You're right. Things are going to be better when Comcast controls how we consume news. I never thought about it, but if they make MSNBC the easiest news source to consume, the political climate in the United States will be way less toxic
Well, take it up with the website I pulled it from, not me. And these areas have either only Comcast or only something else, not Comcast or something else.
Still, the truth is plenty of Americans have a single ISP in their area, and removal of net neutrality would allow ISPs like Comcast of their almost monopolistic position.
I've lived in Iowa most of my life and have never lived anywhere besides a metro area that had more than one provider. I've also lived in areas where there is literally none because cable will not provide after a certain distance from town.
And anyway by your own admission there are 2 choices in most of the country. Which means if one pulls that shit everyone will switch.
and what exactly is your magical solution to the other one pulling its own awful shit? "muh free market" is a transparently retarded argument when, by your own fucking admission, there's no real risk of a start-up that actually offers good service getting a foothold, since there's no way they could be profitable.
And getting rid of NN puts their monopoly at risk because it means that new small ISPs will be able to offer a better service if Comcast does something retarded like block news websites.
That's legitimately dumb, my dude, because massive parts of the country are incredibly limited in their ISP providers. Since you provided an anecdote, I'll challenge it with another: rural south area here and the only options are ATT or satellite.
Net neutrality restrains them. That's how regulations work. If they don't have regulations they will fuck the consumer more, and they're already removing pledges from their website and shit
Its a bandaid for the festering shithole that is government enforced monopolies with government enforced barriers to entry and very litigious shitty ISPs.
Need it to keep from being fucked too bad, but we could do that whole free market thing if we tore a lot more shit down than just NN. Or we could just say fuck it and make it work like electricity.
Care to cite that? Because I can, I've been in the meet me room for Verizon at 1 Wilshire. I sure as fuck know more about what I'm talking about over some troglodyte shitstain Trump supporter from Iowa. Fuck off.
Protip, retard, Netflix didn't have direct peering they used Level 3... that was where all their traffic ingresses to AT&T in Omaha and it most certainly was settlement free.
I couldn't give two fucks about Verizon but you are so glaringly wrong it hurts.
Literally no one gives a fuck about Verizon. Out here AT&T is king.
The issue, we are commenting on was regarding Netflix being degraded for about a million Verizon Fios customer in California. Pretty sure they gave a fuck.
I was commenting on Netflix degradation on AT&T broadband customers in Des Moines
MY ORIGINAL POST WAS ABOUT VERIZON DEGRADATION AND YOU COMMENTED ON IT. ITS LIKE YOU CAN'T KEEP YOUR SHIT STRAIGHT . Go watch your cuck porn and get the fuck out.
I can just get a different provider. And if you're going to talk about a place with a monopoly or near monopoly I'd point out that those are the result of government granting ISPs near monopolies and not allowing others to compete.
I feel more comfortable picking between ISPs that need my money over giving total control to the government.
Well from your comment that I replied to, and the source that you posted earlier, I can only assume that you're retarded for not even reading the second paragraph.
First off, you've literallty always had net neutrality due to the ISPs and the FCC agreeing that they were common carriers until teh Verzion lawsuit. Second off, next time do some research.
Also for anyone who tells you that "Net Neutrality is solving a problem that doesn't exist"... or anything along those lines, here's a brief history on what the internet companies were doing that triggered Net Neutrality to be put in place.
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
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.
TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
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.
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
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.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
In the United States, net neutrality has been an issue of contention among network users and access providers since the 1990s. In 2015 the FCC classified broadband as a Title II communication service with providers being "common carriers", not "information providers".
Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality. Throughout 2005 and 2006, corporations supporting both sides of the issue zealously lobbied Congress.
You're right. Things are going to be better when Comcast controls how we consume news.
Its already being controlled. The biggest problem is that right now we can't have competition, good luck getting a new cable put in, in some places you have to get permission from the existing carriers you want to compete with. This needs to be fixed.
OR If you had a 8 bit brain you wouldn't make such dumb statements.
It happened the exact same way the red wall happened last week. FIRST two local sub did it with a posting of a few hours apart. It was at the top of r/all this morning before 8:00 am Central time.
