Hey Sup Forums explain net neutrality to me. Give me every reason why we should avoid selling data to everyone...

Hey Sup Forums explain net neutrality to me. Give me every reason why we should avoid selling data to everyone. Build an case.

point form is fine

>pic related

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw
tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04/07/0359230/why-there-are-so-few-isp-start-ups-in-the-us
xfinity.com/support/streamtv/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

How about you use Google instead of requesting opinions from random cucks online.

>an case

Net neutrality = internet socialism

Nothing to do with privacy, that's a whole different issue. Still, you want to be anonymous and don't have your data sold, then be smart. If you spread your data around or dont use secure connections you should expect it to be sold

so you're saying it should be left to anyone who can work to achieve the data or buy it? I don't fully understand

Yes, the government should not waste a single cent of my taxes trying to prevent someone from selling the data you were careless enough to leave out in the open.

Like that do not call list. Do you know how many millions they spend to maintain it? And that worthless piece of shit is worthless, i get at least 3 unwanted calls per day. The spammers probably even got my number from that list

Just realized by data you meant bandwidth, not personnal data. My dumbassery.

Yes, they shouldn't increase my internet fees just because everyone who uses netflix eats up bandwidth. If they were allowed to charge netflix, netflix would probably increase their fees affecting only those that eat the bandwidth. Note this is ideally, but there's no competition in the US, so the one thong they need to fix is that, not net neutrality shit rules

i say it should be left to anyone who can infer it from freakonomics and outlawed to those who seek to buy it or steal it.

>What is consumer protection

Net neutrality doesn't protect low income families, internet companies are already free to cap your data, charge for excesive usage, or simply disconnect you.

Net neutrality protects the data providers at the cost of everyone else

ISP's have plenty of bandwidth. They've intentionally held back internet speeds and such just to make more money. Corporations will always do what legally benefits them the most. Which is why net neutrality is necessary.

How hard do you think the FCC should regulate ISP's?

at the risk of exiling internet consumers ISP's should be hit as hard as the FCC can manage as Moore's law proves ISP's are holding out on resources.

Again, net neutrality does not deal with that.

It prevents isps from charging service providers, say netflix, for transmitting data over their networks. If they charged service providers, users of the service providers would probably end up covering the premium, which makes sense, you use a service, you pay for it. But right now I'm paying through the isp for services I don't use.

Note i dont expect my bill to go down, the only problem in the US is lack of competition, but that is also traced back to government regulations. In a true free market there would be no problems

>Being salty and thinking Net Neutrality is a bad thing

Don't listen to this troll OP, what net neutrality does is prevent the ISP (Your internet provider, Verizon, Comcast, etc. etc.) from selling your data to companies to make you have to deal with more annoying targeted ads. It also keeps them from selling your browsing history to the highest bidder, meaning a company coudl have your info if it wasn't for net neutrality. It also xcovers the concept that just because you buy internet means that you should be able to access google, you tube, 4 chan and 8 chan at the same speeds. Without it, ISP's are free to throttle your connection when using sites that don't pay them enough. What I see coming from the lack of it is having to buy specific 'Packages" to access proper sites, like You tube for video. You'd have to give them extra money to properly access You tube, or they could throttle speeds there for you to the point where the site might not even load.

It's important, don't let him fool you.

A true free market (Without any kind of regulations) inevitably leads to a monopoly, which just makes things worse for the customer.

You stupid idiot, they already fuck the end user, net neutrality or not.

That's why they sell you different packages, the decent ones starting at $50 per month. The more bandwidth you want the more ypu pay.

Net neutrality does nothing for you, it keeps costs of services down, like netflix, hulu, etc., but everyone else ends up paying for it through the isp bills. It's like an insurance company, everyone pays so a few that use a service can benefit.

Yeah, because we have plenty of examples to prove that point. It's socialism/communism that leads to monopoly (ie. Government controls everything). The further away from socialism, the more competition there is. The US is nowhere near a free market amd that's why we suck.

Free market does lead to human exploitation, but that's because of the greedy nature of humans (I'll work overtime because i need the money, even if it's just a little more- if no one thought like that employers would increase wages to make them rethink not working).

