Current Events > Net neutrality might end.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
Gamer99z 11/23/17 3:37:15 PM #101:	Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Funkydog posted... ThyCorndog posted... what's with all the authoritarian idiots wanting isp's to have control over what you have access to? Because that is more preferable than letting the government have control and being able to tell them to knock it off, evidently. I hope you don't have a problem with the ToS on this site which controls what you are allowed to say. It's the same damn thing Not really comparable at all. The internet as a whole has become a critical part of modern life to the point where many, myself included, believe it should be certified as a utility. This is just a privately-owned completely non-essential gaming website that really bad no real significance in life. It's practically as stupid as if electricity wasn't a utility, you had one electric company choice, they intentionally charged way more than they need to, and would limit your allowed power consumption because the bigger city beside you paid more and gets priority. Then trying to argue that fair because they're a business, their goal is to make money, and if you don't like it you can switch to another company that doesn't exist and isn't coming. Shit in a lot of third world countries and poor areas in the world power outages are regular and the grid will prioritize some things over others but I doubt you want something like that to happen here.... And yeah electricity is more important than internet but that doesn't mean it still isn't deserving of being a utility and that it hasn't become essential in modern life and as such shouldn't be solely monopolized and price gouged and allowed to create this weird fucked up internet that exists solely for corporate financial gain when they already have the entire market locked down as is. it's not even most anticonsumer but anti small business too because a lot of things trying to break into a market as competition will get drowned out by a bigger company. It's like you actually want everything to just ultimately be monopolized... How you can claim to support the free market, yet be against having an open, free, and neutral internet that's a level playing field for everyone is mind bogglingly contradictory to me. --- "You need to lay off the peanut-butthurt and u-jelly sandwiches" - Neon Octopus <cite>Gamer99z posted [p:890936392] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Funkydog posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote> what's with all the authoritarian idiots wanting isp's to have control over what you have access to? </quote> Because that is more preferable than letting the government have control and being able to tell them to knock it off, evidently.</quote> I hope you don't have a problem with the ToS on this site which controls what you are allowed to say. It's the same damn thing</quote> Not really comparable at all. The internet as a whole has become a critical part of modern life to the point where many, myself included, believe it should be certified as a utility. This is just a privately-owned completely non-essential gaming website that really bad no real significance in life. It's practically as stupid as if electricity wasn't a utility, you had one electric company choice, they intentionally charged way more than they need to, and would limit your allowed power consumption because the bigger city beside you paid more and gets priority. Then trying to argue that fair because they're a business, their goal is to make money, and if you don't like it you can switch to another company that doesn't exist and isn't coming. Shit in a lot of third world countries and poor areas in the world power outages are regular and the grid will prioritize some things over others but I doubt you want something like that to happen here.... And yeah electricity is more important than internet but that doesn't mean it still isn't deserving of being a utility and that it hasn't become essential in modern life and as such shouldn't be solely monopolized and price gouged and allowed to create this weird fucked up internet that exists solely for corporate financial gain when they already have the entire market locked down as is. it's not even most anticonsumer but anti small business too because a lot of things trying to break into a market as competition will get drowned out by a bigger company. It's like you actually want everything to just ultimately be monopolized... How you can claim to support the free market, yet be against having an open, free, and neutral internet that's a level playing field for everyone is mind bogglingly contradictory to me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 3:38:46 PM #102:	Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... For most people, this will LOWER prices since most people live in urban or suburban areas. No it won't. The telecoms will work together to set prices and ensure that won't happen. You're nuts if you actually think a free market would regulate itself to the benefit of the public. Too many people get greedy and take advantage of situations. Which is illegal and will get stopped. Why work together when I can take business from my competetion by being more affordable. That's the beauty of the free market: it helps everyone --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890936484] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>For most people, this will LOWER prices since most people live in urban or suburban areas. </quote> No it won't. The telecoms will work together to set prices and ensure that won't happen. You're nuts if you actually think a free market would regulate itself to the benefit of the public. Too many people get greedy and take advantage of situations.</quote> Which is illegal and will get stopped. Why work together when I can take business from my competetion by being more affordable. That's the beauty of the free market: it helps everyone</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThyCorndog 11/23/17 3:39:48 PM #103:	Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... it will only be the people who spend too much time on the internet effected and I'm ok with that oh look another authoritarian. yea let's control how much internet people have access to --- Hey what's going on in this thread http://i.imgur.com/6fpKRW8.gif http://i.imgur.com/RNZi0gk.gif <cite>ThyCorndog posted [p:890936542] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>it will only be the people who spend too much time on the internet effected and I'm ok with that</quote> oh look another authoritarian. yea let's control how much internet people have access to</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 3:47:09 PM #104:	ThyCorndog posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... it will only be the people who spend too much time on the internet effected and I'm ok with that oh look another authoritarian. yea let's control how much internet people have access to It's not that, it's just that if you use more, you should spend more --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890936885] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>ThyCorndog posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>it will only be the people who spend too much time on the internet effected and I'm ok with that</quote> oh look another authoritarian. yea let's control how much internet people have access to</quote> It's not that, it's just that if you use more, you should spend more</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#105	Post #105 was unavailable or deleted.
