Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://gizmodo.com/heres-the-fccs-plan-to-kill-net-neutrality-1820683360



Say goodbye to the internet as we know it if this passes.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

why is no one covering this?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
why is no one covering this?

CNN.money has some write ups, and CNN proper has a mention.

But you can't really expect much from a company owned by AT&T. Obviously, they'll want to capitalize on repeals, and if they haven't issued an outright order to downplay this, the news room is probably treading lightly to cover their arse.

Originally posted by cdtm
CNN.money has some write ups, and CNN proper has a mention.

But you can't really expect much from a company owned by AT&T. Obviously, they'll want to capitalize on repeals, and if they haven't issued an outright order to downplay this, the news room is probably treading lightly to cover their arse.
newspapers?

I am getting bored with the Net. Time for it to go and get replaced with something better.

Didn't Wikipedia and lots of other big sites do blackouts to protest this in the past?

There needs to be tons of blowback against this shit...

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/braveheart-internet.jpg

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I am getting bored with the Net. Time for it to go and get replaced with something better.

Fly, don't you have some razorblades you need to cram up your ass?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech



I didn't have any left after Halloween.

This deserves more attention

was wondering when this would get a thread

Hasn't it had several?

Originally posted by NewGuy01
was wondering when this would get a thread
Could have made one.

This is the one I meant to post...

http://jp2.r0tt.com/l_2ef57370-ae57-11e1-8ba6-df8339700002.jpg

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
This is the one I meant to post...

http://jp2.r0tt.com/l_2ef57370-ae57-11e1-8ba6-df8339700002.jpg

Had my balls, cowck, and butt touched at the airport, recently, in fact. I resisted, with all my might, "Could you at least take me to dinner, first?"

I was randomly selected for pat down.

"The FCC on Wednesday released a draft order that would effectively repeal landmark Obama-era regulations that ensure internet service providers offer consumers equal access to online content and services." -snip

Trump's killing Net Neutrality and Trumpers are cool with it. What a sight to see.

Originally posted by Robtard
"The FCC on Wednesday released a draft order that would effectively repeal landmark Obama-era regulations that ensure internet service providers offer consumers equal access to online content and services." -snip

Trump's killing Net Neutrality and Trumpers are cool with it. What a sight to see.

Hate it.

Comcast said they wouldn't throttle though. They wouldn't lie.

Net Neutrality died when Trump was elected. His dislike about it was one of the things he was pretty upfront about prior to the election, it was also clear that he didn't understand what it actually does, probably still doesn't.

It's gonna really hit those who have only one choice for ISP particularly hard. Their choice will be either get reamed by whoever their ISP is or just go without internet.

Originally posted by BackFire
Comcast said they wouldn't throttle though. They wouldn't lie.

Net Neutrality died when Trump was elected. His dislike about it was one of the things he was pretty upfront about prior to the election, it was also clear that he didn't understand what it actually does, probably still doesn't.

It's gonna really hit those who have only one choice for ISP particularly hard. Their choice will be either get reamed by whoever their ISP is or just go without internet.

Trump's shown he has little to zero understanding of what he's talking about on many (most?) subjects. Apparently this was seen as a positive to his supporters/voters.

Originally posted by Robtard
Trump's shown he has little to zero understanding of what he's talking about on many (most?) subjects. Apparently this was seen as a positive to his supporters/voters.

You gonna whine anymore about Trump voters? Lol.

The truth of what I said hurt you there it seems, Surt

ps As someone who's on the internet nearly 24/7, this could likely hurt you financially and in regards to your privacy. Tell me you're intelligent enough to at least get that?

Originally posted by Robtard
The truth of what I said hurt you there it seems, Surt

ps As someone who's on the internet nearly 24/7, this could likely hurt you financially and in regards to your privacy. Tell me you're intelligent enough to at least get that?

Not hurt lol. You just can't help yourself to whine and blame people. Hilarious.

Go for it, keep it up, it is amusing

Originally posted by Surtur
Not hurt lol. You just can't help yourself to whine and blame people. Hilarious.

Go for it, keep it up, it is amusing

So you're not intelligent enough to understand that if this goes bye-bye, you along with everyone else could potentially be affected negatively. Honestly, not surprised at this point.

edit: How many ISP options do you have, better hope it's more than "one", though you're likely ****ed with the rest of us regardless

Bye-bye youtube, twitch, netflix.......hello BIG band-width ADS.........that ad blocker is gonna have to be turned off too for everything...........

Losing net neutrality is going to suck and be far reaching in ways most casual users can't even appreciate.

^ Bingo

^Bango

And contrary to some foolish people's beliefs, the "but I'm a Trumper" isn't some sort of magical protection from that.

Originally posted by Surtur
You gonna whine anymore about Trump voters? Lol. You cry all the time.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You cry all the time.

