# FCC has voted to repeal Net Neutrality



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...ality-rules-in-december-sources-idUSKBN1DG00H


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil plans next week for a final vote to reverse a landmark 2015 net neutrality order barring the blocking or slowing of web content, two people briefed on the plans said.

In May, the FCC voted 2-1 to advance Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to withdraw the former Obama administration’s order reclassifying internet service providers as if they were utilities. Pai now plans to hold a final vote on the proposal at the FCC’s Dec. 14 meeting, the people said, and roll out details of the plans next week.

Pai asked in May for public comment on whether the FCC has authority or should keep any regulations limiting internet providers’ ability to block, throttle or offer “fast lanes” to some websites, known as “paid prioritization.” Several industry officials told Reuters they expect Pai to drop those specific legal requirements but retain some transparency requirements under the order.

An FCC spokesman declined to comment.

Internet providers including AT&T Inc, Comcast Corp and Verizon Communications Inc say ending the rules could spark billions in additional broadband investment and eliminate the possibility a future administration could regulate internet pricing.

Critics say the move could harm consumers, small businesses and access to the internet.

In July, a group representing major technology firms including Alphabet Inc and Facebook Inc urged Pai to drop plans to rescind the rules.

Advocacy group Free Press said Wednesday “we’ll learn the gory details in the next few days, but we know that Pai intends to dismantle the basic protections that have fueled the internet’s growth.”

Pai, who argues the Obama order was unnecessary and harms jobs and investment, has not committed to retaining any rules, but said he favors an “open internet.” The proposal to reverse the Obama rules reclassifying internet service has drawn more than 22 million comments.

Pai is mounting an aggressive deregulatory agenda since being named by President Donald Trump to head the FCC.

On Thursday the FCC will vote on Pai’s proposal to eliminate the 42-year-old ban on cross-ownership of a newspaper and TV station in a major market. The proposal would make it easier for media companies to buy additional TV stations in the same market.

Pai is also expected to call for an initial vote in December to rescind rules that say one company may not own stations serving more than 39 percent of U.S. television households, two people briefed on the matter said.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Sad day for internet users and websites in the US if this goes through.

The internet will forever be ruined in the US.


----------



## Eric Fleischer (Mar 28, 2012)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Making Internet Great Again.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

hope they don't overturn it.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...ality-rules-in-december-sources-idUSKBN1DG00H
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the Federal Communications Commission is set to unveil plans next week for a final vote to reverse a landmark 2015 net neutrality order barring the blocking or slowing of web content, two people briefed on the plans said.
> ...


More proof the government fucks up everything it touches. These morons in government could be getting an erotic massage and screw up when the masseuse goes for the happy ending. 

The one regarding TV is interesting (and extremely short-sighted). Sinclair Broadcasting (a conservative-leaning company) is the catalyst for this in their attempts to buy Tribune Media. Normally you would expect people like me to cheer this, but I'm not. Our local NBC affiliate here is Tribune-owned. That station is my go-to for news and local coverage and I have no problem saying they do a good job. Sinclair has come in and gutted a lot of news staffs when they purchase these stations. They require stations to run pre-packaged pieces which further cut into local news time. Locally, they are about to break what isn't broken.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



BruiserKC said:


> More proof the government fucks up everything it touches. These morons in government could be getting an erotic massage and screw up when the masseuse goes for the happy ending.
> 
> The one regarding TV is interesting (and extremely short-sighted). Sinclair Broadcasting (a conservative-leaning company) is the catalyst for this in their attempts to buy Tribune Media. Normally you would expect people like me to cheer this, but I'm not. Our local NBC affiliate here is Tribune-owned. That station is my go-to for news and local coverage and I have no problem saying they do a good job. Sinclair has come in and gutted a lot of news staffs when they purchase these stations. They require stations to run pre-packaged pieces which further cut into local news time. Locally, they are about to break what isn't broken.


You have it backward on this one. The Govt regulation is the thing not letting internet companies speed up or slow down a sites web traffic based on if they pay them an extra fee, now that govt regulation may be going away and that will now be legal.

This is why govt regulations are needed so companies can't do shady shit like they will be doing with the internet once this regulation is struck down.

I don't want this thread to turn into a govt fucks up everything thread but in this case you will see what happens when the govt leaves things unchecked.


I am not sure how anyone besides these internet companies would want to see net neutrality go away (not saying you do) unless they are an internet company.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T (Jun 17, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Beatles123 said:


> hope they don't overturn it.


Whaaaa???!!! I thought all regulations were bad to conservatives. Obama tries to save our water from coal waste: "fuck that shit, I'll buy Fiji water", Obama tries to save the internet: "I need my porn streams in HD, let's keep it".


----------



## Punkhead (Dec 29, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

I'm not an American, so this doesn't affect me for the most part, but I've got to feel sorry for the people who will suffer the effects of this. So far I've only seen ISPs and FCC wanting to kill net neutrality, is there actually any legit reason to do it? Or will it harm everyone except for them?


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

This would be very bad. 

And it’s the chance for all the ISPs who also provide to cable to recoup that money that they’re going to lose with cable dying. Think you just saved a bunch of money cutting the cord? You won’t when your Netflix subscription doubled because they’re getting drained by all the internet companies.


----------



## Undertaker23RKO (Jun 11, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

I don't understand this so can someone please explain the pro's and con's of it?


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T (Jun 17, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Punkhead said:


> I'm not an American, so this doesn't affect me for the most part, but I've got to feel sorry for the people who will suffer the effects of this. So far I've only seen ISPs and FCC wanting to kill net neutrality, is there actually any legit reason to do it? Or will it harm everyone except for them?


Like most policies in America, especially those put in place by republicans, it only benefits a handful of companies and the politicians who were paid off by those companies.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Sad to see even True Conservatives being against this. :sad: 

The government has no business regulating the internet.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Irony of people whining about one group of lobbyists (the ISP's) while spouting the lobbying cry of other lobbying groups (silicon valley) is amusing AF


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



FITZ said:


> This would be very bad.
> 
> And it’s the chance for all the ISPs who also provide to cable to recoup that money that they’re going to lose with cable dying. Think you just saved a bunch of money cutting the cord? You won’t when your Netflix subscription doubled because they’re getting drained by all the internet companies.


As well as Hulu because the ISPs are slow down those websites unless they pay a huge fee to make them load normally, then of course since Netflix and Hulu have to pay the ISPs money to keep their website loading normally that charge will be passed on to us the consumer.






Undertaker23RKO said:


> I don't understand this so can someone please explain the pro's and con's of it?


With net neutrality as it currently is, the GOVT won't allow ISPs to speed up or slow down a companies website, all websites have to load at the same speed.

If net neutrality is deregulated. then Comcast, for example, could slow down the speed of netflix for example, unless netflix pays them money.

Or if a conservative ISP wanted to they could slow down the speed of any liberal website to a crawl, and at the same time speed up the loading of any website they are in favor of.






CamillePunk said:


> Sad to see even True Conservatives being against this. :sad:
> 
> The government has no business regulating the internet.


So you are against net neutrality? Because net neutrality is regulation lol.

By the GOVT regulating the internet, they are making sure ISPs cant speed up or slow down websites, the regulations make sure all websites load at the same speed. How can anyone be against this


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T (Jun 17, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Yea, lets let the free market dictate everything. Conservatives only care when they get directly affected by something, so I expect plenty of conservative bitching when they can't watch their step-sister porn on Brazzers in HD because Vivid made an exclusive deal with Comcast to be the only porn company with fast 4K streaming.


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Whaaaa???!!! I thought all regulations were bad to conservatives. Obama tries to save our water from coal waste: "fuck that shit, I'll buy Fiji water", Obama tries to save the internet: "I need my porn streams in HD, let's keep it".


i wasn't trying to debate about this. man. easy...


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> So you are against net neutrality? Because net neutrality is regulation lol.


you have successfully processed the meaning of my post, yes. 



> By the GOVT regulating the internet, they are making sure ISPs cant speed up or slow down websites, the regulations make sure all websites load at the same speed. How can anyone be against this


idk maybe because some sites need to load at much faster speeds than others and ISPs are a lot more knowledgeable about this and driven by the profit motive to deliver the best experience for as many customers as possible, unlike the federal government. 



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> Yea, lets let the free market dictate everything. Conservatives only care when they get directly affected by something, so I expect plenty of conservative bitching when they can't watch their step-sister porn on Brazzers in HD because Vivid made an exclusive deal with Comcast to be the only porn company with fast 4K streaming.


The ensuing projection aside, I agree with the first sentence. (Y)


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



CamillePunk said:


> idk maybe because some sites need to load at much faster speeds than others and ISPs are a lot more knowledgeable about this and driven by the profit motive to deliver the best experience for as many customers as possible, unlike the federal government.
> (Y)


No some sites don't need to load faster than others, all sites should load at the same speed. Because again ISP will speed up some sites and they will slow down their competition speeds or sites that won't pay their fee to be at the same speeds as everyone else. So this will fuck over small businesses and start-ups who can't afford to pay ISPs to not have their sites slowed down.


It's laughable if you think getting rid of net neutrality will give us the best experience possible, it will do the exact opposite since every site will be loading at different speeds.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

@CamillePunk @Reaper @BruiserKC @Beatles123 @Miss Sally @Pratchett

As far as Net Neutrality goes, I can see both sides of the argument and am largely on the fence about this....though admittedly I do lean more to one side of the argument. On the one hand, I get the arguments for Net Neutrality especially as you have big telecom companies such as Comcast and Verizon who have huge shares of the market. The last thing you want as a consumer in the short term is to have them be able to slow and speed up certain websites or even block certain websites from being accessible whether just done on purpose or part of a package deal to push certain products. That of course because of the economic monopoly these companies have.

However, the way you break economic monopolies isn't by government intervention or regulation but through competition. The problem with these types of regulations which isn't new with Net Neutrality is that it creates a barrier to entry for new businesses and competitors to come on to the market and challenge the established big businesses. These types of interventions and regulations favour companies like Comcast in the long run because it helps them to consolidate and even grow the market share they already have. This will be a huge problem in the long term as there is less incentive for these companies to provide a good service and also will give them reasons to raise prices on the consumer.

A good example of this close to home is what has happened with the UK energy market. For decades, the UK government under both major parties have heavily intervened in the energy sector to try and use economic policies to push prices down due to the "unfairness" of them. One of the main things to always look out for when analyzing economic policies is the unintended consequences they produce. The policies that several UK governments have tried to get fair and reasonable prices for the consumer has had the opposite effect, now the 6 energy companies that were dominating the market have consolidated their market share with no other companies realistically being able to challenge them again due to the barrier to entry that increased regulation and intervention has caused. 

Not only that but the price *increased*, it did the opposite of what was intended. The latest example being a price cap being proposed by the so called Conservative government, causing the energy companies to hike their tariffs as much as 40% in anticipation for the cap. Why did they do this? Well they can't predict the future in terms of market patterns. Should they lose a significant amount of supply or demand for their service, the company is forced to raise prices to cover the costs and should they be in a position where a price cap is in place then they stand to lose huge amounts of money. The intervention far from helping consumers actually hurt them. Policies like these have led the UK to having the 2nd most expensive energy tariffs in Europe only behind Germany, who have gone one step further and have made several of their utilities public and have put forward huge subsidies especially towards green and alternative energy, effectively raising their prices in a huge way. 

That is what I feel will happen eventually in time with Net Neutrality, of course I don't have nearly as much data or examples as I do with the energy market in the UK for example but past experience tells me this is what will happen over time. With Net Neutrality essentially hampering new telecom companies to emerge and challenge the established big business, Comcast and Verizon as examples will have less incentive to be competitive and deliver services both at good prices and at better quality. In the long run, the consumer is likely to be worse off for the sake of dealing with the concerns of today concerning what big telecom companies *could* do with Net Neutrality off the table. Surely there are better ways to deal with these concerns...

The other problem I have with Net Neutrality is the amount of power the government has in terms of regulating the internet and the fact that it is open to major abuse. Maybe I'm crazy but if I was an american, I wouldn't want to trust the government with regulating the internet considering these are the same people who have thrown out the 4th amendment and privacy rights by allowing the NSA to spy on people, collecting all of the citizens data without a warrant. One of those avenues of course is emails, which of course means spying on the internet. So it's already happening and it could get a whole lot worse.

In fact, I'm living in an example right now in the UK through the investigatory Powers Act, which not only allows the government to enforce mass electronic surveillance through the collection of personal data online but also hands this information to around 20 companies who store this data for a year, that's every citizen in the UK. Not only is it a violation of privacy rights but also presents a potential security risk should one decide to hack one of these agencies. Not only that but Theresa May, the current Prime Minister has more than once called for China like regulation of the internet here in the UK. You think it can't happen in the US? Government abuse of power is always around corner. Government is like the ring from LOTR, always remember that.

Even the most stringent Net Neutrality supporter should be concerned with the fact that the same Obama administration that wrote the latest Net Neutrality act that is being torn up in 2015, was also the same administration that expanded the powers of the NSA concerning the patriot act. If that doesn't make you think, wonder and at least feel a little skeptical then I don't know what will.

This is why I lean against Net Neutrality even though I understand and do understand the concerns with undoing it. I'd like to think there is a middle ground to be found which can address those concerns whilst getting the government out of the business of regulating the internet so that a) We don't have a situation with endless corporatism within the telecom industry and b) We don't give the government the opportunity to further abuse it's power which it will inevitably will do. I'm living in an example of it right now.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Ending Net Neutreality will not prevent competition amongst the ISP's. You really think that an ISP wants to lose business by slowing down Netflix or Youtube? 

They would have to collude in order to slow down or speed up certain websites since customer response would pretty much unanimously be to demand switching. In America there are no areas where at least 2-4 companies operate and switching is extremely easy. The minute any company tries to slow down certain websites, they'll start losing business. One DAY of slow internet and my ISP gets an angry call from me and they have to reward me with some sort of advantage. I've been able to negotiate my way from getting 30 mpbs to 100 mpbs ON THE SAME COST in 3 years of being with that company and dealing with their reps every time there's a downturn in their business provision to me. If they try to slow down my 1080p streaming (which would be stupid anyways because it would cost more to introduce algorithims that do that in the first place), they'd be terrible businessman. If they do that, then doom on them. They won't anyways, because to get 1080p streaming, you need a connection 10mbps or greater and almost no one right now has connections that weak in the first place. 

The entire piece of crappy legislation is based on an unrealized fear. It's yet more of the same paranoic thinking that's become so pervasive today. They create a problem that doesn't exist based on theorizing that it might exist and then pitch it to people who lap it up. 

Once a company realizes that another company is slowing down the internet for some websites, they'll launch a competitive program where they won't and they'll get customers to switch. The internet does not exist in an environment where any form of monopolization can occur at all. The Telecommunication industry found new ways to innovate and cannibalize their own dinosaur tech (that was over-regulated) with new tech and eventually replaced it. If you do the same to the internet, sure it could spur new tech growth, but why not allow the same companies to continue to innovate instead of doing through another phase of slow replacement? 

That's how this works. That's how this has always worked and always will. 

I don't care at all for the arguments that state that a company should be forced to operate a certain way by the government under legal threats just because they are "untrustworthy". Companies that operate in this manner in an unregulated environment without government support simply do not survive. They can't. Auto manufacturers are a great example of this. Government got involved, unions got involved, the cost of labor reached levels that the market could not sustain and eventually we had several companies go out of business. The same thing is happening in Silicon Valley where the renewed fervor to get foreign workers (illegals as well) is basically to artificially reduce the pay equilibrium that exists there. It's the opposite, but the same effect. They can't import most of their operations abroad, so they want to import cheap workers and the only way they can do that is through government programs and intervention. 

Imagine if in 1996, the government passed regulations that favored Cable Operators and decided that Programs should only be streamed through Cable and cannot be streamed on the Internet --- or charged them a "tax" trying to create a "fair" competitive market for TV Channels that way. That would have destroyed ANY chance of us ever getting TV and Video streamed into our homes via the internet. The unintended consequence of short-sighted government interference destroys the growth of replacement tech and better ways of doing things that are better for customers. Always. 

This is why the cost of healthcare and education in the west is now touching unaffordable levels, meanwhile clothing and food is declining. The government couldn't find ways to control the internet which is why there are now thousands of .com millionnaires and billionnaires whereas there is slow growth in other forms of business. 

You also get collusion in an environment where government regulation keeps you from making money. This is why in price controlled environments you get hoarding and rising prices as well. The property market is the greatest example of a broken industry heavily regulated by attempted price controls. Canada's housing bubble has created a scenario where rich capitalist foreigners are now able to buy property while Canadians themselves cannot in their own country. Which is sheer madness if you ask me. 

Net Neutreality is a government form of price control in sheep's clothing. 




> This is evidenced by the provisions that *require all of a provider’s charges, practices and classifications” be “just and reasonable”.* Who will decide on what is just and reasonable and move to make adjustments? In fact, that section is critical to the overall net neutrality rules. The FCC is using the “just and reasonable” standard as the legal basis for its ban on Internet providers blocking or manipulating Internet traffic.


Government regulation is bad. There's nothing good about it. They're incompetent. They don't know what they're doing and they are never intelligent enough to foresee the unintended consequence of pushing their legislation. Every single time an industry has boomed, it started with a low regulated environment. Every industry where prices are incredibly high are bloated with insane amount of expensive regulations. 

I love to quote the example of Eggs ... 12 eggs, cost less than 65 cents in some markets these days. It's not like there's any price controls on Eggs of any kind or any government regulation is there? The government did not need to regulate the price of eggs. The market did it itself. I don't see egg sellers colluding to sell eggs at $2 a dozen. I don't seen an Egg monopoly. I don't see any monopolies in clothing. You only see monopolies and high prices in industries where you have cronies lobbying to get government support.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

It's times like this I wish that we could tar and feather people.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.



Miss Sally said:


> It's times like this I wish that we could tar and feather people.


Soon


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



virus21 said:


> And if it stops moving, subsidize it.


Correction: If it stops moving, take over the supreme court, destroy the constitution, murder a bunch of people, jail everyone that opposes, pass legislation that exacerbates the famine and allows millions to stave, feed your own family, move to offshore asylums while convincing people that it still works.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Reaper said:


> Ending Net Neutreality will not prevent competition amongst the ISP's. You really think that an ISP wants to lose business by slowing down Netflix or Youtube?
> 
> They would have to collude in order to slow down or speed up certain websites since customer response would pretty much unanimously be to demand switching. In America there are no areas where at least 2-4 companies operate and switching is extremely easy. The minute any company tries to slow down certain websites, they'll start losing business. One DAY of slow internet and my ISP gets an angry call from me and they have to reward me with some sort of advantage. I've been able to negotiate my way from getting 30 mpbs to 100 mpbs ON THE SAME COST in 3 years of being with that company and dealing with their reps every time there's a downturn in their business provision to me. If they try to slow down my 1080p streaming (which would be stupid anyways because it would cost more to introduce algorithims that do that in the first place), they'd be terrible businessman. If they do that, then doom on them. They won't anyways, because to get 1080p streaming, you need a connection 10mbps or greater and almost no one right now has connections that weak in the first place.
> 
> ...