THEN copy cats and Karma hunters simply duplicated it. A bunch of people went hunting and started upvoting the local posts enought to bring them into r/all rising. From there its simply a popular enough topic to get them all to the top of r/all by mass upvoting.
I'm just upset at how little some of these people got for their vote. If you're going to take a bribe i mean donation from a huge corporation to do their bidding you better get a couple hundred thousand out of it.
Imagine thinking that no one could possibly have genuine opinions that differ from yours and that everyone who disagrees with you politically is a shill.
for serious tho there's no evidence that politicians change their votes based on this money, people/lobbies/corps just give money to people who already support them
because people sometimes support things? The thing they do for them is get elected. I donate to charity because I think it does good things not because the charity is going to do things for me
Seriously, you think multinational corporations are giving money to politicians for absolutely zero reason. We're not talking about charity were talking about giving contributions to politicians. Have you seen what it cost to run for Congress and you think corporations aren't donating in their own interest. Jesus just look at what the federal government pay for pharmaceuticals compared to the rest of the world. No bulk discount, they didn't even negotiate prices. Can you imagine being the biggest widget buyer on the planet and not getting some sort of discount.
The (((research))) yet we have the highest pharmaceutical costs in the world, a company who blatantly lied about opiates who got a slap on the wrist, the most expensive project th f-35 which is inferior in every way to a plane (the f-22) that's a decade or more older and costs less. The telecoms got billions to bring high speed internet coast to coast and didn't do shit. If these donations aren't about buying votes what the fuck are they for
getting people elected who support what you support and thus will continue to support you? If you want to construe all political donations as "buying" then fine but that includes everyone, not just rich people
But if NN is gone, then all the big internet giants are going to get extorted for a lot of money. Reason why they're all concerned about NN. Admins are just saving their wallets. If facebook, reddit, and twitter all want something, you know it can't be good. Reason why I was NN gone, time to grab these companies by the balls instead.
Also for anyone who tells you that "Net Neutrality is solving a problem that doesn't exist"... or anything along those lines, here's a brief history on what the internet companies were doing that triggered Net Neutrality to be put in place.
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
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.
TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
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.
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
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.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
We didn't though, you've just let yourself buy into whatever upvotes tell you. Thats always a bad idea, because no one who knows anything is discussing politics on reddit.
It’s a scare tactic that takes advantage of the worst-case scenario. It’s essentially like saying “Why should cars be regulated? Better to have it blow up and kill one person than live long enough to plow through a crowd of children one night while drunk!”
Do a little research yourself and you’ll find just how little most Redditors know about it besides sensationalized memes. Even the official Reddit logo to the top left is hilariously ignorant - most rural locations have dealt with extremely restrictive data caps (such as Hughesnet’s 50gb/month cap) for quite a while now. NN has had no effect to better that situation.
143 comments
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
LOL yes every single local subreddit just randomly happened to get upvoted to the front page. At once.
Shilling for NN by manipulating the internet. Absolutely despicable
1 makes_people_cringe 2017-12-01
You're right. Things are going to be better when Comcast controls how we consume news. I never thought about it, but if they make MSNBC the easiest news source to consume, the political climate in the United States will be way less toxic
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
Yes doom and gloom, surely this time it will pan out.
If Comcast blocked all news but MSNBC people would leave in droves. Comcast's competition is DSL providers, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and more.
1 ralpher313 2017-12-01
Thing is, large parts of the US don't have any options other than Comcast or an equally predatory ISP: https://i.imgur.com/x4dHd3C.jpg
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
That's weird I'm in Iowa and we have 4 wired and 4 wireless providers right where it shows on your false map.
Excuse me if I don't trust that lying garbage.
1 ralpher313 2017-12-01
Well, take it up with the website I pulled it from, not me. And these areas have either only Comcast or only something else, not Comcast or something else.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
You're the one citing false data, so no I'll take it up with you
1 ralpher313 2017-12-01
Still, the truth is plenty of Americans have a single ISP in their area, and removal of net neutrality would allow ISPs like Comcast of their almost monopolistic position.
1 shitpersonality 2017-12-01
You are so fucking retarded lmao
1 ineedmorealts 2017-12-01
Your anecdote doesn't make the data false.