Pot, kettle, black.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you're not intelligent enough to understand that if this goes bye-bye, you along with everyone else could potentially be affected negatively. Honestly, not surprised at this point.

edit: How many ISP options do you have, better hope it's more than "one", though you're likely ****ed with the rest of us regardless

Are you dumb or a troll? You need to answer this question. I never said I'm in favor of this. But whiners like you blaming Trump voters? Nah, not gonna happen lol.

the courts could strike it down

Originally posted by Surtur
Are you dumb or a troll? You need to answer this question. I never said I'm in favor of this. But whiners like you blaming Trump voters? Nah, not gonna happen lol.

Um, Trump talked about stripping Net Neutrality laws before the election, so you really can't hide under your "but I didn't know!" Trumper safety blankie that you love to do, sport.

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, Trump talked about stripping Net Neutrality laws before the election, so you really can't hide under your "but I didn't know!" Trumper safety blankie that you love to do, sport.

Stop whining, people don't support every single thing the person they vote for stands for.

You have no moral high ground here lol.

You know one of the worst aspects of this:

The govt is supposed to prevent to much consolidated power in business to protect us from lack of competition in the marketplace, price fixing etc etc...........

Both the democrats and republicans have failed in that role, health insurance companies, cable companies are two industries that are clear examples.

By the way wasn't trump supposed to get lobbyists out of DC?

Originally posted by snowdragon


Both the democrats and republicans have failed in that role, health insurance companies, cable companies are two industries that are clear examples.


Republicans deserve the sole blame for getting rid of net neutrality as they voted to get rid of it while democrats voted to keep it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Stop whining, people don't support every single thing the person they vote for stands for.

You have no moral high ground here lol.

So you're saying you were awate of Trump's stance on destroying Net Neutrality before the election now? Pick one narrative and stick with it.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you're saying you were awate of Trump's stance on destroying Net Neutrality before the election now? Pick one narrative and stick with it.

I'm saying voting for someone doesn't mean you agree with everything they do. Is it that hard to comprehend for you? I mean, you're just a troll lol. How do others not see it? Some do, but geez...some dipshits take you seriously.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Republicans deserve the sole blame for getting rid of net neutrality as they voted to get rid of it while democrats voted to keep it.

:Golf clap:

Well now we know Democrats are the heroes.


Opensecrets lets anyone see some of the money, both sides are villians taking corporate checks.

Originally posted by snowdragon
:Golf clap:

Well now we know Democrats are the heroes.


Opensecrets lets anyone see some of the money, both sides are villians taking corporate checks.

I just can't take it seriously. Both sides are pieces of shit. Someone who pretends otherwise is a delusional dweeb.

Originally posted by snowdragon
:Golf clap:

Well now we know Democrats are the heroes.


Opensecrets lets anyone see some of the money, both sides are villians taking corporate checks.

Rocky clearly isn't saying that. But issue per issue, if all Dems voted "no" on this and it passes because Reps voted "yes", you really can't blame both sides on this specific issue.

Originally posted by Surtur
I just can't take it seriously. Both sides are pieces of shit. Someone who pretends otherwise is a delusional dweeb.

^

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

Originally posted by Robtard
Rocky clearly isn't saying that. But issue per issue, if all Dems voted "no" on this and it passes because Reps voted "yes", you really can't blame both sides on this specific issue.

Using liberal logic you can blame them.

Originally posted by Robtard
^

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/atheists.png

Who did you vote for?

Originally posted by Surtur
Using liberal logic you can blame them.

https://media.giphy.com/media/dEdmW17JnZhiU/giphy.gif

Not my fault they are retards. Maybe change them? Make it so they aren't so shitty and not to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Robtard
Rocky clearly isn't saying that. But issue per issue, if all Dems voted "no" on this and it passes because Reps voted "yes", you really can't blame both sides on this specific issue.


I wasn't looking to party politics up the thread with more partisan nonsense.

Our govt, three branches, two parties has been doing this for more then just this particular issue when it comes to corporate money and policy.

My post mentioned that lack of protection for consumers from the govt, parties be damned.

Originally posted by Surtur
Not my fault they are retards. Maybe change them? Make it so they aren't so shitty and not to be taken seriously.

-You claim "both sides are shit"

-You blame "liberals" and "leftist" for everything/anything

-You still muck for and fully support Trump, even after all the nonsense

/facts

Originally posted by snowdragon
I wasn't looking to party politics up the thread with more partisan nonsense.

Our govt, three branches, two parties has been doing this for more then just this particular issue when it comes to corporate money and policy.

My post mentioned that lack of protection for consumers from the govt, parties be damned.

I understand that, but Rocky's point as it pertains directly to the issue of Net Neutrality by itself, isn't a 'both sides' issue. One party is openly against it, the other we will have to see but it looks like this could pass.

Similar if the Tax Reform bill passes. Every Dem is seemingly going to vote against it, so if it passes, it's clearly the fault of one side if it goes South for people, which it will (imo) since it's a massive boon to the filthy rich at the expense of the middle/lower classes.

Originally posted by Surtur
Both sides are pieces of shit.
Which doesn't address which side is specifically at fault on the issue of net neutrality.

Regardless of your opinions of democrats on other issues, on this issue, only the republicans are pieces of sh!t here.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Which doesn't address which side is specifically at fault on the issue of net neutrality.

