We Need to Come Together & Defeat Net Neutrality Or We'll End Up Like Daily Stormer

Literally never been there faggot.

atnt does not understand the power of 10,000 elltiot rodgers.

You'd love it there. Especially periods like this where they LARP as fags who love an open and free internet in between waves of banning entire communities for political and social wrongthink.

Let's play a little game I like to call "follow the shekels", shall we?

Let's start with "Demand Progress". The name already should be a major red flag. Let's look at it's board of directors (see pic). Hmm, that's odd. Every single one is a flaming progressive community organizer, and disproportionately latino. Hmm, odd. Let's see who funds "Demand Progress" - the Sixteen Thirty Fund.
The Sixteen Thirty Fund is an immigration fund for illegals (see pic related - "Moving a progressive policity agenda in america", "Latino Engagement Action Fund", etc.). Hmm, odd. Let's see who funds the Spicteen thirty club - For our future.
For Our Future is the only donor to the 1630 club. But who is "for our future"? Just a front group for unions and climate groups.
Hmmmm, odd. "For Our Future" also sounds awfully lot like "Fight for the Future", the other sponsor. Let's take a look there next.

was founded by a grant from the Media Democracy Fund, but the Media Democracy Fund is actually just a branch of the New Venture Fund.
The New Venture Fund is funded by the biggest globalist orgs on the planet (see final pic).

You're posting propaganda funded by unions, climate change groups, George Soros orgs, and big tech companies you insufferable faggot

Net Neutrality is communism fuck off.

This might sound like spite, but I don't really give a fuck whether net neutrality is killed. The redditors have already decided that "hate speech" doesn't count as free speech, and they're gleefully cheering on the kikes' attempts to castrate the first amendment, which is, at this point, guaranteed to happen the next time the Supreme Court turns. Getting the government so serve as the final arbiter of what websites can be accessed doesn't help us in the long term. We've always found a way to distribute and read samizdat, and a slow, barely functional corporation like Comcast isn't going to change that. At the very worst, all this will do is starken the divide between the normie internet and everything else, which helps us more than it hurts us. At best, it's just redditors crying wolf again, and anyone who gets up in arms about it will look like a retard.

...

thank you for your autism lad.
Always need to be watching for Soro's tentacles slithering around.

You're a moron.

ok, kiddo you had your fun.

Not even Elliot Rogers, he was thoroughly inept in all areas. A leaderless resistance force of European Autists who have had their futures stolen their past derided and exist in a status quo of torture with nothing to lose or look forward to would be totally brutal. People with above average IQ’s that grew up goading each other to kill themselves with grenades and toxic substances and then laughing when then actually did before moving onto ultra nationalism are not a group you should pick on.

European men want wives, homes, families and wholesome projects to work towards. Provide this and great things will be achieved. Deny them these things they will find a way of taking them back.

Anglin's site was already prohibited by Google and throttled by TOR. Their true stance on free speech was shown during Charlottesville.

Am I saying that the removal of NN is justified? Not at all, but at this point there's no difference supporting or rejecting it because both entities clamp down on "hate speech". Reddit and twitter fags want the chaotic assistance of 8ch/4chan when it's convenient for them.

Let me guess, you spammed this on Holla Forums and Holla Forums among others as well?
NONE OF YOUR FEARMONGERING HAPPENED BEFORE NET JEWTRALITY
IT WON'T MAGICALLY HAPPEN AFTER IT
>(((net neutrality))) shills are spamming Holla Forums again
Fuck off. Net Jewtrality was completely co-opted and is full government control of the internet. None of you redditniggers has any sense and keep shilling the same fucking lies for years.
Same shit, same shills, different words. Fucking kill yourselves.

...

And you already have a thread for your shilling:

Yeah, you don’t get it at all.

Do you have any idea how fucking retarded you sound right now?

The sad thing is, just based on the graphic and the name of the orgs, I could have told you right off the bat it was unions and Soros backed. The number of subsidiary groups they funnel all their money through is staggering but they always trace back to the Ford Foundation, Bill Gates, and Soros orgs.

Fucking half chan kike mods are on a deleting spree when it comes to this issue. Wonder why???

Sure thing user, that'll work.

Who gives a shit you mong?

I never really did much research on this back in 2015 but what exactly is the real underlying dichotomy here for this whole Net Neutrality thing?

if you've ever actually read the regulations you would know it's not actually net neutrality

It's just two groups of kikes pretending to oppose each other, as usual. Either kike-controlled government gets to control the net, or kike-controlled corporations get to control the net. It's the same "if you're not with (((them))), you're with (((us)))" trick they always do.

Comcast or someone else cannot operate on a loss, so they're given a monopoly by government because competition could damage them.
Then comes king obongo who instead of changing that, so ISP can do retarded shit like throttling making a competitor blow him the fuck out, says
Basically give more power over internet to the government just so normalfags can access faceberg with no detriment.

Yep, typical bait and switch. Same was done before the federal reserve was established with bankers in on the plan feigning opposition knowing full well that it would serve to undermine the very oppostion they pretended to profess. Don't be fooled folks, if this passes it could mark the end of the internet as we know it.

the internet was just fine previous to this

Everyone on The_Donald is pitching in to oppose this. This would be a nightmare come true if it was repealed. It's one of the few good things Obama did tbh. Glad to see we're all on the same page here. I was expected this place to go full contrarian as usual without looking into the facts.

fuck off with your astroturf

The reason Title II was put into law was because an ISP attempted to create a tiered internet. They tried this shit before user.

What's wrong, Paco. English isn't your first language?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, user. The world isn't black or white.

we have a tiered internet now dumbass

the enemy of your enemy can also be your enemy

what is grammatically incorrect about my statement.

Lolbertarians need to go

No we don't you fucking mongoloid. As imperfect as the internet is today, it is still way better than Comcast slicing up the online sphere to help boost their profit margins. Go chew on a live bullet.

why do you think comcast owns everything?

...

Okay, a lot of anons are just saying net neutrality is bad while using a lot of adhominem and not backing up any of their opinions.

I'm guessing, based off the fact that so many shill level posts are against it, net neutrality is actually good.

I would appreciate being explained to how net neutrality is negative if that's not true? Especially to us here? And yes, calling someone a kike isn't an argument.

In your worst case bullshit scenario, the people that'd be most effected are those using the most bandwidth. Porn sites, netflix, youtube, twitch etc. They'll be forced to pay more. The entire movement is alot of companies telling you that you'll pay more in reality, they'll pay more and you'll at worst have to get a better adblocker or maybe stop paying 10$ to sorosflix a month. Keep trying to say otherwise thou, it's hilarious. Everytime this shit happens the same big company users scared of paying more get upset.

The only argument I have heard in support of the repeal of NN is the usual 'muh free market' shite you hear from ancap retards and the lolbertarians.

So many fucking defeatists and shills in this thread.

net neutrality is good
but what is currently in place isn't net neutrality
Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House
archive.is/8Rnyw

Maybe that's the reverse psychology?

This is the first topic in a long time i just cannot form an opinion on.
Lets say ending Net Neutrality is a good thing, wouldn't ISP then in a much easier position to censor the net? Currently the only government has the power to dictate censorship, but they don't do it because it would cause a lot of attention and complaints, now if ISP's get this power, the government can just bribe them to censor shit and don't claim responsibility. Also, i don't see how the potential throttling of smaller websites is good for us/normal people in any way.
I'm open minded about this but i just don't see how ending net neutrality would be more beneficial then what we have now.

yeah and the federal reserve is really federal they just want you to think it isn't federal

This was autistically laid out in
The very image (((OP))) posted was direct Ford Foundation/Soros/Union propaganda. Net Neutrality is a joke, no one outside of the big guys has any say about it anyways, and no matter what happens, it will be for the worst.

At least Americans have what is left of the 1st ammendment to hit the government over the head with if it gets outta line. No such guarantees when dealing with private corporations…

yes it was very well laid out but everybody seemed to ignore it

NET NEUTRALITY MEANS ISP CAN'T CHOOSE WHAT IT TRANSFERS AND WHAT IT DOES NOT
NET NEUTRALITY MEANS EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION MUST BE TREATED EQUALLY

In case some retard is falling for the shills

You're kiked either way. Slowly or spontaneously.

This. It ain't fucking rocket science.

I have very little understanding of the subject at hand, from what i get is that big internet companies would have to compete for bandwidth and would have to deal with ISP provider alot more, if net neutrality is gone. I'm not sure who's the kike here.

if they can make somebody bake a fag a cake they should be able to make a corporation respect constitutional rights.

and the federal reserve is federal right?

That's because the real solution is a 2 step one despite the kikes telling you to choose either/or. You must repeal Net Neutrality because goverment regulating the internet means no free and open internet no matter what you do. The second step is removing everything that prevents competition among ISPs. Their monopoly needs to be removed. Then and only then can you solve the problem once and for all.

I'm old enough to remember when we didn't have Net Neutrality and the internet was actually better than it is today, so I don't really know why I'd be for it.

You don't get it. Unlike government, private corporations are under no obligation to respect your rights to the 1st ammendment. None whatsoverer.

obozo was pressured into it by the public, he didnt want to do it. Neither did his pick to head the FCC, a former telecom lobbyist named tom wheeler. They were both apposed to it and I believe obozos administration even put up a brief legal battle before succeeding to public pressure.

Then i hope you solve it fast, because i may have no access to Holla Forums very soon.
I don't trust this whole thing, at least what we have now works. And here are people telling me that Obamas literally last action is supposed to be a good thing, sorry but that really leaves me skeptical.
Trump also didn't say shit about this whole thing, so who do think is supposed to rebuild the whole internet in our favor? I'm not so naive to believe that this shitshow is all part of a greater plan ala 69chess.
I have more concerns about my internet speeds and even more so accessing the web.

What in the fuck are you smoking.

bot. reported

Is there some sort of project that have the same name of Net Neutrality but it does the opposite of Net Neutrality?

Net neutrality would be a positive thing if we were in power as the government would have authority and not corporations. As it is we're ultimately fucked either way so I don't care.

Why must you lie?

businessinsider.com/president-obama-thanks-reddit-2015-2
time.com/3725106/obama-reddit-net-neutrality/

This thread is full of people who either still have hope, or are shilling. Either way this thread is toxic to morale. It's like we are a wounded animal crying out before our inevitable last gasp. We will not stop this, and Holla Forums does not have very long as a single entity anymore. Soon Holla Forumsacks will be refugees on other sites. We will see shitposts from other's who used to come here on random comment sections and it will be like seeing a fellow veteran of a country that was disbanded after losing their big war. It will be the most bitter of bittersweet moments we will soon have to endure. Which would be worse, having a hurtbox, or having to see the shattered echos of your hurtbox scattered to the winds of the web?

Where in the constitution does it say private businesses have to bake cakes for faggots? Yet they're still forced to.

...

nice cherry picking. next time, for accurate context, post the whole story. that was after obozo cucked to public pressure, keep trying though

lel Holla Forums is gonna be blocked by all ISPs once net neutrality is gone.

Here follows the current 'law'
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010
If anyone can find the bidding actual law file that must be followed by ISP, it would be nice.
I could only find the Wikipedia article that talks about it

...

Notice how the liar just speaks from his ass never with sources.
No he didn't. Obama's White House, tech companies like Faceberg and the media shilled most of the internet, especially reddit. Fuck off with your lies.

Oh look, this thread again
wherein OP tries to spread FUD, switches proxies, and makes no arguments
nothing has convinced me that net neutrality is shit quite so much as OPs inept shilling

When?

ROAD NEUTRALITY MEANS: ALL ROAD TRAFFIC SHALL BE TREATED EQUALLY
I'm looking at you toll lanes, bridges, and roads.
And busses.

Nope. Fuck off.

Might be a good thing. time to decentralize.

pic is you brother. you hate the truth so you scream "liar liar" hahahah
hahaha thanks for the laughs

I'm not saying it's futile. I'm just being realistic. This one is different. They've said fuck off to public opinion at this point. They are over-reaching for their sheckels and it may haunt them in that regard, but I believe this is more about delivering a fatal blow to websites like 8ch before it is swayed back to an open net by the normalfags. Holla Forums is not the end-all be-all for fighting zion, it's just the most major player on the board right now. Saying this place will fall to the kikes is no different from saying we will lose a tactical position. It will be an ending to a large drawn out battle, but not the war.

Shill harder for King Nigger's (((net neutrality))).

You must be either retarded or autistic.

Go ahead and deny that it would give ISP's power to strangle this website. That's fine. But don't write off what I'm predicting here just yet buckaroo.

It's not. It's has fuck-all to do with hosting.

The people that kicked Fag Anglin's Thai Fuck Shack off of the internet were supporters of net neutrality.

lot of kikes have been shilling this anti net neutrality shit. pretty ridiculous and its not fooling as many people as they think it is

wherein OP tries to spread FUD, switches proxies, and makes no arguments
He said before making no arguments and switching proxies

oh look this post again. filtered

He said before making no arguments and switching proxies
*fixed

No, he is not.
Yes, it is.

heres your (you)
congrats on making it up to (6)

You're trying too hard.

OP has made only two posts in this thread.

...

the NSA has been using them to snarf 95%+ of internet traffic for a decade or more.

...

...

Dubs confirm. When (((they))) break the internet, the purge becomes the daily shitpost.

nah, OP made like 75% of the post in this thread.

Pic related meant for OP

The enemy of my enemy is my tool against my enemy.

Why do they fear ds so much? Isn't Faglin controlled op?

Europe supposedly has net neutrality, and yet arrests people for online hate speech.

The democrats in America support net neutrality, and support banning hate speech.

Not seeing any connection between net neutrality and free speech, in fact there appears to be a clear inverse relationship between support for net neutrality and support for free speech. It's a con-job. The long term goal of the net-neutrality movement is to create single payer government run internet, like how they want single payer government run healthcare.

A new movement that explicitly calls for anti-censorship and pro-privacy laws and nothing else, without all the excess economic and government control baggage of "net-neutrality" is needed.

Not sure about this part, but this is spot-on:

It was the domain registrars that kicked him off, net neutrality doesn't have anything to do with them.

It's pretty simple; pay for what you consume. If you use more bandwidth, you should pay more to support the infrastructure
The corollary is; if you pay more, you should be able to expect more of the infrastructure devoted to your needs.

Imagine a company builds their own road connecting two cities. Ordinarily, you would find it reasonable for them to charge truck drivers more than bicycles, as the trucks take up more room and damage the road surface more.
The truck drivers might expect that you reserve a lane for them in order to enable critical deliveries to get between the cities.

Net Neutrality would be like forcing the road building company to charge everyone exactly the same amount and treat them all exactly the same. This would mean bicycle riders would have to pay as much as truck drivers and truck drivers would get stuck in traffic, causing late deliveries.

Government intervention is always a bad thing for us, the citizenry.

Obongo's (((Net neutrality))) was only implemented in 2015. Up until then it didn't fucking exist and the internet, fullchan included, was just fine more or less without it. Go shill for your kang's failed legacy somewhere else.

...

I see nothing at all suspicious in the fact that George Soros and all the big corporations are shilling for exactly what OP is proposing. No, we are the ones fighting the power, by being compassionate! If we repeal Obamacare and there's a free market for healthcare, literally millions of people will die!

Sorry Shlomo, but you're going to have to start paying for your bandwidth. Netflix does not deserve gibs from service providers, and gentiles should not be paying for those kike services anyway. FTC starts policing monopolies instead of content, and the market becomes freer all-around with less government censorship. Oy vey!

No ISP ever tried to censor me, but Jewgle and its government allies have. Stop being a fucking puppet for r*ddit talking points. Net neutrality will do NOTHING to protect your favorite website. THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PROTECT YOUR INTERESTS WITH REGULATION, but competition can act as a safeguard.

but it's the End of The Internet!!! Google and Facebook need our help guys!

I hope Net Neutrality does end.

Comcast and AT&T are just as full of kikes, its jews jewing jews over shekels, we don't really have a dog in this fight.

Who's paying you?

The internet doesnt work like roads.

I pay 10 USD in EU for the same shit you pay 116 in USA, its really all the same. Its all about milking the costumer, this time the government will help, by removing its power from the guy that is milking you.

nn is corporate welfare for google, facebook, amazon and netflix. ignore the shills

Hide shill posts, don't reply to ISP shills, and call congress. Do what's right.

You do realize that repealing Net Neutrality will allow ISP's to ban websites now, right? Like Holla Forums? After all your not exactly friendly to their revenue ;)

Ultimately this is true, and internet freedom will go down no matter what. But this change will attack their monopolies while also hurting the content providers that are actually censoring things now, so I am in favor of it. I may not have much of a dog, but I want to kill Soros's dog.

…wat?

Fucking shit.

Kill yourself.

How do you prove that Sixteen Thirty Fund is who funds demand progress? I'm trying to make a nice infographic

The one and only reason we defended net neutrality is because (((they))) claimed our internet would be censored by ISPs. That never happened and it never could have happened when you think about it. ISPs don't have the skill nor the care to censor your Umman Mandan swordcrafting slave pit, while Jewgle has all of the resources and reason to do so.

The only thing NN benefits at this point is large bandwidth hogs like Netflix, Youtube, and AWS, all of which are basically getting a free ride despite being all of the internet traffic. No skin off my back if they have to negotiate with ISPs. Fuck them, their free meal ticket is over.

Mostly true, though I am naturally suspicious of regulatory action being pushed by usual fucking suspects, as it feels like a 'foot-in-the-door' for regulating content on the internet.

OP IS AN ISP SHILL KIKE, DON'T LISTEN TO ISP SHILLS AND HID THEIR POSTS.

I'm surprised Holla Forums is against NN. Abolition of it would mean that ISPs get to tell you what you should and should not visit. I worry for the future of any platform that engages in what the establishment deems wrongthink and throttle the traffic there. Worse still is that since US is a trend setter this will eventually be adopted by every other country.

Leave it to a fucking Pajeet to ruin internet for everyone.

It's not. One raindrop never claims to be the cause of a flood, and one kike does not speak for all of Holla Forums.

It literally doesn't matter at this point. We're censored in more insidious ways by the Alphabet conglomerate.

FCC pajeet lobbies Comcast so they don't have to deal with competition. Net Neutrality forces them to act as if they have competition. The whole predicament is "the people vs the ebul gov't and corps" because the situation has been presented as if removing Net Neutrality benefits ALL of the companies, only the companies and fucks over the consumer. When really Net Neutrality keeps Comcast in line, so if it gets removed they can jew everyone and fuck over other companies legally. The solution is get rid of the fucking legal monopoly but this isn't really spoken about in the media-sphere.

It prevents Comcast from fucking with people even more because they have a government enforced monopoly. In reality, they won't vote out NN because if they did it would enlighten the morons who believe its a real solution to this. They'll vote to keep it and let the people believe they won, continue the monopoly under this ruse because its more effective than trying to Jew people for more money with free reign when they hate you.

>I'm surprised Holla Forums is against (((NN)))

Then you need to lurk two years.

are you shitting me?
NN didn't even exist until a couple years ago

My point was that those domain registrars support net neutrality, yet censor the Internet. So they are obviously not supportive of free speech. Net Neutrality is not a movement of free speech activists.

Domain registrars and ICANN have more power to censor the Internet than ISPs, as shown with this Anglin case, yet the net neutrality crowd is silent on the issue, or even supported what happened to Anglin because he's racist.

Net neutrality versus no net neutrality is merely an argument over who should be in control. Its whether you trust the government more or trust ISPs more. In reality there is no reason to trust any of them. I have no idea why anyone here is strongly supportive of net neutrality or strongly against it. We are not in control of the government. We are not in control of a couple monopolistic ISPs. Both are controlled by kikes and this is simply an intratribal squabble. Watching anons actually cheer on either side is depressing.

Can Holla Forums fucking learn what net neutrality is already and stop spewing retarded shit??

ATTENTION NEWFAGS: ONE KIKE LIKE OP DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ALL OF Holla Forums

Fuck off vpn shill. We know what net neutrality is and we don't give a shit. That user is technically right, it was never codified by the FCC until 2015. It was an informal arrangement before then.

You are right I am converted to shilling for NN now. Does anyone else remember the horror of the 2015, in the days before NN? Every imageboard was blocked and the internet was a barren wasteland. ISPs charged me whatever they felt like, and anime was erased from history. Kang Nigger saved us from all that, please believe.

What fucking autist came up that shit I have no idea but you retards sure swallowed it up.

No. By your own post he is wrong. When something is codified has no bearing on when it came into existence. It's like saying houses didn't exist before we had building code or that trading didn't exist before the first law regulating it was proclaimed.

FUCKING CHECKED

Can any of the Anti-NN people please explain to me how a site like 8ch will continue to exist after this passes? Every ISP will pretty much block it, or slow it till it is completely unusable. Sure 8ch isn't just the USA, but that's where the majority of the userbase comes from. How can a site like this continue to keep going?

How fucking retarded are you? We've had net neutrality since the inception of the commercial internet.

Before 2015 the informal arrangement was based on an assumption of roughly equal usage. (((Netflix))) broke the trend with their large bandwidth and service providers tried to get them to renegotiate their contract. Cue George Soros paying many millions to astroturf it as a liberal issue, and Congress codifying it into law. If you shill for net neutrality, you are shilling for netflix for free. There is no reason why their data SHOULD be treated equally like data historically could be in the past.

This is you.

Why would ISPs go after this mongolian woodcarving collective? If they target any one website, another will pop up in its place. The only solution would be to either:

a) ban everything except a few websites
b) write an algorithm to target websites like this

b) is outside the capability of the pajeets that work at Comcast and the like. a) would be suicide.

The only thing repealing NN will do is allow ISPs to grab Netflix by the balls. That's it. The whole "internet will be censored" is a leftist meme and is entirely moot given the fact Google is doing exactly that, NN or not.

How will it continue to exist with all the shit that various content providers and the government have been doing? It is the FCC that regulates content, not the FTC. We are already on that road. Getting rid of NN and allowing the FTC to regulate ISPs as businesses rather than utilities could theoretically eliminate some of their monopoly power and give us increased access to alternatives in a competitive market, but really the change isn't really going to affect the direction things are heading either way. Price discrimination will be based on bandwidth, you are already getting censored.

I'm pretty sure that the law in question contains
MORE THAN JUST TWO SENTENCES

Are you telling me (with your expert knowledge) that the piece of law in question is just one big white page with "treat every package the same" in the IOTBW font?

saved

>Why would (((ISPs))) go after this mongolian woodcarving collective?
Did that answer your question?

No it won't. Nobody will bat an eyelid when "racists" websites get taken down just like before. This just gives (((them))) government sanctioned authority to do just that.

First they'll come for the racists, then eventually any voice that doesn't subscribe to the party ideology.

I don't understand this. In the U.S. hate speech isn't illegal. What about sites like 4chan and mewch and endchan that are in datacenters? Will they live?

check out this lolbertarian faggot

You must have misread my post or are completely retarded if you think that answers my point.

I said they can't as in ISPs are too fucking stupid to censor the internet. They're not (((Google))) class developers, they're fucking pajeets who can't code their way out of a paper bag. Thus, if they really really wanted to censor some place like this, they'd have to go with a white list approach, since a black list would require some kind of algorithm to prevent places like this from popping up again.

Also, the censorship argument for NN is retarded given how the Alphabet agency is censoring us anyway. So fuck it. I don't care if (((ISPs))) fuck over Soros and the like.

I haven't said a word about the law, what I'm objecting against is retards equating the principle of net neutrality with a law they don't like and writing posts where they dismiss it outright without any distinction thereof. They do , out of stupidity or laziness, and it makes me want to kick their fucking teeth in because it makes any debate on the topic impossible.

So we're denying reality here nowadays? Is this fucking reddit?

Pic related. Tell me who supports something, and I can lay betting odds on whether or not it's good for me, based on that.

Well no one's getting rid of the principle, just the law, so you shouldn't have a problem, now should you, my semitic friend?

They tried doing it before and they failed. "8ch.net" used to be called "Holla Forums.co". Not only was the latter domain was seized several times and the website was repeatedly dosed by left-wing organizations, it was also delisted by Google. Even Hotwheels doesn't own the 8ch domain anymore, someone is holding it hostage now.

That past event, along with the recent incident at Fag Anglin's Thai Fuck Shack proves that you guys don't support free speech, but the cost of your netflix subscriptions. Sites won't target small fries like this sites, they'll target your platform as you have a higher userbase.

What'cha sliding shlomo?

More schizoid paranoia. Fuck off back to leftypol you gross faggot

Opinion disregarded

Holy SHIT,

FUCK YOU, FILTERED AND REPORTED

Try harder and project more, Abe. This is the shit we see in just this thread because of retards and kikes like you:

People read this shit, confuse net neutrality for some fucking obongo law and grow apathetic towards a principle that absolutely must remain in place. It's classic demoralization and I will fight your shit every time you try to push it.

I haven't read it and I don't give a single fuck about it. I don't live in burgerland, I have no senator to leverage, and we frankly have our own problems regarding the internet over here to deal with.

Did you forget what Twitter and Google did to the right? Supporting or rejecting it wouldn't make a difference at all.

you are a fucking moron

Net neutrality is the trojan for which government control over the internet will take place. Net neutrality and (((Net Neutrality))) are two different things.

We need to create our own DNS and servers so we can share anyone for free to deprive them if the shekels. Gospherspace.

It's unpatriotic to not support the patriot act to keep us safe and cozy, and terrorist-free, user.

Cont.
Because it's now clear to people with bad intentions -you are being watched- so don't even try to sneak an assault riffle into a hotel casino, much less a dozen or more of them, because you know we are watching everything now.

it's on the demand progress website

#NetNeutrality is the biggest scam the isp's has ever made.

transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

George Soros is a major shareholder of Netflix.
Repelling Net Neutrality would slaughter video streaming services since 80% of internet traffic is video.

Because the (((net neutrality))) that's being ended is some bullshit invented under King Nigger's reign, not actual net neutrality, hence confusion.

Fun fact. The classification of the internet as a telecommunications service rather than an information service ended up allowing the government to instill draconian regulations that fucked with the majority of smaller ISPs that could have competed with Comcast.

But keep fighting the "good fight" backed by your friends at Google and Netflix that use Net Neutrality as an excuse to save money.

My house uses AT&T and things are fine. Are you lying? Oh wait, you're an ISP shilling kike, of course you are.

WTF you talkin' bout homey. Fag Anglin's Thai Fuck Shack has only missed a couple days since Charlottesville. Up and running currently under dot HK domain. Duh.

Fag Anglin's Thai Fuck Shack

Daily Stormr

exactly. ask yourself, have you ever supported anything Open Society shills for?

WTF you talkin' bout homey. Daily Stormr has only missed a couple days since Charlottesville. Up and running currently under dot HK domain. Duh.

Mods are censoring all mentions and Andrw Anglin and Daily Stormr. Easily defeated with delib mis-spells. Ha ha fags. DAILY STORMR FOREVER. ANGLN RULES

word filters are such cancer i saw a mod ban an user for a post that was only bad because of a word filter. Even they hate their own garbage.

awesome

Here is a graphic to spread. Any suggestions or edits I should make let me know.

Can we finally use this as thee line to arm up for DOTR Holla Forums? Long was it been foretold in the chans, "you can take my life, but don't take muh internet!!!"

I say these jews fucked with the wrong niggers.

EXCEPT 8CH EXISTED BEFORE NET NEUTRALITY EXISTED. EVERYTHING WAS PERFECTLY FUCKING FINE. GO CHOKE ON SOME CUM BACK AT YOUR PLEBBIT SHITHOLE ,OP.

There is no winning. Net neutrality is a pointless argument to have as a consumer because you in the grand scheme are going to get fucked either way.

Yes, democrats like net neutrality, but that doesn't make it any less important you mongoloid. Anyone who isn't a faggot politician likes net neutrality.

see please

Net Neutrality. You already know this. I know republicans, lolbritarians, and liberals who all support it. NN is the only good thing the left has ever done right.

Long game Holla Forums. We die here, we take to the meatspace. Then the fucking (((kikes))) will really, really kvetch.

beautiful

wait, the graphic on the right needs the Ford Foundation too

Making the change, removed two of the funders for spacing reasons. Also made a normie tier version with no merchants.

really don't know what to believe now

If worse comes to worse and I really am gonna start getting charged $10 a month to use certain websites on top of my internet bill, I might just snap like a pic related

Take a step away from the computer and take a few deep breaths, and think about this. This apocalyptic fear mongering shit that leddit and the like are putting out is meant to scare people.

Consider that the current NN rules that they are freaking out about being removed have only been in place since around 2015. The internet was just fine before them.

Sure, but do you want to give the kikes an inch? They might just go a mile if given the chance.

I'm really conflicted by NN, honestly.

On the one hand, a free and open internet should be a good thing, right?

On the other hand, if we let the ISPs turn everything to shit, Silicon Valley will falter horribly while people like us will just use VPNs, alternative DNS, i2p, even our own routing schemes to work around it. And it'll be beautifully free of pleb normies that can't into tech - they'll be sequestered into their little corporate-controlled bubbles, and we can have the wild west again. And BBSs and usenet will be a thing again, and Futuristic Sex Robotz will get back together.

The summary seems like the changes will be beneficial, but i'll wait for the official release tomorrow.

“For almost twenty years, the Internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress. This bipartisan framework led the private sector to invest $1.5 trillion building communications networks throughout the United States. And it gave us an Internet economy that became the envy of the world.
“But in 2015, the prior FCC bowed to pressure from President Obama. On a party-line vote, it imposed heavy-handed, utility-style regulations upon the Internet. That decision was a mistake. It’s depressed investment in building and expanding broadband networks and deterred innovation.
“Today, I have shared with my colleagues a draft order that would abandon this failed approach and return to the longstanding consensus that served consumers well for decades. Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the Internet. Instead, the FCC would simply require Internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them and entrepreneurs and other small businesses can have the technical information they need to innovate.
“Additionally, as a result of my proposal, the Federal Trade Commission will once again be able to police ISPs, protect consumers, and promote competition, just as it did before 2015. Notably, my proposal will put the federal government’s most experienced privacy cop, the FTC, back on the beat to protect consumers’ online privacy.
“Speaking of transparency, when the prior FCC adopted President Obama’s heavy-handed Internet regulations, it refused to let the American people see that plan until weeks after the FCC’s vote. This time, it’ll be different. Specifically, I will publicly release my proposal to restore Internet freedom tomorrow—more than three weeks before the Commission’s December 14 vote.
“Working with my colleagues, I look forward to returning to the light-touch, market-based framework that unleashed the digital revolution and benefited consumers here and around the world.”

Source: fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-proposes-restore-internet-freedom

Maybe remove "Spicteen" from the "nojew" version if you're wanting to keep it normie pg tier. Otherwise might be dismissed as "racist propaganda".

Of course Pai is going to make the changes sound positive. He wants to get rid of Net Neutrality, he's not going to come out and say "Yeah, this is going to fuck you guys hardcore, but we're doing it anyway because we like the ISPs better than the consumers."

Fuck net neutrality and fuck the cable companies. Throw them to the wolves/FCC, if they wanted people to defend them, they shouldn't have treated their customers like shit.

So is there actually any argument against net neutrality that isn't just adhom bullshit?

...

Now Holla Forums fell for the retarded reddit kike propaganda too?

...

Why is reddit begging us to fight for this again for like the fifth time?

Either way, it'll be 3 weeks to the vote after tomorrow's release.

Pai seems to allude they'll have to answer to the FTC with his changes as well as be open to the customers about what they do/offer.

You'll be able to see the actual proposed changes once they're released tomorrow.

Yea, people need to learn to go to the source for the truth. We haven't even gotten a public release of the changes yet.

Did you read this wsj piece written by him?

archive.is/gBwRN

Is the guy on the right Soros' son?

yeah, left is mashable "journalist"

...

I'm still considering how I feel about this. Here's what I want to know though: What is going to be done about the local monopoly that internet providers have?

I might be in favor of anti - net neutrality, but not if its going to be the same local internet providers that have to give service. Do any of these changes effect that?

We can't go half-assed here. If we are going to deregulate, we need to kind of go all the way with it. If they are going to get rid of net neutrality, but yet lock you into one of two local internet providers, then those deregulations will only end up fucking you in the ass.

Is anything being done to let local/smaller internet providers compete? So far this seems like just enough deregulation to favor the big guys, but lock out all of the little guys that the shills claim will suddenly pop up.

O'Rielly's Statement on the overhaul from 2015 seems to point out a lot of issues with it. It's at the bottom of the page here for anyone interested: fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order

Skimmed over it, and it seems to have a lot of the same ideas listed in his statements.

I thought they were the same person i guess he has a body double to fake his death

Wow what a shitshow this thread is.
Now, I have no idea what to say about this net neutrality thing.
Is this actual net neutrality or is this just newspeak (((net neutrality)))?
Because this reading through this thread… I don't know. As long as it doesn't swap over to Poland, i guess you burgers are free to do whatever you want. I just don't want my internet to be limited like some shitty mobile phone internet.

No. Kike shills are shilling and the moderation is seemingly ignoring reports. Net jewtrality is a sham.

Let's keep it that way. That's what this boils down to. Why ever allow them to restrict your access to data? According to that inforgraphic, throttling SSL traffic by 50% would free up 1% of existing bandwidth. Why ever allow them to choose like this? If you owned an ISP, why wouldn't you pick and choose, especially if you could do it subtly enough that your customer wouldn't realize what just happened.

Furthermore, its a slippery slope. Once an ISP has the systems in place to monitor and choose priority between packets these same systems will be co-opted by bad actors. If you want this removed, you implicitly support the ethos behind NSA spying. What if your water company was allowed to pick and choose amoungst its customers, where the rich get cleaner better tasting water….is that the world you want to live in? I argue freedom of information is a basic right, granted in our founding documents. Something that mentions neither water and electricity.

What if a powerful hedge fund paid an ISP to slow the transactions of their competitors? would that be fair? it would be legal without this law.

The FCC "fair airtime" doctrine (which I'm only mentioning because trump recently conflated that with this issue) is decidedly "anti-Net Neutrality" in spirit. That law forces a certain type of information consumption…just as throttling certain data streams would.

The law as written can be improved, its ethos however should not be disregarded.

they are "ignoring" reports because this isn't shilling. its an actual issue, that has political and societal implications. Go back to talking about how great hitler was…cause thats really important for me today

go back to info wars. seeing it happen on twitter. Alex jones is stirring this shit up. his followers are crashing image boards are rallying others to do the same. friend of mine told me to get ready for 2 million shills shilling on cuckchan, so expect a few hundred to wind up here

correct sir

BTW, what is stormers new tor?

nvm found em. hk

DESIGNATED SURA

A lot of these places have fax machines too. All you have to do is go buy a fax machine for $0.50 at the local thrift shop and you can annoy the entire congress with physical copies of whatever you want to send them.

NO IT ISN'T YOU TRIPLE NIGGER
Fucking goddamn reddit kikes, eat copypasta because writing a brand new point to blow you fear mongering disinformation shills out every time is wasted effort, your entire argument is completely destroyed already.
>(((net neutrality))) shills are spamming Holla Forums again
Fuck off. Net jewtrality was completely co-opted and is full government control of the internet. None of you redditniggers has any sense and keep shilling the same fucking lies for years.
Same shit, same shills, different words. Fucking kill yourselves.

this is a good argument.

thats not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying I want access to all information equally and i support anything that will ensure that. what you are saying is REEEEEEEEEEE. Let's have a fine grained discussion

Literally makes absolutely no sense why the sjws and sjw companies would back net neutrality. You know, they same people who say hate speech should be illegal and anyone with a different opinion is a literal nazi who should be legitimately attacked and killed. All the companies who back net neutrality are the same ones sitting around blocking any group and opinion they don't like. Anyways, I hate those faggots so I support taking away internet 'freedom'

fuck your tribalism then. this isn't us vs sjws, its us vs comcast. If you don't think speech should be censored, why can information? whats the difference?

I just realized the open society logo is that dumb ass swirl

you realise those companies will have to pay up in order to not be limited in their speed, right? are you really trying to say jew companies would love to be robbed of their shekels?

you utter fucking retard. try and think about what you are saying here. you are advocating for comcast and such to shoot you in the head, solely because some sjw's don't want to get shot either. are you really this fucking dense? would you legalize theft just because someone you don't like doesn't want to get their shit stolen? please, enlighten me.

I returned to 4/pol/ and quickly realized why I don't go there anymore. Every single thread is against NN. Clearly something jewish is happening and those stupid fucks are taking it hook line and sinker. For as god awful as reddit's userbase is, they at least realize the threat NN poses because it opens the door to ISPs blacklisting anything that doesn't engage in a corporate partnership (re: pays them money and abides by content standards) with them.

This is the only solace I take in this situation. NN is gone, but as sites are forced down users will revolt. Some will escape to things like Freenet or Tor (while normies fuck off to the clearnet) but many will go crazy and make for some good happenings. A shame 8ch might not be accessible to share it then.

its insane,its as if the chans wouldn't be throttled back to the stone ages. we will be talking about baud again if this goes through, wasn't that fun

A broken clock is right twice a day, and now is the time. If Free Speech becomes ill in any way, it'll quickly spread and become fully lethal.

