Killing Net Neutrality Helps Underdogs Succeed

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Killing net neutrality helps underdogs succeed? Why do I have a feeling you guys are going to have something to say about this?

We need to move away from the fear-mongering and exaggerations about threats to the internet as well as simplistic assumptions about how internet traffic moves. The real problems online are far more complex and less scary. And it’s not about net neutrality, but about net capacity.
Click to expand...
 
Well the comments section of the article has already destroyed them, so I'll just leave it at that.

These guys are industry shills. Szoka has a history with telcom funded lobbyists and Skorup works for a Koch funded "think tank" who's mission is to oppose any and all regulation of industry. Exactly the sort of guys who would present such a farcical straw man with a straight face. It's not double-billing for the same service, it's a "two-sided market". It's not extorting content providers to make sure nothing bad happens to their business model when crossing our network, it's protecting the consumer. It's not creating new barriers to entry for startups, it's creating an environment for innovation. And notice that they never once address the lack of competition in the industry. Monopoly, shmopoly...as long as we deregulate, that's good for the people who pay us...err...we mean the consumer! That's it. In a previous time, these guys would be pitching the health benefits of smoking and radium water. That Wired would give it air time is the journalistic equivalent of JAMA printing a Special Issue on crystal healers.
Click to expand...

The real problem is the oligopoly internet providers have. If consumers had a true choice in internet providers, the lack of net neutrality wouldn't be scary at all. Consumers would just switch to whichever provider gave them the best deal. What's scary is that companies like Comcast have either a monopoly or duopoly in virtually every market in the country.

This isn't capitalism. This is crony capitalism.
Click to expand...
So I'm reading this article and the title alone makes me quite skeptical. Most of the arguments seem contrived and rather specious. Who in the tech world actually thinks killing net neutrality was a good thing? That's ridiculous! Then I notice that Brent Skorup
is from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, which is largely funded by the Koch brothers (http:///RWYjTS). All of a sudden, this nonsense makes sense contextually. Of course corrupt billionaires and their cronies would like to see a corporately controlled internet. Shame on Wired magazine for giving this Koch Industries shill a platform. Disgusting.
Click to expand...
 
I skimmed through saw a topic of "the 'net capacity' problem" skimmed that, and decided none of the article is worth reading.
 
They're slowing down the Net by pouring all that BS into it. Really, Wired should be more Netvironmentally Conscious then to blatantly spew all this waste online like that.
 
*reads title*
'that statement is entirely false'
qDJpIf4.gif
 
funny how shills for the Koch bros are assumed to have evil motives, but shills for soros have motives as pure as the driven snow
 
I don't even know where to go with these guys. ***************
 
Why are so many people so obsessed with Koch? They should really get it out of their mouths and keep their hands off it.

Meanwhile, net neutrality is a failure, and somehow I can still go to any website on any internet provider. And yes, he is right, it is about capacity. Ted Stevens may have made for entertaining sound bytes, but the speech that byte was part of actually described the problem perfectly. The world has not moved over to IPv6 yet, and is unlikely to do so for a long-ass time. We are going to hit critical mass at some point with all the garbage traffic that is generated throughout the world.
 
But seriously, people should really try counter-arguments instead of pulling the old "Big Fill-In-The-Blank" bullshit. Whether the name is Koch or Soros, it's just fucking lazy.
 
The “Net Capacity” Problem
The debate is really about who pays for — and who profits from — the increasingly elaborate infrastructure required to make the internet do something it was never designed to do in the first place: stream high-speed video.


Currently, video streaming accounts for most internet traffic (Netflix alone takes up about 28%) and is expected to continue growing. But speed isn’t the primary issue. The internet isn’t just one big “information superhighway“; being able to drive 75 MPH on the highway won’t shorten your commute if you spend most of your time just waiting to get onto interchanges. The real issue is getting traffic across the internet.

To make sure consumers benefit, we need to solve the network capacity problem. Yes, we need to ensure broadband providers can’t do something nefarious to kill off new services. But we also need to ensure content providers don’t undermine incentives to invest in the capacity they themselves need — or block the business model experimentation that may be needed to drive that capacity.

That’s where a “two-sided market” — for consumer service on the front end and capacity on the back end — can help. And there’s already plenty of regulatory oversight to police that market.
Click to expand...

This is the pivotal paragraph in the article. It's also word confetti. It means nothing.
 
Aluisious said:
This is the pivotal paragraph in the article. It's also word confetti. It means nothing.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand. See, the internet is like a traffic circle where all the cars are invisible and driven by robots. If you try and cross over the circle on foot you might get killed by a robot. Do you understand now?
 
The real issue is no one wants to pony up the cash to upgrade us past where we are besides Google. All of the laying of fiber lines has not really produced a significant upgrade in our own internet backbone.

The problem is that as long as comcast/time-warner and the rest of those cable yo-yo's have their way, it will continue to stay backwards and stifle the entire internet.
 
Saw that yesterday. My English vocabulary is not enough to describe the amount of bullshit these two "independent" cocksuckers spewed.
 
Stiletto said:
Why are so many people so obsessed with Koch? They should really get it out of their mouths and keep their hands off it.

Meanwhile, net neutrality is a failure, and somehow I can still go to any website on any internet provider. And yes, he is right, it is about capacity. Ted Stevens may have made for entertaining sound bytes, but the speech that byte was part of actually described the problem perfectly. The world has not moved over to IPv6 yet, and is unlikely to do so for a long-ass time. We are going to hit critical mass at some point with all the garbage traffic that is generated throughout the world.
Click to expand...

Yes, because there is nothing wrong with rich guys using their money to buy legislation from our corrupt elected officials, that will only make them more rich, at the expense of poor people, and the rest of the population. All while destroying our environment, our economy, and our country.

That's why so many of us have issues with the Koch Brothers. And you know what? If Soros is doing the same thing (and I haven't heard much on that, except rabble rabble rabble from Faux News), I have a problem with that as well.

Why is the Right so defensive of the Koch's? This is America, we can all say what we want. "Get it out of their mouths and keep their hands off it"? Please.
 
Regulation CAN get in the way of profits, can stifle innovation, remove the impetus to compete, and end up screwing the consumer.
Not properly regulating CAN do the same damn things.

There needs to be clear, concise, regulations regarding net neutrality, that are fair to both the consumer, and the corporations. The pay extra or get ultra low, or no priority, or even no connection for competing services, model, is not a feasible one. However it is directly where not carefully defining net neutrality, and carefully regulating what traffic shapeing is permissible and what is not, is leading us.

The bytes want to be free folks are every bit as bad. Emergency services, voice, government services, need to be higher on the food chain when it comes to traffic management.

Yes, I would prefer they built up the infrastructure to make it all needless. Unless you want the government to build it, and fuck it all up in the process, we all know that is not going to happen.
 
Stiletto said:
Why are so many people so obsessed with Koch? They should really get it out of their mouths and keep their hands off it.

Meanwhile, net neutrality is a failure, and somehow I can still go to any website on any internet provider. And yes, he is right, it is about capacity. Ted Stevens may have made for entertaining sound bytes, but the speech that byte was part of actually described the problem perfectly. The world has not moved over to IPv6 yet, and is unlikely to do so for a long-ass time. We are going to hit critical mass at some point with all the garbage traffic that is generated throughout the world.
Click to expand...

So streaming video is garbage? If capacity is a problem then isp's better get to work increasing it. Wake up that dark fiber..

Its a bullshit argument, if this internet thing is so complicated and really hard like they say it is then how are bs countries in Europe miles ahead in terms of speed and price?
 
Stiletto said:
Why are so many people so obsessed with Koch? They should really get it out of their mouths and keep their hands off it.

Meanwhile, net neutrality is a failure, and somehow I can still go to any website on any internet provider. And yes, he is right, it is about capacity. Ted Stevens may have made for entertaining sound bytes, but the speech that byte was part of actually described the problem perfectly. The world has not moved over to IPv6 yet, and is unlikely to do so for a long-ass time. We are going to hit critical mass at some point with all the garbage traffic that is generated throughout the world.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, Verizon is trying to force Netflix to pay for the right for its content to be carried by Verizon networks:

http://arstechnica.com/information-...ent-for-carrying-netflix-traffic-wsj-reports/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702304899704579391223249896550.html

So guess what? We're about to see the segmentation of the internet. Its already happening.
 
