I feel like we as people have to constantly fight our government every fucking day, isn't this the sign of a terrible government? Literally they're doing something we as the people don't want them to do so fucking often that we literally have to come together and fight on literally everything.
Does anyone else hate Ajit Pal's face a much as I do? I mean, I just want to punch him right in the suck-hole.
The root cause for all this fucking bullshit is money in politics. When a big donor gives you money you are their bitch. I am fully supporting the Justice Democrats, the are not allowed to take donor or PAC money. https://www.justicedemocrats.com/platform
God yes. Every time I see his face I just want to beat him to death with a modem.
Do you want to know what the internet is going to be like when there is no longer net neutrality? Well you heard about that big "EA" SWBF kerfuffle? The game makes it so you have to grind a significant period of your existence vs paying about 2100 dollars to get all the good stuff. Everybody is like really upset about that and cancelled their orders and whatnot.
That's what the internet is going to be like. You will pay to play each individual website. That's on top of your regular Comcast monthly internet bill.
The justicrats would have been a much better name.
If you want to help stop this and dont know what to do, use this text bot which will ask you some basic questions and allows you to type a message to then fax/email your senator, rep, governor, etc. I'm not sure how to format this correctly as I'm on mobile but I'll quote the user I got this from.
From u/dogeishuman: "So if you haven't already, there's a bot you can text, that helps you write an email or a fax, free of charge, to your senator, or governor. Text "resist" to "504-09" and it'll ask you some questions, then you're onto writing. From another thread a few weeks ago, someone posted this message, and it think it's a great one to send. "
Pass on the word and let your representatives and senators know we support net neutrality and don't want to take FCC's corrupt bullshit any more.
I hate him and everything he stands for. Even If he wasn't an awful dude.. he still has that 10/10 punchable face look.
This is all while ignoring the fact that America doesn't have high speed fiber cable for the nation. A restricted internet will worsen things for areas that are still in the process of getting access to decent speeds or multiple competitors.
A great book on this is The Grid: Electrical Infrastructure for a New Era
Am I the only one who can't sleep at night anymore?
I look to the world and see so much hope, but look to my home and see nothing but corruption, political strife, racial conflict, disgusting corporatism, endless greed, and a general attitude of not caring for anything but yourself.
And every day I read these articles and notice how we inch closer to a dystopia. The Internet, already over-priced and taxed by massive corporations holding the world's communication infrastructure by the balls as they extract power from it? One media company monopolizing multiple sources of information in the same area so you have no way of finding unbiased media?
I dream that some day I can live in a world where I can simply do what I do in life, and not have to worry that the world can't take care of itself. But instead I get one of these every day. Another mass shooting, 50 dead. FCC actively aiding corruption of two of the worst segments of American corporations. Student loan debt reaching levels too high to calculate. My country preaching coal power at an environmental summit. Every. Single. Day. Nothing but bad news, and hilariously worse news.
I f***ing hate this world...but I still love it. I can't not, you know? I like to think there's still hope for us. Even if our actions prove nothing but humanity's negate traits. We MIGHT sort ourselves out some day. Maybe. I hope.
Justice League of Democrats, umm Avengedems...i got it! REVENGERS!
Can barely afford internet as is....guess I'm gonna' have to learn to go outside and throw a frisbee again.
I wish people were fighting for net neutrality with the same passion that they are fighting against EA with.
This guy face punches.
This argument falls flat on its face when you realize telecom companies were given billions of taxpayer dollars to upgrade their infrastructure and pocketed the money instead.
The argument that this is necessary because of increasing bandwidth requirements is simply unfounded; telecom companies are not strapped for funds for infrastructure upgrades, period. The whole country could go fiber optic right now if these companies wanted that, and then bandwidth limitations as we know them would simply cease to exist.
Furthermore, charging for access to particular content providers doesn't make sense in the context of how the internet operates. Streaming 4k video from Netflix doesn't put more stress on the network than streaming 4k video from somewhere else, so regulating based on who the data comes from doesn't actually address the problem. Charging based on total data volume does, which is what happens right now. Telecom companies want net neutrality gone because without net neutrality they would be able to double dip by charging you for bandwidth and charging you based on the content provider.
The reason they want this is because it allows them to charge you more, and because people like you are more inclined to accept flawed reasoning than a simple price increase. It's just a means of decreasing public backlash.
And when you consider that telecom companies can charge content providers as well through fast lanes, they're not just double dipping, but triple dipping, all at the consumers expense.
