Net Neutrality legislation is sponsored by Free Press, an organization owned by a self-proclaimed socialist who's run openly Marxist publications.

>>551655
o noes

>I've been on the Internet since before we had web browsers.
Whooaaa, take it easy there grampa.

>>551696
What's that now? My hearing aid was off.

At what point did we start needing ISPs anyway?

>Implying a neutral internet is not preferable to a completely corporate internet

>>551748

At the point where it would be too expensive to keep ISP servers in your home.

Because telecoms are more interested in providing cheap and effective service rather than waging billion ad wars against each other right?

>>551774
dat fcc is always holding back money making innovations ya know

Centralized as in government? That thing we vote for? Why do you guys hate democracy so much?

>>551774
>>551757
>implying a company like google wont come along for everyone to flock to and slay all shitty ISPs who do this

>>551638
>>551655
>The Internet is already free, free as in liberty, not free in terms of access
Net Neutrality was never about giving everyone access to internet.
Also, no, it is still not free.
ISPs are readily willing to handover packet data and block nodes. Not to mention limiting bandwith.

>>551886

>Implying getting tonnes of free PR coverage isn't part of googles plan of world domination.

i honestly never saw net neutrality being much of an issue. although i may not have understood it. don't they already charge different people different rates?

the big thing was not giving the same bandwidth to various sites, and the argument was that if the site was less active it didn't need as much... doesn't it being less active mean it isn't using as much? or is it an accounting issue, where they have to guarantee a certain amount per period, and they want to be able to adjust that on the fly extra-contractually?

>>551935

They give you a certain amount of bandwidth and now they want to tell you how much you're allowed to use it and what you're allowed to use it for.

net neutrality is only a good idea, we all know how the governments "good ideas" usually end up: another new idea or need keeps coming up and due to the power theyve established through the first seemingly good idea, they now control everything in site

its better just to stop it from happening at the get go

Telecom companies are not comedic mustache twirling villains, they're not looking out for ways to make your life miserable, they want to make money, and the best way to make money is to make YOU happy. Handing over regulation of the internet in the name of 'net neutrality' would just make the internet go the way of television and radio. Before long the government would be telling you what you are and aren't allowed to post or do on the internet.

>>551935

say you have a 15m/bit connection. Well you're not always using that connection so there is more bandwidth down the line for everyone else. When you use more of it it clogs the tubes. Someone always running a torrent is always clogging the tubes.

It's like if Ford sold cars and owned the roads and told you you can only drive to certain places at certain times at certain speeds. But thats not what we have. Ford sells the cars and the roads belong to the public and sensible (and sometimes not) regulations and laws are put into place.

>>552000

Except thats not what they do because there are a great many ways of convincing you to spend your money on an inferior product.

I've been with comcast and verizon over the last 5 years and the only innovations they've made is higher prices, contractual lock-ins, throttled speeds AND LOTS MORE ADS BASHING THE OTHER GUY.

>>551953
>now they want to tell you how much you're allowed to use it
that's what i don't get. if they've given you a certain amount of bandwidth the contract is in place, are they basically seeking a legal right to violate their contracts? if so i see the issue. or, as i said, is it some abstract accounting issue where they basically want to switch to an on-demand model?

>what you're allowed to use it for
i've never heard this, but again they already do, admittedly in probably more roundabout ways than they would find ideal. see: /l/ and /sm/.

>>552039
government regulation keeps other ISPs from competing, dip shit

>>552050

Most contracts (if any) don't include throttling. If they throttle you and you call them and tell them to remove it they usually do. The court ruling ensured this is now legal.

As for them controlling what you're allowed to use it for it's only a matter of time.

It's a case of government ineffectualness vs corporate greed. Telecoms spend billions on ads that do nothing to give them an edge in anyway other than convincing consumers to buy a shit service. So in this particular case I root for the FCC because if they fuck it up people have no one to blame but them selves.

>>552088
No, it keeps the bigger ISPs from buying up and crowding out the smaller ISPs. That's the POINT of government regulation of business. It's to PRESERVE choice and competition.

Do you really think the free market exists on its own? NO! Businesses HATE competition and HATE having to offer better services at lower prices. EVERY business would prefer to have a monopoly on the good or service they provide. Then, they could churn out a crappy product and charge as much as they want for it!

The great Free Market is a government construct.

>>552088

>>552088

No they keep small ISPs from getting crushed and absorbed so eventually they don't have to keep forcing telecoms to break into smaller companies every 15 years.

You just have to face the fact that in some industries business doesn't thrive with competition. It thrives by eliminating it.

>>552115
>That's the POINT of government regulation of business. It's to PRESERVE choice and competition.

>>552132

>He post argument
>I post reaction image
>My point has been made

Giving tripfags a good name i see.

>>552132
Name ONE industry that, left to its own devices, would not ultimately result in a single huge company having a national monopoly, or several huge companies having regional monopolies.

>>552147
microsoft

>>552154

>>552128
>>552117
>>552115
are you faggots retarded? there are government contracts with the big ISPs that restrict others from joining in on the competition. look it up.

Net Neutrality IS NOT GOVERNMENT REGULATION

ITS GOVERNMENT ANTIREGULATION. IT TELLS ISPS THEY CANNOT REGULATE THEIR TRAFFIC TO THEIR WHIM.

Seems like you have to pick your poison in what you want the internet to eventually become. I think no matter what the internet will definitely become a massive shitpile sometime this decade, either because of business or government, whichever. The golden age will come to an end eventually, no doubt.

>>552178
i understand where youre coming from and its mostly correct but not entirely. we know that the government always fails, but this is not necessarily true of businesses. you never know what may pop up in business and what sort of influence the consumer can have in the whole equation. someone like google could do very good things for everyone, things that might benefit both google and consumers. and when they become corrupt a new one may come around to save us all over again. with government though, you never have this possibility.

>>552192
Why does government ALWAYS fail, incidentally? This is the part of the conservative/libertarian perspective I find most difficult to understand.

In the United States, in THEORY, perhaps not in practice but in THEORY, the government derives its authority from the people. The people of districts and states elect their representatives and senators, respectively, and the nation as a whole elects the president. In each instance, a member of the government is elected by the will of the majority of voters in the area he or she represents. Therefore, assuming the candidates have been truthful in their signs, commercials, and other advertising material, they're elected by people who consent, not just to them, but to their policy goals and governmental principles.

So, taking all this into account, why can't the government take an active role in benefiting the country? They reflect the will of the people. They have the people's consent. What is it about government that makes it incapable of providing people with numerous goods and services? It represents their wishes, it takes in their money as taxes, why can't it provide the things that a majority of the people want and need?

>>552192
> we know that the government always fails,

Please for the love of god turn off glenn beck

>>552192

>Comparing government regulation vs industry self regulation to government vs free market competition

GLENN BECK STRIKES AGAIN

>>552227

>So, taking all this into account, why can't the government take an active role in benefiting the country? They reflect the will of the people. They have the people's consent. What is it about government that makes it incapable of providing people with numerous goods and services? It represents their wishes, it takes in their money as taxes, why can't it provide the things that a majority of the people want and need?

>Implying the government is trying to provide a service rather than provide regulation

>>552227
your premise is completely false right from the start, modern US governance is not carried out through the will of the people. money and power make the rules, which is what the constitution was supposed to protect us from.

>>552228
>thinks medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. etc. are successful

lol

oh god, not this shit again.

>>552228
>>552227
name one successful totalitarian state besides nazi germany?

>>552257

Its also hard to have a highly functional government when sore losers obstruct (not debate) every piece of legislation that doesnt suit their interests 100%.

>>552115

Thank you for posting anon. Why people can't understand this simple fact baffles me.

>>551661
Considering marxist and branch off ideals killed millions you should be worried.

>>552115
> It's to PRESERVE choice and competition.

0/10

>>552286

see >>552165

>>551825
>Centralized as in government? That thing we vote for? Why do you guys hate democracy so much?

Why do you hate the free market? YOu know the thing that allows you to buys and sell goods and services?

>>552279

One successful state with small Government?

>>552176
>ITS GOVERNMENT ANTIREGULATION. IT TELLS ISPS THEY CANNOT REGULATE THEIR TRAFFIC TO THEIR WHIM.

>tell a company what it can and can't do

>not regulation

The company should be allowed to do with it's product what it pleases.

By the way, I'm STILL waiting for an answer to >>552147 this question. 'Microsoft' was probably a joke answer.

>>552320

Somalia

Here's a crazy idea. Why not have the government start its own ISP?

Give the big ISPs a competitor. Call it an Internet Public Option.

Business IS all about DESTROYING THE COMPETITION.

Anyone who has run a business understands this. If you are unable to do this you talk to the competition, carve up the market and begin price fixing.

>>552326
The auto industry. The insurance industry. The banking industry. The foodstuff industry. The green industry. The list goes on.

Essentially government regulations allow those that exist to keep exist and makes market entry that much harder for new business owners.

>>552279
how was nazi germany successful? didnt they lose the war, lol?

>>552362
you trollin' nigga?

>>552383
no im serious.

how do you call a state successful if it collapses after only being in power for 13 years?

>>552348
because i don't want to put my fucking taxpayer dollars towards that

it's not that i would have a problem with people paying for a public non-for-profit internet, just that taxpayer money has a way of creeping into those sorts of things (amtrak anyone?)

>>552400
What if it could provide you faster internet speeds at a lower ultimate price?

>>552415
its not the service that i doubt, just the possibility of subsidies. just learning from history here.

Nazi Germany was an economic fucking disaster. The only way their economy could be maintained was by seizing the property of first its own citizens and then by seizing the property of citizens of other nations.

Throughout history Jews are scapegaoted and their wealth siezed. It's the same old story.

>>552279
Peter the Great's Russia

>>552457
define successful

>>552436
>Throughout history Jews are scapegaoted and their wealth siezed. It's the same old story.
lololol.
HINT: JEWS MAKE THEMSELVES HATED THROUGH THEIR BEHAVIOR.

>>552464
Westernization, bolstering the economy, gave rise to intellectualism and arts, legacies that led to freeing the serfs and the Trans-Siberian railroad. Lasted at least a century before the Russian Revolution occurred. Peter also developed a stronger military.

He basically made Russia into a Western Power.

>>552564
Indeed, it took more then 2 decades before industrial production even returned to what it had been before the revolution.

And at least until after WW2 for agricultural production to match it.

Only delusional marxists think the russian revolution had any sort of benefit for the people of russia or the country itself.

They were making great gains in WW1 as well until the country collapsed.

I'm all for government regulation, not when its over reaching in the wrong places and under reaching in the right places. Often times subsidies are needed if the private sector is going to provide affordable services and products at a tolerable price.

However most of the time competition FROM the government turns out poorly for a number of reasons.

Lack of government regulation is a bad thing. History has shown this. Government competing to provide nonessential services is a bad thing, history has also shown this.

>>552279

Rome.

>>552279

China, Rome, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom