So what is this net neutrality every is talking about?

so what is this net neutrality every is talking about?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_Canada
nytimes.com/2017/11/20/business/dealbook/att-time-warner-merger.html
youtube.com/watch?v=mpx4ODP35VQ
zdnet.com/article/trump-signs-into-law-privacy-killing-rules-that-let-isps-sell-your-browsing-history/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Ajit pai talked shit about Total.
That's all you need to know.

Net neutrality is what you have now. Corporations cannot pick and choose what to offer you with your internet plan.

The proposed repeal would allow tiered pricing to access various sites.

Rich people complaining about not being rich enough... claiming some bullshit about a self-regulating free market, and that obama was a socialist.
You know... typical Amerifats

...

kek
so we have to pay to go to certain websites?

Or they could simply not allow proper access at all for no reason, regardless of your internet tier.
Also forces them to invest in infrastructure and upgrading their piece of shit old ass copper tech.

Basically yes, the same as cable TV. You get some basic shit but have to upgrade for more.

call

>Also forces them to invest in infrastructure
Without competition, there's no incentive.

Net neutrality is why the internet is the way it is. Without net neutrality it would be like it was before 2015. Do the math yourself.

Before 2015 you did not have to pay for tiered access

Bingo. This whole thing is, as they say, a big nothingburger.

I disagree. Existing providers would not expend the time, money, and political capital to repeal the status quo unless they intended to change the status quo.

So where's the huge anti-NN media campaign? I must've missed it somehow.

The media does not determine NN, nor does the public - both are more likely to be in favor of it. That would be counterproductive. The best strategy is just to quietly put lobbying pressure on congressmen/FCC. This is what's been attempted multiple times with quiet bills, and now that the FCC is far more favorable, they can take another shot.

Does this affect Canada? Will it still have net neutrality if the U.S. changes? Canada fag here

You know what's better than a lobbyist? A whole country of lobbyists. That's the whole point of media campaigns.

This is only relevant if two conditions are met: the public has an impact on the outcome, and the public is amenable to the outcome. In this case, the former is limited (it's not a public vote, and the major institutions are all in the providers' court from the onset), and the latter is extremely unlikely.

You could fight to change peoples' opinion, or just try to keep them from noticing. The latter is a lot easier when you're not acting in their interests whatsoever, and when the end result of the public not being heavily involved is an automatic win.

Not necessarily, but with the amendments corporations could charge for access to certain sites without it being illegal.

Like with the current laws, if Disney were to pay, say, AT&T to give priority to their own streaming service and throttle competitors, that would be illegal. These amendments would give them the freedom to do this if they wanted to.

I'm sure someone will point out that competition will prevent any misuse of this power since if one ISP starts throttling, adding fees, etc., people can just switch, but there aren't really enough choices available for that to happen, IMO.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_Canada

>I'm sure someone will point out that competition will prevent any misuse of this power since if one ISP starts throttling, adding fees, etc., people can just switch, but there aren't really enough choices available for that to happen, IMO.
It's not even in your opinion. In many cases there are localized monopolies or something close enough to it that the major player can use their market power to lock out small competitors. On the national level, it's more likely that you'd just see oligopolistic collusion where everyone raised their prices on a similar structure.

>the public has an impact on the outcome
Maybe not immediately but if they really don't like the changes, that means no second terms for Congress.
>the public is amenable to the outcome
Absolutely, this thread wouldn't exist if it weren't for all the people trying to convince each other it's a huge deal.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

You do realize the same companies that own the media are the same ones who would benefit from NN being gone? It's why you can find a lot of talk about it online but you don't see Fox News (Republican being paid by news corporations) or CNN (owned by Time Warner) talking about it because they will get paid once NN is gone.

On the very slim chance that you're confused and not trolling: how often do members of Congress get booted out for major national policy changes? Particularly ones that most people don't know enough about to consider the implications of because there isn't broad awareness of the issue? Again, that's exactly why there aren't media campaigns - keep it vague and nebulous and people won't feel too threatened or eager to do anything.

I'm not sure why you think activity on Sup Forums is a proper measure of public opinion, either.

I don't see how media companies have a stake in this but I'm down for whatever benefits the ISPs. They're the reason you're reading this right now.

>how often do members of Congress get booted out for major national policy changes?
About as often as elections happen.
>I'm not sure why you think activity on Sup Forums is a proper measure of public opinion, either.
Nice strawman, I hear people talk about it IRL every freakin day. It's driving me nuts.

>I'm down for whatever benefits the ISPs
You could have started with that so we knew you were shilling, user

>so what is this net neutrality
a plot by hitlery and obummer to keep ISPs from giving you better service.

keep crying libtards. your tears are so delicious.

If you're against the ISPs what the hell are you doing on the internet? Shoo fly, don't bother me.

>I'm down for whatever benefits the ISPs. They're the reason you're reading this right now.
hahahah this moron doesn't realize the incredible profit margins ISPs already have, and also that due to monopoly-forming mergers ISPs are now content-providers as well.

It's like trusting a mortician to administer your chemotherapy drugs.

You're still probably too stupid to understand that analogy, but I tried my best to dumb it down.

