Baaa like a good sheep
Remember when people actually used this meme? Pepperidge farm remembers
@Midnite St0rm, no they dont.
@Midnite St0rm, and even then it’s faint
Except this isn’t regulation on the internet... it’s regulation making the internet a utility and making it so the companies have to act fair to the consumer and can’t monopolize more than they already do...
Fvck it I have neither the crayons, patience, nor will to dumb this down enough for these idiots
@carguy25, except that the internet is not a utility. One there isnt a limited source of t. Two treating it like a utility means very little improvement to it. Do you want it to be like your waterline that's pretty much the same as it was 30 years ago. Three, do you want the FCC in charge of the internet? Look at what they do to public radio. They heavily limit what is said and done on it. Plus try to go get a ham radio licence. I'll see you in three years.
@Chicochang, The FCC would be in charge of the Internet anyway, the ISPs have to follow the rules of the FCC and the federal government. Giving them power over the internet gives the law a direct arm into the internet. NN isn’t controlling any content or use of the internet, only the ISPs, who want to control content and use.
@UmActually, Right, just like how the FCC doesn't control what is said in the radio it controls the radio providers. It doesn't sit in the DJ booths and make sure they're saying what they want. They're sitting far off and whever someone gets offended or they hear something they go in a lobby fines and get people fired like Howard Stern.
@Chicochang, there is no radio providers. Radio is subsidized by the federal government, and there are guidelines and regulations to what can be said on the air. They are in charge of studio executives, if that’s what you mean. However, there is no guarantee of appropriate content on the Internet, which is good. Even under net neutrality, there was no clause or section that allowed the government to control content.
@UmActually, I'm talking about the broadcasters. Disney, Clear channels, viacom, Entercom, etc. The FCC will do the same thing with the ISP
@Chicochang, but they haven’t, and they won’t, because net neutrality specifically states that the government cannot touch any content on the Internet.
@UmActually, But the could and they have a history of it. Just as much you believe that the ISPs could do something evil with free internet so could the FCC. You know who wouldn't? People like you and me. You know how you give people power over a market and the government? You create choice in both. The easiest way to create competition is to get government out of the way. The easiest way to get government out of the way is to vote people in who will and town and city government is the easiest place to do so. In your town/ward your vote and voice is very powerful.
@UmActually, This net neutrality is picking who we are beholden to ISPs and local government or silicon valley and the FCC
@Chicochang, Except that’s not true. Internet service providers have made deals with Local government to have monopolies. Hundred net neutrality, those can be reviewed every year, without it, many of them have no definite end. Either way, the FCC is in control, the only difference is that ISPs will block illegal content and report it to the federal government, under net neutrality, the government cannot block a website, even if it’s illegal.
@Chicochang, The net neutrality debate is picking who are we are beholden to, literally no one, or the FCC, ISPs, and local government, as well as any corporations that want to buy our information. Because, as I said, under net neutrality government. Cannot. Control. Content.
@Chicochang, Even if net neutrality was removed, why would an Internet service provider allow advertisements from their competitors to be shown on their service? Besides, money talks more than voters do. When an ISP is willing to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to local politicians, it doesn’t matter the political alignment, 95% of politicians will except it. You want a non-corrupt local government, non-corrupt corporations, and a nonexistent federal government, none of those things exist.
@UmActually, You're right all the repeal of net neutrality would allow is for ISPs to charge for access to content they don't own. It's like paying for bottled water. The internet is free and out in the world for everyone. But ISPs are trying to bottle it all up so that have to get what was once free to consume. I'll buy a water bottle from you but I want to fill I with whatever I want not whatever I can get from them after a nominal fee.
@carguy25, once the government starts regulating these things their advancement slows. Notice how your power lines, infrastructure, sewage, etc looks exactly the same as it did 50 years ago. And not to mention it is shjt quality. Data is expensive, and people should not have the right to waste tons of it watching porn all day. The IT world is advancing quickly and it is hugely important to the advancement of society, regulating the internet suffocates the R & D in these companies leading to low quality product, less advancement, and less jobs. Their are pros to the removal of net neutrality and it is not a one sided argument as everyone on the internet seems to claim.
@Chicochang, you are wrong to compare it to radios. Title II falls more in line with treating The Internet the same way they treat telephone lines. Perhaps you need to look up the history of telephone companies and the wires that were strung up and how the FCC regulated it to prevent those companies from blocking you from calling their competitors.
@John MFing Froosh, actually there have been advancements in sewage and trash. For example better machinery to filter things. Garbage trucks with robotic arms to pick up trash cans. Same with water services new and better techniques that are cheaper for them to filter water.
If the current companies cannot advance without restricting the free flow of data across networks. Well perhaps some other company can. It wasn’t until a few years ago that these companies wanted to restrict the flow of data across the networks in order to make profit. You already pay for your Internet speed. Why would you want them to slow your speed down that you pay for just because you like going to a particular website.
Letting the data and website you like to visit flow freely does not stifle or restrict innovation in network technology. It didn’t stifle it years ago before they got the idea to charge Netflix extra to let their website enter their network from an outside network.
@John MFing Froosh, just an FYI. The Internet providers are not the innovators in network technology. That falls to various research groups and other companies such as Cisco. Your Internet providers just use the technology.
Here’s an idea. If the Internet providers can’t handle giving the customers who pay for a 100 Mb connections. Those speeds. Then perhaps they shouldn’t have packages at those speeds. If they can’t handle providing the service that the customers from that Internet provider are paying for. Then that’s on them.
If I want to visit any website on the Internet. I’m already paying for my Internet connection. I don’t expect to be restricted to within that Internet providers network.
