Anon gets Revenge

Adjust content blockingContent Blocking

drkinferno Rank: #11

Channel: 4chan

next random

Comment

Anon gets Revenge. . Anonymous l 754091586 , geleden our candian ffind out about ychan we on a board ppeople are fucking racists but yeah India will be a superp

Tags: 4Chan

Anonymous l 754091586 , geleden our
candian
ffind out about ychan
we on a board
ppeople are fucking racists
but yeah India will be a superpower
by 2020"
721, 1. he cjp( ' ppeople laugh at me
icall me a streetfighter
offensive, my grandpa died in a
screenshotting incident
rehears later
ruined their internet
did it
revenge
3 REPLIES 2 REPLY

...

+2505

Views: 42462 Submitted: 12/17/2017

Block User's Content

Block Channel Content

Related Top Content:

Anon digs tunnels with his dad

/b/ is back with their weaponized autism

3360

Introvert inside and outside

Anon helps the family business

3096

Anon and his friend are Functioning Autists

2983

Iglytyo Mavney Daterys

2963

Sabluelsea Davat ---r

2941

Anon gets competitive

2934

Anon has Ascended

2901

Hide Comments

Add Comment Refresh (154)

First 2 3 Last Next

[ 154 comments ]

Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest

Live Updates: On

Options

asd

#1 - dbqpdb#264 on commentsRank#264

Reply+418

(12/17/2017)[-]

P., Ajit

#80 to #1 - mirgyn

Reply+52

(12/17/2017)[-]

well, isn't Ajit Pai pig latin for pajit anyway?

#107 to #80 - volcanicdiarrhea#388 on commentsRank#388

Reply+42

(12/17/2017)[-]

>pig Latin
Meme'd again

#84 to #1 - mcburd

Reply+18

(12/17/2017)[-]

I was honestly reading it as Pajiit something until now

#2 to #1 - arresterdramon

Reply+2

(12/17/2017)[-]

***** pie you mean?

#5 to #2 - pitifulsoul

Reply+92

(12/17/2017)[-]

Pajeet
P.Ajit

#18 to #5 - shameonapony

Reply+71

(12/17/2017)[-]

I DIDN'T REALIZE THIS.

#4 - slarstorm

Reply+196

(12/17/2017)[-]

I CAN'T WAIT TO WATCH THE INTERNET SLOWLY DIE FROM SUBTLE CHANGES IMPLEMENTED OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME IN ORDER TO BENEFIT ONLY THE LARGEST COMPANIES RELATING TO INTERNET SERVICES.

#71 to #4 - akisswagson

Reply+21

(12/17/2017)[-]

**akisswagson used "*roll picture*"**
**akisswagson rolled image** Come back to this comment in 2020 when internet is dead and India is a super power

#78 to #4 - oceanfrank

Reply+7

(12/17/2017)[-]

What if I told you that's not what's going to happen?

#87 to #78 - randomwanker#103 on contentRank#103

Reply+30

(12/17/2017)[-]

It happened to gaming. Slowly sell games that are less and less complete until you have to complete it thru microtransactions, and DLC

#109 to #87 - darddec

Reply0

(12/17/2017)[-]

The **** kinda logic is that.

"Oh, but this fast food restaurant made it so you have to buy sauces individually so the internet is going to DIE!"

#95 to #87 - oceanfrank

Reply0

(12/17/2017)[-]

Okay but you have to understand, not everyone is EA

#100 to #95 - excaliburr

Reply+23

(12/17/2017)[-]

ok but you have to understand ea ruins it for everyone else

#102 to #100 - oceanfrank

Reply-5

(12/17/2017)[-]

Right everyone follows EA's patented model of lootboxes. One company doesn't ruin it for everyone. That's like saying McDonald's ruined hamburgers for everyone, no it didn't there are THOUSANDS of competing burger chains and restaurants for you to pick. It's not like the government set up a system where every burger chain can only serve Whoppers. No man, the ones that make good burgers and play the marketing game are the ones that last .

