In about four months it will be the two year anniversary of net neutrality being repealed...

The Net Neutrality that was set literally said no regulation over the internet, by anyone.

His shit eating grin fuckin pisses me off so much.

Because less regulation for an already sparse ISP market is a good thing. /s

I doubted anything serious would happen, but that just like the libs to always take things to the extremes and try to make it seem like it'll happen overnight. The market will certainly protect people from stupid shit like priced packages for certain edge providers from happening. Who knows for how long though, as mergers continue to happen and companys continue to get even bigger.

IDK what was so controversial about the notion that all data be treated equally and delivered to us on equal footing by ISPs, but obviously that's ultimately not what the Net Neutrality movement was about. It all just got real stupid. In b4 LOAD BALANCING; Technology exists to meet the bandwidth demands of today, yet the "surge of investment" has yet to be seen. Ajit Pai is a fuckin liar and a Verizon shill and needs to be railroaded.

>Has it made a difference in anyone's lives yet? Have any ISPs done the "package" shit?
Yes, I am had to opt for a "streaming package" that Comcast claimed was "optimized for streaming from services such as Netflix". In reality, they just started throttling netflix.

Net neutrality never covered phone providers retard. You can look it up it only covered conventional end to end cable providers and was aimed at T1 or whatever who handle the business to business lines

This is what you've been switched to after "j-just wait, it'll be fucked up pretty soon" felt flat?

Reddit the post

>nothing of worth to add
r-reddit the post...

I don't even live in Murika and it is happening here, Vodafone sells some kind of "social pass" shit, when you can buy the package and don't have to pay for facebook data. I think there is also a "music pass" etc.

That kind of bullshit is the reason why I switched to iliad. Paying for monthly remodulations and having my data spoofed because they've to manually check if it's eligible to my offer? No thanks

>two year anniversary
what the fuck...wasn't this like last november or something..

Attached: executive_producer_larry_david.jpg (453x634, 182K)

STARLINK IS GONNA CHANGE EVERYTHING

>His shit eating grin fuckin pisses me off so much.

fucking bump

Attached: time flies.jpg (545x362, 32K)

I'm kind of surprised. I wasnt for it either but I have to admit there's been practically no change. Actually my personal internet service has gotten BETTER since then.

I guess it really was all hysteria.

ajit pai more like pajeet guy amirite

my ISP is good tho.

Remember that several big states (New York, probably California but don't quote me on that) passed their own net neutrality laws that are still going through the court system to decide if they're allowed to do that. Comcast isn't going to introduce a throttling tier system for Wyoming while they wait, there isn't enough market share

Disney+ is reasonably priced :)

Just another reddit fearmongering

How do monkeys like you even manage to get to the internet?

Oh god, not this fucking argument again. The reason the Internet hasn't gone to shit is because we still have de facto net neutrality due to the huge backlash against the Restore Internet Freedom Act and ISPs now being afraid of bad press if they pull any stunts with people's bandwidth. If we hadn't fought back against the bill, there would be no open Internet now, I can guarantee it.

>Has it made a difference in anyone's lives yet?
Everybody forgot about it and nothing has changed. Pretty funny seeing how the media was freaking out over it and doomsaying how bad it will effect the internet. As usual, the media is full of shit.

My local municipality made their own fiber network so yeah

>Have any ISPs done the "package" shit?
That image that was going around was for just one single country, and even then it was only for mobile devices. It was literally nothing but fear-mongering

The only real differences I've noticed are that (a) Cox has introduced a data cap for some reason, although I'm not really sure if that's related, and (b) a lot of the more obscure websites that I browse now have gotten a lot less reliable and a lot slower than ever before.
Otherwise, everything remains unchanged.

Well that's awfully convenient isnt it?

>Have any ISPs done the "package" shit?
No, because several states quickly stomped on this shit. I'd imagine the crooks at Comcast and ATT are scheming new tactics and biding their time in an attempt to quietly sneak in some other way to grub money.

peering has gotten worse on a lot of isps, you need to use vpns in order to bypass a lot of extremely bad routes that they're trying to deprioritize

this is what happens when then protected definition of "internet" is allowed to instead now be "limited network services"
they didn't want to advertise that they offered limited network services, which is why isps lobbied to pajeet,i about it

I don't remember the media ever going to the lengths of "doomsaying the internet" you describe when talking about the net neutrality laws. If they did, at best it only got one night's worth of coverage in a week's time leading up to a vote. You must understand that most of the media is owned by cable companies wishing to hush the talk about net neutrality and thusly would only choose to air the bare minimum. If you are talking about alternative media for news outlets like Youtube, Twitter, blogs, and virtual news rooms then I must say those are not what I would consider the media. Ars Technica counts? I dunno. Just not sure I saw what you saw.