Fuck soros, fuck hilary, fuck the AFL and fuck niggers but if NN drops then ISPs can completely disregard "Free Speech" as a concept because they wouldn't need to treat anyone equally. They could create certain standards aimed at targeting certain groups, say gun owners, and restrict their ability to post. Why should an ISP even allow sites like gunbroker to exist when all it does is create a liability problem from jews whose children are shot by niggers?

Kill NN and you kill what we now understand the Internet. Even if it takes years, it'd happen. Just look at how awful videogames have become in the past decade, ten years ago lootboxes would have been a joke today every game has them.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s email is [email protected]

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s phone number is 202-418-2000

Lots of fags saying NN is communism or jewish shit. NN has jewish appeal from both sides. Opposing side kikes silence any real opposition (read: us) and their most effective tools of communications. Pro-NN kikes will have to make special deals with ISPs to not get throttled and thus get jewed for extra bills. Do you think netflix or other hosting sites wants to pay up extra just so that it won't get fucked by low speeds? If NN fails, imageboards are going to get throttled or just outright banned on an ISP level. NN is something to rally behind from user perspective.

You can't kill what isn't alive. There is no law in place for NN, only "FCC guidelines" and they don't enforce those worth jack shit. They told Comcast to stop throttling BitTorrent traffic, but they still do it.

Wait, isn't net neutrality what you're trying to defend?

As is the case with gun control (in particular, Massachusetts), legislators don't need to pass a policy for it to be law. NN was, in effect, law because the FCC was given the power by Congress to make that decision.

That's because the FCC and DoJ are full of kike shills who didn't want to push the matter because they knew NN was going to be dead no matter who was President.

Here is the deal with NN since you faggots don't understand. NN shouldn't even exist if they'd just left the Internet as it should be like in the past; like the Wild West. We are arguing about this trivial bullshit the same way people argue about identity politics because the kikes want you to waste your time. If you are for or against NN, fuck all of you. You don't know jack shit. You should support the old internet instead falling for this stupid Jew psyop.

This.
Normalfag-net needs to be destroyed at all costs. No more Facebook. No more Google.

Do we have any backup places to retreat to?

It should be noted that any legislation will be a kiked up pile of shit, if not designed specifically to fuck with us. If you want to push for anything push for destroying the ISPs, push for audits of Google and other leftist faggot filled companies just like Obongo did to all his "conservative" opponents. The way to fuck with their control of the internet is to take their fucking money while turning a blind eye to anything the right does online. Fuck fair play and rule of law, they just coopt that shit, if you want to agitate for anything chose whatever cause-belie you want and pursue it ruthlessly.

It doesn't matter of some beanie wearing libarts pussy and his nigger buttplugger don't like Comcast because "muh corporations" Comcast is run by liberal jews and if you don't think that kikes will take over whatever legislation they can you're a fool.

Hello Google. Worried about something?

That pic. See that is what I expect will happen… or put another way. ISPs won't charge CUSTOMERS more, because we are already being charged out the ass, you cant get milk out of a dry cow. Most people will just suck it up and deal with slower internet or fewer sites they can visit if the ISPs tried to section off the internet like that and throttle us or deny us access to certain content without paying more.

What I suspect WOULD happen, is that ISPs would start charging the websites themselves that eat up shitloads of bandwidth in order for their service to continue to have high speeds at all times.

This would, of course, start by impacting customers first who would see slower timers as websites refuse to pay for their share of the usage, but I don't think they would offer customers the "option of paying more for faster access" to those sites, I think they would just start charging the sites themselves more for their high speed constant usage of the ISPs network. Those sites, whose customers are getting shit service, will likely see customer rates start to decline as people realize they can't watch at the speeds and quality they want and start ditching the service. Nutfux jewtube and others will then start charging usage fees or higher fees from what they currently do in order to recover those losses from having to pay the ISPs for access. But, then the cost isnt passed on to all customers, only the ones stupid enough to pay for those services to begin with.

The biggest negative impact for customers, I suspect, will be on free sites like jewtube and the like, who will have their speeds throttled but who currently don't charge a fee for usage to begin with, who might START charging a fee or limiting individuals ability to consume content from those sites at an unlimited rate.

Will that ultimately be negative for us as individuals? Probably. But I don't see them outright cutting off access to sites and forcing us to pay more to access them. I just see them as throttling some of the insane hogs out there like jewbook, jewtube, jewflix, jewdit, jewtter, maybe even jewgle in general.

And frankly, I have no problem with that. Theres far more to the internet than those sites. Of course on a personal level I worry it will also slow down gaming speeds/services by forcing those companies to pay more for access, which will mean they'll want to charge more for access to their online content/games. But, honestly meh, most successful online games are going towards f2p models now anyway with microtransactions to fund them, and they make fucking bank off that shit already, so I doubt they would do anything besides MAYBE go up 25cents a pop on some of those things, and I dont buy into that shit so it wouldnt even impact me to begin with

This thread is shilled hard because (((they))) know we can get this shut down. And we must. Net neutrality means all traffic is equal. All the shills here want you to believe it doesnt matter but to cut it short. DON'T CHANGE A RUNNING SYSTEM. You cant know what they will do once equality is gone. Apartheit is something we want, but not in communication. This could get all gov traffic running on seperate lines.. making it harder for 'the hacker known as anonymouse' to catch and expose tyrranie. I'm certain some fuck somewhere will try to use it to shut sites like hatechan down. Forcing us into even more of a niche and making it harder for us to access the masses.

i actually have to share a board with retards like these

Jesus if this isn't shilling I don't know what it is.
How come such a naive individual like you ended up on this website?
This is even more naive then your average redditor.

Ya know, right now I have ONE ISP in my area. One, only one. And its half shit most of the time. Its working now, but there are times when it goes out for zero reason and I'm lucky to get 1/20th of the speeds promised. And its not "muh ddos" and shit, its just flat out the company sucks. There are places this same ISP is the only provider all over the south east, and there are posts all around about them going down for days a time, promising to send techs out and then never showing up, saying they came out but never having shown up, and so on.

No other ISPs will expand into these areas because the populations are low, they're rural areas, and they'd have to compete against a monopoly that already exists, so even if they took a 50% market share, it would take 5-10 years to just turn a net profit from the expansions they'd have to go through, not to mention these users who would be eating up lots of bandwidth for these streaming services cutting into possible profits to begin with by forcing them to continually improve infrastructure out here

And its not just small areas that are like this, in some places cox or comcast is the ONLY service offered even in towns or cities outside of metro areas that still have high populations there, and their services suck and they have no competition.

So "running system" might be a bit of a stretch. Yeah.. it sorta works. But its not great, its not what it COULD be. It "functions" and I get the old saying "dont fix what isnt broken," but what we have is barely limping along with a broken leg or two, should we not attempt to repair those things simply because "hey at least your legs are still attached?"

If NN is to die, then the easiest solution to ensure it doesnt harm JUST the end users like us, is to put into rule protections that limit ISPs from creating "access packages" like cable tv does, BUT allowing them to throttle corporate usage (ie: jewgle, jewflix, etc) as they need to in order to maintain their infrastructure, or charge THEM fees in order to have access to US as customers. yes its a "middle man taking his cut," but they arent doing NOTHING, they are the ones building all the infrastructure and maintaining it. yes we pay them, but obviously its not as profitable as it seems it would be at present prices because, again, look at the shit that isnt working but they wont fix because its expensive and isnt cost effective….

Essentially, pushing the cost of higher speeds onto the jewcompanies, who will naturally try to charge more for their services to make up the cost, but honestly, fuck em and fuck anyone who pays for jewflix or other services like that

Really now? This is the best (((you))) can come up with?

You sound like a fucking heretic.

This shit is becoming really tiresome…
I don't even care which side of the argument is the more kiked one by now, total non fucking issue. Networking isn't that complicated and for any and all restrictions kikes might try to put in place there will be just as many workarounds. Literally the only way they can shut down muh cyber baddies is by pulling the plug on the big exchanges putting EVERYONE in the dark, yeah that's gonna happen… Hell i wish it'd happen people might actually start living in physical reality again.

...

I knew he (Trump) was a fake deceiver

...

So.. you're saying that.. Soros is funding a movement that is actually GOOD for us and ISNT somehow an attempt to further degrade and wear down and destroy a western society?

Thats your assessment of the situation? "a broken clock is right twice a day" basically? That somehow every other thing he does is somehow to fuck us completely over, but on THIS ONE THING, hes actually on the right side?…. do you know how completely retarded you sound?

No, in truth its more likely we're being played by both sides, and both sides end in us losing to some jew company one way or another.. were basically caught between jews competing to jew us first and the most, so no matter which side we take we're kinda fucked. We have to find a third position, which I thought I outlined pretty clearly in that you could create rules that ISPs cannot limit the individual users speeds or limit access to sites via packages and so on, but could only limit corporate usage if that company could be shown to be eating up excessively large amounts of the ISPs capacity and profiting greatly off of it and even then they could only slow the companies access or charge them more for it NOT charge the individual users (us) or limit OUR access to that site entirely behind a paywall, essentially slowing down nutflix for EVERYONE equally unless netfux pays more for users to have faster or more net access to their site (ie: use more bandwidth of the ISP). Thus, forcing places like jewflix to pay more for THEIR service packages and not make us pay more. Yes again jewflix and co would try to push that increased cost on to us just like any company does when their cost of doing business goes up, but that would fall entirely on the idiots who pay those companies. AND it would force the ISP to SHOW that X site is using up more bandwidth and needs to pay more so the ISP can profit and fucking use that money to expand and improve their services, so that maybe as years go by prices for end users wont have to go up so god damn much every year and our speeds might actually improve. And it would protect small sites like 8ch which ISPs could never prove is using some unseemly amount of bandwidth so our little homes would be safe.

Meanwhile if nothing else, all the big hives like jewtube, reddit, faceberg, and so on, would end up slowing way down as their owners may refuse to pay those fees to ISPs OR start charging users for access to pay said fees with which would drive away lots of users, and if they do, then users will spread out to many other websites. Destroying those hives and total control they have over certain areas of the internet. You'd see a dozen new streaming platforms "like" jewtube pop up and get populated and improve, you'd break up liberal hives on reddit and force them to lose easy contact with all their commie groups, jewgle would suffer greatly and we'd see other search engines rapidly improve to draw users and be contended to split the increased traffic "now that jewgle is dying because its charge fees or is so damn slow"

Basically, NN as soros wants it, is jewish. NN "just dead" is just as jewish but in favor of ISPs. NN tweaked greatly and effectively not NN anymore but designed in a way not to punish or try to shekel grub to death end users like us, but to pit the jew isps against the big jew run sites, would work out best for us overall

...

this is also what i want

Shit I bought high anonymous proxies just to post here.

I'm really conflicted over NN, every side has good points, the biggest problem in the end are the ISP monopolies which must be broken up yet we don't see such steps being taken after NN is removed.

(checked)
Good morning Satan. Shilling the sin of wrath? Good.

We don't see such steps after NN was implemented.
NN is nothing but a govt power grab

So for the 1st time i can ever recall, the federal government is relinquishing their control/regulation of something, and you guys want to force them to control/regulate it?

it's don't

this thread is just a bunch of redditors and 4cucks.

exactly. this is going to hurt jews financially. the only people that are going to have an "edge" on the internet are going to be computer savvy people. if this site was blocked by every ISP and only the people who understand TOR and VPNs would be able to access it, i guarantee the shills, redditors, and faggots would stop posting here.

but thats not whats even going to happen. keeping it under government regulation leaves the FCC and whatever administration is controlling the whitehouse at the time to be able to control/censor the internet. leaving it up to (((monopolies))) isnt much better, but atleast their unfair practices can possibly be legislated against and they could be sued for shitty practices.. good luck if its an FCC policy.

>guys this will totally fuck over the (((corporations))) lololol
>except the same (((corporations))) don't censor this like every other thing that goes against their interests

I just want to say I'm really glad 8pol hasn't been totally compromised. Half chan is pure cancer right now even more than normal. I can't tell what fraction of the cancer is shills and what fraction is nu-pol.
There are so many "redpilled" but very credulous people there who just blow where the wind takes them if they see a funny infographic.

I can't believe they're actually in favor of what amounts to an anti-discrimination law. If you support one anti-discrimination law, you've implicitly accepted the (theoretical) legitimacy of any anti-discrimination or forced integration laws at all. I believe everybody has the right to discriminate in any context against anyone on any grounds or even no grounds at all.

Fucking exactly. There may well be injustices or "injustices", but these can be taken to court or arbitrated privately. I'll take a few solvable injustices over a million unsolvable injustices.

We really do need to end corporate welfare for the ISPs too.

I've used the internet since the late 90's. Net neutrality went into effect in 2015 or so? Let me explain how the internet has worked over that time. When the evil ISPs weren't controlled you paid $X per month for a certain maximum speed and you usually got 80-90% of that speed with no noticable difference between sites. Never once did I receive a notice that a website was blocked. Never once did I notice a "naughty super bad no-no site" ever get throttled to like 56k speeds or some nonsense. It just didn't happen.

These NN shills are just clutching their pearls over non-existent problems that they have dreamt up in their heads. And making up shit as well. It's apparent that outside the US, foreign government is what shuts you down. In the US, the domain registrars shut you down. The idea that the ISPs are needed by some conspiracy of the government is dumb, because they could just shut you down at the domain level already.

ISPs are greedy fucks, but they have never espoused some desire to expend resources to censor people. The hatred of ISPs beyond shitty rates because of their oligopoly, is weird. I've never had an issue with any of my ISPs (including fucking Comcast) they have all delivered usable internet with very little down time at the contracted rate. Which is all I've ever asked for. I don't know what everyone who treats ISP as a dirty word expects out of them.

Oh and the last time I ever heard of a data cap, outside of mobile phone data, was in like 2001 when AOL and CompuServe offered either monthly unlimited plans, or data cap plans for way less. I'm assuming the people that purchased their data cap plans were happy with that service, as monthly unlimited was also available at like 29.99/month.

Back in the day net neutrality, the idea that all data is the same and should be treated the same. Was the norm for the internet.

The only good thing to come out of losing NN is for Trump to also come in and break up ISP monopolies. We need more competition outside of Comcast and At&t.

In practice this is what will happen 99% of the time on its own. Companies are in constant contact with ISPs and most of the time they will negotiate before it gets to the stage where they push fees to individuals. (((ISPs))) will mainly use individual extra charges as bargaining power or negotiation leverage against ((((((Netflix)))))). Bandwidth is a scarce resource and the whole point of economies is to prevent overusing scarce resources like this.

It's the nu-shills and nu-newfags nu-trying to nu-meme but it's just nu-summer, nu what I mean?

Aside from all his promises made to isreal and Bibi Netanyahu, this is the only other promise made the jewish President will keep.

You're a retard. Verizon was already trying to prioritize bandwith for sites they own/partnered with. Tmobile was doing the same. By allowing these types of things to happen this starts us down a slippery slope. First its priortized bandwith for the good sites, then its less bandwith for the sites that dont comply or are a thorn in their sides IE: torrent sites. Consumers WILL inevitably have to pay more for internet services as the greedy corporation owning (((jews))) will continue to find ways to get as many sheckels as they want. This also stifles competition as certain high priority sites will get the views as they will perform better. No competition could come close to eradicating Jewtube as no other video platform will receive the same amount of preferential treatment. TV is losing more and more subscribers. The ISPs need a way to control and disseminate info. killing NN is that first step.

NN was the BASIS of the internets creation… freedom of all information, data is data, open to everyone.

why dont you go and read the open access manifesto as well as the declaration of internet freedoms.

The Declaration of Internet Freedom is a 2012 online declaration in defense of online freedoms signed by a number of prominent organisations and individuals.[1][2] Notable signatories include Amnesty International, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, and the Mozilla Foundation, among others.

The declaration supports the establishment of five basic principles for Internet policy:

Non-censorship of the internet
Universal access to fast and affordable networks
Freedom to connect, communicate, create and innovate over the Internet.
Protection for new technologies and innovators whose innovations are abused by users.
Privacy rights and the ability for Internet user to control information about them is used.

Nobody else finds it odd that this is promoted on Reddit instead of being censored?

reddit is the faggot front page of the internet.

internet for ALL…. including the normie faggots that live there.

posts stay up for a long time as well. BOTH sides are fighting. Reddit is a big public battleground. Of course its going to be used…

The Declaration of Internet Freedom is a 2012 online declaration in defense of online freedoms signed by a number of prominent organisations and individuals.[1][2] Notable signatories include Amnesty International, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, and the Mozilla Foundation, among others.

The declaration supports the establishment of five basic principles for Internet policy:

Non-censorship of the internet
Universal access to fast and affordable networks
Freedom to connect, communicate, create and innovate over the Internet.
Protection for new technologies and innovators whose innovations are abused by users.
Privacy rights and the ability for Internet user to control information about them is used.

Everyone is getting hurt. Leftists and the Right both don't want this. The Left may want the Right to get censored and shit, but they don't want this to happen to themselves too.

Post yfw half of Holla Forums decided to be on the same team as (((Soros))), (((Google))), (((Facebook))), and (((Reddit))).

>Net neutrality is the trojan for which government control over the internet will take place. Net neutrality and (((Net Neutrality))) are two different things.
>(((Net Neutrality)))
So both "Net neutrality" and "Net Neutrality" is bad according to you. Kill yourself.

Stop trying to make people believe that net neutrality and this law are the same thing you fucking kike.

Then refer to it as obongo's law and stop demoralizing people about net neutrality.

Net neutrality has been in place since the fucking internet came into being

Fuck off blackpill faggot.

Kill yourself.

>Is this actual net neutrality or is this just newspeak (((net neutrality)))?
Because of kike demoralization most of Holla Forums doesn't even know the difference.

You need to go back to where ever you came from.

Stop referring to these laws, rules and policies as net neutrality if you claim they aren't net neutrality then.

I hope you do realize that leftist actually believe they aren't the establishment and status que but instead think they are marginalized rebels fighting the fascist who run the world. Also

1. FCC rules do no equate net neutrality.
2. We've had net neutrality for decades even though ISP could've disregarded free speech any time they wanted.

Net neutrality isn't FFC rules. It's a phenomenon that can and has existed without any laws requiring it.

The internet was the Wild West primarily becasue net neutrality was the norm you dumb cunt.

Kiked ISP monopolies has nothing to do with net neutrality though. Net neutrality is the fact that you were are able to make that post because your ISP didn't say "nope, no traffic to that site".

That's because the demoralizing kikes have made you believe net neutrality equates FCC rules. The problem vanishes when you free yourself from this false dichotomy and realize you can be for net neutrality but against the FCC rules becasue they aren't the same thing.

Net neutrality was implemented back in like the 90's.

Net neutrality went into effect with the fist commercial dial-up services. Learn what the fuck something is before you comment on it.

For completely fabricated reasons. Don't buy artificial scarcity as valid reason to do anything.