#128 to #102 - anon id: 1b691c34

Reply0

(12/18/2017)[-]

McDonald's just ruins hamburgers in general. WTF is that ****?!?

#116 to #95 - slarstorm

Reply+5

(12/18/2017)[-]

Do you seriously think that they're repealing this with good intentions? Do you honestly ******* think that nobody will take advantage of this? The internet is considered the single most influential influence on modern media, billions of people use it. Do you really think giant corporations are just going to turn their heads and ignore the potential financial gain?

A businesses purpose is ultimately to make money, not benefit the consumer!

#141 to #116 - freddurstlover

Reply+3

(12/18/2017)[-]

Im not sure why you got downvoted, thats a pretty reasonable assessment.

#115 to #95 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply+5

(12/18/2017)[-]

Oh yes, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon are known for being good companies now eh?

H3H3 talks a bit about how great these companies are. Skip to 1h25m36s

#151 to #95 - anon id: 723e88f8

Reply-1

(12/19/2017)[-]

Oh you fool, not knowing how greedy almost every company is.

#153 to #151 - oceanfrank

Reply+1

(12/19/2017)[-]

If they were truly greedy they'd realize they'd make less money if they throttled their users. That'd be like if a restaurant spat in people's eggs and had them still tip the servers.

#10 - iamaniceperson

Reply+147

(12/17/2017)[-]

inb4 dead people show up in the comments to tell how a monopoly can only benefit the internet

#13 to #10 - battledude

Reply+49

(12/17/2017)[-]

but.. losing title 2 classification gives the power to stop monopolies while the "Net Neutrality" laws only applied under condition that internet was a title 2 utility, thus allowing and basically protecting monopolies. With the classification gone the FTC actually has power to use anti monopoly laws against Comcast/TWC.

But of course since the title 2 was attached to the "no throttling laws" there is the problem everyone is mad about. I think its a lose lose situation, but at least this way has a chance of separating title 2 classification and actual neutrality laws.

#16 to #13 - psychoblue

Reply+33

(12/17/2017)[-]

#130 to #16 - renespar

Reply0

(12/18/2017)[-]

#61 to #13 - sidnineonefourtwo

Reply+3

(12/17/2017)[-]

If ISP's are throttling then they will eventually get investigated just like what happened before Title 2 was implemented. They don't get away with that **** forever if people actually report them for suspicious behavior. And if they are caught they have to pay a large sum of money in a suit more often than not, as evidenced by Verizon's and Comcast's past ************.

#88 to #61 - randomwanker#103 on contentRank#103

Reply0

(12/17/2017)[-]

That happened because the internet being fairly new they were trying to figure out the legalities behind it, but now they know they can get away from it

#92 to #88 - sidnineonefourtwo

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

Fairly new... www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsNaR6FRuO0

#93 to #92 - randomwanker#103 on contentRank#103

Reply+2

(12/17/2017)[-]

There are people alive today who existed before the internet was even conceived is what I mean by fairly new

#96 to #93 - sidnineonefourtwo

Reply+2

(12/17/2017)[-]

Fair enough. I misunderstood.

#20 to #10 - toosexyforyou#240 on commentsRank#240

Reply+17

(12/17/2017)[-]

It's the opposite. 1 side thinks the government needs to regulate it and the other side thinks the free market and competition will be better for cheaper and better service.

#36 to #20 - anon id: 44c367fc

Reply+10

(12/17/2017)[-]

Yes, normally that is true. But in cases where there are only one or two services, they can do whatever they please in that region, so free market control keeping prices down by giving consumer choices is meaningless as most people want/need internet services.

#37 to #36 - toosexyforyou#240 on commentsRank#240

Reply+8

(12/17/2017)[-]

Isn't the reason there's only 1 big internet service now because of the government regulation? Poland doesn't have any regulation and they have a ******** of competition so that their tiny little villages are getting ******* 100 mb download for 13 ******* dollars.