1 FrostBittenSalsa 2017-12-01
Translation: "DON'T CALL ME OUT ON MY SHITTY SOURCES REEEEE"
1 pitterpatterwater 2017-12-01
Translation: What is the anecdotal evidence fallacy?
1 Arkham_Retirement 2017-12-01
I've lived in Iowa most of my life and have never lived anywhere besides a metro area that had more than one provider. I've also lived in areas where there is literally none because cable will not provide after a certain distance from town.
1 glmox 2017-12-01
and what exactly is your magical solution to the other one pulling its own awful shit? "muh free market" is a transparently retarded argument when, by your own fucking admission, there's no real risk of a start-up that actually offers good service getting a foothold, since there's no way they could be profitable.
1 ineedmorealts 2017-12-01
I doubt it. Even if you do I bet they're all leasing 1 ISPs infrastructure
And yet not even all of you're major cities have fiber.
And if both do? What then retard? Or what if the two companies merge into one?
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
CenturyLink, imon and Mediacom all have independent networks, wrong again bucko
1 izuerial 2017-12-01
Amazing how fucking Reddit experts are wrong again.
I hate that I have to agree with an Iowan
1 pitterpatterwater 2017-12-01
And you don't think they're ready to collude together if their profits are threatened, i.e. by lobbying against NN regualtions?
https://www.reddit.com/r/awfuleverything/comments/7esza8/limit_net_neutrality_stuff_to_this_post/dqgayy5/
Also, that's not the case in most of the USA, m8.
1 headasplodes 2017-12-01
And getting rid of NN puts their monopoly at risk because it means that new small ISPs will be able to offer a better service if Comcast does something retarded like block news websites.
1 pitterpatterwater 2017-12-01
Nope. The barrier to entry is too high. There are natural monopolies, and this is one fo them.
1 Obskulum 2017-12-01
That's legitimately dumb, my dude, because massive parts of the country are incredibly limited in their ISP providers. Since you provided an anecdote, I'll challenge it with another: rural south area here and the only options are ATT or satellite.
1 SperglockHolmes 2017-12-01
I remember how awful the internet was before NN... oh wait it was exactly the same.
1 ABSOLUTELY__BASED 2017-12-01
The memes were terrible in 2015 tbh
1 SperglockHolmes 2017-12-01
True.
1 snappleteadrink 2017-12-01
Remind me
1 subpoutine 2017-12-01
2015’s worst meme
1 XhotwheelsloverX 2017-12-01
Oof
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
In fact I could stream at 1080p on my phone back in 2015 instead of 480p and my home internet didn't have a cap like it does today.
WOO HOO. If I love my internet plan, I can keep my internet plan.
1 uniqueguy263 2017-12-01
If there wasn’t net neutrality it’d be much worse
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
Literally all of history disagrees with you
1 uniqueguy263 2017-12-01
They were already starting to monetize incredibly and the net neutrality shit stopped it in its tracks. Look at what Comcast is doing now
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
You mean what Comcast is doing now...
UNDER FUCKING NET NEUTRALITY
1 uniqueguy263 2017-12-01
Net neutrality restrains them. That's how regulations work. If they don't have regulations they will fuck the consumer more, and they're already removing pledges from their website and shit
1 ABSOLUTELY__BASED 2017-12-01
Specifically which regulations?
1 caffienatedjedi 2017-12-01
Its a bandaid for the festering shithole that is government enforced monopolies with government enforced barriers to entry and very litigious shitty ISPs.
Need it to keep from being fucked too bad, but we could do that whole free market thing if we tore a lot more shit down than just NN. Or we could just say fuck it and make it work like electricity.
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-12-01
It's nice to see your autism in action.
1 r00tdenied 2017-12-01
You don't remember when Verizon purposefully degraded Netflix streaming in 2014 do you? I sure as fuck do.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
LOL you are a fucking idiot. Netflix overusing their peering point isn't "purposefully degrading Netflix" you inbred mong
1 r00tdenied 2017-12-01
They had an agreement with Verizon regarding that peering point. Verizon didn't uphold their end of the agreement.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
The agreement was 1:1 peeribg not lopsided as fuck. Contract was in breech by Netfucks
1 r00tdenied 2017-12-01
Care to cite that? Because I can, I've been in the meet me room for Verizon at 1 Wilshire. I sure as fuck know more about what I'm talking about over some troglodyte shitstain Trump supporter from Iowa. Fuck off.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
LOL I was a Global Crossing employee that NEGOTIATED those peering agreements, try again moron.
