# Net Neutrality: what it is, and why you should care



## smileyhead (Nov 22, 2017)

Net neutrality should be a given. This is scandalous.


----------



## HaloEliteLegend (Nov 22, 2017)

Thanks for posting this! We need as many people to be aware of what's going on as possible. Net neutrality is very important in our modern world!


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 22, 2017)

*In before the rants. 

*
Yes, I am well aware of this situation. And I could rant on it for hours on end. Plus, I truly want this guy to be _ahem _ridden of.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

My question is, even if we take the time to do our civic duty and urge our Senators and other politicians who represent us to take a stand, is it a vain effort? Should we be fearing the worst?


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

Deja Vu.....


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 22, 2017)

I dont even have to read this
Net neutrality should stay
I dont wana have most of the small amount of money i make goto paying extra for comcast to let my sister use her snapchat crap
But if i had to pay extra for gbatemp and discord i would cuz thats almost all i do now -_-


----------



## Lacius (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> My question is, even if we take the time to do our civic duty and urge our Senators and other politicians who represent us to take a stand, is it a vain effort? Should we be fearing the worst?


We've seen the mobilization of the masses have a real effect in very recent history, including but not limited to citizens calling their senators and representatives with regard to the health care debate. This could work, but I don't think it will. All we can do is try, and if it's important, we have to try.

In other words: Hope for the best; plan for the worst.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

Lacius said:


> We've seen the mobilization of the masses have a real effect in very recent history, including but not limited to citizens calling their senators and representatives with regard to the health care debate. This could work, but I don't think it will. All we can do is try, and if it's important, we have to try.
> 
> In other words, hope for the best, plan for the worst.



Right, I don't want to give up, not without trying. I've just recently sent a letter to my state representatives with the following letter: 



> To whom it may concern,
> 
> It has come to my attention that many politicians, and FCC CEO Ajit Pai is voting or has voted to repeal Net Neutrality.  This is a grievous concern for  numerous reasons, notably, due to the violations of the rights of millions of users.  Furthermore, it is anti-consumerism in every sense of the word, will lead to unnecessary censorship, increased costs, and overall a major violation of rights.  With that being said, please join the fight in protecting net neutrality.
> 
> Thank you for your time.



It's not the most eloquent or wordy, but I wanted to voice my concerns, you know? I'm just glad it's so easy to make our voices heard on the internet, ironically of course.


----------



## leon315 (Nov 22, 2017)

my eyes are bleeding, after i read 1st paragraph, can we just let our politicians fight for our rights???


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

leon315 said:


> my eyes are bleeding, after i read 1st paragraph, can we just let our politicians fight for our rights???



All the more reason to do our civic duty and make our voices heard, sitting around doing nothing won't solve our issues.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 22, 2017)

leon315 said:


> my eyes are bleeding, after i read 1st paragraph, can we just let our politicians fight for our rights???


The ones who have been voted into office, particularly the President, are the reason why net neutrality is being taken away, so complacency won't work.


----------



## Stovven (Nov 22, 2017)

oh wow, this again?

i guess i can just hope for the best


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

Lacius said:


> The ones who have been voted into office, particularly the President, are the reason why net neutrality is being taken away, so complacency won't work.



Already emailed my Senators and a couple of others, it may or may not work, but it sure as hell is worth a shot, you know? I rarely get involved with making my voice heard, but for this, I don't want to just sit around. *Sigh*.


----------



## YTElias (Nov 22, 2017)

Just by reading half of it 
Im with net neutrality


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

I do not care.
Spoilers: other countries exist besides the US


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 22, 2017)

This isn't the only problem in the world.
What about required healthcare?
Mandatory schooling of kids?
World hunger?


----------



## YTElias (Nov 22, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> This isn't the only problem in the world.
> What about required healthcare?
> Mandatory schooling of kids?
> World hunger?


Kids in afrika can´t eat
Spend now!1!1


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

Plus I don't see why a private company couldn't control their services lmao. The US, land of capitalism and "freedom", want companies to not control the services they provide.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> I do not care.
> Spoilers: other countries exist besides the US


That's nice dear. My sentiment on starving kids in Africa. I'm facing my own issues, the rest of the world doesn't exist. Amirite?


----------



## Seriel (Nov 22, 2017)

Finally, a post that actually reviews all the fact behind what's going on instead of saying "Click this button to say no to net neutrality" without giving a valid argument as to the pros and cons of such a thing. People should decide for themselves if they feel this is something they should fight about, recently I've seen several posts in several places (And a couple notificatons from Discord devs) that all just basically say "Hey please say no to net neutrality thank you bye" without a single consideration to the fact that there's actually two sides to this..
I dunno that it'd make too much difference for me yet (Or that I can even do anything about it) since I'm not in the USA (If it hits here then I would be able to do something though), but I hope your governments come to a sensible conclusion that most people are happy with.


----------



## VinsCool (Nov 22, 2017)

Excellent article, well written and informative on the matter. 
Net neutrality should stay.


----------



## Meteor7 (Nov 22, 2017)

That we even need to be fighting this battle in the first place is absurd. Thanks for posting such comprehensive information on what I and many believe to be a critical topic right now. It's important we have logic and explanations rather than propaganda and blind calls to action. Good on ya.


----------



## dAVID_ (Nov 22, 2017)

inb4 thread closed?

I guess this is where TOR + VPN comes in.


----------



## Chary (Nov 22, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> This isn't the only problem in the world.
> What about required healthcare?
> Mandatory schooling of kids?
> World hunger?


These things don't directly affect the internet, in what you use to visit gbatemp, or download games. Not only that, but America is the largest proportion of users on this site. Seeing as not only that, but there was a demand for such news to be posted, I think it's only fair for this to be on the front page. There's no need to be so dismissive here. 



StarTrekVoyager said:


> I do not care.
> Spoilers: other countries exist besides the US


Thank you for your entirely helpful, useful, caring contribution to this post.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

Chary said:


> These things don't directly affect the internet, in what you use to visit gbatemp, or download games. Not only that, but America is the largest proportion of users on this site. Seeing as not only that, but there was a demand for such news to be posted, I think it's only fair for this to be on the front page. There's no need to be so dismissive here.
> 
> 
> Thank you for your entirely helpful, useful, caring contribution to this post.


It generally starts small. One company or entity does it, then others think it's okay. It's most certainly not an "American problem". If it's really of no concern to someone, the most helpful they can be is off in a corner somewhere twiddling their thumbs.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

The funniest thing is that even if I lived in the US I wouldn't give a fuck. In a country that has "absolute freedom of speech" (i.e. the key to an unstable society) and that favors freedom everywhere, I don't see why would anyone decide what services companies should provide.


----------



## Lukerz (Nov 22, 2017)

If net neutrality is gotten rid of I'll become a politician just so I can fight to get it back.


----------



## VinsCool (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> The funniest thing is that even if I lived in the US I wouldn't give a fuck. In a country that has "absolute freedom of speech" (i.e. the key to an unstable society) and that favors freedom everywhere, I don't see why would anyone decide what services companies should provide.


With such an attitude, you would only contribute to the dumb American stereotype.


----------



## Meteor7 (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> The funniest thing is that even if I lived in the US I wouldn't give a fuck. In a country that has "absolute freedom of speech" (i.e. the key to an unstable society) and that favors freedom everywhere, I don't see why would anyone decide what services companies should provide.


Because a truly free market without legislative regulation would lead to all sorts of gross bastardizations of the public's basic rights, the formation of monopolies being the first thing that comes to mind. It's not about controlling services, it's about maintaining any semblance of a balanced status-quo between consumer and company.


----------



## theoldbucwild (Nov 22, 2017)

we cannot let this happen


----------



## Kigiru (Nov 22, 2017)

It's not a worldwide problem, so meh...

...Except actualy i think that in fact it is a huge problem, because America is a major participant of worldwide web, and crippling american users in such way WILL affect in some way all users worldwide. Also worth noting that if sick ideas like this will be put into effect in America, there's a huge chance that other companies worldwide will also do it. Saying "It does not affect me!" is pretty short-sighed, because sooner or later it CAN affect everybody.


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 22, 2017)

Chary said:


> These things don't directly affect the internet, in what you use to visit gbatemp, or download games. Not only that, but America is the largest proportion of users on this site. Seeing as not only that, but there was a demand for such news to be posted, I think it's only fair for this to be on the front page. There's no need to be so dismissive here.



Not being dismissive at all.
Simply saying what's on me mind.

The problem with Net Neutrality is that politicians or ISPs will eventually cook up something else to throttle bandwith for users.
Doesn't matter what happens, some company will be difficult on purpose.
Even if it's for the sake of sparking a riot.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 22, 2017)

I can make the argument: If you were to rid of Net Neutrality, this would cause major companies such as "Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, etc" to be choked of their user traffic. People, in their right minds, aren't going to pay an extra $20 just to access those services; especially if you don't want to support such a thing.
This would mean major companies such as them, would die a slow and painful death.

As this 'supposed' chairman of the F.C.C has stated, this would encourage competition. This statement is bullshit! You're simply making it harder for companies to compete! ISP's and other Internet providers, would control what you do on the internet. Not to say they already limit you, but getting rid of those Freedoms completely is a huge mistake.

We live in a country where you have the Freedom of Speech, and many other rights that include freedoms. Isn't locking down the internet like this, contradicting the fact that we have 'Freedoms/Rights?' The only reasons congress or this chairman are fulfilling these new laws, is so their paychecks can be a bit higher than their current ones. If you represent the people, and the rights that we as people possess, then you shouldn't ignore 20,000,000+ comments that are against your decision. Especially when many major Companies are against you as well.

If you truly wish to represent the people, you must listen to your peers and not shove them to the side.
This man wants nothing more than to turn our _Internet_ into a Communist environment of sorts.

We have the right of Freedoms. We should not allow this _Man, _to rid of our Freedom on the internet. When hundreds of other Nations have that Freedom; and they're not even based completely on the Idea of a free government.

This Chairman does not represent us, he represents himself; and how he sees fit.
We should all fight to get rid of him, or at least change his mind. Or maybe even get the minds of Congress to realize what they're getting into.


~That is all I must say.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> Because a truly free market without legislative regulation would lead to all sorts of gross bastardizations of the public's basic rights, the formation of monopolies being the first thing that comes to mind. It's not about controlling services, it's about maintaining any semblance of a balanced status-quo between consumer and company.


It's already the case in the US, the country where hospitals throw out ill people once they can't pay anymore. But again, you pay for a service, I don't see why someone else would control that.


----------



## GhostLatte (Nov 22, 2017)

Don't know if I should support or not support it. I'm rather indifferent towards it.


----------



## leerpsp (Nov 22, 2017)

All I got to say if this thing ends bad (looks that way so far) and it stops me from making money from streaming and so on then I think I would have to move out of the usa.


----------



## Noctosphere (Nov 22, 2017)

Is therw a tldr veraion?


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

All of those arguments are based on "the companies are evil so they will kill their own businesses because they're controlled by the Illuminati who want to fuck us". That's all I see. Its like when stupid syndicates say that a boss is necessarily a heartless rich man who wants to fire all of his employees because it's fun.


----------



## Chary (Nov 22, 2017)

Noctosphere said:


> Is therw a tldr veraion?


The bold text is pretty much the TLDR parts.


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 22, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> I can make the argument: If you were to rid of Net Neutrality, this would cause major companies such as "Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, etc" to be choked of their user traffic. People, in their right minds, aren't going to pay an extra $20 just to access those services; especially if you don't want to support such a thing.
> This would mean major companies such as them, would die a slow and painful death.
> 
> As this 'supposed' chairman of the F.C.C has stated, this would encourage competition. This statement is bullshit! You're simply making it harder for companies to compete! ISP's and other Internet providers, would control what you do on the internet. Not to say they already limit you, but getting rid of those Freedoms completely is a huge mistake.
> ...



I actually wouldn't be surprised if Google would provide a free ISP for everyone, limited to 2MB/s or something.
Just so they can integrate themselves more in society.


----------



## Flame (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> I do not care.
> Spoilers: other countries exist besides the US



U.S. is very powerful, if this makes loads of money at the cost of the people. France will follow next.

then will see how much viva la revolution in france they is.


----------



## Meteor7 (Nov 22, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> This isn't the only problem in the world.
> What about required healthcare?
> Mandatory schooling of kids?
> World hunger?


Trust me, I _very_ much agree that these are among the more serious issues with the US and likely many other places, but in terms of why this in particular would get its own thread on front page over others, I have to agree with Chary. This issue in particular is more in theme with the site, and it might be rather distasteful to appropriate the front page to crusade personal politics unrelated to the site's general userbase.


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Nov 22, 2017)

And what about CFW, Homebrew and mods?

What if Nintendo pays the major ISP's to block access to websites with that content, would it stop hacking once and for all? now Nintendo could do this its would companies like Comcast, Verizon or AT&T would allow it. 

Also SESTA


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 22, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> I actually wouldn't be surprised if Google would provide a free ISP for everyone, limited to 2MB/s or something.
> Just so they can integrate themselves more in society.


I can see Google doing something along those lines. Since they advocate Neutrality. But that doesn't help the fact that, if we lose our freedom, we have to get around these things. 

Using something like a VPN just to get around this issue, would be annoying; but most likely our only miracle. 


Also, why are you even debating such a topic? You don't reside in the US. And not to be offensive or anything, but it appears your opinion cannot be taken as _valid. _Since you don't exactly reside here, nor experience this first hand.


----------



## Flame (Nov 22, 2017)

First they came for the Piracy 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


----------



## Lukerz (Nov 22, 2017)

DRAGONBALLVINTAGE said:


> And what about CFW, Homebrew and mods?
> 
> What if Nintendo pays the major ISP's to block access to websites with that content, would it stop hacking once and for all? now Nintendo could do this its would companies like Comcast, Verizon or AT&T would allow it.
> 
> Also SESTA


Yikes. This could screw up so much.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

Flame said:


> U.S. is very powerful, if this makes loads of money at the cost of the people. France will follow next.
> 
> then will see how much viva la revolution in france they is.


Free market in France gave us the best mobile data plans in the world, and triple-play with TV+phone+Internet cheaper than anywhere in the world. I don't see why would any company want to suddenly provide worse service.
Yes, here in France you can get 400 GB of LTE data + unlimited calls and messages for only €19/month, and you can get TV+phone+1Gbps Internet for €50-55/month.


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 22, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> I can see Google doing something along those lines. Since they advocate Neutrality. But that doesn't help the fact that, if we lose our freedom, we have to get around these things.
> 
> Using something like a VPN just to get around this issue, would be annoying; but most likely our only miracle.
> 
> ...



You wouldn't believe the shit they purposely block here in Europe ;')
I dare you to get a German VPN and go on Youtube.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

Again, it's all "what ifs" and hypotheses. Yes, of course, with all the colmpetition, ISPs will provide worse service, sure...


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 22, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> You wouldn't believe the shit they purposely block here in Europe ;')
> I dare you to get a German VPN and go on Youtube.


And I do use a VPN from time to time.
More to secure my traffic, then to get around issues.

Yes, every ISP will block things. But *your* ISP's aren't exactly getting rid of your Freedoms, now are they?
We have similar situations, but different wars we are fighting.


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Nov 22, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> And I do use a VPN from time to time.
> More to secure my traffic, then to get around issues.
> 
> Yes, every ISP will block things. But *your* ISP's aren't exactly getting rid of your Freedoms, now are they?
> We have similar situations, but different wars we are fighting.


But if the ISP would block things they would have been blocked the bay of pirates


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 22, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> And I do use a VPN from time to time.
> More to secure my traffic, then to get around issues.
> 
> Yes, every ISP will block things. But *your* ISP's aren't exactly getting rid of your Freedoms, now are they?
> We have similar situations, but different wars we are fighting.



Actually yes.
Youtube bans content that's just not suitable for the site, which is a global thing.
German ISPs however simply block random videos that are available everywhere else.

Iirc, Turkey (wants to be part of the EU) has repeatedly censored half the Internet.
On that note, Iran and other muslim countries repeatedly block 75% of the Internet as it doesn't conform with their politicians.


----------



## Chary (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Again, it's all "what ifs" and hypotheses. Yes, of course, with all the colmpetition, ISPs will provide worse service, sure...


It's the opposite, actually. If you read the article. No net Neutrality makes it easy for competition to spring up...except for the fact all current ISPs are mega coporations so the small competition doesn't stand a chance. When you have no other alternative, you're stuck with whatever ISP you have, and they can do anything they want to the consumer as they have NO other ISP to choose from, for the most part. They've pinned their customers in a corner, with no defense.

Comcast has already proven they're more than willing to take advantage of customers, surprise data caps, surprise Netflix throttle, etc.

It may not affect you, but it's not a reason to have such a brash uncaring attitude to the tons of other affected users on this site.


----------



## Salfay (Nov 22, 2017)

I don't want to hurt, but i think we already know it. Most of the people in this website cares about Internet and its freedom/neutrality.
What must be done, it's to explain it at other people: older guys, parents, and "simple users"...


----------



## Reploid (Nov 22, 2017)

Name gives away a pussy way of thinking


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 22, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> Actually yes.
> Youtube bans content that's just not suitable for the site, which is a global thing.
> German ISPs however simply block random videos that are available everywhere else.
> 
> ...


I am completly aware of other countries/governments doing these things. Take Brazil for example. 
YouTube bans tons of things for other countries, which is bullshit in some cases, but understandable in others. 

We are about to lose our freedom of the internet, and conform like other Nations have done to their internet freedoms. 
Allowing this to continue is bullshit, and we have to stop it. Especially when our nations government is built on freedom.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

Chary said:


> It's the opposite, actually. If you read the article. No net Neutrality makes it easy for competition to spring up...except for the fact all current ISPs are mega coporations so the small competition doesn't stand a chance. When you have no other alternative, you're stuck with whatever ISP you have, and they can do anything they want to the consumer as they have NO other ISP to choose from, for the most part. They've pinned their customers in a corner, with no defense.
> 
> Comcast has already proven they're more than willing to take advantage of customers, surprise data caps, surprise Netflix throttle, etc.
> 
> It may not affect you, but it's not a reason to have such a brash uncaring attitude to the tons of other affected users on this site.


Again, Net Neutrality doesn't exist in France, and yet we have one of the best quality/price ratio for ISP services.


----------



## leerpsp (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Free market in France gave us the best mobile data plans in the world, and triple-play with TV+phone+Internet cheaper than anywhere in the world. I don't see why would any company want to suddenly provide worse service.
> Yes, here in France you can get 400 GB of LTE data + unlimited calls and messages for only €19/month, and you can get TV+phone+1Gbps Internet for €50-55/month.


Seems like you guys have it made lol. We pay in the usa or at lest were i'm at $50 for 60mbps internet and if your lucky like me you are grandfathered in before the ISP merger and you are paying still more $80 but at lest you get 300mbps speed.


----------



## Flame (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Free market in France gave us the best mobile data plans in the world, and triple-play with TV+phone+Internet cheaper than anywhere in the world. I don't see why would any company want to suddenly provide worse service.
> Yes, here in France you can get 400 GB of LTE data + unlimited calls and messages for only €19/month, and you can get TV+phone+1Gbps Internet for €50-55/month.





StarTrekVoyager said:


> Again, it's all "what ifs" and hypotheses. Yes, of course, with all the colmpetition, ISPs will provide worse service, sure...



you seem like you enjoy GBAtemp, i bet big chucks of the ad comes from the U.S. how are we going to fund this website once U.S. blocks GBAtemp?

not just money but also members will go missing and what not.

maybe you will be able to do a CFW for internet so we can get gbatemp?


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 22, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> I am completly aware of other countries/governments doing these things. Take Brazil for example.
> YouTube bans tons of things for other countries, which is bullshit in some cases, but understandable in others.
> 
> We are about to lose our freedom of the internet, and conform like other Nations have done to their internet freedoms.
> Allowing this to continue is bullshit, and we have to stop it. Especially when our nations government is built on freedom.



US isn't build on freedom, it's build upon hypocrisy.
But yeh, we're not losing it, we already lost it from the moment they commercialized it.

Hence I said that I wouldn't be surprised if Google created Google ISP and offered everybody a free 2MB/s line.
There would be no throttling of websites nor would there be other bullshit.
Disadvantage is that it would probably only work with Google Chrome and other google nonsense.
Cause, you know, evil cooperation n what not.




Flame said:


> you seem like you enjoy GBAtemp, i bet big chucks of the ad comes from the U.S. how are we going to fund this website once U.S. blocks GBAtemp?
> 
> not just money but also members will go missing and what not.
> 
> maybe you will be able to do a CFW for internet so we can get gbatemp?



Am I glad you live in the UK.
I COULDN'T BROWSE THE WEB WITHOUT SEEING YOU HUNNIMUFFIN ;-;
marry me already <З


----------



## ihaveahax (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Again, Net Neutrality doesn't exist in France, and yet we have one of the best quality/price ratio for ISP services.


I'm pretty sure that's because the EU enforces it, and france is part of the EU.

given the chance to block or charge for access, ISPs will absolutely jump at the chance. this is not hypothetical, it has happened in the past.
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology...eral_communications_commission_today/dq5hhas/


----------



## Veho (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Again, it's all "what ifs" and hypotheses. Yes, of course, with all the colmpetition, ISPs will provide worse service, sure...


What competition? 

https://arstechnica.com/information...-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 22, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> US isn't build on freedom, it's build upon hypocrisy


Not sure if you have ever studied US History. But you're completely wrong on that front. 
Having an opinion is one thing, but outright saying such a half-assed, and poorly backed up statement is being no more than an arrogant fool. 
Before you go and make statements like that, make sure to ready yourself for the backlash. 

I also recommend studying before you type.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

ihaveamac said:


> I'm pretty sure that's because the EU enforces it, and france is part of the EU.


It is very recent (2016-ish) and not explicitly written/enforced.

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



Veho said:


> What competition?
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/information...-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/


This images shows that only 6% of American people are stuck with only 1 Provider. So what?


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 22, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Not sure if you have ever studied US History. But you're completely wrong on that front.
> Having an opinion is one thing, but outright saying such a half-assed, and poorly backed up statement is being no more than an arrogant fool.
> Before you go and make statements like that, make sure to ready yourself for the backlash.
> 
> I also recommend studying before you type.



Don't have to study it.
Know plenty of US citizens who say the same thing ;')

"The land of the free" is being used sarcastically these days.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Not sure if you have ever studied US History. But you're completely wrong on that front.
> Having an opinion is one thing, but outright saying such a half-assed, and poorly backed up statement is being no more than an arrogant fool.
> Before you go and make statements like that, make sure to ready yourself for the backlash.
> 
> I also recommend studying before you type.


BUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND TEH FARST AMENDMENTTT!!!!!1!1!1!1!11!


----------



## leerpsp (Nov 22, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> Not sure if you have ever studied US History. But you're completely wrong on that front.
> Having an opinion is one thing, but outright saying such a half-assed, and poorly backed up statement is being no more than an arrogant fool.
> Before you go and make statements like that, make sure to ready yourself for the backlash.
> 
> I also recommend studying before you type.


I'm from the USA and I can say that we loose more and more freedoms every day if it was/use to be built on freedom its not anymore.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 22, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> Don't have to study it.
> Know plenty of US citizens who say the same thing ;')
> 
> "The land of the free" is being used sarcastically these days.


I, am a US Citizen. You are a European. There is a wide gap in our perspectives here.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Again, it's all "what ifs" and hypotheses. Yes, of course, with all the colmpetition, ISPs will provide worse service, sure...


I'm a believer in free market forces, but for the US they don't really apply in this case. The only major broadband providers for home internet are Comcast and Time Warner Spectrum, and they've basically agreed not to compete in the same areas. What this effectively means is that most Americans are effectively stuck with one option for broadband. 

In my area, for example, Comcast is the only broadband provider. If Comcast decides to block Gbatemp or put it behind a paywall, I won't be coming here anymore. If you ask around, you'll find that a lot of users are in the exact same case- it's Comcast or nothing. 

Free market forces work, but not in a monopoly unfortunately. Kudos to France for maintaining a competitive ISP market, we failed big time at that.


----------



## ihaveahax (Nov 22, 2017)

Dr.Hacknik said:


> I, am a US Citizen. You are a European. There is a wide gap in our perspectives here.


well as someone who is also a U.S. citizen, DinohScene isn't too far off.


----------



## VinsCool (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> This images shows that only 6% of American people are stuck with only 1 Provider. So what?


1 provider == monopoly
Even when sometimes they have 2 providers, the competition is minimal.
They can freely charge big prices, and limited/throttled services.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 22, 2017)

ihaveamac said:


> well as someone who is also a U.S. citizen, DinohScene isn't too far off.


Then again, opinions are opinions. He has fair points, and our Freedoms are being stripped away. But they can't be removed.

EDIT: 

I have realized that our topic has derailed slightly. Sigh.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> This images shows that only 6% of American people are stuck with only 1 Provider. So what?



Look at the broadband column, that's the relevant part.


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Nov 22, 2017)

oh and lets not forget emulators 

due to the end of net neutrality we can't continue support for ex: Revolution+4 thank you for your support 

You would have to pay to pay and play


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 22, 2017)

You don't have to worry about NN when you mooch off your neighbor's wifi. h-haha

Anyways, in my honest opinion, I don't care. I see it as a benefit if my ISP like Xfinity (literally the only "ok" ISP in this shithole) offered Netflix not going towards my 1TB cap or something. At least you are being honest when you say you don't know what will happen, only what can. If repealing NN will give me better ISPs in my area, hell yeah repeal it right now. Also, that's not what happens with Data. When a mobile provider like T-Mobile says "watch YouTube or Netflix for free without it affecting your data cap", they don't slow down vidme or hulu. Not in my, or anybody else's experience. 

The only thing I have grievance with is


> While net neutrality allows for freedom of speech, the downside is that almost anything can be posted to the internet. This means that the cruelest or insensitive information imaginable can end up on the internet, and as a result, it can cause a lot of problems from people that otherwise wouldn’t be prone to being under the microscope of criticism. This means that people can post cruel, intimidating, or other harassing messages and often get away with it thanks to free speech legislation. So it can be a very toxic environment for a lot of people to put up with.


Can't wait for some fruit to report me to the cyber police for saying the f word.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 22, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> This isn't the only problem in the world.
> What about required healthcare?
> Mandatory schooling of kids?
> World hunger?


What kind of reasoning is that? Whenever people bring up arguments like this it never made any sense to me at all. Especially for someone like me that always talks about problems around the world. No one never said this was the only problem. But just because its not the worst problem in the world doesn't mean we shouldn't care about it. That's just stupid. This is something that affects everyone in the US so it deserves front page so that people can learn and debate whether its good or not.

So we shouldn't talk about it because its not the only problem? So whats the alternative not talk about this? Well what about talking about any news for that matter. People are so focused on hacking consoles should we just not talk about hacking, or game reviews, or talk about our favorite game memories, or talk about anything else that isn't the worst in the world. Should we just focus on countries with corrupt government that murder their citizen's and only talk about that all the time. 

Why do people bring up that argument that there is worse in the world and why does it only apply to complaints, if your going to bring it that argument then it should apply to positives to. You would never here someone say this isn't the happiest memory, their are other happier memories so you shouldn't talk about it unless you have one of the most happiest memory. So why use that logic only for negatives.

There was no point to your comment, only to imply that we shouldn't talk about this because there are worse in the world.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

Veho said:


> What competition?
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/information...-choice-for-many-especially-at-higher-speeds/



Comcast, Verizon, FCC, are all a bunch of power-hungry assholes, we can't or rather, shouldn't stand for this injustice.


----------



## SirNapkin1334 (Nov 22, 2017)

Let's see...climate change denied...increasing taxes....net nutrality repeals...yup, our government sucks.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 22, 2017)

SirNapkin1334 said:


> Let's see...climate change denied...increasing taxes....net nutrality repeals...yup, our government sucks.


In this day and age, NN is the lesser of a problem, basically a 1st world problem type of thing compared to everything else.
North Korea
Overpopulation
Civil Injustice

God I wish NN could be the only thing people had to worry about


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Comcast, Verizon, FCC, are all a bunch of power-hungry assholes, we can't or rather, shouldn't stand for this injustice.


This right here is the problem. 

For any Tempers not living in the US, there is practically no one that doesn't hate these companies with a passion. 

The don't care at all about the consumer, and they'll screw us over whenever they get the chance.

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



VinLark said:


> In this day and age, NN is the lesser of a problem, basically a 1st world problem type of thing compared to everything else.
> North Korea
> Overpopulation
> Civil Injustice
> ...


There are bigger problems, I agree. I still think we should pay attention to this problem though, especially since it's more easily solveable.


----------



## SirNapkin1334 (Nov 22, 2017)

Well, problem is, if no NN is passed, GBAtemp might be fucked.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

SirNapkin1334 said:


> Well, problem is, if no NN is passed, GBAtemp might be fucked.


Yup, and not only the Temp, many other sites would be on the same boat.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 22, 2017)

Meteor7 said:


> That we even need to be fighting this battle in the first place is absurd. Thanks for posting such comprehensive information on what I and many believe to be a critical topic right now. It's important we have logic and explanations rather than propaganda and blind calls to action. Good on ya.


If fuckin bullshit that something always comes up. Can people just leave us the fuck alone. Its stupid battles that I don't even want to fight but have to because of assholes out there. Its like I don't want to deal with it, your the ones doing this, yet here I am dragged into this non sense. Now I have to learn what net neutrality is, learn about all this crap, just to see whats up and if its bad. I just want to get on with my day sometimes and enjoy my time and not deal with this crap.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This right here is the problem.
> 
> For any Tempers not living in the US, there is practically no one that doesn't hate these companies with a passion.
> 
> ...



And is the reason I took action and wrote my concerns to the senators, expressing my concerns so I know at least I did my part. Standing idly by won't solve a bloody thing.



SirNapkin1334 said:


> Well, problem is, if no NN is passed, GBAtemp might be fucked.



What worries me even more is those who are running the site haven't said anything to address these concerns and/or voicing some kind of contingency plans, you know? Like, seriously, what the hell is going to happen?  Our government can fuck themselves with a cactus for all I care.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

Just as a reminder people, *call your elected officials! *In other words, your Congressmen and the President, since both have the authority to reinstate net neutrality whenever they want, either through law or executive order. If you make this their problem by threatening their chances at reelection, they'll switch to your side pretty quickly.


----------



## Beerus (Nov 22, 2017)

i thought this was a rant but glad it wasent also im sick and tired of all this net neutrality stuff its just the same as Donald trump oh well


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Just as a reminder people, *call your elected officials! *In other words, your Congressmen and the President, since both have the authority to reinstate net neutrality whenever they want, either through law or executive order. If you make this their problem by threatening their chances at reelection, they'll switch to your side pretty quickly.



I sure hope you're right, I hope that our concerns don't fall on deaf ears. Pantywaist politicians 



Beerus said:


> i thought this was a rant but glad it wasent also im sick and tired of all this net neutrality stuff its just the same as Donald trump oh well



That's easy for someone not affected by NN to say...


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> And is the reason I took action and wrote my concerns to the senators, expressing my concerns so I know at least I did my part. Standing idly by won't solve a bloody thing.
> 
> 
> 
> What worries me even more is those who are running the site haven't said anything to address these concerns and/or voicing some kind of contingency plans, you know? Like, seriously, what the hell is going to happen?  Our government can fuck themselves with a cactus for all I care.


There really isn't a plan B, other than pay to access the paywall gbatemp gets put behind  gbatemp doesn't give us internet access, so it can't do much if the repeal passes.

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



Sheimi said:


> I hope this works.



Me too


----------



## Sheimi (Nov 22, 2017)

Net Neutrality needs to stay. A lot of sites could be fucked. Could create a ton of issues with work VPN's. Create other problems.



the_randomizer said:


> Comcast, Verizon, FCC, are all a bunch of power-hungry assholes, we can't or rather, shouldn't stand for this injustice.


Yep, same with AT&T.



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> If you make this their problem by threatening their chances at reelection, they'll switch prettt quickly


I hope this works.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

Sheimi said:


> Net Neutrality needs to stay. A lot of sites could be fucked. Could create a ton of issues with work VPN's. Create other problems.
> 
> 
> Yep, same with AT&T.
> ...



AT&T can fuck off for all I care.  We have to call around, and voice our concerns, if we don't do anything to absolve this, or make our voices heard, who is to blame? What the hell haven't the Temp staff voiced their concerns or plans yet?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> There really isn't a plan B, other than pay to access the paywall gbatemp gets put behind  gbatemp doesn't give us internet access, so it can't do much if the repeal passes.


Tell me, what paywall would this site get put under? Would every little wordpress site also get put in a paywall?


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

VinLark said:


> Tell me, what paywall would this site get put under? Would every little wordpress site also get put in a paywall?


They could put every "gaming-related" or "hacking-related" site under a paywall, and Gbatemp will fall into those categories.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> They could put every "gaming-related" or "hacking-related" site under a paywall, and Gbatemp will fall into those categories.


How would they do this? Last time I checked, sites don't really come with a identification/genre


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> They could put every "gaming-related" or "hacking-related" site under a paywall, and Gbatemp will fall into those categories.



That's what worries me, *sigh* Dammit all to hell


----------



## SG854 (Nov 22, 2017)

Here's this video I found.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

VinLark said:


> How would they do this? Last time I checked, sites don't really come with a identification/genre


It's possible to do, some schools do it already on their own connections so students don't slack off. There was a blog post a while back about a guy who's school blocked a group of sites that happened to include Gbatemp. 

And trust me, these companies are a lot smarter than schools. If schools can do it, they can too.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Here's this video I found.




Is this supposed to make us feel better?


----------



## SpiffyJUNIOR (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> I do not care.
> Spoilers: other countries exist besides the US


If it comes to the US,other countries will follow example.


----------



## XDel (Nov 22, 2017)

More government and corporate control, hurray!!! Pussies!


----------



## SG854 (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Is this supposed to make us feel better?


No, its not. Which is why I posted it. Makes us feel worse. So we know how bad it could possibly get and maybe encourage people to take action.



DinohScene said:


> Actually yes.
> Youtube bans content that's just not suitable for the site, which is a global thing.
> German ISPs however simply block random videos that are available everywhere else.
> 
> ...


Most Irani's use VPN's just to get pass their stupid censorship. Even though most nowadays are pro US and not anti western. I heard the show Prison Break was popular over there. They mostly get bootlegs of western media and stuff.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

Well, considering whatever disgrace America commits, generally extends towards the world, what can an outsider do to influence this?
Should we crowdfund a very big amount of money to pay lobbyists to suck the appropriate dicks to go maintain net neutrality? /s


----------



## DinohScene (Nov 22, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Most Irani's use VPN's just to get pass their stupid censorship. Even though most nowadays are pro US and not anti western. I heard the show Prison Break was popular over there. They mostly get bootlegs of western media and stuff.



Doesn't change the fact that they still censor the web.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

SG854 said:


> No, its not. Which is why I posted it. Makes us feel worse. So we know how bad it could possibly get and maybe encourage people to take action.
> 
> 
> Most Irani's use VPN's just to get pass their stupid censorship. Even though most nowadays are pro US and not anti western. I heard the show Prison Break was popular over there. They mostly get bootlegs of western media and stuff.



Do you honestly believe they'll listen to peoples' concerns and take action?



DinohScene said:


> Doesn't change the fact that they still censor the web.



Censorship is nothing more than pusillanimous controlling IMO.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 22, 2017)

DinohScene said:


> Doesn't change the fact that they still censor the web.


Not saying that was a good thing. Just saying what they have to do just to get passed their stupid censorship.


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Censorship is nothing more than pusillanimous controlling IMO.


*UNCENSOR OUR HENTAI.... *Sorry I had to.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 22, 2017)

Doesn't this NN thing happen like every year or even every few months but nothing happens?


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Doesn't this NN thing happen like every year or even every few months but nothing happens?


Yes


----------



## Dr.Hacknik (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Doesn't this NN thing happen like every year or even every few months but nothing happens?


Doesn't change the fact that this is a pressing matter.


----------



## DrayanoX (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Doesn't this NN thing happen like every year or even every few months but nothing happens?


Cable companies will keep bringing it until they win.


----------



## Axmand (Nov 22, 2017)

I understand the need/right of freedom, but also the need/duty of responsability.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

DrayanoX said:


> Cable companies will keep bringing it until they win.



Oh I hope these companies get royally screwed over.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Oh I hope these companies get royally screwed over.


In your dreams. The closest they will get to being "screwed over" will have NN not being repealed.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

VinLark said:


> In your dreams. The closest they will get to being "screwed over" will have NN not being repealed.



I'm just saying, also screw the FCC CEO, I hope he gets fired. Greedy bastards.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

DrayanoX said:


> Cable companies will keep bringing it until they win.


Well, perhaps the answer would be force breaking Verizon and Comcast into infinite pieces and end up this rather closed and end user damaging oligopoly.


----------



## Veho (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Doesn't this NN thing happen like every year or even every few months but nothing happens?


Every time they get closer.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

Veho said:


> Every time they get closer.



And what the hell are we supposed to do to stop it?


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> And what the hell are we supposed to do to stop it?


Remember, remember, the 5th of November. j/k
(and after that joke the CIA knocked on my door)


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Doesn't this NN thing happen like every year or even every few months but nothing happens?


Is there a conversation about it every year? Yes.

Have they ever put their money where their mouth is anc tried to repeal it? Not until now. That's why this is different.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> Remember, remember, the 5th of November. j/k
> (and after that joke the CIA knocked on my door)



And then you can tell the CIA to fuck off.


----------



## leerpsp (Nov 22, 2017)

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...for-stonewalling-net-neutrality-investigation

Don't know if any one posted this yet but it seems like some ISP's stole a lot of peoples online identity's just to wright a lot of fake post trying to get what they wanted. seems like they will do anything to get what they wont.


----------



## Dominator211 (Nov 22, 2017)

I am afraid to say my personal opinion on the matter because I will get attacked by dozens of people for believing in the "wrong" thing. I do understand how serious Net Neutrality is and how it is a delegate matter. I personally think if ISP's Like Verizon, Comcast, Ect. Specify what "transparent" means then the public can make their own assumptions on whether or not to save Net Neutrality. Assuming this doesn't happen then I have mixed emotions... Part of me thinks that "If I don't notice a change in my day to day internet use then I don't care what happens" but the other part says "This does give more power to the United States Government and less to the individual companies" Personally I am more against it because of a few reasons: Chary Explained that "From the inception of the internet, and up until 2015, Americans have gone without net neutrality." and that this gives more power to the American Government then they already have. For those people that say "Its gonna create more Corporate Monopolies" think about this.... The United States Government has incredible power: The Power to spy on us through our Smartphone Cameras, Computer Webcams, Smart Home Devices, Ect. If they (The Government) has so much power why give them more power to "Micromanage" the internet. It is almost like your giving them a Monopoly and this one won't be so easily changed.

IDK I wanted to throw my two cents in but yea IDK whats gonna happen with this...


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

leerpsp said:


> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/201...for-stonewalling-net-neutrality-investigation
> 
> Don't know if any one posted this yet but it seems like some ISP's stole a lot of peoples online identity's just to wright a lot of fake post trying to get what they wanted. seems like they will do anything to get what they wont.


Not only did they do that, but the FCC is also playing dumb and saying "we have no way of telling which comment is real or not". This is an absolute lie, and the FCC is currently getting sued over that.


----------



## Veho (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> And what the hell are we supposed to do to stop it?


Start your own ISP, with blackjack, and hookers?


----------



## Cylent1 (Nov 22, 2017)

I think its a vote for me.....
Not to o many people realize that social platforms like Facebook and Twitter are private companies therefore can be bias at will.
This would open the gates of these social platforms being treated like utitlity companies and less like tyrannicall overeachness of bias.
Just my thought for the day!


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

Veho said:


> Start your own ISP, with blackjack, and hookers?



With being nearly six thousand dollars in debt, what could possibly go wrong?



Cylent1 said:


> I think its a vote for me.....
> Not to o many people realize that social platforms like Facebook and Twitter are private companies therefore can be bias at will.
> This would open the gates of these social platforms being treated like utitlity companies and less like tyrannicall overeachness of bias.
> Just my thought for the day!



- Censoring/blocking sites with info they don't agree with
- Throttling speeds and limiting bandwidth
- Letting those greedy Comcast, AT&T, etc bastards become monopolistic
- Big government, i.e. Orwell's 1984

What could possibly go wrong with that, right? Sounds pretty sycophantic. Being willing to take it up the tailpipe and big brother take over internet, if it works for universal healthcare, what could possibly go wrong with the internet being controlled where infrastructure is so bad?


----------



## SkittleDash (Nov 22, 2017)

If net neutrality is blown... They better prepare for a massive shitstorm...


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

Veho said:


> Start your own ISP, with blackjack, and hookers?


Sign me up.


----------



## Dominator211 (Nov 22, 2017)

Veho said:


> Start your own ISP, with blackjack, and hookers?


funny


----------



## sarkwalvein (Nov 22, 2017)

Dominator211 said:


> funny


Lots of fun actually, until you check your bank account balance.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

SkittleDash said:


> If net neutrality is blown... They better prepare for a massive shitstorm...


Now that will be absolutely glorious to witness, something very cathartic on seeing government officials getting backlash.  Officials are nothing but pusillanimous puppets, same goes with those who willing subject to their bullshit.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

Dominator211 said:


> I am afraid to say my personal opinion on the matter because I will get attacked by dozens of people for believing in the "wrong" thing. I do understand how serious Net Neutrality is and how it is a delegate matter. I personally think if ISP's Like Verizon, Comcast, Ect. Specify what "transparent" means then the public can make their own assumptions on whether or not to save Net Neutrality. Assuming this doesn't happen then I have mixed emotions... Part of me thinks that "If I don't notice a change in my day to day internet use then I don't care what happens" but the other part says "This does give more power to the United States Government and less to the individual companies" Personally I am more against it because of a few reasons: Chary Explained that "From the inception of the internet, and up until 2015, Americans have gone without net neutrality." and that this gives more power to the American Government then they already have. For those people that say "Its gonna create more Corporate Monopolies" think about this.... The United States Government has incredible power: The Power to spy on us through our Smartphone Cameras, Computer Webcams, Smart Home Devices, Ect. If they (The Government) has so much power why give them more power to "Micromanage" the internet. It is almost like your giving them a Monopoly and this one won't be so easily changed.
> 
> IDK I wanted to throw my two cents in but yea IDK whats gonna happen with this...


A few points defending my side of the argument:

1) Verizon, at least, has sued for the right to block certain sites and Comcast has threatened to do so too. Their desire to block content is transparent. 


2) It's wrong to say that we didn't hsve net neutrality before 2015. What happened prior to 2015 was that internet companies were put under "Title I", a regulation level that isn't very strict. The FCC, however, still had rules saying that there had t one net neutrality. 
Verizon sued, saying that the FCC didn't hsve the legal authority to enforce net neutrality under Title I. They won, and at the time the FCC was debating whether to end net neutrality or to keep it by putting internet companies under Title II, a stricter regulation level where they could enforce net neutrality. After public comments indicated most Americans supported the Title II option, the FCC put internet companies under title II. 

So there you have it. I would prefer less government regulation as well, but the reason we're in this position now is because Verizon got greedy and sued. It's the internet companies' fault we're in this position.


----------



## leerpsp (Nov 22, 2017)

Veho said:


> Start your own ISP, with blackjack, and hookers?


For every one who gets your service get's a free hooker lol.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

Veho said:


> Start your own ISP, with blackjack, and hookers?


We shall call it TempNet.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> We shall call it TempNet.



No no no, we should call it Skynet


----------



## leerpsp (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> We shall call it TempNet.


Yep TempNet is right because with how the FCC doing there thing it would only be here temporary before they let AT&T or some other ISP come along and miss it up for every one.


----------



## Deleted-394630 (Nov 22, 2017)

Finally, the majority of GBATemp will be aware of Net Nutrality.


----------



## leerpsp (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> No no no, we should call it Skynet


Yes yes yes I like were this is going!!! good ideal.  And we can an AI running everything for us.... (wish i was joking)


----------



## SkittleDash (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Now that will be absolutely glorious to witness, something very cathartic on seeing government officials getting backlash.  Officials are nothing but pusillanimous puppets, same goes with those who willing subject to their bullshit.



Couldn't be more true. Welp, if this does happen, come to Europe and enjoy net neutrality once again!


----------



## Dominator211 (Nov 22, 2017)

sarkwalvein said:


> Lots of fun actually, until you check your bank account balance.


yea i guess all of that body funny is really wallet fun!!!


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

SkittleDash said:


> Couldn't be more true. Welp, if this does happen, come to Europe and enjoy net neutrality once again!



Sure, send me a few thousand quid for airfare, passport renewal and a decent flat to live and I'll consider moving there 



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Skynet is still a better government than the snakes that hand over liberties like net neutrality to corporations.



You're right, the machines actually had a perceivable level of intelligence, even if it was artificial.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> No no no, we should call it Skynet


Skynet is still a better government than the snakes that hand over liberties like net neutrality to corporations.


----------



## Dominator211 (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> A few points defending my side of the argument:
> 
> 1) Verizon, at least, has sued for the right to block certain sites and Comcast has threatened to do so too. Their desire to block content is transparent.
> 
> ...


i was just going with the information that chary typed but thank you for showing your side of the arguement


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

Dominator211 said:


> i was just going with the information that chary typed but thank you for showing your side of the arguement


No problem! Thanks for taking the time to explain yours too


----------



## Dominator211 (Nov 22, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> No problem! Thanks for taking the time to explain yours too


you're like actually nice you calmly state your side of the argument instead of finding flaws and attacking me for them in mine....


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 22, 2017)

Dominator211 said:


> you're like actually nice you calmly state your side of the argument instead of finding flaws and attacking me for them in mine....


Thanks  i just figured no point in getting unnecessarily mean when this is an issue that is best handled calmly.


----------



## call me Ken or Accel (Nov 22, 2017)

Tbh, I wanna see a gigantic shitstorm

Call me evil fuck, I dont care. I just wanna see a really large shitstorm c:


----------



## Dominator211 (Nov 22, 2017)

call me Ken or Accel said:


> Tbh, I wanna see a gigantic shitstorm
> 
> Call me evil fuck, I dont care. I just wanna see a really large shitstorm c:


evil fuck


----------



## SomeKindOfUsername (Nov 22, 2017)

It's funny in a sad way. Before the 2015 decision, and even _after_ that, the FTC and FCC took correct and prompt action on ISPs when they attempted to be evil.
But there will always be those who don't think the FCC has done enough to earn their trust and will instead side with the ISPs. I say this because a shocking number of people are indifferent to Net Neutrality and go on about government over reach despite the same government actively working to protect them. That could be simply attributed to a poor understanding of the subject though.

Should be worth noting that the FCC isn't the problem - they were after all the ones that crafted Net Neutrality rules in the first place and are supposed to be the ones enforcing these rules, as opposed to the FTC who only deal with stuff _after _the rules are broken. The problem is Ajit Pai - and it won't stop being a problem until he's out of the FCC.


----------



## Deleted member 408979 (Nov 22, 2017)

leon315 said:


> my eyes are bleeding, after i read 1st paragraph, can we just let our politicians fight for our rights???



Doesn't the word ''politician''speak for itself? Look, to put it bluntly, the only way they get there is because they have money, and if they have that much money, they'll use their existing money to drain the land like a leech.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 22, 2017)

call me Ken or Accel said:


> Tbh, I wanna see a gigantic shitstorm
> 
> Call me evil fuck, I don't care. I just wanna see a really large shitstorm c:


I don't want any niceness or calmness. I wanna see people get angry, I wanna see cages be rattled, I want people bashing their heads into the wall and putting themselves in a coma. I want people waving their American flags and say we are the best we are number 1.
_I'm talking about South American not North._


----------



## proflayton123 (Nov 22, 2017)

Oh it's that time of year again


----------



## Pacheko17 (Nov 22, 2017)

Don't really care, not from the USA and we already have net neutrality.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> Don't really care, not from the USA and we already have net neutrality.



Thank you for your most observant contributory statement, I'll be sure to make a note of that.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 22, 2017)

Pacheko17 said:


> Don't really care, not from the USA and we already have net neutrality.


Ha, lol.



the_randomizer said:


> Thank you for your most observant contributory statement, I'll be sure to make a note of that.


I think he's trying to gloat. He's trying to rub it in our face that he has net neutrality. And we might not in a few days.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Ha, lol.
> 
> 
> I think he's trying to gloat. He's trying to rub it in our face that he has net neutrality.



Well congratu-fu*king-lations to him.  No one cares.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 22, 2017)

well look on the brightside it won't last long cause N. Korea's going to kill humanity


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 22, 2017)

chrisrlink said:


> well look on the brightside it won't last long cause N. Korea's going to kill humanity



Not if we kill that Kim Jong bastard first.


----------



## chrisrlink (Nov 22, 2017)

well the human race needs to die including myself


----------



## call me Ken or Accel (Nov 22, 2017)

SG854 said:


> I don't want any niceness or calmness. I wanna see people get angry, I wanna see cages be rattled, I want people bashing their heads into the wall and putting themselves in a coma. I want people waving their American flags and say we are the best we are number 1.
> _I'm talking about South American not North._


O boi :wipesweats:


----------



## keven3477 (Nov 22, 2017)

I have a question, is there anything positive the fcc is trying to incite the general consumers to convince that net neutrality should not be? If not then why would anyone ever believe that no net neutrality is a good thing other than for corporate greed?


----------



## Viri (Nov 22, 2017)

I swear we been down this path every damn 2 years. Also, the new chairman of the FCC has the most punchable face I've ever seen.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Nov 22, 2017)

Viri said:


> I swear we been down this path every damn 2 years. Also, the new chairman of the FCC has the most punchable face I've ever seen.


Every year actually. Never fails.


----------



## vinstage (Nov 22, 2017)

Oh look, it’s another Trump Soldier huehuehue.

Aside, it’s pretty piss poor that they’re offering “freedom”, “protection” and “rights”, but then immediately snatching it away. Almost like mockery. 

This world never really changes huh.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Nov 22, 2017)

So is this only a american thing or do other countries have such things?


----------



## keven3477 (Nov 22, 2017)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> So is this only a american thing or do other countries have such things?


For now this is an American problem, but from what I have read if this come to pass other countries might follow. Also, many American based websites might be affected and foreign countries would have trouble accessing them like google, amazon etc..


----------



## Burlsol (Nov 22, 2017)

leon315 said:


> my eyes are bleeding, after i read 1st paragraph, can we just let our politicians fight for our rights???


Politicians are bought by companies. Plain and simple. They aren't fighting for our rights, they are fighting for their own well-being and immediate future with accepting agreements bought and paid for by companies like Comcast. They have paid out tens of thousands of dollars (yeah, really not that much) to individual members of Congre$$ to buy the vote against Net Neutrality. Showing quite clearly how low the bar actually is. The only other thing they care about is being re-elected, but since the average person doesn't understand what this is all about and is more concerned about whatever other political scandal is going on, law makers have nothing to fear unless enough people specifically take their time to call ans state clearly "If you vote to repeal Net Neutrality, I will be voting against you in every election within my district."


----------



## keven3477 (Nov 22, 2017)

I also want to point out this website www.gofccyourself.com and click on 17-108 , it links to the Fcc directly so you can express comment to them on your thoughts about this ordeal and claim that you want net neutrality protected.

context:


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 22, 2017)

keven3477 said:


> I also want to point out this website www.gofccyourself.com and click on 17-108 , it links to the Fcc directly so you can express comment to them on your thoughts about this ordeal and claim that you want net neutrality protected.
> 
> context:



I sure do love having to enter my home address to file a expression to the fcc


----------



## keven3477 (Nov 22, 2017)

VinLark said:


> I sure do love having to enter my home address to file a expression to the fcc


oh don't feel like you have to, I personally filled my address as keeping address hidden and it did post.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 22, 2017)

The Net isn't neutral as it is if it's government-regulated and I trust corporations to do the right thing over the government since there are actual stakes involved. Opening the market up could lead to benefits for the consumer and widen the field of competition quite significantly.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 22, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> I do not care.
> Spoilers: other countries exist besides the US


This will have a wide reach of indirect consequences that will reach countries other than the US. This is something you should care about.


----------



## Ryccardo (Nov 22, 2017)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> So is this only a american thing or do other countries have such things?


As it's currently being splattered around random websites to the annoyance of foreign users it's an American thing, however other parts of the world - Italy for sure - have non-neutral concepts like P2P throttling at peak times in the mid 2000s (bypassable with the protocol encryption feature) or certain services exempted from mobile data caps (mainly 2008-2010 and a few years ago - right now and ongoing)

As you can see it's been mostly in the advantage of the public masses here, however unlike Americans we have multiple major carriers (for all of DSL, fiber, cellular, and Wimax) in most cities, and they're very theoretically in active competition against each other, and there are no caps on home wired connections


----------



## Costello (Nov 23, 2017)

wonderful post Chary, this is what I call journalism. You're a real pro!

on the subject and how this might affect GBAtemp I will post my thoughts later. But anyone who thinks this isn't an issue because they don't live in the US: if the US begins to do this you can be certain it will come to your country sooner or later


----------



## iAqua (Nov 23, 2017)

thank you for posting this @Chary


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Nov 23, 2017)

Of course the idiot pushing for the repeal of net neutrality would claim that it'll allow for more ISPs for smaller towns and rural areas because that's how you get uninformed people to come to your side through intentional misrepresentation. These big ISPs have had a monopoly for YEARS, not just since net neutrality so their claim that there will be more competition is false. They actually want to be able to slow connections so people and sites pay premium (explained below).

There will still be the issue of smaller companies not having the resources of the big ISPs and having slower connection speeds and less reliability. I'm talking about home internet and not cellular.

Basically if it's repealed the ISPs will have the ability to limit data heavy things like streaming (like Netflix, Crunchyroll, Hulu) to make the sites pay to not be throttled. They also may throttle downloads (P2P is very likely, direct illegal downloads, by which I mean piracy, and also possibly legal downloads) and they could still charge the sites to be unthrottled or they could start charging you, the customer, for "premium" connection speeds.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> The Net isn't neutral as it is if it's government-regulated and I trust corporations to do the right thing over the government since there are actual stakes involved. Opening the market up could lead to benefits for the consumer and widen the field of competition quite significantly.



You're not at all worried at having this site adversely affected (since it does have hacking/modding guides), censorship, throttled, etc? You're not at all worried that ISPs will screws us over? Because I sure as hell am.

I absolutely abhor politicians for BS like this. Oh there are things I want to say but I know I shouldn't.



keven3477 said:


> I also want to point out this website www.gofccyourself.com and click on 17-108 , it links to the Fcc directly so you can express comment to them on your thoughts about this ordeal and claim that you want net neutrality protected.
> 
> context:




I saw no such section to add complaints.


Edit: Never mind, figured it out. Used my old apartment's address in the next town over though, didn't want to use my current one.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

http://www.tennessean.com/story/mon...ked-utility-line-policy-at-t-poles/889313001/

This is an example of why the ISP market isn't competitive, leading to a need for net neutrality. 

All of these ISPs have been crying about how oppressed they are under net neutrality regulations, but they sued for more regulation to stop Google Fiber from coming to Nashville (and succeeded).

What a bunch of hypocrites.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> http://www.tennessean.com/story/mon...ked-utility-line-policy-at-t-poles/889313001/
> 
> This is an example of why the ISP market isn't competitive, leading to a need for net neutrality.
> 
> ...



Bunch of bloodsucking cowards.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> The Net isn't neutral as it is if it's government-regulated and I trust corporations to do the right thing over the government since there are actual stakes involved. Opening the market up could lead to benefits for the consumer and widen the field of competition quite significantly.


This is kinda confusing for me (not trying to be mean, it genuinely is). 

Why do you trust corporations? The ISPs in particular are very monopolistic. 

Also, what do you mean when you say the net isn't neutral?


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> You're not at all worried at having this site adversely affected (since it does have hacking/modding guides), censorship, throttled, etc? You're not at all worried that ISPs will screws us over? Because I sure as hell am.


I am not, because censorship is not in the best interest of the ISP - in fact, ubiquitous coverage is because that's more appealing to the consumer. If it was up to me, the government wouldn't be engaged in the net at all.


ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This is kinda confusing for me (not trying to be mean, it genuinely is).
> 
> Why do you trust corporations? The ISPs in particular are very monopolistic.
> 
> Also, what do you mean when you say the net isn't neutral?


I absolutely trust companies, whose only reason for existence is to sell me a service, more than I trust the government which has all sorts of special interests. There is a reason why every single silicon valley giant supports Net Neutrality - Title 2 regulations actively prevent companies big and small from dealing with eachother in order to provide competitive services, and that hurts small ISP's much more than the big ones. If an ISP can offer me a fast lane to select services that I use more than anything else, it's a dine deal for me - I'm switching. A lack of Net Neutrality introduces the free market to cyberspace, that's exactly what I want. Right now Net Neutrality ensures that the big boys can collude with eachother to basically partition the map and provide the same shitty coverage across the board, deregulation and, hopefully, no further subsidies would incentivise fierce competition over the users, which is how every other market works. The Net isn't neutral because it's subject to government regulations, and that causes a much bigger risk of censorship.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I am not, because censorship is not in the best interest of the ISP - in fact, ubiquitous coverage is because that's more appealing to the consumer. If it was up to me, the government wouldn't be engaged in the net at all.
> I absolutely trust companies, whose only reason for existence is to sell me a service, than I trust the government which has all sorts of special interests. There is a reason why every single silicon valley giant supports Net Neutrality - Title 2 regulations actively prevent companies big and small from dealing with eachother in order to provide competitive services, and that hurts small ISP's much more than the big ones. If ISP A can offer me a fast lane to select services that I use more than anything else, it's a dine deal for me - I'm switching. A lack of Net Neutrality introduces the free market to cyberspace, that's exactly what I want.


The best interest of a company is to get money and expand. By removing net neutrality, it would let ISPs hold web-based companies hostage by throttling them unless they pay up.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> The best interest of a company is to get money and expand. By removing net neutrality, it would let ISPs hold web-based companies hostage by throttling them unless they pay up.


And the other way around. If an ISP is being a shifty fuck, Amazon can throttle them, so everyone has to play nice with eachother, because an ISP with no access to Amazon is boned. The only way for a corporation to make money is to provide a service people are willing to pay for, and the only way to ensure that said service keeps improving in quality is to force providers to compete with eachother proactively to provide better deals and expand coverage. Expansion is great, that's what you want. The fact that they want your money is the motivator here.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> And the other way around. If an ISP is being a shifty fuck, Amazon can throttle them, so everyone has to play nice with eachother, because an ISP with no access to Amazon is boned.


Amazon can't throttle their customers because Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on providing internet access in the first place.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> Amazon can't throttle their customers because Amazon doesn't have a monopoly on providing internet access in the first place.


Amazon holds a massive majority stake in online retail - restricting access of a certain ISP, like Comcast for instance, to their servers would effectively mean Comcast has to shape up or drop off the map. The same applies to giants like eBay or Google, who currently owns YouTube. Whoever holds the keys to Google.com and YouTube.com owns the world.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I am not, because censorship is not in the best interest of the ISP - in fact, ubiquitous coverage is because that's more appealing to the consumer. If it was up to me, the government wouldn't be engaged in the net at all.
> I absolutely trust companies, whose only reason for existence is to sell me a service, than I trust the government which has all sorts of special interests. There is a reason why every single silicon valley giant supports Net Neutrality - Title 2 regulations actively prevent companies big and small from dealing with eachother in order to provide competitive services, and that hurts small ISP's much more than the big ones. If an ISP can offer me a fast lane to select services that I use more than anything else, it's a dine deal for me - I'm switching. A lack of Net Neutrality introduces the free market to cyberspace, that's exactly what I want. Right now Net Neutrality ensures that the big boys can collude with eachother to basically partition the map and provide the same milktoast coverage across the board, deregulation and, hopefully, no further subsidies would incentivise fierce competition over the users, which is how every other market works. The Net isn't neutral because it's subject to government regulations, and that causes a much bigger risk of censorship.


The reason we have Title II in the first place is because Verizon got greedy and sued, in my opinion that means they deserve what happened to them.

Also, the entire reason we don't have a free market in the ISP category is because big ISPs have lobbied the government to write regulations that enhance their monopoly (see this example that I linked above). I agree with you in that we shouldn't have trust the government, at least the parts that are subject to lobbying, but we shouldn't trust corporations either, because they're the ones that collude with the government and lobby it.

Just as a side note: I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I am not, because censorship is not in the best interest of the ISP - in fact, ubiquitous coverage is because that's more appealing to the consumer. If it was up to me, the government wouldn't be engaged in the net at all.
> I absolutely trust companies, whose only reason for existence is to sell me a service, than I trust the government which has all sorts of special interests. There is a reason why every single silicon valley giant supports Net Neutrality - Title 2 regulations actively prevent companies big and small from dealing with eachother in order to provide competitive services, and that hurts small ISP's much more than the big ones. If an ISP can offer me a fast lane to select services that I use more than anything else, it's a dine deal for me - I'm switching. A lack of Net Neutrality introduces the free market to cyberspace, that's exactly what I want. Right now Net Neutrality ensures that the big boys can collude with eachother to basically partition the map and provide the same milktoast coverage across the board, deregulation and, hopefully, no further subsidies would incentivise fierce competition over the users, which is how every other market works. The Net isn't neutral because it's subject to government regulations, and that causes a much bigger risk of censorship.



So you're saying that places like the Temp won't be throttled or even blocked/shut down? You do know how sketchy and ridiculously notorious Comcast/Xfinity is, right? I'm trying to look at this positively, and it's a nightmare.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Amazon holds a massive majority stake in online retail - restricting access of a certain ISP, like Comcast for instance, to their servers would effectively mean Comcast has to shape up or drop off the map. The same applies to giants like eBay or Google, who currently owns YouTube. Whoever holds the keys to Google.com and YouTube.com owns the world.


What about smaller sites? Companies could offer all sites tiered data speeds.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I am not, because censorship is not in the best interest of the ISP - in fact, ubiquitous coverage is because that's more appealing to the consumer. If it was up to me, the government wouldn't be engaged in the net at all.
> I absolutely trust companies, whose only reason for existence is to sell me a service, than I trust the government which has all sorts of special interests. There is a reason why every single silicon valley giant supports Net Neutrality - Title 2 regulations actively prevent companies big and small from dealing with eachother in order to provide competitive services, and that hurts small ISP's much more than the big ones. If an ISP can offer me a fast lane to select services that I use more than anything else, it's a dine deal for me - I'm switching. A lack of Net Neutrality introduces the free market to cyberspace, that's exactly what I want. Right now Net Neutrality ensures that the big boys can collude with eachother to basically partition the map and provide the same milktoast coverage across the board, deregulation and, hopefully, no further subsidies would incentivise fierce competition over the users, which is how every other market works. The Net isn't neutral because it's subject to government regulations, and that causes a much bigger risk of censorship.


Also, here's a letter by smaller ISPs about why they do support Title II.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> The reason we have Title II in the first place is because Verizon got greedy and sued, in my opinion that means they deserve what happened to them.
> 
> Also, the entire reason we don't have a free market in the ISP category is because big ISPs have lobbied the government to write regulations that enhance their monopoly (see this example that I linked above). I agree with you in that we shouldn't have trust the government, at least the parts that are subject to lobbying, but we shouldn't trust corporations either, because they're the ones that collude with the government and lobby it.
> 
> Just as a side note: I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it.


If your solution to government involvement is more government involvement then I hate to break it to you, but that's not going to work. "Net Neutrality" is not freedom, it's shackles.


the_randomizer said:


> So you're saying that places like the Temp won't be throttled or even blocked/shut down? You do know how sketchy and ridiculously notorious Comcast/Xfinity is, right? I'm trying to look at this positively, and it's a nightmare.


The government is far more interested in blocking websites than an ISP would be. Ideally ISP's would love to not deal with blocking websites at all, but they have to do so on behalf of the government due to DMCA rules. I've seen websites seized by the F.B.I, I am yet to see a website seized by Comcast.

Net Neutrality only came into effect on 2010, and it arguably made the Web worse, not better, as it removed a lot of competition from the field. The Internet existed for decades prior and it will continue to exist just fine, hopefully at better capacity than right now.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> If your solution to government involvement is more government involvement then I hate to break it to you, but that's not going to work. "Net Neutrality" is not freedom, it's shackles.
> The government is far more interested on blocking websites than an ISP would be. Ideally ISP's would love to not deal with blocking websites at all, but they have to do so on behalf of the government due to DMCA rules. I've seen websites seized by the F.B.I, I am yet to see a website seized by Comcast.
> 
> Net Neutrality only came into effect on 2010, and it arguably made the Web worse, not better, as it removed a lot of competition from the field. The Internet existed for decades prior and it will continue to exist just fine, hopefully at better capacity than right now.


Net Neutrality didn't come into effect in 2010, it came into effect later. Before it, if you would properly do your research, you would see that there are plenty of examples of companies throttling or blocking websites altogether.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> What about smaller sites? Companies could offer all sites tiered data speeds.


So what? That's the whole point. If one host doesn't provide coverage you desire, you go to another. That's the whole idea - you pick the best of the bunch, not whatever's nearest to your location.


ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Also, here's a letter by smaller ISPs about why they do support Title II.


Oh, if they wrote a letter in support of it then I definitely want it struck down - I want what's best for the consumer, and if a company tells me that I don't want something, that's exactly what I want.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> If your solution to government involvement is more government involvement then I hate to break it to you, but that's not going to work. "Net Neutrality" is not freedom, it's shackles.


This is partially true, the only reason it's worked so far is because the FCC *used* to be an impartial body separate from the Congress that passed these monopolistic regulations. If we got rid of all of those regulations, then we'd have a free market and net neutrality wouldn't need to be law; unfortunately this isn't the case, so we need it to be a law.


Foxi4 said:


> The government is far more interested on blocking websites than an ISP would be. Ideally ISP's would love to not deal with blocking websites at all, but they have to do so on behalf of the government due to DMCA rules. I've seen websites seized by the F.B.I, I am yet to see a website seized by Comcast.


Also true, but the FCC isn't engaging in government censorship, even under Pai.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> So what? That's the whole point. If one host doesn't provide coverage you desire, you go to another. That's the whole idea - you pick the best of the bunch, not whatever's nearest to your location.
> Oh, if they wrote a letter in support of it then I definitely want it struck down - I want what's best for the consumer, and if a company tells me that I don't want something, that's exactly what I want.


What? I don't think you're properly understanding what I meant. I mean that ISPs could offer websites tiered data speeds to websites, and if they didn't pay up, the default speed would be slowed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> Net Neutrality didn't come into effect in 2010, it came into effect later. Before it, if you would properly do your research, you would see that there are plenty of examples of companies throttling or blocking websites altogether.


The FCC approved Net Neutrality rules in 2010. Some of them were struck down by federal courts in 2014, but that's inconsequential to the discussion. You do your research.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, if they wrote a letter in support of it then I definitely want it struck down - I want what's best for the consumer, and if a company tells me that I don't want something, that's exactly what I want.



The point that they make is that it increases competition, though.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> If your solution to government involvement is more government involvement then I hate to break it to you, but that's not going to work. "Net Neutrality" is not freedom, it's shackles.
> The government is far more interested on blocking websites than an ISP would be. Ideally ISP's would love to not deal with blocking websites at all, but they have to do so on behalf of the government due to DMCA rules. I've seen websites seized by the F.B.I, I am yet to see a website seized by Comcast.
> 
> Net Neutrality only came into effect on 2010, and it arguably made the Web worse, not better, as it removed a lot of competition from the field. The Internet existed for decades prior and it will continue to exist just fine, hopefully at better capacity than right now.



So would you suggest we just wait it out before throwing in the towel? I don't want throttling, shut down sites, etc.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This is partially true, the only reason it's worked so far is because the FCC *used* to be an impartial body separate from the Congress that passed these monopolistic regulations. If we got rid of all of those regulations, then we'd have a free market and net neutrality wouldn't need to be law; unfortunately this isn't the case, so we need it to be a law.
> 
> Also true, but the FCC isn't engaging in government censorship, even under Pai.


You don't fix unnecessary regulation with more regulation, you deregulate, and you have to start somewhere. Hopefully this is the first of many upcoming steps towards withdrawing FCC control over the Internet.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> The FCC approved Net Neutrality rules in 2010. Some of them were struck down by federal courts in 2014, but that's inconsequential to the discussion. You do your research.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> You don't fix unnecessary regulation with more regulation, you deregulate, and you have to start somewhere. Hopefully this is the first of many upcoming steps towards withdrawing FCC control over the Internet.


I partially agree with this, but the problem here isn't the FCC, its Congress. They're the ones that wrote those monopolistic laws.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

Wow, 10 pages of people basically ranting about the same opinion? I haven't read all 10 pages but I hope there isn't anyone that supports letting monopoly isp's restrict what you can and cannot view on the web...


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> Wow, 10 pages of people basically ranting about the same opinion? I haven't read all 10 pages but I hope there isn't anyone that supports letting monopoly isp's restrict what you can and cannot view on the web...


Hate to break it to you, but we even have a reporter supporting that bullshit.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> Wow, 10 pages of people basically ranting about the same opinion? I haven't read all 10 pages but I hope there isn't anyone that supports letting monopoly isp's restrict what you can and cannot view on the web...


Foxi4 has argued that he's skeptical of neutrality regulations and trusts the ISPs more than the government. I certainly don't agree with him, but he's made some fair points.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> View attachment 106664


I don't know if you're being silly on purpose or if you're misunderstanding my posts and repeating yourself as a result. Net Neutrality was enshrined in December 2010 in the Open Internet Order which legalised the previously non-binding tenants of the open Web. This order was fought over in federal courts, we've already established that.

"The United States Federal Communications Commission established four principles of "open internet" in 2005:


Consumers deserve access to the lawful Internet content of their choice.
Consumers should be allowed to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
Consumers should be able to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
Consumers deserve to choose their network providers,application and service providers, and content providers of choice.
These tenets of open internet essentially encapsulate the ideas of net neutrality. From 2005 until the establishment of Open Internet in December 2010, these standards existed in name only."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010

Again, this is the origin of the concept of Net Neutrality and effectively its beginning. Notice the wording used - Net Neutrality concerns "legal content". Guess who decides what's legal and what's not? Regulation like this subtlety introduces a cudgel with which the long arm of the government can censor speech by deeming it unlawful for whatever reason. No thanks, I don't need that kind of reassurance.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Foxi4 has argued that he's skeptical of neutrality regulations and trusts the ISPs more than the government. I certainly don't agree with him, but he's made some fair points.


The only benefit I can see is if isp's weren't money hungry, some people could get a Netflix and email only package for 1/4 the price. Knowing isp's, they'd do this, but for the price it is now, and up the price of what we have now to something higher.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't know if you're being silly on purpose or if you're misunderstanding my posts and repeating yourself as a result. Net Neutrality was enshrined in December 2010 in the Open Internet Order which legalised the previously non-binding tenants of the open Web. This order was fought over in federal courts, we've already established that.
> 
> "The United States Federal Communications Commission established four principles of "open internet" in 2005:
> 
> ...


Effectively, it only happened in 2015 because that's when they really started enforcing it. I'm not entirely sure on the details on that, it's all a bit muddled, but that is truly when it started being enforced.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> Hate to break it to you, but we even have a reporter supporting that bullshit.


If by supporting you mean opposing government involvement in providing goods and services to consumers, you sure are right about that. What other neutrality do we need? Do you want Road Neutrality? How about Cake Neutrality? I want the government to step in and tell Nestle that they can't get their chocolate at wholesale prices anymore, they'll make my sweets cheaper, right? I mean, we have to help the little guys, specifically by making sure a giant like Nestle pays just as much as a small company would despite having infinitely more resources at the bargain table.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> If by supporting you mean opposing government involvement in providing goods and services to consumers, you sure are right about that. What other neutrality do we need? Do you want Road Neutrality? How about Cake Neutrality? I want the government to step in and tell Nestle that they can't get their chocolate at wholesale prices anymore, they'll make my sweets cheaper, right? I mean, we have to help the little guys, specifically by making sure a giant like Nestle pays just as much as a small company would despite having infinitely more resources at the bargain table.


The internet is a unique thing. You cannot compare it to other things when the price of not ensuring its freedom is potential restrictions on our freedom of speech.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> The only benefit I can see is if isp's weren't money hungry, some people could get a Netflix and email only package for 1/4 the price. Knowing isp's, they'd do this, but for the price it is now, and up the price of what we have now to something higher.


Wow, bravo, what a great idea! We actually have that in Europe - certain phone carriers used to offer special mobile Internet plans that, while otherwise unimpressive, offered, for instance, unlimited access to Facebook for free. Brilliant move, that's the one site people always access on the go, an immediate selling point and a great value for the consumer. Wow, that free market - it provides, doesn't it?


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Just to sum up my arguments, I agree we need to get less government regulation and involvement in the web, because Congress has effectively fucked up the free market in the ISP category. 

Until we see free and fair competition restored (which I don't see happening), I think we need net neutrality to make sure we aren't taken advantage of by monopolies. 

And it's important to note the government isn't just one entity. The FCC and Congress are separate, because we have separation of powers.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> The internet is a unique thing. You cannot compare it to other things when the price of not ensuring its freedom is potential restrictions on our freedom of speech.


If it's limited by the government then it's not free by definition. A corporation cannot usurp your freedom, only the government can, and actively does every single day.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> If it's limited by the government then it's not free by definition. A corporation cannot usurp your freedom, only the government can, and actively does every single day.


Thsts pretty much where I (respectfully) disagree with you- corporations *can* (and do) usurp freedoms.


----------



## Deleted User (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> Hate to break it to you, but we even have a reporter supporting that bullshit.


It always gets me when people use somebody's forum title with an opinion. Like, that makes it worse that they have an opinion different from yours.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Thsts pretty much where I (respectfully) disagree with you- corporations *can* (and do) usurp freedoms.


That's absolutely nonsensical, a corporation cannot imprison or silence you, you have to provide me an example.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

VinLark said:


> It always gets me when people use somebody's forum title with an opinion. Like, that makes it worse that they have an opinion different from yours.


yeah, I kinda regretted that comment once I posted it.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> That's absolutely nonsensical, a corporation cannot imprison or silence you, you have to provide me an example.


This is a separate story from another time (unrelated to net neutrality), but United Fruit has done exactly that. . .


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> That's absolutely nonsensical, a corporation cannot imprison or silence you, you have to provide me an example.


Restricting freedoms does not necessarily mean imprisoning or silencing you- but the latter can happen going forward if net neutrality is repealed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

VinLark said:


> It always gets me when people use somebody's forum title with an opinion. Like, that makes it worse that they have an opinion different from yours.


I'm a reporter and I support capitalism - I must be part of the burguoise, just stepping on people's freedoms left and right because I don't care about the working class! Grab the hammers and sickles, we need to stifle this free expression immediately! ￼


jupitteer said:


> yeah, I kinda regretted that comment once I posted it.


No harm done, it's just a difference of opinion, lighten up.  In my wonderful world of money everybody's welcome. Except communists.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> That's absolutely nonsensical, a corporation cannot imprison or silence you, you have to provide me an example.


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

This doesn't have to do with net neutrality, it's just an example thst corporations can cause those harms you mentioned (I'm a capitalist too btw, but I think a healthy skepticism of corporations is good).


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

It seems if people are looking for the end goal of cheap unlimited internet, it's pretty much a lose-lose situation either way...
Also, I'm glad that some non-members (I guess you could say "staff") have differing opinions. It annoys me that some people will agree to whatever opinion is the majority, even if they don't ACTUALLY agree to it...
But of course, I am part of the majority in this case.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company
> 
> This doesn't have to do with net neutrality, it's just an example thst corporations can cause those harms you mentioned (I'm a capitalist too btw, but I think a healthy skepticism of corporations is good).


Oh, a company accused of exploitation through colonialism? I'm closing the tab. It's easy to criticise companies like Coca Cola for paying people in poor countries extremely low wages. What people don't understand is that the alternative to Coca Cola isn't a different company, the alternative is famine and illegal drugs. Those places need to go through the same stages of progress as we did during the industrial revolution, and it's sad, but employees must produce value. Their labour must be worth more than their wage, otherwise there's no reason to employ them. I salute every corporation that participates in making the third world richer, one dollar at a time.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 23, 2017)

VinLark said:


> It always gets me when people use somebody's forum title with an opinion. Like, that makes it worse that they have an opinion different from yours.


I love it when they do that. It gives a sense of arrogance.



Foxi4 said:


> I'm a reporter and I support capitalism - I must be part of the burguoise, just stepping on people's freedoms left and right because I don't care about the working class! Grab the hammers and sickles, we need to stifle this free expression immediately! ￼
> No harm done, it's just a difference of opinion, lighten up.  In my wonderful world of money everybody's welcome. Except communists.


Nothing is ever fully anything. Even capitalist countries has a hint of socialism. USA claims they are capitalist yet we have many social governmental programs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> Restricting freedoms does not necessarily mean imprisoning or silencing you- but the latter can happen going forward if net neutrality is repealed.


Twitter is actively silencing users right now. If Time Warner throttled the shit out of them because they're sick of customer complaints they would reconsider in a hurry.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Twitter is actively silencing users right now. If Warner Brothers throttled the shit out if them because they're sick if customer complaints they would reconsider in a hurry.


I mean specifically ISPs silencing entire blocks of the internet, not that one site.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Twitter is actively silencing users right now. If Time Warner throttled the shit out if them because they're sick of customer complaints they would reconsider in a hurry.


I know this is unrelated, but it annoys me that Twitter is silencing people.
Also, the latter of what you said is a good argument for repealing neutrality
~~I'd only support it if I had a time machine to see the effects, though.


----------



## hitodesu (Nov 23, 2017)

VinsCool said:


> 1 provider == monopoly
> Even when sometimes they have 2 providers, the competition is minimal.
> They can freely charge big prices, and limited/throttled services.


2 providers == oligopoly


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> I mean specifically ISPs silencing entire blocks of the internet, not that one site.


I know what you mean and it never happened before, nor would it happen, because it's not profitable to do so.


hitodesu said:


> 2 provider == oligopoly


Only if they collude. You have to force them to compete by opening the market.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I know what you mean and it never happened before, nor would it happen, because it's not profitable to do so.


Forcing companies to have their users experience slow data speeds unless they pay up isn't profitable? Than I don't know what is.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> Forcing companies to have their users experience slow data speeds unless they pay up isn't profitable? Than I don't know what is.


Pay a small fee of $10 per week for unrestricted* access to GBATemp.net!

*Speeds slow to 2G speeds after 100mb of browsing this site. Upgrade to unlimited ($20 per week) now!

------

You have received an e-mail!
It is from [email protected], and marked as URGENT!

Pay $3 to view this e-mail now.

(Ok, that might be stretching it a bit  )


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> Forcing companies to have their users experience slow data speeds unless they pay up isn't profitable? Than I don't know what is.


How's that TV Neutrality working for you? Oh, right, it doesn't exist. ABC coughs up cash to a producer, they make The Walking Dead and all of a sudden they have a killer show that rakes in ratings and benefits a previously obscure brand, spawning more comic books and video games along the way. Wow, that free market thing is kind of cool. It's almost as if the freedom to engage in business with other individuals and entities was beneficial to the consumer. If the FCC stepped in and said that ABC can produce a show only as long as they also allow all other channels to screen it under the veil of freedom of access to information, y'know what ABC would finance? Jack and Shit.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh, a company accused of exploitation through colonialism? I'm closing the tab. It's easy to criticise companies like Coca Cola for paying people in poor countries extremely low wages. What people don't understand is that the alternative to Coca Cola isn't a different company, the alternative is famine and illegal drugs. Those places need to go through the same stages of progress as we did during the industrial revolution, and it's sad, but employees must produce value. Their labour must be worth more than their wage, otherwise there's no reason to employ them. I salute every corporation that participates in making the third world richer, one dollar at a time.


I agree that the cry of "colonialism" is overused and can cause harm as well (see: Venezuela and the shithead that is Maduro ).

But just as it's harmful to blame corporations for everything, it's equally harmful to say they can cause no harm. The reason I brought up United Fruit is not because they're colonialists, but because they did deprive their workers of liberties.

The reason I love living in the modern US is because they trust in the free market, but have protections against certain sketchy behaviors from corporations, like antitrust acts. And that's all net neutrality is for me, anti trust legislation specifically for the snakes in Comcast and Verizon.

All of the monopolistic bullshit regulations Congress passed for big ISPs is detrimental for the balance the US maintains. We need to get rid of those regulations, but until we do, we need net neutrality.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> Pay a small fee of $10 per week for unrestricted* access to GBATemp.net!
> 
> *Speeds slow to 2G speeds after 100mb of browsing this site. Upgrade to unlimited ($20 per week) now!


Or the opposite - "You only browse a few select sites? That's great - we want less traffic to burden our network, here's a discount plan with turbo access to your favourite sites!" - I'm old enough to remember deals like this.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> How's that TV Neutrality working for you? Oh, right, it doesn't exist. ABC coughs up cash to a producer, they make The Walking Dead and all of a sudden they have a killer show that rakes in ratings and benefits a previously obscure brand, spawning more comic books and video games along the way. Wow, that free market thing is kind of cool. It's almost as if the freedom to engage in business with other individuals and entities was beneficial to the consumer. If the FCC stepped in and said that ABC can produce a show only as long as they also allow all other channels to screen it under the veil of freedom of access to information, y'know what ABC would finance? Jack and Shit.


Completely different situations. You're comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Or the opposite - "You only browse a few select sites? That's great - we want less traffic to burden our network, here's a discount plan with turbo access to your favourite sites!" - I'm old enough to remember deals like this.


This would be awesome. If worst comes to worst, i would love to see isp's doing this.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I agree that the cry of "colonialism" is overused and can cause harm as well (see: Venezuela and the shithead that is Maduro ).
> 
> But just as it's harmful to blame corporations for everything, it's equally harmful to say they can cause no harm. The reason I brought up United Fruit is not because they're colonialists, but because they did deprive their workers of liberties.
> 
> ...


Who passed the regulations, the corporations or the corrupt politicians? As civil servants they have a duty to report any instance of bribery, but they did not, they played along, so they're guilty. They took your freedoms and there should be a noose with their names on it waiting for them. A corporation has a duty to actively seek dominance of the market and it's the government's job to not get involved at all. The less they get involved and the less power they have the better we do. You say you support regulation, but you keep providing arguments for deregulation and a smaller government with less influence.


jupitteer said:


> Completely different situations. You're comparing apples and oranges.


Except they're not - television, radio, telecoms and the Internet belong in one big basket of information distribution. The Internet is a specific case because it works both ways, that's what makes this an analogy and not an equivalent.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Who passed the regulations, the corporations or the corrupt politicians? As civil servants they have a duty to report any instance of bribery, but they did not, they played along, so they're guilty. They took your freedoms and there should be a noose with their names on it waiting for them. A corporation has a duty to actively seek dominance of the market and it's the government's job to not get involved at all. The less they get involved and the less power they have the better we do.


I agree with this, but it's the government's job to ensure that no one corporation achieves total dominance (a monopoly) and that if they do that they can't abuse it. 

We should be hunting down those corrupt politicians that wrote those laws, but I don't see that happening. That's why I want net neutrality. 

As a side note, I feel like our discussion is going in circles, so I'll stop repeating myself. I'll end this on a note that I disagree with you but I think you have every right to express your opinion (which I respect), and I'm glad we live in a world where we can argue against each other respectfully.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I agree with this, but it's the government's job to ensure that no one corporation achieves total dominance (a monopoly) and that if they do that they can't abuse it.
> 
> We should be hunting down those corrupt politicians that wrote those laws, but I don't see that happening. That's why I want net neutrality.
> 
> As a side note, I feel like our discussion is going in circles, so I'll stop repeating myself. I'll end this on a note that I disagree with you but I think you have every right to express your opinion (which I respect), and I'm glad we live in a world where we can argue against each other respectfully.


Monopolies are almost always a direct result of government interference which at some point stifled competition. It is very hard to become the sole company providing a good or service that there's a demand for without a government mandate or "friends in high places" - where there's demand, there's incentive to compete. A corporation does not have the means to shut down another corporation besides outperforming them in terms of quality, which is good for the consumer, or buying them out, which is good for small businesses that want to get rich quick. Here I'll pull out the example of VR because it demonstrates the principle very well - Occulus Rift began working on the first VR headset that didn't suck, subsequently other companies immediately released their own iterations of VR, including giants like Sony and HTC, and the already huge publicity of the new set made it sensible for Facebook to buy Occulus and take it to the next level. This one company, through the market equivalent of the butterfly effect, created a whole new segment of software and hardware development that was effectively dead since the 90's. There was only one Occulus, but the demand was there, so others followed suit - now they compete and the products are becoming better and better. The same applies across the board to just about anything you can sell. Now, imagine that there is a new and revolutionary Internet service that everybody wants to jump on to, something like Snapchat. ISP's will be tripping over eachother to get the best possible access to those servers because they need it to operate - it's the next big thing, customers want it, and without customers a corporation is nothing. This is a system where everybody has to scratch eachother's back, and I approve of that because it means I get all the benefits and vote with my wallet.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Monopolies are almost always a direct result of government interference which at some point stifled competition. It is very hard to become the sole company providing a good or service that there's a demand for without a government mandate or "friends in high places" - where there's demand, there's incentive to compete. A corporation does not have the means to shut down another corporation besides outperforming them in terms of quality, which is good for the consumer, or buying them out, which is good for small businesses that want to get rich quick. Here I'll pull out the example of VR because it demonstrates the principle very well - Occulus Rift began working on the first VR headset that didn't suck, subsequently other companies immediately released their own iterations of VR, including giants like Sony and HTC, and the already huge publicity of the new set made it sensible for Facebook to buy Occulus and take it to the next level. This one company, through the market equivalent of the butterfly effect, created a whole new segment of software and hardware development that was effectively dead since the 90's. There was only one Occulus, but the demand was there, so others followed suit - now they compete and the products are becoming better and better. The same applies across the board to just about anything you can sell. Now, imagine that there is a new and revolutionary Internet service that everybody wants to jump on to, something like Snapchat. ISP's will be tripping over eachother to get the best possible access to those servers because they need it to operate - it's the next big thing, customers want it, and without customers a corporation is nothing. This is a system where everybody has to scratch eachother's back, and I approve of that because it means I get all the benefits and vote with my wallet.


You haven't said anything I disagree with here. Congress caused the monopoly by passing the laws the ISPs asked for. The FCC was created to be an independent agency that would seek to reverse those effects, and thats the purpose of net neutrality and Title II. 

The problem is the FCC isn't independent anymore because of Pai. 

In an ideal world congress would be accountable for it's actions, but that isn't the case.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> You haven't said anything I disagree with here. Congress caused the monopoly by passing the laws the ISPs asked for. The FCC was created to be an independent agency that would seek to reverse those effects, and thats the purpose of net neutrality and Title II.
> 
> The problem is the FCC isn't independent anymore because of Pai.
> 
> In an ideal world congress would be accountable for it's actions, but that isn't the case.


You're fighting the wrong battle then.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> You're fighting the wrong battle then.


We're fighting the only battle we can actually win. It's much simpler to enforce net neutrality than to break up these monopolies (it's a temporary solution, but it's necessary).

And I don't just blame Congress. The ISPs are out for market domination, but it's scummy to lobby for these regulations.


----------



## Hozu (Nov 23, 2017)

Bad news for anyone who uses torrents...

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691794/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-comcast-block-bittorrent

Such a change would immediately affect everyone in the world, by virtue of less available peers.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Hozu said:


> Bad news for anyone who uses torrents...
> 
> https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691794/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-comcast-block-bittorrent
> 
> Such a change would immediately affect everyone in the world, by virtue of less available peers.


No surprise to me. Verizon sued in 2015 to get rid of net neutrality so they could block torrents.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

Hozu said:


> Bad news for anyone who uses torrents...
> 
> https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691794/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-comcast-block-bittorrent
> 
> Such a change would immediately affect everyone in the world, by virtue of less available peers.


I better as heck get a plan with mega.nz included.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> We're fighting the only battle we can actually win. It's much simpler to enforce net neutrality than to break up these monopolies (it's a temporary solution, but it's necessary).
> 
> And I don't just blame Congress. The ISPs are out for market domination, but it's scummy to lobby for these regulations.


The difference here is that a congressperson is a human and a corporation is a legal entity. A human is bound by morality, especially in public office - a corporation exists solely to make profit, and they make profit by providing goods and services. If they can get the upper hand, they have the duty to lobby within the confines of the law and there's nothing particularly scummy about that. I could sell you some utopian screed here like "vote libertarian 2020", but that's not going to work - people aren't quite oppressed enough to crave freedom once more. We'll get there though, but for now the current administration seems to be doing a good job sneakily deregulating business while everybody else is too busy getting triggered by Trump's antics to even notice. You gotta hand it to the guy, he knows how to out on a good show.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> The difference here is that a congressperson is a human and a corporation is a legal entity. A human is bound by morality, especially in public office - a corporation exists solely to make profit, and they make profit by providing goods and services. If they can get the upper hand, they have the duty to lobby within the confines of the law and there's nothing particularly scummy about that. I could sell you some utopian screed here like "vote libertarian 2020", but that's not going to work - people aren't quite oppressed enough to crave freedom once more. We'll get there though, but for now the current administration seems to be doing a good job sneakily deregulating business while everybody else is too busy getting triggered by Trump's antics to even notice. You gotta hand it to the guy, he knows how to out on a good show.


This is where I disagree. A corporation is made up of people that *should* have morals, and it's scummy that those people tried to achieve market dominance by lobbying instead of making a good product. 

And don't just take it from me. It's universally accepted that Comcast and Verizon are the worst. Most people in this thread agree.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

Hozu said:


> Bad news for anyone who uses torrents...
> 
> https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691794/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-comcast-block-bittorrent
> 
> Such a change would immediately affect everyone in the world, by virtue of less available peers.



I'm glad I don't use Torrents, I've always been wary about them; people can say all they want, no amount of reassurance will convince me.  But yeah, Ajit Pai is a douchebag.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> I better as heck get a plan with mega.nz included.


They could very well block it on all plans, I doubt they'd sell a plan that included piracy

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



the_randomizer said:


> I'm glad I don't use Torrents, I've always been wary about them; people can say all they want, no amount of reassurance will convince me.  But yeah, Ajit Pai is a douchebag.


He serves his corporate overlords well.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

Hozu said:


> Bad news for anyone who uses torrents...
> 
> https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691794/net-neutrality-fcc-ajit-pai-comcast-block-bittorrent
> 
> Such a change would immediately affect everyone in the world, by virtue of less available peers.


I wonder why they did that. Could it be that DMCA rules which make them partially liable for providing access to unauthorised content and effectively force them to monitor traffic and send out notices pushed them to an attempt at pulling the plug on the whole protocol, or did they do it out of the goodness of their hearts and out of respect to content creators? Because I have a feeling that they don't really care about any other company but their own and limited liability would be a good fix since the ISP is in no way responsible for the crimes and misdemeanours committed by individual users. Under Title 2 rules a provider can avoid financial responsibility after "notice and takedown", so the government is in effect using ISP's as law enforcement, which is in itself ridiculous.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm glad I don't use Torrents, I've always been wary about them; people can say all they want, no amount of reassurance will convince me.  But yeah, Ajit Pai is a douchebag.


I've used torrents to download the files needed to hack my 3ds as its part of the guide.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

SG854 said:


> I've used torrents to download the files needed to hack my 3ds as its part of the guide.


You can kiss that goodbye.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

SG854 said:


> I've used torrents to download the files needed to hack my 3ds as its part of the guide.



Odd, I used the Luma guide and I didn't have to use Torrents *shrug*.
I suggest backing those up somewhere.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Odd, I used the Luma guide and I didn't have to use Torrents *shrug*.
> I suggest backing those up somewhere.


Ntrboot doesn't use torrents, but other parts like dsiwarehax downgrade do.


----------



## Hozu (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I wonder why they did that. Could it be that DMCA rules which make them partially liable for providing access to unauthorised content and effectively force them to monitor traffic and send out notices pushed them to an attempt at pulling the plug on the whole protocol, or did they do it out of the goodness of their hearts and out of respect to content creators? Because I have a feeling that they don't really care about any other company but their own and limited liability would be a good fix since the ISP is in no way responsible for the crimes and misdemeanours committed by individual users.



The cynic in me says they probably got asked/paid by various copyright holders to block torrents to try to curb piracy. Despite it having various perfectly legal uses.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Ntrboot doesn't use torrents, but other parts like dsiwarehax downgrade do.



Like I said, take the files you downloaded and back them up.



Hozu said:


> The cynic in me says they probably got asked/paid by various copyright holders to block torrents to try to curb piracy. Despite it having various perfectly legal uses.



Too bad so few legal torrents exist.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Odd, I used the Luma guide and I didn't have to use Torrents *shrug*.
> I suggest backing those up somewhere.


Most plans will probably include google drive. Files go down easily, but people will be able to download them


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

Hozu said:


> The cynic in me says they probably got asked/paid by various copyright holders to block torrents to try to curb piracy. Despite it having various perfectly legal uses.


They weren't paid, they were threatened. Specifically they were threatened by the RIAA which demanded that they should be financially responsible for providing access to copyrighted content.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Hozu said:


> The cynic in me says they probably got asked/paid by various copyright holders to block torrents to try to curb piracy. Despite it having various perfectly legal uses.


I'm pretty sure this was the case in 2015. Don't remember though. 

And that's why net neutrality is important, so others can't pay ISPs for this stuff.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Ntrboot doesn't use torrents, but other parts like dsiwarehax downgrade do.


Im looking at the 3ds hacking page right now and it seems they changed it. I used the older method where you had to downgrade the 3ds. I needed to get files off of torrent to downgrade. It seems you don't have to do that anymore.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

So  much back and forth this on who's right, who's wrong. Excuse me while I crawl in a corner.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> So  much back and forth this on who's right, who's wrong. Excuse me while I crawl in a corner.


Theres no right and wrong answer, it's a discussion based on personal opinion (feel free to chime in with your opinion or experiences with these ISPs).


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I'm pretty sure this was the case in 2015. Don't remember though.
> 
> And that's why net neutrality is important, so others can't pay ISPs for this stuff.


If you think ISP's happily cancel people's service and bludgeon their customers with notices and threats of legal action you must be a little naive. It's as if a milk company sent you a notice that you're in violation of good taste and took down your Corn Flakes bowl at the behest of Nesquik cereal. In the absence of coercion customers are their primary revenue stream.


----------



## SG854 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Theres no right and wrong answer, it's a discussion based on personal opinion (feel free to chime in with your opinion or experiences with these ISPs).


Sometimes I do wish there was a right and wrong. It makes things so much easier.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Theres no right and wrong answer, it's a discussion based on personal opinion (feel free to chime in with your opinion or experiences with these ISPs).



I'm currently forced to use Comcast, those greedy bastards are the reason Google Fiber refuses to come to my city. We have the infrastructure for fiber optics, but oh no, Comcast just *had to have* their *precious *infrastructure.  Thanks to them, we have no options for a better ISP.

Comcast can kiss my ass.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This is where I disagree. A corporation is made up of people that *should* have morals, and it's scummy that those people tried to achieve market dominance by lobbying instead of making a good product.
> 
> And don't just take it from me. It's universally accepted that Comcast and Verizon are the worst. Most people in this thread agree.


A corporation is made up of people that have morals, but it is not a person in and out of itself and does not have morality as a collective. It's only a "person" for legal purposes, and once you establish that morality is to be introduced through committee, you've diluted it to the point of non-existence. The core principle if corporations is limited liability - the corporation is responsible, not the people who run it, therefore their morality is inconsequential. Limited liability is a double-edged sword in this sense - boards of directors can do a lot of good, but ultimately they're in the business for profit. With the right environment that skews towards good, but we're not in the right environment.


the_randomizer said:


> I'm currently forced to use Comcast, those greedy bastards are the reason Google Fiber refuses to come to my city. We have the infrastructure for fiber optics, but oh no, Comcast just *had to have* their *precious *infrastructure.  Thanks to them, we have no options for a better ISP.
> 
> Comcast can kiss my ass.


I would like to point out that the infrastructure build-out is subsidised, so again, Comcast is merely using the resources that were provided from somewhere else. In the absence of such a "helpful nudge" Google would likely obliterate them.

ISP's received a $400 billion grant to build a broadband network. The government sure wants a return on that investment, so there's a reason why the field to compete is narrow.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> A corporation is made up of people that have morals, but it is not a person in and out of itself and does not have morality as a collective. It's only a "person" for legal purposes, and once you establish that morality is to be introduced through committee, you've diluted it to the point if non-existence. The core principle if corporations is limited liability - the corporation is responsible, not the people who run it, therefore their morality is inconsequential. Limited liability is a double-edged sword in this sense - boards of directors can do a lot of good, but ultimately they're in the business for profit. With the right environment that skews towards good, but we're not in the right environment.
> I would like to point out that the infrastructure build-out is subsidised, so again, Comcast is merely using the resources that were provided from somewhere else. In the absence of such a "helpful nudge" Google would likely obliterate them.



I wish someone would knock them down a few rungs, Google Fiber is a helluva lot cheaper, too.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

Theoretically, ISP's could have built-in adblockers for all their users. Less bandwidth to be consumed by ads.
+1 for repealing

This would probably be an addon package that you would pay monthly for, with open source/free adblockers being probably blocked by the isp's.
-1 for repealing


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm currently forced to use Comcast, those greedy bastards are the reason Google Fiber refuses to come to my city. We have the infrastructure for fiber optics, but oh no, Comcast just *had to have* their *precious *infrastructure.  Thanks to them, we have no options for a better ISP.
> 
> Comcast can kiss my ass.





Foxi4 said:


> A corporation is made up of people that have morals, but it is not a person in and out of itself and does not have morality as a collective. It's only a "person" for legal purposes, and once you establish that morality is to be introduced through committee, you've diluted it to the point if non-existence. The core principle if corporations is limited liability - the corporation is responsible, not the people who run it, therefore their morality is inconsequential. Limited liability is a double-edged sword in this sense - boards of directors can do a lot of good, but ultimately they're in the business for profit. With the right environment that skews towards good, but we're not in the right environment.
> I would like to point out that the infrastructure build-out is subsidised, so again, Comcast is merely using the resources that were provided from somewhere else. In the absence of such a "helpful nudge" Google would likely obliterate them.


@the_randomizer, this is where Foxi and I basically disagree with each other, the role of morals in a company and their responsibility.

Foxi's argument is that companies shouldn't be held to moral standards, because their nature dictates they have no morality. Because Congress allowed this to happen after Comcast gave them money, the only ones we should be blaming are Comcast.

My argument is that while they are "amoral", what Comcast is doing is still a dick move. Congress gave them the laws that allowed for the situation you described to happen, but I think that both Congress and Comcast are to blame, not just Congress. IMO, we shouldn't just be blaming Congress, because this situation wouldn't exist without both Congress and Comcast.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm referring to your situation with Comcast and Google fiber.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> @the_randomizer, this is where Foxi and I basically disagree with each other, the role of morals in a company and their responsibility.
> 
> Foxi's argument is that companies shouldn't be held to moral standards, because their nature dictates they have no morality. Because Congress allowed this to happen after Comcast gave them money, the only ones we should be blaming are Comcast.
> 
> ...



I don't know what to think anymore, I just hate big government, business, etc

@Foxi4, what say you of Portugal charging extra, like this?  This is tiered internet, the kind of BS that will happen. 

https://mobile.twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088/photo/1


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> @the_randomizer, this is where Foxi and I basically disagree with each other, the role of morals in a company and their responsibility.
> 
> Foxi's argument is that companies shouldn't be held to moral standards, because their nature dictates they have no morality. Because Congress allowed this to happen after Comcast gave them money, the only ones we should be blaming are Comcast.
> 
> ...


I am more then happy for the government to obliterate Comcast if the company broke the law, but I'm more concerned about the people who created obscure legislation that would allow them to deploy monopolistic strategies because those are the people who legislate what I can and can't do. If Comcast was involved in bribery then it must face consequences, but if it wasn't then the party responsible is the party that created the regulations in the first place. Imagine that the government is daddy and Comcast is a little kid. The kid will always want stuff and it's up to daddy to say no. If the kid wants to drive a tractor and daddy lets him, daddy needs to be locked up because he's recklessly stupid and dangerous.

At present the reason why the field is not competitive is because massive multi-billion dollar companies are getting truckloads of free money for the promise of expanding service when they would expand service on their own in a competitive marketplace. It doesn't even matter that they don't deliver on their promises to me, if you give me $400 billion dollars if I promise to find you a unicorn, you've got yourself a deal. I'll never find that unicorn, but I'll be damned if I don't take that money - you're the stupid one for giving it to me in the first place.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I am more then happy for the government to obliterate Comcast if the company broke the law, but I'm more concerned about the people who created obscure legislation that would allow them to deploy monopolistic strategies because those are the people who legislate what I can and can't do. If Comcast was involved in bribery then it must face consequences, but if it wasn't then the party responsible is the party that created the regulations in the first place. Imagine that the government is daddy and Comcast is a little kid. The kid will always want stuff and it's up to daddy to say no. If the kid wants to drive a tractor and daddy lets him, daddy needs to be locked up because he's recklessly stupid and dangerous.
> 
> At present the reason why the field is not competitive is because massive multi-billion dollar companies are getting truckloads of free money for the promise of expanding service when they would expand service on their own in a competitive marketplace. It doesn't even matter that they don't deliver on their promises to me, if you give me $400 billion dollars if I promise to find you a unicorn, you've got yourself a deal. I'll never find that unicorn, but I'll be damned if I don't take that money - you're the stupid one for giving it to me in the first place.



I was gonna ask about the Portugal and the fact they have different plans for social media, video, music, etc, and being forced to pay more for those? I even posted a link to something I saw on Twitter. Care to explain or defend that? Because that would be absolute bullshit and a dick move.

Their pusillanimous government got rid of it and this is the end result. The same will happen here.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I don't know what to think anymore, I just hate big government, business, etc
> 
> @Foxi4, what say you of Portugal charging extra, like this?  This is tiered internet, the kind of BS that will happen.
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088/photo/1


Looks good to me. 10GB of access overall plus extra packages for specific services with monthly access that don't chip away at your quota. The ISP benefits by having to deal with less traffic and you benefit by having monthly access to services dear to you without worrying about the cap. This isn't bullshit, this is smart - I know a lot of people who don't use the Internet for anything besides Facebook and YouTube, this is ideal for them if it's competitively priced.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Looks good to me. 10GB of access overall plus extra packages for specific services with monthly access that don't chip away at your quota. The ISP benefits by having to deal with less traffic and you benefit by having monthly access to services dear to you without worrying about the cap. This isn't bullshit, this is smart - I know a lot of people who don't use the Internet for anything besides Facebook and YouTube, this is ideal for them if it's competitively priced.



What worries me, is that this becomes a slippery slope, and people aren't going to be happy, I think. There should be an all inclusive package, not individual packages.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I don't know what to think anymore, I just hate big government, business, etc
> 
> @Foxi4, what say you of Portugal charging extra, like this?  This is tiered internet, the kind of BS that will happen.
> 
> https://mobile.twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088/photo/1


To present my side of this argument, there's no saying that the ISP in Portugal won't block the competitors of the site that they're partnering with. That's bad for small business. 

I also don't think that companies shouldn't be allowed to offer those deals for some sites and not others. It's one thing if you ask your company to give you turbo access, but only to say, gbatenp and netlfix. It's another thing entirely if Hulu pays an ISP so that they won't do Netflix-only turbo access.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> What worries me, is that this becomes a slippery slope, and people aren't going to be happy, I think. There should be an all inclusive package, not individual packages.


I think you just realised what a "market niche" is. If there will be demand for a package like that, someone will inevitably provide it. It's an economy of choice where you pay for what you actually want instead of going to the restaurant and ordering the whole menu. Maybe you don't want a starter today, maybe you just want a main and a drink? It's cheaper.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Looks good to me. 10GB of access overall plus extra packages for specific services with monthly access that don't chip away at your quota. The ISP benefits by having to deal with less traffic and you benefit by having monthly access to services dear to you without worrying about the cap. This isn't bullshit, this is smart - I know a lot of people who don't use the Internet for anything besides Facebook and YouTube, this is ideal for them if it's competitively priced.





Spoiler



Ajit Pai
Ajit = 4 letters
Pai can means "the cutest thing in the world"
Foxes are cute
Fox + 4 letters = ?
Foxi4


All jokes aside, that's totally reasonable, unless you're the average temper that uses waaay too much a month. So the people are advocating to have neutrality are also the people that use internet a lot (I know, shocking) it might be that more people would resist it than we think because... they don't care. They don't use a lot, and cheaper is better.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> To present my side of this argument, there's no saying that the ISP in Portugal won't block the competitors of the site that they're partnering with. That's bad for small business.
> 
> I also don't think that companies shouldn't be allowed to offer those deals for some sites and not others. It's one thing if you ask your company to give you turbo access, but only to say, gbatenp and netlfix. It's another thing entirely if Hulu pays an ISP so that they won't do Netflix-only turbo access.


That's certainly a possibility, this is obviously a double-edged sword, but having choice has more benefits than not having choice, at least in my opinion.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> That's certainly a possibility, this is obviously a double-edged sword, but having choice has more benefits than not having choice, at least in my opinion.


This argument is completely dependant on that the packages are competitively priced, which they should be, hopefully. We'll see how the monopolies handle it...


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> This argument is completely dependant on that the packages are competitively priced, which they should be, hopefully. We'll see how the monopolies handle it...


Yeah, and unfortunately we have a monopoly 

Granted, that's Congress's fault . . . But that doesn't change the fact that it's a monopoly.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dude, if there is an Internet service that gives me shitty speed on the Internet and lightning-fast transfer and ping on PSN, I'm going to throw money at it at an unreasonable rate - right now I contend with a shitty connection overall, and I mostly use PSN, I don't care about the rest. Gimme that gamer package, I want it now, I need it for Rainbow Six, okay?


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Dude, if there is an Internet service that gives me shitty speed on the Internet and lightning-fast transfer and ping on PSN, I'm going to throw money at it at an unreasonable rate - right now I contend with a shitty connection overall, and I mostly use PSN, I don't care about the rest. Gimme that gamer package, I want it now, I need it for Rainbow Six, okay?


I'd be okay with this A̶s̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶s̶p̶o̶o̶f̶ ̶n̶o̶r̶m̶a̶l̶ ̶n̶e̶t̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶f̶f̶i̶c̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶p̶s̶n̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶f̶f̶i̶c̶


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

LujeHasAWii said:


> I'd be okay with this A̶s̶ ̶l̶o̶n̶g̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶s̶o̶m̶e̶o̶n̶e̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶s̶p̶o̶o̶f̶ ̶n̶o̶r̶m̶a̶l̶ ̶n̶e̶t̶w̶o̶r̶k̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶f̶f̶i̶c̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶p̶s̶n̶ ̶t̶r̶a̶f̶f̶i̶c̶


I want low ping more than Rick Sanchez wants szechuan sauce, I'm not even kidding around here. It's my entire story arc.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> This argument is completely dependant on that the packages are competitively priced, which they should be, hopefully. We'll see how the monopolies handle it...


Another question. . . Do you think that companies should be able to select which companies these deals are avaliable for (i.e., Comcast chooses that this deal will be available for PSN and not Xbox live) or do you think that you should be the one to choose the sites included in your package (i.e. you play PlayStation, so you ask Comcast for PSN only)?

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



Foxi4 said:


> I want low ping more than Rick Sanchez wants szechuan sauce, I'm not even kidding around here. It's my entire story arc.


_ I need that ping, Morty!_


----------



## rileysrjay (Nov 23, 2017)

Great job on this Chary, this is probably by far one of the best articles explaining the basic importance of net neutrality and why people are fighting for it. Far better than the reddit bandwagon type threads I've been seeing since the vote was announced.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> I want low ping more than Rick Sanchez wants szechuan sauce, I'm not even kidding around here. It's my entire story arc.



As long as they do this right, and without a hiccup, I'll wait and see, but I just...yeah.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2017)

I'd love to believe that all the awareness being spread and people making their voices heard will make a difference, but I'm too cynical.  Especially when it comes to Ajit fucking Pai and Donald fucking Trump.  Both are corporate-cocksucking scum who deserve nothing less than to be drawn and quartered, old school.  Neither one cares about what individual citizens have to say.  Hell, they're largely pretending that the backlash doesn't even exist.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> As long as they do this right, and without a hiccup, I'll wait and see, but I just...yeah.


The thing is, Comcast is the only player in town. They can offer the same price as now but only allow access to certain sites, because no one is there to compete against them.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I'd love to believe that all the awareness being spread and people making their voices heard will make a difference, but I'm too cynical.  Especially when it comes to Ajit fucking Pai and Donald fucking Trump.  Both are corporate-cocksucking scum who deserve nothing less than to be drawn and quartered, old school.  Neither one cares about what individual citizens have to say.  Hell, they're largely pretending that the backlash doesn't even exist.



I've yet to see any POTUS or politician genuinely care for any citizen, I've never seen it in my 32 years of being alive, all they want is money and power. Power to royally ass-rape us.



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> The thing is, Comcast is the only player in town. They can offer the same price as now but only allow access to certain sites, because no one is there to compete against them.



Then again, Comcast can go shove a cactus up their ass.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I'd love to believe that all the awareness being spread and people making their voices heard will make a difference, but I'm too cynical.  Especially when it comes to Ajit fucking Pai and Donald fucking Trump.  Both are corporate-cocksucking scum who deserve nothing less than to be drawn and quartered, old school.  Neither one cares about what individual citizens have to say.  Hell, they're largely pretending that the backlash doesn't even exist.


If Ford gave a damn about what people had to say, he would invent a mechanical horse. As long as they're focusing on removing regulations as opposed to introducing new ones I'm a very happy camper. To be fair though, I'm also a burguoise corporate shill who loves money, so there.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Then again, Comcast can go shove a cactus up their ass.


That's why we need net neutrality, so Comcast aren't the ones shoving a cactus up _our_ ass.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> That's why we need net neutrality, so Comcast aren't the ones shoving a cactus up _our_ ass.



Either way, this is gonna be a helluva messy legal battle, which can drag on. Google and other big corporations will be fighting back. Pai can get his salary garnished for all I care.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> That's why we need net neutrality, so Comcast aren't the ones shoving a cactus up _our_ ass.


Seems to me like they're shoving a cactus up your ass right now with shitty coverage. The U.S. has wonderful net neutrality and third-world level Internet access, I would find that suspicious if I were an American.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Either way, this is gonna be a helluva messy legal battle, which can drag on. Google and other big corporations will be fighting back.


They will be, but while Ajit Pai is in power there's only so much they can do.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Seems to me like they're shoving a cactus up your ass right now with shitty coverage. The U.S. has wonderful net neutrality and third-world level Internet access, I would find that suspicious if I were an American.



I won't deny our infrastructure is absolute shit tier, there's no denying that, but can we trust a Comcast promise?


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I've yet to see any POTUS or politician genuinely care for any citizen, I've never seen it in my 32 years of being alive, all they want is money and power. Power to royally ass-rape us.


Trump's on a whole other level though.  Generally when something gets 51%+ support from the populace, politicians start supporting it.  Instead, Trump likes to pretend he's president of 33% of the population, and the other 66% don't exist.  I mean, he whiffed the two easiest political softballs you can get: disavowing nazis and pedophiles.  Those are his people.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Seems to me like they're shoving a cactus up your ass right now with shitty coverage. The U.S. has wonderful net neutrality and third-world level Internet access, I would find that suspicious if I were an American.


The problem there isn't net neutrality. It's the fact that Congress passed laws that gave them exclusive access to power lines.

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



the_randomizer said:


> I won't deny our infrastructure is absolute shit tier, there's no denying that, but can we trust a Comcast promise?


To keep it short: nope.



Spoiler: Here's the long answer



Nooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 23, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Trump's on a whole other level though.  Generally when something gets 51%+ support from the populace, politicians start supporting it.  Instead, Trump likes to pretend he's president of 33% of the population, and the other 66% don't exist.  I mean, he whiffed the two easiest political softballs you can get: disavowing nazis and pedophiles.  Those are his people.


Thank god we have elected officials then, because government specifically exists to prevent mob rule.


ThisIsDaAccount said:


> The problem there isn't net neutrality. It's the fact that Congress passed laws that gave them exclusive access to power lines.


Ah, there's the problem then. Gotta start chipping away at that Congress of yours.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> If Ford gave a damn about what people had to say, he would invent a mechanical horse. As long as they're focusing on removing regulations as opposed to introducing new ones I'm a very happy camper. To be fair though, I'm also a burguoise corporate shill who loves money, so there.


Removing this regulation benefits nobody except the ultra-wealthy.  The rest of us would be anally raped with a sandpaper condom by our ISPs, to put it lightly.  Slashing regulations randomly always leads to economic downturn, you have to review them on an individual basis.  Unfortunately the one "anti-regulation" party in this country is full of paint-drinking morons, so expecting them to demonstrate some competence in this area is asking a lot.



Foxi4 said:


> Thank god we have elected officials then, because government specifically exists to prevent mob rule.


Nobody's asking for mob rule, I was pointing out that Trump refuses to be president for the entire population.  Dereliction of duty, basically.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Ah, there's the problem then. Gotta start chipping away at that Congress of yours.


Agreed. Net neutrality is a temporary fix until we can take down the congressmen that passed those laws.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

SG854 said:


> People think that the wealthy sits in chairs all day with evil grins, evil mustaches, coming up with plans to terrorize people. And that they profit and live happy lives taking advantage of people.
> 
> In Japan there is a term for death from overwork called Karoshi. When you look at the 70's to the 90's, top Executives deaths increased 1,400% in Japan. And they have an executive training program around the 80's called Hell Camp. One of the things they did was to stand on their head and shout a 15 page speech backwards. They also did other things that were humiliating. Its basically subservience training, subservient to the corporate goal. Perks, status and income are given to people thats sacrifices their individuality for the goal. Executives work 70+ hour weeks and barely get to see their family, friends or have any leisure time to themselves. That high salary pay check doesn't come from no where and not without sacrifices.
> 
> ...



I wished people would threaten to leave Comcast en masse to get their attention.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I wished people would threaten to leave Comcast en masse to get their attention.


This is the complicated part. If we can get this to happen, we win. Plain and simple. 

Unfortunately, there's no one to switch over to, since google fiber is being sued into oblivion and Comcast is the only broadband in most places. I would switch if I could, but I need Internet for school and work, and even without those I just enjoy internet access. The only thing keeping me in Comcast is the fact that they're the only ones.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> This is the complicated part. If we can get this to happen, we win. Plain and simple.
> 
> Unfortunately, there's no one to switch over to, since google fiber is being sued into oblivion and Comcast is the only broadband in most places. I would switch if I could, but I need Internet for school and work, and even without those I just enjoy internet access. The only thing keeping me in Comcast is the fact that they're the only ones.



Yeah, it's quite a tough spot, ugh.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 23, 2017)

I'm gonna sign off for the day, I'm leaving to go home for thanksgiving. Thanks to everyone, for a great discussion!


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 23, 2017)

Can we all just agree that we're all screwed and move on?

Someone needs to DDOS that douche


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Nov 23, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> They could put every "gaming-related" or "hacking-related" site under a paywall, and Gbatemp will fall into those categories.


Thats the problem like I said before Nintendo could pay to block access completely to thoes websites so no one can hack there consoles.

DOWNLOAD ALL CFW NOW BEFORE ITS TOO LATE!


----------



## console (Nov 23, 2017)

Net Neutrality is very important to us. Never take freedom away!


Save Net Neutrality
https://www.change.org/p/save-net-neutrality-netneutrality

Please vote to save internet!


I done to fill it out for to save internet. Praying for internet to get saved.


----------



## Boured (Nov 23, 2017)

You know at this point why are they even trying?



Oh wait...


----------



## Pandaxclone2 (Nov 23, 2017)

I think a huge help to this cause would be to reach out to influential Youtubers who have massive communities behind them to talk about Net Neutrality. Even if they themselves aren't directly involved with the issues net neutrality is facing, nor a chunk of their audience, it would most definitely help spread the word and educate those who otherwise have no idea and can make a direct difference. Markiplier's one such youtuber who has already taken action:


----------



## Gizametalman (Nov 23, 2017)

Is this something like in 2012 with the SOPA thing?
I believe that all our efforts would be in bane.
I don't know, but this seems suspicious.
Think about it:
- Some organizations wants to privatize the Internet in order to grant the customer more options.

- At the same time, "normal" organizations don't want to support this as this could lead to their sites and services being almost useless, UNLESS you pay for more speed/services. Like paid TV.

Isn't that the whole intention from both sides?

- Make you pay in order to maintain your Internet service as you know it.

God damn, what a time to be alive. We're fucking going backwards.
Do you remember when you had to buy TIME to get to the Internet? Way back when we had to dial in and connect our PC's to our phone lines.

This is basically what they're trying to do, only modernized.


----------



## Pacheko17 (Nov 23, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Thank you for your most observant contributory statement, I'll be sure to make a note of that.



You're welcome!


----------



## keven3477 (Nov 23, 2017)

Ajit Pai may be the chairman of the Fcc but he is not the only one controlling the decision. From what I have read, a majority vote between the chairman and the 4 commissioners of the fcc are needed to repeal net neutrality, but it looks like at the moment the outlook is 3-2 in favor of repealing it. If convincing Pai is impossible then we should try convincing one of the other 2 commissioners who are against net neutrality.

Against net neutrality: Ajit Pai, Michael O'Rielly, Brendan Carr

For net neutrality: Mignon Clyburn, Jessica Rosenworcel


----------



## ZeroT21 (Nov 23, 2017)

This is all happening because of corporate greed for profit. When there's money to be made, everything else goes out the window


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 23, 2017)

SG854 said:


> People think that the wealthy sits in chairs all day with evil grins, evil mustaches, coming up with plans to terrorize people. And that they profit and live happy lives taking advantage of people.


I have always been fighting against this disgusting cliché. In some left people's minds, being rich should be forbidden, and bosses are evil monsters, the 1% should be sent to jail, etc. I wouldn't want to live in such a society.
Anyways, I love the absence of Net Neutrality in France, it allows me to choose a data plan with unlimited e-mail or facebook without it consuming my data. I love it.
So enjoy your "speed increases with price" and other "Pay $100 for a decent home data plan" while I enjoy not 5, not 20, but 200 GB of LTE-A for 20 bucks, and even special Infinity GB plans for black friday. And while I enjoy Triple-play with unlimlited phone calls, 300 TV channels and up to 1 Gbps for less than 60 bucks a month.

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



SG854 said:


> Im pretty sure there are people that do abuse their power as they always have. When you look at statistics you see that males pay more taxes then women, yet its women, despite paying less taxes, take more out of governmental social programs. Women control more than half of the US gdp yet don't even producing half of it. So the majority of top executives are male right. If so, then why do women control the majority of US wealth? Executives do things to benefit themselves, which are male right? So why is it women benefiting the wealth? It puts into question how much power top execs, the majority being male, actually have and if they are being corrupt to benefit themselves.


Perhaps because there are slightly more women than men in a given population...?
And women are paid slightly less for the same job, don't forget that.


----------



## keven3477 (Nov 23, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> I have always been fighting against this disgusting cliché. In some left people's minds, being rich should be forbidden, and bosses are evil monsters, the 1% should be sent to jail, etc. I wouldn't want to live in such a society.
> Anyways, I love the absence of Net Neutrality in France, it allows me to choose a data plan with unlimited e-mail or facebook without it consuming my data. I love it.
> So enjoy your "speed increases with price" and other "Pay $100 for a decent home data plan" while I enjoy not 5, not 20, but 200 GB of LTE-A for 20 bucks, and even special Infinity GB plans for black friday. And while I enjoy Triple-play with unlimlited phone calls, 300 TV channels and up to 1 Gbps for less than 60 bucks a month.
> 
> ...



Just out of curiosity, (don't want to start a debate or anything), are there more than 1 isp's in your area?

 If there are then you might have gotten a "cheap" deal with good data incentives to get you to buy from them instead of the competition. Just my opinion anyway.

Do you think if Net neutrality gets repealed on the U.S were most states have possibly only one or two providers in their areas, have competitive incentives from the internet providers or would price it for the price of their choosing?

I also do believe that rich people just being villains are cliché, but some have shown that they will go for their own greed. Again I just want to hear your opinion.


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Nov 23, 2017)

Not the person you replied to but:


keven3477 said:


> Do you think if Net neutrality gets repealed on the U.S were most states have possibly only one or two providers in their areas, have competitive incentives from the internet providers or would price it for the price of their choosing?


There won't be any increase in ISPs despite what the people pushing to repeal net neutrality are claiming. The reason there aren't very many is because they don't have the resources to compete with the big ISPs who have a monopoly. They don't have the resources to give you the same speed and reliability for the same amount of or less money.


keven3477 said:


> I also do believe that rich people just being villains are cliché, but some have shown that they will go for their own greed. Again I just want to hear your opinion.


Corporate greed is a real issue. I'm not saying it's as widespread as people think, but it's the driving force here. Verizon and other ISPs want net neutrality repealed so they can throttle certain data traffic to get extra money from the websites or from the consumer. It's a fact that Netflix data was throttled in the US by some big ISPs before net neutrality and Netflix had to make a deal with one of the big ISPs to get an uncapped speed. There is no real downside to having net neutrality.


----------



## keven3477 (Nov 23, 2017)

RedBlueGreen said:


> Not the person you replied to but:
> 
> There won't be any increase in ISPs despite what the people pushing to repeal net neutrality are claiming. The reason there aren't very many is because they don't have the resources to compete with the big ISPs who have a monopoly. They don't have the resources to give you the same speed and reliability for the same amount of or less money.


Pretty much already figured that, google apparently tried to have their fiber internet in some states but got into a law suit against at&t for using some of the power poles they have a contract with. They claim they didn't want 'untrained' google to potentially mess up on the wires and cause disturbances to the utilities, which would be a problem, even though google themselves were backed by state ordinances. If the power poles are controlled by companies, I believe the other option for starting up a new service provider is by installing new poles themselves which would require a lot of money and structural planning to implement.

Edit: Earlier this month, google won their lawsuit in Louisville and a One Touch Make Ready system was implemented on the poles which allows ISP's to make their necessary adjustments on them. With this, upcoming Isp's don't need to wait for permissions from other providers like at&t to use and adjust the poles. Unfortunately now charter is trying to sue over this One Touch Make Ready system. Hopefully this system does spread to other states and help end the internet oligopoly.

Edit 2: unfortunately google fiber seemed to have paused on their planned advancement, have canceled on some waiting customers, and have cut their staff by 9%. Before the lawsuit was decided.


----------



## Haloman800 (Nov 23, 2017)

*1. Net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem. Was the internet so terible before 2015?
2. Net neutrality is corporate welfare for multi billion dollar corporations like Netflix and YouTube. 

https://www.thejacknews.com/free-ma...lity-is-corporate-welfare-it-should-be-ended/*


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 23, 2017)

keven3477 said:


> Just out of curiosity, (don't want to start a debate or anything), are there more than 1 isp's in your area?
> 
> If there are then you might have gotten a "cheap" deal with good data incentives to get you to buy from them instead of the competition. Just my opinion anyway.
> 
> ...


