Net Neutrality

Is net neutrality a real threat to our freedom or is it just a meme?

2cool4school contrarians are now becoming indifferent, or supporting net neutrality. Who's right?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dh8sVHb5oOA
freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
youtube.com/watch?v=4FJeuWBgaRI
youtu.be/yBrZ_CPgm7o?t=1m3s
youtube.com/watch?v=mjTb99CUGrY
eff.org/issues/net-neutrality
eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules
whatisnetneutrality.org/timeline
twitter.com/AnonBabble

I'm for net neutrality but seeing redditors and other spergs freak out about it makes me glad it got repealed and no it does not threaten our freedom it's just inconvenient

>no blocking rule
Yes, it's important, but blocking is already a rocky legal road for ISPs defending blocking anything other than illegal content. And in no government would your right to do/access things illegally ever legitimately be protected.

>throttling/prioritization rule
Remains to be seen how important this is.

>white-list "internet" packages
If anyone would actually buy these I see no reason why they shouldn't exist.

net neutrality was controlled opposition and government should stay the fuck out of this we have enough to deal with when it comes to our ISP problem

It's going to be just like how you Amerifats need to pay to not have diseases and broken bones, and how lobbyists prevent the government from making any laws that would make it harder to massacre schoolchildren, or how you get raped by Comcast for shit-tier Internet. So yes, you are absolutely the laughing stock of the world, but you will survive.

youtube.com/watch?v=dh8sVHb5oOA

freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

>rocky legal road for ISPs defending blocking anything other than illegal content
Nope, they have no regulatory body preventing them from blocking things (thanks to a legal case, the FTC can't do shit). I would expect garbage sites like Breitbart to be blocked within the year.

>throttling/prioritization rule
>Remains to be seen how important this is.
Video services are going to get cucked. Netflix is going to be extorted. It won't matter to you at first.

>white-list "internet" packages
>If anyone would actually buy these I see no reason why they shouldn't exist.
It's not a problem of them existing, it's a problem of them being the only option. Cable companies LOVE forcing people to buy into unnecessarily expensive packages that don't necessarily have everything their consumer wants (that's how they drive people to buy more expensive ones).

youtube.com/watch?v=4FJeuWBgaRI

Lack of net neutrality is a threat to freedom. If you don’t see how throttling can be used to subtly shape people’s traffic by selectively favoring some sites/information sources over others, then you just lack creativity. Elites salivate over the idea of having even more idea to control how the plebs think, and throttling alternative media sources even just a little bit would go a huge way towards helping them achieve this end.

Comcast owns NBC, BuzzFeed, and Vox Media. AT&T owns HBO and CNN. Verizon owns The Huffington Post and Yahoo. There’s no reason to think that they wouldn’t prioritize their own media over the Breitbarts of the internet. Not only would it make them money if people were to be driven to their own sites, but it would also give them more power to shape public opinion.

Call it fearmongering if you want but you’d be foolish to think that nobody would ever be nefarious enough to do this, when they have the power to do so without consequence

>Muh liberal/redditor tears
This is a shit tier reason in supporting anti-nn

It's just a bunch of redditors and Libs sperging out about another one of King Nigger's "legacies" being rolled back.

While this is true, they don't need net neutrality to do this, and more importantly, they've been doing this for years already.

The only solution is to stop paying attention to j(n)ews.

>less people will visit breitbart in the future
Oh no.
I'm so mad.

(You)

I do find it interesting that the crazy conspiracy theory people also think it's bad
because that means the crazy right wingers think it's bad, and we already know all the lefties think it's bad
so everyone feels like they got the short end of the stick on this one, besides big business

Net neutrality made throttling and prioritizing traffic in this manner illegal, so I don’t really see what you mean. Maybe I’m too idealistic but it’s rather sad to me to see how the internet, a tool that was originally envisioned to be something that would decentralize and democratize the sharing of information, is instead slowly turning into yet another tool used by an elite few to manipulate, spy on people, and maintain the status quo. The death of net neutrality is simply yet another nail in the coffin of the “digital Wild West” days of the internet of old. But ultimately this must have been what people wanted so whatever.

