Wave goodbye to Internet freedom

TFian said:
Those aren't examples of censorship, but preventing their bandwidth from clogging up, which they have a right to.
Click to expand...
So you admit that the ISPs would rather slow down sites than increase the overall bandwidth. This is why the US has some of the slowest internet speeds on the planet.

The ISPs have no right to decide which sites are allowed full bandwidth, while others get throttled. Not so long as their infrastructure is on public land.
 
TFian said:
Because net neutrality deals with content, not labor laws.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. It has nothing at all to do with content.

Funny, I have never met anyone who is against net neutrality who has the slightest idea what it even is. You alreaqdy proved you won't be the first.
 
WildCat said:
So you admit that the ISPs would rather slow down sites than increase the overall bandwidth. This is why the US has some of the slowest internet speeds on the planet.
Click to expand...

Bandwidth is a limited resource.

WildCat said:
The ISPs have no right to decide which sites are allowed full bandwidth, while others get throttled. Not so long as their infrastructure is on public land.
Click to expand...

Actually they do have a right, if you don't like it switch to a different ISP.
 
TFian said:
Government mandating what ISPs can and can't do.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware everything on the internet was pre-screened by the government. I thought they just enforced infringements on an individual's rights. Must be fun to be the government screeners who have domain over 4chan.
 
WildCat said:
Oh look, a wingnut moonbat said it on the internet, it must be true!
Click to expand...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/net-neutrality-fcc-trojan-horse-redux

As we've said before, if “ancillary jurisdiction” is enough for net neutrality regulations (something we might like) today, the FCC could just as easily invoke it tomorrow for any other Internet regulation that the Commission dreams up (including things we won’t like, like decency rules and copyright filtering).
Click to expand...
 
TFian said:
Actually it is the fairness doctorine, ISPs have to give everyone "equal" traffic.

Why do we need regulations to keep ISP business "fair"? In what way does network neutrality address monopoly trusts anyway?
Click to expand...


Ugh. You have no idea what it is, do you?
 
tfian said:
actually they do have a right, if you don't like it switch to a different isp.
Click to expand...

Many people cant in many areas because there is only one or two broadband providers in their area.
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
Many people cant in many areas because there is only one or two broadband providers.
Click to expand...

Actually that's false. You usually have one cable, one satellite based provider, one DSL, and 3g and 4g, along with dialup. You have plenty of choices.

You can always go without if you don't like it.
 
TFian said:
Actually that's false. You usually have one cable, one satellite based provider, one DSL, and 3g and 4g, along with dialup. You have plenty of choices.

You can always go without if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

Big cities have that. Most of America doesn't live in a big city. They typically just have comcast and MAYBE have a DSL provider as well.

Oh, and wireless access to internet from your cellphone is not true broadband.
 
Last edited:
TFian said:
I do. It has nothing to do with breaking up monopolies (Which would be a bad thing anyway).
Click to expand...

No one has stated that it's about breaking up monopolies. You're still showing off that you have absolutely no idea what it is about.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Big cities have that. Most of America doesn't live in a big city. They typically just have comcast and MAYBE have a DSL provider as well.

Oh, and wireless access to internet from your cellphone is not true broadband.
Click to expand...

Then they can either move to a big city or go without.
 
Newtons Bit said:
No one has stated that it's about breaking up monopolies. You're still showing off that you have absolutely no idea what it is about.
Click to expand...

Then it doesn't address the false issue of "choice" of ISPs, as you stated.
 
Newtons Bit said:
No. This is a democracy. We'll regulate those monopolies. Thanks.
Click to expand...

We're a republic, not a democracy.

Also, most of the idiots who took the "Network neutrality" pledge lost their elections, so apparently democracy isn't on your side.

Who is John Galt?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom