No more hate speech. No more nothing.

Better get my fill now.

>Julius Genachowski
>Genachowski
...

motherfucking FCC has to go and shit all over everything

YOU FUCKING LIBERALS AND YOUR GODDAMN POWER COMPLEXES

GODDAMMIT I WANT TO PUNCH YOU ALL IN THE THROAT

>Why do liberals and statist faggots hate freedom of information so much?

>Implying there is a difference between liberals and republicans, and both both of them don't do what will get them the most $$$.

You are now time warner's bitch.

>>8810393
>liberals and republicans
Neat concept of the two party system there.

>>8810346
I don't think they hate freedom so much as the freaks who take this 'freedom' and use it to post child porno and crap like that. Why don't you start a thread about the pieces of crap humans who ruin it for the rest of us. You know, the child sex traffickers and other cockroaches and how they are the reason people feel the need to censor the internet and other mediums.

As much as I love freedom I don't give a ratz ass whose rights I stomp on if they are cunts (aka kid peddlers). *

*this is just one example of why censorship happens. I know that other reasons are not as 'blatant' but-

soon you'll be paying for each post you make.
and you will only be allotted 3 threads per day

It just means the goverment will be fucking us in the ass instead of ISPs doing so.

>>8810416

What's so bad about child porn?

>>8810416
I'd rather put up with kiddy porn and the like than have my freedoms taken away.

No, sorry, I don't give a good goddamn about the kids.

They hate freedom of information because they like owning the information. It's brainwashing 101 dude.

>we want net neutrality!
>fcc moves to GIVE YOU FUCKING NET NEUTRALITY AFTER GETTING COCKBLOCKED IN THE COURTS
>DURR FCC CENSORING MY INTERNETS

The internet will actually be more free because of this.

>liberals and statist faggots hate freedom of information so much?

What are you talking about OP, the Obama administration isn't liberal and the Police State that they have signed up to and maintain didn't start with their regime, it's the culture of fear that Americans have bought into for several decades which gave it birth.

I always knew that Obama was a wolf in sheeps clothing, he doesnt give a shit about the welfare of the people and was just elected to lull anti-establishment sentiment over the recession and the war.

>>8810474
What they are giving us is not Net neutrality

Are they monitoring your phone lines? No, that would be unconstitutional. Are they opening up EVERYONE's mail? No, that would be unconstitutional. So no, they're not going to monitor the whole internet, since that's unconstitutional. What they will do is monitor websites set up by pedos. Unless you like child porn, don't be so worried.

>>8810437
But we can't change governments as easily as we could ISPs

>>8810504
Well, it'll start with the CP. Then it'll be the drawn stuff. Then it'll be porn in general.

Gee, this slope sure is slippery.

>>8810474
>>8810491
>>8810416
>Butthurt liberal hipsters now realizing that they do indeed reap what they sow.

>>8810504
ever heard of the patriot act?

Because the FCC want to promulgate regulations that secure net neutrality. Otherwise ISPs will be able to package internet like cable.

>>8810443
You guys deserve to take your right taken away because you have no morals. Life isn't about doing what you want.

What animal on the planet can just do whatever the hell they wan?

Please--name one.

Tigers, Lions, Snakes, Sharks? NOPE even they get EFFED if they step on the wrong toes.

We all have rules, boundaries and we need to respect them or we are screwed. If I could do what I wanted I would come over to child pornographers houses and put a hot iron to their dicks and eyes but I can't do that, right? Why? Because there are laws, and there are boundaries that even I have to follow.

GROW the hell up people and learn how the world works--you cant just do what you want all the time when it affects others.

>>8810560
ISP's already have the abbility to do that and they havent.

>>8810487
How fucking stupid are youbloxz0r?

>>8810504
>Are they monitoring your phone lines? No, that would be unconstitutional. Are they opening up EVERYONE's mail? No, that would be unconstitutional.

I like your sense of humor.

>>8810504
Are they going to tap everyone's phones? No, that would be unconstitutional. They're not going to monitor everyone's conversations. What they will do is monitor phone conversations made by pedos and terrorists. Unless you have something to hide, don't be so worried.

>>8810527
Who gives a shit about that you democrat faggot? It's not like they were monitoring every phone line in America. This time, they won't only be monitoring the whole information highway, they'll be taking it away piece by piece.

>>8810504
They wouldn't be allowed to. That's outside the scope of the FCC.

