Ant in 16 months "what do you mean you can only claim 10k in my property tax?"

Most americans arent going to see shit from this tax reform. It's a shell game to gut social programs by creating a deficit, and to funnel lots of liquid cash to the ultra rich.

You seem like one of those well-informed faggots.

Its not that hard to actually know whats happening with big headline news stories. I know most people just know they're mad at whatever, and also somehow its also a negative to still think that political issues exist and have bearing beyond some post post modern 4 chan meme identity horse shit- but I guess I'm old fashioned to actually think this stuff can have a material impact on your life.

You sound like a faggot

Cool

Are you trying to ask him out?

Yeah, but something something George Soros.

The eye of soros

I'm sure the bankers are shaking in their boots because you've found them out.

He's arguing against that kind of memetic line of thought, friend.

this sub is for funny memes not woke political chat. he can kiss my keister.

this sub is for anti semitism and gay bashing and it looks like I found my new faggot

t ballooned after Bush deregulation

The deregulation that fueled the housing bubble is specifically not on Bush, but you make some good points.

A lot of it was co-authored by Barney Frank who said that part of the American dream involved every American owning his own home

also owning his own twink faggot

Maynard Keynes did more to fuck up the world than Hitler. Both were into Eugenics; Keynes was the director of the Eugenics society.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/17/eugenics-skeleton-rattles-loudest-closet-left

• Nothing wrong with eugenics
• Keynes was also an anti-semite
• Keynes remains respected and admired today, unlike the quack Austrian school which mainly exists on Mises.org and 14 year olds who read a few Ayn Rand quotes.

My opinion is that they Keynsian system exaggerates wealth inequality. But I have no control over the system, so understanding that the system encourages the accumulation of cosmic amounts of debt, I just roll with it.

I really wish I had the time to write a proper tool for the evaluation of options, because our current system seems to basically put a "floor" under the price of assets.

Basically the system is designed so that the price of assets goes up and up to infinity. I honestly thing that the only thing that will stop it is the eventual default of the dollar. But that might not even happen in our lifetime. Everyone is on the same merry-go-round and we've got the world's most popular currency.

None of your "respected and admired" Keynesians predicted the biggest crash in recent history while the quack Austrians got it completely correct

Actually, Krugman predicted the 2008 crash with remarkable accuracy. The Keynesians were more detailed and reliable in their predictions. Contrast that to the Austrian school which runs around like chicken little screaming that the crash is happening any day now. Obviously the market has boom/bust periods and crashes are inevitable, just screaming randomly that things will go south one day isn't exactly being Nostradomus. Look up all the non-austrians that accurately prediction economic turmoil.

This is wrong, as FlashVirus stated.

When you scream "another depression is coming!" every fucking year, eventually you'll be right. Also, the key flaw to the Austrian method is it doesn't use quantitative analysis, but rather a 'philosophical' approach which leads to arm chair economics as opposed to economic theory backed by hard statistics and econometric study. More detail in link below: https://www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2012/12/21/austrian-economic-forecasts-too-gloomy/#506c974571a8

Austrians are always predicting a crash

foundation of Keynesian economics

Kill yourself

Oh no the retard got out, everyone be sure to use smaller words or he'll get aggressive

Ok so Obama deficits good. Other deficits bad. That clears that up.

So, when the US came out of recession and Obama was still growing the deficit by leaps and bounds, that was monumentally fucking retarded?

Keynesian economics is fundamentally flawed because it relies solely on the government to generate wealth and acts as if the cash flow amongst citizens is a zero-sum game. The broken-window theory that these people like to mention is a perfect example of this

No, it says govt spending can aid a recovery. Which is true.

Right which would explain why Obama's stimulus package is responsible for one of the slowest recoveries in history, while someone like Calvin Coolidge was one of the only presidents to actually have a net gain during his presidency

No, it explains that had congress approved more spending it would've been faster.

Wasn't it the largest stimulus package in history?

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/first_quarter_2017/the-recovery-act-of-2009-vs-fdrs-new-deal-which-was-bigger Here is an examination of that claim.

One thing is clear: they should've spent more.

So you're comparing it to the new deal, which took an even longer recovery time and was an outgrowth of an even worse financial crisis that created programs that this generation will never get to use, but have to pay for

No. I gave you an answer to your question.

I'm generally opposed to Keynesian economics because there is something about it that I find unsettling. Maybe it's the implication that we can't solve our issues by ourselves or maybe it's because leftists have turned me off to most left-leaning policies, but I'll look into this more when I have time. Faggot.

You're retarded. A retarded faggot.

Ant is uneducated on what he rants about? Color me surprised

its to put more money in the treasury by allowing more jobs to be created in a declining economy. You take a cut now for older businesses to generate more money and hire more people and allow new businesses to be created and more people get hired. The economy will generate more money than it wouod have lost if taxes stayed at the same rate. More money in the economy means more taxed revenue which is how the treasury makes more money. The treasury is what pays for all of government spending which includes all social programs. money isnt being funneled in pockets by doing this

Like it trickles down you mean?

non-agenda-driven economists

american progress

Self own

non-agenda-driven economists

I Googled "low taxes vs high taxes" and got the Heritage Foundation telling me how great tax cuts were.

Do you not see the difference between the BLS/TPI and the Heritage Foundation?

The Heritage Foundation used data from BLS, so it must be true.

That's just dumb. Of course they used BLS data. The BLS compiles the data. Using the data just means that--using data.

It was based on data from BLS. Are you saying American Progress is wrong?

No. Using real data says nothing about the conclusions you draw from it. I could cherry pick any data I want to draw any conclusion I want. Are you actually this dumb or is this a "tactic".

Tactic? It was based on data from BLS. Are you saying American Progress is wrong about their conclusion?

I don't know their conclusions--I'll read when I have the chance. I'm just commenting on how legit data can be used any way you like, and so for something like this, you have to read the competing studies (even if all based on the same data) and draw informed conclusions.

Also pointing out that the BLS and TPI are markedly different in their mission than the HF.

Then why did you comment if you didn't read it? That's where American Progress got their data from and what started the conversation.

Well, I read the graph, which is what started the conversation, and the graph reports data that is in and of itself conclusive. My mistake, i meant I hadn't read the HF report you mentioned. Does heritage use this same data to reach different conclusions?

Heritage Foundation is wrong even though I haven't read the report American Progress is correct because the image must be true even though I don't know the methodology

Cognitive dissonance is fun to watch in real time.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm not owned! I'm not owned!!

I can't read! I can't read!

(I also don't know how to do that quote mark to fake quote people)

I can't read! I can't read!

We know

I know, I was owning up to it.

It's not that serious, my dude.

Shut up moron.

Mad online.

This is not you shutting up.

It totally is.

Well, it wasn't my intention to say that.

How is that graph conclusive at all? It's nothing but deceptive. There are absolutely no controls. Maybe top marginal tax rates are increased in great times, because the economy can afford it, and lowered when it's shit, because growth needs to be enocuraged.

In fact, lowering taxes when times are tough is a run-of-the-mill Keynesian policy reccommendation. It's what "every econ 101-student" would get out of the standard IS-LM macro model.

[removed]

the economy has been strong for years, so let's tank it with a bad tax bill. if things are going well, why keep it the same? blow it up.

Because they ran on 'the economy is bad' when it wasnt- so they have to do some shit to seem like reformers. They were appealing to the underemployed who are always going to be underemployed because the work force they represent is obsolete. Coal jobs and manufacturing doing require the bodies they used to but they're going to pretend that's obama's fault. They're going to hand these people a tax break because they cant make jobs to employ them.

US job growth has been strong for 6 years, the stock market is on a tear, and GDP growth is steady.

Sounds like the glory times of 2006.

While a coreection will come, you could have used any year during an expanding period vs 2006

Fun fact:

The stock market hasn't gone up in ten years.

Here's why:

The stock market is denominated in dollars. Today, the stock market is at 24,180. Ten years ago, the stock market was at 13,625. Today, there are 13.77 trillion dollars in circulation. Ten years ago, there were 7.4 trillion dollars in circulation.

So if you understand that it's denominated in dollars, then you can come up with the value of the market by dividing the asset by dollars. When you divide the 2007 stock market by the 2007 dollars, you get this:

2007 DJIA / supply of money =

13,625 / 7.4T

=1,841

And when you do the same for 2017, you get this:

2017 DJIA / supply of money =

24,180 / 13.77T

=1,756

See what I'm saying? It's practically the same number. The stock market has been flat for ten years; the only reason that it appears to have grown is because the Federal Reserve nearly doubled the supply of money.

Cramming all of this stuff in a spreadsheet is a good way to make purchasing decisions IMHO. It gives you a better appreciation for what an asset is worth, because it factors in the supply of money itself. You can also use this data to find assets that are undervalued. It can also be used to set up some interesting hedges. An idea I've been tinkering with is to hedge bitcoin with gold, so that you could "invest" in BTC while minimizing your losses to 50%. That hedge allows one to make some large bets.

Now if all of that stuff makes sense, you'll reach some interesting conclusions about debt. (Hint: you want millions of it.)

Also, the entire system is rigged to make the rich richer, but everyone already knew that. I just did the math.

I'm the walking proof that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." I work in finance, but on the software side. So I get a 'whiff' of how this stuff works, and then go off on some bizarre tangents.

