLY SHIT
This would be the WORST possible outcome, you have no idea what you're talking about.

We need to ALLOW COMPETITION not restrict it even further.

Why do you want shittier services and have to pay more for them?

I'm not even talking about that.
The government only allows one isp in many places in america. Other ISPs aren't allowed to compete.
This is the point.
mises.org/blog/what-true-internet-reform-should-be-plus-ron-paul-responds-fcc-vote
mises.org/blog/ditch-net-neutrality-now

Then just use a different ISP.

OH WAIT YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT MAKES THIS ILLEGAL AND BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS SUPPORT THIS SHIT

>I'm not even talking about that.
Then what was the purpose of replying to the guy talking about Title II then? Jesus Christ, you're some goalpost shifting cunt, aren't you?

>The government only allows one isp in many places in america. Other ISPs aren't allowed to compete.
Has literally nothing to do with the FCC and everything to do with local government, which is why you shouldn't listen to cable company shills trying to conflate the issue and claim that deregulating the FCC is good.

>Has literally nothing to do with the FCC and everything to do with local government, which is why you shouldn't listen to cable company shills trying to conflate the issue and claim that deregulating the FCC is good.
All I'm saying is this local government bullshit IS THE MAIN PROBLEM and we should be focusing our energy on that.

The feds need to pass a law banning local governments from creating monopolies on isps, water, power and gas.

We need a free market in these things.

>We need to ALLOW COMPETITION
well, lets agree to dismantle THE ONLY FUCKING REGULATION currently stopping the big 3 (COMCAST, VERIZON, AT&T) getting even richer. THAT WILL REALLY HELP BREAK UP THEIR QUASI-MONOPOLSITIC CONCERT PARTY HERE, WONT IT?
stop living in lala land. There is a de-facto Monopoly, they are trying to entrench their position, remove ALL REGULATION and make the situation even worse. The issue is NET NEUTRALITY. Don't let them confuse it. DONT LET THEM MAKE IT WORSE.

Dismantling Title II doesn't help. While Title II doesn't create a free market in itself, it certainly patches up the current situation by regulating existing monopolies by defining them as common carriers.

Sure, in an ideal world those monopolies wouldn't exist in the first place, but seeing how they already do, dismantling what little regulation exists is a fucking huge step in the wrong direction, especially when there appear to be no such plans for combating those monopolies in the first place.

That's my two cents.

>ell, lets agree to dismantle THE ONLY FUCKING REGULATION currently stopping the big 3 (COMCAST, VERIZON, AT&T) getting even richer.
Why who gives a shit?

The main problem is the government is restricting competition.
If there was competition, isps would enforce net neutrality because it's what the consumer wants.

>There is a de-facto Monopoly
Yet and leftists and liberals support these monopolies with their support of local government monopolies.

We need to allow total competition so prices come down and service increases.

Is this thread gonna be filled with bullshit against Net Neutrality about why defining ISPs as utilities is bad?

>It is

Great.

>Why who gives a shit?
See >The main problem is the government is restricting competition.
You can do both. Dismantling current regulation only makes the situation worse.

>If there was competition, isps would enforce net neutrality because it's what the consumer wants.
But there isn't and it will not be in any conceivable future. So what arguments are there for removing Title II?

If they don't want to throttle or charge based on origin or bandwith, why go against net neutrality? This is like someone saying they want the law for murder repealed and then stating they won't murder anyone, and that there's totally no underlying motive.

>If there was competition, isps would enforce net neutrality because it's what the consumer wants.

>Take away consumer protections
>This will lead to competition in ISP cartel.
>If it doesn't, blame the liberals

For fuck's sake; can you not make this an us vs. them FOR ONCE in your life?

>Why who gives a shit?
about Comcast subverting regulatory bodies, removing consumer protection laws and getting even richer? Well, you obviously don't. Which makes me wonder, why you even on a thread WHICH IS ABOUT THEIR ATTEMPT TO REPEAL NET NEUTRALITY? As you say, if you 'don't give a shit' - then GET TO FUCK OUT OF THE WAY AND STOP CAUSING NOISE AND CONFUSION FOR THOSE WHO DO CARE.

BUT THE LIBTARDS, THE LIBTARDS TEARS THOUGH, BUT LIBERALS ARE UPSET

For fuck's sake, net neutrality is NOT a bipartisan issue. This is not healthcare. There are no taxes going towards this. Literally LITERALLY 99% of the country benefits from it. YOU ARE BENEFITING FROM THIS. WITH NO CONSEQUENCE. Why shoot yourself in the foot on purpose and go against it? WHY?

What consumer protections?

How is violently enforcing comcast be the only isp in your city and threatening to shoot any other company that tries to compete with them a consumer protection?

