Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Owl, Dec 14, 2017.

  1. As we all know it was a 3-2 split. The FCC has voted to repeal net neutrality. Although this has happened the fight is not over! This decision will be passed through congress and overturned. #FREEINTERNET
  2. If it's not too hard for you, could you tell me exactly why you feel this way? Could you explain, in your own words, what your position means to you? Please refrain from using memes and cite your sources, if any.
  3. I concur, you haven't really presented a viewpoint.

    You haven't really told us why we should vote against the FCC and maintain net neutrality.

    There's no real context behind this thread.

    Low effort.
  4. I’m not from America so I’m unsure if this would affect me. I tried to look into what this actually is but i didn’t understand.

    Could someone explain what is this ‘NetNeutrality’ thing is about?
  5. For my best understandings I believe you have to pay for cable and for the internet, something what I was told.
  6. ?? Your answer makes about as much sense as his statement does ie:ZERO ??
  7. Net neutrality is the idea that internet service providers (ISPs) have to allow access to all websites equally. So, Comcast can't say "we won't allow our customers to access facebook." Going right with it is that ISPs can't charge more for access to certain sites/features. As is, with net neutrality, you get all sites/features of the internet for x dollars a month. Without net neutrality, ISPs are allowed to do stuff like "it's $5/mo for facebook, twitter, and instagram access, an additional $5/mo for ebay and amazon access, another $10/mo for reddit and imgur and YouTube access, all in addition to your regular monthly service bill of x dollars per month." No net neutrality also means that ISPs can completely block certain sites from being accessed by their customers, like they don't exist. ISPs could also charge companies to be whitelisted and accessible to the ISPs' customers, making it almost impossible for small businesses/websites to be viewed unless they pay big money.

    This boils down to "consumers pay more for less, and big corporations earn much much more."

    This is as I understand it, there may be details missing or wrong. The FCC's vote is not a final verdict on the matter. It's a sucky public decision, but not final so consumers shouldn't lose hope.

  8. *EDIT ...actually it was a legitimate question. Your answer was garbage

  9. Not even a funny troll post just plain garbage 
  10. In my opinion that’s pathetic. Internet should be treated as a equal fair opportunity for everyone. To try and start charging people to just use certain websites is ridiculous.

    Social media websites would potentially loose so many people. This is a step too far, have big cooperations not got enough money? Honestly, what has this world come to..
  11. That's exactly why the public is all PO'd at it. The FCC and by extent ISPs want to milk large corporations for money (i.e. whitelisting their websites). It's initially good for ISPs and people getting paid by them (like some of the top peeps in the FCC), not small businesses and the public.
  12. Everyone should do a little research on the topic. There's alot of fear-mongering going around and it's best to diversify your news sources!
  13. Sure, I guess companies like Verizon could neck their business by making you pay for facebook, but here's a curveball for you: why?

    Verizon only uses 4% of their broadband capacity on all their consumers, that's a lot of space. There is no shortage. They cannot charge big businesses like facebook or Twitter a premium rate to run their servers because of net neutrality. Both businesses are notorious for dumping all their profits into RnD then keeping it for themselves, by the way. Did you know Twitter technically operates at a loss? But that's a different issue.

    These companies have the money to spare so verizon and friends are going to charge them big bucks for to use their premium services.

    Of course you could argue their intentions indefinitely so here's some hard economic truth.

    What will happen if verizon charges more for facebook, provided it doesnt kill their business? Well then t mobile or sprint or Comcast or bell can just say hey, we don't charge for that, so come to us. And guess what, they already do that for your phones.

    Along that same reasoning, whats to stop a smaller local business from charging you a smaller rate, or fee-free internet? They are allowed to do that you know. Only reason it isn't done already is because big companies already charge the most efficient price and if they raised it any more small businesses would crop up and steal their customers. They dont need to worry about big businesses fleeing to cheaper and smaller providers because those providers do not have the capacity for them. Best they could do is rent their own sattelites and towers, but verizon would sweeten the deal long before they lose such a big customer like facebook.

    Fair warning, I dont actually have the source for the 4% figure on hand right now but when I find it again ill post it.
  14. GRRAPE has it right, do your own research and don’t listen to the fear mongering in social media...... #YOUHAVEABRAINUSEIT
  15. How about give an actual opinion on the subject instead of just saying "Read better news" dressed up in some empty commentary.
  16. They want to make the internet work like subscribed cable. With basic internet you would get access to a handful of sites. When you pay more you get access to the premium sites. Line with cable when you pay more you get better channels like HBO.
  17. Thats untrue cherry. Thats the kind of myth people come up with when they get all their information secondhand via memes and sensationalist far-left news article titles.
  18. What about the mass censorship that could( I say would) happen? Facebook already shows you only what you like. If they can control what your allowed to view then what? Totalitarianism. Even more fascism.
  19. I dont really believe this, if twitter really operated at a loss, how are they keeping their servers above ground? I haven't checked their stock prices (if they even have any) but surely it isn't on the decrease. With the amount of free publicity (trump and just about any other celebrity) I really find it hard to believe.

    But meh