Net Neutrality

Objectively wrong hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/654-FC-Net-Neutrality.html

fuck yeah, other thread user here to break it down.

what does a yes vote mean
what does a no vote mean

Yes vote to what, the current thing?

There is currently net neutrality, this new push is by the FCC to remove it.

Removing it: Companies might go back to throttling certain services and forcing extra payment to stop that throttling. Or not even offering that option and just using it to push for their own competing services.

Keeping it: One government might in the future maybe use this as a precedent for tighter internet controls.

My opinion zone: If a future government wanted to censor the internet, they'd do it whether net neutrality was repealed now or not.

Trump should just do a huge internet infrastructure project. He would actually win over a lot of millennials that way.

This is a bad thing? Netflix is the most degenerate anti-white company in existence and deserves to be throttled to shit and pay huge amounts of money to ease it.

Net neutrality is garbage, supported by kikes like George Soros and netflix.

Have another (((You))).

Sounds like a great idea, but governments have a tendency to fuck stuff like that up. Australia's NBN is a multi-billion dollar shitheap.

It's a shitty practice that we shouldn't leave available to kikes like Comcast.

And all of that doesn't change the fact that there IS a precedent for their throttling, which some people (>>10243047) deny.

The real solution is to break up the monopolies.

Exactly, but that's a very complicated thing to do, and net neutrality is a fine bandage for the interim.

If libshits support it, then oppose it. The worst mistake you can do is give them momentum.

He'll never win over the millennials. Appeasing them will just embolden them, and if they get this canned, it's all over.

You oppose taxes existing, Government existing, the first amendment existing, not going to war with allied countries, and fighting terrorism?
No it isn't. Try and find a real argument.

It's like I'm really back on 4chan. Fucking disgusting.

Ha ha, no.

Net Neutrality was one of the few things Onigger did right, fag.

bump, this is actually a pressing matter

Heres your redpill on reddit neutrality:
since it used to be only spergs used a lot of bandwith it wasnt an issue. Not every chad stacy and jamal is tuning into the latest episode of Orange is the New Black on netflix at the same time. This is six gorillian people streaming HD video at the same time. ISP's gotta upgrade their shit. So who pays for it?
>(((net neutrality))) is a go
We, the people who use ISPs have to pay for it
>(((net neutrality))) fails
Netflix, youtube, etcetera pay for hogging up all the bandwith.
if you own a korean cave painting site then webpages will still load fine on the "slow" lane as compared to the massive pipes netflix needs.
Net neutrality in the end doesnt protect you. You see all these streaming companies defending it? Its in their interest to.
In the event that net neutrality sticks around then the deep pockets of AT&T and friends will make sure bills are passed that benefit them the best. Who do you think controlled the FCC in the early days of the telephone, who wrote the legislation to enable the AT&T monopoly in the first place.

TL;DR if you support net neutrality then you're a dirty commie who wants more gubmint

Why should netflix, youtube, etc pay for "hogging up all the bandwidth" when it's the people using the ISPs who use all that bandwidth?

Also, there are other abuses that can be done without net neutrality. Like various ISPs blocking Google Wallet because it competed with their payment service, or a Canadian ISP blocking a website supporting a labour strike against it.

Anything involving anything bigger than a picture won't. Any alternative content distributor, or amateur content creator would be negatively effected.

It protects both. Something can be in corporate interests and public interests at the same time.

Because the best way to make people who use those services to pay for it is to charge those services you gay retard.

?????

If use of water for baths suddenly becomes a strain on infrastructure, should they start charging two or three companies that install baths? Or should they charge the people using more water?

He didn't do anything right. Gas yourself.

A better analogy would be that there is a public bathhouse with a magnificent fountain in front of it using many times the normal amount of water, and they dont have to pay for any of the water.
Why do you want to pay more money instead of the big companies footing the bill? is it because they are paying you?

If everyone paid $20/mo for unlimited internet, it would still be an insane markup, over 4000%.

I didn't realize how retarded I was until I read this post. I have no clue what the public bathhouse and the fountain are meant to be analogies to.

Quick question, do you know why those ISPs only throttle certain companies like Netflix and not others that use similar or more data?

Because they have other streaming services that are in direct competition with Netflix, and they're trying to hurt their competitors. That QoS BS is just a post-hoc justification.

I'm cautious of the "make the companies pay" train of thought since it fucks over small companies, while doing jack shit to large companies.

Exactly, which is why they don't need to be fining ANYONE to fund that extra data on the network. They're just trying to stifle competition.

Reported, kike. Kill yourself.

...

Reported, kike. Kill yourself.

Realistically I dont think small companies will have a big enough impact to be on a companies radar to be charging them more. I see many on the left using the argument that they'll promote their own services instead, but who the heck uses them anyways? I don't think they have the library to compete with netflix and I know they dont have the exclusive netflix produced shows. No point in saying "our service is better and faster!" If theres nothing on it that one wants to watch.