1 r00tdenied 2017-12-01
Nah you didn't. Otherwise you would know basic facts about the Verizon/Netflix agreement. Protip: It wasn't a 1:1 peer agreement.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
Protip, retard, Netflix didn't have direct peering they used Level 3... that was where all their traffic ingresses to AT&T in Omaha and it most certainly was settlement free.
I couldn't give two fucks about Verizon but you are so glaringly wrong it hurts.
1 r00tdenied 2017-12-01
They had direct peering in 1 Wilshire, retard.
In Omaha. The bottleneck was in Los Angeles at 1 Wilshire. Shows how much you know.
Haha such a fucking lie. You're pathetic.
THE PROBLEM WAS PEERING BOTTLENECKS WITH VERIZON YOU IDIOT. GOD DAMN YOU ARE FUCKING DUMB.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
You realize that there is more than one ISP (you don't)
Don't bother replying, you are so retarded it hurts.
1 r00tdenied 2017-12-01
The issue, we are commenting on was regarding Netflix being degraded for about a million Verizon Fios customer in California. Pretty sure they gave a fuck.
You are a fucking pathetic piece of shit.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
Who the fuck cares about Verizon FIOS customers in California.
I was commenting on Netflix degradation on AT&T broadband customers in Des Moines
1 r00tdenied 2017-12-01
MY ORIGINAL POST WAS ABOUT VERIZON DEGRADATION AND YOU COMMENTED ON IT. ITS LIKE YOU CAN'T KEEP YOUR SHIT STRAIGHT . Go watch your cuck porn and get the fuck out.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
LOL imagine being this retarded to seriouspost on /r/drama
1 pepperouchau 2017-12-01
Rage comics.
1 youpostyoudie 2017-12-01
If you were looking at rage comics in 2015..
1 Atimo3 2017-12-01
When was that?
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-01
Literally like 2 years ago.
1 Atimo3 2017-12-01
For how long?
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-01
Seriously? Since the beginning of the internet. We never had net neutrality.
1 Atimo3 2017-12-01
Net neutrality existed from the beginning up until January 14, 2014, due to “Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission”
This started a nebulous period in which it was an ambiguous situation until the 2015 "Open Internet Order".
You have literally never experienced an Internet without some form of Net Neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-01
Did you literally not read the first two paragraphs of your link?
1 Atimo3 2017-12-01
Did you?
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-01
I did.
Jesus Christ is the internet gonna be better when Comcast kicks off the poorsies.
1 Obskulum 2017-12-01
You can't sperg about tendies if NN leaves you dumb mongoloid, especially when they pick and choose what you can and can't see.
I've never seen someone gape their asshole and be such a corporate cock sock.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-01
I can just get a different provider. And if you're going to talk about a place with a monopoly or near monopoly I'd point out that those are the result of government granting ISPs near monopolies and not allowing others to compete.
I feel more comfortable picking between ISPs that need my money over giving total control to the government.
1 Carbill66 2017-12-01
Are you slow?
1 Atimo3 2017-12-01
Nah dude, you're super smart. You totally got this issue figured out.
1 Carbill66 2017-12-01
Well from your comment that I replied to, and the source that you posted earlier, I can only assume that you're retarded for not even reading the second paragraph.
1 Atimo3 2017-12-01
The FCC enforced net neutrality. They didn’t need legislation for it.
“Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission” changed that.
1 zwiebelhans 2017-12-01
Quick strategy meeting. You gotta namedrop , Frame and link that case quicker. If you spell it out slowly and simply you can win against Fahrenheit.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-01
Nah, that argument doesn't extend as far as he thinks it does.
Plus, this is drama, once you've started having a genuine discussion you've already lost.
1 pitterpatterwater 2017-12-01
First off, you've literallty always had net neutrality due to the ISPs and the FCC agreeing that they were common carriers until teh Verzion lawsuit. Second off, next time do some research.
1 kissedlordeonce 2017-12-01
haha now im glad ajit pai got rid of it
1 Cleverly_Clearly 2017-12-01
Yes, 2014 was a dystopia.