It's not just slowing down companies like Netflix, it's slowing down websites that are in competition with the ISP or even the ISPs "values".It's not even about just slowing down traffic either, they would be able to let websites pay them extra to speed up their websites instead of keeping all internet traffic the same speed. Like collision has not happened before, and its less about huge websites like Netflix its smaller upstart ones that could be slowed down or not as fast as huge corp. ones that can pay the iSPs to speed up their websites.

You keep claiming this is all about fear tactics and that these things will never happen, well if that is the case then why even get rid of net neutrality if ISPs won't be speeding up or slowing down companies websites based on if they pay up or not? That is the whole reason they want to end net neutrality.

Govt regulation is good, its what keeps things honest, fair and safe.

People like you that are so anti-regulation because "they are bad" are against worker safety from OSHA because yeah fuck if workers get hurt on the job, its all about making money, the govt shouldn't regulation anything, or how they are against regulations that don't let companies dump toxic waste into lakes and rivers because the govt shouldn't regulation anything. Oh the the govt shouldn't regulation healthcare so they are forced to cover people with preexisting conditions because fuck people because people dying shouldn't cut into their profits.

Oh yeah, regulations are so bad. yeah we get it, all you care about is making money and not keeping people safe, the environment safe, or making sure it's an even playing field.

Can't believe you don't think companies should be forced to obey safety regulations or be forced to not dump toxic waste into clean water supplies or the ocean. But as long as they can make more money not doing those things you think they should be able to do so becasue you hate regulations and they are bad.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's not just slowing down companies like Netflix, it's slowing down websites that are in competition with the ISP or even the ISPs "values".It's not even about just slowing down traffic either, they would be able to let websites pay them extra to speed up their websites instead of keeping all internet traffic the same speed. Like collision has not happened before, and its less about huge websites like Netflix its smaller upstart ones that could be slowed down or not as fast as huge corp. ones that can pay the iSPs to speed up their websites.
> 
> You keep claiming this is all about fear tactics and that these things will never happen, well if that is the case then why even get rid of net neutrality if ISPs won't be speeding up or slowing down companies websites based on if they pay up or not? That is the whole reason they want to end net neutrality.
> 
> ...


If trying to be safe gets in the way of making money then you might as well die. I don't agree with it but at this point their are many people like Reaper who pretty much want anything goes and the hell with anyone who can't live under that because no form of government is good.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



The Hardcore Show said:


> If trying to be safe gets in the way of making money then you might as well die. I don't agree with it but at this point their are many people like Reaper who pretty much want anything goes and the hell with anyone who can't live under that because no form of government is good.



I still have not seen one good legit reason for killing net neutrality.

All I see is a bunch of BS anti-regulation rhetoric and oh it's just scare tactics on what will happen or what can happen once there is no more net neutrality.

I just think its funny people like reaper think net neutrality something that keeps everything equal on the internet is a piece of crappy legislation.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T (Jun 17, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



The Hardcore Show said:


> If trying to be safe gets in the way of making money then you might as well die. I don't agree with it but at this point their are many people like Reaper who pretty much want anything goes and the hell with anyone who can't live under that because no form of government is good.


I can't wait until republicans completely deregulate environment protections and then when the air is unbreathable we can let the free market sell us clean air. If you can't afford the Comcast-Uber-TacoBell-Apple Corporation branded air, you don't deserve to live anyway. Oh, no wait. Disney-Raytheon-EA partners is going to sell you air at a competitive price and drive the cost of CUTA's air down, making breathing affordable for everyone.

I swear conservatives are evil.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> I can't wait until republicans completely deregulate environment protections and then when the air is unbreathable we can let the free market sell us clean air. If you can't afford the Comcast-Uber-TacoBell-Apple Corporation branded air, you don't deserve to live anyway. Oh, no wait. Disney-Raytheon-EA partners is going to sell you air at a competitive price and drive the cost of CUTA's air down, making breathing affordable for everyone.
> 
> I swear conservatives are evil.



Then they will complain about the liberals saying the govt should help the poor afford the air so they don't die and the conservatives will be like fuck them, they shouldn't take my tax money so they can breathe and not die.


----------



## Crasp (Feb 26, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> I can't wait until republicans completely deregulate environment protections and then when the air is unbreathable we can let the free market sell us clean air. If you can't afford the Comcast-Uber-TacoBell-Apple Corporation branded air, you don't deserve to live anyway. Oh, no wait. Disney-Raytheon-EA partners is going to sell you air at a competitive price and drive the cost of CUTA's air down, making breathing affordable for everyone.
> 
> I swear conservatives are evil.


Disney-Raytheon-EA partners' air is a random chance aquisition from loot crates. It's cheap but it's also likely to contain a jar of anal lice or photos of ugly babies.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T (Jun 17, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> Then they will complain about the liberals saying the govt should help the poor afford the air so they don't die and the conservatives will be like fuck them, they shouldn't take my tax money so they can breathe and not die.


"Fucking snowflakes wanting everybody to breathe, well not on my dime!"


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> "Fucking snowflakes wanting everybody to breathe, well not on my dime!"


Or yeah fuck those snowflakes that want safety regulations, the GOVT shouldn't force companies to have welders use those eyewear goggles to protect their eyes let them go blind.

those goggles cut into profits.


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

I still lean towards Net Neutrality somewhat, although I do understand letting the markets dictate things, because you eventually would end up with companies appealing the the most people they could if regulations were muted. 

All I ask for is reliable internet that isn't going to cost a shit ton, and that isn't going to favor certain sites over others, and won't throttle my speed for shit reasons. Honestly, my current internet is quite reliable and does everything I want it to, so I'm good with everything remaining as is.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Dr. Middy said:


> I still lean towards Net Neutrality somewhat, although I do understand letting the markets dictate things, because you eventually would end up with companies appealing the the most people they could if regulations were muted.
> 
> All I ask for is reliable internet that isn't going to cost a shit ton, and *that isn't going to favor certain sites over others*, and won't throttle my speed for shit reasons. Honestly, my current internet is quite reliable and does everything I want it to, so I'm good with everything remaining as is.


This is what net neutrality does, if it goes away then the ISPs will be able to favor one site over another.

If net neutrality stays in place then everything will remain as it is.


----------



## BruiserKC (Mar 14, 2010)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



L-DOPA said:


> @CamillePunk @Reaper @BruiserKC @Beatles123 @Miss Sally @Pratchett
> 
> As far as Net Neutrality goes, I can see both sides of the argument and am largely on the fence about this....though admittedly I do lean more to one side of the argument. On the one hand, I get the arguments for Net Neutrality especially as you have big telecom companies such as Comcast and Verizon who have huge shares of the market. The last thing you want as a consumer in the short term is to have them be able to slow and speed up certain websites or even block certain websites from being accessible whether just done on purpose or part of a package deal to push certain products. That of course because of the economic monopoly these companies have.
> 
> ...


You see a price increase because the companies have to swallow the incurred costs with extra equipment and such that goes towards meeting the new regulations. The companies will only handle so much of the cost which is why the Internet bills go up. In reality the Trump administration will try to find its own way to control the Net while giving impression it’s doing otherwise. 

As for the issue here of TV ownership of market share, it’s a shortsighted approach because while it’s a conservative network now, down the road you open up the possibility of a liberal company taking over and then they have market share galore. Right idea for the wrong reason.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



BruiserKC said:


> *You see a price increase because the companies have to swallow the incurred costs with extra equipment and such that goes towards meeting the new regulations. The companies will only handle so much of the cost which is why the Internet bills go up.* In reality the Trump administration will try to find its own way to control the Net while giving impression it’s doing otherwise.
> 
> As for the issue here of TV ownership of market share, it’s a shortsighted approach because while it’s a conservative network now, down the road you open up the possibility of a liberal company taking over and then they have market share galore. Right idea for the wrong reason.


that is simply not true, the prices go up regardless. This is the same rhetoric companies use when they say well the reason why they have to lay people off is that of how much they are taxed, then when they are taxed less they don't hire more people like they claim they can with fewer taxes but they still lay people off. They just pocket the extra money.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Reaper said:


> Government regulation is bad. There's nothing good about it. They're incompetent. They don't know what they're doing and they are never intelligent enough to foresee the unintended consequence of pushing their legislation. Every single time an industry has boomed, it started with a low regulated environment. Every industry where prices are incredibly high are bloated with insane amount of expensive regulations.


So all government regulation is bad because it makes thing more expensive? Even if regulation put in place is to protect the environment or other things it's still bad because the industry is no longer allowed to boom and instead everyone has to pay more because of expensive regulations? :lmao


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



KUZMA said:


> So all government regulation is bad because it makes thing more expensive? Even if regulation put in place is to protect the environment or other things it's still bad because the industry is no longer allowed to boom and instead everyone has to pay more because of expensive regulations? :lmao


The government gets it wrong more than it gets it right in environmental regulations.

Just because it gets some things right is not a justification for everything else where it is clearly and obviously wrong. Nor is it any justification for its size and scope, not is it justification for the ludicrous amounts of power it grants itself and the bureaucracy.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



KUZMA said:


> So all government regulation is bad because it makes thing more expensive? Even if regulation put in place is to protect the environment or other things it's still bad because the industry is no longer allowed to boom and instead everyone has to pay more because of expensive regulations? :lmao


People like reaper would rather have polluted oceans and a planet that has nearly unbreathable air if it means making a little more money than having regulations where companies make a little less money but we have a clean environment and breathable air.




Reaper said:


> The government gets it wrong more than it gets it right in environmental regulations.
> 
> Just because it gets some things right is not a justification for everything else where it is clearly and obviously wrong. Nor is it any justification for its size and scope, not is it justification for the ludicrous amounts of power it grants itself and the bureaucracy.


It gets more wrong than right in your opinion.

Your sense of right and wrong is pretty bad. You think net neutrality is bad when it's actually good. So I wouldn't trust your sense of good and bad when it comes to regulations.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Reaper said:


> The government gets it wrong more than it gets it right in environmental regulations.
> 
> Just because it gets some things right is not a justification for everything else where it is clearly and obviously wrong. Nor is it any justification for its size and scope, not is it justification for the ludicrous amounts of power it grants itself and the bureaucracy.


I won't talk about all regulations as I don't know about all of them, but as far as environmental ones are concerned they're done by biologists and specialists that are taking measures to minimize damage to ecosystems that companies give absolutely no fucks about. 

Just because it does some things wrong doesn't mean you can generalize and suggest nothing good comes from government regulations.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

The argument seems to be whether you believe the government regulating ISPs or ISPs colluding to regulate dot com monopolies is the lesser evil. Which bureaucracy do you believe is more effective in regulating for the common good?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



FriedTofu said:


> The argument seems to be whether you believe the government regulating ISPs or ISPs colluding to regulate dot com monopolies is the lesser evil. Which bureaucracy do you believe is more effective in regulating for the common good?


Answer these two questions.

Do you think its good or bad that the govt regulates ISPs so ISPs are not allowed to speed up or slow down websites based on if those websites pay the ISPs extra money?

Do you think its good or bad if ISPs will be able to speed up or slow down websites based on if those websites pay an extra fee or not?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> Answer these two questions.
> 
> Do you think its good or bad that the govt regulates ISPs so ISPs are not allowed to speed up or slow down websites based on if those websites pay the ISPs extra money?


Good because I want free stuff.



> Do you think its good or bad if ISPs will be able to speed up or slow down websites based on if those websites pay an extra fee or not?


Mixture. I want free stuff so its bad for me. But good if it is an alternative to government incentives to improve infrastructure.

Again. Just because someone don't agree with you 100% doesn't mean they are completely opposed to your opinion. :lol


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

People shouldn't even pay for the internet, I mean it should be a basic human right :lol


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

I'm bumping this thread cause people would rather talk about some ****** ass loser dying than this huge issue. Wake up, people. Spread the fucking word.


----------



## Mango13 (Aug 22, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

I don't see how anyone with a bit of common sense would want to see Net Neutrality go away, but then again common sense isn't so common these days.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

An honest question I'd have for Net Neutrality proponents seeing as I'm still in two minds surrounding this issue is how do you balance Net Neutrality and stopping ISP's from speeding up, slowing down or even blocking certain websites from their package deals with stopping government overreach on their regulation of the internet like what has happened here in the UK? 

A government that is willing to extend powers to the NSA violating privacy rights at the same time as supposedly trying to secure a free and neutral internet for the benefit of it's citizenry has for all intents and purposes all the incentive in the world to further abuse that power, basically selling out it's citizens private details to other government agencies and bureaucracies. That could easily happen in the United States too considering how the majority of Republicans and Democrats have shown little to no respect for the 4th amendment of the Constitution.

I get the concerns of allowing the big telecommunication companies who already have big monopolies on providing internet coverage even more leverage to potentially use that market share for their own benefit against the consumers and users but at the same time I feel there are far bigger long term consequences to supporting Net Neutrality which are a lot harder to fix than the problems presented with the internet being left to the market.

Hence why I feel a short term middle ground should be found.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



L-DOPA said:


> An honest question I'd have for Net Neutrality proponents seeing as I'm still in two minds surrounding this issue is how do you balance Net Neutrality and stopping ISP's from speeding up, slowing down or even blocking certain websites from their package deals with stopping government overreach on their regulation of the internet like what has happened here in the UK?


 Net Neutrality already prevents ISPs from blocking, speeding up or slowing down websites since there is a regulation against it. It has not happened with Net Neutrality in place.



L-DOPA said:


> I get the concerns of allowing the big telecommunication companies who already have big monopolies on providing internet coverage even more leverage to potentially use that market share for their own benefit against the consumers and users but at the same time I feel there are far big long term consequences to supporting Net Neutrality which are a lot harder to fix than the problems presented with the internet being left to the market.
> 
> 
> Hence why I feel a short term middle ground should be found.


What exactly are the big long-term consequences to supporting Net Neutrality? 

There is no middle ground when it comes to Net Neutrality.

How is allowing ISPs to block, slow down, or speed up some websites but other others a good thing?


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> Net Neutrality already prevents ISPs from blocking, speeding up or slowing down websites since there is a regulation against it. It has not happened with Net Neutrality in place.


I understand that but you are not answering the main point of my question, which is the government's ability to abuse the power that comes with regulating the internet. This has already been happening under the NSA with the collection of private citizens data without a written warrant, emails being one of the ways this is being done.





birthday_massacre said:


> What exactly are the big long-term consequences to supporting Net Neutrality?


I explained them in the first post I made on this topic, which has happened in the form of the investigatory powers act here in the UK. It has permitted mass electronic surveillance with the private details of the citizenry, bulk collection of communications data which includes data of the citizens over the web, stretching beyond emails which is what the NSA does currently today.

Not only that but it shares this information with 20 other public bodies and agencies, which if were hacked basically would cause a security risk to the country. Essentially privacy rights could be even further destroyed by allowing government the power and responsibility of regulating the internet.

Again, might I stress that Theresa May, the UK's current prime minister has repeatedly called for China style regulation of the internet here in Britain:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...l-election-london-attack-bridge-a7774221.html



> Theresa May has refused to rule out censoring the internet like China.
> 
> The prime minister has looked to introduce sweeping and deep changes to the way the internet works, in what she claims is a necessary move to prevent terror. Those have included restricting the kinds of things people can post online and forcing internet companies to weaken security so that intelligence agencies can read their messages.
> 
> ...


This is the problem with allowing government too much power to regulate something which effects our daily lives, the potential for abuse. Considering how the 4th amendment has been shredded to pieces and not only very few politicians from both sides of the political aisle have stood up for the principle of privacy but the supreme court has done very little to stop this abuse of power, it's certainly a real concern to be worried about.

It does surprise me how net neutrality advocates who are often very much against governmental abuse of power in this way do not take this into account when arguing for net neutrality.



birthday_massacre said:


> How is allowing ISPs to block, slow down, or speed up some websites but other others a good thing?


I don't think it's a good thing with how the current market climate is geared towards big corporate companies having a large share of providing services to distribute internet plans. However, again to stress like in my first post: this is very much the same situation that has faced the UK energy market as an example where further intervention and regulation has actually consolidated the energy companies market share and has made energy more expensive in an attempt to make prices fairer.

This is due to the barrier to entry these types of regulations impose which I think are short sighted, it stops potential new start up competitors coming in and challenging the big telecom companies that dominate the market, thus giving consumer more choice and power over where they buy their internet access from. Again, this type of barrier to entry has helped to make the UK the 2nd most expensive country in Europe to buy energy. It may be a different market disguised to make the internet free and neutral, but in time I'm very sure it would have exactly the same consequences.

Don't get me wrong, I do see big potential consequences with what the FCC is doing especially in the short term. I don't think a blanket overturning of net neutrality is the right approach without addressing the concerns that it would allow the big companies to essentially push forward what websites they want to prioritize and which ones they want to slow down or block outright. 

However it is much easier for private companies to have the incentive to produce a service that is attractive to it's customer base if the market is opened up over time to allow newer companies to challenge the old guard, thus giving consumers more options to switch than they already have. With government regulation and control of the internet, it is much harder to fight against. Even with the fight against the investigatory powers act in a bipartisan effort by David Davis (Conservative) and Tom Watson (Labour), only a few parts of the legislation were blocked and changed, the majority of it still went through and the government has no incentive to listen to those who don't want their personal details and data to spread without their consent.

All it takes people switching over and for the old guard to lose even 5% of their market share and they will take it seriously.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



L-DOPA said:


> I understand that but you are not answering the main point of my question, which is the government's ability to abuse the power that comes with regulating the internet. This has already been happening under the NSA with the collection of private citizens data without a written warrant, emails being one of the ways this is being done.


Without net neutrality, you will just have the ISPs abusing the internet and the internet will become way worse. Don't you think the ISPs are going to totally abuse their power once they can speed up and slow down or even block websites at will?




L-DOPA said:


> I explained them in the first post I made on this topic, which has happened in the form of the investigatory powers act here in the UK. It has permitted mass electronic surveillance with the private details of the citizenry, bulk collection of communications data which includes data of the citizens over the web, stretching beyond emails which is what the NSA does currently today.
> 
> Not only that but it shares this information with 20 other public bodies and agencies, which if were hacked basically would cause a security risk to the country. Essentially privacy rights could be even further destroyed by allowing government the power and responsibility of regulating the internet.
> 
> ...



