FCC to repeal Net Neutrality Bill

[Thermodolia]

Boy oh Boy, this shit is being spammed everywhere from Reddit to backwater blogs.

Apparently the internet was literally inaccessible before net neutrality.

It's as if nobody remembers dial-up

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Watch this

Read this

Read this This this and this.

[Grinning Dragon]

Boy oh Boy, this shit is being spammed everywhere from Reddit to backwater blogs.

Apparently the internet was literally inaccessible before net neutrality.

My sentiments as well.

[Imerisium]

I did not call it fake news

An actual news source. Like CNN, BBC, or Fox news

You did. Or at the least, you implied it.

I just asked for a more trusted news source. The fact that you are unwilling to provide another source tells me that the claim is bullshit

I'm not unwilling, just can't find another source.

But that doesn't mean that Ars Technica isn't a trustworthy source.

Burden of proof is on you to prove that it isn't a trustworthy source.

Lol. GUYS you don't NEED the FCC to have Net Neutrality!! Just get a VPN.

We can literally take this into our own hands and GET Net Neutrality OURSELVES.

Each and every one of you HAS THE POWER to get Net Neutrality from your ISP yourself!! Go get a VPN!! I don't get why this is such a big deal. The solution to all of these problems is a simple download away!!

Do you want Net Neutrality?? YOU CAN HAVE IT. And the FCC doesn't even factor in to you getting it!!

Then pay for everyones VPN then.

Otherwise, no.


Also, Trump's FCC ignored comments.

There are free VPNs so sure, I'll pay for you to get a VPN.

With how cheap and available these things are, the only excuse for not fixing the problem ourselves is laziness and apathy.

If you want Net Neutrality you can get it. If you prefer doing nothing other than enduring throttling and whining about it when there is an easy solution available to you... Well, you're more than free to do that if you really want to.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Not always.

And yes it is. I supported my claim of the FCC wanting to fuck over everyone, you haven't supported you claim that Ars Technica is BS.

Your argument is essentially "The article could be BS". Or "I think the article might be BS".

It might be. No proof provided by you for it being BS.

It's your opinion that you have a right to have that it maybe BS. But I disagree.

The burden of proof is on you not me. All I asked for was another source. The fact that you are unwilling and unable to provide another source is very telling.

Where was I unwilling?

I can't find the other source, If I did I'd show it.

The burden of proof is on you for not giving me any proof that Ars Technica is wrong.

[Grinning Dragon]

Boy oh Boy, this shit is being spammed everywhere from Reddit to backwater blogs.

Apparently the internet was literally inaccessible before net neutrality.

It's as if nobody remembers dial-up

I remember the days of dial up where you paid for x many hours if you used up your hours, the server refused to authenticate your dial in and disconnected you.

[Telconi]

The burden of proof is on you not me. All I asked for was another source. The fact that you are unwilling and unable to provide another source is very telling.

Where was I unwilling?

I can't find the other source, If I did I'd show it.

The burden of proof is on you for not giving me any proof that Ars Technica is wrong.

That's not how evidence works...

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

You did. Or at the least, you implied it.


I'm not unwilling, just can't find another source.

But that doesn't mean that Ars Technica isn't a trustworthy source.

Burden of proof is on you to prove that it isn't a trustworthy source.



Then pay for everyones VPN then.

Otherwise, no.


Also, Trump's FCC ignored comments.

There are free VPNs so sure, I'll pay for you to get a VPN.

With how cheap and available these things are, the only excuse for not fixing the problem ourselves is laziness and apathy.

If you want Net Neutrality you can get it. If you prefer doing nothing other than enduring throttling and whining about it when there is an easy solution available to you... Well, you're more than free to do that if you really want to.

I shouldn't need one in the first place. The throttling should never happen in the first place.

Stop taking this lying down.

[Thermodolia]

Then it most likely is a bullshit claim. If only one source is printing a story but nobody else is then it's most likely a bullshit story


That doesn't matter.


No it's not. The burden of proof is on you to support the claim not me. Don't tell my to do the heavy lifting and dirty work you don't want to do

Not always.

And yes it is. I supported my claim of the FCC wanting to fuck over everyone, you haven't supported you claim that Ars Technica is BS.

I never said that the site was bullshit, I said that the story is.

Your argument is essentially "The article could be BS". Or "I think the article might be BS".

It might be. No proof provided by you for it being BS.

The proof is the fact that you won't provide and have admitted to not being able to find another source. Outside of local news stories i need at least three other news sources to confirm the same story before I'll believe it. Otherwise it's a bullshit claim

It's your opinion that you have a right to have that it maybe BS. But I disagree.

Then I can call you out on your supporting a bullshit story because you are reluctant to provide more sources

[Honeydewistania]

There are free VPNs so sure, I'll pay for you to get a VPN.

With how cheap and available these things are, the only excuse for not fixing the problem ourselves is laziness and apathy.

If you want Net Neutrality you can get it. If you prefer doing nothing other than enduring throttling and whining about it when there is an easy solution available to you... Well, you're more than free to do that if you really want to.

I shouldn't need one in the first place. The throttling should never happen in the first place.

Stop taking this lying down.

Why spend money when it can be free?

[Thermodolia]

It's as if nobody remembers dial-up

I remember the days of dial up where you paid for x many hours if you used up your hours, the server refused to authenticate your dial in and disconnected you.

All I remember is being kicked off when my mom made a cell phone call

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Read this

Read this This this and this.

Pai would be right to be honest.

Title II's promises of not being used entirely on ISPs rely solely on the word of the current board.

The reason why Wheeler moved the regulatory powers from Title I to Title II is because then they could apply the Open Order of 2010's principles to ISPs. But then that carries a ticking time bomb of full-fledged regulations under Title II, which if it goes off can kill off ISP investment, which is why the ISPs are so edgy about the entire Title II thing. And justifiably so.

[Thermodolia]

The burden of proof is on you not me. All I asked for was another source. The fact that you are unwilling and unable to provide another source is very telling.

Where was I unwilling?

I can't find the other source, If I did I'd show it.

The burden of proof is on you for not giving me any proof that Ars Technica is wrong.

No it's not on me to prove your claim. You made the claim you prove it. If you can't prove it I'm not going to believe it

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Where was I unwilling?

I can't find the other source, If I did I'd show it.

The burden of proof is on you for not giving me any proof that Ars Technica is wrong.

That's not how evidence works...

Do you have proof that Ars Technica is wrong?

To be clear here:

Link

An actual news source. Like CNN, BBC, or Fox news

Thermodolia implied that Ars Technica is not a legitimate news source.

That is the claim that I want some proof for.

[Imerisium]

The type of throttling that Net Neutrality rules going away allows for are bypassed by a VPN.

There is a chance that an ISP can throttle all VPN related stuff, but there are VPNs designed specifically to fool Idols and make a VPN request not look like it is a VPN request. And when a company threatens throttling there is usually a huge rush by VPN companies to ensure that their VPN beats the ISP, like following Verizon's plan to throttle all video back in August, there are already a host of VPNs specifically designed to beat that throttling.

This problem is something we can solve ourselves. And it is something we should look into solving ourselves, because the DVD ain't budging. Signing petitions can only go so far against lobbying, but we individually can take away these corporation's ability to throttle the services we pay for.

By giving money to other corporations. Hmm.

There are FREE VPNs. There are VPNs made by small independent tech firms. Even without those is paying $3 a month REALLY worth getting THAT miserly over?? Are you really THAT greedy and consumeristic that you'd rather endure throttling than part with your precious three bucks??

There are even guides on how to make one yourself, if you're REALLY adverse to paying someone.

And you're getting more than just Net Neutrality with a VPN, there are so many benefits to using one that I think people should get one even with FCC rules in place.

The point is we HAVE a solution. The FCC isn't about to help us, but we can still get NN from the ISPs and stick it to.their schemes as long as we aren't lazy or greedy about it.

[Telconi]

That's not how evidence works...

Do you have proof that Ars Technica is wrong?

To be clear here:

An actual news source. Like CNN, BBC, or Fox news

Thermodolia implied that Ars Technica is not a legitimate news source.

That is the claim that I want some proof for.

That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works...

[Ifreann]

You did. Or at the least, you implied it.


I'm not unwilling, just can't find another source.

But that doesn't mean that Ars Technica isn't a trustworthy source.

Burden of proof is on you to prove that it isn't a trustworthy source.



Then pay for everyones VPN then.

Otherwise, no.


Also, Trump's FCC ignored comments.

There are free VPNs so sure, I'll pay for you to get a VPN.

With how cheap and available these things are, the only excuse for not fixing the problem ourselves is laziness and apathy.

