There are LITERALLY people on Sup Forums that think net neutrality is a bad idea

>there are LITERALLY people on Sup Forums that think net neutrality is a bad idea

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/GGJMwvZKueY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>there are LITERALLY 14 year olds that make these posts

Why do we have Net Neutrality threads every day, lads? You guys can see every permutation of arguments for and against net neutrality in the archives.

Also, checkem

There are actually people who believe their opinion has some value despite not being familiar with laws proposed and currently in place.

because op has money on the line

>there are LITERALLY people on Sup Forums who think more government intrusion into the internet is a good idea

its just /pol, /r/The_Donald, and /r/incels posters

>gov't says you can't murder people
>"THEY TOOK MY FREEDOMS AWAY"

>intrusion
net neutrality is the opposite of that. ISPs just do everything neutrally which is the default for all network equipment to begin with. meanwhile under pais rule they now have to report all sorts of shit to the government

Get educated.

youtu.be/GGJMwvZKueY

eabad idead ideaeople on Sup Forums that think net nd idea/g/ that think net neutrality is a bad ideare LITERALLY people on Sup Forums that think net neutrality is a bad idean Sup Forums that think net neutrality is a bad ideag/ that think net neutrality is a bad idea ideabad ideaality is a bad ideag/ that think net neutrality is a bad ideag/ that think net neutrality is a bad ideaeople on Sup Forums that think net nhink net neutrality is a bad ideadeare are LITERALLY people on Sup Forums that think net nY people on Sup Forums that think net neutrality is a bad idead ideaY people on Sup Forums that think net neutrality is a bad idea idea ideabad idead ideaality is a bad idead idea ideabad idead ideat neutrality is a bad ideaLLY people on Sup Forums that think net neutrality is a bad ideaLLY people on Sup Forums that think net neutrality is a bad idea/ that think net neutrality is a bad ideadeare are LITERALLY people on Sup Forums that think net neutrality is a bad idead ideaY people on Sup Forums that think net neutrality is a bad ideality is a bad

Kys

>There are literally people in America that think net neutrality ever existed or that Title II applies to it.
FCC can't regulate net neutrality. Its contradictory to their existing purpose: to censor public broadcasting. The FTC has long had the power to take action for breach of anti-trust laws which Democraps don't care because they just want government gibsmedats.

The reason ISPs have to report stuff to the government is because they opt into the Broadband classification which entitles them to subsidies. They can just opt out (but who would, its gibsmedats and the burden gets put on the employees and customers anyway).

It's a non-issue on countries where there is actual competition, as the public tends to run to the ISP that offers it.

To actually fix the american internet, you need a separation of the companies that lay the cable and the companies that deliver the internet, so all the internet companies can go to all the cities, and competition ensues.
There are already cities in the US that lay the cable themselves, and as a result, they get much better services.
On those places, NN will survive.

Its a non-issue on other countries because most other countries are smaller than US states.

The biggest problem in the US are worthless local leaders who don't care about fixing infrastructure and just virtue signal and collect a paycheck. On one side you kinda hope all the old politicians die, but on the other you got indoctrinated commies. Its a lose-lose atm unless people wake the fuck up and stop voting Democrat.

>Sup Forums
You mean Sup Forums.

>There are people that think Net Neutrality never existed.
Brainlet, NN always existed the only thing that ever changed about it was that the ISP's got a title change, BECAUSE the courts ruled that the FCC didn't have the right to enforce said rules upon a Title 1 carrier.
>The FTC has long had the power to take action for breach of anti trust laws
>This is somehow the the democrats fault because of Government gibmetdats
Yep, because not interfering with the free-market is something the democrats are known for. You people are a walking fucking contradiction, one second it's the democrats fault for not interfering with the market, and another second it's a "problem."

>Republican
>Paying for infrastructure
t. worlds tiniest brain.

There are LITERALLY people who don't respect private property and think the government should run everything.

They're just supporting whatever their political side is supporting without understanding jack shit about it.

there are LITERALLY people who support "uber for ____" companies

nice bait, but fallacies of inconsistency were last election's meme

>lose-lose at unless people wake the fuck up
yes
>and stop voting Democrat
YOU WERE SO CLOSE
YOU WERE SO FUCKING CLOSE TO UNDERSTANDING THE PROBLEM< BUT THEN YOU DICKED IT YOU FUCK

Man fuck you and fuck the government

>the governent LITERALLY forcing regulations on an industry that doesnt want it and isnt hurting anyone or even violating the NAP and people defend this because muh gibs

I think it's a bad idea, but I think it's better than the alternatives presented.

Ideally we'd have a system where anyone could have their own fiber installed in city rights of way with minimal permitting and regulations. At that point, I wouldn't care whether net neutrality remained intact.

no difference with or without it

Annoying captchas would be phased out.

...