>>8810502
Do you know what the word means?

Let me ask you something, do you want your ISP to charge you by the website? Do you want to pay $50 a month for broadband that isn't actually broadband?

If you answered no to the above then stop bitching.

>>8810576
No. Fuck you, I have rights - we all have rights, and they shouldn't be trampled on because some cunt in washington wants to have a tighter grip around everyone's balls.

>>8810586
i dont think you know what the patriot act is in context to what you said earlier.

>>8810576
We are human fucking beings.

We are above animals, above nature.

We should be able to do whatever we want, and it is easily implemented, but ignorant mouth breathers like yourself clog everything up. Drink some bleach and leave the Net for good.

This is about making sure the telecom companies can't gouge us, not about censoring the internet.

>>8810630
As if it can't be used as such.

>>8810502
>What they are giving us is not Net neutrality
>What they are giving us is not Net
>What they are giving us is not
>What they are giving us is
>What they are giving us
>What they are giving
>they are giving
>are giving
>giving

taking

fxt.

This is absolute bullshit. The internet is the ONLY free medium in existence. Hell, it wasn't even COMPLETELY free before. Fucking liberal cocksuckers always have to ruin everything

>my face when President Palin shuts down or blocks all "unpatriotic" websites in 2014

>>8810630
We know that, it opens up the doors to censoring the internet, the FCC has no intention as of NOW to censor the internet but when some ass hole republitard or democrat finds a wide gaping loop hole in the regulation it will be censored

If the FCC regulating the internet is anything like the FCC regulating radio and tv.....

- you'll need to acquire a license (for a fee) to go online.
- you'll need special certifications (for a fee) to post content.
- If you want to set up your own website you'll need to get your Web Master's license (for a fee), and special certifications (for more fees) to have a blog, twitter, and facebook.
- There will no longer be porn on the internet because "oh god think of the children! it might hurt their precious minds!!!" (Remember when cable tv had tits? You probably don't, you underage piece of shit).

>>8810630
Yes, because the government is this pristine little thing that is lookout out for all of us. Bullshit. They may say that they're trying to protect Net Neutrality, but all this is doing is making it possible to censor the fucking internet.

Enjoy either paying premiums to visit 'government approved' websites or being completely barred from places like 4chan. I hope like hell you have a fuckbuddy, because you won't be watching porn any time soon

This isn't an issue of Liberals v. Conservatives!

This is the democratically elected representatives of the people forgetting they are our servants and taking control of what we have created because they want to make more money for their friends.

>>8810691
>I hope like hell you have a fuckbuddy, because you won't be watching porn any time soon

Not him, but
>implying I don't have 50GB of porn on reserve for when my internet goes out

>>8810688
If it ends up like this, I'm going to sell everything I own, take a plane to the middle of fucking nowhere, and become a true fucking hermit. I will eat, live, shit, and sleep in the woods. Fucking hell, at least they can't take that from me.

. . . yet

>>8810691
So exactly how would you propose to protect the open internet WITHOUT some sort of government intervention to protect net neutrality?

Breaking the internet into zones and tiers is definitely in the financial interests of Comcast et al.

>>8810630
WHO THE FUCK IS BEING GOUGED? WHO?
I've never heard *ANYBODY* complain about having to pay too much for internet.

As it stands most ISPs provide you broadband internet for less than your fucking cell phone bill.

>>8810728
Just promote more companies to become ISPs.

>>8810731
People that live in the country where they only get one choice of an ISP.

>>8810688
>(Remember when cable tv had tits? You probably don't, you underage piece of shit).

Actually I do, because I live in Canada.

If it ends up like this im moving to a differant country, well I was planning to anyway. Probubly canada, land of the free, home of the syrup.

>>8810728
>Implying the kind of government intervention we want is the kind that makes it possible to rip Net Neutrality a new asshole.

Cunt.

>>8810721
I don't save porn; I stream it. I get tired of watching the same crap over and over, and I don't exactly want to download that much bullshit. How long do you think it'd take for your 50G to run out, bro? You'd run out of fapping material pretty quickly.

>>8810776
Some of that shit I've been fapping to for years. I'll manage.

>>8810761
You treat this as child porn.
Fuck off.

this proves that everyone screaming for "net neutrality" has no idea what the word means

fucking retards, destroy your computer and kill yourself.

