• We are currently experiencing technical difficulties. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.

Net Neutrality is dead, FCC voted to kill it.

Making companies spy for using tons of bandwidth is bad. Google and Facebook told me so
 
Making companies spy for using tons of bandwidth is bad. Google and Facebook told me so
You ignorant shitposter, this was already brought up in this thread and I already explained that they already pay for all their bandwidth.

They pay for the traffic from their servers to their backbone, YOU already pay for the traffic from the backbone to your home.

You’re repeating a very stupid and very blatant lie that you saw on Reddit or some very idiotic corner of the internet.
 
This is seriously the stupidest hairball to ever be vomited up by moronic corporation-worshipers.

“Free” bandwidth when tech companies are paying hundreds of millions of dollars for it. Idiotic.

What the real issue is, is that ISPs want to charge you for the internet and then also charge the content providers for the ability to access you, their captive customers.

Imagine if UPS and Fedex didn’t compete at all, so wherever you could get UPS deliveries you couldn’t get Fedex. So whichever one is in your neighborhood is the one you have to get all your deliveries through. Imagine that UPS and Fedex notice how much of their shipping is being used by Amazon. Imagine that they decide that whenever you order anything off of Amazon, and pay for the shipping yourself, they also are going to charge Amazon for shipping AGAIN. And what is Amazon going to do? They have to use UPS in the Midwest and they have to use Fedex on the coasts because UPS and Fedex refuse to compete with each other. So the shipping companies lobby hard to get rules removed that would prevent this fuckery.

And then when Amazon lobbies against that because it’s obvious abuse of their area monopolies, UPS and Fedex pay Breitbart and Fox to have people screech about how Amazon wants free shipping.

It’s laughably ignorant.
 
Last edited:
You ignorant shitposter, this was already brought up in this thread and I already explained that they already pay for all their bandwidth.

They pay for the traffic from their servers to their backbone, YOU already pay for the traffic from the backbone to your home.

You’re repeating a very stupid and very blatant lie that you saw on Reddit or some very idiotic corner of the internet.
You are emotionally vested in something that won’t effect you at all. That’ll get tiresome.
 
You are emotionally vested in something that won’t effect you at all. That’ll get tiresome.

https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.

MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.

PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.

AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.

EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.

VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

Those are just some of the examples of what they’d love to be doing.

You’re supportive of ideas that will actually harm you and everyone else. Unless you’re an ISP executive or shareholder, I guess.

This is real. Are you admitting to trolling? It looks like you’re admitting to trolling.
 
Do you need the US government to go into grocery stores and tell them they must sell apples? No, because if a grocery store stopped selling apples people would just go to another.

If there is no good reason for a ISP to block a site, then why would they?

Note, under net neutrality an ISP might be unable to ban a site that is known to contain a bunch of viruses, because that simply wouldn't be neutral.

Also, net neutrality is 2 years old. The internet seemed to work fine before it was ever implemented.

I don't see why government intervention is necessary in this.

So Americans wanted to give up their right to sue a corporation in court, and wanted a arbitrator appointed by the corporation, to settle legal disputes when you sign a cable, or cell phone contract?
 
Anything the government describes as "Net Neutrality" is anything but, much like the "Patriot Act." There are cable monopolies in my state, and we pay higher prices because of it - a direct result of the "Net Neutrality" laws that stifle innovation or legitimate competition. Thanks Obama.
 
Anything the government describes as "Net Neutrality" is anything but, much like the "Patriot Act." There are cable monopolies in my state, and we pay higher prices because of it - a direct result of the "Net Neutrality" laws that stifle innovation or legitimate competition. Thanks Obama.
You’re kidding, right?

You don’t seriously think that cable monopolies are a result of net neutrality (a policy codified in 2015 that has no possible mechanism to create monopolies)?

You’re not that moronic, right?
 
Lol at still talking sense to trump supporters. If you actually think isps won't fuck you over for more money and power then youll never get it.
 
This is seriously the stupidest hairball to ever be vomited up by moronic corporation-worshipers.

“Free” bandwidth when tech companies are paying hundreds of millions of dollars for it. Idiotic.

What the real issue is, is that ISPs want to charge you for the internet and then also charge the content providers for the ability to access you, their captive customers.

Imagine if UPS and Fedex didn’t compete at all, so wherever you could get UPS deliveries you couldn’t get Fedex. So whichever one is in your neighborhood is the one you have to get all your deliveries through. Imagine that UPS and Fedex notice how much of their shipping is being used by Amazon. Imagine that they decide that whenever you order anything off of Amazon, and pay for the shipping yourself, they also are going to charge Amazon for shipping AGAIN. And what is Amazon going to do? They have to use UPS in the Midwest and they have to use Fedex on the coasts because UPS and Fedex refuse to compete with each other. So the shipping companies lobby hard to get rules removed that would prevent this fuckery.

And then when Amazon lobbies against that because it’s obvious abuse of their area monopolies, UPS and Fedex pay Breitbart and Fox to have people screech about how Amazon wants free shipping.

It’s laughably ignorant.

This is actually a beautiful analogy. Hats off to you if it's yours originally and not copied

To add to this, another by product in the reverse direction with no net neutrality rules could be the major companies paying for fast lanes, and smaller startups then stuck with slow access to consumers and thus decreasing the chance of a valid competitor popping up

With your analogy, it'd be like Amazon paying more for UPS/FEDEX to always deliver their products in two days, but then other warehouse like deliveries take 5-7 days with no option for 2 that they can possibly afford since they're not the size of Amazon. Amazon (Netflix/Facebook/Twitter/ect) is much safer that they will maintain their superior product this way
 
Lol at still talking sense to trump supporters. If you actually think isps won't fuck you over for more money and power then youll never get it.


Talking sense to a trump supporter is like trying to have a conversation with a pile of dog shit
 
You’re kidding, right?

You don’t seriously think that cable monopolies are a result of net neutrality (a policy codified in 2015 that has no possible mechanism to create monopolies)?

You’re not that moronic, right?
I was going to reply to his post but thanks to you for saving me the trouble, and doing it better than I would have. I sometimes get a sore neck shaking my head at the poorly thought out shit people post on here.
 
Back
Top