Zenti said:
... move the servers out of the u.s. to nullify the impact on non-u.s. users.

But then it has to be a state that doesn't prohibit such sites with laws (For example, here in Germany, furry-porn is technically illegal as it counts as zoophile content and doesn't contain "except fictional characteristics")

Chaser said:

This thread is about Net Neutrality, not Trump. Keep on topic or it will be locked.

This is already a political thread which we don't really like to have because they tend to cause problems. Bringing Trump into it(Be it for or against him) is seriously pushing boundaries, and will only be a matter of time before someone gets a record and the thread locked.
Please refer to our Site rules, specifically the Major Religions, Religious Figures, Political Parties, or Political Figures section if you need to know what to avoid in the topic.

Sorry, didn't want to derail the topic with my earlier CDC post - just wanted to show the irony of prohibiting words/opinions with the canceling of NN and that many people are really worried about the current choices of the government

I'm going to be editing my OP to include what Chaser said. Please, for the sake of Net Neutrality, please keep it on topic!

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
Well, since you ask:
http://vis.adjectivespecies.com/furrysurvey/explorer/

Though i admit the study could be potentially selection biased in favour of the western world (still a fun and useful data survey in it's own right tho).

You mean the english speaking world. While English is a very useful linga franca, I know that there are countless communities out there for non-English-speaking furries. There may be proportionatly more furries over here in America, but I wouldn't say that the global furry population is overwhelmingly American.

A survey's only as good as the range of participants.

Chaser said:
But I also side with the ISPs because net neutrality makes it impossible for them to make very basic packages for low income house holds who dont need anything else but what is included in the package, for example an "essentials" package that includes Facebook, twitter, Wikipedia, YouTube, etc.
While there are arguments that they could just get "lower speed access", not everyone wants to wait for dialup speeds.

I don't swallow this.

Here in finland 3G/4G is actually really common way of getting access to internet. Advantages of this is that even if you lived really far away from city, you could still have reasonable speeds and prices are really low. My parents actually have 1mbps connection like this and it costs 10€/month as all they do is banking and facebook essentially. They include unlimited 386kbps with all mobile phone plans by default as well for those who want to use IMs and email but nothing else. I myself have 4G connection with 50mbps speed with unlimited data which works more than fine for me currently before fiber becomes more common, also costs 16€/month, I can play video games just fine as pings are actually lower than many wired connections.

My operator actually called me if I wanted to upgrade to 4G modem with ethernet and 5ghz wireless directly instead of using USB 4G modem stick into wireless modem, tried to shove IPTV box for free as well and emailed me that my prices will be lower without me needing to do anything, they want me to use more internet cheaper.

So technology to have cheap internet is there already, but seems like how things are going in the US is that everything is really, really restricted, so that companies can make up excuses to have these kind of changes to give more "options" to consumers.

Could also be just because I haven't been in the US that there can be more variables, but as it is right now, all I can see is companies bullshitting people who don't know any better.

Same here in Germany, I pay 55€ for 100m/bit(we got a new fiber connection 2 months ago) , for IPTV, phone connection and 500mb mobile internet including free access to W-lan hotspots all over the country and partner companies all over the EU... and T-online has them nearly everywhere.

The only price difference here comes with the connection speed, without NN they could sell site access or limit the volume, too. Like paying 50€ for 20 gb of data transmission or something.

D4rk said:
Same here in Germany

it's different here in the U.S then Finland or Germany . I assume there several providers in your area that you could pick and choose from. but in the united states at least 50 % of the population is limited to only two terrible ISP provider to select from.I do agree with mario69 in a belief that our internet companies are just trying to earn more money legally.although I also believe this need to happen if thing are to get better.

reason why is simply there not enough competition out there to keep price affordable and if that mean lowering the bar for 10-20 years to allow entrepreneur into this field, then so be it. it like pruning a tree: it doesn't want to be cut, but the dead branches need to be taken off so the plant could become healthy. I'm personally hoping for Comcast and Warner to turn obnoxious enough to their customers so they would look for alternatives and thus spurring investment into ISP startup to fufill that demand.

after the damage been done, then I would vote to brang net neutrality back.til then as long as they don't mess with my online classes,youtube or porn i'm a happy camper.