I suspect what we're seeing is an effort to try and encourage Holla Forums to support widespread internet censorship.
So that we can be cast in opposition to leftist groups

ISP
INTERNET SOYVICE PROVIDER

Yes like every other argument since the Trumpstein scam started, the entire collective sum of the entire anti-jew movement have turned into Conservative zionists whose sole aim is to oppose everything leftist in favour of everything the zionist jew conservatives want, now pretty much all so called resistance to jewry is just counter-jihad judaism, offering zero resistance to jewry but only serving their interests "just to annoy the leftists" oy vey.
Hence the "based neocon jews" being championed each and every day on here and basically whatever the jews want you all to do is what's stickied and any user who opposes it gets banned by the based jew mods.

Sure they do champ.

pedos, nazis, pirates, everyone gets the shaft and no one is fighting back.

rather there are bigger odds the idiots fight themselves while big guv reaps the profit

The only time leftists did anything good was OWS and it got cucked in weeks.

I like how this thread also helps illustrate this concept for newfags and other folks, too.

Stop with this spelling bls

Wew, the shills sure did fool you guys this time.

Fuck pedos
>>>/cuckchan/

This entire thread is fucking a mess. So much disinfo I don't even know what to believe. I just want small government and having something like a constitutional amendment that allows for freedom of speech guaranteed from the bill of rights.

For the Internet that is

That's right I forgot you guys are socalists

See yourself out, kike.

Heil Hitler.

NN shills BTFO. Start spreading this, lads.

youtube.com/watch?v=B03eByZia5I

im pretty sure its a combination of our new influx of faggots from reddit and 4cuck combined with shills.

Closest analogy I can think of was during my first year of gradschool, I was in on-campus housing and using the university's internet. It was fast, but it blocked traffic for things like steam, torrents, and other p2p networks.

I used to have to use my data-capped phone to occassionally play online, and I had to go use fucking mcdonalds wifi to download any torrents. It was fucking insufferable.

Thats where I see thi s heading. Pay extra for online gaming and p2p, goy!

You guys can't fool me, I've meet a bunch of people from here and their not even white, just a bunch of mestizos and east asians LARPing as Nazis

So what are you even doing here if that's what you believe? Wouldn't you be more comfortable in a White Nationalist stronghold like (((National Review)))?

Thats a grossly simplistic way of looking at things. Guys like google are against it because its essential tech vs isps, and hampering the isps mean relatively more power to google.

However, both ISPs and Google are our enemy. In an ideal world, we want both sides.being regulated, not neither. When neither are hampered, political dissidents like us get fucked over on two levels rather than just one

amen.

>(((we))) want both sides.being regulated
regulated by whom? the (((FCC)))?

sounds like a solid plan! lets get the (((FCC))) to be able to legislate what (((GOOGLE))) and (((ISPS))) are allowed to and not allowed to do! im sure this will benefit us in the long run!

If Soros said drinking water was good for people, would you also refuse to drink water?

>(((FCC))) to be able to legislate

just to clarify, this means that (((FCC))) can create special exceptions to protect both (((ISPs))) and (((Google))) from public outcry if they do something foul, as long as the FCC allows it, they cannot be sued. leaving it "unregulated" means that the public can drag both (((ISPs))) and (((Google))) to court if they do something foul.

(((municipal tap water)))
get out, faggot. nice shilling tactic, but i didnt even mention (((soros)))

You mean you met Americans.
Who are not white.
Yes yankee doodles are mongrels this is well known.

...

/thread

This is all you need to know.
Op is gov shill.

"But Muh Censorship" worked a lot better when these cunts at google, facebook, twitter etc weren't trying to kick everyone off the internet for wrongthink.

No one I know is supporting NN now. Good job assholes, you're on your own this round.

If we're going to get fucked either way then I hope the ISPs smash these faggot .coms into a million pieces.

It hurts everbody left and right. Nobody but the ISPs benefit from this.

ISPs vs .coms is like republicans vs democrats. They're all kikes and shabbos goyim, and they're two sides of the same shekel meant to trick you into picking one of either side that the kikes benefit from.

Let's start at square one here. What is our issue? Our issue is censorship. Every possible avenue of censorship that can be used against us WILL BE USED AGAINST US. Right now, that means dealing with the .com's bullshit of censoring us and our ideas off their giant social media de-facto monopolies. Within the past few months, it's also gone beyond that with domain registrars banding together to kick sites like DaiIyStormer offline over and over. And now we're looking at the possibility of YET ANOTHER avenue of attack against us, with ISPs jumpinging into the action and also adding a layer of censorship.

Overall, yes, this is about vying for powe between ISPs and .coms. Neither of them are our friend. Both are de facto monopolies in their particular venues. And yes, getting rid of NN gives more power to ISPs and thereby takes power away from the .coms. But how does that help us. Oh boy, a little bit of power was transferred from Shlomo to Shmuel. We really did it, right guys?

We need to be going in the opposite direction. ISPs should remain regulated and open. Instead of giving more power to fuck us over to ISPs, we should be TAKING POWER AWAY FROM THE DOT-COMS. How? By declaring these giant tech monopolies like faceberg/jewtube/twitter as well as domain registrars as PUBLIC UTILITIES and preventing these kikes from effectively censoring people off the internet. You know, in the same way that the electric company can't shut off your power just because they find out you're racist.

Protip, if you think this won't affect smaller sites then think again you dumb fucking nigger.
There are sites that get little traffic but are high-profile. You know Holla Forums? That place all the fake news say is filled with Hitlers and neoNazis? What do you think will happen?

All large monopoly ISPs are against it for a reason, money. What else?
How about (((Time Warner))) and (((National Music Publishers Association)))? They have the money to fuck over piracy and openly shill against DDL sites.

Op is a kike

FCC regulations were never put into place. Nothing was gained or lost since implementation was delayed until Congress could act on it. Things will continue as they have for the last 20 years.

Holy shit this fucking echo chamber. Literally 'muh kikes reeeeeeee fuck off reddit to reddit you parentheses shill'.

Faceberg will be the last company to suffer by not having net neutrality. I expect there'll be internet plans that include free but somewhat slow facebook access, or plans that include free CNN streaming just to bluepill even more people. I've seen mobile plans that include 'free' and unlimited whatsapp, so it's a small step for facebook plans. Sure, it might cost them a penny, but it kills off competition and makes people share their shitty lives even more mindlessly.

This thread in one post.

Should be supporting the FCC on this one. What is going on here is they are removing "Net Neutrality" rules that the Obama-era FCC put in place that is enabling companies like Google, Amazon, etc to have complete domination of the internet, censorship etc.
We are essentially deleting those rules and useful idiots and literal bots are pouring in by the thousands crying that the internet is gonna be handed over to corporations when that's actually what we're trying to stop. Net Neutrality won't die because it existed before Obama rebranded it as his corporate-govt takeover of the internet.
The sheer amount of autism over this issue shows what kind of power social media really has on people, because many have not even looked into where this all started.

if shit goes bad i'll just set up a proxy pipe to somewhere the internet doesnt suck. Lots of fearmongering on behalf of normals who need their netflix here. If things get shittier here, if the exploitation of the consumer continues to get worse, it just moves up the DOTR

YOU set up a proxy. But nobody gives a fuck about you. Our future depends on what normies think and vote for; what normies think depends on what media they consume. If there's three news sites and one loads faster than the other two (and happens to be slightly more left-wing), then people will likely vote left in the next election. Your proxy will do nothing except give you the (((good))) feeling of accomplishment while you watch the world go to shit.

You know the world is going to shit anyway, right? It is always going to get worse before if gets better.

"But net neutrality was a thing for only two years"
jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/12/comcast-throws-16-million-at-p2p-throttling-settlement/
Just contrarian retards thinking being wrong is a choice.

Your faggotry amazes me. The sheer amount of rapid, rampant shilling on this topic makes me suspect that there is something hidden in all of the regulations, some rider or another, that has given someone dangerous levels of control.

The potential removal of this has sent someone into a panic.

Let it all burn.

This shit was set up by Obama. There is something behind this that Trump knows.

It only affects ISPs. Though, Google is an ISP in very limited areas with fiber. But supposing they would take advantage of this, they'd block 8ch and "hate sites" similar to how they do on their search engine, and this time there's no way to get around it by typing the url or IP. Then needing a proxy or vpn if you already aren't using one.
Only ISPs get affected. Corporations are against it because they'll likely be charged extra. But large ones can still benefit by paying isps for "unlimited access/fast speeds" consumer plans, and this can fuck over smaller competing sites.
It's Jews jewing Jews and being able to legally work with other Jews (copyright orgs).

I hate when people spout this bullshit. Anyone with two braincells to rub together can understand that legislation is a reactive process, meaning laws usually only get made after some sort of hole is found in the current framework of the law.

What happens is someone realizes they can do something that fucks people over. It's legal because it's something nobody has ever done before, and nobody has ever thought to "patch". Then later on after people complain about what's going on, the law gets patched to take out the "exploit".

It's not that net neutrality "didn't exist before 2015". It's that nobody before then thought to throttle/block/ban certain types of traffic for their own gain. And when companies did start realizing they could do this, that's when congress passed laws to prevent it.

Yeah well, my 17 years or so of actually using the internet before NN trumps your slippery slope idea of hypotheticals. So some ISPs, in your case all phonefag shit, want to not let you easily see their competitors. How you expoliate the Chans or torrent sites as being thorns in the side of an ISP is beyond me. I didn't realize Holla Forums and the piratebay or whoever today's version of limewire is offering internet access and is a competitor and thorn in the side of Xfinity and Century Link.

Look we have data on what a free internet looks like. Around 25 years worth of data from the beginning of widespread commercial availability. None of your horror stories happened. You can keep grasping at straws of, "Oh well this one time, this one ISP reduced speeds by 10% of this competing ISP" but it's not relevant to 99.9% of the users 99.9% of the time. It just never happened the way you claim it happened and will inevitably happen again or whatever. They never did, and I have been presented with absolutely zero evidence that they plan to shut down or noticably throttle every site except Google/Facebook/Amazon and subsidiaries. It's absurd.

It's cute how there are illiterate retards like you on both sites yelling about how everybody is for/against net neutrality.
How about you learn how reading works before I consider anything you have to say, tornigger?

They could likely throttle proxies and vpns if they think people are using it to get around their bullshit. Or likewise, throttle you in specific if they think you're using on.

see

I don't think accelerationism is going to help, either.
The thing is that (mostly) unrestricted exchange of information is the very foundation of imageboard culture. Not enforcing this unrestrictedness means we need to depend on ISPs to protect chans' chaos, which they won't. Why would they? Who's going to pay extra for korean fringe forums full of nazis?
Sure there are ways around throttling the interesting bits of the internet. But the internet isn't only you and me, it's the masses and diversity of people that make its beauty possible, including Holla Forums. Most of them are lazy faggots who can't set up proxies, but we still need those people. Even if it's just for spreading redpills to normalfags.

Nice ad proxyem. I provided arguments in all (2) my previous posts in this thread. Where are yours?

ISPs would be able to strike deals with large media to fuck over those services, specifically torrent sites. Time Warner is lobbying against NN.

See "obtuse" in the dictionary faggot. And then stop being it.

When people say "Net Neutrality" they are referring to the ruling that took effect in 2015. Not some vague idea of a free internet that propagandists have tied to the term Net Neutrality in an attempt to solidify their commie shit into law.

Oh, I see we have one of those "all regulations are communism" ancap lolcows here.

No. Are you new to this internet thing?

No you have a, "If it's not broke, don't fix it." asshole here.

I don't know, are you too autistic to have ever read the context around 90% of all discussions regarding the term net neutrality? Have you missed all the posts of people looking for clarification of which net neutrality people are referring to? You don't have to answer that, I realize you are a NN shill so we all know it's malice and not ignorance.

CRASH THIS SHIT WITH NO SURVIVORS

Fuck the liberals for trying to use the internet to spread their doctrine. Fuck Twitter, fuck facebook.

Life was better back before we were all connected. In my real life I don't know one transgender, sperging, REEEEEEEing, liberal fuckwit. On the internet I'm surrounded by it.

Lets go back to local. Fuck all this "world wide web" shit.

Pick one, choose wisely

If you'd had a look around on the internet you'd quickly realize that the term NN most commonly refers to equal treatment of packets, no matter where they're from or going to or what their contents are. It is you who is ignorant. I know nobody likes to hear that, but please do your research.

Not going to happen.

How are Google, Facebook, and Twitter going to fuck with the way I'm using the internet if ISPs are prohibited from doing so? What prevents them from doing the same if ISPs can also fuck with the net?

They are going to ban you from using their services because you don't align with (((Silicon valley))) ideological bias.

Google deleted the gmail account of a youtuber because he said something they didn't like. Twitter is going to check your web activity outside that social network in order to suspend your account.

If you engage in wrongthink your site can be denied hosting.

twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/892449098950991872?lang=en

theverge.com/2017/8/15/16150668/daily-stormer-alt-right-dark-web-site-godaddy-google-ban

see

...

The reason for the amount of shilling is because Google's botnet doesn't want to pay data caps like everyone else in the US.

It's also the reason why Google doesn't care about implementing NN in other countries other than the US.

They're afraid.

Good.

Ok but that would be entirely independent from what my ISP does. So what's your point?

If the data service companies have to deal with the ISPs like the rest of us they're going to be too busy keeping their heads above water and competing to provide better services to find new ideological hills to die on.

Asshole, everyone knows what you mean by NN if you refer to it in a context of how packets should be treated.

That's not what we are talking about in this thread.

We are talking about the specific ruling the FCC made in 2015 being repealed. Which is what the argument of NN has always been centered on. And is what people are always talking about when referencing NN. Why do you think people weren't arguing about NN in 2010? Oh, that's right, because nobody is arguing against the general idea of treating websites equally. They are arguing about the 2015 ruling, collequally called Net Neutrality by almost everyone.

...

Because it wasn't until ~2014 that companies realized they could manipulate bandwidth for their own interests. This is like asking why missile defense systems weren't invented until after people developed missiles in the first place.

vpn pipes are pretty critical for business, so you'd have quite a time killing all of them.

We're all already getting fucked. The only solution to all of this is to tear down the corrupt framework and rebuild.

An elaborate shell game has been in place for years.

The sheer HORROR of the known bad actors in response to the idea of this ruling getting a hammer taken to it is all we need to know that this is something that needs to be done. Perhaps it will be unpleasant for a while, while things settle out.

Spite keeps me warm at night.

The Anti-Net Neutrality shills are out in full force. I have never seen such concentrated shilling.

It's just that if Holla Forums goes down for good I get to shoot for the highs score of kikes killed.

Or hardware DRM and pre-backdoored everything will make even being able to reach outside the bubble impossible for anyone who isn't wealthy or incredibly well connected. Which I doubt even a tenth of the people here are. And you're making a large assumption that they'll be able to afford the existence of wrongthinkers at the point where they must either control or lose everything. You'll be that conspicuous hole in their surveillance network that gets jackboots sent to their door. Honestly, most forms of accelerationism at this point are more likely to get us killed than anything else.

No it wasn't. Net Neutrality has been a rule since the begining of the internet. Google/Netflix just benefit from it and thats why Obama was shilling it. However, in this case our interests align with Google/Netflix.

Maybe you, I have my own militia cult of kek.

Are you mentally retarded? I suppose you believe that missle defense systems didn't exist until 5 years ago too huh? Competing companies find ways to fuck with each other within days of opening. It didn't take 15 or 20 years to dream up the idea of throttling competitors websites.

The reason the problem wasn't wide spread and was limited was because it's not very effective (a Google search can give you a competing ISPs phone number) and viewed as petty by consumers.

Your argument also doesn't even reinforce your claim. My claim is that NN basically means 2015 regs, your claim is it means equal packet treatment. I ask why we didn't here much about NN before 2015 if the colloquial term isn't referring to those regs, and you respond by saying the problem that necessitated NN began in 2014. A self destructive argument, that agrees with my proposition that NN is most commonly used in response to the 2015 regs that happened because of the events of 2014 you brought up. Not as a vague descriptor of how internet traffic should be handled.

Your internet is given to you by the cable provider. This is what the internet is going to look like if you support Anti-Net Neutrality. Trump is fucking wrong and is being influenced by Verizon/Comcast/Time Warner shills.

Even if this was right you are retarded. By your logic we should then refer to political oppression as Fascism becasue that's what the MSM does.

Holla Forums isn't about adopting the MSM lingo and bleating on with it, it's about being right. If something is true Holla Forums is the place where you should read it, and the truth is that net neutrality is something completely different than any FFC rule. Anything to the contrary is FUD to demoralize people.

They do pay for transit (i.e. transfer of data through an ISP to another ISP), depending on their upload/download ratio. Peering at public internet exchanges (sending data directly into another ISPs network at a common location) however usually is free because why would it cost money? Except laying a few meters of fiber, the cost of an optical transceiver (a few thousands for a 100G module) and a port on a router, which is also relatively cheap.

You're retarded, and your pic related is beautiful.

Just wait, you won't even get the option of visiting "Hate Sites". No matter how much you want to pay them to let you post on Holla Forums they won't let you. Getting rid of net neutrality will turn the internet into a sterile and grey corporate wasteland.

What's stopping one ISP from simply offering everything at the same price as others? Bandwidth? Hah.That excuse may have worked in the 90's where online games cost 15$/month.

...

Fine, I'll play your kike semantics game.

I don't support the 2015 FCC regulations regarding Net Neutrality. Hereby referred to as 2015NN. I don't give a shit about 2015NN being repealed because the internet was just fine back then, and gay infographics like don't represent what the pre-2015NN internet was, or how it operated. The idea that going back to pre-2015NN rules would result in such plans becoming widespread is laughable and absurd.

Goo away, jew shill, and take your (5)+ with you.

torfag. I was responding to a shill's argument, not suggesting the shill was correct in the first place, merely pointing out that their argument sucked

You have no argument, all you are doing is calling people shills.

Which is retarded and wrong. Net neutrality as a term was coined in 2003 to specifically refer to data equality and has been used as such since. Your idea is basically saying if some parliament somewhere makes a law regarding freedom of speech then all uses of the term freedom of speech from then on should be taken to refer to that specific law in that one country. It's pure retardation.

And there it is.

I'm convinced at this point that NN is just used by ISPs as a way to kill competition.

So being hosted in Hong Kong then?

>John Oliver wants the internet to be (((free)))
🤔

lmao that'd kill half of these cancerous websites and it's extremely easy to bypass it that even skiddies would look at it in shame

Maybe you should stop being autistic. If people in said country were arguing about said law referred to as "freedom of speech" and you barged in and didn't add anything to the discussion and instead just sperged out about how "freedom of speech" is an idea and not a bill.

