Is Sup Forums scared of this man? Why? Are you prepared for the loss of net neutrality?

Is Sup Forums scared of this man? Why? Are you prepared for the loss of net neutrality?

Other urls found in this thread:

commondreams.org/views/2017/12/07/fcc-still-doesnt-know-how-internet-works
weev.livejournal.com/410763.html
dallasnews.com/business/business/2015/02/24/internet-pioneer-david-farber-warns-fccs-broadband-regulation-could-slow-innovation
igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8195/893e84945028efb2f1062ac5aea509b8dfab.pdf
pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.30.2.127
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2587542
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

eat shit, shill

I'm scared of all the lousy sheeple thinking something will change and they will get censures or throttled to oblivion because reddit and all the other lousy retards told them so. Collective behavior is fucking scary.

I hope Net Neutality is killed. Maybe kids, teens and 20-somethings, will go back to studying and or doing some work for once, instead of bitching and moaning on social media.

I'm not American

Do you really believe Comcast and the like are going to do what's in the consumer's best interest when they have free reign? Seriously?

Why do they smell so bad?

When net neutrality falls in the US, the entire world follows. As most internet infrastructure is located in the US. I do not expect most companies to most their infrastructure elsewhere.

Wtf is he shilling?

> t.butthurt burger

If anything this will mostly assrape consumers in the US, there are CDNs all over the place nowadays, the rest of the world is safe.

Stop taunting the term net neutrality with that bullshit statist nonsense. True net neutrality can only come out of competition. A state cannot uphold it.
>Inb4 no competition
A large factor with not having competition is government meddling. In the US, there are retarded land laws that make laying a series of tubes underground a ludicrously expensive matter.
R*ddit statists gtfo.

*Tainting

I only get to pay 39.95 a month?sweet!

I aint never scared. Nothing bad will come of this. Screencap this.

commondreams.org/views/2017/12/07/fcc-still-doesnt-know-how-internet-works

You realize that "ebin tiers" image dates back to the pre-Net-Neutrality Bush years, right? There's been a few logos thrown on to update it, but it still lists fucking Napster and MSN Messenger.

Trump is a kike shill who will be the first to hang on the Day of the Rope.

verizon must pay you too

But george soros wants net neutrality and so does google

So, why was none of this implemented before net neutrality?

With Jews, you lose! (Either way)

This. Every 5 years or so I'm always surprised at how many new internet users there are that hang around here. I don't know what I expect but it's annoying either way.
>IT'S ALL OVER...AGAIN...FOR REAL THIS TIME

>why don't businesses in a capitalist society implement policies that anger their customers and cause them to switch to a cheaper provider
hmmm

Lots of Verizon shills in this thread

Lots of reddit shills in this thread, I can play this game too

Retards unironically think that an ex verizon employee is going to fairly enforce net neutraltiy. Also, read this
weev.livejournal.com/410763.html

>this company I no longer work for doesn't even pay me anymore
>I should really help them out because I'm a nice guy :)
Is this how people think the world works? Why would an ex-employee give a shit about their old company? Do you suck dick for McDonalds just because you worked there once?

You honestly think a major corporation like verizon won't help out the FCC or pajeet if he needs it if he implements special legislation that would favor verizon over the little guy?

lmao he's probably mad af at verizon cause he lost his job, he's our boi

Yes, I honestly don't believe there is some conspiracy with the government and a specific internet company. You'll have to convince me otherwise.

Pajeet shouldn't even be with his job under conflict of interest. Nobody who works for a certain company for many years isn't going to have some sense of loyalty to it, he's going to play favoritism with his old company plus other major conglomerates like comcast

>Nobody who works for a certain company for many years isn't going to have some sense of loyalty to it
You opinions and assumptions are not a proper basis, they're just speculation at best.

Kek, shut the fuck up. Even when people gather up enough money to create a local solution, they get sued by the large IPS companies. Shit is fucked

It's a very reasonable speculation that leads to a very reasonable conclusion.