Marcopolo22 said:
it's different here in the U.S then Finland or Germany . I assume there several providers in your area that you could pick and choose from. but in the united states at least 50 % of the population is limited to only two terrible ISP provider to select from.I do agree with mario69 in a belief that our internet companies are just trying to earn more money legally.although I also believe this need to happen if thing are to get better.

reason why is simply there not enough competition out there to keep price affordable and if that mean lowering the bar for 10-20 years to allow entrepreneur into this field, then so be it. it like pruning a tree: it doesn't want to be cut, but the dead branches need to be taken off so the plant could become healthy. I'm personally hoping for Comcast and Warner to turn obnoxious enough to their customers so they would look for alternatives and thus spurring investment into ISP startup to fufill that demand.

after the damage been done, then I would vote to brang net neutrality back.til then as long as they don't mess with my online classes,youtube or porn i'm a happy camper.

With wired connection I would be limited to only single operator and that's pretty much my point here, because there are other technologies and things like 4G which is already in use and working.

So it still seems to me that those companies are arbitarily making limitations, restrictions and rules in place, so that it would seem like they are lacking the means of making money to provide better services and more options, when in reality this isn't the case. Data caps on 4G connections are already really big red sign to me, but when I'm hearing that some of you are having data caps on wired connections, that's just blasting off all and every single bshit alarm. Then now on top of that operators would have power over the choise of data that you are consuming?

Mario69 said:
With wired connection I would be limited to only single operator and that's pretty much my point here, because there are other technologies and things like 4G which is already in use and working.

So it still seems to me that those companies are arbitarily making limitations, restrictions and rules in place, so that it would seem like they are lacking the means of making money to provide better services and more options, when in reality this isn't the case. Data caps on 4G connections are already really big red sign to me, but when I'm hearing that some of you are having data caps on wired connections, that's just blasting off all and every single bshit alarm. Then now on top of that operators would have power over the choise of data that you are consuming?

as I said before, I want the big fishes to be obnoxious enough to scare their customers away, and knowing them they would be. I'm more concerned about the small companies that don't have the money that can't keep up the pace to thrive so everything you mentioned would be harder to justify. what happen if people are allow to specialize in specific services? it would be more profitable for them to do so and eventually they would grow into a full blown isp provider. and if they become big brother for some reason people will go somewhere else,unless they do some anti-competitive agreement that is.

Mario69 said:
but when I'm hearing that some of you are having data caps on wired connections, that's just blasting off all and every single bshit alarm.

150 GB a month. If you go over, even by a megabyte, 10$. For 50 more gigs. I'm not sure these numebrs are right-- these actually feel more lenient than what I'm remembering. The article I'm getting it from is saying that they're "starting to" enforce these caps, but I know they were enforcing it long ago. I spent about 2 years with a household of 5 people, tracking every last byte so we wouldn't go over. And, at that time, there was no way to buy more data and sure as hell didn't have any way to monitor your own traffic via their web interface. You just received bonus charges on your bill.

What I'm saying is, yes, we're being fucked over here. Everything about this is unreasonable.

And until about 2 years ago? there was no competing "high Speed" service in the area. (I say "high speed" because it was still slow. When we FINALLY got another option, it was literally, not figuratively, literally 10 times faster. And cheaper. with no bandwidth caps.

SnowWolf said:
150 GB a month. If you go over, even by a megabyte, 10$. For 50 more gigs. I'm not sure these numebrs are right-- these actually feel more lenient than what I'm remembering. The article I'm getting it from is saying that they're "starting to" enforce these caps, but I know they were enforcing it long ago. I spent about 2 years with a household of 5 people, tracking every last byte so we wouldn't go over. And, at that time, there was no way to buy more data and sure as hell didn't have any way to monitor your own traffic via their web interface. You just received bonus charges on your bill.

What I'm saying is, yes, we're being fucked over here. Everything about this is unreasonable.

And until about 2 years ago? there was no competing "high Speed" service in the area. (I say "high speed" because it was still slow. When we FINALLY got another option, it was literally, not figuratively, literally 10 times faster. And cheaper. with no bandwidth caps.

