Libs are like "Without net neutrality, big companies can steer people in the direction they want them to go! "

[Fred Oinka]

Oh, you mean like Google does now?

[Matt]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 10:24:49 AM UTC-5, Fred Oinka wrote:
> Oh, you mean like Google does now?

No, that's not what "libs are like".

Liberals realize that net neutrality protected us from massive price increases based on usage.
Liberals realize that net neutrality gave an even footing to new Internet companies.
Liberals realize that any sort of monopoly is bad, although some (like power companies) have to be tolerated.

What are you like, Oinkie?

Oh, right, stupid.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

On 12/15/2017 10:35 AM, Matt wrote:
> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 10:24:49 AM UTC-5, Fred Oinka wrote:
>> Oh, you mean like Google does now?
> No, that's not what "libs are like".
>
> Liberals realize that net neutrality protected us from massive price increases based on usage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HlTxGHn4sH4

Obama personally tells you what Cap & Trade *Socialism* does to prices....



--
That's Karma

The *REAL CHILD PREDATORS* are the Democrats who support ABORTION.

[Matt]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:06:54 PM UTC-5, #BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 12/15/2017 10:35 AM, Matt wrote:
> > On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 10:24:49 AM UTC-5, Fred Oinka wrote:
> >> Oh, you mean like Google does now?
> > No, that's not what "libs are like".
> >
> > Liberals realize that net neutrality protected us from massive price increases based on usage.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HlTxGHn4sH4
>
> Obama personally tells you what Cap & Trade *Socialism* does to prices....
>

Obama Derangement Syndrome. Quite sad.

There's no cure, I'm afraid you'll have to be put down. Have your owners do it soon.

[#BeamMeUpScotty]

Liberals tell me Obama was/is a HARVARD genius so I figured you'd
believe it when he tells you that all that government regulation will do
is it (will cause the price to necessarily skyrocket).

If you can't believe Obama who can Liberals believe?



--
The Constitution of the
United States of America
Article II
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[Matt]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 2:10:27 PM UTC-5, #BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 12/15/2017 01:14 PM, Matt wrote:
> > On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 1:06:54 PM UTC-5, #BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> >> On 12/15/2017 10:35 AM, Matt wrote:
> >>> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 10:24:49 AM UTC-5, Fred Oinka wrote:
> >>>> Oh, you mean like Google does now?
> >>> No, that's not what "libs are like".
> >>>
> >>> Liberals realize that net neutrality protected us from massive price increases based on usage.
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HlTxGHn4sH4
> >>
> >> Obama personally tells you what Cap & Trade *Socialism* does to prices....
> >>
> >
> > Obama Derangement Syndrome. Quite sad.
> >
> > There's no cure, I'm afraid you'll have to be put down. Have your owners do it soon.
> >
>
> Liberals tell me

no. Liberals don't talk to idiots. It brings us down to their level.

We mostly ignore them, aside from the occasional humiliation that is all too easy to inflict on them.

Matt

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/15/2017 11:29 AM, Yak wrote:
> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 10:24:49 AM UTC-5, Fred Oinka wrote:

>> Oh, you mean like Google does now?
>

> Net neutrality is another fraud perpetrated to give govt more power.

Yep.

http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/26/why-net-neutrality-was-mistaken-from-the


It was a bullshit solution to a non-existent problem.

[AlleyCat]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 07:35:48 -0800 (PST), Matt says...

> Liberals realize that net neutrality protected us from massive price increases based on usage.

HEAVEN FORBID, you basement dwelling nerds' mothers have to pay more for
Internet.

[AlleyCat]

On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:12:58 -0800 (PST), Matt says...

> > Liberals tell me Obama was/is a HARVARD genius so I figured you'd
> > believe it when he tells you that all that government regulation will
> > do is it (will cause the price to necessarily skyrocket).

> > If you can't believe Obama who can Liberals believe?

> no. Liberals don't talk to idiots. It brings us down to their level.

I guess "Scotty" should be happy you don't think of him as an idiot,
because you're talking to him, stupid, and liberals DON'T talk to idiots,
right?

Coming from a person with such low-self-esteem, he can not POSSIBLY not
respond to someone who has made him look like the joke that he is.

Classic.

[chuckle]

I'm so happy you don't think me an idiot either, since I KNOW you will
HAVE to respond to this, so you can tell everyone, who doesn't CARE, by
the way, that you're a genius.

[snicker]

[Tom Sr.]