Why don't you idiots want a free market?
Why do you suck comcasts cock so much?

YES, I'm totally AGAINST net neutrality, me.
>lrn 2 reed.
or is this from this strange Comcast timeline, where all regulatory attempts to dismantle Net Neutrality protections are somehow actually being 'for Net Neutrality' ?

Jesus fucking Christ, these ISP shill threads are getting stupider every day. They always reek of some grandpa trying to sound 'cool.'

right wings support money in politics -> politicians get bribed into creating municipal monopolies

It's a pointless regulation because in a free market NN would be strongly enforced anyway.

It's like enforcing that gravity should bring objects down to earth.

Money in politics is not the issue.
It's the size of government that is the issue.
Back in the late 1800s government/corporate collusion like this was extremely minimal because the government was so small.

Thirty ISPS said keep it. The big three want it gone.

>It's a pointless regulation because in a free market NN would be strongly enforced anyway.
But the market isn't currently free, ergo in the current situation the regulation definitively isn't pointless.

>It's like enforcing that gravity should bring objects down to earth.
A more appropriate analogy would be that putting sanctions on Iran is pointless because it ought to be a democracy where basic human rights are respected anyway.

If you as a big guy ISP decide to throttle content based on origin, you can actually prevent new ISPs from competing because information needs to travel on a connected network to reach its destination. Since the big guys own the lines, cell towers, etc., they can force new guys to pay them to be able to "compete" or outright shut them down.
The whole guise of allowing smaller guys to compete is antithetical to a big corporation's goals, and total sham given how the Internet is structured. Not to mention, new guys likely don't have permits or mineral rights to the land between them and potential customers as those rights likely have already been purchased by whatever big company is in their area.
This entire idea of "competition" would be as ridiculous the water companies telling us that charging us on what our water is used for in our homes is all so that the little guy water companies can compete and choose not to charge us. Meanwhile everyone with half a brain knows the little guy water company can't just go digging tunnels underneath the town, lay a pipe into everyone's homes, uproot existing pipes owned and maintained by their competitors, and then use their competitors pipes to flush away sewage by their customers on top of that.

Why do liberals love comcast and Time warner SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much that they support violent government monopolies that make them the ONLY ISP allowed?

Post more ancap loli

Defend fast lanes I dare you

This argument would make sense if comcast wasn't in favor of breaking NN. What makes you think they want to willingly shoot themselves in the head and lose control of their monopolies?

>let's regulate stuff cause it's not agreeing with me

This is how brainwashed Google has made you. The regulation only befitted select individuals and hurt the internet market more than helped it. When Title 2 is gone, you guys will not be the ones harmed by it. It's going to be Google and Netflix. They're the ones pushing this entire thing because they're about to have their wallet hurt the most.

The only reason to be on their side is because you're a fan of their services, which i say tough luck.

That is not what title ii but okay

See and and I would definitively prefer a free market. But there are no concrete plans on removing existing monopolies, so what arguments are there for not regulating existing monopolies in order to avoid cartels and protect consumers?

>But the market isn't currently free
My point is that we need to focus our energy on freeing the market instead of giving the government more power.

>This entire idea of "competition" would be as ridiculous the water companies telling us that charging us on what our water is used for in our homes is all so that the little guy water companies can compete and choose not to charge us. Meanwhile everyone with half a brain knows the little guy water company can't just go digging tunnels underneath the town, lay a pipe into everyone's homes, uproot existing pipes owned and maintained by their competitors, and then use their competitors pipes to flush away sewage by their customers on top of that.
WRONG.
If it was allowed, it would happen.
History disagrees with you.

Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. … During the latter part of the 19th century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City … competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry … Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905.

-Burton N. Behling, "Competition in Public Utility Industries" (1938), in Harold Demsetz, ed., Efficiency, Competition, and Policy (Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1989), p. 78.

They BLOCKED bittorrent you asshole

I wasn't talking about title ii though.

I was talking about local monopolies which is a much more important issue.

And then the FTC told comcast they can't do that

>its a pointless regulation
Its funny, everyone else APART FROM COMCAST & CO seemed to feel it was necessary? I wonder why that is? Were there no de-facto monopoly situation, which ISPs further enforce with lawsuits keeping competitors out, why then, maybe we wouldnt need it so much. But there is. And we do.
>like enforcing that gravity
the only gravitational movements these fucks are concerned with be the direction of their share price. Americas Worst Company 2017. Yes, letting these fuckups regulate themselves even more, can only go well that.

Who fucking cares. Isps can block who they want if they suspect criminal activities or it jeopardizes their connection, which has been the bulk of all the cases that happened.

>My point is that we need to focus our energy on freeing the market instead of giving the government more power.
That's not the issue.