Same with me, you have 1.6 GB a month, go over and you get charged, want more? Well you have to renegotiate the contract which is a hassle, however i can buy additional connection\data "bonds" that cost less but give me more GBs. Though we here have maybe 4-5 ISPs i found out over the months that each one was starting to implement scumbagy measures\policy changes (cutting down free channels, hiking up prices slightly every few months, once good internet connection becomming shitty). As it turns out their models encourage so called "ISP hopping" ie. people become dissatisfied after a honeymoon period and switch over to ne new ISP after a while, then after two or three years they repeat the whole thing.

Marcopolo22 said:
I'm personally hoping for Comcast and Warner to turn obnoxious enough to their customers so they would look for alternatives and thus spurring investment into ISP startup to fufill that demand.

And what ISP will they use to invest the money into the competitor that does not exist?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/gop-net-neutrality-bill-would-allow-paid-fast-lanes-and-preempt-state-laws/?comments=1&vs=b

Oh great...

I did not read through the whole topic until now, just to get that out of the way.

Taking away someones right to do whatever they see fit with a service they pay for is something very destructive for a free market. Buy a car and drive it, or smash it or whatever. You pay, its yours. And many many companies have been trying to get around this age old system.
Games are a very good example. Buy it, buy the rest, buy the extras and so on. It is a trend to cut down the product into small pieces that can be sold seperately for a little less than what the full product would cost -> more profit

And this net-neutrality thing seems like someone is trying the exact same thing. Only in this case the companies can also pretty much censor any information they dont want people to access by making said access harder and harder. This is a step back from freedon, democracy and a healthy economic.

Id even go as far and call it a step towards dictatorship. If companies control the media and what information is easily accessible, they can shape public opinion as they see fit. And in the end the state, the government and the right to vote gets replaced or removed.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/21/theres-no-magic-bullet-for-reversing-the-fccs-net-neutrality-decision/

Need I say more?

cerberusmod_3 said:
https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/21/theres-no-magic-bullet-for-reversing-the-fccs-net-neutrality-decision/

Need I say more?

So in short: prepare for the worst while trying to make the life of corps and bureaucrats as difficult a possible via vocal opposition (and save that porn you like).

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
So in short: prepare for the worst while trying to make the life of corps and bureaucrats as difficult a possible via vocal opposition (and save that porn you like).

More like prepare for the downfall of the US civilization.

Kids, enjoy it while it lasts.

cerberusmod_3 said:
More like prepare for the downfall of the US civilization.

Kids, enjoy it while it lasts.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4585/
Hmm...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4585/cosponsors
OwO, what's this?

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4585/
Hmm...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4585/cosponsors
OwO, what's this?

I also trying to tell you guys about this one too:

cerberusmod_3 said:
Is this for real? Do the congress actually introduce a bill that could save Net Neutrality?

https://gazenart.deviantart.com/journal/HEY-NET-NEUTRALITY-NEWS-719929331

But nobody cared.

cerberusmod_3 said:
I also trying to tell you guys about this one too:
But nobody cared.

I just thought it was some DA journal thing from some dude... suppose I should've read it...

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4585/
Hmm...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4585/cosponsors
OwO, what's this?

Trump will probably veto it so I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Crazyc011 said:
Trump will probably veto it so I wouldn't get your hopes up.

Chaser said:

This thread is about Net Neutrality, not Trump.

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
This thread is about Net Neutrality, not Trump.

To be fair, Trump is the head of the government that decides such laws, which makes it necessary to mention his name in context with Net Neutrality when he's involved in it

D4rk said:
To be fair, Trump is the head of the government that decides such laws, which makes it necessary to mention his name in context with Net Neutrality when he's involved in it

No offense, just mentioning

Not necessarily. If 2/3 of the HoR vote to overturn a Veto, the bill passes anyway.

What many people think they do: keep fighting even if Net Neutrality gets repealed.

What they actually do: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2R1Zufvve2Y

cerberusmod_3 said:
What many people think they do: keep fighting even if Net Neutrality gets repealed.

What they actually do: https://youtube.com/watch?v=2R1Zufvve2Y

Well if you're interested in the whole Sneakernet thing I've been trying to do, there's something.

Wonder if dronenet would be a thing?

Marcopolo22 said:

Wonder if dronenet would be a thing?

