Net Neutrality thread

Net Neutrality is a way for (((tech companies))) to shift their collocation costs onto the ISPs and not have to pay for the extra resources they're using that no small player could use. All this talk about internet freedom is a lie; we haven't had net neutrality for decades and none of the bad stuff has happened. Net Neutrality, strictly interpreted, would ban QoS, which is a horrible idea for increasing speeds.

Also, doing it through the (((FCC))) just gives the government power to regulate the internet whenever they feel like it. How many net neutrality shills have read all 317 pages of the FCC's net neutrality regulations?

Big internet companies are for it to protect their shekels, Marxists are for it to gain power over yet another industry.

Sure is Holla Forums in here

...

theres some serious jewishness afoot in there I'm quite sure. When it could all be summed up in one sentence.

Wham, done. 317 pages to cover what should be able to be summed up in one sentence (maybe go a little more in depth and make it a paragraph or two) always says theres jewish tricks afoot.

BUMP! This is pretty fucking huge guys and I'm disappointed in the human race that every singe person ever isn't talking about it right now.

Could anyone point to a source that explains both sides properly? All I really know at present is that the (((usual suspects))) are mostly against scrapping it.

...

1. Trying to put things in terms older people can understand (telephones).
2. Fuck you.
3. Most of us don't have a choice of ISP. They don't care if they piss us off. See my comment on "elimination of competition".
4. They already do in some degree. Do you know what happens when you have a typo in your URL? You must opt out of that DNS trickery.
5. You don't think there is already collusion?
6. It's not suicide. They have regional monopoly. Most of us don't have a choice of ISP provider. Our only choice is "internet or no internet".
7. There is no "rival" ISP. You're lucky if you have a choice of provider.

Do you understand what "barriers to entry" mean? Go ahead, try and create your own ISP. Hell, even govt/municipal attempts at creating have been defeated by Comcast/Verizon/ATT/TW etc. That shows you who is writing the laws in this country.

I'm not sure you know what the word "customer" means, user.

gb2reddit

Are you saying net neutrality is a bad thing?
Honest question… Just want to be clear.

Oh you sweet summer shill.

The only amount of Net Nutrality we need is to make it punishable when some ISP slows down or stops traffic to specific sites.

I don't have a source but TL;DR we most definitely want it.

What makes it tricky though is that
1. Kikes of course are trying to cause confusion and misinformation and make you think net neutrality will rape your grandma and kill your dogs and eat your sandwich.
2. The same kikes will try to add completely unrelated jewish shit into the law using net neutrality as the trojan horse, which AFAIK almost happened last time they tried to pass net neutrality.
3. We actually DON'T have net neutrality right now as far as I understand, which means there's nothing stopping ISPs from throttling your Holla Forums access.

Net neutrality means that you can connect to all websites equally, not at 100% speed to hollywood propagandaflix and 0.0001% speed to wronthink websites like Holla Forums. That's literally all it is, anything beyond that is not related net neutrality.

It is anti capitalist of course they hate it.
Letting private companies run their business as they see fit is bad now. Who paid to laid out all of the cable lines? If it was the feds then by all means regulate it and let development become stagnant. If not let them run themselves out of business while someone comes up with something better.

Exactly. ISP should not interfere.
Is there more to NN than that?

...

Am I the only one hoping Trump just tweets something about this and we can call it a day?

(Unless he's stupid enough to break net neutralitty, thereby destroying large supporter basis of him like fullchan, halfchan, /r/the_donald, Infowars and so on, which wouldn't be serviceable for him)

Anyone can post some good reads or sources for against and for net neutrality?

I would still like a source. From what little I've heard the isps are pissed they have to make resource heavy sites like YouTube Google and Netflix run at the same speeds as everyone else. I highly doubt killing it is a means to punish wrongthink. And on top of that, imageboards aren't all that demanding resource wise from a customers point of view.

And they already punish wrongthink. I had my bandwidth throttled by Comcast. Probably because I was torrenting.

Net Neutrality is code language for single payer socialized government run Internet.

I will put some triple parenthesis around "Net Neutrailty" and throw some buzzwords like jews and socialism. This way I can make it look bad! Am I shilling the right way?

It does. Telekom in Germany has this streaming packet and it works.

A broken clock is right twice a day.
Every common person, even libshits, have reason to want NN.

And this is the only amount of legislation, but the utmost important. wtf is wrong with pol, it can't wrap its head around NN. Anything else is censorship and NOT NN.

ISPs have government enforced monopolies in many places.

No, it's not you paranoid dipshit.
Net neutrality is a consumer protection preventing collusion among established monopolies in their attempt to eliminate competition.

I hope you're just trolling.

work like intended. A classical endpoint ISP is just a pipes laying local corporation, it has nothing to do with content. I understand that they want to prefer their own (((content))) over Mongolian basket waving sites, but they had 30 fucking years to diversify AND STILL DIDN'T.
Pic not related to your post.
Money is free right now. There is no shortage of money and those damn libtards don't get this. They dumped hundreds of billions of shekels into fracking sites to make the kikescheme in oilbusiness work, because muh Russia and Ian, but some dozen billions to upgrade the network or in some cases like Netflix just rent the next room to put in the cache box [0] into it - nope, this is insane hippie talk. In one instance it was one gigabit lan cable not plugged in. For no additional costs to any side.Unbelievable. NN is mostly about ISPs (read: Comcast, ATT etc.) reserving the right to get some part for doing absolutely nothing from jewgle, facezerg, netflix, amazon and crapple. And from consumer, who already paid month after month for 30 years to have their fiber laid. Oh wait. Yes. That's why.