The price my house is paying for triple-play is the general, unaltered price. I have access to 4 ISPs that can provide decent speed via ADSL (around 15 Mbps), and two that provide good speeds, Numericable-SFR via FTTLA, 100 Mbps (that's the one I have), and Orange via FTTH, 500 Mbps. But again, I really do not see why would companies purposefully be extreme and divide the Internet in paid parts. Companies are not dumb, they know people are going to protest, and they know that that kind of behavior would only work if every single ISP in the country did the same job. But that would be illegal, as companies cannot decide to make secret deals to annoy the consumer. Plus, free market would automatically lead to an ISP, or even a new one, to fuck all of the others by proposing cheaper/better quality services.
About the rich thing, yeah, some rich people are definitely douchebags, but it is not a majority of them. In companies for example, you'll always have that one shitbag boss who abusively fires his employees, but you'll also have that one shitbag employee who abuses any process to sue his boss, or get more holiday for example. I'm not against taxing the rich, but I'm also for being able to earn money and possess it.

-sniparoo-


----------



## driverdis (Nov 24, 2017)

My take on Net Neutrality is that it can stifle infrastructure growth as it ends up like other public utilities where people use the service a lot and for a price cheap enough that the money is never there to upgrade it so it stays the same until it starts failing, like the power grid and the water grid. 

The U.S. has a pretty low average internet speed per household than other countries and not having the money from the people using the bandwidth in the first place to accommodate their usage does nothing for improving the infrastructure. I for one find it sad that many other countries, even some 3rd world countries have a cheaper and faster connection than the average U.S. household has. 

Obviously, I am not for companies doing a bunch of packages like cable but as long as customers hold their ground and not let the companies do that then they will be fine. The number one way to change things is to boycott. Look at the Xbox One, it is a completely different console because of feedback and boycotting.

Boycotting has been a proven method of change as long as people stand their ground, which people have failed to do before.

I don't want to see the internet continue to become more like the power grid with it's failing 50+ year old infrastructure and the even older water grid with pipes exploding and low water pressure problems from not maintaining it due to it not making much money alongside being a public utility, which when money is shifted around, public utilities (and schools) are the first to be shafted.


----------



## ihaveahax (Nov 24, 2017)

driverdis said:


> My take on Net Neutrality is that it can stifle infrastructure growth


except it won't, and ISPs know this.


----------



## CitizenSnips (Nov 24, 2017)

It's really saddening to see this horrible corruption in our government. Sacrificing people's rights and taking away equality on the internet over a few extra bucks for big corporations? Repealing Net Neutrality will hurt consumers and certain businesses alike, and will only help monstrously large ISP companies get richer. They plan to take it away after so many have voiced their opinions against them doing so, a huge shame and leaves me with disgust that they can go ahead with this proposal.


----------



## LunarQueen626 (Nov 24, 2017)

Essentially, if this passes, the Internet will become like cable nowadays. Stuffed to the brim with ads and access only to what the cable plan specifically adds.


----------



## Termer (Nov 24, 2017)

Preserve net neutrality, and keep this safe!


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 24, 2017)

Could we maybe get a poll in this thread, with a yes/no answer to "do you support the FCC's repeal of net neutrality?" 

There isn't really a need for this, I just thought it'd be interesting to see where we stand numerically.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 24, 2017)

http://www.strawpoll.me/14468471


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 24, 2017)

jupitteer said:


> http://www.strawpoll.me/14468471


I was thinking at the top of the thread, but I guess this works.


----------



## rensenware (Nov 24, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I was thinking at the top of the thread, but I guess this works.


I just thought it was a bit too late for that at this point.


----------



## Abstract3000 (Nov 24, 2017)

LunarQueen626 said:


> Essentially, if this passes, the Internet will become like cable nowadays. Stuffed to the brim with ads and access only to what the cable plan specifically adds.



Intriguing, Just like it was 2 years ago before it even existed? What makes you so sure "the Sky is Falling B.S. is inevitable? Something to blow your mind, in 2015 The major Broadband Companies backed and supported "Net Neutrality"


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 24, 2017)

I should also note that the fear-mongering, doom and gloom that the mass media spreads, etc, isn't going to solve anything. Yes, it's something no one is happy about and granted, I need to be more rational and levelheaded about this.  Running around in a panic won't fix problems.  Thinking logically, like, as in writing to our senators, reps, etc. to make our voices heard is the best route to take.


jupitteer said:


> tbh this is the only thread I've seen online about net neutrality that hasn't devolved into just ad hominem attacks.



You think it's bad here, try IGN.


----------



## EthanAddict (Nov 24, 2017)

Net Neutrality all the way(with better privacy a nice addition)


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2017)

Abstract3000 said:


> Intriguing, Just like it was 2 years ago before it even existed? What makes you so sure "the Sky is Falling B.S. is inevitable? Something to blow your mind, in 2015 The major Broadband Companies backed and supported "Net Neutrality"


Ajit Pai is a former Verizon CEO and he's the one pushing Net Neutrality repeal while ignoring the majority opinion.  The major broadband companies definitely did not like NN passing in the first place.  Since they've got monopolies in a lot of markets, they'd prefer to jack up rates now that you have no choice but pay them.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Nov 24, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Ajit Pai is a former Verizon CEO and he's the one pushing Net Neutrality repeal while ignoring the majority opinion.  The major broadband companies definitely did not like NN passing in the first place.  Since they've got monopolies in a lot of markets, they'd prefer to jack up rates now that you have no choice but pay them.


The problem is that they may be getting to the point where people will be winning to just walk away from internet or choose an alternative even if it's inferior. 5G wireless is coming out soon, and it sounds like it might have competitive rate plans.

Plus there's a chance that someone pulls an EA and the pushback is so strong that new legislation is passed which makes Comcast and co REGRET ever killing NN.

But honestly, I want to see how this affects advertising and malware. One of the current downsides of NN is that technically they can't block or slow ANY websites, even ones of dubious origins. Without NN they may choose to do a mass slowdown on IPs from areas known to be sources of malware and ads, and may even start detecting and blocking botnets and DDoS attacks.

I just don't know, and the level of propaganda and hostility makes it hard to be certain of the outcome.

But I can assure you that if they block Netflix they will dearly regret it.


----------



## Xzi (Nov 24, 2017)

Futurdreamz said:


> But I can assure you that if they block Netflix they will dearly regret it.


They won't block it, they'll just slow everything that isn't ISP-sponsored content to a crawl.  Then sell you "fast lane packages" for sets of websites to make them function properly, for $20 to $30 extra each package on top of the base service price.  It'll be a whole lot of re-branding and spin, but in the end they're trying to sell the exact same service at a higher price.


----------



## pasc (Nov 25, 2017)

*Cries over keyboard* Rip Internet.

Edit...
Wait a minute... boycotting ISPs....


----------



## SickPuppy (Nov 25, 2017)

End net neutrality? I'm having SOPA flashbacks. If anybody can wreck the internet surely it will be the government, just like how they wrecked healthcare.


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Nov 25, 2017)

This Shit makes me SICK 




YOU CAN'T DO SHIT ON THIS


----------



## Futurdreamz (Nov 25, 2017)

That raises an interesting question...

1. How do they track which content comes from where?

2. How do they deal with sites circumventing that tracking?

3. if they do bulk blocking, how do they avoid blocking obscure sources specific to individual accounts but are extremely critical to them (such as anything medical or work related)?

I still see this backfiring on them if they solely have cupidic intent for this.


----------



## CoinKillerL (Nov 25, 2017)

bullshit


----------



## Xzi (Nov 25, 2017)

Futurdreamz said:


> That raises an interesting question...
> 
> 1. How do they track which content comes from where?
> 
> ...


1. Your ISP can see everything you do online, though some things may be partially obscured with VPNs, torrent peerblockers, etc.

2. In repealing net neutrality they're basically trying to mass censor everything except content approved/allowed by your ISP.  They don't have to worry about specifying websites to slow outside their allow list, they'll all be slowed to some degree.

3. They don't care about who it hurts.  They've already announced they intend to try and block *all* torrent traffic after killing Net Neutrality.  Obviously torrents have legitimate uses, and it's a very useful way to transfer files, but Pai and Trump are all about sucking off Comcast/Time Warner, so zero fucks given naturally.


----------



## Kingy (Nov 25, 2017)

Net Neutrality is not a privilege; it is a right. None should be monitored, throttled, or censored by their own service provider. The internet is equal, and should stay as such.
Good luck to all Americans against this, stay strong.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Nov 25, 2017)

TheKingy34 said:


> Net Neutrality is not a privilege; it is a right. None should be monitored, throttled, or censored by their own service provider. The internet is equal, and should stay as such.
> Good luck to all Americans against this, stay strong.


Weird, because it was only there for like two years.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Nov 25, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Weird, because it was only there for like two years.


best 2 years of the net


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 25, 2017)

Part of me wants to tell off the big corporations, Comcast, etc, on the internet with blog posts, using all manner of harsh language, just to see how far I can go


----------



## RandomUser (Nov 25, 2017)

I wonder if Nintendo of America is fighting this?
It would really sucks to have to pay both Nintendo and the ISP "extra" money to use Nintendo online service.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 25, 2017)

Abstract3000 said:


> Intriguing, Just like it was 2 years ago before it even existed? What makes you so sure "the Sky is Falling B.S. is inevitable? Something to blow your mind, in 2015 The major Broadband Companies backed and supported "Net Neutrality"


Verizon sued against net neutrality in 2015


----------



## bi388 (Nov 25, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> I do not care.
> Spoilers: other countries exist besides the US


Can we have a dislike option? Why would you not care that other people's internet freedom is in danger, do you lack human empathy? And as for the capitalism thing, this goes beyond capitalism, it allows companies to control the spread of information and potentially hide websites with views that differ from theirs. This is dangerous to potentially the history of the world if the US sets a precedent for other nations to follow.


----------



## LunarQueen626 (Nov 25, 2017)

Abstract3000 said:


> Intriguing, Just like it was 2 years ago before it even existed? What makes you so sure "the Sky is Falling B.S. is inevitable? Something to blow your mind, in 2015 The major Broadband Companies backed and supported "Net Neutrality"



Monopolies would have even a bigger rise than they have now. Oh, let's not forget Verizon actually went to courts against it...

In addition, the situation two years ago is different than today. Everything is even more connected now, so slowing down websites will end up causing problems for businesses unless they cough up more dough for "priority speeds"; those who can't, will end up in the dark.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 26, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Can we have a dislike option? Why would you not care that other people's internet freedom is in danger, do you lack human empathy? And as for the capitalism thing, this goes beyond capitalism, it allows companies to control the spread of information and potentially hide websites with views that differ from theirs. This is dangerous to potentially the history of the world if the US sets a precedent for other nations to follow.



Ignore him, he clearly doesn't have any damns to give about people living outside his homeland. I could easily do the opposite and say something like, "Oh, Brazil's economy is going down the toilet, I live in the US, why should I care about their bad economy?" Or my favorite, "There's so much crime and corruption with people getting murdered everyday, why should I care what happens in some country in South America?"

See, now he knows how it feels. People need to get off their high horse.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Nov 26, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Ignore him, he clearly doesn't have any damns to give about people living outside his homeland. I could easily do the opposite and say something like, "Oh, Brazil's economy is going down the toilet, I live in the US, why should I care about their bad economy?" Or my favorite, "There's so much crime and corruption with people getting murdered everyday, why should I care what happens in some country in South America?"
> 
> See, now he knows how it feels. People need to get off their high horse.



His country flag says he's in Paris.

That being said, it's clear that us complaining is not doing anything - especially if the FTC is deliberately ignoring reason. I think all we can do is wait and see what happens, and let that give us the evidence to force the carriers or the government to change their hand.

But I have to admit that incessantly hearing about all the shit that goes on in the US's legal and media systems is getting rather irritating. Hell, there's bickering and complaining about topic that most developed countries have mostly resolved long ago and have no interest in discussing. Personally I'm on the opinion that the best long term solution would be to simply let everything fall apart then rebuild from scratch, so at least our grandchildren don't have to listen or deal with this.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 26, 2017)

Futurdreamz said:


> His country flag says he's in Paris.
> 
> That being said, it's clear that us complaining is not doing anything - especially if the FTC is deliberately ignoring reason. I think all we can do is wait and see what happens, and let that give us the evidence to force the carriers or the government to change their hand.
> 
> But I have to admit that incessantly hearing about all the shit that goes on in the US's legal and media systems is getting rather irritating. Hell, there's bickering and complaining about topic that most developed countries have mostly resolved long ago and have no interest in discussing. Personally I'm on the opinion that the best long term solution would be to simply let everything fall apart then rebuild from scratch, so at least our grandchildren don't have to listen or deal with this.



And that's what pisses me off the most, the fact governments always have, and always will want what's worst for the people.


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Nov 27, 2017)

Might have to leave here early


----------



## DJPlace (Nov 30, 2017)

if this prevent's downloading and shit i'm fighting this SOB.


----------



## Tigran (Nov 30, 2017)

DJPlace said:


> if this prevent's downloading and shit i'm fighting this SOB.



That's exactly what part of this is.. A company could charge you say 100 (no real data on price, just example) a month to be able to use torrents.


----------



## DJPlace (Nov 30, 2017)

Tigran said:


> That's exactly what part of this is.. A company could charge you say 100 (no real data on price, just example) a month to be able to use torrents.



wow what a bunch of dicks... also one of my fav sites got DMCA'ED thanks to this NN bullshit.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 30, 2017)

Wouldn't a good VPN suffice?


----------



## Tigran (Nov 30, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Wouldn't a good VPN suffice?



Well theoretically... But then your not much better off, cause you paying for the VPN.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Nov 30, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Wouldn't a good VPN suffice?


They can block all VPN traffic


----------



## Xzi (Nov 30, 2017)

Tigran said:


> Well theoretically... But then your not much better off, cause you paying for the VPN.


They also don't need to know what kind of traffic it is to know you're using a VPN, so they'll likely charge more for that "privilege" as well.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Dec 1, 2017)

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/


----------



## Sketchy1 (Dec 1, 2017)

DJPlace said:


> if this prevent's downloading and shit i'm fighting this SOB.


it wont prevent it, but it may severely limit it.
for just $15.99 more a month, you can upgrade to our torrenting package


----------



## Xzi (Dec 1, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> it wont prevent it, but it may severely limit it.
> for just $15.99 more a month, you can upgrade to our torrenting package


Actually word is they want to block all torrent traffic after repealing NN.  US ISPs probably won't have an add-on for using torrents, either.  I'd get a ton of storage and download everything you want to keep right now.  I have been.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 1, 2017)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> *Comcast being scumbags*
> View attachment 107340


I am _shocked, _shocked I say!


----------



## Sketchy1 (Dec 2, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Actually word is they want to block all torrent traffic after repealing NN.  US ISPs probably won't have an add-on for using torrents, either.  I'd get a ton of storage and download everything you want to keep right now.  I have been.


what sucks most is how this applies to phone companies to

rip my music


----------



## lordkaos (Dec 2, 2017)

I just read this article:
https://gizmodo.com/use-this-tool-to-see-if-your-name-was-used-to-support-n-1820915324


----------



## RedBlueGreen (Dec 2, 2017)

So if you're in the US definitely fight for net neutrality. Unless you enjoy having throttled speeds until you or the website pay to have the speeds unthrottled. If you don't want net neutrality you either don't know what it is or you probably don't do more than use the Internet for email, news, and social media.


Sketchy1 said:


> it wont prevent it, but it may severely limit it.
> for just $15.99 more a month, you can upgrade to our torrenting package


This would actually be pretty cool if this stopped them from sending letters to people who download stuff. But we all know that they'll stop throttling it but still bitch at you for downloading.


----------



## Sketchy1 (Dec 2, 2017)

RedBlueGreen said:


> So if you're in the US definitely fight for net neutrality. Unless you enjoy having throttled speeds until you or the website pay to have the speeds unthrottled. If you don't want net neutrality you either don't know what it is or you probably don't do more than use the Internet for email, news, and social media.
> 
> This would actually be pretty cool if this stopped them from sending letters to people who download stuff. But we all know that they'll stop throttling it but still bitch at you for downloading.


that would be another $20.99 per month subscription for the anti-nagging package.
lul


----------



## RandomUser (Dec 5, 2017)

Well this might be interesting. The link that @TotalInsanity4 posted for the resist bot seemed to worked.
In case anyone is interested:


Spoiler: Response










December 5, 2017



Dear <Removed>,


Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns about the Open Internet Order, often referred to as "net neutrality."  My office has heard from other Oklahomans on this issue, and I am grateful for the opportunity to address the recent actions taken on net neutrality.


Net neutrality describes the concept that Internet providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally and content providers should not pay for priority access.  Since the Internet was developed, the market and consumers have driven innovation and expansion, which has caused the Internet to thrive in a relatively regulation-free environment.  However in 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a new rule, called the Open Internet Order, which would prevent Internet providers from negotiating priority access agreements and would prohibit them from blocking or discriminating against any lawful content.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in January 2014 that the FCC does not have the right to impose heavy-handed regulations on the Internet under Title I of the Telecommunications Act.  The federal government can only regulate public utilities like telephone service and electricity.

On November 10, 2014, President Obama formally announced his support for net neutrality, and he encouraged the FCC to reclassify and regulate the Internet as a Title II utility.  A Title II utility under the Communications Act of 1934 is the most heavy-handed version of all Internet regulatory proposals.  It was comprised of 16 rule parts, 682 pages, and 987 rule sections.  It provided the FCC an enormous amount of power to dictate prices, practices, innovation, and business terms to Internet companies.

In a 3-2 decision on February 26, 2015, the FCC announced its approval of the 317-page net neutrality rule that classifies broadband Internet service providers (ISPs) as “common carriers” to be regulated under Title II.  The reclassification removed ISPs from the purview of the Federal Trade Commission to the FCC.  On June 14, 2016, the U.S Court of Appeals for Washington, DC, in a 2-1 vote, upheld the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order.  The ruling denied the petitions for review, which effectively sustained the rulemaking.

On March 23, 2017, the Senate passed S.J. Res. 34, legislation to disapprove of the Open Internet Order under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).  The CRA process allows Congress to act on a joint resolution of disapproval within 60 session days of receiving the final rule.  The resolution must be approved by both chambers and signed by the President.  Once signed, the measure stops the rule and prevents similar rules from being issued unless Congress enacts a new law.  The House passed S.J. Res 34 on March 28, 2017, and President Trump subsequently signed the measure into law on April 3, 2017.

The CRA simply keeps existing consumer protections and regulations under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which has been under its purview for nearly two decades.  I voted in favor of the CRA because I believe treating ISPs as public utilities will deter new investments in infrastructure, obstruct improvements to existing broadband networks, and discourage new market entrants.  While there is broad agreement that ISPs should treat all legal content equally when delivering it to paying customers, achieving an “open Internet” does not necessitate a dramatic increase in new federal regulations.

After seeking public comment, on November 21, 2017, the FCC released a draft Order entitled, “Restoring Internet Freedom” for consideration at the Commission’s December 14, 2017, open meeting. The measure would reverse the 2015 Open Internet Order and return ISPs under the framework of Title 1 of the Communications Act.  Mobile broadband would also be returned to the original classification as a private mobile service.  The change in classification would return ISPs under the original authority of the FTC to enforce strong consumer protection and regulate broadband privacy.

ISPs would still be subject to transparency and public disclosure requirements on network management practices, performance, and commercial terms to consumers, businesses, and the FCC. Specifically, ISPs would be required to disclose blocking, throttling, prioritization, congestion management, and security practices.  For commercial terms, ISPs would be required to disclose terms of service, prices, privacy policies, and options for resolving consumers redress.  ISPs must also release the disclosures on publicly, easily accessible websites or make them publicly available via the FCC.  The Commission will also review the disclosure to ensure compliance with the transparency rules.  Additionally, states are allowed to enforce individual consumer laws and enforcement actions against ISPs that misrepresent themselves to consumers.  ISPs still have strong consumer protections to maintain.

It is important to note that the FCC is primarily restricted to jurisdiction granted to the Commission under the Communications Act.  The Act does not explicitly give the FCC authority to regulate in areas like pricing and content-management conduct rules.  Sweeping regulatory changes should be deliberated by Congress, not by Executive agencies.  For those reasons, I support the FCC’s initiative to begin reversing the 2015 Open Internet Order and will continue to monitor the rulemaking process for further developments and assess the need for legislative solutions.

I encourage you to visit the FCC's Restoring Internet Freedom page for informational resources and public notices.  FCC Chairman Pai also wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the draft order.

I hope this information is helpful to you.  Please continue to visit my website and sign up for my e-newsletter to ensure you receive the most up-to-date policy conversations and votes.  Please also feel free to contact me again via email at www.lankford.senate.gov for more information about my work in the United States Senate for all of us.



In God We Trust,





James Lankford
United States Senator













https://outreach.senate.gov/iqextra...om/senatorlankford/&redir_log=377570906103264
So what do you think?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 5, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> Well this might be interesting. The link that @TotalInsanity4 posted for the resist bot seemed to worked.
> In case anyone is interested:
> 
> 
> ...


I think it's a start. Supposedly the FCC is getting a flood of letters from Senators, so keep it up guys

That said, you should, as of now, either call or directly fax (with signature) FCC chairpersons rather than using ResistBot, because Pai is using it as an excuse to throw letters of disproval away


----------



## RandomUser (Dec 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I think it's a start. Supposedly the FCC is getting a flood of letters from Senators, so keep it up guys
> 
> That said, you should, as of now, either call or directly fax (with signature) FCC chairpersons rather than using ResistBot, because Pai is using it as an excuse to throw letters of disproval away



I'm really suprised that nobody is even boycotting Verizon for even starting the lawsuit against net neutrality. Might as well hit two birds at the same time, or did I get my info mixed up?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 6, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> I'm really suprised that nobody is even boycotting Verizon for even starting the lawsuit against net neutrality. Might as well hit two birds at the same time, or did I get my info mixed up?


Nope, you understand correctly. That's actually why ISPs ended up under Class II regulations in the first place

And on top of that, guess who Ajit Pai worked for


----------



## Sketchy1 (Dec 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Nope, you understand correctly. That's actually why ISPs ended up under Class II regulations in the first place
> 
> And on top of that, guess who Ajit Pai worked for


yes, AT&T


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 6, 2017)

RandomUser said:


> Well this might be interesting. The link that @TotalInsanity4 posted for the resist bot seemed to worked.
> In case anyone is interested:
> 
> 
> ...


I agree that more regulation is probsbly a not good thing, but this guy really does not care about net neutrality. He really doesn't give any guarantee that net neutrality will be a thing, he just says ISPs have to be transparent under current law.

So basically, this guy is OK with, say, Comcast blocking Netflix as long they say "Yup, we're blocking Netflix, cuz fuck you."

He could advocate for the removal of the Open Internet Order and assure that he would propose a net neutrality law so net neutrality can exist under Title I. But he clearly doesn't care.

Edit: Originally made a typo and said I preferred more regulation, which is the opposite of my actual views.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 6, 2017)

Sketchy1 said:


> yes, AT&T


Actually, lawyer for Verizon

Did he also work for AT&T or was that a joke?

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



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I agree that more regulation is probsbly a good thing, but this guy really does not care about net neutrality. He really doesn't give any guarantee that net neutrality will be a thing, he just says ISPs have to be transparent under current law.
> 
> So basically, this guy is OK with, say, Comcast blocking Netflix as long they say "Yup, we're blocking Netflix, cuz fuck you."
> 
> He could advocate for the removal of the Open Internet Order and assure that he would propose a net neutrality law so net neutrality can exist under Title I. But he clearly doesn't care.


Oh ew I only skimmed the bottom paragraphs the first time

Gross


----------



## Sketchy1 (Dec 6, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Actually, lawyer for Verizon
> 
> Did he also work for AT&T or was that a joke?
> 
> ...


joke he was only working for Verizon XD

but none the less he has the corporations best interests in mind


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 6, 2017)

AT&T and Verizon are both shitty providers.


----------



## Jax_Ripper (Dec 6, 2017)

Nice post, Thanks!

Jax

Sent from my Z963VL using Tapatalk


----------



## Sketchy1 (Dec 6, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> AT&T and Verizon are both shitty providers.


both are expensive as shit too


----------



## DJPlace (Dec 6, 2017)

thank god i left verizon.... i hope TWC/Septcrum does not do this shit i need my free local/single player games torrrent it's sad i can't play the new bubsy since well i'll shut up.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 6, 2017)

DJPlace said:


> thank god i left verizon.... i hope TWC/Septcrum does not do this shit i need my free local/single player games torrrent it's sad i can't play the new bubsy since well i'll shut up.



Why would anyone waste money on that hot garbage?


----------



## DJPlace (Dec 7, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Why would anyone waste money on that hot garbage?



you mean bubsy?


----------



## Sketchy1 (Dec 7, 2017)

DJPlace said:


> you mean bubsy?


I think he means that, but its not like applying that to everything in the sentence would be wrong


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 7, 2017)

DJPlace said:


> you mean bubsy?



Yes, five hours, thirty bucks, yeah. totally worth it. Not.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Dec 9, 2017)

Next week is almost time


----------



## CatmanFan (Dec 9, 2017)

_Counting down the days left to the Net Neutrality vote...

1 week left.
_
Oh, and also, I live outside of the US, but I can't even donate and all that shit.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 10, 2017)

If it makes you guys feel better, it's very likely the FCC will get sued when it announces the decision, and it may be unable to implement it until the lawsuits are settled.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Dec 10, 2017)

I was reading up on the neutrality a little bit more, but I wondered, were there any differences that were actually set in place (that you noticed) before neutrality compared to now? Even without net neutrality in the past I didn't really notice any huge differences. But I could be wrong. What are your opinions about the time before net neutrality? Do you notice any denied access to websites before net neutrality was in place? Personally, I don't recall that happening, but has that happened to any of you? Obviously the chances are a little bit the time before neutrality will be the same as when it inevitably gets repealed, but it would be nice to know that there could be a chance that nothing would really change.
Edit- not supporting it, just trying to be optimistic


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> I was reading up on the neutrality a little bit more, but I wondered, were there any differences that were actually set in place (that you noticed) before neutrality compared to now? Even without net neutrality in the past I didn't really notice any huge differences. But I could be wrong. What are your opinions about the time before net neutrality? Do you notice any denied access to websites before net neutrality was in place? Personally, I don't recall that happening, but has that happened to any of you? Obviously the chances are a little bit the time before neutrality will be the same as when it inevitably gets repealed, but it would be nice to know that there could be a chance that nothing would really change.
> Edit- not supporting it, just trying to be optimistic


You have to remember that that was a time pre-ISPs owning streaming services, but yes there actually are cases of that happening before Net Neutrality. For instance, AT&T restricted use of FaceTime on their network unless users paid for a more expensive package (I believe it was because they had a deal with Microsoft to publicize Skype?), and both AT&T and Verizon had been known to completely block communications from organizations they thought were too "controversial"


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 10, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> I was reading up on the neutrality a little bit more, but I wondered, were there any differences that were actually set in place (that you noticed) before neutrality compared to now? Even without net neutrality in the past I didn't really notice any huge differences. But I could be wrong. What are your opinions about the time before net neutrality? Do you notice any denied access to websites before net neutrality was in place? Personally, I don't recall that happening, but has that happened to any of you? Obviously the chances are a little bit the time before neutrality will be the same as when it inevitably gets repealed, but it would be nice to know that there could be a chance that nothing would really change.
> Edit- not supporting it, just trying to be optimistic





TotalInsanity4 said:


> You have to remember that that was a time pre-ISPs owning streaming services, but yes there actually are cases of that happening before Net Neutrality. For instance, AT&T restricted use of FaceTime on their network unless users paid for a more expensive package (I believe it was because they had a deal with Microsoft to publicize Skype?), and both AT&T and Verizon had been known to completely block communications from organizations they thought were too "controversial"


What TotalInsanity4 said. Funny enough, there's also an instance of Verizon blocking some wallet apps to promote their own, which just happened to be named ISIS. I'll let you decide if it's got any connection to the middle east.

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



LukeHasAWii said:


> I was reading up on the neutrality a little bit more, but I wondered, were there any differences that were actually set in place (that you noticed) before neutrality compared to now? Even without net neutrality in the past I didn't really notice any huge differences. But I could be wrong. What are your opinions about the time before net neutrality? Do you notice any denied access to websites before net neutrality was in place? Personally, I don't recall that happening, but has that happened to any of you? Obviously the chances are a little bit the time before neutrality will be the same as when it inevitably gets repealed, but it would be nice to know that there could be a chance that nothing would really change.
> Edit- not supporting it, just trying to be optimistic








Apparently it was actually T-Mobile.


----------



## Coto (Dec 10, 2017)

I fully support net neutrality, development might eventually be affected, and I am sure people behind promoting internet blocking have seen it as something dangerous.


----------



## LukeHasAWii (Dec 10, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> What TotalInsanity4 said. Funny enough, there's also an instance of Verizon blocking some wallet apps to promote their own, which just happened to be named ISIS. I'll let you decide if it's got any connection to the middle east.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Wow. I never used FaceTime so i didn't know that.... that's insane.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 10, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> Wow. I never used FaceTime so i didn't know that.... that's insane.


Yeah, that stuff does happen, and it makes sense it'll probably happen again if ISPs are given the chance. A lot of ISPs have their own apps, like the ISIS wallet, of partnerships with others, like AT&T and Skype. 

Heck, AT&T probably has a partnership with HBO now, considering that they're offering it for free with their plans. It's totally possible they'll block Netflix and Hulu to promote HBO Go.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Yeah, that stuff does happen, and it makes sense it'll probably happen again if ISPs are given the chance. A lot of ISPs have their own apps, like the ISIS wallet, of partnerships with others, like AT&T and Skype.
> 
> Heck, AT&T probably has a partnership with HBO now, considering that they're offering it for free with their plans. It's totally possible they'll block Netflix and Hulu to promote HBO Go.


Don't forget Comcast is owned by Time Warner, which has its own streaming service now


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2017)

LukeHasAWii said:


> I was reading up on the neutrality a little bit more, but I wondered, were there any differences that were actually set in place (that you noticed) before neutrality compared to now? Even without net neutrality in the past I didn't really notice any huge differences. But I could be wrong. What are your opinions about the time before net neutrality? Do you notice any denied access to websites before net neutrality was in place? Personally, I don't recall that happening, but has that happened to any of you? Obviously the chances are a little bit the time before neutrality will be the same as when it inevitably gets repealed, but it would be nice to know that there could be a chance that nothing would really change.
> Edit- not supporting it, just trying to be optimistic


Right before Net Neutrality was passed, a lot of stuff was starting to get throttled.  If you were a big League of Legends player at the time you definitely noticed it, the game was taking up a lot of traffic and it would lag half a day at a time because the ISP backbones refused to allocate enough bandwidth.  Several years prior to that, it wasn't an issue because it wasn't just a few big players who owned everything.  Now that is the case, and a monopoly alone isn't good enough for them, they also want to provide you shittier service while charging you more money.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Don't forget Comcast is owned by Time Warner, which has its own streaming service now



I thought that was not a thing. Charter and twc though..


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2017)

Memoir said:


> I thought that was not a thing. Charter and twc though..


Xstream is definitely a thing


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Xstream is definitely a thing


No, Comcast and TWC.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Don't forget Comcast is owned by Time Warner, which has its own streaming service now


I don't think Comcast is owned by Time Warner, since Time Warner has an ISP service (Spectrum) that is separate from Comcast. Ddi you mean to say that Time Warner owns HBO?

Either way, Spectrum will probsbly block stuff to promote HBO Go, HBO's streaming service.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I don't think Comcast is owned by Time Warner, since Time Warner has an ISP service (Spectrum) that is separate from Comcast. Ddi you mean to say that Time Warner owns HBO?
> 
> Either way, Spectrum will probsbly block stuff to promote HBO Go, HBO's streaming service.


Doesn't Time Warner own Comcast, which owns Mediacom? I could've sworn every time the Warner Bros logo comes up in a movie it has "a Comcast company" under it


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Doesn't Time Warner own Comcast, which owns Mediacom? I could've sworn every time the Warner Bros logo comes up in a movie it has "a Comcast company" under it


I don't think Comcast has a parent company, and it wouldn't make sense for Comcast to allow Time Warner to sell Spectrum when they could just sell to everyone themselves. 

Also, if Comcast owned both Spectrum and their own ISP service, they would be in severe violation of monopoly laws.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 10, 2017)

I mean the more and more I read about this stuff the less and less it sounds like a threat, or that big of a problem. I've explained my reasoning just now in the general discord but the gist of it is is that if a company were to do something like create awful packages, throttle, block sites, etc, all one would have to do to make massive bank is announce that they as an ISP don't throttle, charge stupid packages, and so on to make huge bank off this. Even if the big ISPs were to do so, rural ones can start up around this and not work by the rules of shitty, greedy ISPs.

Besides, if you look at Free Press' list of Net Neutrality """violations""", shown here, https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history you can see a *lot* of these have nothing to do with the internet, but the infrastructure that provides it. This discussion is plagued with fear mongering, and removal of incredibly vital context, which probably explains why Ajit Pai isn't getting involved with all the people screaming on the internet about it, because it's undeniable that a huge majority of them aren't directly informed on the topic but rather from internet journalism sites, or social media, which twist things, get things wrong, or ultimately do not report things factually and accurately enough to have a fair, vital debate on this.

http://hightechforum.org/fact-checking-net-neutrality-violations/
See this for the removed context I'm talking about.

I think people need to sit down, breathe for a minute, read everything -- not just what some big follower-count anitwitter guy tells you to think, but the proposal itself (found here https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf ) -- and think for themselves. Too much of the discussion on this topic is dominated by people pushing an agenda, demonizing Ajit Pai, and so on. I'd like to bring to everyone's attention that if the evil ISPs were planning to do really evil shit, they would have a long time ago and could have, but the whole reason they didn't is because the consumers would flip like no one has ever seen before.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I mean the more and more I read about this stuff the less and less it sounds like a threat, or that big of a problem. I've explained my reasoning just now in the general discord but the gist of it is is that if a company were to do something like create awful packages, throttle, block sites, etc, all one would have to do to make massive bank is announce that they as an ISP don't throttle, charge stupid packages, and so on to make huge bank off this. Even if the big ISPs were to do so, rural ones can start up around this and not work by the rules of shitty, greedy ISPs.


It _wouldn't_ be an issue if there was actual competition in broadband service providers.  That competition no longer exists, however.  Comcast and Time Warner bought out all the little guys.  If they didn't want to hike your rates and make other greedy ultra-capitalist moves, there'd be no reason for them to try and get Net Neutrality repealed in the first place.

When people do try to create local/community broadband now, the result is the big ISPs spend millions to prevent it from happening:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/...Attacking-Colorado-Community-Broadband-140849

And if you're actually willing to believe/trust Comcast or Time Warner that they won't hike rates, I've got some beachfront property to sell you in Wyoming.



MaverickWellington said:


> Too much of the discussion on this topic is dominated by people pushing an agenda, demonizing Ajit Pai, and so on. I'd like to bring to everyone's attention that if the evil ISPs were planning to do really evil shit, they would have a long time ago and could have, but the whole reason they didn't is because the consumers would flip like no one has ever seen before.


Well gee, I wonder why people would hate on a guy that ignores the entire general population just to push his own pro-corporate agenda.  And no, there's no other time in history this would've been possible, because we didn't need Net Neutrality until ISPs started pushing for monopolies and throttling Netflix, League of Legends, and anything else that wasn't "sponsored content."  We've already been through this Net Neutrality fight like twice, but people seem to have short memories.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Doesn't Time Warner own Comcast, which owns Mediacom? I could've sworn every time the Warner Bros logo comes up in a movie it has "a Comcast company" under it


I think you have Time Warner and Warner Bros mixed up


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2017)

Memoir said:


> I think you have Time Warner and Warner Bros mixed up


I have a lot of things mixed up my guy

Edit: but not this apparently. I just looked it up, and Warner Bros. is the entertainment publishing company for Time Warner Inc., and Time Warner Cable and Comcast merged in 2015

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



MaverickWellington said:


> Too much of the discussion on this topic is dominated by people pushing an agenda, demonizing Ajit Pai, and so on. I'd like to bring to everyone's attention that if the evil ISPs were planning to do really evil shit, they would have a long time ago and could have, but the whole reason they didn't is because the consumers would flip like no one has ever seen before.


So

What's your net worth then? /s


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I have a lot of things mixed up my guy
> 
> Edit: but not this apparently. I just looked it up, and Warner Bros. is the entertainment publishing company for Time Warner Inc., and Time Warner Cable and Comcast merged in 2015
> 
> ...


Everything I've seen says that merger fell through.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 10, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Everything I've seen says that merger fell through.


Well would'ja look at that


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 10, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Well would'ja look at that



It's very confusing. I DO know that TWC and Charter merged. I'd be very confused if TWC held that much of the broadband market.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Everything I've seen says that merger fell through.


AFAIK it's actually AT&T trying to acquire Time Warner.  The Justice Department has sued to temporarily block the merger.  I think AT&T only provides DSL, so they aren't really competing in the cable-broadband sector right now.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 10, 2017)

Xzi said:


> AFAIK it's actually AT&T trying to acquire Time Warner.  The Justice Department has sued to temporarily block the merger.  I think AT&T only provides DSL, so they aren't really competing in the cable-broadband sector right now.


That makes more sense. I actually was skimming through an article with AT&T saying they should be allowed to go through with the purchase... On the grounds that Comcast purchased NBC or something like that.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 10, 2017)

Memoir said:


> That makes more sense. I actually was skimming through an article with AT&T saying they should be allowed to go through with the purchase... On the grounds that Comcast purchased NBC or something like that.


That was allowed to go through on the condition that Comcast/NBC not attempt to block their content from reaching other service providers and their customers.  They've violated that promise several times over by now, so it's really a cautionary tale.  Time Warner owns a lot of content, including HBO and CNN.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

I've noticed an overwhelming amount of snark in reply to my post, but I suppose that's to be expected when the bulk of the Net Neutrality discussion is dominated by hyperactive 16 year olds that are terrified because of dumb campaigns by google and reddit to make you think your cat memes or whatever kids are after these days are under attack.

The simple fact of the matter is that they aren't. I'm too lazy to go around quoting specific parts of different people's replies so I'm going to address them here. First and foremost, no one has paid any attention to the net neutrality """violations""" (which I will continue to address the """violations""" with as many condescending quotation marks as possible until they stop being non-issues or start being related to internet neutrality) and their context, only that people like FreePress and so on see them as threats. In the unlikely event the proposal (which I implore all of you to sit and read before flipping out further) even goes through, who is to say it won't get lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit ad-infinitum until the proposal is killed and proper rules are put in place, should ISPs do anything undesirable? I would like to remind everyone that to this day ISPs *STILL* throttle you. Source: https://www.infoworld.com/article/2...hrottle-traffic-and-the-fcc-cant-stop-it.html

The current net neutrality rules are not working. They're heavily restrictive and end up getting companies in hot water legally because too many uninformed people start clambering over each other over hearsay and rumors to have the heads of companies on a plate in front of them. Remember when Vonage was throttled by a celluar service provider and everyone screeched "ZOMG MUH NEUTRALITY" and the entire reason was literally because the network, which was 2G, slowly but surely transitioning into 3G (and thus requiring more maintenance) was heavily overloaded and the constant use of services like Vonage was congesting it?

How about when BitTorrent and similar clients would drag internet services to their *KNEES* to the point ISPs like Comcast either had to throttle, or the service would be fucked for everyone? Mind you, they only throttled during peak hours, and on illegal torrents. If it was, say, a torrent for a Linux distro, you could torrent/seed away happily. Kinda ironic that the outrage from that was mostly from people who were breaking the law, and felt unfairly treated.

Now granted that's a bit of a strawman, so how about the fact that if any company wanted to get a foothold on the market since long before these archaic, overbearing rules were put in place, and offer fast lanes, packages, and all sorts of other garbage -- which I'd like to stress here that I'd be *LIVID* if that stuff came my way, but it's not going to so there's no reason for all this outrage about what's at absolute worst a potential thing that will result in economic suicide for any company dumb enough to try it -- how come it wasn't widespread? The net neutrality doctrine has not been the same way for 10-20 years. Only in the past 3 or so years have such rules come into play. Why is it that in the absence of such rules -- which is what we'll be going back to should the proposal pass -- the internet did not implode upon itself, or turn into this big wild west shitfest?

Oh yeah, because any ISP that would be stupid enough to do that may as well burn their money, sell their shares to monkeys, and just get wasted. In my area, I have an ISP that's primarily composed of people fed up with AT&T's terrible services and practices. You know what happened? AT&T started lowering their prices, improving their services -- both support and general internet service -- and now there's fair competition. I don't care how scummy businesses are and can be, it's ridiculous to assume that these people have absolutely no interest in the world but destroying your internet for the sake of money. The absolute worst they'd do that people would be okay with is sell packages or something, and I say people would be okay with it because you can just neglect to purchase the stuff you know for a fact you don't need or don't care about, and that stuff wouldn't even be blocked without it, you just wouldn't have max speed. 

Furthermore while the evidence is anecdotal I've been throttled numerous times, had websites just straight up not connect, be redirected to other sites, and a whole slew of unkosher stuff from AT&T, as I have multiple friends with similar experiences. So either, the current rules aren't doing anything and need to be removed so we can instill better rules and actually sit down and enforce them, or net neutrality is just a big stupid meme that doesn't actually stop the bad stuff everyone's panicking about, and what's *really* stopping the implosion of the internet is just good ol' capitalism.

tl;dr this debate is plagued with uneducated, overemotional teenagers scared of losing memes and piracy more than it is with people who know what the proposal entails, why it's being proposed, what the history behind the stuff the proposal will change is, and so on. Before you type up some stupidly long wall of text about how you "should care otherwise you're not informed," you should stop, read proposals yourself, close out of sites like Gizmodo or Reddit, and actually come up with your own ideas. Quite frankly, this sort of behavior is precisely why Ajit Pai doesn't talk to you people about this. This isn't about "ignoring the american people," it's about ignoring the masses who clearly don't care what's really going on and are instead deluding themselves with fear mongering and propaganda. I dislike some parts of his proposal -- specifically how ISPs will no longer have to disclose their packet loss averages, something that I consider important to making informed decisions about services -- but ultimately Ajit Pai, like all of us, is a flawed human being who can make mistakes. Some harmless, some stupid, but none of them, at least in this scenario, irreversible.

tl;dr;dr calm down holy shit this isn't a big deal


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> tl;dr;dr calm down holy shit this isn't a big deal



There's too many buzzwords used in this NN nonsense that it's really hard to take a side. It's easy to say that without it? Your ISP would be able to legally screw you with paid fast lanes for certain sites and ad content... It's also easy to say that it keeps the ISPs at bay and lets you do more of what you like without worry of paywalls. Personally? I have no Idea. I'm on the fence for a lot of reasons. "It's good!" "It's bad!"... 

At the end of the day? I'm still struggling to make ends meet. So, there's that.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> The current net neutrality rules are not working. They're heavily restrictive and end up getting companies in hot water legally because too many uninformed people start clambering over each other over hearsay and rumors to have the heads of companies on a plate in front of them.


The fuck are you talking about?  The current rules are fine, and nobody would be complaining about any of these companies if they were willing to continue doing the right thing.  The only reason anybody cares is because they're trying to repeal Net Neutrality, and I'm sorry, they're not doing it "just for teh lulz."  Corporations care about money, they don't give a fuck about you or me, and if you believe otherwise you're in for a very rude awakening soon enough.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> The fuck are you talking about?  The current rules are fine, and nobody would be complaining about any of these companies if they were willing to continue doing the right thing.  The only reason anybody cares is because they're trying to repeal Net Neutrality, and I'm sorry, they're not doing it "just for teh lulz."  Corporations care about money, they don't give a fuck about you or me, and if you believe otherwise you're in for a very rude awakening soon enough.



But what I want to know is, how was the internet, its state, etc before these NN rules were implemented? I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 11, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> But what I want to know is, how was the internet, its state, etc before these NN rules were implemented? I'm genuinely curious.


A giant meme before memes were cool.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> But what I want to know is, how was the internet, its state, etc before these NN rules were implemented? I'm genuinely curious.


I've commented on this previously, but it started getting bad right before Net Neutrality was finally implemented.  Netflix and League of Legends were definitely being throttled because of the amount of bandwidth they were taking up.

A few years prior to that, things were fine because it wasn't just two giant ISPs controlling everything.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I've commented on this previously, but it started getting bad right before Net Neutrality was finally implemented.  Netflix and League of Legends were definitely being throttled because of the amount of bandwidth they were taking up.



Oh, yeah the Netflix debacle.

Didn't know online gaming was taking a hit. This was also back when I knew nothing of it.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I've commented on this previously, but it started getting bad right before Net Neutrality was finally implemented.  Netflix and League of Legends were definitely being throttled because of the amount of bandwidth they were taking up.
> 
> A few years prior to that, things were fine because it wasn't just two giant ISPs controlling everything.



Hmm, as much as this is a heated topic, it may be more productive for people to approach this logically; doesn't mean people can't be upset or what have you, but being levelheaded about issues like this is far more productive than having outlets spreading fear. That's my opinion however, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. *Sigh*.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Memoir said:


> There's too many buzzwords used in this NN nonsense that it's really hard to take a side. It's easy to say that without it? Your ISP would be able to legally screw you with paid fast lanes for certain sites and ad content... It's also easy to say that it keeps the ISPs at bay and lets you do more of what you like without worry of paywalls. Personally? I have no Idea. I'm on the fence for a lot of reasons. "It's good!" "It's bad!"...
> 
> At the end of the day? I'm still struggling to make ends meet. So, there's that.


Precisely this. Too many people are screeching and being extreme about everything and a fraction of them -- maybe 10 of them out of like, a million -- are reading the damn proposal and figuring out what's going to happen. I'm sure people like Xzi aren't aware of the fact that the new proposal will require that ISPs specifically announce any behavior like throttling, blocking, lanes, etc on a very clearly visible section of their sites that, in the words of the document itself (https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf ) "must be clearly navigable and legible by even the disabled."

The whole reason ISPs have been getting away with sneaky shit is because they don't have to tell anyone. I've had to go through support clerk after support clerk to the point I went to like 5 people before they finally just said "Yes, we're throttling, there's issues with our infrastructure right now." Look at all this outrage. Do you legitimately think people this livid about the *POSSIBILITY* they might get throttled/blocked/lanes/whatever would even consider purchasing internet from an ISP that openly states they're gonna do that? No. Without overbearing regulations as well, smaller ISPs can actually compete with the bigger ones instead of buyouts turning everything into some giant blob of whatever like play-dough having all the colors mashed together, so if one ISP thinks they can be a dumbshit, the other ones are going to smack them into line by taking their customers, and I know this happens because I've literally experienced it myself.



Xzi said:


> The fuck are you talking about?  The current rules are fine, and nobody would be complaining about any of these companies if they were willing to continue doing the right thing.  The only reason anybody cares is because they're trying to repeal Net Neutrality, and I'm sorry, they're not doing it "just for teh lulz."  Corporations care about money, they don't give a fuck about you or me, and if you believe otherwise you're in for a very rude awakening soon enough.


"The current rules are fine" is the calling card of someone who does not understand the rules, their flaws, the kind of loopholes that ISPs exploit, and so on. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at here, primarily that if the proposal passes, nothing bad will come from it, and if anything we'll get more specific, less ridiculous regulation that allows other ISPs to compete instead of, as stated, everything else being a stupid blob. Corporations care about money. No shit. Which is exactly why they won't actively try to fuck over customers just to bleed them for money. It will be literal economic suicide. Corporations love money so much that they will literally abuse loopholes in current regulations in order to squeeze as much money out of other people as possible. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...exploited-a-gaping-loophole-in-net-neutrality

You can verify this by looking at how stocks drop significantly whenever an ISP gets into a lot of trouble from lawsuits regarding shit behavior. Comcast has had it, AT&T has had it, Verizon has had it, and so on. To fuck your customers is to fuck your wallet, and yourself. So I ask, what the fuck are *you* talking about? Because it's not the bigger picture, it's not the smaller picture, is it even a picture at all? Where's your outrage over Netflix throttling shit for people on specific ISPs? I thought you cared about Net Neutrality, but evidently not.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Hmm, as much as this is a heated topic, it may be more productive for people to approach this logically; doesn't mean people can't be upset or what have you, but being levelheaded about issues like this is far more productive than having outlets spreading fear. That's my opinion however, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. *Sigh*.


This is not about fear, it's about keeping internet freedom.  Assuming Net Neutrality is repealed, you'll still be able to access everything you could before, but you'll be deterred from certain sites by 56K loading times.  It's not some big mystery why your ISP would want to do this to you, for them it's about the ad revenue.



MaverickWellington said:


> "The current rules are fine" is the calling card of someone who does not understand the rules, their flaws, the kind of loopholes that ISPs exploit, and so on. I don't think you understand what I'm getting at here, primarily that if the proposal passes, nothing bad will come from it, and if anything we'll get more specific, less ridiculous regulation that allows other ISPs to compete instead of, as stated, everything else being a stupid blob. Corporations care about money. No shit. Which is exactly why they won't actively try to fuck over customers just to bleed them for money. It will be literal economic suicide.


This argument hinges on the fact that internet service is optional, but it's very much mandatory for a lot of people.  Most would keep their ISP even if rates were hiked by an extra $20 a month.  If they lose _some _customers but ultimately still pull in more profit, then obviously they're not gonna care about the people they lost.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Hmm, as much as this is a heated topic, it may be more productive for people to approach this logically; doesn't mean people can't be upset or what have you, but being levelheaded about issues like this is far more productive than having outlets spreading fear. That's my opinion however, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. *Sigh*.


That's what I'm saying. It's admittedly making me mad that all these kids are flooding in from sites like 4chan and reddit and are muddying the entire discussion with "B-B-B-BUT ARE THEY G-GONNA TAKE AWAY MY V-VIDEO GAMES AND A-ANIME?" 

I think this is honestly just corporate shenanigans that either won't affect the consumer, or give us way more options in the long run. Hell, the FCC is strengthening the FTC's power against anti-competitive practices (such as ISPs preventing other companies from using their lines and so on) so that we get some actual competition, especially in rural areas.

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

Seriously though how has no one tried to fix Net Neutrality's flawed, gaping lawset?
https://www.wired.com/2015/11/comcast-may-have-found-a-major-net-neutrality-loophole/
I mean look at this, it's literally anti-competitive.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Seriously though how has no one tried to fix Net Neutrality's flawed, gaping lawset?
> https://www.wired.com/2015/11/comcast-may-have-found-a-major-net-neutrality-loophole/
> I mean look at this, it's literally anti-competitive.


Man you're just not living in the real world here.  There is no competition in broadband ISPs any more, and it's not because Net Neutrality killed it.  It's because Comcast and Time Warner bought out all the competition and now try to shut down any efforts for community or local ISPs.  Where you think more competition is magically going to appear from is beyond me.  Why you think Comcast/TWC have ever been or will ever be benevolent to their customers is also beyond me.  It already seems like they derive pleasure from customers' hatred of their poor business practices.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> This is not about fear, it's about keeping internet freedom.  Assuming Net Neutrality is repealed, you'll still be able to access everything you could before, but you'll be deterred from certain sites by 56K loading times.  It's not some big mystery why your ISP would want to do this to you, for them it's about the ad revenue.
> 
> 
> This argument hinges on the fact that internet service is optional, but it's very much mandatory for a lot of people.  Most would keep their ISP even if rates were hiked by an extra $20 a month.  If they lose _some _customers but ultimately still pull in more profit, then obviously they're not gonna care about the people they lost.


My ass-backwards southern state has 11 service providers in my city alone, only 2 of which belong to AT&T -- the rest are all smaller companies, sans one, which is just Comcast's XFinity service. If one company starts acting dumb, another could so capitalize on it by *not* being dumb. It's economics 101. If I knew how to word it in google I guarantee you I could get over a thousand examples of it happening in corporate/economic history. Squeezing extra money out of people and pissing them off vs not suckling them for money when other ISPs do, and thus bringing a great amount of people to you. Obviously the second one will garner more income. Others will look at this success and go "oh, okay, don't be (shitty ISP) here, be (good ISP) here."

Quit focusing on the "all corporations wanna do is just treat you like shit for money" meme. Yes, they're out to make money, but they aren't out to commit economic suicide.

"There's no competition anymore!"
Yeah uh, no shit? Because the current rules regulate smaller ISPs significantly harder than they regulate the much larger ISPs, who half the time just break the rules anyways. Maybe if you had read the proposal instead of reddit you'd see the FCC plans to give the FTC the jurisdiction to tell ISPs "hey, fuck off, you're trying to run a monopoly here and we're not having it."

But at least you got to post a south park meme, surely you're lmaoing your butts in the floor right now from that one.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> This is not about fear, it's about keeping internet freedom.  Assuming Net Neutrality is repealed, you'll still be able to access everything you could before, but you'll be deterred from certain sites by 56K loading times.  It's not some big mystery why your ISP would want to do this to you, for them it's about the ad revenue.
> 
> 
> This argument hinges on the fact that internet service is optional, but it's very much mandatory for a lot of people.  Most would keep their ISP even if rates were hiked by an extra $20 a month.  If they lose _some _customers but ultimately still pull in more profit, then obviously they're not gonna care about the people they lost.



And again, there may be massive backlash from the public, i.e the nationwide protests, we don't know for sure if there will be a huge legal mess from people suing, etc, to keep this in place. There's no denying that there is still a bit of fear mongering going on, that's all.  With that said... maybe I..never mind.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> My ass-backwards southern state has 11 service providers in my city alone


I'm guessing exactly one that's cable internet and not some DSL/satellite BS that runs at 56K speeds already?



the_randomizer said:


> And again, there may be massive backlash from the public, i.e the nationwide protests, we don't know for sure if there will be a huge legal mess from people suing, etc, to keep this in place. There's no denying that there is still a bit of fear mongering going on, that's all.  With that said... maybe I..never mind.


There are lawsuits happening already, but I doubt they'll delay the repeal.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I'm guessing exactly one that's cable internet and not some DSL/satellite BS that runs at 56K speeds already


Not including the duplicate AT&T service, it's 3 actually, and the speeds are all pretty damn good.





Also for anyone thinking there's never gonna be competition on the level of big ISPs keep in mind my ISP covers almost as much as AT&T. Expect to see more ISP competition as the awful regulations get removed.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Not including the duplicate AT&T service, it's 3 actually, and the speeds are all pretty damn good.


Sounds like a big city and not some truly ass-backwards rural area then.  The US is ranked near the bottom of all modern countries in both broadband infrastructure and availability.  Essentially Comcast owns half the country and TWC owns the other half, with what few smaller providers are left using Comcast/TWC's network backbone anyway.

And FYI the big ISPs already pocketed 2 billion dollars of taxpayer money without installing the broadband infrastructure they were supposed to with those subsidies.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I'm guessing exactly one that's cable internet and not some DSL/satellite BS that runs at 56K speeds already?
> 
> 
> There are lawsuits happening already, but I doubt they'll delay the repeal.



Something's got to give sooner or later. Either protests, people moving to other ISPs/providers en masse, not voting for certain politicians, either way, it's a huge ass mess


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Sounds like a big city and not some truly ass-backwards rural area then.  The US is ranked near the bottom of all modern countries in both broadband infrastructure and availability.  Essentially Comcast owns half the country and TWC owns the other half, with what few smaller providers are left using Comcast/TWC's network backbone anyway.


I don't know what you define 'big city' as but I don't consider 35k a 'big city' population. Considering we're not even a 4th of the capital, and how much rural land we have in my city, I'm gonna call this "ass-backwards"


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I don't know what you define 'big city' as but I don't consider 35k a 'big city' population. Considering we're not even a 4th of the capital, and how much rural land we have in my city, I'm gonna call this "ass-backwards"


Regardless, as I pointed out, your other providers are probably running off of Comcast/TWC backbone.  When they throttle, everything will throttle.  It's already happened before.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Regardless, as I pointed out, your other providers are probably running off of Comcast/TWC backbone.  When they throttle, everything will throttle.  It's already happened before.


Nope, they use their own lines. Came in my yard and put a line down and everything a few months after we moved in. Haven't experienced any throttling on Fidelity, yet AT&T was constant.

If I had known AT&T will throttle stuff whenever they feel like it (or flat out block connection to discord on """accident""") I damn sure would've never signed up for them; Therefore I support the new proposal because it specifically require an ISP disclose this. The tiny, rural areas where ISPs control EVERYTHING are not going to make them enough money to justify imploding the internet. It's simply not feasible. The big ISPs are way too big for their own good to be able to manage such behavior financially.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Dec 11, 2017)

OH GOD 3 DAYS LEFT!


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Nope, they use their own lines. Came in my yard and put a line down and everything a few months after we moved in. Haven't experienced any throttling on Fidelity, yet AT&T was constant.
> 
> If I had known AT&T will throttle stuff whenever they feel like it (or flat out block connection to discord on """accident""") I damn sure would've never signed up for them; Therefore I support the new proposal because it specifically require an ISP disclose this. The tiny, rural areas where ISPs control EVERYTHING are not going to make them enough money to justify imploding the internet. It's simply not feasible. The big ISPs are way too big for their own good to be able to manage such behavior financially.


Running a line does not mean they aren't a t2 provider using a t1 provider's backbone.  There are only a couple primary providers in the US and most everything runs through them.  If they are truly independent and running a solid operation, it's only a matter of time until Comcast or TWC buys them out.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Nope, they use their own lines. Came in my yard and put a line down and everything a few months after we moved in. Haven't experienced any throttling on Fidelity, yet AT&T was constant.
> 
> If I had known AT&T will throttle stuff whenever they feel like it (or flat out block connection to discord on """accident""") I damn sure would've never signed up for them; Therefore I support the new proposal because it specifically require an ISP disclose this. The tiny, rural areas where ISPs control EVERYTHING are not going to make them enough money to justify imploding the internet. It's simply not feasible. The big ISPs are way too big for their own good to be able to manage such behavior financially.


Except that's like

Not at all how it works

https://www.quora.com/Who-provides-...re-is-the-source-of-internet-services-located


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 11, 2017)

Anybody who thinks internet freedom aka Net Neutrality is a bad idea is either a moron or a corporate shill.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> Anybody who thinks internet freedom aka Net Neutrality is a bad idea is either a moron or a corporate shill.


Uh, no one said it was a bad idea? I even straight up fucking agree with you. What I am saying however is that the current net neutrality rules aren't doing anything and we should rework them, and the groundwork to start this with is the FCC's new transparency rule.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Uh, no one said it was a bad idea? I even straight up fucking agree with you. What I am saying however is that the current net neutrality rules aren't doing anything and we should rework them, and the groundwork to start this with is the FCC's new transparency rule.


let me put it to you as simply as anybody can possibly make it. 
All net neutrality means is treating all data that's transmitted over the net EQUALLY. that's it. there's nothing to tweak. Without it isp's will favor certain data from certain websites that have a lot of money for speed. and then slowing down everyone else's average slave workers data to a crawl. what part of that simple reality are you confused about? this is why i stated if you're against treating all data equally then you're either a moron or a corporate shill.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

-snip-



comput3rus3r said:


> let me put it to you as simply as anybody can possibly make it.
> All net neutrality means is treating all data that's transmitted over the net EQUALLY. that's it. there's nothing to tweak. Without it isp's will favor certain data from certain websites that have a lot of money for speed. and then slowing down everyone else's average slave workers data to a crawl. what part of that simple reality are you confused about? this is why i stated if you're against treating all data equally then you're either a moron or a corporate shill.


Stop reading heavily biased, skewed, and paraphrased summaries from websites. You're missing the bulk of the argument and are being INCREDIBLY disingenuous.  Not only was that never a reality but it's not even plausible. I am someone who believes an ISP should reserve the right to throttle, slow down, or otherwise impede dataflow when it is clearly a burden on the infrastructure. In the days of 2G, people would use vonage so much that some carriers literally had to block it because no one else's data would go through, because all of their bandwidth had gone to constant vonage calls. This was also at the time, mind you, that we were just getting 3G infrastructure so a lot of workload was being put on the company trying to manage the 2G complaints while trying to also start the 3G service. Comcast did the same shit with bittorrent users -- at least the ones downloading illegal stuff -- because they were sucking up all the bandwidth like mad hogs with constant seeding and leeching. Legitimate torrents were unaffected, only the illegal ones. Again, when the infrastructure is taking a clear hit from something, I think it is fair to redirect, throttle, or if necessary flat out block the cause so that everyone else can use their stuff in peace.

I wholeheartedly agree that any ISP throttling sites for no reason, blocking them, charging exuberant rates for minor packages, and so on is abhorrent. But you clearly are not informed on this topic, the history, the debate, or the arguments of either side. You've instead decided to base your arguments solely upon a ridiculous campaign to get teens like yourself fired up over something you know nothing about. It's like the election all over again.

Also to clarify, treating all data equally is a great idea until some data is very clearly not equal to the other data. I don't know about you but 500 gigabytes of Netflix streaming isn't the same thing as, say, 5 MB of email. They should not be both treated as a 500 GB service, nor a 5 MB one. I think they should be treated individually, based on their usage, not on some flawed "everything is equal to everything" sort of philosophy.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> No champ, I never moved goal posts. I literally did not mention medicare in my post at all. I was addressing his point about them removing social security, which is false. You have no evidence to state otherwise. What you've presented was something about medicaid through social security, but does not equate to social security as a whole. You can't argue against shit no one said, and then when they show you they never said it, call that moving goalposts. Again, quit pretending you're half decent at an argument.
> 
> 
> Stop reading heavily biased, skewed, and paraphrased summaries from websites. You're missing the bulk of the argument and are being INCREDIBLY disingenuous.  Not only was that never a reality but it's not even plausible. I am someone who believes an ISP should reserve the right to throttle, slow down, or otherwise impede dataflow when it is clearly a burden on the infrastructure. In the days of 2G, people would use vonage so much that some carriers literally had to block it because no one else's data would go through, because all of their bandwidth had gone to constant vonage calls. This was also at the time, mind you, that we were just getting 3G infrastructure so a lot of workload was being put on the company trying to manage the 2G complaints while trying to also start the 3G service. Comcast did the same shit with bittorrent users -- at least the ones downloading illegal stuff -- because they were sucking up all the bandwidth like mad hogs with constant seeding and leeching. Legitimate torrents were unaffected, only the illegal ones. Again, when the infrastructure is taking a clear hit from something, I think it is fair to redirect, throttle, or if necessary flat out block the cause so that everyone else can use their stuff in peace.
> ...


Hey look everybody Ajit Pai is in the forum. quickly raise your middle finger.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> Hey look everybody Ajit Pai is in the forum. quickly raise your middle finger.


Address my arguments instead of being a dumb 12 year old, kthx.
Why do you believe a 5 MB email service should be treated the same way as a 500 GB streaming service? One is very clearly going to use more data than the other, so why should one that isn't going to use as much bandwidth be given the exact same treatment, when a more logical solution would be to prioritize content like Netflix to prevent constant buffering and slowdowns?


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Address my arguments instead of being a dumb 12 year old, kthx.
> Why do you believe a 5 MB email service should be treated the same way as a 500 GB streaming service? One is very clearly going to use more data than the other, so why should one that isn't going to use as much bandwidth be given the exact same treatment, when a more logical solution would be to prioritize content like Netflix to prevent constant buffering and slowdowns?


You're expecting a bit much.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Memoir said:


> You're expecting a bit much.


I figured but the cognitive dissonance it's causing is admittedly entertaining


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 11, 2017)

Also, for those of you who aren't subscribed to CGPGrey on youtube, I HIGHLY recommend you do. He makes very high quality videos, like this gem from a while back that's relevant again:


----------



## wyjek (Dec 11, 2017)

Nice article, it's worth to know about it.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I was planning to do the same since you kept strawmanning me and accusing me of arguments I never once made, and blatantly refuse to acknowledge my points simply because I'm not getting worked up over something that won't affect 95% of people, if anyone at all.
> 
> Thanks, but I'm only 20.



How would this not affect more than 5% of people?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 11, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> How would this not affect more than 5% of people?


It should realistically affect everyone who uses the internet in some form or another (considering a not insignificant amount of content creation and consumption happens from within the US)


----------



## Skelletonike (Dec 11, 2017)

I'd welcome it if it helped to reduce piracy in any way. I don't really care about the rest tbh. People are too dependant on the internet nowadays.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 11, 2017)

Skelletonike said:


> I'd welcome it if it helped to reduce piracy in any way. I don't really care about the rest tbh. People are too dependant on the internet nowadays.



Good luck with that, piracy will continue regardless of any rules/laws that are changed. 



TotalInsanity4 said:


> It should realistically affect everyone who uses the internet in some form or another (considering a not insignificant amount of content creation and consumption happens from within the US)



I don't know what will happen, just want to close my eyes and plug my ears to the world.


----------



## Skelletonike (Dec 11, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Good luck with that, piracy will continue regardless of any rules/laws that are changed.



As long as it becomes just slightly more difficult, I'll be happy.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 11, 2017)

Skelletonike said:


> I'd welcome it if it helped to reduce piracy in any way. I don't really care about the rest tbh. People are too dependant on the internet nowadays.


You can't honestly tell me that you don't read news or stream video online... stuff like that would be subject to selective censorship/blocking if net neutrality is removed

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



Skelletonike said:


> As long as it becomes just slightly more difficult, I'll be happy.


Considering it's possible to directly connect to Nintendo's servers and download games currently, I doubt that


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> How would this not affect more than 5% of people?


Because if anything were to happen, only a fraction of people would truly be stuck with it. In any other situation where even *one* competing ISP isn't misbehaving, the offending ISPs will just bleed customers to another. Hell, even *having* competition means you get cheaper prices in general. See here: https://www.cio.com/article/3133611...et-market-can-signficantly-reduce-prices.html
http://www.analysisgroup.com/upload...roadband_competition_report_november_2016.pdf
https://www.cio.com/article/2988881...ut-cost-of-gigabit-service-in-some-areas.html

Companies are already fucking people, so the 5% I'm talking about are the ones mentioned at the headline for the last CIO.com link I posted -- namely the people in areas where there are absolutely no competitors beyond one company, and thus get higher rates for much worse service. I think it's a bit much that people are acting like the rules Ajit Pai is proposing to remove are going to turn the internet into a complete wasteland, considering that nothing that isn't already happening is going to happen, and ISPs are going to have to factually report their practices, without any jargon, beating around the bush, or anything like that. They have to specifically say "Yes, we are throttling these services/blocking these sites/whatever" in a cleanly legible page that's accessible by the disabled as according to the FCC's plans and regulations.
I can't access a cached copy of the original PDF at the moment, probably being DDOS'd by some loser skiddies. I'll hunt around for it and edit my post to have it, but for now here's a cached rundown of their plan. https://webcache.googleusercontent....d=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-ab

This line specifically is one I like, because history (and various sources I've linked) aligns with this statement.

*MYTH*: Broadband providers will charge you a premium if you want to reach certain online content.
• *FACT: *This didn’t happen before the Obama Administration’s 2015 heavy-handed Internet
regulations, and it won’t happen after they are repealed.

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



TotalInsanity4 said:


> You can't honestly tell me that you don't read news or stream video online... stuff like that would be subject to selective censorship/blocking if net neutrality is removed
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


But you can block torrent clients and their data easily (assuming they aren't being run through VPNs/Proxies and what have you) because Comcast has done it in the past when their entire network was brought to its knees by rampant piracy torrents.


----------



## Skelletonike (Dec 11, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You can't honestly tell me that you don't read news or stream video online... stuff like that would be subject to selective censorship/blocking if net neutrality is remove



As I've said, people depend too much on the internet. I do read news online sometimes, but I much prefer buying an actual news paper, online newspapers are mostly crap nowadays, badly written, weak arguments and a lot of major websites make 'news' about what someone said on twitter or facebook. Online news are for the most part, utter garbage. Heck, I mostly only read online news to laugh at the comments. 

As for the videos... I don't really watch that much stuff online, I have a netflix and a crunchyroll sub, but that's it, at most they could be slowed down, which I doubt. 

My internet is 200mbps, but I have no real use for it aside from when downloading a large MMORPG.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 11, 2017)

Skelletonike said:


> As I've said, people depend too much on the internet. I do read news online sometimes, but I much prefer buying an actual news paper, online newspapers are mostly crap nowadays, badly written, weak arguments and a lot of major websites make 'news' about what someone said on twitter or facebook. Online news are for the most part, utter garbage. Heck, I mostly only read online news to laugh at the comments.
> 
> As for the videos... I don't really watch that much stuff online, I have a netflix and a crunchyroll sub, but that's it, at most they could be slowed down, which I doubt.
> 
> My internet is 200mbps, but I have no real use for it aside from when downloading a large MMORPG.


That's fair, I guess. I would still rather be able to access breaking developments, though. That way I can actually form an opinion on stuff as its evolving through multiple outlets/firsthand accounts rather than have my view be limited by what a single outlet is reporting


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Because if anything were to happen, only a fraction of people would truly be stuck with it. In any other situation where even *one* competing ISP isn't misbehaving, the offending ISPs will just bleed customers to another. Hell, even *having* competition means you get cheaper prices in general. See here: https://www.cio.com/article/3133611...et-market-can-signficantly-reduce-prices.html
> http://www.analysisgroup.com/upload...roadband_competition_report_november_2016.pdf
> https://www.cio.com/article/2988881...ut-cost-of-gigabit-service-in-some-areas.html
> 
> ...



I don't know what to think, all I'm gonna do is sit back and let the shit hit the fan, because I sure as hell don't see anything we do is gonna somehow stop them.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> This is not reality.  Comcast/TWC fucked people over all the way to the top of the chain.  EA is another great example.  Capitalism works best for those that know how to fuck people over _just _enough.


But it is. Funny you bring up EA as an example. The sales for the highly controversial Battlefront 2 (2017) have actually failed to even break 1 million. https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...t-20-of-call-of-duty-wwii-sales/#20178fda2b38

For contrast most AAA titles at least reach a million. Even Halo 5, which is controversial for it's single player, sold around 4.88 million copies. Suffice to say capitalism clearly has an effect on this. Practices which people dislike are not profitable because they just won't buy it. You can't attribute BF2017's commercial shortcomings to lack of advertising because like everything EA does (besides Titanfall 2 strangely) this had shittons of advertising, and was by their big cash cow company, DICE.

I'm gonna wait for some examples on Comcast's fuckery though. Because from my understanding a lot of it is contextless """violations""" cited by biased sites like FreePress, ironically enough.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> But it is. Funny you bring up EA as an example. The sales for the highly controversial Battlefront 2 (2017) have actually failed to even break 1 million.


Their stock is way up over last year because Battlefront 2 is just one game and they've shoved P2W MTX into nearly all their games at this point.



MaverickWellington said:


> I'm gonna wait for some examples on Comcast's fuckery though.


You don't have to wait for those, every single person who has ever had Comcast as an ISP has plenty of horror stories.  Myself included.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Their stock is way up over last year because Battlefront 2 is just one game and they've shoved P2W MTX into nearly all their games at this point.
> 
> 
> You don't have to wait for those, every single person who has ever had Comcast as an ISP has plenty of horror stories.  Myself included.



Only thing Comcast is good at is their fast internet, currently have 100 mbps as part of a free upgrade. Google Fiber can't go to my own because Comcast is a dick to them.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Only thing Comcast is good at is their fast internet, currently have 100 mbps as part of a free upgrade. Google Fiber can't go to my own because Comcast is a dick to them.


Well, now they're pushing for NN repeal so they can dip their speeds well below 100 mbps on websites/traffic they don't like and still advertise it the same.  I'm on Comcast now, and I get 150 mbps, but service drops more than it should to internet, cable TV, or both at the same time.  Our other option for TV here is satellite, which means crappier reception on stormy days.  Our other option for internet is DSL, and that's like no joke 20 mbps down tops.

Comcast will always find a way to make you hate them.  FYI, if you're not calling in once a year and demanding to get your price lowered, they're already gouging you.  I've been loving Mutant Football League on Steam, and one of the fake advertisements is "Comcrack Entertainment, they're not happy until you're not happy."  I might've literally laughed my ass off.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> You don't have to wait for those, every single person who has ever had Comcast as an ISP has plenty of horror stories.  Myself included.


Then surely you can give me some and I shouldn't have to repeatedly drill you about it.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Then surely you can give me some and I shouldn't have to repeatedly drill you about it.


Sure.  At the last place I lived, the install guys had to come twice, and still didn't get it right after the second time.  Finally I just went into the crawlspace below, re-did everything myself, and then re-did everything upstairs and got it working perfectly.  Customer support is a nightmare every time you call, assuming you can even get a real person.  And get this: _I'm_ the lucky one supposedly because in other areas, Comcast imposes data caps for the same price I get unlimited.  Probably only because of state regulations, but the government is trying to eliminate states' rights to their own net regulations as well.



chrisrlink said:


> might i say SSI is a trap the ppl on it refuses to work cause of the (very) low safe cap for wages $80 to be exact (I should know i draw SSI AND tried to work to make a little extra and pay excess bills) for work training for 3 months i only worked at min wage (7.25/hr) 4 hrs a day 5 days a week and got a biweekly check by month 1 of 3 my SSI got cut in half YES HALF AND it took double the time (6 months) after finishing training to reinstate my full benifiets


Yeah I think it was mostly intended for the older generations, and I have no doubt it's been corrupted by the (capitalist) system after all this time.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Sure.  At the last place I lived, the install guys had to come twice, and still didn't get it right after the second time.  Finally I just went into the crawlspace below, re-did everything myself, and then re-did everything upstairs and got it working perfectly.  Customer support is a nightmare every time you call, assuming you can even get a real person.  And get this: _I'm_ the lucky one supposedly because in other areas, Comcast imposes data caps for the same price I get unlimited.  Probably only because of state regulations, but the government is trying to eliminate states' rights to their own net regulations as well.


As in "your state (most likely) says that ISPs have to give unlimited data to customers for a reasonable price, and theirs don't," or "their state imposes data caps, and yours doesn't"?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> As in "your state (most likely) says that ISPs have to give unlimited data to customers for a reasonable price, and theirs don't," or "their state imposes data caps, and yours doesn't"?


Weaken states' rights on the matter of Net Neutrality altogether, and probably weaken their ability to impose (or keep) other regulations contrary to Comcast/TWC/AT&T/Verizon's agenda.  Don't forget how badly your mobile carriers want to charge you more for data as well.  They straight complained about it under Obama.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Weaken states' rights on the matter of Net Neutrality altogether, and probably weaken their ability to impose (or keep) other regulations contrary to Comcast/TWC/AT&T/Verizon's agenda.  Don't forget how badly your mobile carriers want to charge you more for data as well.  They straight complained about it under Obama.


I'm grateful I have charter. They're behind the times in terms of speed, but I've never been throttled and don't have a watchful eye looking down me. Cell service is a nightmare though. I'm stuck with Verizon or AT&T.. Or prepaid... But meh.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Sure.  At the last place I lived, the install guys had to come twice, and still didn't get it right after the second time.  Finally I just went into the crawlspace below, re-did everything myself, and then re-did everything upstairs and got it working perfectly.  Customer support is a nightmare every time you call, assuming you can even get a real person.  And get this: _I'm_ the lucky one supposedly because in other areas, Comcast imposes data caps for the same price I get unlimited.  Probably only because of state regulations, but the government is trying to eliminate states' rights to their own net regulations as well.


I don't know, I consider these kind of arguments to be an enigma because while the internet provided by my ISP is great, there's been fringe cases with mine, where the technicians came in reeking of marijuana and left butts in the yard of a friend of mine. Net Neutrality regulations (at least the Obama administration's anyways) aren't going to change that though. This is something I'd chalk more up to just having shitty customer service more than full on regulation violations regarding the service provided. I don't personally consider my ISP to be awful since I've never been throttled, and the worst thing they've ever done is charge an extra 5$ for "tech advancement."

So in that case I'd definitely say that's shitty service and a paying customer deserves a *fuck* of a lot better, but at the same time this is a case that can vary from state to state, or even city to city -- some can be shitty, and some can be fantastic. My question to you is what this actually has to do with net neutrality, because as bad as the story is I don't see what relevance it carries when the context is internet regulation violations.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> So in that case I'd definitely say that's shitty service and a paying customer deserves a *fuck* of a lot better, but at the same time this is a case that can vary from state to state, or even city to city -- some can be shitty, and some can be fantastic. My question to you is what this actually has to do with net neutrality, because as bad as the story is I don't see what relevance it carries when the context is internet regulation violations.


The moral of the story is that when shitty companies like Comcast and TWC get near-monopolies and then push for Net Neutrality repeal, they're obviously not doing it out of love for their fellow human being.  Nor are they doing it to introduce more competition against themselves.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> The moral of the story is that when shitty companies like Comcast and TWC get near-monopolies and then push for Net Neutrality repeal, they're obviously not doing it out of love for their fellow human being.  Nor are they doing it to introduce more competition against themselves.


No one said it was out of compassion or anything like that. No one was even arguing that. 
http://corporate.comcast.com/comcas...classification-title-ii-is-not-net-neutrality
Before you screech at me linking a corporate comcast link, read it in full, and click the sources.
Now read this part at least three times.

_We all need to step back from the partisan rhetoric that has too often impeded rational discussion on net neutrality.  There is widespread consensus on what strong net neutrality rules should look like.  It’s time for all of us to work together to protect American consumers and to advance those important principles without a misguided Title II overhang.  We are committed to getting there – and through every step of the process, we are committed to preserve net neutrality rules and to protect our customers._

The key to take from this is the partisan "us vs them" shit is getting no one anywhere. Hopefully you can agree with me on this. People are wrongly demonizing Ajit, myself, and literally anyone who is critical of the current classifications and regulations, as if we're all preaching for the internet to get murdered or some shit. Likewise, I've found in places like 4chan (which is already a shithole so this is probably to be expected) anyone who argues for net neutrality is just a reddit shill. I think there's a validity to both arguments, and that is people are taking sides on topics they do not fully understand. Computerus3r is the absolute best example.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> No one said it was out of compassion or anything like that. No one was even arguing that.
> http://corporate.comcast.com/comcas...classification-title-ii-is-not-net-neutrality
> Before you screech at me linking a corporate comcast link, read it in full, and click the sources.
> Now read this part at least three times.
> ...


They're a fucking corporation bro, this isn't about politics.  They removed part of that pledge not too long ago, none the less.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> They're a fucking corporation bro, this isn't about politics.  They removed part of that pledge not too long ago, none the less.
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ity-pledge-the-same-day-fcc-announced-repeal/


Sorry, not reading that. Comes from a corporation


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Sorry, not reading that. Comes from a corporation


Not the one controlling your access to the internet, though.  So you'd think you'd still be more critical of Comcast, they don't hold themselves to journalistic standards.  Ajit Pai (Verizon shill) has been lying through his teeth about this issue the entire time, and nobody's fooled.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Not the ones controlling your access to the internet, though.  So you'd think you'd still be more critical of Comcast, they don't hold themselves to journalistic standards.


But bro, it's from a corporation! Why should I read your link? Clearly the corporation is just trying to fuck people, duh!


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> But bro, it's from a corporation! Why should I read your link? Clearly the corporation is just trying to fuck people, duh!


Journalism usually loses money (unless it's garbage infotainment/etc), and that's the difference.  They aren't doing it out of purely capitalist motives like Comcast and Verizon and Pai are.  Fucking people over, especially in the case of Net Neutrality, increases their bottom line.  So it's really just a byproduct of the unbridled greed.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Journalism usually loses money (unless it's garbage infotainment/etc), and that's the difference.  They aren't doing it out of purely capitalist motives like Comcast and Verizon and Pai are.


Nah bro, arguments don't work when it's a corporation we're talking about. After all, all corporations are greedy and want to fuck you.

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

Hopefully my parody has put into perspective how ridiculous you're being. Whether Comcast has done stupid shit or not, them saying something that's correct doesn't mean their statement is somehow incorrect. The fact you've refused to even read the post, and look at the sources it has present demonstrates pretty damn well how fair you're going to be in any debate like this. If you're refusing to even acknowledge the points of anyone else unless they agree with you, why are you even here?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Nah bro, arguments don't work when it's a corporation we're talking about. After all, all corporations are greedy and want to fuck you.


We were discussing Comcast/TWC and other monopolistic providers, and you're honestly the very first person I've ever met willing to play devil's advocate for them and act like you don't know they're lying.  There's an (obvious) motive for Comcast lying about their stance on Net Neutrality regulations, there's no viable motive for ArsTechnica lying about Comcast.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Journalism usually loses money (unless it's garbage infotainment/etc), and that's the difference.  They aren't doing it out of purely capitalist motives like Comcast and Verizon and Pai are.  Fucking people over, especially in the case of Net Neutrality, increases their bottom line.  So it's really just a byproduct of the unbridled greed.


Plus journalists can have their reporting licenses revoked by in-house ethics committees if they're found reporting information falsely in a regular basis


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Xzi said:


> We were discussing Comcast/TWC and other monopolistic providers, and you're honestly the very first person I've ever met willing to play devil's advocate for them and act like you don't know they're lying.  There's a motive for Comcast lying about their stance on Net Neutrality regulations, there's no viable motive for ArsTechnica lying about Comcast.


If "I'm not going to get worked up because the past is very clearly evident that nothing's going to happen, or even at worst nothing hellish" means I'm somehow the devil's advocate and means I'm defending every evil act a corporation has ever done then I think you seriously should consider joining the Olympics, because with mental gymnastics of that quality you'd get a gold medal.

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



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Plus journalists can have their reporting licenses revoked by in-house ethics committees if they're found reporting information falsely in a regular basis


The FCC and FTC both say hello, with them both retaining authority on anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices. Not that you care enough about the topic to be educated on it, though.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 11, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I have a lot of things mixed up my guy
> 
> Edit: but not this apparently. I just looked it up, and Warner Bros. is the entertainment publishing company for Time Warner Inc., and Time Warner Cable and Comcast merged in 2015


Holy crap if this is true, it's a big deal. Can you send me a link please?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> We've gone through every possible argument and your cognitive dissonance has continued to show throughout all of it. I explain that nothing bad is going to happen because nothing bad happened before


See that's just a bald-faced lie.  I've already stated several times what resulted from the throttling that started occurring not long before net neutrality finally passed.  If "nothing is going to change," then why the fuck would the regulation need to change?



MaverickWellington said:


> I still can't believe you think I'm the bad guy here because I literally just keep saying "it's not going to be that bad."


I didn't say you were the bad guy, I said you were playing devil's advocate and that I was surprised anyone was willing to with Comcast.  I have a friend who works in a big Comcast building in Denver, even he won't defend this bullshit.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 11, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I still can't believe you think I'm the bad guy here because I literally just keep saying "it's not going to be that bad."



"You're an idiot Star Scream."

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...raffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/comcast-throttling-bittorrent-was-no-big-deal-fcc-says/

https://arstechnica.com/information...parently-throttles-streaming-video-to-10mbps/

http://www.therockfather.com/blog/i...ith-att-u-verse-and-youtube-no-longer-friends



So where are your facts about it it NOT going to be a problem?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 11, 2017)

Tigran said:


> "You're an idiot Star Scream."
> 
> https://www.extremetech.com/computi...raffic-even-after-its-pays-for-more-bandwidth
> 
> ...


I've literally already addressed almost all of these several pages back. If anyone is an idiot, it's you.

>Verizon throttling Netflix
No real explanation for it beyond what you're going to see for the other ones here.

>Comcast throttling bittorrent
I've bitched about this for two straight pages and yet somehow there's always some idiot who brings this up. The bittorrent thing came from users illegally torrenting software and content, and using so much bandwidth while downloading and seeding that Comcast just said "fuck off" and throttled them during peak hours to ensure the network remained stable, and had solid performance for their customers. What would you rather have? 2 kilobytes a second because a bunch of dickwavers wanna torrent the latest NIN album with no courtesy for anyone else on their network, or 2 megabytes a second while the people downloading illegal stuff don't get shit? Mind you, legitimate, legal torrents, such as linux distros, were allowed just fine.
http://hightechforum.org/fact-checking-net-neutrality-violations/ Source.

>Verizon wireless apparently throttles streaming video to 10mbps




http://hightechforum.org/fact-checking-net-neutrality-violations/
Again, posting this source since it has numerous sources linked it in and provides a frame of history for this sort of thing. Once again, Netflix and Youtube are soaking up shittons of data and an ISP is managing this so that the rest of the service can remain stable, and usable for everyone else. Is there corporate fuckery going on? Maybe. It's a possibility, but it's a possibility with everything. People only treat that possibility like it's the reality whenever companies they dislike are involved.

>rockfather link
We're doing this again. 
Same deal as 1 2 and 3.
If any of you are familiar with Doom, many universities would have to write software that banned doom, or ban Doom's network protocol because when people would go on lunch, 9/10 times, the network would be flooded and brought to it's knees from doom LAN parties. I think it's a very similar situation here. It's undeniable that Netflix and Youtube have become bandwidth sponges.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

So, before any of you prepare to call me a shill, shut up and read this in full. I'm going to actively ignore your post if you actively ignore mine. Surely if you're so correct and can demonstrate how correct you are, you can make arguments against mine, right? Right?

I'm cropping out some of the more detestable language from the image but you can verify these statements inside the document it links, which, whenever the fuck it comes back up, can be found here: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf






What this means is that ISPs that pledge to agree by these terms, and pledge to not throttle/block legal content, absolutely must uphold that, and if found to not do so, the FTC jumps their asses.






Again, the FTC gets to step in and slap their magnum dong on their heads if they do this. Act found here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act






Going back to what I said earlier. An ISP must disclose everything it's doing such as throttling and whatever (which mind you is limited to *illegal* content. Not legal. If they do any throttling of legal content, they're also getting fucked) or else it will be fucked just for failing to disclose it.

Just FAILING to disclose will get it punished on the grounds of anti-competition.






And finally the ultimate nuke that should make all you fear-mongerers shut up: If these new regulations are found to be a huge fucking issue, guess what? There's a clause that specifically says a future commission can reinstate the Title II Order, meaning that while they find the measures to return to Title 2 based on their proposal unnecessary, the option is there should it become necessary. Not only does that mean we're gonna go back to how everything is now should this be a catastrophic failure, but it also means we can improve and better the entire regulations.

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

So this brings me to one final question that has failed to be answered:

Why are there multiple ISPs supporting these rules and calling them more fair when the regulation specifically gives groups like the FTC the authority to fuck them the second they toe out of line? Do you think maybe it might just be because they won't have overbearing lawyers breathing down their necks with lawsuits over broad rulings and broad statements, and instead have a specific ruleset they have to follow? If you were given a set of rules with no specific examples or proper frame of reference, I'm sure you'd get fed the fuck up with administrators constantly stomping on your nuts for things you never knew were against the rules.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Snip
> 
> Why are there multiple ISPs supporting these rules and calling them more fair when the regulation specifically gives groups like the FTC the authority to fuck them the second they toe out of line? Do you think maybe it might just be because they won't have overbearing lawyers breathing down their necks with lawsuits over broad rulings and broad statements, and instead have a specific ruleset they have to follow? If you were given a set of rules with no specific examples or proper frame of reference, I'm sure you'd get fed the fuck up with administrators constantly stomping on your nuts for things you never knew were against the rules.


If ISPs liked to follow rules and regulations they simply wouldn't be trying to repeal this one.  I can guarantee you they have no intention of putting in new rules or regulations, they could do that without repealing NN.  The FTC right now is run by pretty much the same people that run Comcast/Verizon/etc, so your whole theory that everything will be fine hinging on them doesn't really work.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Xzi said:


> If ISPs liked to follow rules and regulations they simply wouldn't be trying to repeal this one.  I can guarantee you they have no intention of putting in new rules or regulations, they could do that without repealing NN.  The FTC right now is run by pretty much the same people that run Comcast/Verizon/etc, so your whole theory that everything will be fine hinging on them doesn't really work.


Gonna need you to shush and read my post hunnykins. Thanks.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Gonna need you to shush and read my post hunnykins. Thanks.


I did, there was nothing new or surprising about it to make me change my mind.  There are no beneficiaries of Net Neutrality repeal outside of big ISPs and mobile carriers.  None.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I did, there was nothing new or surprising about it to make me change my mind.  There are no beneficiaries of Net Neutrality repeal outside of big ISPs and mobile carriers.  None.


Where are you getting the ridiculous idea that the concept of net neutrality as a whole is being repealed? Perhaps I see why your mind doesn't change, you don't actually pay attention.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Where are you getting the ridiculous idea that the concept of net neutrality as a whole is being repealed? Perhaps I see why your mind doesn't change, you don't actually pay attention.


Title II is Net Neutrality, stop trying to play semantics with me.  Trusting megacorps that already have a bad track record on holding themselves to "promises" is quite frankly moronic.  If they knew by instinct how to be ethical, there would be no regulations required to begin with.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Holy crap if this is true, it's a big deal. Can you send me a link please?


They attempted to, but it was blocked by anti-trust laws. Still, though, they tried


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Title II is Net Neutrality, stop trying to play semantics with me.  Trusting megacorps that already have a bad track record on holding themselves to "promises" is quite frankly moronic.  If they knew by instinct how to be ethical, there would be no regulations to begin with.


"Title II is Net Neutrality"
I don't have a loud enough video of a guy laughing so just imagine someone blowing your ear drums out with laughter. 

The Title II Order is not Net Neutrality itself. It's part of the Net Neutrality philosophy. Furthermore, what's pretty fucking moronic is you showing you haven't read my post. I explained that, for example, if Comcast goes back on it's pledge against throttling and so on, it's getting fucked for anti-trust and anti-competitive practices. The FTC and FCC are now both in a position where they can regulate this stuff properly. I even had sources in my post and you still didn't read it! This is getting pathetic.

I am continuing to find it increasingly hard to have an honest debate with you because every single point I make is shrugged off with some stupid rambling about how corporations are out to get you somehow no matter what and thus any regulation would be moot.

So, sit down, shut up, and read my damn post.
https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-27#post-7733668


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 12, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> They attempted to, but it was blocked by anti-trust laws. Still, though, they tried


Good ol monopoly laws strike again  without them we'd be so much worse off in this situation


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> The Title II Order is not Net Neutrality itself. It's part of the Net Neutrality philosophy. Furthermore, what's pretty fucking moronic is you showing you haven't read my post. I explained that, for example, if Comcast goes back on it's pledge against throttling and so on, it's getting fucked for anti-trust and anti-competitive practices. The FTC and FCC are now both in a position where they can regulate this stuff properly.


I've said this so many times and you've ignored it each time. Maybe in a larger font it'll get through your head:

*VERIZON, COMCAST, AND OTHER LARGE PROVIDERS OWN THE FCC AND FTC IN 2017.*

They won't move to harm the very entities they're passing Net Neutrality repeal to benefit in the first place.  Occam's razor and all that.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 12, 2017)

You guys have been on repeat for so long now. Oh my.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I've said this so many times and you've ignored it each time. Maybe in a larger font it'll get through your head:
> 
> *VERIZON, COMCAST, AND OTHER LARGE PROVIDERS OWN THE FCC AND FTC IN 2017.*
> 
> They won't move to harm the very entities they're passing Net Neutrality repeal to benefit in the first place.  Occam's razor and all that.


Now I'm no expert on business but I'm PRETTY FUCKING SURE YOU CAN'T OWN THE FCC AS A COMPANY AND USE IT AS PART OF A BUSINESS.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

Looks like the bear's been poked.

No, you can't "own" a government office, but if you're the head of one you can very certainly use your position in your own/your previous interest's favor


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Memoir said:


> You guys have been on repeat for so long now. Oh my.


I've got nothing better to do. Debates are super fun though so I don't consider it time wasted. Besides if I can change someone's mind about all the fear mongering and paranoia campaigning I think that's my good deed for the day.

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



TotalInsanity4 said:


> Looks like the bear's been poked.
> 
> No, you can't "own" a government office, but if you're the head of one you can very certainly use it's position in your own favor


Not when there's shittons of people in it who may not agree with that, or numerous lawyers who can totally fuck you up for it, or ways to have you ejected and replaced the moment you place your pockets above your responsibilities. 

Nice try champ but arguing the position that the entire government is a corrupt pyramid scheme isn't based in reality.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Now I'm no expert on business but I'm PRETTY FUCKING SURE YOU CAN'T OWN THE FCC AS A COMPANY AND USE IT AS PART OF A BUSINESS.


JFC I shouldn't have to spell this out for you: I wasn't being literal.  Ajit Pai's (FCC chairman) last job was working for Verizon.  What other reason would he have for ignoring massive public outcry against Net Neutrality repeal?  The FTC chairman _seems_ more on the level, but he was still appointed by Trump and I doubt he'll defy Trump/Pai's will.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Xzi said:


> JFC I shouldn't have to spell this out for you: I wasn't being literal.  Ajit Pai's (FCC chairman) last job was working for Verizon.  What other reason would he have for ignoring massive public outcry against Net Neutrality repeal?  The FTC chairman _seems_ more on the level, but he was still appointed by Trump and I doubt he'll defy Trump/Pai's will.


See that's exactly what I'm talking about. You're not even trying to be fair in this, you're assuming everything is gonna be a doomsday kind of shit for the internet solely because you dislike people for arbitrary, petty reasons. Congratulations. You're no better than a 16 year old girl.

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

"The FCC and FTC are owned by ISPS!"
"well you can't do that"
"WTF I WASN'T BEING LITERALLY U IDIOT!!!!!!!!!! PLUS i mean dont wanna admit since it ruins my stupid point but the FTC seems okay but ehhh they're all bought out U IDIOTT!!!"

Fucking lmao holy shit


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> See that's exactly what I'm talking about. You're not even trying to be fair in this, you're assuming everything is gonna be a doomsday kind of shit for the internet solely because you dislike people for arbitrary, petty reasons. Congratulations. You're no better than a 16 year old girl.


No you moron, I just hate that you're underselling the potential consequences for no good/logical reason.  People should be less worried and more proactive in reaching out to their reps, donating to the EFF, protesting, doing whatever the fuck you can.  Not continuing to be complacent, and from my perspective, you're selling complacency.

You'll probably rag on me for quoting RatM here, but: "settle for nothing now, and we'll settle for nothing later."



MaverickWellington said:


> "The FCC and FTC are owned by ISPS!"
> "well you can't do that"
> "WTF I WASN'T BEING LITERALLY U IDIOT!!!!!!!!!! PLUS i mean dont wanna admit since it ruins my stupid point but the FTC seems okay but ehhh they're all bought out U IDIOTT!!!"
> 
> Fucking lmao holy shit


And _I'm _the one being childish here.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

So since everyone is focusing on Ajit Pai, why is no one focusing on Joseph Simons? You know, the antitrust attorney? It seems to me that these two were picked according to their ability and history in law regarding the internet rather than where they came from. I don't know about you but I'd hire people based on their ability and nothing else because nothing else actually matters besides maybe criminal history, which Ajit Pai and Simons both seem to have a clean one of.

I thought Trump appointing someone means they're corporate lapdogs yet people only focus on the head of the FCC. Wonder why that is? Really makes you think!

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



Xzi said:


> No you moron, I just hate that you're underselling the potential consequences for no good/logical reason.  People should be less worried and more proactive in reaching out to their reps, donating to the EFF, protesting, doing whatever the fuck you can.  Not continuing to be complacent, and from my perspective, you're selling complacency.
> 
> You'll probably rag on me for quoting RatM here, but: "settle for nothing now, and we'll settle for nothing later."


People should be less worried and quit caring as much until they sit down, read the proposal, and so on. You're literally trying to downplay, or flat out disregard my arguments, because they're not found in outrage, but in reason. Why the fuck do you consider my "complacency" a problem when what I'm arguing is that people should be informed before being outrageous, and that what they're being outrageous over isn't even grounded in reality? For fuck's sake dude, stop trying to be a snarky cunt, and go read the post, and the PDF I linked. You're disregarding everything on the fallacious grounds of "well they could just be lying to you about everything" to which you have no fucking reason to ever believe *anything*.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> So since everyone is focusing on Ajit Pai, why is no one focusing on Joseph Simons? You know, the antitrust attorney? It seems to me that these two were picked according to their ability and history in law regarding the internet rather than where they came from. I don't know about you but I'd hire people based on their ability and nothing else because nothing else actually matters besides maybe criminal history, which Ajit Pai and Simons both seem to have a clean one of.
> 
> I thought Trump appointing someone means they're corporate lapdogs yet people only focus on the head of the FCC. Wonder why that is? Really makes you think!


Dafuq are you even talking about at this point?  Nobody said they were (convicted) criminals, just corporate shills.  No doubt they're tax evaders to some extent, but what are business ethics anyway?  



MaverickWellington said:


> People should be less worried and quit caring as much until they sit down, read the proposal, and so on. You're literally trying to downplay, or flat out disregard my arguments, because they're not found in outrage, but in reason. Why the fuck do you consider my "complacency" a problem when what I'm arguing is that people should be informed before being outrageous, and that what they're being outrageous over isn't even grounded in reality?


The simple version of the proposal is allowing for "fast lanes" and "slow lanes."  They'd like you to think "slow lanes" are the same speed you're currently getting on websites and download traffic, etc.  When it becomes expedient, however, "slow lanes" will actually be slow, and "fast lanes" will be the only normal ones.  Of course, they removed all this info from their website(s), and I already posted that, but keep ignoring shit.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Dafuq are you even talking about at this point?  Nobody said they were (convicted) criminals, just corporate shills.  No doubt they're tax evaders to some extent, but what are business ethics anyway?


Pedantic again. Stop that. I know it's hard for you to read but if you plan to debate with someone get your mother or something to read for you since evidently you can't. What I said was that ultimately when hiring someone, nothing else really matters beyond ability and criminal history. If their history is clean, and their work history speaks for their ability, I say it's pretty fair to hire them. Considering a Verizon lawyer would be heavily involved with all sorts of net neutrality lawsuits and analyzing laws, I think someone with Ajit Pai's background would be a perfect pick for the FCC. Sure you have the concerns about conflict of interest which is a fair one to have, but acting like he's some corporate shill trying to kill the internet is just fallacious. Read the PDF and tell me again what he's doing. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf

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

Furthermore the fuck are you talking about? You keep bringing up stupid shit out of left field and focusing on stuff that doesn't matter in some weird desperate attempt to deflect arguments that poke holes in your paranoia. The argument "corporations could just be lying to you so never trust them on anything!" is ironic as hell to hear from someone whose signature is lined with various devices from various corporations. They reserve the right to disable and/or straight up brick your devices at any time, yet you evidently seem to trust them *not* to do that. You said it yourself. They don't care about you. They care about your money. Nothing more. So why buy anything like that knowing you're potentially supporting such a practice?

Your response to this thought experiment will be one of three;
1) Disregarding it entirely
2) Try to argue that not ALL corporations are like that (despite saying several pages earlier that it's what corporations do)
3) Accuse me of being a shill while disregarding my point and instead focusing on some random word I used and pretend that was the whole post


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Pedantic again. Stop that. I know it's hard for you to read but if you plan to debate with someone get your mother or something to read for you since evidently you can't. What I said was that ultimately when hiring someone, nothing else really matters beyond ability and criminal history. If their history is clean, and their work history speaks for their ability, I say it's pretty fair to hire them. Considering a Verizon lawyer would be heavily involved with all sorts of net neutrality lawsuits and analyzing laws, I think someone with Ajit Pai's background would be a perfect pick for the FCC. Sure you have the concerns about conflict of interest which is a fair one to have, but acting like he's some corporate shill trying to kill the internet is just fallacious. Read the PDF and tell me again what he's doing. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf


Dude, ultimately what this comes down to is you believe Ajit Pai.  A guy with one of the most punchable faces ever, the most obvious conflicts of interest, and a guy that *nobody else believes*.  Everybody in the tech world rejects this repeal wholeheartedly.  They don't buy Ajit Pai's bullshit and neither should you.  He rejected the majority opinion on this issue already.

https://arstechnica.com/information...-false-description-of-internet-inventors-say/





(Ultimate derp face ensues)


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Dude, ultimately what this comes down to is you believe Ajit Pai.  A guy with one of the most punchable faces ever, the most obvious conflicts of interest, and a guy that *nobody else believes*.  Everybody in the tech world rejects this repeal wholeheartedly.  They don't buy Ajit Pai's bullshit and neither should you.  He rejected the majority opinion on this issue already.
> 
> https://arstechnica.com/information...-false-description-of-internet-inventors-say/


Attacking someone based on their looks is just the ultimate form of scumminess. Unless you're ready to post your face in comparison as if you're better, quit stooping so low. You're absolutely reprehensible as a human being.

The majority opinion, as this thread has proven, is based upon a fear campaign of "if you're not mad like we are, you are not informed," making this whole thing sound like it's a much bigger, much worse issue than it really is. How hard is it to comprehend that this is mostly propaganda? It comes from a radical misunderstanding of what he's planning to do. You ever notice how I'm the one arguing specific paragraphs from the document -- which was not written by Ajit Pai alone, mind you -- and you accuse of me being the only person who isn't outraged about this?

You've owned yourself. Congratulations. You've basically implied that the people who don't trust this guy and are mad at him are the ones who haven't read anything other than propaganda. I mean, it's right, so congrats on you for saying something right for once. Not everyone in the tech world rejects the repeal. I've got a game developer friend who wholly supports it. A musician doing the music for the game also supports it. You know why? Because unlike you, we can fucking read.

The deluded like yourself assume that because a *possibility* is present, it means the possibility is the reality. That's not right. Sure, Ajit Pai *COULD* fuck the internet, just like Trump *COULD* launch a nuclear strike on his own country in some suicide move or some shit. There is no evidence showing that he intends to destroy the internet, and why the hell you think the FCC would propose laws that you say they'd actively ignore and refuse to enforce is beyond me. It doesn't make any sense. If the FCC truly did not give a shit, they wouldn't do anything at all. This proposal would not exist. Someone clearly trying to let corporations do whatever they want would never make a proposal that requires any throttling of legal content result in punishment for the ISP, and that the ISP must state they throttle illegal content or be punished regardless of what they're throttling and how illegal it is.

Seriously, if you were someone who were a shill and bought out, the fuck would you do? Sit there and make shittons of laws, or do nothing? Because I'd sure as hell do nothing, because making laws that people down the line could use to regulate ISPs that misbehave would end up fucking them, and through extension me, instead of the consumer, like you swear they will.

Quit being ridiculous.


----------



## tehrzky (Dec 12, 2017)

welcome to the philippines internet. slow internet, data capping, no unlimited. and you will have so many promo to choose from they will sell you that every kind of promo ex. 1week 3gb = 30usd,  and no more netflix and chilling because you will now a limited internet.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

tehrzky said:


> welcome to the philippines internet. slow internet, data capping, no unlimited. and you will have so many promo to choose from they will sell you that every kind of promo ex. 1week 3gb = 30usd,  and no more netflix and chilling because you will now a limited internet.


No you won't. They could have done that since long before the Title II Order yet never did. How mysterious


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 12, 2017)

tehrzky said:


> welcome to the philippines internet. slow internet, data capping, no unlimited. and you will have so many promo to choose from they will sell you that every kind of promo ex. 1week 3gb = 30usd,  and no more netflix and chilling because you will now a limited internet.


That's not how it works.. ~. ~


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 12, 2017)

Damn the last few pages of this thread look like a battleground. . . 

IMO this is an important problem but it's not worth getting too heated over. We all have different views on government regulation, the internet and such


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Attacking someone based on their looks is just the ultimate form of scumminess. Unless you're ready to post your face in comparison as if you're better, quit stooping so low. You're absolutely reprehensible as a human being.


Oh fuck off.  Resorting to concern trolling now?  And I thought I was the "bleeding heart liberal" in this debate.  Make up your goddamn mind.



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Damn the last few pages of this thread look like a battleground. . .
> 
> IMO this is an important problem but it's not worth getting too heated over. We all have different views on government regulation, the internet and such


We do?  We're using the internet now, you'd think we'd all want to keep accessing it as-is.  _You'd think._


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Oh fuck off.  Resorting to concern trolling now?  And I thought I was the "bleeding heart liberal" in this debate.  Make up your goddamn mind.


You missed like four paragraphs. Shut up and go read.





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



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Damn the last few pages of this thread look like a battleground. . .
> 
> IMO this is an important problem but it's not worth getting too heated over. We all have different views on government regulation, the internet and such


I didn't intend for it to be heated. You can see in my initial posts that I was mostly civil about it -- maybe crass and profane, but not derogatory or hateful towards the people that disagreed -- yet because I dare to say this isn't something people should be terrified or even anxious over, I'm apparently a "concern troll" that's "selling complacency"


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> You missed like four paragraphs. Shut up and go read.


ROFL!  Yeah, I'm going to read four paragraphs of toxic garbage after _you _accused _me_ of stooping too low.  I don't fucking think so kid.  At this point I don't know who but a paid shill pursues this argument for so long.  "Net Neutrality repeal is fine" is a fucking non-starter.  You're some rando on the internet, and the people who founded the internet view this completely contrary to you.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Xzi said:


> We do?  We're using the internet now, you'd think we'd all want to keep accessing it as-is.  _You'd think._


I don't want to access the internet as is. The throttling, bare minimum, garbage service and garbage support needs to be fixed. I want a much better internet and the FCC's proposal is going to give us that. You can't tell me you want it as-is while two pages back you were bitching non stop about your issues with Comcast. You're a bloody hypocrite.

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



Xzi said:


> ROFL!  Yeah, I'm going to read four paragraphs of toxic garbage after _you _accused _me_ of stooping too low.  I don't fucking think so kid.  At this point I don't know who but a paid shill pursues this argument for so long.  "Net Neutrality repeal is fine" is a fucking non-starter.  You're some rando on the internet, and the people who founded the internet view this completely contrary to you.


"I'm gonna disregard 4 paragraphs of stuff I disagree with because you called me out on something petty I did" is a strange calling card of yours. You've done this numerous times here. I'm not surprised but man oh man do I get more and more disappointed.

It takes two to tango, champ. By accusing me of being a shill with the line "I don't know who but a paid shill pursues this argument for so long" you are accusing yourself, and anyone else responding to you or me in this thread of being a shill as well.

"You said a thing I disagree with, therefore your entire arguments, points, evidence, reasoning, and everything in-between don't matter, because other people disagree!"

I didn't know the factual nature of a statement was determined solely upon how many people agreed with it. I guess any propaganda is true now if it makes people believe in it, right?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I don't want to access the internet as is. The throttling, bare minimum, garbage service and garbage support needs to be fixed. I want a much better internet and the FCC's proposal is going to give us that. You can't tell me you want it as-is while two pages back you were bitching non stop about your issues with Comcast. You're a bloody hypocrite.


See, I agree with you on some of this, but the repeal only makes things worse, not better.  There are two near-monopoly ISPs/cell providers left in the US, and you expect *less *regulation will improve things.  That's a cognitive dissonance.  They already stole billions in taxpayer money (subsidies) to install broadband infrastructure that they "never got around" to installing.  Now you're telling me Comcast blocking Google Fiber from setting up in my area and then throttling my speeds (that part is pre/post-repeal, not while NN is in place) is a good thing for me.  Obviously I don't buy it.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Xzi said:


> See, I agree with you on some of this, but the repeal only makes things worse, not better.  There are two near-monopoly ISPs/cell providers left in the US, and you expect *less *regulation will improve things.  That's a cognitive dissonance.  They already stole billions in taxpayer money (subsidies) to install broadband infrastructure that they "never got around" to installing.  Now you're telling me Comcast blocking Google Fiber and then throttling my speeds (that part is pre/post-repeal, not while NN is in place) is a good thing for me.  Obviously I don't buy it.


"The appeal only makes it worse, not better"
Well anytime you wanna stop smoking yourself retarded and read the proposal and tell me how it's about to get worse, and point out those examples, go for it. While you're at it, you can put your money where your mouth is (instead of your foot) and show me where I said Comcast blocking Google Fiber and throttling your speeds was a good thing. The most I've said is that it's a necessary evil. Seeing how you can't argue for shit though I think Comcast isolating you from the internet as a whole would be a good thing, because you clearly aren't using it correctly.


----------



## tehrzky (Dec 12, 2017)

Memoir said:


> That's not how it works.. ~. ~



but it will someday. thats the first step.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

tehrzky said:


> but it will someday. thats the first step.


No, it won't. You're pulling a xzi. Stop that. The internet has never reached that point in the US, or even the UK, and in the few times it might have in the UK, there's so many fucking ISPs over there that you can just switch to another one. Textbook capitalism, baby.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Well anytime you wanna stop smoking yourself retarded and read the proposal and tell me how it's about to get worse, and point out those examples, go for it.


The proposal takes the internet out of Title II regulations.  That's literally all I need to know.  From there you trust Ajit Pai, an admitted corporate shill, at his word to keep (HIS) corporations from doing bad things now and in the future.  I do not.  Here's where we cannot reconcile our opinions, and it's really because you don't accept reality.  Sorry.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Xzi said:


> The proposal takes the internet out of Title II regulations.  That's literally all I need to know.  From there you trust Ajit Pai, an admitted corporate shill, at his word to keep (HIS) corporations from doing bad things now and in the future.  I do not.  Here's where we cannot reconcile our opinions, and it's really because you don't accept reality.  Sorry.


That's like getting your news exclusively by reading headlines. I hope I don't need to point out what a stupid argument you've made.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 12, 2017)

Is that troll still here? Must be getting paid.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 12, 2017)

tehrzky said:


> but it will someday. thats the first step.


Only when a monopoly comes into effect. There's no reason for ISPs here to up and switch to that type of service.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> Is that troll still here? Must be getting paid.



Well, he was gone, but he came back to post a video about "The First Honest Cable Company."

Shame, kinda liked it here without him.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> That's like getting your news exclusively by reading headlines. I hope I don't need to point out what a stupid argument you've made.


I've said all I need to say, I've summarized our positions nicely.  The "reading headlines" thing is a cop-out.  It's not like we needed Pai to admit he was a shill, but he did it anyway.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Well, he was gone, but he came back to post a video about "The First Honest Cable Company."
> 
> Shame, kinda liked it here without him.


Jus keep drinking that kool-aid lol


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> Jus keep drinking that kool-aid lol



Drinking the kool-aid, as a phrase, means that you're a blind follower of something, know nothing of the topic and only what people tell you about it. So when you're repeatedly posting a video telling you what to think, that's pretty ironic.

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



Xzi said:


> I've said all I need to say, I've summarized our positions nicely.  The "reading headlines" thing is a cop-out.  It's not like we needed Pai to admit he was a shill, but he did it anyway.


No, it's not a cop-out, it's a point that puts your non-arguments into perspective. Someone who will see something controversial, and stop there, when they have like 100 more pages to read, and then base their entire argument upon the outrage that follows is not someone who should be trying to persuade anyone. You're so self-unaware.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 12, 2017)

Keep drinking that kool-aid


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> Keep drinking that kool-aid



You're like 13 lol


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)




----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

48 hours until the internet is better


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> 48 hours until the internet is better



Citation needed

And what information are you basing this off of? How do you know:

- That sites won't be throttled/censored
- That there will be tiered packages for prioritized internet
- That places like GBA Temp are unaffected
- That there won't be any repercussions at all

I really want to know how this will or won't be better.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Citation needed
> 
> And what information are you basing this off of? How do you know:
> 
> ...


Here's some citation needed:
How do you know

-They will be throttled/censored
-That there will be tiered packages
-Places like GBA temp will be affected
-That there will be negative repercussions that will outweigh the positives

I encourage you to read my post, which breaks down specific parts of the proposal, instead of the fallacious shit that's being spread around on all sorts of notoriously biased websites like Gizmodo.

https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-24#post-7733668

Read the post in full. Every part of it, every explanation, and then peak into the PDF, and search for the parts I point out to verify they are there. Then tell me why the FCC would propose rules like this if their plan was to make things worse by...proposing stuff that makes things better? Seriously the only """counter""" """argument""" I've seen against the evidence I post is "w-w-well it's a corporation so they're clearly gonna be bad" from paranoid people like Xzi, which isn't an argument nor a valid counter. Hopefully you can tell me how all the ridiculous paranoia about this proposal is justified because so far no one has made an argument that isn't "you should be paranoid because I'm paranoid about everything"

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

Furthermore, if you don't have any solid evidence from US history (no, other countries do not count because they aren't our country, and if they do count, then the UK *not* having this problem counts and thus either balances out companies like Portugal or whatever with their awful internet practices as a zero-sum argument.) then there's nothing to fear with this. Too many people are letting themselves stay paranoid and outrageous when there's no evidence that supports such a reaction. If there were, I'd be screaming with everyone else, probably louder. But I'm not. Because there isn't.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 12, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Citation needed
> 
> And what information are you basing this off of? How do you know:
> 
> ...


just ignore him. he's a shill.

he literally opened an account here to spread propaganda.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> just ignore him. he's a shill.
> 
> he literally opened an account here to spread propaganda.


Actually my first posts here were about help with a 3DS XL. This is a debate I happen to be passionate about, because it has a similar context to debates I've taken interest in, like the ones surrounding Trump's election. I heavily dislike him as a president for stupid shit like his tax cuts and overly aggressive presentation but it's undeniable that anyone saying he's a nazi with plans to gas the gays and deport the non-whites -- which were legitimate fears people had because of (you guessed it) more media manipulation and outrage culture -- is misinformed.

Similarly, the people acting like Ajit Pai is an evil turbohitler trying to kill the entire internet when the FCC's very proposal demonstrates the opposite, and that it's clearly demonstrated that capitalism would cover us even if something bad were possible anyways are acting out of emotion, and lack of reason, not of logic, understanding, and being well-informed on the topic. 

We're talking about a campaign here that focuses on telling kids and teens that if they're not part of the big peer group raising hell, they don't know anything about the topic. Okay, so now they're raising hell, and they still don't know shit about it. There's multiple people in this thread like randomizer for example who don't really know what's going to happen either way because of the ridiculous amount of misinformation and dishonesty. Anyone who knows what propaganda looks like can tell very clearly that this "net neutrality" campaign against the FCC is the textbook definition of propaganda. Take the uninformed masses, and weaponize them.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Actually my first posts here were about help with a 3DS XL. This is a debate I happen to be passionate about, because it has a similar context to debates I've taken interest in, like the ones surrounding Trump's election. I heavily dislike him as a president for stupid shit like his tax cuts and overly aggressive presentation but it's undeniable that anyone saying he's a nazi with plans to gas the gays and deport the non-whites -- which were legitimate fears people had because of (you guessed it) more media manipulation and outrage culture -- is misinformed.
> 
> Similarly, the people acting like Ajit Pai is an evil turbohitler trying to kill the entire internet when the FCC's very proposal demonstrates the opposite, and that it's clearly demonstrated that capitalism would cover us even if something bad were possible anyways are acting out of emotion, and lack of reason, not of logic, understanding, and being well-informed on the topic.
> 
> We're talking about a campaign here that focuses on telling kids and teens that if they're not part of the big peer group raising hell, they don't know anything about the topic. Okay, so now they're raising hell, and they still don't know shit about it. There's multiple people in this thread like randomizer for example who don't really know what's going to happen either way because of the ridiculous amount of misinformation and dishonesty. Anyone who knows what propaganda looks like can tell very clearly that this "net neutrality" campaign against the FCC is the textbook definition of propaganda. Take the uninformed masses, and weaponize them.


more verbose mumbo jumbo to confuse a simple "equality" issue. 
Let's get rid of internet equality because "insert lots of words here" <----- this is your argument lol


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> more verbose mumbo jumbo to confuse a simple "equality" issue.
> Let's get rid of internet equality because "insert lots of words here" <----- this is your argument lol


0/10, apply yourself, failtroll.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> 0/10, apply yourself, failtroll.


sounds like you're starting to crack. a 90 percent reduction in your word volume. lmao


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> sounds like you're starting to crack. a 90 percent reduction in your word volume. lmao


And yet it's still above your average and level of competence.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 12, 2017)

Well at least it's confirmed you're not a shill. You really are just drinking the corporate Kool-aid in your white cup.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> Well at least it's confirmed you're not a shill. You really are just drinking the corporate Kool-aid in your white cup.


How though? You can't really accuse me of something while disregarding all of my arguments for my stance. Surely you'd whine and moan if I did the same to you.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 12, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> Well at least it's confirmed you're not a shill. You really are just drinking the corporate Kool-aid in your white cup.


Then what kind of kool-aid are you drinking? You're not exactly one to talk when your arguments are based on pure speculation. Then you turn around and result to childish insults when you've run out of anything to say that remotely sounds educated. Go back to spreading your propaganda in quiet. You have no place here.

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



the_randomizer said:


> Citation needed
> 
> And what information are you basing this off of? How do you know:
> 
> ...


You don't. All we have is speculation around all sides. For good or bad. We don't know what damage this may cause. If any. That's something that bothers me, personally. No companies have promised anything, for either side. No word from any corporate official. All we can assume is that they'll either better themselves for their customers or further partake in corporate greed.


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 12, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Then what kind of kool-aid are you drinking? You're not exactly one to talk when your arguments are based on pure speculation. Then you turn around and result to childish insults when you've run out of anything to say that remotely sounds educated. Go back to spreading your propaganda in quiet. You have no place here.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


What I know is that my internet works perfectly well as it is right now. I get fast access to alternative news sites and i'm pretty sure that's the first thing that's going to get censored or throttled first.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Then what kind of kool-aid are you drinking? You're not exactly one to talk when your arguments are based on pure speculation. Then you turn around and result to childish insults when you've run out of anything to say that remotely sounds educated. Go back to spreading your propaganda in quiet. You have no place here.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


We DO know that the reason ISPs were placed under Title II in the first place is because Verizon tried to sue to do everything we're worried they're going to do if NN is removed, though


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

Memoir said:


> You don't. All we have is speculation around all sides. For good or bad. We don't know what damage this may cause. If any. That's something that bothers me, personally. No companies have promised anything, for either side. No word from any corporate official. All we can assume is that they'll either better themselves for their customers or further partake in corporate greed.


Well actually, I do. 

https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-24#post-7733668

Shown here in this post, and my previous post, throttling of legal content is going to be mandated against by the FCC. As is blocking, censorship, and so on. Content must remain neutral and fair in presentation and access, and I have numerous paragraphs cited (with the PDF that contains the proposal linked for verification) that support this.

Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, ISPs are saying they support the removal of the state-jurisdiction for net neutrality rules, which even if they were removed wouldn't stop the FCC and FTC from both having the jurisdiction to punish them for any violations of the FCC proposals. The proposal is put in place so that the FTC will have plenty of power alongside the FCC to mandate against shit behavior that ISPs have become notorious for, both for justified reasons, and for unjustified reasons. 

What I ask you is this -- What do you see in this proposal that actually looks all that negative, and if you believe the proposal is just a fake one done to garner public support and then turn around and do nothing to get money, why would they waste time, money, and effort making a proposal when the FCC, were it so corrupt as people claim, could sit on their asses and just collect money in legal fees by letting ISPs get away with anything?

The head of the FTC, mind you, is a lawyer whose background is in this exact kind of debate, specifically on the side against anti-trust abuse by companies. 

With the information presented, and the lack of convincing, solid evidence of the contrary, I believe the proposal will benefit the internet as a whole and does not present even half of the threat that people pretend it does, let alone all of it.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> What I know is that my internet works perfectly well as it is right now. I get fast access to alternative news sites and i'm pretty sure that's the first thing that's going to get censored or throttled first.


Erm... be careful with those "alternative news sites." I agree with your position, but not the reason you hold it


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> We DO know that the reason ISPs were placed under Title II in the first place is because Verizon tried to sue to do everything we're worried they're going to do if NN is removed, though


Yes but the proposal I've linked sets down hard rules saying they can't do the stuff they've sued to do in the first place, so why exactly is this a problem? You're focusing on the removal of the title II classification, and are completely ignorant of the rules that it will have replacing it.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Well actually, I do.
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-24#post-7733668
> 
> ...



Oh, right. You mentioned that. I'm just over the general fear mongering at this point. Reading some of this debate is fun, though.. Up until you get to the toxicity. Can't be helped I guess.


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 12, 2017)

I'm not worried bout Net Nutrality .......after all I'm banking on Kim Jon Un Trump and Putin ending civilization


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Yes but the proposal I've linked sets down hard rules saying they can't do the stuff they've sued to do in the first place, so why exactly is this a problem? You're focusing on the removal of the title II classification, and are completely ignorant of the rules that it will have replacing it.


I'm also focusing on the fact that, as per your post, there's absolutely nothing holding ISPs to staying neutral under the "Restoring Internet Freedom" bill. You specifically pointed out that ISPs that choose to make a commitment, such as "Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc" have to uphold their pledges, otherwise the "FTC jumps on their asses." And that sounds great on paper, except all that an ISP would have to do to get around that is remove their pledge to uphold neutrality, which Comcast has already done. It's not difficult for an ISP to get around any new regulations imposed by this bill, and that's not surprising, considering, again, Ajit Pai was the lawyer for Verizon under a period of time where they were trying their hardest to skirt regulations to gain money.

Edit: I also should mention that you've been on my ignore list, so I have to manually check to see if there are new messages from you. If you're actually gonna play nice and actually have a civilized conversation, though, I'm game


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 12, 2017)

3 dick heads with nukes at their disposal question is who will fire first?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

chrisrlink said:


> 3 dick heads with nukes at their disposal question is who will fire first?


Correction; 2 dickheads with nukes and itchy fingers, and one global superpower each that will press their respective buttons as well depending which dickhead fires first


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 12, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Correction; 2 dickheads with nukes and itchy fingers, and one global superpower each that will press their respective buttons as well depending which dickhead fires first



I'm hoping NK's government gets nuked first, by their own hand.


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 12, 2017)

still same result bye bye humanity

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

on a second note did they say anything on VPN's


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I'm hoping NK's government gets nuked first, by their own hand.


China would find a way to blame the US. I do not EVER wish that the tension of a nuclear cold war ever happen within the current generation, but we're rapidly heading there with every day that passes

In other news, various intelligence agencies have said that they've seen stuff consistent with biological weapons experimentation going on in NK currently, so that's exciting


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 12, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> China would find a way to blame the US. I do not EVER wish that the tension of a nuclear cold war ever happen within the current generation, but we're rapidly heading there with every day that passes
> 
> In other news, various intelligence agencies have said that they've seen stuff consistent with biological weapons experimentation going on in NK currently, so that's exciting



All the more reason NK needs to nuke its own government to the depths of hell.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

chrisrlink said:


> still same result bye bye humanity
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> on a second note did they say anything on VPN's


VPNs are blockable, and if I'm not mistaken ISPs have been wanting to do away with them for a while, but the public outcry would be too great


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 12, 2017)

so we're mirroring russia now? fuck


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

chrisrlink said:


> so we're mirroring russia now? fuck


No, not quite. In Russia the government mandates that various websites be blocked, whereas under the Restoring Internet Freedom bill, ISPs get to create "slow lanes" for lower-paying customers that throttle/block whatever they want to.

So like Russia, but with more Capitalism(TM)


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Yes but the proposal I've linked sets down hard rules saying they can't do the stuff they've sued to do in the first place, so why exactly is this a problem? You're focusing on the removal of the title II classification, and are completely ignorant of the rules that it will have replacing it.


without it being tittle II the FCC cannot enforce any rules on the isp's


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

Here's a great video (more importantly, with sources) that Doug Walker just put up:


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> 48 hours until the internet is better


At best it'll just not change, but I don't think it'll get better.

No change is our best hope.

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

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4585

There's a bill in Congress that, if passed, would stop this mess. Hopefully it passes.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I'm also focusing on the fact that, as per your post, there's absolutely nothing holding ISPs to staying neutral under the "Restoring Internet Freedom" bill. You specifically pointed out that ISPs that choose to make a commitment, such as "Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, etc" have to uphold their pledges, otherwise the "FTC jumps on their asses." And that sounds great on paper, except all that an ISP would have to do to get around that is remove their pledge to uphold neutrality, which Comcast has already done. It's not difficult for an ISP to get around any new regulations imposed by this bill, and that's not surprising, considering, again, Ajit Pai was the lawyer for Verizon under a period of time where they were trying their hardest to skirt regulations to gain money.
> 
> Edit: I also should mention that you've been on my ignore list, so I have to manually check to see if there are new messages from you. If you're actually gonna play nice and actually have a civilized conversation, though, I'm game


Why would I care if I'm on your ignore list? You clearly read my posts anyways 

Care to point out some examples of ISPs being able to go around the restrictions? Because so far you've not presented any that are factual. "But they could just remove their pledge" doesn't actually hold any value when throttling, restricting, and so on access to legal websites, and also those of competitors, as shown in my post breaking everything down demonstrates very clearly that regardless of their pledge they will all be held to the exact same rules. The title II reclassification is not "we're gonna get rid of all the rules and let ISPs regulate themselves," but rather "We're getting rid of the current rules, replacing them with new rules that specifically regulate the actions that broad rulings in the past have not properly regulated".

The problem is this shit.




Every where you go you don't have anyone actually showing you what the FCC is voting to repeal specifically, unless you go to the FCC's website, which is being DDOS'd to hell and back so half the time you can barely access it. EFF isn't giving you the full context, they aren't showing what's a good idea and what's a bad idea. They're telling you "LOOK AT THIS MAN, BE SCARED. HATE THIS MAN." Gizmodo, which mind you is so notorious for this exact shit, is doing the same, and is putting up ridiculous articles trying to make Ajit Pai look bad for telling jokes at a FCC dinner. Vice, Discord, Google, Twitter, and so on are all screeching at the same time yet presenting absolutely zero evidence.

Have you read anything in the proposal yourself? Like, at all? Or have you looked at some third-party site (such as a web-journalist's piece on it) that told you "BE AFRAID, BE VERY, VERY AFRAID?" Ask yourself this right now, "If I haven't read anything from the FCC's proposal, and are instead believing everything people tell me, why do I get involved?"

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



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> At best it'll just not change, but I don't think it'll get better.
> 
> No change is our best hope.
> 
> ...


Hopefully it crashes and burns so that the FCC can turn the industry on it's head and end up saving it.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Why would I care if I'm on your ignore list? You clearly read my posts anyways
> 
> Care to point out some examples of ISPs being able to go around the restrictions? Because so far you've not presented any that are factual. "But they could just remove their pledge" doesn't actually hold any value when throttling, restricting, and so on access to legal websites, and also those of competitors, as shown in my post breaking everything down demonstrates very clearly that regardless of their pledge they will all be held to the exact same rules. The title II reclassification is not "we're gonna get rid of all the rules and let ISPs regulate themselves," but rather "We're getting rid of the current rules, replacing them with new rules that specifically regulate the actions that broad rulings in the past have not properly regulated".
> 
> ...



ISPs going around restrictions, hmm, let me think. Oh, I know, remember when the FCC tried to sue Comcast because they had restrictive bandwidth caps that customers didn't even know about, but then the FCC lost the case and Comcast still doesn't tell people about the caps. Yeah, that. Comcast/Xfinity can fuck itself.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> ISPs going around restrictions, hmm, let me think. Oh, I know, remember when the FCC tried to sue Comcast because they had restrictive bandwidth caps that customers didn't even know about, but then the FCC lost the case and Comcast still doesn't tell people about the caps. Yeah, that. Comcast/Xfinity can fuck itself.


Which because of this, the FCC's proposal includes that they must disclose that exact behavior. So yes, the bill is going to make these things better.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 12, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> ISPs going around restrictions, hmm, let me think. Oh, I know, remember when the FCC tried to sue Comcast because they had restrictive bandwidth caps that customers didn't even know about, but then the FCC lost the case and Comcast still doesn't tell people about the caps. Yeah, that. Comcast/Xfinity can fuck itself.


Can confirm, they're the worst

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



MaverickWellington said:


> Which because of this, the FCC's proposal includes that they must disclose that exact behavior. So yes, the bill is going to make these things better.



I'd rather they just stop all together, and I'm sure most consumers agree


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Which because of this, the FCC's proposal includes that they must disclose that exact behavior. So yes, the bill is going to make these things better.



I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 12, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I'll believe it when I see it.


Even if it happens, they won't stop - they just have to be more clear about the things they fuck us over for.

If they literally made a list on their website called "the official list of bullshit we engage in", they would be "transparent" about it and wouldn't have to change a thing about what they do.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 12, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Even if it happens, they won't stop - they just have to be more clear about the things they fuck us over for.
> 
> If they literally made a list on their website called "the official list of bullshit we engage in", they would be "transparent" about it and wouldn't have to change a thing about what they do.



Gee, that's the most reassuring thing I've read *Sigh* son of a bitch this sucks.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Even if it happens, they won't stop - they just have to be more clear about the things they fuck us over for.
> 
> If they literally made a list on their website called "the official list of bullshit we engage in", they would be "transparent" about it and wouldn't have to change a thing about what they do.


Wrong. They have to make that list, and it is restricted to ILLEGAL content. Illegal content _*only.*_ Again, I made a huge post breaking this stuff down. https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-24#post-7733668


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 12, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Gee, that's the most reassuring thing I've read *Sigh* son of a bitch this sucks.


There's a bill in Congress to halt the decision, so there's still some hope. 

It's also completely possible the FCC will get sued immediately following the decision, and they might have to resolve the lawsuits before implementing the repeal.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Gee, that's the most reassuring thing I've read *Sigh* son of a bitch this sucks.


You haven't seen any evidence that says it's going to suck yet you're already saying it's bad? Come on dude. Get real.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> You haven't seen any evidence that says it's going to suck yet you're already saying it's bad? Come on dude. Get real.


Speaking from a similar experience, Comcast isn't a good company to its customers. The reason both he and I stick to it is because there's no one better. 

I don't trust them to do what's best for us.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Speaking from a similar experience, Comcast isn't a good company to its customers. The reason both he and I stick to it is because there's no one better.
> 
> I don't trust them to do what's best for us.


This isn't Comcast that's mandating ISPs. This is the FCC and FTC combined. If, say, the FCC were bought out like people are disingenuously claiming, the FTC, which has not been bought out (as the current chairman of it is a lawyer who specializes in and has a history of anti-trust violation cases) can still come in and fuck up the ISPs thanks to the regulations put in place.

Sorry man but it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. This is either going to be harmless, or a legitimately good thing.

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

I seriously don't understand you people. You hate throttling, you hate blocking, you hate censorship, and so on, and so when a bill comes in that removes the old rules that _*have clearly not blocked this shit at all*_ you start protesting because you...want it to stay the same? Again, have literally any of you read the bill?


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> This isn't Comcast that's mandating ISPs. This is the FCC and FTC combined. If, say, the FCC were bought out like people are disingenuously claiming, the FTC, which has not been bought out (as the current chairman of it is a lawyer who specializes in and has a history of anti-trust violation cases) can still come in and fuck up the ISPs thanks to the regulations put in place.
> 
> Sorry man but it's not as bad as you're making it out to be. This is either going to be harmless, or a legitimately good thing.


I'm not saying it's Comcast mandating ISPs, I'm saying that they'll find a way to squeeze money out of this no matter what's best for consumers. They're not exactly above that.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I'm not saying it's Comcast mandating ISPs, I'm saying that they'll find a way to squeeze money out of this no matter what's best for consumers. They're not exactly above that.


But they won't because that kind of anti-trust behavior is specifically mandated against by the proposal that you still haven't read. If they did that, they'd get fucked by the FTC and/or the FCC in a big shrek super slam.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> But they won't because that kind of anti-trust behavior is specifically mandated against by the proposal that you still haven't read. If they did that, they'd get fucked by the FTC and/or the FCC in a big shrek super slam.



That's where we disagree I guess, I sincerely doubt they'll see any consequences if they do. 

Keep in mind that Comcast didn't really see any consequences when they throttled Netflix before in 2013, and they can just claim that it's a matter of too much bandwidth being used or come up with another bullshit reason. That's what they all do.

Let me be clear that I don't look down on you for disagreeing with me, but I do think you're misguided in this instance.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> That's where we disagree I guess, I sincerely doubt they'll see any consequences if they do.
> 
> Keep in mind that Comcast didn't really see any consequences when they throttled Netflix before in 2013, and they can just claim that it's a matter of too much bandwidth being used or come up with another bullshit reason. That's what they all do.
> 
> Let me be clear that I don't look down on you for disagreeing with me, but I do think you're misguided in this instance.


I appreciate that you're being civil about this, glad we can have that kind of discussion.
That said, I don't understand how you can call me misguided. Can you point out how I am? I've read the proposal from top to bottom and posted a massive wall of text that breaks down everything that it's going to do. Am I misguided in believing that if the FCC were intent on doing nothing and letting the ISPs do whatever they want, they would have changed the current rules to specifically block the things ISPs want to do? That doesn't make sense to me.

Secondly, the rules specifically say they can't throttle stuff like Netflix. They *specifically* mentioned Netflix *_by name.*_ I don't know about you but that seems to me like there's some clear sincerity here. I don't see legitimate reasons to doubt them other than "well they did bad things in the past and these rules that are specifically written for the bad things are going to mean nothing!"

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

Also holy fuck do I appreciate that you're not looking down on me or anyone of my stance, and I don't look down on you either for disagreeing. I think we both see each other as misguided and that's something I'm fine with. I don't think you're misguided because you're less intelligent or something, but moreso because the discussion is plagued with fallacious materials and people wrongly shoving their agenda into everything. You're not at fault for having little factual information to go upon.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> You haven't seen any evidence that says it's going to suck yet you're already saying it's bad? Come on dude. Get real.



Have you seen any that will say it'll be good? How do you know they won't abuse or make up tiered/prioritized internet packages like cell phone plans?


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 12, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Have you seen any that will say it'll be good?



With the FCC and FTC looking to uphold the rules with a tight grasp, there's some hope, yet. Hm. Why do I have a bad feeling...


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Have you seen any that will say it'll be good? How do you know they won't abuse or make up tiered/prioritized internet packages like cell phone plans?


Yes? I have specifically posted the stuff that says it's going to be good. I've posted a link to it at least 3 times now. 
https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-24#post-7733668


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I appreciate that you're being civil about this, glad we can have that kind of discussion.
> That said, I don't understand how you can call me misguided. Can you point out how I am? I've read the proposal from top to bottom and posted a massive wall of text that breaks down everything that it's going to do. Am I misguided in believing that if the FCC were intent on doing nothing and letting the ISPs do whatever they want, they would have changed the current rules to specifically block the things ISPs want to do? That doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> Secondly, the rules specifically say they can't throttle stuff like Netflix. They *specifically* mentioned Netflix *_by name.*_ I don't know about you but that seems to me like there's some clear sincerity here. I don't see legitimate reasons to doubt them other than "well they did bad things in the past and these rules that are specifically written for the bad things are going to mean nothing!"


A lot of the times in the past (when this was legal) ISPs would look for any other reason to claim for throttling or blocking stuff. For example, they'd claim that something uses up too much bandwidth or resources but coincidentally have a stake in a competing product to the one being throttled. I think it's slightly misguided to place absolute trust in them to look past ISPs excuses. 

I don't trust the current FCC under Chairman Pai to not give them a pass if they do stuff like that. They could just as well claim that the product not being throttled is "optimized" and doesn't need throttling.

That's just me I guess, but I feel like a lot of Comcast/Verizon customers here might agree. I understand where you're coming from though.


----------



## DarthDub (Dec 12, 2017)

This is a long watch and this video cites sources.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> A lot of the times in the past (when this was legal) ISPs would look for any other reason to claim for throttling or blocking stuff. For example, they'd claim that something uses up too much bandwidth or resources but coincidentally have a stake in a competing product to the one being throttled. I think it's slightly misguided to place absolute trust in them to look past ISPs excuses.
> 
> I don't trust the current FCC under Chairman Pai to not give them a pass if they do stuff like that. They could just as well claim that the product not being throttled is "optimized" and doesn't need throttling.
> 
> That's just me I guess, but I feel like a lot of Comcast/Verizon customers here might agree. I understand where you're coming from though.


No, I don't think you understand, throttling legal content is not permitted. Period. Doesn't matter if it's optimized or not, they're going to have to fix their infrastructure to support that. What they will allow throttling of is illegal content, so unless Netflix is suddenly illegal, they can't throttle it. Period. At all. You're placing unfair blame on Ajit Pai too, because the chairman of the FTC and the FTC as a whole is able to also punish ISPs as well.

If you distrust one guy, sure, that's fine, but two? One of which is literally a lawyer who has been involved in cases against companies abusing antitrust laws? This isn't a "ISPs might get away with it because Ajit Pai is the chairman" thing, it's more of a "there's two groups who now have full jurisdiction over ISPs because broad, heavyhanded laws are being removed."

Of course Comcast and Verizon customers are going to agree, but they're agreeing on emotion and logic. You'd think the people shat on so much by their ISP would be clambering to rally support for this, but the "net neutrality nutters" as I call them, who call any change to the regulations an attack even when it's clearly bolstering it got to them first so the brainwashing has commenced.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Wrong. They have to make that list, and it is restricted to ILLEGAL content. Illegal content _*only.*_ Again, I made a huge post breaking this stuff down. https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-24#post-7733668


See, the thing about your post that you made is that it cherry picks statements from the document that end up making passive statements seem like policy. For example, the "Netflix" quote of "If an ISP that also sells video services degrades the speed or quality of competing “Over the Top” video services (such as Netflix),526 that conduct could be challenged as anticompetitive foreclosure." is contained within a large block of text that says


> 145. Most of the examples of net neutrality violations discussed in the Title II Order could have been investigated as antitrust violations. Madison River Communications blocked access to VoIP to foreclose competition to its telephony business; an antitrust case would have focused on whether the company was engaged in anticompetitive foreclosure to preserve any monopoly power it may have had over telephony. Whether one regards Comcast’s behavior toward BitTorrent as blocking or throttling,522 it could have been pursued either as an antitrust or consumer protection case. The Commission noted that BitTorrent’s service allowed users to view video that they might otherwise have to purchase through Comcast’s Video on Demand service523—a claim that would be considered an anticompetitive foreclosure claim under antitrust.524 Comcast also failed to disclose this network management practice and initially denied that it was engaged in any throttling525—potentially unfair or deceptive acts or practices. If an ISP that also sells video services degrades the speed or quality of competing “Over the Top” video services (such as Netflix),526 that conduct could be challenged as anticompetitive foreclosure.
> 146. Among the benefits of the antitrust laws over public utility regulation are (1) the rule of reason allows a balancing of pro-competitive benefits and anti-competitive harms; (2) the case-by-case nature of antitrust allows for the regulatory humility needed when dealing with the dynamic Internet; (3) the antitrust laws focus on protecting competition; and (4) the same long-practiced and well-understood laws apply to all Internet actors.


To break that down, what the author of the bill is saying is that instead of having ISPs regulated under Title II, they should just default under antitrust laws. And as I said before, that looks _great_ on paper... except that that was tried already. In 2010. And the reason that ISPs are now classifed as "common carriers, which allowed them to be placed under Title II, and _also includes regulations on transparency and content blocking_, is because Verizon and Comcast both repeatedly overstepped their boundaries, attempting to sue the FCC to fuck over customers with throttling. Verizon in particular actually throttled Netflix, which led to the above situation. Ironically enough, this was less than four years after the "Open Internet Act" went into effect, which did exactly what the "Restoring Internet Freedom" bill is trying to do now. Source

Now, I don't know _why _said anti-trust laws weren't effective against such actions, and if you want to explain that to me, you have two very attentive ears (erm, in this case, eyes, I guess), but all that I can say is that what we have now is a heck of a lot more effective at keeping ISPs in line than what we had previously.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 12, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> No, I don't think you understand, throttling legal content is not permitted. Period. Doesn't matter if it's optimized or not, they're going to have to fix their infrastructure to support that. What they will allow throttling of is illegal content, so unless Netflix is suddenly illegal, they can't throttle it. Period. At all. You're placing unfair blame on Ajit Pai too, because the chairman of the FTC and the FTC as a whole is able to also punish ISPs as well.
> 
> If you distrust one guy, sure, that's fine, but two? One of which is literally a lawyer who has been involved in cases against companies abusing antitrust laws? This isn't a "ISPs might get away with it because Ajit Pai is the chairman" thing, it's more of a "there's two groups who now have full jurisdiction over ISPs because broad, heavyhanded laws are being removed."
> 
> Of course Comcast and Verizon customers are going to agree, but they're agreeing on emotion and logic. You'd think the people shat on so much by their ISP would be clambering to rally support for this, but the "net neutrality nutters" as I call them, who call any change to the regulations an attack even when it's clearly bolstering it got to them first so the brainwashing has commenced.


Under the proposal it wouldn't be the FCCs job to promote these rules, it'd have to the Sherman guy and such. He didn't do anything in 2013 (I did read your posts btw, this is my response after reading them)

I think the best bet to ensure fair competition is thst the FCC regulate net neutrality like it is now


Edit: Ninja'd

Edit2: I'm hungry and I wanna go play on my Switch, so I'll tag out for now. Good discussion @MaverickWellington


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 12, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Under the proposal it wouldn't be the FCCs job to promote these rules, it'd have to the Sherman guy and such. He didn't do anything in 2013 (I did read your posts btw, this is my response after reading them)
> 
> I think the best bet to ensure fair competition is thst the FCC regulate net neutrality like it is now
> 
> ...


I gotta make dinner and I'm probably gonna play Paper Mario for a bit so I'll be back later. Good discussion to you too. Glad civility is still possible in this debate.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 13, 2017)

Well, I think that's enough internet for me today.


----------



## Chary (Dec 13, 2017)

Regardless of one's opinion, things are getting down to the wire. The matter will be decided on the 14th, and it looks like some congressman is trying to get a bill in to prevent the repeal before the time limit is up.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Dec 13, 2017)

THIS IS IT!!! ALL END IN 2017!!! This isn't how i wanted to go down. Just renewed my Playstation plus and Hulu subscriptions. Will be forever remembered as the worst series of events in a single year.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2017)

Keep in mind, everyone, that even if the bill passes in the FCC, they still have to get the bill both through Congress and past a review by the supreme court. Don't stop protesting, but do NOT lose hope if the FCC passes their version of the bill on Thursday. Keep calling your representatives and make sure this dies EARLY


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Dec 13, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Keep in mind, everyone, that even if the bill passes in the FCC, they still have to get the bill both through Congress and past a review by the supreme court. Don't stop protesting, but do NOT lose hope if the FCC passes their version of the bill on Thursday. Keep calling your representatives and make sure this dies EARLY


We have a flawed legal system, this will never work, didn't you see my previous post? THAT is the sign of someone who lost hope! You see it every time you play super mario bros and you find luigi making that face.

Now if Luigi had the face @Chary has, that would be the look of hope and confidence. That is someone who luigi needs to look up to. Even though, is almost time. This is harder than returning a book back to library before it's overdue.


----------



## RustInPeace (Dec 13, 2017)

Judging by what I read today, it seems even some Senators don't want net neutrality voted away.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...nators-demand-fcc-abandon-net-neutrality-vote

It's like this Pai guy deliberately wants to be the most hated man on the internet as long as he gets love from Comcast, Verizon, those evil fuckers.


----------



## MasterPanda (Dec 13, 2017)

As far as I understood this 
It's not like this has anything to do with consumers directly. It's a fight between the government (and/or FCC) against ISPs 
who no longer want to be harassed by the FCC for their endeavors to fuck over their customers in their secured monopoly 
Which is why Ajit Pai is free to not give a fuck about what consumers want ..... rendering his obligation, to listen to the consumers, meaningless. 

Am I missing something? Besides Mr. Pai lying like a three headed monkey in order to prevent people from visiting his house with torches and Pitchforks....


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2017)

MasterPanda said:


> As far as I understood this
> It's not like this has anything to do with consumers directly. It's a fight between the government (and/or FCC) against ISPs
> who no longer want to be harassed by the FCC for their endeavors to fuck over their customers in their secured monopoly
> Which is why Ajit Pai is free to not give a fuck about what consumers want ..... rendering his obligation, to listen to the consumers, meaningless.
> ...


Correct, except that whatever ISPs decide to do with newly found freedom will directly affect consumers, GUARANTEED, for better or for worse


----------



## Alex4nder001 (Dec 13, 2017)

It's such an outrage, why cant ISPs look for other methods to make money, rather than restrict access to services that we rely on?


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 13, 2017)

Alex4nder001 said:


> It's such an outrage, why cant ISPs look for other methods to make money, rather than restrict access to services that we rely on?


because its halfbrained capitalism


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 13, 2017)

Called my representative today and told him to vote yes on the proposal, and got my friends to do the same.
Livin the dream, lads.


----------



## qaz015393 (Dec 13, 2017)

I'm going to be calling my congressman later when I get home from work to and vote to stay neutral. I would do the other when I use that generated letter but I don't want to give them all of that information (especially since I had my identity stolen 2 times) and am more careful with my information etc.
Always good to give your voice especially something this important because who knows what I would be doing if I'm online like I usually am lol. Besides how would I apply to jobs if I have to pay more to use certain sites especially those job ones. Also it would suck if I have to pay more for Netflix, The CW and other apps that I use all the time.

Oh, plus also how am I supposed to view all of my security camera videos? That would mean I have to pay more just to protect my home


----------



## Mnecraft368 (Dec 13, 2017)

This only affects the US if I am not mistaken?


----------



## qaz015393 (Dec 13, 2017)

Mnecraft368 said:


> This only affects the US if I am not mistaken?


Yeah that's what I got from it so if you're outside of the US/USA you don't have to worry about it.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 13, 2017)

qaz015393 said:


> Yeah that's what I got from it so if you're outside of the US/USA you don't have to worry about it.




No.. it'll likely affect you due to things having to go through the ISPs anyways.. and/or your country will go "See! The US is doing it!" Not to mention if websites start going down because of lack of revenue..... 

Do not assume that anything -just- affects one area when it comes to the internet.


----------



## qaz015393 (Dec 13, 2017)

Tigran said:


> No.. it'll likely affect you due to things having to go through the ISPs anyways.. and/or your country will go "See! The US is doing it!" Not to mention if websites start going down because of lack of revenue.....
> 
> Do not assume that anything -just- affects one area when it comes to the internet.


Oh yeah sorry, I forgot about all of that and this definitely sucks way too much.


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 13, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Called my representative today and told him to vote yes on the proposal, and got my friends to do the same.
> Livin the dream, lads.


are you brain dead? then again congress doesn't give a fuck bout the citizens US politics 101 as my 12th Grade Government teacher always said


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2017)

chrisrlink said:


> are you brain dead? then again congress doesn't give a fuck bout the citizens US politics 101 as my 12th Grade Government teacher always said


You should go back a few pages and read the discourse. His opinion on this is... not the popular one, to say the least


----------



## Viri (Dec 13, 2017)

I believe Net Neutrality should be a given. Hasn't Comcast and Verizon already violated it? They slowed down Netflix a few years ago, and suddenly, Netflix got faster, when they gave Verizon/Comcast a bit of cash, heh. Also, I don't like how T-Mobile's Bingeon w/e, and doesn't cap you towards select websites, like Youtube, and such. I know it's free, and you can shut it off, but it feels like they opened Pandora's box.

I just know it's like hell will I trust the ISPs to not abuse shit once Net Neutrality is abolished, they already did it in the past, lol.


----------



## Plstic (Dec 13, 2017)

fuck off with the popup tbh.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2017)

Plstic said:


> fuck off with the popup tbh.


Annoying, isn't it?

Imagine that being your everyday life whenever you tried to access the website


----------



## Plstic (Dec 13, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Annoying, isn't it?
> 
> Imagine that being your everyday life whenever you tried to access the website


except thats not gonna happen. DEREGULATE THE WORLD


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2017)

Plstic said:


> except thats not gonna happen. DEREGULATE THE WORLD


It literally already has

On top of that, I'm a little bit confused by the whole mentality of "regulations are evil." What exactly does this ideal, regulation free world look like to you?


----------



## Beerus (Dec 13, 2017)

kids starving no one bats an eye
internet under attack everyone looses there minds


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 13, 2017)

Beerus said:


> kids starving no one bats an eye
> internet under attack everyone looses there minds


"nobody bats eye".. That's such a crock of shit. Food drives, food banks, fundraising... Sod off with the child Hunger bullshit. You can't fix a problem caused by over exerting your resources.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2017)

Beerus said:


> kids starving no one bats an eye
> internet under attack everyone looses there minds


That's not true exactly, it's just that it's been happening for so long that we've been desensitized to it, while net neutrality is a less than decade-old issue


Memoir said:


> "nobody bats eye".. That's such a crock of shit. Food drives, food banks, fundraising... Sod off with the child Hunger bullshit. You can't fix a problem caused by over exerting your resources.


Exactly. However, we actually do have more than enough resources on the planet to feed everyone, the issue is a) reaching those people, and b) the people who control the largest inventory aren't what you'd describe as "generous" or "charitable"

That's all wildly offtopic, though


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 13, 2017)

Please call your representatives and tell them not to allow this, and threaten to vote against them in their primaries. This is a big deal


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 13, 2017)

chrisrlink said:


> are you brain dead? then again congress doesn't give a fuck bout the citizens US politics 101 as my 12th Grade Government teacher always said


If congress doesn't care what people think, me telling them to vote yes shouldn't bother you. Neither should me supporting a beneficial bill for the internet.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> If congress doesn't care what people think, me telling them to vote yes shouldn't bother you. Neither should me supporting a beneficial bill for the internet.


I still don't understand how you can think this bill is beneficial. And yes, I responded to your earlier post listing the "benefits"


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 13, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I still don't understand how you can think this bill is beneficial. And yes, I responded to your earlier post listing the "benefits"


"I still don't understand how you can think the bill that says throttling of any content will be treated as an antitrust violation and that blocking, censoring, and so on will not be permitted under any circumstances is beneficial, and yes, I attacked the validity of antitrust despite the head of the FTC -- who would literally be prosecuting any ISP and their offenses in this proposal -- being an ex-chief antitrust enforcer thus rendering every "benefit" null and void...somehow."

Well okay man, that's like, your opinion.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 13, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> "I still don't understand how you can think the bill that says throttling of any content will be treated as an antitrust violation and that blocking, censoring, and so on will not be permitted under any circumstances is beneficial, and yes, I attacked the validity of antitrust despite the head of the FTC -- who would literally be prosecuting any ISP and their offenses in this proposal -- being an ex-chief antitrust enforcer thus rendering every "benefit" null and void...somehow."
> 
> Well okay man, that's like, your opinion.


I literally responded to that specific thing you just said, you just have to look at the reply you've been ignoring until now

Unless you just want me to link you, which I will happily do


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 13, 2017)

The document even says the examples you guys cling to count as antitrust violations and, under this proposal, would be something they could prosecute. The bittorrent thing was never pursued because there were no regulations.

Seriously dude, read the proposal. It's only 201 pages. I was reading shit like twice that in fifth grade and up. If you actually legitimately care about the proposal and it's repercussion, stop relying on biased websites and summaries, and read the entire thing. It cites numerous sources, lawsuits, and gives all sorts of context to the "controversial" stances. Until you actively read the document, or at least try to read it to a certain extent (CTRL+Fing for specific phrases to see their stance is fine imo so long as you check for multiple stances) you have no right to consider yourself educated enough on the topic to have a serious debate on it.

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



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I literally responded to that specific thing you just said, you just have to look at the reply you've been ignoring until now
> 
> Unless you just want me to link you, which I will happily do


I've been drained from this argument because you and everyone else who attacks me for my stance don't read the proposal. How can you talk about how catastrophic of a proposal this is when you haven't even read it? Until you make an attempt to give me something vaguely resembling effort and a respect of the topic at hand, I refuse to debate with you further as you are clearly uninformed and a reasonable debate cannot be gathered, nor can a reasonable solution.


----------



## SpiffyJUNIOR (Dec 13, 2017)

We have one chance to keep net neutrality.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 13, 2017)

Welp, since the discussion is basically fucked at the moment, mostly because of me, I'd like to shift the topic a slight bit to something that can hopefully calm everyone down and bring some more civility to this.

What are you guys planning to do while you wait for a resolution on the vote? I'm planning to go through Daikatana for like the second time.


----------



## MrJason005 (Dec 13, 2017)

living in europe and seeing all these posts everywhere, now i realize that the vast majority of people on the internet are from the US


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I've been drained from this argument because you and everyone else who attacks me for my stance don't read the proposal. How can you talk about how catastrophic of a proposal this is when you haven't even read it? Until you make an attempt to give me something vaguely resembling effort and a respect of the topic at hand, I refuse to debate with you further as you are clearly uninformed and a reasonable debate cannot be gathered, nor can a reasonable solution.


What debate? As far as I'm concerned, the bulk of our interaction has been me trying to get a grasp on your position (admittedly, in a sometimes sarcastic fashion, but that's just kind of how I communicate at times), and you've only recently begun to deliver on even that, before hand it was literally just stuff like "This'll be a good thing lmao kids". You then counter with "well I said [link to original post]", "read the bill", or "lmao what are you 12? Learn to argue." (And, for what it's worth, no, I have not study read the bill because it's finals week at my college and I really need to apply my time towards studying, but YES, I have skimmed and ctrl+Fed the proposal and I feel l have a decent grasp on it). @Xzi or I then respond with something along the lines of "Ok, but this has happened before, we've seen the results" and I have SPECIFICALLY asked you why antitrust laws have failed to keep ISPs in check, to which you still haven't responded

So, to recap my view in the most calm and repetitious way possible, since that's the only obvious way to go about this, I will state again:
This bill is full of text that implies that it is policy, but are really just excuses for the creation of the proposition in the first place. The most egregious example is the one that you conveniently just provided, that essentially says "these instances didn't need to fall under Title II regulations because they technically fall under anti-trust violations, which are regulated by the FTC." However, I will again ask that if that is indeed the case, why is it that said laws failed to prevent ISPs from throttling and blocking content pre-2015, when the Obama administration placed them under the Title II classification? And why is it that after said classification occurred, the issue has been largely taken care of? The only conclusion I can come to, which appears to be backed up by what I've read, is that the FTC is a lot more limited in terms of what it can do to regulate telecommunications providers, but I may be mistaken, which is why I have, on two occasions now, asked why you think this proposal is in any way a positive change, in hopes of getting an answer that you have not yet given me. If you want to now, though, I'm all ears


----------



## GhostLatte (Dec 14, 2017)

Beerus said:


> kids starving no one bats an eye
> internet under attack everyone looses there minds


I bet you do so much to help those starving children. You deserve a medal.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What debate? As far as I'm concerned, the bulk of our interaction has been me trying to get a grasp on your position (admittedly, in a sometimes sarcastic fashion, but that's just kind of how I communicate at times), and you've only recently begun to deliver on even that, before hand it was literally just stuff like "This'll be a good thing lmao kids". You then counter with "well I said [link to original post]", "read the bill", or "lmao what are you 12? Learn to argue." (And, for what it's worth, no, I have not study read the bill because it's finals week at my college and I really need to apply my time towards studying, but YES, I have skimmed and ctrl+Fed the proposal and I feel l have a decent grasp on it). @Xzi or I then respond with something along the lines of "Ok, but this has happened before, we've seen the results" and I have SPECIFICALLY asked you why antitrust laws have failed to keep ISPs in check, to which you still haven't responded
> 
> So, to recap my view in the most calm and repetitious way possible, since that's the only obvious way to go about this, I will state again:
> This bill is full of text that implies that it is policy, but are really just excuses for the creation of the proposition in the first place. The most egregious example is the one that you conveniently just provided, that essentially says "these instances didn't need to fall under Title II regulations because they technically fall under anti-trust violations, which are regulated by the FTC." However, I will again ask that if that is indeed the case, why is it that said laws failed to prevent ISPs from throttling and blocking content pre-2015, when the Obama administration placed them under the Title II classification? And why is it that after said classification occurred, the issue has been largely taken care of? The only conclusion I can come to, which appears to be backed up by what I've read, is that the FTC is a lot more limited in terms of what it can do to regulate telecommunications providers, but I may be mistaken, which is why I have, on two occasions now, asked why you think this proposal is in any way a positive change, in hopes of getting an answer that you have not yet given me. If you want to now, though, I'm all ears


>For what it's worth, I have not read the bill
Sorry, your opinion of the bill officially does not matter. I'm not having any debate with you on the benficial/malicious repercussions of the bill until you actually sit down and read. I take back what I said about the CTRL+F shit because up until now I don't think you've actually read the bill, you just skimmed around for specific phrases that are mentioned and didn't read the paragraphs that use them, hence why you still haven't seen why I believe it's beneficial. Someone who's so caught up in finals that they can't read a bill but can evidently find the time to bitch about it clearly has the time to actually read the bill and is only making excuses. That time you spend in outrage is time you could spend educating yourself, because right now the longer you rant and rave on topics you're ignorant on, the larger you make the problem of disingenuous manchildren like @Xzi spreading misinformation and propaganda about how awful things are despite no real education on the matter.

So to respond to your recap, you can't tell me you haven't read the bill and then tell me what it's supposedly "full of." Which one is it? Have you read the bill and thus know what it's full of, or have you not read it and are just making up statements or going off on stupid shit you've heard from sites like Gizmodo? Of course I'm gonna keep telling you to read my post because with every single reply on the matter it's become increasingly evident you're only skimming them, because I've caught you missing several points I've argued now. @Xzi at least had the balls to tell me he's refusing to acknowledge arguments he doesn't want to refute. 

If the FTC is limited, but the proposal allows the FTC and FCC to *both* regulate the internet, how exactly is it that this is a bad thing? You keep arguing that the bill is not beneficial, so I'd like to see some evidence to support this. I'd like some actual citations from the bill. I don't give a shit what any other website says. Show me where the bill says it's removing all the rules and won't have regulations on something actually legitimately negative, IE where it's going to allow the throttling people swear it will (that it actually won't) or that the bill is in some way terrible, or even negative. I want to remind you of this very important final piece, the piece that specifically states that the FCC basically thinks that AT&T's suggestion to never have any Title II regulations ever again was stupid and that they will not allow it, and that while they disagree with the old regulations, should they need to go back to them after loophole abuse, they will. This proposal is basically "We'll give it a try and see how this works, hopefully the new rules are good, but if not we can tweak as necessary or go back to the old ones" yet everyone acts like Ajit Pai wants to kill the fucking internet and everyone on it.





I'm not dodging your posts or questions, I'm just tired of repeating myself for 3 fucking pages because some kid can't stop skimming posts and ignoring everything else.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Dec 14, 2017)

This is scarier than when you first witness the moon fall in majora's mask. Is this really happening?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Sonic Angel Knight said:


> This is scarier than when you first witness the moon fall in majora's mask. Is this really happening?


Yes, the vote is happening. Why are you scared? Have you read the bill, or have you only read people freaking out about it and are freaking out because of peer pressure?


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Yes, the vote is happening. Why are you scared? Have you read the bill, or have you only read people freaking out about it and are freaking out because of peer pressure?



Everything sounds good on paper.. Warranties.. Laws.. Certain scientific equations. People are rightly worried about the practice. It's partially fear mongering.. But it IS corporate America that has this power. It IS a PAID source. Paying people off for specific favors isn't unheard of.

Again, fear mongering.. Yada Yada Yada.. But a valid concern.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Everything sounds good on paper.. Warranties.. Laws.. Certain scientific equations. People are rightly worried about the practice. It's partially fear mongering.. But it IS corporate America that has this power. It IS a PAID source. Paying people off for specific favors isn't unheard of.
> 
> Again, fear mongering.. Yada Yada Yada.. But a valid concern.


True but like I keep saying the bulk of this fear comes from fear mongering. You don't see this level of concern or even this kind of fear mongering campaign and propaganda for any random law about, say, jaywalking or something. I understand that it's the internet, which will affect a lot more people than just jaywalkers, and that a lot more people in the debate are kids who are ruled by emotion rather than logic, something I can't fault them for as annoying as I find it, but jeez, you'd think SOMEONE would just go "alright, we're all terrified and shit, but why exactly are we terrified? Where does it say this is gonna happen, and when has this happened in history when we didn't have the rules the proposal will remove?"

Like I said. You can find reason to worry about possibility about anything. I could find reason to worry about getting a concussion from waking up and falling in the morning. Sure it's a terrifying thought, but I don't think it's really healthy to worry about it every single day of my life.


----------



## cracker (Dec 14, 2017)

Saying it's a bad thing to have more than one goc't entity that can limit dick moves of an ISP to block content as they see fit is like saying the FDA and EPA shouldn't both be able to handle lead in water. The FTC itself doesn't even know what it can do when it comes to anti-competitiveness regarding the internet so I wouldn't put my trust in that agency alone to help end users.

Ajit Pai is a piece of crap that came from Verizon to do just this and will return to Verizon after it is done. Having a free and open internet is considered by many to be a right and this will undercut it based on the greed of businesses. It isn't some vague conspiracy theory that paranoiacs are concocting. There were already trial runs from Comcast and Verizon (and I wouldn't doubt other ISPs) that limited access to specific servers (Netflix being one). This will make it legal for them to effectively block anything they disagree with or want additional money to get access to. Showing your disagreement with your money isn't effective because most of the country only has one or two broadband ISPs in the area and much of that *choice* is going to be covered by a massive company that is more liable to do such tactics.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

cracker said:


> Saying it's a bad thing to have more than one goc't entity that can limit dick moves of an ISP to block content as they see fit is like saying the FDA and EPA shouldn't both be able to handle lead in water. The FTC itself doesn't even know what it can do when it comes to anti-competitiveness regarding the internet so I wouldn't put my trust in that agency alone to help end users.
> 
> Ajit Pai is a piece of crap that came from Verizon to do just this and will return to Verizon after it is done. Having a free and open internet is considered by many to be a right and this will undercut it based on the greed of businesses. It isn't some vague conspiracy theory that paranoiacs are concocting. There were already trial runs from Comcast and Verizon (and I wouldn't doubt other ISPs) that limited access to specific servers (Netflix being one). This will make it legal for them to effectively block anything they disagree with or want additional money to get access to. Showing your disagreement with your money isn't effective because most of the country only has one or two broadband ISPs in the area and much of that *choice* is going to be covered by a massive company that is more liable to do such tactics.


You had a great post until it just straight up devolved into fearmongering, personal attacks, and straight up misinformation. Throttling, blocking, and whatever aren't permitted by the proposal, which specifically says will not be allowed, and it even listed services like Netflix by name.

I removed the colorfully offensive language so as not to step on any more toes than I already am by daring to advocate for this proposal.


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 14, 2017)

welp tomorrow the US (and the internet) IS FUCKED


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 14, 2017)

It's a win win situation for humanity either way. Internet stays intact then the truth will keep spreading as it has been for the last 20 years or so. There are more unplugged (matrix reference) people today than ever because of the internet. If they destroy the internet then people will leave their computers and start spreading truth more actively in their communities. So truth wins regardless.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> So to respond to your recap, you can't tell me you haven't read the bill and then tell me what it's supposedly "full of." Which one is it? Have you read the bill and thus know what it's full of, or have you not read it and are just making up statements or going off on stupid shit you've heard from sites like Gizmodo? Of course I'm gonna keep telling you to read my post because with every single reply on the matter it's become increasingly evident you're only skimming them, because I've caught you missing several points I've argued now. @Xzi at least had the balls to tell me he's refusing to acknowledge arguments he doesn't want to refute.


Oh boy. Ok, citations of the NEGATIVE things in the bill... For starters, shall we look at page 26 on the fact sheet? Going from paragraphs 76 to 90, the proposal is quite literally questioning whether the anti-blocking, anti-throttling, and transparency provisions given by the Title II classifications are necessary, going so far as to suggest in in paragraph 85 that giving ISPs the authority to create "paid prioritization" tiers might allow them to create lower tiers where content is delivered slower, which suggests that the proposal would, if left in its current state, in fact allow ISPs to do such.

There's also paragraphs 140 and 141 on page 80, which say that the extent of regulation the FTC would have over ISPs would be if they're attempting to sell something deceptively. That won't help in a situation where an ISP (or worse, all the ISPs in a single area) would decide to introduce a paid priority internet access model, and advertised it as such. If a user can't access a website because it takes literal hours to load, the ISP can effectively say "That's unfortunate, would you like to upgrade to our faster premium plan?" and totally get away with it. To which a supporter of the bill may say "ah, but that violates the anti-trust laws!," but again, they would totally be able to get away with it if it's marketed as tiered access, because then the only thing standing between you and your information is a higher monthly payment.

And then there's paragraphs 143 through 145, spelling out just how great the Sherman Act anti-trust laws are supposed to be, which I've already commented on

As far as I can tell, paragraph 147 through 154 has nothing actually beneficial to the proposal itself, they just exist solely to attempt to justify why anti-trust laws would be so much better at regulating broadband providers than Title II and... like, at face value, that all looks great, but Mr. Pai's biggest selling point appears to be "stuff can be reviewed on a case by case basis, so it's Better(TM)!", which is completely ignoring the fact that one of the features of Title II classification is that while regulation does happen in broad strokes, there is opportunity for decisions to be made case-by-case should they warrant it. I also see no need for the switch, as ISPs seem to have no problems flourishing under the current situation as is. I even recall that you made a big deal over the fact that in your city you had so many options for what ISP you could pick (ignoring the fact that many of them are almost certainly built on the backbone of a much bigger ISP, but that still shows that smaller branched companies are allowed to compete for profit with each other as well as with the Big Boys).

Paragraphs 155 and 158 both introduce something that I personally find kind of scary in the bill, because from the way I'm interpreting it it's basically saying "We have the power to change this, so we're going to and there's nothing you can do to stop us. The reason we're doing this is because there's flimsy evidence that suggests that in the future, innovation MIGHT be hindered, as common logic would suggest." What logic? What innovation? Why the use of such deliberately vague language? (The exact quote I'm referring to is "The amorphous and potentially wide-ranging implications of the Title II-based regulatory framework have hindered (or will likely hinder) marketplace innovation, as the record here indicates and as one logically would expect."

That's all I can be assed to come up with for now, because, again, I've been hopping back and forth between typing this and studying for an Applied Calculus final, but that's literally only halfway through the document and I'm sure that there are a lot more examples that I could dig up in the back half if I checked again


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> You had a great post until it just straight up devolved into fearmongering, personal attacks, and straight up misinformation. Throttling, blocking, and whatever aren't permitted by the proposal, which specifically says will not be allowed, and it even listed services like Netflix by name.
> 
> I removed the colorfully offensive language so as not to step on any more toes than I already am by daring to advocate for this proposal.
> 
> View attachment 108297


I guess its the illegal content people that are worried about. Since it says nothing about not blocking or throtlling illegal content. It only prohibits blocking legal content, not the illegal ones. Which means they can throttle those sites. Which sites will fall under illegal content? They can probably classify sites like GBATemp as illegal content (or at least the can try to). The problem is wording and people always find a way around it. And have done so throughout law history.
It'll probably be the same as rom sites, them trying to fight it and people defend their sites. But this time ISP's will have greater control with the Net Neutrality barrier off.

The thing is we don't know what will happen, but are we willing to risk it. What is a better choice? To not risk it and keep Net Neutrality and keep a piece of mind. 
Or to remove it and hope for the best knowing their is a possibility they can throttle certain sites. It seems in this situation keeping Net Neutrality is the better of the two. The problem is wording and interpretation. They can words things in ways that can be deceiving.

I wish I was able to research more on this topic but I have school and finals to do.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 14, 2017)

comput3rus3r said:


> It's a win win situation for humanity either way. Internet stays intact then the truth will keep spreading as it has been for the last 20 years or so. There are more unplugged (matrix reference) people today than ever because of the internet. If they destroy the internet then people will leave their computers and start spreading truth more actively in their communities. So truth wins regardless.



You've never been in a "Conservative" neighborhood have you? Truth does not spread there... Only isolationism and hate.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> snipperdoodles



Alright hold up, the paragraphs you're linking have nothing at all to do with what you listed, and I'm not saying this as some smug cunt shit, I'm saying this because I think there's a discrepancy here. Are you getting your paragraphs from http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf like I am? If so, can you screenshot them or something with Sharex/Puush/whatever you use? You don't even have to put them in the post, just put them as an imgur link or something. I have a fucking massive post (we're talking like 6 pages in formatting, counting the images of course) breaking down the paragraphs you mention but before I post it and royally deflower this virgin page's formatting I wanna ensure we're on the same page, literally.



Tigran said:


> You've never been in a "Conservative" neighborhood have you? Truth does not spread there... Only isolationism and hate.


Let's not resort to marking off an entire political group by their moronic extremists, or in the case of centrists, outliers. I'm sure you wouldn't want me marking off all the centrists and liberals as nihilists and hypocritical manchildren.



SG854 said:


> I guess its the illegal content people that are worried about. Since it says nothing about not blocking or throtlling illegal content. It only prohibits blocking legal content, not the illegal ones. Which means they can throttle those sites. Which sites will fall under illegal content? They can probably classify sites like GBATemp as illegal content (or at least the can try to). The problem is wording and people always find a way around it. And have done so throughout law history.
> It'll probably be the same as rom sites, them trying to fight it and people defend their sites. But this time ISP's will have greater control with the Net Neutrality barrier off.
> 
> The thing is we don't know what will happen, but are we willing to risk it. What is a better choice? To not risk it and keep Net Neutrality and keep a piece of mind.
> ...


They can try to, and then one lawsuit by the FTC/FCC when made aware of it says otherwise. Hacking a device you own is not illegal. It may violate some EULAs and shit (not that literally any person here -- myself included -- reads those or cares about them) but it's not violating the law. The supreme court actually ruled this when apple tried to make it illegal to jailbreak your phone. Thank FUCK it's not illegal. If that were you can bet your ass I'd be screeching and protesting with everyone else just for that alone. However, it's not. So there's nothing to worry about in that regard. "Are we willing to risk it?" I mean, when you let fear override your logic, are you ever willing to risk anything?

I've posted a snippet that said AT&T wanted to make it so we could never go back to Title II, and the proposal literally states that it finds such a movement unnecessarily preventative. I forget the specific wording but it's some artsy fartsy legal jargon that basically means "completely unnecessarily cock blocky." When the "sold out shill" FTC is telling their "big boss ISPs" to fuck off, and is actively shittalking their suggestions in their proposal, and saying that while they don't see a need to with the new proposals, they do 100% intend to go back to them if they're shown to be ineffective, or even harmful, I think it's safe to say they're not as bought out as people claim they are.

Look man, I get there's a lot of peer pressure going around, but don't let these people scare the shit out of you. Don't worry about this stuff based on something someone tells you to worry about. Think for yourself from the information presented. I linked the PDF that has the stuff in this image (https://i.imgur.com/BZZG6lN.png) that should hopefully quell your fears a bit.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Let's not resort to marking off an entire political group by their moronic extremists, or in the case of centrists, outliers. I'm sure you wouldn't want me marking off all the centrists and liberals as nihilists and hypocritical manchildren.



I'm not talking about the political group of conservatives. I'm talking about the people who "Well this is how it's always been and should be!" groups. That doesn't matter religion/political or anything like that. It's usually small neighborhoods where people are afraid of new ideas... or even new people coming into town. It breeds isolation and hate. As a military brat, I HAVE lived in such places.


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 14, 2017)

We need postal neutrality. It shouldn't matter what I ship or how far. I should be able to mail 50lbs of Christmas presents same as a regular letter. The government needs to shut down this pay-to-play system of favoritism and upcharges for faster delivery. Everyone deserves priority service and tracking without having to spend any extra. The post office isn't going to regulate itself!


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> We need postal neutrality. It shouldn't matter what I ship or how far. I should be able to mail 50lbs of Christmas presents same as a regular letter. The government needs to shut down this pay-to-play system of favoritism and upcharges for faster delivery. Everyone deserves priority service and tracking without having to spend any extra. The post office isn't going to regulate itself!


Puts this into perspective imo


----------



## TheWord21 (Dec 14, 2017)

Well, tomorrow night's the night of the vote, and to be honest with you guys, I'm not seeing much in the way of hope, what with the 3 voters agains 2 who oppose the net neutrality being scrapped.

EDIT: Made a mistake regarding the time.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Alright hold up, the paragraphs you're linking have nothing at all to do with what you listed, and I'm not saying this as some smug cunt shit, I'm saying this because I think there's a discrepancy here. Are you getting your paragraphs from http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf like I am? If so, can you screenshot them or something with Sharex/Puush/whatever you use? You don't even have to put them in the post, just put them as an imgur link or something. I have a fucking massive post (we're talking like 6 pages in formatting, counting the images of course) breaking down the paragraphs you mention but before I post it and royally deflower this virgin page's formatting I wanna ensure we're on the same page, literally.


Well heck, would'ya look at that, I was looking at a draft from April for the stuff that came before "paragraphs 147-154." I had a copy saved on my phone from a while back and I didn't realize I was looking at the wrong one, the rest was done with the current document though when I switched over to a PC. However, that almost makes things more telling knowing the drafting process that the current bill underwent, because while you have something like paragraph 216 in the current proposal that says "We specifically require all ISPs to disclose [blocking, throttling, affiliated prioritization, paid prioritization, etc] (which again states only that ISPs have to disclose their activities, not that there would be any form of consequence for them if they imposed such actions), the April draft says, under considerations for paid prioritization, "The ban on paid prioritization did not exist prior to the Title II Order and even then the record evidence confirmed that no such rule was needed since several large Internet service providers made it clear that that [sic] they did not engage in paid prioritization and had no plans to do so. We seek comment on the continued need for such a rule and our authority to retain it." I found this worrysome when reading the draft, but absolutely damning when you apply that language to the current proposal, because when viewed through that lens, it would appear as though the authors of the proposal are deliberately trying to create an environment in which it is acceptable for ISPs to serve content to their consumer at whatever speed and consistency they want, as long as a) the speeds are advertised, b) the price is reasonable for the prices in the area and you aren't (as suggested by anti-competition laws, although under-the-table deals could potentially skirt those), and c) you advertise that your company is offering a "tiered" service where "if you don't use certain websites, you can get your plan for cheaper!*"

As a side note, I don't understand what your disgust of using media sources as opinion forming tools in this context is. There is virtually no incentive for anyone to lie about the severity and implications of this proposal, and while you're at it you also get the added benefit of reading something by someone who quite literally gets paid to scour documents like this for inconsistencies


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> However, it's not. So there's nothing to worry about in that regard. "Are we willing to risk it?" I mean, when you let fear override your logic, are you ever willing to risk anything?


The more logical approach will be to go for the safer option, instead of the risk taking, something you know is guaranteed. Fear can keep you alive. If your scared of a poisonous snake then you won't go near it and risk death. So not only you feel fear but its also logical, don't go near it to stay alive.

We know what its like to have Net Neutrality.
So the question is what would be the benefits of removing Net Neutrality? And if those benefits exceeds having Net Neutrality.
If there is no benefits then why remove it? They say they can't throttle web sites, but don't we already have that with net neutrality. So why not keep it?
Do you want Net Neutrality removed and why? Arguments for removing it have been less government regulation. So what are your reasons?

I usually don't go for peer pressure. But the thing is I don't know whats going on, as i'm in the blank about this, so there is no fear from me just concern.
And theres nothing wrong with a little concern if you don't know whats going on, it keeps you interested in the topic.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

Haloman800 said:


> We need postal neutrality. It shouldn't matter what I ship or how far. I should be able to mail 50lbs of Christmas presents same as a regular letter. The government needs to shut down this pay-to-play system of favoritism and upcharges for faster delivery. Everyone deserves priority service and tracking without having to spend any extra. The post office isn't going to regulate itself!


tfw the US postal service actually _is _a government-affiliated program that regulates itself heavily and has restrictions on what it can and can't do to protect the privacy of the people who take advantage of it, and that the money used for shipping actually covers cost of transport and storage of sensitive packages, particularly if it involves going through customs, and how that analogy has no affiliation in any way with how ISPs distribute content other than the fact that they have to put cable in the ground and that the content and size of a file shouldn't affect the average speed at which it gets to you unless the network is overloaded


----------



## Beerus (Dec 14, 2017)

GhostLatte said:


> I bet you do so much to help those starving children. You deserve a medal.


well yeah since i participate in free the children and food drives


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

Beerus said:


> GhostLatte said:
> 
> 
> > I bet you do so much to help those starving children. You deserve a medal.
> ...


Y I K E S lol


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> tfw the US postal service actually _is _a government-affiliated program that regulates itself heavily and has restrictions on what it can and can't do to protect the privacy of the people who take advantage of it, and that the money used for shipping actually covers cost of transport and storage of sensitive packages, particularly if it involves going through customs, and how that analogy has no affiliation in any way with how ISPs distribute content other than the fact that they have to put cable in the ground and that the content and size of a file shouldn't affect the average speed at which it gets to you unless the network is overloaded


TFW you take a joke post and turn it into something super serious.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> TFW you take a joke post and turn it into something super serious.


I've kinda learned to take Haloman's posts at face value, since that's usually what they are


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Well heck, would'ya look at that, I was looking at a draft from April for the stuff that came before "paragraphs 147-154." I had a copy saved on my phone from a while back and I didn't realize I was looking at the wrong one, the rest was done with the current document though when I switched over to a PC. However, that almost makes things more telling knowing the drafting process that the current bill underwent, because while you have something like paragraph 216 in the current proposal that says "We specifically require all ISPs to disclose [blocking, throttling, affiliated prioritization, paid prioritization, etc] (which again states only that ISPs have to disclose their activities, not that there would be any form of consequence for them if they imposed such actions), the April draft says, under considerations for paid prioritization, "The ban on paid prioritization did not exist prior to the Title II Order and even then the record evidence confirmed that no such rule was needed since several large Internet service providers made it clear that that [sic] they did not engage in paid prioritization and had no plans to do so. We seek comment on the continued need for such a rule and our authority to retain it." I found this worrysome when reading the draft, but absolutely damning when you apply that language to the current proposal, because when viewed through that lens, it would appear as though the authors of the proposal are deliberately trying to create an environment in which it is acceptable for ISPs to serve content to their consumer at whatever speed and consistency they want, as long as a) the speeds are advertised, b) the price is reasonable for the prices in the area and you aren't (as suggested by anti-competition laws, although under-the-table deals could potentially skirt those), and c) you advertise that your company is offering a "tiered" service where "if you don't use certain websites, you can get your plan for cheaper!*"
> 
> As a side note, I don't understand what your disgust of using media sources as opinion forming tools in this context is. There is virtually no incentive for anyone to lie about the severity and implications of this proposal, and while you're at it you also get the added benefit of reading something by someone who quite literally gets paid to scour documents like this for inconsistencies


I've already posted that disclosing it is required, as is that they *don't* throttle legal content. Again, refer to https://i.imgur.com/H4WDGNK.png. Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, and evidently more have committed to not throttling/blocking content, and will be held to that by the FTC and FCC, should they break it, they will be challenged. 

That's the other thing too, this bill was being revised through criticism and comments by people. Voices in this do matter, but only the informed ones. This brings me to your last comment. My disgust with the media's representation of this is wholly justified. I don't care if I don't have a clear incentive from them or not -- there's no clear incentive for the FCC and FTC to support rules that would limit ISPs and their shit behavior being added and yet not enforce them, or let ISPs do whatever anyways, yet clearly you fear that will happen anyways.

As for my actual dislike, I don't know how you *can't* be mad at websites for shitty, dishonest articles like this: 
https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
https://gizmodo.com/fcc-chairman-is-laughing-at-americans-who-dont-want-to-1795193063
https://gizmodo.com/leaked-video-shows-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-roasting-himself-1821134881
https://gizmodo.com/heres-the-fccs-plan-to-kill-net-neutrality-1820683360 (this one ESPECIALLY. Links the fucking document yet says he's killing net neutrality like a blanket statement and won't explain what rules of his are doing so or how. Fuck this stupid shit.)

Granted using Gizmodo is a bit cheaty but it's different writers for each one (two of them share one however) so whatever
My disgust is also rightfully aimed at numerous twitter users -- from the "e-celebs" like fourscore making stupid, fallacious posts about how the internet will become a tiered-package nightmare full of blocking and throttling -- things specifically prevented by the proposal -- to the verified nutjobs spamming that stupid "If you're not outraged, you're not informed" shit while screaming about how awful Ajit Pai is (like one guy is somehow singlehandedly responsible for an entire commission working together for a proposal -- just as they have before) and talking about how everyone needs to be outraged to kill this proposal that they (and their followers) haven't read because they're are also part of the problem. It's all fucking outrage after outrage with these idiots with no intellect. No one sits and thinks about what parts of the bill propose to kill what. No one even fucking reads it! How can you not understand my disgust when there's people who clearly are only committed to the outrage of this debate, and not the factual discussion or arguments in it?

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



TheWord21 said:


> Well, tomorrow night's the night of the vote, and to be honest with you guys, I'm not seeing much in the way of hope, what with the 3 voters agains 2 who oppose the net neutrality being scrapped.
> 
> EDIT: Made a mistake regarding the time.


oh fuck yeah
we're about to make the internet better lads
post party music


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I've already posted that disclosing it is required, as is that they *don't* throttle legal content. Again, refer to https://i.imgur.com/H4WDGNK.png. Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, and evidently more have committed to not throttling/blocking content, and will be held to that by the FTC and FCC, should they break it, they will be challenged.
> 
> That's the other thing too, this bill was being revised through criticism and comments by people. Voices in this do matter, but only the informed ones. This brings me to your last comment. My disgust with the media's representation of this is wholly justified. I don't care if I don't have a clear incentive from them or not -- there's no clear incentive for the FCC and FTC to support rules that would limit ISPs and their shit behavior being added and yet not enforce them, or let ISPs do whatever anyways, yet clearly you fear that will happen anyways.
> 
> ...




I bet anything sites like GBA Temp may be affected, you're not in the least worried about that:?


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I've already posted that disclosing it is required, as is that they *don't* throttle legal content. Again, refer to https://i.imgur.com/H4WDGNK.png. Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Cox, Frontier, and evidently more have committed to not throttling/blocking content, and will be held to that by the FTC and FCC, should they break it, they will be challenged.
> 
> That's the other thing too, this bill was being revised through criticism and comments by people. Voices in this do matter, but only the informed ones. This brings me to your last comment. My disgust with the media's representation of this is wholly justified. I don't care if I don't have a clear incentive from them or not -- there's no clear incentive for the FCC and FTC to support rules that would limit ISPs and their shit behavior being added and yet not enforce them, or let ISPs do whatever anyways, yet clearly you fear that will happen anyways.
> 
> ...



STOP CHANGING YOUR PFP... rawr

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



the_randomizer said:


> I bet anything sites like GBA Temp may be affected, you're not in the least worried about that:?



It's too early to worry.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I bet anything sites like GBA Temp may be affected, you're not in the least worried about that:?


Okay, bet your left shoe buddy.

What does GBATemp have on it that will be illegal? It's GBATemp, not GBATempt.

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



Memoir said:


> STOP CHANGING YOUR PFP... rawr
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I'm watching Billy and Mandy with my boyfriend and it's got such great shots, I absolutely HAD to use this.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Okay, bet your left shoe buddy.
> 
> What does GBATemp have on it that will be illegal? It's GBATemp, not GBATempt.
> 
> ...


I miss that show. /derail


----------



## cracker (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> You had a great post until it just straight up devolved into fearmongering, personal attacks, and straight up misinformation. Throttling, blocking, and whatever aren't permitted by the proposal, which specifically says will not be allowed, and it even listed services like Netflix by name.
> 
> I removed the colorfully offensive language so as not to step on any more toes than I already am by daring to advocate for this proposal.
> 
> View attachment 108297



You do realize that all they would have to do is plainly state that there are different packages that allow different sites to work (properly) to avoid the bait and switch law. Also, I'm pretty sure the Sherman Act and other anti-trust laws wouldn't legally prevent them from being able to block and/or throttle. So it all comes down to voluntary "commitments" to not do so which (as they are voluntary) can be rescinded by the ISPs.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> I miss that show. /derail


They got whole seasons on youtube, it's fucking amazing.

Been watching this and loving it. 
The show is like a slapstick-fueled love letter to shows like Clerks Animated and the Simpsons with it's continuity and heavy parodies of cheesy sci-fi monster flicks and the occult.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

cracker said:


> You do realize that all they would have to do is plainly state that there are different packages that allow different sites to work (properly) to avoid the bait and switch law. Also, I'm pretty sure the Sherman Act and other anti-trust laws wouldn't legally prevent them from being able to block and/or throttle. So it all comes down to voluntary "commitments" to not do so which (as they are voluntary) can be rescinded by the ISPs.


You really believe ALL ISPs would consider that route? You run a massive risk.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

@MaverickWellington I'm not going to quote your post, since I'm not really responding to anything other than asking a question about one thing, but what is your problem with the first "Free Press" link? It cites its sources and lays out a pretty decent overview of the history of neutrality violations


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

cracker said:


> You do realize that all they would have to do is plainly state that there are different packages that allow different sites to work (properly) to avoid the bait and switch law. Also, I'm pretty sure the Sherman Act and other anti-trust laws wouldn't legally prevent them from being able to block and/or throttle. So it all comes down to voluntary "commitments" to not do so which (as they are voluntary) can be rescinded by the ISPs.


No, the proposal is not dependent upon the voluntary commitment. If they rescind it, tough shit, they made it and are held to it. The proposal even explicitly prevents this kind of stuff anyways. Why are people so terrified? Because Gizmodo said to be? Sheesh.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> You really believe ALL ISPs would consider that route? You run a massive risk.


If it makes them more money, actually, yes


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> If it makes them more money, actually, yes



You're a cynic.

Money talks, bullshit walks. Guess I'm going straight talk for all my online needs.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> @MaverickWellington I'm not going to quote your post, since I'm not really responding to anything other than asking a question about one thing, but what is your problem with the first "Free Press" link? It cites its sources and lays out a pretty decent overview of the history of neutrality violations


Because the majority of them *aren't* violations. Having sources present doesn't mean you're correct or even solid. As I've said before, I'm not going to ever say the presence of sources equates to something being factually correct. Otherwise Climate Change is both simultaneously happening and not happening, the Earth is flat, oblaque, spheroid, cubical, triangular, and so on.

Again, I encourage you to look at this http://hightechforum.org/fact-checking-net-neutrality-violations/ and see what I mean, the sources verify it's statements. What calls the Free Press' article into further question is the clear bias. It's clearly a heavy, hard-pro-net-neutrality site that's resorted to even deception to push it's agenda. I don't care how much it may agree with me on the idea of ISPs behaving fairly or how critical the site and I are of legitimate violations of it and corporate fuckery. The site is biased and still dishonest, and no matter how much I agree with it, I refuse to use it to bolster my arguments, and I don't think anyone else should either.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Because the majority of them *aren't* violations. Having sources present doesn't mean you're correct or even solid. As I've said before, I'm not going to ever say the presence of sources equates to something being factually correct. Otherwise Climate Change is both simultaneously happening and not happening, the Earth is flat, oblaque, spheroid, cubical, triangular, and so on.
> 
> Again, I encourage you to look at this http://hightechforum.org/fact-checking-net-neutrality-violations/ and see what I mean, the sources verify it's statements. What calls the Free Press' article into further question is the clear bias. It's clearly a heavy, hard-pro-net-neutrality site that's resorted to even deception to push it's agenda. I don't care how much it may agree with me on the idea of ISPs behaving fairly or how critical the site and I are of legitimate violations of it and corporate fuckery. The site is biased and still dishonest, and no matter how much I agree with it, I refuse to use it to bolster my arguments, and I don't think anyone else should either.


Whoa that was a quick avatar change. It freaked me out for a moment.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Whoa that was a quick avatar change. It freaked me out for a moment.


Just wait until it updates on the forum, got a surprise for someone.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Just wait until it updates on the forum, got a surprise for someone.


AGHHHHHHHHHHJH! Whyyuuu


----------



## TheWord21 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Just wait until it updates on the forum, got a surprise for someone.



The suspense is already eating at the corners of my soul.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

TheWord21 said:


> The suspense is already eating at the corners of my soul.


Did you try turning it on and off again?


----------



## TheWord21 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Did you try turning it on and off again?



Yeah, I did.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

TheWord21 said:


> Yeah, I did.


Well try harder

On topic though, I don't think you guys should worry too much. If this bill is as awful as everyone says it's going to be, they're just gonna go back to the Title II Order, either through force (lawsuits) or will (paragraph 176 of https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf). Seriously guys, I don't think we need to be so worried or terrified.


----------



## TheWord21 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Well try harder
> 
> On topic though, I don't think you guys should worry too much. If this bill is as awful as everyone says it's going to be, they're just gonna go back to the Title II Order, either through force (lawsuits) or will (paragraph 176 of https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf). Seriously guys, I don't think we need to be so worried or terrified.



Currently working on that.

In all seriousness, it's not like I'll be holding my breath and clinging onto false hope or having a massive freak-out over it if it goes.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

TheWord21 said:


> Currently working on that.
> 
> In all seriousness, it's not like I'll be holding my breath and clinging onto false hope or having a massive freak-out over it if it goes.


Well I'd hope you're not holding your breath for several hours straight as that would probably kill you


----------



## TheWord21 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Well I'd hope you're not holding your breath for several hours straight as that would probably kill you



But, of course not.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> STOP CHANGING YOUR PFP... rawr
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



So it's better to be complacent?



MaverickWellington said:


> Okay, bet your left shoe buddy.
> 
> What does GBATemp have on it that will be illegal? It's GBATemp, not GBATempt.
> 
> ...



Government officials still deem modifying consoles as "illegal", or at least grey, as modding/hacking systems can circumvent copyright protection. They have ways of screwing us over.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> So it's better to be complacent?
> 
> 
> 
> Government officials still deem modifying consoles as "illegal", or at least grey, as modding/hacking systems can circumvent copyright protection. They have ways of screwing us over.


You sure about that one? Even accessing the internet could be illegal since you could use it to pirate games. Just because piracy is quite common -- both in practice and association -- with hacking/modding does not mean that's all people use it for -- I use CFW on my PS3 to play games I own physically without my broken BD drive. I use my softmodded Xbox to play ports of games I legally own on PC, like Quakes 1-3, Doom, Halo, and so on. I also own Halo for Xbox so it's doubly legal. Checkmate, government weenies!

But no I seriously doubt modifying a console is illegal just because it *might* lead to something. Surely by then we'd have outlawed all guns since they *might* lead to murder. Or knives. Or cars. Or handbags. Or keys. Or microwaves. Or light bulbs. Or the mug on my desk. Or toenail clippers. You get the idea by now.

Also, being complacent with negative change when you know it's bad, is obviously bad.
Being complacent when you have no valid reason to think something is bad other than people who have no valid reason say to be outraged is good.

Why on earth do people demonize complacency and levelheadedness in these scenarios and why is it ALWAYS the people who don't read the proposal?


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> You sure about that one? Even accessing the internet could be illegal since you could use it to pirate games. Just because piracy is quite common -- both in practice and association -- with hacking/modding does not mean that's all people use it for -- I use CFW on my PS3 to play games I own physically without my broken BD drive. I use my softmodded Xbox to play ports of games I legally own on PC, like Quakes 1-3, Doom, Halo, and so on. I also own Halo for Xbox so it's doubly legal. Checkmate, government weenies!
> 
> But no I seriously doubt modifying a console is illegal just because it *might* lead to something. Surely by then we'd have outlawed all guns since they *might* lead to murder. Or knives. Or cars. Or handbags. Or keys. Or microwaves. Or light bulbs. Or the mug on my desk. Or toenail clippers. You get the idea by now.
> 
> ...



Why are there two different perspectives on the repeal of net neutrality when there's no definitive way to resolve political difference of opinion? Who's right? Who's wrong? Republicans, or Democrats?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Why are there two different perspectives on the repeal of net neutrality when there's no definitive way to resolve political difference of opinion? Who's right? Who's wrong? Republicans, or Democrats?


Welcome to politics. Enjoy your stay.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Welcome to politics. Enjoy your stay.



Politics are always discussions where no one agrees on anything and everyone likes to go on diatribes ad nauseum, yeah, sounds about right.


----------



## TinchoX (Dec 14, 2017)

This is why I hate politics... Where I live we are to the neck with this kind of shit, they always find a way to screw people over just to fill their pockets and give 0 effs about  people...  It's getting boring already...


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

It's why I hated this election with the world's most burning passion. Everyone -- even their supporters -- had ridiculous notions of what their candidate was and what their opponents were and it just turned into a huge shitshow. It's why I'm so hard about misinformation and disingenuous people.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> It's why I hated this election with the world's most burning passion. Everyone -- even their supporters -- had ridiculous notions of what their candidate was and what their opponents were and it just turned into a huge shitshow. It's why I'm so hard about misinformation and disingenuous people.


Can you really blame people for misinformation. Shuffling through all the non sense is hard as is. It takes a lot of research to see whats true and not.


----------



## SpiffyJUNIOR (Dec 14, 2017)

"We can't limit speeds" Is better than "We won't".


----------



## nl255 (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> You really believe ALL ISPs would consider that route? You run a massive risk.



There are lots of places in the US where you only have two ISPs, your cable company or your telephone company and quite a few where you only have one broadband ISP.  Not really that big of a risk, what are you going to do go back to dialup?  Satellite is even worse than dialup in many cases (1.5-2 second ping times) and mobile isn't suitable for anything more than very light usage.  Or do you really think most people will be willing to pick up everything and move to another city/state just because their ISP starts requiring you to purchase extra packages/bundles to enable specific sites to load faster than say, 64k?



MaverickWellington said:


> Well try harder
> 
> On topic though, I don't think you guys should worry too much. If this bill is as awful as everyone says it's going to be, they're just gonna go back to the Title II Order, either through force (lawsuits) or will (paragraph 176 of https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf). Seriously guys, I don't think we need to be so worried or terrified.



In that case why are they spending so much time and money to change things if they aren't planning on taking advantage of said changes?  Do you really think they spent all those millions of dollars fighting to get rid of the NN order just to have everything stay the same?  And remember, a promise by any large corporation isn't even worth the paper it is not printed on (also, estoppel is a shield not a sword).


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> So it's better to be complacent?
> 
> 
> 
> Government officials still deem modifying consoles as "illegal", or at least grey, as modding/hacking systems can circumvent copyright protection. They have ways of screwing us over.


You say complacent, I say cautious. You're being too paranoid about something you know little about. The outcome is a mystery, no matter what side you're on.

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



SG854 said:


> Can you really blame people for misinformation. Shuffling through all the non sense is hard as is. It takes a lot of research to see whats true and not.


That's a continuing issue. So many "sources" to build up knowledge, but it's inconsistent and inconvenient.. You don't really know who to trust. "Fake news" is a real thing...


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> You say complacent, I say cautious. You're being too paranoid about something you know little about. The outcome is a mystery, no matter what side you're on.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Yes, Im well aware of that. Everyone knows "Fake News" is a thing. As someone who does heavy research on topics that interest me, like for example on gender issues, it can take hours, and days just to be decently informed on any topic. Months to be really knowledgable. Shuffling through whats not true or to see points of views not yet seen, hearing both sides of the argument, just to get any truth. Its really frustrating. I don't believe things right away which is why I research heavily.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Yes, Im well aware of that. Everyone knows "Fake News" is a thing. As someone who does heavy research on topics that interest me, like for example on gender issues, it can take hours, and days just to be decently informed on any topic. Months to be really knowledgable. Shuffling through whats not true or to see points of views not yet seen, hearing both sides of the argument, just to get any truth. Its really frustrating. I don't believe things right away which is why I research heavily.


It's kind of why I'm staying out of the whole NN debate.. Just chiming in when people are irrational.. Cuz that helps.. /s

I'm in the same boat, though. Research takes a long time before one can form a rational and unbiased opinion. Oo


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

nl255 said:


> In that case why are they spending so much time and money to change things if they aren't planning on taking advantage of said changes?  Do you really think they spent all those millions of dollars fighting to get rid of the NN order just to have everything stay the same?  And remember, a promise by any large corporation isn't even worth the paper it is not printed on (also, estoppel is a shield not a sword).


I mean AT&T isn't exactly fond of the proposal either, they're spending lots of money to get their way and the FCC is actively telling them to fuck off and that their suggestions to make it so we never can go back to Title II Order have been called "extraordinary" and "prophylactic forbearance" by the FCC in their proposal, in Paragraph 176.

I don't know about you but while it's clear some like AT&T want more room to be dickwarblers, the FCC ain't giving it to em. Not only that but if the rules are shown to have too many loopholes, we can just go back, like I said. I'm willing to give the new rules a shot. All the stories of throttling and underhanded bullshit should make people wanna try something new, but the moment something new comes in, suddenly everyone flips shit because lol peer pressure.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 14, 2017)

Okay... Do me a favor, in your own words, not "Go look at the bill." or "I've already said." 

In your own words... Tell me what would be -good- about removing the Title II.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> You keep arguing that the bill is not beneficial, so I'd like to see some evidence to support this. I'd like some actual citations from the bill.


You're acting like this bill is the word of god and not just some corporate douchenozzles trying to trick people into giving up their rights.  Who gives a fuck what the bill says.  I've said this several times: it's all a bunch of nice language masking the only real beneficiaries, near-monopolistic providers.  There's no benefit to any individual in repealing Net Neutrality.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 14, 2017)

Was going say something earlier before this thread blowup, but didn't have a chance to and I'm not reading 34 pages, so...

This is a shame. He shouldn't even be allowed to do this, let alone get this far.


----------



## dreary79 (Dec 14, 2017)

Net Neutrality = Government has more power over the internet.  Sorry, I'm for letting Net Neutrality die.  I wonder how many supporters have even downloaded the 400 page Net Neutrality rules.  It's 400 pages of outdated nonsense.  Again, it's 400 pages.  400 pages of the US Government controlling the internet.  Keep the government out of the internet, keep it free.


----------



## VinsCool (Dec 14, 2017)

I really do wonder what will happen, accepted or rejected law, honestly.
One has to be better than the other.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

dreary79 said:


> Net Neutrality = Government has more power over the internet.  Sorry, I'm for letting Net Neutrality die.  I wonder how many supporters have even downloaded the 400 page Net Neutrality rules.  It's 400 pages of outdated nonsense.  Again, it's 400 pages.  400 pages of the US Government controlling the internet.  Keep the government out of the internet, keep it free.


The government does not control the internet, it regulates what ISPs can and cannot do when delivering the internet to you


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> It's kind of why I'm staying out of the whole NN debate.. Just chiming in when people are irrational.. Cuz that helps.. /s
> 
> I'm in the same boat, though. Research takes a long time before one can form a rational and unbiased opinion. Oo


I want to be in this Net Neutrality debate because I like debating. But I don't know much about it. So its best I stay out of it.
Only to chime in to try to learn some things. Or to point out things that don't make sense to me at the moment.

Off Topic 
but related to how frustrating researching is and how the media hides things from you.


Spoiler: Off Topic



I go deep into topics biological, psychological, environmental, historical. I want to be as informed as a can.
Im extremely knowledgable when it comes to gender related issues. Just to show you and give an example how frustrating this is, head on over to my profile page. I actually linked to a bunch of articles about ME. Its a perfect example why you need to see things from both sides and not just one. Some of which are shocking to people. One of the articles talks about how one of the mainstream sites just flat out lies. Its extremely frustrating not getting a straight answer.

Even India the so called extremely sexist place on Earth, has things the media is not telling you. 498A of the India Penal code, which is an anti dowry law, has been misused by many women. A law that not only affects the man but also the family. Many men have committed suicide in India because of discriminatory laws against them. Suicide rates for married men are twice as high than for married women. There is a suicide video of a man in India crying on camera because his wife prevented him from seeing his kids and talks about how 498A ruined him. Here is a really good video on the India Penal code discrimination. Its extremely shocking when people first hear about this. Even @HaloEliteLegend said a few months back that if you want to see real sexism against women then go to my home country. Even in India there is discrimination against males just like there is for females.

You hear men from India in the comments sections begging and crying for help because of misuse of this law against them. The Supreme Court even had to get involved to try to prevent misuse.

This is exactly why I don't believe everything in the media, and their one sided things. This is why i'm not taking sides on Net Neutrality yet. I need more information and research. There is just a lot of crap that they don't tell you or purposely hide from you. (Especially when it comes to wording.) And India is the best example of that.


----------



## dreary79 (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> The government does not control the internet, it regulates what ISPs can and cannot do when delivering the internet to you


Regulate = Control.  Sorry, not a good argument.  

Regulate 
verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
to regulate household expenses.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

dreary79 said:


> Regulate = Control.  Sorry, not a good argument.
> 
> Regulate
> verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
> ...


... Ok, then how do you feel about ISPs "regulating" the content of the internet that gets delivered to you?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

dreary79 said:


> Net Neutrality = Government has more power over the internet.  Sorry, I'm for letting Net Neutrality die.  I wonder how many supporters have even downloaded the 400 page Net Neutrality rules.  It's 400 pages of outdated nonsense.  Again, it's 400 pages.  400 pages of the US Government controlling the internet.  Keep the government out of the internet, keep it free.


Net Neutrality is the only thing keeping the internet free.  What you're suggesting is not "freeing it from the hands of government," but rather forcing control of the internet into the hands of two or three big ISPs.  "Throttle my speeds and increase my rates because I don't like the idea of government in general" isn't a great argument.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Net Neutrality is the only thing keeping the internet free.  What you're suggesting is not "freeing it from the hands of government," but rather forcing control of the internet into the hands of two or three big ISPs.  "Throttle my speeds and increase my rates because I don't like the idea of government in general" isn't a great argument.


On that subject, I finally have the excuse to use a


Spoiler: meme


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> On that subject, I finally have the excuse to use a
> 
> 
> Spoiler: meme


So true.  Libertarianism used to mean something, now they're just discount Republicans shilling for corporate control of everything without realizing that would basically create a much more restrictive and "regulated" government.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> On that subject, I finally have the excuse to use a
> 
> 
> Spoiler: meme


Is that Vipera they are stepping on?


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Is that Vipera they are stepping on?


The government regulated Vipera out of existence


----------



## dreary79 (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> ... Ok, then how do you feel about ISPs "regulating" the content of the internet that gets delivered to you?


Either the ISP gets the power or the government gets the power.  If the government keeps the power, those powers will just increase over time.  In the end it will be controlled with the lobbyist with the biggest wallet.  I would rather risk the ISP screwing me than giving the government more control.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

dreary79 said:


> Either the ISP gets the power or the government gets the power.  If the government keeps the power, those powers will just increase over time.  In the end it will be controlled with the lobbyist with the biggest wallet.  I would rather risk the ISP screwing me than giving the government more control.


What if I told you that the ISPs _were _the lobbyists, and that the government ended up creating these regulations specifically to counter their increased control over their consumers?


----------



## dreary79 (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Net Neutrality is the only thing keeping the internet free.  What you're suggesting is not "freeing it from the hands of government," but rather forcing control of the internet into the hands of two or three big ISPs.  "Throttle my speeds and increase my rates because I don't like the idea of government in general" isn't a great argument.


Give government control because of a fear that your ISP might throttle you.  How very progressive.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

dreary79 said:


> Either the ISP gets the power or the government gets the power.  If the government keeps the power, those powers will just increase over time.  In the end it will be controlled with the lobbyist with the biggest wallet.  I would rather risk the ISP screwing me than giving the government more control.


At least be accurate.  It's not "the government" in general controlling the internet, it's the FCC.  And you're not "risking" the ISPs screwing you over, you're guaranteeing it.  Should the repeal pass, in two years you'll be begging them to re-instate Net Neutrality.  The funny thing is you're wary of the government, but you're not wary when they're actually trying to take away your rights.


----------



## dreary79 (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> What if I told you that the ISPs _were _the lobbyists, and that the government ended up creating these regulations specifically to counter their increased control over their consumers?


This fight is ISPs vs Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.  They all have lobbyists and they all want to control the government.  The ISPs aren't the only lobbyists.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

dreary79 said:


> This fight is ISPs vs Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.  They all have lobbyists and they all want to control the government.  The ISPs aren't the only lobbyists.


The fight is ISPs vs the entire internet.  Small websites like this one have a lot more to lose than the big players like Facebook and Amazon, they can simply pay the ISPs for "fast lanes."


----------



## dreary79 (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> At least be accurate.  It's not "the government" in general controlling the internet, it's the FCC.  And you're not "risking" the ISPs screwing you over, you're guaranteeing it.  Should the repeal pass, in two years you'll be begging them to re-instate Net Neutrality.  The funny thing is you're wary of the government, but you're not wary when they're actually trying to take away your rights.


The FCC not being the government is news to me.  The FCC commissioners are hand picked by the president and approved by the Senate.  So I guess they have nothing to do with the government.  That's also ignoring that fact that the FCC is an agency of the United States Government.

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



Xzi said:


> The fight is ISPs vs the entire internet.  Small websites like this one have a lot more to lose than the big players like Facebook and Amazon, they can simply pay the ISPs for "fast lanes."


Before Net Neutrality GBATemp really suffered.  It would be really hard for the site to survive if those dark days came back.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

dreary79 said:


> The FCC not being the government is news to me.  The FCC commissioners are hand picked by the president and approved by the Senate.  So I guess they have nothing to do with the government.  That's also ignoring that fact that the FCC is an agency of the United States Government.


Of course it's a part of government, but you're pretending like the rules are subject to change on a whim from Congress or the president or whoever.  Title II was around before the internet for regulating telecommunications, and it hasn't changed in a very long time.  It makes perfect sense that all traffic on the internet should have equal priority, and that's the main thing they're trying to take away with repeal.



dreary79 said:


> Before Net Neutrality GBATemp really suffered.  It would be really hard for the site to survive if those dark days came back.


Pretty much everything was being throttled to some extent right before Net Neutrality passed the first time around.  Loading speeds on basic websites weren't too bad, but video buffering and online gaming was a disaster.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Dec 14, 2017)

Slow lane cyber shopping, #Feelsbadman


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> On that subject, I finally have the excuse to use a
> 
> 
> Spoiler: meme


I love this so much, it accurately describes the situation in a way I couldn't.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

Excuse me while I go cry bitterly in a corner for the next 24 hours.


----------



## cracker (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Why are there two different perspectives on the repeal of net neutrality when there's no definitive way to resolve political difference of opinion? Who's right? Who's wrong? Republicans, or Democrats?



Representatives or constituents? The majority of private citizens on both sides don't want it repealed. It is a very rare instance of the two sides (politicians aside) agreeing on something.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

dreary79 said:


> The FCC not being the government is news to me.  The FCC commissioners are hand picked by the president and approved by the Senate.  So I guess they have nothing to do with the government.  That's also ignoring that fact that the FCC is an agency of the United States Government.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Before 1996? GBATEMP didn't even exist back then. 90's was around the time the majority of the population was starting to get internet the first time. Net Neutrality was first put in place in 1996 by the Telecommunications Act. During the Obama administrations it was reclassified from Title 1 to Title 2. It was reclassified because ISP's were blackmailing and throttling smaller companies, and messing up public access to whats suppose to be a public utility.

If they include the package system then this screws over smaller websites. If these smaller websites wants to be included in the package then they would have to pay Comcast a couple of millions of dollars to be included in the package. If they don't have the money then too bad they are not part of the package. Lets say you pay $20 for a shopping package and a company like Target didn't pay Comcast a couple of millions to be included in the package, then that means you can't buy anything from them, even if you paid the $20 for the shopping package.

Also this will create a monopoly. Big corporations can pay Verizon to purposely shut down other sites, so that they can control the market. Which will create less of a free market, less competition, and less freedom of choice to choose where you want to go.
That is if they are going down the throttling package route.


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 14, 2017)

Apparently, there is a bill made to specifically save net neutrality.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

KingVamp said:


> Apparently, there is a bill made to specifically save net neutrality.


Yes, from Congress.  No word on how much support it actually has, though.  Pai is a Trump appointee and Congress is majority Republican by quite a bit.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Dec 14, 2017)

wat should i do
i want to do piracy ;O;


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> You're acting like this bill is the word of god and not just some corporate douchenozzles trying to trick people into giving up their rights.  Who gives a fuck what the bill says.  I've said this several times: it's all a bunch of nice language masking the only real beneficiaries, near-monopolistic providers.  There's no benefit to any individual in repealing Net Neutrality.


Okay you paranoid, pseudo-intellectual, you're literally arguing that the bill is actually just fake and is there to appease people's fears while letting ISPs get worse, which is the exact opposite. If the FCC clearly didn't give a shit, why did they make a bill? 

"Who gives a fuck what the bill says?"

Uh, the people voting on it? The people who wrote it? The people trying to have it passed? You know, the people who matter an infinite amount more than you do or ever will in this debate that you keep yourself willingly ignorant on?

Like shit dude your precious Title II Order is meaningless by this logic. Sorry to break this to you but you have no argument at all.

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



Xzi said:


> Yes, from Congress.  No word on how much support it actually has, though.  Pai is a Trump appointee and Congress is majority Republican by quite a bit.


but the bill is just political words and jargon, it's not REALLY important. After all, who cares about the bill, right?

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



BlueFox gui said:


> wat should i do
> i want to do piracy ;O;


Get a VPN, or a proxy. ISPs can't really do anything about that shit.


----------



## MrJason005 (Dec 14, 2017)

hundreds of thousands of people are wrong and i am right


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

MrJason005 said:


> hundreds of thousands of people are wrong and i am right


hundreds of thousands of people who haven't read the bill have no idea what they're scared of and i have actually read it and find nothing worth being scared of

more accurate


----------



## BlueFox gui (Dec 14, 2017)

no no no, i need piracy


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

BlueFox gui said:


> no no no, i need piracy


There's a lot of sites I can see being left untouched -- either by being under the radar, or being legally gray -- such as those for roms, abandonware, and so on. There's no recorded history of ISPs blocking rom sites mind you, only torrents, which is what they really ever seem to care about. I'm sure groups like Skidrow and Reloaded will just take to uploading stuff on MEGA or something so even that should probably be fine too.

-snip-

Except the moment you change your name and service as a bait and switch, you get sued into oblivion by the FTC and FCC. Wrench in your plan there champ.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> There's a lot of sites I can see being left untouched -- either by being under the radar, or being legally gray -- such as those for roms, abandonware, and so on. There's no recorded history of ISPs blocking rom sites mind you, only torrents, which is what they really ever seem to care about. I'm sure groups like Skidrow and Reloaded will just take to uploading stuff on MEGA or something so even that should probably be fine too.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


oh shit i use torrent for huge games : (


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 14, 2017)

...

Why do I even bother reading the last page of a 36-page thread? The topic is polluted with people making fun of things they don't understand OR become frightened of something that isn't at stake. 


Perhaps it's better to just quote myself on a reply to a blog post i made to showcase the ACTUAL stakes, but I'll go into details later:



> Erm...let me stop you for a minute and point you towards Chary's article. I can see you've read it, but I don't think you've grasped the whole concept:
> 
> To take a snipplet:
> 
> ...





MrJason005 said:


> hundreds of thousands of people are wrong and i am right


Yup. Spoken like a true owner of an ISP. Because in that case you'd be right: you will gain the freedom to tamper with whatever kind of metadata your clients use. Want to charge extra for youtube? It'll be legal. Want to give your own video service a better bandwith? Yes you can. You can even give facebook users the freedom to pony up extra cash to you if they want their platform just as available as it currently is. So what that the hundreds of thousands of people have a different opinion on freedom...there's just no freedom like the freedom to mess with your own provided services. :




BlueFox gui said:


> oh shit i use torrent for huge games : (


Torrents (and maybe even more globally: peer to peer networks) are a way to transport data. It's very possible that the high speed internet you thought you had (because advertisement said so) will quickly lower on THAT aspect of your internet service. It depends with what retarded bundle your provider will come up with (you can send mails for free, but if you want to use torrents...hmm...I'm afraid that'll be an extra option).


-snip-
Yeah...no. I'm gonna side with @MaverickWellington and say that you don't know what the actual proposal is about.

A more proper analogy would be in the lines of offering people free mail, but with the caveat that other data will come in "packs" or "bundles". What data will and won't be charged extra will be part of contracts in ever increasingly hard to read/understand lawyer-gibberish that people won't have a clue about put they sign nonetheless (it's easy in America: I've read that for the most parts, ISP's have barely any competition from other ISP's). They'll realise that they've been suckered into strangling contracts when you can start sending out bills where you "inform" them that they've used other kinds of data that wasn't free. And actually costly.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

BlueFox gui said:


> oh shit i use torrent for huge games : (


You need to consider torrents are used for legitimate purposes too, and unless an ISP can verify a torrent is full of illegal content -- by downloading it or observing it themselves -- they can't really reasonably throttle it without getting in trouble as they'd inevitably block legal ones. I think what this would lead to is torrents just being sneakier and smarmier -- instead of "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 1" we'd have a torrent listed as, say, "Duty Calls IV: The First Modern Warbattle" or some shit. I'd find it hilarious personally but clever too.


----------



## Tigran (Dec 14, 2017)

You have not answered my question.

What is a good thing that can come from repealing net neutrality.


----------



## BlueFox gui (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> You need to consider torrents are used for legitimate purposes too, and unless an ISP can verify a torrent is full of illegal content -- by downloading it or observing it themselves -- they can't really reasonably throttle it without getting in trouble as they'd inevitably block legal ones. I think what this would lead to is torrents just being sneakier and smarmier -- instead of "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 1" we'd have a torrent listed as, say, "Duty Calls IV: The First Modern Warbattle" or some shit. I'd find it hilarious personally but clever too.


some games i got on torrent are like that, they name it with some random words XD


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Tigran said:


> You have not answered my question.
> 
> What is a good thing that can come from repealing net neutrality.


Where are you getting the notion that net neutrality in and of itself is being repealed?


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

Tigran said:


> You have not answered my question.
> 
> What is a good thing that can come from repealing net neutrality.


Ajit Pai making money of course


----------



## Tigran (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Where are you getting the notion that net neutrality in and of itself is being repealed?



Fine... I'll be more specific. What is one good thing about it being removed from Title 2?


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> You need to consider torrents are used for legitimate purposes too, and unless an ISP can verify a torrent is full of illegal content -- by downloading it or observing it themselves -- they can't really reasonably throttle it without getting in trouble as they'd inevitably block legal ones. I think what this would lead to is torrents just being sneakier and smarmier -- instead of "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 1" we'd have a torrent listed as, say, "Duty Calls IV: The First Modern Warbattle" or some shit. I'd find it hilarious personally but clever too.


That's a slippery slope, but I think ISP's will quickly just increase the cost (or lower speeds) for torrents, on the half-assumption that they're illegal anyway*. I'm not sure the group that uses torrents legally - I'm thinking linux developers - have much of a lobby group to prevent that.


*in Belgium, we have a tax on disk storage media that's supposed to cover for income that the music & movie industry loses due to piracy. In reality, it means that we pay sabam (erm...I think the American equivalent is RIAA), even if we buy a drive for a PC backup. Despite this, piracy is still illegal.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Tigran said:


> Fine... I'll be more specific. What is one good thing about it being removed from Title 2?


That we have a hard, specific set of rules that no amount of legal jargon, mental gymnastics, or otherwise niggling lawsuits can make loopholes around. When the law says you can't throttle legal content, you can't throttle legal content. There's no if ands or butts. Doesn't matter if it's something competing with a service you own. You cannot throttle it if it is not illegal. Period.

I don't know about you but after the years of stupid shit we've endured at the hands of moronic ISPs I'm pretty hopeful that this proposal will be doing some good shit. I encourage you to read it instead of asking for summaries for it since all you're gonna get from anyone -- regardless of stance -- is a biased summary. https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf

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



Taleweaver said:


> That's a slippery slope, but I think ISP's will quickly just increase the cost (or lower speeds) for torrents, on the half-assumption that they're illegal anyway*. I'm not sure the group that uses torrents legally - I'm thinking linux developers - have much of a lobby group to prevent that.
> 
> 
> *in Belgium, we have a tax on disk storage media that's supposed to cover for income that the music & movie industry loses due to piracy. In reality, it means that we pay sabam (erm...I think the American equivalent is RIAA), even if we buy a drive for a PC backup. Despite this, piracy is still illegal.


I don't think it's a slippery slope to assume the people making illegal torrents would find sneaky ways to get around it. People do it on youtube. Whenever copyright trolls -- either for legitimate or illegitimate reasons -- file constant copyright strikes on a channel, people will just rename their shit to get around it in a way that's identifiable to humans who know about it and are looking for it specifically, but are not noticeable by machines and their algorithms. Shit, I'd do it myself in such a position. 

This isn't even considering the fact that there's numerous VPNs out there which allow P2P file transfers, so I'd imagine should ISPs start being uppity little fuckers, people will just go to those. The irony in paying someone something to let them pirate stuff is hilarious though.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 14, 2017)

today is our day of reckoning (unless my clock is off)
idk if that means whay i think it means cuz im stupid but it sounds cool 
anyways
if net neutrality dies then Megimin dies with it (Megumin doesn't cuz I didn't make her)
Megimin was only made because tge internet is free
and I was extremely bored
if tge internet was never free tgen on that day I was bored I would not of stumbled across the random shit that gave me the idea to draw her
instead I would've just sat in my room bored all day
so Megimin will dissapear with net neutrality if it dies
also one of my friends who's suicidal said he's gonna shoot himself if net neutrality dies
I've had to talk him out of suicide a few times but his whole life is the internet now
I don't think I'll be able to talk him out if net neutrality dies


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Eix said:


> today is our day of reckoning (unless my clock is off)
> idk if that means whay i think it means cuz im stupid but it sounds cool
> anyways
> if net neutrality dies then Megimin dies with it (Megumin doesn't cuz I didn't make her)
> ...


Not only is net neutrality not dying but you're shoving the fears that came with SOPA/PIPA/TPP (no not konami one, the bill) into this proposal. You're not going to lose contact with your friends, content you create is not going to disappear, and your friend is giving into fearmongering. Send him this image (https://i.imgur.com/SO3HJbG.png) and tell him there's nothing to fear.

Also I highly doubt he'd actually kill himself over something like this. It takes a lot of guts to actually end your own life. I sincerely doubt he's serious.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

-snip-
So to bring the thread back on topic, are there any ideas, laws, or basic groundwork people would like to see in internet regulation? I think finding ideas that work for the internet is the first step to getting rules that appease everyone.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I don't think it's a slippery slope to assume the people making illegal torrents would find sneaky ways to get around it. People do it on youtube. Whenever copyright trolls -- either for legitimate or illegitimate reasons -- file constant copyright strikes on a channel, people will just rename their shit to get around it in a way that's identifiable to humans who know about it and are looking for it specifically, but are not noticeable by machines and their algorithms. Shit, I'd do it myself in such a position.
> 
> This isn't even considering the fact that there's numerous VPNs out there which allow P2P file transfers, so I'd imagine should ISPs start being uppity little fuckers, people will just go to those. The irony in paying someone something to let them pirate stuff is hilarious though.


That's most likely true. If ISP's start to make torrents more expensive and/or slower to distribute, it will get investigated and altered just enough so the header is altered just enough so that it won't get flagged as such. The same will happen - but much faster - if they attempt to block it in large numbers.

Still, pirates have that adaptability that most internet users lack. My brother and his girlfriend happily pay each month their subscription fees for netflix (while I sigh yet again when popcorn time delivers out-of-sync Dutch subtitles). If their ISP was legally allowed to say "sorry...but seeing how much data is being used, we're going to be offering you the delivery of netflix as a more deluxe pack for extra cost", I'm sure they'll just pay that price.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Taleweaver said:


> That's most likely true. If ISP's start to make torrents more expensive and/or slower to distribute, it will get investigated and altered just enough so the header is altered just enough so that it won't get flagged as such. The same will happen - but much faster - if they attempt to block it in large numbers.
> 
> Still, pirates have that adaptability that most internet users lack. My brother and his girlfriend happily pay each month their subscription fees for netflix (while I sigh yet again when popcorn time delivers out-of-sync Dutch subtitles). If their ISP was legally allowed to say "sorry...but seeing how much data is being used, we're going to be offering you the delivery of netflix as a more deluxe pack for extra cost", I'm sure they'll just pay that price.


At this point I'm fairly certain that the package stuff won't happen. I'm making a stretch here but hear me out.





Based on this line from the document, as well as this one





I'm convinced that any form of "tiered packages" or what have you wouldn't be permitted as that would be discriminating against internet conduct and applications as the document says. With the outrage that'd come with it -- even with individuals like your brother and his girlfriend who wouldn't really care -- there'd be fighting and screeching at the FTC and FCC to investigate it and have something done about it, which they have the authority to do. This generously assumes that sort of practice would even be *allowed.*

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

-snip-


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

-snip-
Please use punctuation. Run-on sentences are awful and you should feel awful for making them.

The FCC literally gives themselves and the FTC power to prosecute shit like throttling and possibly even tiered-packages by classifying such actions as an anti-trust violation, and anti-competitive practice, meaning the FCC and FTC are *BOTH* allowed to regulate these people.

Net Neutrality is not being killed. Just the shitty rules people who were scared of their own shadow like you put in place. We're keeping net neutrality as a philosophy, however.

-snip-


----------



## Minox (Dec 14, 2017)

Please stay on topic and try to refrain from attempting to derail discussion through shitposting.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

I think despite the fact his post was blatantly off topic, it should be fair to restore the post I was quoting of computerusers, since that is technically on topic, just moronic.

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





Hey can the people critical of the proposal explain to me why they want us to stay under Title II where the people who put it in place said ISPs are literally allowed to fuck with your content, and that the only thing stopping them is basically capitalism?

How can you tell me this proposal will result in awful shit when capitalism has kept them at bay for years?

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

Hey @TotalInsanity4 you're the one so worked up about this still, can you tell me why we don't see any tiered-packages today despite the laws here, explain by this webpage https://readplaintext.com/why-the-fcc-s-net-neutrality-rules-could-unravel-cc26c6b96418 showing that ISPs at any time *RIGHT NOW* can just fucking ignore these laws and do all the shitty things you swear they're gonna do now?

There are loopholes in the Title II Order *_*RIGHT NOW*_* that say ISPs can just ignore the rules and do whatever they want, and you think the proposal is going to be *worse?*


----------



## Haloman800 (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> tfw the US postal service actually _is _a government-affiliated program that regulates itself heavily and has restrictions on what it can and can't do to protect the privacy of the people who take advantage of it, and that the money used for shipping actually covers cost of transport and storage of sensitive packages, particularly if it involves going through customs, and how that analogy has no affiliation in any way with how ISPs distribute content other than the fact that they have to put cable in the ground and that the content and size of a file shouldn't affect the average speed at which it gets to you unless the network is overloaded


Because the post office has to pay to deliver packages, but ISPs don't? Lol. I don't think you understand how their infrastructure works.

Did you know the government made it illegal for post office competitors (like UPS or FedEx) to charge less for postage than the government post office?


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I think despite the fact his post was blatantly off topic, it should be fair to restore the post I was quoting of computerusers, since that is technically on topic, just moronic.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


It's not the idea of title 2 thats the problem, which its intent was to stop ISP's from Blackmailing and Throttling smaller companies. Its the wording and ISP's finding ways around that. Which is exactly what I've been talking about this whole time.



Haloman800 said:


> Because the post office has to pay to deliver packages, but ISPs don't? Lol. I don't think you understand how their infrastructure works.
> 
> Did you know the government made it illegal for post office competitors (like UPS or FedEx) to charge less for postage than the government post office?





Haloman800 said:


> We need postal neutrality. It shouldn't matter what I ship or how far. I should be able to mail 50lbs of Christmas presents same as a regular letter. The government needs to shut down this pay-to-play system of favoritism and upcharges for faster delivery. Everyone deserves priority service and tracking without having to spend any extra. The post office isn't going to regulate itself!



You have the choice to pay less for Internet right now, or more for better speeds. If you only use the web for email and social media, then you can pay the cheaper 5 megabit per second option. If you want to stream HD video then you can pay the more expensive 50 megabit option. What type of Internet service speed you get is dependent on how much you pay.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

SG854 said:


> It's not the idea of title 2 thats the problem, which its intent was to stop ISP's from Blackmailing and Throttling smaller companies. Its the wording and ISP's finding ways around that. Which is exactly what I've been talking about this whole time.



No, I don't think you quite understand.

The people who put your precious Title II Order in place literally said themselves that an ISP is allowed to not adhere to the regulations of their own will, because it would not classify them as the catch all broadband service they proposed.

Let me repeat that for you.

If an ISP wants to disobey the rules, they can. The only reason they haven't is because no one would subscribe to them.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> No, I don't think you quite understand.
> 
> The people who put your precious Title II Order in place literally said themselves that an ISP is allowed to not adhere to the regulations of their own will, because it would not classify them as the catch all broadband service they proposed.
> 
> ...


If ISP's are allowed to not be classified as common carriers right, then how come they stoped throttling when we switched to title 2. 
Capitalism existed back then even with title 1, yet they were throttling smaller companies.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

SG854 said:


> If ISP's are allowed to not be classified as common carriers right, then how come they stoped throttling when we switched to title 2.
> Capitalism existed back then even with title 1, yet they were throttling smaller companies.


Probably because of the fuckton of lawsuits. It wasn't until several years later that the FCC got on Comcast's ass about the bittorrent stuff back in the day, and that was out of their jurisdiction back then. So I'm gonna chalk it up to a lack of authority, something ELSE the proposal plans to resolve.

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

Also throttling never stopped with Title II -- they just got sneakier with their loopholes.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/major-internet-providers-slowing-traffic-speeds


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Probably because of the fuckton of lawsuits. It wasn't until several years later that the FCC got on Comcast's ass about the bittorrent stuff back in the day, and that was out of their jurisdiction back then. So I'm gonna chalk it up to a lack of authority, something ELSE the proposal plans to resolve.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Ok thanks for the link. Im only here to try to learn about all this. So i'm questioning things.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Ok thanks for the link. Im only here to try to learn about all this. So i'm questioning things.


Perfectly understandable, and thank you so much for doing so. All I want out of this is for people to educate themselves before forming an opinion, and to stop pretending the FCC's plan is to kill net neutrality when net neutrality was killing itself.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Probably because of the fuckton of lawsuits. It wasn't until several years later that the FCC got on Comcast's ass about the bittorrent stuff back in the day, and that was out of their jurisdiction back then. So I'm gonna chalk it up to a lack of authority, something ELSE the proposal plans to resolve.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Interesting. That right there is actually the post I've been looking for from you this whole time.

Let's say that at this point you haven't convinced me that Pai is trustworthy, nor that deregulation is the answer to the current issue, but that reform is necessary. I think we can both agree on that front, and leave it at that. And if there is indeed a failsafe built into the proposition, then I guess it wouldn't be awful. I'd rather NOT find out firsthand, but hopefully due process will take its course

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



Haloman800 said:


> Because the post office has to pay to deliver packages, but ISPs don't? Lol. I don't think you understand how their infrastructure works.
> 
> Did you know the government made it illegal for post office competitors (like UPS or FedEx) to charge less for postage than the government post office?


Do you really think that ISPs pay for server space or access to websites?... they put cables in the ground that connect to their established backbone and that's it. Then they just dish out available bandwidth to all their subscribers


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Interesting. That right there is actually the post I've been looking for from you this whole time.
> 
> Let's say that at this point you haven't convinced me that Pai is trustworthy, nor that deregulation is the answer to the current issue, but that reform is necessary. I think we can both agree on that front, and leave it at that. And if there is indeed a failsafe built into the proposition, then I guess it wouldn't be awful. I'd rather NOT find out firsthand, but hopefully due process will take its course


but...it's been reform this whole time. Like for the past five pages I've been demonstrating it's a reform of the clearly flawed rules. It's giving FCC and FTC the power they didn't have in the past, making it so ISPs can't ignore the rules that are present now, and that the rules are sensible for consumers and fair for ISPs.

How this isn't the textbook definition of reform and how it's deregulation is beyond me but hey whatever at least you're saying something somewhat rational for once.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> but...it's been reform this whole time. Like for the past five pages I've been demonstrating it's a reform of the clearly flawed rules. It's giving FCC and FTC the power they didn't have in the past, making it so ISPs can't ignore the rules that are present now, and that the rules are sensible for consumers and fair for ISPs.
> 
> How this isn't the textbook definition of reform and how it's deregulation is beyond me but hey whatever at least you're saying something somewhat rational for once.



How do you know ISPs won't try to use shady or other dodgy loopholes to screw people over even more? A lot of regulations and laws are under-enforced.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> How do you know ISPs won't try to use shady or other dodgy loopholes to screw people over even more? A lot of regulations and laws are under-enforced.


you're gonna give me a concussion from how hard you make me facedesk dude

https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-37#post-7737035
https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-37#post-7737005
https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-37#post-7736942

Why you insist on such paranoia with evidence to the contrary in front of you is beyond me, but stop it. Get some help.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> you're gonna give me a concussion from how hard you make me facedesk dude
> 
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-37#post-7737035
> https://gbatemp.net/threads/net-neu...y-you-should-care.490063/page-37#post-7737005
> ...



Okay. But you just literally said "also throttling never stopped with Title II -- they just got sneakier with their loopholes," so  how would removing NN make that better?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Okay. But you just literally said "also throttling never stopped with Title II -- they just got sneakier with their loopholes," so  how would removing NN make that better?


We're not removing NN you nincompoop. We're adding more regulations to it. Where the fuck did you hear that it was being removed?


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> We're not removing NN you nincompoop. We're adding more regulations to it. Where the fuck did you hear that it was being removed?



Hey, way resort to using insults, dude, but aren't they repealing NN today anyways? And insult me one more time, and you're fucking blocked, so shut it.

Resorting to insults only implicates an inability to have a proper debate


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Hey, way resort to using insult bullshit, dude, but aren't they repealing NN today anyways? And insult me one more time, and you're fucking blocked, so shut it.


It's playful banter, I do it with everyone in the thread. If you're offended by 'nincompoop' chances are you're gonna be pretty offended by everything else in this thread. 

Seriously though where did you hear NN is being removed? You can't remove an idea. You can only remove regulations that follow it's philosophy. They're adding *more* regulations after, as I posted 3 links demonstrating, the rules are currently being abused, and the proposal is to combat that.

How you cling to the notion that the internet is going to be come deregulated as a whole is beyond me, probably the dipshit media, but you shouldn't believe everything the media tells you, regardless of it's political stance.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> It's playful banter, I do it with everyone in the thread. If you're offended by 'nincompoop' chances are you're gonna be pretty offended by everything else in this thread.
> 
> Seriously though where did you hear NN is being removed? You can't remove an idea. You can only remove regulations that follow it's philosophy. They're adding *more* regulations after, as I posted 3 links demonstrating, the rules are currently being abused, and the proposal is to combat that.
> 
> How you cling to the notion that the internet is going to be come deregulated as a whole is beyond me, probably the dipshit media, but you shouldn't believe everything the media tells you, regardless of it's political stance.



You honestly trust ISPs to play fair to the millions of people that use the internet? You honestly trust them not to royally screw it over for us? Comcast/Xfinity, Verizon? I wouldn't trust myself to throw a football further than I can trust two monopolizing ISPs. Thanks to Comcast, we never got Google Fiber because they blocked them from entering my hometown, how is that fair? And you expect them to be fair and balanced?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Hey, way resort to using insults, dude, but aren't they repealing NN today anyways? And insult me one more time, and you're fucking blocked, so shut it.
> 
> Resorting to insults only implicates an inability to have a proper debate


nice edit, you've seen firsthand I can carry a proper debate, the same cannot be said for some of my opponents.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Perfectly understandable, and thank you so much for doing so. All I want out of this is for people to educate themselves before forming an opinion, and to stop pretending the FCC's plan is to kill net neutrality when net neutrality was killing itself.


Thats goes back on the original point I made which was wording and ways around it with loopholes when I said this.
_*It's not the idea of title 2 thats the problem, which its intent was to stop ISP's from Blackmailing and Throttling smaller companies. Its the wording and ISP's finding ways around that. Which is exactly what I've been talking about this whole time.
*_
And you replied with this post in Bold text.


MaverickWellington said:


> No, I don't think you quite understand.
> 
> The people who put your precious Title II Order in place literally said themselves that an ISP is allowed to not adhere to the regulations of their own will, because it would not classify them as the catch all broadband service they proposed.
> 
> ...


So I wasn't off with what I said. And were only trying to improve the wording of NN.


----------



## jt_1258 (Dec 14, 2017)

https://www.fcc.gov/general/live


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> You honestly trust ISPs to play fair to the millions of people that use the internet? You honestly trust them not to royally screw it over for us? Comcast/Xfinity, Verizon? I wouldn't trust myself to throw a football.


>I don't trust ISPs at all!
>but I sure do trust the government who has power over us all!
my friend I think we have a lot more problems here than just your false perception of the proposal.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> >I don't trust ISPs at all!
> >but I sure do trust the government who has power over us all!
> my friend I think we have a lot more problems here than just your false perception of the proposal.



Yes, it's called the fearmongering brought upon by ubiquitous liberal media outlets.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Yes, it's called the fearmongering brought upon by ubiquitous liberal media outlets.


No, it has nothing to do with liberals. Just retards. You've bought into the fearmongering yourself and yet are strangely critical of it. Truly, the inner workings of your mind are an enigma.

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



SG854 said:


> Thats goes back on the original point I made which was wording and ways around it with loopholes when I said this.
> _*It's not the idea of title 2 thats the problem, which its intent was to stop ISP's from Blackmailing and Throttling smaller companies. Its the wording and ISP's finding ways around that. Which is exactly what I've been talking about this whole time.
> *_
> And you replied with this post in Bold text.
> ...


And what I was getting at is that I don't think even that was the idea. I'm not sure what the idea was, but I don't think any solid, sane proposal could legitimately give ISPs the authority to disregard every single one of the rules in good faith, at least not one that's trying to prevent such behavior. Giving them a clause that allows them to do so is disastrous -- even if it isn't immediate -- and it isn't ISPs finding a way around it, but more "hey guys, here's the keys to my backdoor, please break into my house!"


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> No, it has nothing to do with liberals. Just retards. You've bought into the fearmongering yourself and yet are strangely critical of it. Truly, the inner workings of your mind are an enigma.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...




PM sent your way, more details there.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

How do I have to be a retard or brainwashed by the evil liberal news to trust that repealing net neutrality is a bad thing, especially since the leader of the movement made a video explaining how it was ok because you can still use fidget spinners and do the Harlem shake afterwards. That's this argument in favor of it. On the other hand it is clear that this makes it far more feasible for people to be screwed over by isps, and there's no argument against that.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> No, it has nothing to do with liberals. Just retards. You've bought into the fearmongering yourself and yet are strangely critical of it. Truly, the inner workings of your mind are an enigma.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I wonder why Title 2 was even proposed in the first place, if its basically the same as title 1 and they can do what they want. 
Is it to give people the illusion that they have protection?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

SG854 said:


> I wonder why Title 2 was even proposed in the first place, if its basically the same as title 1 and they can do what they want.
> Is it to give people the illusion that they have protection?


I'm not a government conspiracy theorist -- in fact i'm super critical of them -- but out of all the shit I've seen, I'm gonna say that. Has there been any outrage or protest from ISPs when Title II's order was proposed? Because if not, I think we have a money trail to look at.

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



bi388 said:


> How do I have to be a retard or brainwashed by the evil liberal news to trust that repealing net neutrality is a bad thing, especially since the leader of the movement made a video explaining how it was ok because you can still use fidget spinners and do the Harlem shake afterwards. That's this argument in favor of it. On the other hand it is clear that this makes it far more feasible for people to be screwed over by isps, and there's no argument against that.


Actually me bucko, there's a huge argument against that: You're totally wrong. Like 100% wrong.

I'm gonna wear my fucking wrists out I swear.

Okay. Net Neutrality is not being repealed. The title II rules allow ISPs to ignore the rules and strip their classification as broadband services so that they can throttle, block, and do whatever they want as much as they want. Do you seriously think we need to keep these rules? Read this and tell me you want these fucking rules tied to your internet. I dare you.

https://readplaintext.com/why-the-fcc-s-net-neutrality-rules-could-unravel-cc26c6b96418

Now tell me you don't want a proposal that says throttling isn't allowed, that you're not allowed to discriminate content online, and especially those offering competing services are not allowed to fuck with other people's content if it competes with them.





Because I fully support the FCC's new proposal. I dislike that ISPs won't have to disclose their packet loss rates but it's whatever, I can find that shit online.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I'm not a government conspiracy theorist -- in fact i'm super critical of them -- but out of all the shit I've seen, I'm gonna say that. Has there been any outrage or protest from ISPs when Title II's order was proposed? Because if not, I think we have a money trail to look at.


Im super critical of conspiracy theories too but....

Not all government conspiracy's are wrong though. Its been proven that the government used JFK's assassination and the so called magic bullet to distract people, so that they are more focused on solving the mystery of JFK then actually paying attention to whats going on in their government. There were documents on this.

This does sound like a conspiracy with why Title 2 even came into existence in the first place.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> >but I sure do trust the government who has power over us all!


...
.-.
fuck the government
they have no power over me aslong as I have my own free will!
they may have power over simple minded people like you but aslong as governments exist people will disobey
I will never trust any government or allow them to control me with laws


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> snip


Ok so say you're right. Then why is this brain dead idiot making videos on fidget spinners and dank memes and claiming you should support him... for memes? You trust someone like that to manage how isps function?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Im super critical of conspiracy theories too but....
> 
> Not all government conspiracy's are wrong though. Its been proven that the government used JFK's assassination and the so called magic bullet to distract people, so that they are more focused on solving the mystery of JFK then actually paying attention to whats going on in their government. There were documents on this.
> 
> This does sound like a conspiracy with why Title 2 even came into existence in the first place.


Oh don't get me wrong, there are a lot of conspiracies that went on, and the government's pretty good at causing (and subsequently quelling, though not as good) dissent and confusion. Maybe Title II was part of that. That said I'm not going to assume the most inane shit about the new proposal since it's clear that A) the previous people in power have fucking LOATHED Trump since the day he started his campaign and even moreso now that he's won and is in the office so they're probably the ones pushing this agenda so hard, and B) there's no real evidence or even a motive. ISPs wouldn't line the pockets of Ajit Pai to give them more regulations and prevent them from sucking the money out of customers. I have no idea where this meme comes from but it doesn't align with the proposal.

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



bi388 said:


> Ok so say you're right. Then why is this brain dead idiot making videos on fidget spinners and dank memes and claiming you should support him... for memes? You trust someone like that to manage how isps function?


Oh yeah because Obama was so much fucking better making wisecracks left and right, posting memes with Joe Biden, and even partaking in the "thanks obama" meme, right?

Seriously dude this is the weakest argument anyone can pull. Don't call anyone braindead if you haven't read the proposal.

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



Eix said:


> ...
> .-.
> fuck the government
> they have no power over me aslong as I have my own free will!
> ...


You have free will -- just as all humans do -- but you do not have freedom from consequence. The point of the government is to keep rules fair for the people, to protect them in war through the military, and keep them organized. The problem is many governments -- such as the CIA, as people see from the vault 7 leaks -- will get too fucking uppity and do stuff they clearly ain't supposed to do. 

Government is a necessity. Tyrants are not. Sic simper tyrannosaurs, ave nex alea, and so on.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

Did... did you actually just use Obama as an excuse for Ajits actions?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Did... did you actually just use Obama as an excuse for Ajits actions?


Let's see:
Out of touch minority resorts to memes to catch the attention of teens across the country as a stupid PR move?

Yeah. I did.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Let's see:
> Out of touch minority resorts to memes to catch the attention of teens across the country as a stupid PR move?
> 
> Yeah. I did.


Literally you just pulled a "but obama!!!". This isn't about Obama, I never said anything about him and he's irrelivent to this issue you're literally diverting the fact Ajit is a shit head by saying "But this other guy is bad too"


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Literally you just pulled a "but obama!!!". This isn't about Obama, I never said anything about him and he's irrelivent to this issue you're literally diverting the fact Ajit is a shit head by saying "But this other guy is bad too"


No, I'm not pulling a "but obama"
I'm pulling a "these guys did the same things, it was harmless then and it's harmless now and it's hardly a reason to hate anyone for it." Quit being ridiculous. You're searching for the most neurotic reasons to shit on Ajit Pai. Either Obama was a braindead idiot for doing it, or Ajit Pai wasn't, but there's no way to have both here.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> No, I'm not pulling a "but obama"
> I'm pulling a "these guys did the same things, it was harmless then and it's harmless now and it's hardly a reason to hate anyone for it." Quit being ridiculous. You're searching for the most neurotic reasons to shit on Ajit Pai. Either Obama was a braindead idiot for doing it, or Ajit Pai wasn't, but there's no way to have both here.


Show me when Obama justified his politicies with literal memes please


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Show me when Obama justified his politicies with literal memes please


Show me where Ajit Pai used only memes to justify his "politicies" and I'll show you that you're a liar and that the proposal is full of justified findings, court cases, arguments from other lawyers -- even on other sides -- and even statistics!

So until you stop grasping at straws and can bring me a real argument as to why the bill is bad beyond "durrr i dislike ajit pai because someone told me to, durrrrrrrrrr," shut up.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf
You got some reading to do.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Okay you paranoid


Imma stop you right there.  This tells me you still have no valid argument for Net Neutrality repeal.  "But muh corporations promised" and "y'all are gonna make Ajit Pai cry" is the best you could come up with throughout this entire thread.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Show me where Ajit Pai used only memes to justify his "politicies" and I'll show you that you're a liar and that the proposal is full of justified findings, court cases, arguments from other lawyers -- even on other sides -- and even statistics!
> 
> So until you stop grasping at straws and can bring me a real argument as to why the bill is bad beyond "durrr i dislike ajit pai because someone told me to, durrrrrrrrrr," shut up.
> 
> ...


I know perfectly well what repealing it does, it makes it easy for an isp to throttle or block specific sites, and charge extra to access certain content. In other words control the flow of information. And pointing out the fact the leader of the repeal literally made a video in which he argued he was right because afterwards you can look at memes isn't grasping at straws. If he's going to make moronic arguments like that then I have every right to point out how dumb his argument is.


----------



## DRAGONBALLVINTAGE (Dec 14, 2017)

it passed


----------



## Kingy (Dec 14, 2017)

Well, looks like it has passed. 3-2. Good luck to the Americans out there.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Imma stop you right there.  This tells me you still have no valid argument for Net Neutrality repeal.  "But muh corporations promised" and "y'all are gonna make Ajit Pai cry" is the best you could come up with throughout this entire thread.


I've never said either of those but ok nerd
You should be having a heart attack right now and should have had one years ago when the Title II Order specifically stated that every ISP could just ignore the rules and reclassify themselves, and couldn't be punished for it.
https://readplaintext.com/why-the-fcc-s-net-neutrality-rules-could-unravel-cc26c6b96418

I also have a fucking article saying throttling *still* happened despite all the regulations from Title II.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/major-internet-providers-slowing-traffic-speeds

So either: Title II isn't working and you just magically ignored this/shrugged it off and are a delusional hypocrite, or you're just paranoid and uninformed like usual. But yeah, please bitch more about my "concern trolling" because you know that I'm right.

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

VOTE
PASSED

FUCK YEAH


----------



## phreaksho (Dec 14, 2017)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand it's gone...


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

Still has to pass the court which unlike the fcc isn't being paid off by isps to pass shitty laws and make them money


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

DRAGONBALLVINTAGE said:


> it passed


Fuckin dickweeds.  I wonder what the implement date is, though this will probably be caught up with legal challenges for a while.  Hopefully we can kick Pai's ass to the curb once Trump is removed from office.



MaverickWellington said:


> I also have a fucking article saying throttling *still* happened despite all the regulations from Title II.
> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/major-internet-providers-slowing-traffic-speeds


Under current regulations they can be punished for that, your proposed lack of regulation makes it a throttling free-for-all.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

bi388 said:


> I know perfectly well what repealing it does, it makes it easy for an isp to throttle or block specific sites, and charge extra to access certain content. In other words control the flow of information. And pointing out the fact the leader of the repeal literally made a video in which he argued he was right because afterwards you can look at memes isn't grasping at straws. If he's going to make moronic arguments like that then I have every right to point out how dumb his argument is.


"I know perfectly well what repealing it does"
okay, maybe he's rea-
"it makes it easy for an ISP to throttle or block specific sites"
Nevermind. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The bill says specifically you can't throttle. Can you explain to me how that *actually* allows throttling?


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Still has to pass the court which unlike the fcc isn't being paid off by isps to pass shitty laws and make them money


This. People freaking out about it now still have no idea what's going on...


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> "I know perfectly well what repealing it does"
> okay, maybe he's rea-
> "it makes it easy for an ISP to throttle or block specific sites"
> Nevermind. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> ...


It literally explains in the OP how this will allow them to throttle


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

INTERNET STATUS:
MADE GREAT AGAIN

FCC: LIKE A BILLION
SHIT ISPS: 0 LOL


----------



## Minox (Dec 14, 2017)

Bye Americans, it was kind of nice having you on the Internet


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

bi388 said:


> It literally explains in the OP how this will allow them to throttle


Yes and the OP is wrong lol
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf
https://i.imgur.com/X2JEeV6.png

Get to readin


----------



## Kingy (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> INTERNET STATUS:
> MADE GREAT AGAIN


Would you please kindly explain how the killing of net neutrality in the US would make the internet "great" in any way? All that you've posted was complete and utter bullshit...


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

TheKingy34 said:


> Would you please kindly explain how the killing of net neutrality in the US would make the internet "great" in any way? All that you've posted was complete and utter bullshit...


Net Neutrality wasn't killed. Explain to me what arguments I've made are "complete and utter bullshit" before I give you the time of day mate.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> INTERNET STATUS:
> MADE GREAT AGAIN
> 
> FCC: LIKE A BILLION
> SHIT ISPS: 0 LOL


Cheering for the loss of your rights like it's your favorite sports team is moronic.  And wtf your math is way off.  FCC just lost all control over the internet and shitty ISPs gained all the control.


----------



## MushGuy (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> This. People freaking out about it now still have no idea what's going on...


Allow me to add to this:


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Cheering for the loss of your rights like it's your favorite sports team is moronic.  And wtf your math is way off.  FCC just lost all control over the internet and shitty ISPs gained all the control.


