traed said: I meant to imply that actions were likely taken in response most, if not all of these examples. The ones that are likely to have no actions taken are those in and around 2014, just before the 2015 law was passed, likely in consideration for the law being changed abruptly, and also due to formal complaints not being filed by the time the change was made.Thrashinuva said: The date in which the article was written - April 25, 2017 "The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today." Strangely enough, the rest of the examples don't list what happened after they were discovered. Whether or not any action was taken, and/or what kind of action it was. Action was taken in some of them I think. There is a relatively recent case with Verizon. https://www.rt.com/usa/397163-verizon-admits-throttle-netflix/ |
ThrashinuvaDec 14, 2017 11:10 PM
Syrup- said: They're angry at what they're told to be angry at. It doesn't mean they understand the implications in the actual real world. It means they didn't form their own opinions, they determined what their opinion should be by listening to what others said their opinion should be.Thrashinuva said: No, they clearly know what they're supposed to be mad at. You can be sure people will push the "fuck go back" button when the Internet package meme becomes a reality. ISPs would probably never do that because it riles up the complacent farm animals they've spent years collecting. Pretty much a meme campaign starts up every now and then, getting loads of people on board without 99% of them actually taking the time to research what they're being told. I remember it happening a few years ago, and a few years before that, and still even a few years before that. Yet no one ever understood what they were supposed to be angry about, merely that they were supposed to be angry. |
| Well then, awesome, welcome to tragedy |
  come, you sweet hour of death |
Thrashinuva said: I meant to imply that actions were likely taken in response most, if not all of these examples. The ones that are likely to have no actions taken are those in and around 2014, just before the 2015 law was passed, likely in consideration for the law being changed abruptly, and also due to formal complaints not being filed by the time the change was made. I got what you meant. I just dont have a vetter article prepared atm. This is just a starting point. They will take the laws further back than this for sure. Keep in mind someone from Verizon is in charge of the FCC. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
Thrashinuva said: Prove it. You can try and say that the "awareness campaign" comes off as a little heavyhanded, but 99% of the time internet users are busy staring at pussy (cats). You can see this when grandma shows you memes you found years ago. Governments are well known to play the bait-and-switch game, sliding things in while people are too busy watching the news about a high score shooting in Vegas. Syrup- said: They're angry at what they're told to be angry at. It doesn't mean they understand the implications in the actual real world. It means they didn't form their own opinions, they determined what their opinion should be by listening to what others said their opinion should be.No, they clearly know what they're supposed to be mad at. You can be sure people will push the "fuck go back" button when the Internet package meme becomes a reality. ISPs would probably never do that because it riles up the complacent farm animals they've spent years collecting. People are going to shitpost violently to make sure as many people as possible are aligned with them, but at the end of the day it's still a choice the person has to make. The readers are the ones deciding to believe the articles saying they should pay attention to Net Neutrality, the ones who ultimately sign the petition against the FCC, the ones who are being led blind by the shepherd. |
 |
traed said: The FTC is being put in charge of policing ISP's. There aren't really any laws that are further back. Not concerning the internet, anyways. We can only build or adapt from here. The FCC will likely be in charge of enacting various regulations, but those regulations still have to be within the confines of already existing laws. The FCC isn't dictated by 1 man. You can have a previous employer and not preach the gospel for them.Thrashinuva said: I meant to imply that actions were likely taken in response most, if not all of these examples. The ones that are likely to have no actions taken are those in and around 2014, just before the 2015 law was passed, likely in consideration for the law being changed abruptly, and also due to formal complaints not being filed by the time the change was made. I got what you meant. I just dont have a vetter article prepared atm. This is just a starting point. They will take the laws further back than this for sure. Keep in mind someone from Verizon is in charge of the FCC. If the overall point is that there is a conflict of interest, I don't necessarily disagree. Throw out Ajit Pai and put someone else in charge, if that's really the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission "The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business." Term expires - June 30, 2021 I doubt someone would compromise themselves so publicly under a finite term limit. |
| The blame is SQUARELY on Trump and that Indian Fucker... Congrats America...you DESERVE this! |
| just want to ask, is internet in America free? |
red-tomatoDec 15, 2017 12:33 AM
| An admin's dickhead Soul banned me from MAL t('v't) |
