Can Jow Forums explain to a simpleton if pic related is true...

Can Jow Forums explain to a simpleton if pic related is true? Months my roommate in networking was freaking out about Net Neutrality but here we are months later and NOTHING has changed. If something has changed please tell me how it has affected me. I such at networking, I am a simple tech 2 and do more user access then network, so when I mentioned how net neutrality is a Redditt meme I get talked down to.

It seems like it was just a big nothingburger.

Attached: IMG_20180829_110619_322.jpg (800x450, 53K)

Other urls found in this thread:

medium.com/@BerinSzoka/false-alarm-verizons-fire-department-customer-service-fail-has-nothing-to-do-with-net-neutrality-3b9a2d770e5b
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Regulatory_history
web.archive.org/web/20171227133638/http://www.speedtest.net/global-index/united-states.
speedtest.net/global-index/united-states#fixed
nypost.com/2017/12/01/no-the-end-of-net-neutrality-isnt-cyber-maggeddon/
reason.com/archives/2017/07/18/net-neutrality-supporters-should-actuall
insidesources.com/point-net-neutrality-bad-consumers/
pjmedia.com/blog/fcc-commissioner-free-content-might-violate-agencys-internet-conduct-standard/#undefined
forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2014/10/12/fcc-plans-stealth-internet-tax-increase/
internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=4342
web.archive.org/web/20171227133638/http://www.speedtest.net/global-index/united-states
commondreams.org/news/2018/08/28/1000-first-responders-urge-congress-restore-net-neutrality-after-verizon-throttles?amp
harvestpublicmedia.org/post/what-netflix-and-net-neutrality-could-mean-so-slow-internet-small-town-kansas
infoworld.com/article/3189828/internet/only-in-the-usa-isps-get-tax-dollars-to-build-weak-broadband.html
ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-net-neutrality
jackmatlock.com/2018/06/musings-ii-the-intellience-community-russian-interference-and-due-diligence/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

How many years went by before net neutrality was a thing? I think it's safe to say it's a meme.

The first time some poltard started this thread, the fpbp user stated about 3 shit moves ISPs had already pulled about a week after the date passed.
I guess I should have copypasted. I guess I thought the debate was pretty much finished for anyone that had a mind to change at that point.

Just some context, my roommate would constantly read Gizmodo and says they are almost always right. He claims that once net neutrality was repealed that we would have subscriptions added in to everything from the ISPs. When this didn't happen after a few weeks he said

>it doesn't happen over night, it slowly happens over time, just watch


Well still waiting and watching and I don't see it.

Attached: IMG_20180717_112458_667.jpg (453x438, 27K)

Post it, I simply want to be better educated on this. I don't like how smug my progressive roommate is but he also believes Russians influenced the election with some memes on Facebook so it's hard to take him seriously

Attached: IMG_20180622_084814_434.jpg (568x510, 38K)

It comes down to whether you want corporations or the government to control the internet. It's the jewish rabbi vs catholic priest. One wants to fuck you out of your money while the other just wants to fuck you.

I believe it's a meme but wanted to come to this board since the other boards are not much help. Jow Forums got kinda close to helping but it always devolves into trolling and shit talk. I was hoping Jow Forums could make it more clear for me.

But nothing has changed is my point.... Either is horrible honestly, so far it feels like corporations have more control then anything, especially with how huge Google is now and how they and other big tech are now embracing censorship.

The american internet is so fucked already that it made no much difference.
Difference will be made the day someone actually open up the american internet for actual competition.
As a BR i saw the BRUTAL difference between monopoly internet and free market internet.

It probably did change but not for the end user. The reason why reddit shilled net neutrality is because FAANG told them to do so because no net neutrality would hurt the big tech giants that want a monopoly.

Seems like it hasn't changed though, after the repeal Google is doubling down on trying to control everything and are going censor crazy on all their platforms. This shit was shipped by all of reddit, youtube, facebook, etc. I the Damn poo in charge of the FCC had his life and kids threatened cause this shit was shipped to be the end of the "free" internet.

You mean other than fire department being throttled?

So was the repeal good or bad in your opinion user?

Besides that though what else happened? Also why didn't they do The same in Colorado during all the wild fires? I feel it was more California getting the shit and because that state is fucked already with a platter of problems.

It hasn't been technically repealed. There's a ton of lawsuits going on to stop it right now.