You sound like you actually do this for a living.

Okay, so I just read up on the DJIA and learned that it has 30 companies in it. That's seems like a fairly stupid representation of the US economy.

Therefore, if I'm attempting to make the case that the economy has basically been flat for a decade, a better measure would be to compare the GDP in 2007 versus 2017, but again divided by the money supply.

So if I do that:

2007 gdp / money supply =

14.48 trillion / 7.4 trillion =

=1.95

2016 gdp / money supply =

18.57 trillion / 13.77 trillion =

=1.35

From that perspective, things look even bleaker.

Again, I'm completely admitting that I'm a kook. This number would seem to indicate that the economy has been on a slow decline for a decade. And if that's the case, then how is unemployment so low? I would argue that many corporations are operating a lot like hedge funds. Look at a company like Hewlett Packard Enterprise, or Sears. The focus of these companies is a lot like a hedge fund; actually selling products to consumers seems to be a low priority.

You're taking the Fed's M2 number as the monetary supply, which doesn't paint the full picture.

Is there a better metric?

My hypothesis is that the United States must print money at a pace that's commensurate with the other countries. If they fail to keep up with the pace of other countries, then it will basically have the same effect as if the money supply contracted.

IE, we have to keep an eye on both the AMOUNT of currency in the world, along with the RATE that the currency is growing.

So, for instance, if China grows their money supply at a faster rate than America does, it would have the effect of making our currency stronger.

I think you can see this affects in places like Canada, where they really went nuts with their currency after oil prices tanked.

Money in circulation (better measured by M1) is only part of the equation. Velocity of money is as important.

What the fuck do you do in finance? The DJIA is a stock index, not a one stop index of the entire fucking ecomony.

I'm basically Peter Gibbons from office space. I write software for banks.

I ‘m gonna need you to stop posting now. So if you could go back to r/cuckold that would great m’k

Humility is a virtue

These jobs have not been high quality jobs. Small towns are dying due to the lack of small business opportunity

Unemployment is as 4% dude, and the economy isnt in decline. You're being very generous to assume that instead of ratholing all this extra money large businesses are going to spend and create an employee shortage necessitating higher compensation.

And I said it does two things, which are unrelated. Cutting taxes creates a deficit which will be used to kill very useful programs AND gives an income boost to the wealthiest people. And in 10 years when the tax cuts expire for the middle class fuck it, most of these guys will be dead and out of politics so its not their problem.

Don't forget, the new deductions parameters will also put a damper on first time home owners, leaving more educated middle class Americans in the renting pool for longer. I'm nostalgic for when the GOP advocated for an ownership class and fiscal responsibility.

That was the first thing that jumped out at me, especially before they started compromising on SALT deductions. Its a plan that discourages home ownership and its a plan that discourages you from itemizing your taxes. Thats about as slimy as it gets. Its hard not to look at that as lining up the middle class to bleed for the rest of their capital. Substitute the single appreciating asset most people buy in their entire lives with paying rent into a real estate market that is increasingly controlled by fewer people and has been undergoing outrageous inflation for years.

Real estate is like this silent culture war going on, its fucked.

And these silent culture wars have a significant impact on most Americans lives, unlike the phony posturing culture wars that are used to distract us from that fact.

My parents are landlords so I'm assuming this is a good thing for us? I don't know enough about economics to have an opinion.

[removed]

Alt-right fag spotted.

Ahem https://www.reddit.com/r/opieandanthony/comments/7hrjlk/anthony_cumia_phd_in_life_who_makes_his_entire/dqtyht1/?context=3

And?

That's because you alt-righters aren't conservative. You use your own form of identity politics for a sense of comfort, while simultaneously complaining about the left's form of identity politics. You're intellectually lazy. Go suck Milo's milky chode

That's because you alt-righters aren't conservative.

No one said we were.

You use your own form of identity politics for a sense of comfort, while simultaneously complaining about the left's form of identity politics

• Nation A bombs nation B
• "General, should we retaliate?"
• Nah man then we're just as bad as they are!!1!

Stop with your regurgitated Jordan B Peterson individualist shit. Quote some more Atlas Shrugged paragraphs

You're intellectually lazy.

As opposed to the always brilliant "both sides are wrong" position that you enjoy taking.

Go suck Milo's milky chode

Milo is the Alt-Right? He's probably the most hated individual in that movement. You're certifiably retarded

I've never read Ayn Rand. And Yeah I think that people should be judged based on the merit of their actions/thoughts, rather than their political affiliation, I don't understand what's wrong with that.

I like how you went through my post history and the only thing your personal digs at me are "Haha muh individualism" and "you don't take sides"

you're a cunt with a group that's dwindling in popularity because your shtick is hacky now.

Fine you want to disown Milo, then go venerate the entrepreneur with your gaped anus. I may be retarded, but I'm definitely funnier than you

I like how you went through my post history

You're that much of a faggot that you think I went through your post history after I merely wrote three sentences responding to whatever bullshit you just posted above. What stupid line of thinking lead you to that one Columbo?

Fine you want to disown Milo, then go venerate the entrepreneur with your gaped anus.

Gavin isn't Alt-Right, he publicly disavows and trashes Identitarianism. Last I checked he was some gay Anarcho-Capitalist that repeats Randian shit on some unknown podcast network

I may be retarded

At least you're honest

[removed]

Isn't that 4% figure slightly misleading because there are so many now who have completely dropped out of the job market and may never work again? Also, what about the whole thing regarding salararies not rising even though the unemployment rate is lower? Seems logical me there is a lot of nuance with some of these figures.

No, the 4% figure includes anyone who is able to work and 4% is generally considered 'full employment' which means that its mostly people who are electing not to work rather than cant get a job.

tax breaks are inherently for the ultra rich. They pay all the taxes

Would make sense if they werent selling this as a boon to the middle class.

[deleted]

[removed]

Thats not how progressive taxes work, numbnuts. If there is a cut for the lower brackets they would save change compared to what they are paying in the higher brackets. These cuts are for higher brackets so we can finally see thay trickle down we have been hearing so much about for the last 40 years.

That has nothing to do with it. Federal tax cuts naturally don't help the poor much. Romney was right when he said half the country doesn't really pay federal taxes. The bottom 50% get more out than they give in.

Federal tax cuts in lower brackets would help the middle class,not poor people that dont pay taxes. How do you cut taxes for people that dont pay any, fucking tard. You obviously dont understand how a progressive, bracketed system works. A billionaire pays the same rate as someone making 50 k in the lower brackets. The rates increase as the brackets move up. A tax rate cut in the lower brackets means jack shit to a rich person, a few thousand maybe. A rate cut in the higher brackets, that includes most of their income, saves them much, much more. This isnt hard to fucking understand.

Everyone understands that, it's basic. You might as well call me a retard and say, Blue Whales are the biggest mammal, it is irrelevant to what people are talking about.

I keep saying it because dumb people like you keep parroting dumb shit like, "tax cuts only affect the rich" which is patently false. For simplicity, becuase you are simple, there are two brackets 0-100k at 15% and over 100k at 25%. If you cut 5% off the lower bracket a guy making 50 k and a guy makimg 5 mil both see a tax cut on their firat 100k of income. So I guess the guy making 50 k is now rich by your logic because he just got a tax cut? Idiot. If you cut 5% off the higher bracket the guy making 50 k sees nothing and the 5 mil guy gets a cut on 4.9 mil. How does any of the bullshit you said make sense? Fox and friends moron.

You don't know what you're talking about. Let me make it simple, because you are simple: these tax cuts overwhelmingly help the rich by lowering tax rates for the things which provide most of their income, such as investments.

Rich people do get taxed unfairly but tax cuts for the rich aren't going to help the middle class at all. Trickle down economics is not a proven thing and it's still just a theory...

Great, lets keep trying it , I LOVE stagnant wages.

I'm not defending it, I'm merely stating a fact. Since you jack-nuts want to act like economics majors.

It's really best to test these theories that were created by corporate think tanks as fiscal policy since the 80's. Working out really great.

Ah yes, I'm a faggot for not pretending to be an economist on the O&A subreddit. Just what I wanted to discuss here.

Go argue with the other faggots on /r/politics you fucking mutt

You are scared to have an opinion, because you are a bitch ass faggot, and know you are stupid, so anything you say in earnest might get mocked. Better to ne a bitch ass faggot than have people mock you, right faggot?

"yeah! Youz a bitch nigga for not discussing politics and economics G! Word up the GoP be whack son!"

Uh oh, this hard ass economist has me shaking in my boots. He's upset that I won't give an opinion! What am I ever going to do?

Back to obscurity? Oh ai didn't realize I was talking to a celebrity. You are an enormous faggot.

Okay, terrific!

Rich people often don't have salaries as we think of them. Their income comes from investments, so that's where most of the tax cuts are hidden.

Yeah, of course, but again that has nothing to do with what I said. Just like the guy I responded to who called the guy an idiot, then stated an unrelated fact. People seem to be stating things they know about economics, without them being related to anything.

We are sold corporate tax cuts because they magically grow the economy somehow. Through your own statement, all they mostly do is boost stakeholder profitability. Meanwhile, consumption taxes are regressive but never discussed. So the main point holds true that the rich are getting more profits and the poor and salary earners little relief. The chasm continues to grow and an economy with no middle class will collapse.