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 3:51:10 PM #106:	Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... For most people, this will LOWER prices since most people live in urban or suburban areas. No it won't. The telecoms will work together to set prices and ensure that won't happen. You're nuts if you actually think a free market would regulate itself to the benefit of the public. Too many people get greedy and take advantage of situations. Which is illegal and will get stopped. Why work together when I can take business from my competetion by being more affordable. That's the beauty of the free market: it helps everyone No. Because then your competition undercuts you, knowing you'll undercut them. The route you end up taking is working with your competitors to keep prices high and divide customers between you. Or I could just be the most affordable and then I don't have to divide customers, I can have them all. Which would force the competition to lower prices or fail. The invisible hand always works because ironically being greedy helps society --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890937075] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>For most people, this will LOWER prices since most people live in urban or suburban areas. </quote> No it won't. The telecoms will work together to set prices and ensure that won't happen. You're nuts if you actually think a free market would regulate itself to the benefit of the public. Too many people get greedy and take advantage of situations.</quote> Which is illegal and will get stopped. Why work together when I can take business from my competetion by being more affordable. That's the beauty of the free market: it helps everyone</quote> No. Because then your competition undercuts you, knowing you'll undercut them. The route you end up taking is working with your competitors to keep prices high and divide customers between you.</quote> Or I could just be the most affordable and then I don't have to divide customers, I can have them all. Which would force the competition to lower prices or fail. The invisible hand always works because ironically being greedy helps society</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#107	Post #107 was unavailable or deleted.
LordRazziel 11/23/17 3:56:42 PM #108:	Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... For most people, this will LOWER prices since most people live in urban or suburban areas. No it won't. The telecoms will work together to set prices and ensure that won't happen. You're nuts if you actually think a free market would regulate itself to the benefit of the public. Too many people get greedy and take advantage of situations. Which is illegal and will get stopped. Why work together when I can take business from my competetion by being more affordable. That's the beauty of the free market: it helps everyone No. Because then your competition undercuts you, knowing you'll undercut them. The route you end up taking is working with your competitors to keep prices high and divide customers between you. Or I could just be the most affordable and then I don't have to divide customers, I can have them all. Which would force the competition to lower prices or fail. The invisible hand always works because ironically being greedy helps society How does net neutrality hinder this? --- http://i.imgur.com/8pzUM.gif http://i.imgur.com/Oh1iujg.gif The only bad part about flying is having to come back down to the f***in' world ~Rat <cite>LordRazziel posted [p:890937335] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>For most people, this will LOWER prices since most people live in urban or suburban areas. </quote> No it won't. The telecoms will work together to set prices and ensure that won't happen. You're nuts if you actually think a free market would regulate itself to the benefit of the public. Too many people get greedy and take advantage of situations.</quote> Which is illegal and will get stopped. Why work together when I can take business from my competetion by being more affordable. That's the beauty of the free market: it helps everyone</quote> No. Because then your competition undercuts you, knowing you'll undercut them. The route you end up taking is working with your competitors to keep prices high and divide customers between you.</quote> Or I could just be the most affordable and then I don't have to divide customers, I can have them all. Which would force the competition to lower prices or fail. The invisible hand always works because ironically being greedy helps society</quote> How does net neutrality hinder this?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 11/23/17 4:00:55 PM #109:	Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... It's not that, it's just that if you use more, you should spend more Companies can already charge people based on how much data they use. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:890937523] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>It's not that, it's just that if you use more, you should spend more </quote> Companies can already charge people based on how much data they use.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 4:01:22 PM #110:	Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... For most people, this will LOWER prices since most people live in urban or suburban areas. No it won't. The telecoms will work together to set prices and ensure that won't happen. You're nuts if you actually think a free market would regulate itself to the benefit of the public. Too many people get greedy and take advantage of situations. Which is illegal and will get stopped. Why work together when I can take business from my competetion by being more affordable. That's the beauty of the free market: it helps everyone No. Because then your competition undercuts you, knowing you'll undercut them. The route you end up taking is working with your competitors to keep prices high and divide customers between you. Or I could just be the most affordable and then I don't have to divide customers, I can have them all. Which would force the competition to lower prices or fail. The invisible hand always works because ironically being greedy helps society But then someone would just undercut you, you'd undercut them, rinse, repeat til profits are negligible. You all make a sizable profit when you make deals with your competitors at the expense of the public (which is happening now) No, eventually we would all match a price that couldn't go any lower without losing profit. It's called equilibrium. It's the whole basis if supply and demand and economics. --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890937548] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>For most people, this will LOWER prices since most people live in urban or suburban areas. </quote> No it won't. The telecoms will work together to set prices and ensure that won't happen. You're nuts if you actually think a free market would regulate itself to the benefit of the public. Too many people get greedy and take advantage of situations.</quote> Which is illegal and will get stopped. Why work together when I can take business from my competetion by being more affordable. That's the beauty of the free market: it helps everyone</quote> No. Because then your competition undercuts you, knowing you'll undercut them. The route you end up taking is working with your competitors to keep prices high and divide customers between you.</quote> Or I could just be the most affordable and then I don't have to divide customers, I can have them all. Which would force the competition to lower prices or fail. The invisible hand always works because ironically being greedy helps society</quote> But then someone would just undercut you, you'd undercut them, rinse, repeat til profits are negligible. You all make a sizable profit when you make deals with your competitors at the expense of the public (which is happening now)</quote> No, eventually we would all match a price that couldn't go any lower without losing profit. It's called equilibrium. It's the whole basis if supply and demand and economics.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 4:03:13 PM #111:	JE19426 posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... It's not that, it's just that if you use more, you should spend more Companies can already charge people based on how much data they use. Your point? If t mobile charges 30 bucks for 10 gigs and 40 for 20 gigs all it does it saves money for consumers and allow people to find packages that match their usage which sounds fair --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890937643] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>It's not that, it's just that if you use more, you should spend more </quote> Companies can already charge people based on how much data they use.</quote> Your point? If t mobile charges 30 bucks for 10 gigs and 40 for 20 gigs all it does it saves money for consumers and allow people to find packages that match their usage which sounds fair</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#112	Post #112 was unavailable or deleted.