Regardless of your opinions of democrats on other issues, on this issue, only the republicans are pieces of sh!t here.

That's cool and you are right. I want equal whining across the board though.

Originally posted by Robtard
I understand that, but Rocky's point as it pertains directly to the issue of Net Neutrality by itself, isn't a 'both sides' issue. One party is openly against it, the other we will have to see but it looks like this could pass.

Similar if the Tax Reform bill passes. Every Dem is seemingly going to vote against it, so if it passes, it's clearly the fault of one side if it goes South for people, which it will (imo) since it's a massive boon to the filthy rich at the expense of the middle/lower classes.

Yes and I stated the role of govt itself not the position of individual parties. Both sides will still benefit if net neutrality is lost. It's a rigged system that is EASY to see when you follow the money.

Wahoo Democrats are the winners today for voting against it (they know they can't win against the Republicans atm so of course thats their move.)

Money to congressional candidates: 2014 Cycle
Dems: Dems: $1,627,101 $1,627,101
Repubs: Repubs: $1,555,729 $1,555,729

That is just from Comcast Corp..............also a majority of congress is a shareholder both parties.

Originally posted by Robtard
-You claim "both sides are shit"

-You blame "liberals" and "leftist" for everything/anything

-You still muck for and fully support Trump, even after all the nonsense

/facts

Both sides are shit. The problem is imbeciles who pretend otherwise.

Rob, straight up: both sides are equally shit, yes? Overall I mean, not in this specific thing. Lets see if you can get this answer correct. I feel like you won't cuz you're a cuck. Prove me wrong?

Originally posted by Surtur
That's cool and you are right. I want equal whining across the board though.
Whining should never be done "across the board", it should be done issue to issue".

Going "across the board" is just a lazy excuse for not taking time to check stuff policy by policy.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Whining should never be done "across the board", it should be done issue to issue".

Going "across the board" is just a lazy excuse for not taking time to check stuff policy by policy.

Be consistent, is what I'm saying.

Keep in mind you don't HAVE to be consistent. But if you wanna be taken seriously...

rock. what's that freedom fighter thing mean under your screen name? why do you have that?

Originally posted by Surtur


Rob, straight up: both sides are equally shit, yes?
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/59/Argument-to-Moderation

Not how it works Surt. You made a claim, the burden is on you to prove it:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

So no evidence, nice.

And the question about being equally shitty was determine if he is to be taken even remotely seriously. He says no? Boom, not to be taken remotely seriously.

Originally posted by Surtur
So no evidence, nice.

That's right Surt. You haven't provided any evidence for the claim you made.

Someone who tries to make others disprove what they haven't proven is

Originally posted by Surtur
Both sides are shit. The problem is imbeciles who pretend otherwise.

Rob, straight up: both sides are equally shit, yes? Overall I mean, not in this specific thing. Lets see if you can get this answer correct. I feel like you won't cuz you're a cuck. Prove me wrong?

IOW; "Answer like I want or you're a cuck!"

Surtur and his silly little games.

Rocky, should you be taken seriously?

Originally posted by Robtard
IOW; "Answer like I want or you're a cuck!"

Surtur and his silly little games.

One more time, and if you don't answer I'll take it as a yes. Both sides are pieces of shit, yes or no?

Look at me still not playing your silly little games and equalization tacitcs, Surt. Reminds me, you did similar when a Nazi murdered an innocent women with "but what about Antifa!". How cowardly whataboutary tactics are, imo

Originally posted by Surtur
Rocky, should you be taken seriously?
Well Surt, as I understand basic principles of logical discourse which you don't, I'd say you should be taking me seriously.

But ignorance is bliss. And the best ignorance is willful ignorance.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Well Surt, as I understand basic principles of logical discourse which you don't, I'd say you should be taking me seriously.

But ignorance is bliss. And the best ignorance is willful ignorance.

Thing is, you just think you understand those things lol.

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at me still not playing your silly little games and equalization tacitcs, Surt. Reminds me, you did similar when a Nazi murdered an innocent women with "but what about Antifa!". How cowardly whataboutary tactics are, imo

I'll answer once you answer my question. Both sides pieces of shit: yes or no?

Originally posted by Surtur
Thing is, you just think you understand those things lol.
Given you don't understand these principles, hence why you're blatantly ignoring them, you're in no position to gauge whether I understand them.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'll answer once you answer my question. Both sides pieces of shit: yes or no?

Answer what? I didn't ask you a question you weirdo.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Given you don't understand these principles, hence why you're blatantly ignoring them, you're in no position to gauge whether I understand them.

Since you yourself lack intelligence, I feel like you saying I don't grasp principles is meaningless.

Originally posted by Surtur
Pot, kettle, black. ?

Look at this red herring nonsense:



Response to removing net neutrality from Ajit Pai

YahooNewsFromTechCrunch

Originally posted by quanchi112
?

Do I need to explain what the phrase means or are you just delusional enough to think it doesn't apply to you?

Originally posted by Surtur
ur stoopid
It was fun babysitting you, but I have sh!t to do. Maybe Rob's into your grade school name calling.

