All you people here from a year or two ago arguing that "we need to put the government in charge of the internet to prevent corporations from censoring our websites" are now responsible for the Stop Online Piracy Act. The worst case of internet censorship we have ever had. The corporations never censored anything but you were so afraid of what MIGHT happen that you put the government in charge. Now we have SOPA to worry about thanks to you.
I like the Internet as it is!! I download movies using Bit Torrent and I get all the bandwidth I can grab!! And I cut all you morons off by copying copyrighted movies!! HAHA!!
How about just forcing companies to be transparent, so consumers know what is being blocked or slowed down. An independent web site that generates a report, like when you check your internet speed. Then consumers can make an informed decision on who they want to buy from.
The internet is only going to get better, faster and cheaper, unless these COCK SUCKER busy bodies get their way. The free market has given us the progress on internet access today. The internet has been getting FASTER, CHEAPER, MORE ACCESSIBLE than ever because of NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT! Now we want to add some gov. bureaucracy to the mix? I say HELL NO! Let people vote with their wallets!
@drshlotzkin Net neutrality has been in place since the beginning. This video isn't great, and doesn't explain it well. As it stands now, a small business can set up a website, and just pay their host to host it. If we drop net neutrality, they'll have to make an expensive deal with every ISP, if they want that ISP's customers to be able to view the site. It'll crush small businesses, and restrict what people can view.
Why the fuck do people always gotta argue about shit fucking a man it doesn't solve anything especially online we need to work together so shit like this don't happen.
I think the "Digital Divide" and "net neutrality" projects are part of government-controlled internet. Taxpayers already provide free cell phones for those on government assistance. You can get internet service at any public library. With only 49% of the USA paying taxes, seems to me "too many are riding in the wagon and not enough PULLING!"
You can say that about any law, you can say that about labor laws, food safety laws "FDA", minimum wage laws, equal opportunity laws, environmental "polution", and etc. of course people are going to break laws but can you imagine a world or the U.S. without them? corporations dont care about me and you they care about the bottom line "money", just ask Mexico how great the average worker has it then you will get your answer or you could look back in history when children were slaves.
When I see a government program do more good then harm, I might get behind this. But really...if an internet provider starts slowing down access to sites you like, you will switch to a different provider, and they know it. So what would they gain by doing something that would cause them to lose customers?
@generic7527 "When I see a government program do more good then harm. "
Net neutrality did do more good than harm in the 90s, but what about Social Security. There's only 3 major telecom companies, if all them do it your screwed, not to mention you'd be more likely to assume the problem is with the site than your isp. & Why did Comcast spend so much in legal fees to strike it down if they didn't intend to take advantage?
@generic7527 "When I see a government program do more good then harm, I might get behind this. " So highway system not working for you? GPS sattelites not helping anyone? Original Internet didn't do any good? Don't like seeing the ingredients on the food you by? Bill of Rights is a bad thing? Honestly.
Corporations are lobbying so much against net neutrality its unreal how far they are going with it calling it another government entity. I used to be one of those people who bought into their scheme until i read and educated myself about what is really going on behind closed doors.
But according to this they're not slowing down small sites. They're speeding up big ones. They said it themselves so I don't under stand the problem. Plus, those big sites has tons of bandwidth issues. It sounds like this organisation is preventing companies from expanding the bandwidth?
Net neutrality is a principle which advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in the internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, or the modes of communication.
I like how the video starts out: "The way the internet is today..."; it starts with the proposition and understanding that there is currently NO problem; the free market is holding ISP's to the pretenses of net neutrality without the need for regulation.
This freedom of information neutrality and consumer choice we now enjoy is the product of the free market forces. Net neutrality will have the unintended consequence of actually destroying the free market forces keeping companies in check = BAD
@BSD2000 "This freedom of information neutrality and consumer choice we now enjoy is the product of the free market forces" Well kind of. Internet started out as a government program and a "Free market" depends on not having monopolies. It's like saying Freedom of Speech will have the unintended consequence of destroying the free market of media or soemthing = doesn't make sense.
@sinistar99 You are making the assumption that the internet was entirely created by 'the government', as if it was a closed loop and isolated entity in a vacuum, which it isn't. Every aspect of the creation of the internet was derived from technology created, manufactured and implemented by the private sector. The government doesn't 'create' anything on it's own. It contracts the private sector to do all the work. Without the free market and capitalism, there would be no internet, period.
It's nice to see videos of ignorant puppets supporting regulation that will destroy the internet as we know it. Net Neutrality will have unintended consequences that will increase the cost, lower accessibility and speed. Get ready to pay per gigabyte for your access and kiss your 'unlimited access' plan goodbye, or pay a much higher premium to keep that plan. The consequences of the bill will CAUSE the problems it was meant to prevent. Just say NO to the government.
@BSD2000 It's nice to hear ignorant puppets speaking out against their own interests. God forbid we should keep media corporations from deciding which sites come through faster than others. How will it increase cost? If there's no problem with a neutral net now then why would there be a problem making sure we keep it that way?
@sinistar99 Your comment reflect the fact that you really need to do more research into the real reasons why ISP's WANT Net Neutrality. It's not all puppy dogs and rainbows. Monthly data caps, elimination of 'unlimited' data plans, higher plan prices, and speed throttling have been the results in places like Canada, which introduced it's version of Net Neutrality. Do you want ISP's colluding with the government to control pricing, access and speed? Unintended consequences always make it worse.
@crasherball But in the end it boils down to single thing for those companys. money. for us this is more important then getting more rigading, it is about freedome of expresion.
Same old same old we get shafted and they profit from it. They want to lock down the internet with copyright laws so you can be spoon fed content, they make the most money possible and we get a cable service instead of internet.
shit that realy gets to me atm is 'this vidio is not avalable in your contry' 'They then will moan about pirates while blocking people form content that has been broadcast in the country they are blocking I’m looking at you channel 4.
Net Neutrality is not about changing the way it initially started as, and what made it so popular; it is about keeping it the way it initially started, and what made it so popular.
I take this word from a previous poster: willful ignorance.
Imagine home internet access working similar to the internet access you get from a cell phone today: you may call who you want, but you are limited on internet access.
The very best part is once it is in the hands of a governmental regulatory agency, that agency will scream that they are now underfunded with all this new responsibility. So within a few years, they will TAX the internet to pay for it!
If Comcast form an unholy alliance with Google and Netflicks, and throttles yahoo and you tube, who cares, if that is important to you, Verizon will form an allince with Yahoo and offer more bandwidth to Youtube and optimzed searching with yahoo.
