Trump Doesn't Support Net Neutrality

Why the hell would I want to vote for him?

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

*twitation needed*

twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/532608358508167168?lang=en
Straight from him. The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with net neutrality.

Are you going to give a shit about net neutrality when your country is over-run with nonwhites?

Focus on the bigger issue retard.

>implying Clinton does

I care about tech issues. Building broadband and other tech infrastructure so our average speeds aren't beat by places like romania, increasing competition among providers so we don't have duopolies in most areas of the country so our prices are better. I care about net neutrality. I've seen trump not give a shit about any of this.

Net neutrality is shit and you're an ignorant shit for supporting it.

Net Neutrality just leaves the internet alone you are the one that's ignorant. You wanna be ripped off having to pay more for better access to certain things?

I wonder who could be behind this post?

Trump always comes down in support of whatever positions make the best business sense.


Deporting illegal immigrants and building a wall to keep more out makes good business sense because illegal immigration costs taxpayers, businesses, hospitals, schools, etc billions of dollars a year.

Withdrawing from trade agreements like NAFTA or TPP makes good business sense because long term increases in manufacturing and labor jobs in the domestic market will outweigh short term increases in costs of luxury items.


Whatever his tweets or past statements, Trump will ultimately decide to support net neutrality because a free, open, and meritocratic internet encourages the development of better quality goods and services online.

So your idea is that Hillary will do anything good for the internet? What leads you to think that?

>I've seen trump not give a shit about any of this.
Neither does anybody else. If Net neutrality withstood with Obama, it's not going anywhere with Trump.

Though some could argue that ISPs (who are already assholes because monopoly/duopoly etc) would "best business sense" for their shareholders to profit more by price gauging even more.
Well she does support net neutrality and more infrastructure. Does trump want to build better broadband infrastructure? Seems he's too occupied with building a wall.

>just leaves the internet alone
No It give the Feds the power to regulate local ISPs

>Does trump want to build better broadband infrastructure?
I didnt know that was the job of the Federal government

Then vote for Johnson or Stein, faggot. Or even Vermin Supreme. There's other choices besides Shillary and Dangerous Don.

They helped make power lines , they helped make phone lines, same fucking thing.

>The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with net neutrality.
The Feds will have the power to implement an internet version of the fairness doctrine now that they can regulate the internet

>They helped make power lines , they helped make phone lines
They shouldn't have
Also the internet backbone in this country is fine
It is last mile that is slow
That is not a Federal issue

What provision in there says that?

Net neutrality was always about disallowing ISP's from unfairly regulating other competing websites for their own gain.

People would argue that now, Comcast is charging out the ass for netflix streaming while purposely promoting their own streaming service by throttling netflix

>What provision in there says that?
The FCC is now allowed to regulate it

>ISPs
States are perfectly capable of regulating ISPs

Yeah! (And welcome to the 19th century!)

>States are perfectly capable of regulating ISPs

Not when states not allow community broadband or other competition to the duopoly of the state by passing laws backed by the duopoly providers

>Also the internet backbone in this country is fine
Not really, the US's internet compared to others is garbage. There are many people who are completely landlocked by one single ISP charging out the ass for DSL speeds AKA comcast and Cox.

I said which provision not the same regurgitated "the FCC is now allowed to regulate it"

>states are perfectly capable of regulating ISP's
but they don't. Comcast has a huge hold over the midwest and there is no competition or alternatives for tens of millions of people.

>Not when states not allow community broadband or other competition to the duopoly of the state by passing laws backed by the duopoly providers
That is a State issue that only affects residences in that particular state
A state could ban all ISPs and it would not affect anyone not living in that state

But it effects that state and is not fair to the people of that state.

>Not really, the US's internet compared to others is garbage. There are many people who are completely landlocked by one single ISP charging out the ass for DSL speeds AKA comcast and Cox.
That is not an Internet issue it's an ISP issue

>I said which provision not the same regurgitated "the FCC is now allowed to regulate it"
They now have the authority to
>but they don't.
Because people are not demanding it because the internet works

Then the people in that state should push for their state to regulate ISPs
Learn 2 Federalism

>A state could ban all ISPs and it would not affect anyone not living in that state
Thats not the point. Its the fact that a monopoly prevents and purposely stifles any sort of upgrading of their infrastructure because theres no competition. They charge out the ass for speeds from 20 years ago and only a few of the ISP's are actually making some headway in pushing fiber.

Hell, TWC in Austin was charging out the ass for garbage copper when Google Fiber came in and brought everyone gigabit speeds and BTFO TWC.

>That is not an Internet issue it's an ISP issue
Never said it was an 'internet' issue. Its the providers purposely not competiting and charging out the ass for garbage service and people can't do fuck about it.

But how can they when the major duopoly or monopoly holder in that state has all the money to convince them not to?