Surtur my dude, as much as I agree with you on some things your weakest point is whataboutism when it's something on the Republican end.

My advice to you is to openly and clearly condemn the bullshit when it comes from the Republicans and Trump so you can say "yeah, I condemned the bullshit on my side, I still think the otherside is just as bad or worse overall, but this specifically is something that can be laid at the feet of Trump or the Republicans, are you all willing to call out the Dems when they pull shit?" And I tell you this because it would be both the moral thing to do, and the strategically smart thing to do because its something you could actually get high ground with because a lot of the time the answer on the other side is no, I've noticed a lot of people on here on the dem side shy away from condemning intersectional bigotry (blatant racism or discriminatory policy towards whites etc) and tend to also shy away from condemning Antifa. Instead of waiting for them to uphold the standard, do it first yourself.

Or maybe Surt should just condemn bad sh!t because it's bad?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Or maybe Surt should just condemn bad sh!t because it's bad?
Yes I said that as well if you actually paid attention to what I said:
Originally posted by Emperordmb
And I tell you this because it would be both the moral thing to do, and the strategically smart thing to do

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes I said that as well if you actually paid attention to what I said:
Right, and then you went on to tell Surt how he should do this so that he doesn't look as stupid when he goes around trying to "call out people's hypocrisy rather than actually debate.

So when I shift from party platititudes to govt responsibilities the response is simply a shift back to party?

Originally posted by snowdragon
So when I shift from party platititudes to govt responsibilities the response is simply a shift back to party?
Uh, what. The actions of members on specific policy is a"platitude"?

No, us looking at the specific actions regarding a specific policy that happens to be the topic of this thread isn't a platitude.

"Both sides are bad" is a statement that has been repeated time and time again and could be considered a "platitude".

"Both sides are bad" is just a silly deflection from the actual topic of discussion here.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Uh, what. The actions of members on specific policy is a"platitude"?

No, us looking at the specific actions regarding a specific policy that happens to be the topic of this thread isn't a platitude.

"Both sides are bad" is a statement that has been repeated time and time again and could be considered a "platitude".

"Both sides are bad" is just a silly deflection from the actual topic of discussion here.

My position wasn't both are "bad" in as much as both are being paid off.

My point is to look at the underlying issue that causes the same problems to come to the surface time and again. Why is it corporations and their billions of dollars are allowed to drive legislation and more importantly why do people consistently assume it's the republicans that are getting all the money?

Pretending there is a good and bad guy is silly and childish, it's a narrative driven by those that react to headlines and spend little time looking at a bigger picture.

Did any of you email/call your Congressmen?

My representative is already against this. So no need. The people who really need to do that are the ones in districts where their representatives are pro ending Net-N.

Originally posted by snowdragon


Pretending there is a good and bad guy is silly and childish, it's a narrative driven by those that react to headlines and spend little time looking at a bigger picture.
Ignoring that one side is doing the right thing on this specific policy and the other side isn't is silly and childish.

That both sides have people paid off isn't an excuse to ignore whose letting being paid off influence their vote on this specific policy.

http://mashable.com/2017/11/30/alyssa-milano-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-fight/#xBDdIwsWbaq7

The voice we need...

Originally posted by Surtur
I just can't take it seriously. Both sides are pieces of shit. Someone who pretends otherwise is a delusional dweeb.

Both parties are corrupted versions of what they were intended to be but only an idiot thinks they're exactly the same.

House Vote for Net Neutrality

- For Against
Rep 2 234
Dem 177 6

Senate Vote for Net Neutrality

- For Against
Rep 0 46
Dem 52 0

One party is actively working to f*ck the US citizens over HARD when it comes to net neutrality. The voting history shows this.

edit: Nevermind. The info posted was fake.

Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Both parties are corrupted versions of what they were intended to be but only an idiot thinks they're exactly the same.

House Vote for Net Neutrality

- For Against
Rep 2 234
Dem 177 6

Senate Vote for Net Neutrality

- For Against
Rep 0 46
Dem 52 0

One party is actively working to f*ck the US citizens over HARD when it comes to net neutrality. The voting history shows this. Surt never responded

Originally posted by Firefly218
Surt never responded

I can explain what I mean. What I say is that both sides are equally shitty, but in different ways(I have said this before). This does not mean they are equally for or against every single issue. I am not saying they are evil, but the example I would give if you had two super villains. They are bad, but not all in the same way.

But speaking of net neutrality, I do have a question. What got this ball rolling? I know that the term "net neutrality" isn't new, but it does seem something shifted in the last few years.

Originally posted by Surtur
I can explain what I mean. What I say is that both sides are equally shitty, but in different ways(I have said this before). This does not mean they are equally for or against every single issue. I am not saying they are evil, but the example I would give if you had two super villains. They are bad, but not all in the same way.

But speaking of net neutrality, I do have a question. What got this ball rolling? I know that the term "net neutrality" isn't new, but it does seem something shifted in the last few years. So you admit that on this single issue, the Republicans and the FCC head appointed by Trump are the bad guys and the Democrats are the good guys? On this ONE issue?