This sums it up

thats basically what I said numbnuts

No, it's not. You dont have a basic understanding of how our taxes work.

prove it

I already did to the other moron that said, "tax cuts only affect the rich", because both of you twats watched the same Fox News show this morning and cant be bothered to learn how the taxes you pay every year work. Go ahead and read that. Fucking idiot.

I wasn't agreeing with him

I probably got you confused with someone else, im quite a few beers in. Apologies, will send dick pics later.

This guy has a huge cock.

WE HEARD YOU

It's got the girth you desire.

This is the only comment on this board that isn't retarded. The rich pay 98% of all taxes. a 1% cut for the top would give millions more than a 50% cut to the bottom two tiers.

The point is to grow the economy and get jobs for the middle and lower classes.

surprised he isn't upset about that. I just checked and he paid $34,696 in taxes.

Standard deduction for both married and single will nearly be doubled. Child Tax credit is doubled. The working class and those with kids WILL see relief.

Child tax credit is doubled until 2025. Even if there is nominal "relief", the cuts to services and precarious position this puts future budgets in means most working middle class Americans WILL lose.

The majority of working-class families will get short-term relief. The problem is that (A) it's a pittance compared to how the ultra-wealthy will benefit, (B) it will be mostly on the backs of 'upper' middle class suburbanites and (C) it is at the expense of many programs that benefit the working class.

Yes, in the short term, an extra $1,300 will be a nice bonus. But I think in the long term this is going to hurt the working class tremendously.

In a minor sense, temporarily, while funding for government programs, public health services, and public education which the middle class use at a higher proportion than the rich will have to find the funding they're losing. But hopefully the corporations getting their tax rates cut just decide to give everyone sweet raises to offset it all.

But hopefully the corporations getting their tax rates cut just decide to give everyone sweet raises to offset it all.

I mean this will never happen. This money is going directly to stockholders.

To my knowledge all those provisions have sunset clauses

[removed]

Here I was thinking everyone on this sub works at Panera bread. I make less than minimum wage!

Your friends are right.

My upper middle class taxes going down slightly doesn't mean it's not also a gift to the wealthy. It can be two things, dumb dumb.

[removed]

People arent talking about upper middle classers, theyre talking about capital owners who will benefit immensely from the corporate rate reduction

I wish i were smart so i would know whats going on too...😢

It's extremely unlikely he qualifies for even $10k in property taxes with the AMT. I make a fraction of what he makes and barely get state and local tax deductions despite paying $33k in SALT every year.

It's a shell game to gut social programs by creating a deficit

I hope you're correct. That's the best we can hope for at this point.

I want to know exactly how this is going to funnel liquid cash to the ultra rich. I've seen a lot of crazy claims but no one has actually said anything about this bill that I believe, mostly because they don't cite provisions from the actual bill. This may very well just help the richest in the us, but I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that

Keeping your own money = funneling

Sssshhh

Well that have to reconcile both bills first and then you'll get a clearer answer but its likely that taxes are being reduced dramatically for the very wealthy, their businesses, the estate tax (which is practically meaningless), and it makes it easier to bring money they've stashed overseas back into the country- it reduces the penalty. Also, the wealthy benefit in the most direct way from slashing corporate taxes because they're more likely to have incentive based income, stocks, bonuses etc. The theory that cutting corporate taxes benefits the common worker relies on the upper class to redistribute that wealth which historically hasnt happened. The provisions that make the bill attractive to the middle class expire over the next 10 years so those taxes level out.

The provisions that make the bill attractive to the middle class expire over the next 10 years so those taxes level out.

The fun part here is that the GOP is just kicking the can down the road for future Congress to take care of. So if they're in charge, they finagle things to make them permanent, and just go ahead and take a big bite out of SS/Medicare/whatever. If the Democrats are in charge, they'll probably let them expire since that's actually the sane, financially responsible thing to do, and everyone gets to blame the libruls for raising their taxes again.

Cannot take money away from Social Security and Medicare - they are funded thru FICA and are separate from the Federal budget. Congress literally has no control over those taxes.

listen to the faggots on the progress channel on sirius (i dont pay i got it with my new truck) and im sure you'll have it figured out in no time. :yawn:

Are you really asking strangers on Reddit to research this for you rather than, say, reading one of the many articles that explain it in detail?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/2/16720952/senate-tax-bill-inequality

to funnel lots of liquid cash to the ultra rich.

It doesn't "funnel" anything. It's a tax cut.

All the money I have is mine. Lowering taxes isn't funneling money to me, it's allowing me to keep more of my own money.

If the government sent a water truck to take 10,000 gallons out of your well every year, and one year they only took 8,000, would you say they were funneling money to me?

No.

Lowering the corporate tax rate = the business elite taking higher compensation with no requirement to invest that extra money in enriching the lower classes (the stated intention of lowering the tax rate.) Thats funneling money to the ultra rich.

Lowering the corporate tax rate = the business elite taking higher compensation with no requirement to invest that extra money in enriching the lower classes (the stated intention of lowering the tax rate.)

Right, because rich people generally stuff cash under mattresses.

Name a place rich people keep money that does not involve growing the economy and economic opportunities.

Are you kidding? Their personal investments, offshore (new plan lowers the penalty moving money from outside to inside the country,) personal equity like property, art, various toys.

If your'e telling me that it's good for the economy if a CEO of a company gets a giant bonus and then buys art or property as an act of speculation because he knows those markets are manipulated enough he'll see a huge profit in a few years when he sells you're full of shit.

Are you kidding? Their personal investments,

Personal investments in what? Mattress storage areas? Do you work for a publicly traded company? Do you understand how investments work?

offshore (new plan lowers the penalty moving money from outside to inside the country,)

So people elsewhere aren't people, or offshore investments don't help Americans? Which one are you saying?

personal equity like property, art, various toys.

All produced out of thin air by no one, of course.

If your'e telling me that it's good for the economy if a CEO of a company gets a giant bonus and then buys art or property as an act of speculation because he knows those markets are manipulated enough he'll see a huge profit in a few years when he sells you're full of shit.

Nah. I'm just saying it's better than giving the same dollar to the government. The government never spends individuals' money better than individuals. Never.

It is moronically disproportionate to compare the 'good' it does to subtract trillions of dollars of tax revenue to allow private individuals to administer the same money. How do you, as an administration, go from touting how strong the economy has been since your election to claiming it's vital we massively rewrite the tax code to bolster the economy?

It is moronically disproportionate to compare the 'good' it does to subtract trillions of dollars of tax revenue to allow private individuals to administer the same money.

It's not disproportionate. Private people are better stewards of money than the government.

How do you, as an administration, go from touting how strong the economy has been since your election to claiming it's vital we massively rewrite the tax code to bolster the economy?

The administration is bonkers. And this tax rewrite is likely terrible in terms of what they are doing vs the best tax situation. I won't defend them.

[removed]

You're implying millionaires like Anthony will have higher taxes, but this is designed to funnel money to the rich. That's a contradiction. Cutting someone's taxes is not funneling them money, that's a serious problem in perspective. Funneling money to someone else is what taxes do.

I'll be saving about $2500. And good I want them to gut social programs.

How about we just cut the cord to all these faggot moochers that have been living off the working man for generations? The ones that know how to play the game and abuse the system. Let's start with a nice nuke on Michigan

When I say social program I dont just mean welfare- You're talking about trillions of dollars in deficit, anything that uses any public money that isnt the military will be impacted.

Yup

thank god you faggots showed up for this one

[removed]

remember, he has to take the train into the city now because he has a suspended license. And is always complaining about the annoying working class he has to ride with.

He couldn't stop driving over 100 mph like a dumbass and accrued speeding tickets.

Uhh, what other ethnic group do we all know of that can't seem to avoid recidivism, no matter how many times they are punished? (Hint: Niggers)

Yet Ant wants us all to believe he's White?!

He's Italian. God damn, do I need /u/cbanks420lol to explain this?

*Sicilian

Oh, phooey to that. I'm tired of Tuscany pretending it's more like Switzerland. Peninsula of swarthy degenerates.

Otherwise known as a "Fancy African"

I wonder if he tried the “im Anthony from Opie & Anthony” card only to learn that no one knows what that is anymore

Old fool probably starts quoting black crime statistics, thinking this will somehow warm up the cop. what an aloof jackass.

Anthony is everything he claims to hate.

Yes, we all already know he’s black

Exactly he isnt far different from opie.

Wait why does he have a suspended license? Is it related to his other legal trouble or did he get a DUI?

speeding.

Sucking too many peckahs

This man is a dunce. And a hebephile. And a tranny chaser. But very much a dunce.

He failed and dropped out because of gym class

Oh, now I get why Reddit is up in arms over this Net Neutrality shit. They want us to subsidize their video game bandwidth!

Here's a hint, fags:

Books.

Oh, now I get why Reddit is up in arms over this Net Neutrality shit. They want us to subsidize their video game bandwidth!

Here's a hint, fags:

Books.