[0] openconnect.netflix.com/en/hardware/

PS: t. Swiss. If Switzerland would ditch NN and declare only 1/10 be allocated to neutral traffic, I would upgrade to gigabit and say I'm OK with that, if those 100Mbit aren't throttled in any way and I have 24/7 100Mbit to waste as I care. I don't think those opposing NN for some reason or another in the US have a tenth of my very probable 100Mbit during the evening after dinner when everybody is at home surfing kikebook and netshit. Best effort my ass.

(((they))) can try all they want. They're not going to get it, because Trump is dependent on his internet supporters.

There's a pajeet called a shit pie on the FCC that wants to poo on America's freedoms and tax all sectors for it but yankucks are too intimidated to retaliate.

Not only that, in some places, the govt itself attempted to establish municipal (socialized - gasp) internet access. In each case the established ISPs lobbied the fuck out of the local politicians to prevent it.

Why are most people who foam at the mouth over the word "socialism" the very same people that wave a flag in support of local police and fire depts (first responders)? Do these rabid mouth breathers realize how local police and fire depts are established? The cognitive dissonance is staggering.

No, I'm not in support of socialism in general. I'm only pointing out that it exists and is embraced by many that hate it at the same time.

And that "consumer protection" is a single payer socialized government run Internet.

You just confirmed what I said:

Net Neutrality is code language for single payer socialized government run Internet.

Don't use logic user. No one shilling in this thread wants to hear it and the rest bought in to the medias lies. Just because some billion dollar company uses more resources does not mean they should have to pay more than someone that checks their email twice a day.

...

It was and now please shut up. How many lines are still from the days when it was counties and the federal level building and financing it? Do you have fiber? Who owns your local network really? It is probably leased out to a reseller company, but the responsibility lies with your county. Don't even bring this concept into circulation. In the end the state subsidizes lines and regulates what can be said on it. You're moronic to equate state spending with regulation. It leads inevitably to censorship. And market entry is prohibited. Are you aware that counties are prohibited to build their own last mile networks? Even financing and forming a publicly traded share holder corporation is prohibited if a county wants to make one.

arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

So a rural (probably white) community decides to pool in money to build its own WISP [0] to have more reliable Internet, because their (((profit margin))) is zero out of remoteness and small numbers, but the state prohibits it. Why does the state even have a say here? Why DC? Nobody can enter this market anymore, except with massive amounts of (((VC))) and propaganda from the start.

[0] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_Internet_service_provider

What Internet supporters want is privacy and anti-censorship rules. Net Neutrality socialists hijacked privacy activism and added in a whole bunch of socialist economic rhetoric.

dumb fucks, this is not a free market, not everyone with money can just lay cable and start an ISP.

When it comes to infrastructure, businesses have to on a tight leash. The day it becomes possible for anyone with money to provide internet access to anyone is the day I would oppose regulation, until then, I'm for net neutrality 100%.

So now it is YOUR turn to provide sources, faggot. Where does NN censor?

I get single payer socialized government run police protection.
So what?
If I want more protection, I'll hire a body guard or security staff.

Why can't we have the same baseline health care and internet service? If you want more/better service, you're free to pay a private company for it.

I'd rather have private company competition for my internet service, but I don't. It's a local monopoly.

Would you rather have private company competition for police protection?

user here
Thinks so. We are waiting for examples.

share this with normies

Its inexpensive to setup a network of radio links but the government clamps that shit down hard under broadcasting laws.

Yes, just like having a police, strictly interpreted, would imply a police state.
QoS was never a problem when the whole bandwidth still is 100%. Do you understand this? Bittorrent doesn't have to have low latency, but bulk/guaranteed delivery. Probably a big part of those 300 pages is frequency related and to what I wrote above. Most ISPs limit access in/out to port 25 e.g. or favor VoIP, because they already have some form of packet inspection. Even endpoint routers at home do QoS.
NN is about limiting rent, and the very concept of (((rent))) should you get grabbing for all arms possible.
Says it all too, in one sentence.

Correct, but you wont be able to wrap your head around it.
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/

Initially cable lines and fiber were paid for and leased out but then overbuilders rights came along. what is FiOS. Don't like the way they do business start your own. Better yet just don't use them. That will show them.

...

No, most physical cable networks are still owned by state entities.
Click around here and think hard:
oecd.org/sti/broadband/oecdbroadbandportal.htm
> inb4 (((OECD))) lying
Hey, dunce, Estonia and Poland has better Internet in all aspects than the US has. Germany has the same problems as the US. I wonder why.

Wow, this sounds totally anti-capitalist but I'm not really surprised by that when it comes to the Western World anymore.

I have 100mbps internet and youtube stagnates almost every time. I think I've been flagged as evil Nazi, and thus they're trying to make my experience less bearable.

Tfw speaking for First Amendment rights is 'shilling'. Did I offend you, o sjw?

ISPs are ludicrous monopolies that are not subject to any actual competition or free market. If this were not the case, it could be fine for them to have an almost cable like approach to websites, but practically in this situation it would just fuck everyone over if they were able to do whatever they wanted.

Are you so diametrically opposed to everything they do that you'd be willing to stop breathing air and drinking water? They are marxists, but even the most broken of clocks are correct twice a day.

Why is the law called Net Neutrality though, is it just to confuse people? Here in the Netherlands we recently had actual net neutrality for a while until the (((EU))) gloriously saved us from good things. This meant that no type of traffic could be throttled or promoted, including disallowing phone carriers from letting people stream Spotify outside of their credits.

This shit in America seems to be called net neutrality but actually allows for throttling and boosting of certain types of traffic.

*isn't
It's also a way to keep wrongthink sites from getting shut down you stupid cryptokike.

Good one m8

i am now convinced that net neutrality is just something for commies to whine about

i doubt it'll make a difference either way since it's all owned by jews isn't it?

The same thread is on Holla Forums
Someone is shilling net neutrality hard

I just checked, there are several net neutrality threads in cuckchan too

Fuck that. Kill it and let the ISPs fight each other tooth and nail for customers.