It is the 21st Century, far-right-wing-nuts! Internet access is a *utility* in the same way the water, electrical, and phone services are.

One day it will be so legally.

Do not bet otherwise, you reactionary Ko0kS. You *will* lose.


----------
http://time.com/money/5065743/how-net-neutrality-decision-affects-you/

*What the End of Net Neutrality Means for You*
by Paul Schrodt
Dec, 15, 2017

Net neutrality as we’ve known it is over. The Federal Communications Commission voted on Thursday to repeal rules over how Internet service providers, or ISPs, grant online access [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html]. And the change could have significant consequences for your Internet use — and its costs.

If you’re wondering what exactly net neutrality is and how it will affect your monthly bill, a quick rundown: Net neutrality refers to the principle that ISPs must treat all digital content equally, whatever it is and wherever it’s hosted. So broadband companies such as AT&T [http://fortune.com/fortune500/att/] and Comcast [http://fortune.com/fortune500/comcast/] can’t privilege the loading of one website over another, and they can’t charge users more to view certain material—like, say, streaming movies.

This is what’s known as the open Internet.

The FCC put into place net neutrality regulations in 2015 [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/net-neutrality/story?id=48596615], following the recommendation of President Barack Obama. The federal government thereby classified internet as a public utility, under Title II Order of the 1934 Communications Act, treating it the same way as phone service or electricity.

Things have shifted under President Donald Trump. Current FCC chairman Ajit Pai, appointed by Trump, endorsed the repeal of net neutrality before the vote [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html], based on the belief that it will nurture competition. He decided in its favor alongside his fellow Republican commissioners, resulting in a 3-2 split.

What does that mean for you? It’s still early to say. New rules won’t go into effect for weeks, so it may look as if all is normal right now. And many factors are still up in the air. But the transition opens up numerous possibilities for how you get online and what it costs.


* Bundling the Internet

Net neutrality supporters argue that the deregulation will result in different internet packages that prioritize certain kinds of content. Broadband companies could offer bundles, much in the same way as cable companies. So if you love going on Twitter and Facebook [http://fortune.com/fortune500/facebook/], you could pay for one kind of subscription. And if you binge-watch Netflix [http://fortune.com/fortune500/netflix/] or Hulu, you could instead pay for a video-oriented package.

And if you want it all, you may have to pay a lot more. In the same vein of premium cable bundles that give you every channel possible, ISPs could offer deluxe options. Critics believe this would unfairly benefit higher-income households at a time when internet communication is crucial [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-rules.html].

Meanwhile, ISPs could downgrade the speed of content providers not seen as worthy enough, a practice known as throttling.

Without government protections, consumers would be “paying more money to their internet companies to get a less diverse, less interesting [internet],” said Evan Greer, the campaign director of Fight for the Future, a nonprofit focusing on digital rights.


* The Fast Lane vs. the Slow Lane

There’s another way web access could be split up. Internet plans already cap data and charge more for higher bandwidth limits (the rates at which you can upload and download). But providers were previously prohibited from prioritizing any particular corner of the web, as long as it’s legal.

Without rules barring paid prioritization, say critics of the FCC’s move, broadband companies could create fast lanes and slow lanes for different sources of content. Technology giants like Google [http://fortune.com/fortune500/alphabet/], Facebook, and Netflix could pay a hefty fee [https://www.wired.com/story/fcc-prepares-to-unveil-plan-to-gut-net-neutrality/] to deliver their content more rapidly to consumers; content from startups that lack the money to do so could wind up in the slow lane.

Such a structure would provide new revenue for ISPs. Meanwhile, a smaller streaming company competing against Netflix would be at a huge disadvantage. Many consumers may end up sticking to larger, more widely available sources.

Small businesses and consumer groups have already voiced concerns that without net neutrality, the bigger players will have an edge. If, for example, you’re self-employed and sell your woodwork on a personal website, you may lose out.

Theoretically, ISPs that also own media entities would be able to give free rein to their own content, giving it a market advantage. So if you subscribe to AT&T, its video could suddenly look much better than YouTube’s. This is particularly relevant in an era of big media mergers [https://www.bna.com/atttime-warner-media-n73014473231/] such as Comcast’s with NBCUniversal and AT&T’s planned deal with Time Warner [http://fortune.com/fortune500/time-warner/].

