This is what the corporations want to turn the internet into...

There shouldn't in so far that the ISP shouldn't at all discriminate about what IP you connect to or apply some from of QoS based on IP.
However the ISP isn't at all responsible for the internet at large outside their network.

> You'll have to start paying for websites to be packaged like cable!
Then why didn't we before Net Neutrality was actually made?

So you are for net neutrality?

You dont think a isp should throtel your connection based on the host at you are connecting too.

And you belive that they shouldn't be concerned with the data that other ISP decide to host on their networks.

Are you sure you know what a net neutral internet means?

You do realize that ISPs have to connect to services like Google and Netflix too, right? They pay for service the same way you do, albeit in a business fashion. The problem is that companies are generating so much traffic, it costing ISPs more to maintain and upgrade infrastructure to ensure there isn't a bottleneck. So, ISPs need to manipulate traffic or charge these companies more. Net neutrality gets rid of that.

How would you like your internet to run immensely slow during peak periods or all the time? That's what happens when 'everything is equal' when it isn't. We don't live in a fucking fairytale and your egalitarian society simply cannot exist, hence why it doesn't already.

I am a libertarian and I think that this is BS.
ISPs are businesses, without consumer support they die. Consumers do not want their internet to be like this, so they won't make it like this.

It's as simple as that really. If an ISP has a monopoly on an area and this happens, a fucking gigantic market demand for unrestricted internet would occur and another company would step in and fill that. Granted the barriers to entry into a market like internet are incredibly high, if the demand for unrestricted internet is just as high, which it would be, then it would happen.

That being said, I fully support net neutrality. One of the only things I support from the government are regulations on monopolies.

>not thinking the jews would ruin the internet if they got the chance

oy vey can't allow any nasty russian hackers like the NRA on my network, gotta pay more for that goy or get off my private property

>I am a libertarian
And that's the problem. You're not a freedom fighter of any kind, you instead empower the powerful.

It just pisses me off that the designated defenders of free information and decentralized structures seem to strive for the exact opposite in almost all social spheres.

youtube.com/watch?v=5gnlhmaM-dM&t=1s

There is no monopoly on the internet. There are no barriers to competition. You're falling for the meme.

Anyhow, if websites can randomly censor/throttle content on their networks, then I don't see why ISP's can't do the same.

You're not a libertarian then.

>Granted the barriers to entry into a market like internet are incredibly high,
This is where a real mixed-market economy would step in 'full socialism' is retarded, but stepping in where a natural monopoly will exist is what government exists for the first place.

Case in point, if not municipal fiber network ONLY FOR THE LAST MILE, then municipal trunking/conduit networks should exist, to lessen the burden of supplying the public with a better service. (trunking is probably better here, since whilst municipal fiber can work, it can also turn out like NBN)

>You do realize that ISPs have to connect to services like Google and Netflix too, right? They pay for service the same way you do, albeit in a business fashion. The problem is that companies are generating so much traffic, it costing ISPs more to maintain and upgrade infrastructure to ensure there isn't a bottleneck. So, ISPs need to manipulate traffic or charge these companies more. Net neutrality gets rid of that.

ISPs all make billions of dollars every year and have more than enough money for infrastructure upgrades, which they deliberately choose not to do because more bottlenecks mean shorter supply meaning greater price. This is EXACTLY what went down with Enron in regards to electricity, they cut California's power generation by about a third, pocketed the savings, and didn't give a shit about the intermittent blackouts because it let them charge customers even more.

There is absolutely no excuse for this when they have far more than enough money for upgraded hardware, which they are already doing themselves as we move into 5G.

Yes ISP's have contract between each other that discuss the amount of bandwidth and the price that they need to pay to move that traffic.

This is totally normal. Again who cares who created the traffic when a deal has already been made regading what is fair and unfair and a price has already been negotiated.

If ISP A wants more money for the traffic generated by ISP B then they negotiate with ISP B not the client of ISP B.

>corporations
>libs
Same side.

Libertarians operate on the idea that less government is better for the people. The problem that arises is the general masses are too fucking stupid and enable corporations to as powerful as they are.

The issue is, therefore, not with libertarians, but people's general inability to open their fucking eyes from groupthink and vote with their wallets.