God forbid we have to use bandwidth efficiently again. What if I told you we used to communicate over 5KB/s phone lines and it works fine? I mean if it passes and things get piss slow, I'll be sad, but not that sad.

Maybe it removes the retarded feature bloat that we get on webpages nowadays

Net Neutrality is a good thing, removing it gives ISPs more power to abuse us.

inb4 this thread gets filled with "muh Trump doesn't leik it!! And muh free market"

What free market you fucking buffoons? are 20 new Comcasts going to prop up out of nowhere? are you completely ignorant to the cost of laying the wire across the country? nevermind the fact telecom corporations hold a strangle monopoly on the internet.

O-oh no! how dare we use high speeds! Mr shekelberg would lose his profits!

Fuckoff

I don't know wtf to think about NN to be honest. There's a ton of shilling on both sides. The fact that reddit and all the porn sites want it makes me think there's something kikey about it. The lolberg ancap part of me thinks that free market competition is better than letting the government get their dirty claws into it. The arguements for and against it both make sense to me. Basically, we have to pick between corporate or government control and neither seems like a great choice. The Internet has been working fine up until this point.

>doing it through the (((FCC))) just gives the government power to regulate the internet whenever they feel like it

No it doesn't you ancap shill, name one source in the NNA that states the government can regulate what content is on the net. Of course you won't cause this post will be dodged.

that'll never happen, microsoft and jewgle can't collect the hashes of your files with that kind of low bandwidth.
inb4 telemetry data gets top priority

shit's stupid expensive. running fiber is an immense pain with all the expensive splicing they have to do. it's even worse when it breaks and needs a full run because of those of so nasty middle of the line breaks. :^)

You realize we have barely more than 2 ISPs and they even tried to merge into one before congress cockblocked it? They don't fight even when there is more than 2, look at Canada where they all band together to have meetings on how best to fuck their customers without competing at all. I can't believe we still have you "muh (((free market))) will fix it" fags here.

There isn't a free market, that's what you're being fooled to believe.

Choosing between companies that have monopolized the market and can muscle small companies out of competition isn't true choice. The FCC head pajeet is a corporatist shill who worked with Comcast before in another case. The only reason telecom companies want NN gone is because they refuse to upgrade their hardware and cables and having unlimited data exposes their lies.

Exactly. The only other company that you could get reliable service from is Google fiber but their services are 99% in cities.

They're not being allowed to expand, ala monopoly. If fucking Google can't break through the state barriers these ((( free market ))) tards are hopeless delusional.

Bump

FYI, the biggest sham coming from anti-NN fags was Obama turning the internet into communism.

Well what happened? did the government censor your frog posting during the biggest election of our times? Didn't fucking think so. Corporations like Facebook and Twitter tried to silence you, and don't think for a second Comcast won't block Holla Forums from your access.

comcast is so jewish it's fucking insane how far they'll try to go with their bullshit.

What's funny is anti-NN tards will defend it.

Chairman Pai’s proposed plan to repeal net neutrality protections would put a huge burden on microbusinesses like mine.

As an Etsy seller, net neutrality is essential to the success of my business and my ability to care for myself and my family. The FCC needs to ensure equal opportunities for microbusinesses to compete with larger and more established brands by upholding net neutrality protections.

Etsy has opened the door for me and 1.8 million other sellers to turn our passion into a business by connecting us to a global market of buyers. For 32% of creative entrepreneurs on the platform, our creative business is our sole occupation. A decrease in sales in the internet slow lane or higher cost to participate in Chairman Pai’s pay-to-play environment would create significant obstacles for me and other Etsy sellers to care for ourselves and our families.

Moreover, 87% of Etsy sellers in the U.S. are women, and most run their microbusinesses out of their homes. By rolling back the bright line rules that ensure net neutrality, Chairman Pai is not only taking away our livelihood, he is also putting up barriers to entrepreneurship for a whole cohort of Americans.

My business growth depends on equal access to consumers. Any rule that allows broadband providers to negotiate special deals with some companies would undermine my ability to compete online.

We need a free and open internet that works for everyone, not just telecom companies that stand to benefit from the FCC’s proposed rules.

I'm sending this to the FCC's open proceeding and to my members of Congress. Please publicly support the FCC's existing net neutrality rules based on Title II and microbusinesses like mine.

Thank you!

archive.is/pv4ds
2014 article about Rand Paul's opinion on Net Neutrality.

ronpaul.com/2015-02-26/net-neutrality-the-end-of-the-internet-as-we-know-it/

Ron Paul is usually very trustworthy on these sorts of things as well, and he seems to be against Net Neutrality too.

Basically it sounds like a "repeal Obamacare" situation. I think Net Neutrality needs to go from what it sounds like.

Articles are from 2 and 3 years ago so keep that in mind.

meanwhile games, movies, and video streaming is only using more and more data.

wsj.c om/articles/gordon-crovits-obamanets-regulatory-farrago-1426457509

They created a "general conduct rule" that will allow them to regulate whatever they feel like. If that isn't a backdoor attempt at control over the internet, I don't know what is.

Hes correct, but it was individual States who allowed these companies to kill business. Not the federal government.

If there was true competition between states and available funds for new companies to expand infrastructure there'd be an argument anti-NN fags could use. But thats a 2:1 battle, and why should a company that size be blindly trusted again?

hey gets lets solve a problem that does not and may not ever exist, and then let's get really fuckin worked up over it

t. liberal democrat

I think Net Neutrality is a useless regulation. Like almost all government regulations. How long is bandwidth really going to be a problem? I'm sure there are telegraph regulations still on the books. Even with the law isps will still find a way to throttle your shit if they want. All this does is increase government power.

DARPA started everything with the DoD, DAPRA owns everything and will always own it all, including your precious tor exit nodes. Fuck off. You are permitted to exist.