@mcihak1219 "...If Comcast form an unholy alliance with Google and Netflicks" Then one or a small handful of companies will decide what sites YOU can see. I'd pay a few pennies extra to keep that from happening. I like to decide things myself. Americans are goofy that way.
Apple can choose not to do business with Verizon. Did that destroy the mobile phone market. You simply chose not to use Apple if you wanted Verizon. What did this do to Apple, it hurt them, as as soon as they could they got wise and offered what people wanted, and got with verizon. What would your monthly bill and data rates be if all telecoms HAD to pay to install, and provide 4G bandwidth to cover the entire country. A lot worse. Like fast cheap internet, learn to HATE Net Neutrality.
@mcihak1219 If they ALL decide to speed up and slow down different sites then who will you chose to do business with? How will you even know? By your logic there should be no requirement to say put ingredients on our food because the free market will somehow magically give us that information. "What would your bill be bla bla bla" irrelivent that's not what Net Neutrality is about at all. There was a government requirement to provide electricity to rural areas in the 50s -worked out great!
Show me one example where a government mandated one size fits all mandated policy, installed under the banner of "Fairness" has not increased prices and diminished service.
There is no "Cell Phone Nuetrality", but somehow we can call whoever we like, pay in any way we like, for as many or a few services, in what ever quantities we want.
The unintended consequence is everyone gets throttled and increased prices. We will all have to pay for the infrastructure that is needed to being high rates to the sticks. It costs a fortune to connect the sticks, and will all pay. The other fun fact is that band width is not air, it is not unlimited, so if they have to pump high bandwidth to the sticks, they will be getting it from somewhere, and that is from the rest of us.
Net neutrality is awesome. I cant wait to not be able to use Netflicks because small towns that surround me and barely use bandwidth are forced to take the same 8mbs I get. I'm also sure those rural users will be stoked to have to pay the price i pay instead of a bargain price for 1.5mbs. It will be awesome to see those users, who have one and only one ISP, just disconnect because it isn't worth 70 bucks a month to them, when they used to pay less than half that.
@mcihak1219 Are forced to take 8Mbps? You do not know what net neutrality is. NN is about making sure if you pay for 8Mbps, and you are accessing another computer that is paying for 8Mbps, the path-holders in the middle keep your access at 8Mbps.
E.g. imagine paying rent on an apartment, and then paying more to live there: it is called double dipping.
i'm sick of people giving the free market argument to defend taking away net neutrality. The net neutrality of the internet is the best example of a free market.
@snoglydox I am not good at explaining, but there is a substantial technological differences between pipes and the ip infrastructure. Setting rules for ISPs is very likely to backfire and create more problems than it solves. The best course of action is to leave the providers unregulated and if you don't like what your ISP is doing, just change it. Really, competition is the best way to solve discriminatory behaviour. And new regulations will most probably reduce the competition.
@ShwangShwing Most people in the United States only have one or two providers available to them, and they are at or below tier three. There are only about 15 tier one providers in the world. “Tube” is a relatively accurate word to describe internet infrastructure, and is used in the telecom industry all the time; and for someone who is unable to find his/her own words to describe it, he/she should except “tubes” until he/she finds a different word.
@snoglydox Then the problem will be better solved if there is more competition. So in the USA there are only two providers for most people? That's kind of strange. I live in the capitol of Bulgaria (Eastern Europe, currently the poorest country that somehow got in the EU) and I have more than 10 providers in my area. In most cities there is at least 3 providers available. So lack of competition is the problem, not lack of regulation. Do you really trust the regulators?
@ShwangShwing Regulation is what makes competition possible, else the ILEC would not allow the CLEC to connect, a problem that existed before the middle eighties. So...you have ten cables running to your place of living? Wow...I have a few pictures of some highly popularizes cities, where the sky is covered with wires, and there is only one carrier that does the actual copper connection.
@snoglydox They banned the air cables a few years ago lol. And that kind of sucks for the providers, because the canals where the cables can be laid are all owned by a former state monopoly from communist times. About the regulation: big players usually have enough money to bribe or in some way influence the regulators and policy makers, and the smaller companies don't. So you must see that there is a danger of big players gaining even more power.
@ShwangShwing I trust the regulators of beef to make sure it's not contaminated. Should we get rid of those too? The regulators are answerable to the people and have a clear goal that is one I agree with. When we say 3 providers we're talking about major providers. In Bulgaria there are probably 10 sub companies accessing those same 2 or 3 major outlets. Without regulation eventually you just have one company running everything. "Competition" only works for the consumer until someone wins
@ShwangShwing What's even worse is that what if you want to start an internet business? Now your site will be slower unless you pay what amounts to "protection money" to the major providers to not slow your site down. THAT is what kills competition. To have real competition that benefits consumers and fosters opportunity not just for big players is to have a level playing field. That's what Net Neutrality is about. MORE competition MORE opportunities for all of us.
@ShwangShwing Wow it must be nice to have a choice!, i only have one provider in my area if net neutrality goes so does my internet freedom. The cable company has a franchise agreement in my country therefor eliminating competition.
@dissturbbed The more regulations you place the harder it becomes for competition to enter the market. Beware that the so called "net neutrality" may have the very opposite effect. Beware the unintended consequences.
@ShwangShwing Competition is endangered when service providers are permitted to slow down and speed up specific sites as they see fit, potentially making affiliated sites run faster and slowing the sites of competitors to a crawl. I get internet from Comcast," the only broadband provider for my area", but instead of paying Comcast for premium cable television service, I use a Slingbox that is dependant on comcast, " THEIR COMPETITOR to transmit their content. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON
@ShwangShwing Well since all regulation/government is bad lets deregulate the housing market.OOPS bad idea, Well how about get government out of the stock market..OOPS i forgot about the great depression. You know im with you in a lot of ways i hate big scary government just like the next hardcore republican but sometimes you do need laws in place. One thing we DONT need is the Bush patriot act, Hitler did the same thing after the reichstag fire president Bush did it after 9-11.
@dissturbbed The housing market was regulated. The stock market was also regulated. And who will regulate the government? Who's watching the watchman? I can assure you that less regulation in telecommunication sector gives better services for lower prices. And big telecoms will use net neutrality to drive out small competitors. The outcome will be the opposite of the expected one.
@ShwangShwing The housing market was deregulated in the late to early nineties, the stock market back in the early twenties and earlier had no limits, laws and etc. in place which investors/bankers apparently took advantage. Whos watching the watchman well thats simple me and you by voting, my question is who is watching the lobbyist or corporate america. Now you answer my question, how will net neutrality drive out small competitors?
@dissturbbed How will net neutrality drive out small competitors? Well, first of all no one knows what the net neutrality bill will look like. Second, the big company always have resources and money to make the small company come out guilty of breaking some net neutrality rule. Further the big company can bribe the correct people so that when it breaks the rules there will be no consequences. Don't think of the government as some kind of an guardian angel, because government is made of people.
@ShwangShwing You can say that about any law, you can say that about labor laws, food safety laws "FDA", equal opportunity laws, environmental "polution", and etc. of course people are going to break laws but can you imagine a world or the U.S. without them? corporations dont care about me and you they care about the bottom line "money", just ask Mexico how great the average worker has it then you will get your answer or you could look back in history when children were slaves
raininginhell and HexTest, read sinistar99's post, and learn the difference between facts and bullshit; I understand your reading and comprehension is lacking, and you need pictures and videos, so the only think I can tell you, is to visit the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
@snoglydox - You have yet to event present any facts. Dozens of comments later you have still failed to provide real world examples where ISPs have slowed down service to certain sites with just cause and explain why we can trust the FCC instead to ensure internet service remains effective.
Give us the evidence so you actually have ground to stand on please.
@HexTest Not only have you have never asked that question, you keep trying to divert the topic from your asinine post of 5 statements. You want me to prove it? I live in central Florida; give me your E-mail, and if able, I show it to your face! I answered this question the your boyfriend; this is not a format to get into details, and I am not going to make a fucking video, because I am from the days of BOOKS! READ!
@snoglydox - YOU were the one who brought up things unrelated to that comment, so you only have yourself to blame. And what is "the your boyfriend?" And since you're in the days of books, read "A Concise Introduction to Logic." I think you might benefit.
@snoglydox - No I don't, first I posted a comment explaining what motives someone might have for supporting NN and then you said most if not all of them were irrelevant and then proceeded to change the subject.
@snoglydox - You yourself are admitting here that you have no facts to stand on - rather what you do instead is insult people you disagree with. If you want to be more persuasive I suggest you stick to the facts.
@HexTest Where have I; this is not a forum to converse in such a manner, and certainly you have shown you can type faster than me, so I point you to in directions to google the information. I am more than willing to converse in a manner more appropriate; I live in Central Florida. Every post I have made is fact, in history books, in court files, or otherwise easily accessible.
@HexTest Verizon...Comcast...METRO PCS, are the ones in the news at this time. On the other hand, Netflix is having to actually pay extra for the last mile to many providers, which is double dipping, because the CUSTOMER is paying for that last mile already. GOOGLE IT! There is not enough space in the forum, and my time is more important than spending writing to someone who is making bullshit statements, and trying to defend them by changing the subject.
@snoglydox - Send me the link please. And it sounds like there are far more providers to choose from than just Comcast. And why did Comcast do whatever you claim they did in the first place?
@HexTest I don't work for Comcast, and if you are referring to issues Netflix is having, it involves many providers...and the answer to that is likely to pocket more money.
Try “Google.com” and type in “Netflix” in the little text box, then click on the “search button.”
@snoglydox - Yes you do. I'm sorry if asking for facts sounds a little demanding to you, but it does. Explain why it supposedly makes me look stupid - by all means enlighten me.
@snoglydox - I already provided that in a PM. Do you want me to quote you on my channel and have the link there as well so other people will know you could care less about facts when they are put in front of you?
HEY EVERBODY, I POSTED "THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PROVIDERS IN THIS COUNTRY"...WELL UNFORTUNATLY, "NOT EVERBODY HAS ACCESS TO ALL OF THEM, MOST ARE DIAL-UP, AND MOST GO THROUGH THE SAME TWO COPPER WIRES RUNNING TO YOUR RESIDENCE...SAME TWO COPPER WIRES."
HEXDICK WILL AVOID QUOTING THE SECOND PART OF THAT SENTANCE, BECAUSE HE WANTS TO MISLEAD YOU.
Hey did you conservatives know this: THE GOVERNMENT HAS OUR BILLOF RIGHTS! That's right! OMG our freedom of speech, our right ot bear arms... ALL OWNED AND ENFORCED BY (GHASP) THE GOVERNMENT! You know who doesn't have a Bill of Rights or Constitution? Comcast! And good luck "choosing another corporation" when they ALL screw you. What's wrong with Republicans? Any time grownups try to do anything that actually benefits them they cry Socialism or some "ism" they don't understand.
@sinistar99 - So all market firms are corrupt, so we must instead entrust our lives to government - which has the power to screw us over even more (and strangely enough - can't even seem to follow the constitution) without giving us the option to opt out. The inanity speaks for itself.
And no, you don't have to even be registered to vote to know that government cannot be trusted to follow it's own rules.
@HexTest "And no, you don't have to even be registered to vote to know that government cannot be trusted to follow it's own rules."
But without the government THERE ARE NO RULES! At least the government has rules. And yes ALL MARKET FIRMS ARE CORRUPT. By definition they have no objective what so ever other than to make the most money. If that means blocking sites and not others then they absolutely will. They have no choice. Govt is the only thing that can regulate them. Period.
@sinistar99 - Market firms are no where NEAR as corrupt as government. And in a market there are rules, making the most money requires pleasing the most customers, which is a far cry from any government initiative you or I could ever think of.
@HexTest Once again, your reading and comprehension skills are lacking. You complain about government not following their own rules, yet Libertarian movement is about having little or no rules; so, you are an anarchist.
@snoglydox - Once again - character assassination with no facts to stand on. Government has had quite a bit of trouble following it's own rules - and Libertarianism is about sticking with the rules it actually does have a need and incentive to enforce. On top of this, I reject communal ownership - so I am not an anarchist either (google it - unless you're afraid your ISP is slowing you down).
From Wikipedia: Network neutrality is a principle proposed for users' access to networks participating in the internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.
...Continued: The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.
@snoglydox - State your case then please instead of attacking me and claiming to be more qualified than you really are. Take a logic course if that helps.
@snoglydox - The fact that the FCC is VERY good at censoring things and that government has found tremendous excuses for gaining more control over things than it needs to. I my problem with NN is I don't trust the FCC over ISPs.
@HexTest I am more qualified than you; if I weren’t, then you would not be asking questions from introductory courses, making you ignorant of the subject.
@snoglydox - If you were more qualified than me you would explain why NN is necessary instead of CLAIMING that I know nothing and you know everything. Best to shut up and be thought of as ignorant then to do what you did and cast out all doubt.