"Cheering for the loss of your rights like it's your favorite sports team is moronic"
You're right, which is why I'm cheering for the betterment of the internet. You're not going to listen to any evidence I give you -- even hard evidence proving throttling occurred after your dumb Title II order -- so why should I care what you think? You clearly don't give a fuck what anyone who disagrees with you thinks. So I'm gonna gloat like a motherfucker now


----------



## gnmmarechal (Dec 14, 2017)

And that is that.


----------



## Kingy (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Explain to me what arguments I've made are "complete and utter bullshit" before I give you the time of day mate.


Literally all of them. You're treating this like it's some kind of "advancement" in the modern world, while *complete *neutrality on the internet could arguably be considered a right.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Yes and the OP is wrong lol
> http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf
> https://i.imgur.com/X2JEeV6.png
> 
> Get to readin


"Many" have committed and this "can" be enforced doesn't inspire confidence. Basically many isps can throttle all the want, and for the ones who committed it's optional if the fcc enforces their commitment


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Oh don't get me wrong, there are a lot of conspiracies that went on, and the government's pretty good at causing (and subsequently quelling, though not as good) dissent and confusion. Maybe Title II was part of that. That said I'm not going to assume the most inane shit about the new proposal since it's clear that A) the previous people in power have fucking LOATHED Trump since the day he started his campaign and even moreso now that he's won and is in the office so they're probably the ones pushing this agenda so hard, and B) there's no real evidence or even a motive. ISPs wouldn't line the pockets of Ajit Pai to give them more regulations and prevent them from sucking the money out of customers. I have no idea where this meme comes from but it doesn't align with the proposal.


I do have a bit of a problem with this. If ISP's are still allowed to Throttle and Block under Title 2, and also allowed to go with the Package Deal, then why haven't they done so yet? With the package deal I mean. Is it to not give away that Net Neutrality under Title 2 can be avoided? If this is the case, then that means ISP's would never come out with the package deal under Title 2 to not give away that they can do whatever they want. Because if they do then people will know the flaws of Title 2 and try to revise it.

So since they can't come out with the package deals, or block sites under Title 2 to hide their deception, then what benefits can they gain from throttling websites? To force people off of slow sites, (that don't like to wait), and to instead go on faster ones that payed ISP's more money? Bigger companies paying ISP's more money to throttle their competitors to eliminate their competition?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> "Cheering for the loss of your rights like it's your favorite sports team is moronic"
> You're right, which is why I'm cheering for the betterment of the internet. You're not going to listen to any evidence I give you -- even hard evidence proving throttling occurred after your dumb Title II order -- so why should I care what you think? You clearly don't give a fuck what anyone who disagrees with you thinks. So I'm gonna gloat like a motherfucker now


Alright, first find a steak knife and stab yourself.  Then start gloating over that.  Same thing.

Besides, this isn't even implemented yet and might be blocked by legal challenges.  Should this garbage go through, it'll be reversed in a year or two when Trump is given the boot anyway.  The majority of people aren't as ignorant about this subject as you thankfully.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

TheKingy34 said:


> Literally all of them. You're treating this like it's some kind of "advancement" in the modern world, while *complete *neutrality on the internet could arguably be considered a right.


Confirmed for not having read the bill at all.

Explain this for me then.
https://i.imgur.com/cgUA9SY.png

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



Xzi said:


> Alright, first find a steak knife and stab yourself.  Then start gloating over that.  Same thing.
> 
> Besides, this isn't even implemented yet and might be blocked by legal challenges.  Should this garbage go through, it'll be reversed in a year or two when Trump is given the boot anyway.  The majority of people aren't as ignorant about this subject as you thankfully.


>telling me to kill myself for supporting a good bill
Grow up.


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Dec 14, 2017)

This won't change anything in America internet-wise. Like @Chary wrote, Americans have gone without it from the early 90s to 2015 and the world wasn't destroyed by ISPs. The lack of net neutrality is rather like capitalism. It takes the control from a central government and gives it to the corporations.

Oh, and @TheKingy34 net neutrality isn't a right because it isn't required to live. If we didn't have the internet at all, would people die? No. They'd go on with their lives.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> >telling me to kill myself for supporting a good bill
> Grow up.


I told you to stab yourself, not kill yourself.  Seems like pain might be the only way to get the analogy through your thick skull that Net Neutrality repeal can only harm you as an individual.  There's nothing there to benefit you.


----------



## MrJason005 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> -shitty meme removed-
> 
> INTERNET STATUS:
> MADE GREAT AGAIN
> ...


You know, fine, I can respect you for putting an argument. But the moment you resort to something as low as putting shit memes in your post and writing in caps and doing your happy dance, you essentially go to the same level to, and I quote:



MaverickWellington said:


> [...]hyperactive 16 year olds [...]



If you're going to be all high and mighty at least stick to stick to keeping a certain level


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> I told you to stab yourself, not kill yourself.  Seems like pain might be the only way to get the analogy through your thick skull that Net Neutrality repeal can only harm you as an individual.  There's nothing there to benefit you.


Besides no throttling, blocking, or data discrimination being allowed, ISPs having to be transparent about what they do, yeah there's no benefits at all


----------



## MrMcTiller (Dec 14, 2017)




----------



## DKB (Dec 14, 2017)

do these people seriously think everything will be fine lol

the "president" didnt even know what nn was so he's just going to agree with whatever shit pai is saying

nn will come back one way or another, we just gotta wait


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

MrJason005 said:


> You know, fine, I can respect you for putting an argument. But the moment you resort to something as low as putting shit memes in your post and writing in caps and doing your happy dance, you essentially go to the same level to, and I quote:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to be all high and mighty at least stick to stick to keeping a certain level


The internet is about to get better for everyone and they're all gonna see no matter how much they're raising hell about it.

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



DKB said:


> do these people seriously think everything will be fine lol
> 
> the "president" didnt even know what nn was so he's just going to agree with whatever shit pai is saying


Yeah I do, show me proof it won't.


----------



## MrMcTiller (Dec 14, 2017)

Is it over?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Besides no throttling, blocking, or data discrimination being allowed, ISPs having to be transparent about what they do, yeah there's no benefits at all


...That's all stuff that will happen because of Net Neutrality repeal.  I think we're actually on the same side here and you just didn't realize until now you're against repeal.  Rofl.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> ...That's all stuff that will happen because of Net Neutrality repeal.  I think we're actually on the same side here and you just didn't realize until now you're against repeal.  Rofl.


No, this isn't stuff that "will happen"
This is stuff that could literally have happened in the past 3 years -- stuff that, to a certain extent, DID.
But I'm the misinformed shill. Gotcha lmao.


----------



## Kingy (Dec 14, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> net neutrality isn't a right because it isn't required to live


Neither is the freedom of speech or the freedom to vote. You could live a whole life without these freedoms, right? A right is a legal/moral entitlement to be able to do something- even if it isn't required to live at all.


----------



## MrMcTiller (Dec 14, 2017)

In all actuality, if internet providers raise prices, then they will lose customers. When they lose customers they will lower the prices and get them back...


----------



## DKB (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> The internet is about to get better for everyone and they're all gonna see no matter how much they're raising hell about it.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...



https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fcc-ne...suspended-over-security-concern-live-updates/

lol i wouldn't be surpised if people started getting shot up as they stepped outside


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

TheKingy34 said:


> Neither is the freedom of speech or the freedom to vote. You could live a whole life without these freedoms, right? A right is a legal/moral entitlement to be able to do something- even if it isn't required to live at all.


how does this tie in to the ridiculous misconception that Ajit Pai's proposal is killing net neutrality despite specifically bolstering it?


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Dec 14, 2017)

TheKingy34 said:


> Neither is the freedom of speech or the freedom to vote. You could live a whole life without these freedoms, right? A right is a legal/moral entitlement to be able to do something- even if it isn't required to live at all.



Yes, but net neutrality is not a legal nor is it a moral entitlement


----------



## MrMcTiller (Dec 14, 2017)

Oh and can anyone make sense of this?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

DKB said:


> https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fcc-ne...suspended-over-security-concern-live-updates/
> 
> lol i wouldn't be surpised if people started getting shot up as they stepped outside


The fact people would resort to violence over this is fucking immature. Violence is not justified in these scenarios.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> No, this isn't stuff that "will happen"
> This is stuff that could literally have happened in the past 3 years -- stuff that, to a certain extent, DID.
> But I'm the misinformed shill. Gotcha lmao.


Are you seriously calling me a shill for the FCC?  After I posted all those Ajit Pai memes and you whined about them?  The FCC isn't even for-profit like the ISPs you want to hand control to.

And that stuff happened much worse prior to those three years, prior to NN.  You apparently want it to be much worse again.  Can't wait until you gloat about the 56K Netflix speeds you're getting.



MaverickWellington said:


> how does this tie in to the ridiculous misconception that Ajit Pai's proposal is killing net neutrality despite specifically bolstering it?


How does removing all regulation and letting the ISPs do whatever the fuck they want bolster Net Neutrality?  It's this kind of obvious lie that makes people think you're a shill for Comcast or TWC.


----------



## DKB (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> The fact people would resort to violence over this is fucking immature. Violence is not justified in these scenarios.



That's humans for you. We live in the same world where if someone is bullied enough, they shoot up a school. That's why I'm saying that people may die over this shit. That's farfetched, but considering how easy some people get weapons these days..eh, maybe it might not be.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> Yes, but net neutrality is not a legal nor is it a moral entitlement


Fundamental rights imo are not based off of what the law says. Living in Soviet Russia wouldn't change that people have a fundamental right to freedom of speech. I believe that net neutrality, which obviously less important than speech as a whole, is also a fundamental right whether the law says so or not.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Are you seriously calling me a shill for the FCC?  After I posted all those Ajit Pai memes and you whined about them?  The FCC isn't even for-profit like the ISPs you want to hand control to.
> 
> And that stuff happened much worse prior to those three years, prior to NN.  You apparently want it to be much worse again.  Can't wait until you gloat about the 56K Netflix speeds you're getting.


When did I say you were a FCC shill? I don't believe I said that, only implied that you yourself were a shill. For whomst? Not sure. Don't care.
I want it to be better, which is what I've advocated for this whole time. I'm just stirring the pot since you don't read and it's funny. You haven't pointed out anything from the document that says it will be detrimental or even get rid of Net Neutrality as a concept, only that "w-well the stuff you say that's beneficial is actually fake!" to which I can just say, non argument.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> The fact people would resort to violence over this is fucking immature. Violence is not justified in these scenarios.


People riot and kill over stupid shit all the time.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> People riot and kill over stupid shit all the time.


Oh don't I know it. A lot of them tarnish the movements they claim to represent. I won't name any specific movements lest I turn this thread into a bigger shitheap than it's becoming, but rioters and generally violent people who do shit in the name of movements or as protest tend to fuck up the message of the protest itself. I think the same thing will happen here. If any idiot gets the bright idea to be violent over this proposal I think it would send a clear message that the side against the FCC is not mentally stable -- even if they are.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 14, 2017)

To be fair, the law still needs to get past Congress.  It's not entirely dead yet.




Zhongtiao1 said:


> This won't change anything in America internet-wise. Like @Chary wrote, Americans have gone without it from the early 90s to 2015 and the world wasn't destroyed by ISPs. The lack of net neutrality is rather like capitalism. It takes the control from a central government and gives it to the corporations.
> 
> Oh, and @TheKingy34 net neutrality isn't a right because it isn't required to live. If we didn't have the internet at all, would people die? No. They'd go on with their lives.


Oh, people would manage.  Eventually.  But, as it stands now, people are largely dependent on the internet for a variety of purposes, such as receiving federal student aid and paying bills.  At this rate, what with all the talk about the Internet of Things, I wouldn't be surprised if the internet gets even more integrated into society.

Also, by your logic, freedom of speech isn't a right, because it isn't required to live.  Are you asking people to just go on living if our right to free speech gets taken away?




MaverickWellington said:


> INTERNET STATUS:
> MADE GREAT AGAIN
> 
> FCC: LIKE A BILLION
> SHIT ISPS: 0 LOL


Weren't you the one who was just complaining about the overuse of memes in this debate?

Also, and I know I'm opening quite the can of worms by starting this argument, but, in your Imgur screenshot, you note how the FTC/FCC can regulate unfair degrading of internet speeds for certain sites?



> If ISPs reached agreements to unfairly block, throttle, or discriminate against Internet conduct or applications, these agreements, would be, per se, illegal under antitrust laws.



I can only imagine a situation where ISPs don't intentionally throttle any websites, but allow some to receive faster speeds than others, then deliberately lower their average internet speed to the point where their "base" speed is as slow as two pandas fucking.  Because people will have a higher tolerance for the sites with faster speeds, they'll fail to have any patience for the regular sites on the rest of the web.  It's not exactly "throttling," per se, but it's a possible loophole some ISPs might (read: probably will) abuse, to the detriment of smaller and disadvantaged sites.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> When did I say you were a FCC shill? I don't believe I said that, only implied that you yourself were a shill. For whomst? Not sure. Don't care.


Who the fuck would I be "shilling" for in this argument though?  Cheerios?



MaverickWellington said:


> I want it to be better, which is what I've advocated for this whole time. I'm just stirring the pot since you don't read and it's funny. You haven't pointed out anything from the document that says it will be detrimental or even get rid of Net Neutrality as a concept, only that "w-well the stuff you say that's beneficial is actually fake!" to which I can just say, non argument.


I'm saying the stuff you _think_ is beneficial is harmful, not fake.  After removing Title II regulations it basically just has ISPs self-regulating, and that will never work out.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Who the fuck would I be "shilling" for in this argument though?  Cheerios?
> 
> 
> I'm saying the stuff you _think_ is beneficial is harmful, not fake.  After removing Title II regulations it basically just has ISPs self-regulating, and that will never work out.


Kelloggs you damn cornflake. Sorry, I had to say that. Continue.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Dec 14, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> This won't change anything in America internet-wise. Like @Chary wrote, Americans have gone without it from the early 90s to 2015 and the world wasn't destroyed by ISPs. The lack of net neutrality is rather like capitalism. It takes the control from a central government and gives it to the corporations.
> 
> Oh, and @TheKingy34 net neutrality isn't a right because it isn't required to live. If we didn't have the internet at all, would people die? No. They'd go on with their lives.


Considering a good number of Companies this day and age require the internet just to fill out an application (even for minimum wage jobs) I don't whether you are completely ignorant of these facts or you just don't give a shit because it doesn't affect you personally.



MrMcTiller said:


> In all actuality, if internet providers raise prices, then they will lose customers. When they lose customers they will lower the prices and get them back...



Not if they are the only ones that provide services for that area, which often times people are stuck with or do without. I know people that pay 4x more than me for their internet that has worse speeds than mine because it is literately the only service they can get in their area. A lot of people are just going to have to eat if this fully goes through, but of course idiots that already have it easy and probably will never have to worry about don't give a shit because it doesn't or won't affect them.

Companies have already proven time and time again that they can and will do things just to stick it to their customers and buy out the competition so they are the only ones around, because all that matters at the end of the day is money.


But hey, I guess corporate shills exist for a reason.


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Dec 14, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Fundamental rights imo are not based off of what the law says. Living in Soviet Russia wouldn't change that people have a fundamental right to freedom of speech. I believe that net neutrality, which obviously less important than speech as a whole, is also a fundamental right whether the law says so or not.



The thing is, net neutrality is not interconnected with any rights we have. Whether free speech or otherwise. We have been able to do that without net neutrality perfectly fine. It will not impact us. If you are this attached to the internet, then you need to take a good look at yourself. I go to a university, and there they censor out pages they deem to be "non-conductive to a learning environment". There's nothing preventing people from doing that now, so why is there such a huge fuss over it now?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Who the fuck would I be "shilling" for in this argument though?  Cheerios?
> 
> 
> I'm saying the stuff you _think_ is beneficial is harmful, not fake.  After removing Title II regulations it basically just has ISPs self-regulating, and that will never work out.


Well when you show me something harmful instead of "everything you believe is harmful" I'll take you seriously but so far it's sourceless, citationless comments and shitflinging. I'd expect this kind of arguing style from a teen but not from someone calling himself an adult.


----------



## MrMcTiller (Dec 14, 2017)

SonowRaevius said:


> Considering a good number of Companies this day and age require the internet just to fill out an application (even for minimum wage jobs) I don't whether you are either you're completely ignorant of these facts or you just don't give a shit because it doesn't affect you personally.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I was thinking about that after I posted that. I don't even have internet at home so I don't know what I am mad about.


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Dec 14, 2017)

@SonowRaevius I meant that the lack of internet wouldn't affect us. People would actually have to go up to a business they wanted to be employed at and ask for an application, they would actually have to talk with people in real life. We wouldn't have kids killing themselves due to cyber bullying.


----------



## Futurdreamz (Dec 14, 2017)

And here I am thinking that people getting outraged didn't stop Trump from being president, so getting outraged now is probably not going to help. The best you can do is look into exactly what's going to change.

For example, the legislation puts the FTC in charge of the internet, correct?


To quote Wikipedia, the FTC includes these parts:


> Bureau of Consumer Protection[edit]
> The Bureau of Consumer Protection's mandate is to protect consumers against unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce. With the written consent of the Commission, Bureau attorneys enforce federal laws related to consumer affairs and rules promulgated by the FTC. Its functions include investigations, enforcement actions, and consumer and business education. Areas of principal concern for this bureau are: advertising and marketing, financial products and practices, telemarketing fraud, privacy and identity protection, etc. The bureau also is responsible for the United States National Do Not Call Registry.
> Under the FTC Act, the Commission has the authority, in most cases, to bring its actions in federal court through its own attorneys. In some consumer protection matters, the FTC appears with, or supports, the U.S. Department of Justice.
> 
> ...



So based on this alone it sounds like the FTC may have the power to:
1. Define and enforce what is acceptable and unacceptable for advertising (including pop ups, video ads, user tracking and data mining ads, and those annoying ads that play sound even when not the active tab)
2. Penalize companies that scam you into purchasing software that is nonfunctioning or malicious
3. Investigate algorithmic content that uses shock value and false claims to obtain more vies than genuine or truthful content.
4. Investigate companies unfairly restricting or limiting access to content other than their own (such as Netflix or other news sources)
5. Allow [and require] companies to filter out data that is clearly fraudulent or malicious (such as DDoS attacks, spam websites, etc)
6. Penalize companies that mine user data that the consumer has not consented to providing
7. Acknowledge and eliminate regional ISP monopolies and encourage additional competition


In the end yes your Netflix subscription may go up, but not exorbitantly so. However, websites such as Facebook and Twitter will be severely impacted and may be forced to shut down if they cannot find a way to tackle their more controversial content. ISPs will definitely do content filtering, but those filters will have a fatal impact on malicious advertisements and fraudulent websites.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> The thing is, net neutrality is not interconnected with any rights we have. Whether free speech or otherwise. We have been able to do that without net neutrality perfectly fine. It will not impact us. If you are this attached to the internet, then you need to take a good look at yourself. I go to a university, and there they censor out pages they deem to be "non-conductive to a learning environment". There's nothing preventing people from doing that now, so why is there such a huge fuss over it now?


That entirely depends what you consider to be our inherent rights. I consider this to be one of them, so therefore it is connected to my rights.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

MrMcTiller said:


> In all actuality, if internet providers raise prices, then they will lose customers. When they lose customers they will lower the prices and get them back...


That'd be nice, but people are dumb.  Here's what the big ISPs will actually do:

*Lower* the initial monthly price for internet.  Then break off sets of websites into "fast lane packages."  The "essentials" pack will be $20 a month on top of your initial $30 a month.  Want some video and audio streaming at a decent rate?  Another $20 a month.  Want good enough bandwidth for online gaming?  Another $20 a month.  And so on.  Big providers have not been shy about wanting to treat their internet service more like TV service.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> @SonowRaevius I meant that the lack of internet wouldn't affect us. People would actually have to go up to a business they wanted to be employed at and ask for an application, they would actually have to talk with people in real life. We wouldn't have kids killing themselves due to cyber bullying.


Nope, just regular bullying.

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



Xzi said:


> That'd be nice, but people are dumb.  *Here's what the big ISPs will actually do:*
> 
> *Lower* the initial monthly price for internet.  Then break off sets of websites into "fast lane packages."  The "essentials" pack will be $20 a month on top of your initial $30 a month.  Want some video and audio streaming at a decent rate?  Another $20 a month.  Want good enough bandwidth for online gaming?  Another $20 a month.  And so on.  Big providers have not been shy about wanting to treat their internet service more like TV service.


Alright. You stated it as fact. Source please? I'm neutral on NN as it does nothing for me either way it swings in terms of content.


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Nope, just regular bullying.


Yeah, but at least without the internet you can curl up and hide somewhere. Nowadays, every kid is attached to their phone and the internet and will get destroyed if someone starts to attack them online.

I sound so old lol


----------



## MrMcTiller (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> That'd be nice, but people are dumb.  Here's what the big ISPs will actually do:
> 
> *Lower* the initial monthly price for internet.  Then break off sets of websites into "fast lane packages."  The "essentials" pack will be $20 a month on top of your initial $30 a month.  Want some video and audio streaming at a decent rate?  Another $20 a month.  Want good enough bandwidth for online gaming?  Another $20 a month.  And so on.  Big providers have not been shy about wanting to treat their internet service more like TV service.


Well you have always got McDonalds WiFi... Oh wait, that will be gone too.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Well when you show me something harmful instead of "everything you believe is harmful" I'll take you seriously but so far it's sourceless, citationless comments and shitflinging. I'd expect this kind of arguing style from a teen but not from someone calling himself an adult.


You're the one with the belief that government can only do harm, yet you refuse to believe they might somehow be trying to harm us with repeal.  OTOH, Comcast is one of the most hated companies in America with one of the worst track records, and you're willing to take everything they say at face value.  Perhaps your standard of scrutiny needs a little fine-tuning.


----------



## MrMcTiller (Dec 14, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> Yeah, but at least without the internet you can curl up and hide somewhere. Nowadays, every kid is attached to their phone and the internet and will get destroyed if someone starts to attack them online.


Yeah... I am 14 and I don't have a phone OR internet. BUT I have school internet... would the school be affected? Stupid Government.


----------



## Zhongtiao1 (Dec 14, 2017)

MrMcTiller said:


> Yeah... I am 14 and I don't have a phone OR internet. BUT I have school internet... would the school be affected? Stupid Government.



No, the school wouldn't be affected. Those are their own entities. That's why they can still censor sites now.


----------



## MrMcTiller (Dec 14, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> No, the school wouldn't be affected. Those are their own entities. That's why they can still censor sites now.


Well... our school has free guest WiFi... Everyone will hangout in the school parking lot. Oh and when you say "censor sites", do you mean block them? I can always use the Tor Browser. OR A VPN


----------



## GhostLatte (Dec 14, 2017)

Good riddance, folks. It was nice knowing all of you.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> You're the one with the belief that government can only do harm, yet you refuse to believe they might somehow be trying to harm us with repeal.  OTOH, Comcast is one of the most hated companies in America with one of the worst track records, and you're willing to take everything they say at face value.  Perhaps your standard of scrutiny needs a little fine-tuning.


When have I said the government can only do harm? The most I said was that there are clear conspiracies and stupid shit they do but it doesn't mean they're all harmful. Not all governments are tyrannical, contrary to the belief of paranoid stoners. Nor have I said they're harming anyone with the repeal. The fuck are you talking about? Perhaps you're too emotionally damaged from this repeal. You should lie down. Get some rest.

Said company has pledged to obey the regulations put forth by the proposal, and should they violate this or even retract it, guess what? Boom. Lawsuit.
So since you don't trust the government to pick their noses, why is it you trusted them to make regulations in 2014 that are notorious for being circumvented? We've established that they were flawed and had loop holes, and yet you've doubled down on whatever the propaganda tells you to think when confronted with this fact.


----------



## SonowRaevius (Dec 14, 2017)

Zhongtiao1 said:


> @SonowRaevius I meant that the lack of internet wouldn't affect us. People would actually have to go up to a business they wanted to be employed at and ask for an application, they would actually have to talk with people in real life. We wouldn't have kids killing themselves due to cyber bullying.


I still have to go in for the interview and talk to the people....maybe that part just slipped your mind too,  I daresay. 

But hey since you have that regressive attitude, why don't we get rid of what broke up Bell System services as well, because that was REALLY working out well for people too, I mean...no one NEEDS a phone in this day and age either right? 

Society has changed since the 80's and 90's, just because it wasn't something important or needed back in those days doesn't mean it isn't need in these days as well. 

The internet provides job listings as well for those that need it in more lucrative areas, otherwise people with degrees even in computer sciences would have trouble finding a job in certain areas. 

Corporations are not your friends, stop trying to protect them and act like they are some holy beacon when history has proven that they and their heads give 0 fucks about you, these are people that would reinstate child labor laws and get rid of unions if they could have their ways.


----------



## MrMcTiller (Dec 14, 2017)

HA! I will slow down your internet with CANCER!!


----------



## Kevinpuerta (Dec 14, 2017)

R.I.P.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> When have I said the government can only do harm? The most I said was that there are clear conspiracies and stupid shit they do but it doesn't mean they're all harmful. Not all governments are tyrannical, contrary to the belief of paranoid stoners. Nor have I said they're harming anyone with the repeal. The fuck are you talking about? Perhaps you're too emotionally damaged from this repeal. You should lie down. Get some rest.
> 
> Said company has pledged to obey the regulations put forth by the proposal, and should they violate this or even retract it, guess what? Boom. Lawsuit.
> So since you don't trust the government to pick their noses, why is it you trusted them to make regulations in 2014 that are notorious for being circumvented? We've established that they were flawed and had loop holes, and yet you've doubled down on whatever the propaganda tells you to think when confronted with this fact.


Your own pic you keep sharing says only SOME have pledged, and the fcc MIGHT choose to take action if they violate that pledge. They might also choose to not.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> When have I said the government can only do harm?


It was like one of your very first replies, and then you continued to argue that you'd rather have the internet in the hands of Comcast and TWC than the government.



MaverickWellington said:


> Said company has pledged to obey the regulations put forth by the proposal, and should they violate this or even retract it, guess what? Boom. Lawsuit.


The only regulation that mattered is being taken away with Title II, and that's equal priority for all internet traffic.  I don't care what other regulations ISPs have to follow, because they're still free to raise rates and throttle anything they want once Net Neutrality repeal goes through.



MaverickWellington said:


> So since you don't trust the government to pick their noses, why is it you trusted them to make regulations in 2014 that are notorious for being circumvented? We've established that they were flawed and had loop holes, and yet you've doubled down on whatever the propaganda tells you to think when confronted with this fact.


There are no loopholes ISPs can exploit under Title II, they've tried.  Which is also part of why they want it repealed.  If they were just "making the regulations better," they could simply amend things under Title II.


----------



## samcambolt270 (Dec 14, 2017)

well. it was nice having internet for a while. Too bad I wont be able to afford it in the future T_T


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Xzi said:


> It was like one of your very first replies, and then you continued to argue that you'd rather have the internet in the hands of Comcast and TWC than the government.
> 
> 
> The only regulation that mattered is being taken away with Title II, and that's equal priority for all internet traffic.  I don't care what other regulations ISPs have to follow, because they're still free to raise rates and throttle anything they want once Net Neutrality repeal goes through.
> ...


Then you can link me that reply, surely.

"The only regulation that mattered is being taken away with Title II"
I guess throttling, blocking, and data packages don't matter now. Okay buddy.

>THERE ARE NO LOOPHOLES
Now that's a good laugh. 
https://readplaintext.com/why-the-fcc-s-net-neutrality-rules-could-unravel-cc26c6b96418
Posting this again, while they'd have a lot more legal examination, they could still do shit like throttle, and as I've posted in other links, *still did.*

So uh...what was Title II protecting us from again?


----------



## nl255 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> When have I said the government can only do harm? The most I said was that there are clear conspiracies and stupid shit they do but it doesn't mean they're all harmful. Not all governments are tyrannical, contrary to the belief of paranoid stoners. Nor have I said they're harming anyone with the repeal. The fuck are you talking about? Perhaps you're too emotionally damaged from this repeal. You should lie down. Get some rest.
> 
> Said company has pledged to obey the regulations put forth by the proposal, and should they violate this or even retract it, guess what? Boom. Lawsuit.
> So since you don't trust the government to pick their noses, why is it you trusted them to make regulations in 2014 that are notorious for being circumvented? We've established that they were flawed and had loop holes, and yet you've doubled down on whatever the propaganda tells you to think when confronted with this fact.



No, only some of them have pledged not to and said pledge not legally binding and isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on.  You really need to read up on contract law sometime.

Think about it, *why would they spend millions of dollars to repeal NN if they didn't intend to take advantage of it*?  Why is that question so hard for you to answer?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

nl255 said:


> No, only some of them have pledged not to and said pledge not legally binding and isn't worth the paper it isn't printed on.  You really need to read up on contract law sometime.
> 
> Think about it, *why would they spend millions of dollars to repeal NN if they didn't intend to take advantage of it*?  Why is that question so hard for you to answer?


Doesn't matter, they're gonna be held to those standards regardless. 

Get me some figures that show how much is actually lobbied here. Now get me some figures that show everything they want in the proposal has actually made it, because the FCC has actually straight up said, for example, AT&T's request to make it so we can never go back to Title II regulations was unnecessary and that they wanted to keep Title II as an option. I don't know about you but lobbyists not getting 100% of what they want gives me a bit of faith that this isn't just some nonsense, and again, why the fuck would they make a huge ass, 210 page proposal full of new regulations on transparency, anticompetitive practices, anti trust violations, and so on if they wanted to not have any rules at all?

The discrepancy between what the FCC is actually proposing and what the fear mongers think is too big


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

I'm actually genuinely curious as to how this fear mongering started? So much twisting of simple words and legal phrases. Halp.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> I'm actually genuinely curious as to how this fear mongering started? So much twisting of simple words and legal phrases. Halp.


if I weren't so busy I'd be tracking the money trails like a bloodhound. I bet you SOMEONE is funding this bullshit.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

One thing's for sure, this is gonna be long and drawn out, legal battles left and right, you know, just another day 

I don't see the internet suddenly breaking down or exploding or whatever all at once.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 14, 2017)

Net neutrality got repealed. It's time to party


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

VinLark said:


> Net neutrality got repealed. It's time to party



You don't even live in the US, and doesn't affect you, so why?  I'm sure Comcast will somehow affect Netflix, maybe.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

VinLark said:


> Net neutrality got repealed. It's time to party


No.... No it didn't...


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> No.... No it didn't...



What was the whole thing that the FCC, Comcast, Verizon all about today? What happened in DC? And besides, VinLark doesn't even live in the US


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> What was the whole thing that the FCC, Comcast, Verizon all about today? What happened in DC?


The FCC voted. AFAIK there's still a few steps before you all can freak out.


----------



## Veho (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> No.... No it didn't...


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html 



> The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to dismantle landmark rules regulating the businesses that connect consumers to the internet
> [...]
> The agency scrapped so-called net neutrality regulations [...] The federal government will also no longer regulate high-speed internet delivery as if it were a utility, like phone services.



Sure seems like it did.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> No.... No it didn't...


Oh. So I got 50 pings off discord for nothing


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> The FCC voted. AFAIK there's still a few steps before you all can freak out.



Generally speaking, it's akin to when Republicans tried to vote and go through the process to repeal Obamacare, it always fell flat on its face, I don't see this as being different, somehow, it will still pass.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> What was the whole thing that the FCC, Comcast, Verizon all about today? What happened in DC? And besides, VinLark doesn't even live in the US


Yeah I do. My flag doesn't represent my location.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Generally speaking, it's akin to when Republicans tried to vote and go through the process to repeal Obamacare, it always fell flat on its face, I don't see this as being different, somehow, it will still pass.


You're probably right. Oh well.

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



VinLark said:


> Yeah I do. My flag doesn't represent my location.


It's on the internet you don't live in the US. /s


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 14, 2017)

Stupid anti-democratic FCC repealed something good despite widespread support from the people. They're the worst. 

I'm calling my Senator to tell him to pass a more permanent solution.


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

He is right that it hasn't been repealed. It needs to be brought to court to be ruled on still. The fcc only voted that they approve repealing it, it isn't law until the court says so.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 14, 2017)

bi388 said:


> He is right that it hasn't been repealed. It needs to be brought to court to be ruled on still. The fcc only voted that they approve repealing it, it isn't law until the court says so.


Congress also has a 60 day window to repeal if, if we can get them to actually do something.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Veho said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html
> 
> 
> 
> Sure seems like it did.


That left out the part where the FCC added new rules with their proposal. But hey, some sites gotta get them clicks and push them agendas, right?


----------



## ihaveahax (Dec 14, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Congress also has a 60 day window to repeal if, if we can get them to actually do something.


I don't really expect this congress to repeal the decision. maybe the next one. but things will suck until then.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 14, 2017)

ihaveamac said:


> I don't really expect this congress to repeal the decision. maybe the next one. but things will suck until then.


Maybe when we get a new president we'll get a new FCC and go back to the good ol days. But until then, we have to stall through the courts


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

Hopefully Cox doesn't block all vpn traffic, I can just turn on my vpn 24/7 except when I'm gaming


----------



## RustInPeace (Dec 14, 2017)

Since reading about this today, the chorus of Metallica's "Hardwired" just kept playing in my head.



> We're so fucked!
> Shit out of luck!
> Hardwired to self-destruct!



Gee I wonder why.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 14, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Hopefully Cox doesn't block all vpn traffic, I can just turn on my vpn 24/7 except when I'm gaming


Probably not yet, but once it goes through the courts a lot of ISPs wanted to put limits on p2p connections that include vpns and torrents  not sure about Cox though


----------



## ihaveahax (Dec 14, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Hopefully Cox doesn't block all vpn traffic, I can just turn on my vpn 24/7 except when I'm gaming


I'm willing to bet some will try to detect and block unidentified traffic like from a vpn. hopefully not so I can just use one to avoid any isp fuckery.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 14, 2017)

ihaveamac said:


> I'm willing to bet some will try to detect and block unidentified traffic like from a vpn. hopefully not so I can just use one to avoid any isp fuckery.


Same here


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 14, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Maybe when we get a new president we'll get a new FCC and go back to the good ol days. But until then, we have to stall through the courts


Oh boy. Hopefully not, any government intervention in the operation of the Internet would be frowned upon.
￼


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

It's bad enough the government has royally fucked up healthcare, and the internet, yeah, no thanks.


----------



## shaunj66 (Dec 14, 2017)

Land of the free, indeed!


Don't get any bright ideas Britain!


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 14, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Oh boy. Hopefully not, any government intervention in the operation of the Internet would be frowned upon.
> ￼View attachment 108365


I'm not a fan of government regulation either, but net neutrality is a necessary exception to that rule in this case.


----------



## supergamer368 (Dec 14, 2017)

Maybe update this, as of today Net Neutrality has been repealed


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 14, 2017)

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/internet-speech/what-net-neutrality

Here's the ACLU's take on net neutrality. They've defended the 1st amendment to a ridiculous degree in the past, so I'd listen when they say theyre in favor of net neutrality.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Great video. I think you guys should all watch this. If you're anti government, you should be anti net neutrality too.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Great video. I think you guys should all watch this. If you're anti government, you should be anti net neutrality too.



I'm antidisestablishmentarianism.

Scratch that.. It's a real word. I am not.


----------



## Mnecraft368 (Dec 14, 2017)

#Pray4America

Guess you lost. Hope you end this soon!


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> I'm antidisestablishmentarianism.
> 
> Scratch that.. It's a real word. I am not.







The irony.



Mnecraft368 said:


> #Pray4America
> 
> Guess you lost. Hope you end this soon!


We're fine. There's fearmongering and stupidity going around because of lobbyists and government fuckery (watch the video I posted two posts above and see what I mean) but no, the internet is not going away. We're fine.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Great video. I think you guys should all watch this. If you're anti government, you should be anti net neutrality too.



I thought you were for Net Neutrality?

The guy basically mentioned what I said earlier which was paying for different internet speeds under Title 2.
5 megabits and 50 depending on your internet needs.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

SG854 said:


> I thought you were for Net Neutrality?
> 
> The guy basically mentioned what I said earlier which was paying for different internet speeds under Title 2.
> 5 megabits and 50 depending on your internet needs.


I'm not anti government. I'm just anti tyranny. I believe a fair government is possible, they just need to stop overstepping their boundaries (Vault 7) or doing stupid shit in the middle east. That said, my point is not one of my own beliefs but more a thought experiment with the numerous anti-government posts in this thread. How can someone be anti-government yet want the government to be the ones regulating their internet? It doesn't make sense. The government would more than likely be just as bad if not worse than any ISP.

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

Also another thing, Title III was an order for wiretapping.

Which came from Title II.

Yeah no fucking thanks keep that out of my internet


----------



## Joe88 (Dec 14, 2017)

I hope if any lesson is learned by this is how easy it is for liberal media to control the masses with misinformation, like brainwashed puppets.


----------



## SpiffyJUNIOR (Dec 14, 2017)

Martin Shkreli "I'm the most hated man on the internet."

Ajit Pai "Hold my beer."


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> I hope if any lesson is learned by this is how easy it is for liberal media to control the masses with misinformation, like brainwashed puppets.


I wish I could like this post more than one time


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

Gee, with how efficient the government is at managing healthcare for 300,000,000 people, and that I have to have it or get fined, what could possibly go wrong with the government regulating the internet???

Oh wait, I know, 1984.

Big government, my ass, they can stay the hell away from the internet.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 14, 2017)

Joe88 said:


> I hope if any lesson is learned by this is how easy it is for liberal media to control the masses with misinformation, like brainwashed puppets.


Yeah, the only way to get around that blasted Liberal Fake News is by reading REAL news, like Breitbart and Fox! #staywoke


----------



## SpiffyJUNIOR (Dec 14, 2017)

I'm so glad 5 fucking people have the power to change everything for millions of people.

You cunts are elected to represent what your constituents want and you don't represent a fucking fraction of this country.

Fuck everything about this.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

Holy shit, dude, calm your tits for hell's sake and take a coffee break. People are sure quick to give in to the media.


----------



## SpiffyJUNIOR (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Holy shit, dude, calm your tits for hell's sake and take a coffee break.


The real question.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

SpiffyJUNIOR said:


> The real question.



People are seriously going tits up over something the liberal media is going all apeshit about, just another day.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

SpiffyJUNIOR said:


> I'm so glad 5 fucking people have the power to change everything for millions of people.
> 
> You cunts are elected to represent what your constituents want and you don't represent a fucking fraction of this country.
> 
> Fuck everything about this.


I told my congressman to vote yes and he did


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I told my congressman to vote yes and he did



I'd suggest putting up a flame shield in case.


----------



## SpiffyJUNIOR (Dec 14, 2017)

I think Ajit Pai is under heavy guard. And I don't mean guard,I mean "Hide this man from Earth for the next few days".


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I'd suggest putting up a flame shield in case.


I could post my dox here and I doubt anyone here would have the balls to do anything. No one is that stupid about the internet of all things.


----------



## ihaveahax (Dec 14, 2017)

well we still have like 60 days for the ruling to actually go into effect. and it has to go through the courts. right now, 16 states are going to sue the FCC to help defend net neutrality protections.
https://twitter.com/TheAnonJournal/status/941391171649265664

definitely hope something is done about it. the way he tried to do this without a public hearing (unlike the decision in 2015) probably won't help its case.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

ihaveamac said:


> well we still have like 60 days for the ruling to actually go into effect. and it has to go through the courts. right now, 16 states are going to sue the FCC to help defend net neutrality protections.
> https://twitter.com/TheAnonJournal/status/941391171649265664
> 
> definitely hope something is done about it. the way he tried to do this without a public hearing (unlike the decision in 2015) probably won't help its case.


Do you seriously think the public is informed on this topic at all?


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Do you seriously think the public is informed on this topic at all?


If they were, there wouldn't be countless articles claiming the end of the internet.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> If they were, there wouldn't be countless articles claiming the end of the internet.


Pretty much. I hate that it's gotten this bad.

Seriously, if people were informed, no one would be giving companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook, who actively censor your content all the fucking time any sort of leeway. To think that there isn't a clear campaign of misinformation and fearmongering is unrealistic and absolutely insane. If the ISPs are longing to fuck you, you better fucking believe Google, Facebook, and Twitter are planning to do so too.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Pretty much. I hate that it's gotten this bad.
> 
> Seriously, if people were informed, no one would be giving companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook, who actively censor your content all the fucking time any sort of leeway. To think that there isn't a clear campaign of misinformation and fearmongering is unrealistic and absolutely insane. If the ISPs are longing to fuck you, you better fucking believe Google, Facebook, and Twitter are planning to do so too.


Your new PFP fits well here.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Your new PFP fits well here.


I always did identify with a screaming Jamaican skeleton


----------



## DarthDub (Dec 14, 2017)

So did anything actually happen? I still have internet access to every website that I like going to.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> So did anything actually happen? I still have internet access to every website that I like going to.


no not really
Ajit Pai called me gay but other than that nothing happened


----------



## ihaveahax (Dec 14, 2017)

DarthDub said:


> So did anything actually happen? I still have internet access to every website that I like going to.


60 days until net neutrality is actually repealed. in that time it still needs to go through courts, where a lot of lawsuits are going to happen.

even if by some chance it gets fully repealed, the actual effects from it wouldn't be instant.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Confirmed for not having read the bill at all.
> 
> Explain this for me then.
> https://i.imgur.com/cgUA9SY.png


There are some websites claiming that they can block or throttle if they tell you they are doing that. 

So lets say they have a package deal and make it know to the customers which websites they have access to. 
Then that'll would be disclosing information, and they can block and throttle all they want on websites not part of the deal as long as they inform you of it. 
And the FTC can't do anything about it. 

Im currently reading through the document to see if thats true or not.
There is contradiction to that though with Anti Trust laws, which falls under unfair practices. 
Im really carefully reading though the document to see if I can find any flaws. 

Heres the *Document* if any one is interested.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

SG854 said:


> There are some websites claiming that they can block or throttle if they tell you they are doing that.
> 
> So lets say they have a package deal and make it know to the customers which websites they have access to.
> Then that'll would be disclosing information, and they can block and throttle all they want on websites not part of the deal as long as they inform you of it.
> ...


I doubt it will come to that since not only has that not really happened in other countries (portugal doesn't count since the image people keep linking is fake) but it hasn't happened in US history either even before these rules, nor during the loophole filled Title II rules.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 14, 2017)

There are two types of people in this thread. People that care about net neutrality and are complaining about it, and people that don't care about net neutrality either way and hate people that care about stuff. Honestly, if you have no reason (legitimate or otherwise) to see net neutrality gone then you need to leave people alone and gtfo. Youre just being an asshole and we have enough of those.


----------



## I_AM_L_FORCE (Dec 14, 2017)

Lol sorry Americans, not our fight over here.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> There are two types of people in this thread. People that care about net neutrality and are complaining about it, and people that don't care about net neutrality either way and hate people that care about stuff. Honestly, if you have no reason (legitimate or otherwise) to see net neutrality gone then you need to leave people alone and gtfo. Youre just being an asshole and we have enough of those.


No, there's three kinds of people in this thread. Let me correct you.
1) The people who have fallen for the "Net Neutrality Removal" propaganda, which has tricked them into thinking the FCC has removed all internet regulations. 

It hasn't.

2) The people who disregard all evidence presented before them because it doesn't align with their government conspiracy theories that never had much grounding to begin with other than blatant paranoia.

3) The people who have read the proposal and the information it's based upon, and have formed their own opinions of both positive and negative.

If you are one or two, get the fuck out. Seriously just get the fuck out. This isn't your thread. You're causing a problem with disinformation which we have too much of already.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

I_AM_L_FORCE said:


> Lol sorry Americans, not our fight over here.



Lol no one cares


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> No, there's three kinds of people in this thread. Let me correct you.
> 1) The people who have fallen for the "Net Neutrality Removal" propaganda, which has tricked them into thinking the FCC has removed all internet regulations.
> 
> It hasn't.
> ...


We're obviously not reading the same thread.

"If net neutral is voted out, this is what can become of the internet"

"Stfu liberal propaganda sheep slave"

"The chairman of the fcc worked for verizon, the majority of us citizens support net neutrality and they voted it anyway"

"You're a conspiracy theorist fucking retard liberal scumbag"

That's all I see


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> We're obviously not reading the same thread.
> 
> "If net neutral is voted out, this is what can become of the internet"
> 
> ...


Damn with all the straw you used in that strawman you could feed every farm animal that eats straw on the planet. Care to link posts that are exclusively lacking arguments and instead are just "conspiracy theorist libtards" and so on?


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 14, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> We're obviously not reading the same thread.
> 
> "If net neutral is voted out, this is what can become of the internet"
> 
> ...



Tell me, what's worse, having the government regulate the entirety of the internet with the same bullshit they've handled the abortive system that is the "affordable" care act, or, changing regulations what they were to the pre-Obama regulations? I'm sorry, but where in the name of holy hell would government regulations and involvement be a good thing for the internet?  I'm pretty fucking sure it was fine prior to Obama throwing a wrench into the works.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Damn with all the straw you used in that strawman you could feed every farm animal that eats straw on the planet. Care to link posts that are exclusively lacking arguments and instead are just "conspiracy theorist libtards" and so on?




http://gbatemp.net/search/55093776/?q=Liberal&t=post&o=date&c[thread]=490063


----------



## bi388 (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Tell me, what's worse, having the government regulate the entirety of the internet with the same bullshit they've handled the abortive system that is the "affordable" care act, or, changing regulations what they were to the pre-Obama regulations? I'm sorry, but where in the name of holy hell would government regulations and involvement be a good thing for the internet?  I'm pretty fucking sure it was fine prior to Obama throwing a wrench into the works.


Before Obama there is evidence of internet throttling, for instance against Netflix. Some isp even admitted to it, forgot who. How did Obama throw a wrench into It? Currently I'm not throttled and have equal access to any site.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Tell me, what's worse, having the government regulate the entirety of the internet with the same bullshit they've handled the abortive system that is the "affordable" care act, or, changing regulations what they were to the pre-Obama regulations? I'm sorry, but where in the name of holy hell would government regulations and involvement be a good thing for the internet?  I'm pretty fucking sure it was fine prior to Obama throwing a wrench into the works.


Isp's were worse before net neutrality. A regulation of equality is a good thing. But you can't see past "obama"


----------



## HamBone41801 (Dec 14, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Tell me, what's worse, having the government regulate the entirety of the internet with the same bullshit they've handled the abortive system that is the "affordable" care act, or, changing regulations what they were to the pre-Obama regulations? I'm sorry, but where in the name of holy hell would government regulations and involvement be a good thing for the internet?  I'm pretty fucking sure it was fine prior to Obama throwing a wrench into the works.


no. this is wrong. it wont be the same. the reason the internet didn't go to shit before is that there were regulations before obama. those original regulations are also being taken away.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> http://gbatemp.net/search/55093776/?q=Liberal&t=post&o=date&c[thread]=490063


Damn bro, literally only 3 posts out of a whopping 14 are mentioning liberals as the excuse for something unironically. Sounds to me like your strawman is full of shit. Good try though!

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



WeedZ said:


> Isp's were worse before net neutrality. A regulation of equality is a good thing. But you can't see past "obama"


The whole reason he's bringing up Obama is that the regulations were changed heavily during the Obama administration's 2014 Title II Order. It's the same reason people call shit "Obamacare" when they mean the ACA. Stop being disingenuous.

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



I_AM_L_FORCE said:


> Lol you're a furry faggot and your opinion isn't valid


You're no better than he is, I'd dare say worse. Shut up and either educate yourself on the topic, or stop talking. You're part of the problem.


----------



## Alex4nder001 (Dec 14, 2017)

Tigran said:


> No.. it'll likely affect you due to things having to go through the ISPs anyways.. and/or your country will go "See! The US is doing it!" Not to mention if websites start going down because of lack of revenue.....
> 
> Do not assume that anything -just- affects one area when it comes to the internet.


It will probably most likely affect the US most, but still...
Most services we use are hosted on US servers, and even to get to places like the UK or other countries they probably have to go through an ISP. I mean, they could always find one that doesn't throttle their connection but theres no guarantee that other people will use their ISP. Most likely they would be using verizon/comcast, and because of the lack of people in the using their services they could be forced to shut down their services for all users worldwide. So Netflix might soon be gone.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Damn bro, literally only 3 posts out of a whopping 14 are mentioning liberals as the excuse for something unironically. Sounds to me like your strawman is full of shit. Good try though!


I can search the thread for other keywords. Libtard, fakenews, retard, conspiracy, etc. But I'm sure someone that claims to be well informed and super investigative like yourself knows how to use the search funtion.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

bi388 said:


> Before Obama there is evidence of internet throttling, for instance against Netflix. Some isp even admitted to it, forgot who. How did Obama throw a wrench into It? Currently I'm not throttled and have equal access to any site.


Your "evidence" is actually more generally Netflix throttling ISPs like AT&T and Verizon. Comcast may have done it sure, but it's undeniable that Netflix is fucking around here and royally mucking the debate.

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



WeedZ said:


> I can search the thread for other keywords. Libtard, fakenews, retard, conspiracy, etc. But I'm sure someone that claims to be well informed and super investigative like yourself knows how to use the search funtion.


are you actually legitimately whining about people being skeptical of the clearly fear-mongering media's ridiculous spins on this situation? Because that's what it looks like to me. Anything that says "The FCC just removed all the regulations on the internet" is not reporting something factually. I loathe the term as it's been co-opted by the alt right but it's by fucking definition, fake news. Conspiracy theorists as well have disregarded every single argument I've presented with ridiculous, non-arguments like "well the proposal doesn't REALLY mean that" or "THESE LAWS AREN'T REALLY LAWS SHUT UP SHILL."

So it goes both ways, numbnuts. Either they're as guilty as I apparently am, or I'm innocent and didn't do anything, and neither did they. But you can't have both.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> The whole reason he's bringing up Obama is that the regulations were changed heavily during the Obama administration's 2014 Title II Order. It's the same reason people call shit "Obamacare" when they mean the ACA. Stop being disingenuous.



So what? You still didn't say how it's a bad thing. One of his policies was bad, doesn't mean they all are. You guys are just stuck on the "liberal propaganda" shit.

FAKE NEWS EVERYONE!


----------



## I_AM_L_FORCE (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Damn bro, literally only 3 posts out of a whopping 14 are mentioning liberals as the excuse for something unironically. Sounds to me like your strawman is full of shit. Good try though!
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


All I said is that it doesn't apply to the UK, which it doesn't.

You educate YOURSELF


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> So what? You still didn't say how it's a bad thing. One of his policies was bad, doesn't mean they all are. You guys are just stuck on the "liberal propaganda" shit.
> 
> FAKE NEWS EVERYONE!


What the fuck are you even talking about anymore? Have you come into the thread to whine about people negatively discussing the liberal propaganda regarding the net neutrality debate, and anyone who might dare to criticize obama? Liberals and Obama aren't even relevant here. The debate isn't about them regardless of how much they're brought up. Quit getting mad over it.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Your "evidence" is actually more generally Netflix throttling ISPs like AT&T and Verizon. Comcast may have done it sure, but it's undeniable that Netflix is fucking around here and royally mucking the debate.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Why you take shit so personally? You haven't shared any information that would "enlighten" people. And now you have the burdon of quoting someone saying "The FCC just removed all the regulations on the internet"

I think you're the one with the strawmen.

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



MaverickWellington said:


> What the fuck are you even talking about anymore? Have you come into the thread to whine about people negatively discussing the liberal propaganda regarding the net neutrality debate, and anyone who might dare to criticize obama? Liberals and Obama aren't even relevant here. The debate isn't about them regardless of how much they're brought up. Quit getting mad over it.


We have too many arguements going on now. I didn't bring up liberals or obama, you guys did, that's what I was bitching about. I came in here to complain about people caring about net neutrality simply because "uninformed liberals". Come on, stay on track here.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 14, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Why you take shit so personally? You haven't shared any information that would "enlighten" people. And now you have the burdon of quoting someone saying "The FCC just removed all the regulations on the internet"
> 
> I think you're the one with the strawmen.


Not reading =/= the lack of existence of such reading materials. I've had to link numerous posts at least 20, maybe 30 times across 5 or so pages. I'm not going through that again. You've shown your ability to use a search function, so get to work.

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

Furthermore the only people saying "uninformed liberals" are a minority, we're talking like 3 posts in a 600+ post thread.
Stay mad. But also stay out. This doesn't concern your political stance and no one gives a shit about it. We're talking about how the media has created clear propaganda in a fear mongering campaign to delude the masses and I've been demonstrating it as such.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Not reading =/= the lack of existence of such reading materials. I've had to link numerous posts at least 20, maybe 30 times across 5 or so pages. I'm not going through that again. You've shown your ability to use a search function, so get to work.


You're trying to make the point, you have the burdon of evidence. Also merged post above yours

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



MaverickWellington said:


> Not reading =/= the lack of existence of such reading materials. I've had to link numerous posts at least 20, maybe 30 times across 5 or so pages. I'm not going through that again. You've shown your ability to use a search function, so get to work.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


I'm not the one being political. I'm bitching about the politically affiliate spouting shit "just because". The fact it's all conservatives is either a coincidence or says something about that party. I think you believe more than you actually know.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 14, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I doubt it will come to that since not only has that not really happened in other countries (*portugal doesn't count since the image people keep linking is fake*) but it hasn't happened in US history either even before these rules, nor during the loophole filled Title II rules.



It's not 'fake', just misleading. The picture, which depicts a mobile plan, offers general access with a cap on data, just as any mobile plan. But you can buy _extra_ data for a particular interest area to suit you personally, i.e. social media, youtube/streaming video, etc. It's actually a nice option they're offering, since you can get more extra data for a specific type of traffic for less than the cost of stepping up to the next general data tier. 

And this has nothing to do with home, non-cellular internet access, though those posting the picture usually aren't volunteering that info.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> It's not 'fake', just misleading. The picture, which depicts a mobile plan, offers general access with a cap on data, just as any mobile plan. But you can buy _extra_ data for a particular interest area to suit you personally, i.e. social media, youtube/streaming video, etc. It's actually a nice option they're offering, since you can get more extra data for a specific type of traffic for less than the cost of stepping up to the next general data tier.
> 
> And this has nothing to do with home, non-cellular internet access, though those posting the picture usually aren't volunteering that info.


I'm referring more to the one that uses US Dollars. Lemme go dig it up and you'll see which one I mean.

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

I'm not an expert on portugal and never will be nor will I claim to be, but I'm fairly certain this image is not fully accurate.




Especially since I've never seen this webpage, and it looks to be just a mockup, one that changes design constantly.




(Ignore the AT&T one in the middle.)


----------



## DKB (Dec 15, 2017)

the "internet is dead" thing makes me laugh it's as if people think that this will literally mean they'll turn the internet off or something lol


----------



## xpoverzion (Dec 15, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> It's not 'fake', just misleading. The picture, which depicts a mobile plan, offers general access with a cap on data, just as any mobile plan. But you can buy _extra_ data for a particular interest area to suit you personally, i.e. social media, youtube/streaming video, etc. It's actually a nice option they're offering, since you can get more extra data for a specific type of traffic for less than the cost of stepping up to the next general data tier.
> 
> And this has nothing to do with home, non-cellular internet access, though those posting the picture usually aren't volunteering that info.


Yup, paying extra for a data plan for specific kinds of traffic is going to be great.  Their most popular data plans are going to be for porn, pirated movies, pirated games, and pirated everything else.  Since they won't have data plans for all of that, kiss all your pirating activities goodbye.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I'm referring more to the one that uses US Dollars. Lemme go dig it up and you'll see which one I mean.



ok, yeah I haven't seen that one. The one I know of was reported in an editorial as total fact in the LA Times.
Behold, lies.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story.html

I'm not a big fan of Snopes, but they did cover this one well.

https://www.snopes.com/portugal-net-neutrality/


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

xpoverzion said:


> Yup, paying extra for a data plan for specific kinds of traffic is going to be great.  Their most popular data plans are going to be for porn, pirated movies, pirated games, and pirated everything else.  Since they won't have data plans for all of that, kiss all your pirating activities goodbye.


*unzips vpn*
nuthin legal, kiddo


----------



## DKB (Dec 15, 2017)

xpoverzion said:


> porn



The internet was made for porn. The people at the FCC may be greedy but they're not fucking heartless.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> ok, yeah I haven't seen that one. The one I know of was reported in an editorial as total fact in the LA Times.
> Behold, lies.
> http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-portugal-internet-20171127-story.html
> 
> ...


Yeah, that's the kind of shit I'm talking about right there. Fuck the LA Times and any website proposing this nonsense. They're the exact reason why we have all these disingenuous, or overly anxious, or livid suicidal people.


----------



## xpoverzion (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> *unzips vpn*
> nuthin legal, kiddo


VPN services are slow as fuck.  No thanks.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

xpoverzion said:


> VPN services are slow as fuck.  No thanks.


*unzips non-free VPN*
try me again me bucko


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2017)

xpoverzion said:


> Yup, paying extra for a data plan for specific kinds of traffic is going to be great.  Their most popular data plans are going to be for porn, pirated movies, pirated games, and pirated everything else.  Since they won't have data plans for all of that, kiss all your pirating activities goodbye.



You're still not getting it. It's for EXTRA data in a specific traffic type ON TOP OF your general data plan. If you have a data plan that limits you to 8gb but you hardly use your data allowance for anything but facebook and want more, pay X amount to get some extra specifically for Facebook, or pay X times 2 to go to the 16GB plan. But there's nothing blocking your access to any part or site of the internet on that Portugal mobile plan. You can get porn, without needing to pay for the 'porn' package. Relax.


----------



## chrisrlink (Dec 15, 2017)

oh if only i can say what i want w/o the fucking fbi's foot up my ass I'm not against the POTUS in general the entire corrupt US government needs a serious overhaul any ideas of other countries to immigrate to? i feel like i might need to flee soon if anything gets worse.....and it will funny how you can say hate speech within reason but overthrowing a government could get you jail time such fucking hippocrits


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

chrisrlink said:


> oh if only i can say what i want w/o the fucking fbi's foot up my ass I'm not against the POTUS in general the entire corrupt US government needs a serious overhaul any ideas of other countries to immigrate to? i feel like i might need to flee soon if anything gets worse.....and it will funny how you can say hate speech within reason but overthrowing a government could get you jail time such fucking hippocrits






Damn, look out Trump.


----------



## Costello (Dec 15, 2017)

I don't think it really matters if the portugal thing actually happened. What matters here is to understand what _could _happen in worst case scenarios. This is just one of them.

For the record it did happen a lot in France on mobile internet not that long ago. You would have to buy packages to access certain sites (i.e. pay $10 and get access to Facebook). And this is not a lie, I was there and saw it with my own eyes. I am sure other french people can back me up on that.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Costello said:


> I don't think it really matters if the portugal thing actually happened. What matters here is to understand what _could _happen in worst case scenarios. This is just one of them.
> 
> For the record it did happen a lot in France on mobile internet not that long ago. You would have to buy packages to access certain sites (i.e. pay $10 and get access to Facebook). And this is not a lie, I was there and saw it with my own eyes. I am sure other french people can back me up on that.


Got any names? Otherwise this is basically anecdotal.


----------



## xpoverzion (Dec 15, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> You're still not getting it. It's for EXTRA data in a specific traffic type ON TOP OF your general data plan. If you have a data plan that limits you to 8gb but you hardly use your data allowance for anything but facebook and want more, pay X amount to get some extra specifically for Facebook, or pay X times 2 to go to the 16GB plan. But there's nothing blocking your access to any part or site of the internet on that Portugal mobile plan. You can get porn, without needing to pay for the 'porn' package. Relax.


You're not making sense.  Why would anybody pay for "extra data" for a specific traffic site?  If your plan has a data cap, then you are going to use that data how you use it.  If you are on facebook all day, and that's the only site you use, then that's where all your data will go under your general data cap.  If you watch porn all day, then that's where your data will go.  What you're saying is that you will pay for a general data allotment, then pay more for specific sites that you visit more frequently??  Data is data.  With your logic, you might pay $50 a month for 100GB worth of data.  Pay an extra $10 per month for an additional 10GB's worth of data reserved for Facebook since you use that site a lot.  This is going to make a mess of things.  I would rather just have a $75 data package that allots 200GB's of general data usage per month.  I have actually downloaded over 1TB worth of PS3 games over the past month.  My ISP is not Veriozon, or Comcast.  They don't have any data limitations.  But of course these new laws are going to inspire certain business practices that I'm sure my ISP won't be able to resist.  So yeah, this will be the end of the internet, at least how I have known it for the past 10 years.  I would say that the primary motive behind all of this activity with the FCC is to combat piracy.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Also it is relevant whether it happened or not, because otherwise it's just people gushing out hot air about something that hasn't actually happened yet. Hell it got so bad the company themselves had to make a public image that the image was fake. All images like that do is stir people up about shit that *could* happen but *hasn't.* You may as well be afraid of your own shadow at that rate.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

I_AM_L_FORCE said:


> Lol you're a furry faggot and your opinion isn't valid



Oh shut the hell up already, I don't give a flying shit about your festering gob, so shut it. It's not like your opinions are somehow more valid than anyone else's. You don't even live in the US, so why do you care? Grow up.


Ugh....! Comments like yours are completely unnecessary, so yeah, thanks.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Also it is relevant that it happened, because otherwise it's just people gushing out hot air about something that hasn't actually happened yet. Hell it got so bad the company themselves had to make a public image that the image was fake. All images like that do is stir people up about shit that *could* happen but *hasn't.* You may as well be afraid of your own shadow at that rate.