Personally I believe monopolies need to get broken up in tandem with Net Neutrality, but keeping it as it is is the equivalent of letting Obamacare stay because le "Millions will be without healthcare" meme, despite the continuing stagnation of the situation. Basically its a choice between having the government censor your shit and having companies censor your shit.

•No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
•No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
•No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

That's the """""""regulation"""""" it's referring to.

Congress has to justify its existence somehow.

This has nothing to do with Obamacare, why do people keep comparing them?

Net Neutrality has not caused any damage to the internet or your finances nor has the government censored anything. The only censorship will come from Comcast blocking sites and you'll be forced to tunnel on tor for basic shit.

More importantly, before Net Neutrality existed, do you think censorship would've occurred?
archive.is/hQcKT#selection-375.0-387.9
More importantly, do you think the internet infrastructure in the U.S. will improve at all if this keeps happening? The U.S. has one of the world's worst infrastructures with net neutrality and shit hasn't improved at all in the last 5 years

The FCC doesn't have any authority on what content is posted online you slithering shill.

Compare it to their actual regulation of radio and TV and you'll realize how retarded you are, if it actually got that far there would be gaps in the internet by now.

It will if companies are forced to upgrade to accommodate unlimited data. If people were jewed into slower speeds why would companies upgrade their infrastructure?

eff.org/deeplinks/2017/07/todays-day-lets-save-net-neutrality

as long as the boonies are not upgraded from copper lines.

also
Because they want to stay competitive?
You're a fucking retard

With who? Comcast and Time Warner don't want to compete, they won't compete. They will collude like the greasy kikes they are.

You are a communist if you support net neutrality.

Oh god I want to shove my face in there.

Net neutrality is a kike plot to grab more control over the internet.

Vehicle rental companies charge on usage (mileage) and no one accuses them of pushing out the little guy.

If you believe in net neutrality, you're either a hook nosed yid, or a product of mkultra

I'd give up the right to vote if I got total tax exemption in exchange

NN is nothing but a power grab. A solution in search of a problem. We have gone this far with out it and everything is fine. ISPs are not shutting down wrongthink sites or blocking Netflix. When they started fucking with BT there was a big uproar and they backed off. The internet works now. Leave it alone.

No good will come of giving the FCC and federal government control over the internet.

I'd rather have a system with *some* freedom and the risk of censorship, rather than almost guaranteed censorship down the line when regulations start to hit it.
The nice thing about my area? I don't like Comcast or Time Warner? I can just go with Wowway. Obviously that's not the case across the entire U.S. and the same in every area, but its far better than letting the FCC have power over the internet. Moreover, the current chairman of the FCC is the one who's against Net Neutrality. They don't wanna deal with that shit and they know the precedents they might set if they start to fuck with it. Under the FCC, the Internet will be so fucked it will be unbelievable. I don't want an ISP to become the equivalent of a Com-ed (but with all the problems of one that controls a platform for free speech) but that *will* happen under the FCC, maybe not necessarily with this chairman and FCC, but down the line for sure, if not *with* this FCC.

Net neutrality is a good thing, no matter if you're a Holla Forumsack or not.

But considering who owns and runs tech, it's good ESPECIALLY for Holla Forumsacks.

the pros/cons of "net neutrality" don't matter since nobody really understands it anyways and it was named in such a way as a reasonable person would never be against neutrality

>the internet gets pozzed to shit by the (((FCC)))

They aren't doing it yet, but they were getting ready to do it. They are just holding off now, because they know if they start doing it now people will want Net Neutrality.

Once large companies can pay more for faster access, it kills off chances of smaller competitors.

Imagine a world where reddit loads super fast and Voat was slow as balls. Without NN, reddit can, theoretically, pay for faster access and have a huge advantage over competitors.

It actually did - archive.is/MT6pP . Comcast was upset that Netflix was screwing up its cable business, so they throttled the shit out of Netflix until they decided to pay up.

Of course, the *reason* Jewgle etc. are pushing for Net Neutrality is exactly what you've said, but it doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

You're not wrong - having Trump try to push through a revised Net Neutrality law would be good.

There's not a source that explains both sides properly, because it's absurdly divisive.

"Net Neutrality" fundamentally means that ISPs are supposed to act like "common carriers" - that is, they're not supposed to analyze the data coming through to prioritize it. There's good and bad things about this.

A good thing is that it protects us from being screwed by ISPs, and it protects free speech. This is probably the most important thing to someone like us - the ISP can't, for instance, block access to Holla Forums or throttle a company that's competing with them on some other front.

A bad thing is that it keeps good ISP types from doing things to balance loads in legitimately beneficial ways - for instance, by slowing traffic down on a site that has seen a sudden spike in traffic for no apparent reason (that is, probably a DDoS.) Moreover, there's a sort of principle that ISPs, being a business, shouldn't be very regulated.

Net Neutrality protects people like us quite a lot - the principle of free speech isn't to be understated. But there *are* fair arguments against Net Neutrality.

It's also worth pointing out that Net Neutrality helps a lot of our enemies out as well - on a grander scale, Net Neutrality laws help websites (Jewgle, Netflix, Plebbit, any sort of kike propaganda) while hurting ISPs, so ISPs will fight against these people in order to destroy Net Neutrality.

In the long run, Net Neutrality helps us out a lot more than it helps our enemies, because it levels the playing field a lot. Our enemies are also going to push for this, because it protects their (((profits))).

You must be joking. Proof?

Yes, and people like us should try to take it back. Privacy is important.

archive.is/MT6pP
Congratulations on using THE ONLY FUCKING EXAMPLE OF THIS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED dipshit.

