| Off Topic > Off Topic |
| [NEWS] Yet again the FCC is threatening net neutrality (PETITION) |
| << < (38/70) > >> |
| e-maxx:
--- Quote from: IkeTheGeneric on November 27, 2017, 03:09:03 PM ---Is your girlfriend paying for yours? Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. --- End quote --- his kids pay for it |
| IkeTheGeneric:
--- Quote from: Tayasaurus on November 27, 2017, 03:11:28 PM ---What if we made a better internet? With like, blackjack and hookers? --- End quote --- hell yeah |
| Ipquarx:
--- Quote from: Corderlain on November 27, 2017, 08:24:08 AM ---If what this says is true then I definitely support the repeal of net neutrality. And don't sneer T where its from, everything is sourced --- End quote --- Damn, these are some seriously shady tactics. This is a pretty common one, to list a whole ton of things that sound vaguely true when they're completely out of context and hope that the sheer number of things convinces a person that the whole point is collectively true. That way, if someone "disproves" just one of them then you can cry tunnel vision. So let me point out the flaws in every single one of these, leaving the argument with literally nothing to stand on: 1: Privacy. Congress already ruled that ISPs are free to monitor and sell your traffic. It's a bill that was signed into law by the current president. This overrides any existing FCC regulations. 2: "No Throttling" promise. They're free to quietly withdraw their promise at any time and receive no consequences whatsoever. This is a common tactic known as "Lie loudly, retract quietly." Comcast has already retracted part of their promise and they're only going to retract more and more until there's nothing left. 3: Is literally just saying there exists a regulation against misleading advertising despite the fact that ISPs do misleading and shady advertising all the loving time with not so much as a slap on the wrist. Irrelevant and wrong. 4: Is literally just saying there exists regulations against multiple companies conspiring together to block or throttle certain things. This is unenforceable because they can simply say that they independently came up with it and the FCC is physically incapable of proving otherwise. It also doesn't mention anything about giving priority to anything. 5: Is unenforceable again because ISPs can just prioritize their own service over netflix. This has already happened in Canada before Net Neutrality was enforced (I actually had to sell some phone plans on this very premise, euch), and as an additional example, they can put it in a package that costs extra. It's not blocking since you can still get it, you just have to pay for it. Other countries are already doing this. It's not a matter of "are ISPs willing to do this," it's a matter of "how long until they're able to get away with it." 6: is actually really loving hilarious. I have no loving clue how this got into an official FCC report because: It's a completely irrelevant piece of text cherrypicked from a Utility Air Regaulatory Group v. EPA court ruling. It has nothing to do with the FCC, the internet, or anything else. (Ctrl+F "statutory power") 7: is literally saying that the FCC has the legal capability to reinstate net neutrality. No stuff, but they won't. That's the whole point. So in summary, literally none of it is true and relevant, and never ever loving trust /r/the_donald. |
| cblock360:
Freedom is a myth. |
| Drydess:
--- Quote from: Tayasaurus on November 27, 2017, 03:11:28 PM ---What if we made a better internet? With like, blackjack and hookers? --- End quote --- or we could build a great internet... and make mexico pay for it |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |