Why is a claim immediately credible when it's what you want to believe?
How many dead people voted for Hillary?
That's ludicrous
But not the dead people for repeal of NN?
Sure is a lot of panic over something that
A, can be reversed if it sucks
And
B, based on the logic that has been offered
Most likely won't suck.

I was told what a short sighted, racist douche I was when Obama care was something I opposed. Well, I was right.
I USED TO support NN, but after time to think and listen to others, I'm willing to risk it.


Bamicare didn't bother me personally, my wife is insured through the hospital and I have Medicare, so, no biggie to me.
Others have suffered though.

I'm not seeing simple, logical arguments against the repeal of NN.
It's looking like fear of the free market.
As if service providers Don't Want every household connected.
In ten years that cable subscription will be ancient history.
That's who hates this.
Watch how things shake out.
I'll probably be one of the minority who suffers, but the city dwellers will win bigly.

Streaming video over the internet will destroy cable.

Where multiple service providers are available the options for consumers will allow them to pick and choose, forcing providers to create options.

as many as 2 million identities were stolen–including those of deceased individuals

If you want to say something online, why do you need a name of a real person?

https://ag.ny.gov/fakecomments

IF in fact there were all these people's names used to post under,
WHOSE VOTE was changed Because of it?
And how many people were dead?

Who did it?
And IF it's true, why can't computer pros find the sources?

Looks like a crime to me. I'd expect some NN supporters to jump at the chance to help track down the identity thieves.
Someone needs to be in trouble.


Even If fraudulent support can be proven, that doesn't make it any less reasonable to support it.

A lot of trouble to go to for no purpose...

I asked
Who voted differently because of it?

Some explanation from a knowledgeable friend...

"on the net neutrality argument, the key to understanding it is that there are 3 main categories of parties involved, not just 2.  It's not just you buying speed from your ISP, it's also all the content providers (websites and web services, from Netflix to suzukisavage.com to joejimbob.com) So it's not just consumers and ISPs, it's consumers, ISPs and content.

And the conflict arrises when an ISP, like Comcast, buys a content provider, like NBC, or when Verizon (ISP) wants to offer NFL games so they cut a deal with the NFL, but you only have AT&T available in your area. So now, if you have Comcast, you get all NBC content fast and quick, but if you want CBS content... Comcast is within their right to ask CBS to pay more to get their content to the End USER (YOU).

So the Title 2 protection that took place under Obama was a step towards regulating the internet as a utility, giving the end user an equal result. Now the debate is, well, water is regulated, but the lowest common denominator of water is well, usually tap water, so do you want the internet to go through that kind of regulation where it equalizes out to the lowest common denominator, (which would be a HUGE improvement for some people).

The argument that, this is the free market sorting things out, isn't exactly true. Because it's not the End User (you) being allowed to set prices via supply and demand. Your demand is being messed with via content providers being able or unable to subsidize their product to run on ISPs that they don't own or have a partnership with. So now your access to the internet is limited by those partnerships between multi-million dollar companies and other multi-million dollar companies. But that allows them to take profits, maybe more than with a "free internet" and the idea is that these companies will take those profits and expand and improve their services so that they are better than tap water.

The simple solution is to deny ISPs the ability to own content, period.

This still allows ISPs to throttle content based on their pipeline needs, like, I stream a ton of video, often all at once, it's fair for them to say, hey, you aren't really paying for the ability to do all that, so this is going to be slower now.  and this still allows content providers to charge the end user for their content without having to up-charge them to pay the ISPs extortion fees.

Also the competition in the USA is pitiful. I'm all for rule and regulations to encourage competition... . but there are the big 4 ISPs that sink billions into stopping that, and the Telecomm industry in the USA is still in a fairly monopolistic state, ever since Ma Bell. "

raydawg wrote on 12/15/17 at 10:13:43:


Well, technically, the internet was only classified as a Title II communication service in 2015.  That classification didn't change anything, it actually protected it from what just happened.

My litmus test is simple - if a handful of corporations love it, then it probably isn't great for the consumer.

By repealing NN, the large ISPs will be able to throttle speeds at their whim.  One example as to how this may have a direct effect on people on this forum - Verizon owns Huffington Post, AOL and Yahoo to name a few.  You think they'll give the same bandwidth to everyone?  I don't.

All's not lost though.  There are already states coming out with lawsuits and Congressmen trying to block it CRA resolutions.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 12/15/17 at 15:44:24:


Yeah, I agree, you were asked a question straight up, can't you extend the courtesy to answer it, or just decline, in your own words?