Even some larger tech companies like Netflix and Twitter have argued against the repeal. Both [https://twitter.com/netflix/status/941373853216915456] called the FCC’s plan “misguided [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/net-neutrality/story?id=48596615],” claiming that net neutrality helps innovators and Internet users more generally. Netflix, after all, was once a little-known startup.


* Blocking Your Way

Those against the repeal also worry about outright censorship. Experts have said that broadband companies will now be able to stifle certain political ideas [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html].

They could also simply wipe out competition. Public interest organizations cited an example [https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/att-backpedals-on-facetime-restrictions/] in which AT&T allegedly violated net neutrality regulations by blocking certain iPhone and iPad users from using FaceTime, which is perceived as a threat to traditional telecommunication.


* Maybe Nothing Will Change

There’s still a lot of uncertainty in the FCC’s decision. The debate, as with so much policy, is more complex than it may seem at first glance [https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/22/16691506/portugal-meo-internet-packages-net-neutrality-ajit-pai-plan].

Brendan Carr, a Republican FCC commissioner, described critics’ scenarios as “apocalyptic” [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html]. Pai said he thinks the new rules will force ISPs to be more “transparent” about their practices, expanding consumers’ choice [https://www.wired.com/story/fcc-prepares-to-unveil-plan-to-gut-net-neutrality/].

“Did these fast lanes and slow lanes exist? No,” the chairman said in a speech earlier this year [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-rules.html]. “It’s almost as if the special interests pushing Title II [https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf] weren’t trying to solve a real problem but instead looking for an excuse to achieve their longstanding goal of forcing the Internet under the federal government’s control.”

Many organizations representing both consumers and Internet companies vehemently disagree [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html]. Public Knowledge and the National Hispanic Media Coalition promised to file lawsuits against the reversal. The Internet Association, a lobbying group that works on behalf of tech behemoths like Google and Facebook, said it was also considering litigation. Critics have pointed out that the average American has only one or two options for ISPs [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/net-neutrality/story?id=48596615], circumscribing the kind of true competition Pai praises.

Politicians also quickly jumped into the fight following Thursday’s vote [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-repeal-vote.html]. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman guaranteed legal action to stop the change [https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-i-will-sue-stop-illegal-rollback-net-neutrality], as did Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson [http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-announces-lawsuit-come-net-neutrality], and Democratic lawmakers have called for a bill that would put back into effect the oversight that the FCC stripped away.

The broadband companies, for their part, have a slightly different take [http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/net-neutrality/story?id=48596615]. Both AT&T and Verizon have issued statements in support of a free Internet, but assert that the previous regulations were overly broad. Several providers have recently pledged not to block or throttle service even without the old rules [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/14/technology/net-neutrality-rules.html].

Whether they’ll keep their word remains to be seen.
----------


SEE ALSO:
----------
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Voices/2017/12/15/With-FCCs-net-neutrality-ruling-US-could-lose-its-lead-in-online-consumer-protection/6111513341686/

"With FCC's Net Neutrality Ruling, U.S. Could Lose Its Lead In Online Consumer Protection"
Dec. 15, 2017
----------


I wonder how many of those *opposed* to Net Neutrality -- especially in this newsgroup -- knew of the facts in these articles?

I strongly suspect this will turn to have been a *very* bad choice for the Republicans and other conservatives with regards to the 2018 elections.

"We told you so."

. . .

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/15/2017 2:28 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>
> It is the 21st Century, far-right-wing-nuts! Internet access is a *utility* in the same way the water, electrical, and phone services are.

It isn't. There are competing ways to deliver internet service, but
those "classic" utilities are all government-protected monopolies.

[Matt]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 4:37:09 PM UTC-5, AlleyCat wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2017 11:12:58 -0800 (PST), Matt says...
>
> > > Liberals tell me Obama was/is a HARVARD genius so I figured you'd
> > > believe it when he tells you that all that government regulation will
> > > do is it (will cause the price to necessarily skyrocket).
>
> > > If you can't believe Obama who can Liberals believe?
>
> > no. Liberals don't talk to idiots. It brings us down to their level.
>
> I guess

Yes, you'd have to guess, because you don't know much.

Matt

[Matt]

<chuckle>

And the 'Ho is lucky the jail gives him Usenet access.

Matt

[ed...@post.com]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 2:29:57 PM UTC-5, Yak wrote:
> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 10:24:49 AM UTC-5, Fred Oinka wrote:

> > Oh, you mean like Google does now?
>

> Net neutrality is another fraud perpetrated to give govt more power.

If that means preventing corporate behemoths from gouging your wallet for less and inferior service in return, then more power to the government.