Originally posted by Firefly218
So you admit that on this single issue, the Republicans and the FCC head appointed by Trump are the bad guys and the Democrats are the good guys? On this ONE issue?

It's just you present this like a gotcha, like something I've never said is possible. Like I said, bad in different ways. Democrats fail on the immigration issue IMO.

And yes, I am not afraid to say it: The Republicans should not be in favor of this shit and are wrong if they are. Nor is it the only issue they are wrong on(drugs, for example).

But what about the question I asked?

Aight Surt, both sides are equally bad? Tell me what democrats have done recently which is worse than net nuetrality.

Coz net nuetrality isn't the worst republicans have done recently.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Aight Surt, both sides are equally bad? Tell me what democrats have done recently which is worse than net nuetrality.

Coz net nuetrality isn't the worst republicans have done recently.

Did Democrats do anything, perhaps in 2015, regarding this, that perhaps set the stage for this?

All this just brings a smile to my face when I realize that the end of NN will mean the END of KMC.

Ohh how sad for so few.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
All this just brings a smile to my face when I realize that the end of NN will mean the END of KMC.

Ohh how sad for so few.

There is a reason I keep asking them what got this ball rolling lol. And there is a reason they avoided it. They know it wasn't the Republicans. They know exactly who set the stage for this.

They should ask those Big Evil Capitalists that run Google and Facebook.

Originally posted by Surtur
There is a reason I keep asking them what got this ball rolling lol. And there is a reason they avoided it. They know it wasn't the Republicans. They know exactly who set the stage for this.

Can you explain what you are referring to?

Originally posted by BackFire
Can you explain what you are referring to?

Why bother. It won't get him an answer even if he does.

Originally posted by BackFire
Can you explain what you are referring to?

I'm hearing shit from Ben Shapiro about stuff like this:

FCC Democrats caved to Obama on net neutrality rules, Senate Republican probe finds

Seems like they set the stage for this.

Crowder has a good view on it.

G35g5HQVjpU

IOW: The golden boy Obama got the ball rolling. If folk wanna whine, you know who to start with. They won't start with it, of course, cuz...golden boy. Dude takes great family photographs though so it's cool.

Even if we assume that such reports are true, that doesn't really explain how that set the stage for abolishing the good in the rules, along with the supposed bad. Why not just make net neutrality better rather than just eliminating it all together and making the whole situation worse?

Anyways, I don't think that's where all this started anyways. This all started when comcast and other ISPs began experimenting in throttling the internet to certains cites prior to the rules being in place. That set in motion the need to created these rules in the first place.

And really, you can take it even further back than that and blame the local ISP monopolies as the starting point for all this - local politicians making deals with ISPs and giving them monopolies over certain segments of their cities and so on, which kills any kind of potential for for a true market based solution as new ISPs were simply not allowed to set up in these cities. If you're going to allow monopolies then you are forced to engage in heavy handed regulations to keep them in check.

There's an argument to be made for a market based solution to this all that involves getting rid of net neutrality rules. But in order for that solution to work you have to also get rid of the local rules that allow for monopolies in certain areas. Getting rid of net neutrality without getting rid of the monopolies will only exacerbate the situation.

Originally posted by BackFire
Even if we assume that such reports are true, that doesn't really explain how that set the stage for abolishing the good in the rules, along with the supposed bad. Why not just make net neutrality better rather than just eliminating it all together and making the whole situation worse?

Anyways, I don't think that's where all this started anyways. This all started when comcast and other ISPs began experimenting in throttling the internet to certains cites prior to the rules being in place. That set in motion the need to created these rules in the first place.

And really, you can take it even further back than that and blame the local ISP monopolies as the starting point for all this - local politicians making deals with ISPs and giving them monopolies over certain segments of their cities and so on, which kills any kind of potential for for a true market based solution as new ISPs were simply not allowed to set up in these cities. If you're going to allow monopolies then you are forced to engage in heavy handed regulations to keep them in check.

There's an argument to be made for a market based solution to this all that involves getting rid of net neutrality rules. But in order for that solution to work you have to also get rid of the local rules that allow for monopolies in certain areas. Getting rid of net neutrality without getting rid of the monopolies will only exacerbate the situation.

If you don't wanna say it set the stage it sure as hell contributed to it.

So I mean, if people want to go on a whine fest, there is plenty to go around, it's not just Republicans. It's the golden boy.

If you wanna take it even further back cool, people then just need to chill on the party vs party shit then. If they want to go there it won't end well.

Originally posted by Surtur
If you don't wanna say it set the stage it sure as hell contributed to it.

So I mean, if people want to go on a whine fest, there is plenty to go around, it's not just Republicans. It's the golden boy.

I think that's incorrect.

Obama favoring "heavy handed" regulations was really the only move to make since that was his only recourse short of killing the local government's agreements with the local ISP's, which is not something the federal government can do since they were done at a state/local level.

What the federal government can do is enforce its own regulations on these monopolies to ensure they don't engage in predatory practices like throttling/blocking websites, which they were already beginning to do.

Originally posted by BackFire
I think that's incorrect.

