# A post Net Neutrality America



## Chiang Kai-shek (Dec 4, 2017)

Since Ajit "Information Super highway shitter" Pai is gonna get his way next week figured it'd be a good time to ask. What will a post net neutrality America be like? How will it take to happen? Personally I think we're all shit out of luck. However I don't think KF is gonna bite the bullet, if someone wanted us gone and they had a lot of power we'd be gone by now. But what are your thoughts?


----------



## Pikapool (Dec 5, 2017)

That this is like the 2012 apocalypse all over again


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 5, 2017)

Pikapool said:


> That this is like the 2012 apocalypse all over again



Remember when the entire world ended in 2012?  I do.

It was pretty horrifying.


----------



## CWCchange (Dec 5, 2017)

How it was before net neutrality rules in 2015.


----------



## tehpope (Dec 5, 2017)

Honestly, I think everything will be fine.  Its just a bump in the road. I've said this before in the news thread about this ruling, but it will be a while before the effects of the ruling kick in. Contracts have to be drawn up and decisions have to be made about what happens to current customers. Or its possible the ISPs have been planning this shit in the background for a while and already have the plans drawn up and will start ASAP. I think its gonna be mostly the former with a little bit of the latter.



CWCchange said:


> How it was before net neutrality.


 I don't think there was a before. But you might want to look at the usenet days pre widespread access to it. Very similar to today, but with normies learning the rules or being scared off. 
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EternalSeptember


----------



## Pikapool (Dec 5, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Remember when the entire world ended in 2012?  I do.
> 
> It was pretty horrifying.


Yeah it sucked


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 5, 2017)

CWCchange said:


> How it was before net neutrality rules in 2015.



Pretty good.  There was net neutrality.  Do you even know what that means?


----------



## CWCchange (Dec 5, 2017)

tehpope said:


> I don't think there was a before. But you might want to look at the usenet days pre widespread access to it. Very similar to today, but with normies learning the rules or being scared off.
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EternalSeptember


Exactly, but what does access to technology have to do with ISPs slowing down shit from competitors?



AnOminous said:


> Pretty good.  There was net neutrality.  Do you even know what that means?


It means the government has their dick further in internet affairs, and if it were to go full cuck, would shut us down before any company who only cares about the money.


----------



## Shokew (Dec 5, 2017)

It'll be shit... Just like how current TV is. Trust me.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Dec 5, 2017)

PortsideDave said:


> What will a post net neutrality America be like?



You're already living in it.







Pai is trying to bring net neutrality back.


----------



## Yaoi Zowie (Dec 5, 2017)

I just hope the attention of the public at large in the US will be brought to the real issue before it becomes a problem: That the ISPs are so deep in the pockets of legislators and have set up enough red tape around them, that the free market is not in effect in the ISP domain.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Dec 5, 2017)

Yaoi Zowie said:


> I just hope the attention of the public at large in the US will be brought to the real issue before it becomes a problem: That the ISPs are so deep in the pockets of legislators and have set up enough red tape around them, that the free market is not in effect in the ISP domain.


I doubt even that will change the designated internet shitter Pai's decision.

If anything, I doubt he'll change it unless several of his own peers begin complaining about ISPs charging them too much money. And even then Pai's head is so up his ass that he'll probably just laugh them off.


----------



## Florence (Dec 5, 2017)

During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will elude them.


----------



## Non-Existent (Dec 5, 2017)

Slowly and subversively give a handful of major corporations control of most of the modern internet and no one bats an eye. Write a bill, making it official and everyone loses their minds. Obviously this bill is a terrible thing, but it's been 30% through the door for the past 5 years.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Dec 5, 2017)

PortsideDave said:


> What will a post net neutrality America be like?


If one uses the wrong pronouns, or if a guy says "hi" to a girl without her consent, the Internet Police may show up.



Spoiler



But seriously, it's quite possible there won't be be too much a difference.


----------



## AF 802 (Dec 5, 2017)

It'll be fine.

