Oh glad to see we have a moralfag in the comments.
Why shouldn't I get my music for free? I can hear it in a store for free, or on the radio for free, or even in a public shopping center for free. Its a known fact that artists don't even make money off individual record sales, they make the big bucks for doing shows and events.
Either way, I dont see why I can't get my music for free. If I like the artist, I will buy swag (shirts and such) from them, that is free advertising right there~
So you're saying I should get my music for free yet file sharing is wrong? I don't understand what the hell you're trying to say.
And if a small artist really did have that big of a problem with it, then naturally as a fan I would be supporting them by going to shows, buying swag and etc. I've been to very very small 50 people venues with upcoming bands and even though they encourage people to buy their record, they want people to buy shirts and tell people about their band even more.
There's no reason to worry about net neutrality being destroyed, even IF a bill made it to the president, Obama would veto it. He's a strong supporter of net neutrality ( or so he says ). John McCain is just a paid asshole for AT&T among others and will do what it takes to govern for them. Never mind what the people want, Republicans will always take the corporate side over mere people and what's good for America. That is exactly the reason the Republicans are a shrinking minority. :|
McCain doesn't ever know what the hell the internet is, so he should keep quiet on ANY of this.
He is a dumb ass and anyone who is against Net Neutrality, is just trying to steal the internet out from under all of us, because they see TV dying and know if they don't CONTROL it, they will LOSE their POWER.
Every damn site that is NOT connected to a BIG telicom will be slowed to the point where people won't want to watch...
Hey, I'm supporting your right to ramble, it's a good thing.
Yeah, and about this, I'm guessing that McCain's kinda just throwing down random arguments to get himself into the news again. No one would give two shits about him if he was normal. It's only because he says things like this that he's still being watched, and his primary job is to get people to know about him.
You don't understand 'Net Neutrality'. It would be the first regulation on the internet. 'Net Neutrality' tells internet service providers exactly how to operate their own networks.
Now we don't have any regulation and the internet is getting better. Wireless networks, unlike before, offer unlimited data. If internet service providers want to slow/block content or add fees there is always the free market.
I love freedom of information, open development, but Net Neutrality is a step backward
By "regulation" you mean telling them to allow customers to (quote):
*access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
*run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
*connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network."
We don't have regulation, we have companies that are able to dictate whatever they please to the internet. Why do you think every other country in the world pays SOO little for internet access and cell phone use?
'Net Neutrality' also includes packet non-discrimination. It's not designed to allow equal access, rather equal service. The government would then determine what is fair service instead of the public.
And to be clear, NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THE INTERNET. Based on current conditions we don't need regulation at all, no matter how innocuous it sounds.
Keep in mind that these rules will take away people's rights, and everyone should understand how it affects ISP's before legislating the internet.
Thats sort of outlandish to assume this would lead to the government regulating content in the form of fair service.
To be honest, there are a shit-ton of problems with the current system. Like ISP's being able to throttle traffic (ComCast), hold customer records and sell them to other companies, as well as use them against their own customers in various situations (AT&T).
On top of the whole "we're overpaying for internet" bullshit. Other countries have double the speed we do in the US.
'Net Neutrality' basically says there is only one fair way to control a network, i.e. to give no preference to certain packets over others, meaning everything goes the same speed. Proponents of net neutrality claim that evil ISP's will eventually charge websites or consumers for ungoverned internet speeds, even though that has never happened in the history of our unregulated internet.
Also, 'Net Neutrality' would do nothing to lower the cost of bandwidth.
Never happened in history? Are you fucking stupid? Companies DO have that sort of limitation, LOOK AT COMCAST'S SERVICE.
Net Neutrality is about keeping the internet open to all, as well as making all content capable of the same speed and service. That "speed" as you claim cannot increase or become cheap via Net Neutrality would also not become more expensive or "slower" if regulated by the government, YOU have no proof that would happen or COULD happen.
'Net Neutrality' could indeed make the internet both slower and more expensive. If companies can't govern their networks then disproportionate bandwidth may be used by few applications resulting in slower networks. With net neutrality the only way to speed up the networks would be money into bandwidth investment, meaning higher prices.
Right now prices are going down and bandwidth going up without government regulation.