@snoglydox - Wow, just found out that very regulation is what AT&T is trying to use to imposed unfair burdens on their competitors. Techdirt has a good article on it.
@snoglydox - I already did. Creating a law against something that doesn't happen by taxing people so others have the power to do that very thing that doesn't happen is self-defeating.
@HexTest So you would rather wait until your closest members of your family were murdered to create a law against it? Or would you just not ever have a law against it, and have everybody killing each other? That reminds me of someplace, and they don’t have clean water to drink, food to eat, roofs over their heads, etc. If that’s the way you want to live, then why don’t you just move there?
@snoglydox - Explain to me how murder is relevant to internet service. And explain how giving the FCC the power to do what you want it to prevent ISPs from doing will solve anything. And explain what this "someplace" is and how NN regulation would apply to them.
@snoglydox - What degrees? And did they teach you anything about what an "Ad Hominem" attack is? If not, you need to sue the faulty institution that gave you those "degrees" in the first place.
@snoglydox - What am I ignoring? And why should I listen to you when all your comments are character assassination - included one in which you insisted only a gay man would be against NN? ;D
@snoglydox - You insisted earlier that me an another commenter on here must have been "boyfriends," or something to that effect. Anyone on here can scroll through the comments and see it for themselves.
@HexTest Prove your case of your original 5 statements; I have actually posted definitions (part of my “stating my case“) that prove your statements are bullshit, so try to prove the definition wrong -- IT’S THE FUCKING DEFINITION, SO IT CAN’T BE WRONG!
@snoglydox - That there is plenty of competition to prevent poor service by ISPs, that customers won't buy from crappy ISPs, that the FCC will cave into the ISP with the most power - which is how every other regulatory faction pans out (caving into people with the most power), that defining NN to mean "fairness" means that a government imposition is impossible, that government regulation of ISPs is what allows China and Pakistan to censor web, some data is more important than others, etc.
@snoglydox - So NN is also supposed to protect us from GOVERNMENT restrictions by giving the power to do so to government itself. The irony of that policy speaks for itself.
And just how the hell do you expect the FCC to enforce this kind of policy in the first place (not that it's necessary)?
@HexTest And lets stop this "well they haven't done it YET" bs argument. That's not an argument. Just because it hasn't happened yet (which you can not know) doesn't IN ANY WAY mean there shouldn't be a rule against it. I'm just curious about why such a rule would bother you. Are you an isp planning on blocking sites you don't like or what?
@sinistar99 - Do you trust the FCC to prevent something that hasn't happened or do you admit they might find an excuse to use their power for other things? And how the hell can they be expected to monitor billions of data packets and make sure they all get equal treatment?
Comment removed
Seiku 1 week ago
All you people here from a year or two ago arguing that "we need to put the government in charge of the internet to prevent corporations from censoring our websites" are now responsible for the Stop Online Piracy Act. The worst case of internet censorship we have ever had. The corporations never censored anything but you were so afraid of what MIGHT happen that you put the government in charge. Now we have SOPA to worry about thanks to you.
Next time be more careful.
FartyFace 2 weeks ago
who the fuck would dislike this? 39 people are fuckheads!
computergeek123ism 3 weeks ago
jon lajoie
AcidGoesMusic 4 weeks ago
I like the Internet as it is!! I download movies using Bit Torrent and I get all the bandwidth I can grab!! And I cut all you morons off by copying copyrighted movies!! HAHA!!
LameBrainMcCain 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How about just forcing companies to be transparent, so consumers know what is being blocked or slowed down. An independent web site that generates a report, like when you check your internet speed. Then consumers can make an informed decision on who they want to buy from.
JeffSteelman 1 month ago
This is complete bullshit.
koalabat 2 months ago
The internet is only going to get better, faster and cheaper, unless these COCK SUCKER busy bodies get their way. The free market has given us the progress on internet access today. The internet has been getting FASTER, CHEAPER, MORE ACCESSIBLE than ever because of NO GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT! Now we want to add some gov. bureaucracy to the mix? I say HELL NO! Let people vote with their wallets!
drshlotzkin 3 months ago
@drshlotzkin
Now? This rule has been in place for years.
AmericanNohbuddy 2 months ago
@drshlotzkin Net neutrality has been in place since the beginning. This video isn't great, and doesn't explain it well. As it stands now, a small business can set up a website, and just pay their host to host it. If we drop net neutrality, they'll have to make an expensive deal with every ISP, if they want that ISP's customers to be able to view the site. It'll crush small businesses, and restrict what people can view.
particle409 2 months ago
Why the fuck do people always gotta argue about shit fucking a man it doesn't solve anything especially online we need to work together so shit like this don't happen.
xXBCARLXx 4 months ago
Comment removed
xXBCARLXx 4 months ago
I think the "Digital Divide" and "net neutrality" projects are part of government-controlled internet. Taxpayers already provide free cell phones for those on government assistance. You can get internet service at any public library. With only 49% of the USA paying taxes, seems to me "too many are riding in the wagon and not enough PULLING!"
vechorik 5 months ago
@vechorik
So what if you can use a computer at a library? You can't use it all day, and there are certain sites they probably wont' let you on.
AmericanNohbuddy 2 months ago
You can say that about any law, you can say that about labor laws, food safety laws "FDA", minimum wage laws, equal opportunity laws, environmental "polution", and etc. of course people are going to break laws but can you imagine a world or the U.S. without them? corporations dont care about me and you they care about the bottom line "money", just ask Mexico how great the average worker has it then you will get your answer or you could look back in history when children were slaves.
dissturbbed 6 months ago
When I see a government program do more good then harm, I might get behind this. But really...if an internet provider starts slowing down access to sites you like, you will switch to a different provider, and they know it. So what would they gain by doing something that would cause them to lose customers?
generic7527 6 months ago
@generic7527 "When I see a government program do more good then harm. "
Net neutrality did do more good than harm in the 90s, but what about Social Security. There's only 3 major telecom companies, if all them do it your screwed, not to mention you'd be more likely to assume the problem is with the site than your isp. & Why did Comcast spend so much in legal fees to strike it down if they didn't intend to take advantage?
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@generic7527 "When I see a government program do more good then harm, I might get behind this. " So highway system not working for you? GPS sattelites not helping anyone? Original Internet didn't do any good? Don't like seeing the ingredients on the food you by? Bill of Rights is a bad thing? Honestly.
sinistar99 6 months ago
Corporations are lobbying so much against net neutrality its unreal how far they are going with it calling it another government entity. I used to be one of those people who bought into their scheme until i read and educated myself about what is really going on behind closed doors.
dissturbbed 7 months ago
But according to this they're not slowing down small sites. They're speeding up big ones. They said it themselves so I don't under stand the problem. Plus, those big sites has tons of bandwidth issues. It sounds like this organisation is preventing companies from expanding the bandwidth?
JJohnston4Life 7 months ago
Net neutrality is a principle which advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in the internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, or the modes of communication.
snapy666 8 months ago 5
I like how the video starts out: "The way the internet is today..."; it starts with the proposition and understanding that there is currently NO problem; the free market is holding ISP's to the pretenses of net neutrality without the need for regulation.
This freedom of information neutrality and consumer choice we now enjoy is the product of the free market forces. Net neutrality will have the unintended consequence of actually destroying the free market forces keeping companies in check = BAD
BSD2000 8 months ago
@BSD2000 "This freedom of information neutrality and consumer choice we now enjoy is the product of the free market forces" Well kind of. Internet started out as a government program and a "Free market" depends on not having monopolies. It's like saying Freedom of Speech will have the unintended consequence of destroying the free market of media or soemthing = doesn't make sense.
sinistar99 6 months ago
@sinistar99 You are making the assumption that the internet was entirely created by 'the government', as if it was a closed loop and isolated entity in a vacuum, which it isn't. Every aspect of the creation of the internet was derived from technology created, manufactured and implemented by the private sector. The government doesn't 'create' anything on it's own. It contracts the private sector to do all the work. Without the free market and capitalism, there would be no internet, period.
BSD2000 6 months ago
It's nice to see videos of ignorant puppets supporting regulation that will destroy the internet as we know it. Net Neutrality will have unintended consequences that will increase the cost, lower accessibility and speed. Get ready to pay per gigabyte for your access and kiss your 'unlimited access' plan goodbye, or pay a much higher premium to keep that plan. The consequences of the bill will CAUSE the problems it was meant to prevent. Just say NO to the government.
BSD2000 8 months ago
@BSD2000 It's nice to hear ignorant puppets speaking out against their own interests. God forbid we should keep media corporations from deciding which sites come through faster than others. How will it increase cost? If there's no problem with a neutral net now then why would there be a problem making sure we keep it that way?
sinistar99 6 months ago
@sinistar99 Your comment reflect the fact that you really need to do more research into the real reasons why ISP's WANT Net Neutrality. It's not all puppy dogs and rainbows. Monthly data caps, elimination of 'unlimited' data plans, higher plan prices, and speed throttling have been the results in places like Canada, which introduced it's version of Net Neutrality. Do you want ISP's colluding with the government to control pricing, access and speed? Unintended consequences always make it worse.
BSD2000 6 months ago
Ban 2nd Amendment! Keep the Government out of our right to bear arms! That's how much sense you're making.
sinistar99 6 months ago
I'm for net neutrality
but i think this video is very bias
the people who are against net neutrality have some very valid points - but u only tried to make them look bad
crasherball 9 months ago
@crasherball But in the end it boils down to single thing for those companys. money. for us this is more important then getting more rigading, it is about freedome of expresion.
gooddarkjedi 9 months ago
Same old same old we get shafted and they profit from it. They want to lock down the internet with copyright laws so you can be spoon fed content, they make the most money possible and we get a cable service instead of internet.
shit that realy gets to me atm is 'this vidio is not avalable in your contry' 'They then will moan about pirates while blocking people form content that has been broadcast in the country they are blocking I’m looking at you channel 4.
darkblood626 10 months ago
Net Neutrality is not about changing the way it initially started as, and what made it so popular; it is about keeping it the way it initially started, and what made it so popular.
I take this word from a previous poster: willful ignorance.
Imagine home internet access working similar to the internet access you get from a cell phone today: you may call who you want, but you are limited on internet access.
snoglydox 10 months ago
The very best part is once it is in the hands of a governmental regulatory agency, that agency will scream that they are now underfunded with all this new responsibility. So within a few years, they will TAX the internet to pay for it!
If Comcast form an unholy alliance with Google and Netflicks, and throttles yahoo and you tube, who cares, if that is important to you, Verizon will form an allince with Yahoo and offer more bandwidth to Youtube and optimzed searching with yahoo.
mcihak1219 11 months ago
@mcihak1219 "...If Comcast form an unholy alliance with Google and Netflicks" Then one or a small handful of companies will decide what sites YOU can see. I'd pay a few pennies extra to keep that from happening. I like to decide things myself. Americans are goofy that way.
sinistar99 6 months ago
Apple can choose not to do business with Verizon. Did that destroy the mobile phone market. You simply chose not to use Apple if you wanted Verizon. What did this do to Apple, it hurt them, as as soon as they could they got wise and offered what people wanted, and got with verizon. What would your monthly bill and data rates be if all telecoms HAD to pay to install, and provide 4G bandwidth to cover the entire country. A lot worse. Like fast cheap internet, learn to HATE Net Neutrality.
mcihak1219 11 months ago
@mcihak1219 If they ALL decide to speed up and slow down different sites then who will you chose to do business with? How will you even know? By your logic there should be no requirement to say put ingredients on our food because the free market will somehow magically give us that information. "What would your bill be bla bla bla" irrelivent that's not what Net Neutrality is about at all. There was a government requirement to provide electricity to rural areas in the 50s -worked out great!
sinistar99 6 months ago
Show me one example where a government mandated one size fits all mandated policy, installed under the banner of "Fairness" has not increased prices and diminished service.
There is no "Cell Phone Nuetrality", but somehow we can call whoever we like, pay in any way we like, for as many or a few services, in what ever quantities we want.
mcihak1219 11 months ago
The unintended consequence is everyone gets throttled and increased prices. We will all have to pay for the infrastructure that is needed to being high rates to the sticks. It costs a fortune to connect the sticks, and will all pay. The other fun fact is that band width is not air, it is not unlimited, so if they have to pump high bandwidth to the sticks, they will be getting it from somewhere, and that is from the rest of us.
mcihak1219 11 months ago
@mcihak1219 "Air" is not unlimited.
snoglydox 10 months ago
Net neutrality is awesome. I cant wait to not be able to use Netflicks because small towns that surround me and barely use bandwidth are forced to take the same 8mbs I get. I'm also sure those rural users will be stoked to have to pay the price i pay instead of a bargain price for 1.5mbs. It will be awesome to see those users, who have one and only one ISP, just disconnect because it isn't worth 70 bucks a month to them, when they used to pay less than half that.
mcihak1219 11 months ago
@mcihak1219 Are forced to take 8Mbps? You do not know what net neutrality is. NN is about making sure if you pay for 8Mbps, and you are accessing another computer that is paying for 8Mbps, the path-holders in the middle keep your access at 8Mbps.