Title II already exists. Why should the government make efforts in removing it, only to empower existing monopolies?

As I already stated, putting focus and energy into dismantling monopolies is not mutually exclusive with the continuation of already existing regulations that limit the power of existing monopolies.

You're deliberately avoiding to answer this.

that is not the current issue how is it more important

See and

Oh. I was being trolled. K.

>Its funny, everyone else APART FROM COMCAST & CO seemed to feel it was necessary
You're a little deluded on "everyone."

Everyone is Netflix, Google, and their partner companies. And the consumers below them are just listening to the propaganda. The ignorant alone is shown in how none of them knows what Title 2 means or how the internet works.

But the FTC didn't tell Comcast they weren't allowed to throttle Netflix, which ended up with some arbitration for an unknown sum of money between them.

DONT LET SHILLS CONFUSE THE ISSUE.
NN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 'INCREASING COMPETITON'
REMOVING IT WILL -NOT- INCREASE COMPETITON. IT WILL MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE.
DO NOT BE SIDETRACKED BY SHILLS.

>it's trolling for a business to manage its services properly for the good of its customers and to keep out of legal trouble

Sup Forums are a bunch of dumbasses.

I think NN is a scam. But i also don't trust ISPs. The part that bothers me is the "lawful" content part. What worries me is that sjw cancer would love to make many harmless things illegal. Things that are undefinable like "micro aggressions" or "hate speech". These commie faggots would love to make a cartoon frog like pepe illegal but if I was to draw a swastika on mickey mouse they sure as hell wouldn't try to make mickey illegal. If they get their way they would make mentioning our president's name or posting his official pictures illegal. I legitimately can't even wear a hat that says a positive and largely benign message like "make America great again" in my cucked blue state large city without fear of getting into a violent altercation. These commie fucks need to be sent to communist shitholes like north korea.

It SHOULD be the current issue.
People should rise up and demand free market competition in utilities.

>You're deliberately avoiding to answer this.
because I don't care, nor am I american.
If we had a free market in ISPs you could simply go to another one and it wouldn't be an issue, none of this government regulation would even be necessary.

NN's removal will increase competition on one end, however: the edge provider end like Google and Netflix services.

Do Americans learn gobbling corporate cocks in school or something? You know they can just lie and pay a fine. Just because you fell for the trump meme doesnt mean you are smarter than all of reddit

>removing net neutrality will disempower sjws, communists and feminists
How many of those red pills did you swallow, SS-tan?

>NN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 'INCREASING COMPETITON'
Sure.

But destroying government created local monopolies does.

That's what we NEED to do but brainwashed leftists are corporate whores and support these government created local monopolies.

You're goggling corporate cock if you support Title II.

>IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU
>But here's an instance where it did
>Lmao who cares you were probably doing something illegal

First off, you trolling asshole, I paid the troll on the bridge and I'll do whatever the fuck I want with what I paid for. Two, blocking a service ENTIRELY after paying a line for it is illegal. That is essentially paying for a landline and not having access to any numbers in the yellow pages because LOL YOUR PROVIDER SAID SO. Three. I care. I care, you motherfucker.

Also hey, FREE MARKET ASSHOLES, thirty ISPs said they want net neutrality to be kept in place. THIRTY SMALL ISPS. THIRTY. Versus three. THREE. Who are the ISP cartel. That's the free market talking. You are against the free market.

>because I don't care
You're being inconsistent then, because you obviously care enough about american ISPs to care about local government subsidies.

>If we had a free market in ISPs
If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.

The point is that there isn't a free market and there are no plans to fix that. Removing existing regulations on an existing monopoly is a bad idea.

Thirty ISPs said they need it or they'll die. Its anti-competition. You're anti-free market

.You are so fucking dumb. Holy shit.

no, 'everyone' means regulatory bodies, such as the EU, who have in place regulations ensuring Net Neutrality and unhindered fair access to the internet. These are the protections Comcast are trying to dismantle.

I think you are replying to the wrong guy, because none of what you're saying applies to anything I said.

>because you obviously care enough about american ISPs to care about local government subsidies.
Subsidies?
They are MONOPOLIES.
It's ILLEGAL to compete with them.
Shouldn't this fucking concern you people?
All of these bullshit issues would go away if we allowed a free market in ISPs.

>If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas.
What a dumb argument.
The same could be made for your support of NN.

>are no plans to fix that
There needs to be, we need to fight against it.

net neutrality is a big part of the reason so much internet traffic is bots and spam.

ironically, if it goes away the internet will become more open and free because small websites won't get ddos-ed to shit and have to pay cloudflare its "protection money"

h8rs gonna h8

Oh goddamn it, I'm sorry. I meant this asshole.

