This summer, the EU decides on net neutrality. If we lose...

cancer will always find a way to spread

EU is USSR 2 so its gonna happen they already have re education camps and gotta stop those anti Muslim attack articles so.

...

Lies. First, they already have this "power", and second, they don't use it, because it would be suicide for business.

(((Net Neutrality))) is just another excuse to give more power to central regulatory bodies run at the behest of special interests. It's going to ruin the internet.

Also, stop calling it Net Neutrality. Net Slavery is a more accurate term.

good, they are the #3 cancer that is destroying Holla Forums

AGAIN?

...

FUCK OFF BACK TO YOUR CANCEROUS THREAD

Those threads weren't even made by a Brit, it was a Chilean/Azhkenazi mix - you read that right.

Support (((Net Neutrality))) goys, I mean, guys, anyone who argues against it is clearly a Jewish shill, unlike myself.

Brit/pol/ threads are still full of racemixers, traitors, traps and cucks.

even aussies make more quality posts than the brits; how the fuck did they get like that?

Civic Nationalism is the cancer. National-Socialism is the answer.

Can you even imagine how much money they could extort from companies like google, amazon and netflix?
The move in germany first came from the german branch of Telecom. That was quickly shut down because it would have been illegal and it was a pretty big scandal.
Why did Telecome want that? Because they earn nothing with people who stream terabytes of data through youtube, netflix, amazon prime and so on. Flatrates were awesome for ISPs because hardly anyone used a lot of bandwidth but with 1080p streaming everywhere more users get ranked up to "power users" and those cost the ISPs money, especially because ISPs in central europe don't want to expand the network and the current network is already shit. It's maximizing profit with minimal effort.
They of course claim that the money earned through the premiums they would extort would be put into expanding the network but that's bullshit. It simply would be free money for them.

If it sounds like a horse, don't look for a zebra. And this sounds like the usual dirty money grabbing big corporate lobbyist result. Of course in the second stage it could be used for intelligence agency purposes since you would have to build a system with deep package inspection to make a network without net neutrality work.

Most of those threads were reaching post limit.
There will always be trolls making cuck brit threads and there will always be retards posting in them even to sage.
Also, they were made around Brexit, an event that will not repeat itself in history.

What's your alternative, them migrating to their own board?
We'd loose a lot of users and PPH and I'm ok with them staying in their cointainment boards while keeping is in #1.

/thread

Are you arsemad Yanks or people who genuinely believe what ironic-shitposters spew?

Net Neutrality means that the government steps in to make sure ISPs provide equal access to websites. Otherwise, say reddit pays verizon to give it a better connection and Holla Forums doesn't. Loading up Holla Forums takes 15 minutes while reddit takes .015 microseconds. Guess where you're going to go for your politics discussions. Also ISPs could outright block these websites or charge a customer extra to access them.

The ISPs own the connections, they can do whatever they want with them. There are no regulations stating they have to give unfettered, equal access to the internet. Comcast's (((CEO))) could hear that Holla Forums is anti-semitic and either throttle the bandwidth allowed to the site or block it altogether.

On the flip side, allowing the government to get involved with vague, broad powers to control internet access could basically lead to the same scenario.

Your choice is to either get fucked over by greedy ISPs who go too far to make more money or get fucked over by the government who goes too far to regulate the ISPs based on their definition of "equal access".

They do use it. Most ISPs throttle torrent traffic as well as customers who use "excessive" amounts of bandwidth. That's what started the push for net neutrality.

The US ISPs are particularly interested in broadening this power because in most locations there is only one option for broadband internet service. They do not have to worry about customers switching to another provider if they're unhappy with the service because there are no other providers to choose from.

Extort? The giants will gladly throw the ISPs a some cash knowing that their startup competitors can't afford to. All giants love barriers to entry.

Also
Aussies visit Brit/pol/ they are Brits. Dimwit.

because they are cucked beyond redemption.

Here is a breakdown of their users
-Homosexual tripfags ("SA", "TPPW") 10%
-Civic "Nationalists" (racemixers) 30%
-Fat Autistic NEETs (morbidly obese) 50%
-Bomber Harris/Dresden spammers 10%

they should all fuck off to /politics/

KILL YOURSELF

I'm content with pissing off fat Yanks actually.

