Net Neutrality thread

The internet is not a utility, and for those that need to use it as a utility there are public options available.

What? What is it then?

The internet is a luxury, stupid.

Are you retarded? Entire industries only exist because the Internet exists.

...

Are you baiting me? Or from africa?

You don't need the internet to get a job, work, or eat. At least, if you consider the vast majority of jobs. This alone is enough of a fiscal deterrent to prevent companies from doing shit like this, as it would cost them about 90% of their customer base to start piecemealing internet service.

so what is net neutrality exactly and why are all these big companies (twitter, faceberg, ISPs, goygle, microshit etc.) all shilling for it?

Reduce that argument to absurdity and you'll see how stupid you sound.

If they get rid of Net Neutrality, then the internet as you know it is fucked. This change will only be good for the existing, large telecommunications companies (((AT&T, Verizion, T-Mobile, Comcast, Time Warner, etc))). Some of these dickheads will already throttle your usage if they find that you're doing something they don't like, which itself should be illegal, but now they'll be able to split their existing service into "standard usage" (i.e. the shit you already had before) and "slow lane usage" which is like a permanent state of being throttled. ISPs have acted like general utility providers up until now, and that is what their consumers expect, so why do they think they can suddenly dictate what type of content can pass through their servers? Fuck them, and fuck the lolbertarians that are so afraid of da gubmint that they can't see the forest for the fucking trees and realize that giving power to these multi-billion dollar telecommunications firms is not a good idea.

You must be living under a rock or really dense if you don't know what it is: treat all data the same, no bottlenecking the transfer speed of data that isn't kosher.

I, for one, am looking forward to playing Legend of the Red Dragon again!

Maybe if you are a tech illiterate shit skin.

...

Net neutrality is a fucking scam.

>>>Holla Forums is where you go.

...

Wow, really makes me think.

Stop lying and fuck off to your failed board, Holla Forums

No faggot, you are the goon >>>/somethingawful/

There is no irony or sarcasm when I tell you that you need to fucking die.

Samefagging used to be an art

Subversion used to be an art.
>>>/somethingawful/

This might blow your mind, but you know those two things hanging off the bottom of you, you can use those to go to a business and ask for an application.
And a lot of those "places you can only apply to online" just don't advertise they are hiring outside.

Wait, what?

You need to attempt harder.

Enjoy this last (you).

I mean, it's a luxury in the same way that a vehicle is a luxury or a "privilege". Sure, from a completely biological standpoint, we don't need the internet, or arguably any of our modern technologies, to survive. However, they are a necessity when you consider the context of everyday life and what that entails. If you have to make a commute to get to work, and you live in a place where there are no public transportation options available, then your vehicle facilitates your lifestyle. Without it, you wouldn't be able to work at your current long-distance job, and may therefore have to settle for something that is closer, which may not be nearly as valuable as the long-distance job. When someone says, "x is not a necessity" their argument is already based on absurdity, because survival in our modern world is not solely contingent on meeting our immediate biological needs in a "life or death" type scenario.

Maybe if you live in some shitskin third wolrd shithole.

Does it affect countries that aren't America?

Do you even try, Holla Forums?

...

Enjoy this last
>>>/reddit/
>>>Holla Forums
>>>/somethingawful/
>>>/cuckchan/
>>>/tumblr/
>>>/neogaf/
>>>/ovens/

I suggest you first prove you aren't a newfag, but it's too late.

Jesus fuck, this is what the people that want net neutrality abolished believe.

I want to see actual arguements against and for Net Neutrality, without the retarded shit flinging and personal crap.
Any user here able to do that?

Obviously it's also used for pirating shit.

No. It it means less accessibility to the general public, then I'm all for it.

Fixed

There are a few in the thread that cover why you should be pro net neutrality quite comprehensively. As far as I've seen, anti-net neutrality arguments have amounted to unironic goyposting cringe.

They'll just cry to big daddy Israel instead

>Obama secures our rights by giving in some government rights to secure the internet
What a meme
What a meme

Yeah, it'll be great.