JE19426 11/23/17 4:05:29 PM #113:	Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your point? My point is that net neutrality has no effect on whether or not people who use more internet have to pay more. Therefore claiming net neutrality should be elimated, so people who use more internet have to pay more is foolishness. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:890937753] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>Your point?</quote> My point is that net neutrality has no effect on whether or not people who use more internet have to pay more. Therefore claiming net neutrality should be elimated, so people who use more internet have to pay more is foolishness.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordRazziel 11/23/17 4:06:46 PM #114:	@Y2J0sHBK_GB How will the repeal of net neutrality save consumers money? How does net neutrality hinder hinder completion? --- http://i.imgur.com/8pzUM.gif http://i.imgur.com/Oh1iujg.gif The only bad part about flying is having to come back down to the f***in' world ~Rat <cite>LordRazziel posted [p:890937815] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote>@Y2J0sHBK_GB How will the repeal of net neutrality save consumers money? How does net neutrality hinder hinder completion?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gamer99z 11/23/17 4:10:15 PM #115:	Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... For most people, this will LOWER prices since most people live in urban or suburban areas. No it won't. The telecoms will work together to set prices and ensure that won't happen. You're nuts if you actually think a free market would regulate itself to the benefit of the public. Too many people get greedy and take advantage of situations. Which is illegal and will get stopped. Why work together when I can take business from my competetion by being more affordable. That's the beauty of the free market: it helps everyone Did you just cite a consumer protection regulation on the market as a reason why we don't need consumer protecting regulations on the market because the free market is so "beautiful" and doesn't need regulation? --- "You need to lay off the peanut-butthurt and u-jelly sandwiches" - Neon Octopus <cite>Gamer99z posted [p:890937980] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote> For most people, this will LOWER prices since most people live in urban or suburban areas. </quote> No it won't. The telecoms will work together to set prices and ensure that won't happen. You're nuts if you actually think a free market would regulate itself to the benefit of the public. Too many people get greedy and take advantage of situations.</quote> Which is illegal and will get stopped. Why work together when I can take business from my competetion by being more affordable. That's the beauty of the free market: it helps everyone</quote> Did you just cite a consumer protection regulation on the market as a reason why we don't need consumer protecting regulations on the market because the free market is so "beautiful" and doesn't need regulation?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 4:13:48 PM #116:	JE19426 posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your point? My point is that net neutrality has no effect on whether or not people who use more internet have to pay more. Therefore claiming net neutrality should be elimated, so people who use more internet have to pay more is foolishness. It's fair. It creates different packages so the person who only uses it for email and YouTube isn't paying the same as the person who uses TBs a month. I know we are on a video game site but you need to realize that the large majority of this country doesn't use much data and is currently being overcharged. And... Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal. I mean whether or not it would occur is hypothetical but in a world full of leaks, it seems too risky to actively engage in. I mean the idea that prices will sky rocket is based on what logic anyways? If nothing else, this should prove as an interesting experiment. Let's at least wait and sees how it all plays out because right now it's all speculation. Why jump immediately to the doomsday thought? --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890938152] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>Your point?</quote> My point is that net neutrality has no effect on whether or not people who use more internet have to pay more. Therefore claiming net neutrality should be elimated, so people who use more internet have to pay more is foolishness.</quote> It's fair. It creates different packages so the person who only uses it for email and YouTube isn't paying the same as the person who uses TBs a month. I know we are on a video game site but you need to realize that the large majority of this country doesn't use much data and is currently being overcharged. And... Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal. I mean whether or not it would occur is hypothetical but in a world full of leaks, it seems too risky to actively engage in. I mean the idea that prices will sky rocket is based on what logic anyways? If nothing else, this should prove as an interesting experiment. Let's at least wait and sees how it all plays out because right now it's all speculation. Why jump immediately to the doomsday thought?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 4:15:12 PM #117:	I think the thought here is is the site who uses the internet more ala this site might pay more but the average person who might use 10 gigs at most a month will pay less. What's so bad about that other than it hurts you? The truth is it's more fair and will help more people --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890938232] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote>I think the thought here is is the site who uses the internet more ala this site might pay more but the average person who might use 10 gigs at most a month will pay less. What's so bad about that other than it hurts you? The truth is it's more fair and will help more people</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 11/23/17 4:17:24 PM #118:	Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... It's fair. It creates different packages so the person who only uses it for email and YouTube isn't paying the same as the person who uses TBs a month. I know we are on a video game site but you need to realize that the large majority of this country doesn't use much data and is currently being overcharged. People are can already be charged more if the use TBs a month then if if they only use a couple of GBs. Net neutrality, all you are doing is repeating false claims that make you look foolish. Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal. mean whether or not it would occur is hypothetical but in a world full of leaks, it seems too risky to actively engage in. I've never mentioned price fixing in this topic, so good job looking like a fool. I mean the idea that prices will sky rocket is based on what logic anyways? Why are you asking me this? <cite>JE19426 posted [p:890938367] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>It's fair. It creates different packages so the person who only uses it for email and YouTube isn't paying the same as the person who uses TBs a month. I know we are on a video game site but you need to realize that the large majority of this country doesn't use much data and is currently being overcharged. </quote> People are can already be charged more if the use TBs a month then if if they only use a couple of GBs. Net neutrality, all you are doing is repeating false claims that make you look foolish. <quote>Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal. mean whether or not it would occur is hypothetical but in a world full of leaks, it seems too risky to actively engage in. </quote> I've never mentioned price fixing in this topic, so good job looking like a fool. <quote>I mean the idea that prices will sky rocket is based on what logic anyways?</quote> Why are you asking me this?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordRazziel 11/23/17 4:17:29 PM #119:	Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... JE19426 posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your point? My point is that net neutrality has no effect on whether or not people who use more internet have to pay more. Therefore claiming net neutrality should be elimated, so people who use more internet have to pay more is foolishness. It's fair. It creates different packages so the person who only uses it for email and YouTube isn't paying the same as the person who uses TBs a month. I know we are on a video game site but you need to realize that the large majority of this country doesn't use much data and is currently being overcharged. And... Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal. I mean whether or not it would occur is hypothetical but in a world full of leaks, it seems too risky to actively engage in. I mean the idea that prices will sky rocket is based on what logic anyways? If nothing else, this should prove as an interesting experiment. Let's at least wait and sees how it all plays out because right now it's all speculation. Why jump immediately to the doomsday thought? You can already have rates based on usage. --- http://i.imgur.com/8pzUM.gif http://i.imgur.com/Oh1iujg.gif The only bad part about flying is having to come back down to the f***in' world ~Rat <cite>LordRazziel posted [p:890938372] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>Your point?</quote> My point is that net neutrality has no effect on whether or not people who use more internet have to pay more. Therefore claiming net neutrality should be elimated, so people who use more internet have to pay more is foolishness.</quote> It's fair. It creates different packages so the person who only uses it for email and YouTube isn't paying the same as the person who uses TBs a month. I know we are on a video game site but you need to realize that the large majority of this country doesn't use much data and is currently being overcharged. And... Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal. I mean whether or not it would occur is hypothetical but in a world full of leaks, it seems too risky to actively engage in. I mean the idea that prices will sky rocket is based on what logic anyways? If nothing else, this should prove as an interesting experiment. Let's at least wait and sees how it all plays out because right now it's all speculation. Why jump immediately to the doomsday thought?</quote> You can already have rates based on usage.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 4:20:46 PM #120:	JE19426 posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... It's fair. It creates different packages so the person who only uses it for email and YouTube isn't paying the same as the person who uses TBs a month. I know we are on a video game site but you need to realize that the large majority of this country doesn't use much data and is currently being overcharged. People are can already be charged more if the use TBs a month then if if they only use a couple of GBs. Net neutrality, all you are doing is repeating false claims that make you look foolish. Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal. mean whether or not it would occur is hypothetical but in a world full of leaks, it seems too risky to actively engage in. I've never mentioned price fixing in this topic, so good job looking like a fool. I mean the idea that prices will sky rocket is based on what logic anyways? Why are you asking me this? I wasn't asking you. I had too many quote blocks. I was asking the other guy. I made an html problem and couldn't find it and said fuck it :-p The first part was all that matters. If I was gonna ask you a question, I'd wonder why you would jump to pessimistic attitudes so fast? We know not the future here. There are good arguments for both sides, why not let it all play out first? --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890938523] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>It's fair. It creates different packages so the person who only uses it for email and YouTube isn't paying the same as the person who uses TBs a month. I know we are on a video game site but you need to realize that the large majority of this country doesn't use much data and is currently being overcharged. </quote> People are can already be charged more if the use TBs a month then if if they only use a couple of GBs. Net neutrality, all you are doing is repeating false claims that make you look foolish. <quote>Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal. mean whether or not it would occur is hypothetical but in a world full of leaks, it seems too risky to actively engage in. </quote> I've never mentioned price fixing in this topic, so good job looking like a fool. <quote>I mean the idea that prices will sky rocket is based on what logic anyways?</quote> Why are you asking me this?</quote> I wasn't asking you. I had too many quote blocks. I was asking the other guy. I made an html problem and couldn't find it and said fuck it :-p The first part was all that matters. If I was gonna ask you a question, I'd wonder why you would jump to pessimistic attitudes so fast? We know not the future here. There are good arguments for both sides, why not let it all play out first?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#121	Post #121 was unavailable or deleted.
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 4:28:46 PM #122:	Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890938929] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal</quote> So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers.</quote> Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#123	Post #123 was unavailable or deleted.
JohnLennon8 11/23/17 4:34:53 PM #124:	Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay? <cite>JohnLennon8 posted [p:890939210] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal</quote> So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers.</quote> Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic</quote> Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to</quote> So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 4:36:48 PM #125:	https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2015/02/27/how-will-net-neutrality-affect-consumers/ It covers both hypotheticals that could happen. Honestly at this point, prices could raise or they could lower. Which is why I'm suggesting we all just chill out on the topic. I've only been arguing the theory of it all itt since there is no real world evidence either way --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890939296] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote>https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2015/02/27/how-will-net-neutrality-affect-consumers/ It covers both hypotheticals that could happen. Honestly at this point, prices could raise or they could lower. Which is why I'm suggesting we all just chill out on the topic. I've only been arguing the theory of it all itt since there is no real world evidence either way</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
chrono625 11/23/17 4:44:20 PM #126:	Free market only works if you have competition. With regional monopolies this isn't the case. It's going to be a fucking disaster. Slow speeds, internet packages, tracking what kind of data is being sent. This clearly only benefits the ISP'S and not the consumer. This is so anti-consumer it shouldn't even be possible we are talking about it. --- http://i.imgur.com/Rqk1DYV.gif - Super Bowl XXI/XXV/XLII/XLVI Champions - NY Giants Eli Manning SB tracker: 2/2 Superbowls 2/2 SBMVP's <cite>chrono625 posted [p:890939688] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote>Free market only works if you have competition. With regional monopolies this isn't the case. It's going to be a fucking disaster. Slow speeds, internet packages, tracking what kind of data is being sent. This clearly only benefits the ISP'S and not the consumer. This is so anti-consumer it shouldn't even be possible we are talking about it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#127	Post #127 was unavailable or deleted.
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 4:53:52 PM #128:	Bullet_Wing posted... http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenworcel-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-20171122-story.html Actual Commissioner on the FCC wrote an op-ed against Pai's plan But it's just that, an opinion. Which is fine, but again, aren't facts more relevant? I'm just saying people need to stop jumping the gun --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890940168] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote>http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenworcel-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-20171122-story.html Actual Commissioner on the FCC wrote an op-ed against Pai's plan</quote> But it's just that, an opinion. Which is fine, but again, aren't facts more relevant? I'm just saying people need to stop jumping the gun</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gamer99z 11/23/17 4:54:28 PM #129:	JohnLennon8 posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay? People would pay an arm and a leg for electricity if they had to. They'd pay an arm and a leg for access to clean drinkable water. Do you think it would be okay if in America those industries were monopolized, and allowed to charge absurd prices because it's a necessity? While also prioritizing people who pay more. Or how about if every pharmaceutical company Martin Shkreli'd every drug and treatment on the market for life threatening conditions because they know people will pay whatever they have to in order to survive? I mean, free market, am I right? --- "You need to lay off the peanut-butthurt and u-jelly sandwiches" - Neon Octopus <cite>Gamer99z posted [p:890940199] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>JohnLennon8 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote> Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal </quote> So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. </quote> Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic </quote> Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to</quote> So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay?</quote> People would pay an arm and a leg for electricity if they had to. They'd pay an arm and a leg for access to clean drinkable water. Do you think it would be okay if in America those industries were monopolized, and allowed to charge absurd prices because it's a necessity? While also prioritizing people who pay more. Or how about if every pharmaceutical company Martin Shkreli'd every drug and treatment on the market for life threatening conditions because they know people will pay whatever they have to in order to survive? I mean, free market, am I right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordRazziel 11/23/17 4:55:24 PM #130:	Gamer99z posted... JohnLennon8 posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay? People would pay an arm and a leg for electricity if they had to. They'd pay an arm and a leg for access to clean drinkable water. Do you think it would be okay if in America those industries were monopolized, and allowed to charge absurd prices because it's a necessity? While also prioritizing people who pay more. Or how about if every pharmaceutical company Martin Shkreli'd every drug and treatment on the market for life threatening conditions because they know people will pay whatever they have to in order to survive? I mean, free market, am I right? You're responding to Hoth. --- http://i.imgur.com/8pzUM.gif http://i.imgur.com/Oh1iujg.gif The only bad part about flying is having to come back down to the f***in' world ~Rat <cite>LordRazziel posted [p:890940253] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Gamer99z posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JohnLennon8 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote> Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal </quote> So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. </quote> Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic </quote> Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to</quote> So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay?</quote> People would pay an arm and a leg for electricity if they had to. They'd pay an arm and a leg for access to clean drinkable water. Do you think it would be okay if in America those industries were monopolized, and allowed to charge absurd prices because it's a necessity? While also prioritizing people who pay more. Or how about if every pharmaceutical company Martin Shkreli'd every drug and treatment on the market for life threatening conditions because they know people will pay whatever they have to in order to survive? I mean, free market, am I right?</quote> You're responding to Hoth.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gamer99z 11/23/17 5:02:27 PM #131:	LordRazziel posted... Gamer99z posted... JohnLennon8 posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay? People would pay an arm and a leg for electricity if they had to. They'd pay an arm and a leg for access to clean drinkable water. Do you think it would be okay if in America those industries were monopolized, and allowed to charge absurd prices because it's a necessity? While also prioritizing people who pay more. Or how about if every pharmaceutical company Martin Shkreli'd every drug and treatment on the market for life threatening conditions because they know people will pay whatever they have to in order to survive? I mean, free market, am I right? You're responding to Hoth. I mean at this point I'm just doing it to see the responses because everyone I've tried to have a discussion with to see the other side eventually dips out so I'm assuming they're just trolling, intentionally contrarian, ignorant, or a combination. First Fluffy, then that P2whatever guy. At least JohnHothlin will probably say something I can laugh at. Bonus points if I can get him to mention California >_> --- "You need to lay off the peanut-butthurt and u-jelly sandwiches" - Neon Octopus <cite>Gamer99z posted [p:890940618] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>LordRazziel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Gamer99z posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>JohnLennon8 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote> Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal </quote> So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. </quote> Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic </quote> Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to </quote> So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay? </quote> People would pay an arm and a leg for electricity if they had to. They'd pay an arm and a leg for access to clean drinkable water. Do you think it would be okay if in America those industries were monopolized, and allowed to charge absurd prices because it's a necessity? While also prioritizing people who pay more. Or how about if every pharmaceutical company Martin Shkreli'd every drug and treatment on the market for life threatening conditions because they know people will pay whatever they have to in order to survive? I mean, free market, am I right?</quote> You're responding to Hoth.</quote> I mean at this point I'm just doing it to see the responses because everyone I've tried to have a discussion with to see the other side eventually dips out so I'm assuming they're just trolling, intentionally contrarian, ignorant, or a combination. First Fluffy, then that P2whatever guy. At least JohnHothlin will probably say something I can laugh at. Bonus points if I can get him to mention California >_></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 5:03:10 PM #132:	Gamer99z posted... JohnLennon8 posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay? People would pay an arm and a leg for electricity if they had to. They'd pay an arm and a leg for access to clean drinkable water. Do you think it would be okay if in America those industries were monopolized, and allowed to charge absurd prices because it's a necessity? While also prioritizing people who pay more. Or how about if every pharmaceutical company Martin Shkreli'd every drug and treatment on the market for life threatening conditions because they know people will pay whatever they have to in order to survive? I mean, free market, am I right? Your argument isn't about free market. There are no free market electricity. There is no free market water. And most drugs are patented which means no free market. With no free market and an inelastic demand, of course prices sky rocket. If you want free market, look at something actually free market like cereal --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890940654] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Gamer99z posted...</cite> <quote><cite>JohnLennon8 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote> Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal </quote> So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. </quote> Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic </quote> Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to</quote> So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay?</quote> People would pay an arm and a leg for electricity if they had to. They'd pay an arm and a leg for access to clean drinkable water. Do you think it would be okay if in America those industries were monopolized, and allowed to charge absurd prices because it's a necessity? While also prioritizing people who pay more. Or how about if every pharmaceutical company Martin Shkreli'd every drug and treatment on the market for life threatening conditions because they know people will pay whatever they have to in order to survive? I mean, free market, am I right?</quote> Your argument isn't about free market. There are no free market electricity. There is no free market water. And most drugs are patented which means no free market. With no free market and an inelastic demand, of course prices sky rocket. If you want free market, look at something actually free market like cereal</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
knuxnole 11/23/17 5:04:48 PM #133:	Gamer99z posted... knuxnole posted... metralo posted... conservashits and neo nazis (same thing I guess) act like they care so much about spending less money, but are willingly accepting getting their wallet fucked by trump classic lol I have a good job so money means nothing to me. "Money means nothing to me" is one of the dumbest things you could say no matter how rich you are. That just screams poor money management skills and is a major fuck up waiting to happen. Not really, I just have an expensive lifestyle. If I'm out on the town I probably put down over 100 dollars on food and drink. Little "nickel and dime" things don't bother me honestly, I don't even miss the money being gone. --- 3DS FC: 4554-0309-4782 <cite>knuxnole posted [p:890940723] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Gamer99z posted...</cite> <quote><cite>knuxnole posted...</cite> <quote><cite>metralo posted...</cite> <quote> conservashits and neo nazis (same thing I guess) act like they care so much about spending less money, but are willingly accepting getting their wallet fucked by trump classic</quote> lol I have a good job so money means nothing to me.</quote> "Money means nothing to me" is one of the dumbest things you could say no matter how rich you are. That just screams poor money management skills and is a major fuck up waiting to happen.</quote> Not really, I just have an expensive lifestyle. If I'm out on the town I probably put down over 100 dollars on food and drink. Little "nickel and dime" things don't bother me honestly, I don't even miss the money being gone.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Gamer99z 11/23/17 5:08:22 PM #134:	Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Gamer99z posted... JohnLennon8 posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay? People would pay an arm and a leg for electricity if they had to. They'd pay an arm and a leg for access to clean drinkable water. Do you think it would be okay if in America those industries were monopolized, and allowed to charge absurd prices because it's a necessity? While also prioritizing people who pay more. Or how about if every pharmaceutical company Martin Shkreli'd every drug and treatment on the market for life threatening conditions because they know people will pay whatever they have to in order to survive? I mean, free market, am I right? Your argument isn't about free market. There are no free market electricity. There is no free market water. And most drugs are patented which means no free market. With no free market and an inelastic demand, of course prices sky rocket. If you want free market, look at something actually free market like cereal I know those things aren't free market. I'm asking if they should be. If regulation is bad, and free market always works out, do you think those things should be deregulated and allowed to run freely. If so then just lol. If not then why don't you support something like the internet, which has become essential in the modern age, being treated as such? Not to mention you could argue that the internet has become a market of it's own and that everyone should have equal, neutral access to that market to run freely... --- "You need to lay off the peanut-butthurt and u-jelly sandwiches" - Neon Octopus <cite>Gamer99z posted [p:890940925] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Gamer99z posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>JohnLennon8 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote> Your argument though is based on price fixing which is illegal </quote> So regulations are okay when they help your position? I thought that this free market was supposed to be self regulating and self sustained? In a truly free market, price fixing would be far preferable to suppliers than equilibrium. Equilibrium is great for consumers, not so much the sellers. </quote> Only with inelastic products. Internet is elastic </quote> Almost everyone wants the internet and will pay whatever they have to </quote> So you agree that they should be able to charge whatever people are willing to pay? </quote> People would pay an arm and a leg for electricity if they had to. They'd pay an arm and a leg for access to clean drinkable water. Do you think it would be okay if in America those industries were monopolized, and allowed to charge absurd prices because it's a necessity? While also prioritizing people who pay more. Or how about if every pharmaceutical company Martin Shkreli'd every drug and treatment on the market for life threatening conditions because they know people will pay whatever they have to in order to survive? I mean, free market, am I right?</quote> Your argument isn't about free market. There are no free market electricity. There is no free market water. And most drugs are patented which means no free market. With no free market and an inelastic demand, of course prices sky rocket. If you want free market, look at something actually free market like cereal</quote> I know those things aren't free market. I'm asking if they should be. If regulation is bad, and free market always works out, do you think those things should be deregulated and allowed to run freely. If so then just lol. If not then why don't you support something like the internet, which has become essential in the modern age, being treated as such? Not to mention you could argue that the internet has become a market of it's own and that everyone should have equal, neutral access to that market to run freely...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#135	Post #135 was unavailable or deleted.