Obama favoring "heavy handed" regulations was really the only move to make since that was his only recourse short of killing the local government's agreements with the local ISP's, which is not something the federal government can do since they were done at a state/local level.

What the federal government can do is enforce its own regulations on these monopolies to ensure they don't engage in predatory practices like throttling/blocking websites, which they were already beginning to do.

But how did it not set the stage, how is there not a part played?

You have to admit, in 2015-2016, something shifted. This term that was used suddenly became more of a reality.

Originally posted by Surtur
But how did it not set the stage, how is there not a part played?

You have to admit, in 2015-2016, something shifted. This term that was used suddenly became more of a reality.

I guess technically it did play a part since it led to the law being created. But that doesn't mean they share any of the blame of what is going on right now, because the law was a reasonable and necessary response to something that the ISP's decided to begin engaging in. The idea you hear a lot - that everything was fine before net neutrality is extremely dishonest. Everything was fine because Net Neutrality became law before the ISP's predatory practices had time to explode. They were just beginning, they weren't wide spread yet, so most people didn't encounter them. Net Neutrality stopped them before they got really bad.

Originally posted by BackFire
I guess technically it did play a part since it led to the law being created. But that doesn't mean they share any of the blame of what is going on right now, because the law was a reasonable and necessary response to something that the ISP's decided to begin engaging in. The idea you hear a lot - that everything was fine before net neutrality is extremely dishonest. Everything was fine because Net Neutrality became law before the ISP's predatory practices had time to explode. They were just beginning, they weren't wide spread yet, so most people didn't encounter them. Net Neutrality stopped them before they got really bad.

They set the stage though and if we assume they are intelligent they knew what it could lead to. Or we assume they are very naive.

I'm no democrat so that is up to you decide which it is.

Originally posted by Surtur
They set the stage though and if we assume they are intelligent they knew what it could lead to. Or we assume they are very naive.

I'm no democrat so that is up to you decide which it is.

They didn't set the stage, though. At least not in the way you are implying. They put in place regulations that were necessary based on ISP's beginning to engage in predatory practices while they were allowed to do so. If anything the ISP's did this to themselves by trying to employ sketchy practices in the first place.

Look I'm not saying dems are angels and devoid of any and all blame here. Because some of the local monopolies were agreed to by both parties of the local government in varoius places, and in that sense then yeah both parties are complicit.

But that's not the same as saying that Obama or whatever is somehow at fault for favoring a law that protected people from these monopolies that started to throttle internet speeds after the fact.

It's one of those things where it seems like you don't know. Did they know what it could lead to? Did they care?

Originally posted by Surtur
It's one of those things where it seems like you don't know. Did they know what it could lead to? Did they care?

You're being too vague, here. What is the "it" in this question? The Net Neutrality law itself? If so, then what is it that the law could lead to?

Originally posted by BackFire
You're being too vague, here. What is the "it" in this question? The Net Neutrality law itself? If so, then what is it that the law could lead to?

I just wonder if they knew it could lead to what people are worrying about right now with net neutrality.

To be honest, it reminds me of Jerusalem in a way. He said he'd make it the capital. He knew the situation. Said it anyways. Knew it would never happen.

I just can't trust any of these people anymore. They are made of lies.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm hearing shit from Ben Shapiro about stuff like this:

FCC Democrats caved to Obama on net neutrality rules, Senate Republican probe finds

Seems like they set the stage for this.
Obama enacting policy going the other direction doesn't excuse Republicans from going the opposite way.

Regardless, you're welcome to post whatever wrong doing Obama was responsible for.

Originally posted by Surtur
But how did it not set the stage, how is there not a part played?

You have to admit, in 2015-2016, something shifted. This term that was used suddenly became more of a reality.

Net neutrality was created reaction to the experimental throttling and immoral practices being performed by the ISP's. If there was one thing that Obama did correctly, it was implementing this.

Not that it even MATTERS who started what. It happened and it's here and overwhelmingly, Republicans want to f*ck all of you guys without any lube. It's the INTERNET. The goddamn INTERNET! The greatest culmination of our work towards communication and they want to limit ACCESS to it. Doesn't that piss you off on a fundamental level? That 10 years from now you might not be able to visit youtube without being a premium? That your kids won't be able to access their favorite free comic websites without paying extra for image loading? Jesus....

If net neutrality is repealed, the system of ISP ****ery will be hard to undo but not impossible... Kinda depends on whether Trump is reelected in three years, or we get someone right after him that'll implement a successor to net neutrality and thus restore internet freedom.

Among other factors perhaps.

Surt: "Obama did something good which provoked Republicans into doing something bad. It's OBAMA'S FAULT!"

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
If net neutrality is repealed, the system of ISP ****ery will be hard to undo but not impossible... Kinda depends on whether Trump is reelected in three years, or we get someone right after him that'll implement a successor to net neutrality and thus restore internet freedom.

Among other factors perhaps.
It'll probabally get striked down by the courts. Dude fudged sh!t up when trying to justify a complete repeal.