E.g. imagine paying rent on an apartment, and then paying more to live there: it is called double dipping.
snoglydox 10 months ago
i'm sick of people giving the free market argument to defend taking away net neutrality. The net neutrality of the internet is the best example of a free market.
ljp7c4 11 months ago
The 27 people who disliked this should just get rid of their internet connection and go watch tv or something...
deminpig 11 months ago
Internet is something a lot different then ... "pipes".
ShwangShwing 11 months ago
@ShwangShwing Explain it with your own words.
snoglydox 11 months ago
@snoglydox I am not good at explaining, but there is a substantial technological differences between pipes and the ip infrastructure. Setting rules for ISPs is very likely to backfire and create more problems than it solves. The best course of action is to leave the providers unregulated and if you don't like what your ISP is doing, just change it. Really, competition is the best way to solve discriminatory behaviour. And new regulations will most probably reduce the competition.
ShwangShwing 11 months ago
@ShwangShwing Most people in the United States only have one or two providers available to them, and they are at or below tier three. There are only about 15 tier one providers in the world. “Tube” is a relatively accurate word to describe internet infrastructure, and is used in the telecom industry all the time; and for someone who is unable to find his/her own words to describe it, he/she should except “tubes” until he/she finds a different word.
snoglydox 11 months ago
@snoglydox Then the problem will be better solved if there is more competition. So in the USA there are only two providers for most people? That's kind of strange. I live in the capitol of Bulgaria (Eastern Europe, currently the poorest country that somehow got in the EU) and I have more than 10 providers in my area. In most cities there is at least 3 providers available. So lack of competition is the problem, not lack of regulation. Do you really trust the regulators?
ShwangShwing 11 months ago
@ShwangShwing Regulation is what makes competition possible, else the ILEC would not allow the CLEC to connect, a problem that existed before the middle eighties. So...you have ten cables running to your place of living? Wow...I have a few pictures of some highly popularizes cities, where the sky is covered with wires, and there is only one carrier that does the actual copper connection.
snoglydox 11 months ago
@snoglydox They banned the air cables a few years ago lol. And that kind of sucks for the providers, because the canals where the cables can be laid are all owned by a former state monopoly from communist times. About the regulation: big players usually have enough money to bribe or in some way influence the regulators and policy makers, and the smaller companies don't. So you must see that there is a danger of big players gaining even more power.
ShwangShwing 11 months ago
@ShwangShwing I trust the regulators of beef to make sure it's not contaminated. Should we get rid of those too? The regulators are answerable to the people and have a clear goal that is one I agree with. When we say 3 providers we're talking about major providers. In Bulgaria there are probably 10 sub companies accessing those same 2 or 3 major outlets. Without regulation eventually you just have one company running everything. "Competition" only works for the consumer until someone wins
sinistar99 6 months ago
@ShwangShwing What's even worse is that what if you want to start an internet business? Now your site will be slower unless you pay what amounts to "protection money" to the major providers to not slow your site down. THAT is what kills competition. To have real competition that benefits consumers and fosters opportunity not just for big players is to have a level playing field. That's what Net Neutrality is about. MORE competition MORE opportunities for all of us.
sinistar99 6 months ago
@sinistar99 If I have to pay "protection money" then I will just go with another provider.
ShwangShwing 6 months ago
@ShwangShwing Wow it must be nice to have a choice!, i only have one provider in my area if net neutrality goes so does my internet freedom. The cable company has a franchise agreement in my country therefor eliminating competition.
dissturbbed 6 months ago
@dissturbbed The more regulations you place the harder it becomes for competition to enter the market. Beware that the so called "net neutrality" may have the very opposite effect. Beware the unintended consequences.
ShwangShwing 6 months ago
@ShwangShwing Competition is endangered when service providers are permitted to slow down and speed up specific sites as they see fit, potentially making affiliated sites run faster and slowing the sites of competitors to a crawl. I get internet from Comcast," the only broadband provider for my area", but instead of paying Comcast for premium cable television service, I use a Slingbox that is dependant on comcast, " THEIR COMPETITOR to transmit their content. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON
dissturbbed 6 months ago
@dissturbbed Then the problem is that Comcast is the only provider in your area, not that the providers are not regulated enough.
ShwangShwing 6 months ago
@ShwangShwing Well since all regulation/government is bad lets deregulate the housing market.OOPS bad idea, Well how about get government out of the stock market..OOPS i forgot about the great depression. You know im with you in a lot of ways i hate big scary government just like the next hardcore republican but sometimes you do need laws in place. One thing we DONT need is the Bush patriot act, Hitler did the same thing after the reichstag fire president Bush did it after 9-11.
dissturbbed 6 months ago
@dissturbbed The housing market was regulated. The stock market was also regulated. And who will regulate the government? Who's watching the watchman? I can assure you that less regulation in telecommunication sector gives better services for lower prices. And big telecoms will use net neutrality to drive out small competitors. The outcome will be the opposite of the expected one.
ShwangShwing 6 months ago
@ShwangShwing The housing market was deregulated in the late to early nineties, the stock market back in the early twenties and earlier had no limits, laws and etc. in place which investors/bankers apparently took advantage. Whos watching the watchman well thats simple me and you by voting, my question is who is watching the lobbyist or corporate america. Now you answer my question, how will net neutrality drive out small competitors?
dissturbbed 6 months ago
@dissturbbed How will net neutrality drive out small competitors? Well, first of all no one knows what the net neutrality bill will look like. Second, the big company always have resources and money to make the small company come out guilty of breaking some net neutrality rule. Further the big company can bribe the correct people so that when it breaks the rules there will be no consequences. Don't think of the government as some kind of an guardian angel, because government is made of people.
ShwangShwing 6 months ago
@ShwangShwing You can say that about any law, you can say that about labor laws, food safety laws "FDA", equal opportunity laws, environmental "polution", and etc. of course people are going to break laws but can you imagine a world or the U.S. without them? corporations dont care about me and you they care about the bottom line "money", just ask Mexico how great the average worker has it then you will get your answer or you could look back in history when children were slaves
dissturbbed 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dissturbbed
so~~ what are you going to do about it
sirtophatandmoncle 6 months ago
raininginhell and HexTest, read sinistar99's post, and learn the difference between facts and bullshit; I understand your reading and comprehension is lacking, and you need pictures and videos, so the only think I can tell you, is to visit the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - You have yet to event present any facts. Dozens of comments later you have still failed to provide real world examples where ISPs have slowed down service to certain sites with just cause and explain why we can trust the FCC instead to ensure internet service remains effective.