How likely do you think places like 8ch would exist in a non-net neutrality internet? Small "controversial" sites like this would be the first to be throttled.

Specifically they could prioritize websites and apps they own over the rest of the web.
This Twitch link is packed full of shitty gifs, explaining this to normalfags would be grueling.

Are you saying that speed throtling based on what big ISPs don't like is better then?

Well, Net Neutrality is just a principle that says that all internet traffic should be treated equal. That is, the bytes of data you send and receive should not be discriminated against. If it were abolished, then your ISP could give "VIP access" to certain websites and throttle access to others.
Let's say

Leftycuck detected.
>>>/ovens/

GET MEMEING MY FRIEND!
LIKE A BOSS!

I have seen arguments FOR net neutrality here and there, not so much for the anti-ones.

Why do you want less accessibility specifially? As much as normalfaggotry is cancer, being jewed alongside them is not the best way to punish them. See

I swear some of you Holla Forumsacks are actually underage faggots who think they're funny.

Powerful stuff Holla Forums, keep up the good work

Net neutrality is only necessary because we have a federally-mandated monopoly. In itself, it is bad because it is trying to fix problems with regulation by throwing more regulation at it. The entire thing that "net neutrality" is trying to fix would be better fixed by allowing the consumer to have actual choices and allowing competition in the communications space. I'm not saying it's easy to start up an ISP, but right now, it's illegal to start up a cable company that competes with Comcast in most areas.

That's the issue with net neutrality. It is a "good solution" to fix a problem that should not exist. It's a solution that is a stopgap because they don't want to risk Comcast's profits. In a real competitive market, your ISP throttling your connection to what you want to see means that you just switch to the next cable company who won't. Your ISP, above all, wants to keep your business. The only reason they'll throttle shit is because they know you have no choice but to stay with them if you need a cable connection.

Is there no fucking library in your area? They have free internet you know.
You "needing" the internet to get hired doesnt necessarily mean that it should be treated like a utility. It should be treated like a utility because it would be an active hinderence on small startup business ventures, further increasing the despairity between larger established businesses, and new ones.
And if you ask me, putting a paywall on starting your own life if bretty fucked.

I am neither Holla Forums nor Holla Forums or a fucking fence sitter. I have come to terms that the internet is pretty much dead at this point and this would just be the final nail in the coffin. I use email for business, and I only go on 8ch/youtube to watch falling rain videos when I am depressed. Nothing else on the internet is worth my time.

You really don't need electricity or running water, go buy some wood and keep your fireplace lit at all times, light some candles and collect rain water.

K, I was just simply pointing out an argumentation trend, it just doesn't help anyone when I get proved right by example 2.5 seconds after posting

...

Lmao that would wipe out 80% of the posters here.

That's even more pathetic than half of Holla Forums usually is.

Powerful stuff >>>Holla Forums, keep up the good work.

I use woodstove heat, have a clean stream constantly running in my backyard/running water from my cistern. I can easly set up a wind turbine and solar panelling tomorrow for electricity/ I have a generator and enough gas for 2 months. Grow up.

Your circle arguments can't be proved right, back you first year university with you. Faggot.

Less reason to remove it then, until you can make sure it won't be jewed out even harder.

You do realize libraries would have less reason to give free internet as a service due to having to pay out of their ass instead right?

So what is the problem here? Do you think the petit bourgeoisie should bow down to the proletariat, or do you just not think?

Folks, this is your brain on Holla Forums

No.
This time it's just the US.
Some countries in Europe have tried to abolish net neutrality already, but got always overruled by their respective courts that net neutrality is equal to a human right in current year+x.

People are right to raise an eyebrow at more gov regulation but considering I am trading a definitive option of getting jewed for using "unapproved services" with the possibility of some politics trying shit with it in the future I don't think it's hard to decide.

I you really want it free you'd probably want to try your hand at a meshnet.

almonds activated. Keep dropping all those constructive (you)s :^)

Bye.