With Net Neutrality, big ISPs wouldn't be able to get a investment return on their $10 to $20 billion fiber upgrades and maintenance, so this is a good thing. I remember recently I tried to post this on a certain forum, and everyone sperged out and said it was just because "corporations are greedy", and not because ISPs (small and large) would lose money if they tried to upgrade their networks for higher traffic capacity. Either that, or they insisted about slow lanes, which will not happen, I can tell you that. TCP/IP is hard to manipulate that way on a wide scale.

That, and Net Neutrality's main supporter is a Marxist-leaning organization (Free Press). I cannot get behind that.


----------



## Autopsy (Dec 5, 2017)

Just glad it's over and  that websites will knock it off with the "SAVE THE INTERNET" signalling.
The COICA threat is real and ever-present and I'm not sure why they thought expending all of their credibility on Net Neutrality (of all things!) was a good idea.


----------



## Doug_Hitzel (Dec 5, 2017)

Shanna, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.


----------



## dunbrine47 (Dec 5, 2017)

My friend going to try to kill Trump, his family and blow up the White House (without big scary guns mind you); all because he can't accesses his precious fap material. Lol.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 5, 2017)

Improvised EMP devices can probably serve as a corrective to bad behavior by ISPs.


----------



## Chiang Kai-shek (Dec 5, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Improvised EMP devices can probably serve as a corrective to bad behavior by ISPs.


I have just the man for the job


Spoiler: Fuckin...


----------



## Burgers in the ass (Dec 5, 2017)

We will just use the yugonet, no big deal.


----------



## AlephOne2Many (Dec 5, 2017)

Trooncast has already won.


----------



## Chiang Kai-shek (Dec 5, 2017)

I still think we’re royally fucked when NN is repealed...


----------



## UptownRuckus (Dec 5, 2017)

PortsideDave said:


> Since Ajit "Information Super highway shitter" Pai is gonna get his way next week figured it'd be a good time to ask. What will a post net neutrality America be like? How will it take to happen? Personally I think we're all shit out of luck. However I don't think KF is gonna bite the bullet, if someone wanted us gone and they had a lot of power we'd be gone by now. But what are your thoughts?



I have a theory that a friend of mine and I came up with. What's to say that Net Neutrality doesn't exist already? I mean...it's a law but how, and who do you go to or trust to verify its actually working? I mean the only people who are under it is company's like Comcast. I'm spit balling here, but what if it was already a reality and you just didn't know? I mean we already have data caps on wifi that previously nobody knew existed, and being told that our speed will be slowed down if we use too much. 
Again...just a spit ball theory. 
Thoughts?


----------



## John Titor (Dec 6, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> Remember when the entire world ended in 2012?  I do.
> 
> It was pretty horrifying.


You're telling me.


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Dec 6, 2017)

Can someone explain this whole situation to me because I'm a dumbass and don't know anything? What do all these words mean and what is or is not happening?


----------



## MacMasonry (Dec 6, 2017)

Worst case, end up as stagnant as radio, where you have two options: Top 40 hits and talk shows

EDIT:



Gym Leader Elesa said:


> Can someone explain this whole situation to me because I'm a dumbass and don't know anything? What do all these words mean and what is or is not happening?



You know how you have to pay a cable provider more if you want to watch more channels on TV? Imagine that but for the Internet. And slow connection speeds that you'll also have to pay more to bypass.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Dec 6, 2017)

McDenis09 said:


> You know how you have to pay a cable provider more if you want to watch more channels on TV? Imagine that but for the Internet.


That's something that's only ever occurred in a delusional leftist's worst nightmare, not a reflection of anything that has or will happen.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Dec 6, 2017)

Jon-Kacho said:


> That's something that's only ever occurred in a delusional leftist's worst nightmare, not a reflection of anything that has or will happen.



Except the Obama administration circa 2015 allowed ISPs to biasedly throttle connection speeds with the only stipulation being they have to announce they're a non-neutral provider.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 6, 2017)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> Except the Obama administration circa 2015 allowed ISPs to biasedly throttle connection speeds with the only stipulation being they have to announce they're a non-neutral provider.



The government should never have even gotten involved in this in the first place, because you had Obama do this shit that nobody understood, but called it "net neutrality," and now you have another fucking pig ignorant moron in the White House who also doesn't understand it, but wants to get rid of it solely because Obama said something vaguely in support of it, and this fucking shitting street dothead moron who should be deported is sucking ISP cock.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Dec 6, 2017)

AnOminous said:


> The government should never have even gotten involved in this in the first place, because you had Obama do this shit that nobody understood, but called it "net neutrality," and now you have another fucking pig ignorant moron in the White House who also doesn't understand it, but wants to get rid of it solely because Obama said something vaguely in support of it, and this fucking shitting street dothead moron who should be deported is sucking ISP cock.



I thought all Pai wanted was to repeal the FCC's net neutrality order?

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-silicon-valley-threat-internet.html

Am I playing with half a deck? He did paint broadband providers in a rather innocent light in that quote.


----------



## Shokew (Dec 6, 2017)

Guys... You're raising some valid points here... However, what really matters here is that CowPai needs his ass deported back to designated shitting street land someday, more than anything.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 6, 2017)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> I thought all Pai wanted was to repeal the FCC's net neutrality order?
> 
> https://phys.org/news/2017-11-silicon-valley-threat-internet.html
> 
> Am I playing with half a deck? He did paint broadband providers in a rather innocent light in that quote.



He's making noises like he wants to go a lot further and just comes across like a total cocksucker.

The FCC should really just be fucking abolished anyway.


----------



## Joan Nyan (Dec 6, 2017)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> Except the Obama administration circa 2015 allowed ISPs to biasedly throttle connection speeds with the only stipulation being they have to announce they're a non-neutral provider.
> 
> View attachment 328560


Buying access to websites like a cable package is not a thing that has happened or is going to happen. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


----------



## CWCchange (Dec 6, 2017)

It seems nobody here understands what this entails. That's probably why Obama spearheaded this shit, like his health care law.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Dec 6, 2017)

Jon-Kacho said:


> Buying access to websites like a cable package is not a thing that has happened or is going to happen. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.



No one said so, it is, however, what ISPs want.



CWCchange said:


> It seems nobody here understands what this entails. That's probably why Obama spearheaded this shit, like his health care law.



You're absolutely right, let's list some examples:



CWCchange said:


> How it was before net neutrality rules in 2015.





CWCchange said:


> Exactly, but what does access to technology have to do with ISPs slowing down shit from competitors?





CWCchange said:


> It means the government has their dick further in internet affairs, and if it were to go full cuck, would shut us down before any company who only cares about the money.


----------



## Daughter of Cernunnos (Dec 6, 2017)

Damn lots of conseratards here being contrarian corporate weewee lickers.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Dec 7, 2017)

Most of the infighting that's going to ensue isn't even a matter of difference of opinion but because nobody has any insight.


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Dec 7, 2017)

Still completely in the dark to be honest.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Dec 7, 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

And just to prevent editing shenanigans.

http://archive.md/OWipX
https://web.archive.org/web/20171123001718/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality


----------



## Yaoi Zowie (Dec 7, 2017)

Gym Leader Elesa said:


> Still completely in the dark to be honest.



Thanks to @MarvinTheParanoidAndroid for posting the article, but I'll try to summarize since Wikipedia can be autistically wordy. I recognize I have a layman's understanding of the situation, so someone can correct me if I say something retarded.

Net neutrality is legislation that forces ISPs to not give preferential treatment to delivering any certain type of data to its customers. An example of the sort of thing NN would allegedly fix is IPSs throttling competing streaming media services like Netflix to encourage their own digital media service.

The libertarian argument against NN is that the free market will correct the ISPs if they get out of line. NN just puts arbitrary restrictions on what companies in the private sector can do, and may even put the US government in a position to muck with the internet at large.

The arguments for NN range from the socialized ('Internet should be a government-provided utility anyway') to the cynical ('ISPs are too powerful and swat down competition, NN is necessary as a band-aid')


----------



## JaneThough (Dec 7, 2017)

Thinking that corporations would ever look out for you and “do the right thing” when there’s money to be made is pure :autism:


----------



## Shokew (Dec 7, 2017)

JaneThough said:


> Thinking that corporations would ever look out for you and “do the right thing” when there’s money to be made is pure :autism:



this is exactly why it's gonna suck - too bad this is something worth causing actual rebel activity against, instead of whining on social media, which is what millenials would rather do, instead of properly fighting back.


