Why exactly did Americans choose to not have net neutrality?
I guess there won't be any non-botnet fiber to any of you in the next 50 years. The USA keep lagging 15 years behind Europe and the gap will only increase.
>>46781810
>moar like nigger woman amirite?
>>46781810
net neutrality passed, verizon and the gang are pissed and will lawyer the fuck out of it but we have some semblance of hope.
i might actually have a choice in isp sometime in my lifetime. imagine that
>>46781921
It still seems really unpopular with the public. What happened? America used to be all about muh anti-trust.
>>46782082
[original research]
>>46782082
Retarded republicans as per usual don't understand technology.
>>46781810
I seriously can't ell if all of 4chan is misinformed, retarded, or le epic trolle on this ruling
What exactly is in this net neutrality law?
>>46782082
> It still seems really unpopular with the public.
Huh?
> America used to be all about muh anti-trust.
Uh, did you already live back then?
I guess companies are officially people (who can influence votes) only now, but money has elected its politicians (and almost all-powerful lawyer armies) for a while.
>>46782082
>It still seems really unpopular with the public.
>falling for FUD shills
Really?
>>46782082
quit watching faux news. mozilla, google, and facebook all did a lot to get the word on net neutrality up there, and even though most of its supporters are just on the bandwagon because muh facebook, its still a really well known issue that people are in support of
>>46782285
It's their natural reaction anytime THE EVUL BIG GUBMENT makes a ruling and it leads to regulation of a highly profitable industry they mad
>>46782404
Well technically the government is evil, but it's just the lesser of 2 evils in this case.
>How would you prefer to be assraped, on your back, or on all fours?
Hard choice
>>46782285
>>46782360
>>46782404
/g/ - cumguzzling faggots who believe everything Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Rachel Maddow tell them
>>46783070
I would probably prefer on my back.
It's shitty either way. More control for the government now.
The people that think we'll get cheap fiber lines from 50 different competing companies are delusional.
>>46783136
being a republican is so 1983
>>46783136
>butthurt isp apologist detected
>>46783157
Isn't the real concern that ISPs will discriminate the traffic, charging more for some types than others? It might lead plebs to only pay for the pleb tier and become even bigger plebs.
It has nothing to do with controlling prices or competition and everything to do with the ISPs making arbitrary decisions on whether to let your network packages get through or not.
Because net neutrality wasnt decided by the populace and it doesnt address any of the real problems like monopolies. Its like healthcare here in the 70s and in 2040 itll be like 2013 was for healthcare. Because if everyone is forced to have a connection amd smartphone and laptop....
>>46783305
Honestly I'd rather have shitty ISPs over the government being able to do shit without due process of law.
But America has been headed that way for a long time. I'm sure they'll make some 3 letter alphabet organization soon to specialize in stripping rights from people via the internet.
>>46783305
This is why net neutrality is important. You don't want your ISP telling you to pay extra cash (in addition to your subscription) to use netflix, do you? No you don't. So be happy that all packets are supposed to be treated equal.
>>46783373
How about people just don't support the fucking ISP? Oh no fuck that the gobemrent gots to take care of me.
>>46781810
>hey the 322 secret bill has the name "net neutrality" it must be good
>why would you be agaonst net neutrality
this is why everyone hates libshits.
The ISPs are complaining that net neutrality prevents innovation. What innovation exactly?
It can't be that the network equipment is too slow. Gigabit Ethernet is standard, and few broadband plans can saturate that. Is the Internet protocol suite too old and in need of replacement? Seems unlikely, or ISPs would jump at the opportunity to upgrade to IPv6. We have all the networking technology, and even if we didn't, how does net neutrality prevent new stuff from being invented?
>>46783305
>it has nothing to do with controlling prices or competition and everything to do with the ISPs making arbitrary decisions on whether to let your network packages get through or not.
>Thats the governments job!
fuck off
>>46783422
>secret bill
Is there actually a bill involved?
>>46783422
>>46783468
What do you propose instead of the government, then?
>>46783461
>The ISPs are complaining that net neutrality prevents innovation. What innovation exactly?
Innovation in milking money from their victims through crap service that would get them banned from business in a decent country, probably.
>>46783571
have the government stop creating area monopolies.
>>46783594
How does that prevent traffic discrimination?
>if you like your plan you can keep ypur plan :^)
>you have to pass the bill to see whats in the bill :^)
demonrats
not.
even.
once.
>>46783612
allows people to switch isps when one starts discriminating
>>46783422
>this is why everyone hates libshits.
I'm liberal and I agree with you on this. The way they are going about this is completely anti-democratic and non-transparent, which means there are no systematic controls built into the process, which tends to produce shit legislation. The same thing is happening with the TPP right now.
However there are two issues at play here. On one hand there is the FCC process, in which a whopping total of five people vote on a 332 page bill that affects everyone. On the other hand is net neutrality itself. Opposing the former makes sense for anyone, opposing the latter makes you a fucking retard.