Streaming Netflix uses way more bandwidth than gaming. The cable companies have been losing money on millennials canceling cable subscriptions because they don't want to watch 100 channels of reality shows instead of watching what they want. As a result, they want to make it where using Netflix is more expensive than watching cable by imposing arbitrary bandwidth limits every month. So, seeing this in action, I don't trust ISPs to do the right thing. And I don't have a choice as a consumer, so I have to eat Armstrong Cable's bullshit and my only hope is that they can regulate them into providing world-class internet like every other 1st world nation, besides a few. (Sorry Aussies)

The fact that movie retards are bigger parasites than video game retards is what is called, by educated people, a "non-sequitur."

The fact that niggers watch too much television does not threaten my argument that you want literate people to subsidize your lifestyle, like every other welfare nigger in America. If you were a white person, you would be ashamed to ask.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJokRFEAupg

Thanks for reminding me this is the O and A sub.

Video data uses way more bandwidth than an online connection for a game.

So enjoy your books instead of free YouTube, or cheap Netflix/Hulu/any streaming service because you wanted to feel smart.

The fact that movie retards are bigger parasites than video game retards is what is called, by educated people, a "non-sequitur."

The fact that niggers watch too much television does not threaten my argument that you want literate people to subsidize your lifestyle, like every other welfare nigger in America. If you were a white person, you would be ashamed to ask.

One, there's no way you're whiter than me bb.

Two, you have no idea what you're talking about if you think black people watching tv has anything to do with this.

Three, you're a bad troll, but here's your you because I laughed.

"One, there's no way you're whiter than me bb."

Being a nigger is about expecting other people to subsidize your lifestyle. Not about skin color.

"Two, you have no idea what you're talking about if you think black people watching tv has anything to do with this."

No fucking shit you retard. That's because being a nigger is about expecting other people to subsidize your lifestyle. Not about skin color. See above.

"Three, you're a bad troll, but here's your you because I laughed."

I'm not trolling when I tell you I'd rather live in a middle class black neighborhood than among welfare niggers like you. I honestly feel you're an amoral person who should not be allowed around children (of any color.)

Lol somebody needs to touch your cock before you blow up a mall or something.

Actually, the people who have a problem with getting women to have sex with them consensually (sp?) are all liberals these days.

Well that's just silly.

I thought libs were the degenerates who can't stop fucking each other? Goddamn roastie sluts sucking chads and so on?

Also, the president brags about not understanding "power to end your career doesn't equal true consent" by admitting to grabbing em by the pussy and moving on them like a bitch, so you must have a problem with that too? That's something you'd beat the shit out of somebody for it they did it to your daughter, right? :⁾

If you're 12, don't worry you'll grow out of this. If you're older than 18, eat bleached shit.

[removed]

[removed]

It's easy to make decisions when you have no principles and just root for the color you like

I'm still waiting for a single ISP company to propose anything like the FUD spread by the net neutrality 'activists' on Reddit.

Literally no ISP in any country has proposed anything like "tv-style packages". It doesn't make business or technical sense at all to filter websites, like "social media package for $9.99 to get Facebook and Twitter!!!".

Every time it's brought up basically everyone involved in tech freaks out and its obviously incredibly unpopular. Do you think the ISPs would risk that backlash?

VPNs and DNS encryption could easily bypass any filtering like that...meaning you could get the cheapest package and still go on Netflix and they couldnt do anything about it.

It will be harder to enforce than drugs.

Not to mention it would be a boon for any ISP who doesn't do it. Google already created an ISP to push fiber deployment. Do you really think all of silicon valley wouldn't mobilize to offer "unfiltered" fiber internet to compete with Comcast et al if they tried that?

I feel like the only person who works in software who has thought this scenario out. Some FTC/FCC regulation is hardly the only thing stopping companies from doing this.

TLDR: Net neutrality is a manufactured political issue that is nothing to worry about and as disconnected from reality as 'rape culture'.

If we don't have net neutrality, we'll go back to the dark ages of the internet of 15 months ago.

Do some research. We paid taxes for two decades to the big ISPs to build fiber networks. They pocketed the cash and either never built them, or laid fiber and never lit it up.

Fiber isn't going to become widespread because these ISPs are natural monopolies due to the high costs of actually running the lines. So they'll just continue rent seeking on their shitty existing networks.

We paid taxes for two decades to the big ISPs to build fiber networks.

Then regulate those particular ISPs... in Canada they force companies who had subsidized networks to lease their infrastructure to other small ISP/telecom companies, generating competition.

But we're not talking about the few cases where the fiber pipes were subsidized in the US. We're talking about a federal law that affects ALL private internet providers nationwide.

The fact some pipes were subsidized does not change my argument at all. My argument is that it makes zero sense for a major ISP like Comcast to take such a big risk by filtering the internet of the average internet user unless they pay a higher fee.

Then regulate those particular ISPs...

That's what Tom Wheeler did by moving ISPs to Title 2 utilities!

To your point about leasing to others, we've had that for years. Doesn't mean that they have to lease out at rates that would allow the lessees to be competitive.

My argument is that it makes zero sense for a major ISP like Comcast to take such a big risk by filtering the internet of the average internet user.

What makes you think that? To continue my airline bag analogy - have you seen any upstart airlines not do the exact same thing, charge for checked bags? No, you haven't, because starting an airline requires a huge amount of capital.

Sure, you might get an existing player (like Southwest in my airline analogy, somebody like Google Fiber in the ISP world) to dare to be different. But the majors absolutely will start to tier things in some fashion. Why would the incumbents, insulated from competition because they've already sunk the costs into building the network as it is now, not rent seek if given the opportunity? And once one of them do it the rest will. The first airline to start charging bag fees saw a sizable chunk of money hit their bottom line in their quarterly reports to Wall Street. The rest of the airlines quickly followed suit. Because they can't leave money on the table - they have duty to their shareholders. All the major ISPs are public, just like the airlines.

people would flock to the ISP companies who offer unfiltered internet.

In case you haven't noticed. Most people have little to no choice to switch ISPs.

So 15-20% of the US only has one major ISP therefore it makes sense net neutrality will be threatened for the US as a whole? This is basically the entire sum of the argument I've heard. And it doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Is Comcast and ATT only going to do it in places without competition and hope no one else does anything about it?

That's why my next sentence mentioned Google fiber and a massive mobilisation of silicon valley (both in ISPs and DNS encryption)...not to mention the other reasons I mentioned it doesn't make sense.

My argument hardly depends on competition in the current ISP market. I'm talking about the risk it would expose Comcast and others in 3-5yrs time of they did it...

Its incredibly unpopular idea for a very good reason. The internet is nothing like TV.

Again, you are glossing over the fact that the percentage of people who don't have a viable second choice. DSL is the only option for a disturbingly large percentage of the population.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/50-million-us-homes-have-only-one-25mbps-internet-provider-or-none-at-all/

Its incredibly unpopular idea for a very good reason. No ISP in any other country, even with less competition, has tried it in 3 decades also for a every good reason.

And most had to do with the fact people weren't steaming 4K video all day, and most had a 56K connection. It's silly to think because it didn't happen in the days of dial-up, its going to continue that way.

Okay debating the details, can you just tell me what this means in realistic terms? What will Comcast, ATT, etc offer to consumers specifically?

What is the dystopian world you imagine without "net neutrality" being enforced by the FTC/FCC?

I'm genuinely curious to see what the hypothetical scenario is that I'm supposed to be concerned about...

Its exactly what everyone is worried about, prioritizing trafffic based on their corporate interests, for one.

because I honestly can't imagine a scenario that wouldn't result in a massive backlash from consumers and the tech industry, and create significant risk exposure on the stock market for any ISP company dumb enough to do it...

What good is a backlash when you have absolutely no choice to send your money elsewhere? Comcast has an absolutely horrendous reputation, but still thrives as a company because the majority of us who send them money every week have no choice to send it somewhere else.

Yeah, because it's just so easy to start-up an ISP company to start competing in 3-5 years. Great rationale there.

They give smartphone apps like Snapchat billions of dollars in silicon valley. Companies that are 1yr old like Cruise got 3 billion last yr.

Do you really think that the richest companies in the world like Apple/Google/FB/etc, not to mention venture capitalists, won't put billions into creating an open internet where certain sites are throttled or slowed down?

I'm not sure why people think this is an impossible idea. Google spent billions just to get fiber(!) more widespread.

Net neutrality is a far bigger issue and one that consumers clearly care way more about.

It will be good for consumers if Comcast/ATT shoots themselves in the foot by being dumb enough to do that.

How in the hell are you comparing a digital app like Snapchat to something that would require an absurd amount of physical infrastructure? Unless someone can invent a super quick and reliable satellite service there is absolutely no correlation between these ideas. Also, Snapchat is developed to be used across multiple platforms on multiple networks- when you have an ISP, you are typically stuck with that ISP either due to geography or contract. If we are depending on Amazon, Apple, and Google to eventually reach us, I don't understand how anybody thinks this would be a good idea.

Exactly. An apt analogy would be Tesla. It was next to impossible to build a successful automobile start-up to compete with major players. One company managed to kinda do it and that was with a shit ton of government intervention subsidizing the "green energy" technology Musk used. So you had a multi-billionaire + massive State intervention. ISP start-ups would be similar to that, even Google Fiber (which I've been following since day 1) is having a ton of difficulty rolling out their plan across America. It's going noticeably slower than planned and it's possible the project will only be semi-successful in the long run.

