https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-quit-trying-to-sabotage-net-neutrality
>Net neutrality is under threat in Congress. Whether it’s slashing the FCC’s budget, attempting to prohibit the agency from enforcing its Open Internet Order, or stalling essential protections with redundant and unnecessary “studies,” lawmakers are using every trick they can to undermine the FCC’s work to keep the Internet free and open.
>As Congress debates the 2016 appropriations bills, numerous attempts are underway to introduce amendments designed to keep the FCC from enforcing its open Internet rules.
>Let’s tell lawmakers to stop standing in the way of net neutrality.
>>55442811
Someone explain this whole net neutrality thing to me?
Last time I checked someone told me it was a bad thing, somehow.
Net neutrality is not the answer. A proper competitive market is. Let capitalism fix these problems.
>>55443103
>He actually believes capitalism will fix anything
>>55443070
Net neutrality is the idea that an isp shouldn't be charging you on the type of data you're using, or restricting speeds on the type of data.
For instance, proponents of net neutrality would want to prevent YouTube or Netflix from paying ISPs to give themselves an advantage over competitors. It's not just a concern over fairness, but privacy too, as naturally the ISP would have to monitor a user's data more to throttle/charge it correctly.
The people saying it's a bad idea (mainly profit seeking cable companies) claim that it actually stifles competition, and is an overreach of the FCC's power
>>55443241
That sounds reasonable, actually. Thanks.
>>55443241
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAxMyTwmu_M
>>55442811
bump. this needs to be heard desu
>>55443070
>Someone explain this whole net neutrality thing to me?
You have a 50mbps internet connection. Net Neutrality means your connection is the same everywhere, from youtube to 4chan to Netflix it is the same connection speed (dependent on the host server capability)
The puppets in congress, with the ISPs hands up their ass, want to abolish this. So ISPs can say
>You internet connection is 50mbps, but on youtube it will be 20mbps, unless you pay us $19.99 for the Youtube Fast Pass, to bring your connection to the site back to 50mbps.
Now imagine that power in the hands of comcast, or Bell if you're Canadian. They would be speed capping every major site. You would be paying thousands of dollars if you wanted your connection to be max speed on every site.
>>55443103
I don't think internet providing is a good business to let that ideaology run rampit. Its a bad oligopoly right now.
Pic related is old now, but, this is what an internet without net neutrality looks like: no better than cable TV.
>>55443731
Looks fine to me.
>>55443731
>+5$ for 2 GB
lel, reminds me of the shit my country's large ISP is trying to pull. When you exceed your quota, you can reset it to full speed for only twice the price of your normal monthly fee. (And I assume you have to do this by hand, every month)
We just switched ISPs, since fortunately in Germany alternatives still exist. (Unitymedia / kabel-bw)
I'm for Net Neutrality, but against giving the FCC power to enforce it. A different organization needs to have oversight instead of the FCC.
>>55443810
>A different organization needs to have oversight instead of the FCC
why?
>>55443752
>Looks fine to me.
If you're conformist scum with no use for the internet outside of WWW I guess.
honestly, this scares the shit out of me. im a pretty principled libertarian, especially ehen it comes to assets like the internet, and the idea that it needs to be regulated to stay free is extremely scary and is a violation of the first amendment and the freedom of speech by throttling (and eventually) limiting certain websties for the sole purpose of either reducing access of information (if the government gives itself the abilities that congress wants) or profit (if corporations are given this power). I imagine if this becomes a thing in america, all forms of free speech across all mediums will be restricted soon after
>>55443810
That would be cool, but it would require an entirely different legal foundation. They basically got net neutrality enforced by calling it a utility and using some old law that regulated phone lines and electricity. So it would be super hard to convince congress to have another agency run it, and net neutrality under fcc is way better than no net neutrality.
>>55443070
The "bad" part people claimed was that there wasn't a lot of transparency in the law governing neutrality. The FCC didn't release the official rules at the time. I have no idea if they did later, but either way it was a very small price to avoid chopping up the internet piecemail and discouraging any new content providers in favor of megacorps
>>55443103
The internet is fundamentally built on infrastructure, completely privatized internet doesn't work for the same reason you can't fully privatize water and electricity. Capitalism and competition works wonders in many, perhaps the vast majority of industries and sectors, but it requires relative ease of market entry (i.e. not having to build a whole parallel cable network across town).
>>55443292
TLDR: Stupid college students who have no idea how the market works and want to establish a nanny state.