My understanding is that ending net neutrality would effectively put an end to the "wild west" internet era that we're in right now. Am absolutely not for that happening as I find it necessary to keep in place.
Of course, I am open to hearing suggestions as for why I should be in favor of removing net neutrality. Although so far nothing has swayed me in the other direction.

Nobody talks about the real issues or facts of net neutrality. every video or article about it is the same shit.

the most i could gather was that they reclassified ISPs to be "common carriers" a few years ago which means theyre not responsible for what people use them for (like a UPS driver not being responsible for trafficking drugs) but in exchange they cant discriminate against customers.

the current bill introduced would reclassify them to something else. not sure what. nobody says. but if this happens all hell will break loose apparently.

You sound like a comcast shill salty that someone still remembers your kikery. I hope it's just your autism and inability to communicate with humans flaring up.

And where would Reddit get the money to pay for this?

If you'll read the post that I'm referring to, you'll note that he's claiming this shit never happens. For which I'm calling him a dipshit.

Does this happen more often than I'm aware?

Sure are a lot of retards in this thread.

we dont currently actually have net neutrality, its just the removal of a net neutrality friendly law. perhaps they dont like HOW they went about creating that law? for example you can like the ACA and still want it removed because fining people for not buying something is bullshit but still agree with the "spirit" of the law.

but most of the net neutrality shit i see is from the left and theyre very bad at open discussion. i havnt found a single "analysis" that actually details what theyre trying to do. they immediately appeal to emotion and tell me how "ups shouldnt decide what packages they deliver, right? then you should be against this!"

im not for or against. but i am skeptical of 1 sided arguments.

True. There's one thing I'm curious about though that might sway me in the other direction:
Does the internet, as it operates now, have the resources to actually sustain itself in the long-term? I'm thinking that raising prices on certain areas would allow the more "in demand" websites to thrive more efficiently. Bear in mind, my understanding of this matter is fairly novice at the moment.
That being said, I am vehemently opposed to a provider outright not allowing me access to certain websites.

i am against that as well, but theres another set of problems that this claims to be a solution for, but i dont see how.
the problem is ISPs hold monopolies that are somehow legally allowed to stifle competition and not face anti-trust problems. this leads to the ISP being able to block websites and content (as well as vpn services) and the consumer has nowhere else to go.

these are 2 problems and net neutrality only addresses the 2nd problem by making them a "common carrier" which prevents that problem.

it seems like the way they address the 2nd could lead to government regulation. but the 1st problem can lead to price hikes and poor service to any given area.

but like i said earlier. i have no idea what theyre proposing and i cant find any decent information on it. i know what the law theyre attempting to replace partly did. but i have no idea what theyre proposing or what the complaints are.

Is there a third way on this issue? Fucks, I'd like nothing more than to have someone who is /ourguy/ roll out a god-tier ISP that's no-bullshit, will never fuck with or throttle your connection, and will never give up your shit to the feds.

Interview with FCC pajeet.
This dude should be praised for trying to keep the power AWAY from the FCC.

A third way - and indeed, one that people have tried - is to do exactly what you've said.

These have done modestly well, but not well enough to make Net Neutrality seem like a bad idea in the public eye. Large ISPs have anti-competitive agreements, so the only way out of this is through startups.

Google Fiber is well known for being an attempt at making this work, but it's also (((Google))).

Google is one of the most evil companies on planet Earth. Fuck them.

Indeed, that's the whole issue here. The cuckservatives like to go on about "muh free market" but utilities aren't a fucking free market. Until only two years ago the only option I had for cable internet was Comcast. It was literally a monopoly, unless you want to count dialup, if that still even exists. Maybe things will change in the future if tech gets to the point where we're all using satellite internet that doesn't require you to have pre-installed cables to your house, which is what causes the monopolies we have for most utilities.

Shame the third option seems to be fucking jewgle for now. Fuck that noise too.

There have been smaller startups that have done reasonably well, but not as visibly as google.

What's wrong with using the word mega-corporations, does it offend your lolberg kike sensibilities?

Yeah, but I imagine even those are only in the most densely-packed places like NYC and California, right?

I live in the suburbs, but I'm still in a fairly dense-packed area on the midatlantic not far from the big cities, and like I said, it was only very recently that I was even allowed to choose between Verizon and Comcast. I can only imagine the options being even worse out in the more rural areas.

But hey, like I said, maybe one wireless data plans will get good enough that we can use our smartphone as dedicated hotspots for all online activity, similar to how nobody bothers having a landline anymore. And then we'd at least be able to pick between the various cellphone carriers.

Yes, that's true; but people should have the right to choose whether or not to use Google. Removing the internet from Title II protection allows any company to force your internet searches into whatever engine they have a contract with. So, even if you hate Google, you could be forced to use it by your ISP.

Where are you getting this from?

the 3 ways it seems are

from the liberals sperging about this without any evidence or examples.

>(((net neutrality)))
Yes goy, give the government control of the internet goy, they'll keep it safe and free goy, here's some scary nightmare scenario that will never ever happen but will happen if you don't support (((net neutrality))) goy.

Get gassed.

Fuck off shekelberg.
>>/reddit/

Confirmed for retard that thinks his state represents everywhere.

the only thing that has happened is the throttling. not the other bullshit of blocking, etc. they throttled netflix because it was a bandwidth hog for qos reasons.

but that shouldnt be allowed either. you should pay for bandwidth, and they shouldnt be allowed to sell what they cant offer. but the problem is figuring out a way to do this without giving the govt control over ISPs. i have yet to see a proposed solution that would do this.

any evidence the batman shooter was an mkultra patient?

get rid of government regulation from the net these cucks want it to the way of single payer style where ((((they))) want to determine whats acceptable to the view and flat out kill sites that go against wrong think. this shits a giant leftist trap passed and shilled in the ex king nigger era needs to die.

i find it funny that for the first time in my life (that i've seen) a government agency is actually trying to relinquish control of something FCC not wanting to regulate ISPs or internet anymore and people are actually up in arms about it.