1. You would be wrong, there in fact would be a bill titled, "Freedom of Speech"

2. You would just be shitting up the discussion of the matter at hand. Which is exactly what you are doing here.

C-o-n-t-e-x-t

Do you understand it? The context of the regulations that people are currently debating are the 2015 FCC regulations, referred to as Net Neutrality. If you don't like it, fuck off. It is how it is. Do you have anything to actually add to this discussion? Because I've wasted enough time on semantics with you shills. The 2015 regulations are the matter at hand. It's what people are talking about. Not your article from 2003.

This is a great statement of the facts.

Great argument retard. In that context he's talking about the ISP's customers, not customers of whatever web service.
You should only pay for what you use. Yes, the cost of the web service goes up, but that's something you can decide to use or not to use. That's way better than the cost of your internet going up.

Without NN, you can opt out of these services on an individual level.
With NN, people who opt in EXTERNALIZE those costs onto you. Netflix externalizes those costs onto you.

color me surprised.

Classic jewish argumentation, there.

fucking this

Maybe the fact that most of the fucking country only has access to one internet provider and existing regulations in some areas make it expensive to set up lines, you fucking shill.

How are you enjoying that your bandwidth is being used to serve you ads on all the big media platforms that's okay with NN?

Which is retarded and wrong. Net neutrality as a term was coined in 2003 to specifically refer to data equality and has been used as such since. Your idea is basically saying if some parliament somewhere makes a law regarding freedom of speech then all uses of the term freedom of speech from then on should be taken to refer to that specific law in that one country. It's pure retardation.

See? Was that so fucking hard?

Try harder.

How is this relevant? What is your point?
That ads won't exist without NN?

To add, it'd be like if someone were to repeal the first amendment, and correcting people that it doesn't affect free speech because free speech is a concept, not a law. But it would still weaken the concept of free speech because that the first amendment is a safeguard that holds it up.

We have these regulations because a few years back, Verizon and other ISPs were being fucking kikes and suing the government because they got yelled at for slowing down torrent and netflix traffic. They were successful in their lawsuit, so the Government made net neutrality official. If that is reversed, ISPs will go straight back to slowing down sites they don't like.

What service providers do the big social media companies use?

Cartels.

sorry this should not have been a quote.

Go away and take your non argument with you.

What costs, exactly? The cost of your last mile? Your ISP's backbone? Equiment in shared datacenters? The most expensive thing in the consumer ISP business is the last mile and right after that comes bureaucracy and customer support. This won't get any cheaper just because you don't use netflix. However, your ISP's expenses won't grow a bit if another video streaming service pops up on the market, because that end of the line is dirt cheap to maintain. See my comment in

Wrong. The FCC rule is called Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet so it would be a law called Protecting and Promoting the Open Society, which is why not referring to it as at least the freedom of speech law is completely retarded.

Yes. That why when you talk to people on Holla Forums in other threads most of them do no not even know what net neutrality is and literally think it's a single law, becasue all they've seen is the incorrect use. Context sure worked great for them.

Kek. Welcome to Holla Forums.

>Obama coming out in support of Net Neutrality after the public makes an appearance makes him a good guy

in texas they stopped throttling BT. speed was way better after this passed.

I'm starting my BBS back up to prepare.

So we agree comcast should burn.

Ma bell dealt with this. There were laws saying they must expand, laws restricting their profits (see Bell Labs). Comcast is still in the wild west.

take the you well put

CAN'T WAIT FOR THE RETURN OF BAUD

Cartels are illegal:

accc.gov.au/business/anti-competitive-behaviour/cartels

I'm not calling people shills.
I'm calling a jew (you) a shill.

its really more that half of Holla Forums is thinking and half of Holla Forums is reacting.

FCC should be abolished. they have totally fucked up radio.

Don't use their services! its such an easy fucking fix. Everytime you post on twitter, they run to the bank.

I wish.

They will throttle proxies.

that is what I'm talking about.

Its amazing

It doesn't matter what the name of the rule is. I was responding to YOUR anolgy. If your anolgy sucks, that's your problem not mine. Net Neutrality is the colloquial term for the 2015 regs in question. Done. Finished. I'm done making this known to you. When people are arguing about the 2015 regs, and refer to them as net neutrality, you know what they mean, so stop being a faggot. You and I both know what we are talking about. Everyone in this thread knows. You are just shitting up the place. If instead we were arguing about a protocol for how to handle data, then I would be the asshole for talking about NN in the colloquial form. But we aren't. Stop playing dumb.

Wrong. It's like correcting people when they claim someone is trying to outright remove freedom of speech, or say freedom of speech didn't exist until X law was passed becasue it makes people say shit like "freedom of speech is communism"

Now to turn it around; how fucking hard is it to just say first amendment or "the law" when you mean the first amendment, instead of calling it freedom of speech? What the fuck do you gain from the deliberate use of incorrect language??

Usually none. There are roughly three categories of companies in this regard: 1. ISPs for end users, 2. transit providers (see ), 3. and content providers. Usually both 1. and 3. have equipment at a common location, such as a datacenter or a so-called internet exchange. There they plug in their hardware in a big router which is paid by both of them (often through a non-profit company) and then they can exchange data. This is called "peering". If there's no common location, they need to use a transit provider, which charges money for their service. They operate fiber networks between datacenters and internet exchanges for the sole purpose of connecting distant ISPs. Almost all traffic by large social media companies such as Google is handled via peering because they have their servers all over the globe and thus can connect directly to local ISPs.

A lot of things are illegal.

Yeah and the FCC makes it impossible to use signals rather than lines. This is a fucking mess

By the way, you're talking to at least two Tor anons. I don't care if you believe it or not.

People would say that removing the first amendment would be removing freedom of speech because that's what it effectively does, you autist.

And the other user is right, net neutrality is how we colloquially refer to the 2015 regulations. Just because you're too retarded
to understand how people talk doesn't mean everyone else is wrong.

Since we've established that cartels are illegal:
What's stopping one ISP from simply offering everything at the same price as others?

the fact there is only one ISP in most of the country

I guess creating an environment that'll incentivise new isp's to spring up that'll offer better services is bad?

its not an eithier/or. if the FCC NN policy is really that restrictive. get rid of that language while keeping all packets being equal. seems rather straightforward to this user. but no we need to talk about soros…not the fact adit is a former verizon exec.

If it was easy to start an ISP company, wouldn't there be more of them? I guess it's neither easy nor cheap to get access to the last mile of the line. IF there was real competition between ISPs then NN wouldn't be that much of an issue like it is today.

usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2017/11/16/comcast-verizon-and-maybe-amazon-want-look-21st-century-fox-assets/873282001/
wired.com/story/heres-how-the-end-of-net-neutrality-will-change-the-internet/amp

You really are retarded, aren't you? If it doesn't matter why did you write "there in fact would be a bill titled, "Freedom of Speech" "?. Why make numbered point about something that doesn't matter?

The reason you did is becasue you are so ignorant you thought the FCC rule was really titled "Net Neutrality" and that this would justify referring to it as simply Net Neutrality, but it isn't, so now you're trying to backpedal and say it doesn't matter.

Cool story.

Wrong. There are people in the thread who are clearly using it in it's real meaning. The assumption that the use of a word in OP will dictate its use in every single post in a thread is just retarded.

Its not easy because of FCC rules. not because of the "last mile". Its easy to send encrypted data wirelessly and the FCC makes this impossible. Because they are bought and paid for.

raveon.com/ApplicationNotes/TB115.pdf

This one line kills the mesh-net

"Net neutrality is incredibly important for small startups like Discord because all internet traffic needs to be treated as equal for us all to have access to the same resources as the big companies," says Jason Citron, co-founder and CEO of the videogame-centric chat and video-conferencing app Discord.

Stop being dishonest. If people would say that removing the FCC rule would be removing net neutrality there wouldn't be any problem of confusion and people wouldn't be demoralized about net neutrality.

First, stop pretending you speak for the userbase. Second, if all of Holla Forums is wrong then all the more reason to educate them. Going against flow is what has led here in the first place.

So we're back to the mesh idea? Do you know about latency, shared media, limited availability of frequency spectrum, and how fickle wireless tech is? In an ideal world this would work great, but our world couldn't be farther from ideal in this regard.

and yet we are not even allowed to attempt it. but ATT&T can because they can pay the FCC enough.
my parents have a dish for internet that solves the last mile problem. it works fine, almost broadband speeds.

It's not dishonesty, you're just retarded. Removing the first amendment is removing free speech from America. Therefore they would be correct in saying that they are removing free speech. As noted before, you're an autist who can't understand how people speak.

Fun fact. Portugal doesn't have data caps while the US does. Silicon Valley just wants to excuse their business from paying for that expenditure. If Verizon/Comcast/etc. wanted to break up the internet into channels but allow for Silicon Valley to skip the data cap payments, tech companies would jump on it.

fun fact. portugal is not a tech haven.

Sure thing. The bottom line is money, and tech companies don't care how their product is reaching people so long as it reaches them.

Data caps hurt tech companies bottom line which is why they are so interested in having a loophole to get out of said payments.

Can you use it to download 50GB of video game updates and then play online multiplayer games? Or watch Netflix all day? "Well, don't do that, it's degenerate!" you might say. But that's exactly what a lot of people want.
Really cheap satellite internet thanks Elon might be a game changer though.

Elaborate on the expenditure.

Not really. Satellites are more expensive and difficult to keep running than underground cable.
It would also make cost of entry into the market much much greater.

Widespread satellite internet would just result in the marketing being dominated by a smaller number of players.

So every site will go behind a paywall. If the ISP squeezes out money from them they will squeeze out money from the subscribers to the service. The weight always lands on the little guy. Did you expect that they will just pay up?

You do know we have IDs here on fullchan, right?

The fuck you on about m8?

why not? so long as the data is transferred its only a question of speed. which is a question of bandwidth. which is a a function of nodes. I'm not atalking about something like freeNet. its not a good solution. I'm talking about wireless relays (in densely populated areas) that are connected to the existing network. this is exactly how 4g works. on reflection, it seems as if the spectrum/interference etc. problems have already been worked out and should be exploited. but it can't be exploited because of existing FCC rules.

If net neutrality dies, Trump can fuck lefties. Don't you want that? And besides, an Indian is head of the FCC and liberals hate Indians and successful minorities.

no I don't. He won't be in power forever

(more stuff I wanted to say)
Video hosting websites couldn't give less of a fuck about giving fast speed for every customer if they get their fair amount of shekels. Just look at all the "free download pay up for good speed" sites already in place.

You could argue that point due to the age and implications of the first amendment. The problem is this FCC rule is not the first amendment so what's true for the first amendment isn't automatically true for the FCC rule. We've had net neutrality for over twenty times as long as the FCC rule has been around and it isn't even fully implemented.

If the US had been a country with a history of nearly three millennia of undisturbed free speech, with over one millennium where the freedom of speech had been used to describe the status que and were the first amendment hadn't yet reached any legal power I would there as well outright reject that expression.

In any case that is one form of expression. You'd still be wrong if you said freedom of speech didn't exist before 1791 or claimed that the founding fathers created freedom of speech.

How much time will you sink into arguing for an incorrect position?

*the term freedom of speech

its a terrible analogy. Net Neutrality represents freedom of information in its purest form. The first amendment arguing is aimed at sliding that argument. If you support freedom of speech, you should support freedom of packets.

Don't forget latency. Today's web browsing isn't limited by speed, it's limited by latency and that's what makes the customers experience (tm).
4g uses fiber uplinks and directed radio links, which requires expensive hardware and careful setup. It's also highly dependent on weather and other environmental conditions, such as reflective objects in proximity or interference.
Freenet is something entirely different. Please do not mix up mesh networks (wireless) with mesh networks (IP).

What's the legal code for that? There isn't one because you're lying.

solid points. yeah its a crap shoot and abit of a slide in regards to NN… I only brought it up because the FCC has a history of killing good ideas without significant financial backing. They are not an agency we should be proud of.

What do you think of this copy-pasta?

The current state of reddit is a fantastic example of what left wing rhetoric has become in the last century and why it is failing alongside our lesser known 4th branch of government – controlled and centralized media channels.

Yesterday dozens of subreddits made coordinated posts with the same image and message: "Urgent! Join the battle. The FCC is destroying the internet." Websites staged blackouts with a similar cry. Facebook, Google, Reddit, and many other larger fights are taking up the banner to stop this injustice. All of this based on one pretense: If Obama-era net neutrality laws are are repealed than ISPs will turn the internet into cable TV. Facebooks and Googles with large pockets will be able to pay to maintain a strange-hold on their markets. Services like Netflix will be suppressed by ISPs to promote services the ISPs own. Small sites will be paywalled out of existence.

Here's how the situation looks from the outside.
Dozens of violations to net neutrality have been attempted before the legislation existed. None truly succeeded. As far as I am aware, the legislation put into place did not stop any active practices from continuing.

The situation seems to be framed as the people vs Comcast (you know, the only ISP in America). Net neutrality is the corporate position because it benefits them. These stunts, like any marketing campaign, cost money. One of the people responsible for these stunts is George Soros. If you're not read up on him, he's the human garbage known for rigging elections, subverting American sovereignty, generating unreal amount of propaganda, funding domestic terrorism and extremism and manipulating currencies to amass even more wealth. Two of his foundations, the Ford Foundation and Open Society Foundation, have contributed at least $200m to net neutrality groups. $200m will buy a lot of henchmen and go a long way in framing an issue as if there is only one side to it. Personally, I am suspicious of anything this guy supports since he seems like the closest real example of literary evil.

Here's an alternative way to frame the issue. The current legislation is terrible. Government regulation is being heavy handed as usual. Since being enacted it has disincentivized ISPs from performing upgrades or expansions according to 22 small ISPs[1]. (Ironically, when searching for this document I had to go through one of open society's child websites for them to tell me that the small ISPs are lying.) 2010-2015 estimates put it at between $80b-$125b in lost infrastructure investments. The wireless industry saw a $6b drop in expected revenue (-20%). Actual loss far outweighs the hysterical and nonsensical claims by those pushing net neutrality.

tl;dr - nothing has happened before and nothing will happen after despite a billion dollar marketing campaign telling you otherwise. Net neutrality has done measurable damage to our infrastructure. Don't be fooled when Google and Facebook tell you that net neutrality is the "people's" position.

[1] - publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/170425_Letter_from_22_Small_ISPs.pdf

You can't stop it now stop trying. You either love Lain or your net dies trying.

Looking pretty good

>publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/170425_Letter_from_22_Small_ISPs.pdf

good sauce on that pasta. Its clear the existing regulation is not great. Its equally clear to me that abolishing equal priority for packets is not a good idea. I don't understand why both can't be achieved and still feel comcast has the most to gain from this.

archive.is/n3LBj

there's fuckery afoot

it seems like this is the problem. it forces ISPs to employ vast amounts of lawyers to comply. why not just remove that language?

and wheeler was a fucking snake. hated that guy

It quite literally redefines the internet as a telecommunications (telephone) service, so yes it is a problem.

The issue is that reclassifying it as an information service means that it no longer falls under the jurisdiction of the FCC but rather the FTC. Which is why Net Neutrality would have to be repealed for it to take place.

ok ok. I'm kinda coming around on this. FTC is less shitty than FCC. Congress should really be handling this. I will be hacking ISPs if they develop fast lanes and fuck up the internet. This backroom shit sucks so bad

but what will the FTC be able to do? I still get unwanted spam isn't that their department? Will the lawyer overhead actually be reduced or will the FTC just shill out hard?

Anyone who thinks Net Neutrality is a good idea needs to watch jew's video on it. He cuts to the heart of the issue an rightfully points out that it was nothing more than a reach-around for Netflix Youtube and Google.

lmfao jesus christ

Kikeflix needs to go down. You'll thank Trump and the Poo later.

...

There are good ideas behind Net Neutrality in preventing things like preventing fast lanes and ISPs throttling competition that needs to stay in place. And preventing ISPs from charging companies for being data hogs (BUT NOT FUCKING CONSUMERS FOR SOME (((CONVENIENT REASON)))).

Problem is that the Obama administration fucked up implementing this by defining the internet as a fucking telephone service to be under the jurisdiction of the FCC. The internet is an information service. The most important information is your personal data, and this is a distinction that people need to be aware of. That way they are less likely to be taken advantage of.
Unless they are fucking idiots

Also, Congress should stay the fuck away from the internet, period.

FTC would be better equipped to handle regulating the trade of information. Just like the FCC, they can sell out as well. So people will have to be weary of that shit.

I am totally demoralized.

feels bad man.

I pondered both sides of the argument and then investigated the big supporters for net neutrality. Well, the biggest kikes and their shills were all screaming for net neutrality so that sealed the deal for me.

When you see kikes and shills, look for red pills.

Can you actually explain why net neutrality is bad? This just sounds like guilt through association. Trump's literally Hitler because they both drank water type of shit.

So many few things are either "good or bad" but what I do know is that where kikes amass there is nothing good to be come of it.

And I wish that Trump actually was Hitler. You have me daydreaming now. Oh my!

So if Jews started shilling freedom of speech it would suddenly be bad? Think for yourself, reverse psychology should only work on children.

Net neutrality is like being lean and having a dinner with a family of fat fucks and sharing the bill. Even eating all you can, you still have to pay much more than you normally do because everyone else consumed much more, it's a socialized price. With net neutrality, if you use the internet pretty much to shitpost and download some games, you waste much less band than faggots watching Netflix, but the costs are socialized among everyone.
Money speaks louder than words, if your shit ISP blocks any *chan, you stop using their services and say it's because they are doing censorship and you don't agree. Someone else will provide you the access because a market will be born. Just check how many VPN are offered today compared to five years ago.
I certainly don't want to socialized costs for Netflix and other streaming site bandwidth whores.

Let the big consumers pay more for fast tracks to watch indoctrination, meanwhile the other tracks will be emptier, so even using the slow tracks, the overall speed will be better than what we have today.
Also NN is being pushed by commies and (((orgs))), this should tell you something.

Except most companies have regional monopolies thanks to regulations involving laying down cables, so it's either you deal with their bullshit or you don't have internet. This is the same shit that people have complained about cable tv for years.

Dude research which sites are the biggest data consumers in the US. Facebook, Youtube, Netflix. Use your fucking head.

So you rather pay for the socialized price of bandwidth rather than not use it? You're a network cuck aren't you? You barely use the service but ends up paying for the others to consume.

Not saying it's probable but not impossible. Trump could be used as a scapegoat to reinforce their divide and conquer agenda.

Except you already pay less for a lower speed service, meaning it's already proportional to how many packets you can send or request per second. To make it more accurate it's like the restaurant doesn't pass over your order to prioritize that of the fat fuck, or delay your order if you are a fat fuck.

So settle for the low speed connection, jesus fuck.

I'm sure the ISP will be desperate over losing a few thousand people.