That would fall under sneakernet. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a drone carrying a box of USB sticks.

kamimatsu said:
That would fall under sneakernet. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a drone carrying a box of USB sticks.

then count me into your resistance!

kamimatsu said:
That would fall under sneakernet. Never underestimate the bandwidth of a drone carrying a box of USB sticks.

Or messenger pigeons.

kamimatsu said:
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a drone carrying a box of USB sticks.

You won't do much with a latency of several hours/days.

kamimatsu said:
Well if you're interested in the whole Sneakernet thing I've been trying to do, there's something.

I'm just making a joke, again.

I know it's repetitive, but I had to.

Zenti said:
You won't do much with a latency of several hours/days.

the carrier pigeon got the data faster than a high speed download in one test

Marcopolo22 said:
then count me into your resistance!

first up is getting enough people that it's a plausible goal. there's also legal matters like how to protect someone moving the data from accidentally moving something illegal. last thing we need is "I swear I didn't know the flash drive had real life snuff in it." and we can't just check because it would affect legitimate data.

Sooo we could reach a point where we would be so desperate as to use pigeons and USBs as a pretend internet. I don't know weather to laugh or cry.

A side thought/idea. Let's imagine that Facebook pays for the 'fast lane', we could in theory at least distribute pictures and videos via hidden groups and or chat messages.
The obvious problem would be the pornographic nature of the content, though if the group would be low profile (secret and invite only) then perhaps it would do.

Alternatively we could use chats or PMs to distribute the material, if the groups are not viable.

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
Sooo we could reach a point where we would be so desperate as to use pigeons and USBs as a pretend internet. I don't know weather to laugh or cry.

A side thought/idea. Let's imagine that Facebook pays for the 'fast lane', we could in theory at least distribute pictures and videos via hidden groups and or chat messages.
The obvious problem would be the pornographic nature of the content, though if the group would be low profile (secret and invite only) then perhaps it would do.

Alternatively we could use chats or PMs to distribute the material, if the groups are not viable.

This is how I see it happening too.

People will start using bigger sites that pay for the fast lanes for all kinds of purposes like this.

Crazyc011 said:
This is how I see it happening too.

People will start using bigger sites that pay for the fast lanes for all kinds of purposes like this.

ISPs will be effectively controlling who grows and who sinks. They will be effectively be able to control a large chunk of the global economy. I know some people think that since they don't live in the USA that it doesn't effect them, but it really does. Sure, they won't have to pay for access to a specific package (unless their government is so corrupt that they follow suit), but edge providers (Facebook, e621, FurAffinity, etc.) will. They'll have to pay to be in the internet fastlane. This is why we need to reverse this illegal rollback of legislation.

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
This is why we need to reverse this illegal rollback of legislation.

That's impossible since we can't reverse it. Even if we tried, nothing is happening.

cerberusmod_3 said:
That's impossible since we can't reverse it. We'll wait!

Uh, yes we can. We're already in the process of doing it.

From www.investors.com

"One obvious problem with anything out of the FCC on what has become such a hyperpartisan topic is that it can so easily be reversed by the next (Democratic) FCC," he (Craig Moffett, analyst at MoffettNathanson) added.

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
Uh, yes we can. We're already in the process of doing it.

Actually, what I meant to say that it takes ages to reverse it and even if we suceeded, it was too late.

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
ISPs will be effectively controlling who grows and who sinks. They will be effectively be able to control a large chunk of the global economy. I know some people think that since they don't live in the USA that it doesn't effect them, but it really does. Sure, they won't have to pay for access to a specific package (unless their government is so corrupt that they follow suit), but edge providers (Facebook, e621, FurAffinity, etc.) will. They'll have to pay to be in the internet fastlane. This is why we need to reverse this illegal rollback of legislation.

.

I find it amusing that no one is addressing the real problem here that there a oligarchy in the isp field that can do whatever it want and they know it.it just that the FCC was keeping tap on them that they didn't mess with the internet itself. they already were sueing smaller isp companies into bankruptcy,made de-facto contract with landlords,made the Internet a artificial scarcity along with other acts even before net neutrality was repealed. now the issue of them deciding "who sink" and "who grow" make me think the sinking one won't go down without a fight. in fact they might have a incentive to "donate" to entrepreneurs that support net neutrality to keep them running. every one want something for free and that human nature. content pirate want to have access to paid content for free. notmenotyou was looking for developers to work for free, and personally I want education to be free so that I don't need to be working in retail all my life.

