# The FCC plans to vote away net neutrality in December



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 16, 2017)

Link. It hasn't been officially announced, it's been leaked from within the FCC They announced it on Tuesday, Nov. 21st.

I don't want to include a wordy main post, just wanted to hear what the Temp has to say on the matter.

For those wondering, here is what neutrality means:

"*Net neutrality* is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating most of the Internet must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[1] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content." -Wikipedia

Basically, it says that no one that gives you internet access can block parts of the internet for you or create incentives to use one service/site or the other by manipulating how it works in your connection.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Nov 16, 2017)

Yeahhhhhh F*CK that. Net neutrality should be a no-brainer. It's clear that getting rid of net neutrality only benefits the big companies, not we consumers. No one's buying the ISP's crap, saying that no net neutrality is going to be somehow better for us. I wish the internet can be classified a service like telephone networks so that we can be done with this nonsense. The internet should be open and free forever.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 16, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> Yeahhhhhh F*CK that. Net neutrality should be a no-brainer. It's clear that getting rid of net neutrality only benefits the big companies, not we consumers. No one's buying the ISP's crap, saying that no net neutrality is going to be somehow better for us. I wish the internet can be classified a service like telephone networks so that we can be done with this nonsense. The internet should be open and free forever.


It currently is classified as Title 2, not far from phone service. That's what the vote is trying to get rid of, and with it would go net neutrality. 

For context, ISPs used to be classified as Title 1, which is a looser regulation level. The FCC still had net neutrality rules though. Verizon sued in federal court, arguing that the FCC had no authority to maintain net neutrality under title 1. They won the lawsuit. The FCC then promptly gave a Verizon a big FU, and put them and every other ISP under Title 2. 

The situation is different now, however. The FCC head is a former Verizon lawyer, so he'll do whatever they want. 


That last part is my belief, but I think it's proven to be true.


----------



## XDel (Nov 16, 2017)




----------



## keven3477 (Nov 16, 2017)

www.gofccyourself.com
this was a link to the fcc so people could comment to them and ask them to keep net neutrality.

context:


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Nov 16, 2017)

I believe personally that it shouldn't be revoked.

One argument you could make though is that if we did charge differently per platform/website, it would make it not as easy financially for Russia to interfere with the 2016 election. Yes, internet should be open and free, but from a security standpoint, it does make sense to limit it slightly.


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Nov 16, 2017)

This could mean no more GBATEMP


----------



## ThoD (Nov 16, 2017)

Honestly, I don't really care about it. Since the FCC can only enforce it in the US, the rest of the world will just keep going on with their lives, but less burdened by idiots (not all, just a ridiculously high %) Though I can understand why people complain about it. Want to get support on this? Explain to the masses that they won't have access to porn anymore and watch support against the FCC rise instantly!


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Nov 16, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> The FCC head is a former Verizon lawyer, so he'll do whatever they want.


I hate this so much. Clearly the big and very vocal protests from consumers and lobbying from groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation shows support for net neutrality, yet the big companies (Verizon) basically have a man in their pocket. I mean, I know the FCC and all are quite useless in the face of lobbyists, but for something as major as the internet, I wish just once they'd really do what's right for the consumer. Things were going so well, too, with the Title 2 classification n' all.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 16, 2017)

XDel said:


>



Thanks for posting that video, I watched the entire thing just now and I enjoyed it. There are a couple of points I'd like to argue against though.

1) Ron Paul expresses fears that increased government regulation of the net will favor the big companies and decrease competition.
The big thing I think we have to keep in mind is thst the current FCC is in bed with big ISPs, just like he feared. Ajit Pai went to the FCC from Verizon, one of the big players the FCC was made to regulate. It's no secret he's sympathetic to them, he's very much been public about that. However, in this case, decreased regulation would benefit monopolies the most. If we lived in a perfectly competitive system, we wouldn't even need net neutrality because we'd just switch to our ISP's competitor if they started to take advantage of us. The reason net neutrality is relevant is because we already have monopolies in the market. The cellular data market is dominated by less than 10 companies, and the broadband market basically has just two players- Time Warner and Comcast. To expand on that last point, you probsbly only have one or the other in your area. Thsts because they've basically agreed not to compete with each other. It's not a possibility that monoplities might pop up, its reality - they're already here. Net neutrality just limits what they can do while they control the markets.
With that in mind, the current FCC's goal is to just let them do whatever they want. Ajit Pai has said publicly thst he considers an area's ISP market sufficiently competitive if there's one broadband ISP around. That's not competition, that's the textbook definition of a monopoly. Repealing net neutrality is just a step towards the current FCC's goal of letting monopolies roam free.

2) Ron Paul argues that the cost of regulation might be passed on to the consumer, stifling access to technology, or that net neutrality would decrease incentive to innovate/compete.
There are public recordings of ISP companies telling their shareholders (to whom they're legally accountable) that they wouldn't decrease investment or face significant costs over net neutrality. I'd go over the point myself, but they did it for me.

3) He's afraid of increasing government control over content.
That's the exact opposite of what's happening here. In this day and age, government isn't the only one that regulate content. Without net neutrality, the ones who regulate what content gets to you are the ISPs, and they could, for example, remove your access to anti-Comcast or anti-Verizon sites. In case you haven't noticed, that's analogous to the example Ron Paul uses where the government stifles criticism of the patriot Act. Net neutrality isn't an example of the government doing that, it's a case where the government is stopping ISPs from doing that.
TLDR of 3, the government isn't regulating content. It's stopping other people from doing that.

4) He's afraid of draconian laws being used in the modern age,
This is the trickiest one, and I'd argue it's a very valid concern. Old laws can cause new harm, without a doubt. It's just that in this case, which is a very special case due to the monopolistic characteristics of the ISP market, we need some regulation to help limit what a monopoly can do. If we draft new legislation, we get exactly the case that he described, where the people that write laws are in bed with the ones those laws are trying to regulate. With that in mind, we need some legal footing, and that's why we're using old and outdated laws. It's a stupid way to do it, but I can't think of a better way.


In all honestly, Ron Paul is applying sound principles in his arguments, but he's not taking into account the current state of affairs in the ISP market. It doesn't help either that, since this was written, the FCC has gotten a new leader that is the poster boy of monopolistic government practices.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 16, 2017)

The people who are are voting or wanting to let the FCC get away with this, yeah f*ck you all. I hate the FCC, and Verizon. If Net Neutrality goes under, well, I just hope whoever is responsible get an ass whooping.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Nov 16, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> The people who are are voting or wanting to let the FCC get away with this, yeah f*ck you all. I hate the FCC, and Verizon. If Net Neutrality goes under, well, I just hope whoever is responsible get an ass whooping.


I hope there's some kind of mass protest like back in 2012 with SOPA/PIPA where major internet sites blacked themselves out to stop anti-net neutrality regulation from passing. I certainly won't stand for no net neutrality.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 16, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> I hope there's some kind of mass protest like back in 2012 with SOPA/PIPA where major internet sites blacked themselves out to stop anti-net neutrality regulation from passing. I certainly won't stand for no net neutrality.



Oh there will be backlash for sure.


----------



## Chary (Nov 16, 2017)

There needs to be a revolt against all these companies. First Comcast and ATT force data caps, then they skew and play favoritism with certain sites willing to bow down and pay the toll for the "speed lane". 

But then, what can you do? You can't really vote with your wallet, unless people would mass rather have no internet, which is the most unlikely thing. It's not 2009 anymore, and living without internet is a huge deal. 

The only thing left to do is protest it, and that's going nowhere. These big companies are going to keep doing what they want and just steamroll over all the people. 

It comes to a point where you need smaller companies allowing for more freedom in the market, but Comcast-NBC/TWC/ATT-SBC are such large corporate monsters, it's near impossible. 

Then you've got Google trying to bring gigabit internet access to people at a snails pace, which doesn't help either because they've proven as a company that they're okay with censorship and letting the big dogs do whatever they want. We got lucky with SOPA/PIPA, but unless we get a miracle, things look bleak.


----------



## Deleted member 408979 (Nov 16, 2017)

HaloEliteLegend said:


> I hope there's some kind of mass protest like back in 2012 with SOPA/PIPA where major internet sites blacked themselves out to stop anti-net neutrality regulation from passing. I certainly won't stand for no net neutrality.



This reminds me of a story my grandma told me when I was a kid:


Spoiler: story



Once upon a time there lived a wolf and a bear in a dense forest. One day, they found a a great deer, and killed it together. But the bear wanted it all to himself, so he attacked the wolf, and told him that if he ever came back, he'd kill him for good.

The wolf wandered alone in the forest, and eventually, he found the deer's children. He ate every single one, but instead of stopping there, he went on to hunt more and more, so he was never hungry. The bear stayed in the same spot, hoping for another deer to appear again, but none did, and he starved.



tl;dr if something doesn't work for you, you move on to find something better. The same will happen here. People will be upset and will switch to other services.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 16, 2017)

eechigoo said:


> This reminds me of a story my grandma told me when I was a kid:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: story
> ...



Not when there are no other good ISPs in the area, we can't.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 16, 2017)

eechigoo said:


> This reminds me of a story my grandma told me when I was a kid:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: story
> ...


This *may* be possible in the case of cellular service, because there's several providers. In terms of broadband  (modern home internet) however, there's either Comcast or Time Warner, but never both because they don't compete in the same places. 

If Comcast or Time Warner start saying, example, that they don't want people access GBATemp, then that's that, because there's no other significant competitors to switch to. There's no option of moving on to a better service.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 16, 2017)

Unless Google Fiber moves in the area, Comcast is the only major ISP we have here, and that's not much. The FCC and former Verizon CEO can suck themselves sideways.


----------



## Deleted member 408979 (Nov 16, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This *may* be possible in the case of cellular service, because there's several providers. In terms of broadband  (modern home internet) however, there's either Comcast or Time Warner, but never both because they don't compete in the same places.
> 
> If Comcast or Time Warner start saying, example, that they don't want people access GBATemp, then that's that, because there's no other significant competitors to switch to. There's no option of moving on to a better service.



Don't worry about Gbatemp. It's not a big site like reddit. Also, if there's demand, someone will offer.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 16, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Unless Google Fiber moves in the area, Comcast is the only major ISP we have here, and that's not much. The FCC and former Verizon CEO can suck themselves sideways.


That's the case for literally  (this is a statistic) 75% of the country, they just have one big ISP.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 16, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> That's the case for literally  (this is a statistic) 75% of the country, they just have one big ISP.



Yeah, and Comcast can go to hell for being a part of this.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 16, 2017)

eechigoo said:


> Don't worry about Gbatemp. It's not a big site like reddit. Also, if there's demand, someone will offer.


Yeah, the GBATemp thing is just an example, I'm more worried about stuff like reddit and Discord being slowed down, or thngs like Mega being banned. It's quite possible GBAtemp will get blocked too though, not specifically but it could get labeled as "modding-related" and blocked along with others.

And if that happens, there's no one to switch to. I have only Comcast.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 16, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Yeah, the GBATemp thing is just an example, I'm more worried about stuff like reddit and Discord being slowed down, or thngs like Mega being banned. It's quite possible GBAtemp will get blocked too though, not specifically but it could get labeled as "modding-related" and blocked along with others.
> 
> And if that happens, there's no one to switch to. I have only Comcast.



That's why people need to be educated and fight back.


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Nov 17, 2017)

You guys are going overboard, just because regulation is there to revoke something, doesn't mean it will actually happen, or that it will be implemented fully.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 17, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> You guys are going overboard, just because regulation is there to revoke something, doesn't mean it will actually happen, or that it will be implemented fully.



How do you know that?


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Nov 17, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> How do you know that?



Because history


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 17, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> You guys are going overboard, just because regulation is there to revoke something, doesn't mean it will actually happen, or that it will be implemented fully.


