T1B

Will anyone even notice?

I am glad it's been repealed for a few reasons.

The interwebs weren't broken in 2015. It didn't need fixing.

My default position on any form of gov. regulation is do it only if it is absolutely necessary. Government regulation is power. It gives them the tools to control information. Do you really think they've earned this trust? If you do, you are a weapons grade moron.

The only defense I have heard in favor if it is that it keeps ISPs from slowing down service to any of its customers. To this, I would ask, why would any business purposely fukk its customer base? It makes no fukking sense. Will Amazon have more band width than you? Yeah, so what. They paid for more. It doesn't mean they are going to go out of their way to slow someone else down artificially. And if they do, guess what? There is more than one way to get the internet, so you go elsewhere.

Hey look, another conservative voting against his own best interest. Huh, never seen that before.

One common theme in this whole NN debate is that those who support Pai and his agenda have absolutely no fucking clue what they are talking about, as suckaholic is demonstrating here. But for him, that's just another day in the life.

They're not "Obama era" net neutrality regulations.

I don't want ISPs throttling traffic, period. You better be careful, 88, Comcast might triple your bill for access to InfoWars.

smackaholic wrote:Will anyone even notice?

I am glad it's been repealed for a few reasons.

The interwebs weren't broken in 2015. It didn't need fixing.

My default position on any form of gov. regulation is do it only if it is absolutely necessary. Government regulation is power. It gives them the tools to control information. Do you really think they've earned this trust? If you do, you are a weapons grade moron.

The only defense I have heard in favor if it is that it keeps ISPs from slowing down service to any of its customers. To this, I would ask, why would any business purposely fukk its customer base? It makes no fukking sense. Will Amazon have more band width than you? Yeah, so what. They paid for more. It doesn't mean they are going to go out of their way to slow someone else down artificially. And if they do, guess what? There is more than one way to get the internet, so you go elsewhere.

You should read more about net neutrality beyond the last 5 minutes you spent Googling it.

SM wrote:triple your bill for access to InfoWars.

How much will TuneTown access go up?

smackaholic wrote:The only defense I have heard in favor if it is that it keeps ISPs from slowing down service to any of its customers. To this, I would ask, why would any business purposely fukk its customer base?

Are you new to this country?

Take a look at what has happened to the interwebs over the last 25 years.

It has absolutely exploded. It has been an amazing success. And it did this without our federal overlords making sure everything was fair.

Do you really want to put all this under the control of the folks that have brought you the federal bureau of water bottle confiscation errrrrr I mean the TSA?

The argument that we need the feds to make sure your ISP keeps your data throttle wide open sounds nice, but is it necessary? And do you want them to have their hand on that throttle at all? Do you trust them that much? How many more fukking texts do you need to see of federal employees admitting to doing things for our own good?

Does Amazon get more BW than you? Sure they do, because they buy a lot of it.

Do you think that an ISP would squeeze you in hopes of getting a few more bucks out of you?

I don't really trust them myself, but so long as I have more than one way of getting to the interwebs, I am not that concerned about it.

Government having their hands on it will not speed it up for anyone, but it will give them the opportunity to step in and close the tap on someone....for the public good, of course.

This really shouldn't be a republican/democrat thing, but it appears to be breaking down over those lines. I look it as a trust/don't trust government sort of thing and I am firmly in the don't trust camp. The republicans could win overwhelming control and this wouldn't change.

BSmack wrote:

smackaholic wrote:The only defense I have heard in favor if it is that it keeps ISPs from slowing down service to any of its customers. To this, I would ask, why would any business purposely fukk its customer base?

Are you new to this country?

No.

Does Amazon get preferential treatment?

Yes, they do. ALL huge buyers of any commodity get preferential treatment. This does not mean that and service provider will go out of it's way to artificially screw its smaller custimers. The small customers have something called a free market to see to it they don't get screwed. I trust a free market one hell of a lot more than I do a government regulator.

smackaholic wrote:

Government having their hands on it will not speed it up for anyone, but it will give them the opportunity to step in and close the tap on someone....for the public good, of course.

