Net Neutrality is dead, FCC voted to kill it.

English clearly isn't even your first language. Does "worst" also include the country you fucking left?

Oh stop crying. The fact this happened goes to show you that trump dick suckers rather let our country be ruled by asshole.
My spell has nothing to do with how bad this idiotic shithead is. One of the few things Obama did that was good is pretty much down the toilet
 
Be honest with yourself at least. I don't think the internet is a government issue. Why is this a problem?
How do those 3 statements relate to each other?
This is what i'm talking about. You're not making any sense and I can't tell if it's intentional or not. Neither bodes well imo.
 
Be honest with yourself at least. I don't think the internet is a government issue. Why is this a problem?
IF there was meaningful competition between the ISPs we probably wouldn't need regulation. But Time Warner and Comcast spent decades carefully not treading on each others' turf and all the other ISPs are no better. So since they refuse to compete, they need to be treated like the oligopoly they are and regulated.

If Charter and Comcast and Verizon all start fighting each other and moving into each others' territories, sure, let's forget all about NN because it won't be necessary. Until then, why would we let them screw everyone over?

You have just repeated your beliefs over and over and not justified them. Maybe it's time to re-examine.
 
How do those 3 statements relate to each other?
This is what i'm talking about. You're not making any sense and I can't tell if it's intentional or not. Neither bodes well imo.
What 3 statements? I have the internet now, I can fire up youtube, youporn, netflix, sherdog,amazon, any site really and it's never been a problem. What site was going to be shut down?

You guys should at least have one example instead of just guesses.
 
wow-1.gif

Those big bootied babes are still hot as aliens.

Would bang.

Also, this is spot on except for one exception.

Why the Pope? He is explicitly saying "do not consume as much" and has trolled the business right pretty hard on that front. He's almost a Liberation Theology pope in a lot of ways.
 
What 3 statements? I have the internet now, I can fire up youtube, youporn, netflix, sherdog,amazon, any site really and it's never been a problem. What site was going to be shut down?
Why do you insist on making sites being literally shut down the hill on which you'll fight and die?

The more realistic scenario is favoritism. AT&T tries to buy time Warner so they get HBO so that HBO runs at 4K on their network and 720P on everyone else's. Hulu pays Verizon to have higher priority over Netflix on their network. Comcast makes Google pay them to not constantly throttle Youtube. It's stupid. They just want to keep getting paid again for the same service they've already been doing, and they're going to try to deliberately worsen their service in order to then charge for the privilege of not making it so shitty again.

Also, (and not technically NN) see data caps. What's the only reason for them? To force customers who watch a lot of video to pony up for cable instead of remaining cord-cutters.

Corporations are not your friends, and they will fuck you over every chance they get. Simple fact. If they also refuse to compete, we need regulation. Thus, NN. Which again, simply means that it doesn't matter if I'm downloading a Steam game or a movie from iTunes or reinstalling Windows, my ISP shouldn't treat my download differently depending on what kind of info it is. It literally doesn't matter to their system because it's all 1s and 0s. The only reason to differentiate is to try to get paid more than once for performing a service.
 
Those big bootied babes are still hot as aliens.

Would bang.

Also, this is spot on except for one exception.

Why the Pope? He is explicitly saying "do not consume as much" and has trolled the business right pretty hard on that front. He's almost a Liberation Theology pope in a lot of ways.
Yeah, I didn't understand his inclusion either. But, it's a terrific gif and I love that movie.
 
This is stupidly pointless and I don't know why you keep spamming it.

No one is requiring that ISPs be "forced" to be able to stream 4K videos. They just have to live up to their product as sold. If I'm sold 60Mbps internet service, which is plenty for 4K, then I should be able to use 4K and whatever else I feel like at 60Mbps.

This is the whole point. They can't advertise one thing and then not actually offer it.

If they're having trouble because now more people are actually using the services they pay for, well boo hoo I don't GAF.

If you really wanted to cure monopolization of the ISP industry, bring back local loop unbundling and force Verizon and Comcast and the rest to follow through on the fiber buildouts they were given BILLIONS of dollars for and never completed.