You're a badass. You're like I am with zombies but with the internet. We're both paranoid survivalists :)

Obama wants ISPs not to censor internet content
4chan wants ISPs to censor internet content

What the fuck is going on

FCC taking control of the internet is good. They aren't actually gonna regulate anything, that's basically impossible. They're gonna protect your right to discrimination free bandwidth, time warner wont be able to throttle it's websites while turning down the bandwidth on other websites. The FCC is just gonna protect your rights as Internets users, you know what's the point of government, protecting your rights.

And what's with republicans and having such a hard-on for corporations running everything? At least the people have some sort of control of the government.

>>8810617
EFF you and your wannabe superiority complex.

We ARE animals--different than most but animals none the less. We ARE animals but we think we know better cuz we are so damn smart.

We are so fucking smart we are fucking up our planet and we are so smart that even though we know that with every generation there is a chance for a better future through the new humans we rear ---we don't give a shit so we beat our kids, molest them, ignore them etc.

You are the one who should drink the bleach you self-absorbed egomaniac. I can't wait until a fucking comet breaks this planet in 2 and the cockroaches die once and for all.

>>8810821
We want the government to stay the fuck out of the internet. Why protect against censorship when there's no real threat of censorship?

I can't believe any of you faggots actually trust the government to not eventually censor the internet. They probably won't do it right away, but it will only be a matter of time before they cook up an excuse to ban sites they don't like and fine you for saying mean things.

You realize a guy in California was arrested for producing porn (in cali), but held up to the standards of a community in Florida merely because his content was available in Florida, despite having never shipped it there. The people who make shit like that possible are the same cunts who will cum buckets when the FCC controls the internet.

>>8810790
Some shit is good enough to watch over and over. Having said that, I'm pretty sure you won't be able to bust a nut to the SAME shit for 20 years. You will not be able to get more porn.

>>8810801
Ooh I get it! That statement was ironic.

>>8810831

O RLY?!

Have you used torrents lately, many users are having their upload speeds cut, ISP's are looking to save money any way they can, and if that comes at the expense of your download speeds so be it. Stop sucking so much corporate dick you debt slave.

>>8810749
>baaaawww let's compromise the last bastion of free speech so some fuckwad hicks don't pay too much for internet.

>>8810836
Max's case was a fucking travesty. How does that sort of shit fly in the US of A?

>>8810829
Fuck this planet. Fuck the next generation. JUST KEEP YOUR FILTHY HANDS OFF MY FUCKING INTERNET. THANKS.

>>8810850
Then switch fucking ISPs.

You think the government won't do the same? Torrents are mainly used to download goods illegally. You think the government will protect that?
Stop sucking so much government dick you debt slave.

>>8810841
it's not ironic you dumb piece of shit.

you latched onto a trendy buzzword and now that you know what net neutrality actually entails you've decided you don't like it.

stupid motherfucker.

>>8810850
I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.

>>8810728
>Just promote more companies to become ISPs.
You fail at understanding the internet.

To start an ISP, you still have to have sor some sort of WAN connection (from another ISP).

There's nothing to stop "backbone" providers from traffic shaping and tiering on their section of the network. In fact, this is probably the major threat to net neutrality, far more than consumer ISPs selling tiered service packages.

Backbone providers want to filter traffic across their network, and instead of just selling bandwidth, charge the originator and destination of the traffic. To ensure reliable service, companies like Google would end up having to pay numerous different ISPs along every step of the way. Don't believe me? Just go look at the many press releases accusing web hosting companies and dotcom businesses of getting a "free ride" because they only pay their own service provider.

No matter who you get your own service from, you're still likely to end up having access to some websites but not others, depending on who the upstream provider(s) are.

>>8810827
>Implying the FCC doesn't want to filter it.

You had better be trolling. No one is THIS stupid.

Everything has gotten far too PC. I'm fucking sick of it. Matt Stone and Tray Parker had their LIVES threatened recently because some fucking muslims got offended. Well here you are, you fucking cunts. HERE IS YOUR PRECIOUS MUHAMMAD!

i am hiding this thread now, but i have it on my watched list, so that when it nears 300 posts, i can come in, read it - and have the last word

cya in a bit

>>8810872

The government is less likely to. It's a fact that corporate greed causes shit to go way faster than expected; see productivity. the same can be applied to things like screwing over internet users, think they won't do it in a heartbeat, then all the other ISP'd will ump on the bandwagon?

and really the government is gonna regulate it? What's their gain? none thus they won't do it, or atleast they won't do it for a good long time.