knuxnole 11/23/17 5:10:32 PM #136:	A good analogy I heard is that it'll be more like Cable TV, where some ISPs will have better control and content, and that's good seeing as how Cable TV is in a great place right now. And again, what's wrong with that? Why should the internet be a level playing field? The internet doesn't deserve to be open. It will make consumers smart on which ISPs to choose since some may pay extra for social media sites, and some search engines be faster. Or, they have to just friggin deal with it. Plus, it will help get rid of illegal sites and torrenting sites, again those are illegal for a reason. --- 3DS FC: 4554-0309-4782 <cite>knuxnole posted [p:890941034] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote>A good analogy I heard is that it'll be more like Cable TV, where some ISPs will have better control and content, and that's good seeing as how Cable TV is in a great place right now. And again, what's wrong with that? Why should the internet be a level playing field? The internet doesn't deserve to be open. It will make consumers smart on which ISPs to choose since some may pay extra for social media sites, and some search engines be faster. Or, they have to just friggin deal with it. Plus, it will help get rid of illegal sites and torrenting sites, again those are illegal for a reason.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ThyCorndog 11/23/17 5:11:30 PM #137:	knuxnole posted... A good analogy I heard is that it'll be more like Cable TV --- Hey what's going on in this thread http://i.imgur.com/6fpKRW8.gif http://i.imgur.com/RNZi0gk.gif <cite>ThyCorndog posted [p:890941074] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>knuxnole posted...</cite> <quote>A good analogy I heard is that it'll be more like Cable TV</quote> </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#138	Post #138 was unavailable or deleted.
REMercsChamp 11/23/17 5:12:57 PM #139:	Don't like it? Don't get internet. That simple. --- https://i.imgur.com/lwkIVOb.png <cite>REMercsChamp posted [p:890941151] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote>Don't like it? Don't get internet. That simple.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LordRazziel 11/23/17 5:17:04 PM #140:	REMercsChamp posted... Don't like it? Don't get internet. That simple. Then you had better not complain about anything ever again. --- http://i.imgur.com/8pzUM.gif http://i.imgur.com/Oh1iujg.gif The only bad part about flying is having to come back down to the f***in' world ~Rat <cite>LordRazziel posted [p:890941358] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>REMercsChamp posted...</cite> <quote>Don't like it? Don't get internet. That simple.</quote> Then you had better not complain about anything ever again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
knuxnole 11/23/17 5:18:16 PM #141:	REMercsChamp posted... Don't like it? Don't get internet. That simple. Exactly! It's like TV. You aren't gonna get some channels with some providers....oh well. Same with the internet. I for one, HEAVILY support what Pai is doing. By far. Yesterday, I called the FCC to support them, and said that to ignore petitions. They should work on purposely slowing down internet of people being too vocal, especially against Trump. --- 3DS FC: 4554-0309-4782 <cite>knuxnole posted [p:890941426] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>REMercsChamp posted...</cite> <quote>Don't like it? Don't get internet. That simple.</quote> Exactly! It's like TV. You aren't gonna get some channels with some providers....oh well. Same with the internet. I for one, HEAVILY support what Pai is doing. By far. Yesterday, I called the FCC to support them, and said that to ignore petitions. They should work on purposely slowing down internet of people being too vocal, especially against Trump.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
knuxnole 11/23/17 5:19:46 PM #142:	Bullet_Wing posted... knuxnole posted... The internet doesn't deserve to be open. Why not? Not everything should be easily accessible. Plus, illegal sites deserve to be closed or people be punished for using it. I know there are people that pirate illegal things who go to jail, which I fully support. --- 3DS FC: 4554-0309-4782 <cite>knuxnole posted [p:890941505] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>knuxnole posted...</cite> <quote>The internet doesn't deserve to be open.</quote> Why not?</quote> Not everything should be easily accessible. Plus, illegal sites deserve to be closed or people be punished for using it. I know there are people that pirate illegal things who go to jail, which I fully support.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#143	Post #143 was unavailable or deleted.
ThyCorndog 11/23/17 5:20:54 PM #144:	knuxnole posted... They should work on purposely slowing down internet of people being too vocal, especially against Trump. okay now it's just too obvious --- Hey what's going on in this thread http://i.imgur.com/6fpKRW8.gif http://i.imgur.com/RNZi0gk.gif <cite>ThyCorndog posted [p:890941559] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>knuxnole posted...</cite> <quote> They should work on purposely slowing down internet of people being too vocal, especially against Trump.</quote> okay now it's just too obvious</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#145	Post #145 was unavailable or deleted.
