Net Neutrality

[Speaker to Animals]

Still waiting for your facts and reason, DB.

Still on page 58, one who refuses to read.

Already addressed. It was farcical given that the reason we had to implement the net neutrality order was the throttling of Netflix by Comcast, which was not covered by any anti-trust legislation.

[DBTrek]

Still waiting for your facts and reason, DB.

Still on page 58, one who refuses to read.

Already addressed. It was farcical given that the reason we had to implement the net neutrality order was the throttling of Netflix by Comcast, which was not covered by any anti-trust legislation.

Nothing farcical about anti trust legislation being used to prevent the very abuses people are claiming only NN can solve. It is, however, a death blow to the argument that Obama’s NN is the only regulation that can save heydaralon from the 1%ers.

[doc_loliday]

Dunno if this interview has been posted.

[The Conservative]

This is a disaster for Trump. Most of the people he needs to turn out in elections support net neutrality in a big way. He claims to want to put Americans first, but apparently they are second to Comcast.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... -striking/

On the eve of a pivotal vote that would deregulate the broadband industry, a fresh survey from the University of Maryland shows that large majorities of Americans — including 3 out of 4 Republicans — oppose the government's plan to repeal its net neutrality rules for Internet providers.

The results paint the picture of an electorate that is largely at odds with the GOP-led Federal Communications Commission, whose chairman, Ajit Pai, plans to vote Thursday to lift key rules for corporations such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. The move would permit such companies to speed up some websites, and slow down or block others, as Internet providers seek new business models in a rapidly changing media and technology environment.

Wow, do you realize that asking a question that looks more like a paragraph, and not to mention that the majority of the questions 1-12 are withheld... to get a fair picture of what is going on? Seriously?

Questions 13-15 are only shown. Question 1-12 and 16-19 are held... I wonder why? Perhaps because they show something else...

Also, let's look at the questions that were shown:

Q13: These rules restricting ISPs are unnecessarily heavy‐handed and stifle innovation. There is little evidence that restrictive rules are required, but there is evidence that they are holding back the development of the internet in the United States, which is lagging behind other developed countries’. Companies with websites do not have access to the cutting‐edge download speeds that could upgrade the quality of their services. It is time to free up ISPs to bring internet service in the US to a whole new level. If ISPs can do this, they can also provide lower cost internet service for other consumers and provide internet service to more areas. As long as ISPs are required to disclose any variation in download speeds or website blocking, the market will make sure that the ISPs do not overreach.

Q14: This proposal is basically giving ISPs a license to steal from consumers. Even though they do not create websites themselves they could charge their consumers for access without any of it going to the
websites. The ISPs would become like cable companies charging ever‐higher fees for access. This would drive up costs for consumers and make it harder for websites to get the necessary traffic to be profitable. While the big website companies could pay to provide faster download speeds, it would give them a leg up, driving their smaller competitors out of business. ISPs could block access to websites for any reason they choose—for political reasons or to block any criticism of their service. Many ISP’s provide content, and they could block access to their competitors. All of this would undermine innovation on the internet and hamper economic growth while enriching the ISPs.
How convincing do you find this argument?

Q15: So, in conclusion, do you favor or oppose the proposal to give Internet Service Providers the freedom to:
 provide websites the option to give their visitors the ability to download material at a higher speed, for a fee, while providing a slower download speed for other websites
 block access to certain websites
 charge their customers an extra fee to gain access to certain websites

Seriously, WTF?

[TheReal_ND]

*blocks your path*

OY YOU GRUBBY LITTLE WANKER

I HOPE YOURE NOT TRYING TO STREAM PORN WITHOUT A CREDIT CARD NUMBER

[DBTrek]

Dunno if this interview has been posted.

Woke Californian Alert! Woke Californian Alert!
Holy shit it’s getting bad! Even the left coast members of the People’s Republic of California aren’t drinking the kool aid. How are the purveyors of class warfare and identity politics going to recover from this!?!

[The Conservative]

*blocks your path*

OY YOU GRUBBY LITTLE WANKER

I HOPE YOURE NOT TRYING TO STREAM PORN WITHOUT A CREDIT CARD NUMBER

Naw, I get that shit for free. You just pay it for me.

[Smitty-48]

It's only literally hitler when people want to put checks on huge corporations. Its not literally Hitler when corporations and their shills (who don't recieve any benefit) whine about not being able to squeeze even more blood from a turnip... How does that work?

When you cancel your internet service, that will be the sign that you can't afford it anymore, and we will adjust accordingly, but until then, fetch the milking machine, wot?

Shareholder's milking consumers for profit in order extract dividends? "Literally Hitler!" lol

[heydaralon]

It's only literally hitler when people want to put checks on huge corporations. Its not literally Hitler when corporations and their shills (who don't recieve any benefit) whine about not being able to squeeze even more blood from a turnip... How does that work?

It’s adorable that heydaralon stills sees this as huge corporations vs individuals. Like he had skin in the game.
A testament to the gullibility of the American consumer no doubt.

“Fuck, power just shifted from Amazon and Netflix to AT&T and Verizon. Way to fuck the little guy, Trump!!!!”

Lolz

I love it when you talk down to me. Its even better when you don't have an argument. Explain to me how this is gonna benefit you? You haven't done that yet. I'm open to your thoughts on it. And yeah, sometimes big business aims do align with consumers. Companies selling ecryption works out for people who care about the fourth amendment etc. I'm just not impressed with the end regulation for free market argument. I may be naive for assuming that NN is the be all end all, but you are naive if you think ending it will lead us to Thomas Sowell land.

[heydaralon]

It's only literally hitler when people want to put checks on huge corporations. Its not literally Hitler when corporations and their shills (who don't recieve any benefit) whine about not being able to squeeze even more blood from a turnip... How does that work?

When you cancel your internet service, that will be the sign that you can't afford it anymore, and we will adjust accordingly, but until then, fetch the milking machine, wot?

What was your main gripe with NN Smitty? What is so bad about it?