I can understand if you want to argue that this is something that should be handled by the free market rather than the FCC, but the idea that this is somehow necessary for reducing the burden on ISPs of ever increasing data traffic simply doesn't hold water. And if you did want to argue that you would have to also be pushing for anti-trust actions against these telecom companies, because as things stand now they have government sanctioned monopolies that prevent the free market from working as intended.
I disagree. We had won the net neutrality debate. It is already codified in FCC regulations. We elected Obama who took plenty of donations who appointed Tom Wheeler was an actual cable industry lobbyist and we still got the right thing done. Why? Democrats is why. They're not perfect, but they do pretty ok.
Trump was anti-neutrality from as soon as someone told him he was supposed to be. I don't think he was bought off to say that. I'm pretty sure he doesn't even know what it means. Conservatives oppose regulation and always have for good or ill. It's not a secret. Voters voted. They asked for this and they got it. There's not corruption if they're representing the will of the voters. If the policy sucks it's because voters didn't understand or didn't care.
new companies start sprouting up laying new cable to circumvent the "monopolies"
You must be new to this.
Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon and the like actually block new competitors from laying new cable through lawsuits and ghostwriting state legislation.
I love how he pretends he is doing something good for the community. I wish his children die before him.
Was supposed to happen this month, people still care.
Ajit Pai's plan? Move it to December when people are caught up with Christmas.
Mostly just smash his oversized Reese’s cup.
Fuck I might have to go outside this sucks
Because he’s wrong? As far as explaining at the end he did well. “Having to pay for each website” sounds atrocious.
Whenever people get distracted by other shit heads in public office I like to remind them that this public enemy is still in a position to destroy the greatest technology ever created. I don't usually condone violence against anyone, but in this case, punch him until he quits.
what can we do? should i just keep annoying my stat rep?
A lot of people are asking how we can stop this.
I haven't fully vetted it, so do your own research, but their core goal is to take money out of politics. This is how we avoid this kind of donor controlled voting in the future. (Also, don't just look at donors. Look at where congress sell outs go after they leave office. They frequently get high salary/low effort board jobs that are bribes disguised as employment.)
I'd kinda like to skip the modern politics and go to analyzing the system we have.
There's a reason that America is not a full democracy- not everyone has the time or knowledge to fully understand what each issue means, and therefore what their vote will do. There's a reason why we are a Democratic Republic, where we have people who's jobs are to represent our interests. Sometimes, whether we know what's good for us or not.
Now this is a tricky thing to say because it's a double edged sword but- people will, at one point in their life or another, need someone to decide something else for them. Quick anecdote- my grandfather didn't believe we needed to powerwash his steps until he slipped on them (he was fine.) Each individual doesn't necessarily know the consequences to their vote on every subject, so it is possible that representatives may even need to go against the wishes of the populace for their own good. RARE. But possible.
The first thing this kind of statement leads to is a discussion about what is tyranny, and is this what it looks like in a Democratic Republic. It's only the truth.
So getting back to your point that people get what they vote for- the answer is fucking never. Humanity will never get perfect representation. So saying that the policy is THE VOTERS FAULT is fundamentally flawed, because we don't exactly have a little machine that controls our elected representatives, much less the people that they appoint.
And if the will of voters is being manipulated by representatives like, say hypothetically, fake anti-semetic robo calls designed to frame the Washington post in a conspiracy to undermine a representative in Alabama, how in the world is it an Alabama persons fault for believing the robo-call? Are they expected to be investigative journalists in every facet of life as well? Or is it that there is corruption in government, even if it sometimes works?
If the policy sucks, it's because OUR REPRESENTATIVES don't have our best interests in mind. Don't blame voters. In a better world, we would not have to fight our government every step of the way.
I'm going to do something unheard of on Reddit. You are right, I got duped by bullshit on that one.
I think I sort of understand that you were trying to insult Ajit Pai, but what you said made absolutely no sense.
With John Oliver's even larger Reese's mug.
Protest his fucking house every day. Fuck this arsehole.
Let's just face facts here folks, this country is no longer for the people... it's for the corporation. I'd bet good money that there is/are some lobbyists involved in this decision and I'd bet those lobbyists work for Comcast, Frontier, and other telecommunication companies. There are times I really hate this country now.