Let's hope so.

https://twitter.com/Scully2018/status/939479946401067008/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fs9e.github.io%2Fiframe%2Ftwitter.min.html%23939479946401067008

Contact your representatives.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
If net neutrality is repealed, the system of ISP ****ery will be hard to undo but not impossible...

How do you figure?

Originally posted by Surtur
I understand, I still want to know how we got here though. Do you have any clue? This is what I asked: Obama created the Net Neutrality rules that Trump's FCC head and these slimeball Republicans are trying to repeal.

Surt your credibility would be much improved if you were willing to call Trump and the Republicans out on their shit instead of consistently deflecting to Democrats for no reason.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Obama created the Net Neutrality rules that Trump's FCC head and these slimeball Republicans are trying to repeal.

Surt your credibility would be much improved if you were willing to call Trump and the Republicans out on their shit instead of consistently deflecting to Democrats for no reason.

Cite your source.

March for net neutrality on Wednesday.

https://www.facebook.com/events/397458310684312/

I still have to laugh at this. Especially at the part were "Net Neutrality" has actually existed for a very Long Time and it has NEVER Stopped the prices of communication services from going up.

but then to the Lefties....State is Mother, Father ,and GAWD!!!!

The courts remain our last hope

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The courts remain our last hope

It's expected to be repealed today. So yeah, the courts after.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's expected to be repealed today. So yeah, the courts after.

If you read my post, perhaps you would be less nervous about the whole ordeal.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
If you read my post

https://media.giphy.com/media/POql6zsXZbmcE/giphy.gif

Originally posted by dadudemon
Added formatting for you and tried to add coherency. I also corrected some spelling and omitted word mistakes. It took my 6 minutes according to my clock. That was also with stopping to message my honey a couple of times.


Perhaps that will get people to read your post.


I disagree about small ISPs being able to pay into other network owners to get prioritized: cost prohibitive. Netflix was rumored to have paid a huge sum of money to get their content less-throttled by Verizon. Small ISPs will not have the capital or influence to broker deals like Netflix did with Verizon.

Also, not only do we need true net neutrality, we need the Sherman Antitrust Act, that you mentioned, to be enforced at the regional level where certain ISPs have regional monopolies. I would only argue this for utilities and internet should be viewed as a utility.

In regards to Netflix, it was Comcast, not Verizon. As a result of this sum of money paid, their traffic speeds increased. Small ISP prioritization would be beneficial for specific users that use specific websites. The Antitrust act is only necessary due to government regulation. You do not continue to tinker with a government created problem. There is no need to break up the ISP's there is a need; however, to eradicate the bureaucracy that plague the inner cities. But as I already said, the advent of satellite ISP's makes this problem irrelevant. As far as capital influence goes, it does not have to be massive service. It can be niche, as long as there is some demand for the service. Reddit comes to mind.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
In regards to Netflix, it was Comcast, not Verizon. As a result of this sum of money paid, their traffic speeds increased. Small ISP prioritization would be beneficial for specific users that use specific websites. The Antitrust act is only necessary due to government regulation. You do not continue to tinker with a government created problem. There is no need to break up the ISP's there is a need; however, to eradicate the bureaucracy that plague the inner cities. But as I already said, the advent of satellite ISP's makes this problem irrelevant.

It was both Comcast and Verizon:

http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement/

Originally posted by dadudemon
It was both Comcast and Verizon:

http://time.com/80192/netflix-verizon-paid-peering-agreement/

As a result, the consumer received faster traffic, that is not a negative outcome for anyone sans Netflix. I also had one flaw in your correction. Australia has no net neutrality. That was a flaw in my initial post. That probably caused the confusion.

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
As a result, the consumer received faster traffic, that is not a negative outcome for anyone sans Netflix. I also had one flaw in your correction. Australia has no net neutrality. That was a flaw in my initial post. That probably caused the confusion.


Question: Did Netflix just absorb those costs to oblivion and went out of business or did they pass them on to the consumer?

http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/netflix-raises-us-streaming-prices-1202581394/

According to some of the Little Antifa Lefty Loonies I know...apparently the Net was always FREE before this whole Net Neut thing....I never realized that...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Question: Did Netflix just absorb those costs to oblivion and went out of business or did they pass them on to the consumer?

http://variety.com/2017/digital/news/netflix-raises-us-streaming-prices-1202581394/

A 2 dollar increase in pricing does indicate any mass effect upon the consumer. But, the entire argument is fallacious as Netflix raised these prices in October while net neutrality existed. Netflix's stock was not really affected at all in the change in Comcast and Verizon's policies and one can easily equate the increse to the influx of new shows. Netflix is bound by the laws of supply and demand so any change in price will not severely affect the consumer. And as I already mentioned, the influx of competition that will arise from the satellite market will make this debate extraneous. You have to trust capitalism monopolies are nigh impossible in a true capitalist system.

Also doesn't Netflix make you PAY for Faster DL Speed?

Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
A 2 dollar increase in pricing does indicate any mass effect upon the consumer. But, the entire argument is fallacious as Netflix raised these prices in October while net neutrality existed. Netflix's stock was not really affected at all in the change in Comcast and Verizon's policies and one can easily equate the increse to the influx of new shows. Netflix is bound by the laws of supply and demand so any change in price will not severely affect the consumer. And as I already mentioned, the influx of competition that will arise from the satellite market will make this debate extraneous. You have to trust capitalism monopolies are nigh impossible in a true capitalist system.