>slowly turning into yet another tool used by an elite few to manipulate
It's actually being converted quite fast. What I'm trying to say is that the internet has already been converted into one big monitoring and manipulation device for the masses, and you haven't noticed.
We've been in a state of absolute elite control for about 5 years.

I have noticed, which is why I’m talking about it. But options exist to break away from this. The biggest problem is that people don’t (and likely won’t ever) care enough to seriously pursue these options. Evading spying is difficult. Using decentralized or free alternatives to massive botnets often comes at the cost of convenience. And now, without NN, ISPs are free to throttle/block entire networks at the protocol level if they were so inclined, like Comcast has done with BitTorrent before. To call it complete control would be inaccurate for as long as these alternatives exist. But they’re certainly trying to move things in that direction, that’s for sure.

Only rural and suburban retards have 1 ISP choice, smart city people have 5+ ISP choices

Net Neutrality is good when it's about consumer protection. It's bad when it's been hijacked to push a political agenda or exempts a big media company like Facebook or Google when they also build "walled gardens" or "block access" when they disagree with the content.

>Video services are going to get cucked. Netflix is going to be extorted. It won't matter to you at first.

Glad you are against double dipping. Now contact your rep and tell them that corporations shouldn't pay taxes because their employees already pay taxes on their income.

If they could find a way to ensure ISPs wouldn't just pocket the extra income I would support this double dipping if it lowered the bill for the end consumer.

Ha ha, you didn't have freedom in the first place.

NN is important the anti-NN idiots humiliate themselves.
Watch this and look for him literally saying
>b-b-b-b-b-b what if grandma wants only e-mail and not facebook
>b-b-b-b-b-b muh old people
>b-b-b-b-b-b people who can not pay for the internet today

Here he
1) literally admits there will be packages only its a option for old people (yea right sure everyone will not get screwed)
2.1) He is stupid beyond help because from a technological standpoint there is no difference between you sending e-mail and using FTP or WWW you can even invent your own protocol that only you and your friend know about and if you package it in TCP/IP or UDP/IP you can talk today.
2.2) This is how the internet always worked.
2.3) To give you a example of his barely coherent point of
>muh only e-mail not the rest
Its like if the phone company required you to pay secretly for using the phone to talk about your job and you need to buy a separate package to also talk about hobbies or family (using voice recognition AI to detect if you are talking about other things then what you payed for).
2.4) Another example of this would be if the physical post office opened and inspected your package and inspected if you are sending to someone a package that is only business and if they see you are sending something involving hobbies you need to pay extra.
We are not talking about opening packages to see if there are no bombs or illegal content here only different legal communications. Yes the anti-NN shill is arguing in favor of filtering e-mail and/or http is you did not pay for the use of the protocol.
3) its illogical because you can use 100% of your connection to 24/7 download something of WWW (infinite loop wget Sup Forums.org into dev/null) or use 100% of your connection to send constantly e-mail.
Today your connection will be divided and you never go over 20mb or whatever you have.
Selling e-mail and WWW secretly makes absolutely no sense.
youtu.be/yBrZ_CPgm7o?t=1m3s

>pay secretly
*pay separately

What has stopped Google Fiber from expanding in the US?

You know, if NN being killed actually killed Twitter, I would probably be supportive of Pajeet.

Putting down cables is a lot like building roads.
Physics and 3D space limitations.

Facebook and Google don't control the infrastructure that links them to other businesses. The issue isn't that Google is trying to build a walled garden, the issue is that the ISP now has the power to force you to use that walled garden by blocking all the alternatives. If you decide you want to start using Microsoft's online office services, but every time you try to connect to their servers, it takes 10-15 seconds and an additional 10-15 seconds every time you want to sync something, but the connection to Google Docs takes mere milliseconds, which service are you going to use and why do you think the connection to Microsoft was so slow.

