- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: FCC plans to vote to overturn U.S. net neutrality rules in December
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:37 am to Halftrack
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:37 am to Halftrack
these goddamned slime bag fricks can get bent. i'm so sick of this shite. their arguments for dismantling net neutrality are a joke. these dickheads are going to frick everything up. thanks trump, you fat frick. the scumbag leading the charge is a former verizon lawyer. you think he's on the side of the consumer? frick no. frick you ajit.
2
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:37 am to WavinWilly
does chicken realize the ramifications of this?
if you run a website, blog, tumblr, or forum, this could affect your business bigly!
chicken please look into:
LINK
if you run a website, blog, tumblr, or forum, this could affect your business bigly!
chicken please look into:
LINK
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:39 am to Chuker
quote:
Net Neutrality" sounds like a good thing fwiw.
Do you want the internet to be like cable where you have to buy packages just to visit websites? That's essentially what these greedy fricks want to do.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:40 am to PhilipMarlowe
quote:
the scumbag leading the charge is a former verizon lawyer.
Yep, but Trump is draining the swamp by appointing him.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:42 am to WavinWilly
quote:And they have colluded to block Google from further expanding because they were going to offer high quality internet access for a very, very low price. Can't have that shite
Exactly. And you already see the strategy they plan on implementing. Data caps, but they will offer a streaming service that is "sponsored data" or is 0-rated against your caps. So by abusing their position they can make it hard to go to any other streaming service besides their own. And then the fees and up-charges start happening. They will claim it's simply vertical integration, but in reality it's just anti-competitiveness.
DirecTVNow, Charter has one, Comcast has one, and I think Cox is starting one, just to name a few.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:43 am to MontyFranklyn
the big cable companies already have the system in place. all they have to do is flip the switch on.
they are prepared for this to overturn
they are prepared for this to overturn
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 9:44 am
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:44 am to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
Oh, you're one of those that says snowflake and cuck a lot in an effort to be cool and trendy?
I’m almost certain the retards that say snowflake and cuck would give Trump thunderous applause if he was to turn America into a monarchy.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:44 am to Halftrack
I'm fairly certain there are posters that are paid to fear monger on this issue.
Either choice here is bad for the consumer. So yea let's keep net neutrality....Great. So now it's regulated....Great. So who/what controls the regulator? You got it...MONEY. In this whole thing who has the most money....service providers. Yep great deal there....so now what happens is that data caps will shrink to nothing and you'll be buying wired medium internet services the same way that you buy cellular internet service now....in packages of GBs.
What nobody wants to tackle right now is the real solution to this problem....getting rid of regulation at the local government level and allow real competition to enter the space. But don't worry about it...F it let's just do things the same way we have been doing them forever and expect things not to get worse.
ETA How can people not see that the service providers and the FCC want us to continue fighting this "Net Neutrality" fight...the reason for that is because they win either way.
Either choice here is bad for the consumer. So yea let's keep net neutrality....Great. So now it's regulated....Great. So who/what controls the regulator? You got it...MONEY. In this whole thing who has the most money....service providers. Yep great deal there....so now what happens is that data caps will shrink to nothing and you'll be buying wired medium internet services the same way that you buy cellular internet service now....in packages of GBs.
What nobody wants to tackle right now is the real solution to this problem....getting rid of regulation at the local government level and allow real competition to enter the space. But don't worry about it...F it let's just do things the same way we have been doing them forever and expect things not to get worse.
ETA How can people not see that the service providers and the FCC want us to continue fighting this "Net Neutrality" fight...the reason for that is because they win either way.
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 9:46 am
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:46 am to OMLandshark
How many internet providers do counties like England and Germany have? It was always my understanding that without the monopolies Europeans had more choices, better service, and cheaper internet service.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:48 am to TH03
quote:
Yep, but Trump is draining the swamp by appointing him.
he's such a fricking joke.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:57 am to PhilipMarlowe
quote:
thanks trump, you fat frick. the scumbag leading the charge is a former verizon lawyer.
