# F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules on the USA



## pustal (Dec 15, 2017)

F.C.C. voted off net neutrality... Comcast and AT&T promised better services. Netflix promised to fight a longer legal battle.

Source


----------



## XLuma (Dec 15, 2017)

Well
The is still the Congress and the court


----------



## IC_ (Dec 15, 2017)

Rest in peace the world.


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

and again america fucks the entire world . . . gotta love america


----------



## InquisitionImplied (Dec 15, 2017)

AHAHAHAHA YOU LOSE! EVEN WITH THE BIG SITES AND CELEBRITIES ON YOUR SIDE YOU STILL LOSE! Less regulation let's go BOIII!


----------



## LongDongSilver (Dec 15, 2017)

InquisitionImplied said:


> AHAHAHAHA YOU LOSE! EVEN WITH THE BIG SITES AND CELEBRITIES ON YOUR SIDE YOU STILL LOSE! Less regulation let's go BOIII!


you mean fucking more regulation


----------



## Yepi69 (Dec 15, 2017)

Hopefully that shit won't spread to Europe.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 15, 2017)

LongDongSilver said:


> you mean fucking more regulation


You mean the same fucking regulation we've had before 2015


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

VinLark said:


> You mean the same fucking regulation we've had before 2015



In4b "but it's different than 2015, it'll be worse"


----------



## Spectral Blizzard (Dec 15, 2017)

Finally this bullshit can be gone.
Assassins Season has ended because of this.
Woohoo!


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

VinLark said:


> You mean the same fucking regulation we've had before 2015


Good times..


Spoiler



*2005 –* North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked VoIP service Vonage.

*2005 – *Comcast blocked or severely delayed traffic using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. (The company even had the guts to deny this for months until evidence was presented by the Associated Press.)

*2007 –* AT&T censored Pearl Jam because lead singer criticized President Bush.

*2007 to 2009 –* AT&T forced Apple to block Skype because it didn’t like the competition. At the time, the carrier had exclusive rights to sell the iPhone and even then the net neutrality advocates were pushing the government to protect online consumers, over 5 years before these rules were actually passed.


_*2009 – *Google Voice app faced similar issues from ISPs, including AT&T on iPhone.

*2010 – *Windstream Communications, a DSL provider, started hijacking search results made using Google toolbar. It consistently redirected users to Windstream’s own search engine and results.

*2011 – *MetroPCS, one of the top-five wireless carriers at the time, announced plans to block streaming services over its 4G network from everyone except YouTube.

*2011 to 2013 – *AT&T, T-Mobile and Verizon blocked Google Wallet in favor of Isis, a mobile payment system in which all three had shares. Verizon even asked Google to not include its payment app in its Nexus devices.


*2012 – *AT&T blocked FaceTime; again because the company didn’t like the competition.

*2012 –* Verizon started blocking people from using tethering apps on their phones that enabled consumers to avoid the company’s $20 tethering fee.

*2014 – *AT&T announced a new “sponsored data” scheme, offering content creators a way to buy their way around the data caps that AT&T imposes on its subscribers.

*2014 – *Netflix started paying Verizon and Comcast to “improve streaming service for consumers.”

*2014 – *T-Mobile was accused of using data caps to manipulate online competition._


----------



## YeezusWalks (Dec 15, 2017)

Wow... I thought there would be like a whole flame war in this tired.


----------



## Navonod (Dec 15, 2017)

It'll come back. Bitches always come back.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Eat shit ISPs


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 15, 2017)

wormdood said:


> and again america fucks the entire world . . . gotta love america



The dumbest comment I've read all year...


----------



## InquisitionImplied (Dec 15, 2017)

LongDongSilver said:


> you mean fucking more regulation


I don't


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 15, 2017)

InquisitionImplied said:


> AHAHAHAHA YOU LOSE! EVEN WITH THE BIG SITES AND CELEBRITIES ON YOUR SIDE YOU STILL LOSE! Less regulation let's go BOIII!


Interesting position.

Please explain how you think having this repealed will improve the world. As far as I can see it opens up the doors for internet providers (of which there are so very few) to gate off and hamstring sites they don't care for for whatever reason (up to and including them providing competition for their other services -- if Comcast own Hulu then they have vested interest in making netflix and Amazon video perform badly or be untenable on their platform, youtube also). Equally I am not sure the regulation was written such that it was no longer workable (occasionally good ideas can have enough cruft built up around them that it can be easier to start over) but I am prepared to be corrected on that one, and even if it was unworkable then why repeal the lot if you can issue a mandate to sort it out and an interim set of guidelines.

Or are you just of the more anarchic approach to the world?


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

Memoir said:


> The dumbest comment I've read all year...


The US is the 3rd largest portion of all internet users. The world will be affected. Why do you think gbatemp staff care about it. Look how many of us there are here.


----------



## InquisitionImplied (Dec 15, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> Interesting position.
> 
> Please explain how you think having this repealed will improve the world. As far as I can see it opens up the doors for internet providers (of which there are so very few) to gate off and hamstring sites they don't care for for whatever reason (up to and including them providing competition for their other services -- if Comcast own Hulu then they have vested interest in making netflix and Amazon video perform badly or be untenable on their platform, youtube also). Equally I am not sure the regulation was written such that it was no longer workable (occasionally good ideas can have enough cruft built up around them that it can be easier to start over) but I am prepared to be corrected on that one, and even if it was unworkable then why repeal the lot if you can issue a mandate to sort it out and an interim set of guidelines.
> 
> Or are you just of the more anarchic approach to the world?



They didn't do this prior to 2015 and the cases of throttling that was found with AT&T a few years back was called out. Also it has to do with the fact with being contrarian because people and sites were shilling for this so hard all over the internet


----------



## rileysrjay (Dec 15, 2017)

Oh boy, this thread is going to be good.


----------



## Navonod (Dec 15, 2017)

Just going to leave this here.


Spoiler


----------



## SoslanVanWieren (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> The US is the 3rd largest portion of all internet users. The world will be affected. Why do you think gbatemp staff care about it. Look how many of us there are here.


alot of websites are also based in the us so no matter where you live smaller sites based in the us will still be slowed down.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 15, 2017)

InquisitionImplied said:


> They didn't do this prior to 2015 and the cases of throttling that was found with AT&T a few years back was called out. Also it has to do with the fact with being contrarian because people and sites were shilling for this so hard all over the internet


Bandwidth demands are only increasing (it seems everybody and their mother has discovered streaming videos in all its glory) so I doubt that would hold. Equally we have seen all sorts of underhanded things in other communications mediums over the decades. Equally if it was going to be a thing they did anyway then why not enshrine it in law? No change at the end of the day after all.

People and sites were plumping for it because it is generally considered a good idea (I still fail to see how a general tenet of treat all traffic neutrally over your backbones and delivery is a bad thing). I am still open to hearing how them being as they were was impeding the march of progress however.


----------



## igpltv (Dec 15, 2017)

Now let's watch Pai make a total ass of himself.


----------



## YeezusWalks (Dec 15, 2017)

there's the flame war... was wondering where it was... But it's here now!


----------



## deinonychus71 (Dec 15, 2017)

I'll wait to see the actual implications before being too toxic about it.

However something for sure, there should have been a public hearing in this case. It made enough noise for it to happen. Plus some senators were barely respectful to these people, while claiming this repel is for the people...

But I'm not surprised. The US is barely a democracy, where the left wing is completely absent/demonized in profit of the right wing (democrats) and extreme right (republicans).

As long as companies like Comcast won't have competitors in some regions, they'll be able to pull whatever shit they want, add whatever lines of code they want to your sites, and all those criticizing governement regulations and defending outdated constitutions will be kings.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

deinonychus71 said:


> I'll wait to see the actual implications before being too toxic about it.
> 
> However something for sure, there should have been a public hearing in this case. It made enough noise for it to happen. Plus some senators were barely respectful to these people, while claiming this repel is for the people...
> 
> ...


There wasn't a public hearing because the public, as hard as it is of a pill to swallow, is just not informed enough to make rational decisions on the topic, or in the debate. We've had bomb threats, people threatening to kill Pai, and so on. I don't know about you but I personally don't trust these kinds of people to make any arguments for me, or against me. I'd rather take my chances with my congressman.


----------



## Navonod (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> There wasn't a public hearing because the public, as hard as it is of a pill to swallow, is just not informed enough to make rational decisions on the topic, or in the debate. We've had bomb threats, people threatening to kill Pai, and so on. I don't know about you but I personally don't trust these kinds of people to make any arguments for me, or against me. I'd rather take my chances with my congressman.


Those are empty threats. Besides that I haven't seen you make a "good" argument either. I wouldn't put to much trust in our congressman. That's stupid. You're still letting people argue for you.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> There wasn't a public hearing because the public, as hard as it is of a pill to swallow, is just not informed enough to make rational decisions on the topic, or in the debate. We've had bomb threats, people threatening to kill Pai, and so on. I don't know about you but I personally don't trust these kinds of people to make any arguments for me, or against me. I'd rather take my chances with my congressman.


Wouldn't a public hearing, where the council could acknowledge misconceptions and defend their bill, be the most effective way of combating public misconception?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

DrGreed said:


> Those are empty threats. Besides that I haven't seen you make a "good" argument either. I wouldn't put to much trust in our congressman. That's stupid. You're still letting people argue for you.


"I haven't seen you make a good argument"
said to the guy who said he would trust his Congressman to handle that shit for me. Yes. Thank you for establishing what I said.

I'm gonna put the trust in the people whose job it is to handle this kind of retarded legal jargon while I sit back and enjoy my video games. I wouldn't trust him to manage my base in C&C Generals, and he wouldn't trust me to represent my state. I don't see what the issue with this is. I'm one person, and my personal needs may align with the needs of the people, but they do not define it. I think it'd be more stupid to pretend I myself as a singular person am fit to decide for millions of people based solely on my personal preferences and not the arguments presented. Fuck that.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Dec 15, 2017)




----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Wouldn't a public hearing, where the council could acknowledge misconceptions and defend their bill, be the most effective way of combating public misconception?


Given this thread and the other thread, not at all. Public debate demonstrates one's level of brainwashing, it does not always undo it. As Razorfist put it, you're not going to ever undo 2+ years of bullshit in five minutes.


----------



## Navonod (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> "I haven't seen you make a good argument"
> said to the guy who said he would trust his Congressman to handle that shit for me. Yes. Thank you for establishing what I said.
> 
> I'm gonna put the trust in the people whose job it is to handle this kind of retarded legal jargon while I sit back and enjoy my video games. I wouldn't trust him to manage my base in C&C Generals, and he wouldn't trust me to represent my state. I don't see what the issue with this is. I'm one person, and my personal needs may align with the needs of the people, but they do not define it. I think it'd be more stupid to pretend I myself as a singular person am fit to decide for millions of people based solely on my personal preferences and not the arguments presented. Fuck that.


If you were sitting back enjoying video games you wouldn't be here arguing about Net Neutrality and about who's right and who's wrong. lol


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Given this thread and the other thread, not at all. Public debate demonstrates one's level of brainwashing, it does not always undo it. As Razorfist put it, you're not going to ever undo 2+ years of bullshit in five minutes.


I've never seen a decent public hearing that didn't last a few hours at least.