Tbf it hasn't been a year and since the whole thing is a slippery slope argument. ISPs have to get on that slope first. Sooner or later they'll charge certain people more. I assume they'll charge people/companies with high bandwith usage more while not lowering the price for the average consumer.

>medium.com/@BerinSzoka/false-alarm-verizons-fire-department-customer-service-fail-has-nothing-to-do-with-net-neutrality-3b9a2d770e5b
>The FPD simply chose a data plan for their mobile command and control unit that was manifestly inappropriate for their needs.

> what else happened?
No idea, not really following new just know about the big once. But still, it shows what they can do and there is no action against it.

Just as a note; Net Neutrality did nothing to protect you from corporates dicing up the internet and serving it to you with overpriced packages. They could freely throttle whatever they wanted. The government literally could not stop them.

>b-but muh broken laws
Oh look, a congressman that obviously worked with comcast found that nothing was wrong. So they get all the fines waived.

If anything, this just seemed like a move to get them to charge even more down the line, but it doesn't make sense since nothing was stopping them before.

these things go slow. the GDPR or whatever that EU anti-tracking law is caled was also approved a while ago and many websites don't care. and nobody has been sued for it for now afaik

The repeal is probably a bit bad given it is a kludge to contain the monopolistic hell companies a bit, but it's the tip of the iceberg of shit being knocked around, while the lack of competition makes the internet be really bad.
Here in BR when broadband was first introduced it was just DSL by the telephone company back then (telefonica).
256Kbps, 100 MB download cap, 10 dollars per extra 100MB downloaded.
And would be like that forever if the monopoly was kept, but eventually the cable tv and small wifi services etc jumped in and in less than a year, internet was 4Mbps, no caps.

Nothing has affected you yet because most states went ahead and made net neutrality a thing on state level, not federal, basically making FCC's job way easier, now they have a thing less to do, and you'll have to pay more to new people overseeing companies.

Net neutrality has pretty much always been a thing, the FCC has always enacted on it, until they got sued by the ISPs since it wasn't an actual law, to protect net neutrality, they made it so that using the internet was a necessity for citizens and their livelihood and thus protected under title two.

Also
>inb4 the verizon california firefighters debacle
That's not an NN issue, that's an issue with the way Carriers advertise "unlimited" plans. Net neutrality has always allowed carriers to throttle outside of payment plans.

What evidence supports these claims though? this seems like Reddit talking point and it is never explained well.

Thanks user anymore info you can provide, can you refute or explain to the anons saying "give it time" I never get a explanation for this.

Government and law move slow as fuck and ISPs didn’t actually obey net neutrality anyways.

If nothing changed and nothing is ever going to change, why repeal it in the first place?

Why would you go to the most based and biast tech board to ask a question? It's definitely a thing, and alot has changed.

not him but what makes you think that nothing will change? the simple fact that they wanted to get rid of net neutrality means that they want to change things in a way or another. if nothing's changed then what's the point?

Attached: 0dd12810a11c12ca4cf9e34e74ef24e7.jpg (640x640, 83K)

Like what?

>Citation needed

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#Regulatory_history

My view:

Websites arent going to turn into subscriptions because it's not profitable. If tweets cost $0.50 like everyone said it would, nobody would fucking tweet. Also take a moment to think why the big corporations were on the cause. Reminder they they arent fucking charities. I thought it was hilarious how the left called them evil greedy money lovers and said they had a heart for supporting against the cause. Businesses have and will always just be designed to make money, that can be both good and bad as they disregaurd how people feel. Bandwidth cost money to ISPs, and places like google are glad to only pay as much for traffic as some guys shoe business website. I think the main incentive wasnt to try subscription based internet browsing, rather make the companies that use so much bandwidth, pay a large sum of money.

We really just need to either nationalize the internet infrastructure or break the cable companies into hundreds of smaller companies. Or maybe both. The real problem is a lack of competition, cable companies are able to exploit their customers because they don't have any choice.

Well the right leaning belief is its just unnecessary regulation, it holds the free market back from its potential. Thats what ajit pai was leaning back on. That it made the internet more "free"

Attached: 20.png (1011x2094, 382K)

>Bandwidth cost money to ISPs,
Subscribers are paying those fees. Internet companies have their own bandwidth fees they pay to *their* ISPs not to the ISP that the subscriber uses. The two ISPs then negotiate on how much it costs to connect their two networks together.