Give us the evidence so you actually have ground to stand on please.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Not only have you have never asked that question, you keep trying to divert the topic from your asinine post of 5 statements. You want me to prove it? I live in central Florida; give me your E-mail, and if able, I show it to your face! I answered this question the your boyfriend; this is not a format to get into details, and I am not going to make a fucking video, because I am from the days of BOOKS! READ!
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - YOU were the one who brought up things unrelated to that comment, so you only have yourself to blame. And what is "the your boyfriend?" And since you're in the days of books, read "A Concise Introduction to Logic." I think you might benefit.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest My original comment was on you 5 bullshit comments; do you have memory problems, too?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - No I don't, first I posted a comment explaining what motives someone might have for supporting NN and then you said most if not all of them were irrelevant and then proceeded to change the subject.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Prove your statements to be the facts you give the impression of.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - I should be asking you to do the same.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest An admittance of your bullshit. Dick.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - You yourself are admitting here that you have no facts to stand on - rather what you do instead is insult people you disagree with. If you want to be more persuasive I suggest you stick to the facts.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Where have I; this is not a forum to converse in such a manner, and certainly you have shown you can type faster than me, so I point you to in directions to google the information. I am more than willing to converse in a manner more appropriate; I live in Central Florida. Every post I have made is fact, in history books, in court files, or otherwise easily accessible.
snoglydox 1 year ago
Comment removed
snoglydox 1 year ago
@HexTest Tell me how I changed the subject?
snoglydox 1 year ago
Comment removed
snoglydox 1 year ago
@HexTest Your boyfriend is the guy you are flirting with on here.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Keep your fantasies to yourself.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Does your preferred sexual preference scare you?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - No, being straight is fine with me. Do you wish I were something else? Does it even matter?
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Apparently to you it does.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@HexTest I have read dozens of logic books, and not just the cover from some site I googled, which is the likelihood of what you did.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Tell me what they said about "Ad Hominem" attacks and then get back to me when you do.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Does it bother you that I am right?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - About nothing?
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Apparently it does bother you.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Tell me these facts which you persistently claim exist but refuse to make apparent.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Verizon...Comcast...METRO PCS, are the ones in the news at this time. On the other hand, Netflix is having to actually pay extra for the last mile to many providers, which is double dipping, because the CUSTOMER is paying for that last mile already. GOOGLE IT! There is not enough space in the forum, and my time is more important than spending writing to someone who is making bullshit statements, and trying to defend them by changing the subject.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Send me the link please. And it sounds like there are far more providers to choose from than just Comcast. And why did Comcast do whatever you claim they did in the first place?
HexTest 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HexTest Try "Google.com" and type in "Comcast" in the little text box, then click on the "search button."
snoglydox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HexTest I don't work for Comcast, and if you are referring to issues Netflix is having, it involves many providers...and the answer to that is likely to pocket more money.
Try “Google.com” and type in “Netflix” in the little text box, then click on the “search button.”
snoglydox 1 year ago
@HexTest “And it sounds like there are far more providers to choose from than just Comcast.”
You may think you’re clever with this statement, but it just makes you look like a dumb-ass: Do I really need to say why?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Yes you do. I'm sorry if asking for facts sounds a little demanding to you, but it does. Explain why it supposedly makes me look stupid - by all means enlighten me.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest What statements have I written that you do not take as facts?
snoglydox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snoglydox - All of them. All your statements consist of attacks on me. Point to the exceptions.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest I call it as I see it; you’re a person willing to betray others. You are a dick.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Betray who? As stated before, if ISPs aren't affecting the service they provide to their customers there is nothing to worry about.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Inform this forum, of all the providers you have access to, and give proof of each provider you have access to.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Look up a website called the list. On there look up any area code and tell me which ones don't have enough competition.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest List all the people you know that live in an entire area code, giving them access to all the listed providers in an area code, and prove it.
snoglydox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@snoglydox - I already provided that in a PM. Do you want me to quote you on my channel and have the link there as well so other people will know you could care less about facts when they are put in front of you?
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest
HEY EVERBODY, I POSTED "THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF PROVIDERS IN THIS COUNTRY"...WELL UNFORTUNATLY, "NOT EVERBODY HAS ACCESS TO ALL OF THEM, MOST ARE DIAL-UP, AND MOST GO THROUGH THE SAME TWO COPPER WIRES RUNNING TO YOUR RESIDENCE...SAME TWO COPPER WIRES."
HEXDICK WILL AVOID QUOTING THE SECOND PART OF THAT SENTANCE, BECAUSE HE WANTS TO MISLEAD YOU.
snoglydox 11 months ago
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
MANY ARE NOT EVEN PROVIDERS, AND MANY DO NOT EXIST.
THE SITE...TRY THELIST DOT COM
snoglydox 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HexTest
“Also if customers don't see a problem then apparently the "slowing down" of service isn't anything worth complaining about.”
This is part of a post you made, and implies you are willing to mislead people; by slang definition this makes you a dick.
snoglydox 1 year ago
Hey did you conservatives know this: THE GOVERNMENT HAS OUR BILLOF RIGHTS! That's right! OMG our freedom of speech, our right ot bear arms... ALL OWNED AND ENFORCED BY (GHASP) THE GOVERNMENT! You know who doesn't have a Bill of Rights or Constitution? Comcast! And good luck "choosing another corporation" when they ALL screw you. What's wrong with Republicans? Any time grownups try to do anything that actually benefits them they cry Socialism or some "ism" they don't understand.
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 - So all market firms are corrupt, so we must instead entrust our lives to government - which has the power to screw us over even more (and strangely enough - can't even seem to follow the constitution) without giving us the option to opt out. The inanity speaks for itself.
And no, you don't have to even be registered to vote to know that government cannot be trusted to follow it's own rules.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest "And no, you don't have to even be registered to vote to know that government cannot be trusted to follow it's own rules."
But without the government THERE ARE NO RULES! At least the government has rules. And yes ALL MARKET FIRMS ARE CORRUPT. By definition they have no objective what so ever other than to make the most money. If that means blocking sites and not others then they absolutely will. They have no choice. Govt is the only thing that can regulate them. Period.
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 - Market firms are no where NEAR as corrupt as government. And in a market there are rules, making the most money requires pleasing the most customers, which is a far cry from any government initiative you or I could ever think of.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest WTF…what do you Libertarians care about the constitution; without the Government, there is none.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - What does anarchy have to do with this???