This is what net neutrality protects. It protects what you already paid for.
@Seohn, you are throwing way too much thought into this. This should be basic gut instinct for people. Freedom for companies to charge what they like balances the market and allows for better profits. Better profits = more innovation and jobs. Internet providers DO have R&D departments and even if they didn’t they would still have to pay other companies to do the research for them. You should pay what the market dictates. In my opinion this whole net neutrality thing is a case of the customers being the greedy ones and using the government to control internet providers. Or maybe everyone is addicted to porn, and if that’s the case then we have bigger issues at hand.
@UmActually, that is just not true. The government is more than able to shutdown illegal websites with net neutrality in place. As a conservative, I'm more than happy to have less things under government supervision. However, net neutrality helps undo the harm created by other government regulations. Such as no new ISP being able to lay down new Ethernet lines and having to use the ones currently later down by big name ISPs
@John MFing Froosh, You're letting your willful ignorance show with that "you are throwing way too much thought into this [Instead of using only] gut instinct.." Nobody is going to pay heed to a dunce that proclaims their animosity towards *critical thinking* and *logic*. Go read a book or something, educate yourself. Sad.
@Chicochang, the internet is limited because you only have 1-2 options to choose from. A majority of people only have 1 internet provider. This isnt like buying something at the store where u can shop around for the best value. What the "repeal" would do is allow discrimination on data. For example imagine if you had to pay different taxes on which place you were going to while driving and the govt could decide, well you dont have enough money so here you go, you have to drive on the slow lane. Oh and wait you are going to whole foods, we hate whole foods, extra $10 a month.
@John MFing Froosh, people should be able to watch all they want. If the govt or anyone can decide what u can watch or view on the internet then why stop there? Why not choose your clothes? Toys? Cars? Oh wait now we are closer to communism.
@John MFing Froosh, oh you are correct a free market increases competition but isp's are not in a free or up and coming market. They are in an established market and basically have a monopoly. Worst of all is this gets done away with any new comers would get charged more for access to the internet. Oh joes internet with 100 customers wants to connect to my network as a starting point, well, lets charge him a premium so he doesnt grow. This will happen as it did and continues to happen in other markets.
@TheCruzanator, woah brother I can assure you I am more intelligent than you will ever be. I work with advanced computer systems in the defense industry developing technologies you can only dream of. I didn’t get where I am just by being smart. I also have good instincts which comes from good health and hard work. Intelligence is no substitute for healthy instincts and I pray that someday you will get off your couch, stop eating Cheetos and understand this.
@Implicit88, people should be able to watch all they want but they should pay the price. With the current neutrality people can get away with being huge data hogs and are practically stealing from the ISPs. And I don’t understand the monopoly thing. There are at least 6 ISPs in my area that I could choose from but Comcast is the biggest. By removing net neutrality those small companies could grow by providing cheaper service to those who use less data and eventually be able to compete with Comcast. As of right now they cant compete because they would have to spend too much keeping up with the data hogs.
@John MFing Froosh, so you would agree that people that drive more should pay more in road related taxes? People that use the police more or firefighters should also pay more? I could go on but i wont. While i agree there is an issue with people being data hogs, however, we should look for solutions that fix the issues not just say lets deregulate everything. I never attacked your IQ. But being smart and having instincts is only a small portion of what is needed to make big decisions like this. Being a problem solver and being able to foresee and see the ramifications of what the new rule would mean is essential. How about we force major video companies to develop a better encoding system that decreases video size instead? Innovation is key. Laying down faster and faster wires only leads to bigger and bigger files (much like how adding lanes to roads only temporarily increases traffic flow).
@Implicit88, I know you didn’t attack my IQ that was a reply to TheCruzanator. You make good points and I appreciate your civilized response.
^^Nobody bother reading that long thread of comments. No one on either side seems to understand what the neutrality issue is about. All I'll say is internet is not a utility. Access to it is. That's what we pay ISPs for NOT USE. Electricity is a utility we pay them for access to electricity they don't get to decide which appliances in my house it works on based on their own interests. If they could they would never let their electricity work on low energy products cause it's bad for business.
@BennMann, That is a good example. Finally somebody says an analogy that actually fits net neutrality properly.
It is the equivalency of your power company saying you cannot use their electricity going into your house, that you pay for, on your low energy equipment.
@BennMann, I have a rural electrical coop. They can dictate where their power poles go on our property, even at our detriment. Also, they have a clause in their contract that all power used on the property must come from them (i.e. I cannot install solar panels or a wind turbine.) Doesn't sound very freedomy to me.
@BennMann, unfortunately many people don't agree with you or even understand what you just said.
Remember when people actually researched a subject and was well informed as to what something was.
Hell. Even Pepperidge Farm doesn’t remember when that ever happened.
@Seohn, (The only people against net neutrality are the people who work for the Internet providers or people who are misinformed about what it is.)
I remember when more govt regulation was a bad idea across the board
@Richard Cypher, it is. But there are times when the government is doing what it supposed to be by protecting something you already pay for and your freedom.
I know it’s a difficult thing to understand or see anymore because it rarely happens.
Yah. I'm not gonna dignify this troll with all of the reasons why this is stupid. Everyone look at the description, feel insulted, and move on.
We still think it's a bad idea
Uh oh, looks like the cover on the /r/UNCUCKED tank is broken again. Better go replace it before more rancid memes overflow into funnypics
Because keeping corporations from controlling the internet is the same thing as the government controlling the internet.
Seriously, if the government actually controlled the internet it would look a lot different than it does today.