They already pay more for the faster internet to support the HD streams. If they view shows it over low cost low speed internet then they also be sent a low bandwidth stream which takes up less of the available bandwidth.

The internet doesn't work like that. You're all using the same infrastructure at any instance. Protip: Your cheaper low priority service would, guess what, have lower priority, meaning data for you would have to wait while the data for the fat fuck's ZOG Gold Indoctrination Package passes through, unlike today where it's give equal priority. In case you are completely retarded this means your line would have way higher latency and be way slower.

Net neutrality has been a fact since the 90's, idiot.

So what have we learned from this thread? That Holla Forums, as usual, is filled with edgy, contrarian retards. They are unable to think for themselves, only holding positions if they think everyone else disagrees with it. They claim that kikes want net neutrality, but ignore the fact that people running ISPs, who want to kill net neutrality, tend to be jews. They think that killing net neutrality will make it "a freer internet," but in reality, treating all packets equally is the only thing keeping imageboards from being removed from the internet entirely. They're so desperate to be cool among their anonymous peers that they will willingly bend over and get penetrated by authortarian cock because Daddy Trumpu told them to and it'll piss off "libruls". Holla Forumslacks would remove their own cocks with a blunt knife, if they were told that kikes and redditors liked having dicks attached to their bodies.

And they'll cry at this post too, making unsubstantiated claims of "s-shill! jew! redditor! halfchanner!" because they can't handle a little disagreement. They are just a bunch of little sheep desperate for attention.

*taps nose* oh you crafty kikes

Why not develop an infrastructure that isn't over a decade behind the rest of the civilized world so that this stops being an issue instead of familiarizing ISPs to the concept of policing the data that's sent through them based on who it's from, for or what it contains? As someone who claims to harbors sentiments that no one would ever lift a finger to protect isn't ISP having a live and let live philosophy a more strategically sound approach than them starting to take interest in what is forwarded?

Or maybe I'm not retarded and I know that 8ch would be the first to get throttled because they don't wanna give bandwidth to a site that's "filled with nazis".

They have wireless that goes 20 miles and gets 1.4 gbps using unlicensed spectrum. You start up your own god dammed isp using those. I did it, its not that hard fagot.

Gee it looks like they want to fuck us coming and going.

I easily download terabytes of anime and hentai a month so I agree OP.

You should download suicide next.

Mindless contrarianism is very low.

So let me get this straight. In the current set-up, we have Net Neutrality where no ISP is throttling connections to other websites or charging just to access them. But because they potentially could, kikes want to pass (((Net Neutrality))) which will give them power over the internet. So we want to maintain the status quo on this one and keep the situation as it currently is, because sites like Holla Forums aren't throttled in the current system. Or do I have it backwards?

It's not that kikes want to pass (((Net Neutrality))), it's that the FCC announced that they want to repeal the current regulations that was keeping the Net Neutrality you described afloat.

Ideally, we would want to status quo so 8ch doesn't get throttled to shit, but you'll see a bunch of others disagree with that for mostly tribalist reasons.

Oh, gotcha. So it's not passing a new law, it's that they want to repeal an old regulation that was working for us. That makes more sense, thanks for correcting me.

Telecoms aren't "private corporations" they are government/kike approved and protected monopolies. Death to all shills.

I'll just use TOR or stop using the Internet. The left doesn't give a shit about free speech. If they get fucked by this, that would be great.

That is right goys just ignore the fact they removed the stormer before Net Neutrality was tossed out while thousands of pro Net Neutrality people cheered. You and them missed the boat OP. There was an opportunity to show solidarity across the net for Net Neutrality and you all failed. Enjoy what you created.

Obongos FCC policy has no teeth and can't be used, precedent set in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014) states that the FCC can't actually apply common carrier rules to the internet as they gave up that right. Net neutrality is not preserved by law but by the fact that google/netflix won the PR battle and the internet companies refuse to violate it in fear of getting new legislation drafted against them.

This is a non issue.

ever consider that "the corporations" aren't a single monolith, and that some (((corporations))) could be against it while other (((corporations))) are for it? The fact that it still exists, imho, is evidence of this fact - ie. if all the (((corporations))) were against it, then it would already be gone.

The shilling is even worse on cuckchan. Like what the fuck is going on lately?

Net Neutrality is specifically referring to a ruling in 2015, it is a regulation that has only cropped up now for about 2 years. Torpedo sperging out and autistically screeching about this is because he doesn't actually understand what anyone is talking about.

Except in response to the 2014 lawsuit, they made the internet a public utility so they could apply common carrier rules. People are worried about the removal of the 2015 regulations which does have teeth.

The internet is a vital tool in the war for the soul of humanity. Without a free internet, we would be unable to share our differing ideas.

Precedent was established, the fcc went ahead and did it anyway again outside of their authority, the only ruling is at the appeals court level. Its not set in stone and thats why none of the actual regulations have gone in to action. Its sitting in limbo and won't be acted on.

As an aside, I'm not sure where half the shit people think about common carriers comes from. Even with common carrier its trivial to charge more for youtube and netflix, shutting down smaller websites through fatal sheckling is impossible because of other legislation (discriminatory pricing, if they shut down Holla Forums through pricing they'd have to shutdown just about everybody the same size) and they can still charge people on a usage basis like telephone companies do. Heck, having common carrier status like TV could enable them to make the legal case that they could charge for website bundles like they do with TV channels. Immediately after the ruling the ISPs all submitted their own patents on hOw they could bypass every aspect of NN2015. The law doesn't keep from doing this, public pressure does.

Friendly reminder that "consensus cracking" is a conintel pro tool that is used to fuck up our home.

There are paid shills here, user. Defeat them with the truth.

thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/361557-facebook-will-let-users-see-russian-content-theyve-interacted-with

fuck wrong link
thehill.com/policy/technology/361509-ny-ag-probing-massive-scheme-to-influence-fcc-on-net-neutrality-with-fake

I still can't laughing at this hysterical stupidity. Like is there anyone out there left with critical thinking skills? Even after Assange revealed the truth I mean Jesus Christ.

I’M SO FUCKING SICK OF KIKES OWNING BOTH SIDES OF A DEBATE.
WHAT THE FUCK IS “NET NEUTRALITY” AS AN OBJECTIVE DEFINITION?
WHAT THE FUCK IS THE “NET NEUTRALITY” BILL CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS?
IN WHAT WAYS DOES THE BILL FIT THE OBJECTIVE DEFINITION OF “NET NEUTRALITY”?
WHAT THE FUCK WAS THE INTERNET LIKE BEFORE THE “NET NEUTRALITY” BILL?
IN WHAT WAYS DID THE PRE-BILL INTERNET FIT THE OBJECTIVE DEFINITION OF “NET NEUTRALITY”?

This is shit we need to pin the fuck down, because kikes push anti-X but call it X (or Y but call it anti-Y) EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME THAT SOMETHING HAPPENS. We can’t have a discussion if we don’t do this.

Fucking bump motherfuckers

You know, shit like this net censorship, Oniggercare, other kikery just inspires…

> evade the outer defenses where the (((diversity))) all failed

> "Remember what (((they))) have taken from you?"

> "The world could be so much better without (((them))). I want a better world."

> "I am not like what (((they))) showed in (((movies))). I want you to live."
> on that day I stood alone between SkyNet and the New Shoah and I stepped aside

Correct. Net Neutrality is a giant FUD campaign. I don't know who exactly is benefiting from this, but I do know that NN regulation = more power in the hands of bureaucrats. Obama loved NN, and he also gave control of ICANN to the fucking UN, and we see how well that's gone.

The shilling isn't just on message boards today. They're trying to leverage us in online games right now too. It's some kind of blitz. I saw this one faggot who just kept going on and on about it, but never made an actual point. He just ridiculed anyone that disagreed with him. Highly evasive when pressed, lots of ad hominem. They're going all out today.

Sage because OP is a faggot that wastes dubs promoting a leftist agenda.

Okay. Good. You're at the point where you've realized that what they say is intentionally useless. Instead of listening to what they say, zero in on what they're doing. Who were the first groups to start promoting NN? Who are the biggest supporters? What else do they support? Who are the real names behind it? When you find out where a push is coming from, that's how you figure out where it's going.

So has anybody here actually read the proposed changes? Has anybody here actually read the 2015 order? If you haven't but are interested, I suggest you do so. It's usually not a good idea to take action based on assumptions alone.

2015 Order (400+ pages): apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf
2015 Order Statements (for and dissenting) at the bottom: fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-open-internet-order

2017 Proposal (200+ pages, Being voted on December 14, along with other issues): apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf

2017 Statements/Misc:
fcc.gov/document/fcc-announces-tentative-agenda-december-open-meeting-3
fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom
fcc.gov/document/commissioner-clyburn-fact-sheet-net-neutrality
fcc.gov/document/commissioner-orielly-statement-extensive-december-agenda
fcc.gov/document/rosenworcel-statement-fcc-plan-roll-back-internet-rights
fcc.gov/document/statement-commissioner-carr-restoring-internet-freedom
fcc.gov/document/chairman-pai-proposes-restore-internet-freedom

Hopefully i got all those links right.

That seems to be what's happening.

Freedom of speech is a natural right enshrined in law. It exists with or without the law. Rights are not granted by government. Government only has the authority given to it by the people.

This whole thing, I can't tell who is shilling who.

There are plenty of chans, although none match the caliber of 8ch. I'm probably going to end up lurking around pedobears since they'll probably all that's left.

Okay, so I've been doing some reading, and from what I understand, the problem isn't net neutrality, it's that the "net neutrality" that is being defended is actually net neutrality packaged together with a bill that reclassifies the internet as a utility, a federally-regulated utility, and the FCC's attempt to dismantle "net neutrality" is really more concerned with deregulating it, not infringing upon basic internet access rights, which were never really at risk in the first place. But a bunch of corporate interests and shills don't want that to happen, so they're spreading inflammatory propaganda and hiding behind the shield of net neutrality which is now attached at the waist to federally regulated internet as a utility, but none of this is really about net neutrality to begin with.

Is that right? Someone help me out here. Include sources, please.

Yes, that's pretty much what I took from it too. A pretty good summary.

Yes. An user laid it out pretty succinctly in one of these NN threads. It's almost purely a corporate battle being fought between the ISPs who control and are responsible for the infrastructure, and the content providers most of whom are in the business of tying up massive amounts of bandwidth primarily related to video streaming. The point of contention is when quantities of data are requested that exceed the existing infrastructure's bandwidth capacity, either data throughput has to the throttled in order to maintain a functional bandwidth overhead, or infrastructure needs to be expanded to handle the demand. And infrastructure work costs $$$. The end result is content providers and service providers are jockeying legally and using propaganda to use normalfag dipshits to influence govt one way or the other in order to make the other party pay/deal with the problem of insufficient bandwidth. Throttling has all but been taken off the table as an option to deal with this situation, so all that's left is someone has to pay to expand that infrastructure, and at the end of the day no matter who ends up being declared responsible, they're just going to pass that on down to the customer/user in the form of increased subscription fees. If you want evidence of this, look no further than to who is involved in and most vocal about the proNN movement. Netflix, facebook, youtube etc. All entities who base their business model on using infrastructure disrupting amounts of bandwith and offering that service far below market value by offloading the financial and logistical burden onto the ISPs via govt regulations.

But we all know that's not the case, faggot.

Rights are social constructs.

After what

W
E
E
V

said about this I just don't know.

There seems to be crazy shills from both sides though and looking through it to me it seems like no matter who wins, people lose anyway.

wait-wait-wait-wait just a minute here

(((Net Neutrality))) was somehow shielding ISPs from the FTC's wrath? No wonder bandwidth caps became so common just recently. I wonder how long that particular anti-consumer practice will last after this change.

TL;DR: (((ISPs))) may have JUSTed themselves pushing this.

We're all content providers you fuckwit.

If they fuck net neutrality this website is GONE.

Watch this video

Why would you trust fucking comcast more than you would every single content provider on the fucking net?

So sick of this jewish bullshit.

Perhaps, but that concept is what the USA was founded on and allowed it to become the greatest country in the world. I don't understand why anyone wouldn't agree with it either unless they like letting someone else control them.

Don't know the full details, i haven't read the full 400 pages from 2015 or the full 200 from yesterday yet. That's just from Pai's statement. At the very least people should read the shorter statements.

So can someone please explain this shit to me like I'm a nigger?
I've seen people run the gamut of opinions from

I would appreciate any and all links to things explaining what the fuck this is, what the fuck is happening, and what the fuck it entails, in as simple a manner as possible.

If it's the kiked up, censor-happy bullshit that some are saying it is, it would be good to compile easily-digestible information into infographs for use on normalfags

If it's not, we could still use it to whip the left up into insanity over nothing since they would obviously lack the cognitive faculties to understand basic concepts like this. [I am aware of the hypocrisy]

So help me out here. Am I going to be able to shitpost about niggers and kikes on the internet next year or is the DOTR upon us?

As I said before, links would be appreciated.

Telecom companies are greedy jews that want to turn the internet into cable television where companies like netflix have to pay more than they already do to host their shit.

Those companies will then either pass the cost on to you, or cut a deal with the telecom jews to make website access into a cable television style thing with tiers and access packages instead of what we currently have.

People that post contrary to what I'm saying are fucking retards falling for the "right winger I win, leftist you lose" bullshit jew identity game.

Fuck this place pisses me off so much sometimes.

you guys are all literally twelve years old, aren't you?

You are not proving any point there.

More ad hominem, no point.

Jews play both sides, haven't you learned history?

Fear mongering, we already don't have net neutrality. Where's Fag Anglin's Thai Fuck Shack? Censorship is just an article in a popular media away.

Don't you get tired of attacking the character instead of providing any arguments?

Yes, the other side can use ad hominem and straw-man too, no surprises there.

"this website" huh? That's some interesting syntax you use there. You reek like an outsider come to disrupt.

Yes, like I said earlier, it's kikes kiking kikes. "net neutrality" or "no net neutrality" the cost of infrastructure renovation is passed onto the user. Now would you rather eat that cost and have govt instituted meddling and censorship, or just eat the cost. Who is trying to keep this FCC association in place? Who is funding these media campaigns to prevent the removal of these regulations? What companies benefit most from these regulations being in place? How does their bandwidth consumption compare to the consumption of a place like this, or to be more fair, an aggregation of every imageboard on the internet? I know you're not going to even try to answer any of these questions you fucking kike outsider, but to anyone else reading, if you can find the answers to these questions, you'll understand what's going on in this debate. Linking to a fucking PBS now segment. Man you niggers need updated style guides, this isn't /sci/ circa 2010

They get to face the wrath of the FTC; which is much more useful than the FCC.

The FTC exists to enforce the anti-trust laws and general honest business practices. The FCC was established to stop radio (((preachers))) from wandering onto other stations. One of these is much better at keeping abusive corporate types in line. It's not the FCC.

Abusing a legal monopoly is still abusing a monopoly and the FTC will happily shove the Large Spiky Pineapple of the Law up your ass for it. They don't use lube.

No, it wouldn't. The FTC would ream them both a new one for unfair business practices. Yes, those are criminal in Murica. Sherman Anti-Trust Act and related laws.

Right, FCC enforcement is worth a plug nickel. If ending (((Net Neutrality))) puts the FTC back on this beat—-(((OY VEY))).

The FTC would put people in jail for that.

Got one bad ISP? Start complaining at the FTC—-I hear they'll be taking ISP complaints again soon.

Not quite. One hand lets go, and the ISPs drop right into another—-the hand they were in before. Expect crap like AT&T's "we spy on your U-Verse" to end very suddenly.

> leaving it up to (((monopolies)))
The FTC was held back by this policy. Those (((monopolies))) are going out of the (cold) frying pan and into the oven.

They already are. If FCC regulation was providing safe haven from FTC enforcement, then we have our problem.

Hmmm, I wonder why? Maybe because the FCC regulates mobile phone services? This looks more and more like (((Net Neutrality))) actually enabled the single greatest anti-consumer (((ISP))) policy we now see.

Opinion is confused and split, dofus.

Net Neutrality is ALREADY IN PLACE, and there is no censorship. You should already know this. If you don't you shouldn't even be talking, and if you do you are a disingenuous fuck giving out bad information to poison minds. Which is it?

Literally every company that isn't the telecom companies.

Disprove a single thing in that video you fuckwit.

We ALREADY PAID FOR FUCKING FIBER OPTICS IN THE EARLY 90'S TO THESE FUCKING TELECOM JEWS.

WE ALREADY PAID FOR IT IN THE FORM OF TAX BREAKS FOR THESE BLOODSUCKING FUCKERS.

AND THEY DIDN'T BUILD SHIT. FUCK YOU. STOP IDENTITY SIGNALING AND LOOK AT THE FACTS YOU LAZY FUCKING SLIMEBALL.

I've been arguing for this shit since myspace was a fucking thing. Stop sucking telecom dick just because you want to signal that you hate leftists.

You gonna go fuck up the environment too just because Al Gore is a lying faggot? Fuck you to death.

Look at it this way: on the one hand, you have a corrupt section of the govt who could very well go drunk with power and whose existence is just there to fuck up with the consumers. On the other hand, you've got Jewgle, Faceberg, Reddit and many other services that are owned by Jews, would rather see us three feet below and are trying to further monopolize the internet by offering heavier services and paying nothing to the ISPs for it.
As far as we are concerned, we're neutral. Both are evil as fuck and neither can be trusted. We just want all the Net Neutrality cuckchan refugees to fuck off so we can discuss about how Obama's chimp is dating a hwhite fuckboy.

Look at this fucking post.

EVERYONE SHUT UP ABOUT IMPORTANT ISSUES AND LOOK AT THIS DUMB CELEBRITY GOSSIP COMPLETE WITH STOCK SMUG ANIME GIRL.

If I could hate you to death I would. Get a real job you fuck.

That's retarded. Why would they do that when they can just data-mine these places?

Goddamn. How do we stop the numale epidemic?

That's dumb, why would they do that when they could gather people information when they speak publicly?

Who dropped you on your head?

(checked)
Those are all the kinds of things that the FTC would be quite happy to enforce on ISPs.

> lets get the (((FCC))) to be able to legislate what (((GOOGLE))) and (((ISPS))) are allowed to and not allowed to do!
After repealing these FCC rules, the FTC will be put back in that position. The FTC will likely take a dim view of the current (((tricks))).

The question is then: How do we meme this to Reddit? Ending (((Net Neutrality))) will allow anti-trust laws to be enforced against (((ISPs))).

> (((FCC))) can create special exceptions
This user gets it.

> the public can drag both (((ISPs))) and (((Google))) to court if they do something foul
And the FTC can file criminal charges against executives if the foul conduct continues.

(heiled!)
Yes! (((Net Neutrality))) was exempting ISPs from FTC oversight. Effectively, ISPs were exempt from the anti-trust laws.

There sure is. Title II would exempt ISPs from FTC oversight and convert them into regulated monopolies. Getting rid of this puts them right back in the FTC's gunsights.

(checked)
You don't know the half of it.

You must really hate them, then, to be doing that while the FTC is busy shoving the Large Spiky Pineapple of the Law up their (((asses))).

Aha! Now we know why there is so much (((shilling))) for (((Net Neutrality)))—-the FCC can't actually enforce it.

(checked)
EXACTLY! And (((NN2015))) empowered the FCC to regulate (((ISPs))), effectively exempting them from FTC oversight—-and the FTC enforces the laws against discriminatory pricing.

Some excerpts from the current proposal: apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf

164. Background. As the Title II Order acknowledges, the market for Internet traffic exchange between ISPs and edge providers or their intermediaries “historically has functioned without significant Commission oversight.” For many years, both ISPs and edge providers largely paid third-party backbone service providers for transit, and backbone providers connected upstream until they reached Tier 1 backbone service providers which provided access to the full Internet. In recent years, particularly with the rise of online video, edge providers increasingly used CDNs and direct interconnection with ISPs, rather than transit, to increase the quality of their service. At the same time, ISPs have increasingly built or acquired their own backbone services, allowing them to interconnect with other networks without paying for third-party transit services.

237. History demonstrates that public attention, not heavy-handed Commission regulation, has been most effective in deterring ISP threats to openness and bringing about resolution of the rare incidents that arise. The Commission has had transparency requirements in place since 2010, and there have been very few incidents in the United States since then that plausibly raise openness concerns. It is telling that the two most-discussed incidents that purportedly demonstrate the need for conduct rules, concerning Madison River and Comcast/BitTorrent, occurred before the Commission had in place an enforceable transparency rule. And it was the disclosure, through complaints to the Commission and media reports of the conduct at issue in those incidents, that led to action against the challenged conduct.

240. Although we think transparency promotes openness and empowers consumers, we recognize that regulation has an important role to play as a backstop where genuine harm is possible. In particular, transparency amplifies the power of antitrust law and the FTC Act to deter and where needed remedy behavior that harms consumers. While some commenters assert that proof is difficult in antitrust proceedings, our transparency rule requires ISPs to outline their business practices and service offerings forthrightly and honestly. This requirement both deters ISPs from engaging in anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive conduct and gives consumers and regulators the tools they need to take action in the face of such behavior. Many ISPs have committed to abide by open Internet principles. By restoring authority to the FTC to take action against deceptive ISP conduct, reclassification empowers the expert consumer protection agency to exercise the authority granted to them by Congress if ISPs fail to live up to their word and thereby harm consumers.

249. We also decline to adopt a ban on paid prioritization. The transparency rule we adopt, along with enforcement of the antitrust and consumer protection laws, addresses many of the concerns regarding paid prioritization raised in this record. Thus, the incremental benefit of a ban on paid prioritization is likely to be small or zero. On the other hand, we expect that eliminating the ban on paid prioritization will help spur innovation and experimentation, encourage network investment, and better allocate the costs of infrastructure, likely benefiting consumers and competition. Thus, the costs (forgone benefits) of the ban are likely significant.

252. … Some edge services and their associated end users use more data or require lower latency; this may be the case, for example, with high-bandwidth applications such as Netflix, which in the first half of 2016 generated more than a third of all North American Internet traffic. Without paid prioritization, ISPs must recover these costs solely from end users, but ISPs cannot always set prices targeted at the relevant end users. …

self checking

Kek. Net neutrality is a principle that has made the internet what it is and kept it free since the 90's and was given the name net neutrality in 2003 to give a term for a known practice.

The FCC Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet rule is a 2015 rule that is supposedly making net neutrality protected by law, a rule that is now supposed to be superseded and revoked.

Referring to net neutrality and the PAPTOI rule with different names so people not in the know understand what is happening and which is which is the easiest thing in the world unless you have autism and can't see the countless examples we've had over the last months and in this thread where people go "wait, did we get net neutrality in 2015 or did it exist before, I'm confused".

This is exactly what happens on 8/pol/ all the fucking time. Disagree with the status quo, make criticisms about conspiracies or whatever; people will get so triggered and offended that they report as shipping and trolling. And mods are such fucking cucks that they just outright ban for what is pretty much wrong think. Don't kid yourself. This board is a massive fucking hugbox, more than cuckchan. But I still like it

Net neutrality is the principle that no packet of data is prioritized over another based on where it came from, where it is going or what it contains. It's first come, first serve. It's analogous to how a postal service doesn't hold all your letters two months extra because they think you are a nazi.

This principle has been in effect since the beginning of the commercial internet 90's and is why you can access a small private website as quickly as that of of a massive conglomerate, and was given the name net neutrality in 2003 in an attempt to formally describe what the practice technically entails.

federalregister.gov/documents/2015/04/13/2015-07841/protecting-and-promoting-the-open-internet

It's supposed purpose is to legally protect and enforce net neutrality so that the internet stays the same. If that is the real intention of the people behind the rule is what this whole kerfuffle was originally about. Kikes have managed to distort this into the false dichotomy of "Net neutrality is good. Net neutrality and the laws are the same thing so just accept any laws we propose, goy!" and "Laws are bad. Net neutrality and the laws are the same thing so we must get rid of net neutrality and let ISPs cripple and censor their users as they please and create a tiered internet, goy!"

This is why they get so upset when anyone explains what net neutrality is, that it is necessary, that it is not one specific law and that it can and has existed outside laws, becasue knowing this frees you from this controlled narrative.

Have you seen a single quote from this rule to tell you why it is bad? Did you even know what its name was before you read this? This should make you suspicious.

Like it is now. The law was meant to preserve the previous status que so the whole point of it (at least officially) is to make sure everything stays the same, and according to some it's unlawful and as such has no weight behind it anyway. In any case if there is something sinister in it that at least hasn't manifested yet.

Practically 100%. An ISP trying to choke video streaming services that competed with their own was the recent events that inspired the rule (again, at least according to the official narrative). This practice stopped, either because of the rule or the bad press it got the ISP depending on who you ask, so basically we are back to the same net neutrality we've had for decades before.

There. Now you know that net neutrality and the PAPTOI rule are two different things, something that FUD agents are trying to hide from you becasue they want you to believe net neutrality and this FCC rule are the same thing so you will either accept actual net neutrality being thrown together with the rule, or will just accept any laws becasue "net neutrality seems good".

I'll just add that according to the kikes you already knew this, your confusion didn't exist, and me explaining to you what net neutrality is and how it is separate from the FCC PAPTOI rule destroys the debate in this thread becasue muh context.

...

Yes. my post was anchored for no reason. Because I think I went against someone’s narrative… not sure. Will repost again.

Yeeesssss, that's a good goy. Let the (((government))) control the Internet.

It's either (((ZOG))) or (((multimedia corporations)))

It doesn't matter who you choose.

I warned you faggots of this.
P2P/I2P projects will only stop it for so long.

Hence project quantum on >>>/tok/

The main thing seems to be this " The Order reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a telecommunications service subject to Title II of the Communications Act."

"As a result of these concerns, the Commission explicitly stated in the Open Internet Order that it was “unlikely that pay for priority would satisfy the `no unreasonable discrimination' standard.”" So tiered internet is not ok as long as the anti disrcimination standard holds

"Despite upholding the Commission's authority and the basic rationale supporting the Open Internet Order, the court struck down the no-blocking and antidiscrimination rules as at odds with section 3(51) of the Communications Act, holding that it prohibits the Commission from exercising its section 706 authority to impose common carrier regulation on a service not classified as a “telecommunications service,” and section 332(c)(2), which prohibits common carrier treatment of “private mobile services.” The D.C. Circuit vacated the no-blocking and antidiscrimination rules because it found that they impermissibly regulated fixed broadband providers as common carriers, which conflicted with the Commission's prior classification of fixed broadband Internet access service as an “information service” rather than a telecommunications service. Likewise, the court found that the no-blocking rule as applied to mobile broadband conflicted with the Commission's earlier classification of mobile broadband service as a private mobile service rather than a “commercial mobile service.” The Verizon court held that the “no unreasonable discrimination” standard adopted in the Open Internet Order was insufficiently distinguishable from the “nondiscrimination” standard applicable to common carriers. Central to the court's rationale was its finding that, as formulated in the Open Internet Order, both rules improperly limited fixed broadband Internet access providers' ability to engage in “individualized bargaining.” Currrently the antidiscrimination doesn't hold and passing this bill would plug that hole.
The question then becomes what downside does it bring.

transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
p35-p137 if anyone feel like digging more.

This.

Also this. FCC needs to be destroyed and rebuilt just like other state departments. Some should be left as rubble. ISP's and FCC are both corrupt.

I come to read and talk about politics. Why are you so upset, are you one of those LARPers?

Kill yourself you earlobe spacing quintuple nigger.
NET JEWTRALITY WAS PASSED BY OBONGO AND IS THE OBONGO LAW

So? Net neutrality is in any case something completely different.

You don't understand net neutrality.
The issue is increased payment for video streaming, etc

And then the (((net jewtrality))) shills bump their other raid thread as if nobody will notice.

>>>/suicide/

So you're saying it's not merely organising data on format use, like video streaming or other formats of data?
That it literally impacts the specific destination and sources of the data?

Then why is the format argument used? This isn't a mere format issue anymore.

You're not even trying.

I don't really get what you are saying. Can you run this format argument for me?

OP btfo by 2017 FCC Proposals
Cites incidents with Fag Anglin's Thai Fuck Shack, gab.ai, Google and Apple censorship on mobile, and Twitter's censorship of Republican candidates. The document also highlights how the 2015 FCC Proposals would have allowed curated services that pushed ISPs to filter on content on viewpoint grounds
Interesting if true. I'm guessing the idea is to provide ISPs a way around heavy regulation by creating those curated services. Think along the lines of a PBS for the Internet where non PC sites are blocked at the ISP level. This would align with their goals of controlling content and censoring speech.

1. Truth is not a matter of opinion.
2. Learn how to spell.
3. Kill yourself, ban evading kike shill.

...

NN didn't save Faglin, so what does it matter? And speaking of Faglin, why doesn't he just make a new ds-like website? Make tons of them even.

Kys faggot

Your second point is important because the FTC is the one who handles monopolies and other consumer protection schemes.
I'm definitely of the thought that the FCC rules were an attempt to coop the FTC's legitimate authority over the worst kinds of strategy the isp monopolies and oligopolies had planned for us users.
And that leads me to my main point for why I opposed Obama's NN shit. That it gave Jewflix and Jewgle the freedom to suck up however much bandwidth they want while simultaneously not actually protecting end user rights (stuff like data caps and throttling of torrents were legal under NN, so how hard is it to imagine that tiered access plans and banning of "hate" sites weren't also allowed under those kinds of exemptions?).

this. it is abit hugboxy around here.

I'd feel a lot better about this if the FTC had public policies in place already that would be used post-transition.

Lurk two years before posting again.

LURK TEN YEARS BEFORE POSTING.

Fag Anglin's Thai Fuck Shack was shut down without (((Net Neutrality))) .. why don't we get bank neutrality? Or Legislation Neutrality?

Because user if Net Neutrality goes, every "hate" site will get shoahed. The Internet will be broken up and sold into packages like it is in Portugal. I'm not paying extra for sites to go faster than others.

What was preventing that from happening before the 2015 imam obama fatwa?

This, very much this. NN is a boogeyman meant to scare good goys into handing control of 'net traffic over to the government. It's a monstrously stupid idea.

Literally what is wrong with this picture? If you need unlimited access (like an office, where most of the sites in your pic aren't used) then they'll have that option. If Grandma just wants FB to see the kids, why should she pay the same as Stacy who snaps 26 hours a day?

This looks fine to me…

Yeah but heres the thing, imagine how much D/U something like netflix uses, specifically upload speeds with their massive user base. But, despite them having probably the "best package" thats offered for their needs, they may not be paying anymore than someone else who has that same package but uses a lot less of their actual bandwidth, where as netflix is probably constantly maxed out and then some

If you could tier this even further, or rather charge netflix more for their actual bandwidth usage though (which as far as I know you cannot do with NN in place) it would start sucking up profits out of jewgle and netflix and so on, reducing their profits a lot and sending that into the ISPs. Which could be used for, oh I dont know, them expanding into new markets, being able to compete in other areas which currently offer only one choice in their areas because ISPs arent expanding into new markets and competing because, shockingly, its not worth the investment for YEARS (were talking at least 5-10 years before expanding into an area turns a profit, probably longer if that area is lower population). So they just leave it, because its not worth it. They also don't bother expanding their data transfer capacity by upgrading hardware or cables because, again, not going to be worth it and going to eat up years worth of profits before it becomes a net gain.

However, if they could charge places like jewgle and jewflix and jewtube more shekels for their massive bandwidth usage, they'd be making more money, which could then be used for expansion and competition. Yes, the cost would then be passed on to the customers OF those services, but those services are all totally optional to begin with and frankly full of jews so what does it matter to us if netjew subscribers start seeing slower connections JUST to nutflix because THEY want to be jews and protect every shekel they have so they can continue to swim in them like mcduck?

Again, my assertion is that more than likely there will be no "internet access packages" like soros and co want you to believe. That would be trying to milk a dead cow (end users) who are already strapped for cash to the point they can barely stay above water as it is. They won't be getting more shekels that way (the isps I mean). HOWEVER, if they go after the bandwidth hogs like jewflix, jewgle, jewtube, jewbook, jewdit, jewtter, jewstigram, and so on, the "faces of the internet," and start charging THEM more to continue to have that same bandwidth usage, then those sites will suffer and/or pass the cost off to ONLY the users who pay for their services in the first place.

This could actually have several POSITIVE impacts. Not only would it increase ISP profits allowing for improvement/expansion of their services overall. But it would force them to lose many shekels paying the ISPs if they want to stay relevant, meaning far fewer shekels to spend on social engineering programs. Meanwhile places like jewtube will stop being so fucking pozzed because jewtube (as a free platform) will stop caving in to every leftist agenda that hurts their bottom dollar in the first place, they need those shekels goy! They'll either stop paying the percentage of shekels they do to actual content creators, which will dry up many of these "self employed" idiots who just make shitty videos all day and monopolize the platform one way or another and attract lots of normie idiots, because those fucks will have to go get real jobs, OR they'll stop "demonitizing" videos constantly because it goes against their narratives, because people watch those videos, and ads on those videos means more ads for jewtube, whereas no-ad videos mean just a straight loss for jewtube. Currently they do this to everything to try to make making videos non-profitable in any way to drive those voices away rather than outright censoring them. But imagine if they couldnt AFFORD to do either of those things? Suddenly you'd have lots of new content creators going against the sjw soros funded narratives. And jewtube wouldnt censor them and stop their shekels, because jewtube would be making shekels off them as well and needs it.

If they refuse to pay the prices, their services will suffer and competition will rise as people hate the traffic there causing the sites to be stupidly slow, so more competition pops up, more streaming sites each taking smaller pieces of the pie and catering more to specific audiences, more social networking sites, and so on.

I see NN dying as a good thing IF there are at least minor rules set in place to prevent the ISPs from jewing end customers rather than targeting the shitty jew owned monopolies of the internet who eat up the vast majority of the bandwidth

This.

Again as long as the "caps" are placed on the companies themselves, and not end individual users (ie: you and me) then I'm perfectly fine with it. Those jewopolies on the internet can start losing their incoming shekels and dwindle to a very minor profit for all I care. They'll have the option of recovering that cost by charging end users more for their individual services. Which again, is fine with me. If you want access to it, and the company wants access to you, but they've eaten up their bandwidth with that access already, then they can either eat into their profits to keep reaching you as cheaply as they do now (which you'll see happen if they care that much about their social engineering projects), or they'll start charging more for their services or THEMSELVES limiting your connection speed on their end after X amount of usage.

Either is perfectly fine with me. as I laid out in another post, places like jewflix will suffer or their customers will suffer. Places like this won't deal with any of it because they're so small and use basically nothing to begin with. While "free" places that make money via ads, will stop being willing to censor users and content and denying ads on content (jewtube) because they'll have to either start charging users money to use their services which people wont want to pay, OR they'll have to make sure every damn video they can is monetized via ads to make those shekels back to continue to offer their service "for free" which will mean jewbook, jewtube, etc will immediately stop censoring users and content and effectively "cutting off their nose to spite their face" by denying them the ability to monetize. Because believe it or not, in youtubes case, them denying videos being monetized actually hurts THEM as well. Those are eyes seeing the site, content the site is hosting, but that isnt making jewtube any money. Now imagine they have to start paying for users to SEE that content?

They do one of three things, 1) lose their social engineering fund by paying the shekels to ISPs to keep things as they are now, 2) undo all the censorship to provide as many incoming shekels as possible to keep their profits as they are but this greatly reduces their censorship powers, or 3) refuse to pay, keep censoring, and people get so sick of the shitty site and move on to smaller competing platforms and places like jewtube lose even MORE shekels.

To me the choice is obvious, they're jews, they care about shekels FIRST above all else. They'll uncensor their sites, pay the ISPs bandwidth charges, and make that money back through having ads on EVERY video they can, including those "Ebul neo naazzztheee" videos. Youtube is already not profitable as it stands, can jewgle really afford to make that crater in their wallets even bigger? I doubt it, but they also won't want to lose access to all those users and their data/information to hopefully do something with. So they'll pay up, and uncensor, and content will greatly improve as more creators enter the fray and force competition because they can now make SOME ad shekels themselves off of it so their time isnt completely wasted

Because that's not what it will look like user. There will be no alternatives TO Jewgle and JewTube or Kikebook. Repealing NN will literally give the Jew the ability to shoah sites like Gab, Minds, etc.
InB4 >minds.com and Gab are kike owned!
The point is that the Jew will shoah all the alternative social media and search engines. And this hasn't been done before to the extent it would be when repealing NN. Repealing NN would literally cause the entire Internet to be Pirated. 1984 style black market Internet.

So you didn't even understand what the ruling was even about and what the true effect it actually had, yeah figures a fucking Torpedo would be retarded. Don't know the trick to getting rid of your unique tag for all your posts, then you show a complete lack of understanding on what the ramifications of legalizing Net Neutrality the way the 2015 ruling did has.

FCC can't actually enforce any of it's rulings anyways.

Doesn't Netflix have boxes at the ISPs already that contain all their movies? Bandwidth is not the issue.

Under the Net Neutrality rules, ISPs cannot curtail "lawful traffic". That language is suspect but with no hate speech laws in USA, it seems to have worked out alrightthanks Obama.

How many outside of USA isp's are just renamed branches of the same companies ,will this affect EU users or EU hosted things?

*ZOG-Emperor

Looks like goon-kun is butthurt again after leaving the SA cave.

Because it allowed him to make it in the first place.

He did.

