FCC Votes to Kill Net Neutrality

[sonatine]

Before you panic about this, consider the following:

etc etc

Yet the public really believes that asking these 3 competitive eaters to pay their fair share is somehow an assault on everyone's freedom.

LOL sheeple

the thing is, none of this offsets the concern at bar that we are going to see pockets of the internet become less available or even unavailable to people unwilling to pay cable-style package deals. because thats where all this becomes very real.

this isnt conjecture, we see it in other countries, where you pay extra for a 'social media package'.

also, fun fact, it institutionalizes active monitoring of ones online conduct, which will instantly be monetized by reselling to marketers, insurance companies, and prospective employers just for starters.

so your thin band interpretation may not be invalid but it does nothing to address the absolute barrel of worms this opens with regards to intentionally degraded service, invasion/dissolution of privacy, and the additional cost of implementation which will absolutely, 100% end up being passed to consumers.

its basically a pitch perfect example of republican business ethics gone wild.

[hongkonger]

Druff supports this, and honestly so do I. No, I know, I’m supposed to shill for multi-billion dollar corporations like Netflix and Google who don’t like it because that’s “liberal” for some reason.

I’m actually neutral on the repeal but liberals are so obnoxiously over dramatic about it, that I’ve come to support it being repealed. And no, Comcast isn’t going to start charging you $1.99 to compose a tweet or whatever LOL propaganda I’ve seen about it. Calm down, nerds

What if you start ComcastSucksBalls.net making negative statements about them and Comcast doesn't let its customers view that site?

[Dan Druff]

Druff supports this, and honestly so do I. No, I know, I’m supposed to shill for multi-billion dollar corporations like Netflix and Google who don’t like it because that’s “liberal” for some reason.

I’m actually neutral on the repeal but liberals are so obnoxiously over dramatic about it, that I’ve come to support it being repealed. And no, Comcast isn’t going to start charging you $1.99 to compose a tweet or whatever LOL propaganda I’ve seen about it. Calm down, nerds

What if you start ComcastSucksBalls.net making negative statements about them and Comcast doesn't let its customers view that site?

I don't think people would be against a form of net neutrality which prohibits providers from outright blocking access to sites.

The problem is that the current version of it mostly focuses upon speed and throttling, and basically gives the huge content providers carte blanche to expand at the ISPs' expense.

[Dan Druff]

Before you panic about this, consider the following:

etc etc

Yet the public really believes that asking these 3 competitive eaters to pay their fair share is somehow an assault on everyone's freedom.

LOL sheeple

the thing is, none of this offsets the concern at bar that we are going to see pockets of the internet become less available or even unavailable to people unwilling to pay cable-style package deals. because thats where all this becomes very real.

this isnt conjecture, we see it in other countries, where you pay extra for a 'social media package'.

also, fun fact, it institutionalizes active monitoring of ones online conduct, which will instantly be monetized by reselling to marketers, insurance companies, and prospective employers just for starters.

so your thin band interpretation may not be invalid but it does nothing to address the absolute barrel of worms this opens with regards to intentionally degraded service, invasion/dissolution of privacy, and the additional cost of implementation which will absolutely, 100% end up being passed to consumers.

its basically a pitch perfect example of republican business ethics gone wild.

If the big content providers refuse to pay their fair share, then yes, I could see it possible where we are forced to cough up extra money to access those sites at normal speeds.

But that isn't a freedom issue. It's a commerce issue, and the anger should be focused upon the greedy content providers looking to get a free ride from the ISPs, not the ISPs trying to rightfully past at least some of the cost to the data hogs causing it.

[sonatine]

if your vision of how plays out comes true and mine doesnt, it would make both of us pretty fucking happy.

[gimmick]

The ISP content provider interaction isn't exactly a one way street. Without Netflix/whatever there would be no reason for customers to buy say 100mb connection packages. The relationship is very symbiotic with net neutrality. ISPs are already profiting from said "freeloaders".

[PLOL]

Do you want to bet on it?

I'll bet you $10k even money it happens by July 1, 2018. Bet is only valid if you escrow with Druff by the end of today.

Sure, I can take $3k of action on that. Lmk if you're interested. I can escrow immediately provided you do too.

To clarify, we are betting on whether Comcast will charge money to customers to post a tweet. You are taking yes and I am taking no.

[Dan Druff]

The ISP content provider interaction isn't exactly a one way street. Without Netflix/whatever there would be no reason for customers to buy say 100mb connection packages. The relationship is very symbiotic with net neutrality. ISPs are already profiting from said "freeloaders".

I knew someone would bring this up.

The problem is that 100MB speeds today cost far less than 100MB speeds 5 years ago.

The "standard" is rapidly increasing, and that's due to the content hogs like YouTube (Google) and Netflix. Cable companies are having to spend a lot more just to keep collecting the same revenue for internet service.

Also internet access in general is such a standard in America nowadays that the cable companies don't really need companies like Netflix in order to entice people to buy internet service.

[BlunderMaker]

I'll bet you $10k even money it happens by July 1, 2018. Bet is only valid if you escrow with Druff by the end of today.

Sure, I can take $3k of action on that. Lmk if you're interested. I can escrow immediately provided you do too.

To clarify, we are betting on whether Comcast will charge money to customers to post a tweet. You are taking yes and I am taking no.

I'm in for a c note.

[gimmick]

The ISP content provider interaction isn't exactly a one way street. Without Netflix/whatever there would be no reason for customers to buy say 100mb connection packages. The relationship is very symbiotic with net neutrality. ISPs are already profiting from said "freeloaders".

I knew someone would bring this up.

The problem is that 100MB speeds today cost far less than 100MB speeds 5 years ago.

The "standard" is rapidly increasing, and that's due to the content hogs like YouTube (Google) and Netflix. Cable companies are having to spend a lot more just to keep collecting the same revenue for internet service.

Also internet access in general is such a standard in America nowadays that the cable companies don't really need companies like Netflix in order to entice people to buy internet service.

Lol in what world do you think that the cable companies don't need these huge bandwidth stealing freeloaders? The same freeloaders that popularized the internet from a dark place where nerds gather at nights.

I know you're just grasping at straws to bore everyone to quit arguing with you, but 100mb is also quite a bit cheaper to produce than it was 5 years ago.

Boohoo for cable companies for walking in to a goldmine that is Internet streaming services and social media. How will they cope with the burden of wealth. If it wasn't for the crippling case of greed, they might just be happy with what they got. Thank god for your system of legalized corruption and "media" to find fools to do their bidding.

[DirtyB]

I'll bet you $10k even money it happens by July 1, 2018. Bet is only valid if you escrow with Druff by the end of today.

Sure, I can take $3k of action on that. Lmk if you're interested. I can escrow immediately provided you do too.

To clarify, we are betting on whether Comcast will charge money to customers to post a tweet. You are taking yes and I am taking no.

Nice job ignoring my reply to you.

[DirtyB]

Sure, I can take $3k of action on that. Lmk if you're interested. I can escrow immediately provided you do too.

To clarify, we are betting on whether Comcast will charge money to customers to post a tweet. You are taking yes and I am taking no.

I'm in for a c note.

Sorry. Not messing with brokeasses today.

[BlunderMaker]

I'm in for a c note.

Sorry. Not messing with brokeasses today.

can somebody repost what he said? my isp wants me to pay 12.99 extra to see it but I dont have the scratch

[PLOL]

Sure, I can take $3k of action on that. Lmk if you're interested. I can escrow immediately provided you do too.

To clarify, we are betting on whether Comcast will charge money to customers to post a tweet. You are taking yes and I am taking no.

Nice job ignoring my reply to you.

Ignoring your reply? You think one thing will happen, and I think another will happen, and now we're going to bet on it. Your reply was asking what I was basing my thinking on. Why would I reveal that information if we're about to bet thousands of dollars on it?

[PLOL]

I'm in for a c note.

Sorry. Not messing with brokeasses today.

That's okay, Blunder. You can send me $100 and I'll pass it on to Druff and I'll make my bet with DirtyB $3,100.

[DirtyB]

Sorry. Not messing with brokeasses today.

That's okay, Blunder. You can send me $100 and I'll pass it on to Druff and I'll make my bet with DirtyB $3,100.

Did I offer a $3100 bet?

[PLOL]

That's okay, Blunder. You can send me $100 and I'll pass it on to Druff and I'll make my bet with DirtyB $3,100.

Did I offer a $3100 bet?

You offered a sum that is a large amount to hold in escrow for over 6 months. I offered a more reasonable but still significant amount. Now you're backing down. I'm guessing because your original offer was a bluff because you know you're wrong, and you're now scared of losing $3k.

[BlunderMaker]

That's okay, Blunder. You can send me $100 and I'll pass it on to Druff and I'll make my bet with DirtyB $3,100.

Did I offer a $3100 bet?

you're gonna need that 10k to fund your twitter account soon you should probably save it

[Sanlmar]

First, this is gonna be litigated before the button is pushed.

Second, a generation of cord cutters will no longer reap the financial benefit of streaming. That loss of revenue/that number is etched in the cable companies consciousness and will be made up through an a la carte menu of additional fees.

As right as rain there will be a flurry of new expense for all sides to swallow.

This decision wasn’t argued as some kind of academic exercise - we are about to get porked and it will begin as soon as possible.

No company walks away from incremental revenue.

I remember Ma Bell so my anus is already trained to absorb size.

[DirtyB]

Did I offer a $3100 bet?

You offered a sum that is a large amount to hold in escrow for over 6 months. I offered a more reasonable but still significant amount. Now you're backing down. I'm guessing because your original offer was a bluff because you know you're wrong, and you're now scared of losing $3k.

Clearly I'm terrified and couldn't possibly have made the offer just to get Blundermaker to reveal that he's broke.