The idea of Net Neutrality hurting smaller ISPs was essentially linked to the reporting requirements/costs. The FCC removed those requirements for ISPs with less than 250,000 subscribers though, so it wasn't an issue any more.
I'd say the threat of mass commercialisation and leveraging vertical integration to undercut pricing is a much greater problem.
 
No such thing as going back to the way it is, cause it's the way it is already. You're guessing how it might be, which is completely contrary to how everything has ever gone before.

Yeah, I guess you're right. We cant use the present or past to elucidate the outcomes of the future, and it's folly, because there is no history of corporate monopoly in America.
 
This is the internet as we have always used it, versus what the ISPs want to do to continue to monetize bandwidth instead of expanding infrastructure like we paid them to do in 1996.

Read more here.

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

Unless you're talking about some other bill outside the 96 telecom act -- you didnt pay them to expand infrastructure (unless theres something im missing)

The "payment" for infrastructure argument happened in 91- 92' under the High Performance Computing Act of 1991, and technically the government did not give really any money to telcos in exchange for a service. The argument some make is that ''bells' petitioned for deregulation in exchange for a fiber optic network to replace the cable in order to provide a better service (mainly for phone and tv -- but data too). Some claim that because of this, telco's charged exorbitant costs for add on's (call waiting, display, etc) and over the course of years made too large of profits from it. As well as things as IRS letting them slide on some depreciation writes and some other weird line items dating back to 84' for some reason.

Some argue that telcos didnt deliver what they promised, and they are right in many regards, but the wording of the agreement (i dont even think anything was even formally written down in terms of actual schedules in the bill) leaves room for interpretation
 
Last edited:
Why do you insist on making sites being literally shut down the hill on which you'll fight and die?

The more realistic scenario is favoritism. AT&T tries to buy time Warner so they get HBO so that HBO runs at 4K on their network and 720P on everyone else's. Hulu pays Verizon to have higher priority over Netflix on their network. Comcast makes Google pay them to not constantly throttle Youtube. It's stupid. They just want to keep getting paid again for the same service they've already been doing, and they're going to try to deliberately worsen their service in order to then charge for the privilege of not making it so shitty again.

Also, (and not technically NN) see data caps. What's the only reason for them? To force customers who watch a lot of video to pony up for cable instead of remaining cord-cutters.

Corporations are not your friends, and they will fuck you over every chance they get. Simple fact. If they also refuse to compete, we need regulation. Thus, NN. Which again, simply means that it doesn't matter if I'm downloading a Steam game or a movie from iTunes or reinstalling Windows, my ISP shouldn't treat my download differently depending on what kind of info it is. It literally doesn't matter to their system because it's all 1s and 0s. The only reason to differentiate is to try to get paid more than once for performing a service.
Do you think I want shittier internet service? We're arguing for the same thing, just disagree on how to get there.
 
Do you think I want shittier internet service? We're arguing for the same thing, just disagree on how to get there.
But what is your proposed method? Stopping regulation leads to the opposite of what you claim to want. The companies themselves are saying that without it they’ll do the opposite of what you say you want.

So what’s your proposal? And how do we get there without a bridge period of getting screwed?

I just don’t see how removing the regulations right now helps anyone that isn’t an isp shareholder or executive.
 
lol US internet about to go stone age

and here I am living in 3rd poorest country in EU with access to 200/100mbit unlimited fibre for 25$ per month (which is cheap even for croatian standards)
before that I was on 120/20mbit unlimited cable for 23~$

guess shit will hit the fan once people realize they will get charged far more for their usual surfing habits..or once they reach their smaller caps much faster and then have an unusable internet speeds unless they pay for more
 
I mean, monetising healthcare and politics has gone so well.........
 
English clearly isn't even your first language. Does "worst" also include the country you fucking left?
Ghost's atrocious spelling is part of his charm, he's too busy getting balls deep in some military tech that would make your head spin to proofread.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,182
Messages
58,264,308
Members
175,987
Latest member
Dakota DeSousa
Back
Top