Net Neutrality--US only thread

Here we go with the lying JIDF shills. There was always net neutrality. This changes the status quo. How many shekels did you get paid for that post, Shlomo?

>US only thread
Keeek, there's no escape from EU and Eurasia!
Fuck the 'muricans comin' straight from underground, yo!

To win the popular vote all you have to do is secure a few major metropolitan areas.

The Web is fucking unusable anyway today, with all the full-screen cookie consent and preference management pop ups on every fucking site.

But there wasn't, idiot, it was implemented in 2015 by Obama.

What the fuck are you saying? Can you even English?

Net-neutrality was made in order to stop companies from biasing other sites. This happened many times before Net-neutrality.

>This happened many times before Net-neutrality.
I remember when my internet company charged me for youtube back in 2007, it's true

I didn't vote at all, thankfully. I kind of preferred him but only because everyone else either stood no chance of actually winning or was dogshit, can't say recent events are that surprising. The gun thing pissed me off though. It's all a dog and pony show anyway, you're better paying more attention locally, like how here we get charged 76 cents per gallon of gas via tax which is supposedly going towards roads and bridges even though PA roads are notoriously bad. The elecotral college stops those few metropolitan areas from being the be all end all dumbfuck.

It's what you currently pay for the service PLUS the packages.

My Internet bill is currently $69.99, so my bill could be $69+$30.

What's the fucking point of this shit? Everyone will start cancelling their services and go back to cable.

Now that net-neutrality is repealed they're going to enforce these rules.

The thing that sucks for me is I have a bundle with an American internet provider (cable+internet+phone). If I were to get rid of the internet my bill would go through the roof.

>tfw eurofags get much faster internet than me for the same price

Attached: 1415072623965.png (564x1086, 340K)

Don't forget the fastest internetz of shit holes; the r*manian internet.

Kek, all the state's have to do is create a quagmire of their own regulations reminiscent of net neutrality except stricter and the federal government will bring back that shit right quick.

>letting like 4 major cities dictate who gets to be president

Typical incel

Well, at least America's trying.

Attached: page.png (735x9116, 583K)

Time to do things the old-fashion-way.

Attached: oogaboogaaa.jpg (800x450, 38K)

I can't believe the states are doing shit in their own despite the federal government, it's almost as if that's how it's meant to work

9th grade civics is hard it seems.

What are you Americans going to do after the purge of the net?

You idiot, net neutrality has always been the status quo. It was only in 2015 that the FCC overseeing it changed. That's when net neutrality was implemented, to keep the status quo.

How many shekels do you get paid for each lying shillpost?

>That's when net neutrality was implemented, to keep the status quo.
So if that's the status quo then the rules being repeal makes no difference

Repealing the rules lets ISPs for the first time ever control the internet and not have to deliver what they promise.

There are only two groups of people who oppose Net Neutrality:
Those who do not understand the issue, and those who are being compensated for their opposition.

For the sake of the former, I post the following.

Net Neutrality, put as simply as possibly, means that internet traffic is treated the same regardless of where it comes from or where it's going.

When you go to a website, say fark.com, your computer sends a data signal across a network connection to the special computer where fark.com lives, asking for the site, and then that special computer sends a data signal back to your computer so your browser can display the site.

Your ISP (Internet Service Provider) is simply the first hop on the journey between your computer and the special Fark computer. Under Net Neutrality, it doesn't matter which website's special computer your computer connects to, the data signals are just transmitted to wherever they're going.

Without Net Neutrality, your ISP could look at which websites you want to visit, and speed up, slow down, or block that communication.

Ending Net Neutrality is a bad idea because ending Net Neutrality closes the market.

Remember MySpace? If not, it was sort of a proto-Facebook before Facebook was a thing. But then Facebook came along, and replaced MySpace. And it was able to do so because both existed on a neutral internet, and Facebook provided a superior product.

But end Net Neutrality, and that can't happen again. Because without Net Neutrality, Facebook can pay ISPs to speed up access to Facebook, and to slow or block access to competing sites. So if I develop a better Facebook, not only do I need to have the servers to host it, I have to match or beat what Facebook is paying the ISPs in order for people to even be able to get to my site. And since I'm not already an established multi-billion dollar company, I don't have those resources, so I don't get to compete.
And that's the opposite of a free market.