Nothing you stated about has anything to do with net neutrality. So you are not giving a good reason to get rid of net neutrality.




L-DOPA said:


> This is the problem with allowing government too much power to regulate something which effects our daily lives, the potential for abuse. Considering how the 4th amendment has been shredded to pieces and not only very few politicians from both sides of the political aisle have stood up for the principle of privacy but the supreme court has done very little to stop this abuse of power, it's certainly a real concern to be worried about.
> 
> It does surprise me how net neutrality advocates who are often very much against governmental abuse of power in this way do not take this into account when arguing for net neutrality.


without regulation, companies will do the same thing you are accusing the govt of doing.

How is net neutrality an abuse of govt power when it's not letting ISPs speed up, slow down, or block websites at will? The regulation is not letting IPS abuse their power. You are not making any sense with your points against net neutrality.



L-DOPA said:


> I don't think it's a good thing with how the current market climate is geared towards big corporate companies having a large share of providing services to distribute internet plans. However, again to stress like in my first post: this is very much the same situation that has faced the UK energy market as an example where further intervention and regulation has actually consolidated the energy companies market share and has made energy more expensive in an attempt to make prices fairer.
> 
> This is due to the barrier to entry these types of regulations impose which I think are short sighted, it stops potential new start up competitors coming in and challenging the big telecom companies that dominate the market, thus giving consumer more choice and power over where they buy their internet access from. Again, this type of barrier to entry has helped to make the UK the 2nd most expensive country in Europe to buy energy. It may be a different market disguised to make the internet free and neutral, but in time I'm very sure it would have exactly the same consequences.
> 
> ...



Getting rid of net neutrality won't allow newer companies to challenge the old guard because the ISPs can just slow down or block those newer companies so they have no chance to compete.
That is why you should be for net neutrality. Its why I don't think you fully understand what net neutrality is.

if you did, you would be against getting rid of it.

Getting rid of net neutrality coudl turn the US internet into what places like china and north korea have to deal with.

No one wants to go to a website and see a you can't access this content on this server or whatever message it would say because your ISP does not want you seeing it.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

I don't fully understand net neutrality, I just see that giving power to the ISPs to control speeds at their own discretion as a vastly negative outcome regardless.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



draykorinee said:


> I don't fully understand net neutrality, I just see that giving power to the ISPs to control speeds at their own discretion as a vastly negative outcome regardless.


Net neutrality is making sure all sites are open and run at the same speed. It makes sure ISPs can't slow down, speed up, block or discriminate against any applications or content on the internet.

It's really that simple.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> I can't wait until republicans completely deregulate environment protections and then when the air is unbreathable we can let the free market sell us clean air. If you can't afford the Comcast-Uber-TacoBell-Apple Corporation branded air, you don't deserve to live anyway. Oh, no wait. Disney-Raytheon-EA partners is going to sell you air at a competitive price and drive the cost of CUTA's air down, making breathing affordable for everyone.
> 
> I swear conservatives are evil.


Half the companies you listed are big donors to the Democratic party lol, in fact most of the tech giant companies are and they're the ones who don't want to be regulated.



birthday_massacre said:


> It's simple, net neutrality is making sure all sites are open and run at the same speed. It makes sure ISPs can't slow down, speed up, block or discriminate against any applications or content on the internet.
> 
> It's really that simple.


Google, Twitter etc are so massive they can already discriminate against content on the internet, they've already slowly started to push what they deem acceptable.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Miss Sally said:


> Google, Twitter etc are so massive they can already discriminate against content on the internet, they've already slowly started to push what they deem acceptable.


A website can push whatever they want, that is their right. If you don't like the results from google then use bing or yahoo. It's their website they can do what they wish.

An ISP however should not be able to slow down Google or block Google if they don't agree with how their results come up, without net neutrality an ISP would be able to do that to any website.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> A website can push whatever they want, that is their right. If you don't like the results from google then use bing or yahoo. It's their website they can do what they wish.
> 
> An ISP however should not be able to slow down Google or block Google if they don't agree with how their results come up, without net neutrality an ISP would be able to do that to any website.


I don't think ISPs nor any massive social media or search engines should be able to mess with things they don't agree with. When something becomes to big like Google etc, it should be considered a utility like an ISP.

That's a debate for another day, ISP's should just be providing their service, not regulating people based on opinion. I don't like the thought of ISPs having insane power over who gets what type of service based on how they view you.


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/932819931967586304


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

*Net neutrality rules targeted for repeal by FCC chairman*



> The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday proposed repealing tough net neutrality rules for online traffic, following through on a promise earlier this year to roll back the controversial Obama-era regulations.
> 
> The move by Ajit Pai, a Republican appointed by President Trump, triggers another round in a fight dating to 2003 over whether the government should be actively involved in assuring the unfettered flow of information on the Internet or leave it to market forces.
> 
> ...


Competition between ISPs would be great. The problem is that in many areas, like until recently mine, there is no competition because one ISP has a monopoly. So, if someone in a monopolized area wants Netflix and the ISP decides fuck you, well... fuck them, no Netflix.

For the whole time I've lived here my choice in internet has been limited to one company. One company that charges me $50 a month for 3 Mbps. I had no other choice. Last week I was informed that finally my local power company has extended their fiberoptic internet to my area. I can now get 100 Mbps for the same $50 a month. They were only able to do this due to a $42 million government grant. My current shitty ISP got a government grant a few years ago to increase speeds. They kept the money, did nothing with it, and no one penalized them.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Miss Sally said:


> I don't think ISPs nor any massive social media or search engines should be able to mess with things they don't agree with. When something becomes to big like Google etc, it should be considered a utility like an ISP.
> 
> That's a debate for another day, ISP's should just be providing their service, not regulating people based on opinion. I don't like the thought of ISPs having insane power over who gets what type of service based on how they view you.


But Google and Bing have their own algorithm, that is why the results come up differently. They all can't use the same algorithm. But they shouldn't be blocking results on the back end, I agree with that.




2 Ton 21 said:


> *Net neutrality rules targeted for repeal by FCC chairman*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Competition between ISPs has nothing to do with net neutrality that is a monopoly issue. 

But if you want competition between ISP then the Govt needs to step in and stop letting these monopolies happen where the smaller ISPs either have no chance or get bought out by the bigger ISPs.


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



2 Ton 21 said:


> *Net neutrality rules targeted for repeal by FCC chairman*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Monopoly is essentially the problem, which is why I understand the arguments for Net Neutrality. Only one company to have access to the internet from really sucks and is a real potential downfall with net neutrality being scrapped. That I cam understand.

Here in the UK, at least where I live in London, choice and competition between ISP's is much better and thus the negatives outweigh the positives with allowing Net Neutrality to continue at least in my opinion.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



L-DOPA said:


> Monopoly is essentially the problem, which is why I understand the arguments for Net Neutrality. Only one company to have access to the internet from really sucks and is a real potential downfall with net neutrality being scrapped. That I cam understand.
> 
> Here in the UK, at least where I live in London, choice and competition between ISP's is much better and thus the negatives outweigh the positives with allowing Net Neutrality to continue at least in my opinion.


Again net neutrality has nothing to do with competition between ISPs.

There are no negatives with keeping net neutrality, there are only negatives with killing it

You still don't seem to understand what net neutrality is.

Killing net neutrality and having fewer ISPs choices in certain areas is an even bigger deal since if that one ISP is slowing down or blocking websites, you are screwed and there is nothing you can do other than move to an area with another ISP.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> But Google and Bing have their own algorithm, that is why the results come up differently. They all can't use the same algorithm. But they shouldn't be blocking results on the back end, I agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was giving a counter to those that say if net neutrality goes away, it won't be a problem for consumers since ISPs will compete with each other and therefore, if one ISP does something shitty just go to another one that doesn't.

I kind of think that's bullshit too. ISPs may compete, but if one sees another making money off a of a shitty practice, they'll probably institute it as well.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> I can't wait until republicans completely deregulate environment protections and then when the air is unbreathable we can let the free market sell us clean air. If you can't afford the Comcast-Uber-TacoBell-Apple Corporation branded air, you don't deserve to live anyway. Oh, no wait. Disney-Raytheon-EA partners is going to sell you air at a competitive price and drive the cost of CUTA's air down, making breathing affordable for everyone.
> 
> I swear conservatives are evil.


That doesn't even make any sense :lol

Conservatives are "evil" yet its the liberals who are militant in being pro abortion . Some how that's perfectly acceptable but believing in the free market for the internet makes conservatives evil? :lol ISP's provide a service to the consumer , I'm not overly thrilled about the government dictating private companies in how they should deliver their service. 

For the record, I'm neither for or against Net Neutrality but that "argument" is a logical fallacy, and quite frankly pretty ridiculous


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Empress said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/932819931967586304


:trump2 Repealing and not replacing government power grabs.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Stinger Fan said:


> That doesn't even make any sense :lol
> 
> Conservatives are "evil" yet its the liberals who are militant in being pro abortion . Some how that's perfectly acceptable but believing in the free market for the internet makes conservatives evil? :lol ISP's provide a service to the consumer , I'm not overly thrilled about the government dictating private companies in how they should deliver their service.
> 
> For the record, I'm neither for or against Net Neutrality but that "argument" is a logical fallacy, and quite frankly pretty ridiculous


If you are in favor of the free market then you should be pro-net neutrality. Since net neutrality won't allow ISPs to censor or slow down websites they are either competitors of or disagree with their content

Ending net neutrality will be the first nail in the coffin of the little guy being able to compete with the big boys when it comes to start up companies on the web





CamillePunk said:


> :trump2 Repealing and not replacing government power grabs.


So you think ISPs should be able to block or slow down websites? How exactly is net neutrality a power grab by the govt?


----------



## deepelemblues (Sep 26, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Chris JeriG.O.A.T said:


> I can't wait until republicans completely deregulate environment protections and then when the air is unbreathable we can let the free market sell us clean air. If you can't afford the Comcast-Uber-TacoBell-Apple Corporation branded air, you don't deserve to live anyway. Oh, no wait. Disney-Raytheon-EA partners is going to sell you air at a competitive price and drive the cost of CUTA's air down, making breathing affordable for everyone.
> 
> I swear conservatives are evil.


1. Conservatives are not libertarians or anarchists

2. Most business wants to keep getting more efficient because that saves costs. The air being unbreathable because of pollution implies a world where business is incredibly inefficient and thus losing out on hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars worth of cost savings a year across the entire economy

3. In this stupidity of yours, the air would be so polluted that the real racket would be in hazmat suits designed to be worn 24/7. And airlocks for all buildings. You couldn't allow your skin to be exposed to air that bad. That's why I'll be investing in the Amazon-Lockheed-Chevron 24/7 hazmat suit and airlock keiretsu, and that is why I'll have the money to buy the breathable air and you won't :bye


----------



## skypod (Nov 13, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*






Philip Defranco is politically independent and a business owner, if that means anything. Explains it in the first 6 minutes.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas (Jul 8, 2017)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

The conservatives who want to get rid of net nuetrality,you do realize the only internet option in some cities is Comcast aka GE/NBC. Do you really want them to have the option to just charge you for Conservative web sites or slow them down to where they are not worth going to. This is not a free market since wherever you live in America your internet options are either with A or B or just A. It's not like jeans or shoe's where you the consumer have free will to chose dozens of differing options.


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

If you support the FCC's decision, you're not educated enough on the subject. End of story. This will effect everyone except the cable/internet companies making millions off of this. It will ruin the internet forever. Pure greed.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



2 Ton 21 said:


> I was giving a counter to those that say if net neutrality goes away, it won't be a problem for consumers since ISPs will compete with each other and therefore, if one ISP does something shitty just go to another one that doesn't.
> 
> I kind of think that's bullshit too. ISPs may compete, but if one sees another making money off a of a shitty practice, they'll probably institute it as well.


ISPs will compete the same way airlines compete. Consumers get lower prices but also lower value than before.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> But Google and Bing have their own algorithm, that is why the results come up differently. They all can't use the same algorithm. But they shouldn't be blocking results on the back end, I agree with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:x

Totally random but I remember my mom years ago was angry about our internet service (At the time where we lived there was only dialup) and the phone company had shotty phone lines and a monopoly and then a few outside phone companies came in and offered their services, well just about everyone in the area jumped ship to them but nothing happened! The phone company with a monopoly stopped all that with some shady stuff.

Luckily by then high speed was in the area and the phone company got fucked! (Sad nobody had high speed until like 8 years ago lol) 

If a company like the phone company has a monopoly even equal companies have issues with it. Big companies can stomp or eat the little guy and simply grind it out against other large companies with legal attrition! So basically only the Government can step in and tell them to get fucked. (For now.)


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

"States' Rights! Oh wait never mind."

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/fcc-will-also-order-states-to-scrap-plans-for-their-own-net-neutrality-laws/



> *FCC will also order states to scrap plans for their own net neutrality laws*
> 
> In addition to ditching its own net neutrality rules, the Federal Communications Commission also plans to tell state and local governments that they cannot impose local laws regulating broadband service.
> 
> ...


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*









_*From Reddit and there are a lot of people on social media emailing them or tweeting them not end Net Neutrality. I don't know if that is going to help the matter but this is what I pulled from twitter a few moments ago.*_


----------



## Eric Fleischer (Mar 28, 2012)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



DJ Punk said:


> If you support the FCC's decision, you're not educated enough on the subject. End of story. This will effect everyone except the cable/internet companies making millions off of this. It will ruin the internet forever. Pure greed.


The people supporting this regardless of if they know shit all about it (which of course they don't) seem to revel in making others miserable, even if it means they'll end up miserable from it as well. They certainly won't profit from any of it, so it seems to be just spite for the average consumer. So it falls entirely in line with their worldview.


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Plot twist:

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/361509-ny-ag-probing-massive-scheme-to-influence-fcc-on-net-neutrality-with-fake



> New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) is investigating what he calls a massive scheme to corrupt the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) with fake public comments on net neutrality.
> 
> In an open letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, Schneiderman said the agency hasn't provided him with information "critical" to an investigation his office is conducting.
> 
> ...


Now I wonder why the FCC has been so uncooperative?


----------



## CMPunkRock316 (Jan 17, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

I was against it being regulated when Ohbummer was in. Overturning that is bad how?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



CMPunkRock316 said:


> I was against it being regulated when Ohbummer was in. Overturning that is bad how?


Have you read the thread?

Do you think ISPs should be able to slow down or block websites?
Do you want to see ISPs should be able to charge websites more money like netflix, hulu or even gamers?


----------



## DOPA (Jul 13, 2012)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...-of-net-neutrality-isn-t-the-end-of-the-world



> Eliminating net neutrality is, in the best and worst case scenarios, either necessary to keep the internet up and running, or will lead to a dystopian future where a few major corporations control our thoughts. The more prosaic reality, however, is that a world without net neutrality will work just fine. I am therefore not incensed (or very excited) about the Federal Communications Commission proposal released Tuesday that will move away from net neutrality.
> 
> Let’s put aside the heated rhetoric, and *look at two recent studies.*
> 
> ...


A sane look into Net Neutrality.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

There are no positives to eliminating net neutrality, people can try to spin it or downplay it all they want. The uninformed will learn soon enough on this, once net neutrality is struck down, then the ISP fuckery will begin.

Also, your little article says nothing about how the ISPs will be able to fuck with websites if net neutrality is struck down but why am I not surprised It does not even talk about net neutrality.


Without net neutrality, Verizon for example which owns Yahoo, could slow down google, bing and other search engines or even block you from accessing them all together, and have the one they own yahoo be super fast, so people are forced to use Yahoo over any other search engine because they can't deal with the slow loading times of other search engines or even access them at all.

There is a reason why Ajit Pai and others have to lie about net neutrality in order to trick the uninformed about thinking its a good idea to get rid of it.

The real sane look at net neutrality is simple.

Do you think ISPs should be able to slow down, block, or even let websites pay to have their websites load faster? 
Or
Should all websites load at the same speed.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

https://thenextweb.com/us/2017/11/28/comcast-quietly-deletes-language-about-internet-fast-lanes/



> *Comcast quietly deletes language about internet fast lanes*
> 
> Comcast has, up to this point, has been one of the loudest ISPs singing the praises of the FCC’s planned net neutrality rollback. Now it seems to be quietly backing off on at least a few of its more ardent promises: namely, that it won’t offer internet “fast lanes” which cost more.
> 
> ...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-not-to-charge-tolls-for-internet-fast-lanes/

Comcast hints at plan for paid fast lanes after net neutrality repeal

or years, Comcast has been promising that it won't violate the principles of net neutrality, regardless of whether the government imposes any net neutrality rules. That meant that Comcast wouldn't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic and that it wouldn't create fast lanes in order to collect tolls from Web companies that want priority access over the Comcast network.

This was one of the ways in which Comcast argued that the Federal Communications Commission should not reclassify broadband providers as common carriers, a designation that forces ISPs to treat customers fairly in other ways. The Title II common carrier classification that makes net neutrality rules enforceable isn't necessary because ISPs won't violate net neutrality principles anyway, Comcast and other ISPs have claimed.

But with Republican Ajit Pai now in charge at the Federal Communications Commission, Comcast's stance has changed. While the company still says it won't block or throttle Internet content, it has dropped its promise about not instituting paid prioritization.

stead, Comcast now vaguely says that it won't "discriminate against lawful content" or impose "anti-competitive paid prioritization." The change in wording suggests that Comcast may offer paid fast lanes to websites or other online services, such as video streaming providers, after Pai's FCC eliminates the net neutrality rules next month.

With no FCC rules against paid fast lanes, it would be up to Comcast to decide whether any specific prioritization deal is "anti-competitive" before implementing it. Pai argues that the Federal Trade Commission and other antitrust authorities would take over regulation in this area, and the FTC could attempt to stop specific deals after they are put into place. But the FTC's 


“Comcast has never offered paid prioritization”

Comcast is the largest home Internet provider in the US, with more than 23.5 million residential Internet subscribers. In May 2014, Comcast Senior Executive VP David Cohen wrote the following:

To be clear, Comcast has never offered paid prioritization, we are not offering it today, and we're not considering entering into any paid prioritization creating fast lane deals with content owners.
Six months later, Comcast made the promise again, saying, "We don't prioritize Internet traffic or have paid fast lanes, and have no plans to do so." Comcast said that it agreed with then-President Obama's stance that there should be "no paid prioritization."

