Net Neutrality Victory

there was never a cablevision boogeyman you retard. Think as to why that is?

Net Neutrality gives the option for Government intervention, without NN your traffic is controlled, sold off and the Government would pick at us regardless.

Add in the TPP as mentioned and you got nothing worth saving.

this guy gets it

its too late user, it was always too late

The feds shopped around. They have an agenda. This isn't over but it is looking grim, this is a dark day.

Liberalism is a mental disorder, but I will laugh at the plebs getting pawned by the Politoburo while I go cyber, because this is the hell that many of you chose.

Specifics, of the top of my head:
Obama Internet, a new entitlement, a direct theft of taxpayer funds

FCC is claiming authority to regulate, although it declines AT THIS TIME, to regulate content. This is a Trojan Horse my friends, I warned you for years.

In Britian, in France, in Germany you can be arrested for offending special snowflakes on the internet. It can't happen here? 49 dead faggots say otherwise. You are one false flag away from having the government so far up your ass you will thank them for being able to go online at all. You know that NSA/M$/Google wants to end online anonymity. The saddest parts is that anons cheer the death blow to anonymity, this "net neutrality". Fools! SOON YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO LOG ON WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT-ISSUED ID. THIS IS ALREADY BEING DISCUSSED IN BRITIAN. ITS FUCKING HAPPENING AND YOU FAGS ARE TOO STUPID TO SEE IT.

holy shit, just kill yourself if this isn't bait

literally the level of retardation on display, holy shit

wew
salty kurisu in the thread like clockwork
we told you like six months ago that they'd win the case because the FCC was using powers granted to them by congress

Regulatory capture is what this is. The Congress specifically declined to make law on this issue. The ruling on broadband is especially ridiculous, I ask you to read the dissent. This is not over. This was just one of many legal actions.

you seem upset.
the regulations are what they were before Bush fucked them up.
you lost.

you lost, I lost nothing

if a nuclear hellfire burst over my head this instant I would still count myself a winner, because I lived free

you chose to be a slave, I have only contempt for you

that's nice, autist.
go lay in your hug machine and try to forget.

Carte blanche internet surveillance, censorship and draconian legislation (Three Strikes) have already been implemented. Preventing ISPs from fucking up the internet with cable subscription bullshit is a seperate issue.

still waiting for the shitty AT&T / CenturyLink duopoly of DSL to end

There must be a special place in hell for liberal cucks who sell their freedoms cheap

...

meanwhile

pick one and stick to it faggot

uh I distinctly remember having god awful data caps and nothing to do in 1996. Just a coincidence pirating spiked when companies got told to fuck off?

...

...

Net Neutrality was a nice concept on paper, but of course in reality it falls rather short.

The fact of the matter is the government is and was going to fuck with us in any way they felt like. Same for corporations. Anyone saying things wouldn't be the same without NN is living in a fantasy land and not the real world.

Although I'd love to take the time to mention that this is what happens when you are a reactionary. Your reactions to things only take into account the short term implications. It's just in this case it's a liberal reactionary law instead of a conservative one.

It never will, in face I bet CenturyLink will buy AT&T one day, leaving you only with one option.

...

well yes regulation is better than saturation.

how is that toxic water? oh right.

...

ISPs provide a service. What does the government provide? Rules. Rules that allowed the evil ISP monopolies that throttle your torrents. The government creates the problem and then they solve it, and all along the way you lose, but you, being a stupid bastard, cheer the loss of your freedoms because the government sure stuck it to the man!

ITT: Morons that never read into it

Neutrality is bad because is allows Obama to put a boot of law on free speech and funposting

Neutrality is good because comcast isn't allowed to squeeze us for our last dime and censor the little man, ie "x" sue Holla Forums for whatever stolen

lel this thread, knocked it out of the park, no moe girls if corps win and the NSA will pick at us regardless.

Shit's hilarious.
We should be able to have IDs enabled per thread.

No, it doesn't.
You are a fucking retard.

who are you talking about? which posts?

would you fuck off already

From a quick glance.

He seems to think his samefaggotry isn't obvious.

corporations are people: the post

go back to your Xbox360 you cuck

*tips fam

Yes goyim we're safe and saved totally!
You dumb fucks realize that if a single law doesn't get passed US will copy China's other shit laws and China + Everyone else will copy US's shit laws that do get passed right?

If you're so concerned, you should stop spouting bullshit and get back to jerking to your waifu before the government makes that illegal.

you are nothing more than a shitposter with no grasp of the subject matter

I used more than one IP and even so, all the responses that you don't like are not just me, alone. there are others who understand

343 Name: JOHN TITOR : 06/14/2016 20:47:42
The ISPs have a monopoly on internet access.No ordinary person, nor nation, nor startup business can acquire the tubes necessary to obtain internet access without them. They only used them for their own interests, bringing the world into a dystopia. The courts ruled in the FCC's favor, but that's only a false peace.

Holy shit, if Kurinigger is actually quoting him we're fucked. What fucking memes did this nigger also create?

sorry, I don't read tabloids run by the owner of Amazon, please provide a non-corrupt source or use archive.is

...

It's not to late. Buy a rope.

WHAT FREEDOMS IS MUH GUBBERMINT STRIPPING FROM YOU WITH NET NEUTRALITY?

NAME ONE.

I don't think anyone in here is saying rights are being stripped with this exact law, but that it sets the precedent for future, more intense regulation of the internet as a whole.

It is COMPLETELY unrelated to any of the spying shit. People who think this sets a precedent have no fucking idea what the legal definition of a precedent is. It's like looking at the EPA and the military, noticing the government runs both of them, and going "oh shit we need to shut down environmental regulations or some poor third world country will get invaded!'

What, you mean like Comcast forcing extorting millions of dollars out of Netflix so they'll stop throttling their customers?

Blow your fucking brains out already.

Cogent throttled Netflix, Cogent was their own business partner. Comcast was proven blameless in court, but the news media and John Oliver never told you that. That's why you bought into the big lie that the ISPs were so malicious that we needed the government regulators to save us from literal rape. You know so much that just isn't so, the root problem of brainwashed liberals.

I guess the government has no hand in regulating the ISPs, after all its COMPLETELY unrelated, like you said. You know what would be completely unrelated? A private organization without the force of law, that's what.

lol, nice source

I'll post sauce later and link to your post. For right now I have to go to work. You would already know this stuff if you had read any anti-net neutrality thread tho, newfag.

forbes.com/sites/larrydownes/2014/11/25/how-netflix-poisoned-the-net-neutrality-debate/#5a12481d42f8

Nice, now actually reply to what was said.

...

rekt

Are there any good ISPs in the United Steaks? I want to move soon and I want a decent internet provider who fights for my freedom.

XMission and Sonic off the top of my head

I really heard Bernie say that, what was he thinking?

On topic, as long as we have ISPs i the current form we are in grave danger. Just look at all those 3 strikes (for piracy and you are cut off) bills being pushed and you understand how much power the ISP has over you.

Aren't they based in Utah? Fuck that. I'll check ot Sanic.

ah yes convenient comcast still grubbied the money. Just how they ( publicly promised ) were supposed to upgrade to nationwide fios in 2005 then pocked the investment and pointed fingers at their underlings. Or how they're constantly trying to make competition illegal in certain states, thats the beauty of a free market ain't it? shame it's becomed regulated to avoid such disasters.

Fortunately for you kurisu the holygrail of free marketing is brewing, the TPP. How long do you have until posting copyrighted drawings of females result in legal strikes?

"Governments are evil because people are evil trying to steal my money by taxes and oburmuh care but corporations aren't evil because they're free private companies controlled by free people, free to do whatever necessary to profit". Pathetic how far lolbertarians will pander into their (our) own demise.

yet they knew it was happening..

"Government control" in the USA means the highest bidder (mainstream media) now owns your network connection to the outside world, not the ISP who operates and sells it to you.

He probably meant to say whites don't know what it's like to live in ghettos. Ghettos are racially segregated slums. Where poor whites live, they're usually not racially segregated.

Still sounds pretty damning fam.