Do you even know what the internet is, or where it came from?
(No it's not a series of pipes, BTW.)

It's dumbasses like you who are out there shouting for the Government to keep their hands off their Social Security.

Smackpedo,
Yeah but you are an idiot. You have never cracked a book. You wouldn't know John Paul Getty from Getty Lee. You have no idea about Psychology and why people do what they do and why certain kinds of people "move up" in life. Your brain is a mear puddle of what most people have and you have the intuition of a dead cat. YOU are the reason we are in this mess in the first place. Now stfu and go do something right for once. If you can.

smackaholic wrote: It has absolutely exploded. It has been an amazing success. And it did this without our federal overlords making sure everything was fair.

That is EXACTLY what they did with the internet.

smackaholic wrote:

BSmack wrote:

smackaholic wrote:The only defense I have heard in favor if it is that it keeps ISPs from slowing down service to any of its customers. To this, I would ask, why would any business purposely fukk its customer base?

Are you new to this country?

No.

Does Amazon get preferential treatment?

Yes, they do. ALL huge buyers of any commodity get preferential treatment. This does not mean that and service provider will go out of it's way to artificially screw its smaller custimers. The small customers have something called a free market to see to it they don't get screwed. I trust a free market one hell of a lot more than I do a government regulator.

You asked specifically if a company would screw its own customer base. Why yes, yes they would and do.

schmick wrote:If it makes libshits cry like the bunch of pussies that they are, I'm all for it.

You really are entertaining.

This news is no problem for me. I bought bars of internet years ago and buried them in my yard.

Mikey wrote:Do you even know what the internet is, or where it came from?

From right here.

/s/

L45B wrote:

Mikey wrote:Do you even know what the internet is, or where it came from?

From right here.

/s/

This meme is funny if you don't know the difference between the world wide web and the internet.

Stay dumb, 'Murica. Stay dumb.

schmick wrote: "Planned parenthood" that fucking place isn't where people planning to be parents go

They keep Black and Hispanic communities stocked up on free contraceptives. Surely you can wet yourself to that fact.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

schmick wrote:If it makes libshits cry like the bunch of pussies that they are, I'm all for it.

You really are entertaining.

Why are you encouraging him?

I have been in IT for over 20 years. This was the correct decision.

I've had a functioning brain for over 62 years. You're a fucking idiot.

Mikey wrote:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

schmick wrote:If it makes libshits cry like the bunch of pussies that they are, I'm all for it.

You really are entertaining.

Why are you encouraging him?

I cancelled my Netflix. I'm on a budget and schtick supplies the discount humour I can afford.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

schmick wrote: "Planned parenthood" that fucking place isn't where people planning to be parents go

They keep Black and Hispanic communities stocked up on free contraceptives. Surely you can wet yourself to that fact.

Keeping the "human weeds" from fukking up the garden was the plan all along. Just ask Margaret Sanger.

Good. What could possibly go wrong if the federal government regulates the internet?

Moving Sale wrote:You wouldn't know John Paul Getty from Getty Lee.

I would know how the Bass player from Rush spells his name.

I don’t really give a crap one way or the other. ISPs all seem to be against it probably because they have a product they would rather you use than some competitor on the web.

I guess if you are huge user of streaming movies, shows, music etc this could be an issue. I don’t do much streaming at all so I prolly would not notice that this place took an extra half second to load.

smackaholic wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:You wouldn't know John Paul Getty from Getty Lee.

I would know how the Bass player from Rush spells his name.

You probably also know that mear is actually spelled mere. Even when those little red lines show up underneath it.

You guys are on fire

You guys are going to be bitching about cost and variable up/down load speed in a year. Yes, you think you have a choice, but how easy is it going to bring a collusion case when there has already been an established monopoly in place for 20+ years.

There are many things Obama got wrong, IMO, but this was not one.