Fair enough point. 

However, id like to remind people Verizon sued for the right to do it. If they sued for it, it seems logical that they plan to do it. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verizon_Communications_Inc._v._FCC_(2014)


----------



## RandomUser (Nov 17, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Oh there will be backlash for sure.


You know, some how I don't think there will be very much backlashes. At least not in a way were it gets very violence towards those responsible for reascending net neutrality.
The reason being is now a days I am seeing a lot of people are too friggen' pacifist here in the US.
Now I realize you might think what about that "Not My President" protest riot after Trump been elected. Problem with this, is vandalism was not actually directed at Trump. Random things were vandalize and no violence ever took place towards Trump which is a big difference between vandalizing nearby structure and actually letting the perpetrator "have it" per se.
Perhaps this time people will actually go berserk, who knows and I could be wrong?


----------



## ThoD (Nov 17, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> You know, some how I don't think there will be very much backlashes. At least not in a way were it gets very violence towards those responsible for reascending net neutrality.
> The reason being is now a days I am seeing a lot of people are too friggen' pacifist here in the US.
> Now I realize you might think what about that "Not My President" protest riot after Trump been elected. Problem with this, is vandalism was not actually directed at Trump. Random things were vandalize and no violence ever took place towards Trump which is a big difference between vandalizing nearby structure and actually letting the perpetrator "have it" per se.
> Perhaps this time people will actually go berserk, who knows and I could be wrong?


About the Trump "protests", it was just assholes who ruined private properties of other people like them, cars, houses, etc., it was just an excuse to go out and ruin someone's life without doing any actual protesting! Hard working, good people suffered damages from those assholes, rather than all that "protesting" being directed at Trump.

Moving on now, thing is that nowadays no one really cares about protests and all that, it mostly happens online, so if they so much as want to, they can easily cut off your access to the major platforms and silence you, thus there won't be a backlash for the most part. Sure, people can riot or pay more money to be able to get some attention, but it won't be enough.

Anyway, it only affects the US, so it's literally a 1st world problem, but there's something good that could come out of this, less idiots online! /s


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 17, 2017)

ThoD said:


> About the Trump "protests", it was just assholes who ruined private properties of other people like them, cars, houses, etc., it was just an excuse to go out and ruin someone's life without doing any actual protesting! Hard working, good people suffered damages from those assholes, rather than all that "protesting" being directed at Trump.
> 
> Moving on now, thing is that nowadays no one really cares about protests and all that, it mostly happens online, so if they so much as want to, they can easily cut off your access to the major platforms and silence you, thus there won't be a backlash for the most part. Sure, people can riot or pay more money to be able to get some attention, but it won't be enough.
> 
> Anyway, it only affects the US, so it's literally a 1st world problem, but there's something good that could come out of this, less idiots online! /s


But I'm an idiot . . . and i love going online 

In all truth, I agree that there will be no significant protest if it happens. I think they'll just get what they want, sadly.


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Nov 17, 2017)

ThoD said:


> Honestly, I don't really care about it. Since the FCC can only enforce it in the US, the rest of the world will just keep going on with their lives, but less burdened by idiots (not all, just a ridiculously high %) Though I can understand why people complain about it. Want to get support on this? Explain to the masses that they won't have access to porn anymore and watch support against the FCC rise instantly!


It could still affect other countries though. If your ISP has a parent company based in the US then it might affect whoever has them. In Canada we pretty much only have a few major ISPs because the government has given them such a monopoly and restricts competitors business so they can't take any serious amount of business away from the big guys. So if they folloe suit you either play by their rules or you switch to a smaller ISP which tend to be a lot slower and less reliable.

If this thing does pass, couldn't people just use VPNs? If that works it seems much more logical to pay for that than to pay an extortionate ISP for the right to use certain sites.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 17, 2017)

RedBlueGreen said:


> It could still affect other countries though. If your ISP has a parent company based in the US then it might affect whoever has them. In Canada we pretty much only have a few major ISPs because the government has given them such a monopoly and restricts competitors business so they can't take any serious amount of business away from the big guys. So if they folloe suit you either play by their rules or you switch to a smaller ISP which tend to be a lot slower and less reliable.


Here, it's impossible for anything like revoking net neutrality to happen for one simple reason, we got a LOT of ISP and even though there is a main one that provides the infrastructure to all the others and is the fastest, the difference is hardly 5-10MB/s so it's not bad at all. If anyone pulls something like this, all the people will just move to a different ISP and that main one I mentioned would never pull this kind of thing for the simple reason that it's a government-assisted private company, meaning it is fundamental and anything this big would ruin both of them. Also, if that were to happen, the other ISPs would swoop in to take over the main lines!

Anyway, since the whole FCC thing will never affect me in any way bigger than simply less people doing stuff online, I don't really care and I'm kinda annoyed by how people keep talking about it but don't do anything to actually prevent it! Petitions never do anything, saying you support something doesn't do a thing, all that matters is action and if all you do is stay behind your computer signing petitions and complaining about it, then it's your fault if they take away the net neutrality.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 17, 2017)

RedBlueGreen said:


> It could still affect other countries though. If your ISP has a parent company based in the US then it might affect whoever has them. In Canada we pretty much only have a few major ISPs because the government has given them such a monopoly and restricts competitors business so they can't take any serious amount of business away from the big guys. So if they folloe suit you either play by their rules or you switch to a smaller ISP which tend to be a lot slower and less reliable.
> 
> If this thing does pass, couldn't people just use VPNs? If that works it seems much more logical to pay for that than to pay an extortionate ISP for the right to use certain sites.


They could just block traffic to vpns, I believe.


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Nov 17, 2017)

ThoD said:


> Here, it's impossible for anything like revoking net neutrality to happen for one simple reason, we got a LOT of ISP and even though there is a main one that provides the infrastructure to all the others and is the fastest, the difference is hardly 5-10MB/s so it's not bad at all. If anyone pulls something like this, all the people will just move to a different ISP and that main one I mentioned would never pull this kind of thing for the simple reason that it's a government-assisted private company, meaning it is fundamental and anything this big would ruin both of them. Also, if that were to happen, the other ISPs would swoop in to take over the main lines!
> 
> Anyway, since the whole FCC thing will never affect me in any way bigger than simply less people doing stuff online, I don't really care and I'm kinda annoyed by how people keep talking about it but don't do anything to actually prevent it! Petitions never do anything, saying you support something doesn't do a thing, all that matters is action and if all you do is stay behind your computer signing petitions and complaining about it, then it's your fault if they take away the net neutrality.


I really don't think there would be any practical way to protest it though. Even if thousands of people stood around government buildings I don't think it would change a thing. The guy pushing for the removal of net neutrality is a former Verizon lawyer so he's motivated by financial gain, as are the ISPs. They're not gonna care how people feel unless millions of people switch to smaller companies where available. If it doesn't affect thwir business they could care less.


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Nov 17, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> You know, some how I don't think there will be very much backlashes. At least not in a way were it gets very violence towards those responsible for reascending net neutrality.
> The reason being is now a days I am seeing a lot of people are too friggen' pacifist here in the US.
> Now I realize you might think what about that "Not My President" protest riot after Trump been elected. Problem with this, is vandalism was not actually directed at Trump. Random things were vandalize and no violence ever took place towards Trump which is a big difference between vandalizing nearby structure and actually letting the perpetrator "have it" per se.
> Perhaps this time people will actually go berserk, who knows and I could be wrong?



Umm... What's wrong with pacifism exactly?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 18, 2017)

who else plans to riot or take to the streets if it goes down?
im gonna protest int he streets but not riot cuz im lazy


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 18, 2017)

Instead of protesting the repeal of net neutrality, I recommend you do two things:

1) Use this link that @keven3477 posted to express on your thoughts on net neutrality:
http://www.gofccyourself.com/
If the FCC passes the repeal in spite of large amounts of dissenting comments, they can legally be sued. If you want that to happen, *leave a comment*!!!!

2) Pick up the phone and call your Senators, and tell them that you will refuse to vote for them again if they do not do something to secure net neutrality. You should especially call your senators if they voted in favor of re nominating Ajit Pai. If you open up the list of votes in the Senate, you'll see that the vote was generally partisan, with Republicans voting in favor of Pai, and Democrats voting against (with the expecting on of 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats). It's up to us, their constituents, to make it known that the issue is not a partisan issue to us, it's an issue of common sense. 


Your indication of disapproval may seem like little, but I can promise you it's not.


----------



## keven3477 (Nov 18, 2017)

Glad to know I had trouble finding my comment with all the other ones from today. Maybe I should have said more or is this all right.


----------



## AmandaRose (Nov 18, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This *may* be possible in the case of cellular service, because there's several providers. In terms of broadband  (modern home internet) however, there's either Comcast or Time Warner, but never both because they don't compete in the same places.
> 
> If Comcast or Time Warner start saying, example, that they don't want people access GBATemp, then that's that, because there's no other significant competitors to switch to. There's no option of moving on to a better service.


So are you seriously saying America only has 2 broadband providers?? Because if so why?? I live in Scotland which i am sure you know a quite small country of only 5 million people and we have at least 15 broadband service providers and probably a few more i cant think of at the moment. Why on earth does America only have two.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 18, 2017)

Marko76 said:


> So are you seriously saying America only has 2 broadband providers?? Because if so why?? I live in Scotland which i am sure you know a quite small country of only 5 million people and we have at least 15 broadband service providers and probably a few more i cant think of at the moment. Why on earth does America only have two.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_broadband_providers_in_the_United_States


There are several broadband providers in the US, but most are very small and don't reach many people. Most people in the us just have one broadband provider in their area.

If you look at the list, a lot of the big companies on it don't even offer home internet, only cellular. The two major broadband providers for homes are Comcast and Time Warner (edit: charter, not time warner, time warner is their cable service). Time Warner and Comcast don't compete in the same areas, basically avoiding each other. That's why most people only have one possible broadband provider - Comcast or Time Warner. 

In fact, take a look at this graph:





Broadband is column 3. The graph indicates 47 % of Americans hsve only one broadband provider (with 30% having none). There aren't many options for us. 


The reason why this happened is a long and complex story. The summary is that the market is pretty monopolistic these days.


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Nov 18, 2017)

Marko76 said:


> So are you seriously saying America only has 2 broadband providers?? Because if so why?? I live in Scotland which i am sure you know a quite small country of only 5 million people and we have at least 15 broadband service providers and probably a few more i cant think of at the moment. Why on earth does America only have two.


The little guys just don't have the resources to be nation wide and offer the same speed and reliability for home internet. It's similar in Canada as well, but we have pretty shitty internet because we have so few people and such a large country. 80 Mbps internet where I live is like $120.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Nov 18, 2017)

Why would they do that? I thought they were for net neutrality.
Not like it matters much at this point because net neutrality is pretty much dead and has been for a while. People can try to save it all they want but it's still probably going to be dead in the end.
Edit: Basically, the lobbyists have gotten what they wanted since a few months ago. With some exceptions, net neutrality has failed. It's sad but there's no saving it now.


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Nov 18, 2017)

The Real Jdbye said:


> Why would they do that? I thought they were for net neutrality.
> Not like it matters much at this point because net neutrality is pretty much dead and has been for a while. People can try to save it all they want but it's still probably going to be dead in the end.
> Edit: Basically, the lobbyists have gotten what they wanted since a few months ago. With some exceptions, net neutrality has failed. It's sad but there's no saving it now.


Someone in the FCC is a former Verizon lawyer (or maybe it was former management) so they're pushing for net neutrality to be finished so ISP's can charge you additional fees to access sites you want. So big sites like eBay, Amazon, Netflix, and similar sites can be blocked or ISPs can threaten to block them to extort a pretty penny from them. I imagine the guy pushing for this gets a nice kickback from Verizon (and possibly other ISPs).