I mean I get what you're saying, but I feel like the lack of public involvement when there was so much focus on this particular topic is part of what fueled the situation in the first place


----------



## HamBone41801 (Dec 15, 2017)

did anyone ever make the "list of dicks thread"? I've got a few names for it.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 15, 2017)

In this case, just because the general public might be a bit misinformed, doesn't make repealing Net Neutrality right. 

Then there's the people who keep trying to make this a "liberal" issue when even some people from the opposing side disagree with the repeal.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Dec 15, 2017)

petrol might be expensive, electricity, water, meat and gas prices are sky rocketing...but hey we can download and do whatever the fuck we want on the internet our ISP's do't give a shit as long as they get their subscriber $. now if you'll excuse me i have to go download the new star wars movie off usenet


----------



## deinonychus71 (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> There wasn't a public hearing because the public, as hard as it is of a pill to swallow, is just not informed enough to make rational decisions on the topic, or in the debate. We've had bomb threats, people threatening to kill Pai, and so on. I don't know about you but I personally don't trust these kinds of people to make any arguments for me, or against me. I'd rather take my chances with my congressman.


You can not use the stupidity of a minority to completely shut off everyone of a debate by insinuating everyone is just as bad. It's dishonest. That's not how it works in a civilized world. Same wise, That there are a minority of feminist extremists does not mean that feminism in general isn't a cause worth fighting for.

Also, It doesn't matter whether the public is well informed or not. They work for the people. If they think the "people" are wrong, they confront some of them (the loudest, respectful voices) and debate with them, and yes, potentially debunk misconceptions.
But mocking them? No. I'm sorry. By principle, they won't get my support for that.

If they're that confident in their cause, they should have no problem debunking misconceptions.
Honestly? Even after watching the session (part of it, I was at work), I don't see what are the benefits for me, but I do see some potential issues.
I'm obviously not alone in this case. They kept saying they're doing it for the people, but have yet to convince "us" of the benefits of the repeal. And mocking people won't help making it look like it's not yet another attempt at screwing with Obama's legacy for the sake of it.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

Well, I'm done with this shit, ciao.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

@MaverickWellington you are the perfect example for you're arguement. But you're still wrong. If a representative is making a decision against the wishes of the majority of his constituents, he's not really a representative, is he?


----------



## dpad_5678 (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> If a representative is making a decision against the wishes of the majority of his constituents, he's not really a representative, is he?


Fucking THIS. THIS is what should be shown to everyone supporting or remaining neutral against the repeal.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

What kills me is no one can seem to say _why_ they're for it.


----------



## RustInPeace (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> What kills me is no one can seem to say _why_ they're for it.



They say it poorly being very vague and not really understanding what the internet really is about. For example.



> The commission’s chairman, Ajit Pai, vigorously defended the repeal before the vote. He said the rollback of the rules would eventually benefit consumers because broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast could offer them a wider variety of service options. His two fellow Republican commissioners also supported the change, giving them a 3-to-2 majority.
> 
> “We are helping consumers and promoting competition,” Mr. Pai said. “Broadband providers will have more incentive to build networks, especially to underserved areas.”



That makes no sense, and naming the two worst ISPs as examples is more concerning. If the "Father of the Internet" and the inventor of the World Wide Web says you don't understand how the internet works, that's pretty much indisputable, yet Pai and the two commissioners that voted for the repeal go against that anyways. I'm in a weird area about this because I have a feeling my ISP, RCN, won't do the things I fear Comcast and Verizon (isn't the latter famous for throttling Netflix speeds?) so I'm not sure if I'll take the worst of this if it all becomes official or whatever. At the same time, because I'm a pervert, and I do watch camgirls, this is very bad for them, so it's bad for me.

1.) The sites they stream from could be walled off to a separate package that they have to pay for, and from my experiences, cam models can't be spending too much, so another significant expenditure is very detrimental to their, well, business. Way of life for a lot of them as a matter of fact.

2.) On the consumer side, if they're faced with having to buy a separate package, then that's a significant expenditure on their part, they may end up pouring less money into cam models, porn in general, if at all, and then everyone's fucked. Consumer doesn't get their nut (and an avenue of happiness), the performers lose out a bit of their livelihood.

The first thing that came to mind in thinking how to be ready for this is download and keep all the porn I can, and movies for that matter, not knowing how that venue will be affected by all this. A digital bunker, safe house of sorts. I do find it interesting that this issue is the closest to being one-sided, as in 90% of the US population, at least, I believe are opposed to this. Okay, 99%, there's that evil 1% again.

Fucking Hell, I wanted to share a Tweet from someone who tried to defend this repeal, the Poketuber Shofu/Trap Ketchum quoted and replied to the tweet, but now the guy has his account protected. I wonder why...


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Dec 15, 2017)

Oh boy, I hit the jackpot *grabs popcorn*
It's not too late the net can be saved
---
Anyone that is reading this thread that wants to get notifications on all these spicy flame wars (if you haven't already pressed watch, lol) can do so via this link.


----------



## pustal (Dec 15, 2017)

InquisitionImplied said:


> AHAHAHAHA YOU LOSE! EVEN WITH THE BIG SITES AND CELEBRITIES ON YOUR SIDE YOU STILL LOSE! Less regulation let's go BOIII!



Not sure if trolling or not, but this is a typical american argument I don't get: "deregulation is good". How on Earth is deregulation good. Even from a capitalist standpoint, if you let companies do whatever they want, big companies will always smash small ones and monopolies and oligarchies will control the market.


----------



## Navonod (Dec 15, 2017)

pustal said:


> Not sure if trolling or not, but this is a typical american argument I don't get: "deregulation is good". How on Earth is deregulation good. Even from a capitalist standpoint, if you let companies do whatever they want, big companies will always smash small ones and monopolies and oligarchies will control the market.


More like a typical dumbass. Them being American has very little to do with it. I've seen comments like that from other countries. No hard feelings though.


----------



## RustInPeace (Dec 15, 2017)

This is the most realistic and sobering look at what the loss of net neutrality means. Much more detailed and well presented than arguments for this repeal.


----------



## chartube12 (Dec 15, 2017)

i will just add to what is posted from above. they good in theory sell exe to websites in bundles or even on a per usage level. But in practice, there would be major backlash in doing so and it would require major reprogrammung of DNS servers. Plus the blocking of alternate DNS servers to avoid people getting around the isp ones, but doing so would also be a long up hill cat and mouse battle. In short it would take too long and be too costly to make changes to the internet across the board to be possible. Otherwise Jtm is correct


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

chartube12 said:


> i will just add to what is posted from above. they good in theory sell exe to websites in bundles or even on a per usage level. But in practice, there would be major backlash in doing so and it would require major reprogrammung of DNS servers. Plus the blocking of alternate DNS servers to avoid people getting around the isp ones, but doing so would also be a long up hill cat and mouse battle. In short it would take too long and be too costly to make changes to the internet across the board to be possible. Otherwise Jtm is correct


What are you talking about? Mobile internet has exclusionary packages for websites that eat up your data just fine in other countries.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 15, 2017)

Hm. The world is a worrisome issue..


----------



## CallmeBerto (Dec 15, 2017)

Nah this is a good thing. I swear you people who think MORE government is the solution are silly.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 15, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> Nah this is a good thing. I swear you people who think MORE government is the solution are silly.


Call me a nut, but I'd rather have the government regulating the internet than to have the likes of Comcast and Verizon doing so.  At least the government is _supposed_ to work in the best interests of the people.  Big businesses only care about the end profit, and while that is admittedly largely dependent on customer satisfaction, businesses have done and will do shady things to make money.  Why do you think America has all these anti-trust laws in the first place?  It's because the working class got shafted by big businesses with a really, really long stick during the gilded age.  

Besides, the post above pretty much explains it.  Websites are going to have to pay big fees in order to get top billing, or else they'll just be either slowed down to a ridiculous extent that no one can browse the page, or blocked entirely.

This bill isn't going to create more competition amongst websites.  The rich will only get richer, while the smaller guys get kicked to the side.  Typical of this administration, I'd say.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> Nah this is a good thing. I swear you people who think MORE government is the solution are silly.


Capitalism only works if there is actual competition. But there are only a very few ISP's to choose from.
And the big ISP's try to shut down the smaller guys and their competition. Just look at what they are doing to google fiber. 
In this case government regulation is necessary so that ISP's don't over step their bounds. 
Since people can't just leave to go to another ISP's, since there is no competitive market place.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

wormdood said:


> and again america fucks the entire world . . . gotta love america


This doesn't apply to the rest of the world. The way i get it is internet providers are gonna slow down website or speed up website acces for the users it has if the owner of the websites pays the company to do so. It doesn't apply for the rest of the world since our providers don't do that so we get full speed acces to any website nonetheless. I don't get why people are stating here that it does apply to the rest of the world when it clearly doesn''t. A provider i'm not with can't slow down my acces since i'm with a provider outside of the US who gives full speed acces to everything. Please tell me how no Net neutrality in the US is bad for the rest of the world when it is only bad for the US. Because i see a lot of bullshit claims here.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 15, 2017)

Anybody who thinks getting rid of net neutrality is a good thing is a brainwashed zombie.


----------



## 8BitWonder (Dec 15, 2017)

Forgive me if I'm a moron or just misinformed, but doesn't the repeal proposal still need to make it through Congress? Or is the repeal already in effect?


----------



## CallmeBerto (Dec 15, 2017)

To both @B_E_P_I_S_M_A_N  and @SG854 

I do agree some government regulation is needed (all industries do) HOWEVER I don't agree that title 2 was the way forward. I believe it was too restrictive in what ISP can and can't do.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



8BitWonder said:


> Forgive me if I'm a moron or just misinformed, but doesn't the repeal proposal still need to make it through Congress? Or is the repeal already in effect?



Congress next and even after that it will take months before anything changes. (assuming they approve it)


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 15, 2017)

deinonychus71 said:


> You can not use the stupidity of a minority to completely shut off everyone of a debate by insinuating everyone is just as bad. It's dishonest. That's not how it works in a civilized world. Same wise, That there are a minority of feminist extremists does not mean that feminism in general isn't a cause worth fighting for.
> 
> Also, It doesn't matter whether the public is well informed or not. They work for the people. If they think the "people" are wrong, they confront some of them (the loudest, respectful voices) and debate with them, and yes, potentially debunk misconceptions.
> But mocking them? No. I'm sorry. By principle, they won't get my support for that.
> ...


"stupidity of the minority"
lol
think about the average person. how stupid he is. how brainwashed he is. how little times he stopped and thought about the real issues of his life. things that will affect him and ppl around him for a long time.
now imagine this- half of the people are more stupid then him.
just let it sink in

I dont like the idea of any government agency, big company or any other big body censoring my content. of course Im all for net neutrality. I dont think tho that putting random dudes in front of the government and asking them about the issue will help anybody. Direct Democracy is a good thing, but when you see that most of the people are brainwashed by big corporations and really believe any side of the argument because somebody said good things about it.... I dont trust this half of the population to be good for me. Im not living in usa but stupid people are everywhere... think what would have happened if apple was saying something about limiting processing power in smartphones by law a few years back when it was the big majority of mobile phone manufacturers, making some good arguments ("increase battery life! decrease cost! some other bullshit") and a gazilion of fanboyz would vote for it against the informed minority who support logically the other side of the argument.... given enough money would go to journalists, I think they would win. I cant trust people with no knowledge in the matter to decide the thing for me.
the current form of democracy in america wont allow for better representation, you can see it in the fact there are only 2 parties with chances to win, but it's a matter for other thread

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



RustInPeace said:


> This is the most realistic and sobering look at what the loss of net neutrality means. Much more detailed and well presented than arguments for this repeal.


pleaseput it inside a spoiler. thats too long

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



kumikochan said:


> This doesn't apply to the rest of the world. The way i get it is internet providers are gonna slow down website or speed up website acces for the users it has if the owner of the websites pays the company to do so. It doesn't apply for the rest of the world since our providers don't do that so we get full speed acces to any website nonetheless. I don't get why people are stating here that it does apply to the rest of the world when it clearly doesn''t. A provider i'm not with can't slow down my acces since i'm with a provider outside of the US who gives full speed acces to everything. Please tell me how no Net neutrality in the US is bad for the rest of the world when it is only bad for the US. Because i see a lot of bullshit claims here.


when somebody would see that the isp's of other big country do something for the profits they would also do it themselves in their own country. something like that would spread like a virus to the whole world or at the very least to a lot of other countries, which would matter to you even if you dont live in those countries. think about a business getting less revenue because a lot of guys from america just stopped coming to their site. even if they live in antarctica they will still be affected. and so would you.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 15, 2017)

sorry if I seem stupid, but is that true that in the us some people get internet access with no bandwidth limit?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



comput3rus3r said:


> Anybody who thinks getting rid of net neutrality is a good thing is a brainwashed zombie.


and sorry, but your argument looks like it was formed by a brainwashed zombie


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

natanelho said:


> sorry if I seem stupid, but is that true that in the us some people get internet access with no bandwidth limit?
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



I've  never seen that as a thing, most ISPs will have a cap, even when they don't tell you what it is. Cue Comcast, they have like 500 GB or 1 TB a month, but they don't say unless you ask, it's asinine.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Dec 15, 2017)

Most data I've used in a month was 300GB no issues from my ISP. Is there a cap? I'm sure once you go over 1 TB for a few months in a row they will ask you to chill out.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 15, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I've  never seen that as a thing, most ISPs will have a cap, even when they don't tell you what it is. Cue Comcast, they have like 500 GB or 1 TB a month, but they don't say unless you ask, it's asinine.


My family hasn't ever hit a data limit, and I download quite a bit as well as everyone else streaming HD video. We're on a small network, though


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> Most data I've used in a month was 300GB no issues from my ISP. Is there a cap? I'm sure once you go over 1 TB for a few months in a row they will ask you to chill out.



I've never hit Comcast's cap, thankfully, even after  using torrents way back when *ahem* 



TotalInsanity4 said:


> My family hasn't ever hit a data limit, and I download quite a bit as well as everyone else streaming HD video. We're on a small network, though



What's weird is they upgraded us from 50 mbps to 100 mbps for free, so that was a nice gesture, and we binge-watch Netflix, haven't hit it yet.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> To both @B_E_P_I_S_M_A_N  and @SG854
> 
> I do agree some government regulation is needed (all industries do) HOWEVER I don't agree that title 2 was the way forward. I believe it was too restrictive in what ISP can and can't do.
> 
> ...


With the new thing that passed were going to go back to Title 1 information service classification.
This gives ISP's a lot more freedom.

The intent of Title 2 did was make sure that ISP's can't block or throttle and discriminate certain sites. 
We already had a internet speed package under Title 2. Pay for the cheaper 5 megabit per second option if you only use internet for email and social media. Or the more expensive faster 50 megabit option if you stream HD video. There is no limitation here.

Under Title 2 ISP's can't slow down certain sites even if you payed for the faster option.
That'll be like paying for 1 day shipping, but they decide to take 1 week to ship products from Ebay, but stuff from Amazon actually ships in 1 day.
Your not getting what you pay for, and this discrminates against Ebay, and the possibility of making fair equal business playing field, since people will opt for the faster Amazon and Ebay will loose business unfairly.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I've  never seen that as a thing, most ISPs will have a cap, even when they don't tell you what it is. Cue Comcast, they have like 500 GB or 1 TB a month, but they don't say unless you ask, it's asinine.


I don't have a cap. http://www.fidelitycommunications.com/legal/transparency-policy





My ISP's based as fuck though in a world where that's not always the case though so I'd consider this anecdotal personally.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I don't have a cap. http://www.fidelitycommunications.com/legal/transparency-policy
> View attachment 108406
> 
> My ISP's based as fuck though in a world where that's not always the case though so I'd consider this anecdotal personally.



Maybe it is written in the TOS, I don't know, I never bothered or find myself arsed enough to look on Comcast's TOS *shrug* Oh well..


----------



## CallmeBerto (Dec 15, 2017)

A lot of people site the Netflix/Comcast ordeal and while that is shady as FUCK (they should have been fined into next week; bad ruling was bad)

However people taking one case and running with it is silly.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> A lot of people site the Netflix/Comcast ordeal and while that is shady as FUCK (they should have been fined into next week; bad ruling was bad)
> 
> However people taking one case and running with it is silly.



I heard that it was Netflix who ended up throttling their own customers, but I'll need to look into that.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 15, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I heard that it was Netflix who ended up throttling their own customers, but I'll need to look into that.


I had heard that too. Hazy though.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I heard that it was Netflix who ended up throttling their own customers, but I'll need to look into that.


https://www.wsj.com/article_email/n...n-phones-1458857424-lMyQjAxMTE2OTIyNDMyNDQxWj
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...exploited-a-gaping-loophole-in-net-neutrality
On AT&T and Verizon, yes. They were totally silent about it until they were prodded however.




"Don't throttle us, ISPs! Let us throttle you all we want!"
Fucking disgusting hypocrites.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> https://www.wsj.com/article_email/n...n-phones-1458857424-lMyQjAxMTE2OTIyNDMyNDQxWj
> http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...exploited-a-gaping-loophole-in-net-neutrality
> On AT&T and Verizon, yes. They were totally silent about it until they were prodded however.
> View attachment 108407
> ...



And yet, now Netflix is "threatening" to sue the FCC. Oh the irony


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Yeah threaten to sue them after fucking lying to them for years. That's really great morals there Netflix.
So glad I watch movies in theaters now.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Yeah threaten to sue them after fucking lying to them for years. That's really great morals there Netflix.
> So glad I watch movies in theaters now.



Meh, I still use Netflix because it's cheap and I don't like most of the shit on TV *shrug* IDK.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I heard that it was Netflix who ended up throttling their own customers, but I'll need to look into that.


Comcast was throttling Netflix even after Netflix payed them for faster service.
The guy used VPN and saw faster Netlix speeds and bit rate maxed out. Comcast was definitely screwing over customers and Netflix.
http://mattvukas.com/2014/02/10/comcast-definitely-throttling-netflix-infuriating/


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Comcast was throttling Netflix even after Netflix payed them for faster service.
> The guy used VPN and saw faster Netlix speeds and bit rate maxed out. Comcast was definitely screwing over customers and Netflix.
> http://mattvukas.com/2014/02/10/comcast-definitely-throttling-netflix-infuriating/



IDK I've heard two stories, one where Comcast did it, one where Netflix did it, either way, I'm not picking sides right now. This is too heated of a debate.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> IDK I've heard two stories, one where Comcast did it, one where Netflix did it, either way, I'm not picking sides right now. This is too heated of a debate.


I mean there's nothing wrong with accepting that both happened. It just means both sides are pretty shitty in the debate -- comcast is bad, and netflix is also bad -- and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that, or the fact both may have solid points while shitty points too.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Dec 15, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> Nah this is a good thing. I swear you people who think MORE government is the solution are silly.



And yet are you able to come up with one good thing that will benefits the end consumer?
Yes, no?
Let's remove the limit of 21 years for drinking. Let kids take any sort of drug because we don't need regulations, right?
Do we need to regulate how people access the internet in a market with next to no competition? It's up for debate, but simply saying "regulations are baaaad" is not debating.



natanelho said:


> "stupidity of the minority"
> lol
> think about the average person. how stupid he is. how brainwashed he is. how little times he stopped and thought about the real issues of his life. things that will affect him and ppl around him for a long time.
> now imagine this- half of the people are more stupid then him.
> ...


I was specifically referencing the previous message that was talking about people threatening the FCC. These people are indeed dumb asses, hurting their own cause.
However, no the average person is not stupid, misinformed probably, brainwashed probably to some degree, but I won't say stupid.
I would add the the average american doesn't give a crap about what's going on outside their country, and in the present case it would really, really help them, if anything to realize how much they are getting screwed by ISPs already.

Your argument is fair, can we trust members of these "misinformed people" to represent us in a public hearing?
Well, as a matter of fact, I think that the "people" being misinformed isn't the matter. If they are misinformed, if we are all misinformed and if net neutrality repeal is indeed a good thing, we need to know, and we need to know why.
Why, it's that question I kept asking without anyone ever being able to properly answer. It's typically because we are not getting any answer that doesn't smell like bullshit that we need people of "our peers" in the debate, to at least have these fair congressman and congresswoman stop saying they're doing it for the people without ever having to back it up (or without having them just say regulations are baaaaaad).

I'm mostly neutral in this debate, but I've yet to be convinced that net neutrality is hurting the internet, and have yet to understand how no more of that will reduce prices. In the US you already pay $70+ for an internet connection (often crappy) where you would pay 30 in european countries. They're already getting screwed, and I would bet that most people even here have no idea how much. They want to repeal it? Let's have them tell us how repealing net neutrality will "help" Comcast get to a $30 monthly fee for Internet.

Something concrete for the people, that's always what they should keep in mind when passing laws, that's where their pride should come from.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

natanelho said:


> "stupidity of the minority"
> lol
> think about the average person. how stupid he is. how brainwashed he is. how little times he stopped and thought about the real issues of his life. things that will affect him and ppl around him for a long time.
> now imagine this- half of the people are more stupid then him.
> ...


No it doesn't. Europe has laws protecting us from extreme capatalistic bullshit. Most products you use in the US are even forbidden here ( like they're gonna ban the use of phosphate in food now). Extended warranty laws here and so forth. Don't see something as what is happening in the states right now happening anytime soon over here.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

deinonychus71 said:


> And yet are you able to come up with one good thing that will benefits the end consumer?
> Yes, no?
> Let's remove the limit of 21 years for drinking. Let kids take any sort of drug because we don't need regulations, right?
> Do we need to regulate how people access the internet in a market with next to no competition? It's up for debate, but simply saying "regulations are baaaad" is not debating.


Misrepresenting his argument blatantly isn't an argument either. He's not saying get rid of all regulations. Just that adding more to what we have now is bad.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Misrepresenting his argument blatantly isn't an argument either. He's not saying get rid of all regulations. Just that adding more to what we have now is bad.


Ah! I was expecting that.
Is it blatant because you see these examples are "obvious" cases where the government has to regulate? ...
So the key word here is obvious, and NOT "regulation".