That doesn't even matter, some ISPs in Europe are already practicing packages and pricing that violate net neutrality. These literal kikes in this thread posting >>>Holla Forums are trying to D&C, making it seem like ISPs will not eventually jew out the internet if allowed by law.

I'm not saying that it's a good reason to remove it. As long as the cable monopoly is the way it is, we need net neutrality.

Imagine a law saying that the only grocery legally allowed to be present in your city is Wal Mart. Then they have another law stating that Wal Mart can not jack up their prices on specific commodities, called "grocery neutrality". It's essentially a law to force the company to act like they have competition even though they don't, and even though there are federal mandates to ensure that they make a profit.
That's essentially our current situation with the cable cartels.

Nah, it should always be necessary. It doesn't matter if you have two alternatives or one hundred, if they all decide, "yeah, let's fuck over the consumer by dictating what data they are able to prioritize" then you won't have any alternatives.

No it isn't, you mouthbreathing faggot. Online gaming may be a luxury, but the Internet isn't - and there's more to the Internet than imageboards, porn, and online gaming.

Especially when just about every job you might want to get requires you to fill out an online job application.

(Yes, even getting a job as a fucking burger flipper at fucking McNostrils requires you to do that these days, I'm not even fucking joking.)

So here's what you can do with your shit, user:

1) Use it to build a time machine
2) Travel back in time to some time before the Jonestown Massacre
3) Get in good with Jim Jones, the guy who ran Jonestown
4) When the time comes, pour yourself a nice, big cup of that lovely Jonestown Flavor-Aid
5) Drink it all down
6) Drop dead like Jones and the rest of his cultists

there it is. Bye!

Sad.

You could easily go to any coffee shop, cafe, restaurant, library and or any government ran building and use their internet.

As much as I agree with you, you're being a faggot too. Bye yourself.

u mad?

...

There's the goon.
>>>/somethingawful/

GOT EM

If NN is abolished and ISPs could hypothetically throttle sites or charge for special access, the first one to do so would likely lose a fuckoad of customers. Nobody will fuck up an already ultra-luctrative business and make their customers move to the competion, who obviously won't implement any such restrictions because the same damn thing will happen. That said, if it's already in place then I see little reason to abolish NN, as the internet is most definitely a 'necessary' part of life almost on the level of a utility, and I feel that is one of the few things government regulation is okay for.

Where the fuck do you retards live where magically filling out a forum online gets you a fucking job instead of talking to the goddamn manager?

...

It could all be over if they actually provided constructive arguments for anti-net neutrality, I would be engaged then. But play stupid games, win stupid prizes

nice team there, epic combo!

And what happens when they start charging for/drop their free internet access, hmm?

Because you know goddamn well that when NN goes, so does free public Internet.

(By the way, how's that time machine coming?)

...

IF your wet dream happens, it could be bad. But seeing that someone will realize, "oh, those people who don't like net neutrality are pretty numerous", they'll start providing neutral service. It didn't happen before, but now that the government came in with its hysteria its very important that the LAW is upheld at all costs.

Okay before I start,
Very realistic threat, but also very funny that you're pointing it, my friendly statist.
The other two didn't happen before net neutrality laws and certainly aren't going to start happening now.

?

...

Have you ever been outside or to the library?

Your scenario assumes Normalfags don't eat their ridiculous prices up AND that the ISPs are in a healthy market. See

Your argument was ridiculous to begin with.
If I wasn't so sure you're just a troll, I'd say you've been living under a rock since 1999.

Free market competition will not solve this problem because ISPs are natural monopolies, like utility services. The initial cost of investment to set up the infrastructure is so high that the already entrenched company, that has already paid that investment off, will always be able to out-price-war any startups. Businessmen aren't stupid and won't bother making an ISP startup that is doomed to fail. There will be no competition.

I don't understand this.

:^)

That's the same with any industry. That's the entire point of competition. What's stopping clothes stores from saying "Hey, if we ALL make shirts cost no less than $50 a pop, people will have to buy them"? The entire nature of an open economy is competition. If two competing companies are both fucking over the consumer, their practices naturally get better and their prices get lower, based on the companies undercutting one another and trying to get each other's customers. The situation you describe doesn't actually happen when you have more than 2 or 3 reasonable choices. That collusion is also, likewise, illegal.