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 18, 2017)

keven3477 said:


> Glad to know I had trouble finding my comment with all the other ones from today. Maybe I should have said more or is this all right.
> View attachment 106267


That looks great!

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



The Real Jdbye said:


> Why would they do that? I thought they were for net neutrality.
> Not like it matters much at this point because net neutrality is pretty much dead and has been for a while. People can try to save it all they want but it's still probably going to be dead in the end.
> Edit: Basically, the lobbyists have gotten what they wanted since a few months ago. With some exceptions, net neutrality has failed. It's sad but there's no saving it now.


They're doing it because the head of the FCC is a former Verizon lawyer and can do whatever he wants now that he's in charge.

And don't believe the fight for net neutrality is dead. If it was, the big Internet companies wouldn't be as anxious to get rid of it.

Edit: Internet, not cable


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> That looks great!
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Verizon, the FCC, and the people behind the who premise of removing net neutrality are all a bunch of greedy bastards. I hope their proposal fails.


----------



## DJPlace (Nov 18, 2017)

who ever is doing this shit need there balls cut off and nailed to the fucking CRO**


----------



## jDSX (Nov 18, 2017)

This is especially bad for people living in a small part of a city with horrible infrastructure like myself, there is only one ISP here for service, frontier communications from what I hear they are bad but I haven't had a single problem with my service.


----------



## CitizenSnips (Nov 18, 2017)

I am only able to get hughesnet where I live, I swear if it falls through and they start blocking shit and whatnot i'll be pissed, I cannot let this happen


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Nov 18, 2017)

Economy hasn't gotten better. Or people are just being greedy. Either way is not seem good.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

I wonder how many of the people upset about FCC's decision on net neutrality also voted for Donald Trump. It's not like we didn't know this was going to happen.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I wonder how many of the people upset about FCC's decision on net neutrality also voted for Donald Trump. It's not like we didn't know this was going to happen.



It was either this or vote for the one who wanted the TPP *shrug*  Frankly, neither was fit for office, TPP or FCC, bad medicine.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I wonder how many of the people upset about FCC's decision on net neutrality also voted for Donald Trump. It's not like we didn't know this was going to happen.


This is kinda true (in my eyes at least, cuz I hate Trump), but frankly I think we'll get more work done to fix the issue by not bringing up party lines like this. Net neutrality is one of few principles with broad bipartisan support outside the government, so we'll get more done by using that common ground. We don't win by saying "I told you so", we win by saying "let's not get fucked by these shitty companies and their monopolies".


----------



## ThoD (Nov 18, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Instead of protesting the repeal of net neutrality, I recommend you do two things:
> 
> 1) Use this link that @keven3477 posted to express on your thoughts on net neutrality:
> http://www.gofccyourself.com/
> ...


Who told you such a lie? No matter how many people complain, you CAN'T sue them! The senators and president were elected by YOU to represent you, so whether you like it or not, you can boycott those, but not the FCC or it's decisions. You CAN cause a premature election to happen to replace senators or the president if more than 1/4th of the country is gathered through petitions, but that's never gonna happen with such a huge country. However, in the case that does happen, you can vote them all out of the office and replace them with others who will still be that kind of people!



Marko76 said:


> So are you seriously saying America only has 2 broadband providers?? Because if so why?? I live in Scotland which i am sure you know a quite small country of only 5 million people and we have at least 15 broadband service providers and probably a few more i cant think of at the moment. Why on earth does America only have two.


Same here, in Greece we got like 10 million people and 15 or so providers, even if most aren't that known. In the US it's because the lines were laid out by the government at first and then sold them to investors, but at the time, there were only two individuals who were interested in that investment, so they got a hold of them, built companies and expanded and now things are like this. Now, if any small provider wants to provide internet to people, they "rent" or "borrow" a small part of the lines by one of the other two big companies and that part they get is intentionally and significantly slowed down to even bellow 40% of normal speed. That's also the reason why so many ISPs go with cellular, they prefer a satellite that, while slower, is more dependable and still faster and avoid using the big ISPs' cable lines.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Nov 18, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> That looks great!
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


IIRC the EFF even said as much not long ago, net neutrality is a lost battle. Some semblance of it still remains but it's not what anyone wanted. EFF had to take what they got and what they got was not much worth speaking of.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2017)

The Real Jdbye said:


> IIRC the EFF even said as much not long ago, net neutrality is a lost battle. Some semblance of it still remains but it's not what anyone wanted. EFF had to take what they got and what they got was not much worth speaking of.



So what do you suggest we do, take it up the tailpipe like sycophantic sheep, nod and say "yes sir?" to the government? I'd rather not take the Orwellian route IMO.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Nov 18, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> So what do you suggest we do, take it up the tailpipe like sycophantic sheep, nod and say "yes sir?" to the government? I'd rather not take the Orwellian route IMO.


Not at all, I'm just not sure anything we do at this point will make a difference.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> It was either this or vote for the one who wanted the TPP *shrug*  Frankly, neither was fit for office, TPP or FCC, bad medicine.


Clinton was against the TPP, and she was very much for net neutrality.


----------



## Tigran (Nov 18, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> So what do you suggest we do, take it up the tailpipe like sycophantic sheep, nod and say "yes sir?" to the government? I'd rather not take the Orwellian route IMO.



Heh.. Wonder how many people who are not US citizens will be pissed when they can't access youtube or reddit cause a firewall is put in place in order to block them.

Not to mention of the companies can sue the FCC.. A regular can. As the companies are recognized as a person under US law.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Clinton was against the TPP, and she was very much for net neutrality.



Hmm, so that makes two of them against it, I thought she flip flopped on the whole ordeal, who knows, no sense in me picking sides, I'm not in the mood in political favoritism. I got into quite a debate on another site and it didn't end well, so for the record, I'm bailing. I will say that there are douchebags on both sides of the spectrum.



Tigran said:


> Heh.. Wonder how many people who are not US citizens will be pissed when they can't access youtube or reddit cause a firewall is put in place in order to block them.
> 
> Not to mention of the companies can sue the FCC.. A regular can. As the companies are recognized as a person under US law.



Good, I hope they get their asses sued.



The Real Jdbye said:


> Not at all, I'm just not sure anything we do at this point will make a difference.



How encouraging. Sod government officials.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 18, 2017)

ThoD said:


> Anyway, since the whole FCC thing will never affect me in any way bigger than simply less people doing stuff online, I don't really care and I'm kinda annoyed by how people keep talking about it but don't do anything to actually prevent it! Petitions never do anything, saying you support something doesn't do a thing, all that matters is action and if all you do is stay behind your computer signing petitions and complaining about it, then it's your fault if they take away the net neutrality.


How do you suggest protesting it then? Digging up a bunch of fiber lines? Cutting down the cable lines? DDOSing their DNS servers? Actually that all sounds pretty fun and if a lot of people did it, it would cost them millions to repair all that shit.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> How do you suggest protesting it then? Digging up a bunch of fiber lines? Cutting down the cable lines? DDOSing their DNS servers? Actually that all sounds pretty fun and if a lot of people did it, it would cost them millions to repair all that shit.



I hope they do get DDOSed, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, but for the FCC, it would be hilarious. Get those Verizon bastards too.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Nov 18, 2017)

Chary said:


> There needs to be a revolt against all these companies. First Comcast and ATT force data caps, then they skew and play favoritism with certain sites willing to bow down and pay the toll for the "speed lane".
> 
> But then, what can you do? You can't really vote with your wallet, unless people would mass rather have no internet, which is the most unlikely thing. It's not 2009 anymore, and living without internet is a huge deal.
> 
> ...


Rather than boycott the entire internet, boycott any sites that pay for the better service. If companies begin to notice that playing along with the FCC's horseshit means a significant drop in traffic and by association, ad revenue, maybe companies like that would be less keen on signing their souls away.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

MadMageKefka said:


> Rather than boycott the entire internet, boycott any sites that pay for the better service. If companies begin to notice that playing along with the FCC's horseshit means a significant drop in traffic and by association, ad revenue, maybe companies like that would be less keen on signing their souls away.


And vote for politicians who are dedicated to a free and open internet (i.e. the Democratic Party).


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> And vote for politicians who are dedicated to a free and open internet (i.e. the Democratic Party).



I'll stay  neutral on this part of the topic as well as abstain from voicing how I really feel.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I'll stay  neutral on this part of the topic as well as abstain from voicing how I really feel.


For the sake of staying on topic, we can ignore other political issues. However, on the issue of net neutrality, one party is clearly in favor of it, and one party is clearly against it. This isn't controversial.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> For the sake of staying on topic, we can ignore other political issues. However, on the issue of net neutrality, one party is clearly in favor of it, and one party is clearly against it. This isn't controversial.



And I realize that, I am stating on why I voted the way I did, and I'd rather not go into detail for my reasons behind it. I will say that the FCC being a bunch of douchebags is not one of them.


----------



## MadMageKefka (Nov 18, 2017)

....getting back on topic. The bottom line here is that if this does go through and people want to change it, then we all need to have the balls to actually do something about it. Yes, no internet in 2017 would be rough, but it would give people no choice but to listen to public demand, or watch the entire industry crumble. My biggest problem with people today is that everyone likes to bitch, but when push comes to shove, people won't fight for what they believe in. Most would rather just give in and back down if its easier.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 18, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> How do you suggest protesting it then? Digging up a bunch of fiber lines? Cutting down the cable lines? DDOSing their DNS servers? Actually that all sounds pretty fun and if a lot of people did it, it would cost them millions to repair all that shit.


DDOS wouldn't work first of all since the providers have WAY more bandwith than all the people they provide to put together FCC itself though CAN get DDOSed but it won't matter, it's an organization, not a company making money directly from the people, so they won't care for one measly DDOS. As for the other one, yes! Sabotage the big providers and so on to cause them to lose millions, THEN they will have no choice but to accept that the people want unrestricted access to the internet! As things stand, they will only make more money with all this, but if you cause them to lose millions, then they will give in. HOWEVER, you gotta accept that for a good while you won't have access to the internet until they surrender!



Lacius said:


> And vote for politicians who are dedicated to a free and open internet (i.e. the Democratic Party).


Not gonna call you a retard, but are you stupid? The "democratic" party is the most anti-free speech political party WORLDWIDE! Also, just look at the important figures and how they acted 10 years ago and how they act now, you will see that they've changed completely just to get support on their side, not because they've actually changed. I mean, how do you go from full against gays and trans to full for them in 10 years? Seriously, they are bullshitting people worse than Bush did! Not saying the US republicans are great, but at least they bullshit you a bit less...

Back on topic now, use the internet while you can, gather a few thousand supporters and go sabotage the two big providers countrywide. That's all it will take, if they lose millions, they will start fearing you and give in. However, make sure you don't get caught vandalizing or you will have jail to worry about and in jail you don't get internet!


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

ThoD said:


> Not gonna call you a retard, but are you stupid? The "democratic" party is the most anti-free speech political party WORLDWIDE!


I was going to respond to each point you made, but this kind of hyperbolic nonsense in your second sentence tells me you're not being serious. No American political party is the most anti-free speech political party _worldwide_.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I was going to respond to each point you made, but this kind of hyperbolic nonsense in your second sentence tells me you're not being serious. No American political party is the most anti-free speech political party _worldwide_.


I don't really consider dictatorships to be "political parties". I forgot to make that clear...


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

ThoD said:


> I don't really consider dictatorships to be "political parties". I forgot to make that clear...


And yet, members of the Democratic Party generally support net neutrality, and members of the Republican Party generally don't.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> And yet, members of the Democratic Party generally support net neutrality, and members of the Republican Party generally don't.


