Net neutrality is good

go back to Jow Forums

that's not Jow Forums, it's just crossboarders

see

Monopolies aren't free market in the first place.

This is false to an extent
Nobody in a free market would dissolve a monopoly that doesnt initiate force (ie like what the govt did to the Bell company), but also a monopoly would be much harder to be created in a free market
Anyways, back on topic, this is a usual case where both parties are wrong for different reasons
ISP monopolies and Govt both just want to cuck the population at the bottom line, with different means

You may want to watch this, but the gist of the video is that anti trust negatively affects competition
youtu.be/8C4gRRk2i-M

That sounds interesting, thanks user
Imagine that we live in a world where a republican is more libertarian than the entire libertarian party

>I always have to go against public opinion just because

Attached: .jpg (474x376, 12K)

t. Never studied economics except of that one time fox news had Bernie talk

>economics
>net neutrality
?

This looks interesting. I'll take a look at it later.
Thanks user for the link.

Attached: Ron_Paul.jpg (1189x1491, 978K)

>first hit know your meme
>second hit youtube
kys newfag lol
pathetic

Attached: knowyourmeme09.png (471x467, 330K)

>Economics is sometimes thought of as a very dry and dismal subject dealing with dusty tomes of statistics about material goods and services. Economics isnota dry subject. It isnota dismal subject. It isnotabout statistics. It is about human life. It is about the ideas that motivate human beings. It is about how men act from birth until death. It is about the most important and interesting drama of all — human action.

Nice text, but it doesn't answer my question. Why did you bring up economics?

>inb4 but muh net neutrality is killing my right as a cable company to extort people for money

You literally brought up why it involves economics: it involves companies whose main motive is to make a profit of of a service/good.
>Economics isn't involved in the actions a business/government takes takes

>smug anime children
kys weeb pedophile lol

>You literally brought up why it involves economics
No, I literally called you an autist for going against public opinion just because.

I dont care for cable companies at all, but fighting possible monopolies with regulations instead of freeing up the market so competition can fight them instead has time and time again proven to not work
Which is where economics work, the reasoning that regulation (ie Net Neutrality) will fix said problem is rooted in Keynesian economics, which have, again, proven to not work (see the Great Depression, or the more recent one of the 2010s)

So your using the argumentum ad populem fallacy to justify your point, especially when this is the same public that thought things like Common Core/No Child Left Behind and other shit bills with nice names are good,( because they have nice harmless names. Of course they can't be shit)? Meanwhile the opinions of economists don't matter, even though they understand the subject more than the average person does.

>, but fighting possible monopolies with regulations instead of freeing up the market so competition can fight them instead has time and time again proven to not work
That's demonstratively wrong (see Bell company, which was broken up by the government and Time Warner merger, which was prevented by the government).

Also, net neutrality is not about fighting monopolies, that's the job of the FTC. Net neutrality is about civil rights as ISPs and cable companies are essentially common carriers.

You write all this text and I simply don't care, because you are being a contrarian little faggot just because.

Bell company, which was broken up by the government, also happened to be a monopoly created through their governmental connections that helped shape laws that prevented other companies from competing with it
As far as Net Neutrality goes, my opinion remains here Since both sides are wrong imo, id prefer to back the one that's at least against more regulation (in this case ISPs).
I am also advocating against other laws, already in place, that were created via ISP lobbying that is helping them become the new Bell company, so to speak

>When you have no argument but you must post

How about you try and make an actual argument against this, even though you seem as economically illiterate as your average member of your average 1st world democracy:
(All my links are in this blog post)
marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/11/take-change-mind-net-neutrality.html

>also happened to be a monopoly created through their governmental connections that helped shape laws that prevented other companies from competing with it
So you're implying that the head of the FCC, Ajit Pai, a literal former verizon lawyer, is not a government connection verizon and other ISPs have to help shape laws to prevent other companies from competing with them?

Nice naivety you're displaying there.

Verizon doesn't pay him though now. The dole of the average US citizen does because bureaucracy.

>How about you try and make an actual argument against this
We've had a gorrillean threads about this already. I'm not going to change your mind no matter what I say because you're a stubborn little autistic contrariean that will resort to brainlet reaction pics and greentext replies like in OP when you run out of arguments.