The circumstances in 2014 were different than they are today. Back then, the FCC clearly intended to impose at least some restrictions on paid prioritization, and ISPs were trying to avoid the Title II classification. Comcast had also agreed to some limitations on paid prioritization as a condition on its 2011 purchase of NBCUniversal.

But the NBCUniversal conditions expire in September 2018, and Pai's proposal would undo the Title II classification and get rid of the net neutrality rules entirely. Both legally and politically, Comcast now has an opening to retreat at least partially from its net neutrality promises.

Comcast's change in strategy was evident in July of this year when Comcast urged the FCC to overturn the Title II order.


"[W]e do not and will not block, slow down, or discriminate against lawful content," Comcast wrote at the time, omitting its previous promise to avoid paid prioritization.

The FCC, Comcast said, could remove the Title II classification while still having "clearly defined net neutrality principles—no blocking, no throttling, no anti-competitive paid prioritization, and full transparency."

As it turned out, Pai's final plan that will be voted on December 14 doesn't even ban blocking or throttling. Comcast could thus pull back even further from its net neutrality promises, but as of last week it was still promising that it won't block or throttle lawful Internet traffic.

The cable lobby group NCTA similarly promised this year that its members will not "block, throttle or otherwise impair your online activity," but it made no promises about paid prioritization. In 2014, the NCTA said that "no ISPs offer" paid prioritization.

Comcast’s future fast lanes

The remaining question is how Comcast's paid fast lanes would be implemented.

We contacted Comcast today to ask how it defines "anti-competitive paid prioritization." A spokesperson did not answer that question but referred us back to previous Comcast statements on the topic.

Comcast's promise not to "discriminate" suggests that its paid prioritization would be available to anyone who wants it and can afford it. Offering paid fast lanes to anyone at similar rates could help prevent the Federal Trade Commission from stepping in to block unfair trade practices.

Comcast's July 2017 filing with the FCC offers some hints on how the ISP will implement paid prioritization:

[T]he Commission also should bear in mind that a more flexible approach to prioritization may be warranted and may be beneficial to the public. For example, a telepresence service tailored for the hearing impaired requires high-definition video that is of sufficiently reliable quality to permit users "to perceive subtle hand and finger motions" in real time. And paid prioritization may have other compelling applications in telemedicine. Likewise, for autonomous vehicles that may require instantaneous data transmission, black letter prohibitions on paid prioritization may actually stifle innovation instead of encouraging it. Commercial arrangements that entail prioritizing such traffic could ensure the low latency levels needed to achieve the high level of data quality necessary for such services to thrive.
Comcast stood by its 2014 statement in support of a rebuttable presumption against "exclusive [paid prioritization] arrangements and arrangements that prioritize a broadband provider's own affiliated content vis-à-vis unaffiliated content."


Though Comcast says paid prioritization would benefit telemedicine applications, the existing rules already allow ISPs to provide isolated network capacity for telemedicine, as we've previously written. VoIP phone offerings, heart monitors, and energy consumption sensors are also allowed under this exception to the net neutrality rules.
The net neutrality rules also don't outlaw the use of content delivery networks (CDNs) that optimize delivery of Internet content to the edge of an ISP's network. Comcast itself debuted a CDN service in 2014 that places video content closer to customers' homes. But Pai's plan to eliminate the rules will let ISPs offer higher speeds over the network's so-called "last mile" that leads directly into consumers' homes and will offer the fast lanes to any type of online business.

Proponents of net neutrality rules say this will harm companies that can't afford to pay tolls to Comcast and other ISPs.

"Without these rules, Internet service providers will be able to favor certain websites and e-businesses... over others by putting the ones that can pay in fast lanes and slowing down or even blocking others," over 200 business and trade organizations wrote in a letter to Pai Monday. "Businesses may have to pay a toll just to reach customers. This would put small and medium-sized businesses at a disadvantage and prevent innovative new ones from even getting off the ground."


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

To all the idiots who think getting rid of Net Neutrality is a good thing because you believe the FCC's bullshit narrative, I urge you to watch this video:






If the former FCC Chairman is calling Pai out for his bullshit then you know there's a fucking problem. Speaks volumes. Need to get this video trending to cleanse the internet of Anti Net Neutrality idiots spreading false information.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171205/12420338750/fcc-tried-to-hide-net-neutrality-complaints-against-isps.shtml



> *The FCC Tried To Hide Net Neutrality Complaints Against ISPs
> *
> 
> When FCC boss Ajit Pai first proposed killing popular net neutrality protections (pdf), he insisted he would proceed "in a far more transparent way than the FCC did" when it first crafted the rules in 2015. That promise has proven to be a historically-hollow one.
> ...


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



> The FCC’s net neutrality plan may have even bigger ramifications in light of this obscure court case
> 
> Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (Zach Gibson/Bloomberg)
> The plan by the Federal Communications Commission to eliminate its net neutrality rules next week is expected to hand a major victory to Internet service providers. But any day now, a federal court is expected to weigh in on a case that could dramatically expand the scope of that deregulation — potentially giving the industry an even bigger win and leaving the government less prepared to handle net neutrality complaints in the future, consumer groups say.
> ...


Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ications-in-light-of-this-obscure-court-case/


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

http://www.pcgamer.com/verizon-vp-jokes-at-planting-a-brainwashed-fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-says-awesome/



> *Verizon VP jokes at planting a 'brainwashed' FCC chairman, Ajit Pai says 'awesome'*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## thelaughingman (Jul 5, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Why tf is this bill trying to be passed again. Point of the government is to protect the interest of the common man, so companies don't screw over people. It's obvious that this is not in the best interest of people so drop the bill and never let it surface again. It doesn't create an equal playing field on the market too because not all ISP are available in certain place. I used to literally live across the street from Comcast and we weren't able to get them because we were out of the zone. Moved to a new complex and I'm not able to get Att&t. Also taking into consideration that Comcast does have somewhat of a monopoly over the internet with have 2 different "sister" companies (Charter and Xfinity) it's not providing an even playing field whoever thinks so is very disillusioned. Also taking into the factor this will destroy a lot of businesses or could lead to censorship. This does not need to be passed.

I'm willing to bet that Ajit Pai is being paid by someone to try to pass this or is so disconnected from society that he doesn't know.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



thelaughingman said:


> Why tf is this bill trying to be passed again. Point of the government is to protect the interest of the common man, so companies don't screw over people. It's obvious that this is not in the best interest of people so drop the bill and never let it surface again. It doesn't create an equal playing field on the market too because not all ISP are available in certain place. I used to literally live across the street from Comcast and we weren't able to get them because we were out of the zone. Moved to a new complex and I'm not able to get Att&t. Also taking into consideration that Comcast does have somewhat of a monopoly over the internet with have 2 different "sister" companies (Charter and Xfinity) it's not providing an even playing field whoever thinks so is very disillusioned. Also taking into the factor this will destroy a lot of businesses or could lead to censorship. This does not need to be passed.
> 
> I'm willing to bet that Ajit Pai is being paid by someone to try to pass this or is so disconnected from society that he doesn't know.


Ajit Pai used to work for Verizon.


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

The most simplistic yet best explanation of what the future without Net Neutrality could turn into right here:






Best to use this video to explain to friends, family, or clueless idiots on the internet about what's going on.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



DJ Punk said:


> The most simplistic yet best explanation of what the future without Net Neutrality could turn into right here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't wait for all the trolls who defend killing Net Neutrality come here a day or even a week after its killed and say see nothing has changed. Then will ignore the shit when it hits the fan a year from now when everything will have changed.


----------



## TripleG (Dec 8, 2004)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Oh yeah, lets fuck with the common man's internet connection. That won't result in a shit storm. 

Bold strategy guys. Lets see how well that goes for you.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



TripleG said:


> Oh yeah, lets fuck with the common man's internet connection. That won't result in a shit storm.
> 
> Bold strategy guys. Lets see how well that goes for you.


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> I can't wait for all the trolls who defend killing Net Neutrality come here a day or even a week after its killed and say see nothing has changed. Then will ignore the shit when it hits the fan a year from now when everything will have changed.


Exactly what's going to happen. Next 5-10 years specifically it'll just feel normal to everyone. They're going to slowly condition the masses. It won't be an immediate thing which most fail to realize.


----------



## Stormbringer (May 3, 2008)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

What I don't get is how this seems to come up for a vote every year. It gets struck down time and again yet, here we are again.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



DJ Punk said:


> Exactly what's going to happen. Next 5-10 years specifically it'll just feel normal to everyone. They're going to slowly condition the masses. It won't be an immediate thing which most fail to realize.


Right, first it will just be oh just speed up the companies that pay for it. then it will be slow down the ones that won't. then it will be oh if you want to use streaming sites, you have to buy this package. And so forth and so on.



DX-Superkick said:


> What I don't get is how this seems to come up for a vote every year. It gets struck down time and again yet, here we are again.



yeah, its such BS because it will lose over and over then it just takes another vote to go the wrong way and we are screwed. Its like when Obama was president and the GOP tried to kill the ACA like 70 times. 

If they lose the vote, there should be a set time before they can vote on it again.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-claims-net-neutrality-hurt-small-isps-but-data-says-otherwise/



> *Ajit Pai offers no data for latest claim that net neutrality hurt small ISPs
> ISPs supposedly harmed by the rules expanded to new areas and installed fiber.*
> 
> With days to go before his repeal of net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai issued a press release about five small ISPs that he says were harmed by the rules. Pai "held a series of telephone calls with small Internet service providers across the country—from Oklahoma to Ohio, from Montana to Minnesota," his press release said.
> ...


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Is there a way this can be blocked at the last minute or have the vote postponed? This is a disaster waiting to happen, especially since it's being done at an advantage of these conglomerates. The fact that it's being rushed through and fake accounts supporting this decision compound the issue even more.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



ReignDeer said:


> Is there a way this can be blocked at the last minute or have the vote postponed? This is a disaster waiting to happen, especially since it's being done at an advantage of these conglomerates. The fact that it's being rushed through and fake accounts supporting this decision compound the issue even more.


Not to mention they are putting in rules where states can't make their own net neutrality laws.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



> After a chorus of Democratic and Independent lawmakers called for the FCC to delay its planned vote on a rollback of net neutrality protections, at least one Republican is now asking the agency to hit pause, as a few others express tempered skepticism of the proposal.
> 
> This week, Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) sent a letter to FCC chairman Ajit Pai calling for a delay to let Congress pass legislation on the issue. “The Internet has been and remains a transformative tool, and I am concerned that any action you may take to alter the rules under which it functions may well have significant unanticipated negative consequences,” Coffman writes. “Therefore, I urge you to delay your upcoming vote and provide and provide Congress with the opportunity to hold hearings on the net neutrality issue and to pass permanent open Internet legislation.”
> 
> ...


Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/13/16772792/coffman-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-letter


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

These fuckers are being extra crafty, using every trick in the book to overturn it. 

I do like they got a spokesman who's fairly young, non-white and who's ancestry is from the East no less.

Lots of lies and deceit to try and get this done, they're not even doing a good job hiding what they're up to and they don't even care.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

_*Those are some of the scum of the earth for using such dirty underhanded tactics just to get this shit repealed. I hope tomorrow they get what is coming to them. *_


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*






I mean...COME ON.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Ben Shapiro talks with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai about Net Neutrality:



Sad to hear this man is receiving death threats for embracing a free market approach rather than the expansion of state power.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



CamillePunk said:


> Ben Shapiro talks with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai about Net Neutrality:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad to hear this man is receiving death threats for embracing a free market approach rather than the expansion of state power.


I guess giving US citizens freedom is also an expansion of state power in your eyes lol

Only right wingers think making sure all things remain equal and a level playing field is an expansion of state power.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



CamillePunk said:


> Ben Shapiro talks with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai about Net Neutrality:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad to hear this man is receiving death threats for embracing a free market approach rather than the expansion of state power.


_*The people who basically threatened to kill this man should be a big time shame of their own selves because that is hate something we all claim to not want. But these people did it anyway. I am all for saving the Net Neutrality but I would never stoop this low. Some people need to learn to have some class. *_


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



BTSantaClauseSlayer said:


> _*The people who basically threatened to kill this man should be a big time shame of their own selves because that is hate something we all claim to not want. But these people did it anyway. I am all for saving the Net Neutrality but I would never stoop this low. Some people need to learn to have some class. *_


Anyone that threatens someone's life needs to be brought up on charges. They should never be taken lightly.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> Only right wingers think making sure all things remain equal and a level playing field is an expansion of state power.


If doing so requires expanding the power of the state, such as creating new regulations, then by definition it is. Communists/socialists ostensibly want things to remain equal and create a level playing field too, their method of doing this is through the expansion of state power. 

This isn't a point left-wing people even usually contest. You seem confused about your own side's stance on this issue.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



CamillePunk said:


> If doing so requires expanding the power of the state, such as creating new regulations, then by definition it is. Communists/socialists ostensibly want things to remain equal and create a level playing field too, their method of doing this is through the expansion of state power.
> 
> This isn't a point left-wing people even usually contest. You seem confused about your own side's stance on this issue.



Regulations are a good thing not a bad thing. Its what keeps things equal like with net neutrality, or keeps huge companies from pollute rivers or land, or keep workers safe. But yeah we know right wingers don't give a shit about those things as long as they can make a dollar more, fuck quality, fuck safey and fuck the environment that is the GOPs way


----------



## thelaughingman (Jul 5, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

https://www.facebook.com/TheHill/vi...3bMa2GJLeYr_Kp08H8iFxKGnW9PEPIbAGK6vmSada21w8


https://www.engadget.com/2017/12/14/fake-net-neutrality-comments-stolen-identities/


----------



## december_blue (Dec 3, 2007)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941370764326039553


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

_*Today is a dark day for everyone that is american on this site. *_


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Dark day for the world. If this becomes a successful business model for ISP's in America, expect neighboring countries to follow suit. Greed won. Democracy is dead.


----------



## DELETE (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

If they take away Porn how am I gonna wank now? Don't tell me we will have to go back to using magazines again.


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Well it passed.









Up to the courts now. This ain't over by a longshot.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Merry Chromemas said:


> Well it passed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_*What are the courts going to do?*_


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



BTSantaClauseSlayer said:


> _*The people who basically threatened to kill this man should be a big time shame of their own selves because that is hate something we all claim to not want. But these people did it anyway. I am all for saving the Net Neutrality but I would never stoop this low. Some people need to learn to have some class. *_


Having class for a guy who shuts out the majority opinion like they don't matter in the slightest in a nation that takes pride in its democracy? I'm not justifying the death threats, but don't turn Shit Pai into a victim here.


----------



## Dr. Middy (Jan 21, 2015)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



DJ Punk said:


> Having class for a guy who shuts out the majority opinion like they don't matter in the slightest in a nation that takes pride in its democracy? I'm not justifying the death threats, but don't turn Shit Pai into a victim here.


The point is though, yeah I really don't like this guy and really loathe what he's doing with net neutrality, but I don't want him fucking dead. Anybody throwing serious death threats at him pretty much have their entire opinion rendered meaningless to me.


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



BTSantaClauseSlayer said:


> _*What are the courts going to do?*_


https://www.wired.com/story/after-fcc-vote-net-neutrality-fight-moves-to-courts-congress/

Courts still have to vote on it.


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Dr. Bexmas said:


> The point is though, yeah I really don't like this guy and really loathe what he's doing with net neutrality, but I don't want him fucking dead. Anybody throwing serious death threats at him pretty much have their entire opinion rendered meaningless to me.


The death threats shouldn't even be acknowledged. No one's going to actually follow through with it anyways. It's just a poor way to reflect on those in support of Net Neutrality as the evil ones and Pai as the harmless victim. Don't take attention away from the fact that the open free internet was basically murdered in cold blood today. That's the only thing we should be talking about here.

People are just frustrated. Doing it the right way and having your voice fall on deaf ears time and time again and being given the middle finger makes people say irrational things they don't mean. Words are words. But actions leave an effect. Pai will live out the rest of his days giggling with his Verizon buddies at how they won and how the people lost. Sad, but fucking true.


----------



## DELETE (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



DJ Punk said:


> Having class for a guy who shuts out the majority opinion like they don't matter in the slightest in a nation that takes pride in its democracy? I'm not justifying the death threats, but don't turn Shit Pai into a victim here.


Right. Suddenly people have sympathy for this douche. He is literally taking our basic human rights away.

Im not defending the death threats but feeling sorry for him is bullshit. He is rich and is hated by the country. I'm very sure he has alot of bodyguards on deck anyways.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Merry Chromemas said:


> https://www.wired.com/story/after-fcc-vote-net-neutrality-fight-moves-to-courts-congress/
> 
> Courts still have to vote on it.


_*Hopefully the courts overrules this vote by that jackass. *_


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Merry Chromemas said:


> https://www.wired.com/story/after-fcc-vote-net-neutrality-fight-moves-to-courts-congress/
> 
> Courts still have to vote on it.


I've already lost all hope. I don't have faith in the system anymore.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



DJ Punk said:


> I mean...COME ON.


And electricity was meant to be free for everyone, same with Apple in its infancy


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Merry Chromemas said:


> Well it passed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like that will matter it will go to the SCOTUS and of course it will go down to party lines and finalize the killing of net neutrality thanks to the stolen justice seat by hte GOP.

ive seen reports congess can overturn there and there are some republicans on the side of net nuertality. Congress may be the best shot.


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

The only hope I have is the Democrats taking over in 2020. I don't indentify as either Republican or Democrat and I usually lean more towards the Republican side, but there's absolutely no way Trump or any Republican is winning in 2020. Especially after this bullshit. Republicans finally gained control and already fucked it up within a year. They shot themselves in the foot big time here. 

Not trying to spark the old drawn out 2 party debate here, but I can see this issue having a huge effect on the 2020 election. I don't ever vote because I never like the top two candidates, but the first presidential candidate I see that promises to restore Net Neutrality laws will most likely have my vote. And I guarantee it will be a Democrat.


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

And just like that, everything is changed. Horrible for everybody.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



DJ Punk said:


> The only hope I have is the Democrats taking over in 2020. I don't indentify as either Republican or Democrat and I usually lean more towards the Republican side, but there's absolutely no way Trump or any Republican is winning in 2020. Especially after this bullshit. Republicans finally gained control and already fucked it up within a year. They shot themselves in the foot big time here.
> 
> Not trying to spark the old drawn out 2 party debate here, but I can see this issue having a huge effect on the 2020 election. I don't ever vote because I never like the top two candidates, but the first presidential candidate I see that promises to restore Net Neutrality laws will most likely have my vote. And I guarantee it will be a Democrat.


Republicans always fuck it up when they gain control, it happens every time.