Based. And redpilled.

>Data caps exist for all connections
>Speeds have not significantly improved
>Rural internet is still complete shit (that thing that Republicans claim to care about because their constituents are all rural)
>Companies are allowed to use the term "unlimited" to describe connections that are by definition limited
Net neutrality was intended to stop bullshit like this.

Also, they're still working on implementing paid prioritization.

net neuter is unconstitutional
keep government out of the internet

Attached: 8EDEAA26-6535-4A94-B484-A622362A73A6.gif (480x280, 1.39M)

>keep government out of the internet because regulations are unconstitutional
Ok, lets ban health, traffic, and pollution regulations.

Doesn't make it any less true.

Pollution and traffic regulations are good, because prevent people from doing harm against you. Health regulations (what do you even mean by this), assuming you mean government funded healthcare, then yes, please get government out of it.

If we can defund public libraries, privatize the fire, police, and all roads, and shut down Medicare, the economy will instantly nut itself and we'll live in big houses with 300" TVs and drive huge trucks and eat burgers for every meal

If regulations are unconstitutional, we cannot have them.

>If we can defund public libraries
Already happening

>privatize the fire, police,
I'd be for fire department, not the police.

>and all roads,
Privately funded infrastructure is actually a current goal and already partially happening.

>and shut down Medicare,
Yes please

>Health regulations (what do you even mean by this), assuming you mean government funded healthcare, then yes
I mean regulations as in your doctor has to be qualified to prescribe you medication. The medical industry is one of the heaviest-regulated in the US.

Abortion bans are unconstitutional.
Keep government out of women's bodies.

Didn't say regulations were unconstitutional, I said net neutering was unconstitutional.

>I mean regulations as in your doctor has to be qualified to prescribe you medication.
I see, well, I'm undecided on this actually. He should be forced to let you know that he isn't licensed. As for prescribing drugs, I think the regulation for this is too strict today.

I totally agree.

>net neutering
Did you actually read what net neutrality was or are you just parroting Fox News?

No, it's my stupid autocorrect.

Okay, then child pornography laws are unconstitutional according to your logic because muh free speech.

A tiny percentage of roads are privatized, the country needs to get serious about the rest
And what's wrong with you, why should the police be an exception? True, the state should have a role in the use of force, but that's what the military is for

As I already said, regulations that prevent harm are good. Regulations that aim to serve public good, as with NN, tend to do more harm. It's like the eternal discussion of whether the constitution should only protect so-called negative rights (you can't take away something) or should include positive rights (you should be guaranteed something).

So you support paid prioritization (slowing down others for those who pay more), data caps, and unregulated speeds (guaranteeing underserved areas will never be adequately served)?

yep, just like the affordable health care act the name is the exact opposite of what it stood.

>A tiny percentage of roads are privatized, the country needs to get serious about the rest
They're less traveled which means they're better maintained. Privatized roads that receive the same amount of traffic as public ones are no better off.
Privatizing maintenance, though, is something I can get behind.

>A tiny percentage of roads are privatized, the country needs to get serious about the rest
Agreed.

>And what's wrong with you, why should the police be an exception?
We've seen how badly run private jails etc are, I believe the market best regulates where there is a market, but for the legal system there are for obvious reasons other interests at play.

Yes, I do.

Private jails are badly run because they compete with public jails instead of each other, we see this in every industry

You do have a point, but I'm not sure if that's the entire reason.

Private jails have contracts that require the state to give them a minimum number of inmates. There have been lawsuits against states that failed to produce an adequate number of inmates.
There's no "competition between private and public".

I can respect that. Still, I think saying that net neutrality is unconstitutional, or that throttling people's bandwidth is a form of speech and thus protected by the First Amendment, is kinda silly.

Sure there is. The state isn't putting enough prisoners in the private prisons because they're going in public prisons instead. Privatizing the whole prison system would open up a market where the prisoner (customer) can pay more to be in a different prison.

>or that throttling people's bandwidth is a form of speech and thus protected by the First Amendment
I never said this. My point is that it's unconstitutional for the government to dictate what companies can and can not do with property (infrastructure) they own and what services they are and aren't allowed to provide. I didn't say that it is a form of free speech.

