ADVERTISEMENT

Seven Reasons Net Neutrality Is Idiotic

"6. It's crony capitalism in favor of web giants like Facebook and Google. That's why they support net neutrality, since it targets their competitors. "

TL;DR for everyone else; this is how shit this article is. That is the entirety of point 6 on the site.

Wait, I need to put this in partisan context so you can understand what the liberals are trying to do as that is the only way you can take in information.

You know who supports killing net neutrality? Comcast, the biggest ISP in America. They also own MSNBC. Without net neutrality they could throttle the Blaze into oblivion and boost speeds on MSNBC.
 
This is the first paragraph in the article:

"Net neutrality is the notion that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) shouldn't be able to "slow down, speed up, or block data as it is routed from its content originator to end users" in order to favor particular sites."

How the f***** could anyone be against that idea?
 
Just to expand on my above post, the article compares Netflix and Youporn traffic to Semis hauling way more cargo across the road than everyone else.

This completely ignores that WE PAY THE ISP monthly for the bandwidth. We pay, say, $60/month for 30Mbps download of the internet - we are paying for the road and the traffic back and forth. They just want to ALSO get paid by Youporn and Netflix. If the internet was free this analogy might work, but it isn't and it disgustingly doesn't.

Ajit Pai might be the worst Trump "win" for every day Americans.
 
Wait, a real live person without actual financial gain at stake is against net neutrality? I didn't think this was a partisan issue, just an ISP-backed issue.

OP is even worse than I ever imagined.
OP is clearly just trolling, but stating for the record, anybody against net neutrality is a moran.
 
"6. It's crony capitalism in favor of web giants like Facebook and Google. That's why they support net neutrality, since it targets their competitors. "

TL;DR for everyone else; this is how shit this article is. That is the entirety of point 6 on the site.

Wait, I need to put this in partisan context so you can understand what the liberals are trying to do as that is the only way you can take in information.

You know who supports killing net neutrality? Comcast, the biggest ISP in America. They also own MSNBC. Without net neutrality they could throttle the Blaze into oblivion and boost speeds on MSNBC.
Fun considering we have net neutrality already, yet sites themselves are already denying content and propping up certain content over others. YouTube, Facebook, and twitter just to name a few. All that without the ISP's having any say in that.
 
This is the first paragraph in the article:

"Net neutrality is the notion that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) shouldn't be able to "slow down, speed up, or block data as it is routed from its content originator to end users" in order to favor particular sites."

How the f***** could anyone be against that idea?
Because there is only so much bandwidth to go around and because they own the circuits. Like it or not, my last sentence is just rules of ownership. Also, if the sites start kicking out 4K steaming for every video they have, what does that ultimately do to the overall connections speeds? I'd also love to hear any problems that anyone around here has actually experienced.
 
Last edited:
Fun considering we have net neutrality already, yet sites themselves are already denying content and propping up certain content over others. YouTube, Facebook, and twitter just to name a few. All that without the ISP's having any say in that.
Oh dear Lord.
 
Because there is only so much bandwidth to go around and because they own the circuits. Like it or not, my last sentence is just rules of ownership. Also, if the sites start kicking out 4K steaming for every video they have, what does that ultimately do to the overall connections speeds? I'd also love to hear any problems that anyone around here has actually experienced.


WE ARE PAYING FOR THE BANDWIDTH.

Plus, ISPs are rolling out more lines everywhere, their "woe is me" is just nonsense to get paid more.

Rules of ownership is controlled by government in thousands of ways, and this is one of the most obvious I've ever seen.

Those poor ISPs getting caught fraudulently ripping off customers about speeds and throttling services when not allowed in their contract.

I think your water and gas supplier should simply slow your to a trickle on the hottest days of the year, that is until your A/C company and plumber pays them on top of your payment to get it back to full flow. I'm sure that would just be "rules of ownership" too.

"Only so much bandwidth," what horseshit. If you pay for X amount of download, we know exactly what bandwidth you are getting. They want to limit content within that X.
 
Fun considering we have net neutrality already, yet sites themselves are already denying content and propping up certain content over others. YouTube, Facebook, and twitter just to name a few. All that without the ISP's having any say in that.

How so? Are you talking about websites putting up content on their own sites? ISPs are the pipes, not content providers. You really see this the same somehow?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raglefant
WE ARE PAYING FOR THE BANDWIDTH.

Plus, ISPs are rolling out more lines everywhere, their "woe is me" is just nonsense to get paid more.

Rules of ownership is controlled by government in thousands of ways, and this is one of the most obvious I've ever seen.

Those poor ISPs getting caught fraudulently ripping off customers about speeds and throttling services when not allowed in their contract.

I think your water and gas supplier should simply slow your to a trickle on the hottest days of the year, that is until your A/C company and plumber pays them on top of your payment to get it back to full flow. I'm sure that would just be "rules of ownership" too.

"Only so much bandwidth," what horseshit. If you pay for X amount of download, we know exactly what bandwidth you are getting. They want to limit content within that X.
Tell me the factors that go into actually getting the bandwidth that you pay for.
 
How so? Are you talking about websites putting up content on their own sites? ISPs are the pipes, not content providers. You really see this the same somehow?
No, and how you even got to that conclusion is trivial. Point being it's all about denial of service correct? The fear of lack of net neutrality is based directly on some content being consider more important than other content. Whether it be denied through throttling or simply censorship. He ISP's can only realistically guarantee so much bandwidth, due more than one factor. You're totally missing out on how much balance played into this on a circuit, availability and use scale.
 
Tell me the factors that go into actually getting the bandwidth that you pay for.

You pay for access to the internet, X amount/sec.

You are arguing that they can't actually afford the bandwidth they are offering, right?
 
WE ARE PAYING FOR THE BANDWIDTH.

Plus, ISPs are rolling out more lines everywhere, their "woe is me" is just nonsense to get paid more.

Rules of ownership is controlled by government in thousands of ways, and this is one of the most obvious I've ever seen.

Those poor ISPs getting caught fraudulently ripping off customers about speeds and throttling services when not allowed in their contract.

I think your water and gas supplier should simply slow your to a trickle on the hottest days of the year, that is until your A/C company and plumber pays them on top of your payment to get it back to full flow. I'm sure that would just be "rules of ownership" too.

"Only so much bandwidth," what horseshit. If you pay for X amount of download, we know exactly what bandwidth you are getting. They want to limit content within that X.
Do you have any knowledge on network flow by the way? Are you claiming there's unlimited bandwidth to go around?
 
No, and how you even got to that conclusion is trivial. Point being it's all about denial of service correct? The fear of lack of net neutrality is based directly on some content being consider more important than other content. Whether it be denied through throttling or simply censorship. He ISP's can only realistically guarantee so much bandwidth, due more than one factor. You're totally missing out on how much balance played into this on a circuit, availability and use scale.

Bandwidth is not and has not been a problem, they want Netflix to pay them for better access while not changing the bandwidth - at all.
 
Do you have any knowledge on network flow by the way? Are you claiming there's unlimited bandwidth to go around?

They are, in their offering to the customer, as they have for two decades without holding services hostage.
 
Shit, the main argument of the article is, "they haven't really done these bad things, yet, so no reason to legislate them!"

And who is spending the money to do it? Cable companies who are getting killed by streaming sign ups and ISPs who see new revenue streams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Urohawk
Since liberals are heavily in favor of net neutrality,then this means the point of net neutrality is censorship, because liberals are ALWAYS for censorship.

giphy.gif
 
ADVERTISEMENT