>it's reasonable because I think so
That's not how that works. If you think it's a reasonable conclusion then it should be easy to convince me with some firm objective reasons. Please do so.

I've already told you that pajeet will have a strong bias to prefer and favor his old company especially with the power and money he can get from favoring them. Pajeet cannot be trusted and I don't know what I can do to convince you otherwise if you don't see it

1) it's 2017
2) Donald Drumpf is a racist
3) How can it NOT be a conspiracy?
4) Pajeet is a cis white American male
5) Come on

>this is what burgers actually believe

>pajeet will have a strong bias to prefer and favor his old company
You have no evidence to back this claim, again, it is your own speculation. It's literally an unfounded claim. This is no different than asserting any other bias on to him.
>pajeet has a personal vendetta against internet users and wants to ruin the internet for no reason
Can I prove this? No. Can you prove your claim? No.

You'll need some evidence if you want to convince anyone you're not just some crackpot.

...

And that's supposed to be against my argument how? The suits are supported by laws created by a corporatist lobby.

You idiot! It's America you guys are done this happens although time.
> (OP)
>commondreams.org/views/2017/12/07/fcc-still-doesnt-know-how-internet-works
Sure visit the link. You folks need to actually care about politics. Jeeeez

>poos in your internet

That implies that the internet will be worse with ObamaNet over. Compeition is going to thrive after this.

Keep telling yourself that

Based Sup Forums and Sup Forums clearing the air on ObamaNet. Supporters really are cattle.

>user enjoys pajeet pooing in his internet

Reminder that ObamaNet is funded by Soros.

this

Whatever you say, scatfag.

Yes I'm so scared to go back to how the internet was prior to 2015

>That implies that the US internet will be worse with ObamaNet over
ftfy.
The rest of the world is fine, you don't have to sound dramatical talking about something that won't and can't change.

Those retards here really are against NN because Reddit is for it. They are like contrarian 12 year olds.
Why do I have the probably correct feeling that they are all people who immigrated here from Reddit 1-2 years ago and are just having a rebellious phase?

bitch if anything happens to them they'd simply migrate servers to france, UK, germany, or any other european country

Kys racist corporate cockhoslter. Google doesn't get to own the net because muh isp doesn't deliver fiber to your singlewide.

He inspires me

Enjoy your garbage latency

1.this is literally not an issue
2.europe doesn't have bad latency
3.i'm not american

The father of the internet has said that this is the most catastrophic thing to happen to the internet. There's also a TOWER of evidence of ISPs exploiting their consumers. You're also defending Comcast. You fuck. This is not sheeple talk. You're just a moron.

Oh man its almost like they don't want what happened TO RADIO AND TELEVISION to repeat with the internet. Deregulation leads to shit like that. IT HAS HAPPENED. TWICE.

Oh yeah Europe's loophole riddled net neutrality is so great.

>Obamanet
>When Obama was trying to kill net neutrality as well

The actual fuck is wrong with you, Trumplets. Do you just live in an alternate reality?

you're just nitpicking now

but when all fails you can move your servers to a third world country with decent internet but extremely lax or virtually non-existant internet laws (tunisia, cyprus, hong kong...)

>Is Sup Forums scared of this man? Why? Are you prepared for the loss of net neutrality?
No.
There wasn't heavy govt regulations (what you call net neutrality) before 2015, and it worked just fine.

Or, and I know this is hard, I don't bend backwards to plutocratic agenda pushing employees who are clearly in corporation money. I'm an American. I understand that when the Republicans are in power that they're going to suck corporate cock but I shouldn't have to deal with the crap as it comes. What I don't fucking understand is how Ajit Pai tricked every fucking Trumplet into thinking the internet is "Obamanet".

Point and case. Is this an uniformed case? Is it a troll? Is it misinformation? Should I explain Title II again? Should I ask why he's defending Comcast? Why bother.

NEVER give too much power to the govt.

The ISP want your money.
The govt want to control you.

Look what happened to the radio, to TV, to cable.
Do you want the FCC to regulate the internet?
Do you want to be scared of saying "fuck" on the Internet?