Also it's stupid to put our faith in Alphabet seeing as how they're the main offenders in net censorship. Hence why DuckDuckGo, Brave, Purism's phone, etc.. are all part of the whole "Alt-Tech" thing. Alphabet is an enemy, probably a bigger threat than Comcast. No reason to think they wouldn't engage in more censorship if given the chance.

even Google Fiber is having a ton of difficulty rolling out their plan across America

Google Fiber is not offering a comparable alternative compared to this alleged scenario where internet is heavily filtered ala TV/Satellite packages. If Google could roll into your city with unfiltered internet with fiber speeds, they'd murder Comcast who would (apparently) be throttling websites because the FTC/FCC said they could. Which is enough to scare their shareholders from never going through with the idea in the first place.

Everyone is completely outraged at the idea of 'net neutrality' being attacked, it happens every time the idea is brought up, but for some reason they can't seem to take the next logical step and see how that would translate into the marketplace and be a terrible idea, even for a terrible company like Comcast, to ever decide to do.

If Google could roll into your city with unfiltered internet with fiber speeds, they'd murder Comcast, who in this scenario would (apparently) be throttling websites because the FTC/FCC said they could.

Yes, because take a look at this absolutely giant coverage map of how much coverage they've been able to offer in the past SEVEN YEARS.

Huh? I'm not comparing an ISP with a software company. That was merely an analogy to the amount of money flowing around Silicon Valley.

Comcast's entire ISP business is small time compared to major tech companies. A bunch of major tech companies put billions into a bullshit AI research company. You don't think they'd do the same in an instant to make sure net neutrality was kept a reality?

They don't even need to do it for economic reasons. There are enough bored billionaires living in San Francisco/Palo Alto who could single handily influence this supposed debate in the marketplace and convince Comcasts/ATT/etc shareholders to not fuck around with their current business model.

That "tiny niche of poor people using mobile phones" is like half the planet

Let's fuck up infrastructure that works, it doesn't really matter anyway, we can spend billions building a parallel one so all is good.

You are the most misguided motherfucker i've seen in quite some time.

Save my username, message me when it happens please. I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

I've been looking forward to this filtered internet dystopia people have been warning us about since the early-2000s when it first became a hot topic online. At least back then it was feasible when network infrastructure was limited, but to pretend it's a real threat today is a laughable.

Yes, the bandwidth is enough for all traffic to be equal, there is absolutely no fucking need to give anyone power to throttle or prioritize any packet delivery.

This is not about you le savvy internent guru. People like us will always be able to get our workarounds in and tunnel to whatever but for most users all it takes for them to stop using a service is 1-2 weeks of slow loading of their gay photos or whatever while there's another service (created by the ISP what a coincidence!) that loads instantly. Market has just been taken, better luck next time. This applies to anything and everything and will be completely legal to do.

He reminds me of the people that think mom & pop retail stores can compete with Walmart. What is it about capital, marketing, and political power that these fucks don't understand? The State has to intervene to keep things fair and facilitate the need of small entrepreneurs and workers- not to just let the mystical "free market" do its magic dance.

He reminds me of the people that think mom & pop retail stores can compete with Walmart

The State has to intervene to keep things fair and facilitate the need of small entrepreneurs and workers

You literally have your dumb analogy backwards, people want the state to regulate Walmart so mom & pop shops can compete. Anti-regulation people don't think mom & pop stores can compete with walmart, they believe they market has decided Walmart is better than mom & pop shops, so that's your new reality.

Likewise I'm against 'regulation' here because I don't think there is any real risk of the imaginary scenario happening (at least Walmart actually destroyed the mom & pop shops before people cared).

"they believe the market has decided Walmart is better than mom & pop shops."

The "market" is highly inaccurate, self-destructive, and extremely inefficient in areas of immense importance to humanity & society- i.e. economics, culture, environment, and long term stability. You have this quaint notion that modern capitalism is merely an extension of your local bakeries competing for who could make the tastiest loaf of bread for the cheapest price. In reality you have multinational companies exerting influence of government to prevent unionization and higher taxes while using predatory tactics on local competitors such as price-matching and price gouging when appropriate.

Just saying "thy market sayeth.." isn't an argument, especially since "market" doesn't really mean anything in this day of age anymore.

What's "fair" is paying way less for food and clothing, not government forcing people to go to shitty small shops.

Again, this is the simplistic take that Libertarians and modern free marketeers always grab onto. You're not seeing the unseen effects of your actions. Buying meat from Walmart might save you several dollars for the short-term. However, in the long term you're supporting a behemoth that resists unionization, forces out local competitors, and impoverishes society as a whole by subsidizing its poor wages onto tax payer shoulders. (A good chunk of Walmart workers have some sort of government benefits due to poor wages at Walmart. Before you try to come back with some stupid Libertarian response: no one is going to cut welfare in a developed nation) As a result I can't go to a trade school, learn how to be a butcher, work as an apprentice, and then just open up "Sam the Butcher's Butcher shop"* like the fucking Brady Bunch. It'd be next to impossible to compete with artificially lowered prices and companies that spend a good % of their revenue on advertising.

not government forcing people to go to shitty small shops.

My suggestion is a renewed Roosevelt-esque trust busting effort along with pre-Reagan regulations. Also, small shops aren't shitty- I don't know if you've been in a Walmart lately but you'll encounter a series of land whales waddling through the aisles with their typical simian-spic mouth breathing faces buying 2 for 1 ketchup packets.

I'm not against all regulation nor all government. You just typed out a series of cliche responses to libertarianism/captialism. Congrats. I'm not going to write responses as there has been more than enough smarter people who have done a far better job than I can.

My point can be summarized without debating regulation vs no regulation, or socialized-capitalism vs free market capitalism:

Why do we need a regulation for a problem, when the problem would very likely not exist, or already have sufficent counterbalances in the marketplace, regardless if there was a regulation or not?

TLDR: Are hand-wavy hypothetical scenarios sufficient grounds for regulation? Or should regulation always be in response to real problems that real citizens are having?

Your argument depends solely on the benevolence of cable companies not fucking over their customers. There is no benefit whatsoever to the consumer to repealing Net Neutrality.

Your argument depends solely on the benevolence of cable companies not fucking over their customers.

No it doesnt... not at all. My entire argument depends on the fact cable companies can't piss off their entire customer base and the entire tech industry and get away with it.

Maybe you need to reread what I'm saying again. I'm not a republican caricature who thinks ISP competition in it's current form is sufficient. That's not what I said at all.

I'm not talking about ISPs in their current form...we're talking about ISPs making a major shift in pricing packages and fundamentally changing how the internet works. And the subsequent response by the entire tech industry and marketplace (both from a technical perspective and business).

Look into South Africas shaped vs unshaped internet.

Which is thanks to net neutrality laws that were implemented in the first place.

How did these corporations get these legislations for the monopolies in their area?

Which is thanks to net neutrality laws that were implemented in the first place.

No, it isn't. The monopolies have risen out of mergers and the fact that it's insanely expensive to install the infrastructure for running an ISP.

The mergers that we're backed by legislations?

the fact that it's insanely expensive to install the infrastructure for running an ISP.

So just a coincidence that the NN site being pushed all over Reddit is funded by Soros? And how all the Democratic senators who came out recently against NN have accepted donations from Soros?

Why are proNN people like Soros and Benzos wasting all this money on fighting it when they could just build their own network? They would make money hand over fist if they did. Thats if these scare tactic plans actually go through. Which has never happened to begin with anywhere. Even in countries without NN laws.

I'd be more worried about these new regulations actually hurting the internet more than helping it

Exactly. The mergers aren't really a real cause of anything.

It would just be Cablevision vs shit DSL or TCI vs nothing, or JIm Bob's Cable vs Nynex DSL...

No, Net neutrality had little to do with stifling competition.

Your local governments allowing these terrible franchise deals did.

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

And the companies involved attempting to crush municipal and other competition.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-cable-municipal-broadband-20160812-snap-story.html

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvn4x/the-21-laws-states-use-to-crush-broadband-competition

So if the "less government regulation" crowd really gave a shit other than following the party line because Breitbart tells them what to think, THESE would be what you want repealed. Not title 2.

Isn't the big problem a total lack of competition though? The fact that Google is the one that tried to compete with established ISPs makes me think it's something that would require a ton of money.

I have the option between two ISPs, and the price/value is basically equal. If they actually do ever try that tier stuff, realistically I'll at least be stuck with it for a long time before anyone can even try to compete, no?

That doesn't mean it makes good business or technical sense even for monopolies.

I think the biggest thing to point out is that in the present climate ISP's can't conceivably pull moves like this without massive consumer backlash. And if they did want their end goal to be the hysteric hypothetical presented here they'd do it incredibly incrementally to avoid more backlash. The whole "ok its legal now, why isn't anyone instantly doing it" argument is a bit silly. That said your questions about how they'll operate in near monopolies is good, and your overall question will be a good one if a year or two from now they still haven't taken advantage of consumers in the way some people worry they will.

You're assuming that people naturally gravitate towards the better option and that companies offering "unfiltered internet" won't discriminate against wrongthink websites. I see no reason to believe either assertion- look at the current censorship controversy that has been going on for over a year now. Alphabet, Apple, Facebook, & Twitter are openly discriminating against right-wingers. Some mainstream, some fringe. At most you just had disgruntled right-wingers and some moderates backing Bitchute, GAB, and Minds but besides that it's been rather lackluster. Consumers mainly don't care or, worse yet, agree with heinous actions of mega corporations since they're aligned ideologically.

dns encryption gets you nothing other than securing your dns queries. you still ultimately make the connection traversing their links with the destination visible in ip headers.

either way, you're not going to suddenly get better performance because you're connecting to some mysterious vpn endpoint.

So what your saying is that ISPs will throttle all VPN traffic because some VPN traffic is being used to bypass their filters? Like China?

You do know VPNs are extremely popular w/ big companies and used for many legitimate reasons?

Because what you're saying doesn't make sense otherwise. They can't see what sites you're visiting with a VPN or when using 3rd-party encrypted DNS.

yes. this is something that IT people are concerned about.

it's not that they can see what sites you're visiting -- it's that you're not visiting one of the sites to which they've prioritized traffic. you're visiting something they may or may not know about. so, you're throttled or get worse performance by default.

Do you honestly see this happening? ISPs slowing down 99.9% of the internet and only allowing full traffic speeds to a whitelist of server IP addresses? And it will cost more than it does today to not have this throttling happen?

that's the shared concern, but i really have no idea. i just wanted to point out that there's probably not going to be any easy technical workaround for users with tools like the ones you mentioned since the ISP has almost all of the meaningful power.

Right, and this is what the Portuguese ISP did. Block everything, whitelist a few sites. But they did it to offer cheaper plans to limited mobile users ($5-10/m)... but only for a minority subset of their customer base. While still offering the same unlimited plans as they did before to everyone else.

It was never done to limit standard home/mobile internet plans or to jack up prices by forcing people into TV/Satellite packages. Because that doesn't make sense. And I don't see that ever happening anywhere else.

ISPs are often geographic monopolies. it's inaccessibly expensive to start new ISPs in the US. even if it's not 'mandatory Portugal ISP-style', i have a hard time seeing an upside for anyone other than the ISPs.

So ISPs should be allowed to do this thing, but they totally won't do it.

You should give me all your credit card info. I'm not going to use it, but I need that info. Just because. Totally not gonna do anything with it though.

The only people with a rational interest in this topic are the big streaming sites, like Netflix. They fear getting charged by ISPs and shill like crazy. Very impressive PR machine.

That's basically the only time 'net neutrality' has ever been challenged in real life in the US. Netflix got throttled by Verizon temporarily. That actually made economic sense because they were something like 30-40% of ALL traffic.

But that was years ago and now with fiber deployment and network upgrades the internet can more than support Netflix/Youtube and other internet video traffic...

Lack of infrastructure upgrades was the real problem there. It had nothing to do with net neutrality. Yet people keep citing that as an example.

Also charging Netflix extra might have funded those infrastructure investments, the necessity of which they almost exclusively caused.

Guess according to Reddit infrastructure development will be more likely the less money ISPs can make of the billion dollar company data hogs. But that all won't matter when Saint Bernhard takes over and gives free fibre to every shack in the Appalachian mountains.

No examples huh?

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

This has nearly a dozen examples.

The problem with most of your argument is that in most places there is very little choice in ISPs. You can't really flock to 'unfiltered' internet if both Verizon and Comcast tier their service.

Let me get this straight, what you're saying is that ISPs will make a major change to pricing and significantly change how the internet works, and piss off their consumers and the entire tech industry... and the ISP market will stay exactly the same... there won't be any consumer/competition/technical reaction at all.

So therefore we should consider the state of the current ISP market, as it is today, when considering the feasibility of this scenario?

Let me get this straight, what you are saying is that ISPs have been pouring millions of dollars into lobbying to kill net neutrality for years, so that when it dies they are not going to take advantage of it financially?

If there's one thing companies like Verizon and Comcast have taught me is that they will do anything to eke out greater profits in the short term. Google is not going to suddenly dump billions of dollars into rolling out fiber in every city and town across America. It was launched five years ago and is still in only nine markets. It will take at least a decade to become a real competitor on the national stage. And when that time comes, maybe Comcast and Verizon would have to adjust their business models to become more competitive.

Honest question: Why do you think ISPs fought so hard to kill net neutrality if they have no intention of using it to their advantage?

ISPs have been pouring millions of dollars into lobbying to kill net neutrality for years

I personally don't see what the Portugese ISP did as wrong. Do you?

They took advantage of the lack of net neutrality laws in Portugal to offer cheaper limit internet mobile plans ($5-10/m) to people who couldn't afford the full plans.

I personally believe ISPs should be allowed to do what they want with their infrastructure and that alleged rationale behind 'net neutrality' regulations are not realistic threats.

99% of people will still have unfiltered internet, with the exception of a tiny minority, who wouldnt have any internet at all otherwise.

It creates new markets, it doesn't limit existing ones. The internet was never like TV, and TV-style packages are not coming to the internet because they can, only if it makes sense. And I have yet to see a single person here explain to me why it makes sense. Other than "cable companies are evil herr derr".

I personally don't see what the Portugese ISP did as wrong. Do you?

This is a different argument from "ISPs won't do it." If Comcast offered a 'complete' plan that was the same price as their current service and then cheaper options for smaller packages, sure that would be fine. I can all but guarantee that won't be the case.

99% of people will still have unfiltered internet, with the exception of a tiny minority, who wouldnt have any internet at all otherwise.

What is your basis for this?

Other than "cable companies are evil herr derr" ...as if cable companies are the only ones who will ever have a say in this matter.

There are much deeper issues than the possibility of 'channel' bundles. Comcast owns NBC and has major investments in many sites and content providers. Is it ok if they fast-track their own entities? This is just them 'doing what they want with their infrastructure?' I think consumers lose big time if this kind of activity is allowed.

Bullshit. T-Mobile is doing it already with their "Binge On" program.

What do you do in software, character? Because I'm in the business myself. And here's one example right here that's going on right now - T-Mobile's Binge On program. If you're one of the blessed few partners in the Binge On program (Netflix, Hulu, etc. All established players in the streaming business) their data streams are zero rated - they don't count towards your monthly data plan. But this also comes with a price - all the streams are throttled to bitrates that will only support 480p.

If you're not a partner in the program, T-Mobile users consuming your streaming service will have to pay full price for each stream. So it's not a neutral playing field - price conscious users will choose one of the Binge On partners over your service because it is the economical thing to do.

Now, the reason they can get away with this is because Tom Wheeler decided to treat wireless service providers differently from the wired providers. That fucker Pai is trying to make the same thing be legit for wired service providers as well.

And if you think that they won't do it, look at the airline industry. Remember when you got two checked bags included with your ticket? And everyone was up in arms when the first airline started charging, but now they all do and we all pay the fees? Same thing will happen. There's only a few players in the industry. Only the lucky few actually live in a place with competition.

I thought I saw Verizon in New Zealand doing it with tier packages already.

You need to get out of the country more because I've seen this exact kind of thing in several places. Columbia, most recently.

They don't frame it as "$9.99 extra to get twitter", which obviously no one would accept. They do shit like "snapchat and facebook FREE! $10/GB for regular internet" so it looks like they're giving you BONUS stuff.

How do you reckon a new company will be able to gain market share in a system where users essentially have to pay to use it while the big boys are giving it away "for free"?

Please just let us be able to do this thing that we totally are never gonna do, but still let us pls.

You're an idiot if you think corporations give a shit. They'll just charge you 10 bucks more for porn and you'll have no choice but hey at least faggot liberal redditors are upset so it's worth it

Why not just keep it the way things are and not risk it?

Net Neutrality is a myth

It's not a myth, it's how the internet fundamentally works... and will continue to work. Unlike TV which has always been a heavily controlled platform.

People are just angry at having shitty ISPs like Comcast and they are taking their anger out via "net neutrality" internet campaigns. But it's always been a hand-wavy hypothetical issue disconnected from reality.

Someone message me when an ISP actually tries to do what the alarmist agenda being pushed on Reddit. Then I'll buy this is a real issue. So far I'm entirely unconvinced.

right I agree.

He doesn't know anything. He tricks idiots into thinking he's smart because he watches How it's Made. The only thing he's ever independently researched is age of consent in all 50 states.

Everyone is smarter than everyone in The Internet.

It's almost as if he has the reasoning skills of a AC duct worker educated in the garbage schools of Long Island...

Ya hes a quack. Get it duct work. Enoy.

This certainly did enoy me.

Yuck. Kill yourself.

Who here among us is a sheet metal guy? Reveal yourself

I wish, nowadays you probably need a university-degree and 5 years of experience to even sniff out a trainee-job for 5 months.

sniff

Yay!!! Right here!!!

Really?! Question: does it Ant talk8ng about how much he hated construction work and all the regular joe' s translate to you and your job at all?

Yeah. It sucks and there are a lot of guys like Anthony. Equal parts racist and funny.

The schools are only as good as the students who are there!

that's actually hard and skilled work

Yeah that's actually what he was.

[removed]

Just sell crack, nigga. I smoke a lot of my prod but sell enough to perpetuate the cycle of bell ringers and craigslist.

Yeah he misreported crime statistics. All that stuff about black people committing more crimes is just racist police deliberately hiding the numbers

No one is saying he's wrong about black people, that's all he knows about. It's everything else that he embarrasses himself with.

Anthony doesn't know anything about economics, but the good members of the O&A sub that kill their kids and love to make nigger jokes, "that woman's a fat ugly cunt" one-liners and to tell Opie to kill himself are really on the up-and-up. They DID take Econ 101, after all...

How dare we try to have informed opinions about our government. What a bunch of cucks we are for not having faith in "daddy".

I'm just gonna post some of the top threads on this subreddit right now:

"Sam is so unattractive he somehow went on Nickelodeon and didn’t get molested"

"The resemblance is uncanny" (picture of Sam and a Chimpanzee)

"Jim Norton's ideal woman" (picture of Fabio)

"Why are you guys starting to feel sorry for Jim?Fuck him he deserves everything thats coming to him" (basically saying Jim's a horrible human being who betrayed his fans because he's in love with a transgendered sex worker)

Surprisingly, there's no big anti-Opie thread calling him a worthless radio hole leech who should just die, or yelling for Anthony to be in prison and calling him a cancerous stain on the human gene, but then again it IS early still.

When it comes to politics, though, trust us, we KNOW what we're talking about.

Okay, but I think it's possible to have informed opinions about the economy AND to enjoy making juvenile jokes about a defunct radio show. Why are the two mutually exclusive? I'm sure plenty of the senators and federal judges go home at night and watch How I Met Your Mother or whatever shitty comedy.

"This just in from the O&A Misesian-economist expert, Dr. Mongo the Trucker."

Do retards think that everyone else is also retarded?

This is the same guy that predicted Obama would get more things through the senate and house than any other president.

I really, really hope net neutrality gets dismanteld

why should he care when domain registrar can pull the domain name or his hosting can pull out. or delist on google, streaming services etc. Look at whapped to the alt-right sites. months back.

I did not see a lot of the net neutrality folks get mad at big daddy for pulling out from storefront contract.

So I have to read about NN horseshit here as well? Just shut the fuck up already.

I'm listening now and this Mike jabroni is a dunce

misreporting crime statistics

Black people commit the most crimes. There’s no other way to spin it. As for net neutrality, Ol Antoine Al Kummiya is just wrong.

Cuck

Any moron who thinks that because they're getting rid of 'net neutrality' you will be blocked from going to certain sites and you'll be paying more for services and it will be the end of the internet, is an asshole. If you read anything other than Gizmodo or Patton Oswalt's feed, you will realize that you don't want the government in charge of the internet and that the marketplace will dictate what ISP's do. Nothing was blocked before a year and a half ago and it wasn't a thought, but Obama wanted more control and he got it. Now that will go away and all the SJW's will forget it ever existed in a few months.

Any moron that thinks they're wanting rid of net neutrality just so they can keep things exactly the same as it is now needs to rethink calling others morons.

Getting rid of net neutrality would mean that the free market can innovate. Tell me how well the government took care of Flint's water or go to a DMV and see how well they're doing. Bloggers are trying to scare people into thinking that getting rid of net neutrality is the end of the world. Relax, you'll be fine and the government won't be controlling your internet and that's a good thing.

I'm not even in the USA so it it won't affect me. Regardless it's fairly easy to see what can go wrong by giving a company with vested interest in directing traffic to their own services control over your connection. The amount of money that they stand to make should not be underestimated, and they know it.

I'm not even in the USA so it it won't affect me. Regardless it's fairly easy to see what can go wrong by giving a company with vested interest in directing traffic to their own services control over your connection.

you mean like they've done this entire time?

Firstly, NN is new, it's not like it was the law of the land for 20 years keeping ISP's locked up and now when it goes away they will go wild. Secondly, ISP's already charge for content they don't create. I have to pay my ISP to get access to Reddit. If they want to charge me $20/more per month to go to Reddit, which is unlikely because they would've done it a long time ago, then that's their right. And it's my right to switch to a provider that doesn't If Best Buy doesn't sell the tv I like, I don't write to my senator, I go to another store.

They charge you for access to the internet. They do not charge you for where you go when you are there. That's the fundamental thing they want to change. Yes. NN didn't exist before. You want to know why it happened and is protected in the EU? They started throttling services they didn't like. Which they can't do under NN.

IF a company did do that, then you switch to a service that doesn't. Why do you want the government telling private companies what they can and can't do? Name one thing that improved because the government got their hand in it.

I honestly just feel we're going round and round here. Ideally, yes. It would be great if the government didn't have to be involved. Also yes, it'd be great if you could just pick from endless new services until happy. But there's relatively few options in most cases, and in some only one. Really, it could all be fine and ISPs could use the freedom of total control over delivery of data for the good of the whole network, ushering in a new internet age and everyone like myself worried about NN going away can breath a sigh of relief that we were wrong. Or we just keep NN and don't have to deal with those maybes.

Again, there was no NN a year ago. This is a power grab that will stifle innovation. The reason why you don't have choices is because of the government. There should be 100 ISP choices, but the government gives contracts to whomever lobbies the hardest. Let's get the government out of it. Trust me, it's better without NN.

you could switch to a service that doesn’t

Not a reality until wireless, cell phone based internet becomes as affordable and consistent as land based.

Also, considering ISPs have a monopoly on the public utilities in 99% of the country - good luck on switching providers.

So why are ISPs against NN if they want to keep things the way they are?

Because they don't want the government telling them what they can do. I don't either. If they want to charge a premium for their service, that's up to them. I don't shop at Neiman Marcus because it's too expensive, but I don't want the gov't telling them that they have to lower prices. They need to innovate and to do that, you need to make a profit. If the government ran the internet from day one, it'd be shit.

Were tax dollars used to build the infrastructure they use?

Where do tax dollars come from?

That's my point

Interesting take, thank you. The signal to noise ratio on this debate is terrible.

It's just another issue where these disingenuous pieces of shit will make some infographic with Star Wars references to push their point. I hate the current state of media and spreading of information so fucking much; everybody acts like children and refuses to see any of the nuance behind a topic.

In the last week I read that the end of NN would be facism and the GOP tax cuts will be 1) the end of America 2) Armageddon and 3) Will kill 15k people a year.

This is insanity.

All the Berners upvoting like crazy in the middle of a work day. Shocking.

He's like a smart person.

Being like a smart person and actually being a smart person are two different things

Ant is a dumbass, but this thread is a reminder that this sub is filled with non scientific dunderheads on the left that are the equivalent of righty Ant.

I mean, I am going to save a couple grand on my taxes if the tax bill passes.

Few people would be more personally affected by it than him.

It doesn't save every American thousands. It's about a couple hundred per person for 80% of middle class

If they can free up bandwith by eliminating these horseshit podcasts and websites, it may be a benefit for him.

If I operated a website that was focused on customers, I would pay more for better performance.

You part time vloggers can just fuck right off.

He's old. It's really beyond his comprehension.

old people are dumb and young people are smart

Younger people understand a great deal more than I about tech etc, I think today's conversation was an excellent example of that when it comes to these 2 50+ year olds.

yeah ant isn't really tech savvy at all

All you have to do is look at his beliefs & the people he supports to understand he doesn’t give a fuck about anyone or anything.

Ant knows Keith the Cop will run Compound Media into the ground way before Net Neutrality.

Oh good a net neutrality debate. I don't see this debate from blowhard faggots in literally every other subreddit.

I come to this sub to get away from that horseshit.

Almost like a... safe space.

You call this sub safe? A member catapulted his son through a windshield for improved sound quality, then pole vaulted over him to escape the police.

Sounds safe.

Kuhn got (half a) nigga......ribs hurtin today.

Reddit's own hivemind thoughts have reached this sub. Got to any other subreddit's post about net neutrality, this shit is damn near verbatim.

the government could replace tap water with horse piss or thermite paint and fuckups like you would still be on here screeching about how it's all worth it for the liberal tears.

Fuck the liberals man! Kill em all!

This is literally an issue where the government is trying to restrict its own powers

I must have said something about liberals tears here, right? Right, bitch? Clearly, reading comprehension isn't your strength.

Net Neutrality makes it so a single person webpage costs the same amount for bandwidth as Google, Facebook and Netflix.

[removed]

Italians are the niggers of Europe

While I'm glad that you guys have moved on from the 'agreeing with everything Ant says' phase, I'm not liking the 'I hate you dad! You're wrong about everything!' phase you're in now with Ant.

Which fag from reddit is paying you to shill for net neutrality?

Look at all you uppity niggas learning and shit.

I hate this sub

[removed]

There are enough fat fedora wearers worrying about this and calling their congressmen that you can settle down faggot

Ant just knows that his side hates net neutrality and loves tax cuts so he goes with it.

Cheering for the Republicans is no different than cheering for the Yankees to him, except being on the side of the Republicans makes him money from the humourless zilches that love hearing him drone on about liberals.

I’ve heard people on both sides of the aisle with pro and anti-net neutrality views.

Fuck off shill. You have every other sub on the website to post this in.

Welcome to reddit sockcucka! New users are able to submit posts after 2 days. If you think your post is a fair contribution to the subreddit, message the moderators for a faster approval.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

He doesn't come off as smart anymore, does he? It's almost like he seemed smart because he was partnered with an idiot for 20 years...

They are both idiots. And so are we.

All fucking geniuses in this sub I’m sure.

