FCC plan would give Internet providers power to choose the sites customers see and use

Get ready to spread your ass cheeks. Ar15.com: ATT has designated this site as harmful and inflammatory, you must pay a fee to access this site.

"Government is going to rescue us from the corporations!"

It will not be to my advanatge.

IN!

I love these threads

Stopping Net neutrality will hurt streaming content providers like PlayStation Vue, so I'm for keeping it.

What AR15.COM is on the ATF and the FCC?

This will not work to my advantage and I can see the potential this could have to damage many smaller content providers, small business (use our domains only), etc.

The real question is, how would the people respond? Are ISPs going to take sides? Based cyber attacks on highly restrictive ISPs? Will the people even have the ability to sway large ISPs from setting up pay walls or just plain blocking websites?

But I already paid to be on this site

Yes, we need the government to step in a protect us from capitalism comrade.

Every argument in favor of net neutrality is based in conspiracy theory end of the world as we know it scenarios that fail to take into consideration how markets actually work.

not paying to read the Washington Post

Conservatism is dead and GD is a constant reminder.

You dont have to, yet...  

FPNI

Net "Neutrality" is as much about making the internet "neutral" as the Affordable Care Act was about making healthcare "affordable".

Wait, so I'm supposed to not like undoing yet more of Obama legacy that gave government more regulatory control of the Internet?

HAHA.jpg.  NOT!  Undue everything that fucker did while he was in office, erase him from history and policy.

Oh, and dupe.

https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/FCC-plans-to-vote-to-overturn-U-S-net-neutrality-rules-in-December-sources/5-2053587/

Exactly the opposite actually.

But it's for the children.

So much FUD surrounding this it's insane.

I'm on the Pai train. Free market solutions are the best solutions.

I love me some Pai.

Fuck this, Fuck that, and Fuck everything...

this is one of the FEW topics in which I agree with democrats

Freedom of information with an equal playing field is extremely important.  Unfortunately .gov has allowed ISPs to create monopolies in most cities so it's important to put in protections so it doesn't become a "pay-to-play" landscape.

telecom has become crony capitalism with monopolies controlling zip codes giving consumers no choice

....did i just sound like a democrat???????

I understand the liberal viewpoint but can someone explain to me, without "guberment iz bad" as their main argument, how net neutrality is negative?

Not looking for a fight, just wanting to learn.

You mean it will make people pay for what they use.  Net neutrality=Net socialism.
How did the internet work before?  Think hard about that.

Name one time your pay-to-play landscape has happened?  So we must give more control to .gov to prevent what has never happened?  Oh, sorry.  It's happened once or twice and the FCC quickly hammered the ISP under rules in place before Obama's FCC reclassification of The Internet.  What that means is existing regulation was appropriate, so don't ask for more pretty please.

There has been so much misinformation over this whole thing that it's astounding how much bullshit people have swallowed begging for more gubment/regulation.  Trump ran on slashing regulation, I support my President to undo everything fuckstain did.  This is yet another one of them.

The government is going to save us from a problem that the government created?

Net Neutrality is a great idea in concept. But then again, so is Communism.

Mainly because the concept of "net neutrality" has been so blurred by propoganda that folks are asking for more government regulation of what has been the biggest explosion in transformation of information sharing and technology of our lifetimes.  One of the main reasons for this is light or little regulation.

So yes, guberment is bad is actually a good main argument.  How is it negative?  It prevents ISPs from using proper queuing strategies to provide quality voice/video/data transport.  I'd like to have my video packets delivered consistently and orderly along with voice.  net neutrality regulations prevent that.

Have shitty video?  Thank net neut for that.  Have shitty voice?  Thank net neut for that.

Amen

Because it ignores how subscription based services are built and how data is handled in those situations.

I may have purchased internet service of "up to" 50Mbs.  Say 9 of my neighbors did the same, and we all share one Comcast connection node or whatever.  That's 500Mbs of service right?  However, knowing that statistically there will likely never be a time when all 10 of us need 50Mbs of bandwidth at the same time our node can only support 250Mbs.  This keeps costs down and is why my 50Mbs connection only costs $45 a month instead of much more.  However, this means that not all of us will get the full 50Mbs all the time.  This is where data prioritization comes in.

See, different types of data have different needs.  A VoIP call has very low bandwidth requirements, but you want low latency.  Windows updates can have low bandwidth and high latency.  Netflix is high bandwith, but can also deal with high latency thanks to buffering.  Online gaming can be high bandwidth and low latency.  ISPs have spent lots of time and money developing algorithms and systems to effectively handle these differing needs and provide the service their customers expect.

The "Net Neutrality" rules (quotations used on purpose) take that away, and say that all data has to be treated equally.  If the infrastructure stays the same, then service will be affected.  The phone call would have annoying lag.  Netflix would have to pause frequently.  Online gaming would suck.  On the plus side, Windows would update faster (yay?).  Obviously you would have a lot of pissed off customers, so say they upgrade the equipment.  Hooray, the internet is saved!  Except what used to cost $45/month is now $150/month, and it is even harder for competitors to enter the market.  At least the government is happy, they have another lever to control.

devils advocate here

without net neut then you'll end up with a more streamline internet.  This sounds great because there will only be 2 or 3 sites that do any one thing but it will hurt startups as they won't be given the same bandwidth as the already established players that are paying extra to gobble up all the available bandwidth

It also hurts the consumer because if you have a more streamline internet then it's easier for companies to do targeted marketing which means more adware, spam, and a big brother internet (privatized oppression) :)

It's like the Walmart effect on a small community....do you like that?

Don't you remember those dark days of 2008 when ISPs would lock out pr0n sites or charge you extra to look at pictures of guns on ARFCom?

Until Obama "fixed" the internet

This is a microcosm of what's happened to the entire fucking country.

Net Neutrality is neutral as the Affordable Care Act is affordable.

Op is

I always confuse this, and I almost think it was done intentionally- but I'm for no restrictions on bandwidth or access.

Net Neutrality forces providers to not prioritize traffic.  Netflix, Hulu, YouTube used to be able to pay providers for priority traffic, since you know the network is owned by the providers.  This would ensure quality steaming experience for services you pay for.  
This neutrality plan says they can't do that so now everyone's service gets stuck throttled so traffic from everywhere gets treated the same.  
The only reason the left pushed so hard for net neutrality was that they wanted their government to have control over the internet so they could enforce government level control over the spread of information.  It was a way of getting entrenched and we all know that once government is involved, you can almost never get rid of it.  
People that say they should have their choice of provider anywhere don't understand the YUGE cost associated with wiring up an area and getting service there.  If you want FIOS, Google fiber, Uverse, Comcast, Xfinity time Warner, etc all in the same markets, get ready to pay a lot more for service because running 10 lines in every area will cost a metric fuck ton.  
There are only so many potential subscribers in a market.  If you currently offer service to 20% of a market area, you have a set cost of infrastructure and a set subscriber base to pay for that infrastructure.  
Now you are forced to pay to widen your offering location to everywhere, so 100% coverage.  Your infrastructure cost just went up 5x. But now that 10 other providers were forced to do the same thing, your are competing against 10 other companies.  While they will have to fight their prices down to be competitive, they still have to recoup their infrastructure costs which are now 5x what they were.  So prices wont go down, they will go up because they have less total subscribers paying for the amount of infrastructure needed.
Now those other 10 companies are in the same boat and with the price wars to get customers, the business losing money end up selling to the ones winning.  All of a sudden, you have one big giant Telecom again not controlling 20% of a captive market, but 100%. Do you want 1 company controlling 100% of the internet?

You really think consumers will put up with a lot, don't you?

Free markets are free. Alternatives will arrive, because there will be demand.

Please government save us from the evil ISPs!

So that means as an ISP that I can block and blacklist ad services with no repercussions? Sweet!

I agree with these preceding comments.  Let us hope that the free market is the destination of the alternative path to net neutrality instead of more monopoly.