>Implying that this is a bad thing
>Implying that if Net Neutrality wasn't a thing the ISP's would drop prices to make it more affordable to actually use services.
>Not realizing that all it does is accost everyone more, and make it easier for the ISP's to further screw us over

Please, just fuck off, you don't know what you're talking about.

I guess you missed the part where i said i did not expect my costs to go down.

Jesus, go educate yourself in basic economics instead of taking art classes

It will lead to unavoidable throttling that benefits only the Internet service providers. Right now there is a choice of provider and some choose to limit throttling to the heaviest users to don't throttle at all (at least in the UK). This is a selling point that allows smaller providers to offer a feature that larger providers do not offer. When it becomes standards to pay a premium for premium traffic then everyones traffic will become premium. Everyone will get the same level of service they have now (or worse) yet pay more for it, all under the guise of providing bandwidth for "important" services. I've seen the medical industry cited as an important user... without actually explaining at all what a hospital needs to have higher bandwidth for. Sharing records & accessing patient data is already easily fast enough and there are no life support systems in existence that REQUIRE an always on Internet connection.

Put simply: it will only be used as an excuse to charge everyone more for what they are already getting.

The ISP market needs to be managed to avoid monopoly, but not like this.

First off, if there was no govt regs, then you could be forced to work 12 hours a day with minimal pay, while the higher ups get to keep everything.

Imagine a world without minimum wage, where prices are intentionally high, and have no chance of going down. Competition doesn't come into the equation because the regulations against monopolies no longer exist, and regulations against intentional price hiking by Big Oil is no longer a thing either. Prices skyrocket, and it's impossible to afford Tylenol to keep yourself alive. Without government regs controlling prices, they can go as high as a company will set them, Oil prices go up, forcing the prices up even higher.

I could spend the time explaining to you why the lack of regulation in the government is a bad thing, but honestly, I don't have the week it would take to explain properly to you, nor will this thread exist that long.

Jesus christ kill yourselves you fucking idiot telecom shills.

>Economics
>Implying you've ever taken a class in this
>Implying you're not just some nutjob off Sup Forums

Take your stupid shit back to Sup Forums already, you're entire board is the worst kind of Cancer imaginable.

There is already throttling dumbass, regardlesa of net neutrality or not.

The difference is that instead of throttling the service provider they throttle the end user. You already pay more if you don't want that throttling.

The logic is that without the rules they can charge the service provider. This will affect the users of the services but not the isp users as a whole

Stop shilling for an ISP and fuck off

That's communism idiot. In a free market No one can force to do an hour of work, thats up to me. All these things that happened in the 60s-70s can be attributed to worker's greed. Their way out of it was unions because i guess collectively they were smarter than by themselves. The unions pretty much said no higher wages, no work, and guess what, it worked

Then what you want is a stripping and gutting of Anti-Union Laws, and I agree with that, however, Net Neutrality has nothing to do with this.

>Art fags, you're welcome to join this discussion, you're the only ones that understand. Econo fags, gtfo back to pol.

Never said that. Free market you should be free to unionize.

Free market has everything to do with net neutrality, free market is what should be implemented instead of net neutrality

Prove you're taking a course on Economy, timestamp proof in a pic or get the fuck out, seriously. You can spout shit all day without proof, but until you can or do you're just a crazy Sup Forumsshill who is throwing a fit about how Jews run the world.

You obviously have no idea whats going on in terms of economics, and are just using political reasoning to support your claims. Please, do yourself a favor, and read a book on basic economics.

Don't have to prove shit to you.
Anyone else reading this with a little knowledge in economics would recognize my ideas as being in par to those of David Ricardo. It's all the proof i need

>Refuses to give proof that you are indeed an Economics Student
>Pulls name of well known, famous economist from Britain out of his ass
>Says "I don't have to prove shit to you."

user confirmed for Sup Forumsshill, go cry about the Jews elsewhere you magnificent cuck.