And of course the latter group is populated almost entirely by "free market" Republitards who do not understand technology and oppose government regulation no matter how much sense it makes. These are the same people responsible for our completely fucked health care system, which was only marginally sanitized by the ACA, and will remain fucked for decades in all likelihood.
>>46783461
Innovative ways to bilk money out of customers and into the pockets of share holders. That's what.
>>46783418
Because 90% of the US doesn't have that luxury, it's either shitty ISP or no internet because of regional monopoles
>>46783571
disolve their monopolies and make them.common carriers.
blam done. no need to regulate them as utilities under the control of appointed fcc memebers and have 322 page regulations
>>46783648
If my service was blocked by an ISP I would still lose customers even if those customers could theoretically switch to another ISP. Then again, what's preventing all the ISPs from discriminating if it's a profitable scheme?
>>46783573
>>46783680
I would rather
>>46783723
>common carriers
That's government regulation, you fucking retard.
>>46783573
>>46783680
>>46783737
>I would rather
Forgot to finish, I would rather the opponents of net neutrality answer this question.
>>46783768
your assuming people against this terrible decision are against net neutrality. there is no reason at all to regulate isps as a public utility under the control of the fcc, especially when we already have common carrier laws and antitrust laws.
>>46783752
sure but regulations crafted by obongo and the fcc for the sole purpose of giving the government unlimmited control over the internet.
>>46783831
>especially when we already have common carrier laws and antitrust laws.
Do we still have those?
Compare the Aldus-Adobe merger in 1994 with the Macromedia-Adobe merger in 2005. Back in the 90s the FTC frowned upon anti-competetive behaviour, that doesn't seem to be the case now.
>>46783911
*but not*
>>46783911
That's fine, but that doesn't get around the fact that the shill force are attacking the very concept of passing on packets to the correct IP address without looking at the contents and adding delay or extra fees depending on what they find.
>>46783970
common carriers can not discriminate
>>46783911
>>46783970
Also everyone who talks about this "secret bill" seem to know a lot about what's in it, complete with death panels and everything.
>>46784045
Yes, I know what a common carrier is, and if you take away all the conspiracy theories that's exactly what they are protesting.
>>46784045
I guess "don't touch muh common carrier" is to net neutrality what "don't touch muh medicare" is to Obamacare.
>>46783970
the real question is why are you shilling so hard FOR the fcc regulations
It's funny to see the web 2.0 companies fight for net neutrality when they themselves are complicit in dumbing down the population in relation to computing to the point that traffic discrimination seems reasonable to people.
Electricity might still be a bit of a mystery to most people, but they would be appalled at the idea of having to pay more per unit energy to run one type of appliance than to run another type of appliance. Yet when you present a normalfag with a computer or a phone you might as well be showing a fucking lightbulb to a sentinelese.
>>46782082
Its unpopular on /pol/ and a lot of 4chan because somewhere along the line our userbase went from casual racists to clinically insane neocons.
>>46784148
>the real question is why are you shilling so hard FOR the fcc regulations
I'm not. I have no idea what's in them. Why don't you tell me? Oh, wait, they're secret, how convenient. I guess I'll just have to trust you.
Does the government's control over your water, electricity, phone, etc., seem unjust to you net neutrality detractors? Are you seriously not okay with the same amount of control over fucking copper and fiber optics?
Also, you do realize you've basically been using the internet as a utility since the dawn of broadband, don't you? The only difference between this week and the last is the guarantee that things will stay this way if the government has anything to say about it.
>>46784235
>its secret so you know its good
>i mean like when has the government ever screwed over the populous
libtards everyone
>>46784244
the internet is not a utility, retard.
>>46784203
It's just the conservatives being retarded and opposing the dems simply to oppose the dems. Honestly sometimes I cannot blame them because democrats are just as retarded as the republicans, but way more annoying and smug.
They make a good point about having the FCC just do this all on their own and potentially setting a precedent for more regulation, but congress is too retarded to do anything themselves in a timely manner and the republicans obviously know fuck all about why Net Neutrality the concept itself is good for the health of the market and the consumers. The details not being available is really fucking stupid though. Why is that though? I read somewhere that it is just the way the FCC does everything, but it seems like the democrats love doing that shit in a sneaky underhanded way.
>>46781810
Do you think the American public has any say in the matter?
>>46784248
>>its secret so you know its good
How does anyone know anything about whether it's good or bad before it's actually published?
If it has been leaked I'd like to see it. If it's as bad as you say, you'd get a lot of support from net neutrality proponents.
>>46784274
Without the government nothing is a utility or any other regulatory category. Besides, why shouldn't it be a utility?
>>46784274
how is the internet any less of a utility than electricity?
>>46782082
Because it is being regulated and enforced by the FCC, the same agency that goes batshit crazy if you say "fuck" or show a tit on TV. Now they are in charge of regulating the internet, what is to stop them from regulating internet content the same way they regulate TV?
