Net Neutrality Proven Titanically Stupid By Net Neutrality’s Proponents

Network Neutrality has for more than a decade been all the rage on the Left. Emphasis - as is always the case with the Left - on rage. Especially so now, as the Donald Trump Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is in the process of rolling back said power grab - along with the equally ridiculous imposition on the Web of 1934 Title II landline telephone law. All imposed just two years ago by the Barack Obama Administration’s FCC.
Net Neutrality is the titanically stupid insistence that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) treat each and every thing on the Internet exactly the same. For instance, emails from Nigerian princes - deserve equal access to you as does a doctor performing your remote, online Lasik eye surgery. If that causes your surgeon’s connection to buffer and stall - well that’s just too bad. You didn’t want to read those Nigerian prince emails anyway.

We less government types find Net Neutrality and Title II to be titanically stupid for at least two reasons. It is antithetical to the Constitution and to even a rudimentary understanding of economics. Constitution: Net Neutrality is a blatant assault on at least the First and Fourth Amendments. First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The ISPs have spent more than $1 trillion building their networks. They are thus their networks. They can assemble said networks any way they wish (First Amendment) - completely free from government interference or imposition.

Net Neutrality is the government mandating how ISPs will assemble people upon their networks. A First Amendment no bueno. And certainly with the Title II imposition, the government is executing a massive, unreasonable, unwarranted seizure of ISPs $1+ trillion worth of private property. A Fourth Amendment no bueno. Economics: Net Neutrality bans all sorts of normal business practices in which every other business on the planet engages all the time. The government Post Office charges you different prices for different speeds of delivery. But Net Neutrality is the government - prohibiting ISPs from charging different prices for different speeds of delivery. No hypocrisy there.

And, of course, businesses everywhere charge different prices for differentiated levels of service. And, of course, you would very much like your eye surgeon to be able to purchase a faster, dedicated, uninterruptible Web connection in preparation for his taking a laser to your optical orbs. Net Neutrality is simply bizarre, anti-Reality policy. And, of course, every single Net Neutrality advocate engages in exactly the sort of business practices and avails himself of the exact same Constitutional freedoms - which he wants to have the government ban for ISPs.

Other urls found in this thread:

web.archive.org/web/20170829040249/https://townhall.com/columnists/setonmotley/2017/08/28/net-neutrality-proven-titanically-stupid-by-net-neutralitys-proponents-n2374192
youtube.com/watch?v=eM4J7ljCExM
ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/DOC-578d579d1f000000-A.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Online retail titan Amazon is a huge Net Neutrality proponent. Let’s leave aside the crony fact that they use a ton of bandwidth - and Net Neutrality prohibits ISPs from charging them for it. When you order products from Amazon you can choose at least three different delivery speeds, which the Net Neutrality they champion prohibits ISPs from doing. Web domain giant GoDaddy is a huge Net Neutrality proponent. They cancelled the domain name of a white supremacist website. I.e., GoDaddy is assembling their private business exactly the way they wish - completely free from government interference or imposition, which the Net Neutrality they champion prohibits ISPs from doing. Google is the king of the Internet. They are a nearly $1 trillion business - all by their onesies. Three-quarters of all U.S. Internet searches are conducted through Google. Like Amazon, Google too crony benefits from Net Neutrality’s ban on ISPs charging them for their massive bandwidth consumption. Like GoDaddy, Google banned the same white supremacist domain name when it was registered with Google. This is Google, like GoDaddy, assembling their private business any way they wish - completely free from government interference or imposition, which the Net Neutrality they champion prohibits ISPs from doing.

Google also recently fired engineer James Damore after Damore’s private memo about Google’s diversity (or lack thereof) was leaked to the public. Google is perfectly within their rights to do this. As they continue to work to assemble their private business any way they wish - completely free from government interference or imposition. But the Net Neutrality they champion prohibits ISPs from doing exactly the same thing. Net Neutrality is titanically stupid policy. In no small part because it clearly violates the Constitution - and the very basic laws of very basic economics. All of which explains why the Left are such huge fans thereof.

web.archive.org/web/20170829040249/https://townhall.com/columnists/setonmotley/2017/08/28/net-neutrality-proven-titanically-stupid-by-net-neutralitys-proponents-n2374192

Maybe they can rework net neutrality so internet companies like facebook, google, etc will have to follow the same rules as the ISP's. That seems only fair.