The debate is whether regulating the internet SHOULD be done or not, aka, for some people it's OBVIOUS that it should.
He says more regulations is ALWAYS bad, I'm telling him it's up for debate. That's not even an argument on his side.
Dealing in absolutes like that, there wouldn't have been regulations on anything in the first place.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> IDK I've heard two stories, one where Comcast did it, one where Netflix did it, either way, I'm not picking sides right now. This is too heated of a debate.


Well there is evidence of faster speed improvements after using VPN's. So its definitely on Comcast end in this case.
And the fact the guy also payed for the faster 50 mbps, he was getting screwed over. He should have the option to watch Netflix, get the speeds he payed for, and not forced to watch what ever video service they are not throttling because of faster speeds.


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> A provider i'm not with can't slow down my acces since i'm with a provider outside of the US who gives full speed acces to everything. Please tell me how no Net neutrality in the US is bad for the rest of the world when it is only bad for the US. Because i see a lot of bullshit claims here.


and are all the sites you visit hosted outside the usa as well (netflix. . . hulu. . . facebook?) if so then no there will be no little to no change for you . . . but remember just because you (the end user) cant be charged more personally as you (and your isp) are outside of the usa any usa based website can and will have its rates change . . . do you think they will just let there profit margin slip (if and when they are 100% legally price gouged). . . of course not they will have to either fill there sites with (even more ads) and/or charge more for services/access . . . and the price trickle does not stop there . . .  
isp's can also (now) charge whatever they want including an undetermined (possibly fluctuating) scale making it cost too much to host a site if you are competing with a service they provide essentially creating monopoly in the usa's internet . . . and in case you missed it we are on the internet (world wide web) 


do you think you will be unaffected if the site you frequent was allowed full access from your isp but happened to be usa based so the site still has to pay outrageous prices just to get some "new standard speed package" that is likely slower than the speeds they payed less for under net-neutrality


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

deinonychus71 said:


> Ah! I was expecting that.
> Is it blatant because you see these examples are "obvious" cases where the government has to regulate? ...
> So the key word here is obvious, and NOT "regulation".
> 
> ...


If you were expecting to be called out on mental gymnastics perhaps you should have the forethought to not practice them in the first place.


----------



## dpad_5678 (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Misrepresenting his argument blatantly isn't an argument either. He's not saying get rid of all regulations. Just that adding more to what we have now is bad.


No one proposed more regulations, though. The argument against the repeal of NN isn't to add _more _regulations, it's to keep it _where it's at right now_.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

wormdood said:


> and are all the sites you visit hosted outside the usa as well (netflix. . . hulu. . . facebook?) if so then no there will be no little to no change for you . . . but remember just because you (the end user) cant be charged more personally as you (and your isp) are outside of the usa any usa based website can and will have its rates change . . . do you think they will just let there profit margin slip (if and when they are 100% legally price gouged). . . of course not they will have to either fill there sites with (even more ads) and/or charge more for services/access . . . and the price trickle does not stop there . . .
> isp's can also (now) charge whatever they want including an undetermined (possibly fluctuating) scale making it cost too much to host a site if you are competing with a service they provide essentially creating monopoly in the usa's internet . . . and in case you missed it we are on the internet (world wide web)
> 
> 
> do you think you will be unaffected if the site you frequent was allowed full access from your isp but happened to be usa based so the site still has to pay outrageous prices just to get some "new standard speed package" that is likely slower than the speeds they payed less for under net-neutrality


Please learn how the internet works. Your provider will speed up your acces or slow down your acces to those sites if they choose to pay up or not. Remember the word provider okay. I don't acces the internet using an American provider so i get to acces all those services, websites full speed !!! Again your provider will slow down or speed up your acces and not mine since i'm not a customer of your provider but a customer of an internet provider in Europe so i get to experience full SEGA BLAST processing speed to every website ! Yes i will be unaffected and shit won't change soon here because of the many laws here that protect use from extreme capatalistic bullshit


----------



## CallmeBerto (Dec 15, 2017)

As far as I know ONLY Comcast did that.

Please stop making it sound like all ISP will all at once just screw us over. Again I agree regulations are needed. However how far they should go is up for debate. A balance of not too much red tape and protecting the customer is needed. Where that is? Idk however I don't think that NN is the way forward. I propose we remove it and revisit this issue again in a year.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Better yet deal with it on a case to case base.


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> Please learn how the internet works. Your provider will speed up your acces or slow down your acces to those sites if they choose to pay up or not. Remember the word provider okay. I don't acces the internet using an American provider so i get to acces all those services, websites full speed !!! Again your provider will slow down or speed up your acces and not mine since i'm not a customer of your provider but a customer of an internet provider in Europe so i get to experience full SEGA BLAST processing speed to every website ! Yes i will be unaffected and shit won't change soon here because of the many laws here that protect use from extreme capatalistic bullshit


but if the website is located within the usa said websites speeds can be affected and that would affect your end result of your experience regardless of your personal speeds as you will get max speeds connecting while to a website with a bottleneck so regardless it will be slow and/or full of new ads . . . isp's dont just work with/for consumers but corporations as well


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> As far as I know ONLY Comcast did that.
> 
> Please stop making it sound like all ISP will all at once just screw us over. Again I agree regulations are needed. However how far they should go is up for debate. A balance of not too much red tape and protecting the customer is needed. Where that is? Idk however I don't think that NN is the way forward. I propose we remove it and revisit this issue again in a year.
> 
> ...


Why is nn not the answer? Why is not letting isp's make any regulations on their own not a good thing?


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

wormdood said:


> but if the website is located within the usa said websites speeds can be affected and that would affect your end result of your experience regardless of your personal speeds as you will get max speeds connecting while to a website with a bottleneck so regardless it will be slow and/or full of new ads . . . isp's dont just work with/for consumers but corporations as well


No it won't. your provider is slowing down your acces. If you change provider and the website paid off that provider then your connection will be fine. Providers will slow down connections of itsuserbase accessing the website if the owner of the website doesn't pay up.It can't do what you are claiming and it doesn't work that way. They can only be like ''ey we got this gigantic userbase around here and if you wan't them to have full acces to your service you have to pay us or we'll slow down the acces speed of our users when they connect to yours.'' So no it doesn't affect us in Europe and never will be


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> No it won't. your provider is slowing down your acces. If you change provider and the website paid off that provider then your connection will be fine. Providers will slow down connections of itsuserbase accessing the website if the owner of the website doesn't pay up.It can't do what you are claiming and it doesn't work that way. They can only be like ''ey we got this gigantic userbase around here and if you wan't them to have full acces to your service you have to pay us or we'll slow down the acces speed of our users when they connect to yours.'' So no it doesn't affect us in Europe


Those websites are on a server, the server requires internet access. If they don't pay premiums to their provider, guess what.. their isp thottles them


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> No it won't. your provider is slowing down your acces. If you change provider and the website paid off that provider then your connection will be fine. Providers will slow down connections of it userbase accessing the website if the owner of the website doesn't pay off. It can't do what you are claiming


so do those websites get on the internet without an isp?



kumikochan said:


> They can only be like ''ey we got this gigantic userbase around here and if you wan't them to have full acces to your service you have to pay us or we'll slow down the acces speed of our users when they connect to yours.''


thats if the site is not located within the usa . . . but if it is then they are just another costumer capable of being throttled just like i said


----------



## CallmeBerto (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Why is nn not the answer? Why is not letting isp's make any regulations on their own not a good thing?



Beyond Comcast I've never heard of any ISP doing such a thing. Creating regulations over one person (company) is silly.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second part? Do you mean why not have no regulations? If so that is because companies by design will do anything to maximize profits. This CAN include screwing over your customers if they think they can get away with it. (they are not 100% wrong either see EA)


----------



## Viri (Dec 15, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Well there is evidence of faster speed improvements after using VPN's. So its definitely on Comcast end in this case.
> And the fact the guy also payed for the faster 50 mbps, he was getting screwed over. He should have the option to watch Netflix, get the speeds he payed for, and not forced to watch what ever video service they are not throttling because of faster speeds.


Back in 2013 or 2012(I forgot which one), Verizon got into a little fight with Youtube, and Youtube videos were buffering at dial up speed. I ended up using a Proxy, and ended up getting full speed. It was annoying as hell


----------



## deinonychus71 (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> If you were expecting to be called out on mental gymnastics perhaps you should have the forethought to not practice them in the first place.


I was expecting to be called out by people like you, who can't even seem to realize that "more regulation is baaad" is not an argument.
So yes, if I have to use blatant examples that more regulation isn't necessarily bad, I damn sure will do it.

Now again, if you want to fight for your case, present arguments in FAVOR of net neutrality repeal, otherwise you won't convince everyone, especially with that kind of message.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

wormdood said:


> so do those websites get on the internet without an isp?
> 
> thats if the site is not located within the usa . . . but if it is then they are just another costumer capable of being throttled just like i said


You're acting like Europe is some 3th world country. Google has its own servers in Europe, So does PSN, Microsoft and even services as Netflix have their own servers in Europe. Europeans rarely connect to American servers.  Plus a lot of American companies already set up headquarters in Europe and with this there are sure more to follow. Ur all making it sound like America is the Internet capital of the world and everything goes through America when companies have servers set up world wide and users in the area connect through that and not through American servers


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> comcast is bad, and netflix is also bad -- and there's nothing wrong with acknowledging that,* or the fact both may have solid points while shitty points too.*


I am not seeing a solid point in favour of comcast in this one.



CallmeBerto said:


> As far as I know ONLY Comcast did that.
> 
> Please stop making it sound like all ISP will all at once just screw us over. Again I agree regulations are needed. However how far they should go is up for debate. A balance of not too much red tape and protecting the customer is needed. Where that is? Idk however I don't think that NN is the way forward. I propose we remove it and revisit this issue again in a year.



Because ISPs are regarded as so consumer friendly and transparent?

Why is net neutrality not the way forward? What might lead to better outcomes? It is not something ISPs actively have to do anything about -- prioritising, throttling or dropping packets is active work and requires them to do something. If they were required to process data and determine what to do then we have more of a discussion, net neutrality merely requires them to leave their routers, switches and such alone and in basically default settings before carrying on with life.



deinonychus71 said:


> Let's remove the limit of 21 years for drinking. Let kids take any sort of drug because we don't need regulations, right?


21 is one of the highest ages in the world for reasons few seem to be able to elaborate upon and drug policy in the US as far as criminalising users does not seem to be working, on the flip side things like Portugal's experiment of doing the opposite seem to do well. More anecdotally within the US see the effects of the brown bag laws for booze.
Your examples are not the tightest.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> Beyond Comcast I've never heard of any ISP doing such a thing. Creating regulations over one person (company) is silly.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by your second part? Do you mean why not have no regulations? If so that is because companies by design will do anything to maximize profits. This CAN include screwing over your customers if they think they can get away with it. (they are not 100% wrong either see EA)


I put a list of a bunch of dirty things isp's have done on the first page.

What I'm saying is, if you take the regulation away that says "isp's must treat everyone equally", why wouldn't they use the opportunity to make their own regulations to screw costumers over. That's why people want to keep nn. I see no reason why it should be repealed.


----------



## casquall (Dec 15, 2017)

I enjoyed reading this thread, very civil discussion and I feel much more informed on the issue now.