It wouldn't hurt the large businesses, it would more than likely favor them. They could pay the additional fees for better traffic while smaller competitors could not. Eventually those smaller competitors have to close up shop and the larger business could stop paying for the preferential treatment as now they have a monopoly. I'm making admittedly poor logical leaps here, but it's a plausible scenario.
Thanks for mentioning this! Resist Bot is SO easy to use, and it’s great for people who are terrible on the phone (hello, fellow millennials of Reddit) but still want their voice to carry more weight than an email.
You're still not getting it. Whether the corporations or government have control is beside the point. We all know they're the same scumbags. However, removing the public law that prevents the scumbags from doing this is not a good thing no matter how you slice it. It's an affront to fair use.
Not even that will work when they’ve already sold their vote to the highest bidder
I explained to my mom the net neutrality thing. She was against it. Wanna know why? She said and i quote, “Rush Limbuagh/Glenn Beck/(any other conservative talk show host) would be forced to play advertisements for companies they dont support because the government wants everyone to be on a neutral playing field. They would be forced to play ads for liberal ideals.”
I was honestly so taken aback. I tried to explain the whole concept that without net neutrality the service providers could pick and choose what we as a consumer are allowed to see, we would have to pay more money each month just to watch youtube. I honestly dont remember her response but i think she was just denying my statement.
The world isn't coming to an end. As much as it might feel like it. Things will move on, they'll get better, then worse again, then better. For ever and ever
Why aren’t other companies fighting equally as hard to prevent this? To lobby/pay against it? I mean this will screw over pretty much all businesses and huge corporations that use the internet to exist. Or does net neutrality only apply to individual consumers? I don’t get it
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance"
We just need to hire Russia. It seems like they can make this fucking country do anything.
Hang in there. We will rebuild, and we can fix whatever they break.
I mean what are we even vindicating here, comfort?
I wanna cry. What can I do to stop this??? I've sent letters to my reps, I've told everybody I know about this!! Seeing this this hurts me down to my bones.
What a fucking money grab. Plus once trump leaves office and another FCC head is appointed, they're making it to where even the new administration can't reverse this.
Comcast is putting so much money into this that they have no choice.
Well they do -- but this is greed at its finest.
Streaming 4k video from Netflix doesn't put more stress on the network than streaming 4k video from somewhere else.
This person gets it. This is the problem of net neutrality going away. To the blowhards opposing net neutrality: How would you feel if the government or corporations, take your pick, started charging different rates on gasoline based on the make and model of your vehicle?
I'm calling it: If they succeed in overturning Net Neutrality then they'll make SpaceX worth 300% more than it's currently worth. Elon Musk will announce a fast, affordable, worldwide internet network via low orbit satellite network within months. He's already talked about it for years, but this would just hand it to him on a silver platter.
There isn't really a coherent other side. The arguments from the NN opponents are either corporately influenced (for corporate gain), attacking supporters for making wildly inaccurate, exaggerating claims (such as the one I criticized), propaganda to make this a partisan issue (it's not) or just people who have a huge hate boner for regulations of any kind (they think the free market which couldn't regulate itself will somehow magically regulate themselves because... Reasons)
Most of the normal people out on the street don't understand the issue or that there even is an issue. Opponents just point at ridiculous claims and say to these people "See? Look how crazy that sounds! We would never do something like that!" and we all come out looking like lunatics. It's a well known and widely used method of dismissing us.
Unfortuneately it seems this sub or this thread is full of virtue signallers who are quick to downvote any argument that isn't of an extreme position. I'd wager I've done more to support Net Neutrality than 90% of the Redditors here, yet apparently I'm the enemy for not losing my damn mind and rioting, which as I've already explained, hurts our position.
I just took an Ajit Pai and it took me like 40 minutes because it was dial-up. And it hurt.
Because Trump. Trump appointed a guy who would favor deregulation.
Not sure why, but out of all the shitty things going on in the world, I️ find this the most depressing.
I mean I think we could agree that its self-evident as to why giving a corporation free taxpayer money is a stupid move.
Not when the corporation is overseeing a public utility. What we might be able to agree on is that not holding the corporation responsible for misuse of taxpayer money is a stupid move.
there is are reason's google stopped expanding its fiber service
And that reason is legal obstruction by telecom companies, not the logistical cost of expanding the service. You can look this up if you don't believe me.