>>8810924
Mohammad is a fairly common name, if you want to insult them Arabs add the Mohamed Rassoul Allah.

>>8810877
Christ. There is no way you're THIS fucking stupid. Tell me, cocksucker, just what do YOU think NN is?

Ausfag here.

Welcome.

I was at UCLA in the late 1960s when the ARPANET (the precursor of the Internet) began. It was paid for by the taxpayers on the initiative of the Defense Department. It was NOT created by the marketplace. This is an inconvenient fact that many people either ignore or never knew.

I'm a libertarian, but I'm intellectually honest enough to admit how the Internet was created. It was probably one of the best investments ever made with tax dollars. I find it hard to imagine how any private companies could have developed the Internet on their own. The only way it could have happened (if at all) would be if the companies got a monopoly on their creation. However, then there would have been a chicken/egg problem with getting people to use it. Perhaps I'm overgeneralizing, but the market doesn't seem to be very good at creating radical innovations like the Internet, though it works well for smaller innovations.

The phone and cable companies are trying to obtain monopoly rents on Internet service. That's what "net neutrality" would prevent. This isn't a government takeover in any reasonable interpretation. Preventing the Internet providers from using variable pricing or total blocking of competitive services will allow new ideas to be tried out. Otherwise, the providers will squelch competition and the innovation it spawns.

I completely agree that the government is too involved in our lives. However, the history of the Internet shows that even the government can occasionally do something worthwhile. The FCC's "net neutrality" plan is basically pro-consumer, and it deserves to be implemented.

I mean, I understand that people are afraid of the government censoring the internet. But if you just think that you can just "change ISPs" when upstream providers start filtering their traffic, you can't really give a qualified opinion on this because you don't have any understanding of the technological issues underlying the politics. Net Neutrality just sounds scary like "fairness doctrine" so it's good for talking points.

>>8810961
why don't you tell me how you think net neutrality will work with no government regulation?

ITT: nobody has any idea what this is.

The FCC cannot censor things. Their goal is to force net neutrality, and keep the market competitive. The article doesn't reflect that, because the writer is hugely deregulation, and finds this to be bad for that reason.

I'm British, and recently, with the bullshit laws that were passed, a lot of Americans on /r9k/ have been taunting us, telling us to enjoy living 1984 etc; I'd just like to take this opportunity to say: HAHAHAHAHA, FAGGOTS.

>>8810827
>At least the people have some sort of control of the government.

THIS IS WHAT RETARDS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!!
Seriously, how stupid are you to think the people have any control over their government? Sure, they vote people out of office from time to time, but that doesn't mean shit, because the guy who replaces him will just walk all over everyone, without following the people's will, until the next guy comes along. Oh and there's also the fact that with corporations you can spend your money elsewhere while the government FORCES you to pay up with threat of imprisonment.

Also, THE GOVERNMENT HAS ***NEVER*** GIVEN UP CONTROL OF ANYTHING ONCE IT TOOK OVER.

>>8811053
Yeah, great.

So, are you going to do anything with your discontent with your government, or will you just use it as a crutch?

Look, you fucks.

ISPs are already censoring internet content to save money. They're cutting back torrent bandwidth. This is a fact. That means they CAN and WILL discriminate between different types of content.

It's just a beta test. Within the next decade they WILL start charging for different sites.

When that happens, you will have corporate sites (Google, Facebook, NBC) and NOTHING else.

All site owners will have to pay extra to all ISPs so that their content is delivered reliably. Those rates will be small at first and then they will be jacked up. 4chan and all your favorite independent sites will very quickly go offline from all the lost ad revenue.

This WILL happen. Several ISPs have gone on record saying they want to do this. And it's already started with torrents. All the naysayers, all the idiot stoner libertarian fucks said "that'll never happen, competition, you just switch ISPs, etc."

But no.

No.

ISPs are throttling traffic. It actually started happening. YOU WERE WRONG. YOU WERE COMPLETELY, DEMONSTRABLY WRONG WITH YOUR BULLSHIT STONER HYPOTHESES.

ONCE AGAIN THE LIBERTARIANS ARE FUCKING RETARDED AND WRONG JUST LIKE THEY ARE EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME

ISPs WILL start favoring corporate sites, and you will NOT be able to switch because they will ALL do it.