We got a live one!

There's also distributed data usage like bittorrent, which is 36.35% of upstream data usage. I also think it's pretty obvious that they are doing it to try and squash competition, not just because they didn't throttle Youtube which uses similar amounts of data, but because AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon blocked Google Wallet back in 2011-13 since it competed with their payment services.

You do not have to look far at all to find examples of ISPs abusing a lack of Net Neutrality to stifle competition.

I'm just assuming that all of those solely ad hominem posts are strawman shills for us to topple.

I cannot believe so many people on the (((right))) are in favor of ending net neutrality
This is insane

Or maybe he's a legit buttmad faggot who's angry because his opinions aren't being entertained in an echochamber.

I've talked to some people who have been memed by people like and into opposing net neutrality, without having any arguments against it.

Assuming's a strong word. I'm hoping that people here aren't actually that retarded.

Because this thread is being derailed by (((them)))

Here's a pic from plebbit /rconspiracy whom are actually doing some good work despite being crippled by their corporate overlords…

/r/Conspiracy and in fact most of the internet that isn't controlled by the Globalist Elite (Neo Cons / Neo Libs owned by Soros for example) is fundamentally built on what Net Neutrality outlaws. Please read and look at how they completely outlaw trolling, memes, hell even trash talking on the internet or any form of communication over a telecommunication device. If you want the internet to have any chance then we need places like Conspiracy and many other great places that don't censor everything we read and everything we watch.
Something that never gets talked about in these Net Neutrality astroturf threads (look at the upvote to comment ratios) is that Title II Net Neutrality applies censorship laws to the internet. Notice how the pro-Net Neutrality posters always talk about the possibility that Comcast or Verizon will "censor" certain content. What they fail to mention is that the Law that the FCC reinterpreted and applied to ISPs in 2015 and called "Net Neutrality" actually contains obscenity laws and speech codes that explicitly censor "obscene" or "annoying" content. What the FCC is calling "Net Neutrality" is actually just a massive regulatory move that will give the FCC extremely high control and authority over what kinds of communication are allowed and disallowed on the (until now) open internet. Let's not forget the FCC's horrible track record on our First Amendment rights.
The censorship portion of the Law is under Section 223. But don't take my word on it, read the Law itself.

…
…
:::(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.:::

The FCC was already enforcing a version of Net Neutrality before Title II. Source Document Here, a memo from all the way back in 2005. Remind me why we need Title II with its censorship laws, to protect us from censorship, again??
Give me a fucking break. This is bait and switch - get a censorship Law applied to the internet and call it "Net Neutrality," fearmonger/astroturf until the public willingly accepts it. "OH NO! COMCAST IS COMING FOR MY NETFLIX!!!"
They could pass literally anything and call it "Net Neutrality" and reddit would eat it up like the idiots they are, because some anonymous post with +590190818 upvotes told them it was a good idea.

This is an attack on the tactics of the free internet. sounds to me like CNN bitched about getting doxed by us and they've got big daddy government watching their asses.

Fucks sake….I've been here years but still can't get the formatting down. Sorry guys.

=red text=

Goes to show you that you can slap a cute name on any bill and libshits will eat it up.
When something like net neutrality is so overwhelmingly "supported" to the point that its basically like global warming and being against it is akin to being a (((climate denier))) then you know youre on the right side.

…

TL;DR they're directly trying to outlaw memetic warfare and doxxing of public figures for the purposes of us calling them and pissing them off.

Fuck this orwellian bullshit, if we want to post gore and call CNN producers who do douchey things we'll damn well do what we please.

(a) Whoever– (1) in interstate or foreign communications– (A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly– (i) makes,== creates==, or solicits, and (ii) initiates the transmission of, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal,== image==, or other communication which is ==obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent==, with intent to== annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass== another person;

(C) makes a ==telephone call== or utilizes a telecommunications device, whether or not conversation or communication ensues, without disclosing his identity and with intent to ==annoy==, abuse, threaten, or ==harass== any person at the called number or who receives the communications;

(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with the intent that it be used for such activity, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or== imprisoned not more than two years==, or both

maybe this will finally highlight the important bits…

Oh boy, this is a thick one.

Net Neutrality outlaws ISPs prioritizing some data over other data.

No they don't
No they don't
No they don't

Exactly, and a lack of net neutrality gives ISPs the ability to censor places like that. You're just worried that maybe someday someone will censor using legislation built upon the net neutrality legislation. If they're that hell-bent on censoring the internet, they'll do it whether net neutrality is repealed now or not.

This part of the law is taken out of context. Don't take my word out of it, read the law itself, page 54 transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

That section isn't part of what got passed in 2015, but is a part of the communications act of 1934, which defines what happens when something is classified as a common carrier.