Saying "could" in that context seems to imply that you are not even confident in your own statement. Yet even still you haven't refuted my point that current ISPs and Telcom companies are indeed corrupt and have many quality control issues.
And as for prices going down and bandwidth going up, where the fuck do you magically live? Because I havent seen either of those things in Scottsdale, AZ for over 4 years.
The reason the ISPs care about net neutrality is because it keeps them from traffic-shaping (like QoS settings on a router,) and they'll get bogged down by bittorrent users.
More people are demanding streaming HD video. Without traffic-shaping (bottlenecking bt or capping individuals) they won't be able to provide it with any kind of regularity.
I believe internet service is a de facto utility like water or power, so I'm in favor of federal regulation. It's a sound principle, but a bad idea.
when did companies start charging money for more tv channels?....
i dont think that they will ever do what your saying to the internet.... too many people use it.
DaBossk 2 years ago
I bet that everyone who has commented has at least downloaded a music file of some sort
5663411096 2 years ago
"sharing information" you just want your music and movies for free
Bigeemil 2 years ago
Oh glad to see we have a moralfag in the comments.
Why shouldn't I get my music for free? I can hear it in a store for free, or on the radio for free, or even in a public shopping center for free. Its a known fact that artists don't even make money off individual record sales, they make the big bucks for doing shows and events.
Either way, I dont see why I can't get my music for free. If I like the artist, I will buy swag (shirts and such) from them, that is free advertising right there~
NiGHTSChao689 2 years ago
i dont say that you shouldnt get your music for free, i just think that people that say that file sharing is sharing information are talking bullshit
the really big artists dont care about small record sales.
but for some of the new artists it can make a huge difference to get their popularity and economy going.
Bigeemil 2 years ago
So you're saying I should get my music for free yet file sharing is wrong? I don't understand what the hell you're trying to say.
And if a small artist really did have that big of a problem with it, then naturally as a fan I would be supporting them by going to shows, buying swag and etc. I've been to very very small 50 people venues with upcoming bands and even though they encourage people to buy their record, they want people to buy shirts and tell people about their band even more.
NiGHTSChao689 2 years ago
internet FREEEEEEDOOOOM!!!
for only $30 per month!
KnuckleBallz 2 years ago
There's no reason to worry about net neutrality being destroyed, even IF a bill made it to the president, Obama would veto it. He's a strong supporter of net neutrality ( or so he says ). John McCain is just a paid asshole for AT&T among others and will do what it takes to govern for them. Never mind what the people want, Republicans will always take the corporate side over mere people and what's good for America. That is exactly the reason the Republicans are a shrinking minority. :|
skillz10101 2 years ago
Well said and true.
devildad1620 2 years ago
McCain doesn't ever know what the hell the internet is, so he should keep quiet on ANY of this.
He is a dumb ass and anyone who is against Net Neutrality, is just trying to steal the internet out from under all of us, because they see TV dying and know if they don't CONTROL it, they will LOSE their POWER.
Every damn site that is NOT connected to a BIG telicom will be slowed to the point where people won't want to watch...
Do nothing and get owned!!!
MoJoSB 2 years ago
Wow... what a flu you got there! ):
- Hope you get better soon.
Independante94 2 years ago
I'm from the east and yes I too support net neutrality!
alextimekiller87 2 years ago
Hey, I'm supporting your right to ramble, it's a good thing.
Yeah, and about this, I'm guessing that McCain's kinda just throwing down random arguments to get himself into the news again. No one would give two shits about him if he was normal. It's only because he says things like this that he's still being watched, and his primary job is to get people to know about him.
Remahr 2 years ago
You don't understand 'Net Neutrality'. It would be the first regulation on the internet. 'Net Neutrality' tells internet service providers exactly how to operate their own networks.
Now we don't have any regulation and the internet is getting better. Wireless networks, unlike before, offer unlimited data. If internet service providers want to slow/block content or add fees there is always the free market.
I love freedom of information, open development, but Net Neutrality is a step backward
techn0scho0lbus 2 years ago
By "regulation" you mean telling them to allow customers to (quote):
*access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
*run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
*connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network."
We don't have regulation, we have companies that are able to dictate whatever they please to the internet. Why do you think every other country in the world pays SOO little for internet access and cell phone use?
