An open question. Have you ever heard the arguments against Net neutrality?

This is not bait.
Just putting it out there.

Attached: 1424892083012.jpg (300x168, 7K)

Yes, Senpai Luke Smith has a video on this.

Only from retarded Americans that believe net neutrality disturbs the market.

While in reality net neutrality is actually the unofficial status quo that needs to be protected to preserve the market we have now against players with a dominant market position.

But isnt net neutrality mostly effecting ISPs?
I mean
Google
Amazon
Facebook
Microsoft
Apple
Twitter
Youtube
Are not ISPs therefore net neutrality does not matter as much

How does society handle this?
Do we start another program like
Platform neutrality to handle this?

Its not an attack.
Im just interested

>Google isn't an ISP
They actually are.

But in America a lot of ISP's have a regional monopoly.
Websites pay for their traffic at a webhoster. And end users pay for their traffic at the ISP. But due to the unique position ISP's are in they can ask websites and users to pay extra to connect the two. So you basically pay for nothing.
And the other way around, a company like YouTube can pay an ISP to make Netflix slower for their users.
And this becomes especially troublesome when you're a start up that can't compete with the big guys to pay for extra speed. So small companies won't be able to compete with the big guys anymore.

That's the doom scenario anyway.

With google i thought about them connecting to the internet without an ISP.
that is seperate to the whole google fibre and such

Ive heard that NN would create alot of bureaucracy that would make it harder for smaller ISPs to stay afloat making the
monopoly even harder to break!

How would it create bureaucracy? It are rules of things you should avoid doing. Not additional work.

>Two ISPs have since offered gigabit
>No dindubux used for ISPs
>Supported by people who support censorship

Net Neutrality matters more than you think because then we can use sites like this. It hasn't been long since its death to see when the ISPs develop into a deadly force. That said, they do seem to be starting, many phone companies are throttling video data in their unlimited plans while preserving other data at original speeds. Give it time and I'll be much worse.

As for the platforms, on one hand, we can easily switch to alternatives like Mastadon (or GNU Social, fits with Jow Forums's mascot), ProtonMail, here, and DuckDuckGo.

The problem is the good ol' network effect and that many platforms like YouTube can't just have all its content easily transplanted to other platforms unless video producers switch, which won't happen until users switch. Think of the situation basically with GNU/Linux where it doesn't have the programs and drivers like Windows to compete equally. So there needs to be a monopoly break up, which would achieve some "platform neutrality" goal. The only thing that would achieve that more permanently would to force social networks to be federated under a standard like GNU Social/StatusNet, but that would bring in major freedom loss implications that are much more extreme and non-acceptable than the more tame Net Neutrality.

Basically for the platform issue, the companies need to be broken up, better than a "platform neutrality" law.

Besides that classifying ISPs under Title II doesn't immediately apply every rule under its belt unless the FCC specifies (this is from what I've heard mixed with some logical guesses, too bad the US gov isn't fully transparent) so, even if they do, the rules mainly were against larger corporations, and there were even rules that forced ISPs to share infrastructure, crushing ISP monopoly much more easily. The only concern is some archaic bits like some parts that would give the FCC a chance to censor, but I still think they may have to execute the idea manually, since every rule enactment involves some vote. That said, the FCC handling it was never optimal anyways, it was just the only choice a Democratic President had while dealing with a much more Republican Congress. The best way is a dedicated law, or at least some modernization to Title II.

One more thing to add, about the censor part, there's also a possibility that the Supreme Court could review that part of Title II and make it unconstitutional if there is enough interest. The Judiciary branch had to approve of the FCC's plan in the first place.

>Ive heard that NN would create alot of bureaucracy
It doesn't. Every router/switch/server is compliant with NN by default. They just see packets in and out, regardless of origin/destination. You have to go out of your way to start slowing traffic from specific hosts.

>The Mafia owned pizza places aren't affected by the Mafia fucking up other pizza parlors

Attached: 1531179830521.png (640x628, 622K)

I've seen two arguments about NN, one is that big companies like Google and Amazon are willing and able to pay ISPs for priority access to their websites, and the other is a weird spin on this saying that sites like youtube use more than their fair share of bandwidth and removing NN allows ISPs to make them pay debts, although the latter is some Jow Forums retardation

I imagine the latter happens first. Quickly followed up by the former.

So it starts with good intentions and ends up as an extortion racket.

the government shouldn't have to regulate how content is delivered, if an ISP is throttling content their customers should just switch ISPs. the real problem is that ISPs have lobbied to prevent any competition and many consumers don't have a choice. Breakup the monopolies and new ISPs could even advertise net neutrality as a competitive feature for there service. If consumers care about it they should be able to pick an ISP that provides it, not have it forced on you.