Even without Trump or that douchebag he hired for the FCC, this was coming. Collin Powell’s son was a previous chair of the FCC, and he wanted HBO and Sirius under his control to be censored. It’s just corruption across the board. It’s about control.
Here’s a good trip down Memory Lane when Howard Stern calls up a radio station where he directly confronts Michael Powell: LINK
This post was edited on 11/17/17 at 10:02 am
Posted on 11/17/17 at 9:59 am to Halftrack
quote:
So, literally, Tigerdroppings might face a big choice come December - yes, it’s that big of a deal.
This way bigger deal then when to put up the Chrimmus Lights??
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:01 am to Chuker
quote:
I'm still confused as to what is better. No net neutrality or yes net neutrality. For a while it was yes NN is a good thing but then it started to look like a bad thing.
"Net Neutrality" sounds like a good thing fwiw.
Those who want to do away with net neutrality want to make a buck. Like all lobbyists, they can make a compelling case, but it's all bullshite. This is about the gov't sucking more money out of it's citizens for something that they had no hand in creating. The internet shouldn't be regulated, few things should. frick the Government
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:03 am to rocket31
ill explain this as simple as i can:
-we will pay a monthly fee, example: $55.99 to get a 500MB of basic data plan.
- then you can choose a package to get unlimited use of some apps split into categories. (so if youre a social media person, you can pay an extra $5.99 to get unlimited access to facebook, instagram, twitter, snapchat, etc.) (if youre a sports person, you get the sports package for 5.99 to browse espn, fantasy sports, sportsillustrated, etc)
- now imagine youre an OT lounger or a TigerRanter, there will be no package under "tigerdroppings"... so your use of tigerdroppings will count against the 500MB in your original package.
- all images and gifs will consume your data plan. every time you refresh an interesting OT drama page. more data. every time you refresh a game thread. more data. pretty soon youre using close to your data limit, so you either a) stop visiting TD altogether or you buy the next biggest package (750MB) for $75.99. what choice do you make?
and that is why it is so dangerous. It adds a barrier to consuming competitive services.
-we will pay a monthly fee, example: $55.99 to get a 500MB of basic data plan.
- then you can choose a package to get unlimited use of some apps split into categories. (so if youre a social media person, you can pay an extra $5.99 to get unlimited access to facebook, instagram, twitter, snapchat, etc.) (if youre a sports person, you get the sports package for 5.99 to browse espn, fantasy sports, sportsillustrated, etc)
- now imagine youre an OT lounger or a TigerRanter, there will be no package under "tigerdroppings"... so your use of tigerdroppings will count against the 500MB in your original package.
- all images and gifs will consume your data plan. every time you refresh an interesting OT drama page. more data. every time you refresh a game thread. more data. pretty soon youre using close to your data limit, so you either a) stop visiting TD altogether or you buy the next biggest package (750MB) for $75.99. what choice do you make?
and that is why it is so dangerous. It adds a barrier to consuming competitive services.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:07 am to monkeybutt
Will Al Gore finally get paid?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:10 am to rocket31
Well those numbers seem pretty shady to me.
NN doesn't have much to do with that either way....what does that is the regulation that already exists at the local level (city/county mostly). In fact in a complete competitive environment (which we don't have due to local regulation) NN would actually hurt companies trying to enter the market.
quote:
It adds a barrier to consuming competitive services.
NN doesn't have much to do with that either way....what does that is the regulation that already exists at the local level (city/county mostly). In fact in a complete competitive environment (which we don't have due to local regulation) NN would actually hurt companies trying to enter the market.
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:11 am to Chuker
How did it ever look like a bad thing?
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:13 am to Sparkplug#1
All this discussion of bandwidth reminded me of when I paid $3 an hour for dialup. 
Posted on 11/17/17 at 10:20 am to LSURussian
quote:
I enjoy getting the $12,000 dividend from it every 3 months that's taxed at a flat 15%.
What was it like losing $350k over the last 3 years?
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News