Even as right leaning as I am. I think nationalizing the infastructure is a better choice, as it would be very expensive for much competition to rise up and purchase their own. Add that it would be ineffecient to have 10 cables underground all from different ISPs running through.

The real conspiracy is all of the big tech sites colluding to remove people they don't like from their platforms due to their political leanings, even if they haven't broken any of the site's rules. Then you have entire websites that are getting shut down due to a lack of payment processing because the payment processors and banks collude to do it as well.

What's the common theme here? Jews own these sites and services that are unjustly banning and removing others for having right of center views. They do it because they're paranoid of being tossed in ovens again, and they should be since they're constantly doing evil shit like this. I'm not saying Jow Forums was right again but goddamnit, Jow Forums was right again.

Attached: 1534450821046.jpg (960x720, 131K)

Net neutrality was a nice idea but it would allow companies like netflix and amazon to hog all the public internet infrastructure without paying a dime for it.

Looks the same to me.

I tried arguing that but my roommate literally works in networking and is a progressive so he is very condecending when it comes to something he claims to be knowledgable on. He said it will happen over time and corporations can charge users out the ass. Even when I pointed out that is a horrible business model he said I was wrong lol

>as it would be very expensive for much competition to rise up and purchase their own
How much of the problem for new competition is just crooked laws and deals made between isps and paid off govt officials looking out for the best interests of their "clients"?
How much regulation pretty much only exists to prevent new entries to the market?
If these were removed, could a less monopolistic market eventually develop?

>he also believes Russians influenced the election with some memes on Facebook so it's hard to take him seriously

Maybe take him seriously, some of them have been identified by name and federally indicted. It wasnt just memes but thousands of fake accounts - including THE "Black Lives Matter" account (Russia had more subscribers than any other BLM account).

If you didn't know this - or you have some conspiracy theory about why it isn't real - then I BEG you to look carefully at how you get current events information. (Hint - if you find yourself preferring certain "viewpoints" in the news, or tryjng to figure out which "side" a particular news report is on, you're doing it very wrong. Those things contribute to your current unfortunate state of being misinformed.)

Wasn't the blm account from australia?

dumb frogposter

The problem is it's incredibly difficult to determine what laws were built for honest reasons and which ones were meant to serve certain entities and removing laws without figuring out which does what can have very severe unintended consequences. We don't want every company out there to be able to tear up our roads to run their cables even if it means we can have slightly faster and cheaper internet.

some mobile carriers here are starting to do something in that direction to get ppl used to it
they offer plans that have "unlimited data" for some apps/sites
this is just the first step into getting everyone used to it

yeah, we're sheep

we need internet classified as a utility, that's all.

Thankfully there is new technologies coming down the line that should massively increase the amount of competition in the ISP market, while working around the local government granted cable monopolies.

The first would be 5G cellular internet, which should let cell carriers also offer useful home internet packages. Most Americans have 2-4 cell carriers available; C-Spire, a regional carrier in the southern US (and 6th largest in US) recently started offering home 5g internet - 120 Mbps, no data cap, for $50 a month. The larger ones should be able to offer similar packages.

Then there is the LEO satellite internet, like Oneweb & Starlink. Putting the satellites in LEO allows much lower latency than existing satellite internet, and higher speeds. Starlink already has a couple test satellites up, and according to the paperwork with the FCC they plan on launching over 4000 more in the next six years, and another 7000 after that. Ol'Musky certainly is ambitious. And I suppose Pajit gets some kudos for fast-tracking the approval.

Attached: Starlink-test-satellites-SpaceX.jpg (2543x1526, 391K)

One of the major ones was, yeah. Some guy in Adelaide I think. One good thing about all this is that it's hopefully making people think more about what they're actually doing and using online. There's this inexplicable implicit trust a lot of normalfags have for what they see on these platforms that's just not healthy, no matter the political leanings involved. There's this weird transference from their trust in a site to the user content on it. "Oh, this is on Facebook, it must be true" with zero thought to who put it there, or who might be behind a profile.

idk but Jow Forums images load super slow when I'm on wifi on my phone. 4g and desktop don't seem affected for whatever reason

>There's this inexplicable implicit trust a lot of normalfags have for what they see on these platforms that's just not healthy
It's odd.
15 years ago there's was a distrust, or at least I and everyone I knew who used the net didn't trust shit.
When did things change?

I personally welcome our new dystopian corporate-run future. Cyberpunk is here bros, for the 'shadow-runners' at least. The rest of ya'll will just be wage slaves.