ARE YOU BLITHERINGLY RETARDED user? ARE YOU?

No one even knows what net neutrality means anymore so arguing about it is pointless but that column is power shilling.

Net neutrality had no business ever becoming a partisan issue. There's nothing "Left" or "Right" about it, it's simply common sense. Fuck yourself with a rake.

NO REGULATION OF INTERNET.
INTERNET WORKS, DON'T FIX IT.

This really. Watch how quickly those companies flip and suddenly hate NN.

Incoherent nonsense.

Not any more, now censorship is running rife and the internet is soon to fracture. It's only been stable so long because nerds understood the importance of impartiality, but now upper management wants to virtue signal so it's all fucked.

Stfu fascist scum.
use a tripfag so I can filter and report you next time

>>>/reddipol/

Why can't Holla Forumsyps stay in their containment board?

Because commies can't stay in their own.

My biggest issue is it will likely be used to regulate the internet further when it's repealed, resulting in a corporatist shitfest rather than an actual internet market.

Lel, you actually have to pay money to see that monument to help pay for the upkeep. Imagine that, a Marx statue is funded privately

...

Why is it that commies love to suck a big company's dick once it says/does something they like?

Reminder this thread is about to be raided by freetards

Reminder there is no "competition" within an ISP monopoly

Reminder mongoloids fearmongering about "government censorship" haven't researched Net Neutrality and are regurgitating bullshit from Breitbart.
( ask them why Obongo never "shutdown" the net that influenced the election, poltards will be stunned )

•No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
•No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
•No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates.

It is sane to be alarmed by the FCC? of course. But the "rules" of NN aren't what regulates radio and television. Which was dictated by moralist conservatives back in the day btw :^)

Mmmmm yes please cap my data in half every year, raise prices and throttle my speeds! oh how generous Comcast is! how could I not think of the poor corporations?!? I deserve to be fucked in the ass for being a good goy customer.

Did a neo-liberal/neocon write this garbage?

Blatantly false. The government co-funded their fiber cable infrastructure and individual States have laws strictly prohibiting competition allowing ISPs to grossly overprice poor service since the late 90s.

It will expose ISPs for refusing to upgrade their infrastructure and catch up with the rest of the world in speeds. Comcast and Verizon could've avoided this by not treating their customers like shit. Net Neutrality is the only consumer leverage over a corrupt monopoly. If their anti-free market system never spawned neither would the need for an open internet intervention.


This
Removing it will cause a vacuum ISPs will jump on to censor us. I find it funny Holla Forums chimped out when ICANN ( a "private company") left the US jurisdiction but wants ISPs to have more power, lol.


also this

...

Net Neutrality is communism planted by Obama and soros, ISPs should be allowed to price gouge and regulate content.

What part of PRIVATE business do retards not understand? internet is a privilege and it'd be better off without poorfags ruining it.

ICANN followed US laws before becoming an international corporate whipping post for the EU and UN to censor websites.

Try again kike.

Yes, because the UN is part of the American government. Right? What could possibly go wrong.


Back to facebook you go.

Literally arguing that some websites are more important than others and should have priority, which anyone with an agenda will immediately interpret as "wronthink websites don't deserve any bandwidth".

HITLER FORCED NET NEUTRALITY
STALIN FORCED NET NEUTRALITY
MAO FORCED NET NEUTRALITY

Coincidence?

SAY NO TO GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF THE FREE MARKET

NN is about Amazon and Netflix not wanting to be held accountable by ISPs for their massive bandwidth usage.

That's the best argument FOR net neutrality at this point, where ICANN as a system worked for years because the US govt. was constrained by the 1st. I used to be against NN, but now that it looks like the entire system is about to come crashing down because retard SJWs have taken over and have transitively gained a monopoly status I've changed my mind. Fuck it, expand NN, it can't be any worse than what we're looking at happening in the near future.

ISPs should charge Amazon and Netflix then. Not fuck customers over because someone took advantage of "unlimited" data.

Go back to leftypol

Rude, I'm a Natsoc.

Look at the irrational responses to this post. All fuelled by emotion. "You don't Luke NN? FUCK YOU!"

embarrassing

Fuck off kike. I've had enough of corporatist abuse.

...

...

I like how you came in strutting your ass with no argument of your own.

I didn't need one. There's been nothing to refute, OP's post is right on the money.

More government is demonstably a bad thing, no matter the context.

These companies are not public utilities. An ISP is very much a public utility.

...

They're essentially at that level. They are monopolies, and they have way too much power. We do not have a free market system with regards to them, thus they should be termed utilities and regulated as such.

Fuck off comcast.

This thread is nothing more than a full-court press by big-business to leverage political horseshit to brainwash a bunch of retarded imageboard dimwits against net neutrality. Net neutrality is in the average internet user's best interest. Now I return you to the blizzard of moronic bullshit,,,

t. reddit

While I take issue with the idea that the ISPs are entitled to "Do whatever they want" with their networks I would agree with most of what you stated. Giving the internet over to bureaucratic regulation would just be an objectively bad move. It would probably ruin the internet as we know it and force development of a separate network entirely.

If you really think the government's capable of reasonably managing the internet and it's contents then I'd simply reference everything it currently regulates. Television/radio is objectively worthless at this point and provides nothing of substance thanks to hard regulations and fines. Handing the internet over would simply end up creating a much less free and open internet and it would probably end up with collusion between all the giant corps like google/facebook/twitter and the government. The definition of the internet would turn into what these services represent and it would go the way of radio/television which for some reason a large portion of people actually want.

Please, explain to me why NN is common sense. I'm dying to know. Every NN discussion I've come across is basically "companies should be forced to charge me low rates so I can download Mass Effect 4" and "without NN, the entire internet will become censored!!111".
as for whether or not it is a partisan issue, i disagree with pretty much every internet related regulation i read about in the first place. for example anything to do with the domain name system. who gives a fuck what DNS does? it's a shitty toy system anyway and it can't get worse. pretending it has bearing on anything and making laws around it just reinforces its false legitimacy

literally why do I care about this? how is it worth making new laws to get some faster internet speed? i dont consider the internet an essential resource
the fuck are you on about? internet censorship has been commonplace for around 20 years now. some little pol drama has nothing to do with this. if you want uncensored internet, use an overlay network instead of demanding some business gives it to you

Well thanks for the input! It's not like basically every business is reliant upon the internet these days, right guys?

>>>/reddit/

Where did you get this from?

1/2
This whole thread is a mess.
And get what is crashing it ?
Bunch of tribal fuckheads
This is all about freedom and all you do is involving nonsense instead of looking at what you have and can do.
You're all just looking for one thing, winning, to prove some delusional ideology instead of looking what matters.

What a load of bullshit.
No
NN is about ISPs not prioritizing certain content/protocols.
For example not blocking certain ports, limiting bandwidth to certain website/software.
It about ISPs giving just bandwidth and not fucking with it so that people could for example host their own shit at home.

Fallacious argument.
ISPs proposes specials contract to have higher bandwidth, just pay higher bandwidth if you need to.
Yes and no it depends on your line, of course they can throttle the bandwidth but has long they don't limit what you can do with that bandwidth then there's nothing wrong.
That is NN, having X amount of bandwidth then letting do what ever you want with it.
Otherwise it's just ==NETWORK DRMs==

It can be interpreted like that but limiting what ISP can or can't do is limiting them from abusing their customers.
In the actual state of NN ISPs are already a bunch of twats if you remove it it's only going to get worse.

Fucking lel
The lines have been co financed by the states/government.
And "their" networks are used to post on a virtual ==PUBLIC== space.
Yes lets let them fucking abuse even more their customers, I suggest that for all that we come back to the paid minute system it was very lucrative.

