Net Neutrality Is Really, Officially Dead on Monday

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,539
penn919 aaronspink
The ISP who netflix et al pay are not the same one I pay, and the intermediaries between us are free to negotiate with different ISPs for a better deal with a more competitive market, so I may not see a change from my ISP directly due to this (up or down). Indirectly, I may see a change if service providers on the network are forced to charge more to consumers. (See above post)
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
The FCC has been dealing with unfair biz practices for over a half century starting with the historic Hush-A-Phone and Carterphone ruling dating all the way back to 1956. This stance and regulation authority has been repeatedly upheld by congress. Part of managing a nation's communication is regulations on unfair biz practices using those communications.

Nor is the FCC regulating pure business practices, it is regulating network management practices.

Never heard of either rulings, I'll have to do some research and catch up with you.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
.....................FCC has legally mandated and enforceable rule making authority wrt communication networks. FTC does not. QED..............


EDITED:
So I am going to run this down and see if it fits what you know. Please accept that I am learning as I go as I am not an expert on these issues.


The 1934 act also established the set of “Titles” now governing communications entities (e.g. Title II: Common Carrier). Among the powers granted to the FCC was the ability to classify a communication organization as a “common carrier” under Title II of the act.

So it looks like to me that a key element in our argument centers around Common Carrier status and that in simple terms, while the FCC does have regulatory power and has exercised that power, it has been within the boundaries set by Common Carrier Status. That without Common Carrier status, the FCC has no reach.

You mentioned Hush-A-Phone and correct me if I am wrong, but during the time when this was at issue, AT&T was designated a Common Carrier under Title II and therefore was under the authority of the FCC and not the FTC for regulation.

I would look into the other case now but I am out of time for today.

I think that with regards to net neutrality it is key to keep in mind Common Carrier status, not only what it is today, but also what it represented in the past. We also have to keep this in mind as we look at the arguments and the court cases and rulings because how Common Carrier status effects these rulings is integral to understanding all of it.

Today, some ISPs and providers are no longer Common Carriers, yesterday the FCC had authority over them, today they are under FTC regulation. But prior to the FTC classifying the Internet as a Title II utility these were also under the FTC and not the FCC.
 
Last edited:

aaronspink

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,122
So it looks like to me that a key element in our argument centers around Common Carrier status and that in simple terms, while the FCC does have regulatory power and has exercised that power, it has been within the boundaries set by Common Carrier Status. That without Common Carrier status, the FCC has no reach.

Without common carrier, the FCC still has reach, it is just that the previous NN regulations that weren't based on Title II status were voided by court order in the case of Verizon vs FCC as the authority under Title I is less than under Title II.

Today, some ISPs and providers are no longer Common Carriers, yesterday the FCC had authority over them, today they are under FTC regulation. But prior to the FTC classifying the Internet as a Title II utility these were also under the FTC and not the FCC.

They are under a combination of FTC AND FCC regulation now. That level of regulation is less and less enforceable than under FCC Title II. Neither the FTC nor FCC under Title I can enforce things such as packet equality (the core tenant of NN) for instance. ISPs are now free to prioritize or deprioritize packets pretty much at their whim. The reality is that the ISPs are likely to hold off on doing nefarious things at least until the dozens of lawsuits filter their way through the courts wrt to the Title I re-classification. If/when those fail, it will be pretty much open season. ISPs will publish fees and rules related to fast lanes which for example Comcast Cable will gladly pay to Comcast Internet and Comcast global will see no change and it will be perfectly legal under anti-trust and the FTC will be able to do nothing about it as long as Comcast Internet publishes the fee schedule in some form.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Without common carrier, the FCC still has reach, it is just that the previous NN regulations that weren't based on Title II status were voided by court order in the case of Verizon vs FCC as the authority under Title I is less than under Title II.



They are under a combination of FTC AND FCC regulation now. That level of regulation is less and less enforceable than under FCC Title II. Neither the FTC nor FCC under Title I can enforce things such as packet equality (the core tenant of NN) for instance. ISPs are now free to prioritize or deprioritize packets pretty much at their whim. The reality is that the ISPs are likely to hold off on doing nefarious things at least until the dozens of lawsuits filter their way through the courts wrt to the Title I re-classification. If/when those fail, it will be pretty much open season. ISPs will publish fees and rules related to fast lanes which for example Comcast Cable will gladly pay to Comcast Internet and Comcast global will see no change and it will be perfectly legal under anti-trust and the FTC will be able to do nothing about it as long as Comcast Internet publishes the fee schedule in some form.