>There are no barriers to competition
Objectively False.

arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/04/one-big-reason-we-lack-internet-competition-starting-an-isp-is-really-hard/

instead of sounding like a retarded bitch, trying making a coherent post you commie kike.

>There is no monopoly on the internet. There are no barriers to competition. You're falling for the meme.

I asked AT&T if they'd service my block and they said no because Comcast already did. Comcast charges me $150/mo for 500gb. I am literally living in an ISP monopoly right now, one where both ISPs have chosen to fuck me over instead of compete.

>Anyhow, if websites can randomly censor/throttle content on their networks, then I don't see why ISP's can't do the same.

Because you can always not connect to a website, whereas just to use the Internet you have to use the ISP's hardware. If all the ISPs agree that X company shouldn't use their service, they can prevent that company from being online at all. This is not a power individual websites have.

>It gives the government strong control over ISPs.

Net neutrality was in place during the 2016 election.

Tell me how many pro-trump sites banned back then.

The free market will fix these issues. If there is a monopoly, duopoly, or the like that's preventing this from happening, we already have laws in place to cover this. You are trying to advocate for fixing bad legislation or government inaction with more restrictive legislation. That is not healthy.

You'll see exactly what's happening with healthcare. Post-ACA, costs are still exorbitant and net neutrality hasn't been proven to fix any of the issues we have with ISPs today.

This is the most autistic thing I've ever read in my life.
>my ideas are perfect but people are just too dumb to let them work! If only everyone had an IQ as high as mine, then the free market could truly be a reality!
You absolute mongoloid.

That side though, while the government certainly restricts freedom it's delusional to suggest that corporations don't do the same. For true freedom we need the abolish the influences of both, and most importantly the type of society that leads to their existence in the first place.

You're just talking out of your ass.

Every single cable company has upgraded to docsis 3.0 and now are doing docsis 3.1.. Spectrums base speeds are now 100mbit in like 90% of their footprint and are also upgrading base speeds to 200mbit. Comcast is about the same.

Attached: j.png (350x200, 21K)

>oy vey I'll just call him a kike
That'll show that gun nut.

Let me be clearer then: since the NRA is getting banned from most larger websites due to associations with Russia and taking the blame for school shootings, it's only a matter of time before people start demanding ISPs stop servicing gun websites. Since NN is dead, there's no legal impediment to this because ISPs are private property and they can decide they don't want to have any discussion of firearms occur using their private property.

This is starting and you're blind if you can't see it. It's exactly what Cuomo said he's going to do next after his attempt to ban the NRA from using NY area banks is upheld in the courts.

Damn this is like a decade old. It's interesting to see what sites still exist.

Damn only the worst sites still exist.

I've been a Comcast customer since 2004 and I have not seen any new ISPs start up to compete with them. Just over the hill in San Bruno there's a municipal cable company that offers internet for about $60/mo.

You're not living in reality, Comcast and AT&T have chosen not to compete with each other and no amount of hope or funny optimism can change this.

This, capitalism works best when you add well-tought regulations into the mix.

Those asking for full unrestricted capitalism are equally retarded as those asking for full communism.

t. kike
you're saying people are demanding shit but then you blame corporations? fucking wew

>implying NN prevents no platforming
Desperate kike lie.

It fixes my ISP throteling me based on the types of packets that I send and receive.

Attached: Screenshot_20180906-194330_Gmail.jpg (1080x781, 291K)

A decade ago they were decent sites. Just their increased power has lead to them becoming shitter. A decade ago Capitalism hadn't /quite/ got it's hands on the internet yet, now we're just fucked.

On a somewhat related note, remember when dedicated servers for games existed rather than one size fits all matchmaking? That was a fun time, kind of a microcosm for the wider internet.

>which only happens when the company is good at serving the public.
Yeah, no corporation ever has fucked its customers in the ass. After all, why bite the hand that feeds, right?

>ars

Literally fake news.

Anyhow, those aren't barriers they're just lack of ROI. That's why hardly have any competition: because it's not profitable.