>Thats not the point.
The point is States can regulate ISPs
Why are the Feds needed?
> Its the providers purposely not competiting
Then let the States regulate them

>Because people are not demanding it because the internet works
Its like driving on a bald tire, yea it works but it doesn't work well.

Are you seriously suggesting that people using garbage DSL is totally fine under a monopoly that commands an entire swathe of geography across the US while other countries are updating constantly and competing actively with prices and fiber?

>The point is States can regulate ISPs
>Why are the Feds needed?
because the state has no way of splitting up a huge ass ISP that serves a geographic area the entire size of their state. There is no room for competition because TWC, Verizon, Cox and Comcast all actively don't compete against each other

People need to stop voting them into office if they actually have a problem

That doesn't work, it hasn't worked. This system you're sticking up for is the same system that has enabled hillary to rig elections against other politicians. Its not democracy, its a plutocracy. It doesn't matter who you're voting for because they're all in cahoots with it.

a state has no power over what ISP's exist in their state even if they wanted to.

No I am suggesting the Feds stick to their constitutionally defined role
I am happy with my internet so I don't really give a fuck
>because the state has no way of splitting up a huge ass ISP
they dont need to split them up
They could easily set minimum standards for selling in their state

This. There is nothing neutral about net neutrality. Supporters are just as dumb as those who support BLM.

>Its not democracy
Democracy is retarded
More local control negates some of the negative effects of it because I can choose not to live around retards

>I am happy with my internet so I don't really give a fuck
Thats great for you but not for other people who don't have a choice. They don't have a choice between ISP's they either buy the over priced DSL from 20 years ago or they don't have internet at all.

You're shifting into a non-argument of "well I'm happy and thats all that matters"

>they don't need to split them up
>They could easily set minimum standards for selling in their state
No they couldn't. Because a group like comcast that serves in over 40 of the continental states can simply not deliver purely because they have the power to put you out instantly.

Local ISP's are non existent when Comcast and TWC have all the power. Its a monopoly that needs to be split up. Their intentional non-competition is cancerous

Our ISP's should have a free market where companies compete for Internet Service just like every other country does.

>Your country

Nice proxy Vladimir.

>well stop doing that
>thats not how it works
>well fuck you just move

yea just pick up all your shit, give up and move to another state (which is most likely dominated by comcast or TWC anyway) because a monopoly is charging 70 dollars a month for DSL with artificial data caps that do nothing but to make them more money

Damn I'm glad you're here you can make this argument better than I can I totally suck at it.

>this is a reason to support Clinton

>purely because they have the power to put you out instantly.
How?
If Comcast wants to continue to operate within the state they will have to obey the local regulations
If they choose to leave someone else will take their place

>give up and move to another state
Yes
If one State has shitty internet and another doesn't businesses will move

>How?
They serve a geographic area larger than your state

If the state magically wanted to somehow stop comcast from dominating their state, how would they even do it? You're forced to buy comcast or not have internet at all, there is no competition, there is no other option.

>obey local regulations
well they own the lines. What are you prescribing? the state just tell them "you don't own these wires anymore?"

>just make local regulations
as if thats just an end all be all instant cure.

>if they choose to leave someone else will take their place.
Not while those same regulations are in place. You just keep saying "local regulation" as if it just applies to comcast and no one else.

But they don't, thats the thing, a huge swathe of the states have absolutely garbage internet speeds because comcast doesn't upgrade them because they don't want to because they can charge out the ass because they have no incentive to be competitive at all.

Easier for a business to move than a person who's built a life, has a job, has friends/family, has a house they worked hard to make their own etc. You act like it's so easy for people to move to a different state. Do you live in a van down by the river?

No they're not you idiot. There's a reason why telecommunications are governed under federal law.

How the fuck would Comcast deal with fifty different sets of regulations?

>how would they even do it?
Regulate them

>well they own the lines.
Rarely
They usually lease from power companies
>as if thats just an end all be all instant cure.
How are only the feds capable of regulating ISPs?
>Not while those same regulations are in place
The only reason nobody would take their place would be if nobody could make a profit
>You just keep saying "local regulation" as if it just applies to comcast and no one else.
Where did I say that
It applies to anybody that wants to do business in their state

He's an idiot who just thinks saying the magic word "local regulation" will fix everything. Its not black and white like that and comcast doesn't have to bend over for anyone. Hell Verizon won't even answer your service call to fix your landlines anymore because they'd rather pay the federal fine than fix a land line. They'll then tell you to upgrade to a VOIP service and thats your only option

The Feds have power to regular ISPs as it is. In fact they currently do. Has nothing to do with net neutrality

>Regulate them
You keep spewing this word as if its a cure-all. What specifically are you regulating, what specifically are the regulations going to make comcast do to provide a better service at a better price. How are your regulations going to spur innovation, competition and infrastructure? You can't just say "well we'll regulate them" because thats not how it fucking works.