Lobbying the government so that they impose monopolies is free market now? Are you legitimately retarded?

the guy you replied to is right. "free market" doesn't even exist, its a buzzword lapped up by capitalist dogs to promote privatization and wealth hoarding. The US economy is becoming similar to the crippled USSR, the government needs business to thrive on corruption not the otherway around.

If "corporatism" supposedly relied on Government intervention why would corps support free trade? fucking why? google could buy its own country and wave goodbye, libertarians can never refute this either. The TPP will allow companies, foreign nations and overlords to fuck us up the ass in a court of law. Monsanto is the leading head pulling the strings btw.

Take satellite cable for example, it dominates over flystates and white trash areas. Their internet speeds are a tier above dial up, generally cap out around 20GB and cost twice as much as 3Mb comcast deals. If comcast gets allowed to sue for damage to profit and throttle data they'll creep into the bumsville areas and force everybody to pay more for the same shitty deal.

Except that's not what happened. The FCC relaxed regulations and telecos immediately started looking for ways to fuck you in the ass. What happened now is that the FCC decided to use the old classification again. Stop lying, you lying fucker.

Except when you put money into a bank it's not hoard instead it's reinvested into loans and managed funds.

nice projection

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Nice job not disproving what I said. You know why? Because it's true, and you're a lying liar.

Pic related is what so many of you are willfully refusing to recognize.

this is the biggest irony of all. You give regulatory power to the government but there is no way that this could go wrong

You are replying to a real scaremongering tactic that was used extensively to push net neutrality. Are you having trouble coping with the truth?

top kek m8

You think that I will just roll over for a bunch of Holla Forumsirgins with no concept of the technology they shitpost on?

Enjoy Vivian James for anti-net neutrality

I have the facts to back up everything I say. What do Redditors and cuckchanners have? They have validation from John Oliver and Obama.

That's not an argument. The original post I responded to is a plain lie. Now you're trying to obfuscate the issue. Do you know why? Because you know you're a shill and a liar.

...

...

You are a useful idiot. You got played. Pic related.

...

NN gets pushed by Obama Administration astro-turf campaign on Reddit and John Oliver shills it for a few months straight. Uneducated masses buy it all, no questions asked.

most people knew that net neutrality was a scam, before the John Oliver's demagoguery that is

anyway, we all know where the net neutrality supporters came from

I hope your spam gets deleted again, last time that happened you sperged out so hard it was simply hilarious. Then again, what else can one expect from a namefag?

The board volunteer explicitly stated that he doesn't mind me spamming NN threads, so we have that

I guess that is enough for you plebs to ponder for now, it not like you actually know how to read or think for yourself or anything.

Expect the Kurisu

Man, this avatarfag shitting up the thread with his half-assed opinions is a real downer.

word my nigger, smh tbh

Shit you learn in Networking 101 invalidates and blows the fuck out of the ideals that are pushed by the likes of le current year man.

The real fucking problem is locally-granted monopolies. The "last mile" problem. That's where the shittiness in not just the internet, but all of modern telecom comes from.

Whatever. Net neutrality bullshit equality rules are just network damage. Network engineers compensate for damage. We're already devising ways around this hippie bullshit.

whatever you say user.

Great.

This is exactly what congress gave them the powers to do.
And these are exactly the regulations that ISPs were under prior to when Bush's FCC fucked them up.

ISPs are common carriers now.
Deal with it.

AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA
Kill yourself.

Legitimate question:

Why is forcing ISPs to act as common carriers and not give preferential treatment to certain packets a bad thing? How does this lead to greater government control.

I see a lot of 'kill yourself' and meme repetition but no cogent answer to the above.

Because these people have been brainwashed into thinking the government is the enemy, when it's literally the only thing keeping corporations from completely fucking us in the ass.

Yes the government is corrupt but would you rather have 50% corruption in government or 100% corruption in a corporation?

Legitimate question:

Why is forcing ISPs to act as common carriers and not give preferential treatment to certain packets a good thing?

Reminder that we had internet for years without NN and everything was great. Now you are starting so see regulatory capture and people going to jail for social media posts.

Legitimate question:

Why is reading so hard for you? Why do you rely on faggots like John Oliver for your opinions? Are you really as big a faggot as it appears from your post?

compelling to by force (government) is a greater evil than free association (private enterprise).

if you call a company corrupt, don't buy its products. If they are a monopoly, then maybe your government is the problem, not the solution?