==SEC. 223. OBSCENE OR HARASSING TELEPHONE
CALLS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OR IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMUNICATIONS==

What you quoted ==ONLY APPLIES TO HARASSMENT OVER INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN TELEPHONE CALLS==

Yes, it will stop the ISPs from censoring what they feel like censoring, which is vastly more terrifying since they control ALL of your data, not just your data on their service.

Because even after then, ISPs have abused the lack of Title II status to throttle and block competing services.

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH

DON'T BUY INTO FEARMONGERING

==LEARN HOW TO IDENTIFY BULLSHIT==>>10243701

I fucked up formatting for this post in parts, but hopefully my main points still get across.

Whenever someone quotes a law in part and tells you how scary it is, ALWAYS check the context for that law, because nine times out of ten, it doesn't actually do what they say it does.

transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
PAGE 54

Read it yourself and come to your own conclusion. Don't listen to some asshole on the internet pushing an agenda, including me.

Both sides of the argument are backed by Jews my man. However Net Neutrality prevents Spectrum from throttling or restricting access to 8ch all together if they so chose to.
Obama didn't create net neutrality. Regulations on treating all bandwidth equally have existed for a while. Jews benefit from both cases, but they benefit more from giving the power of the companies that they ownthat provide the internet the capability to control content and access to that content.

This is about control.
Think on how a National Socialist would approach the matter. They want to move us towards the Chinese internet model. They want to kill anonymity and the free information commons that has thrown a wrench into their former monopoly on propaganda.

Are the current internet laws about to expire? If not: why implement something like "net neutrality 2.0" wherein the government can make sites illegal and block them a la china

Every Jew on the Internet is pushing for NN, as they did a couple of years ago, too. One tactic some of these shills try, is to conflate "free" and "open". If I've learned one thing, it's: always do opposite of what Jews say.

Forgot to add: Surely it's another hidden tax on the White man, to subsidize the nigger, to benefit the kike.

Also, Jews are pushing for both sides. You're either helping the ISP kikes or the website kikes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_L._Roberts
>Brian L. Roberts (born June 28, 1959) is a (((Jewish))) American businessman.

>implying (((they))) won't simply force the biggest part of the bill onto the consumer anyway
>implying (((they))) won't get togewther and figure out a way top fuck everyone thrice as hard as it's currently the norm

You're either new or have just woken up from a coma and missed the past 40 yeears.
Or you're just a plain fucking retard.
Yeah, I think that's the most likley explenation for your stupidity.

Media giants want in on the free shit army. Reminder that this "Net Neutrality" regulation is less than two years old and the internet was as free as it was even before it existed.

So if someone tries to pass free speech as a law, but in that law they outlaw whites and order their execution, does that mean free speech = white genocide and therefore we should be against free speech?

I can not fucking believe that everyone seems to be falling for something as absolutely unborn baby-comprehensible as this shit, even Holla Forums cannot seem to comprehend that net neutrality itself is necessary, and all the jewish shit they're trying to do has nothing to do with actual net neutrality. To put it in other words, what they're trying to pass is not net neutrality, it's something that resembles net neutrality, plus a whole load of other unrelated horseshit, the latter being the true purpose of all this.

I guess it goes to show that Holla Forums really is full of drooling fucking retards who do and think whatever their ingroup tells them to do and think.

You're serious?

This kind of shit is so fucking common in the government. This is why someone who is against abortions will sign pro-abortion bills because on the bottom of the bill it says something like a plan to help Chicago with its crime problem or something.

OP you could have posted this on cuckchan,I mean they even have it as their announcement and 4/pol/ is already taken over by liberal hordes it would have been nice how they would have reacted to removing pajit pai.

nice1 mate

Also, Net Neutrality ALREADY exists. Has anyone been fined or arrested under that section because of internet-related offenses?

...

Honestly dont give a shit. Make people pay more for netflix, let these zog companies die off

That's not the definition used. That law was written decades before the internet or fiber optics existed.

Molyjew has an interesting take on this.

This is the most important thread right now. Why the fuck isn't it stickied? If net neutrality is ruined it's just proof of how ZOG things are.

>people are still shilling for (((net neutrality))) and giving all control of the internet to the government
sage

Hmm, I wonder who could be behind these posts with no arguments?

In case you are actually just some retard, here are two lists of Net Neutrality violations in the past hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/654-FC-Net-Neutrality.html leftwardthinking.com/learning-example-net-neutrality-violations/

Jesus Op, learn how to use proper English. It looks like a 4th grader wrote that petition.

It's also literally run by Soros.

you dumb retarded nigger, the problem is that netflix has a shitload of shekels and can afford to pay whatever the ISP will demand, while Holla Forums, imageboards etc. will get fucked