Net Neutrality

>is going to hurt greedy companies like Google and Netflix
>literally less laws, the government is trying to control you less. this is a good thing unless you are a "nothing to hide" fag
did I mention Google is literally going to take a massive dent from this? the company we're all supposed to hate?
come on, how is this not a win? when did you become a bunch of bleeding heart liberals? should we make regulations against porn too?
in my book, anything that fucks the government and fucks google is okay.

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/8P5iKDeA
eff.org/ja/deeplinks/2017/06/isps-across-country-tell-chairman-pai-not-repeal-network-neutrality
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

go back to sucking telecom dick, shill

Give it a rest /po/tard.

Daily reminder that George Soros and Justin Trudeau support net neutrality.

I'm just playing the cards I'm given.
less government + less google = 2/3 slots on the lottery.
sure, comcast wins, but we can always tear them down at a later date
I'm not a Sup Forumstard, I'm a post-left anarchist

Net Neutrality helps websites and hurts ISPs, that simple. Websites don't really need any help though is the problem they are more powerful than ever.

Hi /r/the_donald!

upvoted! XD

...

@63595120
come up with better bait to get an effort reply.

Honestly the only part of internet that I give a fuck about anymore is shit posting on g and pol, torrents for tunes, and occasionally GPS on my phone (for work). But if i have to pay extra for that I will probably just get a comfy old qwerty phone, for texts and calls. Once torrenting is out, I'll probably go to a used CD shop for music. Maybe it'll help me appreciate the music I do have a little more, since it won't be as convenient to obtain. But I am halfway excited to finally get off the Internet once and for all. It doesnt give me much good anymore. Porn, Sup Forums, etc, what good comes out of it?

Porn?
----> Tor

how the fuck is this issue hard to understand?
there are countries without NN, we can just look at how things are done there to understand how badly we are about to get fucked

>Posting commies memes
>retarded shilling
Fuck off you are as bad as Sup Forums

>countries without NN
Somalia?

Image I linked is Portugal.

>Protugal
I have a minor nagging suspicion that Portugal is actually an EU member, and thus covered by the two sentences opposite. However, when those two sentences are too complicated for Murica? They can GO IT ALONE! America, at the forefront of the world. Along with Somalia.

It's a regulation that prohibits regulations, you idiot.

How much do you get paid to astroturf Sup Forums?

kill yourself

First of all, this is for mobile internet. They just give you extra data to use on websites listed. You still have data for other websites.

You idiots.

How much do you get paid per post?

>all government regulations are equal and bad
No thanks, I prefer to actually take a nuanced position on this stuff.
>implying ending NN won’t just be a mild inconvenience to Google and other companies who can easily afford to just pay for their sites to be put in fast lanes
Yeah, I’m sure this will be the thing to bring Google down. LMAO
>should we make regulations against porn too?
Like how you can’t produce and download child porn? MUH GOVERNMENT OVERREACH

This has to be the dumbest shill logic ever. And personally, I hate my ISP more than I hate Google. At least with Google, I can choose from literally any of their competitor services online if I don’t like them. But with my ISP I have only one choice and if they decided to start fucking me in the ass then there’s nothing I would be able to do about it. Having monopolies go unregulated is a terrible idea, delusional memes like this are why there will never be a successful anarchist country

>implying you can't access those sites if you buy none of those packages

We don’t even need to look at other countries to know why repealing NN is bad; Comcast already tried blocking P2P in America and we’re shot down by the FCC under net neutrality. They’ve literally said that they would throttle/block torrents if they could

>actually defending being throttled and having your traffic shaped by a greedy kike monopoly
Top cuck

Lmao removing NN is not going to bring down Google. If anything it's going to be harder for a new company to step in.

What's Verizon going to do... make everyone use Yahoo now?

>>literally less laws, the government is trying to control you less. this is a good thing
Net neutrality doesn't give the government any more power to control me. All it does it remove power from monopolistic corporations to rip me off and/or censor me. Typical anarcho-autist, perfectly content to receive the boot up his ass as long as it's not the gubbermint's. Net neutrality is fundamental to freedom of speech.

why do you hate control so much? is it a projection from your own perspective? no grip on your own stance, no hold for yourself, so yo u believe lack of control is completely sane. you thin lack of control will be beneficial. you think you'll get ahead - never coming to terms with the fact that there will always be the controlled, and the controllers.

you want to be a controller. you don't want control gone, you want to be the government. you think you know better - you might, but your arrogance suggests otherwise.

sleep, you fool, and never wake a day in your life once more

Get a real job op. Shitty marketing degree couldn't get you something worthwhile so joe you're astroturfing Sup Forums in favor of some corporate regulatory capture bullshit? How can anyone argue that removing title II is good for the consumer? Fuck you op. Fuck you, I hope you have the balls to quit your job and do something respectable with your life.

net neutrality is regulation you mouth breather
we only need it because america pretends to be a free market while providing state crony support to corporations via lobbying

nu-male soyboy redditor cuck

If ISP monopolies means they shouldnt be allowed to discriminate, then the google shouldnt be allowed to discriminate either. But no one argues that because it goes against their political agenda.

