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.
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
> It still seems really unpopular with the public.
> 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.
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
>How would you prefer to be assraped, on your back, or on all fours?
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....
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.
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.
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?
>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!
>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.
>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.
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?
I would rather
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.
>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.
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.
Also everyone who talks about this "secret bill" seem to know a lot about what's in it, complete with death panels and everything.
Yes, I know what a common carrier is, and if you take away all the conspiracy theories that's exactly what they are protesting.
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.
>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.
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.
>>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.
Without the government nothing is a utility or any other regulatory category. Besides, why shouldn't it be a utility?
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.
>wanting the same government agency that fines people millions when they say a naughty word on public airways to regulate the internet also.
>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.
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
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.
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.
>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.
>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.
Check the side of your PSU, moron.
ITT: lolbertarians can't handle the fact that the FCC has had its grubby regulatory paws all over their shill machines.
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'.
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.