ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME

>it's not like you can block peer 2 peer communications
why not?
Your ISP could just block any traffic that's not directed to a whitelisted website.

>Nice try but cars have other purposes not involving killing
Guns also have the purpose of defending against tyranny.

And just because something is primarily used for killing is not a reason to ban it, unless you want to conflate hunting wildlife with mass shootings.

Everyone just fuck off

People become democrats and leftists because they think it makes them look smart. People post on reddit to feel smart. People post on Veeky Forums to feel smart. People just want to be intelligent, even if they are unable to get past average intelligence.

>all internet activity is logged and tagged with your IP which can be requested by government in case of legal wrong doing
>various laws already prevent illegal torrenting

Since we already have a system for stopping and punishing illegal torrenting, this new law is meant to ONLY punish legal and legit forms of torrenting.

Oh yeah, and people on the internet are not professors, reciting what they say word-for-word does not make you "informed", it makes you a drone.

>>various laws already prevent illegal torrenting
Laws don't prevent crime, they're just part of a system by which people who commit the crime can be punished

My post wasn't even discussing net neutrality at this point. Just guns vs cars.

Internet is entirely different. Net neutrality is good for consumers tho.

Good.

You wouldn't steal a car, would you?

Welp, time to build a VPN server farm in Canada.

Im all for net neutrality but at a certain point I realized its already over. This is like what, the 10th time they have tried to pass this shit? If enough rich and powerful people want something its gonna fucking hapoen. All the rich people want to kill net neutrality because they stand to get even richer if they do. If they cant pass it legally they will eventually just stop holding a vote and get Trump to sign an executive order. Its over boys. Just be happy you were here to witness the golden age of the internet.

>the golden age
>fucking 2014-17

This was the age of cancer, and coincidentally the age of net neutrality. Burn this shitty law.

>This was the age of cancer, and coincidentally the age of net neutrality. Burn this shitty law.
the age of cancer started in ~07/08 when mass amounts of SJWs got online

Why are you implying that NN has only been around since 2014 when the FCC has been telling ISPs to fuck off with non-neutral schemes since at least '09

digitaltrends.com/computing/comcast-to-pay-16-million-for-blocking-p2p-applications/

So at first hearing about this scared me. I didn't fully understand NN. But the immediate and incredible outpour of "outrage" about its repeal, everywhere (a little too everywhere, bet your ass there is a large amount of money/establishment behind trying to keep it in place), I got a little suspicious and looked into it.

First off, from what I can gather, this law has only been on the books for 2 and a half years. So all of these doomsday scenarios are literally hypotheticals that never actually came to fruition in the 20 or so years of ubiquitous internet prior. It was a preemptive regulation, so probably more along the lines of government trying to get its claws into yet another industry over an actual problem.

The internet is designed to be free and decentralized. This was actually a form of control over that and when people try to control things it usually makes it worse, especially from our government.

If an ISP were to engage in practices such as bandwidth throttling and blocking the public backlash would be enormous and they would lose a lot of money. As it stands ISPs charge an exorbitant amount of money for internet (above true value) because they are already large and fat and virtual monopolies propped up by government "regulations".

Regulating the net and disallowing true capitalism to work its magic on a fundamentally decentralized entity is asking to delay development and create larger problems down the line.

Corporations don't have a fraction of the power of government. It's when governments and corporations start falling in line that you should start to worry, that's how your Standard Oils and Bells came to be.

>his body fell down the stairs like a sack of potatoes

what did he meme by this

>Lawsuit

That's how this should actually work, not enacting sweeping regulations. The internet isn't a fucking water system.

more like land of the mongrels

I think this is a good idea. I really hope they go forward with it

>Net Neutrality prevents innovation
Exactly. We'll be seeing some new, improved, hopefully more secure (encrypted, anonymous) protocol being used.
North americans will be forced to switch to the superior protocols and the rest of the world will follow.

If the ISPs don't know what the packets being send are the only option left is at which point NA is worse than China.

This is what I'm getting from it. This regulation was just asking for anti-competition.

Anyone noticed how embarrassingly slow network development has been in comparison to software and web applications? My area still doesn't have fiber, about a decade later. Ask yourself why that is.

Holy fuck you are dense. The basis of any lawsuit is that a law is being broken, in this case laws related to NET NEUTRALITY. If they get rid of said laws there WILL BE NO BASIS FOR LAWSUITS SINCE THROTTLING SHIT WON'T BE ILLEGAL.

Jesus fucking Christ dude PLEASE kill yourself out of this country.

>People become democrats and leftists because they think it makes them look smart.

actually they become leftists when they get a complete college education. But hey, how would a brainlet like you not disregard scientific evidence that disproves their carefully constructed world view that caters to avoiding cognitive dissonance with their inate slave mind?

people who are against net neutrality don't even have a leg to stand on: there is literally no competition for ISPs, which is the BARE minimum for arguing against net neutrality. (and even then it's garbage because it targets a major source of information for people)

So if NN wasn't official policy what was the law that was the basis of this suit? That article is a blog post

>First off, from what I can gather, this law has only been on the books for 2 and a half years. So all of these doomsday scenarios are literally hypotheticals that never actually came to fruition in the 20 or so years of ubiquitous internet prior. It was a preemptive regulation, so probably more along the lines of government trying to get its claws into yet another industry over an actual problem.

So fucking wrong. Although it hasn't been put into law for long, NN was the de facto official policy, with fines and penalties for breaking NN in place since the earliest days of the modern internet - in particular when it came to p2p or video services.

Repealing NN is giving companies a carte blance to monitor and control traffic as they see fit. It's the end of internet freedom, not a liberation.

they settled.

ISPs are allowed to get so large and entrenched because the government doesn't let new technologies and ISP upstarts to incur on their territory (see: Google Fiber).

The "utility company" treatment is essentially a wall to outside competition because they have to abide by a manner of excess protocols and also deal with potentially corrupt officials granted the letter of the law to literally deny them the opportunity to compete in an area.

As we speak, AT&T is in the process of acquiring Time Warner and forming a mega ISP, so we're going to be left with that and Comcast. I don't think whatever we have right now is working.

Creating a box around the internet with law is not freedom, it is a false impression of it. The way the internet is set up is fundamentally competitive: a network of decentralized nodes spanning the globe that can communicate and route around one another at will.

We have 4,500 ISPs in this country. If one were to act out of line to a point of unreason the way freedom works is that customers would switch to another service. If there were a lack of services at fair value in the area another ISP would capitalize on the opportunity. Furthermore, there would be an impetus for network technology to improve in order to counter nefarious or inefficient action.

These huge ISP monopolies don't arise because, fundamentally speaking, capitalism or freedom fails in this instance. It is because they can get the local government on their side and say "no" to any new ISPs who want to build their infrastructure into that area. This has happened time and time again. And it's only worse because they're now classified as utilities and subject to those stringent regulations.

>NN was the de facto official policy, with fines and penalties for breaking NN in place since the earliest days of the modern internet - in particular when it came to p2p or video services.
So de facto that the one time it ever was attempted to be enforced, the courts ruled it couldn't be.

>Repealing NN is giving companies a carte blance to monitor and control traffic as they see fit. It's the end of internet freedom, not a liberation.
Companies have always had carte blanche and the internet has always been free. This is a solution to a non-existent problem that will only have unintended consequences.

>Exactly. We'll be seeing some new, improved, hopefully more secure (encrypted, anonymous) protocol being used.
>North americans will be forced to switch to the superior protocols and the rest of the world will follow.

So the "innovation" coming in the wake of a NN repeal will be the desperate attempts to evade all-pervasive corporate surveillance? That's your argument?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States#FCC_promotes_freedom_without_regulation_.282004.29

It's been official policy since 2005 and the FCC has shown a willingness to investigate companies infringing on it since then.

>literally "we will be shadowrunners and shiet"

>Desperate

Buddy, this is how innovation has always worked. Bastard capitalists trying to outdo one another and in the process oftentimes unintentionally creating a better world for everyone.

Why do you think we need our hand held for everything? Why do you think the government will not pervert this?