The ONLY way to stop this is to make it illegal for them to do it. PERIOD.

FCC already passed a net neutrality resolution which the Supreme Court struck down. OBVIOUSLY IF THEY DIDN'T WANT NET NEUTRALITY THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TRIED TO DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, you dumb fucks. THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT CORRECTLY THIS TIME BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT ANY FREE-SPEECH ADVOCATE WANTS

Net neutrality, now. Period. If you don't support it you are a BLACK NAD-LICKING JUGGALO, plain and simple.

>>8811032
Sadly NN is the latest apocalypse for Republicans. Right-wing pundits are busy misleading people into thinking not just regulation but Net Neutrality itself is a bad thing, that NN means a sort of Fairness Doctrine for the internet where sites will be required to have "neutral" views.

>>8811031
Being a fucking free market protects Net Neutrality. If you don't like one ISP, and think they've stepped over the line, you switch. What the fuck can you do when it's all censored by the fucking government? It's a rather lot more inconvenient to leave the country than to switch ISPs, faggot

>>8811032
This is pretty much correct. Gotta check your facts people.

>>8810924

>implying devout, violent, literalist Muslims peruse whiny, misinformed American political threads on 4chan

net neutrality was introduced in the 90s

it's currently in effect

if you're against that

you're against the current internet

making you a faggot

>>8811110
>If you don't like one ISP, and think they've stepped over the line, you switch.

how would you do that when there are local monopolies on internet access? move to another city or state?

kill yourself, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>8811110
>lol just switch ISPs

So what happens when *upstream* providers start traffic shaping, then?

Oh, I forgot, you don't have any idea how the internet actually works.

>>8811139
Clearly you don't either. There aren't any local monopolies that I'm aware of. Competition brings out the best in people.

"Hurr comcast has done something stupid and lost customers, fuck I had better not make that mistake."

>>8811032
>The FCC cannot censor things.

And that's why tits, sex, and "fuck" are never shown on TV. Right?

ITT people take a WSJ opinion piece at face value. I'm no fan of government control, but it's sure as hell better than letting giving free reign to the telecoms - at least the government has to pretend to be accountable to the people.

Pic speaks teh truth, fuckers.

>>8811175
>There aren't any local monopolies that I'm aware of.

like i said before, you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>8811056

>Also, THE GOVERNMENT HAS ***NEVER*** GIVEN UP CONTROL OF ANYTHING ONCE IT TOOK OVER.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Anyway, we don't want the government to give up control of ISPs, we want them to regulate ISPs to prevent them from any corporate favoritism or censorship.

It's such a stupid libertarian strawman to say "The government never gives up control of anything!" as if we're all hoping the government fixes problems temporarily and then stops.

We're not clamoring for the government to do things temporarily. We want the government to regulate things that need to be regulated, permanently. It doesn't matter if it's given up control in the past (which it has) because the majority of things it's done have led to a better society.

Lots of people in this thread saying that if their ISP starts filtering, censoring, or shaping traffic, they will switch ISPs.

Not one of them is able to explain how they'll do that when the upstream ISPs and backbone providers are the ones doing it.

>>8811208
Then kindly inform me, you cunt. CLEARLY you're omniscient.

Id' rather have the governments dick in my ass
then comcasts, cox, time warners cock in my ass.

>>8811188
Cable networks self regulate such content during prime time hours.

Some (such as Comedy Central) choose to run uncensored movies or adult content late at night.

>>8810521
nigger are you retarded?
90% of cities most people only have 1 choice of ISP/cable companies.

I live in a city of 500,000, and we have the choice of Insight net/cable or nothing.

>>8811256
THEY DON'T RUN UNCENSORED SHIT AT ALL YOU FOOL. You have not, and WILL not see a pair of breasts on Comedy Central. It doesn't matter on the hour. "Uncut" is just a fancy word meaning that they can say fuck, and nigger, but still can't show a fucking naked person, despite everyone in existence having already seen one.

>>8811295
The fuck? I live in a city of 30,000, and we have 3 choices.

>>8811175
Hey idiot, ever hear of rural areas? They can't always get Comcast and WoW and ATT, because there's no service for those companies out there. If they're lucky, they'll get one of those, if they're not lucky, they have to get satellite, or some small shitty company that popped up locally who gets their traffic from...

The bigger telecom companies like Comcast, WoW, and ATT. So no, not everyone can just change ISPs like a shirt with a hole in it.

>>8811249
cable and phone providers (the same people that provide your internet) operate as local monopolies in much of the united states.

if you're that fucking ignorant of such basic shit then why are you arguing with me?

>>8811188
Terrestrial broadcast TV and radio are subject to content restrictions established through legislation, not simply by the FCC. This is because of their nature as free broadcast services - anyone with the proper equipment can access them.

Cable companies engage in SELF-CENSORSHIP. Some cable channels, not just "premium channels" like cinemax, do feature uncensored content. Comedy Central and IFC off the top of my head.

FCC: 76 years of failure, yet we still have people saying, "huuurr they'll get it right this time! they want to help the little guy! derp!"

>>8810500
>>8810491
>>8810466

All of these.

>>8810652

That's why it must go, power begets power, you cannot vote change into an existing system of expanding power and expect it to make reforms. Reformation is made from the outside and not the inside.

I knew this day would come eventually, let's face it, It would either be the ISPs controlling the information or the feds.

The internet is commonplace now. It's no longer the free wild wild west of yesteryear because normal people are now using it much more frequently, and this begets all sorts of civil issues that end in lawsuits.

They want to tame the internet, and they will. We must build a new one.

>>8811321
Comedy Central has never shown a pair of real breasts. It is not uncensored. Look what happened with South Park recently. They fucking bleeped the word Muhammad.

>>8811313

>The fuck? I live in a city of 30,000, and we have 3 choices.
>I don't have that problem; therefore, not a single person in the entire United States of America does

ITT: we believe everything glenn beck tells us

>>8811352 grox

>They want to tame the internet, and they will.

[citation needed]

Anywhere that isn't a major city, most isp/phone/cable services are run as a monoploy.

>>8811361
what he's saying is that the FCC doesn't require them to do that, they perform self-censorship. IE: execs at Comedy Central dictate what will and won't be shown. The whole shitpile of the Muhammad episode was that the producers and execs of Comedy Central didn't want it to be shown or heard.

>>8811361
>Comedy central has never shown a pair of real breasts

Simply not true. Of course they tend to edit out sex scenes but there's definitely been toplessness.

The internet needs to be regulated because it is a natural monopoly. Hardwires have to be owned by someone, it is ridiculous to string multiple sets instead of just one big one. Given choice between extreme inefficiency/no service & the way it is (regulated monopoly) I see no reason not to burden their monopoly rights with a little pro-consumer regulation.

If one dude owns all the water he can charge $1000 a glass, even if he has enough water to let everyone drink 1000 times over. Fuck monopolists

This
>>8811411
ALL CENSORSHIP ON NON BROADCAST TV IS SELF IMPOSED, TO AVOID BUTTHURT PURITAIN RELIGIOUS FAGGOTS FROM BAWWWING.

europe doesn't have this problem because people tell the butthurt faggots to shut up and turn the god damn channel

>>8811412
Provide a source.

I guess I could be saying here, in lieu of the more 'PC' phrase, "TITS OR GTFO!"

so, we can expect the same kind of content controls we have over the phone lines?

I'm OK with that.

>>8811416
Even though you're arguing in favor of FCC regulation, you too have no understanding of the technological issue at hand.

Shit, I'm not even going to explain this one. I'm just going to greentext part of your post so all of us who know something about the structure of the 'net can laugh at you and call you names.

>it is ridiculous to string multiple sets instead of just one big one

Now wait a second guys....

FCC regulates the phone companies, and they all fucking suck. Chances are you pay more for your cellphone service than you do for your internet.

Do you cunts actually think this is going to fix something? (protip! Nothing's broken).

>if Obama gets his way the government will have the power to look at websites

>>8811514
ahahahahahahahha

PROTIP: Cell cos in the US are subject to far less regulation than most of the rest of the world.

Cellular technology in the US also lags behind, service quality is poor, and yet we pay more.

>>8811497

Look, I'll grant you I don't know shit about the nets. However, I'm pretty sure the info I send to the nets goes out through the wire my modem is attached too. I'm sure said wires have a capacity. I know there are probably ownership in the capacity of those wires in sending information. The wires are owned by someone. That person clearly seems to have a monopoly in so far as he owns the capacity of the wires. I'm sure it is far more complicated but at the end of the day we're talking hardware capacity right? I get that. Seems like a natural monopoly to mean. If this makes no sense please school me, cause I may be under very false assumptions

cellphone stuff isn't regulated.
Home phone lines that use wires are.

land lines are fucking cheap as well dude, you can normally get it bundled with net/cable for god damn pennies.