>I want the state to control everyone to conform to my opinions
>you want to be a controller, you want to be the government.
Now that's a projection! So if someone is against government control that just means they want to be in control of the government even more?

Years ago in Canada people were demanding that ISPs introduce non-neutral internet plans and they refused. ISPs were made out to be greedy corporate demi-Hitlers because of it. It's hilarious to see the opposite controversy happening in America years later. I'm looking at the other side of the coin, where there are people that literally only use Facebook and maybe a personal email service or work email they want to use at home. When they refresh Facebook or download an email attachment they should be able to get a fast transfer without paying for the same plan that's balanced for people who pin their connections at all times with Netflix and torrents and such. I really don't see the problem with allowing services that take this into account to exist.
But the grass is always greener I guess.

>If ISP monopolies means they shouldnt be allowed to discriminate, then the google shouldnt be allowed to discriminate either. But no one argues that because it goes against their political agenda.
The case for ISPs acting as monopolies is much stronger than the case for calling Google a monopoly. It's a tech giant but it's by no means a monopoly anywhere and so your argument is retarded

>>you want to be a controller, you want to be the government.
No one, anywhere, is arguing in favor of this. Just another delusional ancap meme

you're actually a center-right capitalist, whether you like it or not

Correction:
>>I want the state to control everyone to conform to my opinions
Nobody is arguing for the government to be able to control everyone's opinions. If you think that's what net neutrality is then you're beyond fucking retarded

False equivalance

We don't have to accept one terrorist monopolist boot just because another terrorist monopolist boot is also trying to get up our ass

How fucking stupid can someone get that they think THIS is a justification for anything?

At this point it's blatant fucking shilling

no. a capitalist owns property and uses it to extort labor from workers. I don't do that.

So without NN, will telecom companies legally be able to throttle service to certain sites or censor websites they disagree with? That wouldn't be such a horrendous issue if everyone had access to 4-5 different services as opposed to 1-2

You can choose to not use Google as you search engine. You have to use one out of the one or two available ISPs for internet access.

Portugal is an EU member and has NN.

>ISPs have never abused their power.
pastebin.com/8P5iKDeA

Yep. Australia has no NN but taht hasn't happened there because the ISPs there don't have a monopoly and would lose business if they did that shit.

The problem is that ISPs will make it an excuse to make prices higher for those of us who do need to visit websites other than those on the list and allow ISPs to block their competitors or content they disapprove of.

Sorry, Verizon and Comcast oppose P2P services and have decided to block them. Go suck off Pai if you disagree.

or buy the brand new "adult" package for the reduced price of $39.99 per month!

The one thing that really makes me wary of losing NN is that virtually all the telecoms are for getting rid of it. Like, Comcast wouldn't be taking out so many Twitter ads if it didn't benefit them financially

inb4 alphabet/google becomes a telecom company after the fall of net neutrality

I don't get it user, are you saying you'd rather be controlled by corporations?
Yeah the government is shit but I'd rather them over a fucking company.
You're either not thinking too deeply or you're incapable of thinking at all.

>They just give you extra data to use on websites listed. You still have data for other websites.
Woah it's like the data is limited by amount

You can choose which corporation you will be purchasing from because of the free market and competition, but you can't chose which government you will be subjected to because governments aren't subjected to competition. They literally enforce their monopoly through brute force.

If you can't understand why the government is fat more dangerous than any eeeeevil~ megacorp can ever so much as dream to be, then you're legit retarded. Corporations are only dangerous in so far as they can use their economic power to influence the government to enforce laws benefitial to them. As usual, it all traces back to the government.

But the internet is a vital service, not vital as water or air but try and get a job or do much of anything without the internet in 2017. If one corporation controls the internet in one city with no other options than they need to be regulated to an extent.