I think it's something about how people have come to trust technology for everything. If I had to guess, there's not that same distinction between the technology, the platform and the content. Your phone is not Facebook, Facebook is not the content being served to you on Facebook. As people into this stuff, your average Jow Forums user intuitively understands that and its implications. I don't think that's true for everyone. Facebook's that thing on your phone, and it's where all your friends are, and it's showing you stuff... gee, this article sure looks important. So does this video clip. And it's right next to that post about how Cassandra just had a baby, and you know that's true...

I'd actually say yes, give it time, these things never really come up quickly. Most anti NN issues are uncovered after they happened, for example when they throttle specific services because of competition to similar own solutions. I'd say that another issue similar to this will be uncovered sometime, probably soon, maybe not this year, in a state that did not impose their own net neutrality rulings. I personally doubt that ISPs will begin to provide the bundle concepts soon, as it would be too obvious and cause a lot of uprising with "i told you so's", so I think they'll begin to slowly introduce them without the users really knowing, over a lot of time, one of these would be something like, them slowing down youtube or netflix video streaming, or limiting them to 720p, something they have been doing with their "unlimited" cellular plans. It's also ironic how companies like Netflix are introducing the very things why people started cable cutting, such as adding unskippable ads between shows, even with a paid subscription. I think that when these will become more prevalent, that the ISPs will being rolling out their plans with deals for such services too. But that can take a few years.

To add to this. Such shitty tactics like adding ads to paid subscriptions is short sighted gain and purely meant to satisfy investors by increasing income. People will have less reasons to start watching your shows, because more of the time will be filled with ads, meaning that less people will eventually watch (especially when a new service that doesn't do this pops up) and thus you'll begin to receive less money from the ads, since the ad view counts drop.

>muh Russia hacked the election with some fb ads
Let it go sweetie.

Attached: 12938427434.jpg (502x374, 33K)

When the repeal was announced late last year, the U.S. had the 12th fastest fixed broadband service in the world:
web.archive.org/web/20171227133638/http://www.speedtest.net/global-index/united-states.

Since the announcement, the U.S. has improved to the 6th fastest in the world: speedtest.net/global-index/united-states#fixed

As you can see from the graph in this post, there was a definite upward bend in U.S. internet speed following the announcement. And data also shows increased technological investment by ISPs after the government said it would end the order regulating the internet as a public utility.

When government tells the private sector how much it has to charge or who it must or must not enter into customer agreements with, it stifles innovation. Only when a buyer and seller are fully free to decide the terms of sale do both parties benefit.

SOURCES: speedtest.net/global-index/united-states#fixed
nypost.com/2017/12/01/no-the-end-of-net-neutrality-isnt-cyber-maggeddon/
reason.com/archives/2017/07/18/net-neutrality-supporters-should-actuall
insidesources.com/point-net-neutrality-bad-consumers/
pjmedia.com/blog/fcc-commissioner-free-content-might-violate-agencys-internet-conduct-standard/#undefined
forbes.com/sites/haroldfurchtgottroth/2014/10/12/fcc-plans-stealth-internet-tax-increase/
internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=4342
web.archive.org/web/20171227133638/http://www.speedtest.net/global-index/united-states

Attached: 39203633_873451056174224_3280448058785005568_o.jpg (1861x2048, 221K)

I would like to see standard deviation for both of those averages. I imagine there's heavy skew for places that have fiber vs places that don't.

>fastest broadband has everything to do with net neutrality
Not really. It's a play, staged by the ISPs.

Stop swallowing propaganda.

I'm pretty liberal, but I'm willing to admit I was wrong about net neutrality. Nothing's changed. It was all fearmongering and propaganda by the left.

No. It's fine as it is. Why do you people feel the need to fix everything that is not broken?

LAWL: commondreams.org/news/2018/08/28/1000-first-responders-urge-congress-restore-net-neutrality-after-verizon-throttles?amp

medium.com/@BerinSzoka/false-alarm-verizons-fire-department-customer-service-fail-has-nothing-to-do-with-net-neutrality-3b9a2d770e5b

Do things change over night? Or does the powers that be put regulations in place to benefit them from years to come?
You are a blind sheep if you think they fought vs net neutrality for any other reason than to move thing in their favor for the future of business not consumers.
Dumb fuck.

If rural voters wanted the repeal because they thought they could could essentially tax tech companies to fund 'investment' for their local ISPs to expand coverage, any recent word on that front?

harvestpublicmedia.org/post/what-netflix-and-net-neutrality-could-mean-so-slow-internet-small-town-kansas

>67367012 cont.
because in the past, it appears rural america wanted to self fund their own network but telcos said the government shouldn't compete with the private sector.
infoworld.com/article/3189828/internet/only-in-the-usa-isps-get-tax-dollars-to-build-weak-broadband.html

so I could see why rural america would want the repeal, if they cant fund/run it directly due to laws then their only recourse might be 'uh tax the content providers so our local isps can afford to roll out coverage'

Welcome to the modern world, America!

Europe has lived without net neutrality for years now. Most I've ever seen is ISPs offering free social media access or unlimited youtube transfer.

Attached: 30536580-a-man-complete-with-personal-protective-equipment-wearing-safetyl-body-harness-showing-thum (863x1300, 91K)

EU enforces NN, you retard. ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-internet-net-neutrality

it's not working great, nor is it even considered "OK" in most of USA
because your dumbass lives in middle of a metro city area you think it's all fine

USA citizens NEVER had net neutrality

Attached: drunk_cat.jpg (590x550, 34K)

Net Neutrality have nothing to do with your speed test, retard

>All major 3 letter data intelligence agencies acknowledge russian influence on 2016 election
>senate acknowledges it
>Twitter acknowledges 1.4million Russian trolls during lead up to 2016 election
>dude I can’t take him seriously lmao

Your roommate isn’t the dumb one bub.

Attached: 4L_P0Moh6D5.png (401x366, 28K)

>Obama, the 3 letter agencies and the senate all proclaim elections are un-hackable and that Trump is going to lose fair and square
>Trump wins
>ELECTIONS WERE HACKED, REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Yeah, that's not dubious at all.

Furthermore
>3 letter agencies, the senate and major American tech companies in bed with the aforementioned 3 letter agencies have never lied to the public

Attached: uhjUFo9C9ES5G8RfGbT76ghY4rUN_XEkfE_YRMo1mXk.jpg?fit=crop&crop=faces%2Centropy&arh=2&w=64 (640x723, 61K)

>All major 3 letter data intelligence agencies acknowledge russian influence on 2016 election

jackmatlock.com/2018/06/musings-ii-the-intellience-community-russian-interference-and-due-diligence/

>What should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the procedure Clapper followed was the same as that used in 2003 to produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had retained stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome enough to inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.

All that changed were ISPs suddenly offering faster speeds. No one likes to talk about the subsidized parts of NN.

>tfw some lefties take it upon themselves to become leaders of telecommunications companies so they can implement what they didn't want, so they can say they were right all along.

Speeds has nothing to do with NN. It is more likely the ISPs stopped increasing quality in their networks slowly, over the years as they kept fighting against NN. And are now increasing it again to show a fake proof that NN is bad. Even though on a technical level, they have nothing to do with eachother, you can have faster speeds with NN, as the rest of the world has shown.

getting rid of net neutrality did good
now isps are being CLOSELY scrutinized to make sure that every single one of their fucking attempts to skirt the law this whole time have been known

spectrum got kicked out of a fucking state for failing to uphold their promises
the isps didn't want net neutrality because it was in the way of their money
the isps now have to play by stricter rules since their corruption deals during the removal process have been exposed

it's really the greatest irony

They can't be hold accountable for these things anymore with NN repealed.

>Using money to give internet to dindus doesn't take away from upgrading infrastructure

Attached: 1523590837092.gif (540x304, 1.22M)

If money shortage was the case then we wouldn't have seen improvements already. They were some of the richest companies in the US before the NN repeal, they will become richer now.

>they made it so that using the internet was a necessity for citizens and their livelihood
What the fuck has this to do with forcing ISP to treat everyone the same?

I think you underestimate the average Joe's tolerance for advertisements. I've seen people stay glued to the TV during ad breaks, even enjoying the ads.

How else do you prove a law is unjust than by acting according to it?

Libertarian here. Let me explain to you what Net Neutrality was about:

In economics, we have a thing called "rent-seeking." It's basically when private interests get special privileges granted to them through the state, generally by way of legislation - basically, lobbying.

Net Neutrality was a rent-seeking move by content providers, primarily Netflix and Google (YouTube), to push for special protections from market forces that could hurt their business. The ISPs own their networks. They can do as they please with them. If the ISPs want to create competing services on their networks and throttle back the competition, they have every right. It's their network. You're paying to access network resources through their network - generally, the internet.