but here the thing: it doesn't give any reason to make progress. capitalism worked because someone decided that was useful and needed. artist want to make money off their hobby so they get better, users would want to learn computer languages and the skills needed to get paid working here and taxpayers need to justify if universal education would be worth it. my point is when things aren't free then the next best thing is to decide if it important enough to put money and effort into. if Verizon start slowing down google to make their services better in comparison, then I Would assume the multi-billion dollar giant would decide if throwing pocket chain at the next hotshot that support free internet would be worth it.

however if push come to shove I then I believe there is a alternative. here a hint

Essentially, the problem boileds down to the fact that while the internet itself may be too chaotic to control, accessing it can still be supressed and regulated, either by corps or governments.

This goes back to what my friend said "The internet is 'free' now, it won't be forever".

Marcopolo22 said:
.

I find it amusing that no one is addressing the real problem here that there a oligarchy in the isp field that can do whatever it want and they know it.it just that the FCC was keeping tap on them that they didn't mess with the internet itself. they already were sueing smaller isp companies into bankruptcy,made de-facto contract with landlords,made the Internet a artificial scarcity along with other acts even before net neutrality was repealed. now the issue of them deciding "who sink" and "who grow" make me think the sinking one won't go down without a fight. in fact they might have a incentive to "donate" to entrepreneurs that support net neutrality to keep them running. every one want something for free and that human nature. content pirate want to have access to paid content for free. notmenotyou was looking for developers to work for free, and personally I want education to be free so that I don't need to be working in retail all my life.

but here the thing: it doesn't give any reason to make progress. capitalism worked because someone decided that was useful and needed. artist want to make money off their hobby so they get better, users would want to learn computer languages and the skills needed to get paid working here and taxpayers need to justify if universal education would be worth it. my point is when things aren't free then the next best thing is to decide if it important enough to put money and effort into. if Verizon start slowing down google to make their services better in comparison, then I Would assume the multi-billion dollar giant would decide if throwing pocket chain at the next hotshot that support free internet would be worth it.

however if push come to shove I then I believe there is a alternative. here a hint

so how much money would you pay to be allowed to decide what you can and cannot think. not do. not speak. think. how much money before it's worth sacrificing free will.

20-Shades-Of-Faux-Pa said:
ISPs will be effectively controlling who grows and who sinks. They will be effectively be able to control a large chunk of the global economy. I know some people think that since they don't live in the USA that it doesn't effect them, but it really does. Sure, they won't have to pay for access to a specific package (unless their government is so corrupt that they follow suit), but edge providers (Facebook, e621, FurAffinity, etc.) will. They'll have to pay to be in the internet fastlane. This is why we need to reverse this illegal rollback of legislation.

Oh, I most definitely agree with you. I hate this ruling against net neutrality as much as everyone else.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/ajit-pais-fcc-is-still-editing-the-net-neutrality-repeal-order/

So... He hasn't finished the Net Neutrality repeal order even after the vote was over, right?

cerberusmod_3 said:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/ajit-pais-fcc-is-still-editing-the-net-neutrality-repeal-order/

So... He hasn't finished the Net Neutrality repeal order even after the vote was over, right?

''Let us vote on a law that we haven't even finished yet'', genius -.-

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
''Let us vote on a law that we haven't even finished yet'', genius -.-

probably why we weren't allowed to see it. so it could be changed without anyone knowing and mandating another vote.

So when do the court starts?

https://twitter.com/i/moments/948744373805764609

''His schedule probably got throttled. He should have paid to upgrade to the 'Totally Social' package.''

This one made me chuckle a bit :)

Something I need to share this to you guys, but I'm suspicious about this situation:
https://captainedwardteague.deviantart.com/status/12049789

Also, this:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/fcc-releases-final-net-neutrality-repeal-order-three-weeks-after-vote

https://www.wired.com/story/tech-giants-to-join-legal-battle-over-net-neutrality/amp

About time big tech companies finally shows up.

Gee... People sounds suspiciously quiet today...

cerberusmod_3 said:
Gee... People sounds suspiciously quiet today...

WALL OF TEXT!!!!!

Feel better?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:

WALL OF TEXT!!!!!

┌───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┬─┐
├─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┤
├─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┤
├─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┼─┬─┴─┬─┴─┤
├─┴─┬─┴─┬─┤ Your masonry skills ├─┴─┬─┴─┬─┤
├─┬─┴─┬─┴─┤ need a little work. ├─┬─┴─┬─┴─┤
├─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬───┬───┬───┬───┬───┼─┴─┬─┴─┬─┤
├─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┤
├─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┴─┬─┤
└───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴───┴─┘

MyNameIsOver20charac said:

WALL OF TEXT!!!!!

Feel better?

No. I'm serious.

I haven't seen a lot of people discussing in this thread, which is unsettling since Net Neutrality is one of the most important topic to talk about. I tried to tell them with the news I've found but strangely no response.

It's like nothing is happening.

What do you expect us to do, be positive about the whole ordeal?

cerberusmod_3 said:
No. I'm serious.

I haven't seen a lot of people discussing in this thread, which is unsettling since Net Neutrality is one of the most important topic to talk about. I tried to tell them with the news I've found but strangely no response.

It's like nothing is happening.

Well the thead is on page 10 and still on topic, which is rather difficult because of the anti-politics rule. Most people are probably either out of things to say or just tired of discussing. Personally I'm not very interested in politics in general, even if they are in my country, and I stopped reading the long posts a few pages back. If you post a real wall of text you'd probably get a few responses, but I wouldn't hope for too much.

cerberusmod_3 said:
No. I'm serious.

I haven't seen a lot of people discussing in this thread, which is unsettling since Net Neutrality is one of the most important topic to talk about. I tried to tell them with the news I've found but strangely no response.

It's like nothing is happening.

So long as people don't lack basic living necessities (sustenence, security and entertainment) they won't rise up, they will bleat and growel but will take whatever is thrown at them without much fuss, and let's face it, if the whole of internet ,except communication and maybe some specific data, were to disappear it wouldn't be the end of the world.

The vast majority of the population just doesn't seem to think that it's something urgent.

Also a fun fact, censorship (specifically 'postal censorship') was up until recent times completely normal thing and the following censoring of the internet would be merely a return to business as usual, after a ''aberrant'' historical period.

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
basic living necessities (sustenance, security and entertainment)

Since when is entertainment a necessity?

BlueDingo said:
Since when is entertainment a necessity?

our country practically runs on bread and circuses.

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
So long as people don't lack basic living necessities (sustenence, security and entertainment) they won't rise up, they will bleat and growel but will take whatever is thrown at them without much fuss, and let's face it, if the whole of internet ,except communication and maybe some specific data, were to disappear it wouldn't be the end of the world.

The vast majority of the population just doesn't seem to think that it's something urgent.

Also a fun fact, censorship (specifically 'postal censorship') was up until recent times completely normal thing and the following censoring of the internet would be merely a return to business as usual, after a ''aberrant'' historical period.

So what else? Should I say goodbye or what?

kamimatsu said:
our country practically runs on bread and circuses.

True, but only one of those keeps you alive.

cerberusmod_3 said:
So what else? Should I say goodbye or what?

That is one option, you could also ascend through the ranks of power until you are the one who makes the policy, or you can galvanize the masses and make the change you want, you could also use other methods that i would neither reccomend nor name to achieve your goals, you can move to a nordic country (the schmucks will probably give you decent living conditions), finally you can make peace with the current situation and go with the flow.

Hope this helps somewhat.

Haljkljavahlibrz said:
That is one option, you could also ascend through the ranks of power until you are the one who makes the policy, or you can galvanize the masses and make the change you want, you could also use other methods that i would neither reccomend nor name to achieve your goals, you can move to a nordic country (the schmucks will probably give you decent living conditions), finally you can make peace with the current situation and go with the flow.

Hope this helps somewhat.

Sorry. Can't hear what you said. :/

BlueDingo said:
True, but only one of those keeps you alive.

one keeps you from starving. the other keeps everyone from killing out of boredom.

Sharing this here.
https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-allies-are-ready-to-fight-but-can-it-be-saved/

Fun observation, out of a class of 25-30, only me and my friend knew about the whole net neutrality thing. The rest were oblivious (granted, we're in Europe).

Generally, nobody seems to really care, either because they have the money for "fast lane", or because they don't really spend that much time on the net.