Then the dems win again and have to fix everything, its a maddening cycle


----------



## Sekai no Kana (May 11, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*






*If you wanted to see the most tone deaf and out of touch thing to ever grace your eyeballs. Well here it is. *


----------



## DELETE (Aug 23, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



The Ghost of Kana's Past said:


> *If you wanted to see the most tone deaf and out of touch thing to ever grace your eyeballs. Well here it is. *


Is that a fucking fidget spinner? Og god I think im gonna barf. This guy is more unlikeable then Jenny from Forrest Gump.


----------



## JC00 (Nov 20, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> ive seen reports congess can overturn there and there are some republicans on the side of net nuertality. Congress may be the best shot.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



The Ghost of Kana's Past said:


> *If you wanted to see the most tone deaf and out of touch thing to ever grace your eyeballs. Well here it is. *


he's the same asshole he said repealing net neutrality will help the sick and disablited.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

https://action.aclu.org/secure/save...alityTW&ms=TW_171214_freespeech_netneutrality


----------



## ShadowSucks92 (Mar 7, 2015)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*


----------



## Vox Machina (May 22, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*










We know what must be done.


----------



## Born of Osiris (Oct 29, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Sandy Claws said:


> We know what must be done.


One of my favorite posts ever.


----------



## P Thriller (Jan 6, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

People are totally overreacting to all of this. Do I agree with the decision? Nah not really. But Holy Christ people calm down. Net Neutrality didn't exist from 1991 to 2015 and everything was just fine. None of these doomsday things happened in the 24 years before Net Neutrality what they hell makes people think all of this stuff is going to happen now? It's just scare tactics. There are things about repealing it that I'm not a fan of but most of the complaining is about hypothetical stuff that never happened before and there is no proof that it will happen in the future. 

Not to mention but Net Neutrality gave the government TONS of regulatory control over the internet and removing that is a blessing in my opinion. Every time the government gets involved in a market, they ruin it. Just look at Healthcare. Getting rid of Net Neutrality makes it less regulated which can be argued is a good thing. 

Again, I'm not saying that I fully support repeal. Cause I don't. But everyone is completely over-reacting about this whole ordeal. It has only existed for a year and a half for God's sake.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



P Thriller said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> People are totally overreacting to all of this. Do I agree with the decision? Nah not really. But Holy Christ people calm down. Net Neutrality didn't exist from 1991 to 2015 and everything was just fine. None of these doomsday things happened in the 24 years before Net Neutrality what they hell makes people think all of this stuff is going to happen now? It's just scare tactics. There are things about repealing it that I'm not a fan of but most of the complaining is about hypothetical stuff that never happened before and there is no proof that it will happen in the future.
> 
> ...



Is that so

https://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/568364...viders-are-slowing-down-internet-access-until

the whole reason why got Net Neutrality was because of thsoe 5 companies slowing down internet access

ISPs were also slowing down torret sites years before that as well. And they were making netflix pay more to have smoothing streaming

https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-improve-its-streaming-1393175346


But sure keep pretending there wasn't an issue before we had net neutrality. now its going to be next level fuckery


----------



## thelaughingman (Jul 5, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



CamillePunk said:


> Ben Shapiro talks with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai about Net Neutrality:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad to hear this man is receiving death threats for embracing a free market approach rather than the expansion of state power.


There needs to be rules and regulations put in place by the government in order to protect the citizens and other corporations from being screwed. If you don't think they won't then you need to take a look back at America's history before minimal wage and all the job standard and practices we have now. Look at corporate America before they made having a monopoly illegal. Hell, it's even happening today with for-profit prisons.

I'm all for free market but at the same time, you need to realize that if we didn't have regulations by the government the average everyday joe or small business would be screwed.
_____________________________________________________________

It seems everyone but the FCC is fighting against this. I'm hoping and praying that this will get shut down.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



DELETE said:


> Right. Suddenly people have sympathy for this douche. He is literally taking our basic human rights away.


Net Neutrality regulations being a basic human right what the fuck EVEN :lmao


----------



## P Thriller (Jan 6, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> Is that so
> 
> https://www.vox.com/2014/5/5/568364...viders-are-slowing-down-internet-access-until
> 
> ...


I understand the anti-competitive concerns...But those concerns are hypothetical. Antitrust law already protects consumers from this type of behavior. Before Net Neutrality, The FTC would regulate this kind of behavior. All that Net Neutrality did was strip the FTC of this power and give it to the FCC basically. It was a government overreach. The government got involved in solving an issue that didn't even happen yet and there was a system already in place to help deter it.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



P Thriller said:


> I understand the anti-competitive concerns...But those concerns are hypothetical. Antitrust law already protects consumers from this type of behavior. Before Net Neutrality, The FTC would regulate this kind of behavior. All that Net Neutrality did was strip the FTC of this power and give it to the FCC basically. It was a government overreach. The government got involved in solving an issue that didn't even happen yet and there was a system already in place to help deter it.


They are not hypothetical, they already happened once. It's not Govt overreach to make sure every website is treated the same and cannot be slowed down or censored. 

You really need to get better informed on this, anyone just slightly informed on net neutrality would see killing it is a bad thing

Have you not learned by now Trumps/GOP Govt does not care about protecting the consumer? Just look at all the people Trump has put in place, they are all to destroy the agency they are heading up.


Ajit Pai used to work for Verizon, you really think he gives a shit about protecting the consumer or websites? Wake up


----------



## P Thriller (Jan 6, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> They are not hypothetical, they already happened once. It's not Govt overreach to make sure every website is treated the same and cannot be slowed down or censored.
> 
> You really need to get better informed on this, anyone just slightly informed on net neutrality would see killing it is a bad thing


My argument wasn't in support of killing it. My argument is that people are overreacting to the impact. So one time in over 20 years means that all of a sudden everything is going to go to hell? And yes, it IS government overreach when you already have rules in place to fight that kind of behavior and the FTC is more than capable of fighting it. Government regulations KILL everything they touch. Do you really want to see the internet go to hell? Go ahead and let the government get their hands on it and see what happens. NOBODY was complaining about anything back in 2015 before Net Neutrality, now all of a sudden the world is going to end without it. It is the definition of overreaction. Just my opinion though, I could be wrong.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



P Thriller said:


> My argument wasn't in support of killing it. My argument is that people are overreacting to the impact. So one time in over 20 years means that all of a sudden everything is going to go to hell? And yes, it IS government overreach when you already have rules in place to fight that kind of behavior and the FTC is more than capable of fighting it. Government regulations KILL everything they touch. Do you really want to see the internet go to hell? Go ahead and let the government get their hands on it and see what happens. NOBODY was complaining about anything back in 2015 before Net Neutrality, now all of a sudden the world is going to end without it. It is the definition of overreaction. Just my opinion though, I could be wrong.


It's been more than just one time, that was the most recent example. 

You keep proving how uninformed you are on this. Once net neutrality is killed there will be no rules to stop ISPs from slowing down websites or making them pay more to speed them up to normal or run faster. Not sure what you don't understand about this. They will also without net neutrality be able to charge us more if we visit streaming sites or use things like HULU or Netflix.

How exactly will the internet go to hell by the Govt making sure its open and even for everyone?

Your thinking is so backward, it just shows how uninformed you are on this issue. 


And yes people were complaining before net neutrality was in place. They did when their Netflix ran like shit, they did when their torrent sites were running super slow and that was back in 2007/

ISPs were always fucking with our internet before net neutrality. 


Slate even did an article on it in 2014 as well http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...me_warner_and_at_t_have_nothing_to_worry.html about ISPs slowing down our internet

Seriously dude, do a little research


----------



## BoFreakinDallas (Jul 8, 2017)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Sure the sky is not falling and the world is not ending but if your ISP want to charge Netflix,Crunchroll,WWE network etc. money to not have their sites slowed the cost of that goes into the wallet just as much to non political people,liberals and an Anime obsessed 4chan poster who hates libtards.


----------



## MarkHunt (Oct 29, 2017)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*










The net neutrality hysterics have began, complete with the all-too-predictable threats of violence from the left. Shockingly, not a single person on the left understands the situation, as they prefer shrieking like banshees over educating themselves.

If any of this looks familiar, that's because it's the *Exact. Same. Process.* on loop.

*1*. Trump/Republicans do _anything._
*2*. Liberal media misinforms the public.
*3*. The public breaks out in hysterics about how the end is neigh.
*4*. The end is, in fact, not neigh, and the hysterics turn out to be much ado about nothing.
*5*. Repeat steps 1-4 with whatever the apocalypse of the moment happens to be.​


----------



## P Thriller (Jan 6, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's been more than just one time, that was the most recent example.
> 
> You keep proving how uninformed you are on this. Once net neutrality is killed there will be no rules to stop ISPs from slowing down websites or making them pay more to speed them up to normal or run faster. Not sure what you don't understand about this. They will also without net neutrality be able to charge us more if we visit streaming sites or use things like HULU or Netflix.
> 
> ...


It's simple economics. So you're telling me that without Net Neutrality, ISP's will be able to charge us more to visit sites like HULU and Netflix? Ok fine let's say that is true. They had that SAME power to do that exact thing to the consumer from 1991 til 2015 and they never did that. So why wouldn't they? It's simple, they would lose business. The consumer has the power in an open economy and no ISP would do that knowing that the consumer would switch to a different ISP.

As for ISP's screwing with our internet speeds? That is an Antitrust issue and that would be taken care of by the Federal Trade Commission. So is it worth the risk of the government highly regulating something that has flourished off of no regulation for 25 years just because of the fear of something happening that has barely even started happening? Government regulations kills innovation, the internet wouldn't even be as awesome today as it is if there were regulations along the way. I say keep it open and free of regulation until those problems actually become serious problems THEN you get the government involved. It should be a last resort.


----------



## Scissor Me Daddy-O!! (Apr 13, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> It's been more than just one time, that was the most recent example.
> 
> You keep proving how uninformed you are on this. Once net neutrality is killed there will be no rules to stop ISPs from slowing down websites or making them pay more to speed them up to normal or run faster. Not sure what you don't understand about this. They will also without net neutrality be able to charge us more if we visit streaming sites or use things like HULU or Netflix.
> 
> ...


At this point you're just being rude to @P Thriller. You can't post 3 articles from online and pretend that anyone who thinks differently isn't doing research or is backwards.

You're exactly who @P Thriller is talking about. People who read online articles and are ready to go to war. Argue what you want, but do your own research.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



P Thriller said:


> It's simple economics. So you're telling me that without Net Neutrality, ISP's will be able to charge us more to visit sites like HULU and Netflix? Ok fine let's say that is true. They had that SAME power to do that exact thing to the consumer from 1991 til 2015 and they never did that. So why wouldn't they? It's simple, they would lose business. The consumer has the power in an open economy and no ISP would do that knowing that the consumer would switch to a different ISP.


Yes they will be able to do that or what will happen is they will charge Netflix a fee to keep their connection at a good rate which will then raise the cost of Netflix for consumers.

Why do you keep brining up this 1991 til 2015 argument, no one even had internet until like 94-95 and at that time it was mostly dial up. Stop trying to compare the early internet to now. 

I have already given you a number of examples of how ISPs how fucked with peoples internet without net neutrality but you keep ignoring that. 

And no you won't be able to switch to a different ISP because they will all do this. The whole reason why all the ISPs want to kill net neutrality is so they can do this. 



P Thriller said:


> As for ISP's screwing with our internet speeds? That is an Antitrust issue and that would be taken care of by the Federal Trade Commission. So is it worth the risk of the government highly regulating something that has flourished off of no regulation for 25 years just because of the fear of something happening that has barely even started happening? Government regulations kills innovation, the internet wouldn't even be as awesome today as it is if there were regulations along the way. I say keep it open and free of regulation until those problems actually become serious problems THEN you get the government involved. It should be a last resort.


You are not getting it. Taking way net neutrality will allow ISPs to slow down or even block websites and there is nothing the FTC can do about it. You really do not know what you are talking about. 

I keep trying to tell you this but you won't listen. But dont say I didn't warn you once it starts to happen.

I am done trying to inform you on this, you are now on your own





cesaro_christmas_SOCKS said:


> At this point you're just being rude to @P Thriller. You can't post 3 articles from online and pretend that anyone who thinks differently isn't doing research or is backwards.
> 
> You're exactly who @P Thriller is talking about. People who read online articles and are ready to go to war. Argue what you want, but do your own research.


He does have it backwards lol What exactly I have said or posted that is incorrect about net neutrality?


----------



## ellthom (May 2, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Opening my new ISP lootbox to see what exciting services I can unlock...









... aww man, Bing again?


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Another article from the other side of this issue, for those who consider informing themselves to consist of more than just reading stuff they already believe and agree with over and over.  

http://rare.us/rare-politics/issues...en-internet-you-should-oppose-net-neutrality/



> If you want a free and open internet, you should oppose net neutrality
> 
> The battle for a free and open internet continues to rage on. In 2011, the bill Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) threatened freedom of speech and innovation of the internet, including increased censorship. Senator John McCain’s Internet Freedom Act (IFA) also sought greater government regulation of the internet. Public protests occurred and many internet giants, such as Wikipedia and Google, fought against SOPA and IFA, and in the end, the bills were defeated. Many of the same people like Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Nancy Pelosi, and companies against these bills, like Mozilla and Twitter, are today in favor of net neutrality laws.
> 
> ...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Only people like Cam would think not making something open would make it open lol
Allowing ISPs to censor or slow sites down isn't open or better but it is in the eyes of people like cam


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



P Thriller said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> People are totally overreacting to all of this. Do I agree with the decision? Nah not really. But Holy Christ people calm down. *Net Neutrality didn't exist from 1991 to 2015* and everything was just fine. None of these doomsday things happened in the 24 years before Net Neutrality what they hell makes people think all of this stuff is going to happen now? It's just scare tactics. There are things about repealing it that I'm not a fan of but most of the complaining is about hypothetical stuff that never happened before and there is no proof that it will happen in the future.
> 
> ...


Stopped reading there. You do know what was happening before these laws were put in place, right? You do realize why these laws were put in place during that time, right?

It goes back to this whole point: If they're promising not to do all the things we fear (blocking sites behind paywalls and bandwidth throttling) then why are they fighting so hard for the right to do so? Don't be a tool and believe the FCC's narrative. The fact that 2 out of the 5 FCC Commissioners were siding with those afraid of losing Net Neutrality and stating the same things that "overreacting" people were should go to prove that this is something we should all be freaking out over.


----------



## Flair Flop (May 21, 2011)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

This is terrifying. That’s all I got.


----------



## Stormbringer (May 3, 2008)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Just a couple questions. When is the next vote on the net neutrality issue? If they can try to take it away every year until it's gone, can't we ask for it back every year?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



DX-Superkick said:


> Just a couple questions. When is the next vote on the net neutrality issue? If they can try to take it away every year until it's gone, can't we ask for it back every year?


As long as Ajit Pai is heading it up, it won't. The best hope is Congress nullifies it. Just need 51 votes.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> As long as Ajit Pai is heading it up, it won't. The best hope is Congress nullifies it. Just need 51 votes.


How can he be replaced? Or if this goes into effect is it something that can't get overturned ever?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



The Hardcore Show said:


> How can he be replaced? Or if this goes into effect is it something that can't get overturned ever?


The president picks the head, so in 2020 if a new president is elected, he or she will pick a new chairman and that person can vote another vote

But by that time, how much damage can be done? Best bet right now is Congress nullifying it. 

It can be overturned. It would just be adding the regulation back.


----------



## ManiacMichaelMyers (Oct 23, 2009)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Thanks Trump Administration. 
fpalm 

Of course this won't be a night and day change where we have a worse Internet experience right away. That's their prime argument to people that have no idea what's going on. No this will be a gradual change over time to a worse scenario online for everyone. 

Why anyone would think this was a good thing outside the big companies that will benefit from it is beyond me. "It gives the consumer a choice." What a bullshit sell. How about, we never needed a choice in the first place because we had all the choices available. 

:gun:


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> The president picks the head, so in 2020 if a new president is elected, he or she will pick a new chairman and that person can vote another vote
> 
> But by that time, how much damage can be done? Best bet right now is Congress nullifying it.
> 
> It can be overturned. It would just be adding the regulation back.


Why do I get a feeling that won't happen? Why do I think they will get away with this no matter how much damage it causes?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Why do I get a feeling that won't happen? Why do I think they will get away with this no matter how much damage it causes?


Because the GOP always gets away with it. No matter how much they fuck over the middle class and poor, the middle close and poor republicans still vote for them even thought they are voting against their best interest.


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> The president picks the head, so in 2020 if a new president is elected, he or she will pick a new chairman and that person can vote another vote
> 
> *But by that time, how much damage can be done? Best bet right now is Congress nullifying it. *
> 
> It can be overturned. It would just be adding the regulation back.


Just look at how much damage the Trump administration has already unleashed. If people didn't care enough to vote before, maybe this will motivate some. I hope the lawsuits can stall the new rules from being put into place in the meantime. Otherwise, the internet really is over. Beyond just corporations imposing fees for decent service, choosing when to slow it down, the issue of censorship is also a real one. A lot of events have broken through because there was free and fair use of the internet but soon we'll become like other countries that block content.


----------



## Wildcat410 (Jul 5, 2009)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*

Ridiculous, but not at all surprising. Yet another mess that never needed to be created, but will now probably need to be cleaned up in the future.

Get ready for the corporate slow burn of doing nothing for a while. Followed by mysterious speed problems/situations here and there. And eventually an internet by packages if this lasts long enough. Hopefully legal challenges can stall the damage to a minimum, and keep the issue alive in people's minds. 

Any Democratic politicians or candidates that don't use the remind and run strategy on this are morons. Republicans too, where such applies. It's close to a can't miss with people across the spectrum.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



ReignDeer said:


> Just look at how much damage the Trump administration has already unleashed. If people didn't care enough to vote before, maybe this will motivate some. I hope the lawsuits can stall the new rules from being put into place in the meantime. Otherwise, the internet really is over. Beyond just corporations imposing fees for decent service, choosing when to slow it down, the issue of censorship is also a real one. A lot of events have broken through because there was free and fair use of the internet but soon we'll become like other countries that block content.