What a damn shame though, another loss for freedom, another win for the almighty dollar.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 15, 2017)

This world is full of suffer. I hate FCC.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

deinonychus71 said:


> Now again, if you want to fight for your case, *present arguments in FAVOR of net neutrality repeal*, otherwise you won't convince everyone, especially with that kind of message.


dude, I argued with him for like 3 hours last night trying to get him to give me one reason, even if a shitty one. He can't do it and will argue in circles rather than admit he may be wrong.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Dec 15, 2017)

FAST6191 said:


> 21 is one of the highest ages in the world for reasons few seem to be able to elaborate upon and drug policy in the US as far as criminalising users does not seem to be working, on the flip side things like Portugal's experiment of doing the opposite seem to do well. More anecdotally within the US see the effects of the brown bag laws for booze.
> Your examples are not the tightest.


I lived in Europe for most of my life, I know that. I do believe that being 18 should be enough, but a kid shouldn't take drugs, and shouldn't drink alcohol.
But removing these limitations? What you want drug cartels to rule over any countries? Whether it's working or not is not the problem, there's obvious NEED for regulation on that, and a lot of other things.


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> You're acting like Europe is some 3th world country. Google has its own servers in Europe, So does PSN, Microsoft and even services as Netflix have their own servers in Europe. Europeans rarely connect to American servers.  Plus a lot of American companies already set up headquarters in Europe and with this there are sure more to follow


correct as i have been saying you wont see much change directly (at least not instantly) but multinational divisions of a corporation will not eliminate the need to compensate for the inevitable profit loss in the usa as i have been saying you can expect to see more ads or an increase in price . . . you can keep denying it but this will affect the internet in every country that uses the internet not just the usa


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

wormdood said:


> correct as i have been saying you wont see much change directly (at least not instantly) but multinational divisions of a corporation will not eliminate the need to compensate for the inevitable profit loss in the usa as i have been saying you can expect to see more ads or an increase in price . . . you can keep denying it but this will affect the internet in every country that uses the internet not just the usa


An increase in what ? The only American service i sometimes use is Netflix and that's it and i don't care much bout Netflix anyway so there is no loss for me. An increase in advertisement doesn't affect me since i use an addblocker


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> You're acting like Europe is some 3th world country. Google has its own servers in Europe, So does PSN, Microsoft and even services as Netflix have their own servers in Europe. Europeans rarely connect to American servers.  Plus a lot of American companies already set up headquarters in Europe and with this there are sure more to follow. Ur all making it sound like America is the Internet capital of the world and everything goes through America when companies have servers set up world wide and users in the area connect through that and not through American servers


We still house 43% of the top million websites. If they do thottle, you'll notice.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> We still house 43% of the top million websites. If they do thottle, you'll notice.


That is a large claim. Please provide facts of that huge claim. To my understanding most big websites are European based due to less restrictions here hence why almost every torrenting server resides in Europe and so forth. Amazon has it's own european servers, so does google, so does Microsoft, So does Netflix. I won't notice much.
A lot of American companies set up headquarters in Europe so if everything will happen like everyone is claiming it will happen then i see most of those American based servers settling down elsewhere with less restrictions.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> That is a large claim. Please provide facts of that huge claim. To my understanding most big websites are European based due to less restrictions here hence why almost every torrenting server resides in Europe and so forth. Amazon has it's own european servers, so does google, so does Microsoft, So does Netflix. I won't notice much.
> A lot of American companies set up headquarters in Europe so if everything will happen like everyone is claiming it will happen then i see most of those American based servers settling down elsewhere with less restrictions.


http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/07/02/united-states-hosts-43-percent-worlds-top-1-million-websites/

Also with Microsoft and psn severs, they have to communicate with the primary servers, guess where those are.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> http://royal.pingdom.com/2012/07/02/united-states-hosts-43-percent-worlds-top-1-million-websites/
> 
> Also with Microsoft and psn severs, they have to communicate with the primary servers, guess where those are.


I need a 2017  article not a 2012 article


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> Amazon has it's own european servers, so does google, so does Microsoft, So does Netflix. I won't notice much.


guess what netflix usa and netflix eu are still the same corporation and when a single location (of the same company)  hurts/flops they both feel it and they both react accordingly


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

wormdood said:


> guess what netflix usa and netflix eu are still the same corporation and when a single location (of the same company)  hurts/flops they both feel it and they both react accordingly


Yeah but like i said i don't care much about netflix plus American companies will just set up headquarters in Europe like most already have done


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> No they won't. Different content here that you don't have plus we can't acces your content so it's purely from European servers and not American servers


please re-read my comment i am not suggesting the servers (or content) are one in the same but the corporation netflix is . . .


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> I need a 2017  article not a 2012 article


I'll do some more research in a bit. I have to go take care of some stuff. But we are third largest group of net users (I'll get you a quote when I get back). You tend to notice when one of the largest groups change something. Come on, we run the world dude.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

CallmeBerto said:


> As far as I know ONLY Comcast did that.
> 
> Please stop making it sound like all ISP will all at once just screw us over. Again I agree regulations are needed. However how far they should go is up for debate. A balance of not too much red tape and protecting the customer is needed. Where that is? Idk however I don't think that NN is the way forward. I propose we remove it and revisit this issue again in a year.
> 
> ...


The have not added a ton of regulation with Net Neutrality Title II. Only one that says to not throttle and discriminate. So theres hardly extra red tape involved. Telecom companies in their own filings shows that this has not hurt infrastructure development under these rules. Its not Net Neutrality that hurts businesses, its ISP's that do by throttling content. Theres a reason many ISP's sued google fiber, tried to stop start up ISP's and Municipal Broadband, and Lobbied against Title II. They want more control and freedom do what they want.

Broadband companies tried a few times to overturn Title II in lawsuits since it came to existence. But they failed a few times, and court said NN is not in violation of the first Amendment.
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/net-neutrality-dc-circuit.pdf
https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/net-neutrality-petition-denial.pdf

Wouldn't they be fine with Net Neutrality rules to not throttle if they didn't want to screw over their customers? Why put so much effort to sue and lobby to get it removed? 2 big ISP's were caught with data cap discrimination, allowing data cap exemptions on their own video services and charging other business to get those same exemptions. And Pai ruled it legal. There aren't many ISP's to choose from. So 2 is too many.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> I'll do some more research in a bit. I have to go take care of some stuff. But we are third largest group of net users (I'll get you a quote when I get back). You tend to notice when one of the largest groups change something. Come on, we run the world dude.


No you don't . The ignorance of Americans ''facepalm'' Always claiming to be the best and claiming world leadership. There is a reason most countries hate you but it's never your own fault i guess. The blame Always has to be put somewhere else


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Good times..
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...


Watch people still defend Net Neutrality repeal. If you're happy about the repeal you don't know what Net Neutrality is or why it matters. If it actually passes the future stages and is fully repealed ISPs will be able to do whatever the fuck they want. They can throttle or block whatever traffic they want.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> No you don't . The ignorance of Americans ''facepalm'' Always claiming to be the best.


I didnt say we were the best, I said we run the world. You said something about Europe being a 3rd world country, if it weren't for the marshel plan post ww2 it would be, we own you.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> I didnt say we were the best, I said we run the world. You said something about Europe being a 3rd world country, if it weren't for the marshel plan post ww2 it would be, we own you.


And if it weren't for us you would still be owned by the English but you people Always conveniently tend to forget that part of history  But i'm not riding my own high horse here and then you wonder why most countries hate you and the people in it. It is by making comments like the one you just did. Being humble earns respect


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 15, 2017)

deinonychus71 said:


> And yet are you able to come up with one good thing that will benefits the end consumer?
> Yes, no?
> Let's remove the limit of 21 years for drinking. Let kids take any sort of drug because we don't need regulations, right?
> Do we need to regulate how people access the internet in a market with next to no competition? It's up for debate, but simply saying "regulations are baaaad" is not debating.
> ...


not only are people misinformed, the biggest problem is that most of them hear the first thing that comes to their ears and stick with it. thats something we got from mother nature (thanks, dumbass!) and it is very hard to do anything against it, but to be objective, you should.
I like indie games. they are cheap, fun, creative and sometimes very good. it would be very sad if some internet provider will get money from ninty, ea, other big AAA devs to stop giving good speed to the sites of these indies, because their game is very good and addicting and might hurt their own business. shit like this happens on youtube- some of my favorite creators make cool vids (for example, "electrons by naked eye" by thunderf00t) and then youtube (for their own reasons, mainly profits etc) just removes the video from public view and if it even returns, it is very late, after most of potential views are already gone. this is ok because youtube is a company. even then people are angry about it. but now they want to do it to all the internet- censoring. with youtube it didnt happen that a big corp paid them money to put shadow on rivals (I think thats because google are cool with their opinions about that) but when you give such responsibility to companies that done bad stuff before in that exact area? that would be very bad
and think what would happen if wikipedia wont be included in the base package. just imagine.
and if origin will just stop working or work worse.
when corp's outside us smell money - they will push their own countries to do the same. nowdays big corp's are very big. HUGE. they have a lot of power. iirc I read somewhere a few years ago that Samsung is more then 50% as powerful as south korea. and to think it's not the biggest ccpmpany out there...
also imo 21 as legal age is stupid, should drop it down a few years (maybe 18?) but that argument of yours isn't really opposed to what I think.


Spoiler: me talking about internet and how it behaves over here in my country... (boring)



in my country, everybody has at least 3 options of internet to chose from and that doesnt include the mobile internet providers as they sell dongles with unlimited internet with a sim card. the competition is high and I dont think anybody sells communication packages with internet slower then 50mbps. I heard about a package with 100mbps that costs 15$ a months a few years ago... that's fast enough for me to watch youtube streams at 1080p (I dont care about 4k) so that's fast enough. to hear that in usa, which should be a world leading country, there are places with no way to choose isp and get a very slow connection for a lot of money... I just feel sorry for ya'll[\Spoiler]
the people that threat the fcc might be a minority but they are a loud minority. also there are a lot of people who dont know what neutrality is or dont care... so yeah there are a lot more stupid people then one might think. no matter how much info you give them they will still think the same way, even more so on the internet. they come to some flame war, instead of taking in criticism on their opinion and adjusting it they become more and more extreme in their view which makes them (at least look) dumber...as somebody smart already said- a mob of people is more stupid then each one individually...


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> And if it weren't for us you would still be owned by the English but you people tend to forget that part of history  But i'm not riding my own high horse here and then you wonder why most countries hate you and the people in it. It is by making comments like the one you just did. Being humble earns respect


I wasnt trying to be arrogant, I was just stating a fact. I'm not proud that I live in a massive tyrant of a superpower. I'm just saying the state of the us affects the world. We're the central hub of commerce and communication. You will see the affects of our net policies. We account for a third of it globally.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 15, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I've  never seen that as a thing, most ISPs will have a cap, even when they don't tell you what it is. Cue Comcast, they have like 500 GB or 1 TB a month, but they don't say unless you ask, it's asinine.


that's a stupid situation... I meant speed limit (mbps or the likes) but now that you tell me this- your situation is hopeless...
I have a friend who downloads at least 1 TB each day (some kind of weird stuff) and he never had any problems with such stupid limits...


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> No you don't . The ignorance of Americans ''facepalm'' Always claiming to be the best and claiming world leadership. There is a reason most countries hate you but it's never your own fault i guess. The blame Always has to be put somewhere else


You have to keep in mind WeedZ is one of those weird pretentious folks who has to flaunt his condescending attitude but present no arguments, only deflections. You're better off ignoring him like I do.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> I wasnt trying to be arrogant, I was just stating a fact. I'm not proud that I live in a massive tyrant of a superpower. I'm just saying the state of the us affects the world. We're the central hub of commerce and communication. You will see the affects of our net policies. We account for a third of it globally.


Ur still forgetting that the Euro is a lot more worth then the dollar. Europe is a hell lot richer then the US with a lot less debt. There is less difference between rich and poor here. Better Healthcare and social housing. Schools don't cost a fortune a leg a liver and a house here. By 2025 Europe will be nuclear free and i can go on and on and on. Ur not the fucking superpower anymore that you used to be. You're more turning in 2  a third world country with a first world infrastructure. But most of you people being that proud that you fail to see that and Always belittling everyone else and praising yourself to kingdom come.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> No you don't . The ignorance of Americans ''facepalm'' Always claiming to be the best and claiming world leadership. There is a reason most countries hate you but it's never your own fault i guess. The blame Always has to be put somewhere else



That's a pretty fucking low blow, mate, generalizing bullshit is something you people like to engage in, I see. Go figure.



kumikochan said:


> Ur still forgetting that the Euro is a lot more worth then the dollar. Europe is a hell lot richer then the US with a lot less debt. There is less difference between rich and poor here. Better Healthcare and social housing. Schools don't cost a fortune a leg a liver and a house here. By 2025 Europe will be nuclear free and i can go on and on and on. Ur not the fucking superpower anymore that you used to be. You're more turning in 2  a third world country with a first world infrastructure. But most of you people being that proud that you fail to see that and Always belittling everyone else and praising yourself to kingdom come.



Well aren't you just special. Good, then don't fucking visit the US, we're better off without condescending people like you visiting. You're being belittling yourself by trying to make yourself feel better by verbally attacking others. How mature.

Do I go around bashing other countries for so-called inferiority? No, I don't, but whatever, say whatever you want, if it makes you feel better.


----------



## deinonychus71 (Dec 15, 2017)

natanelho said:


> not only are people misinformed, the biggest problem is that most of them hear the first thing that comes to their ears and stick with it. thats something we got from mother nature (thanks, dumbass!) and it is very hard to do anything against it, but to be objective, you should.
> I like indie games. they are cheap, fun, creative and sometimes very good. it would be very sad if some internet provider will get money from ninty, ea, other big AAA devs to stop giving good speed to the sites of these indies, because their game is very good and addicting and might hurt their own business. shit like this happens on youtube- some of my favorite creators make cool vids (for example, "electrons by naked eye" by thunderf00t) and then youtube (for their own reasons, mainly profits etc) just removes the video from public view and if it even returns, it is very late, after most of potential views are already gone. this is ok because youtube is a company. even then people are angry about it. but now they want to do it to all the internet- censoring. with youtube it didnt happen that a big corp paid them money to put shadow on rivals (I think thats because google are cool with their opinions about that) but when you give such responsibility to companies that done bad stuff before in that exact area? that would be very bad
> and think what would happen if wikipedia wont be included in the base package. just imagine.
> and if origin will just stop working or work worse.
> ...



I would agree with the part you left in quote. It's sad, cause I think it's the most important thing to remember. There SHOULD be competitors in every single town, big or not. That many countries can do it but not the US should raise concern. 
And that the FCC, whose only interest is to protect their people, doesn't even mention that, IS a concern.
But nope, instead they choose to waste their time repealing something without any proper argument that it will be good for anyone but big companies. 

This is something the american people should be aware of, and fight for more ferociously. You have to HELP new ISP emerge, not kill them.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> And if it weren't for us you would still be owned by the English but you people tend to forget that part of history


These arguments about Europe and America are stupid. 
We weren't born in the past, we have no stake in the decisions our ancestors made. We might be affected but not responsible for anything they did because we weren't there. If my father is a serial killer, and I tried my best to live a respectable life, than I shouldn't be blamed for what he did. You were born in the country and thats it. You should take no credit for something you personally didn't do. What would happen if you were born in the U.S instead? Then what? Would you take credit for what the U.S. did and not Europe? Simply by birth of location. Its just plain stupid. You saying, "if it weren't for us" shows your emotionally invested simple by birth of country.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> That's a pretty fucking low blow, mate, generalizing bullshit is something you people like to engage in, I see. Go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> Well aren't you just special. Good, then don't fucking visit the US, we're better off without condescending people like you visiting. You're being belittling yourself by trying to make yourself feel better by verbally attacking others. How mature.


I never do so don't worry. And seems i hit a nerve lmao. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm defending myself since Weedz was attacking me and not the other way around but seeing how i said some stuff about the US you're trying to turn it around towards me 

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> These arguments about Europe and America are stupid.
> We weren't born in the past, we have no stake in the decisions our ancestors made. We might be affected but not responsible for anything they did because we weren't there. If my father is a serial killer, and I tried my best to live a respectable life, than I shouldn't be blamed for what he did. You were born in the country and thats it. You should take no credit for something you personally didn't do. What would happen if you were born in the U.S instead? Then what? Would you take credit for what the U.S. did and not Europe? Simply by birth of location. Its just plain stupid. You saying, "if it weren't for us" shows your emotionally invested simple by birth of country.


I don't hence why i would never bring that up what i said but seeing as he did i was just defending and i responded to what he said


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> I never do so don't worry. And seems i hit a nerve lmao. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm defending myself since Weedz was attacking me and not the other way around but seeing how i said some stuff about the US you're trying to turn it around towards me


My comment is for both you and Weedz,


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

SG854 said:


> My comment is for both you and Weedz,


i just responded to what he said and wasn't meant in general and isn't something i bring up often. The world war thing is something i hear people bring up often and there is the difference to what i said.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> I never do so don't worry. And seems i hit a nerve lmao. I'm not attacking anyone. I'm defending myself since Weedz was attacking me and not the other way around but seeing how i said some stuff about the US you're trying to turn it around towards me
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Whatever, generalizing an entire country off the actions of a few is still a dick thing to do, but hey, it's not my fucking problem. One more to add to the ignore list, even though I don't know you, but thanks. I thought I was here to make some friends, but it seems you don't want me to extend a hand in friendship. Oh well 

So much for that.  This is why politics suck, people are always at each other's throats, so much for getting along and seeing past our own weaknesses. I don't think it's fair for you to hate us, when most of us don't even hate the EU, but hey, if you can hate us, I have every right to hate you, yes? Fair's fair, right?


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> Ur still forgetting that the Euro is a lot more worth then the dollar. Europe is a hell lot richer then the US with a lot less debt. There is less difference between rich and poor here. Better Healthcare and social housing. Schools don't cost a fortune a leg a liver and a house here. By 2025 Europe will be nuclear free and i can go on and on and on. Ur not the fucking superpower anymore that you used to be. You're more turning in 2  a third world country with a first world infrastructure. But most of you people being that proud that you fail to see that and Always belittling everyone else and praising yourself to kingdom come.


fluctuation is nice and ever constant . . . yup . . . but that does not change the influence/impact the usa has on other countrys . . .  perhaps thats the reason for the elitist attitude . . . the *fact* that we dont even need to be the "best" to be the greatest . . .


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Whatever, generalizing an entire country off the actions of a few is still a dick thing to do, but hey, it's not my fucking problem. One more to add to the ignore list, even though I don't know you, but thanks. I thought I was here to make some friends, but it seems you don't want me to extend a hand in friendship. Oh well


You're still making me sound the bad guy wich i wasn't. I wasn't the one being a pretentious fuck but Weedz was. So instead of calling me out who was just defending himself you should call Weedz out since he was more generalising then i fucking did. But seeing he does it with other countries it is okay and seeing i did it with the US you have the need to call me out when it was mostly him. But i get, when somebody else does it about other countries besides yours it is allright and here you are talking how bad it is to generalise. If you would truly feel that way t hen you would have called out Weedz and not me who was just defending himself from a prententious fuck

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



wormdood said:


> fluctuation is nice and ever constant . . . yup . . . but that does not change the influence/impact the usa has on other countrys . . .  perhaps thats the reason for the elitist attitude . . . the *fact* that we dont even need to be the "best" to be the greatest . . .


And another pretentious fuck joins up, now we have multiple prententious fucks joining up and then Randomizer has the nerve to call me out sitting on his high horse talking about not generalising but not calling out his own people.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> You're still making me sound the bad guy wich i wasn't. I wasn't the one being a pretentious fuck but Weedz was. So instead of calling me out who was just defending himself you should call Weedz out since he was more generalising then i fucking did. But seeing he does it with other countries it is okay and seeing i did it with the US you have the need to call me out when it was mostly him. But i get, when somebody else does it about other countries besides yours it is allright and here you are talking how bad it is to generalise. If you would truly feel that way t hen you would have called out Weedz and not me who was just defending himself from a prententious fuck
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



What am I supposed to say to that? I don't know how to properly reply to that, ah shit, this is why I hate politics, they solve nothing at all and no one ever agrees on anything. It's all convoluted sanctimonious BS.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> i just responded to what he said and wasn't meant in general and isn't something i bring up often. The world war thing is something i hear people bring up often and there is the difference


The general and not attacking part wasn't clear the first time. Since it did seem like you were attacking with the wording you used.
You could have responded saying Europe did this or that. Instead of We and Us. Makes it seem your personally invested in it.

Even as a defense, a bad way to argue is still a bad way, no matter who started. And not being clear with wording can confuse people on your original intent. 
Which is why people respond the way they do.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

SG854 said:


> The general and not attacking part wasn't clear the first time. Since it did seem like you were attacking with the wording you used.
> You could have responded saying Europe did this or that. Instead of We and Us. Makes it seem your personally invested in it.
> 
> Even as a defense, a bad way to argue is still a bad way, no matter who started. And not being clear with wording can confuse people on your original intent.
> Which is why people respond the way they do.


yeah i do understand that ofcourse


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> i just responded to what he said and wasn't meant in general and isn't something i bring up often. The world war thing is something i hear people bring up often and there is the difference to what i said.


I said hold on,  I'd be back. I wasnt attacking you, I was expressing the reach of our influence. I agree the quality of life for individuals is probably way better in European countries. But make no mistake, the us runs the show. Russia is the only other country we're concerned about. Think about it, most of Europe is dealing with our war, we use England's airforce when we want. We have the biggest military and arsenal of weaponry. The only country to ever use nukes in combat. And we are the central hub for most of the world's commerce. What language are you speaking to me in right now? Not much to do with net neutrality atm, but we need to be realistic. The us does alot of dirty shit, and the world has to deal with it one way or another. That includes nn.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> I said hold on,  I'd be back. I wasnt attacking you, I was expressing the reach of our influence. I agree the quality of life for individuals is probably way better in European countries. But make no mistake, the us runs the show. Russia is the only other country we're concerned about. Think about it, most of Europe is dealing with our war, we use England's airforce when we want. We have the biggest military and arsenal of weaponry. The only country to ever use nukes in combat. And we are the central hub for most of the world's commerce. What language are you speaking to me in right now? Not much to do with net neutrality atm, but we need to be realistic. The us does alot of dirty shit, and the world has to deal with it one way or another. That includes nn.