Ofcourse not
As I said in the latter part, ISPs are also lobbying and have already passed a bunch of laws that favor them
The solution would be to repeal those laws, not add laws to cancel out the first laws

>Verizon doesn't pay him though now.
He's guaranteed a job when his time at the FCC is over, we both know this. This is crony capitalism at its worst.

No arguments there

But all my fucking arguments are basically in this blog post of these economics professors at George Mason University right there:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_Revolution_(blog)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Tabarrok
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Cowen

Defining ISPs as common carriers is not adding a law, user. It is enforcing a law that is already there by applying a definition to ISPs.

>But all my fucking arguments are basically in this blog post of these economics professors at George Mason University right there:
I give zero fucks, stop spamming me. If you're upset that I called you a contrarian, just leave it at that, instead of spamming with irrelevant shit some economy professor with literal freemason connections try to shill.

Im not even him but this post is literally
>lmao stop trying to.combat my unfounded accusations with reason

Wait, I thought Trump was going to prevent this shit with all his drain the swamp rethoric. Wasn't there even some contract he made his appointments sign that prevented them from returning to the industry once their term was over?

>STOP USING REASON ON MY BULLSHIT ARGUMENTS. REEEEEEEEEEEEE
Like nigga, just make a counter point that's actually rational and not at all based in emotion.

Attached: seizureinducinglaugh.gif (150x113, 1.35M)

>FOSTA
>SESTA
>litigious culture
>GDPR
>muh online bullying
>muh safety
>muh drugs
>just doing my job
why gen X-ers ruin everything?

Lets put this in context, shall we? I replied to a greentext post with picture of a brainlet, and my reply was basically "you're just a contrarian".

Then user went off the rails with irrelevant statements about economy and economic theory and posting a book that has nothing to do with net neutrality what so fucking ever, and then posting vague sentiments that since economy affects different aspects of life, this particular book is obviously relevant to net neutrality, here read this blog about it.

I'm not going to reply to this schizoid rambling.

God damn, this makes me miss the time intelligent discussions were on TV.

What happened?

Note that he hasn't even posted any arguments, his post is literally: "all my arguments can be found in this blog post, why don't you spend some hours reading through everything and make the connection to net neutrality yourself"

>nut neutrality is bad
>muh fucking freedom

Attached: 1522890587856.png (645x729, 75K)

>2018
>Jow Forums
>muh freedom
We have finally come full circle

Fine. Just stop pretending like you know what you're talking about or that your opinion has any worth

REALITY TV Lad

Abstracts are a thing to you know.

Also, I did pretty much state my opinion on the subject and the evidence to support it can be found within the blog, along with abstracts being a thing, so it should take you like 5 minutes to get through.

So, just out of curiosity, how much is AT&T paying you to meme on the internet all day. I'm a NEET with a very open schedule and would be quite willing to lie to idiots for a few shekels.

>companies like Netflix don't want private fast lanes
>meanwhile Netflix tried to get Comcast to pay for a private fast lane just for them between their network and Cogent's
>companies like Google want more regulations and fines to keep people in line
>meanwhile Google had regulations and fines waived by local and state government to lay down Google Fibre
>it almost seems like Ajit Pai actually struck a blow to keep Railroads 2: Electric Boogaloo from happening
>but at the same time he reeks of crony capitalism by letting Verizon merge in ways that strengthened their bargaining power against smaller backbone companies

Shit's fucked six ways from Sunday

Attached: 1504138575900.jpg (493x637, 88K)

>tfw live in ct
>tfw ctmirror.org/2018/05/04/senate-passes-bill-restore-net-neutrality-connecticut/
well at least thats one thing good about ct

>Abstracts are a thing to you know.
NOT WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN POSTED ANY ARGUMENTS, AND YOU'RE BASICALLY JUST ASKING ME TO MAKE THE CONNECTION MYSELF.

Fuck you, you schizophrenic shit.

Ha, theres not even that much rationale behind it, it's a lot more:
>my politician does not like net neutrality
>I must agree with my politician as I voted for him
>I does not like net neutrality
These silly politics brought to you by the same boot-licking cult of personality worshipping children that grew up watching YouTube videos of people playing games instead of doing it themselves.

>I did pretty much state my opinion
You never made any connection between economy and net neutrality.

>on the subject and the evidence to support it can be found within the blog,
You're literally telling me to go find out for myself what you really mean, instead of just stating what you mean.

Surprise, no ones on your side and everyones side is just a different group of millionaires to hold up.

Which rich people do you like best user?

>You never made any connection between economy and net neutrality.
No shit public policy that affects how you can run an ISP (a private corporation) and to whom they should provide their services to has to deal with economics.

>You're literally telling me to go find out for myself what you really mean, instead of just stating what you mean.
We're on a Taiwanese waterboarding forum. I'm not gonna write a fucking thesis on the subject, especially when someone else basically brings up the same points about why NN is a bad idea in a more eloquent manner.

While I do agree that a free market is good, revoking NN rules would not only ingore the current monopoly problem the US has with ISPs, but would also allow them to do stuff like this, pre NN
pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2461435,00.asp

Not to mention that, the crushing majority of americans want net neutrality
blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/04/23/new-mozilla-poll-support-for-net-neutrality-grows-as-trust-in-isps-dips/

Lmao I wasnt even responding to or talking to you, just shitposting and you still had to defend your stance of
>someone said opinion in smart way I like it it my opinion now
Hahahahaha way to prove exactly what I was saying.

Bottom line, it seems clear to me that, give the current circumstances, net neutrality should stay

I just watched it
I feel depressed not just about the state of television today, but the state of politics today too

Attached: 588FAD36469D46ED80A81492E7CBE165.png (629x1173, 131K)

>More eloquent = smarter
Learn English mate. Or better yet, learn Latin and stop mistranslated basic vocabulary:
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eloquent

*mistranslating

Oooooooo, oh noooo I used a word not right on the internet. I must be a big dummy huh? How unfortunate.
>stop mistranslated basic vocabulary
Pfffft

Economics is the study of consequences of actions, particularly with monetary transactions and the distribution of goods and services. That seems like a better way to judge how effective NN is than a poll of the laity's opinion on the subject, because it's not in their purview to do so.

I mean, you were the one that made the equivalence between being too lazy to not type properly or for long periods of time over a settled issue in a bait thread on a Mongolian pillaging forum and being stupid, not me.

>you were the one that made the equivalence between being too lazy to not type properly or for long periods of time over a settled issue in a bait thread on a Mongolian pillaging forum and being stupid, not me.
No I didn't. Learn to read you fuckong mong.

>Says the person that can't even read the abstract of a paper to glean an idea of why and how they approached their conclusion because it goes against their worldview.
Yeah, fuck right off cunt.

back to plebbit

it is, you brainlet cancer retard

>Economics is the study of consequences of actions, particularly with monetary transactions and the distribution of goods and services. That seems like a better way to judge how effective NN is than a poll of the laity's opinion on the subject, because it's not in their purview to do so.
I agree, it is indeed a better way to judge it, but at the same time, the public opinion shouldn't be ignored, especially when the people deciding about these rules were elected by the same public

What? I'm not the person you think I am lmao. Learn to follow a conversation you fucking mong.

BREAKING NEWS: The senate will soon vote for the Congressional Review Act resolution to block the repeal of net neutrality
twitter.com/fightfortheftr/status/994206571352780803

Yeah, that's why we should democratically vote to redistribute your personal belongings :^)

anime website

>The public should make decision for private businesses
>The public that on the whole is economically illiterate
How about no?

Best WiFi router for under $120?
I need to make a link around 75ft to a detached apartment.

I can pick up a Nighthawk AC1900 for $110, but as I'm sitting on 3 other Netgear products that aren't doing the job I'm hesitant to pull the trigger.

Attached: Capture.png (1549x651, 277K)

That book looks 1000 pages desu

>The public should make decision for private businesses
Or
>The public should have a voice in regards to a decision that has a lot of potential to fuck them over because of the monopolies, which they can't control
It's not about deciding for private business, but rather demanding their rights as customers

You're comparing taking away someone's personal freedom to consumers demanding their rights
I know that democracy has its obvious issues, the so called "tyranny of the majority", I'm not denying that, but the camparison you made was stupid

I live in a relatively small town. There are 3 ISPs in the region: Charter, Comcast, and CenturyLink. Only Charter and CenturyLink provide service where I live. CenturyLink caps out at 12Mbps (painfully slow), and Charter runs at 60Mbps.

Could someone who is against government mandated net neutrality please explain how if Charter decides to implement some bullshit I'm not fucked?

>It's not about deciding for private business, but rather demanding their rights as customers
So deciding what private businesses do because they feel it violates their "right" to internet access, even though that "right" is really just a contractual relationship between the private business and the person that bought the service.

Also, stop using the "monopoly" boogeyman as a reason for supporting NN. If you really have a problem with a monopoly, then bring up the FTC, not the FCC, since the FTC deals with the anti-trust shit against monopolies.

Well uh

Maybe you should learn to like getting fucked huh?

We live in a country with a representative government. As much as big business cucks deplore the fact, the people dictate their rights.

That's what I thought.

Whether you believe in rights or not, they're here, and probably won't go away any time soon
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access

Its not just about the monopolies, revoking NN would allow ISPs to create fast lanes, which would only benefit big companies like google and netflix, while small business/startups would struggle a lot more to stand out and compete with the big bois, unless there's some other law asides from NN thay already prevents that

And private businesses/individuals have the right to dictate how they allocate their resources in order to pursue their economic endeavors. This is one of the many things the Founding Fathers envisioned when they founded the US, since it is in the pursuit of happiness, life and liberty of the individual in question (individuals in the case of the business) and they have a right not to cheapen their service and hence their livelihood because of a gov't mandate.
Plus, this doesn't even delve into the economic problems that NN actually creates.

>Whether you believe in rights or not, they're here, and probably won't go away any time soon
>Non-elected officials from other countries that don't represent me can tell me what rights I have in terms of the US legal system
JEJ
The rest of your post contradicts actually tested economic theories about NN:
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1587058

Also, nber.org/papers/w22040 is another good paper that illustrates my point. It's not that I like the current situation with ISPs. I just think the gov't is too incompetent to control something like how ISPs allocate bandwidth, especially with the geriatric old fucks in Congress still being alive and ignorant of technology works (as the Facebook hearings showed).

Why is it that those against net neutrality are only capable of the most absolute garbage shitposts? Is this some elaborate false flag to make those against net neutrality look bad or are they this retarded?

>Non-elected officials from other countries that don't represent me can tell me what rights I have in terms of the US legal system
Sadly, thats how human rights work

>It's not that I like the current situation with ISPs. I just think the gov't is too incompetent to control something like how ISPs allocate bandwidth, especially with the geriatric old fucks in Congress still being alive and ignorant of technology works (as the Facebook hearings showed).
I agree with that, but at the same time, I still fear thay simply removing the current laws without making sure ISPs wouldn't make agreements to lock prices and silence/throttle websites that don't pay/disagree with their agenda would led to unintended consequences

>Sadly, thats how human rights work
But that's not how a representative democracy, like the United States works. I mean, unless there's this magical world gov't that determines what rights you do and don't have which is made up of unelected officials, which violates the actual right of the people to be properly represented in the gov't at large.

>I still fear thay simply removing the current laws without making sure ISPs wouldn't make agreements to lock prices and silence/throttle websites that don't pay/disagree with their agenda would led to unintended consequences
Just from the legal side, that's bound to open a bunch of anti-trust lawsuits aimed at them (for good reason in that case) and honestly can be better dealt with by the law since frankly it's more clear cut about this issue with our nation's anti-trust laws being aimed at all non-competitive behaviors, including oligarchic behaviors of a few ISPs.

>legislation of any kind is good

Attached: 1522583741197.jpg (259x335, 17K)

Could you explain the part in the paper about how under strong net neutrality less popular content providers would be pushed out to supply the more popular ones?

>cry muh free speech
>vote for a president that wants to abolish it

Attached: 1513204550247.gif (540x270, 1.84M)

>Implying he isn't different than any of the last 5 in that manner
Also,
>If you don't like NN, you voted for Trump
Nice logic there retard

>net neutrality is bad

Attached: 1525138426204.jpg (720x736, 94K)

Source?

Attached: 1513204482823.gif (540x270, 1.68M)

Attached: netNeutrality.jpg (616x676, 96K)

You can't have your cake and eat it too libertarians. You say you support the free market yet think that making it illegal for comcast to buy the right to be the only ISP is communism. Do you really support the free market or do you really support the pockets of big business.