Tom Wheeler FCC Chairman to step down on Trump's Inauguration Day - Polidicks

A storm is coming, and we won't see each other again when it hits.

[QUOTE=Disgruntled;51535013]A storm is coming, and we won't see each other again when it hits.[/QUOTE] Imagine a world where people commit terroristic acts of violence against corporations not because of religious or political beliefs, but because they were price gouging website access.

[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;51534965]Funny you mention that, I found just such a thing a few weeks ago: [URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guifi.net[/URL] Sure it's no fiber optic and spain's certainly not america, but you've got to give em' credit eh? Article: [URL]https://backchannel.com/forget-comcast-heres-the-diy-approach-to-internet-access-ef1e37bc09e1#.qm2lhzxpc[/URL][/QUOTE] Wireless links like that sure as hell wouldn't work too well in bigger cities. And no surprise it's from Catalonia, trying to separate things so they can be self sufficient.

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;51534164]tbh, Clinton would've done the same thing with TPP.[/QUOTE] This is completely irrelevant

[QUOTE=Kagu;51534828]Since a lot of people like being smug, and this includes both sides of the political party, this is a daily reminder of what Net Neutrality protects against: [IMG]https://www.whizsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/n3.jpg[/IMG] I know it might be hard for people to accept that Trump isn't actually D R A I N I N G T H E S W A M P since you conservatives equally love buzzwords as much as the liberals, but he's just replacing the swamp water with more sewer water, it's not really that hard to comprehend. Of course, if you're on daddy's money, you might not understand the long-term ramifications of this and the dangerous precedence it sets for a long while.[/QUOTE] This honestly scares me the most about all of this. That people actually fight for this to be a thing. It's sickening. I hope Trump voters are happy that they voted for this.

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51535444]This honestly scares me the most about all of this. That people actually fight for this to be a thing. It's sickening.[/QUOTE] This is how corporate america has been and pretty much always will be Its just that now the government is backing them up

[QUOTE=Demache;51535068]Imagine a world where people commit terroristic acts of violence against corporations not because of religious or political beliefs, but because they were price gouging website access.[/QUOTE] Come on, that's not what he meant.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51534600]lol the irony contained in this post is enough to get me through the rest of the year. thank you.[/QUOTE] If inside joke laffs are all that can keep you going, then I really don't think we can help you here.

[QUOTE=Duck M.;51535448]This is how corporate america has been and pretty much always will be Its just that now the government is backing them up[/QUOTE] He means that people in the general public have been convinced that having a free and open internet is a bad thing, I think. It's amazing how far media manipulation will get you when attempting to do something extremely unpalatable to the public. Just spread enough bullshit around 24/7 and people will believe anything. Hell, they'll believe that [url=http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html]water is a toxic chemical[/url] worthy of being banned if you twist the facts enough.

I read the comments section on a Breitbart article about how net neutrality will probably go away under Trump, and all the people there were cheering the end of another 'liberal' policy from Obama. It's horrible that people like this just see things in an us vs them, liberal vs conservative way when this is clearly a get fucked over by corporations vs not get fucked over by corporations situation.

Is there anything at all we can do about this, besides moving to a sane country?

[QUOTE=Sally;51536018]If inside joke laffs are all that can keep you going, then I really don't think we can help you here.[/QUOTE] I've made an effort to not read your posts because of how little substance they contain. You literally just post to flame a person or what they think. You don't do anything else. When the majority of your posts are nebulously calling out a group before they even appear, as you decided to shit on other people for, it's pretty hard to not enjoy the irony of you basically agreeing that what you're doing isn't helping. I just don't think you're even aware of your own posting habbits. [editline]15th December 2016[/editline] You've had every opportunity to defend yourself and the views you voted for in this thread. But no, you'd rather make this about how you guys are the victims of the mean and evil liberals who won't leave you alone.

[QUOTE=dustyjo;51536273]Is there anything at all we can do about this, besides moving to a sane country?[/QUOTE] mass protest

The people going "but other person would do it too" need to realize said other person can't and won't, but who is coming into power can.