People are really weird about this whole "net neutrality" issue--I mean some people...;) It seems to constantly escape their attention that there have been *no* so-called "net neutrality" laws on the books since the beginning of the Internet. The Internet we have today--which people proclaim to love--is the result of *no* 'net neutrality law whatsoever. The perception that anything has "changed" is simply wrong. The FCC promulgated some very mild *guidelines* with absolutely no teeth whatsoever, full of giant loopholes, and no enforcement mechanism at all. The FCC never passed any *laws*, remember (since the FCC cannot legislate in the first place.) This whole "the sky is falling" debate is childish at best.

I also find this ironic for me personally since I'm sitting smack-dab in the middle of AT&T/Comcast country on a new, *independent* ISP with service far better than anything available from either AT&T or Comcast, and for a fraction of their pricing. Backbone ISP is Cogent which I access through the new, local ISP. Best service I've ever had by a mile from either Comcast or AT&T, at a fraction of their pricing--at the most congested times I'm still getting 50Mb/ps up and down. Google certainly is not the only entity laying fiber...;) We've FTB (Fiber to the Building) along with FIN (Fiber in the Building)...which is why I now have the bandwidth I have.

What happens to a Verizon network if Netflix says "no," and Verizon cuts them off? A mass exodus away from Verizon networks is what will happen. Verizon would have to be pretty dumb to force an issue like that. My own Netflix experience is great with my new ISP--I get Netflix "SuperHD" now, with fantastic IQ and 5.1 surround streamed right to my system--something neither Comcast or AT&T is willing to provide their users in my area.

You're not about to see the segmentation of anything...what you will see, however, is a continuing spate of ignorant articles claiming the sky is falling when it isn't (much like the Climate Change, Tax-and-Spend mythology--the "If you don't pay all these extra taxes today you will die tomorrow" crowd.) It's really sad to see reason and logic going the way of the dodo in the 21st century--but that's what I'm seeing more of each day. Very sad.
 
This strikes me as one of those "I want to get lots of hits for my article" kind of article. Rubbish.........
 
WaltC said:
People are really weird about this whole "net neutrality" issue--I mean some people...;) It seems to constantly escape their attention that there have been *no* so-called "net neutrality" laws on the books since the beginning of the Internet. The Internet we have today--which people proclaim to love--is the result of *no* 'net neutrality law whatsoever. The perception that anything has "changed" is simply wrong. The FCC promulgated some very mild *guidelines* with absolutely no teeth whatsoever, full of giant loopholes, and no enforcement mechanism at all. The FCC never passed any *laws*, remember (since the FCC cannot legislate in the first place.) This whole "the sky is falling" debate is childish at best.

I also find this ironic for me personally since I'm sitting smack-dab in the middle of AT&T/Comcast country on a new, *independent* ISP with service far better than anything available from either AT&T or Comcast, and for a fraction of their pricing. Backbone ISP is Cogent which I access through the new, local ISP. Best service I've ever had by a mile from either Comcast or AT&T, at a fraction of their pricing--at the most congested times I'm still getting 50Mb/ps up and down. Google certainly is not the only entity laying fiber...;) We've FTB (Fiber to the Building) along with FIN (Fiber in the Building)...which is why I now have the bandwidth I have.

What happens to a Verizon network if Netflix says "no," and Verizon cuts them off? A mass exodus away from Verizon networks is what will happen. Verizon would have to be pretty dumb to force an issue like that. My own Netflix experience is great with my new ISP--I get Netflix "SuperHD" now, with fantastic IQ and 5.1 surround streamed right to my system--something neither Comcast or AT&T is willing to provide their users in my area.

You're not about to see the segmentation of anything...what you will see, however, is a continuing spate of ignorant articles claiming the sky is falling when it isn't (much like the Climate Change, Tax-and-Spend mythology--the "If you don't pay all these extra taxes today you will die tomorrow" crowd.) It's really sad to see reason and logic going the way of the dodo in the 21st century--but that's what I'm seeing more of each day. Very sad.
Click to expand...

What incentive would any content provider have for cutting off an ISP? Sure it would be a huge power play, but in the end the ISP is just a pipe for the content provider. Why wouldn't they put themselves on as many pipes as possible? Its the same money in to them.

