So why is Tere no one Talking about net neutrality

So why is Tere no one Talking about net neutrality

Other urls found in this thread:

google.com/amp/s/www.purevpn.com/blog/arguments-against-net-neutrality/amp/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because people don't know anything about it.

They hear "free internet" and don't consider the downsides.

I'm on the side of net neutrality, but it really isn't an open and shut "this is definitely how it should be and anyone that thinks otherwise is retarded" issue.

There are numerous potential benefits from it being repealed; The tricky bit is those benefits aren't guaranteed. They depend so very strongly on the private businesses that provide access to the internet actually competing genuinely. The repeal of net neutrality makes it much easier for an ISP to open its doors and start providing service, but that means nothing if they immediately get gobbled up by a monster ISP like Comcast so that they can continue to provide shitty service at exorbitant prices.

If new competition is allowed to flourish, we're looking at cheaper, faster, more widely available internet. It all depends on how we, as consumers, spend our money. At the worst, it may mean boycotting certain ISPs and going without internet for weeks or months until they provide better. I cringe a little when people say "Internet is a human right." That's like saying "television is a human right." It's just an entertainment medium. God forbid you go without for a while.

Yeah thats what i am worried about the average consumer is an idiot

this isnt reddit we KNOW that net neutrality was garbage to begin with

Why would it be?

>The repeal of net neutrality makes it much easier for an ISP to open its doors and start providing service

wrong, the repeal would not allow new ISP, it'll still be the same monster ISP. the repeal does nothing to open up municipal poles for new ISP to run their own fiber, which is the major cost barrier since new ISP (like google) have to bury their fiber which is very expensive.

>BEING THIS RETARDED

are you fucking kidding me how was NN bad

Thanks. Good post

Cable and DSL are far, FAR more prevalent in the United States.

Because Sup Forums is too busy posting on sissy/cuck threads and fb fap threads.

We are fucked buddy.

Do you think Sup Forumstards on here give a single shit, OP?

Well I suppose you don't, until you have to buy the sissy cuck pack from your isp

your point?

Much cheaper to cover introductory and infrastructure costs.

Everyone hates Comcast. Comcast charges out the nose for shitty service. If a no-name company makes the initial investment to set up their own infrastructure and directly competes with Comcast, people will leave Comcast and try the new service. Then both services have to improve regularly or lose their customers as they one-up each other.

That's the plan, anyway. It's easier for a big company like Comcast to get exclusive license for maintenance and expansion under Net Neutrality, since internet is considered a municipal utility like power or water (which the government typically only allows one company to provide at a time in a given area). That lets them more easily box out newcomers. The risk is still present without Net Neutrality, but it's under the umbrella of the shitty Corporate takeover structure, so then you have to hope new companies cropping up are either privately owned or LLCs, so a fucker like Comcast can't just have a majority share in it and give the illusion of competition.

Thank you guys
We'll look forward for your vote in the next elections
this is only the beginning in a busy agenda of business
america great again dont forget it

what the fuck even was net neutrality and how did it affect me?
>Why should I care?

Ur a retard
google.com/amp/s/www.purevpn.com/blog/arguments-against-net-neutrality/amp/

The way it was marketed is "Your ISP shouldn't be allowed to charge companies like Netflix or Youtube more money to get access to you, just because they are bandwidth intensive."

And that's fair, because bandwidth is something that can be constantly added to. The internet is like a road that you can add lanes to anytime you want, if you're willing to invest in building more of it, so while streaming sites use vastly more resources than sites like Wikipedia, ISPs can't say they lack those resources. The way they're marketing it now is "ISPs will charge you extra if you want to connect to popular sites, like Facebook or Google." Or "Your ISP will block Facebook and Google and force you to use their own alternative sites." And while that's possible, it's extremely bad businesses provided there is ANY alternative.