>The state isn't putting enough prisoners in the private prisons because they're going in public prisons instead
Or maybe because there aren't enough people doing crimes?

>Privatizing the whole prison system would open up a market where the prisoner (customer) can pay more to be in a different prison.
Why would anyone want this?

The prisoners would.

>The state isn't putting enough prisoners in the private prisons because they're going in public prisons instead.
The lawsuits allow private prisons to collect lost income from the state. They lose no money.

>Privatizing the whole prison system would open up a market where the prisoner (customer) can pay more to be in a different prison.
You severely misunderstand how the process works. Prisoners are not customers, the state is. The state has absolutely no incentive to pay more to store prisoners.

>Prisoners are not customers, the state is. The state has absolutely no incentive to pay more to store prisoners.
Oh, you have a point. In that case, privatizing the legal system would mean the customer is the law enforcement agency. The point is, competition is a healthy thing, it's what keeps the market afloat.

>I never said this
That was the argument made by Brett Kavanaugh and the other Republicans who said that net neutrality was unconstitutional. Also, you're forgetting that these ISPs are monopolies, so allowing them free reign over the infrastructure that they own (i.e. all of it) means they will have absolute power to censor anyone and anything at any time. No one should have that much power. It's the same thing with Big Tech censorship and the regressive left's argument of "They're private companies. They can do what they want." When a "private company" owns all the infrastructure available to the public it stops being a private company and becomes a de facto government body.

>That was the argument made by Brett Kavanaugh and the other Republicans who said that net neutrality was unconstitutional.
I think you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting what they said.

>Also, you're forgetting that these ISPs are monopolies,
Only in areas where the government has subsidised them (i.e. mobile infrastructure, like Verizon). It's not the case for cabled broadband, which I assume we are talking about here.

>means they will have absolute power to censor anyone and anything at any time.
Denying someone entry to my own property is not censorship, it's my right to do so. You can not force me to provide service to someone I don't want to.

>t's the same thing with Big Tech censorship and the regressive left's argument of "They're private companies. They can do what they want.
I actually agree with the left on this though, it's hardly a free speech issue that you cannot stream pr0n super fast or can't shitpost on Twitter all day. That's a gross misunderstanding about what free speech is.

Competition is healthy for certain sectors. Private prisons would compete to be cheaper to attract state contracts. How does one reduce costs in prisons? Make them shittier.

Shitty prison conditions incentivize people not to break contracts (AKA commit crimes)

>Denying someone entry to my own property is not censorship, it's my right to do so.
Now if "your property" includes the entire world.

If someone can buy up all the property in the world he has every right to exclude others from using it.

>not to break contracts
You're assuming privatized police forces. Does that mean laws differ depending on which enforcement group you have a contract with?

Yes, obviously. Contracts are the only valid form of law.

Okay, I hope you like being permanently nomadic, because that could actually happen someday. You could try to move somewhere only to find that all the land is bought up. Or if you already have property, your kids might try to move into their own home only to find that there's no more land available and they have to basically live in concentration camps where twenty people are crammed into one room. It's already happening in Los Angeles. Don't think that you're "perfectly okay" scenario won't actually happen.

So what happens when someone has no contract with private law enforcement? If there is no public institution, there is no law for those who don't sign.

Also, this image comes to mind.

Attached: libertarian_feudalism_by_valendale_d7hhmcj-fullview.jpg (1024x505, 103K)

Someone who isn't party to a law enforcement contract can't be the victim of a crime.
If I don't have land set aside for my kids to inherit, why would I have kids in the first place?

>Someone who isn't party to a law enforcement contract can't be the victim of a crime.
They also cannot be the perpetrator. They never agreed to any laws.

Why am I getting the increasing inkling that you're speaking entirely from a wealthy and privileged position and have no idea what it's like to be a regular working class citizen? That would sure explain a lot.

I don't see what the working class has to do with anything. The advance of automation means there won't be one soon.

You acknowledge this, yet you probably still oppose UBI.

g mods are truly some of the most insufferable kikes. right next to /v/editors.

Yes, it has made a significant difference. Even your average person has experience with their netflix being throttled. You can give me your bullshit libertarian argument that we don't need the government to tell business they can't do anti-competitive practices by throttling their competition, but seems pretty reasonable when these companies received hundreds of billions in subsidies to build the infrastructure on the understanding it would be accessible to all.