Net neutrality

Do faggots realize if all net neutrality rules get repealed it will allow ISPs to block VPNs and Tor? Also the 2005 rules are next on Pajeet's chopping table.

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223
eff.org/sites/all/libraries/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https://www.eff.org/files/2017/07/17/comments_of_internet_engineersfcc_nn.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=oB3bfrmfT-I
youtube.com/watch?v=1XUeMP6UIZc&t=231s
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

do faggots realize none of their fear mongering came true before "net neutrality?"
Do faggots realize Obama's "net neutrality" isn't really net neutrality?

You're talking to people who unironically believe the following three things:

You might as well be trying to explain quantum physics to a retarded 5 year old.

nobody's against net neutrality. We're against the way king nigger went about enforcing it.

Atleast you don't have to pay extra for certain websites due to Obama's net neutrality

...

Congratulations. You've swallowed conservative talking points straight from the media and made them your own because the alternative is the horrifying nightmare of accepting that Daddy Trump doesn't piss rainbows and shit gold.
You'd rather have no net neutrality than a version of net neutrality which is "bad" in some ill-defined way.

...

You never had to before.

Obama classified the internet as a telecommunications service. Here's just one example of what that implies:
law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/223

fucking retard

...

...

Then why go after net neutrality rather than going after shitty laws like that? Also, for all the talk of "scaremongering", has anyone actually been prosecuted under that law?
It's pretty clear to anyone with half a brain that he isn't doing this to protect anons from being prosecuted for posting porn. Follow the money and you'll see exactly who he's working for.

he's not going after net neutrality you moron. That's literally my point.

...

No. You're simply wrong. There aren't any other rules which prevent telecoms companies from making deals with other companies to restrict your internet access. The FTC rules only prevent the most extreme abuses such as literal monopolies and price fixing (and even then, they're very weakly enforced).

How can you sincerely believe that someone who forged hundreds of thousands of fake comments in order to suppress public opposition to his plans is actually working for the benefit of the public?
You're as bad as the fucking Democrats who watched Hillary rig the vote and then kept insisting she was going to stamp out corruption and work for the public.

...

Ajit is an honarary aryan

Look, man. I'm not defending Ajit or Trump. But you are either very dishonest or incredibly dumb if you think Obama's "net neutrality" is the net neutrality anyone wanted.

If (and that's a big IF) anything goes wrong from this there will be public support for actual net neutrality that's not integrated in an older law. The internet should be its own service with its own laws.

They are
They do
No

The only thing Hitler did wrong was losing to Stalin.

you don't even try to hide it anymore, huh.

Don't take my word for it.
Read the comments of the engineers and scientists who build the infrastructure of the internet. They understand this shit far better than either of us.
eff.org/sites/all/libraries/pdf.js/web/viewer.html?file=https://www.eff.org/files/2017/07/17/comments_of_internet_engineersfcc_nn.pdf

(I would upload the PDF here, but Holla Forums won't let me)

Do you realize (((they))) are going to go after the voluntary 2005 net neutrality rules next? The whole reason the 2015 rules took place is because ISPs were throttling speeds of services they didn't like. Obummers net neutrality rules were a thing because ISPs were caught throttling websites red handed, shill.

why contain it?
internet will be so much better without the 56%.
imagine the Chans without Americans

4 more days until the day of the salt

It's true, a part of me is looking forward to all the fucking phone posters and normalfags from America discovering they can't afford to pay for the "universal" package from their ISP. They'll just have to go back to facebook where they belong.

I'm American, I don't share your sentiment. Also you don't think other countries will follow suit? Don't make me laugh.

It won't be immediate. Expect the ISPs to slow-boil their customers over a period of a few years, gradually introducing more and more ridiculous pricing structures.

Unironically kill yourself.

imagine for a moment that you are fucking that

...

The least confusing exposé on net neutrality I have seen yet:
youtube.com/watch?v=oB3bfrmfT-I

t. kike lover

For the faggots who were claiming that ISPs had never abused their powers before net neutrality was implemented, skip to page 33.

Pretty solid argument.

Nothing is going to happen

tele, meaning with a distant place, and communications, meaning communications
wew

Why are anons defending the freedoms of ISPs to dick you over?

Net Neutrality prevents companies from restricting their services. It means that ISPs have to provide their customers with a decent connection regardless of the site the customer wants to connect to.

Even if I was to ignore the fact that companies can change their minds, develop new business models, and take advantage of shifts in consumer sentiment to fuck us over in ways that they might not have before Obama introduced Net Neutrality, what are YOU gaining from Net Neutrality being repealed?

youtube.com/watch?v=1XUeMP6UIZc&t=231s

to better serve the consumer, industry and government both want to run a fat fibre cable into every american home and connect it to all and everything. repealing nn will encourage the public to welcome this infrastructure upgrade and pay for it.

ISPs are allowed to do that now.
They don't, because their gov funding would get cut and because they would lose customers, but there is no law requiring them to allow VPNs/Tor.
Further, assuming that the NN laws are repealed, they would not stop allowing them for the same reason. Because if they did, their competition would pick up the slack and they would make less and less money until their bloated business model with razor thin margins went belly up. You are underestimating corporate greed, OP.
What is more, if all the major ISPs did agree to stop allowing VPN/Tor use, people who rely on them would move to smaller, private ISPs. If the government flat out made VPN/Tor use illegal, users would either do it anyway, or find /create new alternatives that were not illegal. Because that is the nature of people and the nature of the fundamental structure of the internet. Neither can be enslaved except by choice.

Read the fine print. That "fat fibre cable" comes with a two-way surveillance system which they control (not you) on the end of it. And if you live in a rural/remote area you don't get one anyway unless the gov has important business to take over in your area.

The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away.

I would like to offer my tiny meat to paneer.

okay, then i give my money to another provider. better than hoping the government will act in my best interest

You do realize that there are large areas of America which are only served by a single ISP, right?

This

I got a solution

no not this
you don't understand how the internet works at all. the retail end of comcast and verizon is only part of the industry. nn concerns every tier of isp, from backbone to host.

the only hole is the last mile. have you any idea of the costs of digging trenches to lay cable in america?

Fc/z2134-14@+FSF+