--ALEX-- said: The blame is SQUARELY on Trump and that Indian Fucker... Congrats America...you DESERVE this! Oh please, If Clintion got in, she would have pushed TPP which had cavets put in there that would have been just as bad or worse. We were fucked either way with either choice. Not defending Trump or Pai, they're both to blame for this. |
ThRippJck said: They can't because they're fucking retarded. Notice how most of the people who say nothing has or will change do not understand that net neutrality is a deterrent made to prevent corporate meddling. You're not supposed to see effects. That's the point. Ah, I think this is the straw that broke the camels back. Donald Trump's re election just went down the drain if this stick lol. Ajit Pai is such cuck. And please guys, provide why eliminating net neutrality is a good thing without saying that the internet had existed before 2015 as your only response? They're also too stupid to wonder, "If nothing will happen, why are they removing net neutrality in the first place?" Why would they remove the principle stating "that Internet service providers must treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication" and not do anything? Retarded, that's what they are. |
 |
| inb4 Europe thinks it would be a good idea to do the same. |
ThRippJck said: I've heard arguments about how net neutrality made it so companies such as Google could hog up bandwidth while not paying their fair share for it.Ah, I think this is the straw that broke the camels back. Donald Trump's re election just went down the drain if this stick lol. Ajit Pai is such cuck. And please guys, provide why eliminating net neutrality is a good thing without saying that the internet had existed before 2015 as your only response? I'm not knowledgeable enough on NN to say one way or the other, but I do support having a rule where ISPs can't block non-criminal websites or charge fees beyond their basic package. The internet seems more like a basic utility than a luxury these days. However, I have noticed a fascinating dynamic. Many people who support government regulation of speech now seem to ardently oppose an ISP's regulation of which websites you can access. Not quite so fun when you're the one being censored, is it? |
 |
Thrashinuva said: "This is what capitalism is" doesn't mean shit. The US is a mixed economy comprised of capitalist and socialist policies. We've learned from the past that pure socialism and pure capitalism sucks, which is why we aim to balance both ideologies. Net Neutrality is socialist in every way possible, but it's an inherently positive principle that benefits just about everyone.Yes, and that reclassifies it into this https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt under Title I, which it was previous to 2015. The whole idea behind capitalism is for private business to experiment and sell their product or services in as much of the market as they can. The government's job is to ensure no monopolies form, and that no misconduct takes place. The 1996 law allows for any particular regulations the FCC decides, as long as they are legal. The FCC aimed for net neutrality long before 2015, which became a set of regulations that were partially repealed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 |
|
| "V for Vendetta" is becoming reality, but with the US instead of UK. Thank your local greedy pigs for this. |
Bayek said: That's not what censorship is.However, I have noticed a fascinating dynamic. Many people who support government regulation of speech now seem to ardently oppose an ISP's regulation of which websites you can access. Not quite so fun when you're the one being censored, is it? |
|
PeenusWeenusCaim said: Yes it is:Bayek said: That's not what censorship is.However, I have noticed a fascinating dynamic. Many people who support government regulation of speech now seem to ardently oppose an ISP's regulation of which websites you can access. Not quite so fun when you're the one being censored, is it? "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security." If an ISP deems MAL to be politically unacceptable and locks it, that's censorship. |
|
Thrashinuva said: Syrup- said: They're angry at what they're told to be angry at. It doesn't mean they understand the implications in the actual real world. It means they didn't form their own opinions, they determined what their opinion should be by listening to what others said their opinion should be.No, they clearly know what they're supposed to be mad at. You can be sure people will push the "fuck go back" button when the Internet package meme becomes a reality. ISPs would probably never do that because it riles up the complacent farm animals they've spent years collecting. They don't have to understand anything considering getting rid of NN is an objectively bad thing for most people. |
 |
Kuma said: Damn son, how do you even survive? As if Internet positif wasn't enoughi am from country WITHOUT net neutrality... welcome to the 3rd world internet bitches! [im*g]https://i.imgur.com/nKZ2yeq.jpg[/img] oh wait, at least, market competitiveness actually works in my country, and the one has lot monopoly is goverment owned, sooo... lulz https://www.eyerys.com/articles/news/indonesia-and-internet-neutrality-getting-away-it |
 Nico- said: Conversations with people pinging/quoting me to argue about some old post I wrote years ago will not be entertained@Comic_Sans oh no y arnt ppl dieing i need more ppl dieing rly gud plot avansement jus liek tokyo ghoul if erbudy dies amirite |