Disgusting cuck trap.

Going to laugh so hard when 8pol gets blocked from Comcast and you retards are forced to flood back on halfchan and reddit ahahahahah

...

Kill yourself.
BANDWIDTH IS NOT A LIMITED RESOURCE

there's nothing but shit choices here

for what purpose?

so you think everyone should have uncapped bandwidth? take a minute to think. i wasnt even arguing against your point.

Bandwidth is an unlimited resource you triple nigger. Or do you listen to homosexuals like "extra credits" that say wifi is going to "run out"? You just want your extra shekels and ability to deny service or force a purchase of higher tiers of internet for using "too much" internet.

Sure, but look at this from a marketing perspective. If you outright block certain websites and content, that will piss off a ton of people when they get 404'd and a message saying their ISP is banning certain sites/content. However, if you just throttle those sites instead, you make it more subtle and less obvious. Most people either won't realize it's happening, or assume it's just a quirk with the site or just a temporary hiccup or something, and won't look into it.

It's similar to the way Twitter and other sites do shadowbanning. They don't ban you outright, because then you'd easily find out what's happening and cause people to get pissed off and work around it. But if you shadowban people and make them think that they're posting stuff that others will see, when in reality no one can see it at all, that's a lot more effective because it's insidious and most people don't realize it's happening.

(((NET NEUTRALITY))): WHERE THE VIAGRA SPAM GETS THE SAME FUCKING PACKET PRIORITY AS YOUR BANKING, NETFLIX, .TORRENTS, AND PR0N!

Net "neutrality" is fucking DUMB AF, FAM -

I personally would like the important shit to get higher packet priority.

They can keep the fucking viagra spam.

All this (((hype))) to frighten simpletons who don't know how this "series of tubes" or TCP/IP protocol actually functions…

hmmmmmm….

WHO COULD POSSIBLY BE (((BEHIND))) THIS????

bandwidth is how big the pipe is, not the amount of water. for example i pay $50/mo for 30mbps download and 20mbps upload. paying for more bandwidth would mean possibly 60mbps down and 40mbps up.

bandwidth is not infinite since cables have data limits. want to play nice now? or are you going to continue acting like a dick

i agree. but throttling can also be an answer to a qos issue.
but i agree that throttling is shitty practice, im not defending it. im just saying its not nearly as extreme as the examples people keep using like

its just scare tactics.

OH HEY, IT'S THIS SAME KIKE FROM /news/ SHILLING FOR (((NET NEUTRALITY)))! I'M SO SURPRISED!

KYS, (((SHLOMO!)))

TRULY UNDESERVED TRIPS.

KYS, (((KIKE!)))

can we ban ipv4 and force everyone onto ipv6 yet?

without net neutrality companies might choose to censor. with net neutrality governments will eventually censor

doesn't really matter. the mods do a good enough job of that on their own. pic very related

GODSPEED, SPIDERMAN!

IPv6 SUCKS DONKEY DICK FOR MYRIAD REASONS, BUT THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER DISCUSSION

Fuck Net Jew-trality - it works fine, fuck kikes for trying to seize even more power. One day we'll goddamn HANG these fucking subhuman agitating maggots, but until then, we must be ever-vigilant against the satanic jew.

AMEN!

It's not, though. The internet functions almost identically like a series of tubes. It's not just a meme.

One of the top jewtube comments on the interview video

And the "legitimate" example was them throttling a service owned by a corporation rather than an individual. What a fucking joke

i use it on a closed network where i work. works well and really helped when we switched to IP phones avaya was a mistake

i think that guy thought paying for bandwidth meant paying for usage. like $10 per 1gb or whatever.

also, netflix uses a crazy amount of ISP bandwidth. many people streaming at the same time can cause a massive QOS problem for people trying to do other things. this problem can be fixed with proper networking, but its not always possible if it wasnt set up right to begin with.

but a company shouldnt be allowed to charge for 50mbps if for example the pipe going to your house is 200mbps total. theres 5 families in this house. and the company sells them each 50mbps.

clearly not all of them can use all 50mbps at the same time.

this is like adaptive bandwidth control vs static on a router. adaptive is just banking that they wont all use it to capacity at the same time. this is fine for a public hotspot, but if theyre paying? itd be more fair to divide the bandwidth evenly across paying users. 5 customers and only 25mbps total? 5mb each. even if 4 of them arent using it, the last guy would still get 5mbps.

although there are more advanced ways to have adaptive QOS which makes 5mbps everyones minimum. but that tech isnt widely available (and doesnt always work as intended)

We will just return to IRL shit posting, and the world will be our board.

DEARFCC.ORG

SIGN THIS YOU FAGGOTS

THE INTERNET HAS BEEN THE BIGGEST HURDLE TO THE JWO IN ALL OF HISTORY

IF NET NEUTRALITY GOES, THE GOYIM WILL NEVER KNOW AGAIN

Ideally this whole Net Neutrality tug-o-war breaks the Internet and all the normies (reee etc.) end up getting out. Perhaps they'll just build can have a separate Normie-net with Net Neutrality™ so that they can stream shitty TV shows in 4K without being throttled while I shitpost on imageboards at 56kbps.

build or can have
*

sorry for the typo :)

signed it, thanks for posting that.

I am actually scared that the internet of things is about to be over.

...

Kill yourselves and actually read this thread

An user from the WhiteHouse just came on cuckchan and said Trump admin is committed to killing 'Net Neutrality' because it is just a gov power grab on the net and will stifle free speech if it passes and an enemy gets into the WH after Trump

my dad is m00t and said he was lying, cause he actually posts from Russia

Yeah, and the LARPer didn't use a tripcode so no one can even verify if he's legit or not. Anyone can say "hi, WH user here" and post a picture of JFK and everyone will think it's legit. This is the shit tripcodes were originally for, and I'm not buying it unless WH user starts using one.