See

Hoodis

I work in antitrust litigation and spend most of my time paying attention to which companies are trying to fuck you

No you fuckinh moron. The reason they want to change it is so they can NOT have it has been since the start of the internet and make the internet pay2win.

you know how you can use your electricity to power a microwave or a TV? yeah, that's because your electricity is neutral; the power company can't tell you what you can and can't do with it.

NN is like that but for the internet. Without it, cable companies could say "nope, no Netflix we want you to buy our shitty overpriced cable"

OK, enlighten me. My ISP is Verizon, how are they trying to fuck me?

Most places in the states have 2 or 3 options. Lots of places have 1. There is no free market when your market has 3 stalls who all agree to sell the same thing at the same price. And don't tell me that's illegal, doesn't matter they do it all the time.

itt: libturds crying because share blue will be strangled by the free market.

>I don't see how media companies have a stake in this but I'm down for whatever benefits the ISPs.

"Time Warner currently has major operations in film and television. Among its major assets are HBO, Turner Broadcasting System, The CW, Warner Bros., CNN, DC Comics, and as of August 2016, Hulu, owning 10%."

Also AT&T is trying to buy Time Warner, which is being challenged by the DOJ since they would pretty much have a monopoly.

nytimes.com/2017/11/20/business/dealbook/att-time-warner-merger.html

But yeah, I'm sure they're not making enough money as is.

Nigga, I'mma blow ya mind: those companies don't compose the entire media and AT&T isn't the only ISP.

AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner is being challenged by Drumpf's DOJ because AT&T subsidiary CNN is mean to Drumpf.

As of April 2017 the CRTC will uphold Net Neutrality but also allow ISP's to offer differential pricing to customers, but only in the areas of speed rates, monthly data usage etc. but not based on content. This ruling protects the consumer from the practices of content blocking etal, but encourages competition between ISP's while still giving ISP's the ability to enhance and further innovation to their networks

For a general overview of that sector without anything propreitary:
>Attempts to limit phones to single providers so that they can force customers to use their plans (AT&T is the big one here)
>The above is also used to squeeze out smaller regional providers (see RCA suing AT&T over the iPhone)
>Attempts to identify elasticity of data usage to create more aggressive price discrimination on data user tiers (basically every company is constantly testing this)
>Numerous mergers/merger attempts to ensure that most of your services are under one company (most recent: see CenturyLink/Level3). This allows more aggressive pricing
>Margins are colossal as very little is put into infrastructure: compare US to most other developed countries
>Vertical merger attempts (AT&T/TW) aim to create bundles where you're forced to buy all their products at a higher price or none at all, which with the above locks you into spending more money than you want

Basically nothing in the sector in the last decade has happened for customer benefit, and everything has happened to either pump up margins or fill revenue holes so that analysts are happy. None of the major cable/telco/data companies can even breathe without the DOJ looking at them due to how blatantly monopolistic they are at this point (DOJ suit vs AT&T was just announced this week). NN is one thing that prevents the exertion of monopoly power.

In a lot of places it is.... the US isn't composed entirely of your block. Blew your mind

Net neutrality, simply put, is that thing almost everyone thinks they understand enough to have an opinion about, but don't.

No shit Sherlock. They're still big enough that an anti-trust suit is being filed against the merger.

shut up idiot. it's incredibly simple.

So which of those problems have I not yet solved by switching to Verizon?
Thanks, I'm much more glad to not live in a shithole part of the country than I was before.

Sure, but it depends where you are - in many places you have an effective local monopoly and there's no comparable alternative. Even if you have multiple large carriers, the history of the sector suggests they'll simply collude. Econ101-tier "perfect competition" free market nonsense doesn't apply to this sector for any number of reasons.

Only thing with cable is they have to pay the channels, so the cable companies pass some cost to the customer which is reasonable

See

>So which of those problems have I not yet solved by switching to Verizon?
Literally none of them; most providers just match each others increases rather than trying to aggressively price lower or utilize the surplus bandwidth/spectrum they have.

net neutrality means ISPs cannot limit access to certain websites to benefit others. see how simple that is? its the standard rule for all utilities and common carriers including railroads, electricity, telephones, and national parcel delivery.

youtube.com/watch?v=mpx4ODP35VQ

his folk rap is underrated was on point

>So which of those problems have I not yet solved by switching to Verizon?

For now, yeah, still no reason to amend laws that prevent them from screwing you in the future, especially if the big ISPs roll out similar models so there's no real competition.

>Literally none of them
Well alright then.

A better question is, who do we have to shoot to stop this? Ajit Pai looks to only be a front man, the people pulling the strings need taking out. It's about time we start sorting out the juden.

mfw niggers don't know they've already been sold out to the ISPs by drumpster

zdnet.com/article/trump-signs-into-law-privacy-killing-rules-that-let-isps-sell-your-browsing-history/

Yeah, old news. That's why I confuse my ISP and those datacollectors by watching normal porn in between by hentai trap and bestiality jerk off sessions. Keeps em from making an accurate profile on me.

The government killed this thread. Cencorships

And a shill bumped it