OK, let me be more specific so we are not dancing around the subject. Without Common Carrier status, the FCC has no authority to regulate unfair business practices, misrepresenting services, or even throttling of bandwidth. All the FCC can do is govern things related to the physical transmission attributes of the communications. Look, in the day, AT&T was almost everything, their services were classified as common carrier, and a utility. Much like water and power, the FCC regulated a common carrier in much the same way.

If AT&T had not had common carrier status, the Hush-A-Phone thing would have been sitting on the FTC's desk and not the FCCs. It is my impression that you don't see the difference here and want to lump it all in together and that isn't correct.

Prior to the FCCs move to classify the Internet under Title II as a utility service, the FTC files a law suite against AT&T for throttling bandwidth of customers who had paid for unlimited data plans. The largest part of this complaint was that AT&T had not informed it's customers about this and was just doing it, essentially a false advertising charge. Before the law suite could make it through the courts, the FCC changed the ball game and the court rules that under Title II, AT&T was now a common carrier, and as such was exempt from FTC oversight. But the 9th circuit has since agreed to rehear the case because the FTC has flipped on Tittle II and AT&T no longer has common carrier status. The FTC is back in the game.

Given these facts as I understand them, I do not understand how anyone can argue the points I am making. If there is something I am missing here on this case then I'm all ears, but from what I have read it is pretty straight forward and a perfect example of why the FCCs move was correct.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/02/26/15-16585.pdf
 
Last edited:

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Net Neutrality has been the norm for millions of years.
We are going against nature, and we will go to hell for this.
Thank you Ajit Pai, I am now going to hell, along with all my family and everyone in the country.
In all seriousness, net neutrality was the rule before we needed a rule.. it was due to technical issues that net neutrality has been the rule. All the technical issues that existed have now been overcome.
ISP can manipulate your internet connections 6 ways from sunday, and even insert ads!.
Please dont post this bullshit about we have survived without NN rules for years before, please fucking inform yourself.
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,817
Will Comcast block or seize, say, HardOCP on a whim one day? New nutty judge seems to think ISPs have the right to...
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...legal-according-to-trumps-supreme-court-pick/
Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites
Net neutrality violates ISPs' right to edit the Internet, judge wrote.
Judge: Like cable TV, ISPs “decide” which websites to transmit

If this becomes law, then we'll see what sites disappear, depends on ISP's judgement... any guesses?

Apparently corporations' "first amendment" rights trump those of the average Joe.
 
Last edited:

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
We're all gonna die!!!!

/s

I love how lightly and without care you people take this issue. I'll enjoy you trying to visit these forums but being blocked or having to pay an extra service charge to continue use with the "Pixel Exit Package"...just hope Hard is on the base tier package and not the Premium.

Let's see how your sarcasm and not giving a fuck goes then.
 

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,539
I love how lightly and without care you people take this issue. I'll enjoy you trying to visit these forums but being blocked or having to pay an extra service charge to continue use with the "Pixel Exit Package"...just hope Hard is on the base tier package and not the Premium.

Let's see how your sarcasm and not giving a fuck goes then.
I have a feeling that when I'm unable to perform my job because X isp inexplicably blocked Y site, that my employer will have a word or two for the ISP. Similarly, if a site I frequent is blocked or paywalled, or otherwise disfigured, I'll have a word or two for my ISP, and I'd probably switch. If it's blocked in all ISP s in my area (there will surely be services around for determining this), and I were able, I would strongly consider moving to another home in a different area or not moving into that area to begin with.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
I love how lightly and without care you people take this issue. I'll enjoy you trying to visit these forums but being blocked or having to pay an extra service charge to continue use with the "Pixel Exit Package"...just hope Hard is on the base tier package and not the Premium.

