motherboard.vice.com/read/if-the-fcc-loses-in-court-today-it-could-be-the-end-of-net-neutrality
HAIL HAIL FREEDONIA
>>51694641
>Living in amerikek
Enjoy your "Freedumbs"
>>51694983
And where are you located anon
>>51694641
Either way, we get fucked. SJW government machinations or corporate cable fuckery.
The Internet is long in the tooth and due for retirement. Hackers need a new frontier. The big boys are carving up the place.
>>51694641
>the-end-of-net-neutrality
It has ended already.
It's all a matter of how much of it can be salvaged.
>>51696233
>The big boys are carving up the place.
And what place exactly? Unless we launch our own satellites or create massive mesh networks (which are shit), there isn't much we can do.
>>51694641
If the internet won't be regulated due to copyright, it will be due to sjws and muh feelingz
>central government entities not regulating the internet
I'm more than okay with this
>>51696272
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnSz-Hb9LQY
>>51696842
It's nothing more than a different protocol under the same network.
We need a new network, a new physical medium to transmit data on, with safe and reliable entry points. Alternative protocols don't change shit. FBB would be nice, but there's a point where it quickly reaches saturation.
Our best alternative right now would be to hide among the signal, relying massively on steganography. But if it's hidden, no one will ever know it's there, and no one could participate, which kills the point.
I'd love a new frontier, but we're kinda stuck right now.
>>51694641
Care to explain what are the ramifications of this?
![original[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wAAihuw.jpg "original[1].jpg")
>>51697146
>>51697512
Whoa look at all those services I don't use
>>51697532
>I don't need it so it's okay to block it
>>51697512
speculation: the image
>>51696813
>corporations controlling everything
I'm more American with this.
Thanks Obama
>>51697532
might as well get rid of the first amendment, as you got nothing valuable to say either.
>>51697544
yeah, at&t, verizon or comcast would never ever do that. nuhuh.
>>51697583
That's kind of how businesses work. You buy their product.
>>51697601
>implying the first amendment isn't already dysfunctional
>>51697617
The only thing dysfunctional is the people who are against it
>>51697628
Maybe they aren't against it and they only realized that a dead horse isn't a living one
>>51697532
>I don't care if you're controlling me and I don't notice
good babby goy
>>51697638
>Maybe they aren't against it and they only realized that a dead horse isn't a living one
What the fuck does this even mean? Are you seriously implying free speech is dead? Not in this country you stupid waste of space. Content yourself with rolling over and don't bother posting because there's clearly no point in you making your presence known.
>>51696263
>It has ended already.
In what way?
are some of incapable of critical thinking? gee, should we give corporations (machines designed to make money) more or less ways to charge more money for the same internet? let me dust off the Ouija board so I can poll Einstein, Aristotle and King Solomon on this motherfucking brain teaser
>>51697544
Speculation aside. The companies that have regional monopolies could easily do it that way with no legal framework on it and no net neutrality
>>51697532
you know that billing services is a way of logging
or in other words to tell what you owe, it is necessary to present a list of services you used
ergo usage gets written down.
>>51696263
>it has ended already
ye put logging is costy and needs finance
like this the people are paying their own observation.
>>51697885
no they couldnt.
as their monopol status only gets endured because it lowers the overall costs of holding such infrastrcture for the country.
as soon as they start abusing their monopol position for idiocy lawsits follow and theyd pay a shitton just to shut them lawsuits down.
>>51698267
which doesnt mean they aint doin it.
but just to a certain extent and with enough denyability, backing it up
Eh, it's almost 2016, this Internet fad has gone on long enough. Best to just kill it now and give everyone their old, normal lives back.
>>51698267
Fact of the matter is that the lawsuits themselves also cost money to the suing party. In this case they'd have a pretty solid position as to deal with it and even impose litigation costs on the plaintiffs.
so if the organization that censors radio, tv and internet loses in court, it's the end of net neutrality?
what a load of crap
"Net neutrality [...] is a [...] mistake"
~ FCC
You voted for Obama, now deal with it.
Fucking liberal scum.
>>51698393
I for one am glad I got myself a GF, if I don't get keked soon I would be fine with a future with no internet.
>>51694641
internet used to be a big place a while back.. all this shit makes me kind of sad
>>51697543
If you don't like it then move somewhere else.
You sound like the SJWs
>waaahh muh safezone
>stop being so problematic