And before someone says
>implying I should care about Microsoft OR Google
Remember that you'd be justifying the same treatment to your brother's new streaming video service that's a mile better than YouTube. And what's worse is that YouTube won't even be directly responsible for this. Think of an Italian mobster showing up at your shop and saying "hey, pal, there was a new guy setting up shop down the street. Don't worry, I broke his kneecaps. That's gonna cost you extra. Thanks, pal. I'll always have your back. You make me a lot of money and I can't have nobody screwin' that up."

It's nuts that anyone would believe that a guy who used to work for the ISPs has noble intentions when almost everyone who does business on the internet didn't want this to happen and ONLY the ISPs were for it. Like, do you people usually want to find out if you'd gag on it before you decide if it's a cock, too?

Ajit Pai is a real nigga and an honorary Aryan

What about the Comcast lawsuits in areas Google is trying to expand into?

i have done literally zero research, but i say with confidence that is fake news. comcast believes wholeheartedly in free market competition, which is why they wanted net neutrality repealed in the first place.

jesus, fucking retards i swear

Do people actually believe in this?
After NN Twitter will still ban you only now you ISP can ban you of the internet for your autism/racism.

And how retarded do you need to be not to not have the mental capacity to go to a different forum?
Why are normies obsessed with twiter/facebook/youtube and bitching about
>muh bans
go to a racist forum you dumb cunt if you want to be racist.
only now after NN your ISP can ban you for racist behavior on the entirety of the internet.
Have fun.

youtube.com/watch?v=mjTb99CUGrY

What about new ISPs going with 5G wireless? Surely that will help new ISPs get past the costs of setting up infrastructure.

And yet here we are

Wow watching people like him really makes you pro-NN.

>Rambling about something involving dogs and NN with ball licking
You can not make this up, people like this are walking self parodies.

>The patriot act was not patriotic
>The affordable care act...
Ajit + friends voted in something literally named
"restore internet freedom"
is he implying this bill will "restore internet freedom"?
These people are walking self parodies all you need to do is quote them.

>[autistic; schizo; ancap anti government rant]

>[literal autism; obsessing over a hypothetical picture visualizing a world with no NN for AMERICANS]

The rest of him is not understanding that net neutrality has nothing to do with paying for the internet or data caps.

Remember this Net Neutrality is only the principle that you can send whatever data you want to whoever you want.

A word with no net neutrality is like if you don't pay for the package sent, you pay for the content of the package.
visualized in here
>[autistic; schizo; ancap anti government rant + retarded NN rant]
>[literally incoherent rant]

>"I want the government to force twitter to never ban people"
>"using government regulation"
???
!!!
From a "anti government regulation"-guy.
You can not make this shit up folks.

>muh google hate
>muh conspiracy theories
Nice try and nice guild by association I accept the EFF and the EFF says NN is good.
eff.org/issues/net-neutrality

...

>Nice try and nice guild by association I accept the EFF and the EFF says NN is good.

eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

Yes, EFF likes NN. But they're not blindly accepting of the crap added onto it.

We already have a fast lane. Retards supporting Obamanet don't understand that though.

When you watch Netflix, you are watching a copy of it on your ISP's servers that Netflix paid for to speed up how quickly you can access it from your computer.

If an ISP wanted to curate the internet under the (now gone) Title 2 regulations, they could as long as they disclosed it to the customer.

If you support Obamanet you are on the same side as George Soros and Anita Sarkeesian. It is a left-wing push to give the government more control over the content of the internet and you as a customer did not get any benefit from it.

Yea yea I fully support a mega jew and a gaymurgayter feminist because I dislike mega jew corporations ramming up my ass

Cuck

Normally, I wouldn't give this a (you) but i'm genuinly curious, are you actually this retarded or just pretending? This has the be the dumbest meme I have ever seen.

Well considering that companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter all backed it in claiming it was for a "free and open internet" when all three of which have demonstrated they are very much against that in the past, that immediately raises the red flags.

