I'm somewhat uniformed.
Why can literally no one anywhere give me a reason as to why net neutrality is bad, only now that the Trump administration is removing it? Weren't all the internet kewl kids completely for it a few years back? This whole thing confuses the shit outta me
I just wanna know you guys' opinions because I trust you more than normalfags/etc
Other urls found in this thread:
washingtontimes.com
learningenglish.voanews.com
investopedia.com
twitter.com
sage and report.
it is a good thing because ISPs are globalist. bureaucracy gave it some protection, but then it also makes it vulnerable when that bureaucracy tries to hurt it.
either way you have jews and you lose
aka: the best change is no fucking change at all, which is why everyone needs to lay their fucking hands off it.
I'm generally in favor of customers having equal access to any website they choose to access. The shift on net neutrality is weird, but like everything else you can chalk it up to good things being ruined by jooz.
In theory bandwidth should be like renting space by weight on a rail car. Equal regardless of what is being shipped. This binds us all to one railroad company though, which would be fine but all the conductors are kikes, so other railroads and more competition is preferable. It's not great. The problem is Hebrews.
One of the things that I think I understood was that they were giving the power to the FCC to censor the internet. I may be wrong, but that's what I understood. They took away the internet from individuals and gave it to the government to regulate it. Maybe the censorship stuff sounds a bit extreme, but, again, this is what I am understanding so far. When I asked my State Rep, Marsha Blackburn, face to face about it, the day before the inauguration, she was kind of weird about it and I think that she tried to avoid the issue. Yeah, I was there for the inauguration. I had to pick up my tickets for it in her office.
no
any is
whether you think it's relevant or important or not, you're here (on an anonymous image board) so you should: ip access is about having a dark net fallback that's unimpeded by isps
...
Wouldn't they still have to pass something else for that? I assumed that was just shilling.
If you own an ISP should you be allowed to do with it what you will and if people don't like it they can go elsewhere or should a former Comcast executive now running the FCC make up what ever rules he wants forcing ISP's to do his bidding.
I really don't want government regulation on the internet, it is a very slippery slope. In the past some ISP's did bandwidth caps like you see on cell plans, coustomers moved away from those ISP's who were forced to revert back to all you can eat plans in most cases. Some people think ISP's like time Warner or Comcast would slow down or block access to competitors services (youtube, netflix ect) and so we need the government to stop them. Net neutrality is a solution to a problem we don't really have. I see no use for it at this time. Perhaps if ISP's start really kiking us over on the content they will allow us access to then it should be revisited but until then I would rather have big brother back the fuck off.
But they've actually been caught doing it and they already kike us on data caps as well.
if you own an isp
while you have almost zero chance to enter market and not be bought out? there's a reason exceptions were made for telephones and why there's antimonopoly laws.
But is it so bad that we need the government to step in? It's a tiny step from the FCC saying you must not block this service to you must block torrents. I'm defiantly less afraid of net neutrality while Trump is in office but he won't be there forever. I want the feds to keep there grubby hands out of my internet, even if they claim to be trying to help.
It's not as hard as you think. I set up a small one back in the early 2000's, its easier than ever now with decent unlicensed point to multi point wireless radio's from cambium or ubiquity. Especially if there are no other wisps in your area. It's easy to provide better service than DSL at prices better than cable or fiber. You just have to have a location conducive to your service and be willing to put in the grunt work yourself.
Net Neutrality is a giant red herring. Before the NN regulations were put in place, everything was fine and nothing was broken.
Enter the Obama administration:
It's good to take back consumer power from Comcast
It's bad to trust the FCC
/////////THREAD
Ah, that clears it up.
If a person or party you like controls the government, it's not bad per se, if a party that hates you and wants to censor you controls the government, giving them control of the internet is bad as fuck
2 related Articles on Obama and the Internet
- - - - - - -
I>magine the internet controlled by regimes like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, China and North Korea. Imagine these nations telling Americans what they can and cannot put on the Internet. This is the ultimate end game. This will be the destruction of the Internet as a tool of liberty and commerce, instead making it nothing more than a massive propaganda tool.
washingtontimes.com
- - - - - - - -
The basic concept of Net Neutrality is that (((ISP)))'s should not be allowed to give preferential treatment to specific addresses and that the user should be able to access whichever ip adress they would like to.
This is good because if you don't have this then you end up with shit like Facbook-only data plans and similar bullshit.And if such things become commonplace they would be able to silence any dissent by simply not allowing access to sites etc they didn't like.
The problem with net neutrality (Net neutrality laws to be morer exact) is twofold:
It gives a high amount of power over the internet to the ones enforcing it.
And it gets used to pass all kinds of shit laws along with it.
To be honest both of these flaws are (((bureaucratic))) so it ends up falling down to how many of the chosen are in positions of power like many other matters of law.
Simple. A sane country would just enact a one page law that an ISP cannot and NEVER do fuckery with your packets, ever. In areas where general QoS enables service in the first place/at all, they must invest until the bottle neck isn't anymore or they are fined and those fines are given to counties to lay their own fiber, which ISP MUST peer with. (Trust me on that one, even the most libtardy counties will love their gigabit access). They CAN provide own or third party preferred services, but not on the public and publicly routable Internet and not on the advertised and sold bandwidth. Simple as that.
But you have (((special interests))) connecting net FUCKING NEUTRALITY with censorship laws. So as already written above, you're fucked either way.
and yet the FCC did mostly exceptional work regarding the spectrum for decades.
ICANN has nothing to do with Shekel-QoS onto my packets. Who cares if that one tld is controlled by the UN, there are many more. Name spaces are cheap nowadays. IPv6 makes ICANN even more irrelevant.
I care about this very site and foreign video alternatives being available without having to pay extra like every immigrant community gets shekkeled-out in Europe, where a household has to fess up ~100 Euros because "Sports" and "Your home language" is distributed across ten packets. Want to use VPN without jitter? Pay through your nose. Want to use rtsp, a teamspeak/hangout/discord alternative which doesn't censor or VOIP jitterfree with another carrier? Pay, goy, pay.
It was never an individual who owned any part of the Internet. What a weird conception.
The main issue is that via tax breaks or outright funding (low/zero interest loans, grants, etc) a metric shit-ton of infrastructure was created with the US taxpayer dollar, then swiftly privatized. The issue is almost identical to the problems with IP and patent law from universities, which also receive public funding. The jews always privatize profits while socializing losses.
investopedia.com
YOu are a true moron
There's no free market while a private entity owns the monetary system and determines where to allocate the debt. The last time banks failed, they forgave their own debt without having to declare bankruptcy. Good goys just let them do it and any attempts at preventing it or even talking about it, gets your family murdered.
So you either get corrupt politicians changing the law or you get the ISPs responding to incentives set up by kikes themselves.
lame