>>>Holla Forums

no, everything was not great and still isn't great. slow ass internet, regional monopolies, copper wire erywhere, no fiber.
what do you mean?
thats not a result of the NN laws.

the rest of that post was just ad hominems, you have no intention of actually answering his question.

infoworld.com/article/2940538/internet/isps-do-throttle-traffic-and-the-fcc-cant-stop-it.html

Read this article from last year. You can't trust a corporation. If a corporation can figure out a way to squeeze more money out of its customers, it will.

Also, what the fuck is "regulatory capture"?
Also, what does social media have to do with this?
Also, why are you using Ad Hominem?

We need certain things to be enforced by force or else it won't happen. Like laws that protect you. For instance, dropping someone's healthcare coverage is technically "free association", but it can mean the difference between life and death. Or a government that hunts for and punishes poachers. Even if it's a "free enterprise" we as a society have agreed some animals shouldn't be killed willy-nilly.

Relying on corporations for everything is impractical and considering that corporations sue for the right to keep their regional monopolies ( see arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/isp-lobby-has-already-won-limits-on-public-broadband-in-20-states/ ) it's foolish to assume they will work for the betterment of us all.

The USA has the highest internet connectivity rating in the entire world. More of us as a percentage of the population are online than anywhere else, period. If you want to look at fiber speeds in a small European city as your benchmark, well that is you failing to be objective. Americans drive cars too, we commute long distances. Europeans can ride a bicycle to work, so what? The population density is much lower in the USA, and you aren't going to get a private company to install fiber in bum-fuck Alaska. Your argument is without measure, and therefore without merit.

Regulatory capture is a process of encroachment on your freedoms until they are eliminated by the use of progressive regulation. For example, in the USA you are now required by law to purchase a product: health insurance. This is an unconstitutional practice and totally at odds with freedom of the individual, but it was weaselled thru by calling it a tax, but not a tax, you can be fined if you don't comply, but it's a tax, trust us! Eminent Domain, the list is long and depressing, but basically "beware the government solution, always". If you like compulsory health care expenditure, that is your business, but it is "compulsory" and not allowing for freedom to opt out. Likewise, we now, thanks to the open internet order, have "Obama Internet", which is you and me being taxed to pay for other people's internet connection. I object to this theft of taxpayer funds to give internet service to illegal aliens and the like using my money.

Its a result of government regulation of online interactions, and by allowing the government to regualte the internet you absolutely create precedence for them to claim the authority to lock you up for your Facebook rants.

I don't. I also don't trust government.

You can't trust government user

Its a chan and the format is typically we insult eachother while posting dank memes. If you don't like it then Reddit may be more to your liking.

I think that the zoo should have shot the boy instead of the rare Gorilla. Lots of humans in the world, that animal was rare and valuable. See, we can agree on things.

FUCKING ANTISEMETIC ANIMEGIRL
:^)

The EU is slightly larger than the continental US and blows it the fuck away when considering internet connectivity rating as a whole
That's not how it works.
That's not how it works.

You lost, ISPs are common carriers.

No, that's due to the internet being necessary to acquire and keep some jobs. There are a lot of places out there now that only list jobs online, require you to apply online, and sometimes even require you maintain your time sheet online (a temp agency I previously worked for required this, it's matched up against a second one you fill out at work) or get your payslips over the internet. It only makes sense to make sure people who can't afford internet access now days can get online so they can more easily get a better job and get off of welfare.

That's not how the first amendment works you fucktard. Net neutrality in no way gives the government the ability to disregard the first amendment.

tell me more about how smart you are

Yurop: 10,390,000 km²
Continental US: 9,631,418 km²

Good job, dumbfuck.

Test

That had nothing to do with this new entitlement. We had Obama Phones for the last seven years but we only got Obama Internet after the Open Internet Order, because they were able to divert funds thanks to the new classification. Now it may seem all noble and good, but you are absolutely full of shit when you spout off about "the internet is necessart to aquire and keep some jobs" as the reason for this entitlement. Cry me a river about how unfair the world is user, and how we cannot live without 120MBps video streaming because its a work necessity.

if they want to try and strong-arm you into going all electronic, that is their right, but it isn't official government policy, big difference

I don't think that any of these entitlements are having that effect. We have had seven years of Obama and the workforce has shrunk while the population has increased. If these things worked like you imply then this shouldn't be happening, but is comrade.