[QUOTE=Kagu;51534828]Since a lot of people like being smug, and this includes both sides of the political party, this is a daily reminder of what Net Neutrality protects against: [t]https://www.whizsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/n3.jpg[/t] [/QUOTE] I don't understand why this picture is always brought up as if it supports anything when it's just some made up shit someone made for fearmongering and has never been officially used by anyone

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51536767]I don't understand why this picture is always brought up as if it supports anything when it's just some made up shit someone made for fearmongering and has never been officially used by anyone[/QUOTE] They put it up because getting rid of NN CAN allow said thing to happen. You also honestly think corporations won't stretch out with less regulations in place? Edit: What do you think will personally happen if/when Net Neutrality goes away, Bazsil? Genuinely curious, not trying to start anything.

[QUOTE=WhichStrider;51536821]They put it up because getting rid of NN CAN allow said thing to happen. You also honestly think corporations won't stretch out with less regulations in place? Edit: What do you think will personally happen if/when Net Neutrality goes away, Bazsil? Genuinely curious, not trying to start anything.[/QUOTE] My stance on net neutrality is irrelevant right now, WhichStrider. My point is that if you have an argument worth making, WhichStrider, then you should be able to back it up with something better than a fake picture some anonymous random on the internet made to scare people. Especially when you're arguing in favor of net neutrality, where your case pretty much makes itself. You wouldn't cite an Onion article as backup, would you, WhichStrider? Then don't use this picture Just because its something you or I support doesn't mean it isn't intellectually dishonest

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51536856]My stance on net neutrality is irrelevant right now, WhichStrider. My point is that if you have an argument worth making, WhichStrider, then you should be able to back it up with something better than a fake picture some anonymous random on the internet made to scare people. Especially when you're arguing in favor of net neutrality, where your case pretty much makes itself. You wouldn't cite an Onion article as backup, would you, WhichStrider? Then don't use this picture[/QUOTE] Yes theoreticals are absolutely not okay when we're talking about something that might happen in the future. Shame on him.

[QUOTE=Levelog;51536860]Yes theoreticals are absolutely not okay when we're talking about something that might happen in the future. Shame on him.[/QUOTE] Theoretically, Obama's birth certificate could be faked. Theoretically, Donald Trump could be a Russian android and the US could be annexed by March. No, making up what-if's does not support your case

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51536856]My stance on net neutrality is irrelevant right now, WhichStrider. My point is that if you have an argument worth making, WhichStrider, then you should be able to back it up with something better than a fake picture some anonymous random on the internet made to scare people. Especially when you're arguing in favor of net neutrality, where your case pretty much makes itself. You wouldn't cite an Onion article as backup, would you, WhichStrider? Then don't use this picture Just because its something you or I support doesn't mean it isn't intellectually dishonest[/QUOTE] That's a bit of hostility, but I won't fault you for it. I'm not using the picture as any "evidence" since I didn't post it in the first place, rather I talked about what could very likely happen with regulations stripped. I'm not sure why you're asking me to back up with evidence on an opinion for something that could happen in the future, much less the fact you don't wish to voice your own opinion(which is fine). I'm not really sure what you're trying to do here.

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51536872]Theoretically, Obama's birth certificate could be faked. Theoretically, Donald Trump could be a Russian android and the US could be annexed by March. No, making up what-if's does not support your case[/QUOTE] I feel like the nature of these speculations is much different. The picture is more of a projection based on current trends and corporate tendencies while what you're presenting are alternate realities that go against currently known facts.

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51536767]I don't understand why this picture is always brought up as if it supports anything when it's just some made up shit someone made for fearmongering and has never been officially used by anyone[/QUOTE] because its the same type of system used for TV and one of the arguments used for no net neutrality is just 'you dont pay for channels you dont want to watch, right? why would you do that for the internet?'

[QUOTE=Naught;51537047]because its the same type of system used for TV and one of the arguments used for no net neutrality is just 'you dont pay for channels you dont want to watch, right? why would you do that for the internet?'[/QUOTE] Which is hilarious because you definitely do pay for channels you don't want to watch on TV.