The ironic thing is the first sites that will be targeted will be the super right-winged sites like Breitbart for example.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Wildcat410 said:


> Ridiculous, but not at all surprising. Yet another mess that never needed to be created, but will now probably need to be cleaned up in the future.
> 
> Get ready for the corporate slow burn of doing nothing for a while. Followed by mysterious speed problems/situations here and there. And eventually an internet by packages if this lasts long enough. Hopefully legal challenges can stall the damage to a minimum, and keep the issue alive in people's minds.
> 
> Any Democratic politicians or candidates that don't use the remind and run strategy on this are morons. Republicans too, where such applies. It's close to a can't miss with people across the spectrum.


yeah the first step will be just speeding up sites that pay the extra fee, then they will start to slow down sites they disagree with over time. How long before netflix has to say sorry guys but we need to up netflix to $19.99 a month to keep netflix streaming normally or the ISPs charge extra for a streaming package if you want to use streaming websites or even connect to porn sites.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> The ironic thing is the first sites that will be targeted will be the super right-winged sites like Breitbart for example.


Starting to think they will accept this like everything else as long as they are still winning the culture wars or am I wrong on that front?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



The Hardcore Show said:


> Starting to think they will accept this like everything else as long as they are still winning the culture wars or am I wrong on that front?


How can people accept the culture if no one can access their website to have access to their propaganda


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> The ironic thing is the first sites that will be targeted will be the super right-winged sites like Breitbart for example.


Nah...they would target gaming companies first to gauge the limits what they are allowed to do. The gamergate crowd that read the likes of Breitbart would probably cheer for it too. :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



FriedTofu said:


> Nah...they would target gaming companies first to gauge the limits what they are allowed to do. The gamergate crowd that read the likes of Breitbart would probably cheer for it too. :lol


Well that is true since gaming companies and gamers use tons of bandwith. Sites like twitch, youtube and mixer will be hit hard.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> How can people accept the culture if no one can access their website to have access to their propaganda


I guess if their views on things like Roe V Wade and other things in that realm became normal then maybe they don't care if they lose their access to the internet or lose more money as long as everyone as to follow rules that they feel should be the norm maybe their is no cost high enough.

If that is the mindset then I don't think things could really ever get better in this country. Maybe I'm too negative but I am struggling to find a future when people who's biggest problems are the "culture wars" have a scorched earth attitude toward them anymore.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



The Hardcore Show said:


> I guess if their views on things like Roe V Wade and other things in that realm became normal then maybe they don't care if they lose their access to the internet or lose more money as long as everyone as to follow rules that they feel should be the norm maybe their is no cost high enough.
> 
> If that is the mindset then I don't think things could really ever get better in this country. *Maybe I'm too negative but I am struggling to find a future when people who's biggest problems are the "culture wars" have a scorched earth attitude toward them anymore.*


It will get better when looking at voting trends look at the voters 18-35, that is the future and the majortity those voters are voting the correct way.


----------



## Wildcat410 (Jul 5, 2009)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> yeah the first step will be just speeding up sites that pay the extra fee, then they will start to slow down sites they disagree with over time. How long before netflix has to say sorry guys but we need to up netflix to $19.99 a month to keep netflix streaming normally or the ISPs charge extra for a streaming package if you want to use streaming websites or even connect to porn sites.


I don't know what is more head shake worthy. Repealing net neutrality, or the fact that it is not even the least popular thing related to the internet that has been done this year. (Recalls blocking internet privacy rules controversy. Which was another boondoggle that almost no one, save a select few special interests, wanted.)


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Wildcat410 said:


> I don't know what is more head shake worthy. Repealing net neutrality, or the fact that it is not even the least popular thing related to the internet that has been done this year. (Recalls blocking internet privacy rules controversy. Which was another boondoggle that almost no one, save a select few special interests, wanted.)


All Trump cares about is undoing things Obama did. Trump wants to wipe Obama's legacy off the face of the earth like he never excited, and he is doing it one thing at a time.


----------



## Wildcat410 (Jul 5, 2009)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> All Trump cares about is undoing things Obama did. Trump wants to wipe Obama's legacy off the face of the earth like he never excited, and he is doing it one thing at a time.


That joke definately stuck in his craw.

Added to Trump being a fake populist from the start.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Wildcat410 said:


> That joke definately stuck in his craw.
> 
> Added to Trump being a fake populist from the start.


And that is why if the DNC puts in a real populist like Bernie Sanders, he will crush Trump


----------



## Steve Black Man (Nov 28, 2015)

On the plus side, Trump has completely murdered any chance of being reelected in 2020 :lol


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

Steve Black Man said:


> On the plus side, Trump has completely murdered any chance of being reelected in 2020 :lol


I would not be so sure about that. That depends on who the democrats run in 2020. Say what you want about Trump but the guy knows how to control a crowd which people have been swinging for since Clinton won in 92.


----------



## Wildcat410 (Jul 5, 2009)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> And that is why if the DNC puts in a real populist like Bernie Sanders, he will crush Trump


Most of those idiots have not learned much. The Democratic establishment will still push for a corporate tool; figuring Trump is so unpopular that they have to win by default. The Democratic machinery is, at this early point anyway, the biggest reason 2020 could be iffy.

The two party system sucks. It all but guarantees that no matter how pathetic a job one does, they will be back in power in four, six, eight, etc. years. America needs four or five viable parties. Or worst case, just needs to do away with party labelling altogether.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



Wildcat410 said:


> Most of those idiots have not learned much. The Democratic establishment will still push for a corporate tool; figuring Trump is so unpopular that they have to win by default. The Democratic machinery is, at this early point anyway, the biggest reason 2020 could be iffy.
> 
> The two party system sucks. It all but guarantees that no matter how pathetic a job one does, they will be back in power in four, six, eight, etc. years. America needs four or five viable parties. Or worst case, just needs to do away with party labelling altogether.


that is why the justice democrats are trying to make a huge dent. it has to start somewhere.


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941417513858097152Illinois being on that list. :salute

Other states need to wake up.


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

As with taxes and Social Security, if it affects me negatively i'll let you know. :shrug


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Beatles123 said:


> As with taxes and Social Security, if it affects me negatively i'll let you know. :shrug


In other words don't listen to the people telling you what will happen, which it will, you will just wait until it affects you. Typical Trump supporter logic right here

People like you will never learn until its too late.

What matters it worse is you don't give a shit about other people affected as long as it does not affect you. Conservative 101 right there


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

birthday_massacre said:


> In other words don't listen to the people telling you what will happen, which it will, you will just wait until it affects you. Typical Trump supporter logic right here
> 
> People like you will never learn until its too late.


I didn't want Net Neutrality repealed, what are you on about?


----------



## MarkHunt (Oct 29, 2017)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> And that is why if the DNC puts in a real populist like Bernie Sanders, he will crush Trump


Until someone points out that Bernie's a socialist, and then shows video of what socialism has done throughout history, including present-day Venezuela, at which point Bernie's campaign is as dead as the 100+ million people socialism's killed in the past century.

Of course, this is assuming the currently-76-year-old Bernie Sanders is still alive in 2020. He's at the age where he could croak any day now.


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

Remember folks: its only doom if the side you align with says it is. :lol

I don't even want this, but I refuse to let it affect my view on life.


----------



## Steve Black Man (Nov 28, 2015)

The Hardcore Show said:


> I would not be so sure about that. That depends on who the democrats run in 2020. Say what you want about Trump but the guy knows how to control a crowd which people have been swinging for since Clinton won in 92.


I mean, I'll claim ignorance on my knowledge of what net neutrality actually does, but if this all goes as south as some people seem to think it will, a lot of Trump's base (lower middle class types in relatively rural areas) will likely be affected. Try and take something away from a person, and you'll end up seeing a lot of resentment.

Hell, I lean conservative (not a Trump supporter, but still...) and I fucking hate what I'm hearing :draper2


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



MarkHunt said:


> Until someone points out that Bernie's a socialist, and then shows video of what socialism has done throughout history, including present-day Venezuela, at which point Bernie's campaign is as dead as the 100+ million people socialism's killed in the past century.
> 
> Of course, this is assuming the currently-76-year-old Bernie Sanders is still alive in 2020. He's at the age where he could croak any day now.


Bernie is the most popular politician in the country and everyone knows he is a democratic socialist and that is what people like about him. it doesn't even have to be Sanders, Tusli Gabbard would also wipe the floor with Trump.


----------



## MarkHunt (Oct 29, 2017)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> Trump wants to wipe Obama's legacy off the face of the earth


You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not. It's a beautiful thing.

The facts, which you deny, prove that Obama was the worst president in U.S. history.










Student loans skyrocketed under Barack Hussein Obama.
President Donald J. Trump has made it his mission to fix that.

Food stamp dependency skyrocketed under Barack Hussein Obama.
President Donald J. Trump has made it his mission to fix that.

Federal debt skyrocketed under Barack Hussein Obama.
President Donald J. Trump has made it his mission to fix that.

Money printing skyrocketed under Barack Hussein Obama.
President Donald J. Trump has made it his mission to fix that.

Healthcare costs skyrocketed under Barack Hussein Obama.
President Donald J. Trump has made it his mission to fix that.

Black inequality skyrocketed under Barack Hussein Obama.
President Donald J. Trump has made it his mission to fix that.

Labor force participation plummeted under Barack Hussein Obama.
President Donald J. Trump has made it his mission to fix that.

Median family income plummeted under Barack Hussein Obama.
President Donald J. Trump has made it his mission to fix that.

Home ownership plummeted under Barack Hussein Obama.
President Donald J. Trump has made it his mission to fix that.[/INDENT]

The facts, which you deny, prove Barack Hussein Obama to have been the worst thing to ever happen to America, and completely justify President Donald J. Trump desire to wipe his legacy off the map.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Steve Black Man said:


> I mean, I'll claim ignorance on my knowledge of what net neutrality actually does, but if this all goes as south as some people seem to think it will, a lot of Trump's base (lower middle class types in relatively rural areas) will likely be affected. Try and take something away from a person, and you'll end up seeing a lot of resentment.
> 
> Hell, I lean conservative (not a Trump supporter, but still...) and I fucking hate what I'm hearing :draper2


Net neutrality keeps a free and open internet which means ISPs can't speed up, slow down, or block websites, ISPs have to treat all the data over the internet equally.


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



MarkHunt said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not. It's a beautiful thing.
> 
> The facts, which you deny, prove that Obama was the worst president in U.S. history.
> 
> ...


are you new to the political climate here?


----------



## Steve Black Man (Nov 28, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> Net neutrality keeps a free and open internet which means ISPs can't speed up, slow down, or block websites, ISPs have to treat all the data over the internet equally.


Seems to me that contradicts the idea of equal opportunity and free market :draper2


----------



## Dibil13 (Apr 29, 2016)

Still has to get through the courts. It's not over yet.


----------



## MarkHunt (Oct 29, 2017)

That awkward moment when you realize you made a typo in the message you copy-and-pasted for efficiency.

****.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Steve Black Man said:


> Seems to me that contradicts the idea of equal opportunity and free market :draper2


How is letting ISPs be able to block or slow down companies website data giving those websites an equal opportunity?

You think if an ISP does not like a website they should be able to block it or slow it down so no one will want to go to it?

So Verizon owns Yahoo, so you think it would be ok for Verizon to block bing and googles search engines and only let people using Verizon internet to use yahoo searches engine? Then if you have Comcast they could block bing and yahoo and only let people use google

Is that something you really want? you don't think the internet should be able to access every website and all at the same data speed?


So I take it you are for allowing monopolies then?


----------



## Dibil13 (Apr 29, 2016)

Listens to an impassioned speech defending NN then mocks and laughs at the person who gave it. You'll have a hard time finding a bigger cunt than Ajit Pai right now.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T (Jun 17, 2014)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



ellthom said:


> Opening my new ISP lootbox to see what exciting services I can unlock...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol @ you being more upset about Bing than Myspace in this scenario. 

I wonder how much it'll cost to unlock porn sites? I just know Vivid is going to sign an exclusive deal with Comcast so bye-bye Pornhub.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania (Oct 16, 2012)

Thanks cord-cutters and cunty Ajit Pai! Piece of trash.


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

I don't like it because I don't like monopolies. In fact Google/Twitter have monopolies already in their respected areas and they're hardly responsible with the power they have, I cannot wait to see what censorship hell the ISPs bring along with "packages and bundles". 

We need less monopolies not more and the monopolies that already exist need to be broken up or regulated.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

SantaStopper said:


> *Thanks cord-cutters* and cunty Ajit Pai! Piece of trash.


explain pls


----------



## Steve Black Man (Nov 28, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> How is letting ISPs be able to block or slow down companies website data giving those websites an equal opportunity?
> 
> You think if an ISP does not like a website they should be able to block it or slow it down so no one will want to go to it?
> 
> ...


I meant ending net neutrality contradicts the idea of free market and equal opportunity.









Seriously, why take it as an attack when somebody agrees with you?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Steve Black Man said:


> I meant ending net neutrality contradicts the idea of free market and equal opportunity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was the way you worded it since I explained what Net neutrality was and you said seems like THAT, which I took as Net neutrality contradicts the idea of free market and equal opportunity.

If you said seems like ending that ....... then I would have understood. By since the last few people I was debating were anti-Net neutrality, the way you worded it made it seem like you were too

My bad


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Miss Sally said:


> I don't like it because I don't like monopolies. In fact Google/Twitter have monopolies already in their respected areas and they're hardly responsible with the power they have, I cannot wait to see what censorship hell the ISPs bring along with "packages and bundles".
> 
> We need less monopolies not more and the monopolies that already exist need to be broken up or regulated.


You don't like monopolies but in order to break up or regulate monopolies you need to use the monopoly on violence known as the state. :hmmm


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> You don't like monopolies but in order to break up or regulate monopolies you need to use the monopoly on violence known as the state. :hmmm


We get it you don't like rules, you think that companies should be able to fuck over anyone they want, not care about the safety of their employees, and ruin the environment if that means making one cent more


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

Miss Sally said:


> I don't like it because I don't like monopolies. In fact Google/Twitter have monopolies already in their respected areas and they're hardly responsible with the power they have, I cannot wait to see what censorship hell the ISPs bring along with "packages and bundles".
> 
> We need less monopolies not more and the monopolies that already exist need to be broken up or regulated.


The cable companies are a perfect example of this.

When I lived in Pennsylvania, I had Comcast and had access to the channel Soapnet . But when I went back to New York, the cable carrier refused to carry the station over some BS. Also, if memory serves me correct, I think there was a Time Warner issue a few years ago; the dispute led to a cable company refusing to air any of their shows for a period of time. 

Basic cable has few good options now. It's all tiered and the good channels are on another plan. We couldn't get Investigation Discovery without paying more. ID is popular but should it really be held at bay on a more expensive package?

The same is about to happen to the internet. $1.99 per Google search; that's if Verizon, AOL or whatever company doesn't insist on Yahoo as the search engine.


----------



## Steve Black Man (Nov 28, 2015)

birthday_massacre said:


> It was the way you worded it since I explained what Net neutrality was and you said seems like THAT, which I took as Net neutrality contradicts the idea of free market and equal opportunity.
> 
> If you said seems like ending that ....... then I would have understood. By since the last few people I was debating were anti-Net neutrality, the way you worded it made it seem like you were too
> 
> My bad


S'all good. Perhaps I should have rephrased.

But yeah, with how necessary the net has become in everyday life and the fact that we've all gotten used to the net being an even playing field, it just hits me as a clear violation of what has essentially become a right for all people, which is exactly what conservatism is supposedly supposed to protect.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> We get it you don't like rules, you think that companies should be able to fuck over anyone they want, not care about the safety of their employees, and ruin the environment if that means making one cent more












Dat non-argument tho :lol


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941459382864437248
Almost all of these comments are bogus. It wasn't even taken into consideration as this was rushed through. I hope there is some temporary injunction.


----------



## Wildcat410 (Jul 5, 2009)

Steve Black Man said:


> S'all good. Perhaps I should have rephrased.
> 
> But yeah, with how necessary the net has become in everyday life and the fact that we've all gotten used to the net being an even playing field, it just hits me as a clear violation of what has essentially become a right for all people, which is exactly what conservatism is supposedly supposed to protect.


Not sure it matters in this case. The modern GOP is largely not "truly" conservative. Not on many fiscal and foreign related issues anyway. It has not been for quite a while.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Steve Black Man said:


> But yeah, with how necessary the net has become in everyday life and the fact that we've all gotten used to the net being an even playing field, it just hits me as a clear violation of what has essentially become a right for all people, which is exactly what conservatism is supposedly supposed to protect.


Conservatives don't even consider healthcare a right but you think broadband internet would make the cut? :lol


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> C*onservatives don't even consider healthcare a right *but you think broadband internet would make the cut? :lol


And you are proud of that, SMH

But sure liberals are the bad guys lol

yeah, people don't have the right to live. Gotta love cuckseratives.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> yeah, people don't have the right to live. Gotta love cuckseratives.


Pretty sure conservatives are against abortion actually. 8*D


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> Pretty sure conservatives are against abortion actually. 8*D


Zygotes are not babies and conservatives don't give a shit about anyone after they are born, its just about forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy because they like having power over women. if it was about saving a "life" then you would give a shit about a child after they are born and about people having access to healthcare to keep them alive. 

Its just ironic you claim oh we need to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to save a "life" yet you don't think its a right to give someone healthcare to save their life.


----------



## Beatles123 (Jan 26, 2010)

birthday_massacre said:


> cuckseratives.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> Its just ironic you claim oh we need to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to save a "life" yet you don't think its a right to give someone healthcare to save their life.


Where did I claim that? I'm for abortion being legal. :lol I don't want the state forcing anyone to do anything. That's you guys. That's why I'm against Net Neutrality and state-run universal healthcare. :aryep


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> Where did I claim that? I'm for abortion being legal. :lol I don't want the state forcing anyone to do anything. That's you guys. That's why I'm against Net Neutrality. :aryep


You as in the conservatives you were talking about who are against abortion. If you are pro-choice then at least you are on the right side for that issue. Should not have assumed you were pro-life just because you are conservative on most other issues

But again, yes I am for rules that protect peoples equal rights, that protect their safety and the safety of the environment etc etc

You seem to like companies rights over peoples equal rights to fuck over anyone or anything they please if it means making one more cent.

Tell me how you think its ok if companies are able to slow down someone's website traffic speed or even block it, if they don't pay an ISPs ransom?


----------



## Steve Black Man (Nov 28, 2015)

Can we not turn this into an abortion/healthcare debate?

Please and thank you.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

birthday_massacre said:


> But again, yes I am for rules that protect peoples equal rights, that protect their safety and the safety of the environment etc etc


I like rules too. Just not when they're enforced at the point of a gun.  



> You seem to like companies rights over peoples equal rights to fuck over anyone or anything they please if it means making one more cent.
> 
> Tell me how you think its ok if companies are able to slow down someone's website traffic speed or even block it, if they don't pay an ISPs ransom?