NiGHTSChao689 2 years ago
'Net Neutrality' also includes packet non-discrimination. It's not designed to allow equal access, rather equal service. The government would then determine what is fair service instead of the public.
And to be clear, NOTHING IS WRONG WITH THE INTERNET. Based on current conditions we don't need regulation at all, no matter how innocuous it sounds.
Keep in mind that these rules will take away people's rights, and everyone should understand how it affects ISP's before legislating the internet.
techn0scho0lbus 2 years ago
Thats sort of outlandish to assume this would lead to the government regulating content in the form of fair service.
To be honest, there are a shit-ton of problems with the current system. Like ISP's being able to throttle traffic (ComCast), hold customer records and sell them to other companies, as well as use them against their own customers in various situations (AT&T).
On top of the whole "we're overpaying for internet" bullshit. Other countries have double the speed we do in the US.
NiGHTSChao689 2 years ago
Conservatard net neutrality counter-argument recipe:
-1 pound net neutrality debate
-1 cup "OMGBAMARXISTMAO!11!"
-1 tbsp concern troll
-5 cups technological ignorance
-mix with 20 cups stupid, heat to a boil, let simmer
-strain any remaining intelligence with official John McCain sieve
-lightly dust with confusion
* for a fun twist, replace 1 lb net neutrality debate with 1 lb FOX News debate about net neutrality that isn't about net neutrality
Garnish. Serve to morons.
picklebarrels 2 years ago
'Net Neutrality' basically says there is only one fair way to control a network, i.e. to give no preference to certain packets over others, meaning everything goes the same speed. Proponents of net neutrality claim that evil ISP's will eventually charge websites or consumers for ungoverned internet speeds, even though that has never happened in the history of our unregulated internet.
Also, 'Net Neutrality' would do nothing to lower the cost of bandwidth.
techn0scho0lbus 2 years ago
Never happened in history? Are you fucking stupid? Companies DO have that sort of limitation, LOOK AT COMCAST'S SERVICE.
Net Neutrality is about keeping the internet open to all, as well as making all content capable of the same speed and service. That "speed" as you claim cannot increase or become cheap via Net Neutrality would also not become more expensive or "slower" if regulated by the government, YOU have no proof that would happen or COULD happen.
NiGHTSChao689 2 years ago
'Net Neutrality' could indeed make the internet both slower and more expensive. If companies can't govern their networks then disproportionate bandwidth may be used by few applications resulting in slower networks. With net neutrality the only way to speed up the networks would be money into bandwidth investment, meaning higher prices.
Right now prices are going down and bandwidth going up without government regulation.
techn0scho0lbus 2 years ago
Saying "could" in that context seems to imply that you are not even confident in your own statement. Yet even still you haven't refuted my point that current ISPs and Telcom companies are indeed corrupt and have many quality control issues.
And as for prices going down and bandwidth going up, where the fuck do you magically live? Because I havent seen either of those things in Scottsdale, AZ for over 4 years.
NiGHTSChao689 2 years ago
THIS WAS EPIC!!!!!! Mccain is a retard Net Neutrality FTW!?
uranoob2007 2 years ago
FCC=Unconstitutional
McCain=puppet
Chief281992 2 years ago
The reason the ISPs care about net neutrality is because it keeps them from traffic-shaping (like QoS settings on a router,) and they'll get bogged down by bittorrent users.
More people are demanding streaming HD video. Without traffic-shaping (bottlenecking bt or capping individuals) they won't be able to provide it with any kind of regularity.
I believe internet service is a de facto utility like water or power, so I'm in favor of federal regulation. It's a sound principle, but a bad idea.
Technosquid 2 years ago
i agree with you 100%, whoever doesnt want net nuetrality is a dumb ass.
snaketh1 2 years ago
hey kyle, is that BOD body spray on your shelf lol?
Gamingrigobsessed 2 years ago
Bod spray?
No I use Axe, the stick (not spray) kind, and its located on the table behind me.
NiGHTSChao689 2 years ago
Trading of information = The way forward!
Fuck people against "piracy"!
NET NEUTRALITY!
Marsternelle4 2 years ago
i don't realli have a clue what ur on about coz i'm from the uk
pcgamerguy1234 2 years ago
Mccain = fail
vesteves767 2 years ago
Aww, we hate you, too.
iCuMlOuD 2 years ago