Which is really what it comes down to. In a lot of areas of the United States, there's only 1 ISP. If you don't like what they're offering, fuck you. Pay for shit or get nothing. Net Neutrality is a good idea when there isn't competition, but creating monopolies stagnates progress and growth.

The hope is that there is enough competition that repealing Net Neutrality will force innovation and expansion. In areas with lots of ISPs, it'll work like a charm. It's the middle-of-nowhere towns with 1 shitty provider that are going to get fucked.

I happen to live in one of those towns, so, like I said in my first post, I'm for Net Neutrality. It's in my personal interest. But I can see why someone that lives in an area with 3 or more ISPs constantly begging for customers might be interested in unleashing their ability to technologically advance.

Internet is required for mainting work and communication. It's not a human right, but it is a ciritical utility for a functioning society.

Electricity,phone service, garbage pickup, running water, access to transport: these are not rights and you can survive without them, but they are required for allowing society to function and it's members to interact with the world.
Many of those require heavy infrastructure to run, and because of that they are classed as "utilities" and their pricing is government controlled.

Yes, and businesses can negotiate for much better services than individuals. In the worst case scenario, it's not going to harm any businesses except online marketers and online retailers, because it will be less pleasant and convenient for an individual to access and use the web. And honestly, besides shitty low-paying warehouse and call center jobs, they don't really add much to the economy.

I think the USA is getting too big for it's boots. It's time someone sent 100 nukes to their country and forgot they ever existed. Jesus... I feel like how sand niggers feel. American's, no offense.. You're all such toxic, little try hard low IQ retards who are gonna ruin the planet.

Killselves thanks.

They didn't pay Comcast for a Sup Forums Gold Pass.

yet 2 years ago all you cock goblins were losing your minds over it and how important it was.

Seems like bullshit whining to me. There's nothing you can do about it anyway if some pajeet wants to fuck with the systems in place.

Left wing media and socially retarded kiddies are literally affecting our planet in a negitive way now.. Shits getting beyond a joke. And all you little losers acting like you're smart. Saying shit like "NN is good" Fucking GROW UP, u little gremlin toxic teenagers who know NOTHING about the world. Please please please do yourselves a favour, waste of air.

>Banking
>IT
>Govt
>Powerplants
>Stocks
>Retail
>Hospitals
Well, see how long you would survive without fast internet. But that is just my two cents

Individuals need to access and use the web for interaction with eachother and work.
Individuals as consumers access the web for goods and services. Restricting access to smaller companies or independent forums, you alter the economic playing field.

In order for free-market capitalism to exist, the market must be, in fact, free. Paying to ENTER the market is harmful to entrepreneurial development.

The fear here is that eventually telecom companies will use this to creep up rates and addons for individuals.


On the other hand, i can see the benefit of more dedicated service for larger companies who NEED more bandwidth (stores/offices) and cheaper restricted plans to act as a connection to a larger digital infrastructure (modules for streaming services for TV packages).
As long as internet does not charge for data, or increase prices for unlimited access at what are currently labeled as "high speed", there will be no problem.

Like I said, it comes down to voting with your wallet. If your ISP is being a cunt, you have to be prepared to say "fuck it, I'm moving to the woods to be a lumberjack."

Or, if at all possible, switch to an alternative service. Cities tend to push money far faster and in far greater volumes than rural areas, and cities tend to have the most alternatives for ISPs, so cities are going to be the ones that determine if this works. It'll take a few years for the benefits to creep into the cornfields, and those years are gonna suuuuuuuuck for people like me that live in the middle of nowhere, but the benefits at the end will be pretty nice.

I am thinking you are the MAGA kiddie that doesn't know what it is. If you think turning the internet into a ala carte DLC style market is better than a single entry fee system you are retarded. We will be paying $1.99 for each device we have hooked to the internet, paying extra for access to high bandwidth streaming sites, you wanna play games? That will be $4.99 per console connected. Do you want the social media package? $2.99 for that. Plus you owe us $29.99 for service each month. Welcome to the future.