"Since when though?" is what you should be asking yourself. The democratic party only started supporting net neutrality after the republicans got the power to take it away, meaning that, for the most part, it was after their salty loss at the election (who wouldn't be salty losing to an orange?). You should take everything they say with a grain of salt, they could just be doing it for support against the republicans to guarantee their victory come next election for all we know. Also, don't think that if the democrats win next time things will be better, no politician really does what he says he will when they are running in an election if they win, they CAN'T do half the things they said they will! That's how politics work. But anyway, don't protest the government that's a puppet of the Congress anyway, protest the ISPs through sabotage and you will get what you want.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

ThoD said:


> The democratic party only started supporting net neutrality after the republicans got the power to take it away


That's not even close to true. The Obama Administration and the Democratic Party have been consistently for net neutrality, and the Republican Party has been consistently against it. It's part of each group's ideology. Democrats want it treated like a utility with regulations, while Republicans want the private sector to have free reign.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> That's not even close to true. The Obama Administration and the Democratic Party have been consistently for net neutrality, and the Republican Party has been consistently against it. It's part of each group's ideology. Democrats want it treated like a utility with regulations, while Republicans want the private sector to have free reign.


The so called "regulations" the democrats want though are almost the same thing, instead of taking away your speed and bandwidth they take your free speech. Anyway, not saying republicans are good, both of the parties are crap and anti-free speech who want to control even when you go take a shit, what I'm trying to get at since my first post about this is that you shouldn't blindly trust someone just because they SAY they support something when they have clearly not bothered to take any ACTION to support it and trust them even less if they are a politician, after all, lying is 99% of the job!


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

ThoD said:


> The so called "regulations" the democrats want though are almost the same thing, instead of taking away your speed and bandwidth they take your free speech.


Can you back this up? How does anybody in the Democratic Party want to take away anybody's free speech? So far, the only politician I've seen who wants to take away anybody's free speech on the internet is Donald Trump, and that's not including his opposition to net neutrality.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 18, 2017)

ThoD said:


> DDOS wouldn't work first of all since the providers have WAY more bandwith than all the people they provide to put together FCC itself though CAN get DDOSed but it won't matter, it's an organization, not a company making money directly from the people, so they won't care for one measly DDOS.


Yeah I know it would be impossible to DDOS an ISP, that was mostly a joke for the person saying to get up and do something about it, when in reality there aren't many options to protest that don't involve illegal sabotage.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Can you back this up? How does anybody in the Democratic Party want to take away anybody's free speech? So far, the only politician I've seen who wants to take away anybody's free speech on the internet is Donald Trump.


When did Trump try to take away free-speech? When democrats rioted at almost all republican events to shut people up or when they made threats? When democrat leaders supported the banning of other-partied people from social media and online platforms? Trump will take away your internet SPEED for the most part, VERY different from speech. AGAIN, no party is any good, both are shit, just saying you shouldn't trust politicians, do research on everything first or try running yourself!



Subtle Demise said:


> Yeah I know it would be impossible to DDOS an ISP, that was mostly a joke for the person saying to get up and do something about it, when in reality there aren't many options to protest that don't involve illegal sabotage.


Illegal sabotage is good you know! Also, how many people online who are actually involved heavily in net neutrality happen to be electricians, electric engineers, electronic engineers and so on? They could easily try and do an inside job to sabotage the ISPs and get away with it...


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

ThoD said:


> When did Trump try to take away free-speech?


I linked to when he expressed an interest in online censorship.



ThoD said:


> When democrats rioted at almost all republican events to shut people up or when they made threats? When democrat leaders supported the banning of other-partied people from social media and online platforms?


What are you talking about? I'm not aware of a single piece of policy or legislation by members of the Democratic Party aimed at taking away free speech.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I linked to when he expressed an interest in online censorship.
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? I'm not aware of a single piece of policy or legislation by members of the Democratic Party aimed at taking away free speech.


About Trump, I said "for the most part". As for the other one, you don't need to make some policy in order to have your supported riot for you to shut the opposition up. You are saying that the democrats had nothing to do with all the shit their supporters did after getting invoked to do them by the leaders! It wasn't an order, but there was never condemnation from the democrats about what all their supporters did, but there WAS support almost every time something major happened. Most importantly, how can you think a party that literally treats people depending on skin color and gender can be any good? At least republicans treat everyone just as shitty, even if that's their only strong point... Anyway, for the last time because we are derailing the thread, don't trust politicians, you can tell what they will do when they are in power easily, before the elections even, if you simply do research on them! Actions speak louder than words and in the last 4 or so years, neither party has really done anything FOR net neutrality.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

ThoD said:


> About Trump, I said "for the most part". As for the other one, you don't need to make some policy in order to have your supported riot for you to shut the opposition up. You are saying that the democrats had nothing to do with all the shit their supporters did after getting invoked to do them by the leaders! It wasn't an order, but there was never condemnation from the democrats about what all their supporters did, but there WAS support almost every time something major happened. Most importantly, how can you think a party that literally treats people depending on skin color and gender can be any good? At least republicans treat everyone just as shitty, even if that's their only strong point... Anyway, for the last time because we are derailing the thread, don't trust politicians, you can tell what they will do when they are in power easily, before the elections even, if you simply do research on them! Actions speak louder than words and in the last 4 or so years, neither party has really done anything FOR net neutrality.


You can't argue that the Democratic Party is bad on free speech rights without substantive policy positions to back it up.

In addition, you've completely ignored the facts as I've presented them to you with regard to the Democratic Party's consistent endorsement of net neutrality.

I think your thesis that we shouldn't trust politicians to do what they're going to say is completely wrong. President Obama advocated for net neutrality, and he instructed the FCC to classify it as a public utility. Donald Trump said he was opposed to net neutrality, and he's guiding the FCC to give businesses free reign over the internet. With regard to this specific issue, politicians should very much be trusted to do what they said they were going to do.

Edit: I'd like to respond to some of your other comments, but they didn't seem to make sense. For example, you said something about treating people depending on skin color and gender, but you didn't finish the thought. Treat people how? This is a rhetorical question. If you want to answer me, send me a private message so we don't derail the thread even more.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> You can't argue that the Democratic Party is bad on free speech rights without substantive policy positions to back it up.
> 
> In addition, you've completely ignored the facts as I've presented them to you with regard to the Democratic Party's consistent endorsement of net neutrality.
> 
> I think your thesis that we shouldn't trust politicians to do what they're going to say is completely wrong. President Obama advocated for net neutrality, and he instructed the FCC to classify it as a public utility. Donald Trump said he was opposed to net neutrality, and he's guiding the FCC to give businesses free reign over the internet. With regard to this specific issue, politicians should very much be trusted to do what they said they were going to do.


You seem to not understand something, NO MATTER what someone SAYS, it's that they DO that matters. When you support and endorse riots and boycotts when targeted at your rivals just to shut them up, policy or not, you are AGAINST free speech. For that same reason, SAYING they support it doesn't mean they actually do support it as they haven't done anything other than say they are for it, except for what Obama did. In Obama's case though, he advocated for it and did that all right, one of the few things he actually did. More than half the things he said he would do during his election and reelection weren't even put into place. Sure, wasn't one of the best presidents you people have gotten in the last 20 years, but he didn't keep his word on everything and even made a lot of things worse (eg: health care). So yes, DON'T trust politicians' words, trust their ACTIONS. It's LITERALLY how politics work, but I guess ignorance is better for some... Finally, you keep confusing net neutrality and free speech, those are two different things. You can DIRECT free speech if you take away net neutrality, but not control it or take it away.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

ThoD said:


> You seem to not understand something, NO MATTER what someone SAYS, it's that they DO that matters. When you support and endorse riots and boycotts when targeted at your rivals just to shut them up, policy or not, you are AGAINST free speech. For that same reason, SAYING they support it doesn't mean they actually do support it as they haven't done anything other than say they are for it, except for what Obama did. In Obama's case though, he advocated for it and did that all right, one of the few things he actually did. More than half the things he said he would do during his election and reelection weren't even put into place. Sure, wasn't one of the best presidents you people have gotten in the last 20 years, but he didn't keep his word on everything and even made a lot of things worse (eg: health care). So yes, DON'T trust politicians' words, trust their ACTIONS. It's LITERALLY how politics work, but I guess ignorance is better for some... Finally, you keep confusing net neutrality and free speech, those are two different things. You can DIRECT free speech if you take away net neutrality, but not control it or take it away.


The Democratic Party has given every indication, through words and actions, that they're in favor of net neutrality. The Republican Party has given every indication, through words and actions, that they're against net neutrality. There's a lot of other stuff to address, but I'm keeping it on topic.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> The Democratic Party has given every indication, through words alone, that they're in favor of net neutrality. The Republican Party has given every indication, through words and actions, that they're against net neutrality. There's a lot of other stuff to address, but I'm keeping it on topic.


Fixed that right there for you

Now, back on topic, who's for some rioting and large-scale sabotaging? I got my popcorn and drinks ready to watch you simpletons struggle!


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

ThoD said:


> Fixed that right there for you


You don't get to ignore the advances Democratic politicians have made on the issue of net neutrality–advances you've conceded–just because it contradicts your argument.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 18, 2017)

Please, please, PLEASE stop making net neutrality a Democratic-Republican issue. The only people in favor of repealing net neutrality are politicians who can get money or rewards from ISP lobbying. It's not an issue with Republicans or Democrats, it's an issue with conflicts of interest. 

Almost every single non-politician is in favor of net neutrality, no matter the party. That's what we should be focusing on! 

The debate over which party supports net neutrality or not gets us nowhere. In fact, that's what Pai wants, since as we squabble he's actually working towards his shitty goals.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I linked to when he expressed an interest in online censorship.
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? I'm not aware of a single piece of policy or legislation by members of the Democratic Party aimed at taking away free speech.



No, but they were insistent on cramming a broken universal healthcare system that cost 800 billion dollars up our asses, so far in fact, when underemployed workers like meyself can't even afford basic coverage. How was that fair of the GDP to impose that? It should be called the Unaffordable Healthcare Act. ACA, Obamacare, whatever you call it, was a good system on paper, but a bullshit system when implemented. I shouldn't be penalized $800 for something I don't make enough hours to cover the basic fees for insurance. Universal healthcare is a joke, the United States doesn't have the proper infrastructure to support it; that's why smaller countries can but we can't.  The US is far too expansive. Obamacare has never helped me afford seeing a doctor, dentist, I had to pay out of my own f*cking pocket, how is this supposed to be "for everyone" again?


TL;DR - The government is FUBAR no matter what they do, FCC can stick it where the sun don't shine.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Please, please, PLEASE stop making net neutrality a Democratic-Republican issue. The only people in favor of repealing net neutrality are politicians who can get money or rewards from ISP lobbying. It's not an issue with Republicans or Democrats, it's an issue with conflicts of interest.
> 
> Almost every single non-politician is in favor of net neutrality, no matter the party. That's what we should be focusing on!
> 
> The debate over which party supports net neutrality or not gets us nowhere. In fact, that's what Pai wants, since as we squabble he's actually working towards his shitty goals.


It shouldn't be a Democrat vs. Republican issue, but it unfortunately is one. It should also be noted that 61% of people are in favor of net neutrality, and the rest are opposed or don't know what it is. That number drops to about 51% among Republicans, and it rises among Democrats. As with a lot of issues, however, the polling doesn't coincide with the views of the politicians. Republican politicians are overwhelmingly opposed to net neutrality, and Democratic politicians are overwhelmingly in favor of it.



the_randomizer said:


> No, but they were insistent on cramming a broken universal healthcare system that cost 800 billion dollars up our asses, so far in fact, when underemployed workers like meyself can't even afford basic coverage. How was that fair of the GDP to impose that? It should be called the Unaffordable Healthcare Act.


You're way off-topic. PM me if you want to talk about this.


----------



## ThoD (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> You don't get to ignore the advances Democratic politicians have made on the issue of net neutrality–advances you've conceded–just because it contradicts your argument.


I didn't ignore anything, I just don't consider things that happened more than two elections before relevant to how the party is now.



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Please, please, PLEASE stop making net neutrality a Democratic-Republican issue. The only people in favor of repealing net neutrality are politicians who can get money or rewards from ISP lobbying. It's not an issue with Republicans or Democrats, it's an issue with conflicts of interest.
> 
> Almost every single non-politician is in favor of net neutrality, no matter the party. That's what we should be focusing on!
> 
> The debate over which party supports net neutrality or not gets us nowhere. In fact, that's what Pai wants, since as we squabble he's actually working towards his shitty goals.


You are right, I said it's not. Neither party really wants you to have it anymore, it's mostly individuals though in both parties. Hurry up and do something rather than fight about how to go about it! You don't have much time and if you take too long I will get bored with the stale entertainment...



the_randomizer said:


> No, but they were insistent on cramming a broken universal healthcare system that cost 800 billion dollars up our asses, so far in fact, when underemployed workers like meyself can't even afford basic coverage. How was that fair of the GDP to impose that? It should be called the Unaffordable Healthcare Act. ACA, Obamacare, whatever you call it, was a good system on paper, but a bullshit system when implemented. I shouldn't be penalized $800 for something I don't make enough hours to cover the basic fees for insurance. Universal healthcare is a joke, the United States doesn't have the proper infrastructure to support it; that's why smaller countries can but we can't.  The US is far too expansive.


The health care in the US is easily the worst part of everything you people have! They shoved that slong so far up your ass that it's almost impossible to take it away now!


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> It shouldn't be a Democrat vs. Republican issue, but it unfortunately is one. It should also be noted that 61% of people are in favor of net neutrality, and the rest are opposed or don't know what it is. That number drops to about 51% among Republicans, and it rises among Democrats. As with a lot of issues, however, the polling doesn't coincide with the views of the politicians. Republican politicians are overwhelmingly opposed to net neutrality, and Democratic politicians are overwhelmingly in favor of it.
> 
> 
> You're way off-topic. PM me if you want to talk about this.



I'm just saying, what the government does is never for the benefit of the people, never has and never will be. FCC and Verizon are no different.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 18, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm just saying, what the government does is never for the benefit of the people, never has and never will be.


That's not even close to true.



ThoD said:


> I didn't ignore anything, I just don't consider things that happened more than two elections before relevant to how the party is now.


You were complaining earlier about how the Democratic Party was well over two election cycles ago.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> That's not even close to true.



So you're saying that the bullshit FCC and Verizon are pulling are good for the citizens of the US? I sure don't think so. Government officials never agree on anything, it's always this vs that, no one can agree on this issue without bringing up that issue. I absolutely detest it because no one can seem to agree on a single issue or solution. Makes me want to bitch slap some sense into them.

Why can't people just learn to agree to disagree and move on? Sometime there isn't going to be magical solution, there almost never is one in fact, but no, politicians have to over-dramatize and sensationalize the issues, it's really aggravating.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 18, 2017)

Lacius said:


> As with a lot of issues, however, the polling doesn't coincide with the views of the politicians.



Exactly this, and that's pretty much the only problem here, and its why we have to come together as people and call those snakes we call our congressmen. Let's not argue among ourselves. the only way to solve it is to make it a problem for them by making their phones ring like crazy.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Exactly this, and that's pretty much the only problem here, and its why we have to come together as people and call those snakes we call our congressmen. Let's not argue among ourselves. the only way to solve it is to make it a problem for them by making their phones ring like crazy.


Or we could vote for the politicians who consistently support policies that the people support, instead of voting for the politicians who sell out to the rich and the big businesses.



the_randomizer said:


> So you're saying that the bullshit FCC and Verizon are pulling are good for the citizens of the US?


I didn't say that. Reread what I was responding to. I'm very much against what Trump and the FCC are doing, if I didn't already make myself clear about that.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 19, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Or we could vote for the politicians who consistently support policies that the people support, instead of voting for the politicians who sell out to the rich and the big businesses.
> 
> 
> I didn't say that. Reread what I was responding to. I'm very much against what Trump and the FCC are doing, if I didn't already make myself clear about that.



And I have my reasons for not wanting Clinton in power, but I will say the FCC was not one of the reasons, but like was mentioned, I can take it to the PM. The people shouldn't stand for this, part of me hopes for some kind of insurrection to overturn or remove the former Verizon CEO from the FCC. Or that the FCC is completely defunded and/or whitewashed with people who know what the hell they're doing.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 19, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Or we could vote for the politicians who consistently support policies that the people support, instead of voting for the politicians who sell out to the rich and the big businesses.



This is easy to say, but sadly there issues that most people care more about than net neutrality. 

In the perfect world, most politicians would be in favor of it, just like their constituents. In practice, unless we as their constituents make a move we can kiss net neutrality goodbye.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 19, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This is easy to say, but sadly there issues that most people care more about than net neutrality.
> 
> In the perfect world, most politicians would be in favor of it, just like their constituents. In practice, unless we as their constituents make a move we can kiss net neutrality goodbye.



I hope someone gets their ass sued and the decision reversed.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 19, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I hope someone gets their ass sued and the decision reversed.


This is possible if we band together. First step is to donate to groups like the EFF and ACLU that have the power to sue and then call our congressmen to make them pay for their actions against net neutrality, maybe by voting against them in our party's primaries or calling them like I've been saying.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This is easy to say, but sadly there issues that most people care more about than net neutrality.
> 
> In the perfect world, most politicians would be in favor of it, just like their constituents. In practice, unless we as their constituents make a move we can kiss net neutrality goodbye.


On all the major issues I can think of, the policies of the Democratic Party are more popular:

Climate change
Net neutrality
LGBT rights
Women's rights
Taxation
Gun control
Foreign policy
Immigration issues
Public education
Health care
Minimum wage
Infrastructure
These are just off the top of my head. Why, then, do Democrats sometimes suck when competing against Republicans? The candidates sometimes suck at campaigning, and we have a gerrymandered House of Representatives, Senate, and Presidency.



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This is possible if we band together. First step is to donate to groups like the EFF and ACLU that have the power to sue and then call our congressmen to make them pay for their actions against net neutrality, maybe by voting against them in our party's primaries or calling them like I've been saying.


I'm 100% on board with this.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 19, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This is possible if we band together. First step is to donate to groups like the EFF and ACLU that have the power to sue and then call our congressmen to make them pay for their actions against net neutrality, maybe by voting against them in our party's primaries or calling them like I've been saying.


I emailed congress to repeal the controlled substances act and abolish the DEA, and all I got was a form letter back lol.

I don't think contacting congress really has any effect.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> I emailed congress to repeal the controlled substances act and abolish the DEA, and all I got was a form letter back lol.
> 
> I don't think contacting congress really has any effect.


It only has an effect if a lot of people are contacting them about the same issue.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 19, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I wonder how many of the people upset about FCC's decision on net neutrality also voted for Donald Trump. It's not like we didn't know this was going to happen.


Completely unrelated. A good way to start shit for nothing though. So yay?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Completely unrelated. A good way to start shit for nothing though. So yay?


No, I thought it was completely related. I saw a bunch of posts that went basically like this:

_"Why is this happening?"
_
And many of these same people are Donald Trump supporters. By posing the question, I'm answering theirs.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 19, 2017)

Lacius said:


> No, I thought it was completely related. I saw a bunch of posts that went basically like this:
> 
> _"Why is this happening?"
> _
> And many of these same people are Donald Trump supporters. By posing the question, I'm answering theirs.


If the election were based solely on the vote for Net Neutrality, Hillary Clinton would have won based on what you are saying.
However, it wasn't. There are far greater issues in our country than Net Neutrality. Granted, it is a large issue that is widely overlooked; however, terrorism and illegal immigrants are objectively more important than Net Neutrality.

In reality, you are wanting to bring your political bias into the equation. By saying that all Republicans were ignorant when voting for DT is a generalization, just like saying that all Democrats are whiny brats that were disrespectful to the country by burning our flag.

Next time, try and include that tidbit of information without an obvious hatred to the Republican party.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2017)

blujay said:


> By saying that all Republicans were ignorant when voting for DT is a generalization, just like saying that all Democrats are whiny brats that were disrespectful to the country by burning our flag.
> 
> Next time, try and include that tidbit of information without an obvious hatred to the Republican party.


I didn't say that.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 19, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I didn't say that.


Whether you implied for it to be taken that way or not, it was. At least for, and I don't doubt that others felt the same.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2017)

blujay said:


> Whether you implied for it to be taken that way or not, it was. At least for, and I don't doubt that others felt the same.


Then you need to pay better attention to my posts.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 19, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Then you need to pay better attention to my posts.


Is it my fault that the way you worded your post had a different effect than what you intended?
The short answer is no.

Just word them better next time. You could have said "Donald Trump and the Republican party are against Net Neutrality, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was repealed."
Instead of calling out those that voted for Donald Trump, you could have let them figure that one out for themselves.

Or, the even better option was to not include that at all.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2017)

blujay said:


> Is it my fault that the way you worded your post had a different effect than what you intended?
> The short answer is no.
> 
> Just word them better next time. You could have said "Donald Trump and the Republican party are against Net Neutrality, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was repealed."
> ...


I don't think there was anything wrong with the way I worded my post, when acknowledging the disparity between some Trump supporters and their views on net neutrality, specifically on this forum, is very interesting. The topic itself was also super relevant, given that 100% of the reason this is happening is because Trump is in the Oval Office. Thanks for the feedback though.


----------



## dAVID_ (Nov 19, 2017)

You know, there's a phrase that goes by:
"It's better to *not *talk about politics, sports, and religion".


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2017)

dAVID_ said:


> You know, there's a phrase that goes by:
> "It's better to *not *talk about politics, sports, and religion".


I thought it was politics, _sex_, and religion.


----------



## dAVID_ (Nov 19, 2017)

Lacius said:


> I thought it was politics, _sex_, and religion.



That too. You may not notice, but where I live there are frequent conflicts between adverse soccer teams.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 19, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> It was either this or vote for the one who wanted the TPP *shrug*  Frankly, neither was fit for office, TPP or FCC, bad medicine.


I just hope you realize that as it stands, the TPP will still exist, it's just that the US won't get a say


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 19, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I just hope you realize that as it stands, the TPP will still exist, it's just that the US won't get a say



TPP can die in a fire for all I care. Bastard politicians.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 19, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I just hope you realize that as it stands, the TPP will still exist, it's just that the US won't get a say


Not really relevant to the topic at hand, but if i recall correctly the TPP was set to start when countries representing around 80% (or something like that) of the total GDP ratified it. The US is something like 40%, so it is actually completely dead.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 19, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Not really relevant to the topic at hand, but if i recall correctly the TPP was set to start when countries representing around 80% (or something like that) of the total GDP ratified it. The US is something like 40%, so it is actually completely dead.


Because of the United States' exit from the TPP, the remaining countries are re-negotiating it. It's not dead. They reached a partial agreement for the time being about a week ago.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 19, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Because of the United States' exit from the TPP, the remaining countries are re-negotiating it. It's not dead.



Those who vote and support the TPP can all f**k themselves. and I'm not sorry for saying that. That fact there is literally nothing we can do pisses me off. Thus this goes back to governments not caring what the people want, refute that claim if you must.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 19, 2017)

Lacius said:


> Because of the United States' exit from the TPP, the remaining countries are re-negotiating it. It's not dead.


Ah, I had no idea. Either way I don't have much interest in the issue, but thanks for getting the facts straight for me.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 19, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> TPP can die in a fire for all I care. Bastard politicians.


Well, I mean... it won't


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 19, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Well, I mean... it won't



The fact people are in favor of this shows governments don't give a rat's ass about what the people want. And the fact we can't do jack shit really makes it all better, doesn't it?

Governments in general and those in favor of the TPP, FCC, etc don't want what's best for us; voting, petitioning, complaining, etc to those in power will not help anyone at all, period.

It's time we all say "fuck this" and give up, because that's the vibe I'm getting.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 19, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> The fact people are in favor of this shows governments don't give a rat's ass about what the people want. And the fact we can't do jack shit really makes it all better, doesn't it?
> 
> Governments in general and those in favor of the TPP, FCC, etc don't want what's best for us; voting, petitioning, complaining, etc to those in power will not help anyone at all, period.


Sorry, what's wrong with the FCC? (that is, when it wasn't being run by a guy who hated its existence)


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 19, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sorry, what's wrong with the FCC? (that is, when it wasn't being run by a guy who hated its existence)



Nothing, by default. But given that TPP will pass, net neutrality will be removed, governments sure as hell don't want to help the citizens, but only line their pockets with filthy lucre, and us to sit back and take it up the tailpipe. Sure as hell seems
that way now, no amount of complaining, petitioning, writing to our Congressmen, will do any amount of good. In fact, we may as well just give up even trying, we can't fight the power, so what's the bloody point in adressing
issues that will never get resolved?

We may as well just wave our white flags now and let our governments rape us for everything we got. That's the vibe I'm getting, prove me wrong. 


Slower internet
Stricter copyright laws
Less internet freedoms and rights taken away
Bigger government control

What could possibly go wrong??


I see no light at the end of this tunnel. 

Screw  the TPP and every politician that supports it There is nothing we can do, at all. Time to pack our bags.


----------



## RandomUser (Nov 21, 2017)

ThoD said:


> About the Trump "protests", it was just assholes who ruined private properties of other people like them, cars, houses, etc., it was just an excuse to go out and ruin someone's life without doing any actual protesting! Hard working, good people suffered damages from those assholes, rather than all that "protesting" being directed at Trump.
> 
> Moving on now, thing is that nowadays no one really cares about protests and all that, it mostly happens online, so if they so much as want to, they can easily cut off your access to the major platforms and silence you, thus there won't be a backlash for the most part. Sure, people can riot or pay more money to be able to get some attention, but it won't be enough.
> 
> Anyway, it only affects the US, so it's literally a 1st world problem, but there's something good that could come out of this, less idiots online! /s


That is actually a better explanation then I gave.
It appears now that the people are pacifist to the higher ups and love to abuse one another on the same level or below.



Zhongtiao1 said:


> Umm... What's wrong with pacifism exactly?


Nothing if you liked to be used and abused, also like to be trampled on and don't care how badly the negative effect a decision has on your life from someone above you.
Actually take a look at what @the_randomizer stated in the first paragraph ^. That pretty much sums it up about pacifism. People at some point may need to unite and stand up, even if means taking arms and starting a war against the government, however there is a risk being blown away by the military.



Marko76 said:


> So are you seriously saying America only has 2 broadband providers?? Because if so why?? I live in Scotland which i am sure you know a quite small country of only 5 million people and we have at least 15 broadband service providers and probably a few more i cant think of at the moment. Why on earth does America only have two.


Their's this thing called monopoly.


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Nov 21, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> Nothing if you liked to be used and abused, also like to be trampled on and don't care how badly the negative effect a decision has on your life from someone above you.
> Actually take a look at what @the_randomizer stated in the first paragraph ^. That pretty much sums it up about pacifism. People at some point may need to unite and stand up, even if means taking arms and starting a war against the government, however there is a risk being blown away by the military.
> /QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## RandomUser (Nov 21, 2017)

Switzerland is neutral and not pacifist. They will fight to remain neutral if need be.

Neither is kissing the ass of the government isn't going to do the citizen any good. How can you take the government by force when it was created by the people themselves? Isn't the government by the people and for the people? If yes, then why are they acting like this: by the people and against the people. They need to be reminded they are supposed to be for the people and not against the people.

No one would vote for me, not by a long shot. Why you may ask? Because I'm a nobody to the people.
It would be too stressful to even run and I'm certainly not the best looking, in fact might be the bottom tier against those that would be running. Also how would you get sponsors for the campaign? I have notice mostly governing body usually runs for president, not an average Joe or Jane. Sadly I am the latter "average" or consider myself to be average. Most importantly not into politic.

Besides the president don't generally have the power to change anything.

So all in all like what the_randomizer stated in his post above. We're basically hosed and people just seems to "take it" and like it.

So what would you solution be besides "running for president" be?


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Nov 21, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> So what would you solution be besides "running for president" be?



Wait two frickin years until you can elect a politician that does follow your views. The world isn't going to end just because the government gets to see the pictures of my cat that I post on facebook. Oh wait... They already can do that anyways (or at least russia can )


----------



## RandomUser (Nov 21, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> Wait two frickin years until you can elect a politician that does follow your views. The world isn't going to end just because the government gets to see the pictures of my cat that I post on facebook. Oh wait... They already can do that anyways (or at least russia can )


Government spying has been an issue for a while, but this argument isn't about that, it is about the government siding with the corperation and putting the citizen on the back burner as of late. But meh, why even bother hoping for a politician that follows my view. They say this and that, but almost always act the very opposite on what they say. So again what the point?


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Nov 21, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> Government spying has been an issue for a while, but this argument isn't about that, it is about the government siding with the corperation and putting the citizen on the back burner as of late. But meh, why even bother hoping for a politician that follows my view. They say this and that, but almost always act the very opposite on what they say. So again what the point?



I don't know what state you live in, but in Washington we have accountability and review measures put in for our federal and state representatives, so maybe I have a lighter view of government than you do.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 21, 2017)

...............
Government has removed this message. Sensitive information not for discloser.
GBATemp is no longer available in your country.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 21, 2017)

SG854 said:


> ...............
> Government has removed this message. Sensitive information not for discloser.
> GBATemp is no longer available in your country.


Nooooo nonono, it's not even like that. It'll be more like

WOULD YOU LIKE TO ACCESS "GBAtemp.net?"

Please purchase the "social network" package for an additional $10/mo to access websites like
-Facebook
-Twitter
-Reddit
-Tumblr
... and many more!!!​


----------



## rileysrjay (Nov 21, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Nooooo nonono, it's not even like that. It'll be more like
> 
> WOULD YOU LIKE TO ACCESS "GBAtemp.net?"
> 
> ...


Gbatemp wouldn't even be under the "social network" package. It would be more like this:

WOULD YOU LIKE TO ACCESS "GBAtemp.net?"


It looks like GBAtemp.net is not available in any of our website bundles. But don't panic! You can add custom websites like gbatemp.net for the low price of $5 per custom website!​


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Nov 21, 2017)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ts-plan-to-rollback-its-net-neutrality-rules/


----------



## Subtle Demise (Nov 21, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Sorry, what's wrong with the FCC? (that is, when it wasn't being run by a guy who hated its existence)


The FCC is fine as long as they're regulating elctronic devices and radio interference in the interest of consumer safety like they're supposed to. It's when they start overzealously censoring radio and TV content or enabling shady business practices that people should start getting upset.


----------



## rileysrjay (Nov 21, 2017)

Subtle Demise said:


> The FCC is fine as long as they're regulating elctronic devices and radio interference in the interest of consumer safety like they're supposed to. It's when they start overzealously censoring radio and TV content or enabling shady business practices that people should start getting upset.


When you mentioned the censoring tv part, it reminded me of the PTV episode of family Guy. Episode summary from imdb:

After an incident at the Emmys, the FCC overreacts, so Peter decides to start his own cable network, until the FCC shut him down and start censoring his life.


----------



## Termer (Nov 21, 2017)

This is a reason for outrage! Net neutrality is fantastic! I don't want to have to use the Tor Browser all the time.

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

And with the departure of net neutrality goes the freedom to meme


----------



## SomeKindOfUsername (Nov 21, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> Neither is kissing the ass of the government isn't going to do the citizen any good. How can you take the government by force when it was created by the people themselves? Isn't the government by the people and for the people? If yes, then why are they acting like this: by the people and against the people. They need to be reminded they are supposed to be for the people and not against the people.


Corporations are people too. People with money. Now of course all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.
I tell ya, it's difficult not to get too political here. All I'll say is, we reap what we sow so we'd better own up to it and maybe reflect a little bit.



Subtle Demise said:


> The FCC is fine as long as they're regulating elctronic devices and radio interference in the interest of consumer safety like they're supposed to. It's when they start overzealously censoring radio and TV content or enabling shady business practices that people should start getting upset.


They only censor content that's broadcast (as in, over the airwaves which are technically government property or something like that) and even then they only enforce these rules between "prime time" hours. Cable networks are only censored because advertisers typically don't want to be associated with adult content.
The whole reason why NN is such a big stink for ISPs is because they are regulated by the FCC. They'd much rather be under FTC control who have more limited power (they are more reactive in nature than preventative like the FCC) and have historically taken a "whatever" approach to things that some would consider harmful business practices.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 21, 2017)

It's official. 

The FCC has announced the vote, the date net neutrality ends shall be Dec. 14

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html


----------



## SG854 (Nov 21, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Nooooo nonono, it's not even like that. It'll be more like
> 
> WOULD YOU LIKE TO ACCESS "GBAtemp.net?"
> 
> ...


This is bullshit. No way I'm paying to watch youtube.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> It's official.
> 
> The FCC has announced the vote, the date net neutrality ends shall be Dec. 14
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html


That...

Oh God. This is actually happening...


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

What the hell do we do now?

It's all over, goodbye Temp, Facebook, YouTube, and so on. 


Fuck you FCC CEO, I hope you die in a fire.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 22, 2017)

I'm sure that whatever happens, some new proxy or vpn service that will pop up should be able to get you to any site you want just fine.... hopefully.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> I'm sure that whatever happens, some new proxy or vpn service that will pop up should be able to get you to any site you want just fine.... hopefully.


This will probably happen, but they can in turn block that service whenever they want sadly


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This will probably happen, but they can in turn block that service whenever they want sadly


True....
I do feel people are overreacting a bit, though. If it's as severe as people are saying, surely people will outrage once they realize what has happened, but if these new plans include access to most sites etc., I see little problem for most people. But where will you turn when you want some mp3 files that turn out to be .exe's from sketchy websites? Who knows.....
Edit: if the plan includes access to the internet archive, there's a lot of good websites there, its just the ones that require user interaction that would be the issue...
Edit2: if the situation gets dire, people could join together to link up Ethernet cables across cities and have websites hosted locally, but there is little chance that people will have to resort to that.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> True....
> I do feel people are overreacting a bit, though. If it's as severe as people are saying, surely people will outrage once they realize what has happened, but if these new plans include access to most sites etc., I see little problem for most people. But where will you turn when you want some mp3 files that turn out to be .exe's from sketchy websites? Who knows.....
> Edit: if the plan includes access to the internet archive, there's a lot of good websites there, its just the ones that require user interaction that would be the issue...



If there is enough outcry from millions, I hope the FCC will cave and undo their BS and get shut down or replaced by a CEO who isn't a prick.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> True....
> I do feel people are overreacting a bit, though. If it's as severe as people are saying, surely people will outrage once they realize what has happened, but if these new plans include access to most sites etc., I see little problem for most people. But where will you turn when you want some mp3 files that turn out to be .exe's from sketchy websites? Who knows.....


Itll be a slippery slope. First they'll go after piracy, then maybe porn, then extreme political content . . . Then we'll gradually get to the point where everything's behind a paywall, except big sites that offer tribute to cable companies.

Unless we can bring back net neutrality, that is. And I'm pretty sure that if we make enough trouble, the next administration might put in a good FCC head who will do the opposite of what Pai is doing.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Nov 22, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> I'm sure that whatever happens, some new proxy or vpn service that will pop up should be able to get you to any site you want just fine.... hopefully.