#79 to #37 - oceanfrank

Reply+4

(12/17/2017)[-]

BRUH STOP TALKING ECONOMICS UP IN THIS BITCH ECONOMICS DOESN'T APPLY TO THE REAL WORLD /s

#145 to #10 - sketchE

Reply0

(12/18/2017)[-]

inb4 canadians and europeans say how their internet in iowa is going to get ruined. how will they ever be able to watch porn in california. who would dare pass a law that allows people to ban websites in alabama

#7 - aestheticdionysos

Reply+15

(12/17/2017)[-]

What exactly is gonna change? Like you have to pay for different packs to unlock different kind of websites?
I live in Europe, just being curious

#8 to #7 - anon id: c5213a7a

Reply+6

(12/17/2017)[-]

It's literally just pre-2015 internet
Nearly no difference to how it is now

#11 to #8 - youmomma

Reply+30

(12/17/2017)[-]

Normally I would agree but there is some hidden goal in it:
/Dead+people+want+to+end+netneutratli...
Nothing that is harmless uses dead people to support it.

#94 to #11 - sidnineonefourtwo

Reply+6

(12/17/2017)[-]

Difference being, these people have no say on the matter. They weren't voting. What more than likely happened was somebody rounded up information of publicly available people and their addresses of said people and just bot spammed senators. Not like any of these letters were read anyway.

I agree that it's far more interesting how this information spread from suspicious tweets and caught like wildfire so rapidly.

"Hmm, I'm just gonna go through the list of people that wrote to state representatives and search specifically to see if my dead mother voted this year."

Honestly sounds more like Pro NN damage Control. If I knew the first thing about twitter, I'd take a look at the tweeters in question and see what they have voiced their opinions and affiliations on in the past.

#104 to #94 - masanori

Reply+5

(12/17/2017)[-]

Interesting point. That does actually seem likely.

#117 to #104 - sidnineonefourtwo

Reply+2

(12/18/2017)[-]

Not my point. So many people have had it before me on here. I'd place a decent wager on these tweeters also being deeply affected during Clinton's downfall and the travel ban hysteria.

#118 to #117 - masanori

Reply+2

(12/18/2017)[-]

Probably. It's interesting how defined "types" in politics have become, isn't it? Give me one opinion from someone and then a list of issues with options for opinions on them and I'd probably be able to choose all of their subsequent opinions with relative accuracy.

#119 to #118 - sidnineonefourtwo

Reply0

(12/18/2017)[-]

Welcome to identity politics. Sadly it's not concern about the issues anymore, only concern with which side you're on. It divides friends and family alike.

#121 to #119 - masanori

Reply+1

(12/18/2017)[-]

The worst part about it is that it only takes one group (who then identifies an "enemy group" or groups) to buy into this bs, and then anyone they feel wronged by feels the primordial group animal urge to side against them and defend their own identity. Then it spreads to more and more groups, and when it becomes the norm, any out of group thinking is no longer permitted. Sincere, objective, fact-based reasoning is the only means of combatting the natural urge to base your thinking on in-group bias, but that's an amount of intellectual effort and honesty most people seem to be incapable of anymore.

#21 to #11 - toosexyforyou#240 on commentsRank#240

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

People are making a valid point about how quickly this became a big deal like some random guy just went to check that his dead mom wrote something to this bill?

#63 to #21 - methylgroup

Reply+4

(12/17/2017)[-]

Many political parties, interest groups, and movements have been doing this for several years now. People are a lot more aware of it, and look for it now.

#65 to #63 - toosexyforyou#240 on commentsRank#240

Reply+2

(12/17/2017)[-]

Funny. Didn't see many republicans doing it this last election, only democrats.

#25 to #8 - methylgroup

Reply+3

(12/17/2017)[-]

Okay, apparently posting too many sources to back my point on this issue makes FJ think I'm posting spam. Here's my rebuttal with sources in the picture. There's a major difference.