And what you're describing with "bending the rules" is literally what we have, and what needs to be fixed. The FCC chairman is a Comcast lobbyist.
The "regional monopolies" thing shouldn't be an issue, because there should be other competition sprouting up. Comcast and Time Warner drew their lines in the sand to strangle their regions, but they also litigate all competition aggressively out of existence. Regional monopolies wouldn't happen without abuse of the legal system, because even that wouldn't stop other competition from sprouting up.
Hell, look at Google Fiber. That could have been a huge kick in the ass, but Comcast and Time Warner lobbied hard to push that shit back.

I'm not by any means 100% in support of the free market, and I don't believe it's always self-correcting, but it usually is. One of the only cases in which the free market unilaterally fails is when a company gets the ability to legally punish its competition.

Shut up dummy. You need to go back. Although is correct, woodstoves heat gud. Great even, if you're with it in the room it's in.
(noice)
That could be the case, but there's 2 things youre missing here. People in the US are starved for options for their ISP, many only having one avalible. And it would seem likely, given the number of companies pushing this, they'd just ALL put out their shit simultaneously.

What kind of a company that would allow any random shithead to bypass the proper channels? Are you from India or relatives from India?

Boy, the jews made lightbulbs worse while pretending they were being improved and EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD fell for it.

ISPs are already selling mobile data packages that favor specific services, it's only a matter of time before they figure out how to jew the tech illiterate masses out of the current free internet that we have. You are at the mercy of the idiots, they are the majority of the population and their wallet votes outnumber yours and I guarantee you they will accept whatever is thrown at them as long as it is presented in a seemingly positive way.

This is how retarded the average Holla Forums poster is

...

This is not an argument.

You're cherry picking the technologies of a modern society, saying internet is not necessary but electricity and running water are.

A+ posts.

Please go back to whatever liberal anglo hellhole you came from.

That is true, ruralfags would get a bit fucked if that happened. I don't see ISPs collaborating, really, unless they were truly desperate. And I suppose it is a bit optimistic to assume things would pan out that way, but why didn't ISPs do this in the past, before NN was even thought of? I just don't see it happening in the near future, not until we hit peak dystopia. As always the solution is to meshnet it up and ditch current infrastucture. It won't happen until we make it happen, maybe in the future when we need them we'll be ready.

It would need Free Market competition in the first place if you wanted it to fix it though. Also

>The example of a natural monopoly– not aided by government whatesover and therefore a free market result – is comcast

It is an argument, ur just dumb

>The FCC chairman is a Comcast lobbyist.

You fucked it.

business.time.com/2013/05/02/tom-wheeler-former-lobbyist-and-obama-fundraiser-tapped-to-lead-fcc/

Isn't American internet or ISP's total dog shit?

...

Or maybe the supreme court should overrule the bullshit Kikecast pushed to make it illegal for fucking local communities to start-up their own ISPs. Fuck government funded monopolies.

Yep, I can't torrent anything anymore or mine will shut off my internet again

No no, I was calling that other guy's argument dumb, citing your argument. You do you user

I could just say "This is your average Holla Forumsack everyone" to show how retarded you are and why the "argument" is dumb as hell, oh wait I already did.

Why not let retarded ISPs do retarded shit, so they get BTFO by a company that isn't retarded and does things cheaper?

Obama's net neutrality didn't even provide net neutrality as ISPs weren't prohibited from providing "off-cap" bandwidth to partnered (read: they paid us) services. The whole thing was a sham made easier by almost no one understanding what net neutrality even means.