Net neutrality is a bad thing. Sure, ISPs are jews, but they're a lesser evil.
By far.

The government's entire role of Title II is to reel in ISP cartel. Stop spreading misinformation.

>I have to argument
>MUH REDDIT

Typical NN shill.

You should never give too much power to anyone.
Pretty obvious why the ISPs want you to believe that giving power to them is okay.

>because the govt is known to be reasonable when they meddle in stuff
>because fuck free market, amiright, it's only for dirty capitalists
>why not centralize and nationalize the internet after all? It's a public utility, like water

Fucking statists.

Which package is Sup Forums included in?

How is having an oligopoly with no room to enter without being sued out which provides a high barrier and makes voting with your wallet meaningless a "free market", you stupid libertarian? And don't defend oligopolies, they violate antitrust laws that would be pursued in court if it wasn't for the Republican's corporate dick sucking. You want to pull this shit, you better have evidence of WHY Comcast should have no regulation.

>You should never give too much power to anyone.
>Pretty obvious why the ISPs want you to believe that giving power to them is okay.

Correct, but with the govt, there is nothing you can do to stop them.
With corporations, if there is not too much regulations, a free market competition will take place, and people will be able to switch if one corp becomes too much abusive.

Once again, my only argument is the one of the lesser evil.

>How is having an oligopoly with no room to enter without being sued out which provides a high barrier and makes voting with your wallet meaningless a "free market", you stupid libertarian?
It doesn't very much, correct.
This is why govt regulations are fucking cancer. They prevent free market.

No come on, motherfucker, come on, actually tell me why the internet SHOULDN'T be a utility when it is so heavily ingrained into the very backbone of the nation from personal lives to businesses. I really want to hear your argument of why I should be screwed over by Comcast for being able to repeat what corporations did to radio and television. I want to hear why mergers are a good thing. Come on, fucker. You should have an argument. The free market is SHIT in America because of corporations exploitation.

I swear to God, you people will call the sky red when its obviously blue. Its not the government's fault that the ISP cartel exists. How is it the government's fault that Comcast, TimeWarner, and AT&T REFUSE to compete with each other by setting territorial divides? They violate antitrust laws. How can you blame the government and NOT the corporation? What is wrong with you?

Ah yes, because no regulation stops cunts like Comcast existing?

>No come on, motherfucker, come on, actually tell me why the internet SHOULDN'T be a utility when it is so heavily ingrained into the very backbone of the nation from personal lives to businesses.
Because "utility" is a pretty word for heavy government regulations and control.
And as we've seen with TV and Radio, it sucks.

>I really want to hear your argument of why I should be screwed over by Comcast for being able to repeat what corporations did to radio and television.
What.
Do you really believe the TV and Radio is shit because of muh evil corporations?
They just want to make money. And the best way to make money is to do what people want.
TV and Radio got fucked by government regulations, the FCC, etc.

Once again, I have the "lesser evil" argument.
History has shown that corporations are greedy little jews that want your money.
History has shown that govt is an ever growing monster trying to control everything in your life to better control you, and it ruins everything in its way.

The free market is shit in america because of government abuse, corruption, and regulations.

>And as we've seen with TV and Radio, it sucks.
TV and radio went to shit when they were privatised. It's when all the jew diversity shit began

Basically, yes.
Because no regulations = easy competition.

>How is it the government's fault that Comcast, TimeWarner, and AT&T REFUSE to compete with each other by setting territorial divides?
Because of govt regulations, no other player can enter the game and force existing corporations to play nice and actually compete.

lel, because that's worked so well in the past right? Shit with high infrastructure costs will almost always end up an oligopoly because no one has money to enter the market against the existing giants. It's such a high barrier to entry that there ends up being no competition in most of the US.

>How can you blame the government and NOT the corporation? What is wrong with you?
I blame both, but we need either of them. Internet is not possible without either of them.

And once again you socialist cuck, I make the lesser evil argument.
Corporations are a lesser evil.

See Infrastructure costs prevent competition, has does government regulation about treating traffic equally make digging holes in the ground cost more?

>TV and radio went to shit when they were privatised.
What the fuck.

>lel, because that's worked so well in the past right? Shit with high infrastructure costs will almost always end up an oligopoly because no one has money to enter the market against the existing giants.
Yes, it has worked pretty well.
I lived in a few countries, and it's really better.

Also, while infrastructure costs are a real barrier, ever heard of local ISPs? They're a real force because they force big ones to align their prices.

Also, even if it's more competitions by big corps, if there is 10 big ISP, it's more difficult to form an olipoly and fix the price compared if there is like 3.

You don't get to defend Comcast and insult me. You've already decided to take it up the asshole, you selfish prick. Keep defending Comcast.

Do you know how fucking old that picture is? It was posted when the TPP was made almost 7 years ago.

>You don't get to defend Comcast and insult me.
What are you going to do, reddit cuck? Report me?

I do not defend Comcast, they're obviously greedy jews, but they're a lesser evil compared to a crushing government power.
You obviously have no argument.

I've offered my arguments. You've defended Comcast, you Comcast cockscucker.

daily reminder that zero rating is not a net neutrality issue and is not covered by Title II or even EU net neutrality legislation.

Kill yourself, EFF shill.

I bet you also defend Disney buying up Fox, don't you? You're such a fucking dumb fuck. The free market isn't a magical fixed system without flaws. It has exploits but you libertarians refuse to accept that regulation is the band aid. The father of the internet said that this is the worst thing to happen to the internet. I'll take his word over a fucking Comcast dicksucker.

>I've offered my arguments.
And I offered a rebuttal.

>You've defended Comcast, you Comcast cockscucker.
Is that supposed to be an insult, am I supposed to be cornered?
This isn't reddit you socialist cunt. Bring arguments.

I do not defend corporations.
I say that corporations can be bounded by the free market.
You cannot bound government abuse so easily.

Lesser evil.

>The free market isn't a magical fixed system without flaws.
Did I ever said that? Damn you people are dense.
I said that it was a lesser evil. If you can show me HOW a free market situation is worse, go ahead.
If not, I don't care.

>regulation is the band aid
Yeah because Internet was such shit up until 2015. Thanks Obama.

>The father of the internet said that this is the worst thing to happen to the internet. I'll take his word over a fucking Comcast dicksucker.
Father of Internet? Words?
Now I'm convinced you're from reddit.

Who gives a fuck who said what, is this what this is for you? About "sides"?
I want what is the best, and according to data I have, NN is worse.

net neutrality needs to die just because of your constant screeching. Every fucking year, its "le internet is going to die, we need to stop it", at this point I hope it does die.

>The father of the internet said that this is the worst thing to happen to the internet.

dallasnews.com/business/business/2015/02/24/internet-pioneer-david-farber-warns-fccs-broadband-regulation-could-slow-innovation

>I most definitely do not want the Internet to become like television where there's actual censorship... however it is very difficult to actually create network neutrality laws which don't result in an absurdity, like making it so that ISPs can't drop spam or stop... attacks.

>If the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, then the party that takes the lead is probably only going to have it on their net to start with and it's not going to be on anyone else's net. You want to incentivize people to innovate, and they're going to innovate on their own nets or a few other nets,

>I am totally opposed to mandating that nothing interesting can happen inside the net

Kill yourself

haha wtf does any of this competition and free market crap have to do with net neutrality

>you Comcast cockscucker.

Great argument there

How about you ask some economists
igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii

Or read some fucking scientific literature
pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8195/893e84945028efb2f1062ac5aea509b8dfab.pdf
pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.30.2.127
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2587542

This whole discussion is a fucking embarrassment and the way reddit shills this topic with endless downvote for anyone who breaks the circlejerk should be sign enough for you to question the rhetoric

it doesn't, its just LOLbertarians and socialists arguing for the millionth time with no discernable goal.