1 pitterpatterwater 2017-12-01
Net neutrality existed from the beginning up until January 14, 2014, due to “Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission”
This started a nebulous period in which it was an ambiguous situation until the 2015 "Open Internet Order".
You have literally never experienced an Internet without some form of Net Neutrality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States
Also, ISPs have been doing shit like people are predicted they will do.
1 WikiTextBot 2017-12-01
Net neutrality in the United States
In the United States, net neutrality has been an issue of contention among network users and access providers since the 1990s. In 2015 the FCC classified broadband as a Title II communication service with providers being "common carriers", not "information providers".
Until 2015, there were no clear legal protections requiring net neutrality. Throughout 2005 and 2006, corporations supporting both sides of the issue zealously lobbied Congress.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
1 ConsoleWarCriminal 2017-12-01
I mean, it was part of our current dystopia, but that's unrelated to the speed at which you can stream tranny porn.
1 SWIMsfriend 2017-12-01
Comcast is less likely to fuck us over than reddit
1 baaaaby 2017-12-01
i dont pay reddit anything and if i wanted to stop using it id just delete my account
reddit literally could not fuck me over if they wanted to
1 ineedmorealts 2017-12-01
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha
1 Chicup 2017-12-01
Its already being controlled. The biggest problem is that right now we can't have competition, good luck getting a new cable put in, in some places you have to get permission from the existing carriers you want to compete with. This needs to be fixed.
1 TherapyFortheRapy 2017-12-01
Yeah, nothing toxic about a channel that just spergs out all day!
1 zwiebelhans 2017-12-01
OR If you had a 8 bit brain you wouldn't make such dumb statements.
It happened the exact same way the red wall happened last week. FIRST two local sub did it with a posting of a few hours apart. It was at the top of r/all this morning before 8:00 am Central time.
THEN copy cats and Karma hunters simply duplicated it. A bunch of people went hunting and started upvoting the local posts enought to bring them into r/all rising. From there its simply a popular enough topic to get them all to the top of r/all by mass upvoting.
1 SethRichOrDieTryin 2017-12-01
Why would someone copy this format for karma?
1 zwiebelhans 2017-12-01
..... An easy 10k - 60k+ upvotes if your quick enough in any sub?
1 SethRichOrDieTryin 2017-12-01
I'm only at +200 in this cesspool.
1 zwiebelhans 2017-12-01
Not really sticking to the formula though are you? Its like you tried to copy coca cola but made root beer with flakes of poo in it.
1 SethRichOrDieTryin 2017-12-01
Tru but still better than most root beer.
1 newprofile15 2017-12-01
Yea that's the real crime, spamming local subs that no one gives a shit about.
1 SperglockHolmes 2017-12-01
The option to hide downvoted links has never been more useful.
1 boyoyoyoyong 2017-12-01
I'm just upset at how little some of these people got for their vote. If you're going to take a bribe i mean donation from a huge corporation to do their bidding you better get a couple hundred thousand out of it.
1 newprofile15 2017-12-01
It's almost as if they actually would have just voted that way anyway and that people exaggerate the impact that campaign donations have...
1 boyoyoyoyong 2017-12-01
Nah, they're just cheap whores, the return on investment for bribing politicians is incredible.
1 youpostyoudie 2017-12-01
MaYbE pOliTicIaNs jUsT vOtE HoW tHeY FeEl
1 newprofile15 2017-12-01
Imagine thinking that no one could possibly have genuine opinions that differ from yours and that everyone who disagrees with you politically is a shill.
1 youpostyoudie 2017-12-01
That's quite the imagination, because I didn't say anything like that.
1 TinyPhonesAreGreat 2017-12-01
for serious tho there's no evidence that politicians change their votes based on this money, people/lobbies/corps just give money to people who already support them
1 boyoyoyoyong 2017-12-01
Why would they give money to them for no reason, you aren't that stupid are you. Let me give you money and dont do anything for me.