So if twitter bans people they dont like its their right
But if an ISP bans a persons website its against the law?

The ISPs lobbying to remove NN are interested in doing the extortion racket from the get-go. You can tell, because they've already been trying to do that for years.
If you trust them go ask them why your bill goes up by $10 every couple months.

it is not the job of ISPs to ban websites. That is the job of web hosting companies. The job of ISPs is to connect users to websites, nothing else.

I'm against net neutrality and I live in a country without net neutrality where none of your reddit doomsday scenarios never happened.
>b-but if the state doesn't restrict ISPs you'll literally have to pay hundreds of dollars to access Jow Forums
It's been several months. What has changed?

It's their job to do whatever the fuck they want with their own infrastructure and if you're not happy find another one or start your own.

Yes, that is indeed how reddit thinks. It's ok to censor people, but only if you don't like them.

>It's their job to do whatever the fuck they want

>company steals money
>It's their job to do whatever the fuck they want dude fuck off
kek

I see you conveniently left out the rest of the sentences to make a retarded analogy between an ISP doing whatever they want with their own infrastructure and theft. Never change, reddit.

nice doublepost, reddit.
doing "whatever they want" with their infrastructure doesn't have to be lawful.

That picture is funny because if the guy wasn't struggling to hard to get free, the chain would break on its own.

>nice doublepost, reddit.
I know.
>doing "whatever they want" with their infrastructure doesn't have to be lawful.
The burden is on you to show how someone refusing to connect you to a website should be illegal.

Just bring your hands together, the first letter "G" and the last letter "E" will fall, and you will be free.

the only reasonable argument against net neutrality is that isps should be able to charge companies more for hosting companies servers in the isps datacentres to get better in house routing, but this is largely a response to an unreasonable position to begin with (companies pay for shit routing, customer blames isp not company), otherwise most nn provisions are largely pro-consumer
isps are already a monopoly/duopoly in most cases, they don't need to be rewarded further

smaller isps are already disadvantaged by the fact that the bigger isps can drop down money to magically improve infrastructure and price them out of the market, just look at all the fibre rollouts from comcast et al that happened in cities that google started to deploy to

it's not quite a Jow Forums retardation but the specifics of the argument elude me, so to paraphrase it, google and netflix are such traffic heavy sites that they want to get the cheapest bandwidth and routing possible but it's last mile isps that pay the price when such companies skimp out on traffic because people blame last mile isps for netflix never loading so it's last mile isps that have to pick up the tab or lose customers

freedom of speech protects you from government prosecution and nothing more, this is why private companies can largely decide who they want to serve
isps on the other hand are generally considered public utilities and aren't afforded the same protections, it would be like saying your phone company won't let you call a number of a white nationalist or your postal service deciding that you can't receive mail any more because you have a conservative sign in your garden

>their own infrastructure
lul the majority of isp infrastructure is paid for by the state, you have to go third world shitholes to find examples to the contrary of this

Those who oppose net neutrality are blacklisters, who think only things that they disapprove of should be banned. Those who support net neutrality are whitelisters, who think everything should be banned except what they approve of.
Whether it is in place or not doesn't actually matter, both the free market and the government stop the issue equally well.

>isps on the other hand are generally considered public utilities and aren't afforded the same protections
And I disagree with that.
>it would be like saying your phone company won't let you call a number of a white nationalist or your postal service deciding that you can't receive mail any more because you have a conservative sign in your garden
Yep, and I see nothing wrong with a private company stopping me from doing that. I'd just stop giving them business.

>lul the majority of isp infrastructure is paid for by the state
The state is free to insert a clause in the lease they made to ISPs saying in order to use their cable, they can't restrict website access. Net Neutrality doesn't make this distinction, an ISP with it's own cabling still can't do what they want with it.
>you have to go third world shitholes to find examples to the contrary of this
This kind of disconnect from the rest of the world can really only come from an American.

Why would anyone in the best part of the world give a damn about how politics impact your shithole? If you're not in Russia or China you're only alive because we haven't decided to kill you yet.

Attached: traditional marine corps rain ritual.jpg (652x960, 157K)

>The burden is on you to show how someone refusing to connect you to a website should be illegal.
There is no motivation to differentiate between website A and B. I doesn't cost them more money to connect a user to website B. This differentiating is only made to charge people double for their data, with no added value for the consumer. It is essentially discrimination.

ISPs should just be treated as ends to a mean. Not as the mean itself. A power company just delivers power, what I do with that power should not matter. ISPs deliver bandwidth, it should not matter what I do with that bandwidth.

>ISPs should just be treated as ends to a mean. Not as the mean itself.
disregard this. English is not my first language

They don't care about "adding value fo the consumer", and why should they? They're providing this service to make a profit, not to please you. If you trample on their profits they'll just leave and do something else where they can make money without government harassment. Then you have nothing.

Internet access is already a basic right in many developed nations.
Your loss if you live in a shithole.

You explained why it made no sense to block websites, not why it should be illegal or even that repealing NN is necessarily the same as blocking websites (NN has been repealed and it hasn't happened yet).

Enjoy your literal warzone, kiddo.

>Enjoy your literal warzone, kiddo.
You mean the charred remains ofmyour home country? I will. Hope the native women are better than the shit in the middle east.

Attached: roll for initiative.jpg (960x554, 121K)

More murders happen in Chicago in a day than in my country in a year. I'm sorry that being confronted with the fact that not everyone needs to wear a bullet-proof vest upsets you this much.

>If you trample on their profits they'll just leave and do something else where they can make money without government harassment.
But they were doing fine with NN? I know that companies do not care about shit except money, that is one of the reasons why laws exists. Internet is about a basic human need right now in devolved countries as water, gas and electricity. So it makes no sense to give ISPs that extra freedom that the other 3 utilities do not have

>no sense to block websites
I explained why it made no sense to double charge consumers

>but dead niggers
Nothing of value was lost. I'm sorry to hear that evolution has stopped in your nation.

Yes I have.
It was completely convincing.
My opinion was flipped a full 180.
I now realize Net Neutrality supporters are wrong.
This is not bait.
Just putting it out there.

They were also doing fine without NN im 2015 and none of the reddit doomsday scenarios came true.

>no sense to double charge consumers
And where has this happened outside of your imagination?

Damage control.

Feeling entitled to internet does not justify taking away the freedom of those who provide internet.

It's quite a pity acting smug won't protect you from the most powerful military on the planet. You'll desperately wish you were getting raped by niggers in Chicago or Detroit after the first drone strike.

Attached: url.jpg (1588x1956, 993K)

You are basing your arguments on "it has not happened" but that is bullshit and not the point. Why should internet data be treated differently than phone communications, electricity, water or gas?

>Reee my country is going to invade yours because you were mean to me on the internet!

Because you die without water and freeze without gas. I also don't think phones should be a necessity. Even gas is debatable.
You people pay thousands the go to a hospital, hundreds of thousands for a college degree and the cry that ISPs MAYBE will charge you 3$ to visit a website. This is your priority list: internet is a necessity, but health should be a business.

What? No, you dense retard, my point all along was nobody in America cares about the rest of the world because you are alive only by our grace.
>If you're not in Russia or China you're only alive because we haven't decided to kill you yet.
We're killing you for fun and profit, we don't care about what you think or say because we can.

don't worry, i'm sure the anti NN shills will be lobbying for all common carrier and utility regulations to be removed.

>We
I see the marine cops LARP has begun.

We, the people of these United States of America. I was actually (ch)air force, because fuck doing anything besides PT and sitting at a desk. Still gotta get those sweet gibs for college.
You also don't know what LARP means unless you are intentionally using it incorrectly like some kind of fucking Australian.

>You people pay thousands the go to a hospital
>hundreds of thousands for a college degree
nope and nope, both are funded by the state in The Netherlands.
Health, schools, internet should all be protected by the state. Basic healthcare should also be law in America, public should be the norm. I know that Americans aren't too keen on government meddling, and given America's history, that is not really surprising. But yeah, I think that you guys (consumers, just normal John Does) are better of in the end if all that shit was protected by the state.

I know that there are arguments made ("why should I pay for that when I don't use it"), but if everyone pays a little, we won't all have to pay as much. And don't call me a commie. I sure believe in capitalism, but only in the areas where it is appropriate and where monolopies are prevented. (and PLEASE do not talk about refugees, this system we have in The Netherlands and other countries can only work if everyone takes part in it and, well, refugees for the most part do not take part in it)

You're still providing this internet service in [country] and perhaps for [country] as well. A country is more (though less and less every day) than just a couple of fags who don't shoot each other because laws forbid this. You have morals to uphold, and having some ISP telling your population they're thinking wrong and shouldn't (or have to pay extra to) visit [site] because it disagrees with the general consensus and whatnot is bad for that. The world is already overcharged with politics; it's one thing to make those shitty women in stem adverts, but with this you're really biting in hard. And the worst part? Their opinion can turn on a dime, they go with the flow. Oh, and both schools and healthcare should be state funded.

Care to explain what convinced you? Why is NN bad? Because that's specific the thing OP is asking for.

So your not in favor of NN i guess...

net neutrality is actually a fancy word invented to conceal the truth that it actually helps the big tech companies.

>Basic healthcare should also be law in America, public should be the norm.
Just let the genetically and intellectually inferior die. If they are so fucked up from birth they can't support themselves they should be removed from the gene pool, and nearly every other ailment can be avoided or treated by not being an idiot. If someone gets something like cancer they had better hope they contributed enough to society, and thereby made enough money, to pay society to treat their cancer. Not dying to cancer is a great motivator to get everyone to do their best instead of just lazily working 9 to 5 at McDonalds their entire life knowing the government will steal the money to save their lives from someone else. Letting these people die will make the country better. Prolonging the lives of welfare state supporting Mexicans in California who will otherwise die from obesity related heart disease is the absolute last thing I want my tax dollars to do.

Attached: wrong.png (406x388, 23K)

Go away, Luke. Uncle Teddy is waiting for you in the woods.

I love this, this post perfectly encapsulated the American Dream. And that is not said in a negative way or anything.

But on the other hand, it is pretty short sighted. Wait until you have a handicapped son/daughter or a wife that gets a really bad injury and needs expensive medical treatment and you be working your ass off working 2 jobs just to pay for everything. Then you wished you had a system like we have. But, "everything is fine now, so fuck the rest" eh?

OP here.

for once OP is not the faggot...

Attached: 1425842111966.jpg (124x125, 3K)

Ive heard this.

You got any tasty links for this?

The only people against net neutrality are the corporations that stand to benefit from it and the individuals who lick their boots.

Attached: 1533572408410.png (996x884, 1018K)

Thank you. I don't see how I could possibly take that in a negative way.
As for the rest, I don't see why I should be able to demand more from society than I gave to society just because I really want something. I'm not a thief. There isn't really much of a difference between me forcing a doctor to perform the operation at gunpoint and having the state pay for it, besides a few levels of abstraction. I don't have to hold the gun, it's pointed at a bunch of people instead of just the doctor, and some money changes hands, but it's still roughly the same. I got something I couldn't afford at the expense of someone else, never to be repaid.
Besides, there's always things like GoFundMe where you can ask for money instead of demanding the government steal it for you. This applies to all sorts of things, like how Bill Gates paid a few hundred million dollars for women's birth control to protest the government no longer forcing companies to provide it to their employees, effectively proving once and for all there was never any need for the government to do that by providing a free market alternative.

so you don't have any insurance, or as minimal as possible while being legal?

Insurance is fine as an entirely consensual exchange, they willingly provide a service and make money off of the people who don't need it but think they might. Government mandated insurance not so much but that's from the other side of the coin.
See the glory of capitalism is it lets you do whatever you want, including willingly engaging in collectivist behavior with other consenting adults. The problem is when everyone is forced to participate for the "greater good", especially when you can't have an alternative. For example, the freedom to use a smaller, local insurance company instead of a huge one spanning the whoel country.

>are the corporations that stand to benefit from it
Meanwhile back in the real world, we had huge corporations that engage in internet censorship hiring shill armies that invaded Jow Forums to shill for net neutrality. They claimed that if net neutrality was removed we wouldn't be able to access Jow Forums. They claimed that ISPs would engage in all sorts of censorship practices. In reality, Jow Forums is still here. These pro net neutrality companies are moving as one to use their positions in the internet to censor speech they don't like.

The worst thing an ISP has ever done to me is comply with the DMCA. Google is trying to destroy privacy, the exchange of ideas, and Western Civilization as a whole. Fuck them and anyone who looks like them.

Attached: meatismurdernazifamilycomic.jpg (1826x2400, 495K)

White women are degenerate though. The only white women who would fuck a guy in a Nazi shirt are actually "women" like the "Queen" of Jow Forums. Meanwhile Japanese women think Nazis are as cool as I do.

Attached: aishinozaki.jpg (853x1280, 108K)

I've heard plenty, mostly from the right wing. Razorfist (inb4 muh e-celebs) makes a good point. the very tldr is: NN is corporate welfare and protects big corps from competition. Ask yourself this:
Why did all the tech magacorps campaigned for it? Out of the goodness of their heart?

bumpo