[ed...@post.com]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 8:29:27 PM UTC-5, Yak wrote:

> And on the side of reason, you freeloading retard.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/07/07/why-treating-the-internet-as-a-public-utility-is-bad-for-consumers/?utm_term=.cab3fa99a7f1

What about that opinion piece written over a year ago in a publication you vilify (unless, of course, it publishes something that agrees with you) makes an iota of sense?

[ed...@post.com]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 9:54:54 AM UTC-5, Yak wrote:

> Nonsense, of course.

That's what net neutrality is about, fuckhead. Unless you know something smarter people don't, which you're not showing is the case.

[ed...@post.com]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 11:14:07 AM UTC-5, Yak wrote:

> What about it? I purposely used that piece because but for it coming from a left wing publication you would have attacked the source. Can’t do that now can you? Which means you actually have to debate the content for a change. So, have at it. Or aren’t you up to it?

You started it. You posted it. Supposedly, you agree with it because it makes sense. So what do you agree with that you think makes sense? I can't bash you over the head with your idiocy about it unless you give me your idiocy to bash you over the head with.

[ed...@post.com]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 3:29:20 PM UTC-5, Yak wrote:

> Uh....the contents of the article? This isn’t that hard, retard.

It appears to be for you, fuckhead. Having trouble understanding the article and articulating what you agree with it? Okay, then, so fuck off now, you're too stupid for this discussion.

[Tom Sr.]

On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 8:29:27 PM UTC-5, Yak wrote:
> And on the side of reason

> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/07/07/why-treating-the-internet-as-a-public-utility-is-bad-for-consumers/?utm_term=.cab3fa99a7f1


That is on the *same *side as so-called "reason", yakkie, you CLUELESS far-right-wing, dumbass Ko0K, because the author of that article, Larry Downes, is ANOTHER *libertarian*.

http://www.larrydownes.com/the-laws-of-disruption/



*DUH*

. . .

[ed...@post.com]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 6:54:45 PM UTC-5, Yak wrote:

> I agree with the entire article. Your turn, retard.

Then if you agree with the ENTIRE article, you should be able to articulate easily and simply enough what you believe about it that proves you won't have to pay more for less. And if you can't articulate it, then simply cut and paste that portion of it that will prove it for you because you're just too stupid of a right wing fuckhead to do it yourself. Not only that, but what more do you think you'll actually get, that you don't have now, out of an internet that isn't net neutral? And if you really won't get more than what you already have, then why kill net neutrality? If you can't even answer that question, then that alone proves how stupid of a right wing fuckhead you are.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/16/2017 4:19 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> On Friday, December 15, 2017 at 8:29:27 PM UTC-5, Yak wrote:
>> And on the side of reason
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2016/07/07/why-treating-the-internet-as-a-public-utility-is-bad-for-consumers/?utm_term=.cab3fa99a7f1
>
>

> Larry Downes,

Also gets it right.

[Tom Sr.]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 8:26:25 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> On 12/16/2017 4:19 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:

> > Larry Downes [is ANOTHER *libertarian*.]
>
> Also gets it right.


A few days ago, you actually admitted, J Ball, that I was correct in saying that David Hartung does assume that what he *believes* without evidence is "Real".

Some time ago, I asked you what objective proof did you have for your *libertarian*. You NEVER could supply *any*, Johnnie.

I've read some of your political and social *beliefs* here -- and in a number of cases, they directly *contracted* scientific evidence. Yes, you accept Climate Change.

BUT you *reject* the same Scientific Method in research when it comes to gay people and transgendered folks. It has for a long, long time been obvious to me -- and to I think most rational people in this group that it is just Blind, Blatant BIGOTRY that governs your Willfully-Ignorant and Stupid opinions on such topic -- just as it does with David Hartung.

It is also very obvious to me that many of the hateful attack posts you write about me have absolutely NOTHING to do with the topic or what I write about it. In fact, some of those personally vicious posts appear in topics that we *agree* upon.

BUT it is clear you -- behaving like an immature brat -- that though you may post some "other reason" that you are attempting to trash me simply because you *hate* gay people. Your referring to me as "h*m* h*mm*l" in such posts is a dead giveaway of the REAL reason you are insulting me -- and coming up with constantly *weak* excuses for doing so.

Like David Hartung and the clear RACISM that shows between the line in his post, your post reek of an even less subtle homo- and trans-phobia. Often you will post something that makes it obvious your BIGOTRY in this is based of your own *personal* and *irrational* discomfort turned to disgust.