But again, since net neutrality was the statue quo, and implementing the rules made no difference, then repealing them shouldn't make a difference

Additionally, without Net Neutrality an ISP can slow down, or block entirely, access to websites for any reason it wants. If a website is posting information they don't want you to see, you don't get to see it. They can control the flow of information. So if someone is running for office they don't approve of, you'll never reach their campaign site. If a news site publishes a story about their corrupt business practices, you won't see that news.

Net Neutrality does not prevent an ISP from charging more based on the amount of bandwidth used, and is entirely unrelated from matters concerning volume of traffic. Net Neutrality is only in regards to types of traffic, not volume.

Ending Net Neutrality will not do anything to improve the current situation with the monopolies and illegal trusts operated by the ISPs, it only gives them more power.

A web site or content provider is not the same thing as the distrobution network by which data is transmitted. If you're unhappy that YouTube won't host your video, that's entirely unrelated to Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is not "regulation in search of a problem" it is a direct response to companies acting in unethical ways, which is what prompted the regulation in the first place. The history of this issue is widely available.

You can tell that ending the Net Neutrality is a bad thing because there are no actual arguments made in support of the change, just a bunch of lies and misinformation and distraction. If there were legitimate reasons to support ending Net Neutrality, they would be posted and we could debate them, but somehow, after all this time, after all of the threads we have had on this subject, nobody has ever posted any.

There could be 51% of the U.S. stuffed in a square mile of grassland during the presidential vote and it wouldnt fucking matter because they make up 51% of the population and that's how democracy works. This retarded fixation upon not representing geographical minorities in particular makes absolutely no sense. You could make the same buttfuckingly moronic claim about literally any of an infinite number of defined "minorities" that could potentially be oppressed by a slim majority. Why do republicans have to be this mindbogglingly stupid dear lord

I could have stopped this...

OwOriginal

Attached: download.jpg (318x159, 12K)

Good incentive to cut the wire completely and enjoy other aspects in life

I'll pass on communism

America is not a democracy, shitdick.

>most likey, happen
nothing will change

And it's a lot better because of it

>let's allow corporations to do whatever they fuck they want on the internet and not be responsible for it!
Nothing will indeed change.

And that's why we're a not a direct democracy and never have been by intentional design. To ensure all people's have a voice the system was always intended to function like this in order to ward agianst what the founding fathers called the tyranny of the majority.

I'm sure there's a lot of money involved in blocking infowars

That's not what direct democracy means lmfao dear god why do you people have to so confidently believe in utter nonsense

>Some of the greatest politcal minds of their time put in place an electoral college because they don't want weak, inner-city plebs ruining the country
>get called stupid by a collectivist lefty on an australian pigeon-racing forum

Didn't Obama lose the majority vote and only get in because of the electoral college? And hasn't there been issues with the California vote in regards to Hillary winning the majority? Not American but I seem to recall these things being mentioned before.

Hillary got more votes in the 2008 primaries, elections Obama won by millions

thanks for this post, it's informative

Let me break this down slowly.

There are literally a myriad of categories you can think of that occupy less than 51% of the vote that have as much of a chance of getting irrationally oppressed by the majority as rural voters. The only reason that geographical minorities are given extra electoral votes by the state is because your "greatest political minds of the time" were vying for political power and the smaller states were disproportionately represented at the constitutional convention. John Locke did not write in his Treatises "oh yeah and remember to give rural people more political power because they're better at choosing political leaders" or some nonsense. You're just a product of your time who enjoys the fruits of the electoral college because it provides you a larger chance at securing presidential candidates that ideologically align with you.

ty mr non-shill-man

Shekelstein once again cannot provide any facts. Only hurr laws bad, corporations good.

Question for all the Burgers. Your internet has become more and more shitty each year. Europe's internet is way better than yours in every way and cheaper. Europe also has net neutrality. Do you seriously think this will make your internet less shit?

>the smaller states were disproportionately represented at the constitutional convention.

That's not actually true.

There were only two "small" states at the convention - Delaware and New Hampshire. And New Hampshire didn't show up for most of the convention.

The Articles of Confederation gave the smaller states even more power (all states got only one vote each in a unicameral Congress); the Constitution represented a *reduction* in small state power.

The bicameral legislature, the electoral college, and the establishment of the federal district of Washington, DC were all designed to prevent over-centralization. London and Paris were both the political and economic capitals of their respective nations; as a result, both cities were seen as dens of corruption *and* as heedlessly ignoring the interests of anything outside the central metropole.

The framers of the Constitution sought to create a specific political capital, while assuming that New York or Philadelphia or Boston would develop into the economic capital or capitals. And the electoral college, along with a Senate appointed by state legislatures, were designed to prevent centralization of political power in the new political capital.

