Has anybody heard about this?
www.popsci.com/net-neutrality-is-under-attack-heres-why-we-need-to-protect-it
https://www.battleforthenet.com/
Seems that Net Neutrality is under attack once again.
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
Archived thread
File (): 62CD998D8B9505BC50EB9808CC66737D-61203.jpg (59.8 KB, 640x509, net-neutrality-censored[1].jpg)
![net-neutrality-censored[1].jpg](/images/src/62CD998D8B9505BC50EB9808CC66737D-61203.jpg)
God I h8 Jews
I'm really not happy with this new Pajeet being appointed as head of the FCC...
>>49014
Thanks Dolan...
Well, if anything about good ol' 1984 is going to happen, I will just spam horse-pussy web-wide. Fuck that, going out with style!
Thanks Dolan...
Well, if anything about good ol' 1984 is going to happen, I will just spam horse-pussy web-wide. Fuck that, going out with style!
About to write a leader screeching at them about muh horse pussy and memes or ill become a terrie.
>>49022
Seriously, put the pressure on them, and start writing letters to your Congressmen too. These kikes are deciding the fate of the internet this week.
I'm sure that if net-neutrality goes down, (((they))) aren't going to reserve very much data for "those Nazis who are into bestiality".
Seriously, put the pressure on them, and start writing letters to your Congressmen too. These kikes are deciding the fate of the internet this week.
I'm sure that if net-neutrality goes down, (((they))) aren't going to reserve very much data for "those Nazis who are into bestiality".
Net neutrality is bullshit. I'm sorry to say this, but half of it is fear mongering. Reddit is running a campaign to "save the internet", but it's a load of crap. I only have two options for my internet, and that's charter spectrum or getting a hotspot from the tower. My nieghborhood is completely under provided, and when my neighbors turn on Netflix my speed freefalls. Personally, I don't think completely ditching "net neutrality" is a good idea, but there is a desperate need for more competition. I have no idea what the solution is, but I know that something needs to change.
>>49001
I actually have no idea what Net Neutrality is, or why people care so much about it. All I know is that the entire internet absolutely loves/hates it (I don't remember), and is of the same mind about it
I actually have no idea what Net Neutrality is, or why people care so much about it. All I know is that the entire internet absolutely loves/hates it (I don't remember), and is of the same mind about it
>>49029
How does net neutrality inhibit competition though? To me, it sounds like removing it would only reinforce monopolies, by allowing them to shoah the speed/data/bandwidth of competing corporations.
How does net neutrality inhibit competition though? To me, it sounds like removing it would only reinforce monopolies, by allowing them to shoah the speed/data/bandwidth of competing corporations.
>>49033
First of all, one company couldn't possibly "shoah" some other companies speed, because they all use separate cables. Whoever says that is full of shit. Secondly, removing net neutrality would not just miraculously destroy the local monopolies, but it would allow companies to charge my neighbors more than me if the watch Netflix 24/7. You may not like that, but if it allows them to give me a constant speed by lowering my neighbors speed, I'm a for it. We pay the same amount, so I want the same service.
First of all, one company couldn't possibly "shoah" some other companies speed, because they all use separate cables. Whoever says that is full of shit. Secondly, removing net neutrality would not just miraculously destroy the local monopolies, but it would allow companies to charge my neighbors more than me if the watch Netflix 24/7. You may not like that, but if it allows them to give me a constant speed by lowering my neighbors speed, I'm a for it. We pay the same amount, so I want the same service.
>>49001
Also, in case you didn't notice, the first video that "battle for the net" recommends to learn about NN is current year man himself. That should make you think a bit harder about how great full net neutrality really is.
Also, in case you didn't notice, the first video that "battle for the net" recommends to learn about NN is current year man himself. That should make you think a bit harder about how great full net neutrality really is.
These are all the documents you really need:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342677A1.pdf
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0712/DOC-345754A1.pdf
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-342677A1.pdf
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db0712/DOC-345754A1.pdf
File (): 6577E39945E6A2CE2DB4FA15C5A4A292-26913.png (26.3 KB, 659x452, Capture.PNG)
>>49078
It could go down the path of "Pay $19.99 extra for access to the best horsepussy website of the internet, and it's only $5.00 if you want the deluxe edition with more characters!"
