Net Neutrality - crying faggots and the_donald go berserk

[MysteriousStranger]

I'm amazed at the responses making fun of his looks. I thought brown people were sacred relics!

 

[Owlflaps]

^^Ajit is the exception. He's a rich Republic and therefore he's as bad a WHITE MAN.

 

[UY 690]

Weeaboos already crying about their anime overlords of the east not supporting them in the west anymore because Net Neutrality being dead. lol

I hope Congress repels their stupid law so, even more, Weeaboos can cry about it and Piraticy will rise again!

Also, if anime pirate fans are Republicans. I guess that makes anime legal supporters democratic. XD

 

[AnOminous]

I'm amazed at the responses making fun of his looks. I thought brown people were sacred relics!

Once you're a Republican, you're an honorary white person, but then somehow it's okay to mock you for being a dothead street shitting faggot.

I'm okay with that, but then I'm okay with just mocking dothead Indian street-shitters in general, even without any excuse.

 

[Doug_Hitzel]

We are not the lowest common denominator by any stretch of the imagination. We have specific tastes and we're savvy enough to find other avenues of acquiring them.

Netflix is on every modern game console, is a built-in app on many smart devices, televisions, and so on, and they have kiosks across the country for those who prefer renting physical media (old fashioned).

They're sticking to a comfortable playing field where they can't ever be in violation of anti-trust, and instead rely on using their influence to keep competitors off the vast majority of smaller platforms.

It's not a true monopoly but it's pretty damn close.

Disney is going to have their own Netflix clone soon, so there will be competition. Also, I believe Disney owns Hulu now as well.

 

[Chefbot]

And this is how you get net neutrality gutted, folks!

 

[kike pal]

Reminder that abolishing Net Neutrality does nothing. It was an impotent Obama bill, ISPs could always (and still can) throttle or block if they want to.

 

[two bees]

View attachment 336267

Golly, it's almost as though giving different agencies total control over entire industries with effectively no oversight isn't the best idea

 

[Cancion232]

Weeaboos already crying about their anime overlords of the east not supporting them in the west anymore because Net Neutrality being dead. lol

I hope Congress repels their stupid law so, even more, Weeaboos can cry about it and Piraticy will rise again!

I'm quite pleased with the people who haven't taken advantage of this at all and would still be classified as "weeaboos". A good example is Gigguk, seeing as western weebs have taken advantage of this wholesale but so far, he hasn't made a single video on it.

Not trying to be a fanboy, but it is nice to see that happening.

 

[A Welsh Cake]

Pirating anime is superior anyway. Paying Crunchyroll doesn’t support the anime creators and anyone who tells you that is a liar.

 

[L desu]

So who here thinks that not much is actually gonna fucking happen?

 

[reptile0009]

So who here thinks that not much is actually gonna fucking happen?

I think you might be giving the likes of Comcast and AT&T a little too much credit implying that they’re not going to abuse something that they’ve spent several years and several million dollars subverting democracy in order to achieve.

 

[kirakira]

I think you might be giving the likes of Comcast and AT&T a little too much credit implying that they’re not going to abuse something that they’ve spent several years and several million dollars subverting democracy in order to achieve.

they've already been abusing it with protections in place though. Like half of the mobile carriers arbitrarily tier off HD video on their "unlimited" plans. This was just a symbolic victory because the protections were useless anyways.

https://www.att.com/plans/unlimited-data-plans.html like these plans didn't just happen last week

 

[kike pal]

I think you might be giving the likes of Comcast and AT&T a little too much credit implying that they’re not going to abuse something that they’ve spent several years and several million dollars subverting democracy in order to achieve.

Net neutrality, in some form, has existed for nearly 13 years. It's existed even longer than that if you consider its first mention in the 1996 Clinton Telecommunications Act. I put this fact in bold (and included the image) for extra emphasis.

Now let's look at various ISP attempts at somehow impeding on net neutrality (that were entirely struck down):

• In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking.
• In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
• From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
• In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
• In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
• In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page.
• From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
• In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
• During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

Look at those dates. Now look at the image I posted.

Net neutrality (the concept, not the shitty useless Obama bill) has always been "under attack." It only took big companies over a decade to make that fear-mongering profitable, as Netflix and company quickly realized Ajit Poo's decision to repeal Obama's 2015 law meant they may have to pay fees for using 9000% more data than everybody else. Which means they would need to squeeze more money out of you, the consumer.

 

[millais]

peak

 

[OwO What's This?]

Net neutrality, in some form, has existed for nearly 13 years. It's existed even longer than that if you consider its first mention in the 1996 Clinton Telecommunications Act. I put this fact in bold (and included the image) for extra emphasis.

Now let's look at various ISP attempts at somehow impeding on net neutrality (that were entirely struck down):

• In 2005, North Carolina ISP Madison River Communications blocked the voice-over-internet protocol (VOIP) service Vonage. Vonage filed a complaint with the FCC after receiving a slew of customer complaints. The FCC stepped in to sanction Madison River and prevent further blocking.
• In 2005, the nation’s largest ISP, Comcast, began secretly blocking peer-to-peer technologies that its customers were using over its network. Users of services like BitTorrent and Gnutella were unable to connect to these services. 2007 investigations from the Associated Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and others confirmed that Comcast was indeed blocking or slowing file-sharing applications without disclosing this fact to its customers.
• From 2007–2009, AT&T forced Apple to block Skype and other competing VOIP phone services on the iPhone. The wireless provider wanted to prevent iPhone users from using any application that would allow them to make calls on such “over-the-top” voice services. The Google Voice app received similar treatment from carriers like AT&T when it came on the scene in 2009.
• In 2010, Windstream Communications, a DSL provider with more than 1 million customers at the time, copped to hijacking user-search queries made using the Google toolbar within Firefox. Users who believed they had set the browser to the search engine of their choice were redirected to Windstream’s own search portal and results.
• In 2011, MetroPCS, at the time one of the top-five U.S. wireless carriers, announced plans to block streaming video over its 4G network from all sources except YouTube. MetroPCS then threw its weight behind Verizon’s court challenge against the FCC’s 2010 open internet ruling, hoping that rejection of the agency’s authority would allow the company to continue its anti-consumer practices.
• In 2011, the Electronic Frontier Foundation found that several small ISPs were redirecting search queries via the vendor Paxfire. The ISPs identified in the initial Electronic Frontier Foundation report included Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West. Paxfire would intercept a person’s search request at Bing and Yahoo and redirect it to another page.
• From 2011–2013, AT&T, Sprint and Verizon blocked Google Wallet, a mobile-payment system that competed with a similar service called Isis, which all three companies had a stake in developing.
• In 2012, AT&T announced that it would disable the FaceTime video-calling app on its customers’ iPhones unless they subscribed to a more expensive text-and-voice plan. AT&T had one goal in mind: separating customers from more of their money by blocking alternatives to AT&T’s own products.
• During oral arguments in Verizon v. FCC in 2013, judges asked whether the phone giant would favor some preferred services, content or sites over others if the court overruled the agency’s existing open internet rules. Verizon counsel Helgi Walker had this to say: “I’m authorized to state from my client today that but for these rules we would be exploring those types of arrangements.” Walker’s admission might have gone unnoticed had she not repeated it on at least five separate occasions during arguments.

Look at those dates. Now look at the image I posted.

Net neutrality (the concept, not the shitty useless Obama bill) has always been "under attack." It only took big companies over a decade to make that fear-mongering profitable, as Netflix and company quickly realized Ajit Poo's decision to repeal Obama's 2015 law meant they may have to pay fees for using 9000% more data than everybody else. Which means they would need to squeeze more money out of you, the consumer.

you say 'internet service providers' but the vast majority are for net neutrality

do you think they just have greater morals or do think there's a financial reason behind that

 

[millais]

not a terribly convincing argument...

 

[UY 690]

not a terribly convincing argument...

Wouldn't that be a good thing that kids stop committing suicide online and bullies would get a life on the internet?

 

[Chiang Kai-shek]

not a terribly convincing argument...

As much as I support NN, I'm gonna say that making youtube or streaming your careers is a terrible choice imo. Also actors and movie stars are rich af so they'll be just fine.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

not a terribly convincing argument...

How exactly would this put Hollywood out of business?

Also YouTubers and Streamers are pretty much a dying breed at this point. I don't see how the repeal would be doing much to change that.