The FCC under Obama has been pushing for all kinds of nefarious shit, not least of which is hate speech legislation and of course the fairness doctrine, which the supreme court ruled that the FCC can enforce, but does not require them to do so. The FCC has not enforced the fairness doctrine since 1987.

We don't use the metric system here lad
America 106.1 trillion ft²
European Union 46.55 trillion ft²

Using your retarded units of measure:

Sorry, I meant continental yurop. Even western yurop has better penetration and speeds on average than the US.
And yes, continental yurop is larger than the US.

'Merrica is better

apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-331958A1.pdf

...

lessgovernment.org/2015/02/#sthash.CCX31F4m.dpbs

Just go back to lynxchan, this is embarrassing.

Look, some European countries that are very small and population dense have state-subsidized internet and have spend huge sums to upgrade infrastructure in the last few years. Even so, America still ranks very well and relatively speaking you cannot compare a country with a population density like Japan with America and say that it is embarrassing for America. We do very well thank-you.

Population density (Number of people per square kilometer)
South Korea 517
Belgium 371
Japan 349
USA 35

I've always wondered how surveillance meshes with the ever increasing amounts of transmitted data, most of it encrypted.

Even if encrypted data are breakable, it's gotta be a massive pain in the ass to intercept, let alone store, so much data.

I've always had the inkling that the US willfully ignores the de facto monopolies of cable companies in an attempt to slow the geometric rate increase of transmitted data while shit's figured out.

I see, you're just retarded. Just like seemingly every anti net neutrality person I come across.

Why do you focus on the individual user? Who the fuck cares about some impoverished dumbass with 3 no-good kids?

The internet is a defacto utility for businesses because for many of them if the internet is down, that stops your business cold. Just like if electricity or water were down at say, your multi-million call center.

I still don't agree with the FCC's efforts because

But I don't see a positive way forward that benefits the involved parties
mostly because I'm an uninformed piece of shit

Im comparing continental yurop on average versus the us according to the reference on wikipedia.
You also ignore the fact that it took Google, a company who had never operated in the residential ISP business, to even attempt to bring residential to-the-curb fiber to little-big cities. And everywhere Google has gone they were dragged down in court by cocksuckers like AT&T because lack of common carrier regulations and they wouldn't let then use their poles.

ISPs are common carriers now
Deal with it

that is not an argument

I'm not a Yuropoor, I'm an American

I care, because we have to Make America Great Again. In order to do this we have to make the people great again. If the people have shit opinions, do doubt they will be shitty people. We need to retain what makes us great while rejecting the servile mindset of the European. A citizen is not a subject, these are two different ways of life.

Google went to Ireland to evade taxes too, I'm sure you look up to them but they suck

There are many things that need to be erased, and it will only happen when we stand up in opposition to the tyranny of unjust men

You're not even trying anymore, how pathetic.

faggot

So you got BTFO on population density, connectivity, ethics and so on and then you just say "I'm not even trying"? was a solid post bringing you some hard facts that you couldn't damage control, that's all. Better luck next time, nothing personal kid.

Trying to slip past me with MAGA.
For shame muh mate.

You should go back to the argument you had back in your previous post about speed per density, instead of ignoring my appeal to a business viewpoint.

Not having something akin to net neutrality can completely dick over businesses easily

However, net neutrality could also be abused

So again, and this time without getting MAGA-dodgy with me, how best to balance the possibility of getting bumfucked by private parties vs. the possibility of getting bumfucked by the government?

There is no balance with government solutions. This is a Red Herring if there ever was one. Government solutions always fail so the answer is aways more and more and more regulations. When you try to wake up you can't, its too late. So if you have any foresight you won't buy into this nobsense in the first place.

no

no more. just stop it with this "corporations are fucking us" bullshit. Mark Zukerberg and weathly liberals are fucking you, selling you the poison and then they try and sell you the cure. Wake up! Your liberties are being eroded everywhere you turn, but John Oliver told you that you were a good boy for supporting Reddit and the Obama Administration while the FCC makes a power-grab. You have more power as a free agent than a serf. You can negotiate a better deal with a private company. With a state-sponsored monopoly you lose, with government you lose.