>all the normies drop their ISPs, or just pay for the basic shit
>only committed people pay for the good net
shit, it might actually be good.

Source? The idea that they were building decentralized systems of power in the 18th century seems fascinating and I dont actually have a formal education Im just a dumb shitlib who yells a lot

Since net neutrality did not exist prior to the FCC's naked attempt at a power grab, why didn't we see any of the supposedly "inevitable" results of a loss of net neutrality prior to that grab?

The FCC acted in 2015. Funny, but I don't remember a closed market existing before 2015. In fact, I would say that we were certainly closer to the closed market in 2017 than we were in 2014.

>WAHHHH BUT THAZ FROM OTHA FAKTAHS

Well now we get to test it, don't we?

>those who are being compensated for their opposition

You don't think Netflix compensated anybody for being pro-net neutrality?

Netflix wanted to be able to get an internet connection at the same price as their competitors and? Oh, the horror! Communism! Holding corporations accountable is communism!

You don't have to worry about net neutrality, we've only had it since 2015 so nothing will change

Since you're being paid shekels for this, why don't you tell us in what way repealing net neutrality is a good thing? How will it help the users of internet?

You have no reasons, and you know it.

>get pack 2 maybe 3 if you watch twitch
>pay less and don't have to suffer the toxic wasteland that are the non included website
Yes please

>this COULD be the internet

I could also get shot walking out my front door.

When you see how much your thread has grown.

>Source? The idea that they were building decentralized systems of power in the 18th century seems fascinating and I dont actually have a formal education Im just a dumb shitlib who yells a lot

let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-federalist-papers/the-federalist-62.php

>There could be 51% of the U.S. stuffed in a square mile of grassland during the presidential vote and it wouldnt fucking matter because they make up 51% of the population and that's how democracy works. This retarded fixation upon not representing geographical minorities in particular makes absolutely no sense. You could make the same buttfuckingly moronic claim about literally any of an infinite number of defined "minorities" that could potentially be oppressed by a slim majority.

Geography is a little different because it has the added factor of being subject to a snowball effect.

When a central metropole begins to dominate a nation's political and economic affairs, it will tend over time to direct a larger and larger percentage of available resources to itself. It turns into a black hole.

Other majority structures tend to be more ephemeral.

Working overtime for your shill shekels huh, Shlomo?

>Since you're being paid shekels for this, why don't you tell us in what way repealing net neutrality is a good thing? How will it help the users of internet?

AT&T was regulated as a common carrier for 150 years and telecommunications innovation nosedived into the fucking ground.

It's been precisely the widespread chaos, the cut-throat atmosphere, and the opportunities for windfall profit that have driven the pace of innovation since the WCOM case.

Frankly, it would probably have a *salutary* effect on the market if the fixed-line ISP's decided to start fucking around with throttling. It would hasten their decline.

>Netflix wanted to be able to get an internet connection at the same price as their competitors and?

It creates a situation where the capital costs for a content provider are imposed on non-customers of that provider, with no opportunity for those non-customers to negotiate a better deal. Sure, the ISPs can charge customers more for more bandwidth and higher data caps - but content providers who are occupy very large % of total bandwidth are degrading network performance for me whether I pay more or pay less.

Reminder if youre a statist cuck who thinks he should be able to tell ISPs what to do with their own service you need to go back to Ribbit

Attached: 680FA970-3D35-453E-836D-46949F1842D2.png (492x440, 187K)

>Govt. shitting on me
BAD
>Corporations shitting on me
GOOD

Europe and the rest of the world has much better internet than Burgerland. And guess what, they all have net neutrality. It wasn't net neutrality that drove US internet into the ground, it was established monopolies. And repealing net neutrality lets those monopolies get even worse.

You dont need Internet to survive, idiot. These entitles dont have to provide you any service at all, theyre doing it voluntarily and in turn you have to accept the terms of their service.

Itt; children who don't remember the internet before 4years ago.

Go to pol u dubbbbbb idiot

Net Neutrality needs to die because streaming is taking up so much of the goddamn internet. Right now, I'm paying for some faggot's 1080p House of Cards marathon or something. In a system of tiered payments, more of the costs of his irresponsible use of bandwidth are put on his own shoulders.
Besides, why the fuck should I care? Jow Forums is one of the least-bandwidth-heavy sites out there. It's just text and thumbnails most of the time.

>Burgers actually believe this
Literally every country in the world has faster and cheaper internet.

Discriminating on size of content != discriminating on type of content