They provide a service. If the service is shitty then people shouldn't buy it. This creates an opportunity for a competitor to come in and offer a better service that people will buy instead. 

The only way that doesn't happen is if existing government regulations make it difficult for people to start their own businesses.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

CamillePunk said:


> I like rules too. Just not when they're enforced at the point of a gun.
> 
> They provide a service. If the service is shitty then people shouldn't buy it. This creates an opportunity for a competitor to come in and offer a better service that people will buy instead.
> 
> The only way that doesn't happen is if existing government regulations make it difficult for people to start their own businesses.


Wait so you just said "just not when they're enforced at the point of a gun" yet the ISP will be able to hold websites at gunpoint to pay a fee or they will be slowed down or blocked.

You should be for Net Neutrality not against it

Getting rid of Net Neutrality will just allow ISPs to hold websites hostage if they don't pay up

So you should be against letting ISPs do that right


----------



## Flair Flop (May 21, 2011)




----------



## DELETE (Aug 23, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> cuckseratives.


*Republicunts.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

CamillePunk said:


> I like rules too. Just not when they're enforced at the point of a gun.
> 
> They provide a service. If the service is shitty then people shouldn't buy it. This creates an opportunity for a competitor to come in and offer a better service that people will buy instead.
> 
> The only way that doesn't happen is if existing government regulations make it difficult for people to start their own businesses.


Have you ever heard of oligopolies or natural monopolies? 

In theory, you'd think that a competitor will come in and provide a better service. In practice, this isn't always true and there are way more barriers than just government regulations which prevent this from happening.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



MarkHunt said:


> You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not. It's a beautiful thing.
> 
> The facts, which you deny, prove that Obama was the worst president in U.S. history.
> 
> ...


Be honest, how old are you?


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

A pretty decent conversation about the pros and cons of net neutrality if you have the time. And not listen to hacks like Ben Shapiro.


----------



## FITZ (May 8, 2007)

I'm legitimately torn on the issue. On principal I support the idea of letting someone provide a service however they see fit. On the other hand it's going to suck if Netflix increases to $15 a month because all of the ISPs are making them pay a bunch of money to stream at a decent speed. 

It's a principal vs. personal preference for me. 

I don't think I sympathize with ISPs strongly enough. Fuck principal I don't want to pay for more Netflix. 



> Tell me how you think its ok if companies are able to slow down someone's website traffic speed or even block it, if they don't pay an ISPs ransom?


I think the argument is ecause it's their service and they should be able to control it. 

Of course that's an oversimplification. I have high speed internet provided by Spectrum. Somebody paid a lot of money to create the infrastructure to make that happen. If you told me Spectrum (or the company that Spectrum bought a while back) paid for everything to make it possible for me to be able to watch Netflix then I would concede that they should be able to control the service. 

But I suspect my ISP was given a ton of grant money to set up high speed internet and there were given a ton of government subsidies to do it. 

So then I paid for my own ability to get high speed internet with my taxes. And the ISPs shouldn't have as much control as they want over it.



birthday_massacre said:


> Wait so you just said "just not when they're enforced at the point of a gun" yet the ISP will be able to hold websites at gunpoint to pay a fee or they will be slowed down or blocked.
> 
> You should be for Net Neutrality not against it
> 
> ...


There is a difference between a literal gun and a figurative gun. 



I actually read an interesting story about if things go really bad with net neutrality. What I read talked about that it could actually be local governments that save the internet. I don't entirely buy it as a viable solution but it's an interesting theory. If a city sets up their own network they can override net neutrality.


----------



## deadcool (May 4, 2006)

Well, what else were people expecting FCC to do?

FCC is going to make more money if net neutrality is repealed.


----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

ReignDeer said:


> The same is about to happen to the internet. $1.99 per Google search


I seriously doubt any internet provider would make you pay on a per search basis, especially with how often google searches occur. At most, they would make you pay a flat fee per month to do it, and even then I don't think the price would be that high. That would turn customers away very quickly.



P Thriller said:


> Net Neutrality didn't exist from 1991 to 2015 and everything was just fine.


I strongly recommend you do some research on Net Neutrality, understand what it is and in doing so, you'll realize why this statement is actually 100% wrong.


----------



## God Of Anger Juno (Jan 23, 2017)

What this is going to do is basically enable ISP to legally fuck their customers over while not being able to do a damn thing about it. I don't see how anyone can agree with this.


----------



## Logfish (Sep 27, 2017)

God Of Anger Juno said:


> I don't see how anyone can agree with this.


Muh free market.


----------



## DesolationRow (Oct 11, 2009)

It probably should be noted that there is a major paucity of thoroughly noble parties in this drama as both sides in the debate include a number of the U.S.'s largest corporations. The stewards of Silicon Valley are superb at creating catchphrases that stick with people, ever since the late Steve Jobs wielded what was referred to as a "reality distortion field." Which is how the term "Net Neutrality" was born, which is humorous for what Silicon Valley's self-appointed paragons genuinely desire has nothing to do with "neutrality" on the Internet but to possess remarkably one-sided control. Each side has its myriad devils working overtime here but to cut to the chase, for the past thirty or so years, the leviathan-sized telecommunications companies like AT&T, Comcast, Frontier, Spectrum, Time and Verizon assiduously constructed fiber-optic and satellite--as well as a host of other networks--which have encompassed the entire globe. It is hardly difficult to understand, but the point remains that these entities own the networks, for the equipment is nothing less than their property. 

In 2015 Apple, Amazon, Alphabet/Google, Facebook and Microsoft heavily favored and pushed for President Obama's sanctioning of what would be the imposition of that which has been described as "Net Neutrality," the setting of one price to use the Internet, no matter how much it is used by various consumers. Netflix and other companies have been outspokenly pro-"Net Neutrality" for perspicuous reasons; Netflix has succeeded in attaining no less than 37% of all Internet traffic for the past three years. 
.
As telecom companies jockey for position in seeking the possibility of charging higher prices for the companies that most liberally utilize their infrastructure, one can see why this corporate impasse has ensued. As telecom companies make the case that their property is presently being abused, they also argue that in being able to charge substantively higher prices for what we may call "Big Tech and Friends" they also contend that in so doing they would be able to invest in superior Internet service in the long run for a greater number of consumers. 

Where the battle pivots is around what is considered technological advancement and what is not; "Big Tech and Friends" have no interest in coughing up any of the profits that they are enjoying to the telecom companies which built the networks in the first place. The argument pushed here is that the Internet is a communications utility, no different from any other communications utility regulated by the FCC since the 1930s. Apple, Amazon, Alphabet/Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Netflix, et. al., do not wish to see the advantageous perch from which they conduct business at all deteriorated; one and all, they have pushed to ensure that the FCC seek that the Internet remains "open to everyone," conveniently for them like telephone lines. It's disingenuous. Telecoms have committed sins in the past but the technological titans are in the continual process of harming their own case--particularly the likes of Facebook--for censoring political speech. And they are no less oligopolists than the telecoms; in fact, they behave in more openly authoritarian fashion than the telecoms could dream of doing. 

As the _Daily Signal_ points out, "For example, just this year Twitter suspended libertarian-leaning law professor and pundit Glenn Reynolds, suspended legal blogger and free speech advocate Ken White ("Popehat"), shut down a Republican congresswoman's campaign ad about abortion, and suspended actress Rose McGowan for tweeting about Harvey Weinstein.

"Reddit's CEO admitted he personally edited other users' comments on a pro-Trump subreddit." 

http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/22/glenn-reynolds-the-internets-instapundit

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...hreats-he-received-another-twitter-user.shtml

http://apnews.com/0d8828bd7d204b40af61172628d0a7f6

http://variety.com/2017/biz/news/rose-mcgowan-twitter-account-suspended-1202587987/

http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/23/13739026/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-edit-comments

As Ajit Pai stated on November 28, establishing that the conflict with "Big Tech" would be settled through particular means, in a rejoinder to the wanton censorship and displays of hubris-laden power by "Big Tech," that



> The plan to restore Internet freedom will bring back the same legal framework that was governing the Internet three years ago today and that has governed the Internet for most of its existence...
> 
> "Until 2015, the FCC treated high-speed Internet access as a lightly-regulated 'information service' under Title I of the Communications Act. A few years ago, the Obama Administration instructed the FCC to change course. And it did, on a party-line vote in 2015; it classified Internet access as a heavily-regulated 'telecommunications service' under Title II of the Communications Act. If the plan is adopted on December 14, we'll simply reverse the FCC's 2015 decision and go back to the pre-2015 Title I framework.


With rather exceptional prudence, Ajit Pai notes these behemoths which sought to rule their fiefdoms with as few monetary hindrances as possible while in many instances censoring speech with which they disagreed as "edge providers":


> Indeed, despite all the talk about the fear that broadband providers could decide what Internet content consumers can see, recent experience shows that so-called edge providers are in fact deciding what content they see. These providers routinely block or discriminate against content they don't like.
> 
> The examples from the past year alone are legion. App stores barring the doors to apps from even cigar aficionados because they are perceived to promote tobacco use. Streaming services restricting videos from the likes of conservative commentator Dennis Prager on subjects he considers 'important to understanding American values.' Algorithms that decide what content you see (or don't) but aren't disclosed themselves. Online platforms secretly editing certain users' comments. And of course, American companies caving to repressive foreign governments' demands to block certain speech--conduct that would be repugnant to free expression if it occurred within our borders.


Ajit Pai here is taking aim at Apple, Facebook and numerous other tech giants for reflexively conceding to every last demand of the highly repressive political parties of China so that they may profit from over a billion Chinese would-be consumers. 

Boiled down to its most transparent and least glamorous, "Net Neutrality" was not much more than a subsidy which greatly shifted financial burdens from content providers to the providers of infrastructure. Naturally the latter group blanched under its weight and the former cluster screeched on behalf of its maintenance. 

To some extent, between the Orwellian telecom giants and the deeply Orwellian tech giants, most people are just being herded, by one group or the other. :lol


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/12/14/ed-markey-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-cra

Interesting.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

DJ Punk said:


> https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/12/14/ed-markey-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-cra
> 
> Interesting.


They only need 50 votes, so if all the dems vote to overturn the repeal, they just need a couple republicans


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

from that article CP posted pages back said:


> For example, Netflix now constitutes over 35 percent of all internet traffic.


LOL WHY 

Netflix has so many people fooled into thinking they have more than three good shows. This is pathetic.

I'm not sure I believe that Netflix has 35% of all internet traffic btw


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

MrMister said:


> LOL WHY
> 
> Netflix has so many people fooled into thinking they have more than three good shows. This is pathetic.
> 
> I'm not sure I believe that Netflix has 35% of all internet traffic btw


I think its only counting streaming sites. 

this is from a couple of years ago












http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...rth-america-compared-with-3-for-apples-itunes

http://fortune.com/2015/10/08/netflix-bandwith/


----------



## MrMister (Mar 11, 2005)

That seems more like reality.

But I'm also kinda laughing that MPEG and HTTP are listed there.


----------



## Yeah1993 (Nov 20, 2008)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941133127283564544

uh.....that's bad, right?


----------



## P Thriller (Jan 6, 2016)

BlueSanta said:


> I seriously doubt any internet provider would make you pay on a per search basis, especially with how often google searches occur. At most, they would make you pay a flat fee per month to do it, and even then I don't think the price would be that high. That would turn customers away very quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> I strongly recommend you do some research on Net Neutrality, understand what it is and in doing so, you'll realize why this statement is actually 100% wrong.


Then Tell me genius, since obviously I didn't do any research into this at all, with this repeal, how is the internet today any different than it was in 2015? 

The concept of "Net Neutrality" Existed, but there was no legislation to regulate it at all until 2015. There was a failed attempt to do so in like 2010 but that was it.


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

ReignDeer said:


> The cable companies are a perfect example of this.
> 
> When I lived in Pennsylvania, I had Comcast and had access to the channel Soapnet . But when I went back to New York, the cable carrier refused to carry the station over some BS. Also, if memory serves me correct, I think there was a Time Warner issue a few years ago; the dispute led to a cable company refusing to air any of their shows for a period of time.
> 
> ...


Pardon my ignorance, but a concern was raised about how Netflix and services would increase the price to their services but didn't Netflix raise the price like 2 times after Net Neutrality was passed?


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

virus21 said:


>


Rageaholic is a clown, let me guess he is anti-net neutrality, he will probably claim something stupid like how it's not neutral even though it keeps everything equal. 

I'll have to watch the video and reply to it later. But if his logic is along the same lines of when he got embarrassed against Kyle from secular talk, I can already tell his video will be a joke.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## AlternateDemise (Jul 11, 2015)

P Thriller said:


> Then Tell me genius, since obviously I didn't do any research into this at all, with this repeal, how is the internet today any different than it was in 2015?


It's not. Net Neutrality hasn't come into affect yet.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

P Thriller said:


> Then Tell me genius, since obviously I didn't do any research into this at all, with this repeal, how is the internet today any different than it was in 2015?
> 
> The concept of "Net Neutrality" Existed, but there was no legislation to regulate it at all until 2015. There was a failed attempt to do so in like 2010 but that was it.


why do you keep asking this when you have already been shown examples of how it was different?


----------



## Empress (Jun 24, 2014)

Stinger Fan said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but a concern was raised about how Netflix and services would increase the price to their services but didn't Netflix raise the price like 2 times after Net Neutrality was passed?


Netflix has indeed raised their prices and have been involved in some questionable practices. It is why I take their posturing against Net Neutrality with a grain of salt.


----------



## Magic (Feb 28, 2009)

MrMister said:


> LOL WHY
> 
> Netflix has so many people fooled into thinking they have more than three good shows. This is pathetic.
> 
> I'm not sure I believe that Netflix has 35% of all internet traffic btw


There are literally so many sites that offer free streams and places to download free HD shows.

Netflix is a lazy person's compromise and there are apparently a shit load of lazy people in the world. :mj2


----------



## Stinger Fan (Jun 21, 2006)

ReignDeer said:


> Netflix has indeed raised their prices and have been involved in some questionable practices. It is why I take their posturing against Net Neutrality with a grain of salt.


That was one of the things that didn't sit well with me. All these big companies that support it, yet have odd practices themselves even with Net Neutrality. It always seemed off to me, not saying they are actively trying to be nefarious or anything, it just seemed like off


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Stinger Fan said:


> That was one of the things that didn't sit well with me. *All these big companies that support it, yet have odd practices themselves* even with Net Neutrality. It always seemed off to me, not saying they are actively trying to be nefarious or anything, it just seemed like off


Examples?


----------



## Yeah1993 (Nov 20, 2008)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/941459382864437248


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

I like how Alexa Bliss liked a tweet in support of getting rid of Net Neutrality (was a fan prior to finding out she supported the repeal). The dumb bitch does realize the WWE Network will be fucked, right? Which should be a huge deal for any wrestler or employee under WWE contract. Kind of their livelihood at stake here. In fact, I'm extremely disappointed none of them have even been posting about it in general. Netflix is at a huge risk with the laws gone and a small streaming service like WWE Network won't stand a chance.


----------



## BoFreakinDallas (Jul 8, 2017)

DJ Punk said:


> I like how Alexa Bliss liked a tweet in support of getting rid of Net Neutrality (was a fan prior to finding out she supported the repeal). The dumb bitch does realize the WWE Network will be fucked, right? Which should be a huge deal for any wrestler or employee under WWE contract. Kind of their livelihood at stake here. In fact, I'm extremely disappointed none of them have even been posting about it in general. Netflix is at a huge risk with the laws gone and a small streaming service like WWE Network won't stand a chance.


Even if 80% of Democrats,Independents and Republicans felt one way about a policy their are people who would agree to eating shit with sugar on top is healthier then a salad and baked chicken if the leadership of their chosen party or fave political voices felt that way. Their is nothing stopping a ISP monoply saying pay up or will slow down your live feeds for WM,and if that happened The McMahon's aren't cutting that money from private jet service or their Swiss bank accounts. The wrestlers will feel the squeeze


----------



## Miss Sally (Jul 14, 2014)

You know what else I'm sick of?

The Government allowing companies to shift the taxes they're supposed to pay onto the customer and somehow that's legal.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

KUZMA said:


> MrMister said:
> 
> 
> > LOL WHY
> ...


Some people like to work within the law, not me, but some people actually think that laws apply to them.

Did this get shared

Check out @donaldJTrumpJr’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/941467519222771713?s=09

Trump Jr doesn't know his own father appointed the fcc chairman, tries to blame Obama...this family.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

MrMister said:


> LOL WHY
> 
> Netflix has so many people fooled into thinking they have more than three good shows. This is pathetic.
> 
> I'm not sure I believe that Netflix has 35% of all internet traffic btw


The other hilarity is that Netflix has raised its prices by nearly 100% (basically by gutting what was available on the 7.99 plan) in 3 years since Net Neutrality was passed and supposed to make things cheaper (it wasn't but keep being delusional people). They started at 7.99 and are planning to charge up to 13.99. Currently they charge that much for the "full Netflix experience". 

The fact that THAT hasn't led to a situation of mass rioting (considering the primary issue around Net Neutrality is consumer pricing) or even cancellations tells you all you need to know about how stupid people are. 

Even EA aren't this predatory. But since there isn't a media outlet that's calling Netflix predatory, people haven't called them predatory either. It's monkey see monkey poo. That's all it is. If the big monkey doesn't say it's bad, people don't realize it's bad. They go in the direction that the media leads them to. Always. 

I can't think of a single consumer product that has gone up in price that much. Not even Apple and Samsung phones. Facebook, Google, Youtube, Amazon (has fixed price for prime), movies, most of cable .. Nothing. I'm not saying that Netflix can't or shouldn't raise prices but this whole mass hysteria around Net Neutrality is silly as fuck. 

It's more like autistic screeching.


----------



## Laughable Chimp (Sep 1, 2016)

Miss Sally said:


> You know what else I'm sick of?
> 
> The Government allowing companies to shift the taxes they're supposed to pay onto the customer and somehow that's legal.


Isn't that just how taxes work? Shifting taxes to the customer effectively just raises the actual price paid by the consumer and reduces the quantity demanded. These indirect taxes are not supposed to be only burdened by the company, some of it has to go to the consumer. If left to the free market, that's just what happens when you put on an indirect tax. Prices will simply be higher and both company and customer will suffer to some extent.


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Miss Sally said:


> You know what else I'm sick of?
> 
> The Government allowing companies to shift the taxes they're supposed to pay onto the customer and somehow that's legal.


Now you're advocating price controls. When did you get body-snatched by a socialist? :mj2


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Surely there's a difference between rising prices due to rising costs of your own infrastructure and rising costs because of someone else charging you more based on using their infrastructure?

I'm no fan of the price rise but it's not a reason to target net neutrality.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> Surely there's a difference between rising prices due to rising costs of your own infrastructure and rising costs because of someone else charging you more based on using their infrastructure?
> 
> I'm no fan of the price rise but it's not a reason to target net neutrality.


Just stop. 99% of the bitching about Net Neutrality is over the perceived notion that the ISP's want to find a way to charge more and therefore lead to increasing prices for end consumers.

Netflix has also been cutting content and producing "originals" (some of which are good), but for most people who are paying attention, the originals do not replace all the content they're deleting while flooding their service with B and C rated content. 

Meanwhile, Amazon Prime has been charging the same amount for 5 years but they keep adding new content - as well as producing originals - as well as offering free shipping. They even have student pricing. All for less than what Netflix offers over a year now. 

Netflix is exactly what's wrong with both the end consumer as well as mega corporations that whine about rising costs and nickle and diming foolish consumers. Meanwhile you have HULU which is a far better service that I'm getting for free because I'm subscribed to Spotify because they have a much better revenue model. 

Netflix cannot accept or admit that its revenue model is predatory because they indulge in expensive vanity projects and exploit loyal customers.


----------



## Draykorinee (Aug 4, 2015)

Merry Reaper said:


> draykorinee said:
> 
> 
> > Surely there's a difference between rising prices due to rising costs of your own infrastructure and rising costs because of someone else charging you more based on using their infrastructure?
> ...


But that doesn't stop other costs increasing as well. I don't see how 'net neutrality could see you charged more' is the same as 'net neutrality means we won't need to raise our prices ever'.

I'm one of the ones who got 2 years of Netflix at the cheaper price but it's going up soon to £8, that's my upper limit, so far the content is still there as far as I'm concerned, although it is becoming a bit like steam and just being filled with garbage.

Mind you, I pay £12 a month for a fucking tv license, so take my lack of concern over prices with a punch of salt...used to being ripped off for content I barely watch.


----------



## Reaper (Sep 4, 2013)

draykorinee said:


> But that doesn't stop other costs increasing as well. I don't see how 'net neutrality could see you charged more' is the same as 'net neutrality means we won't need to raise our prices ever'.
> 
> I'm one of the ones who got 2 years of Netflix at the cheaper price but it's going up soon to £8, that's my upper limit, so far the content is still there as far as I'm concerned, although it is becoming a bit like steam and just being filled with garbage.
> 
> Mind you, I pay £12 a month for a fucking tv license, so take my lack of concern over prices with a punch of salt...used to being ripped off for content I barely watch.


Find better revenue models or reduce costs, or stop indulging in trying to convert your service into just another TV channel (which is the direction Netflix is heading towards). The BBC license fee is just another massive scam. It's anti-liberty because people are literally only paying it under the threat of incarceration or fines. 

Getting creative is what Amazon and Hulu does to keep their prices fixed. They come up with unique plans, services, an acceptable advertising model, keep their costs low etc etc. This is what Facebook and Google does to keep their services free. I'm also aware that fighting against rising costs is less of a concern for non-American consumers because outside of America prices are just high and keep rising more regularly than they do here. 

Netflix is an inefficient operation. Companies like that usually then end up lobbying for government support. While Netflix may not be an active lobby, it's using part of the Net Neutrality hysteria to hide its own failings.

You can't even stream on 2 screens in the same fucking house for 7.99 ... That is about as anti-consumer as you can possibly get. Get out of here with the Netflix defense 

As far as the whole "blocked content" bullshit goes ... Pretty much all newspapers now hide their content behind pay-walls ... And they're bitching about ISP's doing the same thing as though for ISPs suddenly it's unethical and the government must do something about it. Please. This is so much bullshit. 

This whole Net Neutrality scam is simply one group of companies trying to sustain their own lack of creativity with regards to how they can make money by suppressing another group of companies' ability to do the same and people are along for the ride on the scam boat.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Merry Reaper said:


> Just stop. 99% of the bitching about Net Neutrality is over the perceived notion that the ISP's want to find a way to charge more and therefore lead to increasing prices for end consumers.
> 
> Netflix has also been cutting content and producing "originals" (some of which are good), but for most people who are paying attention, the originals do not replace all the content they're deleting while flooding their service with B and C rated content.
> 
> ...



An ISP charging you more to use streaming website content or blocking it if you don't pay for it, is a huge difference than Netflix going up a few bucks to help pay for their infrastructure and original content they make.

Its laughable you would even try to compare the two. Not to mention not sure how anyone can defend an ISP slowing down or blocking websites it does not agree with or that won't pay a fee to put them in a fast lane. That is what most people are complaining about when it comes to net neutrality. 

And no amazon prime has not been charging the same price for 5 years it went up to $99 just three years ago.


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/wjzjv9/net-neutrality-fraud-ny-attorney-general-investigation?utm_source=mbtwitter



> *The FCC Is Blocking a Law Enforcement Investigation Into Net Neutrality Comment Fraud*
> 
> *In addition, the agency told me there was nothing it could do after someone hijacked my identity to claim I falsely supported killing net neutrality protections.*
> 
> ...


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

How much more courrpt can the Trump admin get? Yeah, Trump's and his govt isn't fascist or a dictatorship.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

_*Looks like FCC will have be having more than just a law suit on their hands but they will be having the authorities as well. *_


----------



## CamillePunk (Feb 10, 2011)

Clearly the best solution for everyone is to abolish the FCC altogether.


----------



## Piers (Sep 1, 2015)

So, is this happening for sure or can you still avoid it ?


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

They Call Him Y2J said:


> So, is this happening for sure or can you still avoid it ?


Congress can overrule it, and there are all kinds of lawsuits being filed. Its not over yet


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

> The net neutrality war rages on. Last week Ajit Pai, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, dismantled rules the Barack Obama administration put in place in 2015 requiring internet service providers to treat all internet traffic the same. Supporters are elated, and opponents are rending their garments: Presumably, then, the decision is of vast significance.
> 
> Actually, it's hard to say what difference the change will make, if any. The one thing that can be said with confidence is that this is a dumb way to make policy.
> 
> ...


Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-12-17/the-war-over-net-neutrality


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



P Thriller said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> 
> People are totally overreacting to all of this. Do I agree with the decision? Nah not really. But Holy Christ people calm down. Net Neutrality didn't exist from 1991 to 2015 and everything was just fine. None of these doomsday things happened in the 24 years before Net Neutrality what they hell makes people think all of this stuff is going to happen now? It's just scare tactics. There are things about repealing it that I'm not a fan of but most of the complaining is about hypothetical stuff that never happened before and there is no proof that it will happen in the future.
> 
> ...


Came across this today even more examples of the fuckery that was going on before net neutrality.











But sure everything was just fine in those cases too


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/942856523721728000


----------



## Goku (Feb 25, 2007)

CamillePunk said:


> Clearly the best solution for everyone is to abolish the FCC altogether.


Pretty much.


----------



## P Thriller (Jan 6, 2016)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



birthday_massacre said:


> Came across this today even more examples of the fuckery that was going on before net neutrality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So honest question...in 2013 Verizon stated that the only thing stopping them was the net neutrality laws in place, but the net neutrality that recently got overturned didn't start until 2015. How is that? And almost all of those were companies TRYING to do things and not being able to because of laws and regulations that were in place. THERE WERE ALREADY LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN PLACE TO STOP THIS BEFORE NET NEUTRALITY. They didn't get rid of all of those things in place to stop this that were there before 2015. People are acting like the government completely removed all protection from this kind of behavior but they didn't. All they did was remove the 2015 Net Neutrality crap that gave the government the ability to regulate the internet. Companies will ALWAYS try to find a way to make more money, nothing has ruined the internet yet and there are no signs that anything will in the future. It is just scare tactics and people are assuming all of these things that will never happen.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

*Re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December: sources*



P Thriller said:


> So honest question...in 2013 Verizon stated that the only thing stopping them was the net neutrality laws in place, but the net neutrality that recently got overturned didn't start until 2015. How is that?
> 
> .



Look up Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014) and that will answer all your questions.




P Thriller said:


> How is that? And almost all of those were companies TRYING to do things and not being able to because of laws and regulations that were in place. THERE WERE ALREADY LAWS AND REGULATIONS IN PLACE TO STOP THIS BEFORE NET NEUTRALITY. They didn't get rid of all of those things in place to stop this that were there before 2015
> 
> 
> .



And now with the repeal of net neutrality ISPs won't have to try anymore they will be able to legally do it. You keep missing this point. 




P Thriller said:


> People are acting like the government completely removed all protection from this kind of behavior but they didn't. All they did was remove the 2015 Net Neutrality crap that gave the government the ability to regulate the internet
> 
> 
> .


yet that is exactly what the FCC did. The FCC now allows ISPs to slow down, block, speed up, websites as they see fit. You really think that is a good thing? 




P Thriller said:


> Companies will ALWAYS try to find a way to make more money, nothing has ruined the internet yet and there are no signs that anything will in the future. It is just scare tactics and people are assuming all of these things that will never happen.
> 
> 
> .


How is ISPs being able to slow down, block, speed up, websites as they see fit not ruining the internet? It's not just about ISPs being able to charge websites or even the consumer more people, the fucking with website traffic speed or access on a site by site basis is the huge thing. Its not a scare tacit the are tried this before like I just pointed out. 

Anyone against net neutrality is grossly misinformed. Not sure how anyone can be against treating all website data traffic equally.


----------



## The Hardcore Show (Apr 13, 2003)

birthday_massacre said:


> How much more courrpt can the Trump admin get? Yeah, Trump's and his govt isn't fascist or a dictatorship.


That is what his supporters want nothing more nothing less their way is the only way no room for negotiating or compromise of any kind


----------



## 2 Ton 21 (Dec 28, 2011)

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/12/19/comcast-cox-frontier-net-neutrality/



> *Comcast, Cox, Frontier All Raising Internet Access Rates for 2018*
> 
> At least three major ISPs have already announced significant price hikes for 2018. News of the increases come just days after the FCC voted to roll back net neutrality protections.
> 
> ...


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

> WEB17-blog-opticwires-1160x768.jpg
> Wires plugged into server
> Last week, the Federal Communications Commission took the long anticipated, widely disparaged step of doing away with net neutrality protections, over the objections of roughly 80 percent of Americans who support a level online playing field. Net neutrality is no more — unless, that is, the right people say that the FCC has gone too far.
> 
> ...


Source: https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/internet-privacy/who-can-clean-fccs-net-neutrality-mess


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

I have a more optimistic take on the battle for net neutrality. It's not something I am particularly concerned about; at least, not in the long run. The USA is a very divided place right now but if there is one issue that can unite the people from all areas of the political spectrum, it's fucking with their internet access. The repeal of net neutrality is already opposed by a vast majority of Americans. Sure, you've still got your knuckle dragging anti-regulation retard crowd but they're in the minority and many of those will come to their senses once they see the effects of life without NN.

One thing I find particularly amusing from the _all government regulations are evil_ crowd is their lack of comprehension of the corporate state we now live in. When the corporations own the government, they effectively become the government, so the act of eliminating government regulation over corporations is in fact giving more power to big government. Net neutrality itself is an anti-regulation regulation in the sense that it stops the internet corporations from regulating the internet. By supporting it's repeal, the anti-regulation crowd is actually supporting the thing they claim to oppose.

The main reason I am not too particularly concerned about this is that I don't believe it will last. I don't think the corporations are going to get their way on this one. I think there will be too many people fighting back against them for this to play out the way they want it to.

Something that should also be considered that I haven't seen any discussion on in this thread, is that this is a free speech issue as well. Allowing the very same corporations who own the government to censor opinions on the internet goes against the very idea of having free speech. The internet in modern times is like the public square of old. If you believe in freedom of speech, allowing internet companies to decide what is and isn't acceptable speech would be like letting the inventor of the public square decide who gets to speak. Technology has changed the way we communicate as a society. If you are someone who is opposed to big government censoring people, you should be just as opposed to their donor corporations doing it. Regardless of what the entity is, big government or big corporation, concentrated power always leads to abuses against the people. That's what the anti-government people need to realize. By eliminating big government and handing all the power over to big corporations, all you're doing is trading one form of tyranny for another.

There's a huge difference between a big government agency with centralized operations and democratically supported rule that sets the guidelines for the people to do things themselves. We'd all be a lot better off if certain neanderthals would learn the difference between the two.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

What good is your corruption if you have to constantly hide away from the world in fear that someone may end your life? I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

http://deadline.com/2018/01/fcc-ajit-pai-death-threats-ces-net-neutrality-1202235652/

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -John F. Kennedy


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

DJ Punk said:


> What good is your corruption if you have to constantly hide away from the world in fear that someone may end your life? I don't feel sorry for him one bit.
> 
> http://deadline.com/2018/01/fcc-ajit-pai-death-threats-ces-net-neutrality-1202235652/
> 
> “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -John F. Kennedy


I hate Pai as much as the next person for FFS don't make death threats against him, you make him into a victim. But since he faked tons of make messages on the FCC website, it wouldn't surprise me if he faked the death threats too


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

birthday_massacre said:


> I hate Pai as much as the next person for FFS don't make death threats against him, you make him into a victim. But since he faked tons of make messages on the FCC website, it wouldn't surprise me if he faked the death threats too


I'm not exactly justifying the death threats, but not crucifying those making them either. People are pissed and their voices aren't being heard, so irrational actions are bound to arise. I doubt the death threats are fake, but I'm pretty sure Pai is using them to his advantage to paint himself as the victim.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

Watch congress repeal it but Trump vetos it


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

> Netflix Plans To Take The FCC To Court Over Net Neutrality
> 
> 
> Netflix continues to stand up to the FCC over Net Neutrality.
> ...


Source: https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/netfli...tm_source=twitter#1138036838-tw#1515335230324


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

Everybody taking the FCC to court. :banderas


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

Most of the people for the repeal of NN are those too stupid to understand it and those who profit from it. Like I've said all along, I don't think this is a fight that the ISPs will win. There's too much opposition to them from all areas of the political spectrum.


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

Can't wait for more outrage when the FCC reclassify access to broadband means to include access to cell service in Feb. You will be deem to have access to high speed internet in America if you own a phone with a data plan.


----------



## birthday_massacre (Jan 30, 2013)

FriedTofu said:


> Can't wait for more outrage when the FCC reclassify access to broadband means to include access to cell service in Feb. You will be deem to have access to high speed internet in America if you own a phone with a data plan.


Are you happy about this the FCC doing this?

Or are you happy over the shit show its going to cause and the backlash against the FFC?


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

FriedTofu said:


> Can't wait for more outrage when the FCC reclassify access to broadband means to include access to cell service in Feb. You will be deem to have access to high speed internet in America if you own a phone with a data plan.


_*Who's side are you even on? *_


----------



## FriedTofu (Sep 29, 2014)

birthday_massacre said:


> Are you happy about this the FCC doing this?
> 
> Or are you happy over the shit show its going to cause and the backlash against the FFC?





BTheVampireSlayer said:


> _*Who's side are you even on? *_


I am on the schadenfreude side.


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

> Senate bill to reverse net neutrality repeal gains 30th co-sponsor, ensuring floor vote
> 
> A Senate bill that would reverse the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) decision to repeal net neutrality received its 30th co-sponsor on Monday, ensuring it will receive a vote on the Senate floor.
> 
> ...


Source: http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...0th-co-sponsor-ensuring#.WlmHnsWXP1Q.facebook


> Democrats to force a floor vote on FCC’s Net Neutrality repeal
> 
> A showdown between the Democrats and Republicans is about to go down
> 
> ...


Source: https://consequenceofsound.net/2018...e-a-floor-vote-on-fccs-net-neutrality-repeal/


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

New York just did what Montana and signed an executive order to maintain Net Neutrality: https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/24/16928494/new-york-governor-net-neutrality-cuomo-executive-order


> In an announcement today, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said he has signed an executive order that would require internet service providers with state contracts to abide by net neutrality rules, even though the FCC recently voted to repeal those rules.
> 
> On Monday, Montana’s governor signed essentially the same order; both require service providers with contracts to abide by the widely agreed upon tenets of net neutrality: no blocking, throttling, or otherwise favoring content. But the more populous New York could now become a key battleground over net neutrality.
> 
> ...


Hopefully Illinois does this next. Every state suing the FCC should do it.


----------



## Tater (Jan 3, 2012)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/956166686054408192
I didn't expect this from Burger King but this is a surprisingly good vid. Of course, I still don't understand why anyone would have difficulty understanding what NN means and why it's important, but hey, if BK can help get the message out, more power to them.


----------



## virus21 (Sep 22, 2009)




----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

https://www.fastcompany.com/40537222/washington-just-passed-the-countrys-toughest-net-neutrality-legislation

Chuckled at this part:



> “Just because the FCC claims it has the power to preempt state laws doesn’t mean that it actually does,” says Hansen. “I can claim that I have the power to manifest unicorns on the Washington State Capitol lawn. But if you look outside right now, there are no unicorns.”


:mj4


----------



## DJ Punk (Sep 1, 2016)

I like how the NRA gave Ajit Pai an award for "saving the internet" shortly after the highschool shooting where they began to lose sponsors and received nation wide internet backlash.

Almost like they were saying, "Thank you, Ajit Pai for bringing censorship to the internet. Now please tell your Verizon buddies to censor anyone who talks bad about us, ok!"


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

> Senator Introduces Fake Net Neutrality Bill Championed By ISPs Then Pretends He's Fighting Against Them
> 
> The bill, introduced by Louisiana Senator John Kennedy, mirrors legislation that has been pushed in the House that would enshrine the ability for ISPs to screw you over.
> 
> ...


Source: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/j5bze8/john-kennedy-net-neutrality-senate-bill-ajit-pai


> Washington becomes first state to pass law protecting net neutrality
> 
> Washington state has a new law to protect net neutrality at a time when the feds are getting rid of it.
> In a bipartisan effort, the state's legislators passed House Bill 2282. which was signed into law Monday by Gov. Jay Inslee.
> ...


Source: http://money.cnn.com/2018/03/06/technology/washington-state-net-neutrality-law/index.html


----------



## Chrome (Jan 11, 2012)

It ain't over yet folks....

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/385539-dems-plan-net-neutrality-vote-next-month



> *Senate Dems to force vote on net neutrality*
> 
> Senate Democrats are planning to take a first step next week toward forcing a vote to restore the Federal Communications Commission's (FCCC) net neutrality regulations.
> 
> ...


----------



## Buffy The Vampire Slayer (May 31, 2011)

*Thank god it is not over with yet. Hopefully some of these people in different states do the right thing. *


----------