>Every single cable company has upgraded to docsis 3.0 and now are doing docsis 3.1.. Spectrums base speeds are now 100mbit in like 90% of their footprint and are also upgrading base speeds to 200mbit. Comcast is about the s

Exactly. Yet apparently despite upgrading their hardware they can't afford to upgrade their hardware because of NN. This argument doesn't make sense because it's not based in the real world.

>Nobody has ever proposed this, try again sweetie.
Nobody has ever proposed government-controlled internet? You mean like the one we had during Obama administration that was overturned? What about the NSA's surveillance program? Does that not qualify as government-controlled?

say I humor your and agree this could happen
would ISPs still be forced to offer access to "non package" websites as part of their basic internet service plan?
if that's the case then wouldn't any service that doesn't cost extra have a competitive advantage? wouldn't most of the services in packages try to make their service as free to access as possible? possibly even paying ISPs directly to offset scaring away potential customers?

>you're saying people are demanding shit but then you blame corporations? fucking wew

Companies bend over to them because it's their private property, and in case you didn't notice most larger companies believe in gun control.

NN does prevent no platforming, because it doesn't allow the ISP to arbitrarily ban companies they don't like. You're arguing that this is a good thing.

>On a somewhat related note, remember when dedicated servers for games existed rather than one size fits all matchmaking

I remember a certain COD "boycott" showing every dev and publisher in the industry showing just how retarded and shit eating the video game public is.

>MUH FREE MARKET WILL SOLVE THIS MEME
>regulations are the reason i don't have enough money to build a ISP
>corporations have never conspired to fix prices in a cartel scheme
wow bud you sure triggered those statist libtards epic style

In certain areas there is a monopoly.
Also, you don't have to go to those websites, you do have to go through an ISP
>there are no barriers to competition
Okay user, user okay, you start up an ISP. There are no barriers right? Why not start your own?
>What is a moderate libertarian?

You're right on why libertarianism doesn't work. And it will never work, because people will always be good goyim. It's the same with communism, people will always be lazy fucks and demand gibs.

>oy vey goyim we're going to no platform you
>better vote for this shit we want
Ok

>Saying you must treat all traffic = strict and was blatantly violated multiple times beforehand
if your definition of control and strict is this loose, then yea, hur dur Obama took over da interwebs XD.
>What about the NSA's surveillance program
Is the NSA preventing you from doing literally anything?
>Inb4 preventing me from browsing without being surveyed
>This is in sharp contrast to a company becoming powerful which only happens when the company is good at serving the public.
Imagine literally being this much of a retarded corporate boot-licker.

>if that's the case then wouldn't any service that doesn't cost extra have a competitive advantage?
No, the whole point is that they either out right block, or more likely excessively throttle all traffic to sites not included in their paid plan.

The ultimate goal of both private and government interest in my eyes is an internet with /only/ a select number of sites for the public to access, pretty much exactly like TV. There's proof for this too - the internet in the west was able to develop on it's own for a period of time, giving us the golden age of decentralized communities and information we all know, and then only after when it got huge did larger established interests make efforts to change that, giving us the hybrid of today. In the third world though, where internet is coming directly from these already established powers, they actually do straight up only give them a certain selection of sites and nothing more. In some places, the internet /is/ Facebook and nothing else. It's disgusting, but exactly what we'd have if the internet didn't develop freely at first.

overly strict gun control will solve nothing. there will just be more stabbing and bombings will increase.

But you're the one claiming they don't upgrade. So you're the lying idiot.

>libtards
>hurrr isp's don't upgrade their hardware
>get proven wrong
>change subject

>That's why hardly have any competition: because it's not profitable.

about.att.com/story/att_second_quarter_earnings_2018.html

>AT&T's consolidated revenues for the second quarter totaled $39.0 billion versus $39.8 billion in the year-ago quarter, primarily due to the impact of ASC 606 which included netting of approximately $900 million of USF with operating expenses. On a comparative basis, declines in domestic video and legacy wireline services were offset by adding approximately $1.1 billion from Time Warner net of eliminations and growth in wireless, strategic business services and advertising. On a comparative basis, revenues were $39.9 billion, an increase of 0.2% primarily due to the second-quarter close of the Time Warner acquisition.