No it's how they have to behave towards their customers.

In 2017 I agree that sodomizing your customers is beginning to be the standard.
I guess we should let ISPs do that and more.

No and I already responded to that before.

This is what the web would look like if NN isn't enforced.
It's just DLCs and DRMs.

FUCKING RETARDS have you ever rent a fucking server ?
You pay that fucking bandwidth, want more, pay more that's all, it has always been like that.

That's another problem.
NN should take this kind of BS into account but it doesn't and to be fair it's better to have decentralize technology to limit such problem (GNS for example) than to have NN manage it.

Google has it's own infrastructures (amazon too btw).

2/2

NN is only about not throttling bandwidth.
You have X amount of bandwidth and that's all you don't have to pay more to have a connection to Facebook or other websites or protocols etc...
You just pay more to have a greater bandwidth (or other services that some ISPs proposes like phone and TV).


THIS


What was done was wrong.
But it was legal because people agree to the contract.
If you don't want such shit to happen again another kind of web must emerge.
A decentralized one.
One on which you can't know the IP of the server and the IP of the client.


The actual ISP market in the US is already a duopoly the only way it can be worse is to let them do what they want.
And that's because the regulation of the freemarket unfortunately fails into stopping big entities absorbing every smaller one.


FAGGOT


See my post (DRM and DLC)

This.
That's because of old network architectures in the 80/90s
See this vid it explains pretty much what's the problem with the actual protocols.
youtube.com/watch?v=eM4J7ljCExM

Well it's a bit unfair that for example X customer pays 59$ month for 56kbps DSL when just in front of him is neighbor has 10Mbps for the same price because the ISP hasn't upgraded it's physical infrastructures.
And since we are in a allied duopoly the upgrade probably wont happen in the next decade.
In this case even if you pay for more you can't have a better bandwidth.
The only way to have a better bandwidth in this case would be to finance ourselves (or collectively) a new line but then it isn't guarantied to be possible since the surrounding lands can be in some states/country reserved to the government or belonging to an ISP.
What should have happened is that in such cases the line should cost less since the bandwidth is very slow.

True but it wasn't so openly said and supported like with the case of cloudflare.

I disagree. These services are not public utilities that must be accessed by everybody because it is trivial for anybody to provide comparable level of services.

Facebook is a platform for people to share web logs and its business model is to mine data from users and sell that data to advertisers. Facebook is not a monopoly on the service of connecting users who write web logs. Facebook is not a monopoly of data mining users for advertising. Google is a website indexing service and search engine and also does data mining. By far, they are the most popular search engine but they are not a monopoly in this field. It is very feasible to start your very own Internet and web indexing service and in fact, this is how websites were connected before Google: through web rings and personal index pages that pointed to other interesting websites.

LOL

please fuckoff, see

Googles been a state sponsored data mining monopoly for the longest fucking time. Facebook is no different. Nobody ( as in normalfags) uses anything other than facebook/vk for online communication. duckduckgo is already proven to be compromised, so your immediate alternative is already ignored by Holla Forumsies, nevermind seen as a fraud site by normos.

MySpace was the last relevant social business model competitor, it died around 2009. Recently it was rebooted and flopped into a shitty underground music site for talentless teenagers.

The age of HTML webpages, webrings and 1.0 activities is over. You can dwell in the past like other fat Gentoo slobs obsessed with living on the fringe of the internet but normies will continue to follow the herd into the future.

The point I'm making is that the popular Internet services are not monopolies and they are not public utilities - they are services of convenience and that there are always alternatives to their service.

If you don't like Google, then you could ask your friends directly for websites that would interest you. You could even publish your own web page that collects links to your favorite websites. If you and your friends do the same thing, you could even link to one another and form a webring! The fact that it is not popular doesn't change the fact that it can still work.

I dunno about Google itself, but think Youtube does constitute an effective monopoly, because Google is large enough that they can undercut all their rivals in terms of bandwidth drain.

I am 100% for that. Maybe then webmasters will stop making bloated abominations.

Because it's funny when we warn you the free market sucks, you don't listen, and then sure enough you end up getting cucked by it after we warned you exactly that it would happen.

Fuck it.

If they want NN so badly, then they should put their necks on the line too not just the ISP's. Regulate them all and let god sort them out.

I do not use Google. You're correct by saying it's possible to avoid *that* monopoly. Point I'm making is it would be irrelevant as the entire planet uses Google. Japan is maybe split on Yahoo/Google but iirc Yahoo was just bought out by Verizon, so they're still within a data mining monopoly.

Your ISP choices are Comcast or Verizon, rare instances you can get affordable satellite internet ( albiet very slow speeds and capped ).

The only other alternatives are mobile carriers which charge you hundreds for 1-3Mbps speeds and usually cap at 10GB.

Until we remove the state laws allowing these monopolies to form Net Neutrality is necessary to combat corporatism strangling the market.

Comcast sperged out at Netflix for this reason. Netflix is killing cable so they wanted them to pay up to stream shows.

I don't even get why you posted this thread OP, your kind corporate overlords already paid off every relevant state official they had to, to ensure net neutrality is dead and buried within the year.

Please, tell me how fun it is to suck corporate cock, when in the next years we'll have to pay to access anything but facebook and youtube.

In fact, this whole thread is about liberals crying on the free market, and on the bad evil government who hurt the market.

In fact, this fucking thread is full of anarcho capitalists.
I'm definitively no communism, but my fucking god, I'm voting using THEIR network, I'm paying my electricity bill/my taxes using THEIR fucking network (and "their" network is still to verify, because in my country, it's actually the government who paid for the phone network, and after the privatisation of the main national company, they took everything that us the people paid).

Internet is not a fucking online product. If it's truly just a product purposed by a private companies, then the state should make any administration depend on it.

As always, we're fucked either way. On one side, we have private companies who only can about profit and a globalist agenda of a world government, and on the other side, a government who too care somehow only on economical growth, and so on promoting these companies. The main mission of the government wanting the common good is long overdue (and it's pretty normal since the government is no more the center of decision, but of execution of decisions taken elsewhere).

Internet is fucked. I think that this net neutrality bullshit is just a way to hide the reality of internet, that it's in fact the biggest surveillance technology who have ever existed on this planet.

‘Surveillance is the business model of the internet,’ Berkman and Belfer fellow says.

If Comcast bills you $500 per month too bad faggot. They're allowed to throttle speeds if your incessant torrenting damages their network.

You're not allowed to dictate what business can do.

I do what I want faggot. If they want to make me pay that much, I'll go through.

Not an argument.
I wonder if this isn't a bot because it's pretty inconsistent.


More like retards who don't understand networks.


Seems like it's france.

Maybe it isn't but it's sure is treated like it is one.
Which they are slowly doing

This
It's not like the facts are being hidden, it's just not being discussed/diffused by the media.
Sadly

I obviously don't vote at all.

Sadly...

Can you even name a good soviet game other than Tetris

some of the biggest tryhards in this thread. my favorite part of this thread is where those that obvs have no clue as to how networking works (nor fuckin reality) are trying to convince others of things abt networking.
lol, just watch the position shifting and argument adjusting throughout the thread.
fuckin dumbasshole media shills

you don't have a fuckin clue

idiot

dumbass, it's not anyone "necks" on the line it's a standard of operation and is conducive to a better "internet" experience, content is at the tail end of the argument

#A1 poster, amen brother

hahaha at least we didn't get cucked by the free market kikeroaches!!! hahahaha jokes on you (((cuckservatives))) HAHAHAHAH

hahahaha eat dick anti-NN cucks at least we don't get owned by masterjews cuckity cuck cuck cuckservatives lmao hahahaha left is right :^)

hahahaha rightCCUUCCKKSS the left government is so cool we never get fucked in the ass by greedy corporate rats like (((bill gatestein))) kek

L M F A O cuckpitalist pigs fuck you so hard in the ass with their (((free market))), we /truly free/ :^)

holy fucking shit ITS HAPPENING CUCKSERVATIVES ON SUICIDE WATCH HAHAHA xD

can you write a single sentence without saying cuck, Holla Forumstard?

