TOPIC: FCC Live - Come watch Net Neutrality get RIP'd!

Fork wrote: I'd love to see the evidence of people looking at pictures taking up bandwidth enough to somehow make it so hospitals don't get enough bandwidth. Clearly a hospital would be paying much more the the average joe for internet because of the scale of the internet they would be requiring would be much larger then required for you own home. As a Republican even I can see as history dictates this is not a good idea. The only people that want his are the internet companies because they see an opportunity to make insane amounts of money. I highly doubt that you would see only a $5 increase to use such services. Its much more likely you'll have to pay extra for specific services you want so these companies can increase their profit margins. This is not at all covering the true reason why these ISP's wanted the change, so that they can charge big companies huge amounts of money to make their service the preferred one. By either blocking access completely to competition or by throttling the competition. In that world ISP companies would charge services tons of money to be the priority service provider. This happened before with companies throttling Netflix but allowing uncapped access to XBox live. Why did they do this because Microsoft made a deal with them because they could afford to. But what about all those companies that can't afford to compete like that. As more and more things turn to the internet companies will definitely take advantage of this to screw over the consumer because the money they could make doing it is absolutely insane. It pushes us towards an internet that doesn't exist as it is today with the vast freedom of information and ideas to one of corporate interests and profit. They will be looking for every and anyway to make the most possible money. I mean imagine if an ISP went to a company and said you give us x amount of money and your website will be the only website of this type people can access. That company agrees and because they now hold a monopoly over that area they can charge consumers what ever they want for them to be able to access the service. Don't want to have to pay, well sucks to suck because you can only access that one site. I can't see how this would be helpful at all in my state where only one company actually has the right to lay cable and build infustrcture. Hopefully they arn't totally dicks about this because if they are there is not another same grade ISP to turn to. The only other company has to buy from the first company who like I said before is the only company in Idaho legally able to lay cable.

EMP wrote:
But what about the dying people in hospitals!?!??!?!!? /s

Fork wrote: I'd love to see the evidence of people looking at pictures taking up bandwidth enough to somehow make it so hospitals don't get enough bandwidth. Clearly a hospital would be paying much more the the average joe for internet because of the scale of the internet they would be requiring would be much larger then required for you own home. As a Republican even I can see as history dictates this is not a good idea. The only people that want his are the internet companies because they see an opportunity to make insane amounts of money. I highly doubt that you would see only a $5 increase to use such services. Its much more likely you'll have to pay extra for specific services you want so these companies can increase their profit margins. This is not at all covering the true reason why these ISP's wanted the change, so that they can charge big companies huge amounts of money to make their service the preferred one. By either blocking access completely to competition or by throttling the competition. In that world ISP companies would charge services tons of money to be the priority service provider. This happened before with companies throttling Netflix but allowing uncapped access to XBox live. Why did they do this because Microsoft made a deal with them because they could afford to. But what about all those companies that can't afford to compete like that. As more and more things turn to the internet companies will definitely take advantage of this to screw over the consumer because the money they could make doing it is absolutely insane. It pushes us towards an internet that doesn't exist as it is today with the vast freedom of information and ideas to one of corporate interests and profit. They will be looking for every and anyway to make the most possible money. I mean imagine if an ISP went to a company and said you give us x amount of money and your website will be the only website of this type people can access. That company agrees and because they now hold a monopoly over that area they can charge consumers what ever they want for them to be able to access the service. Don't want to have to pay, well sucks to suck because you can only access that one site. Or a company like Comcast who owns NBC making their news outlets the preferred one and denying access to sites based on polical views. I can't see how this would be helpful at all in my state where only one company actually has the right to lay cable and build infustrcture. Hopefully they arn't totally dicks about this because if they are there is not another same grade ISP to turn to. The only other company has to buy from the first company who like I said before is the only company in Idaho legally able to lay cable.

EMP wrote:
tl;dr

Fork wrote:
Dude please shut the hell up lol, how about try using google for something maybe?

ONE google search "when was net neutrality passed" yields the result:
"On February 26, 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband as a common carrier under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. "

I think its pretty comical how in the first sentence of your first post you say "I'm a trump supporter.."

Jesus fuck, I don't particularly want to get political but you confirm how most Europeans even stereotype Trump supporters.


Diet Water wrote:
Because America has apparently lost its immense influence on the rest of the world, right..

Congress doesn't need to vote because the FCC can bypass them, lol

Fork wrote: I'd love to see the evidence of people looking at pictures taking up bandwidth enough to somehow make it so hospitals don't get enough bandwidth. Clearly a hospital would be paying much more the the average joe for internet because of the scale of the internet they would be requiring would be much larger then required for you own home. As a Republican even I can see as history dictates this is not a good idea. The only people that want his are the internet companies because they see an opportunity to make insane amounts of money. I highly doubt that you would see only a $5 increase to use such services. Its much more likely you'll have to pay extra for specific services you want so these companies can increase their profit margins. This is not at all covering the true reason why these ISP's wanted the change, so that they can charge big companies huge amounts of money to make their service the preferred one. By either blocking access completely to competition or by throttling the competition. In that world ISP companies would charge services tons of money to be the priority service provider. This happened before with companies throttling Netflix but allowing uncapped access to XBox live. Why did they do this because Microsoft made a deal with them because they could afford to. But what about all those companies that can't afford to compete like that. As more and more things turn to the internet companies will definitely take advantage of this to screw over the consumer because the money they could make doing it is absolutely insane. It pushes us towards an internet that doesn't exist as it is today with the vast freedom of information and ideas to one of corporate interests and profit. They will be looking for every and anyway to make the most possible money. I mean imagine if an ISP went to a company and said you give us x amount of money and your website will be the only website of this type people can access. That company agrees and because they now hold a monopoly over that area they can charge consumers what ever they want for them to be able to access the service. Don't want to have to pay, well sucks to suck because you can only access that one site. Or a company like Comcast who owns NBC making their news outlets the preferred one and denying access to sites based on polical views. I can't see how this would be helpful at all in my state where only one company actually has the right to lay cable and build infustrcture. Hopefully they arn't totally dicks about this because if they are there is not another same grade ISP to turn to. The only other company has to buy from the first company who like I said before is the only company in Idaho legally able to lay cable.

just in case you guys are still lost, fork's post is 100% satire

jesus christ lmao

just in case you guys are still lost, fork's post is 100% satire

jesus christ lmao

just in case you guys are still lost, fork's post is 100% satire

jesus christ lmao

The intellectual of you guys. This is like a whomstd've meme. Holy shit.

As an American and a Trump supporter, Net Neutrality is useless it's a waste of our internet's valuable resources. Picture this: You have 400 horny guys looking at a picture of Kate Upton, and while some people are trying to log into Facebook etc. That's using alot of bandwidth for no reason and some amenities Ex. Hospital are needing the internet to access medical files of a patient who is dying and they need to see his past medical history. Which is why you've got Net Neutrality which prevents this by giving everyone "equal" bandwidth and that's just not a very smart move by the Democrats, the Republicans are wanting to repeal it in-order to allow our internet to grow and advance. The people who need the internet the most you would pay like an additional $5 more for a internet "fast-lane" added to your account so you can get a higher speed of download and upload. It's a win-win especially for gamers.