i challenge you to make one argument for removing net neutrality
it has benefit the consumer in someway it cannot only benefit the providers
>>54931362
it can let the isp implement adblocking
>>54931415
>implying they would ever do that
they might block ads but only ads that dont benefit them
>>54931438
mobile providers in Yuropoor land are already trialing it.
The FCC has ruined practically everything it has ever touched.
>>54931459
ya so they can charge ad companies to be able to get around it are you dense? do you really think the ISP isnt ran by a bunch of disgusting scumbags?
>>54931478
the only reason this is a problem at all is because the ISP market isn't competitive. If everyone had a half-dozen ISPs to choose from they'd have a hard time getting away with bad behavior. That's the problem we should be trying to solve first. Any company in any industry will behave like a disgusting scumbag when they have monopoly power.
>>54931530
Anon, can't you see that the only way we can solve problems caused by government interference in the market is with more government interference in the market?
Sanders4Prez
>>54931530
and the only way we are ever going to solve this is to outlaw ISPs keeping competitors out of the area
the way its setup now nothing will change so long as we dont force it to
>>54931608
>we need to pass a law so the government can stop the government from restricting competition in the ISP market!
>>54931667
its not the government doing it its the ISPs themselves
>>54931704
Do the ISPs have their own militia that they use to restrict competition? Or do they leverage contracts granted by the government and use the US court system instead?
>>54931727
Are you of retarded? The isps have a monopoly over areas where they built the infrastructure. The only way to stop the monopoly is for the government to force the isp to allow other isps to use their cables. It probably won't matter in a couple of decades when satellite Internet becomes cheap and there is more competition.
>>54931727
they shouldnt be allowed by law to do either
>>54931802
The government grants the local monopolies because of legal bribery (campaign contributions).
>>54931802
>>54931803
>Government accepts kickbacks from cable companies to restrict smaller startup ISPs from being able to lay infrastructure due to expensive regulatory hoops
>le greedy corporations meme
You're probably too young to remember, but there used to be a time when there were small municipal ISPs. Just like there was a time when there were small cigarette companies. There wouldn't be a problem if government hadn't gotten in the way, now you want government to get in the way more and fix the problem they created in the first place. Great plan.
>>54931704
>>54931727
>>54931802
Aren't trade agreements of that nature between companies illegal in the UK though?
>>54931864
how else is this problem going to be fixed? how do you fix a government problem without action from the government
>>54931362
Isn't that George W. Bush's work?
The painting, I mean.
>>54931910
Loosening the restrictions the government created so that new ISPs can enter the market and spur competition.
You fix problems created by the government with less government, not more.
>>54931977
ok but for this to happen the government must loosen or remove the restrictions
babby's first policy debate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture
>>54931977
This.
Net Neutrality wouldn't even be an issue if ISPs were forced to compete.
>>54931993
Yes, and I consider that "less government" in the same way I consider the 21st Amendment "less government", though you're free to disagree on semantic grounds. I don't care to have that argument though.
>>54931573
This, Bernie 2016
>>54932101
yes but once the government has passed a law the only way to remove that law without full scale revolution is for the government to remove that law
>>54932093
They do compete.
>>54931362
Net neutrality didn't exist up until 2009 or so, and even then it's not really enforced.
And if it's so great, then why doesn't it apply to mobile ISP's?
>>54932169
>Yes, and I consider that "less government" in the same way I consider the 21st Amendment "less government", though you're free to disagree on semantic grounds. I don't care to have that argument though.
>>54932246
because unlike with cable/traditional ISPs, mobile internet really IS limited by its medium. You can only transmit so much data over a given bandwidth.