The reality is that the wrong side won the American Civil War, the Federal Reserve is a private bank, there is a ton of shit that went wrong all along the way... but what we are talking about here is calling out the corruption of this process, this NN trap that ends with you being unable to log on without a government-issued ID. They are talking about it in the UK, this is all too real, and you gloat over some political hacks pushibg what is very obviously regulatory capture like you saved the internet. You didn't save anything, you just shot us all in the foot you stupid cuck! Fuck NN and fuck what it stands for, our enslavement to big brother.

You've never been anywhere in the southeast, have you?

Which is exactly why internet should be a utility. Expecting for-profit mechanisms to provide the quality of service that we actually want when it comes to the internet has proven to be foolishly naive.

The amount of shills in this thread deep throating teleco lobbyist think-tank-massaged propaganda is hilarious.

If Holla Forums wants to be a literal puppet, they should at least have the decency to cut a fucking hole.

Also ACA is a fucking retarded example because it is essentially mandatory corporate healthcare. In fact, large tracts of the law were written directly by insurance industry lobbyists. The ACA is only "progressive" in the sense that it extends coverage to people who previously didn't qualify for insurance, but you could make a compelling argument that it is functionally fascist. Nationalized healthcare is conclusively a cheaper and more reliable way to provide healthcare for people than private insurance.

And by the way, Eva a shit.

So many good goyims in this thread!

The government just wants to take away your freedom. Net Neutrality helps leftists destroy freedom of speech.

Lincoln tried freeing the blacks sure, did he succeed? Well... but he definitely sold all Americans out.

is so retarded, but it isn't cute retarded, how sad

fu fu fu fu

Lincoln never wanted to at the outset but he felt it was an effective tool to hurt the South and at the same time rally religious zealots in the North to advocate for him, at a time when he had failed to gain popular support. Press Gang Riots in NYC, etc. ... then a sudden moral crusade to motivate the reluctant! Worked for him but it helped ruin the country.

Repeal Net Neutrality!

INTERNET.ORG NOW!

This thread has enough cancer to cut a leg off tumblr.

The population density of the contiguous US is less than continental Europe but not a huge divide. Probably about 20 more people per square mile on average. Doesn't change the fact that the infrastructure blows the US away.
No one was btfo except for you, the thread with your damage control and babby tier "trolling" s fucking embarrassing.
You lost, ISPs are common carriers.

ok

The population density of the contiguous US is around 110/sq mi. Including Alaska would obviously inflate it because its a little over 1/4 the fucking size of the contiguous US while no one fucking lives there. You also ignore where there are populations in the US, it is relatively dense.

This is the second fucking time you've failed geography in the thread, of your own country no less. Typical amerifat.

Its the exact opposite, go away Holla Forums

He's not trolling, he's just legitimately this autistic. He spergs out constantly any time NN is even remotely brought up. I'm just waiting for him to get shit on by the vols again, then the real fun starts.

The date says "06/14/2016". He's just meming.

Wow you're fucking retarded. It's a variation of a Holla Forums meme that is *mocking* Holla Forumsacks that are saying Net Neutrality is an anti-freedom government power grab.

Yuropoor trash, even if you remove Alaska from the equation the population density in the USA is still a mere fraction of that in Europe, taking Belgium for example. Yet America is better off as seen in the pic in which is why I posted pic , which is not confined to the USA, the level of retardation common in western countries today, of which your slobbering left-wing fanaticism is a prime example.

No, it's not. Density of continental Europe is around 130. Density of contiguous US is around 115.
You lost.

Holy shit, the shill is still going at it?

Nice sources cuck. BTW, I compared Belgium to the USA and have easily reproducible info. You don't get to make stuff up and be taken seriously.

Going to go eat chicken tendies, check you later faggot

...

I want to sniff Kurisu's butthole tbh.

Net neutrality was never a victory.
Go to EU or china, both povides better ISP than murica.
Murica still throttles shit and you can't even get past a terabyte a month unless you're paying premium goyim or a on a uni/biz shit.
And for god's sake you can't even forward ports and do torrent. UDP shit is severely firewalled too.

LUL
Yeah. Like you can stop a criminal from doing crimes because the laws have "harsh" punishment/penalties?
Did you know it never matters even If someone finds out about it? If you don't have a valid/solid evidence they're as innocent as can be. Same goes for the NSA. Even if you have snowden leaking shit its snowden who's gonna get whipped in the end because that's how every court works not including secret courts :^). Meanwhile internet CP laws can get anyone even an upstanding politician vanned even if they're just planted evidence.
I'll only start believing in net neutrality once the US internet becomes as cheap and unlimited as HK and EU.
Fun fact? Enjoy your gigabit LAN datacapped to 15GB/mo or your 4G LTE with 1GB datacap (tm). I can fucking vaporize that data allotment in a matter of seconds. LUL
Lol use TLS 2.0 or something.

I really like this meme.
I can't find my old kurisu -net neutrality collection but anyways thanks for posting!

Glad to see that you finally stepped up your game. RMS has never been wrong about anything except for this one instance. I'll be meeting with him in person to discuss this further, where I hope to change his mind.

Yeah there are plenty. WOW! is great. No caps, no throttling, good prices.

I'm sorry fam but I need some sort of pics right now.

Am I reading this correctly?

Whatever you say user.

Yes, but now that ISPs are common carriers they won't have that problem.

This has been the law since the late 90s. These were practically the regulations until Bush fucked shit up. Law and regulations are different. The law gives the FCC the authority to regulate ISPs like this.
You are retarded.

Your bait is getting stale and desperate.

Saint IGNUcius-sama would never meet with trash like you.

You are honestly a worse shitposter than IN elite. I hope your house burns down.

Whats next Australia is a utopia for the net? take a lap.

facts to back that up my totally not retarded amigo?

>These were practically the regulations
whatever you say user.

Sure thing, you retarded facefucking faggot:
In the united states, communication networks have always been under the wing of "common carriage."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934
The act that codified the distinction between "content" and "carriage", distinguishing between telecommunication services and information services, was
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
Both were subject to provisions under Title II of the Communications Act.

It was not until 2002, that Bush's FCC started regulating cable ISPs under information services, which meant that ISPs were not subject to the common carrier provisions under Title II.

Now, law and regulations, since apparently you failed civics 101:
Law in this context: the framework given to the FCC by the legislative branch to apply.
Regulations in this context: the details hammered out by the specialized executive agency persuant to the framework that they were given by congress.

The FCC's right to reclassify is not something new. Applying common carrier provisions by reclassifying something is not setting a precedent.

Do you want to continue this argument or are you going to concede that you are a fucking retard?

And, it needs to be said, that even if you somehow think reclassification is somehow setting a "precedent," the precedent was already set back in 2002 when ISPs were reclassified to "information services."

So, really, you can't have it both ways. There is no precedent being set, and the executive agency of the FCC is working exactly as Congress intended it to work through legislation they passed.
Furthermore, the very topic of the thread is the judicial branch affirming this.

And if the legislative doesn't like it, they can pass another law.

This has been a lesson in high school civics. Thank you for your time.

The internet is a little more than a communication hub. It's a stretch to say that it was ever a "common carriage". You're using a law that did not relate to the internet and bootstrapping it by saying "well the internet was always for communication so it was defacto a common carrier".

The fact you still assert none of what you're saying or what this new FCC regulation has put into effect is a precedent shows some serious doublethink, frankly.

For the record
>merriam-webster.com/dictionary/precedent

Also calling someone a name a bunch of times doesn't automatically make you right, chum.

Oh, and you just admitted it was a precedent. So thanks for that.

Let's assume for a second that it was a precedent way back when. Well then it's still a precedent today too, right? It's a direct derivative of a past precedent, which is actually a precedent in itself. That a precedent will spawn more precedents. But we're getting a little meta here.

_Communications networks_ were always under the wing of common carriage.
It wasn't until 96 that congress sought to differentiate "content" and "carriage," and even then ISPs were regulated under some Title II provisions.

It's not a precedent, because the executive agency has always been able to reclassify. That's how their executive agency works. They classify shit, and regulate it with the details they hammer out.

Implying that reclassification is somehow setting a precedent shows you don't really understand what any of this is.

Yes it is. It is in the dictionary.

Oh, an PS:
>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier
If they were already under title II and didn't need to be regulated the same way why did they need to include it as a common carrier?

Further, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 included the internet, and then the FCC made it a common carrier. Until all of this happened, the internet was included in neither. The telco act of 1996 actually created the FCC which then made the internet a common carrier. Showing a clear relationship between the bill and later legislation.

One set the precedent for the other and so on.

So apparently I need to differentiate between "new precedent" and "existing precedent" because you are a fucking retard.

A precedent in this context would be a _new precedent_: the executive agency operating outside of the framework given to them by congress and the judicial affirming their ability to do that.
The judicial rejected their attempt to enforce network neutrality outside of the framework that the legislative had provided them.
The ability for FCC to classify and reclassify is literally law. It's how the executive agency functions. And the judicial has affirmed this. The ability for the FCC to classify is not _new precedent_, it is _existing precedent_.
If it were somehow _new precedent_, the reclassification in 2002 would also be something you could complain about.
But it's not. The executive agency is working as intended by the framework they were given, and this was affirmed by the judicial.
If the legislative doesn't like it, they can pass another law.

Apparently you can't fucking read, or are even stupider than I thought.
ISPs were reclassified as "information services" in 2002 under Bush's FCC, much like in 2015 Obama's FCC reclassified ISP.

lol
Nigger the FCC was formed by the Communications Act of 1934
You are seriously fucking stupid.

Oh, yeah. I didn't read it properly.

Actually you don't because both are still precedents. You're attempting to invalidate what I said which was that it was a precedent by pulling a variant of the no true scotsman.

Precedent is still a precedent is still a precedent.

You know what. I haven't been reading what you said. What you've been saying is actually pretty reasonable. So I think I will concede I am wrong and argued poorly. I think given a new context I could have proven my point but I poisoned the waters by having too poor an argument.

I still don't see where you've disproved me. All you're saying is that because the precedent existed in the past it can't spawn more precedents, which is just silly. But I will bow out now.

>inb4 u r retarded
an argument argued poorly is not an argument that is wrong

It's clear what was implied by "precedent" was a "new precedent" i.e. FCC overstepping their authority having it affirmed.
Which is not the case.

What you said doesn't matter, what the other poster was implying does.

You're simply splitting hairs at this point.

It would be, if what were being implied in the above thread had to do with the technical definition of a "precedent." But it didn't, it had to do with some retard pulling out a legal term he doesn't fully understand and imply that the FCC was overstepping their authority.

The fact is, none of this is a new precedent. The FCC is well within what they're supposed to do by congress.

ISPs are common carriers.

And, the retard in this context is

The fact is, none of this has to do with regulation of the internet as a whole.
The only real _new precedent_ out any of this is the selective application of Title II provisions, which the judicial didn't seem to have a problem with. If the legislative has a problem with selective application of legislation from the fucking 1930s, in effect modernizing it (so they don't have to apply the stupidest provisions in Title II to ISPs), they can pass law that tells the executive what to do.

And by "regulation of the internet as a whole" the poster is obviously implying regulation of speech.

Just another retarded "OBAMA GUNNA TAKE OBER DA INTERNET" talking point from the former Verizon lawyer/lobbyist shill: Commissioner Ajit Pai, where none of the stupid shit he claimed was going to happen passes the smell test.

...

[Citations not given]

Kill yourself

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Property?

...

Public Service Reminder: autists feed off attention. Starve them to win.

...

Nice John Oliver thread on Holla Forums right now bros... you might learn something about the faggot who shilled Net Neutrality to the masses.

...

You might want to add John Oliver is also inbred, his mom is also his aunt

Really? Its just like in my anime...

-----BEGIN PUBLIC KEY-----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-----END PUBLIC KEY-----

be warned 7.41.23.81 is here.