The end of the world is here
Comments
-
OBK is the poster child of WTGWT. He shares the same dumb line of reasoning as *gasp* Bernie/Hillary supporters. Luckily Trump is a lot smarter than most of the idiots that vote and I thank him for his service.2001400ex said:
OBK and I agree. And troomps that follow the Trump corporate line are awesome.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You should move to Portugal or the UK. You can pay extra there to access sites like Facebook and Youtube. You can buy social media bundles and video bundles, in addition to what you're already paying for internet access. Make extortion great again. Guyz, you don't have to follow the Trumpster on everything. Sometims he's wrong. Getting rid of net neutrality was the private vendetta of one of his retarded monkey henchman. Just like getting rid of weed is the vendetta of another of his stupid henchman. These people are certifiable idiots, and should have been fired from their posts a long time ago.SarkFanSixtyNine said:This is basically just a war over who pays for the HD video that is already hogging all the bandwidth and will soon overwhelm capacity. Obviously shitheads watching Netflix all day should pay more for internet usage than my grandma who does nothing but check her AOL email. This concept is tyranny or something according to liberals. There's no way ISPs start getting into the minutiae of low bandwidth site access speed which is what's actually important about the internet and what liars are pretending the issue is.
That said I do hope these disgusting cable companies get obliterated because it's impossible to justify their business practices or profits. They lied and bribed their way into local monopolies and then started raping customers without lube. This industry is a perfectly sickening example of typical modern era business.
-
UWhuskytskeet said:
If this was actually about introducing more competition, the ISPs wouldn't be lobbying in favor of it. HTH
Again I'm not saying that's what this is I am saying competition is the answer to every complaint in this thread
Getting rid of NN is a step not the finish
When companies see they can make money they invest. -
Or, when people have their shit taken with impunity, they're less likely to get more shit.RaceBannon said:UWhuskytskeet said:If this was actually about introducing more competition, the ISPs wouldn't be lobbying in favor of it. HTH
Again I'm not saying that's what this is I am saying competition is the answer to every complaint in this thread
Getting rid of NN is a step not the finish
When companies see they can make money they invest. -
This is the fucking moron you guys are trusting and supporting to know what's best for the net. Meet Ajit Pai, FCC chairman:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRLQViJuL-c
And then there's this:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/ajit-pai-jokes-about-being-a-brainwashed-verizon-puppet-at-the-fcc/
Might be funny if it wasn't actually true. He really is a Verizon shill. -
Verizon and Google both gave up on expanding their fiber networks in the past few years because it was too expensive. Giving Comcast another cock to rape their customers with isn't going to change that.RaceBannon said:UWhuskytskeet said:If this was actually about introducing more competition, the ISPs wouldn't be lobbying in favor of it. HTH
Again I'm not saying that's what this is I am saying competition is the answer to every complaint in this thread
Getting rid of NN is a step not the finish
When companies see they can make money they invest. -
Fuck off and fuck you. You're against net neutrality, you're going to get what you deserve. No mo high speed HD interweb porno for Bitchfork.Pitchfork51 said:Fuck cox and fuck comcast.
-
I'm hearing bandwidth isn't finite, like water or electricity. Shouldn't be a problem then.UWhuskytskeet said:
Verizon and Google both gave up on expanding their fiber networks in the past few years because it was too expensive. Giving Comcast another cock to rape their customers with isn't going to change that.RaceBannon said:UWhuskytskeet said:If this was actually about introducing more competition, the ISPs wouldn't be lobbying in favor of it. HTH
Again I'm not saying that's what this is I am saying competition is the answer to every complaint in this thread
Getting rid of NN is a step not the finish
When companies see they can make money they invest. -
Does wireless require a fiber network? Again a serious question. I don't know everything I just act like it
I still want to know why I don't have wireless competition. I said good bye to Comcast in 1999 when I got DirecTV -
For all chintents & purposes, yes. Fiber or something like it is at the ass-end of the wireless towers.RaceBannon said:Does wireless require a fiber network? Again a serious question. I don't know everything I just act like it
I still want to know why I don't have wireless competition. I said good bye to Comcast in 1999 when I got DirecTV -
I guess every problem doesn't have a solution thenGrundleStiltzkin said:
For all chintents & purposes, yes. Fiber or something like it is at the ass-end of the wireless towers.RaceBannon said:Does wireless require a fiber network? Again a serious question. I don't know everything I just act like it
I still want to know why I don't have wireless competition. I said good bye to Comcast in 1999 when I got DirecTV -
Hey cunt. I don't have any clue what net neutrality isoregonblitzkrieg said:
Fuck off and fuck you. You're against net neutrality, you're going to get what you deserve. No mo high speed HD interweb porno for Bitchfork.Pitchfork51 said:Fuck cox and fuck comcast.
-
As is this wont promote competition. It just will expand the existing oligopoly. The electric utility industry is already decades ahead of the internet in trying to create competitive market structures. The US has competitive electricity markets but the crux is that the transmission and distribution system are operated by a non-profit third party entity called and ISO or RTO. If you really wanted competion between ISPs a similar structure would have so be set up otherwise barriers to entry are too high.RaceBannon said:UWhuskytskeet said:If this was actually about introducing more competition, the ISPs wouldn't be lobbying in favor of it. HTH
Again I'm not saying that's what this is I am saying competition is the answer to every complaint in this thread
Getting rid of NN is a step not the finish
When companies see they can make money they invest. -
So let's get it doneRedRocket said:
As is this wont promote competition. It just will expand the existing oligopoly. The electric utility industry is already decades ahead of the internet in trying to create competitive market structures. The US has competitive electricity markets but the crux is that the transmission and distribution system are operated by a non-profit third party entity called and ISO or RTO. If you really wanted competion between ISPs a similar structure would have so be set up otherwise barriers to entry are too high.RaceBannon said:UWhuskytskeet said:If this was actually about introducing more competition, the ISPs wouldn't be lobbying in favor of it. HTH
Again I'm not saying that's what this is I am saying competition is the answer to every complaint in this thread
Getting rid of NN is a step not the finish
When companies see they can make money they invest. -
I'm interested in the local loop unbundeling approach which is what is used in the UK but you have to force ISP to relinquish control over some of their infrastructure. It was already attempted at one point in the US in the 90s and failed but whatever maybe it would work better this time around.RaceBannon said:
So let's get it doneRedRocket said:
As is this wont promote competition. It just will expand the existing oligopoly. The electric utility industry is already decades ahead of the internet in trying to create competitive market structures. The US has competitive electricity markets but the crux is that the transmission and distribution system are operated by a non-profit third party entity called and ISO or RTO. If you really wanted competion between ISPs a similar structure would have so be set up otherwise barriers to entry are too high.RaceBannon said:UWhuskytskeet said:If this was actually about introducing more competition, the ISPs wouldn't be lobbying in favor of it. HTH
Again I'm not saying that's what this is I am saying competition is the answer to every complaint in this thread
Getting rid of NN is a step not the finish
When companies see they can make money they invest. -
Bored motto.RaceBannon said:Does wireless require a fiber network? Again a serious question. I don't know everything I just act like it
I still want to know why I don't have wireless competition. I said good bye to Comcast in 1999 when I got DirecTV
-
Nerd.RedRocket said:
As is this wont promote competition. It just will expand the existing oligopoly. The electric utility industry is already decades ahead of the internet in trying to create competitive market structures. The US has competitive electricity markets but the crux is that the transmission and distribution system are operated by a non-profit third party entity called and ISO or RTO. If you really wanted competion between ISPs a similar structure would have so be set up otherwise barriers to entry are too high.RaceBannon said:UWhuskytskeet said:If this was actually about introducing more competition, the ISPs wouldn't be lobbying in favor of it. HTH
Again I'm not saying that's what this is I am saying competition is the answer to every complaint in this thread
Getting rid of NN is a step not the finish
When companies see they can make money they invest.
-
Sounds like a “taking”RedRocket said:
I'm interested in the local loop unbundeling approach which is what is used in the UK but you have to force ISP to relinquish control over some of their infrastructure. It was already attempted at one point in the US in the 90s and failed but whatever maybe it would work better this time around.RaceBannon said:
So let's get it doneRedRocket said:
As is this wont promote competition. It just will expand the existing oligopoly. The electric utility industry is already decades ahead of the internet in trying to create competitive market structures. The US has competitive electricity markets but the crux is that the transmission and distribution system are operated by a non-profit third party entity called and ISO or RTO. If you really wanted competion between ISPs a similar structure would have so be set up otherwise barriers to entry are too high.RaceBannon said:UWhuskytskeet said:If this was actually about introducing more competition, the ISPs wouldn't be lobbying in favor of it. HTH
Again I'm not saying that's what this is I am saying competition is the answer to every complaint in this thread
Getting rid of NN is a step not the finish
When companies see they can make money they invest. -
It really is though, at least it should be. Landline telephones are a utility and one can easily argue that the internet is just as vital and has a much wider scope than telephone service. It’s just another brick in the one corporation wall we are heading towards.PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
This thing isn’t what capitalism is supposed to be.
And I don’t like it.
Not one bit. -
Don’t mistake this for siding with Hondon’t, but how is this path towards giant mega corporations encouraging competitionRaceBannon said:And I didn't say the change today has anything to do with competition I said we need competition
-
That’s the rub right there with this. The improvement of wireless delivery is where things are going. It doesn’t make sense to bury Billions of Dollars worth of fiber to bungfuck Egypt, when in the next few years you will be able to receive high speed internet wirelessly.UW_Doog_Bot said:ISP's are much much more like utilities than private companies competing in a free market. Agreed that we need competition but this isn't the way that you are going to get it. I am biased in favor of free market solutions but there are very few ways to achieve an actual free market in this case. Laying new fiber in a location is prohibitive in a variety of ways and the existence of the current infrastructure often prohibits it completely. Until wireless catches up with cable you reasonably don't have a shot at real competition.
-
Fellow Troomps, this is the wrong hill to die on. I don't want to be carting off corpses by thread's end. This is a dark horse wedge issue that pisses a lot of people off. Enough to swing elections. Support for net neutrality is across the bored. More than 75% of democrats AND republicans oppose these changes.
-
Disagree.oregonblitzkrieg said:Fellow Troomps, this is the wrong hill to die on. I don't want to be carting off corpses by thread's end. This is a dark horse wedge issue that pisses a lot of people off. Enough to swing elections. Support for net neutrality is across the bored. More than 75% of democrats AND republicans oppose these changes.
If folks 401k continues to build, wage increases continue, home values continue to rise and no new wars or conflicts emerge, they won’t GAF about this shit. -
Disagree with your disagreement.salemcoog said:
Disagree.oregonblitzkrieg said:Fellow Troomps, this is the wrong hill to die on. I don't want to be carting off corpses by thread's end. This is a dark horse wedge issue that pisses a lot of people off. Enough to swing elections. Support for net neutrality is across the bored. More than 75% of democrats AND republicans oppose these changes.
If folks 401k continues to build, wage increases continue, home values continue to rise and no new wars or conflicts emerge, they won’t GAF about this shit.
Getting ripped off and knowing ISPs now have the ability to control the flow and access to information on the internet, pisses people off who understand the situation, regardless of wage increase, home values continuing to rise and no new wars or conflicts emerge.
-
Sounds like the 16 election. I feel like people GAF about other shit.salemcoog said:
Disagree.oregonblitzkrieg said:Fellow Troomps, this is the wrong hill to die on. I don't want to be carting off corpses by thread's end. This is a dark horse wedge issue that pisses a lot of people off. Enough to swing elections. Support for net neutrality is across the bored. More than 75% of democrats AND republicans oppose these changes.
If folks 401k continues to build, wage increases continue, home values continue to rise and no new wars or conflicts emerge, they won’t GAF about this shit. -
They don’t.2001400ex said:
Sounds like the 16 election. I feel like people GAF about other shit.salemcoog said:
Disagree.oregonblitzkrieg said:Fellow Troomps, this is the wrong hill to die on. I don't want to be carting off corpses by thread's end. This is a dark horse wedge issue that pisses a lot of people off. Enough to swing elections. Support for net neutrality is across the bored. More than 75% of democrats AND republicans oppose these changes.
If folks 401k continues to build, wage increases continue, home values continue to rise and no new wars or conflicts emerge, they won’t GAF about this shit. -
If they did, Hillary would have won. Clearly she was awful and there were other reasons.PurpleThrobber said:
They don’t.2001400ex said:
Sounds like the 16 election. I feel like people GAF about other shit.salemcoog said:
Disagree.oregonblitzkrieg said:Fellow Troomps, this is the wrong hill to die on. I don't want to be carting off corpses by thread's end. This is a dark horse wedge issue that pisses a lot of people off. Enough to swing elections. Support for net neutrality is across the bored. More than 75% of democrats AND republicans oppose these changes.
If folks 401k continues to build, wage increases continue, home values continue to rise and no new wars or conflicts emerge, they won’t GAF about this shit. -
The telephone industry was broken up and deregulated, the results of which have been spectacularly good. Same is true for the airline industry, which also operated under similar "public utility" regulations prior to 1978.salemcoog said:
It really is though, at least it should be. Landline telephones are a utility and one can easily argue that the internet is just as vital and has a much wider scope than telephone service. It’s just another brick in the one corporation wall we are heading towards.PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
This thing isn’t what capitalism is supposed to be.
And I don’t like it.
Not one bit.