1 TinyPhonesAreGreat 2017-12-01
because people sometimes support things? The thing they do for them is get elected. I donate to charity because I think it does good things not because the charity is going to do things for me
1 boyoyoyoyong 2017-12-01
Seriously, you think multinational corporations are giving money to politicians for absolutely zero reason. We're not talking about charity were talking about giving contributions to politicians. Have you seen what it cost to run for Congress and you think corporations aren't donating in their own interest. Jesus just look at what the federal government pay for pharmaceuticals compared to the rest of the world. No bulk discount, they didn't even negotiate prices. Can you imagine being the biggest widget buyer on the planet and not getting some sort of discount.
1 TinyPhonesAreGreat 2017-12-01
of course they are, I'm saying the donations aren't about "buying" votes and the research backs that up
1 boyoyoyoyong 2017-12-01
The (((research))) yet we have the highest pharmaceutical costs in the world, a company who blatantly lied about opiates who got a slap on the wrist, the most expensive project th f-35 which is inferior in every way to a plane (the f-22) that's a decade or more older and costs less. The telecoms got billions to bring high speed internet coast to coast and didn't do shit. If these donations aren't about buying votes what the fuck are they for
1 TinyPhonesAreGreat 2017-12-01
getting people elected who support what you support and thus will continue to support you? If you want to construe all political donations as "buying" then fine but that includes everyone, not just rich people
1 boyoyoyoyong 2017-12-01
Have you seen the new tax bill it went from a cut for the middle class to corporate welfare
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2017-12-01
Inb4 trum... Oh never mind.
1 ABSOLUTELY__BASED 2017-12-01
How much do you think Reddit is getting paid to promote this spam?
1 SmurfPrivilege 2017-12-01
This is my admin. He sold me and my fellow dramanauts to the BernieBros for a handjob behind a 7-11.
1 Tarrock 2017-12-01
Prob nothing.
But if NN is gone, then all the big internet giants are going to get extorted for a lot of money. Reason why they're all concerned about NN. Admins are just saving their wallets. If facebook, reddit, and twitter all want something, you know it can't be good. Reason why I was NN gone, time to grab these companies by the balls instead.
1 SinisterSintram 2017-12-01
But if Verizone, Comcast and AT&T all want something it's sure to be a fantastic idea?
1 Awayfone 2017-12-01
They are dumb, they do it for social points not hard cash
1 KingThrillgore 2017-12-01
/r/Drama supports the co-ordinated campaign to strip you of your rights to unlimited bussy. Fuck this place.
1 respaaaaaj 2017-12-01
lamo Collins is on there despite supporting NN. Good fucking lord this is pathetic.
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
Tards gonna REEEEEE
1 Muffinator4 2017-12-01
Here's the Delaware Senator posted to Pennsylvania
1 TheButtholeOfBravery 2017-12-01
What a fucking brainlet
1 Muffinator4 2017-12-01
love the username
1 MayoIsSpicy 2017-12-01
TBF I usually forget Delaware exists and just mentally rope everyone from there in with “New England or whatever”
1 13chaggit 2017-12-01
More like Net Neutrality 17. This has been going on for a long time.
1 chancellorjay 2017-12-01
It’s relating to last week’s /r/all spam debacle. Especially where subs with less than 100 subscribers ended up with massively upvoted posts
1 Stuntman119 2017-12-01
URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT URGENT
1 pik4bu 2017-12-01
$215,000 was a damn good deal compared to the rest of them.
1 TheButtholeOfBravery 2017-12-01
👏THIS👏IS👏MY👏SENATOR👏HE👏SOLD👏ME👏AND👏THIS👏NATION👏TO👏THE👏TELECOM👏LOBBY👏FOR👏SOME👏FILTHY👏BUSSY👏
1 Stuntman119 2017-12-01
He is forgiven.
1 pepperouchau 2017-12-01
Virgin Crapo gets poor people money. Based plastic merchant Johnson gets paaaaaaid like a proper Chad.
1 Throwawayfuckarmatbh 2017-12-01
Maybe it is my extra chromosomes speaking, but stuff like this always make me suspicious as hell.
I hope the internet dies tbh, maybe then we I will be free.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-01
Perhaps then we can return to God's light, friend.
1 pitterpatterwater 2017-12-01
Credit goes to /u/The_Brutally_Honest
.
Also for anyone who tells you that "Net Neutrality is solving a problem that doesn't exist"... or anything along those lines, here's a brief history on what the internet companies were doing that triggered Net Neutrality to be put in place.
