Net Neutrality

>There isn't some conspiracy to charge you more for Internet arbitrarily. The moment prices go up, entrepreneurs will notice and make their own ISPs to compete.

Never claimed it was a conspiracy, its the moral obligation of the corporate parent company to earn as much as possible.

The FCC rules just give poor people a way to force the ISP into providing what they promise.

>This is a libtard argument. If the government would stop regulating so much, more companies would get into the market, compete and drive prices down.

Attached: 8d6.jpg (645x729, 81K)

Means ISPs can shit on mega service companie slike google and amazon so I don't know if I care much.

Net neutrality wouldnt change that, they did plenty throttling when the rules were in place its a meme

Dude I know they did, I was literally a victim of it.

Threatening them with FCC complaints was how I got it fixed.

just Jow Forums getting btfo per usual with baseless fear mongering.

Attached: dabonem.png (331x570, 208K)

Huh, the US has tens of millions of illegals but nothing has happened. I guess everyone got worked up over nothing.

>poor people
I can't sympathize with an argument that's based on segregating people into discrete groups. In a truly free economy, with no government intervention, there would be no need categorize people into a hierarchy like you're doing. This sort of thinking creates a static society that is very brittle and inflexible to change.

A funny picture and green text is not an argument.

>I can't sympathize with an argument that's based on segregating people into discrete groups. In a truly free economy, with no government intervention, there would be no need categorize people into a hierarchy like you're doing. This sort of thinking creates a static society that is very brittle and inflexible to change.

Normally I would agree with you but information technology needs to be regulated. It's basically freedom of speech and the government needs to ensure it is accessible to everyone.

Based failed thread derailer

>muh free market
>usa
choose one

Let's go back to the definition of Net Neutrality.
>principle, or requirement that Internet service providers should or must treat all Internet data as the same regardless of its kind, source, or destination

This is the first amendment (which guarantees the freedom of speech).
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The concept of net neutrality isn't covered by the first amendment because the government is not in the business of providing Internet (nor should it be). If ISPs decide to throttle or block content it would not be because congress or the federal government ordered them to, it would be because they had a business reason to do so, and the federal government would have no involvement in that decision.

I'd like to see you give an argument for why information technology needs to be regulated that fits within the framework of the constitution.

This isn't even how nn works, just kys

NN is what prevented ISP's from charging Netflix more for their bandwidth than a company that doesn't use nearly as much, like Jow Forums. With nn in place, those costs get passed to us, the consumer. That means that if you have netflix and I don't, since the costs are spread across all consumers, I have to subsidize your subscription to netflix. That is commie shit, fuck that. With nn removed, the ISP's can now charge the companies for their bandwidth, meaning that companies that use a lot, like netflix for example, will have to raise their subscription costs. You are a fucking idiot talking out of your ass with recycled libtard bullet points from leddit. You have zero understanding of what nn even is. kys

Because information technology is communication technology.

Actually it also applies to people paying for lower tiers being throttled out by people paying for higher tiers.

NN specifically means that the data has to be treated equally. They can't prioritize higher tiers to the detriment of lower tiers.

This rarely happens, what they usually do is deliberately throttle people on the lower tiers regardless and then tell them to upgrade.

That's fantastic, except it's fucking bullshit. ISPs in the '90s accepted $400 Billion in tax-breaks and grants from state governments to upgrade their networks. Except they didn't do anything. They just pocketed that shit, merged and absolved themselves of all responsibility.
irregulators.org/bookofbrokenpromises/

We also get to see the consequences of net neutrality. Remember when ISPs said that emergency services would get the fast lane?
This year Verizon throttled the cell usage of firefighters DURING A
FUCKING WILDFIRE! The fire department had to upgrade their "unlimited" plan to do their fucking jobs because they had no choice. Of course PR damage control comes in and says it was just a "billing dept. error."
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/08/verizon-throttled-fire-departments-unlimited-data-during-calif-wildfire/

I really hope the ISPs get all the commie shit that's coming to them. If they didn't want commie shit, they shouldn't have accepted Gov't handouts. ISPs should be nationalized. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

... communication technology the government has nothing to do with.

Granted, it's BS if a company slows down your content because they don't like it. If it's because the content is expensive to distribute, market forces will reach an equilibrium and it will become less expensive over time. If the company just doesn't like the content going over the network, competition will come in with better options.

It's not like you have to be stuck as a consumer. You can become your own ISP.