Comic_Sans said: Kuma said: Damn son, how do you even survive? As if Internet positif wasn't enoughi am from country WITHOUT net neutrality... welcome to the 3rd world internet bitches! [im*g]https://i.imgur.com/nKZ2yeq.jpg[/img] oh wait, at least, market competitiveness actually works in my country, and the one has lot monopoly is goverment owned, sooo... lulz https://www.eyerys.com/articles/news/indonesia-and-internet-neutrality-getting-away-it well... i simply prefer to paid more.... i wonder when MAL will banned, they have hentai stuff here... reddit already banned... well, just preparing my dissapereance... at least VPN is not banned yet they already trying tho... |
 "If taking responsibility for a mistake that cannot be undone means death, it's not that hard to die. At least, not as hard as to live on." |
| USA - the country of freedom indeed |
Comic_Sans said: You know, mate! Although this will probably happen to the UK at some point.Man I love not living in America |
 |
| Good, they can now share the same pain as we have. The battle was lost here a long time ago in favor of Free FB. |
 |
| Merry christmas everyone. I look forward to seeing you all in the new year (If you can afford to pay for access to the site that is) ;) |
TheMariqua said: Doubt EU is that dumb.... but if you're right I wouldn't be surprisedinb4 Europe thinks it would be a good idea to do the same. |
| You all are kinda dumb, net neutrality won't be gone for like another year and it still has to go through court anyways where it will probably be saved, chill out and stop being such downers lol. |
| And you wont have to pay extra for every site each month, that would be just stupid, if net neutrality is gone the most likely thing to happen is your internet will just be slower. We still want to keep net neutrality but stop acting so emo over it |
PeenusWeenusCaim said: Where exactly did we learn that from? Capitalism has done quite a fine job. The injection of socialist policies has been what's led us into decline.Thrashinuva said: "This is what capitalism is" doesn't mean shit. The US is a mixed economy comprised of capitalist and socialist policies. We've learned from the past that pure socialism and pure capitalism sucks, which is why we aim to balance both ideologies. Net Neutrality is socialist in every way possible, but it's an inherently positive principle that benefits just about everyone.Yes, and that reclassifies it into this https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt under Title I, which it was previous to 2015. The whole idea behind capitalism is for private business to experiment and sell their product or services in as much of the market as they can. The government's job is to ensure no monopolies form, and that no misconduct takes place. The 1996 law allows for any particular regulations the FCC decides, as long as they are legal. The FCC aimed for net neutrality long before 2015, which became a set of regulations that were partially repealed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_Open_Internet_Order_2010 |
Thrashinuva said: From what I understand the FTC is in a current legal battle with AT&T because it is unclear if it has the authority over such entities--with a expectation that even if they win, there is no authority given to them to do anything. traed said: The FTC is being put in charge of policing ISP's. There aren't really any laws that are further back. Not concerning the internet, anyways. We can only build or adapt from here. The FCC will likely be in charge of enacting various regulations, but those regulations still have to be within the confines of already existing laws. The FCC isn't dictated by 1 man. You can have a previous employer and not preach the gospel for them.I got what you meant. I just dont have a vetter article prepared atm. This is just a starting point. They will take the laws further back than this for sure. Keep in mind someone from Verizon is in charge of the FCC. If the overall point is that there is a conflict of interest, I don't necessarily disagree. Throw out Ajit Pai and put someone else in charge, if that's really the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission "The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business." Term expires - June 30, 2021 I doubt someone would compromise themselves so publicly under a finite term limit. That is why the court battle with Verizon and the FCC in 2010 placed ISPs into the hands of the "Communications" office (FCC) and not the "trade" (FTC), so long as the FCC placed ISPs under Title II--which is in a legal sense, the proper place to put the internet's form of communication. The courts told the FCC that for them to regulate ISPs, they would have to switch them from Title I to Title II (two different ways of regulating communication) if they wanted to use their Authority over ISPs. The FCC just pulled their own teeth, and are hoping the FTC would be the regulating office--but they don't have teeth and its case (with At&t) is showing it probably won't be able to |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Silverstorm said: The FCC's statement at the beginning of all this declared that the FTC would be the one policing it. A repeal isn't simply nullifying a previous law. It's a new law that declares the old law invalid. This means there can be other content within the law to dictate such a thing. If that's to be the case then I believe we don't have any public information regarding that.Thrashinuva said: From what I understand the FTC is in a current legal battle with AT&T because it is unclear if it has the authority over such entities--with