Should we have to rely on such things? Or would it be simple to just pay a fee to go anywhere and everywhere without having a door that requires a payment to access, like some club with a entrance fee, except is all over the internet now.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> If there is enough outcry from millions, I hope the FCC will cave and undo their BS and get shut down or replaced by a CEO who isn't a prick.


They still need a 3-2 vote to pass. If we cause enough outcry, we might convert one of the two commissioners that voted with Pai, and that'll be enough.

 It'll be hard to do it now, but we have to keep applying pressure so the next FCC won't be filled with anti-democratic corporate lackeys.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 22, 2017)

I feel like this could be the chance small isp's need to gain a consumer base. Right now the big isp's have a monopoly! When they try to charge for certain sites, people will turn to smaller, unlimited isp's, and the big boys will revert back.
(But this "big chance" shouldn't be happening at all.)


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> They still need a 3-2 vote to pass. If we cause enough outcry, we might convert one of the two commissioners that voted with Pai, and that'll be enough.
> 
> It'll be hard to do it now, but we have to keep applying pressure so the next FCC won't be filled with anti-democratic corporate lackeys.



And that's what terrifies the hell out of  me, what could or could not happen, who do we write or call to? Who do we complain and start insurrections towards? I absolutely despise the government right now for letting that Pai douche in charge of the FCC.

Can I cry now? Because I feel like the world is ending and that dread and sense of doom I feel when I get panic attacks is starting to cloud my logic and thought


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> And that's what terrifies the hell out of  me, what could or could not happen, who do we write or call to? Who do we complain and start insurrections towards? I absolutely despise the government right now for letting that Pai douche in charge of the FCC.
> 
> Can I cry now? Because I feel like the world is ending and that dread and sense of doom I feel when I get panic attacks is starting to cloud my logic and thought


The people we call are our congressmen and the President. Both have the authority to restore net neutrality whenever they want; Congress can pass a law, and Trump can sign an executive order, since the FCC is part of the executive branch and respond directly to trump. 

It's also worth noting that a lot of Trump supporters are in favor of net neutrality I think, so if we make it clear that he's angered his base of support, he will do something about it I think.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 22, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> I feel like this could be the chance small isp's need to gain a consumer base. Right now the big isp's have a monopoly! When they try to charge for certain sites, people will turn to smaller, unlimited isp's, and the big boys will revert back.
> (But this "big chance" shouldn't be happening at all.)


The reason big ISPs have a monopoly is because of the completely ass-backwards way America's network is laid out. Basically, if you want to use an ISP, their data cable has to be run to your house, because for whatever bullshit reason they can't share transmission lines. Big ISPs already have data lines going to all of the houses (excluding rural areas) that are in their area, but smaller ISPs would have to spend a shit ton of money to run cabling on demand. Regulating who can access the internet for what price won't do shit for the monopolies


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> They still need a 3-2 vote to pass. If we cause enough outcry, we might convert one of the two commissioners that voted with Pai, and that'll be enough.
> 
> It'll be hard to do it now, but we have to keep applying pressure so the next FCC won't be filled with anti-democratic corporate lackeys.


Why don't you say how you really feel? Lol


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> The people we call are our congressmen and the President. Both have the authority to restore net neutrality whenever they want; Congress can pass a law, and Trump can sign an executive order, since the FCC is part of the executive branch and respond directly to trump.
> 
> It's also worth noting that a lot of Trump supporters are in favor of net neutrality I think, so if we make it clear that he's angered his base of support, he will do something about it I think.



I don't know, man, I'm starting to feel a very palpable sense of dread, this would be what I call a panic attack, it's not bad now, but if I don't take a step back, yikes. I'm absolutely terrified of losing rights.

This is why big government can shove it up their butt.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> It's also worth noting that a lot of Trump supporters are in favor of net neutrality I think, so if we make it clear that he's angered his base of support, he will do something about it I think.


When has Trump ever, and I mean _EVER _ACTUALLY given a rat's ass about what's best for his supporters?

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



the_randomizer said:


> I don't know, man, I'm starting to feel a very palpable sense of dread, this would be what I call a panic attack, it's not bad now, but if I don't take a step back, yikes. I'm absolutely terrified of losing rights.


Give this a go, I discovered it recently and have been using it a bit


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The reason big ISPs have a monopoly is because of the completely ass-backwards way America's network is laid out. Basically, if you want to use an ISP, their data cable has to be run to your house, because for whatever bullshit reason they can't share transmission lines. Big ISPs already have data lines going to all of the houses (excluding rural areas) that are in their area, but smaller ISPs would have to spend a shit ton of money to run cabling on demand. Regulating who can access the internet for what price won't do shit for the monopolies


And we need to call Congress to get rid of this bullshit. They put it there, and they can get it rid of it.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> When has Trump ever, and I mean _EVER _ACTUALLY given a rat's ass about what's best for his supporters?



No on in Congress is ever going to repeal this decision, so we may as well kiss our ass goodbye, curl up in a ball and cry ourselves to sleep in remembrance of our lost rights


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 22, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> When has Trump ever, and I mean _EVER _ACTUALLY given a rat's ass about what's best for his supporters?


Completely unbiased-
Probably a few times....? (I don't follow politics, lol)
Idk, sounds like the idea that was suggested might work.
If enough people are angry at the president for something that can be changed easily, he has little to lose.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

If Trump doesn't get rid of this crap, the next President still can. Im not completely sure that net neutrality will be gone forever.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> And we need to call Congress to get rid of this bullshit. They put it there, and they can get it rid of it.



How do you really know that they can reverse it that easily? Something tells me there are gonna be a shitload of legal battles and it will be a mess, but as of right now, I don't see light at the end of the tunnel. I suppose I can write my reps, but...I don't know
if they will listen.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

ITT: People that think the president is God and has the ultimate power. My lord, people.. You honestly can't tell me you think that's how ANY of this works.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> Completely unbiased-
> Probably a few times....? (I don't follow politics, lol)
> Idk, sounds like the idea that was suggested might work.
> If enough people are angry at the president for something that can be changed easily, he has little to lose.


I don't like Trump at all (personal bias here) but you pretty much said what I was thinking.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 22, 2017)

Memoir said:


> ITT: People that think the president is God and has the ultimate power. My lord, people.. You honestly can't tell me you think that's how ANY of this works.


Who are you referring to and what do you mean?...


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 22, 2017)

An alternative solution has been in the works since 2011. There have been 2 android apps (both now defunct) that let you browse the web, through sms only. The real web. Through sms. It sends a lot of sms messages to a server which sends the website requested in encoded plaintext, where the app decodes it. There are some BIG caveats to this, but this is the web, without much limits.
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Who are you referring to and what do you mean?...


I think they mean the president doesn't have a ton of power.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> How do you really know that they can reverse it that easily? Something tells me there are gonna be a shitload of legal battles and it will be a mess, but as of right now, I don't see light at the end of the tunnel. I suppose I can write my reps, but...I don't know
> if they will listen.


If enough people write, they *will *listen, simply because they're snakes and want to be re-elected. Threaten their re-election, and they'll switch like the snakes they are.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> If enough people write, they *will *listen, simply because they're snakes and want to be re-elected. Threaten their re-election, and they'll switch like the snakes they are.



I suppose I should do my civic duty and send a message/call to my reps to tell them to fight to repeal this. Google and other large companies are as well, and Google is pretty damn powerful. There will be a lot of legal mess to be sure.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 22, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> An alternative solution has been in the works since 2011. There have been 2 android apps (both now defunct) that let you browse the web, through sms only. The real web. Through sms. It sends a lot of sms messages to a server which sends the website requested in encoded plaintext, where the app decodes it. There are some BIG caveats to this, but this is the web, without much limits.
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> 
> I think they mean the president doesn't have a ton of power.


Link: https://www.androidauthority.com/cosmos-browser-play-store-531334/
It's very simplistic but has room for growth. Now instead of a small isp giving you internet, one large server can give many people simple access to the web.
Edit- it has room for growth! Speeds are slow, css is nonexistent, but it's SOMETHING. you could probably use gbatemp on it even.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

Tried that Resist to 50409, but I didn't get a reply with the names of reps, other than it was "busy". Seriously??


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Tried that Resist to 50409, but I didn't get a reply with the names of reps, other than it was "busy". Seriously??


It's probably overloaded right now actually. Try again in a bit, it took a while for me and that was earlier today

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



LukeHasAWii said:


> An alternative solution has been in the works since 2011. There have been 2 android apps (both now defunct) that let you browse the web, through sms only. The real web. Through sms. It sends a lot of sms messages to a server which sends the website requested in encoded plaintext, where the app decodes it. There are some BIG caveats to this, but this is the web, without much limits.


Something about paying for an unlimited texting plan to access that sounds counterintuitive


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's probably overloaded right now actually. Try again in a bit, it took a while for me and that was earlier today
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



Are you saying we shouldn't give up, that there is hope after all?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Are you saying we shouldn't give up, that there is hope after all?


I mean

No point in not trying


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 22, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's probably overloaded right now actually. Try again in a bit, it took a while for me and that was earlier today
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I have one currently, they're pretty much dirt cheap


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I mean
> 
> No point in not trying



Been a rough day, traffic on the way to work sent me over the edge on my stress levels, and hearing of this, people won't stand for this.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 22, 2017)

Looking at http errors, we might see this one soon.....
"
402 Payment Required
Reserved for future use. The original intention was that this code might be used as part of some form of digital cash or micropayment scheme, as proposed for example by GNU Taler[35], but that has not yet happened, and this code is not usually used. Google Developers API uses this status if a particular developer has exceeded the daily limit on requests.[36] Stripe API uses this code for errors with processing credit cards.[37]
"
Error 402 would be more dreaded than 404.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

I know that this isn't directly gaming-related, but can we get some sort of mention of the threat to net neutrality on the front page? It doesn't even have to link to this post, a link to battleforthenet will suffice.

Just wanna get people involved, cuz this could threaten the 'Temp in the future.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I know that this isn't directly gaming-related, but can we get some sort of mention of the threat to net neutrality on the front page? It doesn't even have to link to this post, a link to battleforthenet will suffice.
> 
> Just wanna get people involved, cuz this could threaten the 'Temp in the future.



Ask Chary or Costello about that, surely, there are contingency plans or something, I mean, what's gonna happen to the Temp?  Sites with "shady" material could get throttled or even blocked.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Ask Chary or Costello about that, surely, there are contingency plans or something, I mean, what's gonna happen to the Temp?  Sites with "shady" material could get throttled or even blocked.


Yeah. . . @Chary or @Costello, would the danger of the loss of net neutrality be worth a front page mention?

Thanks for your time either way!


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Yeah. . . @Chary or @Costello, would the danger of the loss of net neutrality be worth a front page mention?
> 
> Thanks for your time either way!



I'm still feeling sick to my stomach, I need a break.


----------



## PossiblyOne (Nov 22, 2017)

Horrible idea. I was hoping it wouldn't pass.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm still feeling sick to my stomach, I need a break.


Too much internet can be a bad thing. Have you tried taking a walk with a friend recently?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> Too much internet can be a bad thing. Have you tried taking a walk with a friend recently?



No, I haven't, and I should.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm still feeling sick to my stomach, I need a break.


Im sorry if I made you nauseous  I didn't mean to make anyone feel bad, I just care a lot about this issue


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Im sorry if I made you nauseous  I didn't mean to make anyone feel bad, I just care a lot about this issue



You didn't, at all, so no worries. But the prospect of what this may or may not cause, terrifies me, and the fact that the GBA Temp Staff, well, I don't know what they're going to do.


----------



## jt_1258 (Nov 22, 2017)

so, this likely means the end possibly for us accessing some homebrew related sites if our isps decide to be that kind of pricks


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> You didn't, at all, so no worries. But the prospect of what this may or may not cause, terrifies me, and the fact that the GBA Temp Staff, well, I don't know what they're going to do.