I'm not even gonna respond to your prententious rambling. You enjoy being a pretentious fuck. Have a good one


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 15, 2017)

I think things gotten a bit off-topic anyway.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 15, 2017)

deinonychus71 said:


> I would agree with the part you left in quote. It's sad, cause I think it's the most important thing to remember. There SHOULD be competitors in every single town, big or not. That many countries can do it but not the US should raise concern.
> And that the FCC, whose only interest is to protect their people, doesn't even mention that, IS a concern.
> But nope, instead they choose to waste their time repealing something without any proper argument that it will be good for anyone but big companies.
> 
> This is something the american people should be aware of, and fight for more ferociously. You have to HELP new ISP emerge, not kill them.


the size is a factor when talking about setting up network, so that's easier to become ISP in my country which (like most of the countries) is smaller then the us, but from what I read it seems that money and setup isnt the problem here, duopoly is...
and this does sound like some bucks in FCC's pocket


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> And another pretentious fuck joins up


look when you get like this its an argument and not a debate . . . did i insult you? . . . did i come out of nowhere to insult your views or did i make a comment and then answer your pretentious fucking questions . . . like your too good for america to ... to ... to ... anything you . . .  like "the pond" is as expansive as deep space, as if to say for example that if nintendo japan was suddenly removed from existence nintendo of europe would not even notice . . . plain and simple the actions/consequences of one organization (or nation) do indeed affect neighboring organizations (or nations)

you act like you typed in europe.gbatemp.net to get here and i had to use the shitty-er usa.gbatemp.net no in either case it was www. (again as in *world wide* web)

so if hosted in the usa (under new prices/guidelines) then the whole world wide web will be affected . . . not even to mention the fact that if/when isp's do turn a profit from gouging, other corporations (starting with multinational divisions of the same corporations) will follow along . . . say it with me . . . "economics"


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

wormdood said:


> look when you get like this its an argument and not a debate . . . did i insult you? . . . did i come out of nowhere to insult your views or did i make a comment and then answer your pretentious fucking questions . . . like your too good for america to ... to ... to ... anything you . . .  like "the pond" is as expansive as deep space, as if to say for example that if nintendo japan was suddenly removed from existence nintendo of europe would not even notice . . . plain and simple the actions/consequences of one organization (or nation) do indeed affect neighboring organizations (or nations)
> 
> you act like you typed in europe.gbatemp.net to get here and i had to use the shitty-er usa.gbatemp.net no in either case it was www. (again as in *world wide* web)
> 
> so if hosted in the usa (under new prices/guidelines) then the whole world wide web will be affected . . . not even to mention the fact that if/when isp's do turn a profit from gouging, other corporations (starting with multinational divisions of the same corporations) will follow along . . . say it with me . . . "economics"


Like i said to the other guy. Not gonna respond to your pretentious rambling. Enjoy being a pretentious fuck. Have a good one bye


----------



## vinstage (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> Ur still forgetting that the Euro is a lot more worth then the dollar. Europe is a hell lot richer then the US with a lot less debt. There is less difference between rich and poor here. Better Healthcare and social housing. Schools don't cost a fortune a leg a liver and a house here. By 2025 Europe will be nuclear free and i can go on and on and on. Ur not the fucking superpower anymore that you used to be. You're more turning in 2  a third world country with a first world infrastructure. But most of you people being that proud that you fail to see that and Always belittling everyone else and praising yourself to kingdom come.


Your fallacy's are too many to count. By saying 'Europe' you're over generalizing, there are multiple countries within Europe whom of which don't fill your, for arguments sake we'll say 'expectations' whatsoever. America isn't decreasing and bestowing to a '3rd world country' at all, so why you decided to add this in is beyond me,


kumikochan said:


> I'm not even gonna respond to your prententious rambling. You enjoy being a pretentious fuck. Have a good one


Also by witting down to unnecessary and extremely salty flaming, it's a low blow. I hope you're resorting to it because you've finally realized your hippocracy of which I can clearly see throughout your posting. Don't start an unnecessary argument about something, which really shouldn't even be argued over.

Also before you dub me a pretentious fuck, just bear in mind I don't care.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

vinstage said:


> Your fallacy's are too many to count. By saying 'Europe' you're over generalizing, there are multiple countries within Europe whom of which don't fill your, for arguments sake we'll say 'expectations' whatsoever. America isn't decreasing and bestowing to a '3rd world country' at all, so why you decided to add this in is beyond me,
> 
> Also by witting down to unnecessary and extremely salty flaming, it's a low blow. I hope you're resorting to it because you've finally realized your hippocracy of which I can clearly see throughout your posting. Don't start an unnecessary argument about something, which really shouldn't even be argued over.
> 
> Also before you dub me a pretentious fuck, just bear in mind I don't care.


Well you are. Have a good one


----------



## vinstage (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> Well you are. Have a good one


Low blow, useless flaming and also isn't that slightly tasteless of you to presume that?


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> Like i said to the other guy. Not gonna respond to your pretentious rambling. Enjoy being a pretentious fuck. Have a good one bye


so i say one thing . . . that you cant retort and you spit out insults, and i am the pretentious fuck ?. . . lol . . . your whole stance is based on your pretentious attitude believing your entire continent is so grand that the (heavily inferior) usa cant possibly affect it . . . get over yourself bro or better yet get reported troll


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

vinstage said:


> Low blow, useless flaming and also isn't that slightly tasteless of you to presume that?



You should def watch this as it states many of my points i made oh well have a good one


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> You should def watch this as it states many of my points i made oh well have a good one


and your salty because "the poorest first world country in the world" is still influential enough to affect the entire world . . . as i said we dont need to be the "best" to be the greatest


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

wormdood said:


> and your salty because "the poorest first country in the world" is still influential enough to affect the entire world . . . as i said we dont need to be the "best" to be the greatest


This is way fucking off topic but I mean "best" and "greatest" are kind of synonyms in this regard, because the US isn't the biggest country so clearly you don't mean size.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

We're all pretentious Americans, even the non Americans apparently.


----------



## vinstage (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> You should def watch this as it states many of my points i made oh well have a good one



snip, this basically proves my point.


> Your question is irrelevant because:
> 
> *First world nations: *USA and its allies during the cold war.
> 
> ...


Source 

To add, America can't submerge into absolute poverty so soon, but again, that isn't even a factor by definition... what causes the hierarchy of First world, Second world and Third world is War. Thus your points are basically invalid.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

vinstage said:


> I skimmed through, by definition, it's not a third world country nor can it become one. To achieve that is absolute poverty, please don't define something you can't. Or even attempt to for that matter. It doesn't work like that, which is a fact you have to succumb to as of many facts.


I said becoming a third world country with a first world infrastructure. Wich is entirely something else. Ur even moving away from that first world infrastructure by going back to cole plants, pollution, gasoline cars while europe and other first world nations are to become entirely green energy by 2025 and even banning gasoline and diesel by 2030/2040. You are a nation run purely by greed, companies and purely lobbying while other countries are run by the people and because of that you have a huge decline wich will not stop untill changes are made.


----------



## vinstage (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> I said becoming a third world country with a first world infrastructure. Wich is entirely something else. Ur even moving away from that first world infrastructure by going back to cole plants, pollution, gasoline cars while europe and other first world nations are to become entirely green energy by 2025 and even banning gasoline and diesel by 2030/2040


Again the country can't slip into abject poverty that fast. It'd require a complete collapse of economical structure.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

vinstage said:


> Again the country can't slip into abject poverty that fast. It'd require a complete collapse of economical structure.


Yeah a decline doesn't happen that fast. I do agree with that but it does slowly.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

This is all irrelevant. I was just trying to make the point that us policies affect the rest of the world in one way or another. I'm not going to spend my time trying to convince the guy from belgium, that speaks english, that it's true.


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> This is way fucking off topic but I mean "best" and "greatest" are kind of synonyms in this regard, because the US isn't the biggest country so clearly you don't mean size.


that would indeed depend on the definition of both best and greatest Best | Define Best at Dictionary.com any (and all) definition(s) here fits while with greatest Greatest | Define Greatest at Dictionary.com no. 3 was what i meant . . . although definition 1 fits as well as we are describing net usage and the usa ranks 3rd in the world in that respect


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> This is all irrelevant. I was just trying to make the point that us policies affect the rest of the world in one way or another. I'm not going to spend my time trying to convince the guy from belgium, that speaks english, that it's true.


And the reason i speak English is because the Uk is right next to Belgium. Sorry


----------



## vinstage (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> And the reason i speak English is because the Uk is right next to Belgium. Sorry


Nope, you missed the sea between us.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 15, 2017)

vinstage said:


> Nope, you missed the sea between us.


It is like 20 euro per plane plus connected by a tunnel wich all takes around an hour to travel. Plus that is not the point


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> It is like 20 euro per plane plus connected by a tunnel wich all takes around an hour to travel. Plus that is not the point


Yeah, we all speak Mexican Spanish and Canadian french too.


----------



## wormdood (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> It is like 20 euro per plane plus connected by a tunnel wich all takes around an hour to travel. Plus that is not the point


umm. . . some of us have been neglecting the point to prove superiority . . . net neutrality . . . and as it passes (like it sadly is) discussions about it and how it will affect us *all*


----------



## Joe88 (Dec 15, 2017)

kumikochan said:


> You should def watch this as it states many of my points i made oh well have a good one



The last thing im going to watch is something that is paid for and aired on a state sponsored (propaganda) TV network


----------



## DarthDub (Dec 15, 2017)

Why do people act like they can't just boycott their ISPs? There's many public places with free Wi-Fi. Hit em right in the wallet!


----------



## Flame (Dec 15, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> Why do people act like they can't just boycott their ISPs? There's many public places with free Wi-Fi. Hit em right in the wallet!



thats like cutting all the tree on the earth. you would need those trees after a while, not the best example but you know what i mean.

its sad but we have become addicted to the internet.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> Why do people act like they can't just boycott their ISPs? There's many public places with free Wi-Fi. Hit em right in the wallet!


People have complained which is why we went to Title II in the first place.
Going to public places isn't convenient since internet is part of people lives.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 15, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> Why do people act like they can't just boycott their ISPs? There's many public places with free Wi-Fi. Hit em right in the wallet!





SG854 said:


> People have complained which is why we went to Title II in the first place.
> Going to public places isn't convenient since internet is a part of people lives.


On top of that, there's nothing guaranteeing that the free WiFi wouldn't be hosted by the same provider


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Dec 16, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> On top of that, there's nothing guaranteeing that the free WiFi wouldn't be hosted by the same provider


There's also the issue of the security of free Wi-Fi, restrictions and terms of use, speed, etc. I doubt Starbucks or the library are gonna let you download your 30 GB Steam games.


----------



## SnAQ (Dec 16, 2017)

GG USA, yet another incredible stupid decision made by your leaders. 

