Well it’s been fun lads

Well it’s been fun lads

Other urls found in this thread:

theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

can you take your stupid fucking shilling to

Hello there, new friend tourist summer fag. I see you're using the Internet. How about that? So am I. So is original poster up there. Funny that you should recommend a different board for original poster, when nearly every website on Earth is run, in part or in full, by a server based in the United States! Haha! What a coincidence! Why, is that the SAME United States that's about to lose Net Neutrality that original poster is referring to? That's UNCANNY!!!

what a massive faggot you are.

I remember pre-Net Neutrality internet.
It wasn't that different.
Free Market will also kick in, and we'll most likely see a drop in internet prices.

Just like with cable TV? Oh wait.

Sup Forums is in it's shittiest state right now. Every other thread is just gay porn or this kike shilling.

Choke on a cock OP.

No one in the country supports this, except republican politicians that got a kick back.
theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale

dont forget traps and cum tributes, faggot!
>thats why I am here, tbh

We're fucked boys

you retarded?

it's gonna make the internet better because isps can compete better. get rekt fag op

Ha HA! I love you too, my new friend tourist summer fag! Are you enjoying your first weeks, here? Remember, this place encourages active debate, especially about topics you personally don't consider important and/or relevant! Like Net Neutrality, for example! Ha HA! Meanwhile, here's a picture of me on my couch, pretending I'm from Oasis!

don't worry congress will vote agai- Oh wait they're all republicans. So we're fucked.

This

I'm actually curious what organization is running all this shilling on Sup Forums right now. I kinda want to get in on those NEET paychecks.

Yeah, because giving companies total control of their profit margin always lowers prices
Their vote wasn't the be-all end-all decision, it still needs to go through other approval processes first. It was unlikely they would stop the vote because the FCC is invested in it going forward, but we can still stop it

>And the ISPs want to make less money

So you're anti neutrality? Why? Why do you think it's a good idea to remove a law that says ISPs have to treat data equally?

Share Blue. CTR changed their name.

see
The free market is about what's most profitable not what's most consumer friendly

If ISP's start doing dumb shit, people will go to ISPs that are not doing said dumb shit, or has lower prices, or whatever.

But within the free market, if a company charges too much, or has stupid fucking rules, another company will take it's business with lower prices, and less stupid rules.

>Let's harness an Egyptian God of Chaos to do our bidding EPIC WIN GUISE RIGHT?
>Meme magic utterly back fires and kills the fucking internet

Cruel irony.

where do you live that you have more that 1 option for cable internet?

Where do you live where you don't?
I live in town of like 200-250 people tops, and have several options.

that faggot piece of shit literally looks retarded or he eats hobo's shits out of reststop toilets. i hope he and a bunch of these fucking faggots get murdered like back in the time of the french revolution. trump cucks loving that swamp draining huh?

you do not know what you are talking about.

Unless ALL of them do it, which they will because they now have the ability to make more money for the same (or less) service.. May not be a huge price hike, but the price WILL go up even if only slightly

>Why do you think it's a good idea to remove a law that says ISPs have to treat data equally?

yes
not all data is equal. netflix must fly fast but email can wait 2 secs so why have a law that says these signals must transmit at the same rate?
and, of course, why a law for every god doamned thing?!

Why would a smaller company try to pull the same shit a big company would?
They would get no service because everyone would go to the company with the name.

do you even live in the united states? isps made regional monopolies for themselves. they even pay state legislatures to put into law that cities can not make low cost internet available for their citizens!!!

In what regards? How repealing this in favor of having corporate cock shoved up our bandwidths is an ultimately poor decision or how this is the logical outcome for summoning a diety that is innately chaotic?

Yes, I do.

There are very many places where there are only one or two providers. Not really much to choose from in my area either. If ISPs decide to charge more, they're already running monopolies in some areas so there isn't much we can do

pretty much all of america, with the exception of a few places, you have THE phone company, and THE cable provider.

Because without that law, it leaves the ability to censor or slow your internet up to your provider. Instead of saying they legally can't screw us over, they're trusting the ISP to not do it but giving them the option. And why would they push for this if it wasn't their plan to charge more? If they had good intentions, then the current law is fine as it is

I'm just wondering, how bad were things before rules were even implemented, if going back to them is the death sentence to the Internet?

Almost no different.

In the town I work in, which is about 12,000 (I think), I believe there are a little less than 10.

then check my dubs you fucking cable monopoly shill

They weren't necessarily bad, it's just that afterwards it was better, and now it will be worse since ISPs know exactly what they're going to do in order to maximize profits.

that isn't how it is for everyone, a non-negligible fraction of internet consumers (i'm seeing 50% at the FCC's standard speeds but it might be more or less) in the US have only one choice of provider.