#112 to #8 - iviagic

Reply+2

(12/18/2017)[-]

Yea no reason at all for a former Verizon executive to want to make changes to the internet

#126 to #112 - anon id: 1b691c34

Reply-1

(12/18/2017)[-]

For someone with a ****** nazi frog Avatar you're not very MAGA

#146 to #112 - sketchE

Reply-2

(12/18/2017)[-]

key word there is former. im a former toys r us employee and i want the store to burn to the ground. if he was still getting paid by verizon there would be no way he could hide it

#12 to #8 - saintlich

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

Yes back before 2015 where the FCC was powerless to stop ISP's lieing to both consumers and goverment about there practices, could use the service they have monoplised to push other buisnesses they where tied with by throtling the competition. Making a video game company and netflix pay a ******* of money to avoid throtling etc.

Guys it's fine, it was great before 2015, the FCC weren't constantly building a bill that had all it's framework in 2007 and was belt to replicated the purpose of a 1996 bill. It's those darn lefties.

#14 to #12 - psychoblue

Reply+3

(12/17/2017)[-]

/channel/politics/Lets+talk+internet/...
/channel/FJNN/Net+neutrality+title+ii...
/channel/FJNN/Daily+news+may+18+17/pu...
/channel/FJNN/Actual+net+neutrality+d...

It is certainly fortunate then, that title 2 repeal transfers regulatory power to both the FCC and the FTC who, together, have a proven track record of pushing back against anti consumer practices.

#33 to #14 - methylgroup

Reply+7

(12/17/2017)[-]

Mike O'Reilly literally wanted to abdicate an enormous portion of the FCC's power to stop ISP's from building fast lanes. In fact, he wants to protect that "right." This puts average consumers at a huge disadvantage.

For whatever reason, I can't post links directly in the post, but here you go.

#40 to #33 - psychoblue

Reply+3

(12/17/2017)[-]

I will look into it. Thank you for posting links, I have Mostly just gotten people screaming at me most other places. I am willing to admit that the the issue is as not black and white as some people say, but I do not believe that it is the doom and gloom apocalypse that its being made out to be.

#64 to #40 - methylgroup

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

The change is not going to be instant. They aren't some comic book villain that comes crashing through the wall, but the changes will be gradual for sure. Sites like FJ are going to be among the hardest hit.

#74 to #64 - methylgroup

Reply+2

(12/17/2017)[-]

****, I had my head up my ass.

I wanted to thank you too for being civil about this. People are too eager fling insults and use personal attacks. I'm guilty of it too.

Even if you don't change your beliefs, thanks for at least acknowledging a difference in opinion in a really civil manner, and being willing to look at the issue from a different angle.

#127 to #64 - anon id: 1b691c34

Reply-1

(12/18/2017)[-]

Well, thank **** if so, that means the spread of ignorance and idiocy will slow considerably

#131 to #33 - renespar

has deleted their comment [-]

#133 to #131 - methylgroup

Reply0

(12/18/2017)[-]

I think you're misunderstanding me. I posted those articles because they literally quote Mike O'Reilly saying that he wants ISP's to create paid fast lanes.

I support Net Neutrality. I don't want that at all.

#134 to #133 - renespar

Reply-1

(12/18/2017)[-]

****, I replied to the wrong person

#135 to #134 - methylgroup

Reply0

(12/18/2017)[-]

No worries.

#138 to #135 - renespar

Reply-2

(12/18/2017)[-]

scratch that, at least 2 pages, 99% just those 4 links, out of like 43 comments made

#137 to #135 - renespar

Reply-2

(12/18/2017)[-]

I'm feeling with psychoblue someone needs to keep following these posts and linking that video though, I checked his posts, his latest ones for at least a full page are those 4 links, I legit think he's a full on shill

#139 to #137 - psychoblue

Reply+2

(12/18/2017)[-]

The only reason I even got involved in this whole thing in the first place was due to the ridiculous amount of fear mongering Ive been seeing on this topic over the last several weeks. I post those comments in posts about Net neutrality because they offer an opposing view on the matter that is researched, cited, and based on what is written in the documents themselves. I was perfectly content using this account to look at porn and bitch about skyrim. But the level of bone hardheadedness Ive seen in regards to this matter is absolutely ludicrous. You have been the strangest of all, my new friend. You have been tracking down every post where I have put this information and either complained relentlessly about how I " post that spew of BS" or just post the same poorly cited video of an over emotionally invested young man acting self righteous for 30 minutes. If you disagree with whats being stated in the articles I have posted, disprove the articles themselves. Otherwise your behavior indicates that your angry that someone has been giving people an opinion that you have determined beforehand to be incorrect and are making it you personal ideological hill to die on. It screams of sectarian partisanship and is unbecoming of a conversation that should be built on objective study of the facts, as opposed to angry you tubers and reddit memes.

#140 to #139 - renespar

Reply-1

(12/18/2017)[-]

because you're posting misleading propaganda, that's really the most it comes down to. The problem with JGK is massive biases and an over-reliance that people on the right or in big businesses will do the right thing, thus making his points the equivalent of citing the 3% of scientists who claim global warming is fake, then using that to argue that it's all fear mongering. And if you really wanna pretend LEON's a reliable and informative source of dick all? You have to be kidding me, go take a look at his comments some time and tell me how reasonable and factual he is, not just when he pretends to not be a massive ideologue and screaming how everyone opposed to him is an angry lefty, and how he can literally never be wrong, this is a hill I intend to die on because unlike people who buy into the misinformation Pai and his obnoxious shills are going for, that somehow giving ISP's less restrictions is good and this hilarious naivete at thinking the FTC will do anything, I actually care about not having the internet throttled. I'm not the best at doing posts dismantling ********, but I am good at smelling it out and finding people better at that. And just because you don't like the fact someone dares point out how full of **** Pai is and also actually cares about the state of the internet, instead of descending into mindless apathy like you clearly want based on your comment, doesn't make him an "over emotionally invested young man acting self righteous for 30 minutes"

#136 to #14 - renespar

Reply-2

(12/18/2017)[-]

#26 to #8 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply-2

(12/17/2017)[-]

No, pre-2015 throttling speeds was just up in the air, and most of the time it went to court sometimes supreme court. It happened so often obama made it illegal to throttle speeds, now we are making it completely A Okay to throttle any website or series of websites at will without disclosure.

#42 to #26 - nickelakon

Reply+3

(12/17/2017)[-]

No you have to disclose, title 1 which is staying in place has the transparency act, ISPs have to disclose that info or the FTC will take them to court.

#44 to #42 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply-1

(12/17/2017)[-]

If you got the time you should peep this out.

#48 to #44 - contextual

Reply+2

(12/17/2017)[-]

Dude's smart, I watch his stuff. But, you'll notice he never actually says whether or not "Net Neutrality" actually worked. Hint: It changed little, if anything. The FCC still had their hands tied. In fact... things only got worse after Net Neutrality passed. I can't speak as to his research method, but I get the feeling he fell victim to confirmation bias and failed to look much beyond the implementation date.

#50 to #48 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

How did things get worse after net neutrality was passed?

#53 to #50 - contextual

Reply+5

(12/17/2017)[-]

The FCC approved of bundling services, which is just another term for offering some sites but not others at some discounted rate. I.e., you see what they want you to see. They also affirmed that, while ISPs as 'Mass Media Providers" are required to be fair and unprejudiced in the presentation of all potential online endpoints, if they ever choose not to do so anyways, they are not punished but reclassified as not being MMP. Meaning, there was no real penalty. Additionally, they never addressed priority traffic deals, such as Comcast giving preferential bandwidth to Netflix.

#55 to #53 - contextual

Reply+6

(12/17/2017)[-]

Oh, just to clarify on that Netflix deal, Comcast forces Netflix to pay for that. They also basically strongarmed Netflix into said deal. Graph is from old, but the 'fastlane' is still in effect today.