Says the guy that had to pull wikipedia to look that name up

>Implies I had to pull wikipedia
>confirmed for actually doing this himself for implying it
>Ad Hominem

Like I said, you can't provide proof of a formal education in Economics, now to drag away from that fact, you're insulting my character and bringing my intelligence into Question. It doesn't change nor distract from the fact that not only are you talking out of your ass, but you're also wanking yourself off in the process. You're nothing like a great economist, if you were you'd realize how backwards your idea is, and how much it damages the most important part of a Captialist Economy, the CONSUMER.

>"no u"

lol

>burn.exe

>Like I said, you can't provide proof of a formal education in Economics
Don't have to, words speak for themselves
> you're insulting my character and bringing my intelligence into Question
Glad i could prove you're a butthurt liberal

> but you're also wanking yourself off in the process
Problem?

>You're nothing like a great economist
Never claimed to be

>if you were you'd realize how backwards your idea is
Funny how socialists always attack capitalism with those exact same words

>and how much it damages the most important part of a Captialist Economy, the CONSUMER
Incorrect. You get what you pay for

Listen, I have better things to do than to argue over a topic that you clearly don't understand. Do research into how the US economy works, and get your head out of the piss stained swampland that is Sup Forums. After you've done some research into these things, think long and hard about this idea of yours and how it would hurt you, and every other working class American. I honestly have better things to do then to argue with someone who is so fresh off Sup Forums that they think that they're 'Le Ebin Master Troll" by simply coming on here and spouting retarded opinions and vomiting their lack of intelligence for everyone to see.

Bye

It's also supposed to make sure that these companies like Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner can't funnel data or make it so they can play favorites with websites and hosting.

Without net neutrality they can essentially hold website traffic and make whoever the fuck they want pay more.

Companies like comcast have de facto monopolies over geographical areas, therefore strict regulation is needed to stop them from abusing their position.

Yes, exactly! And that whoever they want is the service provider or the user of the services, not me, i don't use netflix i don't vneed to pay for it.

That's why i said net neutrality is just like health insurance, except it's not used to save lives, but to make your life comfortable at my cost

>The logic is that without the rules they can charge the service provider.
No, the logic is that without the rules they can restrict the customers to use only the services they approve of either through straight up blocking third party services that compete with their own, or just throttling them to hell and back. Oh, you actually want to use netflix? Better sell your house, get a new job and move to somewhere where a different ISP is an option.

The lack of net neutrality rules fucks over absolutely EVERYONE except the ISPs.

Or less regulations overall. There's a monopoly because you can't just run a wire and charge customers. Regulations only favor monopolies. Net neutrality is not the solution, instead it creates conditions in which monopolies can stand

You've literally taken my post and tried to make it seem like the ISP's haven't:
>funneled millions into lobbying for who they want to be head of the FCC
>been throttling more than just netflix

Stop drinking the fucking koolaid, it is nothing like insurance you fuck.

Yes, and that's only a bad thing because monopolies.

We can't get rid of monopolies because the industry is over regulated. Net neutrality is just another regulation. The ideal solution is ridding of all restrictions

Yes they have, and net neutrality did nothing to curve that!

There's a monopoly because they have lobbied for regulations that make it nigh impossible to start an ISP without interfering with theirs. Don't move goalposts you cunt.

The solution is making the ISP's actually compete and that actually still requires regulation but not the ones currently in place.

Explain how that isn't the same argument that the Republicans used to sell people on "trickle down" for every presidency since Regan.
"We just need to de-regulate corporations. Making things better for the people at the top will surely make things better all the way down. How could it not?"

Human Greed

>inb4 "hurr durr formatting doesn't work"

With net neutrality they can't throttle a service, but they can throttle consumers. Tell me why that is not the same thing?

Without net neutrality they can throttle the service (i.e. instead of ruining your whole browsing experience they will only degrade netflix), so i fail to see why youd bitch about that

This statement proves you are a complete fucking idiot. There are plenty of examples of monopolies pre-Progressive Era, you stupid cunt.

You are officially irrelevant....comrade.

Net neutrality doesn't help create or maintain those monopolies, it just alleviates some of the problems caused by them. Get rid of the monopolies first, THEN consider whether getting rid of net neutrality would be a good thing. Removing net neutrality and pretending that getting rid of it will somehow cause the monopolies to cease to exist is just pure idiocy.