Now on the other hand, Wireless cellphone providers can rape you shitless, and provide almost unuseable networks AKA ATT, and the governemnt can't say shit.

Cellphone service is classifed as the same thing as the internet/voip as far as regulation goes

>>8811549
yes yes, I know, US cell phones suck cock.... but they're still less expensive than your standard broadband service.

>>8810346
Information costs money to distribute. The people who distribute it, who run the big servers, would like to be compensated somehow.

>>8811567
broadband services tend to include, internet and cable you dumb fuck. Its the cable part of of that bill thats raping you shitless.

also Boardband is more because YOU'RE CELLPHONE ISN'T DOWNLOADING 5 GIGS OF DATA A DAY YOU PIRATE FUCKS AND WOW FAGGOTS

>>8811552 xxx

>my modem

Jesus Christ.

>>8811605
> faggot doesn't know cable modems are still modems.

what are you fucking 13? what is this I don't even know.

>>8811552
Well, you're actually correct about the way your modem works, the large investment necessary to roll out broadband service, and how these factors create a "natural monopoly." But it's actually good to have multiple paths for the connection.

The structure of the internet is sort of a complex web of intermeshed hub and spoke networks. Beyond the wire that leads out from your modem, multiple paths from source to destination often exist and the network can dynamically reconfigure itself to use the best one.

Data going between your computer and a web server will cross the "territory" of multiple ISPs and this is also why you can't simply "change ISPs" when they start carving it up. Sure you can switch from comcast to your local independent DSL provider or something. Doesn't make a difference when Verizon runs the high-speed "backbone" cable crisscrossing your continent and decides they want to charge both you and the web site you're accessing for "priority" access in order to get a reasonable speed, in addition to charging the web host's own ISP, AND your ISP to connect to their backbone.

>>8811729

Indeed. Thank you anon for the explanation. Although it grants the same conclusions, I shall not sound as silly if it comes up in conversation in future, Cheers.

Oh man, I was going to comment on this, but reading the replies, clearly no one understands the issue and everyone is flipping shit about it.

I am going to be angry all night about how willfully retarded some people are.

>>8811729
look here is a map that is colored by provider to demonstrate your point.


http://advice.cio.com/node/209

>>8811729
This guy is very accurate.
I know in the town I live in we have 2 isp's if I say I ping a server in Cali.

both ISP's eventually traveled through lines owned by Windstar communcation. We ran into an issue with our local ISP's where windstar was fucking around with throttling at peak times. What neither local ISP couldn't do anything.

Bascially all the lines are owned by THE BIG HUGE COMPANIES, and the smaller ones have to rent/lease the lines to offer services in the local areas, Once it gets off their leased lines, Whoever owns the next set can decide how fast/slow that data goes or how its routed.

I am not particularly knowledgeable about the internet, but what's to stop governments from laying down their own lines, subject to public management, in much the same way private corporations lay down their lines?

I mean, I assume it would be more expensive, but prohibitively so? I don't really trust either faction, to be honest, so I'd rather have both available than have one conglomerate of the two be my only choice.

>>8811781
Doesn't matter, nobody on /r9k/ will actually do anything.

>>8812292

>I am not particularly knowledgeable about the internet, but what's to stop governments from laying down their own lines, subject to public management, in much the same way private corporations lay down their lines?

Same thing that's preventing a public health insurance system.

Republicans and Democrats.

The American people support this idea, but as soon as any member of Congress puts it on the floor, Fox News and the Wall Street Journal will release a flurry of fake polls, out-of-context quotes, fake experts, and outright fabrications about what they're doing. They'll come up with some clever buzzword about how evil the plan is and make sure everyone copies their approved opinion and phrasing to the letter. It will drop in the polls to slightly below 50% and then they'll criticize any member of Congress that votes for it as violating the will of the people (i.e. violating the will of the conservative think tanks that half the country desperately suckles their opinion from).

>>8810346
>>8810924
>>8810924
>>8810924
You dumbass, how about you read?

The site ended up being owned by some zionist who wanted to discredit/troll muslims.
lol f u.

i can't believe so many of you are actually AGAINST net neutrality. how fucking stupid do you have to be to oppose this?