This has the ability to make certain regions more competitive (unless the ISPs work together) but for some areas there is entirely no way for the market to be competitive, meaning those areas have no real limit on what companies can do to consumers

it's hard to say what EXACTLY the ISPs will do but it could very easily be bad

If neutrality is repealed, sure things might be fine. But there's no reason to get rid of it if they're not planning to abuse it when it's gone

The market is already controlled by those big ISPs, there aren't many small ISPs around that have established infrastructure of their own (and therefore are beholden to larger companies) because it's a huge investment

You pull the pin and walk into a room holding a live grenade. Best case scenario, you walk out of that room still holding it. Repealing net neutrality is a bet with no upside.

Pour out one last round for the anons rip in piece faggots

people in the us are so abjectly stupid. the us has relatively bad service and speed when compared to other first world countries. that is because cable companies spend a shitload of money not to improve service but to lobby congress and state legislatures to stifle competition so they can lock up monopolies wherever they can. i can only imagine what these fucking shills would say if it were 30 years ago and we were talking about breaking up at&t. they'd fucking rage that socialists were taking over. it's incredible how brainwashed these people are because they are told that can't be a fucking republican if they deviate from such a narrow line of thought. you're being played morons!

You dont srsly think this is the issue, do you? Netflix wants priority over your popmail? God damn, son.

I live in OKC, i have a choice between AT&T and Cox

1 ip for like

>ITT

Depends what the ISPs want to do, but I refuse to believe they're doing it for any other reason than profit. If they wanted to they could fuck the internet up beyond all recognition by throttling data speeds arbitrarily unless you pay them more

Google says there's 11 providers, but I guess not.

lets use city traffic as an example here. every car, city bus, truck, construction vehicle has to share the road, all of them have to travel the same maximum speed. there's no special speed limit (in city)

now lets say the government allowed semi trucks to go faster than other traffic. but since its not technically possible for these heavy trucks to have unlimited speed limits, they'll just make the rest of the traffic go slower or take the shoulder to let them pass.

what about a partnership with airlines, allowing the same favor for traffic going to the airport? or traffic to the company's headquarters in town so employees don't have to worry about the morning rush.

Its great if you're traffic in any of those groups, but if you aren't you have to just hope its not busy that day, and that the company doesn't make even more deals with other groups/destinations for fast lanes.

You see what i'm getting at here? Data is already traveling as fast as technologically possible on the internet. Undoing net neutrality means ISPS aren't making fast lanes out of thin air, they're making them at the expense of everybody else's traffic and those lanes can be divided up however the provider chooses. Business partnerships, political affiliations, whatever. Consumers won't have any say in it except for picking which provider gives the least amount of slow-lanes.

It's just a big bold step backwards in information technology for the sake of a few hundred people deepening their pockets and putting the buyer in a government-sanctioned headlock.

It looks like in that area at&t is the only major company with 1000mbps and then two others at 100 and the rest are a huge speed dropoff. Those look like tiny companies that can't actually compete for someone who wants fast internet

Problem being, companies often agree pricing cross brand. And furthermore, internet is not a utility, they own the cables that go to your fucking house. What's to stop them from saying "yeah, now no one can piggyback on our lines, fuck you, pay us"?

I'm sorry, what's that? You pay more for faster internet? Under net neutrality laws? My fucking God, how is that allowed? Don't they know it's the Current Year?

>kike shilling
Sup Forums pls go.

>still using cable

Wireless is the future, grandpa.

>Implying this hasn't happened before
Slippery slope fallacy implies it's something that has never happened but MAY go wrong. Like saying if gay marriage is legal soon bestiality or pedophilia will become legal. There's extensive records of companies screwing over consumers (sometimes knowingly doing things that could lead to morbidity or death in the consumer like the Swill milk scandal) because they weren't regulated properly.

I didn't say you pay more. I just said at&t is the biggest provider in the area. Everyone else is probably renting through their infrastructure. The problem with removing net neutrality is that then they would have the monopoly and be able to jack up prices even more easily

Those of you who are against neutrality, why? What good do you think will come from removing it?

Pre Obama and net neutrality the internet was unusable. I remember when I had to pay my ISP extra to access the shopping sites. Oh wait. That never happened. Lol.

So what fuckery were companies doing before NN stopped it?

Why didn't they do that before NN was implemented?

What good did implementing it do?

What's your address so I can print this quote off in fancy gold lettering and a nice little artistic border and mail it to you shortly after your Internet turns in a cable package and you are unable to reach YouTube.com because you forgot to by the content creator package?

The organization is people who understand how internet works and recognize that they are about to be fucked out of all their money unless they give up their internet.

Guaranteed data be delivered equally to prevent providers from overcharging people. So what good do you think happens by removing it?

Internet was nowhere near the scale it is now. And the corruption of politics is more brazen now. That was a decade ago. Shit has changed.

While major companies will implement the package shit, there will be a big market for smaller providers to shill out limitless internet. This will ruin the typical providers and force them back to all inclusive internet. But the packages will remain for Christian's and old farts that want to pay less to just use Facebook and do their taxes.

Wireless is IS future, but it isn't the now. Let me know when you can get >100 MB/s through satellites, then we'll talk.

How were you not fucked before NN?

There is no other options for ISPs you fag

I've had unlimited 50Mb wireless for half a decade now.

>2015 was a decade ago

I was talking about private industry in general, they're all motivated by profit. It doesn't matter what industry they are in, if they can cut corners and get away with it nine times out of 10 they will. The internet is supposed to be about the free exchange of information, its predecessor ARPANET was literally designed to help scientists communicate and share info. Allowing companies motivated solely by profit dictate where you can go and at what speed corruption will follow. It's either pay through the nose or have substandard iinternet

>there will be a big market
And what infrastructure will they use, pray tell? The ones created by the huge companies that are already price gouging at that point?

I would guess that in the past it wasn't a necessity like it is for most people today, so people would've just dropped the isp instead of paying because they can't live without it

>before Obama
>2015

Yeah, and degenerates have always pushed for more degeneracy. So what makes one slippery slope more slippery than the other?

Hell, people are all for private companies being able to kick people off their platforms and take their money, but now private business is a problem... Maybe Google and Facebook should start their own ISP services, people love fucking their dicks regardless of what they do.

> I was talking about private industry in general, they're all motivated by profit. It doesn't matter what industry they are in, if they can cut corners and get away with it nine times out of 10 they will.
that's the most obvious truth and so many stupid morons will never accept it.

You do realize what was repealed was the 2015 Obama NN, right?

These shills can stop sucking Ajit Pai's dick any time now

Yeah, it's the truth. What's your alternative? Give all the power to the government. They've never done anything bad.

because one is a guess, the other has been recorded multiple times. Gay marriage was legalized and I dont go outside and see people fucking their dogs. But we've seen what companies do when they are released from legislation and it's usually not consumer friendly

Why the fuck would you WANT corrupt congressman determining what you can look at on the internet?

How fucking mentally ill are you OP?

You know that's not what net neutrality is, right?

Funny, I don't remember seeing ISPs throttling traffic pre-2015. So, where are your records?

>b-but muh eevul companies

...

Repealing net neutrality won't stop the government from censoring things, it just allows your ISP to censor things too

Why would they want this if not to throttle and make more money? All the anti NN people here can't come with any good things about repealing it, just arguing that it won't be that bad when it's gone. Why change it if it's working fine?

Not the guy you responded to but at least the government to an extent answers to its citizens. Companies answer to their shareholders alone. There's no perfect solutions in the real world and handing over total control to EITHER the government or private industry wont work. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, that goes for governments and private industry alike
Why would they be working so hard to repeal it if they weren't motivated by increased profit?

>Why would they want this if not to throttle and make more money?

Well, you tell me, because they had plenty of opportunity to do it, but didn't. So much for your "recorded multiple times".

>Why change it if it's working fine?

You tell me. No throttling was going on pre-2015, so why the ruling? Other than make it a thing the government could regular more easily. I've still had no pro-NN people explain why the 2015 rules were important, other than slippery slopes.

>You tell me
>You tell me
Again with this, you still aren't defending your own point. There's no reason to remove it if it only does good and nothing good will come from removing it

>Why would they be working so hard to repeal it if they weren't motivated by increased profit?

Why would all the other companies be working so hard to keep it, if it weren't motivated by their profits? Of course not, those companies care about freedumz.

no one cares

>There's no reason to remove it if it only does good and nothing good will come from removing it

What good has it done, when there were no problems? Again, slippery slopes, user.

Stfu stop speaking for everyone else. We do care you dumb fuck

No, this is not a slippery slope fallacy. You wouldn't (or shouldn't) let someone hold a loaded gun to your head and call it a slippery slope to assume they'll pull the trigger. This is an actual threat to the internet, not a slippery slope