They sky isn't falling yet. But the potential is there - look what AT&T proposed with sponsored bandwidth. Shouldn't we try to foresee these kind of abuses before they start? The ISPs in this country are run like the mafia. They provide what basically amounts to a utility. They have geographic monopolies so they have no reason to upgrade their infrastructure to compete. So when demand for bandwidth goes up, instead of meeting it, they look for ways to juice you even more.
 
timta2 said:
That's why so many of us have issues with the Koch Brothers. And you know what? If Soros is doing the same thing (and I haven't heard much on that, except rabble rabble rabble from Faux News), I have a problem with that as well.
Click to expand...

I like how Koch brothers "rich = evil" rants are somehow legitimate, but similar criticisms against Soros(who is worth far more) is "rabble rabble rabble from Faux News". The hypocrisy is hilarious.

Meanwhile, lots and lots of rich people all over the country do the exact same thing. Hell, the highest concentration of millionaires is in DC. But let's just keep avoiding actual arguments about issues by citing a couple of people you disagree with who happen to have money.
 
gamerk2 said:
Meanwhile, Verizon is trying to force Netflix to pay for the right for its content to be carried by Verizon networks:

http://arstechnica.com/information-...ent-for-carrying-netflix-traffic-wsj-reports/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles...0001424052702304899704579391223249896550.html

So guess what? We're about to see the segmentation of the internet. Its already happening.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. It's always "it's about to happen". It's been "about to happen" since I was writing on it nearly a decade ago. Fearmongering. Terrible when the other side uses it, totally okay when you do the same.
 
WaltC said:
People are really weird about this whole "net neutrality" issue--I mean some people...;) It seems to constantly escape their attention that there have been *no* so-called "net neutrality" laws on the books since the beginning of the Internet. The Internet we have today--which people proclaim to love--is the result of *no* 'net neutrality law whatsoever. The perception that anything has "changed" is simply wrong. The FCC promulgated some very mild *guidelines* with absolutely no teeth whatsoever, full of giant loopholes, and no enforcement mechanism at all. The FCC never passed any *laws*, remember (since the FCC cannot legislate in the first place.) This whole "the sky is falling" debate is childish at best.

I also find this ironic for me personally since I'm sitting smack-dab in the middle of AT&T/Comcast country on a new, *independent* ISP with service far better than anything available from either AT&T or Comcast, and for a fraction of their pricing. Backbone ISP is Cogent which I access through the new, local ISP. Best service I've ever had by a mile from either Comcast or AT&T, at a fraction of their pricing--at the most congested times I'm still getting 50Mb/ps up and down. Google certainly is not the only entity laying fiber...;) We've FTB (Fiber to the Building) along with FIN (Fiber in the Building)...which is why I now have the bandwidth I have.

What happens to a Verizon network if Netflix says "no," and Verizon cuts them off? A mass exodus away from Verizon networks is what will happen. Verizon would have to be pretty dumb to force an issue like that. My own Netflix experience is great with my new ISP--I get Netflix "SuperHD" now, with fantastic IQ and 5.1 surround streamed right to my system--something neither Comcast or AT&T is willing to provide their users in my area.

You're not about to see the segmentation of anything...what you will see, however, is a continuing spate of ignorant articles claiming the sky is falling when it isn't (much like the Climate Change, Tax-and-Spend mythology--the "If you don't pay all these extra taxes today you will die tomorrow" crowd.) It's really sad to see reason and logic going the way of the dodo in the 21st century--but that's what I'm seeing more of each day. Very sad.
Click to expand...

TL;DR: "I have up to 3 choices in internet provider, so everything's fine for everybody."
 
WaltC said:
People are really weird about this whole "net neutrality" issue--I mean some people...;) It seems to constantly escape their attention that there have been *no* so-called "net neutrality" laws on the books since the beginning of the Internet. The Internet we have today--which people proclaim to love--is the result of *no* 'net neutrality law whatsoever. The perception that anything has "changed" is simply wrong. The FCC promulgated some very mild *guidelines* with absolutely no teeth whatsoever, full of giant loopholes, and no enforcement mechanism at all. The FCC never passed any *laws*, remember (since the FCC cannot legislate in the first place.) This whole "the sky is falling" debate is childish at best.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but dude, I totes read this article on Alternet and...IT'S GONNA HAPPEN! And if you disagree, then you're just a shill for the big corps, man.
 
I think the term "net neutrality" is a misnomer, and it's clear that a lot of people completely misunderstand what it means.