The Net Neutrality repeal was a good thing and needed to happen, but if people believe that Google and shit cared about "muh internet freedom" they are utterly dilusional. The only reason these massive corporations got behind NN was because they push absurd amounts of bandwidth and don't want to pay for it, pushing the expenses to the infrastructure maintainer. If the Google's and Facebook's of the world really gave a shit about the freedom of the internet, they would be pushing for a look into how ISPs have made deals with municipals to monopolize areas, and how ISPs have agreed with one another not to encroach on each other's territories, you know, the real problem at hand here. But instead, you see Reddit and a bunch of other brainwashed fuckwits shilling for more government regulation to solve a problem that the government created in the first place.

I certainly hope Ajit Poo goes through and solves the issue of these ISP monopolies though otherwise you amerilards just got royally fucked in the ass.

How does it raise red flags if their intention is day-clear already. It's a mutual benefit really, only the ISP monopolies would've gotten fucked, and that god a former Verizon representative prevented that.

*thank god

>companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter all backed it in claiming it was for a "free and open internet"
Of course they are backing it, they don't want to get cucked by the ISPs and lose precious money

>laws that would make it harder to massacre schoolchildren
i know this isn't Sup Forums but what are you talking about, gun control laws? i understand a majority of school shootings are with legally obtained guns and i'm going to abstain from my opinion, but i want to know what your (or your nation's) solution is to this

They still are for it so I'm with them.
EFF is always balanced and not going into histrionics unlike most of the anti-NN crowd.

Ajit is a joke he behaves like a clown and that everything will be rainbows and sunshine after we get "restore internet freedom act".

We don't live in a perfect world the EFF is right and I'm going with their judgement on this subject.
The "restore internet freedom act" is bad.

This and all the anti-NN shit like makes you really pro-NN.
Especially how retarded anti-NN arguments are

>demonstrated they are very much against that in the past
you are retarded and wrong or give examples of this.

Unless your position is

And then banned for typing anything criticizing big business then banned for bad reviews for anything owned by the mega corporations then banned for for anything you have retroactively done creating a nice clean coperate safe space to shill in for the normies.

This is true.

The only opposition to this are people who behave and think like paranoid schizos constantly ranting about facebook/twiter/youtube mods beaning them like its important.

Its no ones problem they are to retarded or addicted to go to a different website and can only use facebook/twiter/youtube.

There is a poetic justice in them fucking themselves over and getting ISP banned.
I hope they see the joys of getting a new ISP and if all 6 of the US ISPs ban them they can go and rant at the wall or their cats.

Addiction is such a scary thing

right user, all those legal proceedings on the public record were simply put there to distract us from the real issues. Doing zero research really makes people quite well informed I guess and seems to prevent them from looking like faggots talking out of their ass as well desu.

>Nope, they have no regulatory body preventing them from blocking things
And there is no regulatory body keeping governments from banning nazi demonstrators in the public park, that doesn't mean they can. You don't NEED a regulatory board to make the first amendment continue to be valid. Unlike license plates and billboards, good luck arguing that the internet is somehow not a public forum in this day and age.

>Video services are going to get cucked.
Talking entirely out your ass with zero fucking evidence.

>muh ISP boogey man
Yeah, none of that happened for the entirety of the internet in its entire history, but it's totally going to happen tomorrow. I could explain to you why it obviously never would but you communists just stick your heads up your ass when anyone suggests that operations have any incentive other then twirling their mustache and ordering their dog to place dynamite on the bridge instead of crossing the finish line.

whatisnetneutrality.org/timeline

Read it

NN is just a label, there is nothing neutral about NN. NN = government control and over reach

Who gives a shit about a blog post by a Sup Forumstard?
Honestly you know there's a saying that goes with this site that's "only a fool would take anything from here as fact.".

I'm a pro-NN advocate.
Nice I did not know a website like this existed.
Thanks.

>nothing neutral about NN
Can you even explain this?
Give 1 example of what you are talking about.
You shills keep on making meaningless noise.

NN = neutral in the way that your ISP can not block protocols or block you from visiting other IPs or sending TCP/IP or UDP/IP to whoever you want.

>government control and over reach
Explain how.
Literally paranoid delusional schizo posts.

I'm also curious.

Is this post not made by a pro-NN mocking anti-NNs?
The image depicts a scenario where after NN twitter can not ban people or something.

So if you get banned after NN you know its wrong.
The point of the image is retarded and wrong on all levels.

>Comcast owns NBC, BuzzFeed, and Vox Media. AT&T owns HBO and CNN. Verizon owns The Huffington Post and Yahoo.

So the new companies that scared people into thinking there would be "packages" and net neutrality is a bad thing? Yeah looks like you sheep are getting manipulated. NN makes ISPs jobs easier, less competition. How would a smaller company provide good ISP service if the ISPs all have to do the same thing?

I’m 100% sure there’s isp shills posting like crazy on Sup Forums about NN.
Think about the longest post you ever made on Sup Forums. All the ideas you wanted to convey. Were they ever this long? This site has always been full of disposable shitposts because most threads last less than 24 hours. Nobody would put this much effort into a post unless they had some serious motive.

This is a anonymous forum.
if Ajit decided to shill here he can do it and no one of us will know it.

I was under the impression that everyone takes things written here with a massive dose of reservation.
Sup Forums is not some temple of truth.

Here are the things you can have more faith
Every forum with actual accounts (shilling is harder you need to have a established account and if people see you blasting propaganda 24/7 they know you are a shill).

Limited forums (basically only a select number can join and after this its closed while violators are banned ensures quality)

Actual people IRL (this includes actual friends who you know)

With all this talk about Net Neutrality I found a thing called meshnet. Anybody know what that is?

>competition
>muh small businesses
>in fucking telecom

There are no little guys in telecom, you fuckwit

Does anyone have that website that lists all the known examples of ISP's caught throttling/blocking sites?

freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

Here you go.
You wanted this?
first result in google if you search net neutrality violations.
Also look into this
whatisnetneutrality.org/timeline

Thank you

[spoiler]I was looking up

examples of ISP's throttling

list of ISP's throttling[/spoiler]

[spoiler]I'm way too literal[/spoiler]

>I unironically support identity politics
>throttling/prioritization rule
>Remains to be seen how important this is.
this all started because verizon was throttling youtube and netflix and comcast was crafting tcp reset packets to send downstream to their subscribers who were accessing these services or torrenting. comcast was fined 16 million for this already
the real issue at hand is lack of choice and fair market competition. AT&T is about to buy Time Warner which will give them over a 50% market share nation wide and most markets in the US have only a single choice of broadband providers

>was looking up examples of ISP's throttling list of ISP's throttling
I dont have a list per se but heres an infographic and read about the 2014 Verizon vs FTC case

>But ultimately this must have been what people wanted so whatever.
People don't know what they want, only what they've told to want, probably by the "internet" no less. Like the other user said, the ww days are long gone. Some may still persist in that environment, but when you have 80-90% of the population on a leash, what's a few stray dogs?

What's up with North Dakota?

apparently they dont their let ISP's have monopolies

Why don't the rest of the states just do that

>places where white trash live in trailers
Nobody cares about racists.

>Why don't the rest of the states just do that
would be pretty great governments still considered monopolies to be a bad thing i agree

...

get a load of this guy

>nutneutrality

Guy is schizo and rants like a madman.
Save videos like this to remember to cross check the crazies with reality.

However the true crazies have a excuse if the ISP bans them
>A HA! This has nothing to do with NN!
>You see even with NN the ISPs did have this ability to ban whatever they want!
>Getting rid of NN did not make this!
>We needed to kill NN to stop government power grabs

>Being this stupid
The issue is that Facebook/google/whatever say that they are all about a free and open internet, and yet prove time and time again that they aren't. If you want proof, look at all the political censoring on YouTube, Twitter and even Facebook of even moderate figures.

Government regulation hinders a free market and thus hinders competition, meaning that you amerilards will dig yourselves even further into the hole you've created.

What you actually need to be doing instead of supporting government regulation to solve a problem that governments created in the first place, is pushing for a look into how ISPs have been allowed to monopolize areas and resolving the shady business practices that went on to facilitate that, you know, solving the problem at the source rather than getting behind some stupid regulation.

