OT - Net Neutrality has now been removed.

[TXDawg]

So...ya'll would rather the internet be like your phone or cell phone bill where you get hit with huge FCC fees and taxes? That's where Net Neutrality was headed.

Pick your poison.

[BulldogDX55]

So...ya'll would rather the internet be like your phone or cell phone bill where you get hit with huge FCC fees and taxes? That's where Net Neutrality was headed.

Pick your poison.

No it is not and it never was. Stop that. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, as do most people who are against net neutrality.

[TXDawg]

No it is not and it never was. Stop that. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, as do most people who are against net neutrality.

Yeah...because the Federal Gov't was just going to benevolently "monitor" the internet for free? Net Neutrality was never anything more than a power grab and another gross over-reach by the Federal Government.

[dawgs]

Yeah...because the Federal Gov't was just going to benevolently "monitor" the internet for free? Net Neutrality was never anything more than a power grab and another gross over-reach by the Federal Government.

The govt isn’t “monitoring” anything. (I mean they are but that has nothing to do with net neutrality). All the govt was doing is ensuring that you paid for an internet speed, that you then didn’t have to pay again for Netflix access. Or that your cnn.com loaded just as fast as your foxnews.com. This isn’t the govt picking and choosing winners, it was ensuring every website had equal access. I don’t know what the clarion ledger or the Starkville daily make as local newspapers from their online presence, but you can bet bigger, richer newspapers will be paying on their end to make sure their newspapers load faster than the local papers. It creates an environment where the rich can buy access and the upstarts have no chance.

[Doggie_Style]

Yeah...because the Federal Gov't was just going to benevolently "monitor" the internet for free? Net Neutrality was never anything more than a power grab and another gross over-reach by the Federal Government.

^^^^^^^ This all day....when you look back a year from now you won't notice anything different in your service, only that the Govt's dirty hands won't be as firmly gripped to it. Do you not think the govt. uses these agencies for political purposes? (IRS, FBI, EPA, etc.)

[dawgs]

^^^^^^^ This all day....when you look back a year from now you won't notice anything different in your service, only that the Govt's dirty hands won't be as firmly gripped to it. Do you not think the govt. uses these agencies for political purposes? (IRS, FBI, EPA, etc.)

You’re wrong about there being no differences

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latim...story,amp.html

[TrapGame]

You’re wrong about there being no differences

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latim...story,amp.html

The LA Times, a bastion of unbiased journalism. No thanks.

And Portugal is rife with socialism. That's not a good example at all.

[BulldogDX55]

The LA Times, a bastion of unbiased journalism. No thanks.

And Portugal is rife with socialism. That's not a good example at all.

Even if you believe that the LA Times is a bad source (it's not), there is nothing in that article or picture that is wrong. Also, what does Portugals political leanings have to do with this? They've haven't been lead by their socialist party since the 70s, well before the internet was really a thing. What do you need to just look at a source?

[dawgs]

The LA Times, a bastion of unbiased journalism. No thanks.

And Portugal is rife with socialism. That's not a good example at all.

1) literally google “Portugal internet” and there’s hundreds of links citing the same information, the links being to a variety of sites with left, right, and balanced viewpoints. There’s also a ****ing difference between opinion and facts, these are literally facts and it doesn’t matter whether brietbart or Rachel Maddow links them, they are facts and facts don’t have a bias. LA times just happened to be the first ****ing link on google.

2) what does portugal’s Socialist leanings (not that the socialists are even running the country) have to do with the fact that they ended net neutrality and let the ISPs “regulate” themselves and it resulted in nickel and dime’ing customers for steaming services and access to certain websites? Nothing, so stop trying to turn this into some “see socialist/democratic/leftist government is bad” example.

[BulldogDX55]

Yeah...because the Federal Gov't was just going to benevolently "monitor" the internet for free? Net Neutrality was never anything more than a power grab and another gross over-reach by the Federal Government.

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about at all, and you seem to grossly misunderstand the issue.

Having this government regulation in place doesn't allow the government to monitor the internet and it doesn't give the government extra power. It is a rule that is in place that tells telecoms to lay off internet regulation that favors one thing over another, which would destroy competition. That's right- this regulation actually DECREASES regulation and INCREASES competition. It stops Comcast and Co. from doing to the internet what you are currently incorrectly imagining the government is doing to it.

So, once again, please attempt to understand the issue before you comment on it.

I swear, everyone who is in favor of what just happened has no idea what they are talking about in the slightest. It is just a bunch of people who get violently twitchy when they hear the phrase "government regulation".

[TXDawg]

Again, you have no clue what you are talking about at all, and you seem to grossly misunderstand the issue.

Having this government regulation in place doesn't allow the government to monitor the internet and it doesn't give the government extra power. It is a rule that is in place that tells telecoms to lay off internet regulation that favors one thing over another, which would destroy competition. That's right- this regulation actually DECREASES regulation and INCREASES competition. It stops Comcast and Co. from doing to the internet what you are currently incorrectly imagining the government is doing to it.

So, once again, please attempt to understand the issue before you comment on it.

Maybe this will increase your understanding of the issue some:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24004...y-khachatrian#

[BulldogDX55]

Maybe this will increase your understanding of the issue some:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24004...y-khachatrian#

OOOOH! Daily Caller! The publication that employs PizzaGate conspiracy theorists.

I'll humor you- I read the article. The only argument that it is making is that google ought to pay more to ISPs in order to function so that they do not get an unfair advantage over their competitors. All this is doing is giving ISPs the power to say who deserves how much access at any given time. What if you do not want to pay what Comcast says you should pay to advertise your website? What if comcast only wants you to have access to websites of a certain political persuasion? What if comcast wants to charge you an extra $20/month to watch netflix, which you are already paying $10/month for, but they'll give you their streaming service at no additional charge? Also, now you have to use Bing to search for everything just because.

No private, profit driven company should have access to the ability to decide what we view on the internet, and shouldn't be able to control how our bandwidth is used. Yes, the ISPs put in the hardware, but in 21st century society the internet IS NOT OPTIONAL.

This will literally kill the competition that Daily Wire is trying to claim it promotes.

[sleepy dawg]

Maybe this will increase your understanding of the issue some:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/24004...y-khachatrian#

You're looking at a very small point of this and so does that article. It is ignoring so much. Google isn't an ISP, they're just a search engine. Search engines can be written at any time by any of us. You can write your own search engine if you don't like how google does it. They're a middle man that can be replaced. ISPs cannot so easily be replaced.

This article could only seem informative if you had no idea about what net neutrality really is before you read it. In that case I could see how you could be so easily fooled, but not if you already had any concept of what you were talking about.


I feel like you've purposely shut down half your brain to make sure you aren't looking at the whole picture.

[Maroons]

That's right- this regulation actually DECREASES regulation and INCREASES competition.

I swear, everyone who is in favor of what just happened has no idea what they are talking about in the slightest. It is just a bunch of people who get violently twitchy when they hear the phrase "government regulation".

Actually, leading economists and some Nobel Prize winners show research that says the exact opposite of what you're saying.