1. It won't hurt them much. Google has enough power to easily come back from this.
2. The government has equal control over you (the citizen), just won't dictate how ISPs should behave. You won't suddenly have lawless internet.
>should we make regulations against porn
Yes.

This image is misleading since the cost isn't to visit sites, it's to visit them without being metered on your main plan. So if you have 5GB/month on your mobile plan and buy the "social" package it just means that facebook won't drain any KB from your 5GB limit but will have it's own 10GB limit.
Also all members of EU have NN by default. And, as proven by Germany, NN does not mean that you can use internet for whatever you want. There are serious penalties for piracy.

Nigger this has been done for ages with mobile internet. Tell me you have uncapped, unlimited mobile internet in your country and I'll get there right the fuck before you even utter those words

Go back to /lgbt/

ISPs are only one route that we can be censored on and their targets are the companies that actually censor us.

And why do you think internet service is so undersupplied in the first place? Corporations are out to make money by offering their service, so if they aren't offering their service it means that it's because doing so is unprofitable. Artificially miting their abilit to increase their profits through govt intervention is short sighted because it will only disencourage new companies to estabilishing themselves in that market, thereby increasing the problems caused by the local monopoly in the first place.

The solution to monopoly isn't increasing govt meddling, it's decreasing it.

Well, depending on the country those penalties are not that severe. If you live in a third world european country you're at least a little bit more safe.

Still as a pooropean I have to say it'd be nice if I could suddenly decide to pay just a bit more to get a better connection on some service in particular. I don't approve of this "we're all equal, we all shall live in the mud" kind of shit.

Repealing NN will do absolutely nothing to increase competition. Baseless meme

Anything that increases a market's profit rate by default increases competition because it stimulates new players into moving into said market. It's called "profit pressure", read up on basic economics before calling shit you don't understand a meme, my re**itor friend.

Either repealing NN will increase the ISP's profit margins by their abusing it (which means there will be pressure for new competitors wanting in on it to enter the scene) or it won't because they won't abuse it (which means the whole fesrmongering was baseless). Either way the market and by extention the public will be better off in the long run.

Comcast, Time Warner and AT&T wouldn't be pumping billions into repealing net neutrality if they thought it would increase competition and threaten their monopolies.

Before trying to lecture others on basic economics, you should look up what natural monopolies are, and why cable services in small towns don't naturally lend themselves to competition like other industries do.

And repealing NN will do NOTHING to solve the problem of ISPs using lobbying to enact laws which make it harder for local competition to form. NN is not one of them.

50+ ISPS support reclassifying broadband carriers under title II, because it would limit the anti-competitive practices that AT&T and Comcast engage in on a regular basis:

eff.org/ja/deeplinks/2017/06/isps-across-country-tell-chairman-pai-not-repeal-network-neutrality

Ifmyou knew anything about natural monopolies you'd see how it doesn't apply to the internet market. There's no unique natural resource they're dependent of and no proprietary technology they can't get in the current market. If you're refering to the high entry costs then you're spouting a fallacy because the entry costs are only high or low measured against the expected profit of said investment. Raising the market's profit rate is exactly what needs to be done to stimulate other into moving into the undersupplied areas.

And you know what is going to stop corps from lobbying the govt into passing laws that go against the public? Limiting the govt's ability to pass those laws in the first place. The problem is always the government, the less government the better for everyone.

>If you're refering to the high entry costs then you're spouting a fallacy because the entry costs are only high or low measured against the expected profit of said investment.
Running cable lines out into the middle of nowhere will never be profitable, that's why local governments have to offer subsidies and no-competition contracts in order to get ISPs to set up in their area. It's a textbook example of a natural monopoly

>And you know what is going to stop corps from lobbying the govt into passing laws that go against the public? Limiting the govt's ability to pass those laws in the first place.
Repealing NN does nothing to advance this goal. All regulatory capture does is make it easier for corporations to successfully lobby their anti-competitive regulations in place. Putting a Verizon shill in charge of the FCC and having him suck the dick of the biggest telecom companies isn't going to somehow make it harder for those big telecoms to lobby. What the fuck are you on?

If repealing NN is so good for small ISPs and competition then why are small ISPs supporting net neutrality while the biggest, most monopolistic telecoms are shilling so hard against it?

You know what will ACTUALLY increase competition in the market? Classifying cable companies under Title II, which would limit the tactics that AT&T and Comcast use to keep competitors from using their utility poles and other infrastructure. Classifying them as Title II would actually force large ISPs to compete instead of just suing anyone who tries to use their same utility poles and they've actually managed to convince you of the opposite because muh goobermint control