If you want Net Neutrality you can get it. If you prefer doing nothing other than enduring throttling and whining about it when there is an easy solution available to you... Well, you're more than free to do that if you really want to.

It's lazy and apathetic to fight for political change rather than paying businesses who swear they can save you from those other businesses.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Where was I unwilling?

I can't find the other source, If I did I'd show it.

The burden of proof is on you for not giving me any proof that Ars Technica is wrong.

No it's not on me to prove your claim. You made the claim you prove it. If you can't prove it I'm not going to believe it

You made the claim first. Infact, you are just moving the goal posts.

https://i.imgur.com/VKPMxzq.png

This guys just wants to be the most hated man on the internet.

Um can you actually link a news source and not something from Imgur, also the FCC doesn't have that kind of power

Um can you actually link a news source and not something from Imgur, also the FCC doesn't have that kind of power

Link

Link

An actual news source. Like CNN, BBC, or Fox news

Moving the goal posts and making a claim that you have no proof for.

[Petrolheadia]

By giving money to other corporations. Hmm.

There are FREE VPNs. There are VPNs made by small independent tech firms. Even without those is paying $3 a month REALLY worth getting THAT miserly over?? Are you really THAT greedy and consumeristic that you'd rather endure throttling than part with your precious three bucks??

There are even guides on how to make one yourself, if you're REALLY adverse to paying someone.

And you're getting more than just Net Neutrality with a VPN, there are so many benefits to using one that I think people should get one even with FCC rules in place.

The point is we HAVE a solution. The FCC isn't about to help us, but we can still get NN from the ISPs and stick it to.their schemes as long as we aren't lazy or greedy about it.

Or maybe we can just try to get neutrality for free?

The only moment you can say that net neutrality is dead is the moment the Congress and President repeal it.

[Thermodolia]

That's not how evidence works...

Do you have proof that Ars Technica is wrong?

To be clear here:

An actual news source. Like CNN, BBC, or Fox news

Thermodolia implied that Ars Technica is not a legitimate news source.

That is the claim that I want some proof for.

That's not what I fucking claim and you fucking know it. I asked for more sources, I don't trust Ars Techinca because I'm not familiar with it, to me it looked like another opinion site dressed as a news site. I asked for more sources to back it up and you down right refused and admitted that there are no other sources to back up the claim.

Therefore I concluded that it is a bullshit story

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Um can you actually link a news source and not something from Imgur, also the FCC doesn't have that kind of power

Link

This is really a non-issue.

They're right in saying that state law doesn't trump Federal law, and that broadband is a federal service and regulated as such by the FCC.

Now, what states can do is put up provisions where the COs in those states specifically have to abide by the rules, but then that'd be a fractured nightmare.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Do you have proof that Ars Technica is wrong?

To be clear here:



Thermodolia implied that Ars Technica is not a legitimate news source.

That is the claim that I want some proof for.

That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works...

Still waiting on any evidence that Ars Technica, the evidence I used for my clam, is wrong or somehow illegitimate.

[Thermodolia]

No it's not on me to prove your claim. You made the claim you prove it. If you can't prove it I'm not going to believe it

You made the claim first. Infact, you are just moving the goal posts.

Um can you actually link a news source and not something from Imgur, also the FCC doesn't have that kind of power

Link

An actual news source. Like CNN, BBC, or Fox news

Moving the goal posts and making a claim that you have no proof for.

I asked for more sources. The fact that you don't want to provide any more sources is telling

[Ethel mermania]

You did. Or at the least, you implied it.


I'm not unwilling, just can't find another source.

But that doesn't mean that Ars Technica isn't a trustworthy source.

Burden of proof is on you to prove that it isn't a trustworthy source.



Then pay for everyones VPN then.

Otherwise, no.


Also, Trump's FCC ignored comments.

There are free VPNs so sure, I'll pay for you to get a VPN.

With how cheap and available these things are, the only excuse for not fixing the problem ourselves is laziness and apathy.

If you want Net Neutrality you can get it. If you prefer doing nothing other than enduring throttling and whining about it when there is an easy solution available to you... Well, you're more than free to do that if you really want to.

Your solution doesnt work.

How does the content not get throttled before it hits the VPN providers servers?

[Thermodolia]

That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works...

Still waiting on any evidence that Ars Technica, the evidence I used for my clam, is wrong or somehow illegitimate.

I didn't claim anything of the sort. All I asked for is another source and you are refusing to do so