a expectation that even if they win, there is no authority given to them to do anything. The FTC is being put in charge of policing ISP's. There aren't really any laws that are further back. Not concerning the internet, anyways. We can only build or adapt from here. The FCC will likely be in charge of enacting various regulations, but those regulations still have to be within the confines of already existing laws. The FCC isn't dictated by 1 man. You can have a previous employer and not preach the gospel for them. If the overall point is that there is a conflict of interest, I don't necessarily disagree. Throw out Ajit Pai and put someone else in charge, if that's really the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission "The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate for five-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The U.S. President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairman. Only three commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them may have a financial interest in any FCC-related business." Term expires - June 30, 2021 I doubt someone would compromise themselves so publicly under a finite term limit. That is why the court battle with Verizon and the FCC in 2010 placed ISPs into the hands of the "Communications" office (FCC) and not the "trade" (FTC), so long as the FCC placed ISPs under Title II--which is in a legal sense, the proper place to put the internet's form of communication. The courts told the FCC that for them to regulate ISPs, they would have to switch them from Title I to Title II (two different ways of regulating communication) if they wanted to use their Authority over ISPs. The FCC just pulled their own teeth, and are hoping the FTC would be the regulating office--but they don't have teeth and its case (with At&t) is showing it probably won't be able to |
Based said: Land of the free my foot. New anthem O' say can you see, by the dawn's early light what so proudly we heal at the twilight's last gleaming and who's stripes and bright stars, in the perilous night, or the grand parts we wash, ayue da da la la la. And the rocket's red glare bunch of bombs in the air and prove today, that we still had a flag, o say that why it dry banner wave, or the woooOOOOooo why it gleaming , and the home of the land, and the land of the FREE! |
| To anyone who supports the repeal of net neutrality, can you care to explain how it would positively affect businesses like Netflix or poor families in any way? (Hint: you can't) |
 |
| good thing i have 100gb+ porn already saved |
| Pfft as if net neutrality stopped companies from throttling peoples' internet. |
| Be thankful for the wisdom granted to you. |
Bayek said: That's what censorship means, but that's not what ISPs are doing, which is why you're ill-informed. ISPs aren't censoring the internet and they're not regulating the internet based on the grounds that certain content are "obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security". They're planning to regulate the internet based on how much you paid them and whether those site belong to competing businesses. There's a fundamental difference.PeenusWeenusCaim said: Yes it is:That's not what censorship is. "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security." If an ISP deems MAL to be politically unacceptable and locks it, that's censorship. |
|
Thrashinuva said: You have a very finite and limited understanding of economic and social systems then.PeenusWeenusCaim said: Where exactly did we learn that from? Capitalism has done quite a fine job. The injection of socialist policies has been what's led us into decline."This is what capitalism is" doesn't mean shit. The US is a mixed economy comprised of capitalist and socialist policies. We've learned from the past that pure socialism and pure capitalism sucks, which is why we aim to balance both ideologies. Net Neutrality is socialist in every way possible, but it's an inherently positive principle that benefits just about everyone. Socialist policies are why corporations have decided to hire you rather than Eduardo de Mexico who is willing to work more for less pay. Socialist policies are why you're able to quit jobs and not worry about starving to death while you're searching for a new one. Socialist policies are why we have minimum wage. Socialism is why we have safety regulations in the workplace. There are hundred of socialist policies that have benefited America economically, and that's not even including the policies in regards to civil rights and infrastructure. If you seriously believe socialist policies put America on the decline, flagellate yourself with a barbed wire and read a book. We are behind other developed countries because of the lack of socialist policies. Where's paid maternity leave? Where's our adjustment to wages and salaries in regards to inflation? Why do have less vacation time than Europeans and why do they get to work less than us too? |
|