----------



## Jewelsmakerguy (Dec 7, 2017)

Shokew said:


> this is exactly why it's gonna suck - too bad this is something worth causing actual rebel activity against, instead of whining on social media, which is what millenials would rather do, instead of properly fighting back.


And come the 14th, they'll not be able to do that.

And I don't know if that's going to be a bad thing, or a secret blessing in disguise.


----------



## AnOminous (Dec 7, 2017)

Yaoi Zowie said:


> Thanks to @MarvinTheParanoidAndroid for posting the article, but I'll try to summarize since Wikipedia can be autistically wordy. I recognize I have a layman's understanding of the situation, so someone can correct me if I say something exceptional.
> 
> Net neutrality is legislation that forces ISPs to not give preferential treatment to delivering any certain type of data to its customers. An example of the sort of thing NN would allegedly fix is IPSs throttling competing streaming media services like Netflix to encourage their own digital media service.



To get a bit pedantic, it's not actually the TYPE of data.  ISPs have always prioritized certain types of data and this is actually necessary to ensure quality of service.  For instance, if you used to have an ISP that could only deliver 2400 baud modem service, you obviously had to de-prioritize stuff like video or people who constantly downloaded at full capacity, so that your other customers got the stuff like text from Usenet or email that they wanted and were paying for.

Net neutrality is not about the type of data.  There is always high bandwidth crap that has to be throttled to some degree just to keep the series of tubes working.

It's about it being neutral as to the source.  ISPs should not get to be treated as common carriers and at the same time censor sources just because they're business competitors, any more than the phone company can't turn off your phone service because you said something in favor of Trump when you were talking to your mom and they were spying on you.

There are actually foundational documents about the Internet and how it works, that go back to the '60s, that are called RFCs (Requests for Comment).  They're basically the Federalist Papers of the Internet.  If you want to know why the Internet works the way it does and how it got this way, read some.


----------



## CatParty (Dec 7, 2017)

tehpope said:


> Honestly, I think everything will be fine.  Its just a bump in the road. I've said this before in the news thread about this ruling, but it will be a while before the effects of the ruling kick in. Contracts have to be drawn up and decisions have to be made about what happens to current customers. Or its possible the ISPs have been planning this shit in the background for a while and already have the plans drawn up and will start ASAP. I think its gonna be mostly the former with a little bit of the latter.
> 
> I don't think there was a before. But you might want to look at the usenet days pre widespread access to it. Very similar to today, but with normies learning the rules or being scared off.
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EternalSeptember





Give Her The D said:


> It'll be fine.
> 
> With Net Neutrality, big ISPs wouldn't be able to get a investment return on their $10 to $20 billion fiber upgrades and maintenance, so this is a good thing. I remember recently I tried to post this on a certain forum, and everyone sperged out and said it was just because "corporations are greedy", and not because ISPs (small and large) would lose money if they tried to upgrade their networks for higher traffic capacity. Either that, or they insisted about slow lanes, which will not happen, I can tell you that. TCP/IP is hard to manipulate that way on a wide scale.
> 
> That, and Net Neutrality's main supporter is a Marxist-leaning organization (Free Press). I cannot get behind that.





Autopsy said:


> Just glad it's over and  that websites will knock it off with the "SAVE THE INTERNET" signalling.
> The COICA threat is real and ever-present and I'm not sure why they thought expending all of their credibility on Net Neutrality (of all things!) was a good idea.





Burgers in the ass said:


> We will just use the yugonet, no big deal.





Gym Leader Elesa said:


> Can someone explain this whole situation to me because I'm a dumbass and don't know anything? What do all these words mean and what is or is not happening?





MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> Except the Obama administration circa 2015 allowed ISPs to biasedly throttle connection speeds with the only stipulation being they have to announce they're a non-neutral provider.
> 
> View attachment 328560





Jon-Kacho said:


> Buying access to websites like a cable package is not a thing that has happened or is going to happen. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.