It could go down the path of "Pay $19.99 extra for access to the best horsepussy website of the internet, and it's only $5.00 if you want the deluxe edition with more characters!"
>>49087
Basically this.
Media kikes will try to Jew us out of otherwise-uniform quality by making us pay for shitty premiums for different parts of the net.
Basically this.
Media kikes will try to Jew us out of otherwise-uniform quality by making us pay for shitty premiums for different parts of the net.
>>49087
>>49089
Or it could allow companies to actually distribute bandwidth in an organized fashion. There are pros a cons to both sides, and the fact that Facebook, reddit, and George Soros support net neutrality makes me weary. This isn't as clear cut of an issue as, "muh ebil companies taking over the internet.
https://mobile.twitter.com/georgesoros/status/789771190390890496".
>>49089
Or it could allow companies to actually distribute bandwidth in an organized fashion. There are pros a cons to both sides, and the fact that Facebook, reddit, and George Soros support net neutrality makes me weary. This isn't as clear cut of an issue as, "muh ebil companies taking over the internet.
https://mobile.twitter.com/georgesoros/status/789771190390890496".
>>49106
It's not that I feel that companies have bad intentions; it's just that they have every incentive to try to screw each other over, and us in the process.
It's not that I feel that companies have bad intentions; it's just that they have every incentive to try to screw each other over, and us in the process.
>>49107
Companies screwing each other over is what capitalism is. I don't know for sure if we won't get screwed over in the process, but when I see people falling hook line and sinker for net neutrality being the only good option, it ticks me off. Again, there are plenty of mega corporations that are very pro net neutrality, because it means they can send as much fucking data they want without being fined.
Companies screwing each other over is what capitalism is. I don't know for sure if we won't get screwed over in the process, but when I see people falling hook line and sinker for net neutrality being the only good option, it ticks me off. Again, there are plenty of mega corporations that are very pro net neutrality, because it means they can send as much fucking data they want without being fined.
>>49108
You have a good point.
I guess I might not know enough about this issue to make an informed opinion.. I do know that I like the internet the way it is now, and I'm not keen on seeing things change..
You have a good point.
I guess I might not know enough about this issue to make an informed opinion.. I do know that I like the internet the way it is now, and I'm not keen on seeing things change..
>>49110
I like it this way too. But if net neutrality really doesn't do anything to "preserve" the internet. It just makes sure that Is P's can't control what they send. This has pros and cons, so don't think that I'm all in favor of ISP domination. But bet neutrality does absolutely nothing to stop government censorship or social media censorship. What good does NN do us if google can pick and choose what the want us to hear anyways?
I like it this way too. But if net neutrality really doesn't do anything to "preserve" the internet. It just makes sure that Is P's can't control what they send. This has pros and cons, so don't think that I'm all in favor of ISP domination. But bet neutrality does absolutely nothing to stop government censorship or social media censorship. What good does NN do us if google can pick and choose what the want us to hear anyways?
>>49112
I highly doubt getting rid of net neutrality will do anything to prevent censorship: that's a separate issue.
I hope they don't screw with things for now. It doesn't feel broken, so I see no merit in fixing it.
I highly doubt getting rid of net neutrality will do anything to prevent censorship: that's a separate issue.
I hope they don't screw with things for now. It doesn't feel broken, so I see no merit in fixing it.
>>49114
But in my case (and a lot of others) there is actually some broken. Refer to >>49029
And yes, getting rid of NN would not prevent censorship. I was just trying to say that keeping it around doesn't prevent anything either. Well, I've pretty much laid out my argument, so hopefully you can think of a better solution than I can.
But in my case (and a lot of others) there is actually some broken. Refer to >>49029
And yes, getting rid of NN would not prevent censorship. I was just trying to say that keeping it around doesn't prevent anything either. Well, I've pretty much laid out my argument, so hopefully you can think of a better solution than I can.
Just going to mention that getting rid of Net Neutrality will just give the ISPs more lease to fuck over -everyone-. Most people are in agreement that the abolishment of Net Neutrality is not something they desire. Hell, even 4chan is rising up against this (specifically /v/ and a few others). The only ones I'very seen on 4chan who actually DESIRE for Net Neutrality to be removed are those of 4/pol/, who seem to think that by doing this they are "Breaking The Conditioning!0!!!"