Told you. But you voted anyways.

Wow, Hillary voters are strange.

War thunder
Stalker

This guy seems like he has alot of sentiment with >>>Holla Forums to be honest.
Liberals are cancer.

Reminder: today is the last day to submit comments to the FCC in support of network neutrality, so if you haven't already submitted your comment, hurry the fuck up.

explsins why you love NN so much, you socialist

War Thunder is garbage because of other things besides Russian bias, fag

Please quit using the word monopoly wrong, you nigger

...

I don't even play games, fag.

What are you even rambling about?

You seem to not understand shit.

Never the french government made anyone pay for the highways.

The truth is that the french government actually privatised the management of the highway to private companies.
So it's for the sack of free market that we are paying a shit tone of money for highways.

It's big pharma that did this shit. Moreover, the new french health minister was working for big pharma before.
So again, it's all corruption towards private companies. The government have mostly nothing to do with it in its inner mechanics.

The french electricity service is getting privatized after being destroyed by the government itself to sell it the lowest possible to the market... It was maybe one of the greatest electricity company in the world, now it's pure bullshit, making us paying enormous prices.


I mean, nothing of what you're saying make any sense. It's all about privatization and government betrayal towards its people for the sake of the market.

sounds good to me. will force more people to use proper channels such as tor or freenet

you seem to not understand, static HTML pages are _the only_ valid use of the internet. what crap are you using that "cannot be used by gentoo slobs"? literally every news website is still the same as the old shit and wikipedia which together are already 90% of the useful content on the web. also facebook is not as important as your stupid out of touch ass believes. also facebook and IoT are definitely _not_ the future

I SUPPORT D.A.D. THE INTERNET NEEDS TO GET FUCKED!
I also hate Netflix and all this other nu-internet crap, if the internet was slower there would be less cancer on it.

Delusional manchild.


t. Every fucking basement dwelling programmer for the last 20 years.

...

On other hand the implicit sentiment that "the left == big govt" in this thread is as ridiculous as it is strong. Liberals aren't leftists and leftists aren't liberals, and thus we see that while it's perfectly natural the (liberal) oligarchs of the US would be fine with government intervention of the Internet as described by OP, any serious leftist would never agree with such an outrageous power grab in the context of a government that serves a reduced caste within it's country.

You people really need to leave >>>Holla Forums as a first step to go beyond a meme level of reasoning.

Should the USPS be allowed to deliver my package more slowly, or not at all, if they do not like the contents? Should my ISP be allowed to deliver my data more slowly, or not at all, if they do not like the contents?
Nobody is saying that you're not allowed to buy higher speed internet packages, just as you're allowed to buy faster delivery of your mail, but these companies should not be allowed to descriminate against certain packages, or pieces of data, that they do not like. It's not data communism.

tl;dr OP is a lolbertarian corporate cock sucking shill

it worked for bitcoin, it worked for getting people to use less retarded chat protocols, etc.

I've seen this thread on /g/, 8pol, here, and it was probably made on cuckpol. What's up with the rampant shilling?

what do you think of this?
ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/DOC-578d579d1f000000-A.pdf
found it on half/g/

the free market works 100% fine for me. i already know all products are shit and only use what i absolutely need. if they put poison in my food, that's simply murder, and the people responsible get in trouble. expecting companies to give you anything else is consumerist idiocy. the internet becoming shittier has no bearing on me. btw what happens when ISPs start providing specialized packages like very low latency or bounded amount of jitter, will that be illegal because NN? also according to you statist fucks it should be possible for a scenario to exist where the only profitable way to run internet is by making money from data mining / tampering with clearnet traffic, and forcing higher fees for people who want opaque internet. that will also be illegal because of NN I assume.

an employee has a good sense of humor or a hacker does. funny either way.