Instead, they should have pushed NN by forcing competition, breaking up the monopolies and forcing them to lease their lines to smaller companies that offer internet at less of a profit margin than 97% like the big ISPs have.
>>46784294
Considering millions of us were fighting for it for years now, I think we do.
>>46781810
>wanting the same government agency that fines people millions when they say a naughty word on public airways to regulate the internet also.
>>46784324
>muh slippery slope
>>46784324
>Because it is being regulated and enforced by the FCC, the same agency that goes batshit crazy if you say "fuck" or show a tit on TV. Now they are in charge of regulating the internet, what is to stop them from regulating internet content the same way they regulate TV?
So the best you can come up with is guilt by association? Fine, what's stopping them from regulating content on every other piece of consumer electronics that's also subject to FCC regulation. If the root issue is the fact that they're the FCC regardless of the actual regulation, why aren't you campaigning for the deregulation of everything else that also bears the FCC mark?
>Instead, they should have pushed NN by forcing competition, breaking up the monopolies and forcing them to lease their lines to smaller companies that offer internet at less of a profit margin than 97% like the big ISPs have.
That any of that has any effect whatsoever on traffic discrimination is highly speculative. Regulations need to be made with some certainty that they will actually fix the problem. Otherwise it's just haphazard meddling. I'm all for small government, but it also needs to be competent and have measurable effect. Ideally regulation and legislation should come with a rationale of why they think it will have the intended effect, and should be followed up with empirical evidence that it did have that effect.
>>46784375
Look at the label on your computer
>shitposting on a device approved by the same government agency that fines people millions when they say a naughty word on public airways
>>46784530
>Label on your computer
Nigger what?
>>46784575
Or the paper with the regulatory information that it came with, if it's not on the actual case. Both my phone and my chinkpad has the regulatory label on the back.
>>46784575
You have an FCC label on your computer, bud.
>>46784510
Say what you want man, the FCC ruling does nothing for speed, increased competition, or data caps. Nothing is getting fixed with this regulation, instead, Cumcast will just find new fees to charge or place new caps on data. And nothing can be done because there is nobody else to turn to for most.
A bit is a bit. A live stream of a TV channel on a website is the same as a digital channel coming through your cable box, there is now NOTHING stopping the FCC from regulating it if they see fit.
>>46784669
>>46784674
>Prebuilts
I don't have that shit on my computer, I built it and no part came with any of that shit
Where the fuck do you think we are?
>>46784682
Now that Google and public entities are free to expand their fiber without getting fucked over by Comcast or Verizon the speed problem will solve itself. And Wheeler himself said data caps are fair game for the FCC to put an end to.
>>46784682
>Say what you want man, the FCC ruling does nothing for speed, increased competition, or data caps.
It would be odd if the regulation did anything for those things, since they are all out of the scope for net neutrality regulation.
>there is now NOTHING stopping the FCC from regulating it if they see fit.
What was stopping them from doing it before? As far as I can tell nothing about their mandate from congress has changed.
>>46784682
>the FCC ruling does nothing for speed, increased competition, or data caps
It set the precedent in two states for allowing local municipalities to run their own networks and something in it also is making it easier to access phone poles.
Competition will not instantly appear, but the precedent has been set for other states to do away with this exclusivity bullshit the major ISPs have been getting away with.
>>46784719
Check the side of your PSU, moron.
>>46784719
0/10 made me go check the box my motherboard came in.
Pro tip:, it's approved by the FCC.
>>46784775
You see?
You're a fucking liberal.
>>46784575
>>46784719
>>46784880
ITT: lolbertarians can't handle the fact that the FCC has had its grubby regulatory paws all over their shill machines.
>>46782082
Because the american people have been convinced through years of propaganda to not worry about what businesses are doing, just worry about politicians trying to take away 'freedoms'. Never mind whether this is business freedom or personal freedom. This has resulted in an electorate that will consistently vote against there own interests in the name of 'capatilism'.
>>46786012
This even seems to be anti-business and against capitalism itself.
Tiered consumer plans would screw over a lot of companies in the Internet services market, large and small. Just like the Macromedia-Adobe merger screwed over a lot of graphic designers who were relying on Macromedia Freehand.
As for the retards who think that net neutrality is against freedom of speech, I'm sure they were absent from the debate back in 2012 when the ITU tried to make a power grab for the Internet, trying to become its global regulatory body. And so were the ISPs, which had a lot more clout in the ITU than in the ICANN and would have benefited from the takeover.
>>46781810
And Europe will keep lagging 15 years behind the NSA. We have privacy invading tech europoors can only DREAM of.
Wait, that's not a good thing for us.
>live in New Zealand
>no one knows what this is
>no internet connection anyway because can't afford rent payments + power + car + Internet
Such is life of the full time working man
