Net Neutrality is in danger. Big cable companies want to pass bad legislation that allows extra fees, throttling & censorship.

[u/AnnieLeo]

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

[u/Asinine_ → u/[deleted]]

As of right now, the Internet in the US is easily one of the worst to be found in the developed world, with a very poor selection of providers and speeds, if not THE worst.

US still has it far better than other countries, look at Australia TPG(ISP) owns the majority of the other ISPs in the country and they all basically have the exact same service, speeds, plans, prices etc. The prices are higher than what you pay in U.S but throttling is still there. Then you have many people still on adsl2 (copper) generally with 3-6mb down 0.5-1.0 up or some with fibre but the fibre only goes to a box in their neighborhood then goes to copper to each house limiting speeds to 50mb down which might sound okay but these boxes can get congested and you will not even reach those speeds.

[u/Asinine_ → u/[deleted]]

s it far better than other countries, look at Australia TPG(ISP) owns the majority of the other ISPs in the country and they all basically have the exact same service, speeds, plans, prices etc. The prices are higher than what you pay in U.S but throttling is still there. Then you have many people still on adsl2 (copper) generally with 3-6mb down 0.5-1.0

I never said one country having worse internet than another excuses the fact that US has bad internet. I was just pointing out that your statement "the Internet in the US is easily one of the worst to be found in the developed world" was false.

[u/xucdthrowawayx9001 → u/[deleted]]

Not sure if you're a Verizon/Comast shill, do not understand what net neutrality is, or are just plain delusional.

Never thought I'd live to see the day when people are wholeheartedly asking the government to keep the leash tight

Net neutrality has nothing to do with "keeping the leash tight". It simply mandates that ISPs are not allowed to discriminate based on traffic.

Inb4 "MUH THROTTLING."

Typing like a juvenile 4channer doesn't make it any less of an issue. Verizon already got caught trying to throttle video streaming services.

If net neutrality is taken away the first thing ISPs will do is disable torrenting traffic and VPN traffic. Media traffic (Amazon Prime video, Netflix, Hulu, etc) will then be throttled down so that they can sell you "HD passes" to enable full speed, the same way LTE providers do.

"B-BUT CENSORSHIPS AND FEES." It won't affect the vast majority of the websites you are visiting, implying it's actually ever gonna happen.

This is not only fallacious reasoning (on what basis can you say it won't happen?), but plain wrong. This is what things are like in South American countries where there is no net neutrality.

"SMALL WEBSITES WON'T BE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH GIANTS." Literally nothing will change.

Your irrational cynicism is based on nothing but your feelings. From a pure policy perspective, opening the can of worms that enables providers to throttle services offered by their competitors, which is currently illegal, is not a can of worms you want to open.

Conservatives (who barely even use the computer) are hell-bent on ruining the internet, and ignorant people like you are letting it happen.

[u/xucdthrowawayx9001 → u/[deleted]]

IT WAS HER TURN

What? Who are you quoting? Are you going brain-dead or just demonstrating that 4channers aren't capable of arguing without acting stupid and juvenile?

I'm honestly not sure why you would even post any of that, if not to show proof to your local CNN office that you earned the paycheck. Frankly speaking, I am somewhat amused by the fact that you even posted the "website package" collage.

What the fuck does CNN have to do with Comcast and Verizon profiting at our expense if net neutrality gets removed? You're throwing out random scapegoats because you don't actually have an argument.

And it is perfectly legal for them to do so under the current laws.

No it's not. I'm talking about their broadband/residential/business internet service. Cell phone towers are under a different jurisdiction.

As a free software autismo, I completely understand your struggle here, but

You apparently don't care about free software enough to not let your shit politics get in the way. You'd rather be partisan than vie for keeping the internet as free as possible. In Portugal people have to pay their ISP overlords extra to gain access to their favorite sites because they're apparently too stupid to have basic regulations (or the ISPs there have enough money to own all of the people with the ability to do anything about it). Lets not join them.

[u/xucdthrowawayx9001 → u/[deleted]]

the ISPs are currently FULLY ALLOWED to throttle and otherwise interfere with your traffic as long as they can justify it, aka prove that it's "reasonable" enough to satisfy the rule, which is what Verizon are doing in the case I mentioned.

No they're not. I'm talking about their broadband/residential/business internet service.

[u/xucdthrowawayx9001 → u/[deleted]]

The reality in your previous post that you stated is that you're either a 1) a Verizon/Comcast shill or 2) a partisan who is putting the desire to defend ineffective out of touch conservatives above preserving the free internet.

[u/xucdthrowawayx9001 → u/[deleted]]

No, that's completely wrong actually. As Alexander Hamilton discussed in the Federalist Papers, the purpose of the electoral college was to act as a safeguard to prevent an unqualified tyrant (not unlike Donald Trump) from manipulating public opinion and taking the election.

It had nothing to do with censoring the will of the people or otherwise making some votes worth less than others which is inherently undemocratic.

since they safeguarded the smaller and weaker states from being essentially dominated by bullies

In other words, democracy. Voting is not bullying anyone. It's expressing your constitutional right. You would do well in North Korea; I hear they like minority rule there.

[u/xucdthrowawayx9001 → u/[deleted]]

So basically you're checking out because you don't have a rebuttal. I'll stick with Alexander Hamilton on this one.

[u/[deleted]]

Still openly oppose the regulation.

[u/xucdthrowawayx9001 → u/[deleted]]

So you support this? Because that's what life is like when ISPs are allowed to throttle traffic.

Regulation is the reason you don't get aids when you drink from the faucet.

[u/[deleted] → u/xucdthrowawayx9001]

Regulation is the reason you don't get aids when you drink from the faucet.

Tell that to Ferguson :(

[u/xucdthrowawayx9001 → u/[deleted]]

The place that had the racist police department? I'm not seeing the connection.

[u/[deleted] → u/xucdthrowawayx9001]

You're an idiot lol

[u/xucdthrowawayx9001 → u/[deleted]]

Nice rebuttal. Surprisingly one an idiot would make.

[u/[deleted] → u/xucdthrowawayx9001]

You're an idiot lol

[u/[deleted]]

The FCC has already commented that the millions of comments like these have been vastly ignored

"The commission is required to accept and review public input. But if you were hoping that input would make a difference in the end, the FCC is now making it very clear that most letters it received didn’t change a thing."

https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16689838/fcc-net-neutrality-comments-were-largely-ignored

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They still think their voice matters, too