I'm a big fan of this site, so regardless of what they do I'm sure they have a reason for it. 

We haven't really had any non gaming stuff on the front page, but since this impacts us I thought they could give it a mention. Either way, theres reasons in favor of front paging it and not doing so.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I'm a big fan of this site, so regardless of what they do I'm sure they have a reason for it.
> 
> We haven't really had any non gaming stuff on the front page, but since this impacts us I thought they could give it a mention. Either way, theres reasons in favor of front paging it and not doing so.



Yeah, I need a break.


----------



## RandomUser (Nov 22, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> I don't know what state you live in, but in Washington we have accountability and review measures put in for our federal and state representatives, so maybe I have a lighter view of government than you do.


AFAIK just education in my state and they are pretty bad at even that. Some schools are so limited on funds that they cut back from traditional 5 days a week to 4 days a week school days. Washington state? Cool I have several relative that lives there.



SomeKindOfUsername said:


> Corporations are people too. People with money. Now of course all people are equal, but some are more equal than others.
> I tell ya, it's difficult not to get too political here. All I'll say is, we reap what we sow so we'd better own up to it and maybe reflect a little bit.


How did we lose Net neutrality? What did we sow?
Since you put it that way, I actually never thought about corporations as people, so let me say this: The government always sides with the more powerful people and not the average Joe, especially when the average Joe needs the said protection the most.
The rights of the average Joe is disappearing slowly maturely, and would not be surprise if it gets depleted in the far future. Just hopefully the government don't override the constitution, there is a reason why schools don't teach cursive anymore because the constitution is written in cursive.



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Give this a go, I discovered it recently and have been using it a bit


Cool, nice find, going to try to use this, even if it doesn't work.

For now, in short of writing to congress, is hope that this will not be as bad as we all think .


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> AFAIK just education in my state and they are pretty bad at even that. Some schools are so limited on funds that they cut back from traditional 5 days a week to 4 days a week school days. Washington state? Cool I have several relative that lives there.
> 
> 
> How did we lose Net neutrality? What did we sow?
> ...


I'd heard about the school week thing happening, it's really sad. I've lived in Florida until last September, when I moved to Seattle (Washington) so I'm glad that hasn't happened to me, but it still makes me sad. What state do you live in?


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Nov 22, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> AFAIK just education in my state and they are pretty bad at even that. Some schools are so limited on funds that they cut back from traditional 5 days a week to 4 days a week school days. Washington state? Cool I have several relative that lives there.



The only problem is, we vote each year to reduce both taxes and public school class sizes. So... That's working out well with no income tax


----------



## Costello (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Yeah. . . @Chary or @Costello, would the danger of the loss of net neutrality be worth a front page mention?
> 
> Thanks for your time either way!


it would... if someone from the team (someone based in the US preferably) could make a post on the home page that'd be great.

the consequences could be dramatic for GBAtemp if ISPs begin to sell packages like they do in some countries, then you wouldnt be able to visit GBAtemp unless you paid for it... but you wouldnt be paying us, you'd be paying the ISP. Thats the worst case scenario.


----------



## Lukerz (Nov 22, 2017)

This is a big deal. Without net neutrality the internet will likely be a very different place.

And I finally found something I can agree with Democrats on!


----------



## Chary (Nov 22, 2017)

Costello said:


> it would... if someone from the team (someone based in the US preferably) could make a post on the home page that'd be great.
> 
> the consequences could be dramatic for GBAtemp if ISPs begin to sell packages like they do in some countries, then you wouldnt be able to visit GBAtemp unless you paid for it... but you wouldnt be paying us, you'd be paying the ISP. Thats the worst case scenario.


I'll write something up and try to make an informative post on the front page in a bit.


----------



## Lukerz (Nov 22, 2017)

Chary said:


> I'll write something up and try to make an informative post on the front page in a bit.


Some one should add this to the site. It makes a widget pop up about net neutrality. It from here: https://github.com/fightforthefuture/battleforthenet-widget


```
<script src="https://widget.battleforthenet.com/widget.js" async></script>
```


----------



## Flame (Nov 22, 2017)

First they came for the Pircay people, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a pirate.

Then they came for the political people, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a political person.

Then they came for the small websites, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a part of a small website.

Then they came for the wankers—oh boy, i deleted my internet history quickly as possible


----------



## SomeKindOfUsername (Nov 22, 2017)

Memoir said:


> ITT: People that think the president is God and has the ultimate power. My lord, people.. You honestly can't tell me you think that's how ANY of this works.


Trump picked the guy, so...


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

SomeKindOfUsername said:


> Trump picked the guy, so...



I really hope that CEO gets fired and permanently blacklisted.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I really hope that CEO gets fired and permanently blacklisted.


If he gets fired he'll go back to Verizon and be hailed as a hero.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> If he gets fired he'll go back to Verizon and be hailed as a hero.



Good, he can stay there, Verizon sucks ass anyway, same with AT&T.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I really hope that CEO gets fired and permanently blacklisted.


*chair, the FCC is a government commitee, not a business

Although it's definitely being run like one right now


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> *chair, the FCC is a government commitee, not a business
> 
> Although it's definitely being run like one right now



*Sigh* I feel like throwing up


----------



## RandomUser (Nov 25, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I'd heard about the school week thing happening, it's really sad. I've lived in Florida until last September, when I moved to Seattle (Washington) so I'm glad that hasn't happened to me, but it still makes me sad. What state do you live in?


Between Texas and Arkansas. Well New Mexico too if you count the pan handle.
I know, I know, "the red state", there's your problem is probably what you may have in mind .
Wow, I didn't realize this 4 days a week fiasco is catching on across the country, that is very good to know.



Zhongtiao1 said:


> The only problem is, we vote each year to reduce both taxes and public school class sizes. So... That's working out well with no income tax


You say small class size like it is a bad thing. I don't think small class size is bad, but in fact beneficial, too big of a class size would stretch the teachers thin especially when multiple kids may need help with something they don't quite understand.
As for the taxes, in my state we had gotten tax hike for the last 2 years and education is still abysmal. All we're doing is lining the pocket of the state governor.
Yep, we have income taxes too.
Plus a bunch of Casino that usually pays into the revenue, although don't know if this is true due to being on the Indian reservation.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 25, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> Between Texas and Arkansas. Well New Mexico too if you count the pan handle.
> I know, I know, "the red state", there's your problem is probably what you may have in mind .
> Wow, I didn't realize this 4 days a week fiasco is catching on across the country, that is very good to know.


I don't think it's as much a "red" issue, it's just the classic case of politicians not funding education because it doesn't give immediate benefits. 
Also I'm not sure how much it's catching on, I just read it in the newspaper once. Haven't heard about it since


----------



## Cubedevelop (Nov 28, 2017)

Net neutrality never existed.
 If a gov wanted to block a website they forced the ISPs to block its DNS domain and IP, even if it's against the law.
Indeed net neutrality should forbid an ISP to block a site, because no website/resource should be blocked from the Internet.
But this happened a lot of times.

See for example the Vkontakte russian social network, banned from Ukraine because the Americans wanted them to use Facebook ( i guess ).
It's against net neutrality laws but they did it


----------



## jt_1258 (Nov 28, 2017)

Cubedevelop said:


> Net neutrality never existed.
> If a gov wanted to block a website they forced the ISPs to block its DNS domain and IP, even if it's against the law.
> Indeed net neutrality should forbid an ISP to block a site, because no website/resource should be blocked from the Internet.
> But this happened a lot of times.
> ...


no, we are talking about the idea of an isp blocking a site for profit, not actual legal reasons, like say comcast blocked hulu, netflix, and crunchy roll, and said you had to by the tv streaming internet package to get them, then that's breaking net nutrality
this is a similar misunderstanding of what freedom of speech means, just cause ya have freedom of speech doesn't mean you can run around and make death threats


----------



## jDSX (Nov 29, 2017)

The Patriot Act wasn't patriotic. The Affordable Care Act wasn't affordable. Guess what net neutrality won't be


----------



## Stephano (Nov 29, 2017)

jDSX said:


> The Patriot Act wasn't patriotic. The Affordable Care Act wasn't affordable. Guess what net neutrality won't be


"Profitable" -Some Business Man


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 29, 2017)

jDSX said:


> The Patriot Act wasn't patriotic. The Affordable Care Act wasn't affordable. Guess what net neutrality won't be



Affordable, ha, yeah right. Get penalized for having a job that doesn't pay you enough for basic insurance. That sure sounds "affordable".  Patriot act is a joke, and the FCC are a bunch of stuck up snooty bastards.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 29, 2017)

this is just a bunch of capitalist pigs
let them have their fun and piss off enough ppl an we might be able to get it back


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 29, 2017)

Eix said:


> this is just a bunch of capitalist pigs
> let them have their fun and piss off enough ppl an we might be able to get it back



Oh I hope there's an uprising after this, and a huge legal battle that destroys the FCC in fines.


----------



## GhostLatte (Nov 29, 2017)

Eix said:


> this is just a bunch of capitalist pigs
> let them have their fun and piss off enough ppl an we might be able to get it back


Still better than communist pigs.


----------



## jDSX (Nov 29, 2017)

In the end the anons will get the last laugh mark my words.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 29, 2017)

GhostLatte said:


> Still better than communist pigs.



Damn right. Communism is overrated and only works in theory. In practice, it's not that great. No system is perfect, but lol communism.  The FCC however, yeah, I want them to go under.



jDSX said:


> In the end the anons will get the last laugh mark my words.



No one cares about Anon though   Just a bunch of pusillanimous script kiddies who don't do any real work.



Eix said:


> yeah!
> capitalism and communism suck!
> anarchy and socialism is where its at!



Socialism, how's that working for the EU, by the way? Doing good financially?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 29, 2017)

GhostLatte said:


> Still better than communist pigs.


yeah!
capitalism and communism suck!
anarchy and socialism is where its at!


----------



## GhostLatte (Nov 29, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Damn right. Communism is overrated and only works in theory. In practice, it's not that great. No system is perfect, but lol communism.  The FCC however, yeah, I want them to go under.


That's why no nation has been truly communist.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 29, 2017)

GhostLatte said:


> That's why no nation has been truly communist.



And that's not a bad thing either. Communism is a shit system.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 29, 2017)

jDSX said:


> The Patriot Act wasn't patriotic. The Affordable Care Act wasn't affordable. Guess what net neutrality won't be


You realize that net neutrality is what we have NOW, right?...

What we're all getting up in arms about is that the FCC wants to take that AWAY


----------



## jDSX (Nov 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You realize that net neutrality is what we have NOW, right?...
> 
> What we're all getting up in arms about is that the FCC wants to take that AWAY



Yes of course I do 
Also history tends to repeat itself too that is what I am saying


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 29, 2017)

jDSX said:


> Yes of course I do
> Also history tends to repeat itself too that is what I am saying


But what I'm saying is that your quip about net neutrality not being neutral (or at least that's what I understood) doesn't apply, unless you're saying that the loss of net neutrality would make the 'net less neutral, which is a given


----------



## jDSX (Nov 29, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> But what I'm saying is that your quip about net neutrality not being neutral (or at least that's what I understood) doesn't apply, unless you're saying that the loss of net neutrality would make the 'net less neutral, which is a given



It's the latter


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Nov 29, 2017)

jDSX said:


> It's the latter


Then I misunderstood your point, I apologize


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Dec 10, 2017)

Sorry for the necrobumb but 4 more days left!


----------



## Stephano (Dec 10, 2017)

DRAGONBALLVINTAGE said:


> Sorry for the necrobumb but 4 more days left!


Due to the importance of the topic, i would say necrobumping is justified.
I still can't believe this is happening.


----------