>be me, contrarian edgelord
>see normies trying to save net neurtrality
>OHNOYOUDONT.jpg
>Invite Ajit Pai over to give me a creampie
>legislation goes through
>Sup Forums dies cause blocked by all major ISPs
>gotta tip Nazicast 69.90 to play videa and watch porn
>really showed them

Elaborate

>lawful content
>oops, looks like someone posted some copyrighted material on Sup Forums
>ACCESS TO THIS SITE HAS BEEN DISABLED BY COMCAST

explain how this works

You're defending Comcast. Who don't manage their services properly and commit illegal shit all the fucking time. You know throttling is fucking illegal, right?


Once again, the free market has spoken. Thirty ISPs want net neutrality to stay. The big three who are an oligopoly want it gone. THE FREE MARKET HAS STATED THAT WITHOUT NET NEUTRALITY, IT WILL GET WORSE. YOU CANNOT PULL THIS FREE MARKET BULLSHIT.

>lawful content
>lawful until we decide otherwise.
we have altered the deal pray we do not alter it any further.

>things that will definitely happen because I read some made up stories about it

ISPs don't give a shit about copyright.

>Subsidies?
>They are MONOPOLIES.
Are you retarded?

In the areas you are talking about, local government has subsidised ISPs to build infrastructure because they wouldn't have built them in bumfuck nowhere for other reasons.

>It's ILLEGAL to compete with them.
Only in these areas.

>Shouldn't this fucking concern you people?
As it affects less than 500k people, no, not really.

>All of these bullshit issues would go away if we allowed a free market in ISPs.
There is a free market though.

>What a dumb argument. The same could be made for your support of NN.
Except net neutrality is something that does exist in Europe and the US currently.

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/30-small-isps-urge-ajit-pai-to-preserve-title-ii-and-net-neutrality-rules/

You can't ignore this shit. This is the free market talking. The free market is TELLING you that net neutrality is preserving them.

Thirty more says they don't because they either have to play ball with netflix services or be forced to remain non competitive. This is on the isp side. On the edge provider side, Title 2 was specifically to allow the Democratic platform to take hold in the form of several services, two being Google and Netflix.

If you do not believe this narrative, follow the news from 2010 to 2015 (when Title 2 was finally put into place). Google and Netflix have been trying to grab isps's by the balls for years just so they can have services no other content provider could secure. And when Title 2 was given, they both locked out their competitors through having a premium connection.

If they won the ability to do that through the market then they are right for doing so.

Did you even read my comment? I said the "lawful" content part of OPs tweet could be abused by sjws in a NN-repealed scenario. I think NN is government power grab but I also hate ISPs. Sorry I don't fit nicely into your sjw worldview you plebbit activist faggot. What we really need is to transition towards web3 decentralization where there are no servers to shut down, no ceos to threaten with false sexual harassment claims, and encryption and anonymity are the defaults instead of trying to patch on privacy protections after the fact. Privacy and freedom with the current protocols is like trying to patch holes in a sinking ship made of swiss cheese.

try starting a small website. as soon as you get slightly popular, you'll get hit with wave after wave of DDOS attacks.

you then either a) shut down, b) hire teams of engineers and build / rent tons of servers in datacenters around the world to deal with it, or c) pay the cloudflare / akamai mafia to make the problem go away

stormfront was basically taken down when cloudflare decided to cancel their account. that's one or two companies that basically have total control of US internet content.

EU are a bunch of cucked individuals who also nationalized their private sector because they think people being able to have their own way of life is unfair to their growing migrant problem.

>Title 2 was specifically to allow the Democratic platform to take hold in the form of several services,

Oh my God. Why are you just lying straight to my face, you fucking piece of shit.

Ah, the comcast botnet.

>WRONG
No. Not wrong because those companies gained the right to operate and they either laid down new pipes in newly developing areas or made use of shared pipes which were already considered to be a public good. There's a reason you don't see that same trend continuing into the modern day, dumb dumb.
And even if that trend did continue, we don't have public good network lines or towers for companies to share and use as a market. Many of the areas a new guy ISP would look to serve in the states are already connected and cannot have their cables removed as they are property of the company which owns the mineral rights. They are already privately owned by the ISP and used to serve paying customers. Net Neutrality forcing a company to not throttle or block a packet based on origin or content is what allows us to have a connected net where some guy on Verizon can email some guy on Comcast in the first place.

If you want to do away with the monopolies, the focus needs to be on our local governments selling away mineral rights, and the iron cladness of construction laws which prevent people and companies from making easy switches or connecting to new customers in the first place. Focusing on NN is not the battle that saves or creates a free market for ISPs.

>I think NN is government power grab
Literally how?

Yeah I'm sure Germany being the largest economic power in the Europe is because of its immigration problem, you fucking moron.