Man doesn't understand net neutrality and can't read. Those who try to help him are called russian bots

1  2020-12-01 by Big-Ant_

Ajit Pai, who you should remember as the guy behind the push to get rid of neutrality, announced that he'll be stepping down in January.

Sorting by controversial on the (locked) r news post gives you this exchange

This is just one of the many exchanges that causes our hero to appear with his wikipedia quotes.

Yes it does. Stop parroting this misinformation. One of the reasons why Net Neutrality existed was to be a way to protect consumers against ISPs metering their connection which is what leads to data caps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States

With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service.

Those of you who have the reading comprehension of a 12 year old may notice that this only mentions metering specific traffic.

When people try to correct him he says it's a guy using alts because

[every single person who has tried to explain to me what that quote has said has not been able to do it in a way that makes me understand given the context on that page. You can't just make up your own context when it suits your situation.

Also, it was literally you and 3 other people. I don't let mob mentality gas light me into thinking what I know I'm reading is not actually what I'm reading lol.](https://i.imgur.com/XxHN6O0.jpg)

There's a separate comment chain where he drops his wikipedia knowledge again and says

I swear comcast must have paid off a russian bot farm or something because there is a lot of parroting going on about how all of a sudden after decades of net neutrality existing data caps have nothing to do with it LOL

At one point this r-slur says himself that Comcast has had data caps since 2012 but he doesn't admit he's wrong.

15 comments

1  SnapshillBot 2020-12-01

Okay, so first of all, you've just made a reply to me that is in two unrelated parts. The first is unrelated to anything I said. As long as you comport yourself in this manner, you will only be met with derision. It is a nonsense method of communication.

Snapshots:

  1. Man doesn't understand net neutrali... - archive.org, archive.today*

  2. this exchange - archive.org, archive.today*

  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_n... - archive.org, archive.today*

  4. https://i.imgur.com/XxHN6O0.jpg - archive.org, archive.today*

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

1  Chessen113 2020-12-01

Reddit fearmongered about that shit so hard; it's near top of all time for so many subs.

1  -M-o-X- 2020-12-01

Member the counterjerk about how repealing net neutrality would lead to improved internet infrastructure development?

It's self-serving lies all the way down.

2  Minimum_T-Giraff 2020-12-01

New internet infrastructure is only built if there is demand for it.

Laying out fiber everywhere when there is lack of demand for 100 mbit/s when the average user needs something around 20-30 mbit/s.

Reddit is retarded when it comes to the internet

1  -M-o-X- 2020-12-01

I get it but how can a customer have a demand for a commodity they have not and can not experience? If you put the average metro consumer on a fiber connection and then, after a few days, put them back on a standard connection, they would probably try to murder you.

It's not even the lack of new infrastructure that gets me, though feel free to google that story about all the tax breaks we've given companies to do jack shit about that, good fun. What gets me is in the event someone does nut up and provide decent service or if a municipality creates their own, well by golly those speeds for Comcast just miraculously shoot up don't they and those data caps disappear. Of course that only happens where the telecoms don't purchase up local politicians and create laws making municipal isps illegal. Crooks.

1  Minimum_T-Giraff 2020-12-01

Problem is that a lot of ISP is going for the cheaper option of wireless. Which has bigger area of and cheaper to implement.

When ISP look at area they calculate how many of the new consumers will jump onto the new system and how many will remain at the old one..

But honestly looking at average internet user how much of their bandwidth are they actually utilizing? It's ridiculous low amount and the biggest usage they probably use is it for high video streaming which at HD quality is still something like 24 mbit/s.

An average user cannot barely notice the bandwidth change outside few exceptions. They probably say something r-slur shit like "Browsing the internet is much faster on fiber!". The fact the consumer doesn't even know what 10mbit/s vs 100mbit/s even means shows the lack of consumer understanding of internet probably "wow is bigger number . it means it's faster"

1  trexmundi 2020-12-01

Okay.

But I want faster internet so that I can pirate a ton of shit and set up a darknet for my global drama dissemination network/sex cult.

No one will give me a loan to trench up half the city so I want the government to make Verizon do it for cheating on their taxes.

1  Minimum_T-Giraff 2020-12-01

easiest would be city when doing city planning would do fiber placement at the same time. Then just charge ISP for using their fiber and allow ISP to do end-goal installation.

1  Chessen113 2020-12-01

There was?

1  ManBearFridge 2020-12-01

Yeah, they kept saying big tech was weighing them down because the meanies at Netflix and Google made the ISPs only pay attention to them.

1  -M-o-X- 2020-12-01

As much fun as it would be to imagine the FCC being asked why they were repealing net neutrality and Pai shouting "BECAUSE I SIMP ISP DONG," yeah they had an alleged reason for repealing it.

The data caps are here, I almost hit mine on one month off of just streaming, but they are curiously suspended in areas where there actually is competition, possibly pointing once again to the wedge issue (like tech censorship) just being another illusory symptom of the real problem of monopolization.

1  Pepperglue 2020-12-01

So neither has changed. Everything is still shit. Color me surprised.

1  Kissingersbitch 2020-12-01

How are they still crying about net neutrality when nothing ended up happen? I hope this sub didn’t join the fear mongering at the time.

1  AllJannysAreBastards 2020-12-01

I'm seriously so glad net neutrality got repealed

1  tenebrous_cloud 2020-12-01

That whole comment section is hilarious. ledditors suddenly remember Pai's name (and his punchable face OMG) and now the hypothetical internet destruction will start all over again when he leaves office and enters the private sector where he will have TRUE power to exploit all the laws he failed to exploit while he was chairman of the fucking FCC. This is the actual fucking happening. This one. The internet is over for real thanks to Ajit "punchable face" Pai (again)