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Once again, your reading and comprehension skills are lacking. You complain about government not following their own rules, yet Libertarian movement is about having little or no rules; so, you are an anarchist.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Once again - character assassination with no facts to stand on. Government has had quite a bit of trouble following it's own rules - and Libertarianism is about sticking with the rules it actually does have a need and incentive to enforce. On top of this, I reject communal ownership - so I am not an anarchist either (google it - unless you're afraid your ISP is slowing you down).
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest What is it that bothers you most about someone educating you?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Once again, all talk - no facts. That sums you up perfectly.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Why are you avoiding the question?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Avoiding what question?
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Why did you bring up anarchy?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Why did YOU bring up anarchy? You insisted that I am an anarchist for rejecting FCC control over ISPs.
HexTest 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HexTest Show us where I have written that.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@HexTest Why do you feel problems with my providers would fabricate fear of search engines?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Huh???
HexTest 1 year ago
From Wikipedia: Network neutrality is a principle proposed for users' access to networks participating in the internet. The principle advocates no restrictions by internet service providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and the modes of communication.
snoglydox 1 year ago
...Continued: The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - So why don't you think ISPs are doing that already?
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest
1. I read, instead of watching videos and looking at pictures.
2. I work in the telecommunication business.
3. Personal experience with both providers I have.
4. I am exceptionally intelligent, not that you have the intelligence to know that.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - State your case then please instead of attacking me and claiming to be more qualified than you really are. Take a logic course if that helps.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest I have, but your reading and comprehension skills are lacking; it’s in print, so re-read until you understand.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - More ad hominem. Show me the facts you claim you have or stop wasting bandwidth. ;D
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Again…does the truth bother you?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - No, the truth that competition fosters better service is something I welcome.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Why are you avoiding the question?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@HexTest Do you feel educating you is a waste of bandwidth? And if so, why do you continue?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - This is now the third comment in which you've said that you're "educating" me about something. What facts have you alluded to?
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Find one that isn’t a fact.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - The fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that ISPs are unjustly blocking service enough for us to trust the FCC instead.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest
What facts do you have to support your five statements?
Why do you have a problem with a dictionary definition of NN?
Tell us what I have written that is not a fact.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - The fact that the FCC is VERY good at censoring things and that government has found tremendous excuses for gaining more control over things than it needs to. I my problem with NN is I don't trust the FCC over ISPs.
What facts have you written that I have disputed?
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Prove it.
A cut and paste definition of NN is one.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Prove what? That NN involves the FCC gaining control over ISPs? Pretty sure that's how NN would be enforced...
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest I am more qualified than you; if I weren’t, then you would not be asking questions from introductory courses, making you ignorant of the subject.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - If you were more qualified than me you would explain why NN is necessary instead of CLAIMING that I know nothing and you know everything. Best to shut up and be thought of as ignorant then to do what you did and cast out all doubt.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Explain your lack of knowledge of telecommunication history.
Explain your lack of knowledge of the thousand of telecommunication regulations.
Explain your lack of understanding of what NN is.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - What lack of knowledge?
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest All the above.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Any particulars? If I have made false claims then perhaps you could be a little more specific than "all of the above."
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Show proof to this forum that I do not have more knowledge of telecommunications than you.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Everything you've said so far speaks for itself. Now show me proof that I should trust the FCC over ISPs.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest The resolution of the Justice Department case Against AT&T in 1984.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - 1984? And this has what to do with NN regulations?
HexTest 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Wow, just found out that very regulation is what AT&T is trying to use to imposed unfair burdens on their competitors. Techdirt has a good article on it.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Why have you not responded to the murder law post?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - I already did. Creating a law against something that doesn't happen by taxing people so others have the power to do that very thing that doesn't happen is self-defeating.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest So you would rather wait until your closest members of your family were murdered to create a law against it? Or would you just not ever have a law against it, and have everybody killing each other? That reminds me of someplace, and they don’t have clean water to drink, food to eat, roofs over their heads, etc. If that’s the way you want to live, then why don’t you just move there?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Explain to me how murder is relevant to internet service. And explain how giving the FCC the power to do what you want it to prevent ISPs from doing will solve anything. And explain what this "someplace" is and how NN regulation would apply to them.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest I have actually taken many courses that deal with logic; I can say that, and have the degrees with honors to show it…can you?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - What degrees? And did they teach you anything about what an "Ad Hominem" attack is? If not, you need to sue the faulty institution that gave you those "degrees" in the first place.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Why do you feel I should listen to you, when you do not make the simple efforts to know your adversary?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - What am I ignoring? And why should I listen to you when all your comments are character assassination - included one in which you insisted only a gay man would be against NN? ;D
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Show us where I have written, insisting only a gay man would be against NN?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - You insisted earlier that me an another commenter on here must have been "boyfriends," or something to that effect. Anyone on here can scroll through the comments and see it for themselves.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest What is it about the truth that bothers you?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Nothing, the truth is totally acceptable to me. ISPs can better handle the net than the FCC.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Prove your case of your original 5 statements; I have actually posted definitions (part of my “stating my case“) that prove your statements are bullshit, so try to prove the definition wrong -- IT’S THE FUCKING DEFINITION, SO IT CAN’T BE WRONG!
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - Which statements did you prove wrong?
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Which statements did I not prove wrong?
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - That there is plenty of competition to prevent poor service by ISPs, that customers won't buy from crappy ISPs, that the FCC will cave into the ISP with the most power - which is how every other regulatory faction pans out (caving into people with the most power), that defining NN to mean "fairness" means that a government imposition is impossible, that government regulation of ISPs is what allows China and Pakistan to censor web, some data is more important than others, etc.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Divide that paragraph up to the five statements you made.
snoglydox 1 year ago
@snoglydox - What paragraph?
HexTest 1 year ago
@snoglydox - So NN is also supposed to protect us from GOVERNMENT restrictions by giving the power to do so to government itself. The irony of that policy speaks for itself.
And just how the hell do you expect the FCC to enforce this kind of policy in the first place (not that it's necessary)?
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest And lets stop this "well they haven't done it YET" bs argument. That's not an argument. Just because it hasn't happened yet (which you can not know) doesn't IN ANY WAY mean there shouldn't be a rule against it. I'm just curious about why such a rule would bother you. Are you an isp planning on blocking sites you don't like or what?
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 - Do you trust the FCC to prevent something that hasn't happened or do you admit they might find an excuse to use their power for other things? And how the hell can they be expected to monitor billions of data packets and make sure they all get equal treatment?
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest Prove it hasn’t happened.
snoglydox 1 year ago