The internet is a utility, like electricity, water, or roads. Once the utility infrastructure is set up, it's always going to be cheaper to acquire the infrastructure already in place than it is to build new infrastructure. It's not cost-effective for two cable companies to duplicate each other's work when they can just merge together and reach twenty towns instead of ten. Thus, monopolies form.

www.speedtest.net
Ever heard of this website? I'm sure you may have, it's a very popular and well known tool that people use to determine their internet speeds. Did you know that when Comcast got wind of this, they decided to bolster their data transfer speeds to this site because they wanted their consumers to go there and see that they were getting the speeds that they believe they pay for? Obviously, they kept this a secret, so nobody actually knew that it was a ruse but during their battle with Netflix, this little factoid was revealed, and Netflix, in an effort to subvert their underhanded jewry, created their own network measuring tool so that people could get a more accurate reading of their speeds. Yeah, I bring this up because it is an example of a way that a company could 'play dirty' with its consumers in order to give them the illusion that they're getting the service for which they pay.

Let's say there are a wide variety of options for the average consumer to choose from. That is all well and fine. However, how will the average consumer be able to distinguish between those that provide them good service and those that say they are selling good service but in actuality they're cutting corners like no tomorrow in an effort to save money, or for some other non specific but equally dubious motive? You may argue that the underhanded tactics will be recognized by certain members of the consumer base and then the news will spread throughout and eventually said company will have earned a bad reputation, and therefore their shitty tactics will only serve to damage them in the end. Maybe that is true, but what if their trickery is difficult to detect? What if they can get away with it for years without anyone finding out? What if they ultimately find new ways to fuck you over and for their own purposes?

My point is that regulation can be used to prevent or diminish this type of 'dirty play' and ensure that a certain standard is being upheld. Regulatory firms can be established that exist for the sole purpose of inspecting the operations of any and all businesses within a free market (i.e. like how there are inspectors that must sign off and approve the work that is done on a construction site). These firms do not have to be government regulated. I am not advocating for more government control, just better regulations and a higher standard of operation for pretty much any industry. Surely you can see my point?

From the last thread.

They already throttle your connection. They'll deny it, but it's super obvious when it happens.

No it won't
Better men have tried to take away Internet rights and better men have failed
Besides, every argument I've seen against net neutrality on here either calls it anti-capitalist or a Jew scheme, so obviously it's going to stay
I mean I don't really care in the end because the Internet will still be here

The problem with that argument is that it's removing the safety measures before solving the issue. We should have net neutrality to protect us WHILE we dissolve monopolies. If you get rid of the safety net before you take the jump, then you're putting yourself in a position where you just get fucked even harder.

Forgot to link thread like a retard.

fucking bravo leftypol.

Everyone cheats on speedtest. I wrote cheats for it for our HTTP caching proxy. They don't take average speed over the entire duration as they wanted to have a shorter test length while not being way off on connections with a long ramp-up time so it's pretty easy to ensure there'll be a big rate increase near the end that'll cause it to report the wrong 'average'.

Who is leftypol? I only know of Holla Forums.

It sounds very jewish to me, and I remember Holla Forums saying that removing it is a bad thing. I think the only people who support it are Holla Forums and Holla Forums

Don't get me wrong, your argument was really strong, but I think I'm going to default to that other argument for it's use of logic and reason

????????

The majority of arguments against net neutrality here are born of contrarianism. It's not that net neutrality is bad, it's that it's popular and other people like it, therefore it's bad. And imageboards being a center for counter-culture types, many anons feel the need to argue against it because muh Obama regulation or jews.

These arguments are never actually good, they're just contrarian circlejerking.

Coincidentally, I heat my

Honestly throughout this entire thread I realized that if Net Neutrality being abolished gets the internet throttled to hell and back I would be as because I wouldn't even be able to say "I told you so" to the faggots that argued it was a good thing.

Holla Forums and Holla Forums crossboarding has been a thing for a while now, anyone with common sense and even a modicum of knowledge on how ISPs work would tell you it's a bad thing. ESPECIALLY for the US users.

this tbh

Why should I follow the rule of government funded corporations?

Makes perfect sense

(heiled)
Because they're made for you to follow, and for them to avoid using loopholes found by autistic lawyers.

If you're bitching about Comcast you can fuck off. Comcast is a fucking miracle of the universe compared to the shit that I have to put up with - Frontier.

There is no company in the world that desires hate more than these fuckers. Their internet services are literally worse than third world countries. If I'm having a good day, I get about 120 kb/s on downloads. And the only reason they get away with this is because they have a monopoly on small town areas - or, rather, the only competition is the fucking satellite internet, which is pretty much useless for anyone that actually uses the computer.

Fuck them, and fuck you.

This isn't about you. This is about the government-funded corporations following the government's rules.

Comcast made it illegal, tell them them to fuck off.

Kill yourself kike.

so the argument against net neutrality is that we wouldn't need it if there was competition? What stops new internet providers from cooperating with the existing ones.

Problem with it is that the ones you should be Goyim posting about would be the ISPs he used the Parentheses for. Like holy shit shows exactly what they are.

This is not an argument.

The profit motive.
It's literally the same incentive to cheat shit as any collective price fixing situation.

...

Yea verily, will thou'st cease thine prattling for but a moment such that we may all sit in silence and marvel at the presence of quints

Kill yourself.

...

meant for

Holla Forums everyone

But this is happening. All the bigger fishes work together to fuck over the little guys. Mercedes and BMW for example work together, the food industry works together to not fuck each other up. I honestly think this may have worked a long time ago when companies really cared about fucking each other up. But I feel like companies have learned to live together now.

...

Do you have a argument for why NN is a bad/good thing with the class user?

Surprise, they've learned that it's better for them to fuck the public than each other. This is the nature of their cancer and why business mergers happen.

The only argument I've seen so far is "if you support anything the government does at all, you're a kike", which is beyond fucking retarded. While the government doesn't act in your best interest in most cases, why they fuck would you oppose it when it for once does act in your best interest?

What, do you retards think that competitors will simply pop out of nowhere when the current jews get jewier, and that these new ones won't be just as jewy? What the fuck do you think makes the monopolies disappear when you start fucking consumers in the ass harder?

Microshit, facebork, jewgle are staying quiet this time.

It isn't that they've learned to live together.
It's that the incentives to cheat on collective price fixing are smaller than the gains from it.
Something like this is an impossibility in a free market – if you cheat you have the potential of gobbling up a huge chunk of your former partners and current competitors' money. That's the default state of things.
But let's suppose that if a company cheated on a price fixing ring, a big black man came in and took more of their money that they gained from cheating. As compensation for "not playing fair"
Are you picking up what I'm putting down? Because I'm putting down government regulations lobbied for by the price-fixers as a big black man, always on standby to ream the asses of detractors.

This. One argument that was made in this thread and in the past ones is that we wouldn't need NN if there was competition. But where is this competition supposed to come from?

The free market.

Which doesn't exist because Comcast has lobbied for and successfully gotten legislation passed monopolizing huge chunks of the country preventing potential competitors.

I don't think being a literal breathing retard is contributing either.

let's take a look at the current market then. AMD makes totally trashy gpu's, and so does nVidia. Where is the competition that makes non jewish gpu's? There are no regulations here, so why doesn't a company pop out of nowhere and takes over the gpu market by making non sucking cards?

Why you think it will be any different for isp?

Hey, shut up, be quiet! You're not supposed to say that!

The only good thing a government can do is dissolve and fuck off.

Everything else that it can do is threaten people, and shuffle others' money around while taking a big bite of it to pay itself, and a bigger chunk to just flush down the shitter for "political reasons".
The government never acts in the interest of anyone other than the government, just like any other entity with more than a paleolithic tribe's worth of people in it.

Competitors would simply pop out of nowhere if the entrance to the market is free, because this particular industry doesn't have a high natural barrier to entry or capital good requirement , like a railroad or a coalmine would.
I repeat,

The government made startups illegal when Comcast pushed it in court you braindead retards.

...

Which is a bad thing, but how exactly will removing net neutrality make this situation better? It also removes those regulations that were made?

Government should do only the following
Basically, be Swiss.

Why not both?

Evidently because it isn't worth it. If it was worth to do it, someone would eventually do it. Maybe you can be the change you want to see in the world my nigga. History is full of dark horse startups that come to dominate the market.