Regardless, I'm still against him on this. Is it conceivable that in the future the government could use the lack of NN to stifle free speech? I guess so, but it seems fucking unlikely because the government is the ONE ENTITY that isn't officially allowed to censor free speech. But with various corporations with monopolies? They'll start fucking us all over as soon as they figure out how to do it.

If anything consolidating that much power to the fed should give you pause user.
Its a lot harder for multiple companies to organize something along those lines than it is for one or a few people in government to be compromised.

if i click this will i be a gay?!?

Considering ISPs have monopolies in many places, it's not harder to imagine at all. It'd be the same shit Zuckerkike does on facebook, but at the ISP level.

As soon as a national monopoly exists I'd consider your point, but as it is, Net Neutrality is not a boon, its a ticking time bomb.

I don't see your point at all. Oh okay, so Comcast is able to pull mass censorship on only half of the population rather than 100% of it, so I guess it's not a big deal? A monopoly is a monopoly. It doesn't matter whether the monopolies are piecemeal across the nation or just one nationwide. They will still have the ability to censor tons of people and many will have absolutely no recourse in their areas.

this TBH

the fact that Jewgle, Plebbit, Faggotbook, Twatter, and Netfags all support this should tell you everything you need to know.

Exaggerating to such an effect hurts your argument, especially when you can't grasp that, yes, 50% (Which is already a false figure) is less than 100%. Just because they have the ability to censor, doesn't mean its profitable, and that it isn't risky as fuck when they have competitors.

vs

Read Section 223 of Title II and eat my shit you fucking faggot

Lurk more.

...

In Sweden too there are subscriptions that give you unlimited data plans but only for kosher sites. It's a real problem.

hate speech is a defining factor in legal escalation towards hate crimes. not to mention some of the fringe cases where bad speech itself is the crime a la cyber-bullying. fucking NY fines you for not using proper pronouns.

There is no other service provider in many areas.

DONT NEUTER MY NET BRAH WOO

Yeah, regional monopolies exist and its unfortunate, but consolidating all power and authority to the Fed is *NOT* the solution.
In an ideal world, those monopolies would be broken up, but repealing Net Neutrality *is* actually a win. What's more, the FCC chairman *has* worked in the past to bring broadband more internet service out to more areas and is very pro-competition.

...

PIC RELATED
it goes on if you're interested. not hard to look up. We already had this discussion in 2015 when it initially got Title II, you faggots need to lurk.

They want you to as well.
Comcast can get their tongue stuck to frozen pajeet nuts however; compare missing a payment on your internet bill vs. a speeding ticket for a rough analogy that some sperg will inevitably miss the point of.

The question is why haven't they censored people before then? Also there's no need for censorship. The majority of people do not go past social media. Social media ALREADY censors stuff. Why would you go through the headache of banning sites that practically no one uses and will just cause an outrage?

The argument for the absurd amount of paperwork associated with net neutrality is censorship censorship censorship, but for the average person everything is already censored. If any of these lemmings actually cared about the internet they would put half as much effort into pushing for more isps through deregulation but none of them actually care.

fuck, hit enter. The most worrying part of Title II regulation is:
knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited

Net Neutrality, like every bill, is an intentional misnomer. God I hate Reddit with a passion.

The government will essentially force ISPs to censor content themselves under TItle II. Net Neutrality is more or less an attempt at broad content censorship on the internet masquerading as "BUH THEY GONNA CHARGE U MORE 4 NETFLIX THO =[[[[["

Like I said, the fact that Netflix, Google, Twatter, and especially Reddit support this law should tell you everything you need to know. If that's not enough, go read Section 223 of Title II.

Bunch of reddit cocksuckers in here shitting up my goddamn board.

It really does come down to Netflix. They mention that, throw the old "Trump's FCC Chairman" (despite the fact Pajit was an Obama appointee promoted), and people cry real tears. Check this shit

It's appalling. MKUltra consumers dancing when the trigger phrases are used. Tube-clots.

Now you know why they sound like whiny fucking retards that throw out insults the instant their fee fees get hurt.

I can't remember the name of the tax, but it's a tax added to phone bills and the like that goes directly to telecoms companies specifically for them to build out a fiber network across the entire country by 2010 or thereabouts. Tax payers have spent enough in taxes the US to be wired several times over, and yet we STILL have retardedly expensive and slow internet, with data caps! Meanwhile, Hong Kong is getting 1 Gbps speeds for $60 a month, and a fair amount of Asian countries have much faster, and cheaper, internet than we do. Combine this with local monopolies and you can see the current situation has done nothing to help the people that have ALREADY paid for a build out that should have been completed nearly a decade ago, while the major companies continue to line their pockets with taxpayer money that's supposed to be used for the empty promises they gave in the early 90's.

Good goy.

Not to go lolberg, but you're curing aids with aids. The system to correct them fucking up is already in place.
"There are currently around 168 licensed Internet Service Providers in Hong Kong". Gee fucking whiz user, I wonder why we don't see more?
I really hope you're trolling or are planning to leak info on Hillary soon.

We didn't have NN laws during the "Wild West" era of the internet, which ended a long, long, long time ago you idiot. If you don't remember totse, you have absolutely no right to speak about the "Wild West" days of the internet.

Which again, ended a long, long time ago. And it had absolutely nothing to do with NN and absolutely everything to do with the shitty Jew megacorporations like Facebook and Twatter that are trying to cram NN down everyone's throat.

I'll just note that I have to use OpenDNS because my ISP will often hijack my default search engines and run my searches through their own. They'll also inject javascript into websites for "announcements." So yes, them redirecting your searches is already happening to some of us, though there are ways to get around them, for now.

