Overwhelming Bipartisan Majority Opposes Repealing Net Neutrality

Putting restrictions on companies who have a monopoly on service in certain areas is not fascism.

 

God, you're so bad at this,

Do some research on the matter. Hell, on any matter.

 

I gave you evidence. You chose to ignore it. Just like you'll do with my above post.

Because, well, you're typically wrong. Can't read polls. Can't read sexual offender graphs. Can't understand climate studies. Historical texts, etc.

There's was two of us trying to tell you how the internet works. Please just read it and stop trying to appear correct by trying to get the last post in. That isn't how a debate works. Can you tell me what the above quotes mean? I know you're going to have to google it btw.

And he objectively stated several things that were wrong in his NN video, as I showed you. He has no degree in this field.

Just like he did with climate. He should not talk about tech or science, he's bad at that stuff. He should really stick to subjective topics.

You and Shapiro seemed to have checked off most of these anti-NN lies, https://www.popsci.com/net-neutrality-lies in your several factually inaccurate posts in the several NN threads. Another source for "evidence". I can link tons of more tech sites though, if you'd like.

 

Thats all I expect is one vote

But most voters respect unborn human life just like I do

 

It's not the ISPs internet either. They merely provide an offramp. Plus, you might have an argument if the cost of bandwidth expansion was growing, except it's not. It's at the lowest point in history and dropping (pennies per GB) so this is simply a cash grab from consumers with no market basis.

They don't supplement anyone. People who use netflix aren't taking bandwidth away from those who don't. your trying to build an argument that has no basis in reality.

 

To get to you that they paid for. Try to keep up.

I've already owned you on this. The figures you support are beyond laughable. In this fantasy land of yours no new cable is ever laid no infracsturture breaks down and no hardware becomes end of life. Its incredible the level of ignorance you are displaying.

100% false. Your lack of basic education is truly amazing.

http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-bandwidth-usage-internet-traffic-1201507187/

Please. Educate yourself. Users who don't use netflix should not have to supplement those who do and the ISPs now can cater to those people away from your socialism.

 

LOL Its so sad you still have to be educated on this. Look at your examples. When did net neutrality become law? 2015.

Every single example you cited was handled without Title 2.

Good God you just make it too easy.

 

Says the guy who thinks the ISPs own the internet lol

That's retarded. Just because the cost of bandwidth and expansion is low doesn't mean that low cost doesn't take replacement and upgrade costs into account.

lololol you try and say that because Netflix uses up a ton of bandwidth as compared to the rest of the net, then that somehow translates to extra costs? Educate yourself on the concepts of automated prioritization (which is the main point here. Automated prioritization vs paid/forced prioritization)

 

No I pointed out your incredible ignoring defending net nutrality with examples that never used the law to stop a single example you cited.

LOL Says the guy who can't even comprehend that Title 2 wasn't even law when the government went after every single example you cited.

Do you ever read your own links? Ever? Or do you just enjoy embarrassing yourself?

LOL You really need to learn how to read. Answer this simple question. Does netflix own the IPS? Yes or No? Very simple question.

Because if you can be honest enough and say no then Netflix must use them to get you the data.

What was wrong? Be specific. Let's see those examples because your word means nothing.[/QUOTE]

 

Quote me where I said that. Your dishonesty is beyond sad.

Yes. I'd say that too if I didn't have a clue what infrastructure maintenance costs.

LOL Really. So ISPs don't have to budget for it? That's your intellectually deficient answer?

Do you ever actually read what's written to you? This entire debate is about giving the ISPs the freedom to change plans based on the customer's need of the internet. Someone who never uses Netflix should not be forced to supplement those who do. How many times must I repeat myself before you actually read it?[/QUOTE]

 

'To get you to what they paid for'
That emplies ownership. They paid for the roads (with a ton of Govt subsidies that they pocketed a large portion of without delivering what was promised). Does the city set up tolls on either side of city blocks that have higher foot/road traffic?

And you do?

Wow, nice reading. ISPs have Already budgeted for it.

They don't supplement those who use more. The bandwidth is Already there. Waiting to be used. If someone pays more, it doesn't mean more is suddenly available then if someone pays less.

 

[/QUOTE]


Your argument is nonsense. Netflix pays for their bandwidth just like all other websites. There is no free or subsidized usage.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

I take your deflection and red herring as you admitting you were factually wrong about people's concerns on questionable ISP practices as being "Fake boogymen".

You know it's okay to admit you were wrong rather than trying to get the last post in with smiley spam, Right?

Why couldn't you refute any of the popsci NN fact checks I linked? Oh yeah, cause you can't. Facts and all. You're kinda done here.

 

He knows. But he thinks if he posts last with a bunch of smileys it might alter reality.

 

You don't seem to know what NN does.

 

In the 21st century? of course.

not sure why reality is a laughing matter to you?

You can't survive in the 21st century without access to the internet. Literally EVERYTHING is plugged into it.

 

Because the post you quoted severely lacks debating skills likely due to deficient critical thinking. The debate skill seems to be harboured in quick dismissal instead of actual counter points.

 

Facebook does, and it loves it

 

Apparently you don't believe in a free capitalist marketplace so I have nothing more to offer you.

 

So we disagree. I'll take my childishness appreciation of capitalism elsewhere.

 

You offer zero counterpoints.

Bravo.

 

bahahaha

oh man. You honestly believe the telecom structure as it exists today is a 'free market'? That would be hilarious if it weren't sad.

The major telecoms in the US (and in Canada here as well) have a stranglehold on the market and regularly work together to make sure prices are around the same, and so that they don't encroach on each others territory.

If the Govt would break these telecoms up (while dividing the content delivery side and the content production side up completely) then these NN regs wouldn't be necessary.

But until such a time, whatever stop-gap actions are available must be taken.

 

Yeah, and why wouldn't they? If people are forced to actively pay for access to social media, then they lose out on casual surfers who may impulsively sign up. If I had to actively call my subscriber everytime I wanted access to a specific website, my bookmark list would be substantially smaller.

 

Thank you for admitting you don't know what NN does.

 

I didn't know there was a Sandra Fluke thread. Nor do I see any relevance to the subject at hand. I am not interested in the comments of an activist.