Because the startup costs are much lower, and the capital (both human and hardware) is much more commonly available. This means that if it's worth doing, the people who want in will show up much quicker than they would for something that needs a big initial investment. Like a coal mine or something.

Nope. Not unless the government forces them to.
cbc.ca/news/business/crtc-says-big-telecoms-must-share-high-speed-networks-with-competitors-1.3163132

Because why the fuck would the monopoly laws that Jewcast corruptly lobbied for be repealed just because NN ceases to exist?

the only thing i don't understand is why would twitch be pushing the
if they're pretty much owned by comcast?

okay well, as the other user said:
the government has once, god knows why, made something in our interest. Why remove it?

That doesn't make much sense. Who owns the current hardware? The government? Because here in my country the cables and everything is owned by the company who laid them down, and every other isp that offers their service has to pay them money. So you do not only pay that ISP money, you also have to pay something to the ISP that owns the internet cables.

I really don't see how a new ISP could pop out of nowhere. This whole thing sounds expensive as fuck.

Who says they can't be repealed in the supreme court you little bitch? Have you even tried anything? Hell, the president could push against it, that's what's Obongo's legacy apparently was.

P. sure they're owned by Amazon. Amazon is for net neutrality along with Google.

I don't know how many people are arguing to simply remove net neutrality, but that it's a piss-poor excuse to allow them to maintain the monopoly under the guise of "see? We're looking out for you!"

MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

Without net neutrality, these companies would have been allowed to legally engage in shit like this without repercussions. Which is why they're lobbying for the removal of regulation.

Because the only people with the resources and interest in doing so are the ones who enacted it in the first place you buttfucking moron.

Not saying that they should keep their monopoly, I just think that we must keep the internet free. All traffic should be treated the same way.

Jesus fuck Canada.

Still, this only means guv forces them to sell high-speed lines they wouldn't be able to afford otherwise. In just about every country the ISPs, big and small, rent their groundlines.

The on-ground hardware is owned by the ISP. The cables they rent primarily from telecoms and phone lines (in shitholes like india).
An ISP is a very scaleable thing, you could technically cover a small town's area and still make money, then grow from there. There's not much super-specialised, rare and expencive hardware necessary. You could make due with a bunch of old towers from 00s. The big barrier to entry is acquiring a stable customer base, unless you are fucked in the ass by regulations.

they just want net neutrality just so people can keep buying trash on amazon.

All of your examples are fucking shit

Common carrier law (which is what the current panic is about) was passed in 2015.
Literally all of the events you list happened before the law was even in place.

This mainly affects companies like Netflix that suck up vast swaths of available bandwidth. I don't care if Netflix's subscription price goes up, because it's garbage. They already raised their rates 25% for no reason a couple years back, they will do so again with or without net neutrality. The same applies to any service that charges you monthly for delivering subpar streaming content, including every console service. They'll just bitch and whine about net neutrality because they have an obligation as corporations to minimize their costs and maximize their profits, even though they'll pass any increased cost directly on to the consumer base.

I don't really care how it might impact multiplayer games either, since it will be too much administrative overhead to extort payment from any but the top 25 online games, all of which are pure trash.

Let the jews jew other jews. Won't affect me in the least, aside from maybe subsidizing a free speed bump from my ISP.

Says the worthless retard using his time on an imageboard as a distraction from society.

Yeah, and that's the law they're planning to get rid of. So shit like that would be legal.

You have to solve the huge issue of non-competition clauses and other such fuckery before you can even consider bringing up "Oh just get another provider". In my small town it's Comcast's cable(up to 100 mbps down), Verizon DSL(up to 5 mbps down) or satellite serviceslol.

Oh okay, I misunderstood your point.

Fair enough, then all that needs to be passed is an open state policy where anyone and everyone can go and be a provider, much like what should happen with health care.

too bad that will never happen

Yes, let me start a local ISP (which I can't legally do), grow its userbase nationwide (which can't be done because of Comcast), gather enough political capital and statewide Senate and House support (the ones who Comcast lobbied with to place these in effect), spend years fighting bogged-down legal battles with a company with billions of dollars of legal resourced, and hope the politicians who already are on Comcast's bankroll agree with my side.