I'm not american

...

This

Nah. Netflix, google, amazon, they have nothing to fear, really. For them it will be extra cost. Youtube especially already is in conflict with the german copyright holders, that's why a lot of music is blocked in youtube germany. GEMA (our version of a major copyright holder many international lables) wanted to extort money from google, they were supposed to pay for the rights and the amount of money they wanted was simply not rational at all. So they simply blocked all the videos for german audience. There is a smaller video network in germany that did comply but nobody uses it, it's pretty much dead.

But yes, in general you are correct, this hurts startups a lot.

...

But the ISPs haven't been fucking people over like that.

15 minutes to load a page? This is like those leftist horror stories that concealed carry will turn American into the old west. It's retarded.

If a business with a regional monopoly starts fucking its customers over, it vastly increases the incentive for another provider to expand into that region.

There's a reason ISPs aren't pulling any of the shit you've described. They don't block websites for being "anti-semitic", it doesn't take 15 minutes to load Holla Forums. These are boogeymen.

Only throttling torrents is a real complaint. In which case a specific law to forbid that action would be all that's needed, if you want to solve this problem using law.

Torrent throttling has more to do with curtailing file-sharing than anything else.

Meanwhile, Net Slavery gives corrupt special interests the ability to rig the ISP market for their own benefit. It's legalized oligopoly.

no.
yes.

'net neutrality' a shit. a misnomer too, like 'equal marriage' or 'fair trade'.

no, they're shit just like the rest of the eu. worse than scotus even. far worse.

You don't know what extortion is.

As to ISPs charging Amazon, Google, Netflix, etc, why is that a bad thing? Why should the streamers make all the profits and the ISPs bear all the burder? Why should that be the absolute law of the land?

How do you figure?

Do you even know what net neutrality is, fucking kike? Net neutrality is a good thing, unless you want them to be able to limit the traffic to Holla Forums to 1 bit/s. The problem with such laws are the sheer bullshit they stick to it, which has nothing to do with net neutrality. I expect more censorship.

reminds me of 'equal pay' for women, at the expense of the productive gender.

No it's not dumbass.

Everything NN claims to fix, isn't a fucking problem. Service providers aren't throttling any sites to unusable speeds. There may be some governing of priority traffic, but we have no evidence to suggest they are doing a bad job, or being corrupt.

You are basically suggesting we nationalize the production of food, because otherwise Kemps and Green Giant might price gouge us and we will all die of starvation.

It's equally as dumb, because there is just as much evidence that such a conspiracy exists, as there is with throttling undesirable sites.

It doesn't happen. We have no evidence to suggest it's going to happen. The idea of it happening is opposed to what should theoretically happen in a free market. There are simply some really unintelligent people saying that they think it might possibly happen, so we need daddy government to come in and just fuck our shit up for us fam, just in case.

The worst thing about the holocaust is the fact you're not allowed to speak about the holocaust.

Because that's how you corner the market, build a pseudo monopoly. You build paywalls for startups, hardly any internet business runs a profit in the first few years. That means you would probably not be able to pay for the "fast road", meaning even if you have a good product you have either to raise the price a lot to pay for the extra cost or you run at cripple speed and you'll never grow. Both is bad for competition.

Because the content provider already pay for the traffic to their ISP. Servers are not for free. And it's simply the job of the ISP. If they have shitty price calculations for their flatrates, that's their fault but that doesn't seem to be the problem. Countless small time ISP's build their own networks that are faster and cheaper than the big ones, but they are usually more local so not everyone has access to them.

Okay, here I have to admit that my knowledge is a bit poor. But to have a fast track and a slow track you need to look at what is actually going through your pipes. You have to look at the traffic to see if it should be throttled or not. But it has been too long since I read up on that shit so I don't remember everything.
Point is, as soon as you look at the traffic you can also back it up. You already have the infrastructure for taking personal data, how much traffic of user X went to pornhub, what websites did he visit and so on. And if you have this data intelligence agencies want it. We have seen that with prism and the Snowden leaks. This would be just a easier way.

...