The problem with a lack of internet providers in a geographical area is a valid problem IMHO though.

The recent Verizon decision (or rather, indecision) was a result of using the wrong legal area to make the ruling. They were using a legal framework based around treating them as a common carrier--but they're actually considered a private carrier, if only because law is so far behind technology. With how expansive the internet has become, and how much of an economic backbone it is to the country, it's only a short period of time before law is re-addressed to properly treat internet providers as common carriers, and cannot at-whim legally refuse to carry something. Just give it time. That's what the ruling with Verizon was about--it did not say that it's okay or good for internet providers to adjust pricing or throughput on a case-by-case basis, all it said was that there is not yet a legal ability to stop them.

The biggest problem I have with internet providers is this 'ownership' and control of copper lines. It gives providers monopolies/oligopolies in so many areas, and the FCC has largely washed their hands of it without actually addressing it. That ownership needs to go away--and you can argue that it's been paid back hundreds fold since being laid down, and internet access is becoming more of a basic utility than a luxury (though that's debatable). Not to mention the many cases where someone gets fiber to their house, the service people frequently cut the copper lines so the person can't easily go back...
 
Stiletto said:
Why are so many people so obsessed with Koch? They should really get it out of their mouths and keep their hands off it.
Click to expand...

Well trained sheeple who only know what they are told and what they are allowed to think.

In other words, the average under 30 years old liberal idiot.
 
Stop feeding the trolls, and linking to articles that are clearly designed to troll! This article was clearly written to troll, and bring in traffic to a site for which I now have a much lower opinion.
 
mavrocket said:
Well trained sheeple who only know what they are told and what they are allowed to think.

In other words, the average under 30 years old liberal idiot.
Click to expand...

As opposed to a conservative of any age, who refuses to think at all, m i rite?
 
mavrocket said:
Well trained sheeple who only know what they are told and what they are allowed to think.

In other words, the average under 30 years old liberal idiot.
Click to expand...

Millennials are now over 30. That range is far too limited.
 
Stiletto said:
Meanwhile, net neutrality is a failure, and somehow I can still go to any website on any internet provider.
Click to expand...

If you think Net Neutrality is about whether people can visit certain websites or not, you don't have a fucking clue.

viscountalpha said:
The real issue is no one wants to pony up the cash to upgrade us past where we are besides Google. All of the laying of fiber lines has not really produced a significant upgrade in our own internet backbone.
Click to expand...

Did you really say that with a straight face? It wasn't all that long ago that 1.5Mbps DSL was considered fast and many ISPs had little more than a ~44Mbps T3 as their backbone. Today it's not uncommon to have 50Mbps+ to your doorstep. Comcast has more or less doubled my bandwidth every 2-3 years simply due to upgrades on their end.

article said:
While many were quick to assume that broadband providers were throttling Netflix traffic, the explanation could be far simpler: The company simply lacked the capacity to handle the “Super HD” video quality it began offering last year.
Click to expand...

If it was simply a capacity issue on Netflix's end, then why does going through a VPN solve the streaming issues for many? Using a VPN wouldn't magically free up capacity on the Netflix servers :rolleyes:

If it's an ISP capacity issue, then that's just too damn bad. It's no secret that ISPs prefer people who never use their connection over people who use it excessively, but if they erroneously planned their network around the concept of people only using <5% of their internet bandwidth that's their problem really. I've had my connection maxed 24/7 for most of the last decade, I wonder what that does for ISP capacity :p

What I'd really like to see is Netflix move to using bittorrent-style tech for it's media distribution. You could have a situation where everyone isn't just streaming from Netflix, but also streaming from each other. That would solve any capacity issue on Netflix's end while simultaneously making it significantly harder for any ISP to block or throttle. Using bittorrent I can download a 1080p x264 movie in <10 minutes, and I've never not been able to max out my connection in doing so.

I feel the real threat isn't net neutrality, but a simple lack of bandwidth in the end. Residential ISPs setting monthly caps of 250-350Gb/month is bad, but what is even worse is how Cellphone carriers have settled on 5-10Gb/month as standard. That is less than the size of a single x264 movie, and that's all the bandwidth you get for an entire month?!? At first it wasn't a "big deal" because cellphones were unique and special, etc but as time goes on the line between wireless data and traditional ISPs continues to blur. Comcast, etc now themselves point to wireless ISPs as evidence of increased competition in the ISP market, indirectly pointing out the fact that they don't consider a 5-10Gb limit as precluding a company from still being considered as a full-time ISP :rolleyes:
 
GotNoRice said:
If you think Net Neutrality is about whether people can visit certain websites or not, you don't have a fucking clue.
Click to expand...