waifu_stealer said: (Hint: I can)To anyone who supports the repeal of net neutrality, can you care to explain how it would positively affect businesses like Netflix or poor families in any way? (Hint: you can't) ISP's can shoulder the costs of large .com domains back onto those very same .com domains. As sites like Facebook and Youtube generate huge amounts of traffic, they wear down and expend resources, and clog up traffic for others. However after the 2015 law ISP's couldn't treat anyone differently, and so the expenses went to everyone, rather than the primary cause. However since they can't charge all of these domains, realistically speaking they were likely pushed into what the consumers had to pay. Meaning if ISP's can relegate some of these costs towards the ones that use the internet highway the most, it'll mean less expenses for the average consumer. Think of it like our roads. Large trucks spend the majority of their time on all of the highways, and the average citizen may spend some time on the highway, but not much if at all. Not to mention that the damage a small car will make compared to a large truck is rather small. In this instance, trucks have to pay higher tolls at toll booths, and otherwise trucking companies have to pay towards the upkeep of the roads. The 2015 law means that this cannot happen, and repealing it means that the average consumer can be benefited with reduced prices. But it can also benefit those large .com's as well, and not just us typical consumers. The revenue of these .com's is quite large, and so they already have the intention of investing in any way they can to grow even larger, and this is where treating data unequally benefits them. Because of the 2015 law, ISP's have to give you 1 megabyte of data on an obscure website at the same rate as a 6gb video on Netflix, despite the actual impossibility of you ever reaching a 100mbps download rate on 1 megabyte of data. By allowing ISP's to treat this data unequally, they can give you that 1 megabyte of data in the same amount of time they were already giving it to you, but redistributing the extra resources to ensure that videos on Netflix will not buffer during peak internet activity within your neighborhood. Netflix would enjoy this tremendously as well as the user, ensuring that Netflix gets more activity and the user has an overall better experience, meanwhile the 1 megabyte of data remains virtually unaffected. The data is treated fairly, albeit unequally. What everyone is worried about is abuse of this system, but they're generally failing to grasp the fairly large benefits of it. All we have to do is establish regulations to prevent those sorts of abuses, to ensure that we don't see those nightmare scenarios people speak of. |
PeenusWeenusCaim said: Socialist policies are why corporations have decided to hire you rather than Eduardo de Mexico who is willing to work more for less pay. Illegal immigration has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. Socialist policies are why you're able to quit jobs and not worry about starving to death while you're searching for a new one. That's useful for the citizen but not useful for the free market. Socialist policies are why we have minimum wage. If the government didn't print money from nothing, there wouldn't have ever been any need to raise minimum wage. From the very beginning you had to be paid for work, which was a minimum wage all by itself. Now, due to inflation and minimum wage gaps, we have large disparities all across the country.Socialism is why we have safety regulations in the workplace. Are you saying safety regulations don't exist within a capitalist environment? That's senile. Regardless of the economic model, employers should hold the responsibility for the risk that they place you in.Where's paid maternity leave? Where's our adjustment to wages and salaries in regards to inflation? Why do have less vacation time than Europeans and why do they get to work less than us too? It sounds like "success" to you is all about how much the government pays you not to work. |
| We're failing to grasp the benefits? LOL. You can't fail to grasp something that never existed in the first place. |
|
| I can't see it lasting. When they voted to repeal it they took away one of the biggest outlets of freedom of speech in the world. Not to mention one of the largest sources of education out there. Already, as of this morning, several states are building a lawsuit to sue the FCC. Net neutrality should be a right to every citizen. Source: https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/14/new-york-attorney-general-announces-a-multi-state-lawsuit-challenging-the-net-neutrality-vote/ It doesn't matter what side you are on. The corruption in our political system is out of control.. ISPs and entertainment companies are the game masters and our politicians are the pawns... Well only time will tell.. |
FenderKillerDec 15, 2017 3:49 PM
  |
Thrashinuva said: I was never referring to illegal immigration. Retarded.PeenusWeenusCaim said: Socialist policies are why corporations have decided to hire you rather than Eduardo de Mexico who is willing to work more for less pay. Illegal immigration has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. Socialist policies are why you're able to quit jobs and not worry about starving to death while you're searching for a new one. That's useful for the citizen but not useful for the free market. Socialist policies are why we have minimum wage. If the government didn't print money from nothing, there wouldn't have ever been any need to raise minimum wage. From the very beginning you had to be paid for work, which was a minimum wage all by itself.Now, due to inflation and minimum wage gaps, we have large disparities all across the country. This is a result of capitalism. Not socialism. Thanks for making my point again.Socialism is why we have safety regulations in the workplace. Are you saying safety regulations don't exist within a capitalist environment? You're incredibly naive to believe that corporations are benevolent beings that care for you and your safety. If they had the chance to endanger your life for more money they would because the inherent goal of a corporation isn't to create an organized and stable society like government a would, it is to make profit and only profit. Regardless of the economic model, employers should hold the responsibility for the risk that they place you in. So you support this socialist policy then? Because employers taking responsibility for the risk that they place in employees is socialism. In a more capitalistic society, if you died on the job it was your fault for taking a dangerous job, not the employer for making their job so dangerous. Where's paid maternity leave? Where's our adjustment to wages and salaries in regards to inflation? Why do have less vacation time than Europeans and why do they get to work less than us too? It sounds like "success" to you is all about how much the government pays you not to work. |
PeenusWeenusCaimDec 15, 2017 4:29 PM
|
| I will be incredibly surprised if this actually goes through, there is so much opposition against it even down to 18 different states stepping in to fight it, when damn near half the country feels a need to call for arms over it then you know shits got a problem. The big thing is they have a serious case in regards to the fraud complaint as there were multiple deceased people sending messages in support of the repeal long after they died. That said, man if this does go through...yeeesh ThRippJck said: His supporters are the only people I see defending this outside of comcast/verizon shills, it's not like it was unknown he wanted this he has been bitching about net neutrality since Obama sent it into effect. You can find him bitching that it somehow silencing conservative opinions. That said it is true a fuck ton of trump supporters also didnt want this I just dont know how much of it will make a dentAh, I think this is the straw that broke the camels back. Donald Trump's re election just went down the drain if this stick lol. That said, i think even with this, his chances of re-election come down to how the economy is doing in 2020/who the democrats pick. Everyone thinks he's going to be gone every new disaster he creates but that is by no means a sign that we are free from the moron. But then again at this rate I don't even know if he's gonna last till 2020 cause more and more signs are showing that gop members are fed up with him, I mean for fuck sakes roger stone of all people is writing a book on his departure from the presidency. |
JizzyHitlerDec 15, 2017 4:32 PM
Immahnoob said: Jizzy, I know you have no idea how to argue for shit, tokiyashiro said: Jizzy as you would call yourself because youre a dick The most butthurt award goes to you And clearly you havent watched that many shows thats why you cant determine if a show is unique or not Or maybe you're just a child who likes common stuffs where hero saves the day and guys gets all the girls. Sad taste you have there kid you came up to me in the first place making you look more like a kid who got slapped without me even knowing it and start crying about it to me |
PeenusWeenusCaim said: Fine. Explain what you're referring to, and why it's a socialist policy.Thrashinuva said: I was never referring to illegal immigration. Retarded.Illegal immigration has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. If the free market doesn't help its citizens, then it is a shit system. Thanks for getting to the point! The free market isn't a system for paying you for not working.If the government didn't print money from nothing, there wouldn't have ever been any need to raise minimum wage. From the very beginning you had to be paid for work, which was a minimum wage all by itself. We needed centralized currency and minimum wage because employers were paying their employees with scraps. They were created to address the flaws of capitalism. Read a book.Now, due to inflation and minimum wage gaps, we have large disparities all across the country. This is a result of capitalism. Not socialism. Thanks for making my point again.Are you saying safety regulations don't exist within a capitalist environment? Yes. Back in 19th century America when America was the most capitalistic it has ever been, safety regulations hardly mattered. Little girls were losing their arms to textile machines because of lacking safety regulations. Miners suffocated to death while working underground. The factory owner of Triangle Shirtwaist Factory caused the deaths of over 100 factory employees since he made having all doors locked within the factory a company policy. Even after he was convicted (and then acquitted) of these 100+ deaths, he still had his factory doors locked while employees worked in haphazard conditions.You're incredibly naive to believe that corporations are benevolent beings that care for you and your safety. If they had the chance to endanger your life for more money they would because the inherent goal of a corporation isn't to create an organized and stable society like government a would, it is to make profit and only profit. Regardless of the economic model, employers should hold the responsibility for the risk that they place you in. So you support this socialist policy then? Because employers taking responsibility for the risk that they place in employees is socialism. In a more capitalistic society, if you died on the job it was your fault for taking a dangerous job, not the employer for making their job so dangerous.It sounds like "success" to you is all about how much the government pays you not to work. |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
271 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |