They have fucked their customers wherever they could. Internet providers are the most hated companies in America for a reason. What makes you think that they won't make use of this?
A group of people creating hypothetical situations that have never once even been proposed in real life, to justify pushing a set of laws that don't even seem to prevent ISPs from monopolizing entire regions and effortlessly snuffing out any competition is what makes me think they won't.
I think I would rather have policy that enforces the free market from being taken advantage of by big money. The fact that an ISP can force you to buy from them because there are no others in town is the root of the issue. Not that ISPs want to sell you expensive shit. I don't give a shit that Verizon wants to sell you separate packages fro Facebook, YouTube, etc. I give a shit that the only thing making that a problem is the fact that in many regions that offering would be the only option.
How about taking a cold hard look at who supports it, how hard they support it, and the logic behind why they support it. This is all such fantasy fluff that doesn't even target the root of the issue, which is that ISPs are allowed to monopolize. Not that they want to sell you unrealistic and horrific content the way cable TV packages come. You know why? Because if ISPs were held accountable for that, it wouldn't be an issue because you could switch to Google Fiber or some other ISP. But in many cities, you can't. How about caring about what matters?
When you make rules, you need to take into consideration how a rule effects the landscape and how it can be refined to not be used against itself. Name me a few reasons how NN being in play has prevented censorship/monopolization/throttling/absurd pricing/shady tactics. We've had these rules on the books for years and I'm still stuck with only 1 internet option who send me threatening calls and emails if I download a torrent with a recognizable filename.
13 comments
1 leuzeismbeyond 2017-11-22
A beautiful sentiment I'm prepared to share.
1 MalcolmX_InTheMiddle 2017-11-22
I hope it ends so only the middle class and above can access it again.
Bring back the AOL pay per minute model.
Fuck the poor. Steal your 500 free minutes CD ROM or go to the public library.
1 blackphilibuster 2017-11-22
Did buzzfeed tell you that or was it the young fags?
1 MalcolmX_InTheMiddle 2017-11-22
Not sure. I was pretty drunk at the time.
1 allenricketts 2017-11-22
I don't. It's a good policy. Reddit doesn't hurt my feelings.
1 onemancrimespree 2017-11-22
It's a pointless policy that does nothing.
1 sjeffiesjeff 2017-11-22
The only reason internet providers aren't charging you per website is net neutrality
1 onemancrimespree 2017-11-22
No it isn't. They never did it before NN and there's nothing suggesting they would.
1 sjeffiesjeff 2017-11-22
They have fucked their customers wherever they could. Internet providers are the most hated companies in America for a reason. What makes you think that they won't make use of this?
1 onemancrimespree 2017-11-22
A group of people creating hypothetical situations that have never once even been proposed in real life, to justify pushing a set of laws that don't even seem to prevent ISPs from monopolizing entire regions and effortlessly snuffing out any competition is what makes me think they won't.
I think I would rather have policy that enforces the free market from being taken advantage of by big money. The fact that an ISP can force you to buy from them because there are no others in town is the root of the issue. Not that ISPs want to sell you expensive shit. I don't give a shit that Verizon wants to sell you separate packages fro Facebook, YouTube, etc. I give a shit that the only thing making that a problem is the fact that in many regions that offering would be the only option.
How about taking a cold hard look at who supports it, how hard they support it, and the logic behind why they support it. This is all such fantasy fluff that doesn't even target the root of the issue, which is that ISPs are allowed to monopolize. Not that they want to sell you unrealistic and horrific content the way cable TV packages come. You know why? Because if ISPs were held accountable for that, it wouldn't be an issue because you could switch to Google Fiber or some other ISP. But in many cities, you can't. How about caring about what matters?
When you make rules, you need to take into consideration how a rule effects the landscape and how it can be refined to not be used against itself. Name me a few reasons how NN being in play has prevented censorship/monopolization/throttling/absurd pricing/shady tactics. We've had these rules on the books for years and I'm still stuck with only 1 internet option who send me threatening calls and emails if I download a torrent with a recognizable filename.
1 TravisBickle1990 2017-11-22
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/fcc-cites-soros-funded-neo-marxist-founded-group-46-times-in-new-regs/
1 TravisBickle1990 2017-11-22
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/fcc-cites-soros-funded-neo-marxist-founded-group-46-times-in-new-regs/
1 TravisBickle1990 2017-11-22
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/fcc-cites-soros-funded-neo-marxist-founded-group-46-times-in-new-regs/
1 TravisBickle1990 2017-11-22
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/fcc-cites-soros-funded-neo-marxist-founded-group-46-times-in-new-regs/
1 TravisBickle1990 2017-11-22
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/fcc-cites-soros-funded-neo-marxist-founded-group-46-times-in-new-regs/
1 TravisBickle1990 2017-11-22
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/fcc-cites-soros-funded-neo-marxist-founded-group-46-times-in-new-regs/
1 3stepsbackward 2017-11-22
But how will I able to watch Anthony's pock up close and personal on my monitor?!?!?
1 goldstandard32 2017-11-22
I don't know what that is
1 TravisBickle1990 2017-11-22
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/12/fcc-cites-soros-funded-neo-marxist-founded-group-46-times-in-new-regs/