I think you meant to say "does not" however, I disagree. That's about a 17% price hike which should be quite disturbing for most people. To be fair, some of that cost was due to Netflix focusing harder on providing original content. Regardless, this gives us a very good idea of how damaging these costs are and why net neutrality is important. When digital content providers are forced to pay road tolls just to deliver their digital content to you, that will be directly applied to the costs of the content.

These types of costs are not absorbable by small ISPs.



Therefore, internet should be classified as a utility and regional ISP monopolies busted up. If we love capitalism so much, then we should be doing things that support a robust and grand capitalist system in the information age. Stifling competition amongst ISPs and increasing innovation timelines due to prohibitive costs from road tolling ISPs is not very capitalistic. That's anti-capitlistic.

Be herein lies the "no true Scotsman fallacy" and we are both wrong about what this means for capitalism.

the courts can still strike it down

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you meant to say "does not" however, I disagree. That's about a 17% price hike which should be quite disturbing for most people. To be fair, some of that cost was due to Netflix focusing harder on providing original content. Regardless, this gives us a very good idea of how damaging these costs are and why net neutrality is important. When digital content providers are forced to pay road tolls just to deliver their digital content to you, that will be directly applied to the costs of the content.

I mean 17% is a big increase compared to Netflix's previous price. But the increase in price clearly had little consumer purchase based on a supply-demand curve the fear of competition. And as I already said, there is no reason to believe that this increase has anything to do with net neutrality. Netflix never raised their prices when the deal first came into effect so I really question the validity of this entire paragraph. And as I already said, if we remove state regulations that prohibit competition and wait for the satellite industry competition between ISP's will make this entire debate irrelevant.

Originally posted by dadudemon
These types of costs are not absorbable by small ISPs.


It depends on the way in which the deal is structured. A small ISP could perhaps give Netflix a more favorable deal which would change their cost structure to be more amenable to the consumers.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Therefore, internet should be classified as a utility and regional ISP monopolies busted up. If we love capitalism so much, then we should be doing things that support a robust and grand capitalist system in the information age. Stifling competition amongst ISPs and increasing innovation timelines due to prohibitive costs from road tolling ISPs is not very capitalistic. That's anti-capitlistic.

Anti-trust laws have never been as effective as competition in regards to lowering prices. The prices for steel, petroleum, oil, refined sugar, zinc, and many others dropped at a faster rate than after the advent after the Anti-Trust Laws. In fact the price of a ton kerosine in the 1880s, is less then today. The greatest innovations in product productivity happened before Anti-Trust Laws. To quote the FEE,




If you let the market turn it creates the ideal size for corporations and brings down prices. This is why the internet is so cheap in Australia. The price of Netflix in Australia is the same as it is here despite their lack of net neutrality legislation.

https://twitter.com/EdKrassen/status/941395790605508609?s=17

The resistance is real. Am in a red state that's not on the list unfortunately, but I guess it's more telling how many are doing this rather than which ones, tho hopefully more will have the balls to step up.

Something like 80+% of American's are against this, it's not really a Left vs Right issue (like some want to make it) in regards to us plebs

It is just something that the Left/Right will take advantage of.


The Left will abuse it worse then the Right.

Originally posted by Robtard
Something like 80+% of American's are against this, it's not really a Left vs Right issue (like some want to make it) in regards to us plebs
The problem is that when it terms to people with legislative power, republicans have made it a left vs right issue by unanimously voting for a repeal nobody wants, including the very people they claim to represent.

Now let's see how forumers deflect away with "both sides are bad".

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The problem is that when it terms to people with legislative power, republicans have made it a left vs right issue by unanimously voting for a repeal nobody wants, including the very people they claim to represent.

Now let's see how forumers deflect away with "both sides are bad".

I want the repeal cause I believe in capitalism.

Noted. I should have said:

*almost nobody wants

Originally posted by Robtard
Something like 80+% of American's are against this, it's not really a Left vs Right issue (like some want to make it) in regards to us plebs

Goddddamnit.

I remember the dark days of the internet all those years ago before these regulations that got repealed were put in place. Dark indeed.

What exactly does this mean for us plebs? I have only heard the term 'web neutrality' before but idk what it is and I'm too lazy yo research right now.

Originally posted by Surtur
I remember the dark days of the internet all those years ago before these regulations that got repealed were put in place. Dark indeed. Stop defending blatant corruption

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
What exactly does this mean for us plebs? I have only heard the term 'web neutrality' before but idk what it is and I'm too lazy yo research right now.
It means the larger corporations don't even have to give you the courtesy of lubing you up first now before sticking it to you

http://time.com/money/5065743/how-net-neutrality-decision-affects-you/

Originally posted by Firefly218
Stop defending blatant corruption

I'm not defending anything. I just don't know if I'll be able to handle going back to how the internet was in like...2014 or something. I'm upset, just like you.