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51536856]My stance on net neutrality is irrelevant right now, WhichStrider. My point is that if you have an argument worth making, WhichStrider, then you should be able to back it up with something better than a fake picture some anonymous random on the internet made to scare people. Especially when you're arguing in favor of net neutrality, where your case pretty much makes itself. You wouldn't cite an Onion article as backup, would you, WhichStrider? Then don't use this picture Just because its something you or I support doesn't mean it isn't intellectually dishonest[/QUOTE] Lol, why are you so damn hostile man? The picture isn't being presented as evidence- it's a visualisation of the danger of losing net neutrality. Of course it was ~made to scare people~. It's a scary prospect, and it's in no way an unrealistic one. As other posters have mentioned- similar systems already exist when it comes to television- why is it such a huge leap in logic to assume companies would do the same thing with internet access? I'm hearing a lot of "what are you worried about!? Nothing has happened yet!" arguments since Trump got elected, and I'm going to go ahead and say I think that it's an incredibly stupid line of thinking that people seriously need to stop regurgitating. So what? because we don't have 100% concrete evidence, freshly retrieved from the future, that conclusively demonstrates that companies will, without a shadow of a doubt, price gouge the living fuck out of customers if given the opportunity, as they have already proven perfectly willing to do in similar scenarios- we shouldn't be wary and should blindly trust them right up until the moment they start screwing people over?. I feel a healthy balance needs to be struck between needless paranoia and just being completely oblivious.

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51535444]This honestly scares me the most about all of this. That people actually fight for this to be a thing. It's sickening. I hope Trump voters are happy that they voted for this.[/QUOTE] i hope not lol. i hope their parents refuse to pay for these new packages, and they lose access to the internet as they know it. trump supporters have lost that privelage as far as im concerned. i think its time they go outside and find a hobby other than getting conned by the worlds worst liar. [QUOTE=Sally;51536018]If inside joke laffs are all that can keep you going, then I really don't think we can help you here.[/QUOTE] i dont care what you think

[QUOTE=Bazsil;51536856]:words:[/QUOTE] Keep thinking that this won't happen. Keep thinking that your version of fear mongering you see online isn't just a selective bias. Keep thinking that being informed of the possibilities is the wrong way to stay informed. The fact that you honestly trust corporate enough to not push policies like this but they don't even pay their employees a [B]living[/B] wage is laughable at best. Why else do top politicians want to get rid of net neutrality so soon? Is it really a top issue in America? Is it because of Obama? Is it because of those darn non-American Democrats? Is it because of the boogeyman gubment' is involved in it? You want intellectual discourse? Don't be a prissy little brat about it and then not provide anything for your side of the argument. What I've noticed from some of the more liberal posters on SH is that they tend to want to get into intellectual and calm arguments with the more conservative ones, and some of those conservative posters take it as them being weak or some stupid shit like that, but don't just stir shit up like a Nancy and state your opinion like it's a fact. If Net Neutrality were to fall and you consider the trends in corporate America, you best believe something similar to that image will happen. And the best part is? It won't just affect America, you're completely naive to think that. Like, there's a difference between being oblivious and skeptical, and if you're just playing devil's advocate then just don't bother.

[QUOTE=Levelog;51536860]Yes theoreticals are absolutely not okay when we're talking about something that might happen in the future. Shame on him.[/QUOTE] I mean, he has a point. Fear mongering is a shit tactic, but on that same note, the idea that a company can block another company outright should be a big enough thing to fear. That all being said the image is still deffo fair. I mean, its something that definitely could happen.

not only is it something that could happen but who would stop them from doing that, or worse? most people would roll over and take it, and some would (and are) defend it, talking about shit like the guvernment can't handle it, it's going to breed free market competition, or other stupid crap.

Like, we Americans can't even block AT&T or Comcast from having a monopoly in certain areas so most of America is stuck with shit internet for 200$ premiums when the rest of the world is ahead of us in infrastructure. And then people expect corporations to not take advantage of price gouging after the rules and regulations are going to be removed? America #1 right. Hahahahahahaha, do you people get a good internet connection because daddy pays the bills and think it's not [B]THAT HARD[/B] getting a decent internet connection?

[QUOTE=Kagu;51537502]Like, we Americans can't even block AT&T or Comcast from having a monopoly in certain areas so most of America is stuck with shit internet for 200$ premiums when the rest of the world is ahead of us in infrastructure. And then people expect corporations to not take advantage of price gouging after the rules and regulations are going to be removed? America #1 right. Hahahahahahaha, do you people get a good internet connection because daddy pays the bills and think it's not [B]THAT HARD[/B] getting a decent internet connection?[/QUOTE] It's not? I pay $60/mo for a 90mbps download speed and some basic cable channels. And no, contrary to popular belief, 90mbps/down is far more than you'll need to shitpost on the internet. So unless you're running an entire server station, I don't see how you can be paying $200 for 'shit internet'.