#147 to #55 - sketchE

Reply0

(12/18/2017)[-]

you do recognize that nearly everyone dropped at that time right? there is only one company that didnt have any drop

#59 to #53 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply0

(12/17/2017)[-]

Got a source for that?

Because in the video I posted it shows in 2010 the FCC had already written a bill about not throttling, blocking, or packaging web services, which was then reinforced in 2015.

They only wrote that bill in 2010 because ISPs were throttling/blocking so frequently.

#60 to #59 - contextual

Reply+4

(12/17/2017)[-]

www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinio...

From 2016.

Pages 114-115

"Of course, broadband providers, like telephone
companies, can face capacity constraints from time to time.
Not every telephone call will be able to get through
instantaneously at every moment, just as service to websites
might be slowed at times because of significant network
demand. But those kinds of temporary capacity constraints do
not resemble the structural limitations confronting newspapers
and cable companies. The latter naturally occasion the
exercise of editorial discretion; the former do not.
If a broadband provider nonetheless were to choose to
exercise editorial discretion—for instance, by picking a
limited set of websites to carry and offering that service as a
curated internet experience—it might then qualify as a First
Amendment speaker. But the Order itself excludes such
providers from the rules. The Order defines broadband
internet access service as a “mass-market retail service”—i.e.,
a service that is “marketed and sold on a standardized
basis”—that “provides the capability to transmit data to and
receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints.”
2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Rcd. at 5745–46 ¶ 336 &
n.879. That definition, by its terms, includes only those
broadband providers that hold themselves out as neutral,
115
indiscriminate conduits. Providers that may opt to exercise
editorial discretion—for instance, by offering access only to a
limited segment of websites specifically catered to certain
content—would not offer a standardized service that can
reach “substantially all” endpoints. The rules therefore would
not apply to such providers, as the FCC has affirmed. See
FCC Br. 81, 146 n.53."

#66 to #60 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply0

(12/17/2017)[-]

Did you read what you just posted?

If a broadband provider nonetheless were to choose to
exercise editorial discretion—for instance, by picking a
limited set of websites to carry and offering that service as a
curated internet experience—it might then qualify as a First
Amendment speaker. But the Order itself excludes such
providers from the rules. The Order defines broadband
internet access service as a “mass-market retail service”—i.e.,
a service that is “marketed and sold on a standardized
basis”—that “provides the capability to transmit data to and
receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints.”
2015 Open Internet Order, 30 FCC Rcd. at 5745–46 ¶ 336 &
n.879. That definition, by its terms, includes only those
broadband providers that hold themselves out as neutral,
115
indiscriminate conduits.

It says here that A NEW ISP COULD theoretically service only certain websites, however the ISPS they are targeting are forced to be internet PROVIDERS and are not allowed to change the speed at which they receive or send based off where they are receiving or sending.

Hence the last sentence "indiscriminate conduits."

#68 to #66 - contextual

Reply+2

(12/17/2017)[-]

Oh, and sorry for the double comment, but I really have no issues with bundle services. It just seems like more options for the consumer to me, so long as they are reasonably priced.

#67 to #66 - contextual

Reply+2

(12/17/2017)[-]

They are in no way forced to be anything. The government can't prevent them from selling their assets and going into tools manufacture, just as they can't prevent them from offering such a bundled service. They could if doing so didn't exempt them from the rules, but so long as they don't sell youtube+hulu and call it the 'full package', the above states clearly that they would not be considered a full-blown provider.

#45 to #44 - nickelakon

Reply0

(12/17/2017)[-]

Will watch later, Im working right now

#46 to #45 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply0

(12/17/2017)[-]

Np, the dude is a bit of faggot, but he keeps it interesting at least. and EVERYTHING he has is 100% sourced.

#47 to #46 - nickelakon

Reply0

(12/17/2017)[-]

Have you seen Joseph Leavitt's video

#49 to #47 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply0

(12/17/2017)[-]

I can't say I have, but I'd like to suck up every bit of reliable information I can if you have time to post a link.