Let's see how your sarcasm and not giving a fuck goes then.
And how fast they are moving too. Honestly i expected isps to give it a couple years hiatus, so people would forget, and more people would say stuff like the other poster... But they aren't waiting at all... They are moving fast... The googles of the planet need to move fast and invest in new was of service, starry internet, starlink and shit like that... There will not be any free market when it comes to any type of land lines, that market is fucked, controlled... They only way is to side step is at mayor cost and investment.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
I have a feeling that when I'm unable to perform my job because X isp inexplicably blocked Y site, that my employer will have a word or two for the ISP. Similarly, if a site I frequent is blocked or paywalled, or otherwise disfigured, I'll have a word or two for my ISP, and I'd probably switch. If it's blocked in all ISP s in my area (there will surely be services around for determining this), and I were able, I would strongly consider moving to another home in a different area or not moving into that area to begin with.

06e5a4644a098867c9723aa9494b12aa.jpg



This is like 90% of the US. Myself included in fucking LA. So that's about as much as you can expect when you complain about them blocking sites, if a law like that is passed.
 

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,539
View attachment 88084


This is like 90% of the US. Myself included in fucking LA. So that's about as much as you can expect when you complain about them blocking sites, if a law like that is passed.
Move to another home in a different area, if I'm able. If I can afford to live in new york (or anywhere with high cost of living), I can surely afford to gtfo and live somewhere else, even if it means working minimum wage for a while and searching for better paying jobs meanwhile. If I can't bother to do that much, then I guess freedom isn't as important as convenience for me, or I can't afford cable/internet in the first place.

Edit: Cali seems to have plenty of ISPs, fwiw...
 
Last edited:

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
my employer will have a word or two for the ISP. Similarly, if a site I frequent is blocked or paywalled, or otherwise disfigured, I'll have a word or two for my ISP

They already don't give a fuck. This is comical.

I'd probably switch

Unless you can't, then what?

I would strongly consider moving to another home in a different area or not moving into that area to begin with.

Yeah, because not having the current NN rules is worse than HAVING TO FUCKING MOVE YOUR WHOLE LIFE FOR INTERNET. Makes sense.

Cali seems to have plenty of ISPs, fwiw...

Good for you, for how long though or how long until they all start screwing you over?

freedom isn't as important as convenience for me, or I can't afford cable/internet in the first place.

What does this even mean? If you aren't rich and can't afford complete access to what the ISP offers you in several packages and add-ons that you just shouldn't have the whole internet? Huh?
 

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,539
Yeah, because not having the current NN rules is worse than HAVING TO FUCKING MOVE YOUR WHOLE LIFE FOR INTERNET. Makes sense.



Good for you, for how long though or how long until they all start screwing you over?



What does this even mean? If you aren't rich and can't afford complete access to what the ISP offers you in several packages and add-ons that you just shouldn't have the whole internet? Huh?
When did they screw me over before the current NN rules? Before widespread internet was a thing? Fwiw, there are still dialup providers which you can subscribe to from anywhere there is a phone connection...

It means, if you have only one choice, and you can still afford to pay for it, then you are probably making a lot of money (enough to perhaps consider moving). Otherwise, you're fucked either way and whether the laws change or not you will be in the same situation, without internet at all.

Either way, you have options. If you ignore them only because they are inconvenient then I suppose you get what you pay for. I'm using DSL (damn slow internet) because I'm unsatisfied with pricing for my available ISPs, and I have a limited data cell plan because I am unsatisfied with the price of available local cellular providers. It would be more convenient to get a bundle or a higher tier cell plan, but that wouldn't be in my best interest so I don't. Some don't have that kind of conviction, I guess, but you shouldn't make laws based on people's lack of conviction, but rather what is right.
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,817
What an oxymoron. What you're implying is the government provides the freedom.

You're saying that letting ISPs block or modify websites as they see fit will protect your freedom?

I just wanted, for sake of 1st amendment, for people to be able to read Breitbart and other such trash, my mistake, less noise, more family friendly net, lets try the Russian/Chinese model.
 

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,539
You're saying that letting ISPs block or modify websites as they see fit will protect your freedom?