So your whole arguement is that we should ignore the potential dangers because they haven't happened yet? That's irrational.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> So your whole arguement is that we should ignore the potential dangers because they haven't happened yet? That's irrational.


Here, this might be on your reading level
https://www.educents.com/hooked-on-...MIj8iwkd-K2AIVXbnACh3tVAEAEAQYASABEgIrufD_BwE

My point is that people are getting too worked up over shit that "could" happen, but you "could" also just get shot walking in the street, or you "could" get in a car wreck, or you "could" just have a heart attack. It's a terrifying thought but people are getting worked up over possibilities like they're the reality they're living in, and it's irrational.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Here, this might be on your reading level
> https://www.educents.com/hooked-on-...MIj8iwkd-K2AIVXbnACh3tVAEAEAQYASABEgIrufD_BwE
> 
> My point is that people are getting too worked up over shit that "could" happen, but you "could" also just get shot walking in the street, or you "could" get in a car wreck, or you "could" just have a heart attack. It's a terrifying thought but people are getting worked up over possibilities like they're the reality they're living in, and it's irrational.


First stop trying to be condescending, you can barely make an arguement.

Secondly, I don't actively walk out into traffic or put myself in dangerous situations. I weigh risks with rewards like a normal person. So, the only thing I've wanted from you from the start.. what good comes from removing net neutrality that is worth the risks? That's the only thing I've been trying to get from you guys.

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

Should I time stamp how long it takes for someone to answer that question?


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> First stop trying to be condescending, you can barely make an arguement.
> 
> Secondly, I don't actively walk out into traffic or put myself in dangerous situations. I weigh risks with rewards like a normal person. So, the only thing I've wanted from you from the start.. what good comes from removing net neutrality that is worth the risks? That's the only thing I've been trying to get from you guys.


The irony in someone accusing someone of being condescending while being condescending himself. You can go back and read the posts and see that net neutrality as a concept is not being repealed, moreso the Title II order and it's regulations. You can't really burst into a thread that's been full of the discussion and go "hurrrrr can someone spoon feed me? I can't read!"

https://www.babycenter.com/0_starter-library-for-newborns-to-6-month-olds_6606.bc
Maybe these are for someone of your level of reading comprehension.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> The irony in someone accusing someone of being condescending while being condescending himself. You can go back and read the posts and see that net neutrality as a concept is not being repealed, moreso the Title II order and it's regulations. You can't really burst into a thread that's been full of the discussion and go "hurrrrr can someone spoon feed me? I can't read!"
> 
> https://www.babycenter.com/0_starter-library-for-newborns-to-6-month-olds_6606.bc
> Maybe these are for someone of your level of reading comprehension.


You still didn't answer my question. Nor did anyone else in this thread, I did read it which is why I posted. And we've come full circle to my first post..


WeedZ said:


> There are two types of people in this thread. People that care about net neutrality and are complaining about it, and people that don't care about net neutrality either way and hate people that care about stuff. Honestly, *if you have no reason (legitimate or otherwise)* to see net neutrality gone then you need to leave people alone and gtfo. *Youre just being an asshole *and we have enough of those.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> You still didn't answer my question. Nor did anyone else in this thread, I did read it which is why I posted. And we've come full circle to my first post..


I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that you've managed to read 40+ pages while still bitching the whole time that no one has answered your question. I also find it interesting how you only really became active in the thread once you saw liberals getting shat on.

I think I can see what's going on here


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I'm a bit skeptical of the idea that you've managed to read 40+ pages while still bitching the whole time that no one has answered your question. I also find it interesting how you only really became active in the thread once you saw liberals getting shat on.
> 
> I think I can see what's going on here


Yeah, I got annoyed with people being shitty without any good reason. I can quote my first post again if you wanna give it another read.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Yeah, I got annoyed with people being shitty without any good reason. I can quote my first post again if you wanna give it another read.


Strange coming from the man whose activity only spiked when liberals were mentioned negatively (despite there being fair reasons to do so as liberal media outlets such as Gizmodo have been hilariously disingenuous about this whole thing) and yet suddenly is trying to pretend he's the arbiter of morality in the thread.

Very strange.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Strange coming from the man whose activity only spiked when liberals were mentioned negatively (despite there being fair reasons to do so as liberal media outlets such as Gizmodo have been hilariously disingenuous about this whole thing) and yet suddenly is trying to pretend he's the arbiter of morality in the thread.
> 
> Very strange.
> View attachment 108377


I would have been annoyed either way. As I said, the fact only conservatives are doing it is either coincidence or says something about conservatives. But you're deflecting again so I'm going to lurk until my question is answered. Then I'm going to have a real debate. Good day


----------



## Kingy (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Strange coming from the man whose activity only spiked when liberals were mentioned negatively (despite there being fair reasons to do so as liberal media outlets such as Gizmodo have been hilariously disingenuous about this whole thing) and yet suddenly is trying to pretend he's the arbiter of morality in the thread.
> 
> Very strange.
> View attachment 108377


It's funny how much you are trying to avoid being proven wrong. It's just completely silly to see how low you go!


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

People throwing in ad hominem attacks, saying they're right and everyone else is wrong, yeah, sounds about right to be another political debate.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

TheKingy34 said:


> It's funny how much you are trying to avoid being proven wrong. It's just completely silly to see how low you go!


Well let's see here:
Gizmodo, notoriously liberal site owned by Gawker, hilariously notorious for liberally slanted news reports
https://gizmodo.com/leaked-video-shows-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-roasting-himself-1821134881
https://gizmodo.com/heres-the-fccs-plan-to-kill-net-neutrality-1820683360
https://gizmodo.com/fcc-chairman-is-laughing-at-americans-who-dont-want-to-1795193063

Shown here spreading intentional lies about how the FCC is "killing net neutrality" or reporting just plain nonsense about how the FCC chairman just making shitty bants with internet people somehow equates to him openly "laughing at people who don't want the internet killed"

Yet anyone calling out stuff like this is just a conservative.




Now even more strange is how WeedZ's basically absent from the thread entirely until the moment he perceives an attack on the liberals has been made and must carry their honor on his shoulders, despite multiple people -- myself included -- mentioning that this isn't about the personal politics of the website reporting it.

I can see why people would mention liberals negatively when referring to liberal sites, but the ultimate point here is the personal politics of people has jack shit to do with this sort of thing. You could be a liberal like myself and support the bill, or you could be a conservative and support the bill. It's irrelevant what your political stance is in this, which is why I specifically call out Weed for only giving a shit the moment liberals are getting bantered around.

So yeah mate you can both keep trying but until you've made an attempt to read the thread, you're not really part of the discussion.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

Oh that's cute, 22 states, including California, are gonna sue the FCC. Good luck.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Seriously I stress again the politics in the debate of net neutrality are basically irrelevant. This isn't a black and white issue like people make it out to be and that sort of partisan "us vs them" nonsense is why this debate is so royally fucked.

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



the_randomizer said:


> Oh that's cute, 22 states, including California, are gonna sue the FCC. Good luck.


This is going to be a hilarious shitshow


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Seriously I stress again the politics in the debate of net neutrality are basically irrelevant. This isn't a black and white issue like people make it out to be and that sort of partisan "us vs them" nonsense is why this debate is so royally fucked.



And I feel like figuratively throwing up at all the sheer virulent toxicity and animosity that's going on right now. We're better than this.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Well let's see here:
> Gizmodo, notoriously liberal site owned by Gawker, hilariously notorious for liberally slanted news reports
> https://gizmodo.com/leaked-video-shows-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-roasting-himself-1821134881
> https://gizmodo.com/heres-the-fccs-plan-to-kill-net-neutrality-1820683360
> ...


Don't try to paint me into a corner. I'm not a liberal. And if my posting was politically motivated, I'd have posted a long time ago. Im not a member of gizmodo or whatever. I'm a member of gbatemp. I care about my experience here. You're just being ridiculous now. Just admit you're an asshole and move on.

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

I like when I argue with someone and instead of admitting they're wrong, they're suddenly on "my side" of the arguement. I'm the one that said political affiliation has nothing to do with this lol


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 15, 2017)

I'll just leave this here https://www.fcc.gov/restoring-internet-freedom


----------



## Costello (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Got any names? Otherwise this is basically anecdotal.


Here is one example of many, from 2014
http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28...forfait-red-de-sfr-avec-youtube-illimite.html
This operator sold a mobile internet plan with "unlimited Youtube access" and 5 GB for the rest of the internet.
So basically it's okay to visit one particular site as much as you want, but you have to restrain yourself from visiting every other.
And this is just one example, I've seen much worse.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 15, 2017)

All right. Since there seems to be a fair amount of people against net neutrality, let's play a game. 

Let's say that I'm Comcast, and I have a few sites I want to promote ahead of others (I.E. Hulu instead of Netflix, PSN instead of XBox Live). Who's gonna stop me from doing so now?

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

No one's gonna take on Comcast?


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2017)

xpoverzion said:


> I have actually downloaded over 1TB worth of PS3 games over the past month.



You downloaded 1TB over the past month _on your phone_?

That Portugal example, besides being misleading, is also mobile only.

As for the reasoning behind the Portuguese mobile data plan packages, the way I understand it is. let's say for example you're paying $40 a month for a package that gives you 8GB. And if it weren't for what you do on Facebook, you could get by on 8GB. But with your Facebook usage included, you're always between 10-12GB total. But you don't want to pay the extra $20 cost of jumping to the 16GB tier. So in that case, you can pay the $8 extra for the Facebook extended data, so you can get 4GB of Facebook data, plus your usual 8GB (which can also include Facebook). The $48 total you're now spending isn't as expensive as the $60 cost of the 16GB package. Some customers will go for the 16GB package anyway, but you want to save $12. It's an option, that's it. And it's mobile only. And this is the one main example that's been getting posted up the last couple days of what a horror show is awaiting us because regulations that have only been in place for 2 years got repealed.

Is there anything in the law that would prevent ISP's from going back to the old AOL pay-by-the-hour model? In the 90's lots of Americans, probably _most_ Americans, used dialup and paid $$$ hourly for the privilege. These regulations that just got repealed weren't preventing a return to that sales model. As far as I know, it's still legal. So why don't ISP's go back to that??


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Costello said:


> Here is one example of many, from 2014
> http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28...forfait-red-de-sfr-avec-youtube-illimite.html
> This operator sold a mobile internet plan with "unlimited Youtube access" and 5 GB for the rest of the internet.
> So basically it's okay to visit one particular site as much as you want, but you have to restrain yourself from visiting every other.
> And this is just one example, I've seen much worse.


We're talking about mobile internet here vs home internet. Not to mention this kind of stuff makes sense, just as with the Telco stuff people have posted, you can purchase the ability to have your youtube access not count towards your data limit. As someone who used youtube a lot for lectures, research, boredom, and so on, that's a deal I'd take personally. That way, you can get the lowest data cap, but circumvent it with the youtube addon so that you don't spend any more money than you have to on data you know you aren't going to use. Better than exceeding your cap with youtube.

That said however, mobile internet plans aren't really the same as home internet plans. You might get a dongle or something but that's not really used for anything besides maybe email and for one person, that's about the closest I can think of mobile internet being used as a home internet thing. So not only is it not fair nor accurate to compare the two, but the example given isn't even that bad. If this is the way the internet is going to be, I totally welcome that shit. I'm fine with data caps if I can personally purchase the ability for shit I know I use to not contribute to it, and not purchase shit I know I'll never touch.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2017)

Costello said:


> Here is one example of many, from 2014
> http://www.numerama.com/magazine/28...forfait-red-de-sfr-avec-youtube-illimite.html
> This operator sold a mobile internet plan with "unlimited Youtube access" and 5 GB for the rest of the internet.
> So basically it's okay to visit one particular site as much as you want, but you have to restrain yourself from visiting every other.
> And this is just one example, I've seen much worse.



And what's wrong with this? The customer doesn't have to buy it, and if they do, it's just a mobile plan with data restrictions. What _mobile_ plan doesn't have data restrictions? If that plan (5GB plus unlimited YT) suits a customer's needs better than (for example) a 12GB general plan at twice the cost, then it's a good product for that consumer. Some people are served better by something like this.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> And what's wrong with this? The customer doesn't have to buy it, and if they do, it's just a mobile plan with data restrictions. What _mobile_ plan doesn't have data restrictions? If that plan (5GB plus unlimited YT) suits a customer's needs better than (for example) a 12GB general plan at twice the cost, then it's a good product for that consumer. Some people are served better by something like this.


Precisely this. I'd for one welcome packages for internet on the grounds that I can end up saving money by not buying the shit I don't use (gaming services like Steam and so on) while getting unlimited usage for the stuff I *do* use (Youtube, soundcloud, etc)

But I don't have a data cap at all and my ISP has no intention of getting one nor have they ever tried to install one so I think I'll be fine. If not, it's whatever, I'll save a buck either way.


----------



## DarthDub (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> We're talking about mobile internet here vs home internet. Not to mention this kind of stuff makes sense, just as with the Telco stuff people have posted, you can purchase the ability to have your youtube access not count towards your data limit. As someone who used youtube a lot for lectures, research, boredom, and so on, that's a deal I'd take personally. That way, you can get the lowest data cap, but circumvent it with the youtube addon so that you don't spend any more money than you have to on data you know you aren't going to use. Better than exceeding your cap with youtube.
> 
> That said however, mobile internet plans aren't really the same as home internet plans. You might get a dongle or something but that's not really used for anything besides maybe email and for one person, that's about the closest I can think of mobile internet being used as a home internet thing. So not only is it not fair nor accurate to compare the two, but the example given isn't even that bad. If this is the way the internet is going to be, I totally welcome that shit. I'm fine with data caps if I can personally purchase the ability for shit I know I use to not contribute to it, and not purchase shit I know I'll never touch.


Freedom of choice.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Precisely this. I'd for one welcome packages for internet on the grounds that I can end up saving money by not buying the shit I don't use (gaming services like Steam and so on) while getting unlimited usage for the stuff I *do* use (Youtube, soundcloud, etc)
> 
> But I don't have a data cap at all and my ISP has no intention of getting one nor have they ever tried to install one so I think I'll be fine. If not, it's whatever, I'll save a buck either way.




I abandoned Suddenlink last year when they started data caps in my town. It was all in fine print, accompanied by advertising for improved speeds (so you could hit the dead end even faster). But the main competing ISP in town (smaller than Suddenlink, but still in the game) doesn't have data caps. That's how they draw customers, like me, from Suddenlink.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 15, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> All right. Since there seems to be a fair amount of people against net neutrality, let's play a game.
> 
> Let's say that I'm Comcast, and I have a few sites I want to promote ahead of others (I.E. Hulu instead of Netflix, PSN instead of XBox Live). Who's gonna stop me from doing so now?
> 
> ...


@MaverickWellington


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> I abandoned Suddenlink last year when they started data caps in my town. It was all in fine print, accompanied by advertising for improved speeds (so you could hit the dead end even faster). But the main competing ISP in town doesn't have data caps. That's how they draw customers, like me, from Suddenlink.


Similar situation here. AT&T was garbage -- garbage service, garbage hardware, garbage support -- they were even doing a fucking campaign to tell everyone my current service was bought out and that we should switch to them (may have just been some false flagger but either way he's a tool) so when my current ISP, Fidelity opened their doors, I signed straight the fuck up with em. No throttling, no slow down, nothing. Worst I have is maybe spotty connection from all the interference in my room, but that's about it. Capitalism at it's finest, baby.

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



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> @MaverickWellington


The FTC and FCC would double penetrate him with sub openas until he's giving double victory signs for anti-trust and anti-competitive violations, through the Sherman Act's Antitrust Laws.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Similar situation here. AT&T was garbage -- garbage service, garbage hardware, garbage support -- they were even doing a fucking campaign to tell everyone my current service was bought out and that we should switch to them (may have just been some false flagger but either way he's a tool) so when my current ISP, Fidelity opened their doors, I signed straight the fuck up with em. No throttling, no slow down, nothing. Worst I have is maybe spotty connection from all the interference in my room, but that's about it. Capitalism at it's finest, baby.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


The problem there is that the FCC is delegating away its authority to regulate these cases under the current proposal. As for the FTC:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...dec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.b81503957f49

And as far as antitrust laws go, they were in place before 2015 but thst didn't stop ISPs then.

So they wouldn't stop Comcast in this case.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Dec 15, 2017)

shut the petitions down it's over


----------



## Xzi (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> So uh...what was Title II protecting us from again?





MaverickWellington said:


> throttling, blocking, and data packages


Nobody complains about widespread throttling or wholesale blocking of websites right now.  You're simply lying because you have no leg to stand on in this argument.  These are downsides that come *after *repeal.

We've been round in circles on this a million times, but the bottom line is that the majority opinion (~80%) was in favor of Net Neutrality, and Ajit Pai completely ignored that.  There's no reason to ignore such a massive public outcry unless you're getting some sort of personal benefit, so this entire repeal process has been corrupt from the beginning.  That's how you end up being the most hated man on the internet and why it's so easy to find images like this one:



Spoiler: NSFW











Apparently @MaverickWellington will be his friend, but nobody else is willing to take that hit.


----------



## SoslanVanWieren (Dec 15, 2017)

The restriction is put in place by us isps so the rest of the world will be fine.


----------



## xpoverzion (Dec 15, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> You downloaded 1TB over the past month _on your phone_?
> 
> That Portugal example, besides being misleading, is also mobile only.
> 
> ...


Mobile internet has always been joke, and a ripoff anyways.  Hard to make the mobile internet world any worse.  My concern is with home internet.  The internet experience will be ruined, and a mess if home ISP's start to take on a model like mobile, or cable.  When that adji A-hole says that this repeal will make ISPs more competitive, and foster innovation, what he means to say is that these repeals will lead to more innovative ways for ISPs to milk and dime, and profit off of the consumer like never before.


----------



## SoslanVanWieren (Dec 15, 2017)

don't forget other countrys exist.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Dec 15, 2017)

SoslanVanWieren said:


> The restriction is put in place by us isps so the rest of the world will be fine.


Pretty narrow minded. The internet doesn't exactly separate by borders. Js


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> And what's wrong with this? The customer doesn't have to buy it, and if they do, it's just a mobile plan with data restrictions. What _mobile_ plan doesn't have data restrictions? If that plan (5GB plus unlimited YT) suits a customer's needs better than (for example) a 12GB general plan at twice the cost, then it's a good product for that consumer. Some people are served better by something like this.


Just about all of them have unlimited data plans. For now anyway, but you guys would rather pay for a cap with access favored to certain sites. Because "it's not that bad". Not that bad doesn't mean better.


----------



## SoslanVanWieren (Dec 15, 2017)

Memoir said:


> Pretty narrow minded. The internet doesn't exactly separate by borders. Js


I know but its us isps doing this stuff if your some where else in the world your isp won't have the restrictions so the internet will be the same for you.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

SoslanVanWieren said:


> The restriction is put in place by us isps so the rest of the world will be fine.





SoslanVanWieren said:


> don't forget other countrys exist.


We're the third largest part of the internet. Where do you think most of the servers are that house your favorite sites?


----------



## SoslanVanWieren (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> We're the third largest part of the internet. Where do you think most of the servers are that house your favorite sites?


I don't think there are restrictions on servers just for consumers internet.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

SoslanVanWieren said:


> I don't think there are restrictions on servers just for consumers internet.


We just voted to remove that restriction.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Just about all of them have unlimited data plans. For now anyway, but you guys would rather pay for a cap with access favored to certain sites. Because "it's not that bad". Not that bad doesn't mean better.


I agree with this, but to add on to it- those deals for individual sites hurt small businesses. If a youtube competitor tried to enter the market, no one with the unlimited youtube plans would use it even if there was a reason to. That's just straight up bad for competition. 

It'd be a lot better if customers could pick which sites to get unlimited access to, because then they would just pick whichever they like. But that's not the case anywhere.


----------



## SoslanVanWieren (Dec 15, 2017)

so it will cause gbatemp to be very slow and cost more to run the servers?


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

SoslanVanWieren said:


> so it will cause gbatemp to be very slow and cost more to run the servers?


Well, gbatemp is in France I believe. But the us has something like 43% of the top million websites.

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



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I agree with this, but to add on to it- those deals for individual sites hurt small businesses. If a youtube competitor tried to enter the market, no one with the unlimited youtube plans would use it even if there was a reason to. That's just straight up bad for competition.
> 
> It'd be a lot better if customers could pick which sites to get unlimited access to, because then they would just pick whichever they like. But that's not the case anywhere.


Exactly, and companies that have the funding to improve their speed and access will do so to get a leg up on the competition. Which means they can do whatever they want as well. 30 second ads before video, ad every 10 seconds, Why not?


----------



## SoslanVanWieren (Dec 15, 2017)

i wonder how other country will react to this since almost anyone who uses the internet goes on sites based in the us.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 15, 2017)

SoslanVanWieren said:


> i wonder how other country will react to this since almost anyone who uses the internet goes on sites based in the us.


The Prime Minister of Canada and the President of France, I believe, responded to the vote when it was announced and expressed concern.

Edit: Macron didn't, Trudeau did


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> The Prime Minister of Canada and the President of France, I believe, responded to the vote when it was announced and expressed concern.
> 
> Edit: Macron didn't, Trudeau did


I was just reading an article about the statement from the French communications dude. I liked this point

"Another point made by critics of net neutrality is that the internet developed just fine without open-internet protections in place. But it is not fair to argue that because the “internet as we know it” grew with no net neutrality rules, we do not need these rules today. Gutenberg did not benefit from any declaration of rights to invent the printing press. Nevertheless, we codified freedom of speech to keep using it."

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

I just had a thought, imagine hosting sites in other countries.

Package options:
Hosting 10/month
Domain 25/year
Unlimited bandwidth 25/month
100gb storage 5/month
Email free
Mysql free
*Have your site viewable in the US* 99.99/month


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 15, 2017)

[Q


WeedZ said:


> I was just reading an article about the statement from the French communications dude. I liked this point
> 
> "Another point made by critics of net neutrality is that the internet developed just fine without open-internet protections in place. But it is not fair to argue that because the “internet as we know it” grew with no net neutrality rules, we do not need these rules today. Gutenberg did not benefit from any declaration of rights to invent the printing press. Nevertheless, we codified freedom of speech to keep using it."
> 
> ...


I don't think thatll happen, they'll mostly block on a site by site basis if they do. Still, if your site is a competitor to another bigger site, youll be out of luck in the US.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 15, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I don't think thatll happen, they'll mostly block on a site by site basis if they do. Still, if your site is a competitor to another bigger site, youll be out of luck in the US.


I wouldn't put it past the big ISPs to wait 2-3 years until everyone's guard is down, and then throttle all but a whitelist of sites, effectively killing them, especially during peak hours.  In the beginning, however, I agree.  They'll only target a few sites to blacklist that they don't like.  Those will be throttled near to death.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

Looking at the world in my time is crazy. When I was a kid it was all about connecting. The internet started becoming a thing, peoples opinions were appreciated, we could go where ever whenever without worry, open trade and commerce between countries, one love and all that shit.. now it's all people hating on each other for political beliefs, the brexit, harsher border patrol and immigration regulations in the us, people being arrested for voicing their opinions and now a loss of net neutrality. I'm fucking disappointed. Seems like there's always some senseless reason to continue to divide and silence us. And there are people that think it's ok..


----------



## Xzi (Dec 15, 2017)

WeedZ said:


> Looking at the world in my time is crazy. When I was a kid it was all about connecting. The internet started becoming a thing, peoples opinions were appreciated, we could go where ever whenever without worry, open trade and commerce between countries, one love and all that shit.. now it's all people hating on each other for political beliefs, the brexit, harsher border patrol and immigration regulations in the us, people being arrested for voicing their opinions and now a loss of net neutrality. I'm fucking disappointed. Seems like there's always some senseless reason to continue to divide and silence us. And there are people that think it's ok..


We went wrong in a lot of places at a lot of different times.  Things were better before social media as we know it now...better before 24-hour news channels...before reality TV...before Citizens United and money completely owning politics...before so much else.

Give me back my MTV that's actually music videos DAMMIT!  /geezer


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Confirmed for not having read the bill at all.
> 
> Explain this for me then.
> https://i.imgur.com/cgUA9SY.png


I found flaws

First it says its makes anti competitive arrangements illegal. What if an ISP found away around this by making a "*Pro Competitive Arrangements*". And Comcast has just done that with Zero Rating Arrangements (aka data cap exemptions). As said by Sena Fitzmaurice the Senior Vice President of Comcast. With Net Neutrality gone they can provide data cap exemptions on certain services and force other companies to pay for those same exemptions. And the FCC can't do anything about that.

Also the FTC _*could*_ punish them if they go back on their promises/commitments. But there is no law that requires them to make promises/commitments in the first place. And therefore not be punished. They can handle their network however they want as long they disclose information to the public.

ISP's have been doing lots of double speak recently on their commitments, and on the difference between pro competitive and anti competitive arrangements.
With Net Neutrality down they are basically letting ISP's regulate themselves. This is basically voluntary net neutrality. (And we'll see how well this goes.)


----------



## SoslanVanWieren (Dec 15, 2017)

people will probably buy vpns to bypass it though


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

SoslanVanWieren said:


> people will probably buy vpns to bypass it though


All a VPN does is hide your ip with those on a server. The slow speeds, data caps, and website blocks will still be intact. If they wanted to, they could block connections for a vpn's range of ip's, blocking it altogether.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Nobody complains about widespread throttling or wholesale blocking of websites right now.  You're simply lying because you have no leg to stand on in this argument.  These are downsides that come *after *repeal.
> 
> We've been round in circles on this a million times, but the bottom line is that the majority opinion (~80%) was in favor of Net Neutrality, and Ajit Pai completely ignored that.  There's no reason to ignore such a massive public outcry unless you're getting some sort of personal benefit, so this entire repeal process has been corrupt from the beginning.  That's how you end up being the most hated man on the internet and why it's so easy to find images like this one:
> 
> Apparently @MaverickWellington will be his friend, but nobody else is willing to take that hit.


https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/25/16546798/verizon-unlimited-data-full-video-quality-fee
https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/26/...ed-premium-plan-announced-less-throttly-sorta
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...ottling-to-be-punished-with-100-million-fine/
http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/1...identally-deactivates-customers-sims-process/
oops i think i killed your argument haha

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

"B-b-b-b-but Title II s-stopped the throttling! W-what do you mean it's still happening!?"
lmao okay xzi
Evidently you don't trust the government at all but the moment they propose rules you agree with you totally trust them to run your internet despite saying before they were corrupt but okay lad

Cognitive dissonance must hurt. Not that I'd know :^)

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



SG854 said:


> I found flaws
> 
> First it says its makes anti competitive arrangements illegal. What if an ISP found away around this by making a "*Pro Competitive Arrangements*". And Comcast has just done that with Zero Rating Arrangements (aka data cap exemptions). As said by Sena Fitzmaurice the Senior Vice President of Comcast. With Net Neutrality gone they can provide data cap exemptions on certain services and force other companies to pay for those same exemptions. And the FCC can't do anything about that.
> 
> ...






Wrong.

Under anti-trust laws these moves would be illegal, regardless of what they call them. 
The argument of "they could enforcement but no law says they have to" is a non-argument. You can neglect to press charges in situations where you were wronged if you feel it was an accident, or it has been solved privately and you don't want to push it further. The point of the lack of a law requiring every single event and situation to be punished by law is that it allows for situations and "violations" to be observed on a case by case basis, as they should be, rather than some catch-all thing that means throttling because of infrastructure problems is the exact same thing as throttling to prevent competition.

To clarify, the idea of legitimate violations being ignored is fucking garbage, but we have no evidence to suggest that will be what happens. Why the FCC would accept laws that they intend to ignore and never enforce is beyond me. If they didn't give a shit about the laws, why would they change them?

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



SoslanVanWieren said:


> so it will cause gbatemp to be very slow and cost more to run the servers?


No. That would only happen if there was a huge surge in bandwidth that'd increase costs. I *sincerely* doubt an ISP would go to a fucking forum and extort them to remove throttling. They don't have a reason to. Name an ISP that's offering a competing forum about game mods and homebrew.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Under anti-trust laws these moves would be illegal, regardless of what they call them.
> The argument of "they could enforcement but no law says they have to" is a non-argument. You can neglect to press charges in situations where you were wronged if you feel it was an accident, or it has been solved privately and you don't want to push it further. The point of the lack of a law requiring every single event and situation to be punished by law is that it allows for situations and "violations" to be observed on a case by case basis, as they should be, rather than some catch-all thing that means throttling because of infrastructure problems is the exact same thing as throttling to prevent competition.
> ...


We have evidence of allowing Data Caps exemptions, and forcing other companies to pay for those same exemptions under this new management from Ajit Pai. The guy is anti net neutrality, this is just a taste of whats going to happen. Under old management from Tom wheeler it was ruled *illegal*. But new management from Pai let it slide.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...that-att-and-verizon-violated-net-neutrality/


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 15, 2017)

SG854 said:


> We have evidence of allowing Data Caps exemptions, and forcing other companies to pay for those same exemptions under this new management from Ajit Pai. The guy is anti net neutrality, this is just a taste of whats going to happen. Under old management from Tom wheeler it was ruled *illegal*. But new management from Pai let it slide.
> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...that-att-and-verizon-violated-net-neutrality/


He's going to ignore it because arstechnica


----------



## Captain_N (Dec 15, 2017)

If net neutrality stays then i dont want to be blocked from downloading torrents. My phone data should not be slowed down. No blocking vpn and tor network. It ain't truly neutral now is it? If im blocked from a certain streaming site that illegal then that's not neutral. The law will probably be passed since its in the tax law. The real issue is that when a new law is proposed, only things pertaining to that law should be in the bill. There should be no sneaking it in. That should have been in the Constitution. All in all, id rather the government take its dirty hands off my internet. They always fuck up everything they touch. look how expensive health care in the US is now. Don't people know that the Liberal/Progressive agenda is more government control. Look up what FDR started. They hate trump because he is a huge wrench into their view for America. When trump trolls them its great.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 15, 2017)

Captain_N said:


> If net neutrality stays then i dont want to be blocked from downloading torrents. My phone data should not be slowed down. No blocking vpn and tor network. It ain't truly neutral now is it? If im blocked from a certain streaming site that illegal then that's not neutral. The law will probably be passed since its in the tax law. The real issue is that when a new law is proposed, only things pertaining to that law should be in the bill. There should be no sneaking it in. That should have been in the Constitution. All in all, id rather the government take its dirty hands off my internet. They always fuck up everything they touch. look how expensive health care in the US is now. Don't people know that the Liberal/Progressive agenda is more government control. Look up what FDR started. They hate trump because he is a huge wrench into their view for America. When trump trolls them its great.


I totally agree with you on the whole "sneaking stuff into bills thing", that's actual horseshit

But, uh, what exactly is your issue with FDR?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> oops i think i killed your argument haha


No, you sure didn't.  You pointed out individual instances of ISPs being dicks, and you think handing over all control to those dicks will solve everything.  Your logic is so obviously broken.

In good news, however: states are suggesting they'll be implementing their own Net Neutrality laws one by one.  There's still probably a plan in place to strip away those states' rights, but it hasn't started moving yet.  Would be pretty funny if only the red states were truly stripped of Net Neutrality and have to reap what they sow.  It'd also be satisfying to see all 50 states pass their own NN laws, making the fact that repeal passed irrelevant.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> He's going to ignore it because arstechnica


I just don't trust management under Pai. Especially with the plan he proposed and is going to take affect.
If he allows this then what. Thats what political heads do, they play with wording a lot to confuse. Masters of Double Speak.
Wording is one thing. How they interpret it is another. Which is we have to see the many different ways a document can be interpreted.
And pick out the finer details.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Xzi said:


> No, you sure didn't.  You pointed out individual instances of ISPs being dicks, and you think handing over all control to those dicks will solve everything.  Your logic is so obviously broken.
> 
> In good news, however: states are suggesting they'll be implementing their own Net Neutrality laws one by one.  There's still probably a plan in place to strip away those states' rights, but it hasn't started moving yet.  Would be pretty funny if only the red states were truly stripped of Net Neutrality and have to reap what they sow.  It'd also be satisfying to see all 50 states pass their own NN laws, making the fact that repeal passed irrelevant.


"You think handing over all control to them will solve everything"
Where have I ever fucking argued that


----------



## Xzi (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> "You think handing over all control to them will solve everything"
> Where have I ever fucking argued that


Well, if you thought it was going to make things worse, you would've been arguing against NN repeal.  So what, you believe ISPs holding all the power will simply change nothing?  Sounds naive.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Xzi said:


> Well, if you thought it was going to make things worse, you would've been arguing against NN repeal.  So what, you believe ISPs holding all the power will simply change nothing?  Sounds naive.


I swear I would have to literally pay you to make a coherent representation of someone's argument.
When have I ever said that I believed the ISPs should hold all the power? When have I presented anything saying the proposal is to let ISPs have all the power?

This video explain it, since apparently you can't read. Hopefully you can listen better though.


The breakdown is that authority is given to the FTC. How in the fuck does that mean "No regulations on ISPs?"


----------



## Xzi (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I swear I would have to literally pay you to make a coherent representation of someone's argument.
> When have I ever said that I believed the ISPs should hold all the power? When have I presented anything saying the proposal is to let ISPs have all the power?
> 
> This video explain it, since apparently you can't read. Hopefully you can listen better though.
> ...



The FCC and the FTC are the ones rolling back the current regulations so they have far less power to actually punish ISPs when they break the rules.  The FCC is also chaired by a Verizon lawyer, so if you think Verizon and Comcast and TWC didn't get all the loopholes and double-speak they wanted out of this repeal, you're wrong.  You're also wrong if you think this administration's FCC/FTC are currently doing their jobs properly.  If Trump stays in until 2020, it's gonna be monopolies as far as the eye can see.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> I swear I would have to literally pay you to make a coherent representation of someone's argument.
> When have I ever said that I believed the ISPs should hold all the power? When have I presented anything saying the proposal is to let ISPs have all the power?
> 
> This video explain it, since apparently you can't read. Hopefully you can listen better though.
> ...



Giving authority to the FTC is meaning less. The FTC has no rule making authority. Only the FCC does. FTC only enforces those rules. 
And under Pai's plan the FCC is going to remove regulations. If you give FTC authority but have no regulations to enforce then they can't do much.

Under this new plan they are basically giving ISP's the power to regulate themselves. And making their own commitments. Only voluntary commitments are enforceable by law. Comcast is already backing out on their pledge to Net Neutrality as soon as the plan was proposed from Pai.


----------



## MaverickWellington (Dec 15, 2017)

Xzi said:


> The FCC and the FTC are the ones rolling back the current regulations so they have far less power to actually punish ISPs when they break the rules.  The FCC is also chaired by a Verizon lawyer, so if you think Verizon and Comcast and TWC didn't get all the loopholes and double-speak they wanted out of this repeal, you're wrong.  You're also wrong if you think this administration's FCC/FTC are currently doing their jobs properly.  If Trump stays in until 2020, it's gonna be monopolies as far as the eye can see.


What? It's a proposal by the FCC to give the regulatory authority to the FTC, and that means that the FCC and FTC both together wrote to remove the regulations?

You're making my head hurt with this nonsense.

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



SG854 said:


> Giving authority to the FTC is meaning less. The FTC has no rule making authority. Only the FCC does. FTC only enforces those rules.
> And under Pai's plan the FCC is going to remove regulations. If you give FTC authority but have no regulations to enforce then they can't do much.
> 
> Under this new plan they are basically giving ISP's the power to regulate themselves. And making their own commitments. Only voluntary commitments are enforceable by law. Comcast is already backing out on their pledge to Net Neutrality as soon as the plan was proposed from Pai.


They aren't removing all regulations though. See the proposal.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> What? It's a proposal by the FCC to give the regulatory authority to the FTC, and that means that the FCC and FTC both together wrote to remove the regulations?
> 
> You're making my head hurt with this nonsense.


I'm sorry reading comprehension is so difficult for you.  Read SG854's post.



MaverickWellington said:


> They aren't removing all regulations though. See the proposal.


It doesn't matter that not *all *regulations are being removed.  Too many important ones are being removed, and ISPs are not going to self-regulate instead.  Ask GWB how well the housing/financial markets self-regulated in 2008.


----------



## WeedZ (Dec 15, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> The breakdown is that authority is given to the FTC. How in the fuck does that mean "No regulations on ISPs?"


For future refrence, start your arguements with the point your trying to make, like this one, and save us all a fucking headache of trying to even decipher what youre even argueing. Jesus christ. Now we have a central point to debate instead of dealing with your defensive sidestepping when we ask you "what are saying then..?"

So, on point. How is having the FTC in control going to be better? That's what we had before and startups like Skype and some voip's almost never happened due to isp blocking/throttling.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> Is there anything in the law that would prevent ISP's from going back to the old AOL pay-by-the-hour model? In the 90's lots of Americans, probably _most_ Americans, used dialup and paid $$$ hourly for the privilege. These regulations that just got repealed weren't preventing a return to that sales model. As far as I know, it's still legal. _So why don't ISP's go back to that??_



Nobody has responded to this. I'm still asking.


----------



## DarthDub (Dec 15, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> Nobody has responded to this. I'm still asking.


Because it would be economic suicide if they attempted that.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 15, 2017)

Hanafuda said:


> Nobody has responded to this. I'm still asking.


Your comment got lost in the sea of comments.

Because competition.

AOL charged $9.95 for five hours or $19.95 for 20 hours. Then $2.95 for each additional hour.

Back in 96 they had competition from most ISP's like AT&T, Sprint, and MCI.
They offered unlimited net access for $19.95 per month.

Then AOL announced they will offer the unlimited model that same year.


----------



## Hanafuda (Dec 15, 2017)

@SG854 and @DarthDub,

yup.


----------



## cracker (Dec 16, 2017)




----------



## KingVamp (Dec 16, 2017)

Meant to say this before, but apparently bots or fake comments are being used to make comments about Net Neutrality.


----------



## cracker (Dec 16, 2017)

Yes there were a couple million or so comments with the same or similar statements that appear to be autogenerated and posted by bots. The posts were in favor of repeal. That's not to say that there weren't any on the the other side. But, in reality, it didn't matter because the FCC has to allow a comment period but nothing says they have to listen to what the people want - exactly what happened here.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 16, 2017)

cracker said:


> Yes there were a couple million or so comments with the same or similar statements that appear to be autogenerated and posted by bots. The posts were in favor of repeal. That's not to say that there weren't any on the the other side. But, in reality, it didn't matter because the FCC has to allow a comment period but nothing says they have to listen to what the people want - exactly what happened here.


On top of that, there are comments from dead people favoring repeal as well


----------



## SG854 (Dec 16, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> On top of that, there are comments from dead people favoring repeal as well


Stupid Zombies


----------



## SG854 (Dec 16, 2017)

MaverickWellington said:


> They aren't removing all regulations though. See the proposal.


If you read the top part of the new proposal it says we are going back to Information Service Title 1 classification.
You can make all the regulations you want, but you'll have a harder time enforcing them under Title 1.
Net Neutrality has existed before Title II. They even made an almost 200 page document discussing the regulations of Net Neutrality.
But they had a lot harder time enforcing much, not unless they were classified as Title II Common Carriers.
That video @cracker linked explains how they couldn't do much with NN rules, so it eventual led to Title II.

The link you gave that gives evidence of throttling after Title II doesn't mean anything. It was around 2 weeks after Title II was first put in place, not enough time for anything. Thats also like giving evidence of murder every year so that must mean we have no rules to punish criminals. The were many court cases after Title II that ruled their Anti NN practices as illegal.

If they can easily ignore Common Carrier classification under Title II, then why haven't they done so already? Why go through the trouble of suing the FCC and loosing in court which eventual leads to a money settlement. Why go through all this when you can just easily avoid the Common Carrier classification.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 16, 2017)

So a cool information tidbit: I guess the reason that the state of New York began the lawsuit process is because they view the FCC vote as illegal; given the fraudulent comments and calls, Congress asked them to delay the vote and aid in investigation, but the vote took place anyway


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 16, 2017)

Taken from Twitter

Source: https://twitter.com/Sinixstar/status/941519024617414656



> The issue has always been one of options.
> 1) FCC does it - and we risk it being rolled back at any time.
> 2) Congress does it - you just opened Pandora's Box by putting congress in control of the internet.
> 3) do nothing - not really a solution There's no good answers.



It's a damned if we do, damned if we don't situationl the government isn't an infallible and entirely trustworthy entity, but neither are businesses, so we pick our poison. Because of big government, I've become extremely cynical and wary to even trust either entity *shrug*. But keep in mind that this is my opinion and my take on it, don't take my word for it. Whether government has a hand in controlling the internet and net neutrality, or the FCC or FTC controls it, either solution is not perfect. The internet existed in 2015, ever since the early 1990's. My opinion though, don't take my word for it. *sigh*.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 16, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> Taken from Twitter
> 
> Source: https://twitter.com/Sinixstar/status/941519024617414656
> 
> ...


They can't control the internet. Title II only says that ISP's can't block, throttle websites or do unfair anti competitive practices. It was actually one of the most focused applications of Title II. So the other things that usually apply for Title II don't apply for the internet. They didn't add a lot of regulation under Title II's application to the internet, so the FCC can't abuse their power and control the internet, theres no extra red tape involved. And the FCC doesn't control the internet, they only over see it and punish people that break NN regulation.


----------



## MrJason005 (Dec 16, 2017)




----------



## MushGuy (Dec 16, 2017)

OK, now where's that net neutrality image that had a brief history of what ISPs did to Netflix, Google Pay, etc. before 2015? I remember seeing it here. I could be wrong.

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



TotalInsanity4 said:


> So a cool information tidbit: I guess the reason that the state of New York began the lawsuit process is because they view the FCC vote as illegal; given the fraudulent comments and calls, Congress asked them to delay the vote and aid in investigation, but the vote took place anyway


And with all the evidence against him, chances are, Mr. Pai is not going anywhere with his precious repeal.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 16, 2017)

MushGuy said:


> OK, now where's that net neutrality image that had a brief history of what ISPs did to Netflix, Google Pay, etc. before 2015? I remember seeing it here. I could be wrong.


Its also mention in the video cracker linked.
If you skip to 24:44, it tells you a history of ISP's breaking NN.

*This Video*


----------



## MushGuy (Dec 16, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Its also mention in the video cracker linked.
> If you skip to 24:44, it tells you a history of ISP's breaking NN.
> 
> *This Video*


Thank you! Now to educate some people at some sites.


----------



## Lazyt (Dec 16, 2017)

So glad im from eu


----------



## SoslanVanWieren (Dec 17, 2017)

enjoy your internet guys while it will be normal for us.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 17, 2017)

SoslanVanWieren said:


> enjoy your internet guys while it will be normal for us.



Well la-dee frickin dah for you.


----------



## MushGuy (Dec 17, 2017)

Oh, my, they're digging themselves deeper now!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 17, 2017)

MushGuy said:


> Oh, my, they're digging themselves deeper now!



Hoo boy


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 17, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Hoo boy



A fiercely thickening plot *sigh*.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 17, 2017)

MushGuy said:


> Oh, my, they're digging themselves deeper now!



Anything against that jackass is good.
Are they that stupid to use dead people or even live people and think no one will notice.
The Internet exists, its a lot harder to hide corruption like that.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 17, 2017)

I think that my eyes are beginning to be opened, yes, my political beliefs are primarily focused on the conservative side of things, I will say here and now, that the way this came about, the corruption and blatant...

How fucking stupid are these people again?


----------



## KingVamp (Dec 17, 2017)

Good to see that we aren't completely corrupted.

I hope this all backfires and leads to Net Neutrality not being able to be rolled back by law.


----------



## cracker (Dec 17, 2017)

Yeah only 60% corrupted.


----------



## RandomUser (Dec 18, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Nope, you understand correctly. That's actually why ISPs ended up under Class II regulations in the first place
> 
> And on top of that, guess who Ajit Pai worked for


Sorry for the late reply, he was a lawyer representing Verizon I believe.



ThisIsDaAccount said:


> I agree that more regulation is probsbly a not good thing, but this guy really does not care about net neutrality. He really doesn't give any guarantee that net neutrality will be a thing, he just says ISPs have to be transparent under current law.
> 
> So basically, this guy is OK with, say, Comcast blocking Netflix as long they say "Yup, we're blocking Netflix, cuz fuck you."
> 
> ...


Good catch, somehow I have missed that. Also no worry, everyone makes mistakes, even I do make mistakes as well.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 18, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> I think that my eyes are beginning to be opened, yes, my political beliefs are primarily focused on the conservative side of things, I will say here and now, that the way this came about, the corruption and blatant...
> 
> How fucking stupid are these people again?


Same here, I'm not super conservative but I believe government should be as small as possible and only do things others can't. 

However, Comcast and Verizon have stacked the deck against basically everyone other than the big ISPs. We can't really avoid the situation without a net neutrality law.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 18, 2017)

ThisIsDaAccount said:


> Same here, I'm not super conservative but I believe government should be as small as possible and only do things others can't.
> 
> However, Comcast and Verizon have stacked the deck against basically everyone other than the big ISPs. We can't really avoid the situation without a net neutrality law.



There's no perfect solution, unfortunately.


----------



## ThisIsDaAccount (Dec 18, 2017)

the_randomizer said:


> There's no perfect solution, unfortunately.


It'd be nice if we could lower the cost of entry to the broadband market so Comcast isn't the only option, but that's impossible to do at the federal level (most of the laws that protect those monopolies are local laws).

If there was an actual free ISP market, we could just switch whenever they pull that stuff on us.

Edit: so until that happens (which is probably never) we need net neutrality protections, ideally more permanent ones that the FCC can't repeal whenever they want


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 19, 2017)

@Chary, sounds like you might need to do a writeup for our Canadian friends, as well


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 19, 2017)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> @Chary, sounds like you might need to do a writeup for our Canadian friends, as well


Anyone familiar with the Jordan Peterson case knows that freedom of speech is under fire in Canada, but the assault comes directly from the government, not private entities. This blacklist seems to concern piracy and it's an obvious response to the pre-existing copyright laws - by regulating themselves ISP's hope that the government won't step in to regulate them from on high. The same thing happened in regards to censorship in the music, movie and video game industries in North America and was the impetus of creating rating systems. It's definitely not pretty, but the issue is multifaceted.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 19, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Anyone familiar with the Jordan Peterson case knows that freedom of speech is under fire in Canada, but the assault comes directly from the government, not private entities. This blacklist seems to concern piracy and it's an obvious response to the pre-existing copyright laws - by regulating themselves ISP's hope that the government won't step in to regulate them from on high. The same thing happened in regards to censorship in the music, movie and video game industries in North America and was the impetus of creating rating systems. It's definitely not pretty, but the issue is multifaceted.


Im not sure how the Net Neutrality laws work in Canada. But this is anti net neutrality.
Something the government or companies shouldn't be allowed to do. The whole point of net neutrality is not to block sites.

The solution is to implement NN how the U.S. implemented Title 2 and restrict government power over ISP's. Because either way, whether its government or isp's this is bad.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Dec 20, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> It's definitely not pretty, but the issue is multifaceted.


I absolutely don't doubt that's the case, but that doesn't make it any less relevant to the topic at hand


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2017)

@Foxi4 The whole argument against Net Neutrality is, if you give government some power they will eventually crave more.
But this argument doesn't make much sense from how U.S. implemented Title 2. Governmental power was limited.

If people are going to use that argument, then why not use that same argument for Title 1.
First to gain power we will have to create legislation to give government more power, whether we are on title 1 or 2, and i'm sure this will not be supported by the people. So Title 2 will not eventually lead to Title 3. Thats a slippery slope fallacy.

And copy right laws, and p2p sites hosting copy right content. Remember the government stoped ISP's from throttling p2p sites. So it wasn't the government that was throttling sites, it was isp's. And the government stopped that. Isp's owned television networks, and owned movies that were being hosted on torrent sites. Since isp's were loosing money, there was an incentive to throttle those sites. And government put an end to this. There is nothing to gain if the government blocks copy right content. But there is something to gain for ISP's or for other companies. Prior to 2015 isp's didn't have that many deals or ownership of many subscription entertainment services, but nowadays things have changed.

For the case of Canada remember its not the government that wants to censor, its the 4 companies that do. Which are Bell, Cineplex, Rogers and Shaw.
Which is what Net Neutrality is suppose to stop. So net neutrality will not lead to anti net neutrality for the government. Its companies and isp's that want to end it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 20, 2017)

SG854 said:


> Im not sure how the Net Neutrality laws work in Canada. But this is anti net neutrality.
> Something the government or companies shouldn't be allowed to do. The whole point of net neutrality is not to block sites.
> 
> The solution is to implement NN how the U.S. implemented Title 2 and restrict government power over ISP's. Because either way, whether its government or isp's this is bad.


You can't argue that the Internet should be protected by legislature intended for telecoms because it's not telecoms - it uses them as means of data transfer, but it's overall a completely different beast. I would argue that ISP's should offer access to whatever they want, what I take great issue with is that they're colluding with eachother for the purposes of creating restrictions. I do understand however that they do so due to compulsion from the government which created copyright laws in the first place, it can and it does block sites either way, so a blanket ban would be a form of limiting liability. I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but in the U.S. under the DMCA the ISP is partially liable for its users accessing illegal content and they're requires to take action against such users, which is why the strikes rules originally were implemented in the first place. This entail financial liability as well, which is asinine - it's as if a toll road owner was financially liable for any traffic accidents that occur on it regardless of who's actually at fault. If the Internet is to be regulated at all, which I don't think it should be since it's a decentralised network, it should be regulated with its own set of rules altogether, but that's not how Net Neutrality was implemented, therefore I'm quite happy that it's going away.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> You can't argue that the Internet should be protected by legislature intended for telecoms because it's not telecoms - it uses them as means of data transfer, but it's overall a completely different beast. I would argue that ISP's should offer access to whatever they want, what I take great issue with is that they're colluding with eachother for the purposes of creating restrictions. I do understand however that they do so due to compulsion from the government which created copyright laws in the first place, it can and it does block sites either way, so a blanket ban would be a form of limiting liability. I'm not sure how it works in Canada, but in the U.S. under the DMCA the ISP is partially liable for its users accessing illegal content and they're requires to take action against such users, which is why the strikes rules originally were implemented in the first place. This entail financial liability as well, which is asinine - it's as if a toll road owner was financially liable for any traffic accidents that occur on it regardless of who's actually at fault. If the Internet is to be regulated at all, which I don't think it should be since it's a decentralised network, it should be regulated with its own set of rules altogether, but that's not how Net Neutrality was implemented, therefore I'm quite happy that it's going away.


I never said it was created for telecoms. As I said in my above post. The government has no financial gain for throttling or blocking p2p sites. It wasn't the Government that wanted copyright content laws. It was people that did, specifically the owners of the original content. And they pushed their government to created legislation. The government has nothing to gain for enforcing copyright so they are not to blame for this.

Same argument applies to Jordan Peterson and the whole genders argument. Government isn't secretly saying, "we will control he population by forcing people to use the 50+ genders, that'll show them, muahaha" People are the ones that pushed for legislation not the government. If you don't use someones prefer pronoun but they don't complain to the government, then the government won't know and won't enforce anything. If they do enforce its because someone files a complaint and wants something to be done. It not your government that wants to control, its specific people that do.

I don't know if you paid attention to the other NN debates here, but giving government too much power was a big concern for the Obama administration, which is why they went for a light approach to the application of Title 2. Over 700 of Title 2 rules do not apply to ISP's. Only a few which is no throttling, no paid prioritization, no blocking, and being transparent. Legislation was created against telecoms because they kept abusing their power and broke NN multiple times. They were blocking tethering apps, blocking skype, blocking voice apps, blocking streaming video sites, throttling p2p, doing zero ratings, disabling gps apps, disabling fm radio chips, and so on... People complained and something was done. Legislation was created for the people not for telecoms. This is government doing what its supposed to do, listen to the people and act in the peoples best interests.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 20, 2017)

SG854 said:


> I never said it was created for telecoms. As I said in my above post. The government has no financial gain for throttling or blocking p2p sites. It wasn't the Government that wanted copyright content laws. It was people that did, specifically the owners of the original content. And they pushed their government to created legislation. The government has nothing to gain for enforcing copyright so they are not to blame for this.
> 
> Same argument applies to Jordan Peterson and the whole genders argument. Government isn't secretly saying, "we will control he population by forcing people to use the 50+ genders, that'll show them, muahaha" People are the ones that pushed for legislation not the government. If you don't use someones prefer pronoun but they don't complain to the government, then the government won't know and won't enforce anything. If they do enforce its because someone files a complaint and wants something to be done. It not your government that wants to control, its specific people that do.
> 
> I don't know if you paid attention to the other NN debates here, but giving government too much power was a big concern for the Obama administration, which is why they went for a light approach to the application of Title 2. Over 700 of Title 2 rules do not apply to the ISP's. Only a few which is no throttling, no paid prioritization, no blocking, and being transparent. Legislation was created against telecoms because they kept abusing their power and broke NN multiple times. They were blocking tethering apps, blocking skype, blocking voice apps, blocking streaming video sites, throttling p2p, doing zero ratings, disabling gps apps, disabling fm radio chips, and so on... People complained and something was done. Legislation was created for the people not for telecoms. This is government doing what its supposed to do, listen to the people and act in the peoples best interests.


Your entire argument hinges on the idea that the government has nothing to gain from seizing control of what is and is not acceptable on the Internet, and that idea is ill-founded and uninformed. The government has plenty to gain from it, perhaps not in a financial sense, but definitely in terms of power.

Peterson's issue with bill C-16 is very simple - it introduces the idea of compelled speech into the legal system. It's not a matter of telling people that some terms, like slurs, are offensive and thus their use can be construed as discrimination, it's a matter of telling people what terms they *must* use under threat of draconian fines, legal issues and, quite possibly, imprisonment, which is the direct consequence of not paying the fine. Moreover, it introduces group responsibility and mandated ostricisation - bill C-16 specifically says that not only is the speaker responsible for their egregious crime of exercising their rights, so is their employer - it creates an environment in which the employer *must* punished their employee for having an opinion. It's totalitarian and disgusting, compelled speech is incompatible with the idea of a free society and it must be eliminated.

ISP's should be entitled to do all of those things because they're the ones who provide the service - if you don't like the level of service provided, you find a different ISP. If there is no other ISP, there are anti-monopoly provisions in the law already and the state of matters is the fault of the government anyways for fostering an environment in which free market competition cannot flourish.

You don't fix bad regulation with more regulation, especially if the regulation is ineffective. The Internet already isn't neutral, nor should it be. The same people who cry foul about ISP's blocking a certain website stay silent when Twitter or Facebook silences people for having an opinion they don't like - I don't buy the smoke and mirrors presented by the NN crowd. The ISP's didn't abuse anything at all, they were following shitty and outdated laws.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 20, 2017)

Foxi4 said:


> Your entire argument hinges on the idea that the government has nothing to gain from seizing control of what is and is not acceptable on the Internet, and that idea is ill-founded and uninformed. The government has plenty to gain from it, perhaps not in a financial sense, but definitely in terms of power.
> 
> Peterson's issue with bill C-16 is very simple - it introduces the idea of compelled speech into the legal system. It's not a matter of telling people that some terms, like slurs, are offensive and thus their use can be construed as discrimination, it's a matter of telling people what terms they *must* use under threat of draconian fines, legal issues and, quite possibly, imprisonment, which is the direct consequence of not paying the fine. Moreover, it introduces group responsibility and mandated ostricisation - bill C-16 specifically says that not only is the speaker responsible for their egregious crime of exercising their rights, so is their employer - it creates an environment in which the employer *must* punished their employee for having an opinion. It's totalitarian and disgusting, compelled speech is incompatible with the idea of a free society and it must be eliminated.
> 
> ...


Well i'm against C-16 because I think its stupid. But what power do they gain from this? Why is forcing gender pronouns a big concern for the government?
I want to have power just because? Who was the one that pushed for gender pronouns? Was it the government or gender pronoun crowd that did? Your not giving specific reason as to what benefits the government has for gaining power by enforcing pronouns.

That was exactly the concern for the Obama administration was to implement Title 2 so that it doesn't hurt infrastructure and hurt isp's financially.
Even in Telecoms own findings it shows that title 2 regulation has not hurt infrastructure development.
https://arstechnica.com/information...-investment-according-to-the-isps-themselves/

Sprint in the 2015 Title 2 document on page 13 even said that the light touch of Title 2 will not hurt investment or long term profitability.
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

Remember isp's are accountable to their investors, not to the government. So they have to be honest with their investors. Which is why you have to pay attention to what they tell their investors and not to what they say to the government or the general population. And they have repeatedly told their investors that title 2 has not hurt their investment.


----------



## Sonic Angel Knight (Jan 24, 2018)

Since this thread isn't locked, I figured i share this email i got from mozilla. (Though not sure how they got my email) If this isn't useful to anyone, sorry I wasted your time. And yes, i just got it a moment ago.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 24, 2018)

>Clap emoticon on an official call to action from a serious company

Now I really hope Congress passes it without delay.


----------



## driverdis (Jan 24, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Your entire argument hinges on the idea that the government has nothing to gain from seizing control of what is and is not acceptable on the Internet, and that idea is ill-founded and uninformed. The government has plenty to gain from it, perhaps not in a financial sense, but definitely in terms of power.
> 
> Peterson's issue with bill C-16 is very simple - it introduces the idea of compelled speech into the legal system. It's not a matter of telling people that some terms, like slurs, are offensive and thus their use can be construed as discrimination, it's a matter of telling people what terms they *must* use under threat of draconian fines, legal issues and, quite possibly, imprisonment, which is the direct consequence of not paying the fine. Moreover, it introduces group responsibility and mandated ostricisation - bill C-16 specifically says that not only is the speaker responsible for their egregious crime of exercising their rights, so is their employer - it creates an environment in which the employer *must* punished their employee for having an opinion. It's totalitarian and disgusting, compelled speech is incompatible with the idea of a free society and it must be eliminated.
> 
> ...



^This
What annoys me about some of the NN crowd is that they somehow are under the impression that the government will regulate better than companies, ignoring the fact that the government themselves IS a business and may take actions that benefit them.


----------



## jt_1258 (Jan 24, 2018)

driverdis said:


> ^This
> What annoys me about some of the NN crowd is that they somehow are under the impression that the government will regulate better than companies, ignoring the fact that the government themselves IS a business and may take actions that benefit them.


at least we more directly vote who is in the government then who is chosen to move up the chain in a business


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 24, 2018)

driverdis said:


> the government themselves IS a business and may take actions that benefit them.


If you're saying that and voted Trump I'm going to reach through my monitor and punch you


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 24, 2018)

jt_1258 said:


> at least we more directly vote who is in the government then who is chosen to move up the chain in a business


You directly choose government once every few years, you directly choose which companies are successful everyday by participating in the marketplace, so your comparison is moot.


TotalInsanity4 said:


> If you're saying that and voted Trump I'm going to reach through my monitor and punch you


You're right, the government is not a business. A business operates within the constraints of the law with a set goal of profit which it achieves by providing desirable goods and services to customers to whom they are beholden on a competitive field which guarantees consistent improvement of the products. A government operates with no constraints as it sets the laws that govern it, it produces nothing, it has no competition and thus no incentive to improve and it's beholden to nobody because it serves a term and dissolves. So yes, corporations are better - the founding fathers knew that, which is why they heavily restricted what the government could do, but with time those restrictions are diminishing.


----------



## jt_1258 (Jan 25, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> You directly choose government once every few years, you directly choose which companies are successful everyday by participating in the marketplace, so your comparison is moot.
> You're right, the government is not a business. A business operates within the constraints of the law with a set goal of profit which it achieves by providing desirable goods and services to customers to whom they are beholden on a competitive field which guarantees consistent improvement of the products. A government operates with no constraints as it sets the laws that govern it, it produces nothing, it has no competition and thus no incentive to improve and it's beholden to nobody because it serves a term and dissolves. So yes, corporations are better - the founding fathers knew that, which is why they heavily restricted what the government could do, but with time those restrictions are diminishing.


either way i feel like businesses are greedier then the gov somehow


----------



## cracker (Jan 25, 2018)

Funny how AT&T has reversed its stance on Net Neutrality now that there is a push for public broadband...


----------



## Foxi4 (Jan 25, 2018)

jt_1258 said:


> either way i feel like businesses are greedier then the gov somehow


You're conditioned to think that, but businesses don't seize a percentage of your yearly income as a penalty for working (provided you're employed and pay income tax). Besides, they bloody well should be greedy - I expect them to be as greedy as possible, the prospect of higher profits is what motivates fierce competition and innovation. If a business operates without a focus on profit, I'm immediately suspicious of it, because I know it's nefarious. If they don't want my money, they're trying to take something that's more valuable than money away from me, and if I don't know what that is, that's even more suspicious. I'd like to point out that capitalism is the only economic system that has managed to lift humanity out of the clutches of poverty - it has succeeded where every other system has failed, so my trust in capitalism is not ill-founded. Before capitalism came along nearly the entirety of the population lived well below what we'd consider the poverty line and property ownership was restricted to aristocracy, so I'm not keen on straying away from the system that is proven to be effective towards a more "public", subsidised, government-controlled system that has failed wherever it was attempted. The father we stray from the free market towards government interventionism the worse we're off, it's nearly universally true, and nobody learns from the mistakes of the past in that regard.


cracker said:


> Funny how AT&T has reversed its stance on Net Neutrality now that there is a push for public broadband...


I'm not surprised that they are - public broadband means public funding, of which they're already getting plenty, and no doubt want even more. It's easier to get free money than to compete for the market, I'm surprised that they weren't fiercely defending Net Neutrality from the get-go.


----------

