Well NN didn't exist before 2015, so please, what exactly where they fighting? Could it have been a set of provisions that already accomplish what NN supposedly does?
This does not support your claim that "they have been fighting this for years" - infact the court ruling it links to is the result of ISPs challenging the FCC following their NN proposals. FCC may have been crafting NN guidelines since 2009, but none where in place before 2015. In fact all the examples from the copy-pasta that people have been circulating where all resolved without NN. So what has changed?
This is due to the conflation of the concept of "Net Neutrality" and the FCC Title II legislation. If you call your regulation "Net Neutrality" then people will agree with it no matter the content.
For example, I propose the "Puppy Safety Act." The text of the bill requires every person to rape a puppy to death daily. But if you disagree with it you hate puppies, as it is about puppy safety.
Complete layman, but even if it's unnecessary there's nothing bad that comes with net neutrality laws, it's just contrarian to get angry at people trying to keep these protections 'just in case' ISPs start selling website packages like they do to Euro spics
This is due to the conflation of the concept of "Net Neutrality" and the FCC Title II legislation. If you call your regulation "Net Neutrality" then people will agree with it no matter the content.
For example, I propose the "Puppy Safety Act." The text of the bill requires every person to rape a puppy to death daily. But if you disagree with it you hate puppies, as it is about puppy safety.
38 comments
1 Pr0gNuT 2017-11-22
Richard Vos is a national treasure that must be protected.
1 Whydontulovemelynsi 2017-11-22
Like, fucking CORPORATIONS want to charge you like, more MONEY to watch Rich Vos clips that could be like, considered controversial?
1 frrunkis 2017-11-22
Faggoty reddity comment
1 ShetUp 2017-11-22
EERgiNt: yuR INtur net iS.. in nootrUL
1 Single_Action_Army 2017-11-22
Well that's good, Ed. I'm glad a resource as important as the net is neutral in control.
1 ShetUp 2017-11-22
AHPREL FAHHHLLZZZ
1 koja1234 2017-11-22
Congratulations! Your post reached top five in /r/all/rising. The post was thus x-posted to /r/masub.
It had 49 points in 49 minutes when the x-post was made.
1 ObsessiveMuso 2017-11-22
Net neutrality why won't it be a fahkin' ally or sumptin I don't know...
1 SHITLORD_CUNTDICK 2017-11-22
fawkin oldtrality
1 SHITLORD_CUNTDICK 2017-11-22
fawkin oldtrality
1 commissarjb 2017-11-22
We heard you!
1 TJMaxxGurl 2017-11-22
I like that this person/persona puts individual flair to the title of each post. This guy just sees us as squirly little rascals
1 jayriemenschneider 2017-11-22
Call your Congressman and let him know about this...2 drink minimum.
1 MalcolmX_InTheMiddle 2017-11-22
4 at least.
1 senselessdegenerate 2017-11-22
Tss why not 40 or sumthin. Tha Chippah drinks a lot
1 SpaceCaseBassFace 2017-11-22
Gettin fawkin zooted.
1 NLclothing 2017-11-22
What kind of boogey-man story do you have for us if the rules that didn't exist before 2015 no longer exist?
1 axeheadroad 2017-11-22
They've been in court fighting this for years.
1 NLclothing 2017-11-22
Well NN didn't exist before 2015, so please, what exactly where they fighting? Could it have been a set of provisions that already accomplish what NN supposedly does?
1 axeheadroad 2017-11-22
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-appeals-court-ruling.html?referer=https://www.google.com
1 NLclothing 2017-11-22
This does not support your claim that "they have been fighting this for years" - infact the court ruling it links to is the result of ISPs challenging the FCC following their NN proposals. FCC may have been crafting NN guidelines since 2009, but none where in place before 2015. In fact all the examples from the copy-pasta that people have been circulating where all resolved without NN. So what has changed?
1 Bouquet_of_seaweed 2017-11-22
This is due to the conflation of the concept of "Net Neutrality" and the FCC Title II legislation. If you call your regulation "Net Neutrality" then people will agree with it no matter the content.
For example, I propose the "Puppy Safety Act." The text of the bill requires every person to rape a puppy to death daily. But if you disagree with it you hate puppies, as it is about puppy safety.
1 Motherfrogger 2017-11-22
Complete layman, but even if it's unnecessary there's nothing bad that comes with net neutrality laws, it's just contrarian to get angry at people trying to keep these protections 'just in case' ISPs start selling website packages like they do to Euro spics
1 MartyVanB 2017-11-22
Boooooooooo
1 RudolfHess88 2017-11-22
The first decent take on net neutrality I've read on reddit and it's in the fuckin OnA sub.
1 holodog 2017-11-22
I hope the FCC goes through with it so there will be less poor people on the internet.
1 Jungies 2017-11-22
Fewer poor people, not less; and we'll miss you.
1 holodog 2017-11-22
I wish I could believe that :(
1 axeheadroad 2017-11-22
You silly gimp you are the poor
1 Whydontulovemelynsi 2017-11-22
he got the joke you dunce, he meant he wishes that people would miss him
1 masao50025 2017-11-22
But then you cant laugh at the dumb poor people do shenanigans on 4chan and youtube
1 Toss__Pot 2017-11-22
'Clowning Around'... wasn't that the name of Sam's wife's show? Where she put that Sideshow Bob looking mongoloid on camera.
1 ustinkonice 2017-11-22
The timing on the return of these vos plugs is great, right when we all kinda forgot about them they come back full force.
1 bendy_banana 2017-11-22
Does anyone know if something like this actually goes through there should be a way around it right? Like a vpn should just do it?
1 NortheastPhilly 2017-11-22
Alright this was a good one
1 Sthenine 2017-11-22
You're Vos. You're 76 years old. You're playing someplace called the Velveeta room.
1 RacksDiciprine 2017-11-22
Joe Cumia is NOT a pedophile... in case anyone was asking.
1 Incelbydate 2017-11-22
Net neutrality is so cucked. I hope they get what they deserve.
1 KNUCKKLEFUCKER 2017-11-22
Velveeta Room is a shithole. It's on 6th Street aka every drunken asshole you've ever wanted to punch in the face lurks.
1 lemonmattress 2017-11-22
LOL you rat bastard
1 Xx9mmParabellumxX 2017-11-22
Velveeta room? Gaaadamn I bet there’s like a buncha cheeze up in that MUG er sumpthin.
1 humanmeat 2017-11-22
haha, well done. really well done.
I haven't been impressed by a vos plug in a while
1 joeybeans12 2017-11-22
Whatshe a bowl of mac and cheese and shizznit
1 Jungies 2017-11-22
Fewer poor people, not less; and we'll miss you.
1 senselessdegenerate 2017-11-22
Tss why not 40 or sumthin. Tha Chippah drinks a lot
1 Bouquet_of_seaweed 2017-11-22
This is due to the conflation of the concept of "Net Neutrality" and the FCC Title II legislation. If you call your regulation "Net Neutrality" then people will agree with it no matter the content.
For example, I propose the "Puppy Safety Act." The text of the bill requires every person to rape a puppy to death daily. But if you disagree with it you hate puppies, as it is about puppy safety.
1 masao50025 2017-11-22
But then you cant laugh at the dumb poor people do shenanigans on 4chan and youtube