That's not to say ISPs don't have their fair share of rent-seeking bullshit. The big guys, like Cox and Comcast, get regional monopolization and keep competitors out. That's often why you only get a single choice of broadband in your area.

Rent-seeking is bad across the board. The solution to all these woes is to prohibit government at all levels from giving rent-seeking privileges to private interests.

Attached: doubt.jpg (406x364, 50K)

The ISPs would have to be retarded to do it when everyone is expecting them to do just that. Use your head you fucking redditor!

>Trusting the government

Attached: b0a9b6e84ba61518087c9e4652669b7b7cc2e7afaf5d2d3d52209185be08e82f.jpg (212x238, 12K)

>indicted russians
who actually showed up to defend themselves, throwing a massive spanner into the muh russia legal case because the indictments were only supposed to be smoke and mirrors

Shouldn't be shocked, since this is a political issue. Going against it was no less politically motivated by the same groups of stupid people than going with it, so a lot of propaganda was generated out of the butt to scare people into rejecting it.

When you get companies like Google backing that shit up you have to start wondering if you're being manipulated into crying about problems that aren't problems.

You mean that one portuguese ISP? No, that was taking advantage of a loophole in EU's NN regulations.

I hope this has been said already, but I'm not reading the whole thread to make sure.

Net neutrality was only just recently fully removed. There was a long period where the decision could have been revoked, but it wasn't. So obviously no ISP will make a change during that time.

Secondly, it takes a long time to make the kind of infrastructure changes we expect. You won't be seeing those "pay $5 a month to access espn.com!" things for at least another year or two.

Third, you as the consumer may not see the full effect of net neutrality. They will be bullying smaller companies into paying them money (companies like Netflix), which will raise the price for you. You may hear about this in the news, and you may not.

reminder that the same cucks who whine constantly about "net neutrality" will gleefully post this insufferably smug image when a political opinion they disagree with is censored by a large multinational corporation

Attached: free_speech.png (566x577, 52K)

Quick - deport all dragons to Israel!

It's pretty sad that free speech is a lie. It was only used to push for marxism, and now we don't have the free speech to fight back.

jews will only defend free speech when they're the ones being silenced

The regs were about whether companies can choose how much to charge each other to pass data between each other's networks or the FCC sets rates. The tier 1 consumer providers opposed it because the big content providers (who just happen to be tight with Obama) with vertically integrated backbone providers had colonized the agency for the sole purpose of giving themselves favorable rates.
nothing has happened but as soon as the Democrats take the white house they'll reinstate title II and pretend they were just in the nick of time
then you'll start to see the opposite of what the doomsayers were calling for: only Facebook, youtube and Netflix run smoothly, everything else is slow
but nobody will care because most people never go to any other sites

The only people who thought "net neutrality" had anything to do with net neutrality in the first place are low information retards who didn't know a thing about it besides its Obama-given misnomer.

Based dumbfrogposter poster

You understand the situation better than most people here and I respect that. However, here comes my "fuck you:"
Libertarians chronically fail to distinguish between well-designed regulation and no regulation at all. In "the old days," net neutrality didn't need to be law, because it was an emergent property of a healthy, competitive broadband market. Poor US regulation gave ISPs an opportunity to consolidate their power and segment the market into regional monopolies, but removing all regulations wouldn't magically undo this, any more than picking up a cigarette butt would put out the forest fire and rebuild the houses it's destroyed.
Well-designed regulation would leverage market forces to make NN an emergent property of the market once again, instead of micro-managing the ISPs into doing what consumers happen to want this week. However, removing all regulation would just create another power vacuum in which established players can further impose regulation that serves their own interest. As it turns out, calling one organization "the state" does not magically deprive all other actors of the power to dictate the rules that third parties play by. Being a libertarian, I realize this may be difficult for you to accept, but your own principles acknowledge this implicitly. Property law is a regulation, you know? The theory is, it yields all the emergent behavior we want out of more specific regulations, but it's no less a regulation than the other kind.

Attached: is that normal.jpg (610x655, 162K)

>normalfags are able to make sound democratic decisions when influenced by the biased opinions of the mainstream media
>normalfags are not able to make sound democratic decisions when influenced by the biased opinions of russian faceberg bot accounts

Attached: 1457616496911.png (911x669, 198K)