This from a discussion on fb concerning NN.

one fb idjit wrote:It hasn't been repealed yet, it still has to get through congress. They have the ability to overturn decisions made by commissions. Technically it isn't too late to be saved.

me- Saved from......2015 rules? Was the interwebs broken in 2015?

another fb idjit wrote:Saved from having to sign up for internet packages like cable tv has. If net neutrality does get repealed, internet providers would be allowed to throttle content that doesn't benefit their wallet at their whim. No, this wasn't a widespread problem in 2015, but some telecom companies WERE experimenting with throttling bandwidth to sites they didn't like, or just to get something they want. This happened with Netflix and Comcast in 2014. Comcast was trying to get Netflix to pay to allow them to stream on Comcast's broadband, and throttled the bandwidth of users trying to stream Netflix. Netflix agreed to the contract ultimately to please their members.

It is possible that telecom companies would keep things just as they are, but highly unlikely when they could make more money by cutting off bandwidth to sites we depend on (like news, Facebook, twitter)until we fork over a monthly subscription fee.

me- So, yer sayin' the FCC needs to regulate the interwebs.....so that it doesn't end up like cable TV which is already under FCC regulation?

So you sound stupid across different platforms. Why am I not surprised?

Figures, you'd think that putting the FCC in control of a system, so that it doesn't end up like a different system that has FCC control makes perfect sense.

I peel and core apples but I just peel oranges.

smackaholic wrote:Figures, you'd think that putting the FCC in control of a system, so that it doesn't end up like a different system that has FCC control makes perfect sense.

Stupid and ignorant is a powerful combination.

Are you implying that cable is not subject to FCC regs?

‘holic, you are doing a damn fine job of kicking your own ass up and down this thread. Did you know that AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and T he Internet and Telephone Assoc. are among the top spending lobbyists in DC?

Also, yes, I do believe ISP’s will fuck with our bandwidth when they are the only option in the community. See, I don’t know how many options you have in the U&R, but there are many neighborhoods down here who can go with one land line service provider or Hughes Net (satellite). I am in that boat.

Our only ISP is CenturyLink and they are in bed with DirecTV and I do not have cable. I stream my tv watching 95% of the time, so CenturyLink can throttle my BW and I’d be forced to sign a DirecTV contract or sign with Hughes Net. But that would be pointless since their speeds are super slow.

However, from what I’ve heard is that Netflix, Amazon, and Google already have fast lanes set up with the ISP’s, so we shouldn’t see any changes with their streaming content. At least, that is what I’m hoping for.


Sent from Screwey's Lint Filter

I did a short bit of reading on NN. If I understand it right, it dictates that everyone gets to run their data as fast as anyone else.

Here is my concern.

There is X amount of bandwidth out there. That being the case, making it so that everyone is equal means that if there mot enough BW available for everyone to run as fast as they'd like, the solution is to slow everyone down.

In a free market, if lack of BW gets to be an issue, someone will provide more. Free markets are cool that way. If there is an area where the givernment ought to involve itself, it would be in protecting against monopolies and requiring that ISP's disclose their throttling practices.

This latest move puts the interwebs back under the FTC's control, which really does seem fitting to address such concerns.

And coogs, do you not have a land line phone service and cable provider? Assuming you do, is that not 2 ISP sources?

In cases where there truely is a single ISP, maybe additional utility type regulation makes sense.

You would know the Sherman Anti Trust Act if it fucked you in the ass.

smackaholic wrote:Are you implying that cable is not subject to FCC regs?

Why don't you look it up for yourself?

Cable providers are pretty much free to carry whatever content they want, package it however they want, and charge whatever they want. Whatever regulation there is is mostly from local franchising authorities. Why do you think you have so little choice in cable TV? You can't purchase a single channel or leave out any channels you want. You're stuck with whatever packages they want to offer. Want basic cable but aren't interested in sprots (heaven forbid)? You're still stuck subsidizing ESPN for the rest of the subscribers. This is one thing that net neutrality would help to avoid and why a lot of people are deciding to "cut the cable" and go with streaming services.

Moving Sale wrote:You would know the Sherman Anti Trust Act if it fucked you in the ass.

Unlike you, I would be painfully aware of anyone fukking me in the ass.

Nice white flag. Keep on pimping the Trumps of this world and wonder why you have no choice in service providers.