#52 to #49 - nickelakon

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

youtu.be/GxrTUI2JPNs he has a few videos discussing the issue

#62 to #26 - sidnineonefourtwo

Reply0

(12/17/2017)[-]

Happened so often. I've seen 2 official throttling claims since 2008. And 1 of those claims those claims isn't even substantiated.

#38 to #7 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply0

(12/17/2017)[-]

#27 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply+21

(12/17/2017)[-]

I love all the people saying this **** is a good thing.

You know what, I would totally agree with you. If I didn't live in a place that only has one internet service provider who has constantly ****** me already. I pay for 100mb/s upload speed.
I get MAYBE 3mb/s? If It's a real good day. So If comcast decides "Oh you know what, our conservative package for 4chan, Funnyjunk, PraguerU, and LouderWithTheCrowder is going to be 39.99" Well I don't really have any ******* options.

#30 to #27 - drackmore

Reply+9

(12/17/2017)[-]

At least your ISP has the decency to lie to you. I'm ******* lucky to get 15mb/s down and they act like they're ******* proud of that speed.

#31 to #30 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

I can't remember the last time I was actually happy with my internet. Everythings slow, its expensive as **** all, it goes out AT LEAST 3-7 times a day (I swear to god that's not an exaggeration) so when we all the sudden give them these options to **** my already ruptured asshole I'm a bit skeptical.

#35 to #31 - drackmore

Reply+3

(12/17/2017)[-]

Slow as **** as well, and if it wasn't for the fury of a thousand soccer moms condensed in to a single person mine would be expensive as well.

Thankfully mine only goes out around once or twice a month depending on the weather. Slightest bit of rain or snow and bam, power out. I mean ****, I've been telling my power company since I moved in that THEY need to service these trees growing literally right next to the powerlines, the year we finally get some snow and look at that, the tree drops a metric **** load of snow on my powerline snapping my ******* neutral line, fries everything in the house not plugged in to a surge strip.

So yeah, I'm with you on this ****. When I see these morons saying stupid **** like it'll be just how it was before 2015 or stupid **** like ISPs aren't going to abuse the **** out of it I just want to reach through the screen and just smack the **** out of them. I mean like really, how cock do you have to choke on to be so brain damaged to think ISPs aren't going to abuse this anyway they can.

#125 to #27 - anon id: 1b691c34

Reply+1

(12/18/2017)[-]

Maybe you should have spent your time more wisely then, huh? Like campaigning for a competitive option or ******* building one yourself

#91 to #27 - malothere

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

In canada im stuck with ****** telus that, maybe ,on a good day will give me 350 kb/s :/ At least they had the decency to give us unlimited data for no extra cost.

#143 to #27 - sketchE

Reply0

(12/18/2017)[-]

how is title 2 stopping them from throttling you now which theyre clearly doing?

#82 to #27 - oceanfrank

Reply-1

(12/17/2017)[-]

No net neutrality could change that by increasing competition. What are the higher companies gonna do to the businesses that go in and provide better internet services at a lower cost? Cry to the government?

#148 to #82 - anon id: dfd963af

Reply0

(12/18/2017)[-]

You do realize this isn't going to provide competition at all right? Firstly The last time there was any reasonable competition to Comcast/charter/at&t/etc's monopoly was from google fibre from out west and Comcast took a city to court to block them from entering for something along the grounds of unfair competition.

On top of that, the capital needed to start up the infrastructure needed to start up an ISP is immense, those telephone poles and power lines are privately owned so an a startup ISP will need to either place their own or strike a deal with whoever owns them and you know if comcast or AT&T own them then they're going to charge them out the ass. .

Of course they could make their lines go underground but that means spending more and raising maintenance costs.

Lets be real here, NN wasn't stopping anyone from starting up a new ISP. If that was the case we'd have seen a boom of them from 2005-2015. But we didn't, cause it isn't NN that's stopping new ISPs from starting but these money grubbing cunts and this situation isn't made any better when we have literal idiots out here spouting ******* **** off that anyone with an iota of ******* common sense would tell you is ******* nuts.

#114 to #82 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply-2

(12/18/2017)[-]

Ah yes, I'm sure all these random businesses will spring up out of nowhere and somehow topple the monopolies.

I'm sure Charter, Verizon, and AT&T all cheer to get rid of net neutrality because they love losing business to small companies, yup makes sense.

#85 - justuser

Reply+18

(12/17/2017)[-]

#113 - oughtistic

Reply+13

(12/18/2017)[-]

#122 to #113 - MrMeatStick

Reply+5

(12/18/2017)[-]

#23 - Damionic

Reply+12

(12/17/2017)[-]

Still a street *******

#103 - sidnineonefourtwo

Reply+11

(12/17/2017)[-]

People that think Comcast was against Net Neutrality...Comcast owns NBC. NBC has been advocating NN from the get go and slandering Ajit nonstop just as every other major corporation in the US is currently doing. The fact that so many of you are being played for a fool is astounding.

Comcast fighting for the repeal was a ruse. They were for NN all along and ran a huge smear campaign against anyone advocating the repeal. That being said it failed miserably because the people didn't have a say in the matter. If they did, Comcast would be grinning ear to ear right now because Title 2 would still be in effect next year.

Comcast was the enemy that they could get you all to rally over. Little did you know, you were fighting for their cause all along.

#110 to #103 - thickpeepee#263 on contentRank#263

Reply+5

(12/18/2017)[-]

On top of that, Battle for the Net, the site where everyone gets most of their info from along with the memes they spam on social media, is funded by George Soros, who has shares in both Comcast and Time Warner (quite massive shares in Time Warner actually, and he increased his shares in both recently after this fiasco started).

The bill itself is not repealing net neutrality, it's rolling back on some policies. Comcast is just loving the hate the bill is getting because the bill would allow the FTC to monitor their anti-competitive behavior better.
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Dai...

#19 - mudkipsage#443 on commentsRank#443

Reply+2

(12/17/2017)[-]

What you really need is a freedom of communication law.

Stating that content cannot be prioritized, or monetized, unless you explicitly state you are doing so. So if you slow down a website, they HAVE to notify you that the website is being slowed. It wont fix the problem, but being forced to show you are slowing down certain websites will cause people to know when they need to yell at you.

#41 to #19 - mendelevium#89 on commentsRank#89

Reply+9

(12/17/2017)[-]

They shouldn't be able to slow down ANY website.

The internet is information, slowing down any type of information is a form of censorship.

A book store shouldn't be allowed to be like "Alright, we will let you read Mein Kampf but you're forced to take 20 minutes to turn each page." And if you don't think they aren't going to slow it down to the point of unusability, well they already have, many many times, and there are plenty of court cases you can read about ISP's slowing down services like Limewire and many other peer to peer softwares while LIEING about it to their consumers.

#22 to #19 - battletechmech

Reply+7

(12/17/2017)[-]

That's literally what they have to do now

#39 to #19 - nickelakon

Reply+3

(12/17/2017)[-]

Thats actually all already in title 1
Its called the transperancy act or whatever

#28 to #19 - belikea

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

They do have to now. But they also have to tell you a lot of things already. And how many times have you read the license agreement before clicking "I Agree"?

#29 to #28 - mudkipsage#443 on commentsRank#443

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

~20 times. Companies seemed shady as ****.

#32 to #29 - belikea

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

Indeed. And some people don't even bother with the 20 times. So companies are going to disclose what they're legally bound to disclose, and the general public isn't going to know because they didn't or couldn't read the fine print.

#34 to #32 - mudkipsage#443 on commentsRank#443

Reply+1

(12/17/2017)[-]

I want an icon like they have to do for paid advertisements.

#144 to #19 - sketchE

Reply0

(12/18/2017)[-]

yeah i im pretty sure that was in the antitrust laws. passed more than 100 years ago

First 2 3 Last Next

[ 154 comments ]

Add Comment