Gamer99z 11/23/17 5:23:13 PM #146:	knuxnole posted... A good analogy I heard is that it'll be more like Cable TV You mean that thing people have been leaving in droves in favor of online services or simply not even watching it because everyone hates cable and they're all shitty companies? Oh yay that's exactly what the people want.... knuxnole posted... And again, what's wrong with that? Why should the internet be a level playing field? Because it has become an essential part modern life, similar in the way phone service became a utility despite nobody literally needing a landline to survive. The internet is practically just a virtual market, so how you can be saying free market is good, while trying to end NN is ridiculous. You're just needlessly giving more power to corporations who don't need it, while hurting consumers, online businesses and services, and hurting online competition infinitely more than NN is affecting ISP competition... knuxnole posted... Plus, it will help get rid of illegal sites and torrenting sites, again those are illegal for a reason. And just lol if you think that it'll have any notable long term impact on piracy. --- "You need to lay off the peanut-butthurt and u-jelly sandwiches" - Neon Octopus <cite>Gamer99z posted [p:890941661] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>knuxnole posted...</cite> <quote>A good analogy I heard is that it'll be more like Cable TV</quote> You mean that thing people have been leaving in droves in favor of online services or simply not even watching it because everyone hates cable and they're all shitty companies? Oh yay that's exactly what the people want.... <cite>knuxnole posted...</cite> <quote>And again, what's wrong with that? Why should the internet be a level playing field?</quote> Because it has become an essential part modern life, similar in the way phone service became a utility despite nobody literally needing a landline to survive. The internet is practically just a virtual market, so how you can be saying free market is good, while trying to end NN is ridiculous. You're just needlessly giving more power to corporations who don't need it, while hurting consumers, online businesses and services, and hurting online competition infinitely more than NN is affecting ISP competition... <cite>knuxnole posted...</cite> <quote>Plus, it will help get rid of illegal sites and torrenting sites, again those are illegal for a reason.</quote> And just lol if you think that it'll have any notable long term impact on piracy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
chrono625 11/23/17 5:58:39 PM #147:	Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenworcel-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-20171122-story.html Actual Commissioner on the FCC wrote an op-ed against Pai's plan But it's just that, an opinion. Which is fine, but again, aren't facts more relevant? I'm just saying people need to stop jumping the gun You're seriously trying to give these companies the benefit of the doubt here? --- http://i.imgur.com/Rqk1DYV.gif - Super Bowl XXI/XXV/XLII/XLVI Champions - NY Giants Eli Manning SB tracker: 2/2 Superbowls 2/2 SBMVP's <cite>chrono625 posted [p:890943349] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote>http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rosenworcel-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-20171122-story.html Actual Commissioner on the FCC wrote an op-ed against Pai's plan</quote> But it's just that, an opinion. Which is fine, but again, aren't facts more relevant? I'm just saying people need to stop jumping the gun</quote> You're seriously trying to give these companies the benefit of the doubt here?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Y2J0sHBK_GB 11/23/17 6:06:45 PM #148:	Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your argument isn't about free market. There are no free market electricity. There is no free market water. And most drugs are patented which means no free market. With no free market and an inelastic demand, of course prices sky rocket. If you want free market, look at something actually free market like cereal Cereal is very elastic, internet access is not. If cereal prices got too high, many people would forgo cereal. Not so with internet. How is internet not elastic? I mean for businesses? Sure, it's essential but for people in general? Not so much. --- Go Pack Go! <cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted [p:890943717] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>Your argument isn't about free market. There are no free market electricity. There is no free market water. And most drugs are patented which means no free market. With no free market and an inelastic demand, of course prices sky rocket. If you want free market, look at something actually free market like cereal</quote> Cereal is very elastic, internet access is not. If cereal prices got too high, many people would forgo cereal. Not so with internet.</quote> How is internet not elastic? I mean for businesses? Sure, it's essential but for people in general? Not so much.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#149	Post #149 was unavailable or deleted.
JohnLennon8 11/23/17 6:18:07 PM #150:	Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Bullet_Wing posted... Y2J0sHBK_GB posted... Your argument isn't about free market. There are no free market electricity. There is no free market water. And most drugs are patented which means no free market. With no free market and an inelastic demand, of course prices sky rocket. If you want free market, look at something actually free market like cereal Cereal is very elastic, internet access is not. If cereal prices got too high, many people would forgo cereal. Not so with internet. How is internet not elastic? I mean for businesses? Sure, it's essential but for people in general? Not so much. Quite simply, demand for internet access doesn't change much with price. Do you have proof, evidence, anything that this is true? <cite>JohnLennon8 posted [p:890944276] in Net neutra... [t:76023078]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bullet_Wing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Y2J0sHBK_GB posted...</cite> <quote>Your argument isn't about free market. There are no free market electricity. There is no free market water. And most drugs are patented which means no free market. With no free market and an inelastic demand, of course prices sky rocket. If you want free market, look at something actually free market like cereal</quote> Cereal is very elastic, internet access is not. If cereal prices got too high, many people would forgo cereal. Not so with internet.</quote> How is internet not elastic? I mean for businesses? Sure, it's essential but for people in general? Not so much.</quote> Quite simply, demand for internet access doesn't change much with price.</quote> Do you have proof, evidence, anything that this is true?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Current Events > Net neutrality might end. (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Net neutrality might end.