>implying they wouldn't throttle both

Are you retarded?

And net neutrality is one of those regulations that make ot harder to compete.

Big isp are crying about it because they lose profits. If the industry doesn't produce good profits then there's no incentives to competing isps since they would also have low profits

No different. But not my problem if they never actually deregulated anything. Hell, for all i know we are more communist than china

Explain how it gets rid of monopolies, please

>Removing net neutrality and pretending that getting rid of it will somehow cause the monopolies to cease to exist is just pure idiocy

Never said that, but it's a contributing factor. You need to completely deregulate it to get rid of monopolies

Net neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with anyone going out and trying to create an ISP to create competition. There's no profits to be had outside of monopolies because there are laws that just about bar you from being competitive. None of which are from Net Neutrality.

Regulation that's been in place for years BECAUSE of those ISP's lobbying for them to be created is the evil here.

Big ISPs generally offer services like cable television, which means that allowing the customers to use competing services such as netflix hurts their bottom line. Small ISPs generally DON'T have such services, so net neutrality doesn't hurt them, or at least doesn't hurt them nearly as much.

It doesn't, and I never claimed it does. It merely somewhat limits the harm caused by such monopolies.

CGP Grey did a video about this years ago. That all you underageb& faggots on THIS FUCKING WEBSITE of all god damn places don't even know what the fuck Net Neutrality is or support it; or better yet have fallen for the propaganda shilling of some piece of shit ISP troll, really underscores the fall of this place.

Learn something, dumb shits.

youtube.com/watch?v=wtt2aSV8wdw

Do explain how net neutrality contributes to ISP monopolies.

That's why i advocate free unregulated market so you can choose the one that suits your needs. Net neutrality does nothing to solve the problem

Wrong. Regulations keeps profits down. Small guys entering the market cannot stay competitive

And a free unregulated market is fucking impossible to do. You realize that is exactly what none of the large ISP's want either, right? They've lobbied for their own bullshit regulation to make it so competition is literally impossible. If that kind of greedy shit didn't happen we wouldn't need Net Neutrality.

You're still thinking of the different regulation, grouping everything together that has to do with ISP's what's making your argument a sham.

But do you want to guess why small guys don't offer cable?

Because they're internet companies and not cable companies, and cable TV is a dying medium anyway.

Already did, keeps profits down. Small guys can't compete. And again, net neutrality by itself is not the root cause of monopolies. It's regulation overall

>selling data to everyone

clearly you didn't understand anything.

go back to /lgbt/, you faggot

Yup, because we are all dumbasses that keep voting republican and liberal. Libertarians would be the best bet, but again, we are all dumbass sheep

>trickle economics being a good thing
tech.slashdot.org/story/14/04/07/0359230/why-there-are-so-few-isp-start-ups-in-the-us

I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

Yup, and highly unprofitable. Cable is not the reasonvwhy big isp is fighting net neutrality. The reason is internet alone

>legal obstacles
Glad to read an article that agrees with me

The cable industry, not the internet.

>And again, net neutrality by itself is not the root cause of monopolies. It's regulation overall
No, it's bad, anti-competitive regulation sponsored by the big ISPs. Not regulation in general.

If there was no government regulation and competition thrived, believe me the industry would be regulated by the consumer. You don't want your data sold, stick with the guy that charges a little more but doesn't sell your data

- I am Comcast/Universal.
- I am the only ISP in 50% of the regions in the U.S..
- I don't like Sup Forums or Breitbart because they say bad things about me.
- I won't censor or block Sup Forums and Breitbart because..., 1st Amendment.
- Instead I will slow all network traffic to and from Sup Forums and Breitbart to 10 kilobits per second because..., no regulation governing net neutrality.
- Comcast/Universal thanks you FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and uninformed Sup Forumstard voters.
- We are still your only option as an ISP..., HAHAHAHAHAHA.

If there was no government regulation, how would you even know whether your ISP is selling your data?

Good regulation stops anti-competitive, anti-customer or otherwise questionable practices(such as throttling the hell out of your competitors services(such as netflix) and then claiming you're not doing anything of the sort, or selling 100Mb/s connection and then only providing a fifth of the advertised speed, because the fine print says that it's only UP TO 100Mb/s, or selling your customer's data with neither permission nor disclosure). Bad regulation enables such practices and helps create and maintain monopolies.

Terms of service.
Note I'm saying deregulate the industry, not get rid of legal agreements and the justice department

NET NEUTRALITY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PRIVACY OR YOUR PERSONAL DATA
NET NEUTRALITY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PRIVACY OR YOUR PERSONAL DATA
NET NEUTRALITY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PRIVACY OR YOUR PERSONAL DATA
NET NEUTRALITY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PRIVACY OR YOUR PERSONAL DATA
NET NEUTRALITY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PRIVACY OR YOUR PERSONAL DATA
NET NEUTRALITY HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PRIVACY OR YOUR PERSONAL DATA

>Good regulation stops anti-competitive
Name one regulation that does that other than the non existing one that says "isp should not be a monopoly"

Net neutrality.

How? Second time asking btw

Throttling or blocking services with which you compete with is an anti-competitive practice. Netflix is the example that has come up repeatedly during the course of this thread.

see:
and see:
almost everything else ITT is incorrect & meaningless debate because most anons don't know shit.

Netflix is not an isp.
You throttle services, not isps
Netflix does not compete with isps

If you want to say netflix competes with cable that's just wrong. Most netflix users have both cable and netflix. Most netflix users that dont have cable dropped it before netflix

Furthermore, deregulating the industry would enable competition that doesnt throttle netflix to exist. Pleaple that want netflix would choose the isp that lets them have netflix

Actually, net neutrality damages competition because they would not be able to offer a competitive package (say one that includes netflix) over those offered by evil comcast

Are you a complete fucking moron? ISPs are not limited to offering internet access and nothing more. There is no such regulation. They offer services as well. These services have competitors. Therefore, the ISPs compete with the companies offering competing services, even if the said companies are not ISPs themselves

Now go kill yourself, you're clearly too stupid to live.

Yeah, you're right.
Comcast did not throttle the shit ou of Netflix internet traffic to Comcast customers until Netflix agreed to pay Comcast's "bandwidth ransom".
That additional cost was not passed on to all Netflix customers.
Yep..., you're right.

Oh..., wait...., yes that did happen.
Nevermind.

That merely limits the impact of such anti-competitive practices, it does not render them acceptable.

>deregulating the industry would enable competition
>Actually, net neutrality damages competition

Jeezus!!!
You guys repeat these bullshit GOP talking points verbatim.
How's that "trickle down" wealth working out for you too.

You people are Joseph Goebbels' wet dream.
Lemmings.

Last time i checked comcast, cox, verizon, google, and whatever other isp is out there did not offer anything like netflix.

Netflix uses an internet connection to stream video. Video streams over internet disrupt available bandwidth. Yes I'd want to charge either netflix or consumer for that use. No i don't like monopolies because then that's when we have a problem like the one you state.

But net neutrality doesn't solve the problem. Instead, it distributes costs to the users, not the services. That means i pay for your fucking entertainment.

Would costs go down without neutrality? No, but it's one step in the right direction

Wait? But that is exactly what im advocating. Netflix users should pay a premium for that bandwidth. If we had competition youd xhoose the isp that suits your needs. But we dont have that and the problem is regulation, not lack of it

Oh, you came back, hi again. Please don't run crying again

>Last time i checked comcast, cox, verizon, google, and whatever other isp is out there did not offer anything like netflix.
xfinity.com/support/streamtv/

>Yes I'd want to charge either netflix or consumer for that use.
ISPs already DO charge the consumer for that. That's what it means to pay for x megabits per second. And it should be entirely the said consumer's business what they use the bandwidth for.

Why would anyone ask Sup Forums to explain anything to them?

OP?

Streamtv is nothing like netflix. Note how it's channels vs movies that you can watch any time

And yes they do! So what does net neutrality fix? They dont charge services so they charge consumers! I dont need to be charged for something i dont use. If they charged services then the services charge their users. You use a service you pay. You don't use it you dont.

I guess now we go back to monopolies and an endless loop where ill come back to this point again