As I said before, and it seems you missed this point, the reason Facebook/google/YouTube etc. arent pushing for a real look into how ISPs were allowed to monopolize municipals, and you know, actually solve the problem at hand for a free and open internet, is because they just want to be able to push the absurd amounts of bandwidth required for their services at no extra cost.

Just to make it clear for all the Reddit pro-NN kids here:
I am only against net neutrality in favour of dealing with the real issue - dissolving ISP monopolies.

>If you want proof, look at all the political censoring on YouTube, Twitter and even Facebook of even moderate figures
What are you talking about? Them banning you for saying things they don't like?

This post sounds like its written by some insane crackhead.
> If you want proof, look at all the political censoring
They have rules and you violated them.
Its their server and their rules.
For what exactly did they ban you?
Go to a different server or make your own.

What do you want? To have instead?
The government forcing everyone to be unable to ban people on their own servers?
Explain to me when magically this "political censoring" will stop and how?
Can you name one place that has no political censorship?

I can show you that even your fav places like/pol/ will purge indecent threads who don't violate the rules.


Everything was explained in you keep on rambling and don't answer how exactly you get to the nirvana where no server will ever ban people.
I'm repeating myself:

You bitching about facebook/twiter/youtube mods beaning you is retarded.
Go to stormfront if you want to be racist.

Removing NN will not change facebook/twiter/youtube mods from beaning you.
The only difference is that you will also get banned by your ISP for racist behavior online.
And your ISP will ban you from the internet.

Unlike during NN if facebook bans you can always go to stormfront by typing stormfront into the address bar.
Have fun changing ISPs because your ISP banned you for saying nigger online.
Or simply your ISP banning all your racist websites.

This is what NN is all about.

You started ranting about irrelevant things like ISP monopolies.
I'm convinced you are a payed ISP shill or mental at this point.

They didn't reach the "minimum: 1" requirement

There is no such thing as net neutrality.

>There is no such thing as net neutrality.

Are you the ban ranting user?
Answer the actual question.

>There is no such thing as net neutrality
For what did the FCC punish ISPs then?

You aren't making sense. There is no such thing as net neutrality.

I love drinking the tears of LIBERALS! Especially from our rivals, the stupid whining cuckolds from Reddit! Down with Net Neutrality!

Not now, after they abolished it.

>HAHAHAHAHA I love getting my bigcorp_killer brainchip_implant™.
>The stupid whining cuckolds from Reddit opposed it so I'm for it.
>I love drinking the tears of LIBERALS!

There is no such thing.

>smart city people have 5+ ISP choices
satellite internet, dialup, and cellular internet doesn't count

No.
lets give him 5 or 6 super speed ISPs hypothetically.
What will he do after all 6 ban him for his behavior online or don't provide his racist websites?

>Doing zero research really makes people quite well informed
that shit is working wonders for me. I don't get vaccines and I smoke every day because vaccines and cancer are government conspiracies. All I know is that I don't want autism or cancer in my internet so the government can fuck right off

I know you are trying parody however you literally can not parody these people.
Your parody is far more sane then what anti-NN schizos post:
See
See classical
>"I want the government to force twitter to never ban people"
>"using government regulation"
>From a "anti government regulation"-guy.


Simply learn to quote them your imagination can never even create anything equally delusional or insane like real mental lines.

yeah, maybe the truth really is a danger to friction

Net Neutrality, like all regulation, is a double edged sword. A $5 Netflix-only internet package might be perfect for some people who only use Netflix, for example. The problem is that there isn't enough competition between ISPs to allow the market to work in favor of the consumer. This is largely due to high start cost, and government's giving, say Comcast, unfair advantages.

So even though I don't support Net Neutrality, the current market climate around ISPs is rigged in favor of the few big players, and won't be fair to neither competition or consumers.

>fair to consumers
>literally ban anyone for any reason
Internet was never fair.

Ban? What do you mean tho