>how are the feds capable of regulating the ISPs
I'm sure you've heard of the sherman anti-trust act which specifically outlaws monopolies and domineering tactics of this sort.

>How the fuck would Comcast deal with fifty different sets of regulations?
They do now
They have to follow the regulations of whatever state they are in
Thats life
People should live in States that share their values
And you have yet to provide an example of a regulation that only the Feds could implement

I swear I heard Trump (or somebody at least) say something about keeping the internet free at the convention.

A state isn't about "Being a place where every single person agrees on everything all the time" I live in North Carolina? Do I share values with everyone in my state no that would be impossible as everybody has different values.

I don't support net neutrality either. we should cut NK, china, and russia off entirely

Trumpfags literally arguing against net neutrality. Is his cult of personality that strong on you guys?

They needed to classify ISPs as a public utility to
Then give me one reason why only the Feds are capable of regulating ISPs
>What specifically are you regulating, what specifically are the regulations going to make comcast do to provide a better service at a better price
They could easily ban internet fast lanes
>I'm sure you've heard of the sherman anti-trust act which specifically outlaws monopolies and domineering tactics of this sort.
The is no internet monopoly
Also ISPs are not commerce between the states

>And you have yet to provide an example of a regulation that only the Feds could implement
If you're implying something that "only the feds can do" its purely on point that because comcast is so big and controls a signficant portion of the geological aspect of providing singular state regulations are nothing in comparison.

One state law saying "you're not allowed to form anti-competition trusts between one another" won't magically apply to another because TWC and Comcast can simply not compete in other states. No state regulation will stop their country wide hold.

>people should live in states that share their values
people don't have those means. You don't just have one bad girlfriend and you can only have that specific girl or no girl at all then suddenly go gay as a solution

If we went back to a Federalist system people would be able to vote with their feet

Neither does Hillary since she's been making Facebook take down all images making fun of her. the only ones that weren't touched were ones posted by and ON personal profiles.

The net neutrality bill cause my provider to institute high speed data caps, that when you go over, puts you on a slower access node.

Fuck NN

>Then give me one reason why only the Feds are capable of regulating ISPs
because comcast doesn't operate in one state, they don't compete across every state. One state's sudden "regulation" which you still haven't defined because you're garbage at understanding non-black and white topics, is entirely ridiculous

>One state law saying "you're not allowed to form anti-competition trusts between one another" won't magically apply to another because
They could easily pass a law saying if you want to sell plans in this state it must provide x amount of data at y price

>The is no internet monopoly

>No guys, Comcast being the only option for people across the entire midwest isnt a monopoly
>no guys, just go without internet
>no guys, just move across the country because your ISP doesn't compete and offers you garbage service
>no guys they ARE competing I swear

No, your provider does that because they're fucking dickheads and have a monopoly on you.

ISPs aren't commerce between the states? What is ecommerce then?

That's not fucking net neutrality and facebook is a private company not the government.

Thats price fixing and thats even more anti-capitalist than the ISP's already are

They have to obey the regulations in every state they operate in
They cant pick and chose regulations like credicare companies because they have to actually operate in every state they want to do business in

And what do you think Shillary's postition on it is? We dont really have room to argue this right now.

thats not even going into the point of how comcast STILL doesn't upgrade their infrastructure, service, prices or speeds. They still charge outrageous prices for DSL and they still charge made up bullshit and fake datacaps that do nothing but to charge people more money.

>JUST REGULATE IT
>how? what specifically
>REGULATIONS
>yes but what specifically how are they going to regulate to instill more competition, better service and infrastructure?
>REGULATIONS
>specifically?
>REGULATING REGULATIONS
>by the fed?
>NO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED, STATE REGULATIONS ONLY
>comcast operates in more than 40 states
>SO? REGULATIONS
>comcast operates wholely across all states, not individually
>REGULATIONS IN EVERY STATE
>why not the fed?
>NO THATS NOT ALLOWED, EVERY STATE ADOPTS THE SAME REGULATIONS

>ISPs aren't commerce between the states?
No they just provide access
If you were to completely shut them down it would only affect people with that state
That is not the point
The point is states are capable of regulating ISPs
They could just as easily just ban throttling and make ISPs deliver their advertised speeds

That's price control. Price fixing is when two theoretically competing companies agree to provide a product for the same (high) price so they both make more money.

>And you have yet to provide an example of a regulation that only the Feds could implement
Interstate regulation is the sole province of the federal government. Last I checked, the internet crosses state lines.

>EVERY STATE ADOPTS THE SAME REGULATIONS
Where did I say that?

You still have not said how a state passing its own net neutrality law would not work

>The point is states are capable of regulating ISPs
that you can't even specify, your only garbage attempt at specifying any sort of regulations is price fixing which is retarded for numerous reasons I already outlined.