>>49153
Did you just read battle for the net and completely base your opinion of NN on that? The people at 4pol actually have a few good points too, because they are willing to go beyond what the mass opinion is. It's fairly obvious that if Reddit, Facebook, Soros, and most other social media websites claim NN is the best thing ever, the mass opinion is going to be pro NN. Doesn't mean they are right though.
Did you just read battle for the net and completely base your opinion of NN on that? The people at 4pol actually have a few good points too, because they are willing to go beyond what the mass opinion is. It's fairly obvious that if Reddit, Facebook, Soros, and most other social media websites claim NN is the best thing ever, the mass opinion is going to be pro NN. Doesn't mean they are right though.
File (): 7C7D91115956F2B62A92E6ECF530BDD8-1116347.jpg (1.1 MB, 1132x1600, 1461561667229.jpg)
>>49001
Why is this suddenly such an issue again? I see videos of it popping up in every place.
Obama sold You out 1 month before Trump got elected. The US Internet is fucked and will go under mass superveilance just like the rest of the western internet. Nobody did a flying fuck when thing bill was still stopable in September 2016. Its over.
Why is this suddenly such an issue again? I see videos of it popping up in every place.
Obama sold You out 1 month before Trump got elected. The US Internet is fucked and will go under mass superveilance just like the rest of the western internet. Nobody did a flying fuck when thing bill was still stopable in September 2016. Its over.
>>49165
The internet going into the hands of the UN is a different issue. NN is just a set of regulations on ISPs. However, OPs picture can be very misleading, as it equates NN to "anti censorship". This is straight up bullshit.
The internet going into the hands of the UN is a different issue. NN is just a set of regulations on ISPs. However, OPs picture can be very misleading, as it equates NN to "anti censorship". This is straight up bullshit.
The situation is confusing because both sides are evil. Nobody wants to be on the side of the ISPs because they're Satan spawn.
However "net neutrality" is just nice words for giving more control over the internet to the government. Giving more power to the Swamp. This is VERY bad. The only involvement that the government should have with the internet is breaking up ISP monopolies.
However "net neutrality" is just nice words for giving more control over the internet to the government. Giving more power to the Swamp. This is VERY bad. The only involvement that the government should have with the internet is breaking up ISP monopolies.
>>49106
>the fact that Facebook, reddit, and George Soros support net neutrality makes me weary
It's been a while since looking into this, but basically the "content" companies like Netflix and those mentioned support it because they don't want to be forced to pay ISPs to reach the ISPs customers. That's not how the system has traditionally worked, it's been run on a gentleman's agreement that everyone is in it together and will carry traffic on their networks regardless of who is generating it on the other side.
ISPs want to charge bandwidth hogs, or really the bandwidth hogs' ISPs, because they take more than they give. It's basically the same situation as China Post plugging into the worldwide postal network, using everyone else's resources to deliver packages but having to do very little work on their own (since there's a lot less being shipped to China).
It's two models colliding, both sides want what they feel is fair and seeing the other as making a land grab. If you want to understand it you have to dive into the deeper structure of how the Internet works, learning about the ISPs' ISPs and who really carries the traffic. What gets out into the news about this says very little about what's going on.
>the fact that Facebook, reddit, and George Soros support net neutrality makes me weary
It's been a while since looking into this, but basically the "content" companies like Netflix and those mentioned support it because they don't want to be forced to pay ISPs to reach the ISPs customers. That's not how the system has traditionally worked, it's been run on a gentleman's agreement that everyone is in it together and will carry traffic on their networks regardless of who is generating it on the other side.
ISPs want to charge bandwidth hogs, or really the bandwidth hogs' ISPs, because they take more than they give. It's basically the same situation as China Post plugging into the worldwide postal network, using everyone else's resources to deliver packages but having to do very little work on their own (since there's a lot less being shipped to China).
It's two models colliding, both sides want what they feel is fair and seeing the other as making a land grab. If you want to understand it you have to dive into the deeper structure of how the Internet works, learning about the ISPs' ISPs and who really carries the traffic. What gets out into the news about this says very little about what's going on.
32 replies | 4 files | 15 UUIDs | Archived