You do post at times, Johnnie, both interesting and insightful topics -- such as the evidence shows the FACT that the Electoral College system is a carry over from when slavery was legal in the United States -- and was done in an effort to mollify the slave states when the Constitution was written.

But when it comes to most of your libertarian *beliefs*, the principles you hold to be "true" in fact have NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to support this *claim*. Your *belief* in so-called "Natural Rights" is just as UNPROVABLE as David Hartung's *beliefs* about a Christian God.


They both come down to you both *claiming* they are "TRUE" because YOU *believe* them -- and NOTHING MORE, Jonathan Ball.

AND just as with Hartung, such unprovable *beliefs* -- and in particular then OPINIONS you both have built upon these delusions, J Ball -- just get so fucking *tiresome* after reading the extent of Cluelessness over and over and over and over and over again.


Like, YAWN....

. . .

[ed...@post.com]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 11:53:15 AM UTC-5, Yak wrote:

> Ignorance can be fixed. Stupidity can’t. So, what I am about to write is going to go in your one ear and out the other, but here goes anyway.
>
> Are you old enough to remember the advent of the web? I’m guessing not. I remember when connecting to the web meant dialing up a provider on a 300 bps modem and listening to something akin to hillary clinton's screeching like an owl before it hooked into the web and you could check mail and whatnot. If you wanted to download even the equivalent of the 10 second video of obama lying to about liking and keeping your doctor you would have had to sit and wait for about an hour for it to download.
>
> But, a funny thing happened along the way. Competition resulted in vast speeds and mechanisms for even retards like you to essentially instantly listen to, view and post pretty much anything you want. The net has been innovating and improving exponentially far before net neutrality. And somehow there hasn’t been this Armageddon that the left, and retards like you, keep advancing as a narrative.
>
> If your going to call the net a utility then why not call grocery stores utilities? They are every bit, if not more, ‘essential’ than other utilities. Maybe we need ‘Grocery Store Neutrality’ and in the interest of fairness Coke is not allowed to have a better shelf space and display than Fanta. Fanta gets as much and equal shelf space, even though not nearly as many people like or want it. Does that make one bit of sense? Do you even see the consequence of that? Or what if newspapers were a utility? How about ‘Newspaper Neutrality’? Every paper must offer the exact same amount of space for all opinions regardless of how little support the public gives them – the govt decides who and how much space they get.
>
> ISPs know far better than the govt who their customers are and what they want. They serve the customer’s needs. If they get it right, great. If they get it wrong they either fix it or the customers move on to another provider that does meet its needs. Consider what is happening to cable companies – the incredible loss of customers to streaming services. Govt didn’t figure that out.
>
> But you, and other retards like you, seem to think that the govt should determine who, what and where people should get…what ISPs must provide, and at what speeds and capacity. ‘Net Neutraility’ sure sounds like a friendly term (exactly what the govt wants you to think), until you get your dumb Canadian head out of your dudly doright ass and think about this logically for a second.
>
> You could have figured this all out simply by reading the article. But, you're too goddam lazy. And retarded.


Fuck, you're so fucking stupid for a right winger. All that competition happened under net neutrality, only it wasn't called that back then because there was no name for it, it just was that. All Obama did was formalize it so it wouldn't become corrupted by Corporate America. But hey, who am I to argue with a stupid fuckhead right winger if he insists on wanting higher bills for less and inferior service because now the IPs will be able to bundle your services like cable channels rather than continue getting everything wide open and unhampered the way you've been getting it right from the start? And that's also not to mention how the playing field among streaming services and retailers will become completely unbalanced without net neutrality when they were, and still are for now, equally balanced between the little guy and the big guy under net neutrality - the way it's been all along, you fucking fuckhead. Now really, seriously, fuck off, you're too fucking stupid for this discussion.

[Rudy Canoza]

On 12/17/2017 3:53 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017 at 8:26:25 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> On 12/16/2017 4:19 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>> Larry Downes [is ANOTHER *libertarian*.]
>>
>> Also gets it right.
>
>
> A few days ago, you actually admitted, J Ball,

Not my name.

> that I was correct in saying that David Hartung does assume that what he *believes* without evidence is "Real".

However, Larry Downes *does* get it right.

Net neutrality was bullshit, and it's now dead and buried. It was
unnecessary and not a solution to any real problem. It was just more
Obama overreach, that's all.