>Cash from operating activities was $10.2 billion, and capital expenditures were $5.1 billion. Capital investment included about $275 million in FirstNet capital costs and reflects about $300 million in FirstNet reimbursements. Free cash flow — cash from operating activities minus capital expenditures — was $5.1 billion for the quarter.

OY VEY, ONLY $5 BILLION!!

You're worried about your ISP knowing you're doing something illegal. Okay.

That's your opinion, but my assertion is still true. Under a true libertarian or capitalistic society, we have the power to vote with our wallets. Why do you think centralization of power to a governing body who has clearly shown they're not trustworthy any better? Remember legislation has no chance for competition, a free market does.

>You're not living in reality
Oh I am living in reality. Read the arstechnica article I linked to earlier in the thread. There's a reason you don't see a hundred different ISPs like you do in the mobile market.

>Anyhow, those aren't barriers they're just lack of ROI. That's why hardly have any competition: because it's not profitable.
Yeah, it sure is when you have industry giants that make it impossible for new entrants using unfair business practices. But let's give the government full reign to fix it instead of just making it a fair playing field to begin with like every other industry.

BS there will just be more illegal guns. Americans don't have the courage for stabbing.

what makes you think ISPs care? It's all virtue signalling

variety.com/2017/biz/news/randall-stephenson-att-conan-obrien-uja-jeff-bewkes-1202429971/

>AT&T Chief Randall Stephenson: CEOs Should Speak Out About Social Concerns

>During a 20-minute Q&A with his corporate fiancée, Time Warner chairman-CEO Jeff Bewkes, Stephenson explained his assertion that “tolerance is for cowards” came on the heels of the string of racially charged police shooting incidents. The slayings last July of five Dallas law enforcement officials by a sniper had a particularly jarring effect on him as it happened just blocks from AT&T’s headquarters.

>Stephenson told Bewkes that he hoped to bring some context to the importance of addressing difficult questions about race and racial tension in America. His intent was to empower employees to have those conversations, and in that he has succeeded. “I’m not suggesting we have fixed racial tension,” Stephenson said. “But within our circle at AT&T it is wide open — and not just about race. There are folks in the LGBT community, Latino groups — we’re having those conversations and it’s amazing what’s been transpiring.”

Attached: img_4689.jpg (854x563, 220K)

and they still have the same third-world-tier upload speed

when I can get a gigabit SYMMETRICAL for like $30/month, preferably with a choice of several (3+) wireline providers, come back and we'll talk.

>Oh I am living in reality. Read the arstechnica article I linked to earlier in the thread. There's a reason you don't see a hundred different ISPs like you do in the mobile market.

Exactly, because of the high barrier to entry. This does not justify a monopoly, and it doesn't justify customers being treated like dirt because there's no alternative.

>Oy vey goyim, I see you've been repeatedly spamming nigger in every last tweet you've made for the past five days, as such, you violated our policies and will be removed from our platform.
Smart goyim: OK, I was being pretty autistic, I'll just make another account and just use dog whistles instead.
Dumb goyim: REEE IM GOING TO SUPPORT THINGS THAT A CONTRARY TO YOU, REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES IT COULD HAVE.
Once again, as long it triggers the libs logic is being applied.

>I am literally living in an ISP monopoly right now

No you're not. Maybe a fixed link ISP, but you can always use a wireless ISP.

>but muh netflix

Entitled faggot. You do realize you can move. And if not, it's your fault for not researching what ISP's are available in your home. Cry more.

There is nothing I illegal about making copies of media I already own. They are discriminateing based on a assumption of guilt.

Please post a source for these widespread upgrades nig nog.

Voting with your wallet is the most bullshit thing though. It ignores that you:
1. have more voting power the richer you are
2. need to be aware of every and all stage in a products manufacturing process to make informed decisions, which is very much unreasonable. Consider how much goes into making a simple pencil.
3. It only applies to retail - the bulk of transactions under Capitalism is done by the Capitalists in their production, the people we're supposedly meant to be controlling with our wallets.

>free market this, free market that
dude, i understand centralizing power, be it either government or corporations is dangerous and always leads to endless kiking on the users. but the free market is a fantasy, look at how cryptocurrencies work and how "decentralized by design" they are, and now remember what happened with mtgox and realize how centralized shit is to a small group of exchnages (unless you want lolnobuyers in your literally who exchange of course).
everything that involves influences will get centralized to some extent and you're as deluded as some communist who thinks the state is solving all their problems.

Sweetie, you don't own it. Sorry.

Stop crying you communist piece of shit. If you don't like the system, don't participate in it. End the cycle; or are you too weak?

If that's your argument/perspective then I don't think it will ever happen.
I can see the "capitalist" argument for paying extra to access certain websites faster. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but I think Joe On The Street might agree ISPs should be able to charge whatever they want.
What I don't see ever gaining public support is limiting of the "freedom" to use the internet as a social platform. The cat is already out of the bag there.
It's always gonna be this tension between popular idea of freedom and capitalism balance at least in the US.

Let's apply this logic to literally any law you don't like. Don't like it? Kill yourself, end the cycle; or are you too weak?

K

Attached: 1516969684138.jpg (674x672, 84K)

Not a gommie but
>If you don't like the system, don't participate in it
What can you even do when there's only one choice? Abandon the Internet forever? Isn't this kind of monopoly what a true free market would avoid?

Also retards are advocating for soacialized internet.

How exactly is that working out for Yurop, mainly their most power nations like Germany and England?

Hint: their internet is garbage compared to the US. I'm glad liberal retards aren't in charge.

Attached: gfd.png (574x3827, 149K)

You literally don't though, no matter how many smug faces you post, that doesn't negate copyright law and licensing.

The laws I don't like, I circumvent. I don't participate.

There are alternatives, always. Necessity is the father of all invention. There are alternatives, though they may be crude.

not an argument.

>soacialized internet.
please for the LOVE OF FUCK TELL ME YOU'RE REDCREAM you're not dead right man?

You don't think the public has ever been convinced of giving up it's freedom by those in power?

OK, and then get punished for it. Like why do you skids think anyone gives a fuck about you pirating Hitomi Tanaka PPPD 40000330?

okay, faggot.
Redbox
The library
Face to face transactions
Brick and mortar stores
Interfacing with people even via sms
There yo go, there are alternatives.

You clearly don't know what socialism is or what literally or any sort of political definitions means, please stop.

Answer the question:

Why is Yuro internet so shit? You're advocating we copy their model, which so far has resulted in shitty speeds.

So you would prefer this over free information?

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-09-06 at 8.00.00 PM.png (2264x1024, 129K)

You're talking about ISPs though. How many people in the world can realistically start building a new ISP from scratch? How many are willing to actually do it instead of funding the next Uber for burritos? How many will do it in your country? What about your state?
There aren't always alternatives.

What the fuck does this have to do with free information? All information is free if you know where to look and what buttons to press.

I perched a physical disk with a piece of media on it. I own that piece of media. I am allowed to make a copy of that media for safe keeping. I choose to copy that media from a third party becuse making a copy myself is cumbersome and not worth my time.

You would think someone how touts personal Liberty so much would be for this.

dude, i don't give a shit about your commucapitalism or internet connections or jews or whatever, just fucking reply, are you redcream or not? i thought you were dead and that freudian slip of yours is a bit suspicious

All things are free if you just steal it, you fucking neanderthal.

It's the price of freedom. Don't get me wrong, it's too high a price for me, hence me presence, but there are people that value it much more than I.

Sure.
But I think since there are arguments on both the freedom and capitalism sides mean we wont wake up with OPs image all of a sudden one day.
More likely there will be a "patriot act" government seizes the internet moment.

Sweetie, you bought the rights to consume the media, in the terms set by the copyright holder.

I'm not advocating stealing everything, child. I'm speaking of accruing knowledge, not taking bails of toilet paper from Walmart: big difference. All knowledge should be free, and for the most part it is, but sometimes you need to roll up your sleeves and do so me shit you may regret later.

This was a whole lot of words but zero substance.

>sweetie
go back lmao

Copyright is an illegitimate institution that deserves no respect or obedience. "intellectual property" is an oxymoron, something that's intangible isn't property and never can be.

sweetie, stop trying to fit in, the hot pockets are downstairs.

sweetie, who hurt you? that's very not okay of you.

Cool story bro, in reality though, it does exist and nothing you say will change that.