Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Don't you recall how VILE the Interwebs was before Messiah Obama saved it in 2015? [/B]
Honestly, aren't tech people basically political chameleons on regulation?
They're all about the "free market" when it benefits them, but don't think a private internet business should control their own property, that they own and profit from?
I trust the motives of people in tech about as much as I trust the Weinstein's of Hollywood..
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Don't you recall how VILE the Interwebs was before Messiah Obama saved it in 2015? [/B]
Honestly, aren't tech people basically political chameleons on regulation?
They're all about the "free market" when it benefits them, but don't think a private business should control their own property, that they own and profit from? (And invest big money in?).
What would they do if every private isp tried to shutter? Demand a law that puts them into perpetual public service? Slaves to the people?
I trust the motives of people in tech about as much as I trust the Weinstein's of Hollywood..
Get ready for this hilarity:
"STOP USING LEGAL ARGUMENTS" MSNBC LOSES Net Neutrality Debate With Former FCC Commissioner
MSNBC cuck: This isn't fair, you keep using legalese
Everybody else:
Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]Again you're wrong. It does not say South Korea has net neutrality. It only mentions "protections." Check the key/legend: it shows that it is "protections", not "Net Neutrality." Hover over the country of South Korea and scroll down. It says, "Law: No." It does not have a net neutrality law. It has protections and it describes what those "other protections" are.That site is very thorough and highly researched. While you may not like the facts presented - because it contradicts a very well formulated position (who would like it?) you held - and they are clearly a biased site in favor of net neutrality, they are fairly representing the facts[./QUOTE]
I was simply explaining South Korea's policy on net neutrality to illustrate how they maintain fast speeds without such legislation. It does not contradict my position whatsoever.
Do you have a source? Because what I provided clearly contradicts your position, here.Yes, I do have a source. Here is an article discussing the EU's zero rating policy and the complaints that many have about it throughout the region: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-eu-analysis/false-paradise-eu-is-no-haven-of-net-neutrality-say-critics-idUSKBN1E92SC
The actual rules as stated the EU's net neutrality proposal,
[QUOTE]The rules also give certainty for internet access providers and providers of content and applications to offer specialised services with specific quality requirements, including necessary safeguards to ensure the open internet is not negatively affected by the provision of these services. Specialised services cannot be a substitute to internet access services, can only be provided if there is sufficient network capacity to provide them in addition to any internet access service and must not be to the detriment of the availability or general quality of internet access services for end-users.
Here is a Standford Professor deconstructing the legislation,
Problem #1: The proposal allows ISPs to create fast lanes for companies that pay through the specialized services exception.
• Problem #2: The proposal generally allows zero-rating and gives regulators very limited ability to police it, leaving users and companies without protection against all but the most egregious cases of favoritism.
• Problem #3: The proposal allows class-based discrimination, i.e. ISPs can define classes and speed up or slow down traffic in those classes even if there is no congestion.
• Problem #4: The proposal allows ISPs to prevent “impending” congestion. That makes it easier for them to slow down traffic anytime, not just during times of actual congestion.
This legalization is a far cry from the United States and as I already noted the EU was still achieving similar internet success before the inception of net neutrality. Most advocates inside of Europe even noted the lack relevancy the legislation holds.
“There is not a long trail of abuse by telecom operators in net neutrality,” said Philippe Defraigne, a director at Cullen International, a Brussels-based consultant that covers telecoms and the digital economy.
That’s largely because unlike in the United States, Europeans have plenty of choices for internet access at home and on their mobile phones. France has four major mobile and internet operators and nine low-cost offshoots. Britain has more than 50. And there aren’t dominant giants born of megamergers, like the ones between Comcast and NBC Universal, and Verizon and AOL.
So to conclude, net neutrality in Europe has far more loopholes in the United States. It is a policy that has a very little effect on internet speed due to mass amounts of competition and previous performances before the leigislation. The fact is the reason why the South Korean and Swedish internet market perform so well every year is due to the mobility which the ISP's possess.
You had some other comments about free speech. Europe has never been a haven of free speech and it was foolish to paint them in that regard. The internet is like a road some services require faster delivery than others to prohibit this process hurts the consumer, ISP, and internet productivity. If you want to create internet speed you eliminate the state regulations that create competition. When these regulations are gone there is no reason why certain providers should not be able to personalize their service.
Originally posted by dadudemonYouTube video [/B]
Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]No! Lower Taxes means LESS money to our All PowerFull GOVERNMENT to steal from us! And the Government having LESS MONEY is a BAD THING!!!!! They WANT it more then You NEED it! [/B]
I laughed out loud at a liberal Washington Post article blasting Poland for taxing a us media company.
They're all pro taxes, until a conservative state does it to one of their own.
Their reasoning for throttling older iPhones is due to their degrading batteries. This power management feature was implemented to ensure older iPhones would remain stable and not shutdown while under load which has been known to happen if left unchecked. While it may be a smart move in hindsight, consumers are still right to be angry at Apple for not being transparent about the feature. It's also seen as an obvious ploy to make people feel they need to get the next new iPhone every couple years or some shit like that.
It's more of a separate issue from the net neutrality debacle. Back to that, Ajit Pai got doxxed by Anonymous apparently... Kinda mixed on that, though I like how Mark Hamill called him and Ted Cruz out on twitter at least.
Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
Their reasoning for throttling older iPhones is due to their degrading batteries. This power management feature was implemented to ensure older iPhones would remain stable and not shutdown while under load which has been known to happen if left unchecked. While it may be a smart move in hindsight, consumers are still right to be angry at Apple for not being transparent about the feature. It's also seen as an obvious ploy to make people feel they need to get the next new iPhone every couple years or some shit like that.It's more of a separate issue from the net neutrality debacle. Back to that, Ajit Pai got doxxed by Anonymous apparently... Kinda mixed on that, though I like how Mark Hamill called him and Ted Cruz out on twitter at least.
Lol bullshit. They do it to get people to buy newer shit. You can't do that and yet whine about net neutrality.
And wasn't "companies will slow shit down to get you to pay more!!!!!!!!!!!(with a billion more !'s)" one of the hysterics we heard about what companies would do if we got rid of net neutrality? It's a pretty big detail to leave out if you are championing this yet already pulling shady shit like that.
IMO Apple should have just included the option in their settings and let the user decide if they want to throttle their battery or not. Doing this without really telling anyone does seem super shady and was pretty stupid, as we do have benchmarking software that shows how fast the hardware is running.
Originally posted by Surtur
While we're there: dreamers. No, they are illegals. They try to dress it up in different language. "oh, you hate dreams? you wanna kill dreams?" Nah, I just don't want people here illegally.
But let's deflect by discussing semantics.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
They aren't illegal by choice bud. Dreamers is fitting because they were kids with dreams. Now off course, you want to take these kids who didn't come here by choice, and upend their life/livelihoods.But let's deflect by discussing semantics.
I give a shit if its by choice. They are illegals. And no, let us get this real clear: I wouldn't upending their life. Nobody in the US would be. The person who did that would be the parents who brought them here illegally. That is where blame is placed.
The second they chose to bring a kid here illegally they chose that potential fate, period.