So called "Net Neutrality" regulation was a step backward in an industry that was doing just fine until big government control freaks decided to use the heavy hand of government to regulate it. Removing "Net Neutrality" regulations will spur investment and competition amongst ISPs, and the FTC can and will address anti-completive practices should they arise.
The real issue that many of you seem to be ignoring is that Obama's internet regulations were designed to favor extremely large content providers at the expense of the ISPs. It's not terribly surprising that this point has been missed since these content providers have been able to control the message by sheer volume. The fact of the matter is that we're at a point where large content providers should be viewed as monopolies and the focus should instead be on considering which need to be broken up. -
Please to be explaining how content providers made money on net neutrality rules. I know how ISPs will monetize this. At some point you'll pay more for access to Netflix or whatever.Southerndawg said:
The telephone industry was broken up and deregulated, the results of which have been spectacularly good. Same is true for the airline industry, which also operated under similar "public utility" regulations prior to 1978.salemcoog said:
It really is though, at least it should be. Landline telephones are a utility and one can easily argue that the internet is just as vital and has a much wider scope than telephone service. It’s just another brick in the one corporation wall we are heading towards.PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
This thing isn’t what capitalism is supposed to be.
And I don’t like it.
Not one bit.
So called "Net Neutrality" regulation was a step backward in an industry that was doing just fine until big government control freaks decided to use the heavy hand of government to regulate it. Removing "Net Neutrality" regulations will spur investment and competition amongst ISPs, and the FTC can and will address anti-completive practices should they arise.
The real issue that many of you seem to be ignoring is that Obama's internet regulations were designed to favor extremely large content providers at the expense of the ISPs. It's not terribly surprising that this point has been missed since these content providers have been able to control the message by sheer volume. The fact of the matter is that we're at a point where large content providers should be viewed as monopolies and the focus should instead be on considering which need to be broken up.
And no this won't spur investment like you say it will. -
Comcast had no issue with Net Neutrality. They helped write itSoutherndawg said:
The telephone industry was broken up and deregulated, the results of which have been spectacularly good. Same is true for the airline industry, which also operated under similar "public utility" regulations prior to 1978.salemcoog said:
It really is though, at least it should be. Landline telephones are a utility and one can easily argue that the internet is just as vital and has a much wider scope than telephone service. It’s just another brick in the one corporation wall we are heading towards.PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
This thing isn’t what capitalism is supposed to be.
And I don’t like it.
Not one bit.
So called "Net Neutrality" regulation was a step backward in an industry that was doing just fine until big government control freaks decided to use the heavy hand of government to regulate it. Removing "Net Neutrality" regulations will spur investment and competition amongst ISPs, and the FTC can and will address anti-completive practices should they arise.
The real issue that many of you seem to be ignoring is that Obama's internet regulations were designed to favor extremely large content providers at the expense of the ISPs. It's not terribly surprising that this point has been missed since these content providers have been able to control the message by sheer volume. The fact of the matter is that we're at a point where large content providers should be viewed as monopolies and the focus should instead be on considering which need to be broken up. -
If that's the case I'm against it.RaceBannon said:
Comcast had no issue with Net Neutrality. They helped write itSoutherndawg said:
The telephone industry was broken up and deregulated, the results of which have been spectacularly good. Same is true for the airline industry, which also operated under similar "public utility" regulations prior to 1978.salemcoog said:
It really is though, at least it should be. Landline telephones are a utility and one can easily argue that the internet is just as vital and has a much wider scope than telephone service. It’s just another brick in the one corporation wall we are heading towards.PurpleJ said:The internet is not a public utility and should not be treated as such.
You like to think that making it a government sanctioned monopoly will improve service levels and encourage competition. That's what you like to do. Commie.
This thing isn’t what capitalism is supposed to be.
And I don’t like it.
Not one bit.
So called "Net Neutrality" regulation was a step backward in an industry that was doing just fine until big government control freaks decided to use the heavy hand of government to regulate it. Removing "Net Neutrality" regulations will spur investment and competition amongst ISPs, and the FTC can and will address anti-completive practices should they arise.
The real issue that many of you seem to be ignoring is that Obama's internet regulations were designed to favor extremely large content providers at the expense of the ISPs. It's not terribly surprising that this point has been missed since these content providers have been able to control the message by sheer volume. The fact of the matter is that we're at a point where large content providers should be viewed as monopolies and the focus should instead be on considering which need to be broken up.
Comcast may be the worst company in the entire us.
Even if OBK is right and Amazon is more destructive, at least they provide a legit service and make things very easy and convenient for people.