An ISP would have to be retarded to do this for startups. Why would they do this? Startups drive traffic, the more cites and services people want access to, the more they're willing to pay the price the ISPs offer.

Why would they do this? Corporate ISPs aren't controlled by lobbyists by congress. They're owned by shareholders, controlled by boards of directors.

There's no incentive for this behavior. It's a baseless fear.

No. Job implies you work for someone. ISPs are service providers, not employees. They own what they own, and they grant you access to it as they will. If they want to charge Amazon an extra fee, for bearing the burden of all that Amazon Prime bandwidth, they're free to do that.

What's wrong with that? The post office charges more for heavier packages than lighter ones. So rich people have an easier time sending heavier packages than do poor people. So what? It's inequality, it's a fact of life.

Alternatively, ISPs could also just raise the price on their flat rates.

I see we have a Sanders support in our midst.

Literally the only argument against American net-neutrality was that Obama was for it.

Under such a regime, there is nothing stopping them from taking sites like Holla Forums, or any other redpilling platform, and throttling them out of existence.

Once the internet isn't considered a utility, and the jew-owned companies set their own bandwidth policies, OF COURSE they're going to say, "We're going to throttle sites that peddle 'hate speech'"

Watch carefully as every shill either ignores this post or responds with a non-argument.

Oh, to be a child again.

da joos

lolberterian please

actually, retard, loads of actual arguments have already been posted itt. thank god the eu won't last very long despite idiots like you.

keep them contained

this ruling will damage the entire site, not specific threads.

You're fucked. Try leaving the EU first.

Why would a libertarian want to give the internet government the power to fuck up with business they don't like just because they own muh data roads.

...

Net neutrality says that all LEGAL content must be treated equally. Illegal content (hate speech supporting sites) can then legally be subjugated by ISPs. Which is the real purpose of net neutrality.

They can already throw you into jail in most of EU for hate speech or whatever they don't like, you have that freedom in burgerland thanks to a regulation that enforces free speech (inb4 muh god given).

This isn't about jailing people, this is about regulating discussion. If you're not a safe space, ISPs don't have any obligation to serve your content. SJWs will attack your company if you do, and further laws will be made fining ISPs that serve illegal content.

This.

Anyone here knows how the Federal Reserve and FDA were created? Anyone?
Hint : IT'S EXACTLY LIKE THAT. THEY USE THE BIGGEST FIRMS TO FEARMONGER AND PROCEED TO CREATE A CENTRAL ENTITY TO (((HELP))) WITH THE ISSUE

And before the ink is wet, the newly created entity proceeds to make backdoors with industry giants and fuck the customer even more.

Lolbergs please. Governments when ran by shit peoplle are shit but your free markwtvIS ALWAYS kike shir

You free market*

Bloody phone

I don't understand why Holla Forumsacks find NN controversial.

Let's suppose we start clean because people judge by the name, take your pick:

The latter will probably kill off anonymous boards like this one. This is not net neutrality, the former is.

Do you want to decide for yourself what you want to see, or let others decide for you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

You think (((they))) have any qualms about telling the gullible cattle one thing and doing the exact opposite?

Not an argument.

Just another power grab by the (((EU))). Go home Stefan, you're drunk and your mother touched you down there

Do you want private entities controlling your internet, or the government preventing it?

Sorry correction: controlling what you can and can't access.

Did you read this?

Gov and EU censors the internet all the time, but why would a private company give a fuck? They save their own asses from DMCA- and cp related stuff due to threats from the government, and the worst that could happen here would be that they would be forced to block "hate speech" for the same reasons. If the EU gained more control over internet access it would block anything racist, anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynistic etc in the blink of an eye.

The thing is, net neutrality is not about controlling the internet, it's exactly the opposite. It prevents anyone from controlling it.

You have a point about gov interfering (censoring "hate speech"), and I'm against that as well, however, attacking net neutrality won't make this go away.

Comcast has been doing shady business with netflix afaik, so there's probably some economic incentive.

And you're calling brit/pol/ d&c?

Good, let them take the internet.
Where we're going, we don't need the internet.
OK, BYE

they must mean
neutered

your argument sucks

Shadowland BBS when?

???

Communist please