>ban throttling, make them deliver their advertised speeds
they'll just throttle you, make that base your internet service and use the same "up to x mb/s" bullshit because they can't be forced to guarantee it. And even if you force them to, they'll just guarantee a minimum service to circumvent you. Their advertisement strategy will then blame the state directly by pissing off their already pissed off consumer base more.

You still can't answer how the "regulations" you can't seem to specify will force comcast into upgrading their infrastructure, providing better internet speeds for this fucking era, or any of that.

which they're already doing anyway by actively not competing with one another

>Last I checked, the internet crosses state lines.
ISPs are not the internet
They they just provide access to it

You magically think that regulating in one state will solve the country wide crisis of comcast actively not competing across entire borders, not in individual state.

You still fail to recognize how this ISN'T an individual state problem, its a country wide problem that goes far beyond the abilities of the state.

Holy fuck you're stupid

the ISP's are entirely interstate, their policies and products are entirely interstate, their policies are interstate. Their monopoly stretches across the entirety of the US.

>they provide access
the access isn't good
its not fast
its not reliable
its not up to date.

Other country ISP's actively compete, they provide great service between one another, they're constantly upgrading peoples speeds, competing on price points and the only other significant country that DOESN'T do this is the US because 3 large companies have a huge monopoly over their respective geographic areas

>upgrading their infrastructure, providing better internet speeds for this fucking era, or any of that.
I already said they could regulate minimum speeds
Now are you going to finally tell me how they can get around a state regulation but not a federal one?

>muh interwebs
Grow up, go outside, start a family

>will solve the country wide crisis
It will solve the problem in the state
That is what state laws are for
>the ISP's are entirely interstate,
No they are not
If New York bans ISPs that only affects people living in New York and is not a Federal issue
If New York bans the internet that affects traffic going from New Jersey to Connecticut is is a Federal issue

>I already said they could regulate minimum speeds
you're just making shit up as you go along because you keep spewing "JUST REGULATE IT" when you have nothing.

A minimum spec isn't even guaranteed because the products they're offering are heavily limited by their garbage infrastructure. Your idea isn't elaborate enough to account for the circumventing policies they already employ.

>tell me how they get around a state regulation
its not even a state regulation, its your retarded view of "just regulate it" because you don't know any other words.

>JUST BAN THROTTLING
>oh fugg how... thats not fair! they just made their minimum the baseline for all their products. They just guaranteed I'd get a minimum of at least dial-up speeds and anything more than that was purely a bonus and they completely circumvented it!

>No they are not
Yes they are, comcast operates nationally across 40 different states.

An Internet Service Provider like Comcast doesn't operate in individual states, they operate NATIONALLY

>ban traffic from Jersey to NY
you can't even do that on any level.

>thinking Trump knows what fucking Net Neutrality is

Net neutrality is about socializing the Internet and having it run by government.

Only Commies support it.

>A minimum spec isn't even guaranteed because the products they're offering are heavily limited by their garbage infrastructure.
They would then need to upgrade to meet the requirements of operating within the State
>because you don't know any other words.
And you can answer the simple question of why only the feds are capable of implementing net neutrality

>why only the feds are capable of implementing net neutrality
because the issue is nationwide, not on an individual state issue. ISP's do not compete on a national level, state regulations won't fix the problem. Your idea is like putting only a few stitches into a big wound then calling it "fixed"

>Yes they are, comcast operates nationally across 40 different states.
That doesn't mean they are conducting commerce between the state
They conducting local commerce within 40 states

>you can't even do that on any level.
New York could ban(or tax or throttle) traffic from New Jersey going Connecticut this would be a reason for Federal involvement
Shitty ISPs that throttle you because you are downloading too cuck porn videos is not a reason for Federal involvement because it can easily be solved by state regulation

Again how would a state ban banning different speeds for different types of data not work?

Net Neutrality. Another slogan for stupid people. Just like Free Market

Remove the barriers to entry, you fucking Connie fucks.

> the market cartel myth

Communism 101

>he thinks Trump will do anything about legal immigration

>Again how would a state ban banning different speeds for different types of data not work?
Because you have no means of stopping it

>we'll just ban IP's from jersey
good luck with dealing with proxy services, VOIP, VPN's of ANY kind, or and kind of remote login. Good luck stopping SSH tunneling or any kind of subnet transfers.

>hahaha just ban traffic from another state
you literally have no way too.

>Because you have no means of stopping it
If they want to keep operating within that state they will need to obey their regulations
>we'll just ban IP's from jersey
>>hahaha just ban traffic from another state

I didnt say that
I just said I have no problem with the Feds regulating the actual internet
Can you finally answer the question as to /why only a nation net neutrality law would work?