I just wanted, for sake of 1st amendment, for people to be able to read Breitbart and other such trash, my mistake, lets follow the Chinese model.
Well for one thing, modifying websites isn't legal, technically, even if some judge said it is off the cuff. Copyright law is complicated, but I'm pretty sure it falls afoul somewhere along the lines.
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,817
Well for one thing, modifying websites isn't legal, technically, even if some judge said it is off the cuff. Copyright law is complicated, but I'm pretty sure it falls afoul somewhere along the lines.

I hope so, sounds like a hassle for them to attempt it, but they could behave like a Twitter/Facebook and decide what websites we can and cannot access for various reasons - business ties, prioritizing own services, TOS violation claims, direct heavy handed copyright enforcement etc.

Hopefully this sleazeball judge will just be kept in check by the other judges, we'll see...
 

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,539
I found this an interesting read. Although it is a bit wordy and I stopped reading after about page 9, it did explain a couple points I made earlier in the thread differently (perhaps better), and provides citations if you care about that sort of thing. Found it when searching "copyright and net neutrality" on duckduckgo.
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
It means, if you have only one choice, and you can still afford to pay for it, then you are probably making a lot of money (enough to perhaps consider moving). Otherwise, you're fucked either way and whether the laws change or not you will be in the same situation, without internet at all.

This makes no fucking sense. So if I have one ISP choice, and I can pay the internet bill...I make a lot of money? Huh???
 

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
Sorry charlie, I don't trust any government with the term "neutrality".

Stop with the sky is falling crap, what did you do before 2015?

Well you know that NN was established to stop ISP's from doing the shady shit they were doing and trying to do.

I love that you don't trust the government but you, what, trust the ISP's to do so? Some of the worst ranking most corrupt and greedy corporations in the world?

Stop with the sky is falling crap? Stop with the thinking they aren't going to fuck you over crap. Shit, they're already on the move!!! Also, as I said in one of my other comments, if it wasn't a big deal why were they so against it in the first place?
 

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,539
This makes no fucking sense. So if I have one ISP choice, and I can pay the internet bill...I make a lot of money? Huh???
Yes, if you have only one or two providers, and have to pay $60/mo+ (about $720/yr before taxes) for internet (and still choose to), you probably make a lot of money. Now, I know that doesn't seem like much, but when you are paying that, and $35/mo electricity, $30/mo for water and garbage collection, $380/mo for a house note, (or in place of the above, $500/mo for an apartment that includes all that), and maybe $100/mo for a car and insurance, it adds up ($660+/mo, or about $7920/yr, before food or medical insurance). Yeah, you might just be skimming by like me, but I wouldn't choose to pay $60/mo if it was my only choice for internet besides dialup. I'd take 56k any day.

Edit: and if you are making enough to afford all that, and taking measures so you don't have to pay all that (splitting rent, taking the bus, living with parents, etc), then even more reason you can afford to move elsewhere (at least after saving a bit up).
 
Last edited:

Mut1ny

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
1,854
That's also how one would describe the government. What with their monopoly on violent force.


Hey, I know the government is far from perfect, believe me, I know...however, to act like they aren't still a governing body that can do SOME good I'd rather have that then let the ISP's run rampant and control what we do online, what we can see, where we can go, what we can download, etc.

That's why I said earlier that, sure NN isn't perfect, but goddamn it was something...now we have NOTHING and people here are expecting things to just stay the same or in some laughable cases get BETTER while the ISP's have ALREADY started moves into controlling the internet even more.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Hey, I know the government is far from perfect, believe me, I know...however, to act like they aren't still a governing body that can do SOME good I'd rather have that then let the ISP's run rampant and control what we do online, what we can see, where we can go, what we can download, etc.

That's why I said earlier that, sure NN isn't perfect, but goddamn it was something...now we have NOTHING and people here are expecting things to just stay the same or in some laughable cases get BETTER while the ISP's have ALREADY started moves into controlling the internet even more.
Weeelll we been okay for years without NN so there you commie scum / S
I love that non sense argument too... Then you try and explain that yes the internet had inherent NN built in the past... but this is because of technical limitations, ALL of which have been overcome.. packet sniffing so they can know exactly what data is moving... Shit in what i consider incredible, last i read ISPs can take you data, modify it so they can insert the ads they want... I read that and i am still in holy shit mode... Talk about a violation of free speech. ( As in the communication you are having between you and whatever website).. Of course now its not any kind of violation since they are not common carriers... But you know, NN is bullshit ' cause ' libtards ' support it and that's that.
 