Without net neutrality kike companies will probably start banning vpns and all services/websites that are opposed to there agenda. Net neutrality prevents them from blocking or favoring any website over another one. IE all content is avalible. your literally arguing the Internet needs to be cut up into pieces and sold back to you for more money cause competition exists? We have payed billions in tax breaks for a full fiber optic network for longer then a decade now. Still no large fiber optic network to every house. but they pocket the money all the same make massive amounts of money and are corrupt as %%@? Those issues aside. Whats wrong about not allowing Internet providers to decide what you get to see on the Internet or not? Do you want corporations to become the nannystate cause thats what corporations are allowed to do? like how the CIA/NSA/FBI fund private companies to do the jobs they cannot? Cause honestly in the current environment trusting a corporation not to take a payoff to censor content is a complete load. I do not trust verizon/att or any of those other fuckwits with any kind of control over deciding internet speeds for accessing websites/information. Its going to get alot worse when they throttle 8ch and any other wrongthink site to 8kb or just kill any type of connection because you know there is no regulation stopping them. they will not serve it to you and the will probably disable vpns unless you have a business with a static ip they approve. congrats you got companies the power to control the Internet absolutely. These companies are on the government teat. you think competition exists? It does not net neutrality for the express purposes of bandwidth and accessibility of websites is the only real trade off for sucking on the government teat and getting a monopoly. If you believe killing net neutrality is going to make the Internet better or provide a Better customer experience when they get the government handouts when (((they))) want complete control and censorship powers. You got another thing comming. Sounds like typical kike plan. Create half measures then a worse full measure by one party then another half measure by the other. back and forth seesawing between two extremes while fucking over the American population. The only fucking thing the American public really actually got from subsidized private Internet companies was net neutrality. Its been the only goddamn benefit.

found the problem right there
a communications provider literally cannot be a nannystate
I believe the existence or lack of existence of NN doesn't matter. The internet has already been heavily censored from day 1, you muppet. Why do you think every formidable website is good goy as fuck? Why do you think anything remotely classifiable as "copyright violation" or "CP" is removed? If the ISPs become as shit as you retards are saying, I will make some lame ass embedded device that allows normalfags to mesh network and sell that shit like hotcakes. The only problem will be international access but that's a meme. International internet (while still attainable) is absolutely not essential.

OP, you're a faggot. No one believes freedom of speech will go away because ISPs can't slow down your traffic or block you from accessing a certain website nilly willy.

The problem with traffic shaping is (((ISPs))), that means not you, decide what traffic gets priority and what doesn't (regardless of your needs), so between shitty throttling and arbitrary website blocking, and no throttling at all and an average experience, I prefer the latter.
The problem with net neutrality is that ISP-bought lawmakers like to use a very loose definition of it to push their own agenda beyond the scope of actual net neutrality (aka don't play gatekeeper or slow my shit if I don't pay you extra shekels).


Don't worry, if it's not the government "fixing" it, it will be (((ISPs))) with bandwidth throttling and usage-based billing unless you pay their extortive overage charges and fees, and complaining of "congestion" (instead of lowering their oversubscription ratio or something).


I believe freetards support net neutrality. Did you mean lolbertarians?


Private doesn't mean I can give you whatever fucking terms I want and do whatever the fuck I want without accountability. Why the fuck do you think severability clauses exist?

Corporations are our friends

Gee, I wonder (((who))) posted this :^)


this

Because liberals like corporations the same way that women like to be choked and slapped.

NN has nothing to do with access to the entire internet for subscribers, and ISPs under NN are perfectly free to sell subscribers different bandwidth/latency/etc. packages, so long as they behave identically for all external traffic. It only concerns ISPs discriminating between different DESTINATION sites.

Your example is just as inane as OP's

Since of course you as an ISP subscriber are free to discriminate between different connections, without anyone paying for the privilege.


I believe the existence or lack of existence of NN doesn't matter.
Wow, if you're such a big, strong, independent AynCrapper who don't need no gubmint, why do your type always come and bitch when whenever we try to stop evil scum from raping you in ways you're so toootally aloof from?

ran out of lebensraum to grow their shitty cabbages on, and they need shitty cabbages until there's enough to trade for health insurance and premium 2mb internet.

kek

...