>SPs are allowed to get so large and entrenched because the government doesn't let new technologies and ISP upstarts to incur on their territory

which is the doing of those ISP lobbying (i.e. legal bribery).

>The "utility company" treatment is essentially a wall to outside competition because they have to abide by a manner of excess protocols

it's necessary though, it is a utility. one cannot realistcly be a part of today's society without internet access.

> also deal with potentially corrupt officials granted the letter of the law to literally deny them the opportunity to compete in an area.

I'll agree with this.

>As we speak, AT&T is in the process of acquiring Time Warner and forming a mega ISP, so we're going to be left with that and Comcast. I don't think whatever we have right now is working.

No it's not, and the source of it all is because we continue to allow politicians to be bought out by companies through "campaign donations". But until that changes, the only thing standing between ISPs price gouging even more/abusing their monopoly and the current situation is net neutrality.

You want to know how bad legal bribery is? Look at the military budget feeding tax payer money to private contractors who then shower legislators with part of that public funding.

Just recently a supreme court chair was basically auctionned at $10 million with secret donors. (look up Judicial Crisis Network documentcloud.org/documents/4254472-Wellspring-Committee-2016.html ) It's over.

So until you (non-american here) get rid of corporate money in politics, it's my opinion that net neutrality is the only thing protecting you from being assraped by ISPs.

>muh free market
Stop arguing from ivory tower principles just for a fucking second and take a look at realities. Letting corporations run free is just as terrible as artificially distorting the market. Both result in snowballing supercorps and diminishing customer rights. NN is about enforcing a favorable end result - hands off from data.

It really isn't that different from abolishing secrecy of correspondence. Are you also in favor of that?

Ok, so it isn't a law but rather their executive policy? Also, this is the key thing I've noticed in the past few years regarding Title II (which is the thing that is actually being rolled back):

>The primary argument in this NPRM is that the “Title II Order” (on net neutrality) has pushed the major telecoms to reduce their capital expenditures (CapEx) in new infrastructure, thereby threatening the future of the nation. For this, they cite the less than $1 billion reduction from 2014 to 2015 in CapEx reported by the USTelecom and similar figures from industry consultant Hal Singer[114]

This is absolutely 100% happening and I've wondered why for years now. Bandwidth speeds have completely stopped, infrastructure is fucking terrible, fiber isn't spreading anywhere, and we are mostly still stuck with the old IP protocol.

These are internet lines, not fucking water pipes. These companies need to move forward.

I wonder how adds would work with this?

What if a whitelisted websites' add revenue comes from a non whitelisted web site?

This is not a problem in other countries that respect NN. Don't jump to conclusions about causes, effects and solutions.

How do you get rid of corporate money in politics? REMOVING POLITICS

I'll restate: the classic monopolies of old arose not because they existed in a market where only they could compete, but because they existed in a regulatory and government context where they could get large, buy out the government, and then use them to wall out competition.

A corporation on its own is a feeble thing. It is 100% dependent on its customers and has a constant stream of competitors snapping at its heels. Look at Blockbuster, that bastard went from #1 in the movie industry to nonexistent and bankrupt within a single decade.

So where is the danger? Our government. They have absolute control over us. They are centralized, and have no competition. Put one corrupt man in office and the entire system has broken because they can be bought. A utility classification is asking for trouble.

>no, you can't become an ISP here because you don't conform to our """""standards""""".
>the end

This is an age old story. From a consumer standpoint, it is easy to see our government and laws as fair and altruistic. That's almost never the case.

Don't let corporate money into politics by not bastardizing the intersection between politics and corporation. You know?

>Put one corrupt man in office and the entire system has broken because they can be bought.
You're basically talking about Ajit Pai.

I'm talking about the United States. The context isn't the same here and it's disingenuous to claim otherwise.

>Just recently a supreme court chair was basically auctionned at $10 million with secret donors.
So $10 million was spent on political advertising? How is that auctioning or bribery? Jesus Christ.

so you're not even pissed at how cucked you are?

Do you even know what the supreme court is or are you just underage spending your time playing vidya in your mom's basement?

>Cuckcuckcuck
How is political advertising auctioning or bribery?

Sounds like everyone (big companies included) hate Ajit Pai. Including the sweeping and immediate response conspicuously all over the web which could not have been fully grassroots. I smell bullshit and it isn't from him.

> Caring about being able to torrent
> Leftist & reddit-y

Also I fear nothing from a man in office who wants to reduce government power. You guys truly have it twisted today.

What's really cracking me up is that all these people citing the power of the free market to protect consumer interests don't realize that the man they're aligning with, Ajit Pai, is a massive shill for corporate interests. He's not doing it out of some libertarian principles. They think they're on the path to more freedom, but it's actually the exact opposite.

traumatized leftists are realizing they've completely lost the battle against trump and are now going after ajit pai because they have nothing better to do, pathetic

Obama tried to help you but because of America's retarded racism you will now feel the full might of corporate shilling.

This is just the beginning too and no one in office will do anything to stop it because they're either bought off or the ones who paid them off.

This is the future America chose and in the end it is what you deserve for electing a fucking billionaire into office.

No it isn't. Just because something appears manipulative or shady doesn't mean it isn't in alignment with freedom. Freedom means the freedom to attempt nefarious practices as well. Because we can't grant the final right to arbitrate to any individual human being (government included), since they are just as prone to corruption.

Freedom means letting unfavorable circumstances play out and trust the process will rectify it. NN means short term headaches but long to mid term favorable outcomes.

Once again, it's a matter of short vs. long sightedness. This debate is big money vs. big money so there is no non corporate side.

>NN means

*rolling back NN means, I meant

I fully believe healthy battle between ISPs would mean our network infrastructure finally gets the facelift its rotting ass has needed.

they spent money (7 million) to advertise against Obama's nominee, encouraging republicans to keep pushing away the timing of nomination for a year (Merrick Garland). Usually supreme court nominees are approved swiftly.

This alone is bad enough.

Then they spent 10 million to advertise in favor of Justice Neil Gorsuch who's Trump's pick.

Then the worst part: usually you have to disclose your identity when you do such things, except the legal status of "The Wellspring Committee" doesn't require it to discole the identity of its donors.

This means a secret donor can basically buy a supreme court seat.

Let that sink in.

If it doesn't bother you, too bad. I don't want to see America succeed anyway. I'm just surprised you dumb Americans actually ask to be shafted over and over again.

>discole

disclose*

>Freedom means letting unfavorable circumstances play out and trust the process will rectify it. NN means short term headaches but long to mid term favorable outcomes.
I'm not even sure what's your stance is based on that.
>This debate is big money vs. big money so there is no non corporate side.
But there is a consumer side, and NN-abolitionists are not on it.

>Netflix and other online companies are for NN it must be bad!!!
Netflix knows that if there's a $10 "video entertainment package" fee from the ISPs on top of its subscription fee they will go bankrupt.

>I'm not even sure what's your stance is based on that.

I'm pro-freedom and I don't believe NN represents it. In a free environment everything isn't always rosy, the belief is that the final outcome will be rosier than the alternative. Innovation and positive growth is best in a free environment riddled with what can appear to be corruption and gamesmanship. For example:

>Comcast has a stranglehold on a town because of regulation. No particular sites are throttled or blocked but the infrastructure is poor: IPv4 and 5-15 Mbps because internet lines are treated like water pipes. No competitors such as fiber are allowed to move in because officials deny them authority on the grounds of standards and regulation.

You're forcibly creating the illusion of "freedom" strictly in the web space while disallowing natural freedom of growth in network infrastructure and even market pricing to play out. In a free world:

>Comcast tries to block or throttle site X, site X is a favorite of consumers and the backlash is swift, competing ISPs can easily move in because the internet is naturally designed to be accessible, they offer a better price and quicker speeds and no throttling and immediately make bank. Comcast responds by removing their throttling and lowering prices. That still isn't enough because consumers are pissed, so they upgrade their network infrastructure and quadruple the speed of the newcomer ISP. People move back to Comcast.

Rinse and repeat.

>But there is a consumer side, and NN-abolitionists are not on it.

They are also fairly low information. I don't mean to invoke the appeal to authority fallacy but from my understanding of networks (as a CS/Networking grad) trying to control and limit its natural progression is a horrid idea and why it has slowed to a halt in this country. We should all be wanting better infrastructure and realize the unfavorable alternatives in terms of site manipulation to be hypothetical and unrealistic doomsday scenarios.

Obama gave control of our internet away to an international body

So they need the government to hold their hand and make sure they don't have to devote resources to keeping things fair? That doesn't sound very free to me. Facebook/Google/Amazon are also behind it, and they are some of the richest entities on the planet.

They can afford to devote resources to maintaining a free web where our government has operated in their stead. In fact, that is the actual best case scenario for us. ISPs, large net entities, and the government at odds with one another, that is freedom and competition.

Your concentrated backlash right now is because the fat cat internet giants don't want to spend some extra cash on having the occasional battle with ISPs.

>I'm pro-freedom and I don't believe NN represents it. In a free environment everything isn't always rosy, the belief is that the final outcome will be rosier than the alternative. Innovation and positive growth is best in a free environment riddled with what can appear to be corruption and gamesmanship.

Then you believe in the freedom of consumers to protect themselves from companies.

Thanks for your support of net neutrality mate, I knew we could count on you.

without government regulation

Consumers protect themselves from companies by not buying shitty products. Like anything else. Why are you a baby who wants the heavy hand of authoritarianism to enforce a specific context.

>Mate

Ah, cause you're British :-)

FCC shill spotted.

My autistic American ex gf used to tell me she likes to use british lingo . . it's an attention/self esteem thing.

>Comcast has a stranglehold on a town because of regulation. No particular sites are throttled or blocked but the infrastructure is poor: IPv4 and 5-15 Mbps because internet lines are treated like water pipes. No competitors such as fiber are allowed to move in because officials deny them authority on the grounds of standards and regulation.
What does that have to do with NN? Sounds like you're conflating independent problems and end up advocating solutions that run counter to your actual interests.

No, Trump is the one who elected Pai to become Chairman and fully supports another five years of him. Obama only brought him in because an all democrat FCC would have been bad and raised a stink with republicans.

>Consumers protect themselves from companies by not buying shitty products
can't do that since the US markets are monopolies for ISPs.
As I said, you can't win this debate because you either don't know the facts or try to disregard them. In both cases your opinion doesn't matter as a consequence.

It's not in Comcast's interest to do this; they become liable for the content they broadcast over the network when they make themselves into anything more than a pipeline.

government regulation is what protects people and companies.

sorry anarchist.

NN enforces a situation where ISPs are treated like utility companies, with utility company regulations. This makes things more difficult for new ISPs to an area as they have to prove they can meet those standards. Additionally, it grants pass/fail authority to government regulators. If those regulators are bought out by the largest ISP in an area they can deny entry to newcomers or make it exceedingly difficult.

The empirical evidence speaks for itself. The major ISPs today are continuing to consolidate and network development has slowed to a halt while prices have steadily risen. This is not a free enterprise.

>government regulation is what protects people and companies.
>sorry anarchist.
t. teenager

>can't do that since the US markets are monopolies for ISPs.

That is only because clearance for smaller ISPs is a continual hurdle. The consumer effort should be towards supporting them.

>can't do that since the US markets are monopolies for ISPs.
As I said, you can't win this debate because you either don't know the facts or try to disregard them. In both cases your opinion doesn't matter as a consequence.

Thanks for sharing I guess.

Torrents will not be blocked; this is partisan scare tactics.

Whether net neutrality exists affects little from the consumer end. It's mostly an affair among the negotiating companies.

The internet is an oligopoly as-is, and not because of regulations of some other nebulous impediments. There is no way for small competitors to scrounge up the money to set up their own infrastructure, so you'll never get your magical competition that solves all the real problems you're dismissing so easily. The consumer is powerless here. This is not a problem that the free market can fix, so government-enforced standards are the optimal solution.

Religion protects people and companies

>This is not a problem that the free market can fix

How do you prove that? It's the internet. As I said, it is structured to be inherently pro freedom. The only elements of anti freedom are from arbitrary constraints.

>magical competition

And your fairy dad government is just as sick and corrupt as corporations, except they get absolute power. Better idea to give them more control, yes?

The laughable irony of all this is that the NN mass is both screaming for the government to retain power, while decrying our standing federal government as corrupt. Take a step back and look at this scenario.

t. brainlet

The ISPs won't care about letting torrents use bandwidth just because they're "technically" legal. They can avoid the legal headache by blocking it completely while not affecting even 0.1% of their customers. Easy choice for an ISP. The torrents sites aren't about to pay the ISP to let them use their bandwidth. Torrents will either be blocked or severely throttled.

>And your fairy dad government is just as sick and corrupt as corporations

Please tell me how "data traffic shall not be infringed" can be twisted to somehow hurt the consumer. Tell me how this simple principle is susceptible to corruption and bribery, and an unbridled oligopoly is not.

I can count innumerable instances of a corrupt government victimizing its people and only a few instances of a corporation literally getting too large to compete with

The only instances of mega corporation monopolies existed with government support in enforcement

Because at the end of the day that is the only entity with true total power

Your strain of thinking stems from being a tit sucking single mom spawn with no concept of authority

The actual people who are expected to uphold this will make all kinds of exceptions, wiggle room, loop holes, and when that doesn't work they will just be plain corrupt and ignore the law or bypass it. And they will do this all under the illusion that company 1 is bad but company 2 is good or that company 2 got in trouble for a,b, and c while it's getting away with d-z behind the scenes. Everyone gets rich except the consumer.

Your deliberately reductionist interpretation of the law and policy regarding NN is not complete so I'm not obligated to respond specifically. The issue is that ISP are held to the standards of a utility provider.

These standards and regulations are many (beyond "data traffic shall not be infringed"). The issue is that these laws can be subjectively administered, by local officials, who are all individually susceptible to errors in judgement, or in ethics. The smaller or new ISP has to contend with this. They are not allowed to practice business and compete until they "meet" these standards and get a green light.

Here's a tangible example: the taxi industry. Taxis built up a wealth of government enforced regulations and standards over the years that left the system rotten. Taxis were overpriced, drivers irritable, often late, essentially one big bad service. And new liveries had a huge mountain of standards to meet before being allowed to operate.

Enter Uber, which had to totally circumvent regulations in operating as a contractual service. People unanimously agreed it was better. Better technology, quicker, cheaper, friendlier service.

I have dealt with a few major ISPs in getting a cable/internet service over the years and I see a similar situation. The networks are grossly inefficient and slow, shit is overpriced, and their service is a matter of bouncing around customer service until you give up.

>Also you need a license to drive a car, all cars are registered to the DMV, there are various laws against certain modifications that compromise safety, and enforcible traffic laws.
All of these are only on public roads. I can drive without a license as fast as I want on my own land.

>This means a secret donor can basically buy a supreme court seat.
No it means that Republicans wasted $17 million on political ads.

That's some nice abstract theorizing you have there, but it doesn't change the realities of the ISP market, where ownership of the communications infrastructure would dictate the terms of all competing providers were it not for government interference and regulation. There are exactly two choices - let the government hold the reigns, or let the telecom megacorps hold the reigns. You're at risk to be trampled upon by the government when corruption takes place, but certain to be trampled upon by unconstrained megacorp interests. There is no third choice.

American schools brainwash their students.

>we don't need net neutrality, we just need to fix corruption!
right-wing idealism has become truly disgusting

>pay to get a republican handpicked justice in the supreme court
>wasted money

there's a reason why the average american is so easy to shit on after all.

I can see how this goes down already. All the pieces are there it just needs to be put together
>Net Neutrality gets repealed
>ISP have a whitelist (proprietary websites for standard social media bullshit like facebook and youtube )
>Charge extra for access to graylisted websites ( what you actually want like netflix )
>Shit speeds and data caps all around anyways just because they can
>Nothing else because they block traffic to anything else
>If you disagree with the last one you are a racist, pirate, terrorist, and/or or pedophile
And to top it all off having such a small pool of available websites makes it even easier for the government to monitor all activity. Everybody wins but you.

ISPs have monopolies in most of the country you dumb motherfucker