IT BEGIIIINS!

AT&T drops Net Neutrality promise

The body isn’t even cold yet, but AT&T is wasting no time in rolling out new “features” that fly in the face of net neutrality. The company has expanded its “sponsored data” program to prepaid wireless customers, offering content companies the option to “sponsor” their data so that it doesn’t count against users’ caps.

This, in case you’re wondering, is what you find under the definition of “paid fast lanes” in the net neutrality false promises hall of fame.

As of right now, the only three services using AT&T’s sponsored data program are DirecTV, UVerse, and Fullscreen. By a huge coincidence, those are three video services owned by AT&T. “Now your plan includes sponsored data. This means, for example, that customers who have DirecTV or U-verse TV can now stream movies and shows … without it counting against their plan data,” AT&T told customers in a text message earlier today.

This flies directly in the face of a statement AT&T made just last year, when it was trying to persuade consumers that the FCC’s net neutrality repeal wouldn’t be the end of a free and open internet. “AT&T intends to operate its network the same way AT&T operates its network today: in an open and transparent manner. We will not block websites, we will not throttle or degrade internet traffic based on content, and we will not unfairly discriminate in our treatment of internet traffic,” executive Bob Quinn said at the time.

By any definition, offering paid fast lanes to companies constitutes “discriminating” against internet traffic. I’d say that only prioritizing traffic from AT&T-owned companies, or companies willing to pay up, constitutes unfair discrimination, but then again I’m not an AT&T lawyer.

To all those who kept saying that repealing Net Neutrality is no big deal, or will even be beneficial, I have only one thing to say:

I told you so!

Volphied said:
IT BEGIIIINS!

AT&T drops Net Neutrality promise

To all those who kept saying that repealing Net Neutrality is no big deal, or will even be beneficial, I have only one thing to say:

I told you so!

I fail to grasp the horror of this particular event.

I'm surprised people still use AT&T given how much of a ripoff they are.

wous said:
I fail to grasp the horror of this particular event.

Under Sponsored Data, companies can pay AT&T extra money to have their content be cap-exempt. This allows deeper-pocketed companies an unfair leg up over smaller competitors (especially of the non-profit or startup variety).

fox_whisper85 said:
I'm surprised people still use AT&T given how much of a ripoff they are.

Many people don't have a choice. Especially away from the coasts, in small towns, where there's often only one internet provider available.

Volphied said:
Under Sponsored Data, companies can pay AT&T extra money to have their content be cap-exempt. This allows deeper-pocketed companies an unfair leg up over smaller competitors (especially of the non-profit or startup variety).

Many people don't have a choice. Especially away from the coasts, in small towns, where there's often only one internet provider available.

I hope AT&T goes under and hits rock bottom hard, same with Xfinity, who we're stuck with. Screw the big ISPs.

Volphied said:
Many people don't have a choice. Especially away from the coasts, in small towns, where there's often only one internet provider available.

Hi, yep. That's me. We had dial up until about 8 years ago. We were stuck with AT&T until 2 years ago.

I am just outside the city limits of the biggest city for 30 miles-ish--and even further if you head west instead of east. I could say a lot of other things about the area I live in, but basically, naw, no ones cares about us out here. we don't count.

Volphied said:
IT BEGIIIINS!

AT&T drops Net Neutrality promise

To all those who kept saying that repealing Net Neutrality is no big deal, or will even be beneficial, I have only one thing to say:

I told you so!

Why did I know it would be AT&T? Oh yeah, they were the reason the phone industry crumbled when it was also the web industry.

NRA gets in on the action too :)

https://mobile.twitter.com/CNN/status/967155166754627589

Net Neutrality is greedy, stupid, and I completely disagree with it, I can’t believe it even became a thing at all.

IllinoisBoi1 said:
Net Neutrality is greedy, stupid, and I completely disagree with it, I can’t believe it even became a thing at all.

Net Neutrality itself, or the act of trying to repeal it? Because Net Neutrality is what is keeping ISPs from throttling the internet unless you pay more and disallowing them from playing favorites by slowing down content they don't like, thus allowing all internet content an equal chance of being seen and enjoyed. Would you want to pay more money on top of what you already pay for the internet to enjoy whatever content you want? Without Net Neutrality that would be your reality.