Sent from my F8331 via Tapatalk


----------



## RustInPeace (Dec 16, 2017)

Not sure if this was shared already, but apparently the FCC made fraudulent comments in favor of repealing Net Neutrality under various pseudonyms, including one that belonged to a dead person...

https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/tweet-net-neutrality-fake-comments/


----------



## SG854 (Dec 16, 2017)

RustInPeace said:


> Not sure if this was shared already, but apparently the FCC made fraudulent comments in favor of repealing Net Neutrality under various pseudonyms, including one that belonged to a dead person...
> 
> https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/tweet-net-neutrality-fake-comments/


Ya, it was mentioned in the thread @Chary made. Bots and dead people in favor of repeal.

Now that Pai is the chairman of the FCC, he also allowing ISP's ignore Net Neutrality regulations.


----------



## smf (Dec 16, 2017)

wormdood said:


> and again america fucks the entire world . . . gotta love america



It's unlikely to have a huge effect on the rest of the world. Netflix et al can put servers in other countries, it would surprise me if they didn't do that already.



FAST6191 said:


> Please explain how you think having this repealed will improve the world. As far as I can see it opens up the doors for internet providers (of which there are so very few) to gate off and hamstring sites they don't care for for whatever reason (up to and including them providing competition for their other services -- if Comcast own Hulu then they have vested interest in making netflix and Amazon video perform badly or be untenable on their platform, youtube also).



I don't think it makes a huge difference to the world, I can see how it could affect US customers. However it might not be so bad long term.

Net neutrality doesn't fix the real problems with US ISP's, what you need is competition. If comcast slowed down netflix or amazon and you could switch to a competitor who doesn't then they'll stop doing it. But at the moment there is no real push to allow competition, with most states passing laws that effectively forbid it. To be able to get competition, you need the ISP monopoly to fail big time. Short term pain for long term gain.

I think it would be a mistake to fight for the neutrality laws to be retained or reapplied, you want their next move to be enforced competition.



Flame said:


> thats like cutting all the tree on the earth. you would need those trees after a while, not the best example but you know what i mean.
> 
> its sad but we have become addicted to the internet.



Competition works much better in other countries, where you might have a choice of a dozen providers. Some of them are essentially reselling the same product, but some are offering unique products. You get some providers who throttle you if you are constantly torrenting, others just let you use all the local bandwidth.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 16, 2017)

smf said:


> It's unlikely to have a huge effect on the rest of the world. Netflix et al can put servers in other countries, it would surprise me if they didn't do that already.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's not competition in monopolies. ISP's already admitted to not service the same areas. There's actually a video of verizon or cox i don't remember which actually saying this. And I don't have to watch a video to know that my choice of isp is either comcast or slow ass at&t dsl.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 17, 2017)

Hmm...I'm sort of in doubt, here. I've made some posts as to why I'm in favor of net neutrality, and I stand by that. The fact that now dead people and bots were "advocating" against net neutrality, and Ajit Pai making a cringe worthy video* doesn't help.


...and then a youtuber whom I trust and brings rational arguments in the cases he makes is (cautiously) optimistic on this deal. It's worth a watch. There are things in it I'm very skeptical about, but despite all of what's been said thus far, I find this the most insightful comment on the matter as of yet. And this is despite my own opinion (okay, perhaps I should turn that around: I find people whom I disagree with but can be civil usually interesting).

Oh, and...have you guys also seen "ads" like this:
 

(found here, so it's not even some shady darkweb or warez site)

This sort of stuff bothers me, even though I agree with the initial goal. This is playing into people's fears in an attempt to mobilize a mob. At no point ISP's were given permission to block certain web pages (or more correct: more so than they had before), so this whole thing would even be wrong if my ISP was located in the USA (which I'm not). In other words: this isn't an ad or a commercial, but blatant propaganda. And in the long run, that could even be worse (what if at some point the ISP's formally "agree" to never block sites? That whole rallied mob would dismantle in the belief that they've won, whereas said ISP's could still regulate the protocols to make money on the kinds of data).





*he pretty much assumes everyone worried about net neutrality is five years old


----------



## SG854 (Dec 17, 2017)

Taleweaver said:


> Hmm...I'm sort of in doubt, here. I've made some posts as to why I'm in favor of net neutrality, and I stand by that. The fact that now dead people and bots were "advocating" against net neutrality, and Ajit Pai making a cringe worthy video* doesn't help.
> 
> 
> ...and then a youtuber whom I trust and brings rational arguments in the cases he makes is (cautiously) optimistic on this deal. It's worth a watch. There are things in it I'm very skeptical about, but despite all of what's been said thus far, I find this the most insightful comment on the matter as of yet. And this is despite my own opinion (okay, perhaps I should turn that around: I find people whom I disagree with but can be civil usually interesting).
> ...


We are going back to Title 1 on this new deal. We had Net Neutrality under Title 1 since the 2000's. But Pai lied about us not having NN before 2015.
If we are still going to have Net Neutrality even going back to Title 1, don't you think you find that a bit suspicious? Whats the point of even switching Titles if we are still going to keep NN, there's no point in switching.

The internet wasn't fine under Title 1. There were many lawsuits happening. If you skip over to 24:44 on *This Video *you can see all the lawsuits that were happening in the 2000's under Title 1 because ISP's were breaking NN. That was until ISP's found a flaw under Title 1's classification that made it harder for them to enforce NN. And now the FCC couldn't enforce much under Title 1, not until they were classified as Title II Common Carriers. So this force them to reclassify ISP's under Title 2 so they can enforce anything.

Yes, there were successful lawsuits under Title 1 until ISP's found flaws. So we are not going back to 2000's to 2014 Title 1 NN under this new deal. We're going back to 2014-2015 NN Title 1 with the flaws now known to ISP's under this classification. Which will then make it harder for the FCC and FTC to enforce much even with all the pledges and NN rules.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 17, 2017)

InquisitionImplied said:


> AHAHAHAHA YOU LOSE! EVEN WITH THE BIG SITES AND CELEBRITIES ON YOUR SIDE YOU STILL LOSE! Less regulation let's go BOIII!


If you read the new deal from Pai we're still going to keep Net Neutrality. But we're switching back to Title 1. 
So no, Pai said we are not getting less regulation with his new deal. But theres also extra shit about the deal he's not telling you about.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 17, 2017)

SG854 said:


> If you read the new deal from Pai we're still going to keep Net Neutrality. But we're switching back to Title 1.
> So no, Pai said we are not getting less regulation with his new deal. But theres also extra shit about the deal he's not telling you about.


Pai's bill will make the 'net """""neutral"""""

Whereas what we have now is ""neutral""


----------



## leon315 (Dec 17, 2017)

so basically usa citizen voted a president who bites his own people's hands who gave him vote....


----------



## SG854 (Dec 17, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Pai's bill will make the 'net """""neutral"""""
> 
> Whereas what we have now is ""neutral""


It'll be like the stupid 3DS stability jokes but with Net Neutrality. We need to make it more Neutral by adding more Neutrality. Neutrality on top of Neutrality.

There is a huge flaw in @MaverickWellington argument. He/She said that under Title 2 they can still avoid the Common Carrier classification and thus avoid lawsuits.
But isn't that what this new bill from Pai is doing. By getting rid of Title II Common Carrier classification and going back to Title 1 and thus avoiding lawsuits.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 17, 2017)

SG854 said:


> It'll be like the stupid 3DS stability jokes but with Net Neutrality. We need to make it more Neutral by adding more Neutrality. Neutrality on top of Neutrality.
> 
> There is a huge flaw in @MaverickWellington argument. He/She said that under Title 2 they can still avoid the Common Carrier classification and thus avoid lawsuits.
> But isn't that what this new bill from Pai is doing. By getting rid of Title II Common Carrier classification and going back to Title 1 and thus avoiding lawsuits.


I think his argument is that the voluntary participation and sections outlining penalties under the FTC would negate that issue. The problem is that participation is... well... voluntary, and the FTC doesn't actually have the authority to do what the proposition outlines (aka, afaik they don't actually have the ability to "sue an ISP into oblivion" when following Title I regulations)


----------



## SG854 (Dec 17, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I think his argument is that the voluntary participation and sections outlining penalties under the FTC would negate that issue. The problem is that participation is... well... voluntary, and the FTC doesn't actually have the authority to do what the proposition outlines (aka, afaik they don't actually have the ability to "sue an ISP into oblivion" when following Title I regulations)


It seems Comcast is already going back on their pledge promises the day Pai offered his proposal.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/

Many ISP's have broken NN multiple times in the past so I wouldn't be surprised if they followed suit.
I mean capitalism does exist and people can choose an ISP that is not screwing them over Under Title 1,
but capitalism also exists under Title 2 and you can still choose your ISP, so theres no point for going back to Title 1. Title 2 just gives that extra protection for people that don't have a choice in ISP's.

ISP's keep crushing the smaller guys so its a lot harder for Capitalism to take hold. We still have capitalism under Title 2 so why hasn't more ISP's come up? Or even under Title 1, which we were under for a lot longer. And not many sprung up. Under Title 2 capitalism can still happen, and at the same time protect people if not many ISP's come up.

I also noticed in Pai *Plan* it says "Information Service" and on *Wikipedia* it says "Information Providers" the wording is a bit different but they seem like the same Title 1 classification. And it also says *restore* the classification of Information Service in Pai's plan. So it does make it seem we are going back to how things were before, which would be Title 1.


----------



## dAVID_ (Dec 21, 2017)

Oh well, we tried. We knew we were probably going to fail, and we did.
Now what? TOR Browser? VPN services? Independent ISP services?


----------



## CitizenSnips (Dec 21, 2017)

dAVID_ said:


> Oh well, we tried. We knew we were probably going to fail, and we did.
> Now what? TOR Browser? VPN services? Independent ISP services?


It's not quite over yet, the changes will not go into effect for a little while from what I heard, and Congress can still reverse the decision through the CRA, which could possibly happen, so right now its important to contact your congressmen. The fight isn't over quite yet. But, in the case of every action against the repeal failing, it's hard to say what we can do. ISPs could easily block/throttle/charge more for VPNs, so a VPN might not work. Tor _might _work, but Tor isn't very fast and is not a very reliable solution. I'm not sure if or how an Independent ISP would work, or how practical it'd be. I think the best course of action right now would probably be to hope for the best, and to contact your congressmen if you can.


----------



## dAVID_ (Dec 21, 2017)

CitizenSnips said:


> It's not quite over yet, the changes will not go into effect for a little while from what I heard, and Congress can still reverse the decision through the CRA, which could possibly happen, so right now its important to contact your congressmen. The fight isn't over quite yet. But, in the case of every action against the repeal failing, it's hard to say what we can do. ISPs could easily block/throttle/charge more for VPNs, so a VPN might not work. Tor _might _work, but Tor isn't very fast and is not a very reliable solution. I'm not sure if or how an Independent ISP would work, or how practical it'd be. I think the best course of action right now would probably be to hope for the best, and to contact your congressmen if you can.



I live in Mexico, so that's a no for me. All I hope for is that the congress won't approve this.


----------



## DigitalDeviant (Dec 21, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> The last thing im going to watch is something that is paid for and aired on a state sponsored (propaganda) TV network


Haven't seen the video, they may make good points but yeah its a fact RT is propaganda news arm of from Putin/Kremlin.


----------