Net neutrality only concerns data traffic to and from the site. The issues of domain registrars and hosting are different things. If people say net neutrality will save hosts from everything they are wrong. Domain registrars in particular are especially kiked and that whole system is dying for a principle equivalent to net neutrality that doesn't turn being a registrar into a weapon.

On that note Trump should really take that power back to the US by force and just tell the UN to go fuck itself. I trust a ZOGd state more than the literal NWO.

No, the obfuscation that net neutrality equates to a law that you are spreading instead of people knowing that it's a principle that's been in place for decades before any FCC rules is what makes them believe they must accept any laws to keep it since you make them think net neutrality only exists becasue govt made it do.

Then they shouldn't have subscribed to ten thousand gigabit lines and settled for just a few. This isn't fucking hard.

Your whole fucking post is so stupid it is hard to parse. If ISPs start jewing services for shekles to the point where Alphabet has to cut down a bit on social engineering then how the fuck do you expect a competing upstart to ever get the money to become relevant? Do you think the ISP is not going to jew them for their traffic out of the kindness of their heart?

Your post also completely ignores that sites like Netflix don't just send data around the net for shits 'n giggles. If there is traffic coming from them then it's because somewhere a paying customer has requested it, and if that traffic is the fat 4K stream then the customer has already paid more to have a connection fast enough to receive it and similarly Netflix will have had to paid up for enough connections to support sending all their streams.

It's also ignoring we are going more and more towards localized hosting so video streaming services are successively going to move off the stem nets and to more local servers.

Yes. If data caps are so expensive a huge monopoly sees any dent in their profits then any new startup is going to have a real easy time to afford enough data to ever become relevant. It's like how the huge costs of the jewdicial system that only a monopoly can afford doesn't force small startups to fold to frivolous lawsuits all the time becasue they simply can't afford the cost of OH WAIT!!

Also jewgle isn't going to have to have the money to make an exclusive deal with the ISP to have their streams run fine while their competing startups are stuck in the second rate, constantly lagging low tier. Also in the case the ISP is owned by a conglomerate that has its own streaming service it isn't going to be fucking over absolutely everyone but itself to kill the competition.

Net neutrality is what allows a small sites like this one to be accessible just as quickly and be as usable as a Jewgle one, or an ISP owned one, as long the site can afford a connection fast enough to support its peak load. Fucking with that is not going to help the guy with little money.

Your assumption that content providers have "internet packages" is wrong to begin with.
Transit is not peering. Peering is cheap because directly connecting at public internet exchanges is cheap. Not only for them but for any content provider, no matter if small or large. This is because backbone technology is cheap (per customer and per Gbit) and barely any additional technology is needed for more peers. If someone tells you otherwise he's either lying or milking the last penny out of 15 year old routers. For the same reason the 'Google and Netflix will use up all the bandwith' meme is bullshit. If congestion exists on your ISP's backbone network, it's for political reasons.
The last mile is what makes your internet access expensive. What you use your last mile for is up to you. So you're basically asking Netflix to pay for you to be able to watch them.

Because this will spoil the Jew's plan which is why he doesn't want you to realize that net neutrality and this law a separate things.

(wasted)
First of all I've already made it perfectly clear that I don't give a shit about the actual rule becasue a cursory look into it told me that it's nothing and that in either case it isn't going to affect on me whatsoever. Secondly I was making a neutral post explaining what the controversy is objectively about since the user wanted and it did NOT want it to be dragged down in a shitstorm of contradicting posts by inserting my own opinions. I believe the muddying of the waters is the most dangerous aspect of this whole controversy so I see illuminating what is actually what here as far more.important.

Why would I not want my post not to be tied together when it strengthens my argument by illuminating it from different points? Unlike you everyone is not here to shill.

Hopefully it is defeated.
It's shit and every redditard pushing it is too retarded to actually read into what it does.
Fuck off, Soros/retarded e-celeb who ranted about magically losing his shitty job and having to work should NN be lost.

What's the TL;DR?

...

(9) posts and every single one is bitching and whining. Kys.

...

...

Correct. And about the "muh corporationz" argument, the highest market cap corporations in history all support net neutrality. The same corporations that all explicitly oppose free speech on the internet.

Netflix should have to pay to not have their executives dragged into the streets and burned alive.

Title II basically grants monopolies to large isps at the Federal level. Only those authorized as common carriers are allowed to operate. And who decides what get to be common carrier? ZOG. The same who decided the acceptable tv stations and censorship for that medium.

No.

I was defending net neutrality, not the FCC PAPTOI rule. Those are two completely different things that the kikes want you to believe are the same.

faggo

...

(heiled!)
This user gets it!

Thanks to (((bureaucratic bungling))), the (((ISPs))) were able to get the FCC's regulatory power under the Title II Order effectively nullified in court. But that order, by classifying ISPs as common carriers, exempted them from FTC oversight. Revoking the Title II Order, as the FCC now proposes to do, will put the (((ISPs))) back under FTC jurisdiction.

(heiled!)
An exclusive deal that the (((ISP))) will be required to publicly disclose under the new transparency rules. Then the FTC comes down on them (((both))) for anticompetitive behavior. The FTC is very good at shoving the Large Spiky Pineapple of the Law up certain (((asses))). They use Krazy Glue for lube.

Note that all Torfags, including (((shills))), have the same ID 000000. (There's a torfag (((shill))) in the other thread. Even Tor can't hide the stench of (((matzo))) from it.)

>An exclusive deal that the (((ISP))) will be required to publicly disclose under the new transparency rules.
Please come back when you understand what the real world is and how backroom deals work. Exclusivity deals are not illegal, neither are perks like say jewtube not loading and ads at the start of videos for ISP who have a deal. That's just the free market working.

Thankfully maintaining net neutrality has been seen as preferential to starting this sort of dealing and hopefully it stays that way. One has to be completely fucking retarded to wish for ISP to get into this out of the naïve belief that the the big corporations will fuck each other over in a way that benefits the consumers and upstarts instead of doing what they always do find ways to work together to fuck both consumers and upstarts. Also

>muh (((ftc)))
Yes, just look at all these aryan faces. I sure wonder why they keep protecting wallstreet ponzi schemes ftc.gov/about-ftc/biographies

Hoping for the justice of one big govt agency instead of another. What a great plan.

Fuck off shill

...

Netflix has the most to lose financially from this as well, George Soros owns a huge stake in Netflix, George Soros also financed over $193 million in pro-net neutrality ads

Really makes you faggots think huh

Chesscucks amirite?

Net neutrality has nothing to do with "international government control", or anything international for that matter.

...

It's literally impossible to abuse net neutrality. Prove me wrong, faggot, and while you're at it, show me that you understand how the internet works.

If things like DDoSes exist then that implies that overwhelming datastreams exist, which implies that the need for more hardware exists, which implies the need to spend resources on acquiring hardware exists, which implies that for some big contenders more hardware might be needed which it wouldn't be the case in a small, tiny network so you have to buy all that shit just to even keep up all because of those giants whom you can't even milk extra for it.

Is this why pirate bay is down?

So you're saying DDoSes exist because networks are big and fast? Abolishing net neutrality isn't going to change any that. Network technology is going to remain fast. What's going to change is: 1. pricing models and 2. ISPs can do stupid shit. Or are you literally advocating for slower internet for everybody because who'd going to need fast internet who isn't a degenerate?

And if you want to pay less because you use less, get a capped plan.

I'm pro NN, by the way.

My original argument was that ISPs might secretly loathe big networks that can just shit data into the ISPs system which it has to process, requiring strong hardware.

Of course nothing would change, there isn't really a fast lane per se, all packets need to be processed at one point lest they time out and the other computer thinks the destination is dead.

Routing afterwards would be politics, yes.
But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm pro net neutrality so ISPs can't get politically bought out by corporations.

Maybe I was unclear with that.

I want NN to stay and abolishing it instead of smashing big corporations like Google is not worth the political ramifications of ISPs being able to play favorites.

Of course there's bullshit going on anyway, but less BS than if NN would get removed.

sane arguments

No. The entire problem with DDoS lies server side. A puny, puny 1 mbit stream video stream equates enough data per second for about 4,000 new connection requests, which is insignificant when it comes to connection speed but will kill a small server. It's essentially like getting a hundred people to send letters to the same address. Delivering a them is a non-issue, the mailman just drops off a box saying these were all for you and then goes on to deliver the fifty other boxes of letters he has in his car, but you are going to be spending the rest of the fucking day going through them and writing replies (because the server must reply since it doesn't know which handshakes are bogus). There are other kinds of attacks as well but again what they do is overload the server, not the connection and certainly not the backbone.

Please stop trying to make arguments when you have no idea how shit works.

Startup a raspberry pi backed ISP then, nigger, and tell me how that works out.
I mean, it's fine right.
If 10000000000000 faggot request a 4k video stream with a tiny HTML request and you then have to deliver all those packets.
I mean, they can wait, right?
you don't have to upgrade your infrastructure because of Google offering 4k video streams, right?
You won't have to upgrade at all because it's all manageable and there is no additional hardware needed to deal with packets, right?

ISPs create backbones for fun, right?

When in reality they could deal with all the computers on earth sending shit at the same time even with an old C64 hooked up as the backbone.

They just run huge hardware clusters for fucking shits and giggles, right?

It takes the same processing power to cater to a low traffic intranet than cramming six googolilllion requests through your hardware, right?

There would be no additional cost for you required to serve unlimited incoming traffic at a speedy rate, right?

If ISPs routed their networks using only a Pi then the problem would typically not be server side. SINCE THEY FUCKING DON'T the bottleneck in the real world ends up being the targeted server and not the connection or the ISPs' general infrastructure.

He was calling you out for astroturfing, you illiterate nigger. NN is nothing but fear mongering, and you're dumb enough to take the bait.

The worm is almost pulled out of your nose.

Why aren't they routing their networks with only Pi, then?

Why DO they have all that hardware?

And would they need all that hardware, the same amount of hardware if no Google were to exist? No Netflix and the like?

Just people sending emails every now and then?

Of course not.

I'm ok with Netflix and all these shekel grubbers having to pay for hogging all the bandwith. fag reddit is just fear mongering.

ironic coming from a faggot who constantly posts on IOTBW which was made by cuckchan.

face it, you need 4chan so you can stay relevant, you faggot.

Welcome to Holla Forums

The exact different from this will happen.

Small businesses will have to pay for the bandwith and big businesses are gonna get away with it.

Net neutrality means everyone pays according to their share of the bandwith

If this law passes Holla Forums is probably kill.

None of this helps your retarded argument that DDoS happens because of the general infrastructure being over saturated.

...

Unless we take into consideration that every damn packet a computer gets needs processing in a timely manner or the other computer thinks the destination is dead.

Why do I even explain this again?
I'm not gonna.
Just do a backflip off a busy highway bridge, or something.

Fact:
ISPs need bigger hardware to deal with more packets.

Fact:
There are some entities on the internet that can generate a large amount of packets they send toward ISPs, no matter if the ISP can handle it.
But if they cannot handle it the customers start to get pissy.

Fact:
In order not to have customers get pissy ISPs upgrade their hardware infrastructure.

Fact:
This would not have been necessary if there weren't big data generators like Google.

Fact:
Upgrading would, of course be necessary anyway with enough traffic, even from many small websites.

Fact:
But Google has services that a lot of people access, so the point remains that due to the knowledge of Google by the people, people will cause Google to in turn send a lot of packets back to them.

Fact:
ISPs shouldn't be able charge Google more or treat them differently due to net neutralicy.

Fact:
Google does not have to pay extra money the ISP had to spend on upgrading their hardware to prevent people getting upset because their crazy addiction to Google services cause a lot of traffic which wouldn't be there if there were no things like Google. This is very simple to understand by anyone who isn't lobotomized.

Fact:
In effect this makes ISPs the bitches of customers who want more and more Google packets.
So they have to upgrade hardware, possibly without having deep pockets like Google with their gigantic networks of computers shitting out traffic for the price of a few "GET" posts so to speak on their end.
(It's more complicated than that, of course)

Fact:
Despite this I support Net Neutrality because I rather have the ISPs suffer under this system than allowing ISPs to bring their politics, views and accountbooks into the service they provide.

Fact:
If this is still over your head then really, you should cease living immediately, any further resources to keep you alive are wasted and you are a crime against the principle of conservation of energy.

How many times are we going to have to dismantle this retarded argument before it stops getting posted?

see

That's not how DDoS work.

That's not how ISPs work, so the rest of your argument is void.

Data caps are shit, but businesses paying for their bandwidth isn't.

Gee, I guess people will have to go against big tech companies when they try to do that shit like they did with Net Neutrality to get out of data cap payments. Oh wait.

Gee nigger, maybe that's why I was calling his argument retarded?

Sorry I got that confused :

net neutrality is what is behind takedowns you stupid niggers

1. Routers just forwards the packets, they don't need to process anything in them
2. It's not the amount of packets that sink a server during DDoS, it's the amount of bogus connection requests that then time out hogging all the slots. These do not amount to very much data per second because the requests are only a couple of bytes each.

You aren't becasue you haven't explained anything the first time, idiot.

Wrong. Netflix doesn't just send out data randomly for fun, they only do it at the request of a customer. A paying customer that payed what the ISP asked for in order do get a connection that can do X mb/s. The customer can't request a stream faster than their payed for connection because the ISP automatically throttles it.

If the ISP sees it can only deliver Y mb/s total and expect Z amount of customer they can size the connection speeds they offer according to this and thus control the peak load they will see in their network. If the ISP sold more mb/s to their customers than they can deliver then it's their own god damn fault.

Customers demanding what the seller promised when they payed him? How dare those goyim. I see why we must get rid of net neutrality now.

Oh no, having to divert part of the money you jewed out of your customers toward actually fulfilling what you sold them. It's like another shoah.

I wish I could facepalm right now. If jewtube didn't exist something else similar would have. If there weren't any video sites people would be torrenting. You've also got it all backwards becasue you seem to be so fucking young you don't remember what jewtube was like last decade. The quality was ass because people just didn't have the bandwidth to load higher quality streams. Neither did Netflix start streaming in HD until AFTER people in general started getting fast enough connections to support them. That's becasue neither of them felt like taking the huge cost of building data centers to host HD video no one can view just for fucking fun.

Faster consumer connections drove heavier streams, not the other way around. If ISPs couldn't deliver the bandwidth then they shouldn't have fucking sold it to begin with.

Only if the ISP sells more mb/s than it can already deliver. It's their own choice.

Damn right, because it isn't their god damn business whether the customer they sold the high speed connection to gets his data from a single google site, a hundred small sites or torrents it from a thousand other customers. They sold him x mb/s, took the money to provide x mb/s and providing x mb/s is what they are fucking obliged to do!

No, but the people who fucking PAID the ISP to access the internet did. If the ISP didn't want to upgrade they shouldn't have sold their customers more mb/s than they can handle.

You are so fucking stupid it's incredible … Internet video was inevitable once higher speed connections started to be sold. As soon a ISP sold X mb/s people started looking at what they could fill that with, whether the best thing at the time was Napster, Kazaa, torrents or streaming.

WHICH IS THE WAY IT SHOULD FUCKING BE YOU HUGE FUCKING CUNT!

Then they shouldn't have sold their customers the fucking bandwidth in the first place!

Which wouldn't have happened to the ISP if they hadn't sold more bandwidth than they could deliver.

Right back at you, retard. This thing you finally typed out is what your subconscious has been trying to tell you for years.

Please explain.
I really know nothing about net neutrality save what all the millennial youtube channels are saying.

It was and is a way for state actors to butt their way into private transactions and tell companies how to run things. Also it allowed the powers that be a way into regulating content not deregulating as it was sold

muh netflix
muh porn
muh vidya

Net neutrality never existed outside of murrica. Trump wants to ban shit just like Putin in russia, and you aren't going to stop it.

You forgot the last one. "muh Holla Forums".

It exists almost all over the world as an unwritten rule. It's been that way since the creation of the internet. Only somewhat recently (

The "net neutrality" that's under attack is Obama's laws regarding net neutrality. Net neutrality isn't going anywhere. "Net neutrality," in the form of what OP's pic is defending, is what we're talking about when we say "net neutrality" in this thread.

Here's what this argument has been:

What's bad about Obama's net neutrality law?

This really is the crux lf the issue. ISPs are over provisioning like motherfuckers and instead of using their own profits to upgrade their woefully obsolete equipment they want to pass the bill to Google and Netflix, even though the customer is fucking paying them to provide a certain bandwidth line.

God I hate big ISPs.

It's shit.

What Obama did was classify ISP's under title II of the communications act of 1934.
Within this designation is THIS:
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223

Notice the extensive use of the term "indecent."

there isn't a drop of testosterone in that nu-male faggots body

Exclusivity deals are illegal if they have the effect of preventing competition. (((Jewtube))) would be treading on very thin ice.
This is why the antitrust laws were passed, shill.
One step at a time, shill.

That's the "go" signal, retard. How fucking new are you?
LURK MOAR FAGGOT

The guy below you is lying to you. Net neutrality has been a fact since the 90's. Read

Get a load of the nose on this kike.

Yeah, sure. That's why we have people all over this thread saying how good it would be if ISPs started to to put punitive fees on netflix and google. and how we should fight to make it happen. Kill yourself.

>Exclusivity deals are illegal if they have the effect of preventing competition. (((Jewtube))) would be treading on very thin ice.
Every single exclusivity deal prevents competition. That's literally what they are for and why companies pay so much for them. What matters is how the FTC feels about your exclusivity deal, ie. how well you have managed to grease them up.

Which you get out of if you make sure you keep up with your kickbacks to the FTC.

Yes, pretending the jews aren't there sure is going to stop them acting like jews, right? If net neutrality goes they sure aren't going to be lenient towards the ISPs who throttle the "nazis" and let those get away with their Google deals until every ISP that stands up for free speech is gone becasue those will get punished the second they get toe over the line.

I explained to you that this is BS

which is reasonable
that needs to be changed
that needs to be changed, yes.
who cares

Just because idiots come to the same conclusion as me doesn't mean their reasons for doing so are valid.
If they actually want to get rid of net neutrality, talk to them about it. But the net neutrality that's currently under fire is a whole other animal.
What Obama did was classify the internet as a telecommunications service. Doing so basically makes online trolling illegal.

get out jew

I remember telling at least one employer this in response to some PC bullshit once.

Basically, the user consensus is that we must push for other reforms to take the legs out from under this kikery, and that–as usual–we will find no solace in the paradigms of the enemy. I suppose that is what we should have expected from the get-go. Props on not cucking under any circumstances and chegged.

Half of Holla Forums is shills at any given time, nigger.

(checked)
I am not disturbed by whether OP is a shill. We drag matters out and discuss them and get to the bottom of it regardless. The real cancer is multiple simultaneous threads on a topic.