MADISON RIVER: In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking, but it lacks the authority to stop this kind of abuse today.
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.
TELUS: In 2005, Canada’s second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company. Researchers at Harvard and the University of Toronto found that this action resulted in Telus blocking an additional 766 unrelated sites.
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.
WINDSTREAM: In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
MetroPCS: In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
PAXFIRE: In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page. By skipping over the search service’s results, the participating ISPs would collect referral fees for delivering users to select websites.
AT&T, SPRINT and VERIZON: From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
EUROPE: A 2012 report from the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications found that violations of Net Neutrality affected at least one in five users in Europe. The report found that blocked or slowed connections to services like VOIP, peer-to-peer technologies, gaming applications and email were commonplace.
VERIZON: In 2012, the FCC caught Verizon Wireless blocking people from using tethering applications on their phones. Verizon had asked Google to remove 11 free tethering applications from the Android marketplace. These applications allowed users to circumvent Verizon’s $20 tethering fee and turn their smartphones into Wi-Fi hot spots. By blocking those applications, Verizon violated a Net Neutrality pledge it made to the FCC as a condition of the 2008 airwaves auction.
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.
VERIZON: During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.
Source has links to each case where you can read the legal documents about it: https://www.freepress.net/blog/2017/04/25/net-neutrality-violations-brief-history
1 kissedlordeonce 2017-12-01
haha
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-01
These prove my point that we didn't previously have net neutrality. Thanks hombre!
1 pitterpatterwater 2017-12-01
We actually did. It's just that even then companies broke the rules all the fucking time.
1 DoctorFahrenheit 2017-12-01
We didn't though, you've just let yourself buy into whatever upvotes tell you. Thats always a bad idea, because no one who knows anything is discussing politics on reddit.
1 pitterpatterwater 2017-12-01
1 Karmaisforsuckers 2017-12-01
Inshallah, if God wills it
1 shallowm 2017-12-01
Why did you say the same thing twice? Are you another one of those autists on /r/drama?
1 ObsessedAussie 2017-12-01
maybe then in could be bothered to try this /r/outside dlc
1 Lawgustmarck 2017-12-01
Still laughing. r/california didn't magically spaz out over Feinstein and Harris. Definitely nothing weird here.
1 stevemisor 2017-12-01
Fuck war, taxes, human rights or another shit like that
fucking internet speeds is where I draw the line
1 chancellorjay 2017-12-01
BROKE: unironically going outside
WOKE: unironically going /r/outside
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-12-01
This certainly seems neutral and unorchestrated.
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-12-01
By the way, this is a corporate fight between Comcast and Facebook. Keep yourself safe if you are cheerleading for either "side".
1 IvankaTrumpIsMyWaifu 2017-12-01
I just want it repealed because it will make reddit REEEEEEE for days (before nothing changes what so ever)
1 BigLordShiggot 2017-12-01
And my axe!
1 Ronocm13 2017-12-01
My favorite part was the idiots going after our senator despite the fact she supports Net Neutrality.
1 VintageCake 2017-12-01
i hope the US stops being such a shit country so my frontpage is less cancer
1 WeWuzKANG5 2017-12-01
I wonder what their senators are paying reddit for this primo front page slot.
1 Wtfct 2017-12-01
Isin't funny how some of these posts had 30k upvotes at 8am?
Obviously the admins had nothing to do with this.
1 PracticalOnions 2017-12-01
What is the issue with Net Neutrality, exactly? As far as I know the internet didn’t even have these laws in place before 2015.
1 chancellorjay 2017-12-01
It’s a scare tactic that takes advantage of the worst-case scenario. It’s essentially like saying “Why should cars be regulated? Better to have it blow up and kill one person than live long enough to plow through a crowd of children one night while drunk!”
Do a little research yourself and you’ll find just how little most Redditors know about it besides sensationalized memes. Even the official Reddit logo to the top left is hilariously ignorant - most rural locations have dealt with extremely restrictive data caps (such as Hughesnet’s 50gb/month cap) for quite a while now. NN has had no effect to better that situation.
1 RecallRethuglicans 2017-12-01
That is the point. Obama had those put in place so he could protect the internet. Trump wants to destroy it.