Well, in the case of the ISPs misappropriating tax dollars yes, the government should step in and hold the companies accountable, just like how we should audit the fed, the military, etc.

As for the Hong Kong part, I was pointing out that we have stupid monopolies granted mostly by local and state governments, usually through passing laws written by the ISPs to prevent competition.

fixed it for you, shlomo

Net jewtrality shills BTFO eternally again. Redditfags go back to reddit.

What are you, a fucking faggot? Go back to reddit you cocksucking nigger.
BANDWIDTH IS AN UNLIMITED RESOURCE
Internet speed packages != bandwidth limits net jewtrality jew.

BANDWIDTH IS AN UNLIMITED RESOURCE
Internet speed packages != bandwidth limits

I've got some shit to say, just for the fuck of it:

Aren't we fucked either way?

Yep. Its a choice between government regulation, and "letting the free market" do things, except there's regional monopolies existing.
Ideally, Net Neutrality would be removed, the barriers to becoming an ISP lessened, and regional monopolies be broken up,
What needs to happen most is that fucking TW and Comcast merger being stopped.
But yeah, you're correct user.

First post best post

How the fuck haven't you heard about ISPs blocking/throttling websites in recent years? They haven't gone as far as some autists are claiming, but they have gone too far.
How about throttling the USER for using too much data, rather than for getting it from a certain website? If people really want to stream TV shows, throttling netflix won't help if they just go to another website.

They already do, because most people don't have a choice. Why would they give a shit about mildly worse public relations if it means vastly better profit?
They have. A small sampling of examples is here hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/654-FC-Net-Neutrality.html
That won't matter if customers have 0 choice on which internet provider to use.

>I'm confused so I don't care, I'll just let (((them))) push whatever narrative they want

I really wish I could be saying these free market arguments, but they don't work for many people who don't have a choice of ISPs. To take your minimum wage analogy, if you were forced to work one job and couldn't get any other, then damn right the company would never increase your wage.

What's happening right now isn't GIVING them control, we already gave them that control 2 years back, what's happening now is people are trying to take Net Neutrality away.

Windstream DSL did this in 2010, but I'm not sure if the current Net Neutrality regulation prevents it.

I think it would be best to make sure places actually have competition and then kill net neutrality, but I don't see that happening.

Governments can be voted out of power. You can't vote to get another ISP than Comcast in your area.

Some of these companies have a vested interest in pretending there's a QOS issue to drive people to alternative streaming services, coincidentally run by themselves.

This is how you know it's a LARP. It's already passed.

I can't believe people are actually getting memed by these shills into thinking net neutrality is bad.

look, i only see one solution for now
how does the internet work?
how do i start an isp?

(((Net neutrality))) is a jewish ploy to get the government to own the entire internet.

Fuck off reddit kike.
(((Net neutrality))) is a jewish ploy to get the government to own the entire internet.

sooooooo yes to net nutrality = gov take over?
no = ISP's are responsible for content?
if it makes you feel better i feel retarded now
why is the bumplocked.
not "Political"

ahh i see why

kosher thread

could you explain the difference between a yes and no vote over there?

ISPs are a natural monopolies because of the cost of cable laying. If NN gets repealed and the ISPs go full censorship, I think you'll see more and more point-to-point wireless ISP services pop up.

techdirt.com/blog/netneutrality/articles/20170213/14460536703/comcast-att-are-paying-minority-groups-to-support-killing-net-neutrality.shtml

Found you.

Why does George Soros support Net Neutrality? Simply because he wants to weaponize the autism that led to Shillary's defeat. He knows that if he supports it, the autists on the internet will start sucking comcast dick.

Trips of truth right here.

Cause Net Neutrality actually massacred the telecom industry. Bandwidth is expensive, this net neutrality shit allowed many numerous small "mom and pop" ISP's get gobbled up by bigger providers, eliminating healthy competition between other carriers and axed countless jobs under the Obama empire. Ask yourself this, why is it that you always end up talking to India each time you call up your Internet Service Provider? The propaganda pushing for net neutrality is complete bullshit. Face it jewtube and netflix have enough money to pay for their bandwidth hogging bullshit and all these ISP's are looking for is fair compensation for the constant infrastructure upgrades needed to keep up with the demand for more bandwidth. If you hate the jew, net neutrality is NOT your friend.

my 2 cents

This. We have to side with the ISP's regardless of how we feel about them. If (((Bezos))) is scared of the repeal of net neutrality, we're on the right track.

The only thing I hate more than big corporations are the internet companies. Anything at all to fuck them over is a +1 in my book.

You do know that Comcast and AT&T spend a lot of money on Congress to straight-up murder any startup ISPs that could be competition, right?

Your two cents, and you have every right to it. However, you may not remember this - but once upon a time, it was flat-out illegal to even repair your phone in America - because Bell held a monopoly and held back technological innovation before the internet rendered their monopolies obsolete.

That's how your internet will be like once net neutrality is revoked. Cheap, built on shitty infrastructure and overpriced because those ((CEOs)) need another gold-plated ferrari to go golfing in Bahrain. No wonder America is slowly turning into a third-world shithole.

Sad to say, your own fear of jews has been used against you - made into controlled opposition while these said jews sit on top of the oligarchy and laugh as they drain America dry.

The telecom industry that was bleeding America dry, yes. Secondly, bandwidth is not expensive - unless you're still hanging onto phone lines and 56k. And yes, many ISPs were gobbled up with full congressional look-the-other way by Comcast and Co.

American internet infrastructure is backward and horribly expensive to maintain, yes. Perhaps if these (((internet companies))) didn't splurge on more gold-plated yachts, they'd be able to handle it.

But nooo. They want you to foot the bill for their terrible services, AND charge you extra for using them. How does it feel to be weaponized by the kike media machine?