The context of how the internet operates? you mean how it evolved without net neutrality? I seriously doubt that any service provider would only sell services based on sites rather than raw access
The internet evolved without net neutrality legislation because telecom companies treated net neutrality as the status quo, but that doesn't mean net neutrality shouldn't be enforced with legislation because without legislation telecom companies are free to ignore net neutrality whenever they want.
I seriously doubt that any service provider would only sell services based on sites rather than raw access
This is literally already happening in countries without net neutrality legislation. It will happen here if net neutrality is overturned.
and I agree with your premise up to the part of double dipping.
Your ISP charges the content provider for raw access up to a particular bandwidth.
Your ISP charges you for raw access up to a particular bandwidth.
Without net neutrality the ISP will be able to charge the content provider again for a fast lane. Without the fast lane the ISP is free to throttle the content provider's traffic. That is to say, they will throttle the content provider's traffic unless they pay for a fast lane.
Without net neutrality the ISP will be able to charge you for unfettered access to particular content providers. Without this unfettered access the ISP is free to throttle data coming to you from that content provider. That is to say, they will throttle your access to that content provider unless you pay for access.
Please explain to me how that isn't double dipping on both ends. In the absolute best case it's a means of forestalling necessary infrastructure upgrades by forcing people off the internet entirely with massive price hikes, but in the worst and most likely case it's a means of extracting even more money from customers by presenting the illusion of network congestion while simultaneously either bleeding the ISP's competitors dry or silencing them outright.
That's the real problem here, there just isn't any rational reason to target particular content providers rather than working purely based on data volume unless your aim is to hamstring those content providers.
I mean, imagine a world where an ISP could outright refuse to connect you to a streaming service they didn't own, or a news organization that was critical of them. Imagine a world where ISPs have complete control over what sites you can and can't visit, and you don't have any recourse because there's only one ISP that can service you.
That world could be reality in a month's time if net neutrality gets overturned.
the issue at hand isn't that simple
This issue is dead simple, ISPs should not have the authority to dictate what sites users connect to, and if they want regional monopolies they should be regulated as utility providers, because the internet is a utility at this point whether it's technically classified as one or not.
but I argue that they will be forced into doing it by the free market without net neutrality. because google will have to ask themselves do I pay the ISPs or become and ISP.
Google tried to become an ISP and couldn't for a variety of reasons, including legal obstruction by telecom corporations. If fucking Google couldn't do it how on earth do you think any other company can?
The free market straight up doesn't apply to telecommunications anymore. What you're hoping for will never happen without regulatory changes, period.
Not with yours. If you're renting from your ISP they will fine you.
Love this bot. It will also actively reach out to you when stuff is getting voted on to query whether you want to send a message to your representatives
We are democrapping on the establishment
"the revengers? What type of silly name is that"
Bright side: maybe you'll be less bored?
What? We already HAVE the law that prevents this garbage. Are you suggesting the best case scenario is the FCC killing net neutrality so things can get bad enough that they are somehow forced to reinstate it?
What will happen is it will get bad, and it will stay bad. Because they don’t care if people like it or not, that just want more money.
So, what can YOU do to stop them? (pick 1 or, ideally, do them all)
This site provides an easy tool to CALL your representatives.
You can also use this to help you contact your house and congressional reps. It's easy to use and cuts down on the transaction costs with writing a letter to your reps
This tool provides a low transaction cost for writing all your reps in one fell swoop.
You can also use this site to post an official comment to the FCC proceeding. Though, they will only be counting/reading comments made before August, 2017.
We all need to work together to stop these monsters from taking away our freedom. Together we are strong! Together we will NOT lose!
Thanks to -/u/NetNeutralityBot for giving me the copy paste material.
This guy needs to be taken down. He’s a fatal danger to our liberties. If I have to pay money just to watch a video or look up some information I’ll riot in the goddamn streets. I’m so fed up with these corrupted money hungry politicians trying to make life miserable as fuck.
So explain why Pai being appointed the position he has doesn't completely destroy the logic you just used
Getting rid of Net Neutrality will make it HARDER for new ISP’s to start.
It's just absolutely disgusting what this will do to limit education. It's times like this that I think a civilian uprising is necessary. Where votes can be bought by lobbying, no matter what the countries population vetoes.
I am in pain.
Pow right in the kisser
Just wait till people find a way to pirate entire websites.
And again Pai looks like a clown. Every photo of this man is like they shoved him into a media conference with him having no idea where he is or what to say. So he just goes "Ugggggh" and they snap his pic at that moment.
Well I guess the next step is to annoy Trump?