Net neutrality

Serving the customer well has very little to do with making the most profit, it's all about bribing politicians and screwing the customers to the max.

A simple concept that ISPs must treat all internet traffic equality. It simply prevents them from slowing down or blocking websites and protocols. It was briefly started from the telecommunications act of 1996 and became enforce with Michael Powell Four Freedoms policy in 2004. Following Comcast blocking of bittorrent traffic in 2007, the FCC decided to create the 2010 open Internet Order but ended up being sued by Verizon due to not be treated as common carriers. The 2015 Open Internet Order would treat ISP as common carriers and Title II(It doesn't give the Gov the option to control the internet since they can't add tariffs see page 50 of the 2015 order) The Restoring Internet Freedom order introduced by Ajit Pai FCC would removed the 2015 protections *and* removed all FCC ISP oversight to the FTC who is much weaker at telecommunications .

Short version Between 1996-2017 The FCC was governing ISP and now we don't have any oversight at all.

>but nothing has happened yet reddit and the libtards lie to me #MAGA
ISPs are only on their best behavior right now for one reason, the rules can reversed by the upcoming lawsuits(Which start on Feb 1st) and a future democratic FCC can bring the rules back so the change isn't permanent.

Imagine that you host a controversial podcast or something, and that the website that you publish on doesn't want to publish your stuff anymore. You can always make your own website. What if you make your own website and nobody will host it? You can pay your ISP for a business class connection and put a server rack in your garage. You don't even need a domain registrar to have a website, although it is certainly helpful. The bare minimum that you need to run a website is a computer, some free software, and an Internet connection.

What can you do if an ISP decides not to let its customers access your website? If you can't pay them off and you have no legal recourse, there is nothing that you can do. Can you afford to pay off every ISP that your target audience might use? If you're not a large corporation, probably not. If ISPs are required to treat all traffic indiscriminately, anymore can run a website that's accessible by anyone. If they can prioritize traffic, your website is accessible to their users with their permission only.

As a user, an unregulated ISP could prevent you from sending and receiving certain types of traffic or from exchanging traffic with certain places unless you pay extra. Imagine having to pay more for an "Internet plan" that lets you play games and stream movies than the one that lets you browse facebook and amazon. Combined with the fact that your ISP only connects you websites whose operators can afford to pay them off, this is a picture of the Internet that looks a lot more like cable TV than like the Internet of the 1990s and 2000s that we would all like to return to.

You might think that ISPs wouldn't be able to get away with degrading the quality of their services in that way, but in reality it turns out that average joe has a craving for corporate cock that's completely insatiable.

Attached: freedom.jpg (719x476, 74K)

>BUT OUR INTERNET IS SO MUCH FASTER NOW!!!
Not Quite see this:
>arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/05/title-ii-hasnt-hurt-network-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

So even if the rules passed or not NN wasn't restricting investment or anything. And seeing many right wingers believing that must mean Google must be adding Fiber all over the country in such a short notice by now.

Attached: vlcsnap-2019-01-06-21h26m47s708.png (1920x1080, 1.17M)

it's a conspiracy by the jewish indian minority, the point is to control the media most people watch so they can elect more trumps with less effort

it was a scam to get ISPs to subsidize google and netflix's bandwidth use.

I honestly don't care about the issue.

>What can you do if an ISP decides not to let its customers access your website? If you can't pay them off and you have no legal recourse, there is nothing that you can do.

it was supporters of net neutrality that tried to remove DailyStormer.com from the Internet.

Attached: cloudflare.png (681x391, 47K)

what difference does the opinion of the people who attempted to remove the dailystormer make?

Google and Netflix pay for the bandwidth they use at their end. Internet connections are not free for website operators. What they don't currently pay for is the cost that your ISP incurs when you access those websites. You pay for that when you pay your ISP's monthly bill. Your ISP would like for you to and Netflix to both pay for that, which is stupid.

durr

For one thing it demonstrates that Net Neutrality was a scam, that what its supporters claimed it was, was not what they believed or practiced themselves.

Attached: download (1).png (645x729, 82K)

>some people who support net neutrality are hypocrites
>therefore net neutrality is bad
Is that what you're trying to say?

>some people who support net neutrality are hypocrites

some?

more like all.

Attached: team internet.png (663x871, 132K)

In a healthy capitalist economy there are no politicians to bribe.
>but muh programs!
Get a job you freeloader.

It's a ugly hack to cover up the real issue which is local governments have retarded restrictions on their rights-of-way which means only people with political connections can lay new fiber.

I am a supporter of net neutrality who would like for nazis to be able to have a website if they want one. My existence proves you wrong.

The EFF said at the time that it was a precedent that should not be set. Generally speaking, if you disagree with the EFF about what's good for Internet users, you're wrong. There are lots of people who agree with the EFF wholeheartedly about everything, which is not hard to confirm. That makes your "more like all" theory pretty stupid.

breaking net neutrality will ruin the Internet's free market. It will turn ISPs into the gatekeepers of enterprise, essentially forcing you to beg their permission any time you want to do business on the web. It will choke out startups who can't afford exorbitant fees for their businesses. This is their plan. They wish to cement a monopoly on all internet businesses.
How do I know this? Because it's the exact same playbook they used to ruin internet in America. They bought out all the ISPs, the changed the rules so nobody can start an ISP. It's just the same old shit disguised under confusing computer geek telcom bullshit, except on a grander scale. The end result will be America having an even shittier internet than it already has, and all businesses moving oversees.

>muh nazi websites
>isps didn't scam people first

But it's ok to lick corporate boot if they're on my side

Attached: 1516770939915.jpg (750x417, 285K)

the exception does not prove the rule.

Net Neutrality isn't a belief system, it's a group of companies and a political party pushing specific legislation.

It's barely even capitalist, considering all property prices and the value of the US dollar is subject to manipulation by the fed. But I'd rather not get into a Jow Forums topic so that's all I'll say on the matter.

Even if literally every single supporter of Net Neutrality is a hypocrite it doesn't necessarily make them wrong, that's a fallacy. It proves something's wrong with reddit.

Could you elaborate a little bit on what legislation was passed at the state and municipal level to prevent competition? When you say Municipal Broadband do you mean like cities providing taxpayer-funded wifi?

from a neutral perspective, his argument stands. does net neutrality prevent the very infrastructure of the internet from working together to keep particular groups off of the internet?

I despise ISP monopolies and support a free (from a user perspective) and private internet, but it's fair to wonder if net neutrality is worth anything if it can't stop tech oligarchs from unpersoning people.

I am a Jow Forums drone so i must contradict anyone or anything thay may resemble my emotional enemies. This means i ignore history, facts and push a narrative that contradicts commonly accepted views to stand above, look down and pretend i alone know better than other people.

You can have your shitbox all you want. But don't expect it to be free of consequence when you are harassing people, inciting violence and being a de facto terrorist organization. If ISIS domains get seized, child porn websites get put offline, these sites that put people in jepeordy are not immune to the hand of the law either. Get on with the constitutional script shitlord.

You're pretending the Daily Stormer was taken down for inciting violence? It was taken down because they made fun of the fat girl who died in Charlottesville.

In reality, yes, it's sick. But it's not much different than posts you'll find here nightly. Treating it as comparable to terrorism is pure hysteria.

Attached: 45a.jpg (706x1024, 100K)

Legislation that you're against solely because you don't like the some of the people who support it, which is deeply and profoundly stupid.

>net neutrality forbids private companies from selling their business as they want and forces them to do what the all powerful state wants
How is this a good thing

>la-di-da fantasyland

>not much different than posts you find on a anonymous unaccountable mongolian imaging board
>therefore no big deal

Therefore we should be concerned that people can be unpersoned online for offensive speech. Why do people try to act so obtuse when this subject comes up?

it's been explained multiple times in this thread.

At this point it isn't fixable.
What would they do, rework the entire american legal system? Lobbyist can't be removed without a complete restart because obvious they would lobby a decision like that out before it went anywhere.

You probably think the electricity in your house should be sold by big companies too.

Sorry you used up your wattage limit for the month, gonna have to switch it off unless you want to upgrade to a larger package?