Fucking dumbass anime poster. Enjoy your last (You)

What the fug.

The big one I'm suspecting is Comcast and similar ISPs no longer supporting Holla Forums and other such sites where people can interact without the media having their 'fair' share of control of the narrative.

My ISP in the UK does that, but only if it detects an upload speed above 10kB/s. It's fucking ridiculous.

Feel free to kill yourself then brat.

Whatever you've been fed by AT&T or whatever RINO they hold in their strings that Net Neutrality gives the government the power to regulate the internet is factually false. Net Neutrality simply gives rules for ISPs to follow so that they can't overstep their boundaries on what they charge.

Whatever you've been fed by McDonalds or whatever RINO they hold in their strings that minimum wage laws give the government the power to regulate the job market is factually false. Minimum wage law simply gives rules for businesses to follow so that they can't overstep their boundaries on what they pay their employees.

Whatever you've been fed by StateFarm or whatever RINO they hold in their strings that Obamacare gives the government the power to regulate the health insurance market is factually false. Obamacare simply gives rules for carriers to follow so that they can't overstep their boundaries on what they charge.

Nice false equivalency there, bruv

would you rather have commie China internet that blocks content, or private companies throttle bandwidth.

Well now I know 100% it should be repealed.

They're the same thing, retard.

These are the choices on offer right now. The entire premise of the game is rigged and was correct.

They're shit. But the government is perhaps even shittier.

So the gist is
So basically it's impossible to get rid of NN because Jews, got it.

net neutrality is "good" because it makes it so that big isps can't fuck with the big internet based companies. That's reason you hear about it. One group of massive corporations is lobbying the government to protect them from other massive corporations.

Even with NN, there won't be any regulations preventing the ISP monopolies from raising prices as and when they think they'll be able. It will just have the traditional structure instead of something that fucks with jewtube.

Pretty much. The question comes down to which set of corporations is less egregiously Jewish and terrible, and what will actually benefit the goyim more.
If NN is repealed right now, then Jewtube can still pay Comcast to stream their shit faster. 8ch cannot do the same.

and considering their back-end clique think how easy it'd be to end up on a hidden "badthink" list and throttled to death.

So, is it good or bad?

Net neutrality is a corrupt but tenable solution to a problem that shouldn't exist.

In a perfect world, competition would make net neutrality unnecessary, but since ISP competition is now literally illegal thanks to Comcast swinging corruptionbux around, that means that net neutrality (which puts power in the hands of the government instead) is pretty much the only solution we're getting.

Yankucks are too gentrified to fight against corporate taxation of public, industrial and private sectors in America. Say goodbye to visiting Holla Forums without paying loads of shekels to (((ISPs))).

The only correlation between the two is obongo care and the (((FIFTEEN DOLLAR))) minimum wage were to be used as a weapon to whack other smaller businesses with
Fifteen dollars being the fiscal offset calculated that large businesses would be able to afford in exchange for the termination and crumbling of smaller local businesses.
Minimum wage as it stands is functional, and the small handicap it offers, minors seeking employment, is negligible.

There's nothing in net neutrality that prevents ISPs from charging us more. And the cost of dealing with tens of thousands of 2-bit, low volume sites isn't worth the returns when they could simply up the base monthly fee.

They want money, they aren't kikebook or jewgle, looking to re-engineer society for the greater good, they're beautifully soulless machines of capitalism looking to make more profit. They're already going to charge their customers exactly what they think the market will bear, NN or no. So the option now is to put the squeeze on netflix, google, amazon, etc and cut into their profits. We know this because that's what they did when they were allowed to do it, because that's where the money is.

This thread is a mess, huh?
No actual addressing of points, just fucknuggets screaming at each other. My own country is fucked, but at least we don't have to pour regulation on top of regulation to fix our shitty government.

Bump you apathetic morons

...

Why is this shit bumplocked?

It's a sound only video