Neither do you, judging by your "argument". The prime focus of the net neutrality debate hinged on the idea that ISPs would soon be introducing tier-based subscriptions that restricted access to all but websites owned by "the corporations, man", as a result of fees collected by ISPs to make content available, and those fees being too onerous for the average joe to get their website seen. Net Neutrality laws "had" to be passed because that was going to happen any minute now.

But it hasn't happened.

And isn't happening.

But hey, maybe you can just say I watch Fox News or that I collect a check from Comcast or some similar bullshit like your last lazy-ass response.
 
Stiletto said:
Neither do you, judging by your "argument". The prime focus of the net neutrality debate hinged on the idea that ISPs would soon be introducing tier-based subscriptions that restricted access to all but websites owned by "the corporations, man", as a result of fees collected by ISPs to make content available, and those fees being too onerous for the average joe to get their website seen. Net Neutrality laws "had" to be passed because that was going to happen any minute now.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone besides you actually thinks that is what Net neutrality is about. I could see how restricting access might have been a talking point that came up during a trial or in an opinion article but it clearly is not the focus of the real issue at hand.

Browsing websites doesn't take significant amounts of bandwidth; streaming video does. This is a bandwidth issue.

Stiletto said:
But hey, maybe you can just say I watch Fox News or that I collect a check from Comcast or some similar bullshit like your last lazy-ass response.
Click to expand...

Funny, no one in this tread actually made those claims. Is that what your mom accused you of this morning or something? :p
 
Stiletto said:
Neither do you, judging by your "argument". The prime focus of the net neutrality debate hinged on the idea that ISPs would soon be introducing tier-based subscriptions that restricted access to all but websites owned by "the corporations, man", as a result of fees collected by ISPs to make content available, and those fees being too onerous for the average joe to get their website seen. Net Neutrality laws "had" to be passed because that was going to happen any minute now.

But it hasn't happened.

And isn't happening.

But hey, maybe you can just say I watch Fox News or that I collect a check from Comcast or some similar bullshit like your last lazy-ass response.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about. I guess you enjoy just repeating the corporate rants. Verizon is very clearly limiting Netflix traffic. It is not a bandwidth issue. It is specifically targeting Netflix. Go do some research first.
 
GotNoRice said:
I don't think anyone besides you actually thinks that is what Net neutrality is about.
Click to expand...

Oh, okay. Today I learned net neutrality wasn't/isn't about the neutral treatment of internet traffic. THE MORE YOU KNOW.

Is that what your mom accused you of this morning or something? :p
Click to expand...

...really? Wow.
 
Stiletto said:
Oh, okay. Today I learned net neutrality wasn't/isn't about the neutral treatment of internet traffic. THE MORE YOU KNOW.
Click to expand...

What I said is that it's not about restricting access to sites. Even the people who claim their ISP is throttling netflix are still able to access netflix. No one is going to netflix.com and getting a 404 or anything like that. Making sure that bandwidth isn't restricted for various services (neutral treatment) is indeed the issue; your misunderstanding of the issue, talking about people not being able to visit certain websites is not.
 
Absolute bullshit.

The lack of net neutrality kills innovation, hurts our economy, hurts our liberty and our democracy.

It is absolutely CRUCIAL that all internet services be reclassified as common carriers to stop this once and for all.

Unfortunately with a former telecom lobbyist heading the FCC, I'm not optimistic about this happening.

Wolf guarding the henhouse. Absolutely disgusting. This is the every definition of corruption. The FCC in the pocket of industry rather than serving the people.

ISP's are the biggest scumbag companies out there, and unfortunately the only way to keep them honest is to regulate the absolute crap out of them.

Hopefully as this worsens, enough people will get behind it that it can actually pass this time.

The lack of net Neutrality is what happens when no one cares about politics, no one gets involved and no one calls their representatives and senators.

I was jumping up and down practically screaming that this is a HUGE issue and everyone better get involve, bu people just didn't care.

Now it's going to set us back a decade or more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top