Everyone here spent the last 20 years bitching about the FCC and now wants the FCC to control the internet.

This plan puts the FTC in charge of preventing ala carte packaging.

So stop it, you overdramatic faggots.

It's people like Anthony Cumia who make me want to watch America fail.

ant isnt very nuanced...

Remember back to 2014 when the internet didn't exist? Fucking idiots.

Ant is a fucking moron and never ever seemed smart. I laugh at the ant dick riders who look up to him as some Noble scholar. Sam owned him a few times today and that is sad in itself. Anyone else notice Sam and Ant don't like each other anymore? Haha

That 2001 bush logic

Clip here: https://youtu.be/dQV002wzcSM?t=920

WAHHHHH THE INTERNET IS GOING AWAY WAHHHH

"Shockingly SALIENT micro and macroeconomic posts..." shut the fuck up, homo.

This sub is at it's worst when we get a thread with twice as many comments as upvotes. You just know some retarded fuck came in and tried to make pissing on a dead radio show political.

Well, we have to end apartheid for one. And slow down the nuclear arms race, stop terrorism and world hunger. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights, while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people

This is the dumbest I ever heard Anthony sound. He really is just a partisan hack at this point waving his fist at CNN and lapping up any of the BS fox feeds him. He was so uninformed yet steadfast and unbending in his idiotic defenses of everything republican

Net neutrality is gay and I hate you for bringing that fag shit here

Wtf is going on in here, I come here for the autism and the impressive hatred. Not a very interesting and nice debate about Keynes and Austrian economics.

Reddit is for net neutrality, so I'm completely against it

people would flock to the ISP companies who offer unfiltered internet.

In case you haven't noticed. Most people have little to no choice to switch ISPs.

Isn't the big problem a total lack of competition though? The fact that Google is the one that tried to compete with established ISPs makes me think it's something that would require a ton of money.

I have the option between two ISPs, and the price/value is basically equal. If they actually do ever try that tier stuff, realistically I'll at least be stuck with it for a long time before anyone can even try to compete, no?

I don't know their conclusions--I'll read when I have the chance. I'm just commenting on how legit data can be used any way you like, and so for something like this, you have to read the competing studies (even if all based on the same data) and draw informed conclusions.

Also pointing out that the BLS and TPI are markedly different in their mission than the HF.

this sub is for funny memes not woke political chat. he can kiss my keister.

Well, I read the graph, which is what started the conversation, and the graph reports data that is in and of itself conclusive. My mistake, i meant I hadn't read the HF report you mentioned. Does heritage use this same data to reach different conclusions?

Child tax credit is doubled until 2025. Even if there is nominal "relief", the cuts to services and precarious position this puts future budgets in means most working middle class Americans WILL lose.

So ISPs should be allowed to do this thing, but they totally won't do it.

You should give me all your credit card info. I'm not going to use it, but I need that info. Just because. Totally not gonna do anything with it though.

The only people with a rational interest in this topic are the big streaming sites, like Netflix. They fear getting charged by ISPs and shill like crazy. Very impressive PR machine.

No examples huh?

COMCAST: In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.

AT&T: From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.

AT&T: In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.

This has nearly a dozen examples.

The majority of working-class families will get short-term relief. The problem is that (A) it's a pittance compared to how the ultra-wealthy will benefit, (B) it will be mostly on the backs of 'upper' middle class suburbanites and (C) it is at the expense of many programs that benefit the working class.

Yes, in the short term, an extra $1,300 will be a nice bonus. But I think in the long term this is going to hurt the working class tremendously.

The problem with most of your argument is that in most places there is very little choice in ISPs. You can't really flock to 'unfiltered' internet if both Verizon and Comcast tier their service.

In a minor sense, temporarily, while funding for government programs, public health services, and public education which the middle class use at a higher proportion than the rich will have to find the funding they're losing. But hopefully the corporations getting their tax rates cut just decide to give everyone sweet raises to offset it all.

Is there a better metric?

My hypothesis is that the United States must print money at a pace that's commensurate with the other countries. If they fail to keep up with the pace of other countries, then it will basically have the same effect as if the money supply contracted.

IE, we have to keep an eye on both the AMOUNT of currency in the world, along with the RATE that the currency is growing.

So, for instance, if China grows their money supply at a faster rate than America does, it would have the effect of making our currency stronger.

I think you can see this affects in places like Canada, where they really went nuts with their currency after oil prices tanked.

Save my username, message me when it happens please. I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

I've been looking forward to this filtered internet dystopia people have been warning us about since the early-2000s when it first became a hot topic online. At least back then it was feasible when network infrastructure was limited, but to pretend it's a real threat today is a laughable.

Oh no the retard got out, everyone be sure to use smaller words or he'll get aggressive

Bullshit. T-Mobile is doing it already with their "Binge On" program.

What do you do in software, character? Because I'm in the business myself. And here's one example right here that's going on right now - T-Mobile's Binge On program. If you're one of the blessed few partners in the Binge On program (Netflix, Hulu, etc. All established players in the streaming business) their data streams are zero rated - they don't count towards your monthly data plan. But this also comes with a price - all the streams are throttled to bitrates that will only support 480p.

If you're not a partner in the program, T-Mobile users consuming your streaming service will have to pay full price for each stream. So it's not a neutral playing field - price conscious users will choose one of the Binge On partners over your service because it is the economical thing to do.

Now, the reason they can get away with this is because Tom Wheeler decided to treat wireless service providers differently from the wired providers. That fucker Pai is trying to make the same thing be legit for wired service providers as well.

And if you think that they won't do it, look at the airline industry. Remember when you got two checked bags included with your ticket? And everyone was up in arms when the first airline started charging, but now they all do and we all pay the fees? Same thing will happen. There's only a few players in the industry. Only the lucky few actually live in a place with competition.

I probably got you confused with someone else, im quite a few beers in. Apologies, will send dick pics later.

even Google Fiber is having a ton of difficulty rolling out their plan across America

Google Fiber is not offering a comparable alternative compared to this alleged scenario where internet is heavily filtered ala TV/Satellite packages. If Google could roll into your city with unfiltered internet with fiber speeds, they'd murder Comcast who would (apparently) be throttling websites because the FTC/FCC said they could. Which is enough to scare their shareholders from never going through with the idea in the first place.

Everyone is completely outraged at the idea of 'net neutrality' being attacked, it happens every time the idea is brought up, but for some reason they can't seem to take the next logical step and see how that would translate into the marketplace and be a terrible idea, even for a terrible company like Comcast, to ever decide to do.

This sums it up

Streaming Netflix uses way more bandwidth than gaming. The cable companies have been losing money on millennials canceling cable subscriptions because they don't want to watch 100 channels of reality shows instead of watching what they want. As a result, they want to make it where using Netflix is more expensive than watching cable by imposing arbitrary bandwidth limits every month. So, seeing this in action, I don't trust ISPs to do the right thing. And I don't have a choice as a consumer, so I have to eat Armstrong Cable's bullshit and my only hope is that they can regulate them into providing world-class internet like every other 1st world nation, besides a few. (Sorry Aussies)

Video data uses way more bandwidth than an online connection for a game.

So enjoy your books instead of free YouTube, or cheap Netflix/Hulu/any streaming service because you wanted to feel smart.

https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/first_quarter_2017/the-recovery-act-of-2009-vs-fdrs-new-deal-which-was-bigger Here is an examination of that claim.

One thing is clear: they should've spent more.

I thought I saw Verizon in New Zealand doing it with tier packages already.

That's because you alt-righters aren't conservative.

No one said we were.

You use your own form of identity politics for a sense of comfort, while simultaneously complaining about the left's form of identity politics

• Nation A bombs nation B
• "General, should we retaliate?"
• Nah man then we're just as bad as they are!!1!

Stop with your regurgitated Jordan B Peterson individualist shit. Quote some more Atlas Shrugged paragraphs

You're intellectually lazy.

As opposed to the always brilliant "both sides are wrong" position that you enjoy taking.

Go suck Milo's milky chode

Milo is the Alt-Right? He's probably the most hated individual in that movement. You're certifiably retarded

You need to get out of the country more because I've seen this exact kind of thing in several places. Columbia, most recently.

They don't frame it as "$9.99 extra to get twitter", which obviously no one would accept. They do shit like "snapchat and facebook FREE! $10/GB for regular internet" so it looks like they're giving you BONUS stuff.

How do you reckon a new company will be able to gain market share in a system where users essentially have to pay to use it while the big boys are giving it away "for free"?

Please just let us be able to do this thing that we totally are never gonna do, but still let us pls.

You're an idiot if you think corporations give a shit. They'll just charge you 10 bucks more for porn and you'll have no choice but hey at least faggot liberal redditors are upset so it's worth it

Yes, the bandwidth is enough for all traffic to be equal, there is absolutely no fucking need to give anyone power to throttle or prioritize any packet delivery.

This is not about you le savvy internent guru. People like us will always be able to get our workarounds in and tunnel to whatever but for most users all it takes for them to stop using a service is 1-2 weeks of slow loading of their gay photos or whatever while there's another service (created by the ISP what a coincidence!) that loads instantly. Market has just been taken, better luck next time. This applies to anything and everything and will be completely legal to do.

Why not just keep it the way things are and not risk it?

To my knowledge all those provisions have sunset clauses