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,539
Weeelll we been okay for years without NN so there you commie scum / S
I love that non sense argument too... Then you try and explain that yes the internet had inherent NN built in the past... but this is because of technical limitations, ALL of which have been overcome.. packet sniffing so they can know exactly what data is moving... Shit in what i consider incredible, last i read ISPs can take you data, modify it so they can insert the ads they want... I read that and i am still in holy shit mode... Talk about a violation of free speech. ( As in the communication you are having between you and whatever website).. Of course now its not any kind of violation since they are not common carriers... But you know, NN is bullshit ' cause ' libtards ' support it and that's that.
I don't deny that packet shaping can and will be used in nefarious ways, but I just don't see the impact that it might have in cases where it wouldn't be outright illegal in the first place. Delaying data containing information about stock quotes, for instance, in order to gain a market advantage for yourself or someone of significant interest. If you could detect such a thing, then I would think appropriate authorities would take action. Otherwise, who would know, even with NN?

What situations are there where it is unclear who would take action or where the legality is unclear or technically legal? Why can they not just change the laws in those cases? A data audit could find illegal traffic shaping trends as easily as a search engine can find a news article, lack of means is not an excuse.
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
I don't deny that packet shaping can and will be used in nefarious ways, but I just don't see the impact that it might have in cases where it wouldn't be outright illegal in the first place. Delaying data containing information about stock quotes, for instance, in order to gain a market advantage for yourself or someone of significant interest. If you could detect such a thing, then I would think appropriate authorities would take action. Otherwise, who would know, even with NN?

What situations are there where it is unclear who would take action or where the legality is unclear or technically legal? Why can they not just change the laws in those cases? A data audit could find illegal traffic shaping trends as easily as a search engine can find a news article, lack of means is not an excuse.
They are not a common carriers and the internet is not an information service.. this if i understand correctly.. this since no NN. Delays in stocks quotes or whatever would not be an issue for them, they can cite all manner of technical shit, plus offer you a priority stock qoute lane which is faster 99% of the time, but we can't guarantee of course for legal purpusep, since, you know see above.
 

Nobu

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
8,539
They are not a common carriers and the internet is not an information service.. this if i understand correctly.. this since no NN. Delays in stocks quotes or whatever would not be an issue for them, they can cite all manner of technical shit, plus offer you a priority stock qoute lane which is faster 99% of the time, but we can't guarantee of course for legal purpusep, since, you know see above.
Alright, say they use an alternative means of accessing the same data, which bypasses that ISP or somehow obfuscates the data being transmitted. Say that method inherently introduces latency, or it would otherwise normally take longer using that method. They do this concurrently with all their transmissions, and notice a trend where this particular type of data (or all data) is being abnormally delayed when it is transmitted over their ISP. They file a complaint, nothing is done. At this point, I'd expect the company to either switch to another ISP, or take legal action. What would you expect to happen if they did?
 

Uvaman2

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 4, 2016
Messages
3,143
Alright, say they use an alternative means of accessing the same data, which bypasses that ISP or somehow obfuscates the data being transmitted. Say that method inherently introduces latency, or it would otherwise normally take longer using that method. They do this concurrently with all their transmissions, and notice a trend where this particular type of data (or all data) is being abnormally delayed when it is transmitted over their ISP. They file a complaint, nothing is done. At this point, I'd expect the company to either switch to another ISP, or take legal action. What would you expect to happen if they did?
Well, i would think if such a case is to hit a court, it would be, as you mentioned about some kind of fraud or using their position to benefit in stock trade.. so as i mentioned i don't think they would be in any or little legal obligation to the data, however, it would now be a matter of proving intent and prove they benefited and shit like that.. not even sure what laws would come in play, but i doubt they would be pinched for any related to communications or some shit, more about finance/ fraud shit. Now as common carriers, in theory they just move the data, blindly. of couse they can be slowdowns and technical issues obviously.. but lets say they are pinched monkeying with the financial data specifically, then already they are fucked.. i am sure there's just as there are laws about messing with radio air waves, there would be rules with messing with data while defined as a common carrier. Anyway thats what i would understand anyway.
 

meltdowner

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
94
While net neutrality supporters have filed lawsuits to restore the old rules, with some states (e.g, California, New York) considering or pushing legislation to reinstate them within their borders, the FCC's decision to roll back net neutrality rules will unavoidably take effect Monday. Those who believe that all traffic on the internet should be treated equally are urged to push their state legislatures, who could pass their own measures.

The most significant change resulting from the proposal is the stripping away of the FCC's authority to regulate broadband and the shifting of that responsibility to the FCC. It also removes the ban that keeps a service provider from charging an internet service, like Netflix or YouTube, a fee for delivering its service faster to customers than competitors can. Net neutrality supporters argue that this especially hurts startups, which can't afford such fees.

Good riddance!
 

meltdowner

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
94
Net Neutrality has been the norm for millions of years.
We are going against nature, and we will go to hell for this.
Thank you Ajit Pai, I am now going to hell, along with all my family and everyone in the country.
In all seriousness, net neutrality was the rule before we needed a rule.. it was due to technical issues that net neutrality has been the rule. All the technical issues that existed have now been overcome.
ISP can manipulate your internet connections 6 ways from sunday, and even insert ads!.
Please dont post this bullshit about we have survived without NN rules for years before, please fucking inform yourself.
This. People who dont know shit about how the internet is managed suddenly are experts. Nothing will happen to your precious internet, kids.
 

meltdowner

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
94
What a weak and pathetic response. I absolutely pity all of you that live in your own little worlds and completely ignore fucking facts. Yeah, NN isn't needed, it was just created for no reason at all.
"THE FACTS"


ahahhaha. Same old left wing arrogance. The day I can have a discussion with a left winger without he/she devolving to insults and yelling will be the day the sun goes supernova.
 

Biznatch

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
2,224
Move to another home in a different area, if I'm able. If I can afford to live in new york (or anywhere with high cost of living), I can surely afford to gtfo and live somewhere else, even if it means working minimum wage for a while and searching for better paying jobs meanwhile. If I can't bother to do that much, then I guess freedom isn't as important as convenience for me, or I can't afford cable/internet in the first place.

Edit: Cali seems to have plenty of ISPs, fwiw...


If I didn't have kids, I'd be out of this shitty overcrowded state of morons in a heartbeat. Not if I have to go from over 6 figures to minimum wage though.... But I could take a pretty decent sized cut and live much more comfortably pretty much anywhere else. Maybe in 18 years.

And cali may have tons of ISPs, but most typically don't overlap coverage. I'm in LA and I can either choose spectrum or dsl.... VZ started rolling out fiber, but halted that and I know of no other plans for any company to expand anywhere nearby.


Weeelll we been okay for years without NN so there you commie scum / S
I love that non sense argument too... Then you try and explain that yes the internet had inherent NN built in the past... but this is because of technical limitations, ALL of which have been overcome.. packet sniffing so they can know exactly what data is moving... Shit in what i consider incredible, last i read ISPs can take you data, modify it so they can insert the ads they want... I read that and i am still in holy shit mode... Talk about a violation of free speech. ( As in the communication you are having between you and whatever website).. Of course now its not any kind of violation since they are not common carriers... But you know, NN is bullshit ' cause ' libtards ' support it and that's that.

While they could/were doing the ad injection before, it's almost impossible for them to do now that almost all sites have moved to HTTPS. Your ISP can't break that SSL chain without alerting the user unless they have the original cert. So sites have been working to improve your privacy (from the ISP), and I know chrome is going to start putting a big red warning on all non-https sites shortly.

But this, I believe, is only temporary protection. Congress (Republicans....) passed a law taking away our privacy and allowing them to scrape/sell our data. Now sites are moving to SSL and taking away their brand new income stream they had just received after spending a ton lobbying. Think they will let that slide? I have absolutely no doubt they are working on legislation to allow them to force users to install one of their 'trusted' proxy SSL certs, which will allow them to break the SSL chain and scan all traffic being sent. This of course is 'only' to protect us from turrorists, and children safe from predators. Once that passes, they will target VPNs because only terrorists use encrypted communications right?.....
 
Last edited:
Top