Jewelsmakerguy said:


> And come the 14th, they'll not be able to do that.
> 
> And I don't know if that's going to be a bad thing, or a secret blessing in disguise.





CWCchange said:


> Exactly, but what does access to technology have to do with ISPs slowing down shit from competitors?
> 
> 
> It means the government has their dick further in internet affairs, and if it were to go full cuck, would shut us down before any company who only cares about the money.



lol your parents obviously pay for your internet


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Dec 7, 2017)

CatParty said:


> lol your parents obviously pay for your internet



If only! You must be lucky.


----------



## AF 802 (Dec 7, 2017)

CatParty said:


> lol your parents obviously pay for your internet



Don't see how that has to do with NN being total bullshit for matters that are just pulled out of nowhere, but whatever.


----------



## CatParty (Dec 7, 2017)

Give Her The D said:


> Don't see how that has to do with NN being total bullshit for matters that are just pulled out of nowhere, but whatever.



it'll make sense when people who have to pay extra for the extra internet access have to pay for extra internet access. and once people who don't care about such things because they are not involved in household finances eventually do have to deal with finances then it'll make sense


----------



## AF 802 (Dec 7, 2017)

I guess.

I just wonder what KF's official stance on it is.


----------



## JaneThough (Dec 7, 2017)

Give Her The D said:


> I guess.
> 
> I just wonder what KF's official stance on it is.



So far, it seems an overwhelming “Net Neutrality Good” with some :autism: in between. You can read Null’s own thoughts here:

Upcoming vote on Net Neutrality laws


----------



## Gym Leader Elesa (Dec 7, 2017)

CatParty said:


> it'll make sense when people who have to pay extra for the extra internet access have to pay for extra internet access. and once people who don't care about such things because they are not involved in household finances eventually do have to deal with finances then it'll make sense



I pay for both my internet and the internet of my family back home, but none of that implies that I understand the issue or what is involved. Figured it didn't hurt to ask about what I didn't know. I manage the finances of multiple households. I can't keep up with every shift in Congress. As I said, I'm dumb.


----------



## OwO What's This? (Dec 7, 2017)

it would be exactly the same as it is now because all of the bad stuff it was supposed to prevent is already happening indirectly

you cant win a battle you already lost a long time ago


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Dec 7, 2017)

OwO What's This? said:


> it would be exactly the same as it is now because all of the bad stuff it was supposed to prevent is already happening indirectly


This whole fucking thread.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Dec 10, 2017)

Jon-Kacho said:


> Buying access to websites like a cable package is not a thing that has happened or is going to happen. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.



Actually, yes it has.



Null said:


> I lived in the Philippines for 7 months. The Philippines does not have Net Neutrality.
> 
> Most people don't know this, but in the 3rd world Facebook is massive. Few people have PCs or Laptops, everyone has cellphones, and Facebook is the king of mobile. Every store, every service, every person has a Facebook page.
> 
> ...


----------



## CWCchange (Dec 10, 2017)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> You're absolutely right, let's list some examples:





MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
> 
> And just to prevent editing shenanigans.
> 
> ...


LOL.



CatParty said:


> lol your parents obviously pay for your internet


Nah, I just steal Wi-Fi on somebody's roof.


----------



## OwO What's This? (Dec 10, 2017)

MarvinTheParanoidAndroid said:


> Actually, yes it has.


The Philippines isn't real. They just pump hallucinogens into the plane and start playing Idiocracy on loop.


----------



## MarvinTheParanoidAndroid (Dec 10, 2017)

OwO What's This? said:


> The Philippines isn't real. They just pump hallucinogens into the plane and start playing Idiocracy on loop.


I want to believe, Scully.


----------



## MW 002 (Jan 1, 2018)

The only thing that makes me upset is that there will probably be a few lolcow s who won't be active anymore due to not being able to afford using the internet.


----------



## serious n00b (Sep 20, 2021)

hm i really don't know


----------



## Lemmingwise (Sep 20, 2021)

serious n00b said:


> hm i really don't know


well I'm glad you necro'd this thread for this valuable contribution.


----------

